Notices. Notice of intention to request extension of OMB approval SUMMARY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) extend approval (with modifications), under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, of a collection of information in its regulations on Termination of Single-Employer Plans and Missing Participants, and implementing forms and instructions (OMB control number 1212-0036; expires September 30, 2007)

28,856 words·~131 min read·/register/2007/05/16/07-2393

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

BILLING CODE 7565-07-M NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting: *Name:* Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (1173). *Dates/Time:* June 5, 2007, 8:30 a.m.—5:30 p.m. and June 6, 2007, 8:30 a.m.—2 p.m. *Place:* National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1235 S, Arlington, VA 22230. *Type of Meeting:* Open. *Contact Person:* Dr.

Margaret E.M. Tolbert, Senior Advisor and Executive Liaison, CEOSE, Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone:

(703)292-8040, *mtolbert@nsf.gov.* *Minutes:* May be obtained from the Executive Liaison at the above address. *Purpose of Meeting:* To provide advice and recommendations concerning broadening participation in science and engineering. Agenda Tuesday, June 5, 2007 Welcome and Opening Statement by the CEOSE Chair Introductions Presentations and Discussions: • Understanding Interventions That Encourage Minorities to Pursue Research Careers • The Transformation of CEOSE • National Science Foundation Broader Impacts Criterion • Strategic Planning and Broadening Participation • CEOSE Status Reports ○ Plans for a Minisymposium on Persons with Disabilities ○ Conversations with Representatives of Ten Federal Agencies ○ CEOSE 2006 Biennial Report to Congress ○ Strategic Planning for CEOSE Wednesday, June 6, 2007 Opening Statement by the New CEOSE Chair Presentations/Discussions: • Conversations with Selected NSF Assistant Directors • Discussion with the Director of the National Science Foundation • Reports by CEOSE Liaisons to National Science Foundation Advisory Committees • Deliberations on Key Areas of Focus in the Future, Recommendations, and Action Items Completion of Unfinished Business. Dated: May 11, 2007. Susanne Bolton, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-9383 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Application To Amend a License To Export a Utilization Facility Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b)(1) “Public notice of receipt of an application,” please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the following request for an amendment to an export license. Copies of the request are available electronically through ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room

(PERR)link *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html* at the NRC Homepage. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. In its review of applications and license amendments involving exports of a utilization facility as defined in 10 CFR part 110 and noticed herein, the Commission does not evaluate the health, safety or environmental effects in the recipient nation of the facility or facilities to be exported. The information concerning the application follows. NRC Application To Amend a License To Export a Utilization Facility Description of Material Name of applicant; date of application; date received; Application No.; Docket No. Description of facility End use Country of destination Westinghouse Electric Company; April 16, 2007; April 17, 2007; XR169/01; 11005472 Amendment to change one of the ultimate consignees for two AP1000 pressurized water reactors from the Yang Jiang site to the Haiyang site and to revise the list of U.S. parties to the export Electricity generation People's Republic of China. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 8th day of May 2007 at Rockville, Maryland. Janice Dunn Lee, Director, Office of International Programs. [FR Doc. E7-9414 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Proposed Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Termination of Single-Employer Plans, Missing Participants AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Notice of intention to request extension of OMB approval SUMMARY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) extend approval (with modifications), under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, of a collection of information in its regulations on Termination of Single-Employer Plans and Missing Participants, and implementing forms and instructions (OMB control number 1212-0036; expires September 30, 2007). This notice informs the public of PBGC's intent and solicits public comment on the collection of information. DATES: Comments should be submitted by July 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* • Follow the Web site instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: paperwork.comments@pbgc.gov* . • *Fax:* 202-326-4224. • *Mail or Hand Delivery:* Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026 Comments received will be posted to *http://www.pbgc.gov* . Copies of the collection of information may be obtained without charge by writing to PBGC's Communications and Public Affairs Department at Suite 240 at the above address or by visiting that office or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) The regulations and forms and instructions relating to this collection of information may be accessed on PBGC's Web site at *http://www.pbgc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo Amato Burns, Attorney, or Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, 202-326-4024. (For TTY and TDD, call 800-877-8339 and request connection to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 4041 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, a single-employer pension plan may terminate voluntarily only if it satisfies the requirements for either a standard or a distress termination. Pursuant to ERISA section 4041(b), for standard terminations, and section 4041(c), for distress terminations, and PBGC's termination regulation (29 CFR part 4041), a plan administrator wishing to terminate a plan is required to submit specified information to PBGC in support of the proposed termination and to provide specified information regarding the proposed termination to third parties (participants, beneficiaries, alternate payees, and employee organizations). In the case of a plan with participants or beneficiaries who cannot be located when their benefits are to be distributed, the plan administrator is subject to the requirements of ERISA section 4050 and PBGC's regulation on missing participants (29 CFR part 4050). PBGC is making clarifying, simplifying, editorial, and other changes to the existing forms and instructions. PBGC estimates that 1,175 plan administrators will be subject to the collection of information requirements in PBGC's regulations on termination and missing participants and implementing forms and instructions each year, and that the total annual burden of complying with these requirements is 2,175 hours and $2,886,003. (Much of the work associated with terminating a plan is performed for purposes other than meeting these requirements.) PBGC is soliciting public comments to— • Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Issued in Washington, DC, this 10th day of May, 2007. John H. Hanley, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-9397 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 3a-4; SEC File No. 270-401; OMB Control No. 3235-0459. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collections of information discussed below. Rule 3a-4 (17 CFR 270.3a-4) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (“Investment Company Act” or “Act”) provides a nonexclusive safe harbor from the definition of investment company under the Act for certain investment advisory programs. These programs, which include “wrap fee” and “mutual fund wrap” programs, generally are designed to provide professional portfolio management services to clients who are investing less than the minimum usually required by portfolio managers but more than the minimum account size of most mutual funds. Under wrap fee and similar programs, a client's account is typically managed on a discretionary basis according to pre-selected investment objectives. Clients with similar investment objectives often receive the same investment advice and may hold the same or substantially the same securities in their accounts. Some of these investment advisory programs may meet the definition of investment company under the Act because of the similarity of account management. In 1997, the Commission adopted rule 3a-4, which clarifies that programs organized and operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of rule 3a-4 are not required to register under the Investment Company Act or comply with the Act's requirements. 1 These programs differ from investment companies because, among other things, they provide individualized investment advice to the client. The rule's provisions have the effect of ensuring that clients in a program relying on the rule receive advice tailored to the client's needs. 1 Status of Investment Advisory Programs Under the Investment Company Act of 1940, Investment Company Act Release No. 22579 (Mar. 24, 1997) (62 FR 15098 (Mar. 31,1997)) (“Adopting Release”). In addition, there are no registration requirements under section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 for these programs. See 17 CFR 270.3a-4, introductory note. Rule 3a-4 provides that each client's account must be managed on the basis of the client's financial situation and investment objectives and consistent with any reasonable restrictions the client imposes on managing the account. When an account is opened, the sponsor 2 (or its designee) must obtain information from each client regarding the client's financial situation and investment objectives, and must allow the client an opportunity to impose reasonable restrictions on managing the account. 3 In addition, the sponsor (or its designee) annually must contact the client to determine whether the client's financial situation or investment objectives have changed and whether the client wishes to impose any reasonable restrictions on the management of the account or reasonably modify existing restrictions. The sponsor (or its designee) also must notify the client quarterly, in writing, to contact the sponsor (or the designee) regarding changes to the client's financial situation, investment objectives, or restrictions on the account's management. 4 2 For purposes of rule 3a-4, the term “sponsor” refers to any person who receives compensation for sponsoring, organizing or administering the program, or for selecting, or providing advice to clients regarding the selection of, persons responsible for managing the client's account in the program. 3 Clients specifically must be allowed to designate securities that should not be purchased for the account or that should be sold if held in the account. The rule does not require that a client be able to require particular securities be purchased for the account. 4 The sponsor also must provide a means by which clients can contact the sponsor (or its designee). The program must provide each client with a quarterly statement describing all activity in the client's account during the previous quarter. The sponsor and personnel of the client's account manager who know about the client's account and its management must be reasonably available to consult with the client. Each client also must retain certain indicia of ownership of all securities and funds in the account. Rule 3a-4 is intended primarily to provide guidance regarding the status of investment advisory programs under the Investment Company Act. The rule is not intended to create a presumption about a program that is not operated according to the rule's guidelines. The requirement that the sponsor (or its designee) obtain information about the client's financial situation and investment objectives when the account is opened is designed to ensure that the investment adviser has sufficient information regarding the client's unique needs and goals to enable the portfolio manager to provide individualized investment advice. The sponsor is required to contact clients annually and provide them with quarterly notices to ensure that the sponsor has current information about the client's financial status, investment objectives, and restrictions on management of the account. Maintaining current information enables the portfolio manager to evaluate the client's portfolio in light of the client's changing needs and circumstances. The requirement that clients be provided with quarterly statements of account activity is designed to ensure the client receives an individualized report, which the Commission believes is a key element of individualized advisory services. The Commission staff estimates that approximately 64 wrap fee and mutual fund wrap programs administered by 56 program sponsors use the procedures under rule 3a-4. 5 Although it is impossible to determine the exact number of clients that participate in investment advisory programs, an estimate can be made by dividing total assets by the industry average account size ($345.5 billion 6 divided by $126,202), 7 for a total of 2,737,675 clients. Additionally, an average number of new accounts opened each year can be estimated by dividing the average annual increase in account assets in 2003 through 2006, by the average account size ($57.7 billion divided by $126,202), for an average annual number of new accounts of 457,204. 8 5 These estimates are based on statistical information on wrap fee and mutual fund wrap programs provided by Cerulli Associates in 2003. We request comment on whether the number of wrap programs and program sponsors has changed. 6 See Cerulli Associates, The Cerulli Edge: Managed Accounts Edition, Advisors Issue 10 (3d quarter 2006). 7 Id. at 13. 8 The requirement for initial client contact and evaluation is not a recurring obligation, but only occurs when the account is opened. The estimated annual hourly burden is based on the average number of new accounts opened each year. The Commission staff estimates that each program sponsor spends approximately 1.25 hours annually in preparing, conducting and/or reviewing interviews for each new client; 30 minutes annually preparing, conducting and/or reviewing annual interviews for each continuing client; and one hour preparing and mailing quarterly account activity statements, including the notice to update information to each client. Based on the foregoing, the Commission staff therefore estimates the total annual burden of the rule's paperwork requirements for all program sponsors to be 4,449,415.5 hours. This represents a decrease of 2,063,087 hours from the prior estimate of 6,512,502.5 hours. The decrease results from a change in the method of computation for the number of clients that participate in these investment advisory programs. Previously, we have computed the number of clients based on the minimum account requirement for participation in these programs. For this estimate we computed the number of clients based on the industry average account size in these programs resulting in a decrease in the estimated number of clients in these investment advisory programs. The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule's safe harbor. Nevertheless, rule 3a-4 is a nonexclusive safe harbor, and a program that does not comply with the rule's collection of information requirements does not necessarily meet the Investment Company Act's definition of investment company. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* ; and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: May 11, 2007. Florence E. Hartmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9363 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copy Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Form N-5; SEC File No. 270-172; OMB Control No. 3235-0169. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) requests for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Form N-5 (17 CFR 239.24 and 274.5)—Registration Statement of Small Business Investment Companies Under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.* ) and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 *et seq.* ) Form N-5 is the integrated registration statement form adopted by the Commission for use by a small business investment company which has been licensed as such under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 and has been notified by the Small Business Administration that the company may submit a license application, to register its securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), and to register as an investment company under section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”). The purpose of registration under the Securities Act is to ensure that investors are provided with material information concerning securities offered for public sale that will permit investors to make informed decisions regarding such securities. The Commission staff reviews the registration statements for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure contained therein. Without Form N-5, the Commission would be unable to carry out the requirements to the Securities Act and Investment Company Act for registration of small business investment companies. The respondents to the collection of information are small business investment companies seeking to register under the Investment Company Act and to register their securities for sale to the public under the Securities Act. The estimated number of respondents is one and the proposed frequency of response is annually. The estimate of the total annual reporting burden of the collection of information is approximately 352 hours per respondent, for a total of 352 hours. Providing the information on Form N-5 is mandatory. Responses will not be kept confidential. Estimates of the burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of SEC rules and forms. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.* Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: May 11, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9367 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copy Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Form N-8A; File No. 270-135; OMB Control No. 3235-0175. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Form N-8A (17 CFR 274.10)—Notification of Registration of Investment Companies Form N-8A is the form that investment companies file to notify the Commission of the existence of active investment companies. After an investment company has filed its notification of registration under section 8(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 *et seq.* ) (“1940 Act”), the company is then subject to the provisions of the 1940 Act which govern certain aspects of its organization and activities, such as the composition of its board of directors and the issuance of senior securities. Form N-8A requires an investment company to provide its name, state of organization, form of organization, classification, if it is a management company, the name and address of each investment adviser of the investment company, the current value of its total assets and certain other information readily available to the investment company. If the investment company is filing simultaneously its notification of registration and registration statement, Form N-8A requires only that the registrant file the cover page (giving its name, address and agent for service of process) and sign the form in order to effect registration. The Commission uses the information provided in the notification on Form N-8A to determine the existence of active investment companies and to enable the Commission to administer the provisions of the 1940 Act with respect to those companies. Each year approximately 156 investment companies file a notification on Form N-8A, which is required to be filed only once by an investment company. The Commission estimates that preparing Form N-8A requires an investment company to spend approximately 1 hour so that the total burden of preparing Form N-8A for all affected investment companies is 156 hours. Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. The collection of information on Form N-8A is mandatory. The information provided on Form N-8A is not kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or email to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* ; and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: May 11, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9368 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Form N-8B-2; SEC File No. 270-186; OMB Control No. 3235-0186. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Form N-8B-2 (17 CFR 274.12) is the form used by unit investment trusts (“UITs”) that are currently issuing securities, including UITs that are issuers of periodic payment plan certificates and UITs of which a management investment company is the sponsor or depositor, to comply with the filing and disclosure requirements imposed by section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8(b)). Form N-8B-2 requires disclosure about the organization of a UIT, its securities, the trustee, the personnel and affiliated persons of the depositor, the distribution and redemption of securities, and financial statements. The Commission uses the information provided in the collection of information to determine compliance with section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act. Based on the Commission's industry statistics, the Commission estimates that there would be approximately one initial filing on Form N-8B-2 and 9 post-effective amendment filings to the Form annually. The Commission estimates that each registrant filing an initial Form N-8B-2 would spend 44 hours in preparing and filing the Form and that the total hour burden for all initial Form N-8B-2 filings would be 44 hours. Also, the Commission estimates that each UIT filing a post-effective amendment to Form N-8B-2 would spend 16 hours in preparing and filing the amendment and that the total hour burden for all post-effective amendments to the Form would be 144 hours. By combining the total hour burdens estimated for initial Form N-8B-2 filings and post-effective amendments filings to the Form, the Commission estimates that the total annual burden hours for all registrants on Form N-8B-2 would be 188. Estimates of the burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the PRA, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of SEC rules and forms. The information provided on Form N-8B-2 is mandatory. The information provided on Form N-8B-2 will not be kept confidential. The Commission may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or send an email to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.* Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: May 11, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9369 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 17j-1; SEC File No. 270-239; OMB Control No. 3235-0224. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension and approval of the collection of information discussed below. Conflicts of interest between investment company personnel (such as portfolio managers) and their funds can arise when these persons buy and sell securities for their own accounts (“personal investment activities”). These conflicts arise because fund personnel have the opportunity to profit from information about fund transactions, often to the detriment of fund investors. Beginning in the early 1960s, Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) sought to devise a regulatory scheme to effectively address these potential conflicts. These efforts culminated in the addition of section 17(j) to the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(j)) in 1970 and the adoption by the Commission of rule 17j-1 (17 CFR 270.17j-1) in 1980. 1 The Commission proposed amendments to rule 17j-1 in 1995 in response to recommendations made in the first detailed study of fund policies concerning personal investment activities by the Commission's Division of Investment Management since rule 17j-1 was adopted. Amendments to rule 17j-1, which were adopted in 1999, enhanced fund oversight of personal investment activities and the board's role in carrying out that oversight. 2 Additional amendments to rule 17j-1 were made in 2004, conforming rule 17j-1 to rule 204A-1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b), avoiding duplicative reporting, and modifying certain definitions and time restrictions. 3 1 Prevention of Certain Unlawful Activities with Respect to Registered Investment Companies, Investment Company Act Release No. 11421 (Oct. 31, 1980) (45 FR 73915 (Nov. 7, 1980)). 2 Personal Investment Activities of Investment Company Personnel, Investment Company Act Release No. 23958 (Aug. 20, 1999) (64 FR 46821-01 (Aug. 27, 1999)). 3 Investment Adviser Codes of Ethics, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2256 (Jul. 2, 2004) (66 FR 41696 (Jul. 9, 2004)). Section 17(j) makes it unlawful for persons affiliated with a registered investment company (“fund”) or with the fund's investment adviser or principal underwriter (each a “17j-1 organization”), in connection with the purchase or sale of securities held or to be acquired by the investment company, to engage in any fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act or practice in contravention of the Commission's rules and regulations. Section 17(j) also authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules requiring 17j-1 organizations to adopt codes of ethics. In order to implement section 17(j), rule 17j-1 imposes certain requirements on 17j-1 organizations and “Access Persons” 4 of those organizations. The rule prohibits fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative acts by persons affiliated with a 17j-1 organization in connection with their personal securities transactions in securities held or to be acquired by the fund. The rule requires each 17j-1 organization, unless it is a money market fund or a fund that does not invest in Covered Securities, 5 to:

