[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34776-34777]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14820]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75146; File No. SR-EDGA-2015-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of EDGA Exchange, Inc.

June 11, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 9, 2015, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.\3\ The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Commission notes that a previous version of the proposal
was filed as SR-EDGA-2015-22. The proposal was withdrawn on June 9,
2015.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fees and rebates
applicable to Members \6\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rule 15.1(a)
and (c) (``Fee Schedule'') to increase the fee for orders yielding fee
code K, which routes to NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX'') using ROUC or ROUE
routing strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer, or any person associated with a registered broker or dealer,
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A Member will
have the status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that term is
defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts 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 increase the fee for orders yielding fee
code K, which routes to PSX using ROUC or ROUE routing strategy. In
securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently assesses a
fee of $0.0026 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code K. The
Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase this fee to
$0