(i)Adopt a written codes of ethics,

(ii)submit the code and any material changes to the code, along with a certification that it has adopted procedures reasonably necessary to prevent Access Persons from violating the code of ethics, to the fund board for approval,

(iii)use reasonable diligence and institute procedures reasonably necessary to prevent violations of the code,

(iv)submit a written report to the fund describing any issues arising under the code and procedures and certifying that the 17j-1 entity has adopted procedures reasonably necessary to prevent Access Persons from violating the code,

(v)identify Access Persons and notify them of their reporting obligations, and

(vi)maintain and make available to the Commission for review certain records related to the code of ethics and transaction reporting by Access Persons. 4 Rule 17j-1(a)(1) defines an “access person” as “Any advisory person of a Fund or of a Fund's investment adviser. If an investment adviser's primary business is advising Funds or other advisory clients, all of the investment adviser's directors, officers, and general partners are presumed to be Access Persons of any Fund advised by the investment adviser. All of a Fund's directors, officers, and general partners are presumed to be Access Persons of the Fund.” The definition of Access Person also includes “Any director, officer or general partner of a principal underwriter who, in the ordinary course of business, makes, participates in or obtains information regarding, the purchase or sale of Covered Securities by the Fund for which the principal underwriter acts, or whose functions or duties in the ordinary course of business relate to the making of any recommendation to the Fund regarding the purchase or sale of Covered Securities.” Rule 17j-1(a)(1). 5 A “Covered Security” is any security that falls within the definition in section 2(a)(36) of the Act, except for direct obligations of the U.S. Government, bankers' acceptances, bank certificates of deposit, commercial paper and high quality short-term debt instruments, including repurchase agreements, and shares issued by open-end funds. Rule 17j-1(a)(4). The rule requires each Access Person of a fund (other than a money market fund or a fund that does not invest in Covered Securities) and of an investment adviser or principal underwriter of the fund, who is not subject to an exception, 6 to file:

(i)Within 10 days of becoming an Access Person, a dated initial holdings report that sets forth certain information with respect to the access person's securities and accounts;

(ii)dated quarterly transaction reports within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter providing certain information with respect to any securities transactions during the quarter and any account established by the Access Person in which any securities were held during the quarter; and

(iii)dated annual holding reports providing information with respect to each Covered Security the Access Person beneficially owns and accounts in which securities are held for his or her benefit. In addition, rule 17j-1 requires investment personnel of a fund or its investment adviser, before acquiring beneficial ownership in securities through an initial public offering

(IPO)or in a private placement, to obtain approval from the fund or the fund's investment adviser. 6 Rule 17j-1(d)(2) contains the following exceptions:

(i)An Access Person need not file a report for transactions effected for, and securities held in, any account over which the Access Person does not have control;

(ii)an independent director of the fund, who would otherwise not need to report and who does not have information with respect to the fund's transactions in a particular security, does not have to file an initial holdings report or a quarterly transaction report,;

(iii)an Access Person of a principal underwriter of the fund does not have to file reports if the principal underwriter is not affiliated with the fund (unless the fund is a unit investment trust) or any investment adviser of the fund and the principal underwriter of the fund does not have any officer, director, or general partner who serves in one of those capacities for the fund or any investment adviser of the fund;

(iv)an Access Person to an investment adviser need not make quarterly reports if the report would duplicate information provided under the reporting provisions of the Investment Adviser's Act; and

(v)an Access Person need not make quarterly transaction reports if the information provided in the report would duplicate information received by the 17j-1 organization in the form of broker trade confirmations or account statements or information otherwise in the records of the 17j-1 organization. The requirements that the management of a rule 17j-1 organization provide the fund's board with new and amended codes of ethics and an annual issues and certification report are intended to enhance board oversight of personal investment policies applicable to the fund and the personal investment activities of Access Persons. The requirements that Access Persons provide initial holdings reports, quarterly transaction reports, and annual holdings reports and request approval for purchases of securities through IPOs and private placements are intended to help fund compliance personnel and the Commission's examinations staff monitor potential conflicts of interest and detect potentially abusive activities. The requirement that each rule 17j-1 organization maintain certain records is intended to assist the organization and the Commission's examinations staff in determining if there have been violations of rule 17j-1. We estimate that annually there are approximately 75,363 respondents under rule 17j-1, of which 5,363 are rule 17j-1 organizations and 70,000 are Access Persons. In the aggregate, these respondents make approximately 113,970 responses annually. We estimate that the total annual burden of complying with the information collection requirements in rule 17j-1 is approximately 169,950 hours. This hour burden represents time spent by Access Persons that must file initial and annual holdings reports and quarterly transaction reports, investment personnel that must obtain approval before acquiring beneficial ownership in any securities through an IPO or private placement, and the responsibilities of Rule 17j-1 organizations arising from information collection requirements under rule 17j-1. These include notifying Access Persons of their reporting obligations, preparing an annual rule 17j-1 report and certification for the board, documenting their approval or rejection of IPO and private placement requests, maintaining annual rule 17j-1 records, maintaining electronic reporting and recordkeeping systems, amending their codes of ethics as necessary, and, for new fund complexes, adopting a code of ethics. In addition, we estimate that there is an additional annual cost burden of approximately $2,000 per fund complex, for a total of $1,100,000, associated with complying with the information collection requirements in rule 17j-1, aside from the cost of the burden hours discussed above. 7 This represents the costs of purchasing and maintaining computers and software to assist funds in carrying out rule 17j-1 recordkeeping. 7 The cost burden associated with filing of new and amended codes of ethics on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system (EDGAR) is included in the Paperwork Reduction Act estimates for the relevant forms to which these codes must be appended. These burden hour and cost estimates are based upon the Commission staff's experience and discussions with the fund industry. The estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is mandatory and is necessary to comply with the requirements of the rule in general. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Rule 17j-1 requires that records be maintained for at least five years in an easily accessible place. 8 8 If information collected pursuant to the rule is reviewed by the Commission's examination staff, it will be accorded the same level of confidentiality accorded to other responses provided to the Commission in the context of its examination and oversight program. See section 31(c) of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-30(c)). Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or send an email to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: May 11, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9370 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 19b-5 and Form PILOT; SEC File No. 270-448; OMB Control No. 3235-0507. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. Rule 19b-5 (17 CFR 240.19b-5) provides a temporary exemption from the rule-filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) to self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) wishing to establish and operate pilot trading systems. Rule 19b-5 permits an SRO to develop a pilot trading system and to begin operation of such system shortly after submitting an initial report on Form PILOT to the Commission. During operation of the pilot trading system, the SRO must submit quarterly reports of the system's operation to the Commission, as well as timely amendments describing any material changes to the system. After two years of operating such pilot trading system under the exemption afforded by Rule 19b-5, the SRO must submit a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act in order to obtain permanent approval of the pilot trading system from the Commission. The collection of information is designed to allow the Commission to maintain an accurate record of all new pilot trading systems operated by SROs and to determine whether an SRO has properly availed itself of the exemption afforded by Rule 19b-5. The respondents to the collection of information are SROs, as defined by the Act, including national securities exchanges and national securities associations. Six respondents file an average total of 6 initial reports (for a 144 hour estimated annual burden), 24 quarterly reports (for a 72 hour estimated annual burden), and 12 amendments per year (for a 36 hour estimated annual burden), with an estimated total annual response burden of 252 hours. At an average hourly cost of $51.71, the aggregate related cost of compliance with Rule 19b-5 for all respondents is $13,030 per year (252 burden hours multiplied by $51.71/hour = $13,030). Written comments are invited on

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(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 through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Comments should be directed to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted within 60 days of this notice. Dated: May 9, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9372 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 15a-6; SEC File No. 270-0329; OMB Control No. 3235-0371. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. Rule 15a-6 (17 CFR 240.15a-6) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* ) provides, among other things, an exemption from broker-dealer registration for foreign broker-dealers that effect trades with or for U.S. institutional investors through a U.S. registered broker-dealer, provided that the U.S. broker-dealer obtains certain information about, and consents to service of process from, the personnel of the foreign broker-dealer involved in such transactions, and maintains certain records in connection therewith. These requirements are intended to ensure

(a)that the U.S. broker-dealer will receive notice of the identity of, and has reviewed the background of, foreign personnel who will contact U.S. institutional investors,

(b)that the foreign broker-dealer and its personnel effectively may be served with process in the event enforcement action is necessary, and

(c)that the Commission has ready access to information concerning these persons and their U.S. securities activities. It is estimated that approximately 2,000 respondents will incur an average burden of three hours per year to comply with this rule, for a total burden of 6,000 hours. At an average cost per hour of approximately $100, the resultant total cost of compliance for the respondents is $600,000 per year (2,000 entities × 3 hours/entity × $100/hour = $600,000). Written comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(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 through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 60 days of this notice. Dated: May 10, 2007. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9412 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55733; File No. SR-Amex-2007-34] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to Amendments to Section 107 of the Company Guide May 10, 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 5, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On May 4, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. This order provides notice of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, and approves the proposed rule change, as amended, 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 The Exchange proposes to amend:

(1)Sections 107A(b) and 107D(a) of the Amex *Company Guide* to provide an exception to the minimum public distribution requirement of one million units for issuances traded in thousand dollar denominations, and

(2)Sections 107A(b), 107C(a) and 107D(a) of the Amex *Company Guide* to provide an exception to the 400 public shareholder requirement for securities that are redeemable at the option of the holders thereof on at least a weekly basis. The text of the proposed rule change is available at Amex, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *www.amex.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, 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 III 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 Pursuant to Section 107 of the Amex *Company Guide* , the Exchange may approve for listing and trading securities which cannot be readily categorized under the listing criteria for common and preferred securities, bonds, debentures, or warrants (“Section 107 Securities”). 3 The general listing criteria relating to issuers and issuances are set forth in Section 107A of the Company Guide. In connection with each potential listing of Section 107 Securities, the Exchange evaluates each security and issuance against the following criteria in Section 107A (and correspondingly in Sections 107B, 107C, 4 107D, and 107E):

(1)A principal amount/aggregate market value of $4 million or greater, and

(2)a minimum public distribution requirement of one million trading units with a minimum of 400 public shareholders, except that, if traded in thousand dollar denominations, then no minimum number of holders. In addition, the listing criteria also requires that the issuer must have assets in excess of $100 million, stockholders' equity of at least $10 million, and pre-tax income of at least $750,000 in the last fiscal year or in two of the three prior fiscal years. In the case of an issuer who is unable to satisfy the earnings criteria stated in Section 101 of the *Company Guide* , the Exchange will require the issuer to have the following:

(a)Assets in excess of $200 million and stockholders' equity of at least $10 million; or

(b)assets in excess of $100 million and stockholders' equity of at least $20 million. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27753 (March 1, 1990), 55 FR 8626 (March 8, 1990) (SR-Amex-89-29) (approving the listing guidelines under Section 107 for new securities not otherwise covered under existing sections of the *Company Guide* ). 4 The minimum public distribution requirement for Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes set forth in Section 107C of the Amex *Company Guide* is 150,000 notes rather than one million trading units. Minimum Public Distribution The first part of the proposal codifies an exception to Sections 107A(b) and 107D(a) of the Amex *Company Guide* so that certain issuances of Section 107 Securities may be listed even though the minimum public distribution requirement of one million units is not met. This exception, however, is conditioned on whether or not the issuance is traded in thousand dollar denominations. Sections 107A (General Criteria) and 107D (Index-Linked Securities) currently require a minimum public distribution requirement of one million trading units and a minimum of 400 public shareholders, except, if traded in thousand dollar denominations, then no minimum number of holders. Amex notes that, without the exception to the one million unit minimum public distribution requirement, the Exchange would be unable to list certain Section 107 Securities in thousand dollar denominations having a market value of less than $1 billion. Amex believes the proposed exception to be a reasonable accommodation for those issuances in thousand dollar denominations. Accordingly, the proposal amends the rule text of Section 107A(b) and 107D(a) so that the minimum public distribution and minimum public shareholders requirements will not be applicable to an issue traded in thousand dollar denominations. Minimum Public Shareholders The purpose of the second part of the proposal is to provide an exception to Sections 107A(b), 107C(a), and 107D(a) of the Amex *Company Guide* so that Section 107 Securities may be listed even though there may be less than 400 public shareholders at the time of listing. 5 This exception will be conditioned on whether the particular issue provides for the redemption of securities at the option of the holders on at least a weekly basis. Therefore, the revision to Sections 107A(b), 107C(a), and 107D(a) will provide that the minimum public shareholders requirement will not apply if the securities are redeemable at the option of the holders thereof on at least a weekly basis. 5 A revision to Section 107A(b) of the Amex *Company Guide* will also affect Sections 107B and 107E relating to equity linked term notes and trust certificate securities, respectively, because these provisions refer to Section 107A for purposes of meeting the “General Criteria.” Over the past several years, the Exchange has added generic listing standards in Section 107 of the *Company Guide* for Equity Linked Term Notes, Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes, Index-Linked Securities, and Trust Certificate Securities. These requirements are set forth in Sections 107B, 6 107C, 107D, 7 and 107E 8 of the Amex *Company Guide* , respectively. Currently, for each issuance of the foregoing Section 107 Securities, there must be a minimum of 400 public shareholders, except when the issue is traded in thousand dollar denominations. The Exchange submits that an additional exception to the 400 holder requirement is appropriate for certain securities which provide for redemption at the option of the holders on at least a weekly basis. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32343 (May 20, 1993), 58 FR 30833 (May 27, 1993) (SR-Amex-92-42) (approving the listing and trading of Equity Linked Term Notes). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47055 (December 19, 2002), 67 FR 79669 (December 30, 2002) (SR-Amex-2002-110) (increasing the maximum number of equity securities permitted to be linked to an Equity Linked Term Note); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42582 (March 27, 2000), 65 FR 17685 (April 4, 2000) (SR-Amex-99-42) (revising Section 107B of the *Company Guide* ). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51258 (February 25, 2005), 70 FR 10700 (March 4, 2005) (SR-Amex-2005-001) (adopting generic listing standards for Index-Linked Securities). 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50355 (September 13, 2004), 69 FR 56252 (September 20, 2004) (SR-Amex-2004-23) (approving generic listing standards for Trust Certificate Securities). The Exchange believes that a weekly redemption right will ensure a strong correlation between the market price of Section 107 Securities and the performance of the underlying asset, such as a single security or basket of securities and/or securities index, as holders will be unlikely to sell their securities for less than their redemption value if they have a weekly right to redeem such securities for their full value. In addition, in the case of certain Section 107 Securities with a weekly redemption feature, the issuer may have the ability to issue new securities from time to time at market prices prevailing at the time of sale, at prices related to market prices, or at negotiated prices. The Exchange believes that this provides a ready supply of new securities, thereby reducing the potential that Section 107 Security market prices will be affected by a scarcity of available securities. In addition, the ability to issue new securities may assist in maintaining a strong correlation between the market price and indicative value, based largely on potential arbitrage opportunities that should mitigate the effect of price differentials. Amex believes that the ability to list certain Section 107 Securities with these characteristics without any specific requirements as to the number of holders is important to the successful listing of such securities. Issuers issuing these types of Section 107 Securities generally do not intend to do so by way of an underwritten offering, but instead, initially distribute the securities similar to the manner in which exchange-traded funds or “ETFs” are brought to market. In the case of an ETF, shares are initially launched or distributed without a significant distribution event, with the share float increasing over time as securities in creation unit size are issued from the issuer at net asset value. The Exchange states that, because of market dynamics and the purchasing behavior of investors, it is difficult for an issuer to be able to guarantee a sufficient number of public shareholders or investors on the date of listing in order to meet the 400 shareholders requirement. However, the Exchange believes that this difficulty in ensuring 400 shareholders on the listing date is not indicative of a lack of liquidity and/or adequate distribution of the securities. Accordingly, the Exchange submits that the existence of a weekly redemption option justifies this limited exception to the 400 public shareholder requirement. 2. Statutory Basis The proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 9 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 10 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 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. 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-Amex-2007-34 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-Amex-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 offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-34 and should be submitted on or before June 6, 2007. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful review, 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. 11 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 12 which requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other things, 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. The Commission believes that this proposal should benefit investors by providing an exception to the minimum public distribution requirements for certain Section 107 Securities issued and traded in thousand dollar denominations and providing an exception to the 400 public shareholder requirement for Section 107 Securities that are redeemable at the option of the holders thereof on at least a weekly basis. The Commission believes that these exceptions are reasonable and should allow for the listing and trading of certain Section 107 Securities that would otherwise not be able to be listed and traded on the Exchange. 11 In approving this 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). 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission notes that it has previously approved minimum public distribution and minimum public shareholder requirements that are substantially similar to Amex's proposal and found that such requirements were consistent with the Act. 13 The Commission presently is not aware of any regulatory issue that should cause it to revisit that finding or would preclude the application of the proposed exceptions to the minimum public distribution and minimum public shareholder requirements. Therefore, accelerating approval of this proposal should benefit investors by creating, without undue delay, additional competition in the market for such securities. 13 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55687 (May 1, 2007), 72 FR 25824 (May 7, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-27). V. Conclusion It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 14 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2007-34), as modified by Amendment No.1, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9364 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55734; File No. SR-ISE-2007-22] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Split Prices May 10, 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 26, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” 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 ISE. On April 20, 2007, the Exchange 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 ISE proposes to amend its rule governing “Split Prices.” Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide for executions in its Block, Facilitation and Solicitation Mechanisms at half-penny prices for certain options classes included in the penny pilot program. 3 The text of the proposed rule change is available at ISE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *www.iseoptions.com.* 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55161 (January 24, 2007), 72 FR 4754 (February 1, 2007) (SR-ISE-2006-62) (“Penny Pilot Order”). 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 ISE 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 Exchange proposes to amend its rule governing “Split Prices.” 4 Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide for executions in its Block, Facilitation and Solicitation Mechanisms at half-penny prices for certain options classes included in the penny pilot program. The Exchange's rule governing Split Prices was previously approved by the Commission. 5 Pursuant to the Commission's approval, the Exchange currently provides for such “Split Prices” in options quoted in standard $.05 and $.10 increments. 4 *See* Supplementary Material .06 to ISE Rule 716. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51666 (May 9, 2005), 70 FR 25631 (May 13, 2005) (SR-ISE-2003-07). On January 26, 2007, the Exchange, along with the other options exchanges, commenced a six-month pilot program to quote certain options classes in penny increments. 6 The penny pilot rules adopted by the Exchange specifically state that Split Prices do not apply to options trading in penny increments. At the time ISE adopted the penny pilot rules, the Exchange believed that being able to place orders and responses in the Block, Facilitation and Solicitation Mechanisms in penny increments would give its members sufficient pricing flexibility. However, based on its experience with the penny pilot thus far, the Exchange believes that the same competitive pressure that led to Split Prices in standard increments has arisen in the penny pilot options. Specifically, the Exchange stated that it has seen floor-based exchanges print large blocks at two prices, one-cent apart, effectively providing for a half-penny block print. For competitive reasons, and to allow its members the same pricing flexibility that floor-based exchanges appear to be providing to their members, the ISE proposes to extend Split Prices to options classes included in the penny pilot program. The Exchange also represents that the Options Clearing Corporation will continue to accept and clear trades at sub-penny prices and that orders that are on the ISE book will be protected and executed at the midpoint prices. 6 *See* Penny Pilot Order, *supra* note 3. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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. In particular, the proposal will provide additional pricing flexibility in penny pilot options and allow the Exchange to compete more effectively with floor-based exchanges. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 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 Written comments on the proposed rule change 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 the Exchange 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-ISE-2007-22 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-ISE-2007-22. 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 the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2007-22 and should be submitted on or before June 6, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9365 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55737; File No. SR-NASD-2006-124] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of, a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 To Require the Provision of Certain Information About the Securities Investor Protection Corporation to Customers May 10, 2007. I. Introduction 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 the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) has filed Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change, which, as amended, would adopt proposed NASD Rule 2342 to require NASD members, except those excluded from membership in the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) or who sell only investments ineligible for SIPC protection, to provide new customers, and all customers annually, with certain information about SIPC. This order provides notice of and solicits comments from interested persons on the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, and approves the proposed rule change as amended on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. II. Description of the Proposal NASD filed the proposed rule change with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on November 9, 2006. The Commission published the proposal for comment in the **Federal Register** on December 13, 2006. 3 The Commission received nine comments in response to the Notice. 4 On February 7, 2007, NASD filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which also responded to the comments. 5 The Commission received one comment in response to Amendment No. 1. 6 All of the comments received by the Commission regarding the proposed rule change are available on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). On April 19, 2007, NASD filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, which also responded to the comment on the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1. 7 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54871 (December 5, 2006), 71 FR 74970 (December 13, 2006) (SR-NASD-2006-124) (“Notice”). 4 *See* e-mail from Frederick G. Ferrara, Chief Compliance Office, Panattoni Securities, Inc. dated December 20, 2006 (“Ferrara 1”); e-mail from Philip C. McMorrow, President, Cantella Co., Inc. dated December 21, 2006 (“McMorrow”); e-mail from E.C. Blitz dated December 22, 2006 (“Blitz”); letter from Kenneth M. Cherrier, Chief Compliance Officer, Fintegra, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated December 22, 2006 (“Cherrier”); e-mail from Michael A. Pagano, 1st Global Capital Corp. dated December 22, 2006 (“Pagano”); e-mail from Christine E. Saccente, Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer, Operations Manager, Maxwell Noll Inc. dated December 27, 2006 (“Saccente”); e-mail from William R. Sykes, Sykes Financial Services LLC dated December 28, 2006 (“Sykes”); e-mail from John Harris, Chief Executive Officer, BondMart, Inc. dated December 30, 2006 (“Harris”); letter from Noland Cheng, Chairman, SIFMA Operations Committee, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated January 12, 2007 (“Cheng”). 5 Amendment No. 1 modified the text of proposed Rule 2342. 6 *See* e-mail from Frederick G. Ferrara, Chief Compliance Officer, Panattoni Securities, Inc. dated February 13, 2007 (“Ferrara 2”) 7 Amendment No. 2 further modified the text of proposed Rule 2342 and proposed changing the effective date of the rule change. NASD filed the proposed rule change to adopt proposed NASD Rule 2342, which would require NASD members to advise all new customers, in writing, at the opening of an account, and all customers at least once each year that they may obtain information about SIPC, including the SIPC brochure, by contacting SIPC, and to provide such customers with SIPC's telephone number and Web site address. Amendment No. 1 proposed that firms that are excluded from membership in SIPC pursuant to Section 3(a)(2)(A)(i) through

(iii)of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”) and that are not SIPC members be exempt from the requirements of proposed Rule 2342. Amendment No. 2 proposed to exempt firms whose business consists exclusively of the sale of investments that are ineligible for SIPC protection from the requirements of proposed Rule 2342. Below is the text of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2. Proposed new language is in *italics.* 2000. BUSINESS CONDUCT 2300. Transactions with Customers 2342. SIPC Information *All members, except those members:

(a)that pursuant to Section 3(a)(2)(A)(i) through

(iii)of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970

(SIPA)are excluded from membership in the Securities Investor Protection Corporation

(SIPC)and that are not SIPC members; and

(b)whose business consists exclusively of the sale of investments that are ineligible for SIPC protection, shall advise all new customers, in writing, at the opening of an account, that they may obtain information about SIPC, including the SIPC brochure, by contacting SIPC, and also shall provide the Web site address and telephone number of SIPC. In addition, such members shall provide all customers with the same information, in writing, at least once each year. In cases where both an introducing firm and clearing firm service an account, the firms may assign these requirements to one of the firms.* III. Summary of Comments on the Proposal and Amendment No. 1 Two commenters supported the proposed rule change. One believed that the disclosure required by proposed NASD Rule 2342 would remind clients that they are buying a product that is not directly underwritten or supported by a bank or covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). 8 Another believed that public customers would benefit from broader dissemination of information about SIPC. 9 8 *See* Cherrier. 9 *See* Cheng. Seven commenters generally opposed the proposed rule change. 10 Five questioned the need for disseminating the information that would be required by proposed Rule 2342. 11 Two suggested that the proposed rule be revised to mandate that firms include on their Web sites a link to SIPC's Web site. 12 One questioned whether investors need, or are interested in, information about SIPC, suggested that investors are unlikely to read the proposed disclosure, and questioned the cost of implementing it. 13 Another stated that customers will be made aware of SIPC at such time as they need the coverage. 14 10 *See* Ferrara 1; McMorrow; Blitz; Pagano; Saccente; Sykes; Harris. 11 *See* McMorrow; Blitz; Pagano; Saccente; Sykes; Harris. 12 *See* Pagano; Saccente. 13 *See* Pagano. 14 *See* Sykes. In its response to these comments included with Amendment No. 1, NASD stated that, as noted in its initial rule filing, the genesis of the proposal was a U.S. General Accounting Office (“GAO”) 15 report in which the GAO made recommendations to the Commission and SIPC about ways to improve the information available to the public about SIPC and SIPA. 16 Among other things, the GAO recommended that self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) explore ways to encourage broader dissemination of the SIPC brochure to customers so that they can become more aware of the scope of SIPA's coverage. NASD further stated that, after consulting with its members regarding the costs of providing customers with a copy of the SIPC brochure, NASD determined that the most cost-effective way of making customers aware of the SIPC brochure was to provide them with the information they would need to obtain a copy of the brochure, *i.e.,* by giving them SIPC's address and telephone number so they could call or write SIPC to order a copy of the brochure, and by giving them SIPC's Web site address so they could read the SIPC brochure online. NASD believes that requiring firms to provide customers with SIPC's address, telephone number and Web site at account opening and yearly thereafter would help to further educate customers regarding SIPC and encourage customers to review the SIPC brochure. 15 The GAO has since been renamed the Government Accountability Office. 16 *See* GAO, *Securities Investor Protection: Steps Needed to Better Disclose SIPC Policies to Investors,* GAO-01-653 (May 25, 2001). Two commenters believed that introducing firms should not be subject to proposed Rule 2342. 17 In response, NASD stated that it believed these commenters' concerns were addressed by a provision in the proposed rule that would allow firms, where both an introducing firm and clearing firm service an account, to assign the requirements of proposed Rule 2342 to one of the firms. 17 *See* Blitz; Pagano. Five commenters believed that, as initially proposed, Rule 2342 would apply too broadly. One of these commenters believed that institutional customers should be exempt from the proposed rule. 18 Two of these commenters believed that NASD members that are exempt from membership in SIPC or from carrying SIPC coverage should be exempt from the proposed rule. 19 Another believed that firms selling only investment products that are ineligible for SIPC protection should be exempt from the proposed rule. 20 18 *See* Cheng. 19 *See* Cherrier; Sykes. 20 *See* Ferrara 1. In response to these comments, NASD stated, “SIPA excludes certain categories of registered brokers and dealers from membership in SIPC, including ‘persons whose business as a broker or dealer consists exclusively of * * * the distribution of shares of registered open end investment companies or unit investment trusts * * * the sale of variable annuities * * * the business of insurance, or * * * the business of rendering investment advisory services to one or more registered investment companies or insurance company separate accounts.’ ” 21 NASD further stated that SIPA provides that all other persons registered as brokers or dealers under Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 22 are required to be members of SIPC. NASD believed that firms that are required to be SIPC members should also be required to make the disclosures required by proposed NASD Rule 2342, regardless of the products currently being sold. Therefore, NASD did not propose to exempt any SIPC members from the requirements of proposed NASD Rule 2342. 21 *See* Amendment No. 1 (citing 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(a)(2)(A)). 22 15 U.S.C. 78o(b). However, NASD agreed with the commenters who believed that NASD members that are excluded from membership in SIPC should not be subject to the proposed rule, and, in Amendment No. 1, proposed to exclude from the requirements of proposed NASD Rule 2342 any member that is excluded from membership in SIPC. One commenter believed that institutional customer accounts should be exempt from the proposed rule's disclosure requirements on the grounds that institutional customers are sophisticated investors that are well aware of SIPC and the protections it affords. 23 This commenter stated that institutional customers generally settle transactions in delivery versus payment/receive versus payment (“DVP/RVP”) accounts, and that most of them were likely to opt out of receiving quarterly customer account statements under NASD Rule 2340. This commenter also stated that receiving the disclosures that would be required by proposed Rule 2342 annually from each broker-dealer through which an institution executes transactions would create a flood of unnecessary and redundant disclosures that institutional customers would simply discard. 23 *See* Cheng. In response, NASD stated that it believed the benefit to institutional investors of receiving the SIPC disclosures at account opening and yearly thereafter outweighs any inconvenience that might be incurred. NASD stated that although many institutional investors are likely to be sophisticated investors, there are those that are not, and that, to the extent the required disclosures may make institutional investors more aware of SIPC and the protections it affords, NASD believed that the dissemination of the required information would be worthwhile. Therefore, NASD determined not to exempt institutional investors from the requirements of proposed Rule 2342. After NASD filed Amendment No. 1, one commenter submitted a second letter, in which he further contended that firms that are SIPC members but that only sell investment products that are ineligible for SIPC protection may violate Article 11, Section 4(g)(2) of the SIPC By-Laws (Advertisement of Membership) if they are not exempt from the requirements of proposed Rule 2342. 24 In response to this comment, NASD agreed that proposed Rule 2342 should not require members whose business consists exclusively of the sale of investments that are ineligible for SIPC protection to distribute SIPC's contact information to their customers pursuant to proposed Rule 2342. Accordingly, in Amendment No. 2, NASD modified proposed Rule 2342 to exempt from the rule's requirements members whose business consists exclusively of the sale of investments that are ineligible for SIPC protection. 24 *See* Ferrara 2. IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings NASD has requested that the Commission find good cause pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 25 for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after publication in the **Federal Register.** NASD also proposed an effective date of 180 days following Commission approval, in order to give member firms sufficient time to make changes to their customer documentation and systems. After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act, and in particular, with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 26 which provides, among other things, that NASD rules must be 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. 27 The Commission believes that NASD has adequately responded to concerns about the proposed rule change raised by commenters, and that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provision of the Exchange Act noted above. In particular, proposed NASD Rule 2342 should help to improve investors' awareness of SIPC's policies and practices, and the scope of coverage available under SIPA. 25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 26 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). 27 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). Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 28 the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change before the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof. Accelerating approval and delaying the effective date of the proposed rule change will give NASD additional time to notify its members about the requirements of the proposed rule and help to ensure that firms have sufficient time to efficiently make the changes to their customer documentation and systems needed to comply with the rule. 28 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NASD-2006-124 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-2006-124. 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 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-2006-124 and should be submitted on or before June 6, 2007. VI. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 29 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2006-124), as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and it here is, approved on an accelerated basis, and shall be effective 180 days following the date of this order. 29 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 30 30 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9433 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55732; File No. SR-NFA-2007-02] Self-Regulatory Organization; National Futures Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Interpretive Notice to Compliance Rule 2-4 Regarding Disclosure Guidelines for FCMs Offering Sweep Accounts May 9, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 , and Rule 19b-7 under the Act, 2 notice is hereby given that on February 27, 2007, National Futures Association (“NFA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NFA. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. NFA, on February 26, 2007, submitted the proposed rule change to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) for approval. The CFTC approved the proposed rule change on March 12, 2007. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-7. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rules Section 15A(k) of the Act 3 makes NFA a national securities association for the limited purpose of regulating the activities of NFA members (“Members”) who are registered as brokers or dealers in security futures products under Section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange Act. 4 The new Interpretive Notice to NFA Compliance Rule 2-4 entitled “Disclosure Guidelines for FCMs Offering Sweep Accounts” (“Interpretive Notice”) will apply to all futures commission merchant (“FCM”) Members, including those who are registered as security futures brokers or dealers under Section 15(b)(11). The Interpretive Notice applies certain disclosure guidelines to FCM-offered sweep account programs that manage cash balances. 3 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(k). 4 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(11). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rules NFA has prepared statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, burdens on competition, and comments received from members, participants, and others. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. These statements are set forth in Sections A, B, and C below. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rules 1. Purpose As noted above, the Interpretive Notice applies certain disclosure guidelines to FCM-offered sweep account programs that manage cash balances. Specifically, these sweep account programs transfer a customer's excess funds from a regulated commodity account (whether a customer segregated or secured account) to a non-regulated account for the customer at the FCM, an affiliate of the FCM, or another entity so that the customer can obtain a higher investment return than maintaining the funds in the FCM's customer regulated commodity accounts. The Interpretive Notice makes clear that the disclosure guidelines apply only to sweep account programs offered or regularly recommended by an FCM. If a customer elects on its own to transfer funds to a particular sweep account program that is not offered by the FCM, then the FCM does not have any disclosure obligations pursuant to the Interpretive Notice. Additionally, the disclosure guidelines are inapplicable to transfers made pursuant to an FCM's customer agreement's provisions whereby a customer authorizes the transfer of funds from a regulated commodity account to any other account maintained by the customer at the FCM or one of its affiliates when necessary to avoid a margin call or to reduce the debit balance in the other account, or to satisfy any other obligation to the FCM or its affiliates. Initially, FCMs should identify the entity maintaining the sweep account and whether that entity is subject to regulation and should disclose any material terms and conditions, risks and features of their offered programs. In addition, FCMs should advise customers of any conflicts of interest in connection with the offered programs, including whether the FCM receives compensation or other benefits for customer balances maintained in the sweep account, and the FCM should advise the customer which entity to contact to gain access to any swept funds. An FCM should make these disclosures at the time a sweep program is offered to a customer and, of course, these disclosures should be updated for participants if any material changes are made to an existing sweep program. The Interpretive Notice also provides that if a customer elects to participate in a sweep program offered by the FCM, then the FCM must obtain the customer's written consent prior to any funds being transferred pursuant to the program. The Interpretive Notice also requires FCMs to advise customers of the consequences of transferring monies from the FCM's customer regulated accounts. Specifically, the FCM should disclose that by transferring excess funds from an FCM's customer regulated commodity accounts, the customer will not receive the preferential treatment afforded funds held in a customer regulated commodity account pursuant to CFTC Regulation Part 190 and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Interpretive Notice recognizes, however, that an FCM may offer programs that transfer monies to an account whereby customers receive certain other protections ( *e.g.* , SIPC or FDIC) in the event of a bankruptcy. In this case, the FCM should disclose the nature and extent of the protection available, including any applicable SIPC or FDIC coverage. If the FCM's programs transfer funds to a non-regulated account that does not offer protections comparable to those afforded funds held in a customer regulated commodity account, then the FCM must clearly disclose this fact and describe the impact upon customer funds in the unlikely event that the entity maintaining the sweep account files for bankruptcy. Failure to follow the prescribed guidelines may be deemed conduct inconsistent with a Member's obligation under NFA Compliance Rule 2-4 to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in the conduct of its commodity futures business. The Interpretive Notice recognizes, however, that FCMs offering these sweep programs may have to modify these guidelines to address their particular programs. 2. Statutory Basis NFA has filed these proposed regulations pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Act. 5 The rule change is authorized by, and consistent with, Section 15A(k) of the Act. 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The rule change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act and the Commodity Exchange Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rules Received From Members, Participants, or Others NFA did not publish the rule change to the membership for comment but did discuss it with NFA's FCM Advisory Committee. NFA did not receive comment letters concerning the rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rules and Timing for Commission Action On February 26, 2007, NFA submitted the proposed Interpretive Notice to the CFTC for approval. The proposed rule change has become effective on March 12, 2007, the date of approval of the proposed rule change by the CFTC. Within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act. 6 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(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-NFA-2007-02 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-NFA-2007-02. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NFA-2007-02 and should be submitted on or before June 6, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 7 7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9371 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55735; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-06] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Rule 440A (“Telephone Solicitations”) May 10, 2007. I. Introduction On January 25, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “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 Rule 440A, addressing member organizations' telephone solicitations of customers. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 29, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 55517 (Mar. 23, 2007), 72 FR 14842 (Mar. 29, 2007). II. Description of the Proposal NYSE Rule 440A generally addresses member organizations' telephone solicitations of customers. Rule 440A(g) provides “No member or member organization may use a telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device.” Subsection 440A(g)(1) further provides that a facsimile advertisement is not “unsolicited” where the recipient has granted the member organization prior express invitation or permission to deliver the advertisement, as further defined in the Rule. This proposed rule change provided that such an advertisement also will not be considered “unsolicited” where there is an “established business relationship” as defined in the present Rule 440A(j). In addition, the Exchange proposed to delete the term “member” as used in the Rule to reflect the recent reorganization of the Exchange, 4 and the term “allied member” as redundant within the context of the present regulation. 4 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 53382 (Feb. 27, 2006), 71 FR 11251 (Mar. 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77). The amendments to Rule 440A(g) were adopted by the Exchange on December 2, 2004 5 to incorporate regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) relating to the implementation of the National Do Not Call registry and the amendments to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. 6 The FCC and FTC regulations contained no exception for facsimiles sent to customers with which a broker-dealer had an “established business relationship” as such term was defined. Subsequently, Congress passed legislation 7 which restored an exemption for unsolicited faxes sent to a recipient with whom the sender had an established business relationship. Accordingly, the proposed amendments to NYSE Rule 440A(g)(1) added an exception for established business relationships to the definition of “unsolicited” and set forth the measures necessary for a customer to opt out of the receipt of further communications. These standards, which are taken from applicable FCC regulations, 8 generally require that the member organization and the person not only have an established business relationship, 9 but also that the member organization obtain the fax number from the recipient (or the recipient's web site, directory, or advertisement). Further, the recipient must not have stated on those materials that they do not accept unsolicited advertisements at the listed number. Under the proposed rule change, the member organization must also take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed. 5 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 34-52579 (Oct. 7, 2005), 70 FR 60119 (Oct. 14, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2004-73). . 6 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, FCC 03-153 (Jun. 26, 2003), 68 FR 44144 (Jul. 25, 2003). 7 Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-21, 119 Stat. 359 (2005). 8 FCC 06-42 (Apr. 5, 2006), 71 FR 56893 (Sept. 28, 2006). 9 An established business relationship is defined as a prior existing relationship formed by voluntary two-way communication between a member organization and a person where the person has, generally speaking, done business with the member organization within the 18 months preceding the telephone call, the member organization is the broker-dealer of record for the person's account within those 18 months, or the person has contacted the member organization to inquire about a product or service within the three months preceding the telephone call. III. Discussion and Commission Findings After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the NYSE's rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 10 The Commission believes that in bringing the NYSE's Rule setting forth the definition and treatment of unsolicited telemarketing communications into concurrence with FCC regulations, the proposed rule change will harmonize currently disparate regulations and therefore provide greater clarity, both to members and customers, as to which communications between members and customers qualify as “unsolicited.” 11 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 11 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 12 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2007-06), be, and hereby is, approved. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 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. E7-9366 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55738; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-17] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Waive 2007 Annual Listing Fees for Certain Dually-Listed Issuers Who Delist During 2007 May 10, 2007. I. Introduction On March 6, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“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 waive 2007 annual listing fees for certain issuers listed on the Exchange. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on April 5, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55564 (March 30, 2007), 72 FR 16844. II. Description of the Proposal The Exchange, through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), proposes to waive 2007 annual listing fees for any issuers, who, as of January 1, 2007, were dually-listed on NYSE Arca Equities and another securities exchange, provided that such dually-listed issuers provide notice to the Exchange by June 30, 2007 of their intention to voluntarily withdraw listing from NYSE Arca Equities and that such dually-listed issuers withdraw listing before December 31, 2007. III. Discussion After a careful review of the proposed rule change, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 4 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 5 which requires that the rules of an exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facilities or system which it operates or controls. 4 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). The Commission notes that the Exchange increased its annual listing fees substantially as of January 1, 2007. 6 The Exchange represented that as a result, many dually-listed issuers notified the Exchange of their intent to voluntarily delist from NYSE Arca Equities prior to January 1, 2007. Some dually-listed issuers, however, were unable to voluntarily delist by January 1, 2007, due to their administrative or corporate governance process. The proposal will permit such dually-listed issuers, as well as any other dually-listed issuers who comply with the proposal's requirements, a reasonable period of time to comply with their administrative or corporate governance process to voluntarily delist from NYSE Arca Equities without paying the higher 2007 annual listing fees. The Commission believes that it is appropriate to waive the 2007 annual listing fees for the withdrawing dually-listed issuers because these issuers fully intend to withdraw their listing, must withdraw by December 31, 2007, and are already listed on another national securities exchange. Based on the above, the Commission believes that such waiver is consistent with the requirements of the Act. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54007 (June 16, 2006), 71 FR 36155 (June 23, 2006) (SR-PCX-2006-16). IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 7 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2007-17) be, and hereby is, approved. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9411 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SBA Lender Risk Rating System AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Final notice. SUMMARY: This final notice implements the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) risk rating system (Risk Rating System) as an internal tool to assist SBA in assessing the risk of each active 7(a) Lender's and Certified Development Company's (CDC's) SBA loan operations and loan portfolio. The Risk Rating System will enable SBA to monitor 7(a) Lenders and CDCs (collectively, “SBA Lenders”) on a uniform basis and identify those institutions whose SBA loan operations and portfolio require additional SBA monitoring or other action. It is also a vehicle for assessing the aggregate strength of SBA's 7(a) and 504 portfolios. Under the Risk Rating System, SBA will assign each SBA Lender a composite rating based on certain portfolio performance factors, which may be overridden in some cases due to SBA Lender specific factors that may be indicative of a higher or lower level of risk. SBA Lenders will have access to their own ratings through SBA's Lender Portal (Portal). DATES: This notice is effective June 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Hooper, Director, Office of Lender Oversight, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416,

(202)205-3049. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Information On May 1, 2006, SBA published a notice and request for comment in the **Federal Register** seeking comments on a proposed SBA internal Risk Rating System for assessing an SBA Lender's SBA loan portfolio (i.e., loan portfolio performance). 71 FR 25624 Notice. SBA published a subsequent notice extending the comment period for the proposed Risk Rating System to July 15, 2006. 71 FR 34674. The Risk Rating System is an internal tool that uses data in SBA's Loan and Lender Monitoring System (L/LMS) to assist SBA in assessing the risk of an SBA Lender's SBA loan performance on a uniform basis and identify those SBA Lenders whose portfolio performance demonstrate the need for additional SBA monitoring or other action. The Risk Rating System will also serve as a vehicle to measure the aggregate strength of SBA's overall 7(a) and 504 loan portfolios and to assist SBA in managing the related risk. In addition, SBA will use risk ratings to make more effective use of its on-site and off-site lender review and assessment resources. As discussed in greater detail in the Notice under the Risk Rating System, SBA will assign each SBA Lender a composite rating. The composite rating reflects SBA's assessment of the potential risk to the government of that SBA Lender's SBA portfolio performance. A rating of 1 will indicate strong portfolio performance, least risk, and that the least degree of SBA management oversight is needed (relative to other SBA Lenders in the peer group), while a 5 rating will indicate weak portfolio performance, highest risk and therefore, the highest degree of SBA management oversight. For 7(a) Lenders, SBA will base the composite rating on four common components or factors. The common factors for 7(a) Lenders will be as follows:

(i)12 month actual purchase rate;

(ii)problem loan rate;

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

(iv)projected purchase rate derived from the SBPS. On a lender-specific basis, the existence of additional factors may cause SBA to override the composite rating and either increase or decrease the composite rating. For CDCs, SBA will base the composite rating on three common components or factors. The common factors for CDCs will be as follows:

(i)12 month actual purchase rate;

(ii)problem loan rate; and

(iii)average SBPS on loans in the CDC's portfolio. The third factor replaces the third and fourth factors used for 7(a) Lenders because it was found, during the testing process, to be more predictive of SBA purchases for CDCs. On a CDC-specific basis, the existence of additional factors may cause SBA to override the composite rating and either increase or decrease the composite rating. In general, the factors described above reflect both historical SBA Lender performance and projected future performance. SBA will perform quarterly calculations on the common factors for each SBA Lender, so that SBA Lenders' composite risk ratings will be updated on a quarterly basis. The composite risk rating is a measure of how each SBA Lender's portfolio performance compares to the portfolio performance of its peers. Thus, an individual SBA Lender's overall portfolio performance (using all common factors) will be compared to its peers to derive that SBA Lender's composite risk rating. SBA Lenders whose overall portfolio performance (using all of the common factors) is worse than their peers will receive a worse, or higher score, while SBA Lenders whose overall portfolio performance is better than their peers will receive a better, or lower, score. In order to prevent the inequitable comparison of differently-sized SBA Lenders, which may be affected differently by similar changes in their portfolio performance, SBA has separated both 7(a) Lenders and CDCs into different peer groups based upon their SBA loan portfolio size. All SBA Lenders will be given access to their composite risk rating and component results through SBA's Lender Portal, which is available on line. The proposed notice described the Portal information that SBA will provide and how SBA lenders can access this information. Comments Received and Changes Made SBA received 51 comments on the proposed Risk Rating System. Twenty-three of the comments were from CDCs. Thirteen of the comments were from 7(a) Lenders other than Small Business Lending Companies (SBLCs). Six comments were from trade organizations. Five of the comments were from SBLCs. Finally, four comments were from individuals. Twenty-three of the commenters were generally supportive of an SBA Lender rating system. Comments generally covered the following areas:

(i)The Portal;

(ii)the rating components;

(iii)use of the override;

(iv)peer groupings;

(v)the comparative nature of the system;

(vi)static pool analysis; and

(vii)other comments. Portal The purpose of the Portal is to communicate SBA Lender performance to SBA Lenders. The Portal will allow SBA Lenders to view their own quarterly performance data, including their most current composite risk rating. The Portal will also allow SBA Lenders to access data on peer group and portfolio averages. Consequently, an SBA Lender will be able to gauge its performance relative to its peer group and the portfolio norm, although SBA Lenders will not be able to view the individual ratings and performance indicators of other SBA Lenders. The quarterly performance data is updated approximately six to eight weeks after a calendar quarter ends. Several commenters requested that SBA provide additional detail to facilitate reconciliation of the Portal performance results with performance results from other SBA and SBA Lender accounting systems. They also requested that SBA provide a process for correcting errors uncovered in the reconciliation process. SBA has provided that information on its Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/olo/outstanding.pdf* . As indicated on the website, L/LMS incorporates data from many different sources in order to calculate the common factors that are used to develop each SBA Lender's composite rating. As a result, some portfolio performance data in the Portal may not appear to be the same as that provided to SBA Lenders from other official sources (e.g. 504 LAMP and its Management Reports; Sacramento Loan Processing Center's ratios, Risk database reports.). An explanation of the potential differences between data in the Portal and data provided by other sources may also be found on SBA's Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_program_office/olo_portal_data.pdf* . A few commenters requested that SBA Lenders be able to access previous quarters' data. The commenters explained that access to previous data would facilitate trend analysis. SBA has considered this comment and has added all previous quarters' data to the portal. A few commenters suggested that SBA provide more than one user account per SBA Lender. Multi-bank holding companies, and SBA Lenders with centralized SBA loan processing or servicing, stated that it would be helpful to have additional user accounts for managers with various SBA lending responsibilities. SBA is working with its contractor on the possibility of allowing SBA Lenders more than one user account. A few commenters suggested that it would be helpful if users had access to peer group performance statistics for all peer groups in the user's lending program [7(a) or 504], rather than the performance of only the user's peer group. SBA believes that providing portfolio performance information on all peer groups may be informative for SBA Lenders, and is therefore making that information available through the Portal. Components Several commenters discussed SBA's proposed component factors and suggested that SBA consider other components for the Risk Rating System. Commenters suggested that SBA consider the following as additional or alternative components:

(i)Historical loss rate;

(ii)a longer term purchase rate;

(iii)value of pledged collateral;

(iv)credit scores for all principals and guarantors;

(v)consideration of SBA's social mission; and

(vi)removal of the problem loan rate.

(i)Historical Loss Rate Several commenters suggested that incorporation of actual historical losses as a component would increase model accuracy. Ten commenters suggested substituting actual historical loss rate for the 12-month purchase rate component. In developing the risk rating model, SBA considered the use of historical loss rate as a component. It was found that while historical loss rates are somewhat predictive of future purchases, their use in combination with the other component factors provided little additional predictiveness. In addition, loss is a lagging indicator. Actual losses are not recorded until all collateral has been liquidated and normal collection efforts have been exhausted, sometimes years after the default and purchase. This may have negative implications for the calculation of losses and the SBA Lender's historical loss rate. Specifically, negative events such as loan origination fraud or poor underwriting decision-making under previous management may adversely impact an SBA Lender's risk rating for several years; conversely, improved origination or underwriting practices will only slowly be reflected in that SBA Lender's risk rating. On the other hand, the 12-month purchase component factor, where both positive and negative events will be reflected in the SBA Lender's risk rating more quickly than they would with a historical loss rate factor. In addition, the time lag inherent in a historical loss rate factor may result in the rate not reflecting the SBA Lender's current portfolio. For example, if a 7(a) Lender had originated most of its loans under the former Low-Doc program, its historical loss rates would continue to reflect losses from that program for several years, even if the 7(a) Lender's current portfolio were predominantly comprised of EXPRESS loans. Finally, SBA believes that use of historical loss rates may not reflect some of the costs borne by SBA and the Federal Government, such as the cost of funds used for loan purchases and the administrative costs borne by SBA in its liquidation oversight and charge-off activities. A few commenters that sell their SBA loans in the secondary market believed that the use of purchase rates in the component factors and composite ratings, rather than recovery or loss rates, was a disadvantage to them given that SBA purchases all defaulted loans from the secondary market. These commenters also stated that their recovery rates should be higher than other 7(a) Lenders, since loans are purchased by SBA out of the secondary market earlier in the default curve. SBA agrees that loss rates may provide some evidence of SBA Lender risk, since the rates may be an indicator of poor origination, servicing, or liquidation on the part of the SBA Lender. In addition, the rates—over time—do show SBA's actual losses from an SBA Lender's portfolio. Therefore, SBA is reviewing its data to determine how to incorporate some measure of losses into SBA Lenders' composite risk ratings. At this time, we cannot identify the form such a measure would take, or how the measure would be considered within the Risk Rating System. For example, SBA may use net loss or recovery rates, or we may use a calculation of net cash flows to account for the revenues provided to SBA from guaranty fees and other fees. Once SBA has developed its data measurements and determined what it believes to be the best measure of losses, it will submit the proposal in the form of a notice in the **Federal Register** . At least until then, SBA will use the purchase rate as a key component because it is a more leading indicator, it indicates purchase, liquidation, and charge-off costs, and has tested as a better predictor of future purchases.

(ii)Longer Term Purchase Rate A few commenters recommended that SBA continue to use purchase rates as a rating component, but proposed a longer term purchase rate of 36 months, rather than the 12 month purchase rate. During the Risk Rating System development process, SBA considered using both 24 and 36 month historical purchase rates; however, the 12 month historical purchase rate was selected because it proved to be more predictive of future purchases than either of the other two terms.

(iii)Value of Pledged Collateral A few commenters recommended that the value of pledged collateral should be considered as a component factor. SBA considered the use of value of pledged collateral in its Risk Rating System. However, SBA believes that the use of pledged collateral should not be considered a possible component factor for several reasons. First, SBA does not regularly collect information on the value of pledged collateral on all of its loans. Second, each SBA Lender has its own individual policy regarding how it values pledged collateral; for example, different SBA Lenders will assign different market value rates to the same form of collateral. Finally, even where SBA collects data on pledged collateral, it only does so for one tax identification number, which may understate the amount of collateral actually pledged. For these reasons, SBA has determined not to use pledged collateral as part of its composite risk ratings.

(iv)Credit Scores for All Principals/Guarantors A few commenters requested that SBA include credit information on all principals and guarantors associated with a particular loan, rather than the business and the principal owner. These commenters surmised that without credit information on all of the principals of the business, SBA might understate the loan's credit strength. Currently, SBA can only collect information on one additional principal or guarantor. SBA is in the process of increasing the number of principals and guarantors whose credit information will be used, when available.

(v)Consideration of Economic Development Goals Several commenters stated that the ratings failed to take into consideration the economic development goals of SBA's lending programs as may be evidenced through SBA Lenders' historical loan volume. SBA appreciates the critical role that SBA Lenders play in helping to achieve SBA's economic development goals. However, the Risk Rating System is intended as a means to help SBA measure SBA Lender risk and program risk. Thus, incorporating a factor that measures SBA Lenders' success in helping SBA achieve its mission is not appropriate within the Risk Rating System.

(vi)Problem Loan Rate Seven commenters expressed concern that including the problem loan rate as a component will be a disincentive to working with borrowers to save a business or maximize recovery on the loan during the liquidation process. SBA believes that this should not be a concern, because it is in an SBA Lender's interest as holder of a remaining percentage in the loan (generally 15% to 50%) to maximize recovery and minimize losses. Further, under SBA Standard Operating Procedure

(SOP)50-50-4 (Loan Servicing), Chpt. 7, para 1(c) and SOP 50-51-2A (Loan Liquidation and Acquired Property), Chpt. 8, para. 1(a)(4), an SBA Lender should work with borrowers to either allow the borrower to retain their business or, failing that objective, to reduce both the SBA Lender's and SBA's losses to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, application of the Problem Loan Rate as a component factor for all SBA Lenders should not serve as a disincentive to working with borrowers and maximizing recoveries. Use of the Override Component The May 1, 2006 notice proposed that the occurrence of certain factors may lead SBA to conclude that an individual SBA Lender's composite rating is not fully reflective of the SBA Lender's true risk. Therefore, the proposal provided for consideration of overriding factors. The use of the overriding factors will enable SBA to include key risk factors that are not necessarily applicable to all SBA Lenders, but which indicate a greater or lower level of risk from a particular SBA Lender than the calculated score will provide. Use of overriding factors will occur on a case-by-case basis in SBA's discretion. One of the most important overriding factors may be an SBA Lender's on-site risk-based reviews/assessments. Another important overriding factor may be the institution of enforcement actions by a regulator or other authority. Examples of other overriding factors that may be considered are: Early loan default trends; purchase rate or projected purchase rate trends; abnormally high default, purchase or liquidation rates; denial of liability occurrences; lending concentrations; rapid growth of SBA lending; inadequate, incomplete, or untimely reporting to SBA; inaccurate submission of required fees to SBA; and audits or investigations conducted by the SBA Office of Inspector General. Commenters were generally supportive of the concept of allowing SBA to override an SBA Lender's risk rating should circumstances indicate that the SBA Lender's rating may not truly reflect SBA's risk. One commenter suggested that SBA should provide additional information on the override process. As stated in the proposal, SBA will notify an SBA Lender in the event SBA plans to override that SBA Lender's risk rating, and provide the SBA Lender with an explanation of the reason(s) for the override. If the SBA Lender disagrees with the override, it may ask SBA to reconsider the override, and provide to SBA all supporting information. Peer Groupings The Notice proposed the separation of SBA Lenders into peer groups based on SBA loan portfolio size, as determined by outstanding SBA guaranteed dollars. SBA based the peer groups on portfolio size for several reasons. First, it allows the peer groups to reflect each peer group's relative risk to SBA—SBA Lenders in large peer groups will generally represent a greater risk to SBA, in terms of potential dollars of loans that SBA may be required to purchase, than SBA Lenders in smaller sized peer groups. Second, basing peer groups by portfolio sizes will significantly reduce the possibility of the same event having a different impact on SBA Lenders in the same peer group. For example, the effect of the purchase of one loan by SBA will have a minimal impact on the purchase rates of SBA Lenders in a large peer group; the purchase of one loan would have a similar impact for any SBA Lender in a small peer group. Third, the size groups selected allowed SBA to split both 7(a) Lenders and CDCs into peer groups that were large enough to maintain a statistically valid number of SBA Lenders within each peer group. Finally, splitting SBA Lenders into peer groups based on the size of SBA-guaranteed loan dollars enables SBA to better monitor those SBA Lenders in the largest peer groups that represent the overwhelming majority of guaranteed dollars at risk, and allows SBA to make the best use of its oversight resources. SBA received several comments suggesting that SBA use alternative or additional characteristics to set the peer groups. Most suggested using geographic or regional characteristics. Others suggested establishing peer groups based on loan originations, use of loan proceeds, local economic events and conditions, portfolio industry segment concentration, SBA delivery method, average loan term (months), SBA Lenders' past contribution to SBA's success in meeting its public objectives, SBA Lenders' underwriting quality, SBA Lenders' workout standards and experience, new vs. experienced SBA Lenders, average SBA loan size, SBA Lenders' business model, and organizational structure. A number of commenters suggested that there may be a number of alternative peer groups that might be established. However, portfolio size is the only necessary alternative. This is due to the large variance in performance measures of smaller sized portfolios. Since Lenders with few loans are more likely to have extremely high or low performance measures, all lenders in the largest two peer group would only receive average ratings—none would receive above average or below average ratings. Further, as additional factors are added to further segment the peer groups, the reduced peer group size would reduce the statistical validity of the peer groups (particularly for CDCs). As the number of SBA Lenders in each peer group declines, the performance of individual SBA Lenders within each peer group will become more evident to its peers, and may affect competitive advantages or disadvantages held by each SBA Lender. Also, most of the suggested peer group factors do not provide additional measures of risk, or correlate to increased purchases on the part of SBA. We, therefore, believe basing the peer groups at this time on one metric, portfolio size, is the best measure of potential purchase risk. SBA agrees that one or more of the alternative peer grouping categories that were suggested may be useful in understanding the problems that have resulted in an SBA Lender having a poor risk rating. However, the reasons for those risk ratings will vary from SBA Lender to SBA Lender; therefore, it is difficult to isolate one particular category among those suggested that may impact most SBA Lenders' peer ratings, and that thus would be useful in the peer groupings. As noted above, trying to implement peer groupings based upon several factors, in order to explain all possible reasons for an SBA Lender's poor risk rating, could destroy the statistical validity of the model. Therefore, SBA feels that the types of factors mentioned by commenters would be more useful in discussions between SBA and the SBA Lender as an explanation of the reasons for the SBA Lender's specific portfolio performance issues. Consequently, SBA will take such factors into account during the corrective action process, to determine the causes and remedies for the weaknesses resulting in the poor risk rating, as well as when determining whether to take any enforcement action against an SBA Lender. Several commenters, accepting of SBA's use of portfolio size as the basis for determining peer groupings, suggested increasing the number of groups. Many of these commenters were concerned that the dollar size range of certain peer groups was broad enough to include SBA Lenders with different types and scales of operation, and thus could yield an inaccurate comparison of SBA Lenders within the peer group. SBA understands the concern; however, further segmentation of the size-based peer groups will result in many of the same problems as those noted in the preceding discussion regarding alternative or additional peer group segmentation. As SBA was developing its Risk Rating System, it was clear that each peer group would have to contain a statistically significant number of SBA Lenders to ensure the validity of the statistical model and methodologies used to risk rate SBA Lenders. Further splitting of the current peer groups would jeopardize the model's validity at either one or several of the peer group levels. For example, as of June 30, 2006, there were a total of eight 7(a) Lenders with portfolios of more than $500 million in SBA guaranteed dollars. In order to maintain the statistical validity of the largest dollar peer group, it was necessary to set that peer group size at $100 million or more, rather than $500 million or more. Comparative Analysis Some commenters noted that rating peers on a curve causes some SBA Lenders in each group to have risk ratings that indicate relatively weak portfolio performance. Commenters stated that an SBA Lender with a certain risk rating in one peer group will not be comparable to another SBA Lender with the same risk rating in a different peer group. This is generally true. The nature of the Risk Rating System does not lend itself to direct comparisons between SBA Lenders in different peer groups. The Risk Rating System uses step-wise regression analysis to determine the relative weighting of each of the component factors that optimizes the system's predictiveness of future loan purchases. For each peer group, the weighting of each component factor in predicting future purchases will vary according to the relative weights that yield the greatest level of predictiveness for that specific peer group. Thus, the relative weightings of each of the component factors will change from peer group to peer group, making a direct comparison of SBA Lenders across peer groups less useful. SBA does not intend to evaluate or compare SBA Lenders across different peer groups, or against the overall portfolio. Rather, SBA will evaluate each SBA Lender according to its performance as measured against those in its peer group. Some of these commenters suggested that SBA consider establishing benchmarks, either in lieu of, or in conjunction with, the comparative ratings. Commenters expressed that SBA Lenders should not have a poor risk rating if their portfolio performance was only slightly worse than their peers, but still within an acceptable range. For example, one commenter noted that by using the comparative analysis, some SBA Lenders could be rated relatively poorly even if they were in compliance with SBA's program. The commenter was concerned that SBA would unnecessarily spend time and resources monitoring the risk of “compliant” SBA Lenders when overall program performance was acceptable. Conversely, the concern was that there would not be enough oversight when overall program performance became unacceptable. The comment appears to suggest that SBA should not dedicate resources to program and SBA Lender monitoring while the program is performing well. However, there is no definition of acceptable program performance; SBA would first have to develop subjective measures of program performance in order to determine whether the program meets the definition of “acceptable performance.” These measures would have to be continually monitored and replaced, as program and economic conditions change. Given the process required for implementation of new measurements and standards, the measures might easily become outdated by the time they are implemented. The comparative analysis in the current Risk Rating System adjusts to changes in program and economic conditions, so there is little possibility that the risk ratings will be based on outdated performance measures. Second, if program performance (and the performance of the participating Lenders) is deemed “acceptable”, it is implied that SBA will reduce its monitoring of its Lenders. However, this reduction in monitoring could result in SBA failing to detect negative performance trends that could point to unacceptable performance in the future. Without ongoing monitoring, SBA may be forced to react too late to negative performance and then have to devote even greater resources to resolve entrenched SBA Lender deficiencies. Using a relative performance rating recognizes that there are always SBA Lenders that present relatively higher risk, and that SBA Lender oversight is an ongoing process to help ensure that SBA Lenders with poorly performing portfolios (relative to the peer group) improve—which will help ensure that the entire portfolio continues to perform well. By taking preventative measures to monitor lower-rated SBA Lenders when portfolio performance is relatively strong, SBA can reduce the likelihood of overall portfolio deterioration, help keep SBA losses down, and reduce SBA lending program costs. Finally, it would be premature to develop the Risk Rating System with benchmarks at this time. This is because the System has not been available throughout an entire economic cycle. Benchmarks will be more meaningful and equitable if developed based upon long-term portfolio performance that reflects all stages of an economic cycle. We do not believe the Risk Rating System has enough historical performance information to establish meaningful benchmarks for the components. Once that data is developed, SBA may consider incorporating benchmarks. SBA will publish a notice for comments should SBA decide to propose benchmarks. Static Pool Measurements Some commenters suggested that SBA include all originated loans in its component factor measures, even those loans that have prepaid or been liquidated and charged-off by SBA. These commenters believe that measuring historical loan purchases as a percentage of all loans, for example, would present a more accurate picture of the quality of loans originated by SBA Lenders, because it would include good loans that had improved their credit quality so much that the loan had become eligible for conventional financing and had paid-off. It is SBA's opinion that using only those loans still in the SBA Lender's portfolio is a better indicator of an SBA Lender's risk for the simple reason that, once a loan is paid-off, SBA no longer retains any risk of purchase. In addition, SBA believes that such an approach would be unfair to new SBA Lenders that do not have historical prepayment history to offset high purchase rates. Finally, SBA believes that prepayments affect all SBA Lenders, so the impact of one SBA Lender's prepayment history should have a minimal effect on that SBA Lender's risk rating relative to its peers. Other Comments Several respondents asked for more information on how the model weighs factors so they could better understand and evaluate L/LMS. As described above, in order to maximize the predictiveness of the Risk Rating System within each peer group, each of the component factors has a different weighting from peer group to peer group, and the weighting can vary from quarter to quarter. Commenters were also unfamiliar with the SBPS that is a key part of the model, and wanted to learn how it works in credit evaluation. The SBPS is a proprietary portfolio management (not origination) credit score based upon a borrower's business credit report and principal's consumer credit report. It is compatible with Fair, Isaac & Co.'s “Liquid Credit” origination score, which is a commercially available, off-the-shelf product used by many small business lenders. Several commenters requested an appeals process of the rating generated by the Risk Rating System. An appeals process presumes that enforcement actions will be automatically generated as a direct result of an SBA Lender's risk rating. However, SBA generally does not intend to use the Risk Rating System as the sole basis for taking enforcement actions against SBA Lenders. The primary purpose of the system is to focus SBA's oversight resources on those SBA Lenders whose portfolio performance (as shown by the Risk Rating System) demonstrate a need for further review and evaluation by SBA. SBA expects that enforcement actions would typically be taken only after SBA has engaged the SBA Lender, and generally will not be taken until after the SBA Lender has had an opportunity to eliminate the problem through a corrective action process. Text of the SBA Lender Risk Rating System Overview Under SBA's Risk Rating System, SBA assigns all SBA Lenders a composite rating. The composite rating reflects SBA's assessment of the potential risk to the government of that SBA Lender's SBA portfolio performance. For 7(a) Lenders, the SBA composite rating is based on four common components or factors. The common factors for 7(a) Lenders are as follows:

(i)12 month actual purchase rate;

(ii)problem loan rate;

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

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

(i)12 month actual purchase rate;

(ii)problem loan rate; and

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

(i)Past 12 Months Actual Purchase Rate—The Past 12 Months Actual Purchase Rate is an historical measure of SBA purchases from the 7(a) Lender in the preceding 12 months. Thus, this component provides a measure of 7(a) Lender performance and risk as indicated by actual SBA purchases. SBA calculates this ratio by dividing the sum of total gross dollars of the 7(a) Lender's loans purchased during the past 12 months (numerator) by the sum of total gross outstanding dollars of their SBA loans outstanding at the end of the 12-month period, plus gross dollars purchased during the past 12 months (denominator).

(ii)Problem Loan Rate—The Problem Loan Rate provides an indication of current 7(a) Lender risk. This problem loan indicator helps measure 7(a) Lender performance and risk by showing current delinquencies and liquidations, as well as predicting potential future purchases by SBA. Calculated using a numerator of total gross dollars of loans 90 days or more delinquent plus gross dollars in liquidation. The denominator is total gross dollars outstanding. Active purchases, dollars that are purchased but not yet charged off, are excluded from this figure.

(iii)3 Months Change in Small Business Predictive Scores (SBPS)—The SBPS is a portfolio management (not origination) credit score based upon a borrower's business credit report and principal's consumer credit report. SBPS is a proprietary calculation provided by Dun & Bradstreet, under contract with SBA, and is compatible with Fair, Isaac & Co.'s “Liquid Credit” origination score. This component signals increasing or declining purchase risk by measuring changes in borrower credit trends, and acts as a predictor of possible future loan delinquencies, liquidations, and SBA purchases. The 3 months change in SBPS is calculated by measuring the percentage change, on a dollar-weighted average basis, of the SBPS on all outstanding SBA loans held by the 7(a) Lender, from the previous quarter to the current quarter.

(iv)Projected Purchase Rate—The Projected Purchase Rate is a predictive measure of the probability of the amount of SBA guaranteed dollars in a 7(a) Lender's portfolio that are likely to be purchased by SBA. This factor uses credit bureau data on a 7(a) Lender's individual SBA loans to project the purchase rate of a 7(a) Lender's SBA portfolio. It is a 12-month projection of future performance based on the most current credit data on a borrower's payment history. For each of a 7(a) Lender's SBA loans outstanding, SBA multiplies the amount of guaranteed loan dollars outstanding by the probability of its purchase (as determined by the SBPS of the individual loan) and totals the sum of each individual loan outstanding. This total (numerator) is then divided by the 7(a) Lender's total SBA-guaranteed dollars outstanding (denominator). The 3 Common Components for CDCs SBA's quantitative Risk Rating System for CDCs features three common component factors. The three common rating components are defined below.

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

(ii)Problem Loan Rate—The Problem Loan Rate provides an indication of current CDC risk. This problem loan indicator helps measure CDC performance and risk by showing current delinquencies and liquidations, as well as predicting potential future purchases by SBA. Calculated using a numerator of total gross dollars of loans 90 days or more delinquent plus gross dollars in liquidation. The denominator is total gross dollars outstanding. Note that for 504 only, active purchases, dollars that are purchased but not yet charged off, that are in liquidation (loan status of Liquidation or Purchase Pending) must be added back into the denominator, as they are not included in the outstanding figure. (This is because as a normal function of 504, nearly all loans in Liquidation are active purchases.)

(iii)Average Small Business Predictive Scores (SBPS)—The SBPS is a portfolio management (not origination) credit score based upon a borrower's business credit report and principal's consumer credit report. SBPS is a proprietary calculation provided by Dun & Bradstreet, under contract with SBA, and is compatible with Fair, Isaac & Co.'s “Liquid Credit” origination score. This component provides an indication of the relative credit quality of the loans in a CDC's SBA portfolio. The score is calculated from the average SBPS score of the loans in a CDC's portfolio, weighted by each loan's guaranteed loan dollars outstanding. Each of the common components described above reflects a different means of measuring an SBA Lender's risk to SBA in terms of loan purchase data. Loan purchase metrics provide a core gauge of SBA lending success and program risk. SBA believes a Risk Rating System emphasizing purchase indicators provides a good measure of SBA lending risk because purchases are a strong indicator of the cost to SBA, and when tested correlated with net losses (purchase less recoveries). In addition, loan purchases are resource intensive and an administrative expense to SBA that may affect SBA's ability to provide further assistance to small businesses. Finally, SBA is a “gap” lender, and purchases can be a prime indicator of the failure of the financing to assist in the growth and development of small businesses. Overriding Factors In addition to the common components calculated through the use of loan performance factors, the Risk Rating System allows for consideration of additional factors. The occurrence of these factors may lead SBA to conclude that an individual SBA Lender's composite rating is not fully reflective of its true risk. Therefore, the Risk Rating System provides for the consideration of overriding factors, which may only apply to a particular SBA Lender or group of SBA Lenders, and permit SBA to adjust an SBA Lender's overall composite rating. The allowance of overriding factors in helping determine an SBA Lender's risk rating enables SBA to use key risk factors that are not necessarily applicable to all SBA Lenders, but indicate a greater or lower level of risk from a particular SBA Lender than that which the calculated score provides. One of the most important overriding factors is an SBA Lender's on-site risk-based reviews/assessments usually performed on SBA's relatively large SBA Lenders, or that may (under extraordinary circumstances) be performed on other SBA Lenders whose performance demonstrates a highly unusual deviation from their peer group. SBA conducts on-site reviews of large SBA Lenders, performs safety and soundness examinations of SBA Supervised Lenders (SBLCs and Non-Federally Regulated Lenders), and uses certain off-site evaluation measures for less active SBA Lenders. Consequently, these assessments, as a factor, may only be available for a fraction of SBA's approximately 5,101 SBA Lenders (as of 12/31/2006). Examples of other overriding factors that may be considered are: Early loan default trends; purchase rate or projected purchase rate trends; abnormally high default, purchase or liquidation rates; denial of liability occurrences; lending concentrations; rapid growth of SBA lending; inadequate, incomplete, or untimely reporting to SBA or inaccurate submission of required fees to SBA; and enforcement actions of regulators or other authority. This list is not all inclusive; however, SBA does not expect any of the overriding factors to affect a significant number of composite scores. SBA has and will continue to perform annual validation testing on the Risk Rating System, and will further refine the system as necessary to improve the predictability of its risk scoring. Lender Portal Overview SBA communicates SBA Lender performance to SBA Lenders through the use of SBA's Lender Portal (Portal). The Portal allows SBA Lenders to view their own quarterly performance data, including their current historical composite risk rating. SBA Lenders can also access data on peer group and portfolio averages. Consequently, an SBA Lender is able to gauge its performance relative to its peer group and the portfolio norm. While SBA Lenders may view their ratings, their performance indicators, and peer and portfolio averages, they are not able to view the individual ratings and performance indicators of other SBA Lenders. SBA has added all previous quarters' data to the portal. Portal Data SBA updates the Portal data each quarter approximately six to eight weeks after a calendar quarter ends. SBA Lenders can now access up to eight quarters of data on SBA Lender performance. Correcting Portal Data Portal data includes both summary performance and credit quality data. Because summary performance data is largely derived from data that SBA Lenders provide to SBA through 1502 and 172 Reports, SBA Lenders bear much of the responsibility for ensuring data accuracy. If an SBA Lender reviews its performance components and they do not comport with its own data records, the SBA Lender should confirm the accuracy of the underlying data. If the SBA Lender determines that the data is inaccurate, it should seek to amend any incorrect data through SBA's normal processing channels (for example—for loan performance data, SBA Lender should contact SBA's fiscal and transfer agent). Credit quality data used to help establish certain component scores is derived from credit bureau reports of the borrower business and its principals or guarantors. To the extent that credit quality data relies on information that an SBA Lender provides on the business, its principals, or guarantors contained in the loan application and as required to be updated by the SBA Lender, the SBA Lender must take responsibility for ensuring this information is correct, complete, and updated. SBA recognizes that underlying borrower credit data cannot be changed by SBA or an SBA Lender. Therefore, any changes to data provided to credit bureaus must be reported directly to Dun & Bradstreet or Trans Union, as appropriate, by the borrower. All corrections to the Portal data (both summary performance and credit quality data) will be reflected in the quarterly update following the quarter in which the correction is entered. Portal Access SBA Lenders with at least one outstanding SBA loan may apply for the Portal access. Currently, SBA issues only one Portal user account per SBA Lender; however, we are working with our contractors on the possibility of increasing the number of Portal user accounts per SBA Lender. SBA will provide a notice to SBA Lenders if we are able to provide multiple user accounts. SBA Lenders must submit initial requests for a Portal user account (or requests to switch or terminate a user) by regular or overnight mail to SBA at the following address: Office of Lender Oversight—Capital Access, Suite 8200; Mail Code 7011, ATTN: Lender Portal, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20416. SBA Lenders must take the following steps in requesting Portal access: 1. Request must be made by a senior officer of the SBA Lender (Senior VP or above). 2. Request must be sent via regular or overnight mail to the address provided above. 3. Request must be made using the SBA Lender's stationery. 4. Request must include the user's business card. 5. The stationery and business card should include the SBA Lender's name and address. 6. The request should include the following data:

(a)SBA FIRS ID Number(s).

(b)Account user's name.

(c)Account user's title.

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

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

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

(g)Requesting officer's name.

(h)Requesting officer's title.

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

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

(k)Requesting officer's e-mail address at the SBA Lender. Once SBA receives and approves the user request, the Agency will forward the approval to SBA's Portal contractor for issuance of a user account name and password. The Portal contractor will e-mail the user his or her user name and password within approximately two weeks of account approval. The user can then access its data by logging into the SBA Lender Portal web page at *https://pdp.dnb.com/pdpsba/pdplogin.asp.* SBA Lender Portal Responsibilities SBA Lenders are responsible for complying with SBA's requirements in obtaining and maintaining the Portal user accounts and passwords as set forth below and as published from time to time. SBA Lenders are also responsible for timely informing SBA to terminate or switch an account if the person to whom it was issued no longer holds that responsibility for the SBA Lender. Upon accessing the SBA Lender Portal, SBA Lenders must take full responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of the user password and SBA Lender risk rating information and for ensuring the security of the data. Confidentiality Agreement By clicking on the Portal log-in button to access the Portal, SBA Lender agrees to use the Confidential Information (defined in the Portal) contained in the Portal only for confidential use within its own immediate corporate organization, and to hold and maintain the Confidential Information in confidence in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. SBA Lender agrees to restrict access to the Confidential Information to those of its officers and employees who have a legitimate need to know such information for the purpose of assisting the SBA Lender in improving the SBA Lender's 7(a) or 504 program operations in conjunction with SBA's Lender Oversight Program and SBA's portfolio management (each referred to as a “permitted party”), and to those for whom SBA has approved access by prior written consent and for whom access is required by applicable law or legal process. If such law or process requires SBA Lender to disclose the Confidential Information to any person other than a permitted party, SBA Lender agrees to promptly notify SBA and SBA's Information Provider (defined below) in writing so that SBA and the Information Provider have, within their sole discretion, the opportunity to seek appropriate relief such as an injunction or protective order prior to SBA Lender's disclosure. In addition, SBA Lender agrees to ensure that each permitted party is aware of the requirements of the Agreement and to ensure that each such permitted party agrees to the terms and conditions. SBA Lender agrees not to disclose, and agrees to protect from disclosure, SBA Lender's password to enter the Portal. Further, any disclosure of Confidential Information other than as permitted by the Agreement may result in appropriate action as authorized by law. The Confidentiality Agreement also provides that SBA Lender agrees to indemnify and hold harmless each of SBA and any provider of the Confidential Information from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, and liabilities to any degree based upon or resulting from the unauthorized use or disclosure of the Confidential Information. “Information Provider” means Dun & Bradstreet. (Mail Provider Information notice to Dun & Bradstreet, Legal Department, 103 JFK Parkway, Short Hills, NJ 07078.) No information contained in the Portal shall be relied upon for any purpose other than SBA's lender oversight and SBA's portfolio management purposes. In addition, SBA Lender acknowledges and agrees that the Confidentiality Agreement is for the benefit not only of the SBA but also of any party providing the Confidential Information. Any such party shall have the right and standing to pursue all legal and equitable remedies against the SBA Lender in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure. Portal Inquiries For general inquiries, an SBA Lender may submit its inquiry by e-mail to *lender.portal@sba.gov.* If an SBA Lender needs to speak to an individual on a non-technical matter, it may contact Paul Bishop, Institutional Financial Analyst at 202-205-7516. SBA advises an SBA Lender to state upfront its SBA Lender name, address, FIRS number, and user name to expedite processing of all inquiries. (Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(7), and 15 U.S.C. 687(f)) Dated: May 8, 2007. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-9442 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Audit and Financial Management Advisory (AFMAC) Committee Meeting Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Appendix 2 of title 5, United States Code, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the U.S. Small Business Administration, Audit and Financial Management Advisory Committee (AFMAC) will host a federal public meeting on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 8 a.m. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Office of the Chief Financial Officer Conference Room, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20416. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the SBA's FY 2006 audit remediation, FY 2007 Financial Reporting, FY 2007 Credit Subsidy Modeling, A-123 Internal Control Program, Fraud Detection and Prevention Measures, Information System Security, Performance Management Framework, FY 2007 PAR Content and Production and FY 2007 Financial Audit. Anyone wishing to attend must contact Jennifer Main in writing or by fax. Jennifer Main, Chief Financial Officer, 409 3rd Street, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20416, phone:

(202)205-6449, fax:

(202)205-6969, e-mail: *Jennifer.main@sba.gov* . Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-9416 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA 2007-0038] Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Computer Matching Program (SSA/States, SVES Files)—Match 6010 AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Notice of a renewal of an existing computer matching program which is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2007. SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces a renewal of an existing computer matching program that SSA is currently conducting with the States. DATES: SSA will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The matching program will be effective as indicated below. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to

(410)965-8582 or writing to the Associate Commissioner, Office of Income Security Programs, 252 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at this address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Associate Commissioner for Income Security Programs as shown above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. General The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the manner in which computer matching involving Federal agencies could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for, and receiving, Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals. The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:

(l)Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;

(2)Obtain the Data Integrity Boards' approval of the match agreements;

(3)Publish notice of the computer matching program in the **Federal Register** ;

(4)Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;

(5)Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and

(6)Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying an individual's benefits or payments. B. SSA Computer Matches Subject to the Privacy Act We have taken action to ensure that all of SSA's computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended. Dated: May 8, 2007. Manuel J. Vaz, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs. Notice of Computer Matching Program, Social Security Administration

(SSA)with the States A. Participating Agencies SSA and the States. B. Purpose of the Matching Program The purpose of this matching program is to establish the conditions, safeguards and procedures under which the States may obtain SSN verification and certain SSA information relating to the eligibility for, and payment of, Social Security benefits. This information is available from various SSA systems of records. Individual agreements with the States will describe the information to be disclosed and the conditions under which SSA agrees to disclose such information. C. Authority for Conducting the Matching Program This matching program is carried out under the authority of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended; sections 1137 and 1106 of the Social Security Act; Pub. L. 108-458; and SSA's Privacy Act Regulations (20 CFR 401.150). D. Categories of Records and Individuals Covered by the Matching Program States will provide SSA with names and other identifying information of appropriate benefit applicants or recipients. Specific information from participating States will be matched, as provided in the agreement for the specific programs, with the following systems of records maintained by SSA. 1. Master Files of SSN Holders and SSN Applications, SSA/OEEAS (60-0058); 2. MBR, SSA/ORSIS (60-0090); 3. SSR/SVB, SSA/ODSSIS (60-0103). E. Inclusive Dates of the Matching Program The matching program will become effective no sooner than 40 days after notice of the matching program is sent to Congress and OMB, or 30 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , whichever date is later. The matching program will continue for 18 months from the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if certain conditions are met. Individual State matching agreements under the matching program will become effective upon the effective date of this matching program or the signing of the agreements by the parties to the individual agreements, whichever is later. The duration of individual State matching agreements will be subject to the timeframes and limitations contained in this matching program. [FR Doc. E7-9395 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5763] Overseas Security Advisory Council

(OSAC)Meeting Notice Closed Meeting The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department—Overseas Security Advisory Council on June 6, 2007 at the U.S. Secret Service, Washington, DC. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E), it has been determined that the meeting will be closed to the public. The meeting will focus on an examination of corporate security policies and procedures and will involve extensive discussion of proprietary commercial information that is considered privileged and confidential, as well as discussion of law enforcement investigative techniques and procedures. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a global threat overview, and other matters relating to private sector security policies and protective programs and the protection of U.S. business information overseas. For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, phone: 571-345-2214. Dated: May 7, 2007. Patrick D. Donovan, Acting Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-9424 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-43-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 May 4, 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-2007-28129. *Date Filed:* May 3, 2007. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion To Modify Scope:* May 24, 2007. *Description:* Application of Oy Air Finland Ltd., requesting an exemption and foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between a point or points in Finland, on the one hand and a point or points in the United States, on the other hand, via intermediate points. *Docket Number:* OST-2007-28149. *Date Filed:* May 4, 2007. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion To Modify Scope:* May 25, 2007. *Description:* Application of British Airways Plc, requesting issuance of an amended foreign air carrier permit to the full extent authorized by the Air Transport Agreement between the United States and the European Community and the Member States of the European Community to enable it to engage in:

(i)Foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons, property and mail from any point or points behind and Member State of the European Union via any point or points in any Member State and via intermediate points to any point or points in the United States and beyond;

(ii)foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in the United States and beyond;

(iii)foreign scheduled and charter cargo air transportation between any point or points in the United States and any other point or points;

(iv)other charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements set forth in Part 212 of the Department's Economic Regulations; and

(v)transportation authorized by any additional route rights made available to European Community carriers in the future. British Airways further requests a corresponding exemption to the extent necessary to enable it to provide the service described above pending issuance of an amended foreign air carrier permit and such additional or other relief as the Department may deem necessary or appropriate. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E7-9408 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Adoption of the U.S. Air Force Final Environmental Impact Statement and Approval of the Federal Aviation Administration Record of Decision for the New Mexico Training Range Initiative (NMTRI) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Adoption of the U.S. Air Force

(USAF)Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)and Approval of the FAA Record of Decision (ROD). SUMMARY: The FAA is announcing its Adoption of the United States Air Force

(USAF)Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)for the New Mexico Training Range Initiative and approval of the FAA Record of Decision (ROD). The New Mexico Training Range Initiative (NMTRI) is the USAF initiative to create airspace that allows mainly F-16 and aircrews to receive much needed realistic combat training while maximizing their training time. NMTRI includes the Pecos MOA complex. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Federal Aviation Administration, Central Services Area, System Support Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nan Terry, Federal Aviation Administration, Central Services Area, System Support Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137,

(817)222-5594. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The USAF, lead agency for NMTRI, published availability of the Final EIS on October 20, 2006 in the **Federal Register** (Volume 71, Number 203, Pages 61967-61968), in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)as amended. The determinations on the project are outlined in the FAA's ROD, which was approved on May 4, 2007. For copies of the USAF Final Environmental Impact Statement, contact: Ms. Sheryl Parker at

(757)764-9334. A copy of the FAA Adoption and Record of Decision can be obtained by contacting Ms. Nan Terry in the For Further Information section above. Issued in Washington, DC, or May 7, 2007. Edith V. Parish, Acting Manager, Environmental Programs Group, System Operations Airspace & Aeronautical Information Management, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. 07-2393 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 24

Traces to 24 documents

CFR

U.S. Code

17 references not yet in our index

Pub. L. 92-463
10 CFR 110
29 CFR 4041
29 CFR 4050
44 USC 350l-3520
17 CFR 270.3
15 USC 80a
17 CFR 270.17
15 USC 80b
17 CFR 240.19
17 CFR 240.15
Pub. L. 109-21
119 Stat. 359
Pub. L. 100-503
Pub. L. 101-508
Pub. L. 108-458
14 CFR 301.201

Citation graph

cites case law

Notices

Notice of intention to request extension of OMB approval SUMMARY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) extend approval (with modifications), under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, of a collection of information in its regulations on Termination of Single-Employer Plans and Missing Participants, and implementing forms and instructions (OMB control number 1212-0036; expires September 30, 2007)

Pub. L.Pub. L. 92-463

Cite10 CFR 110

Cite29 CFR 4041

Cites 41 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources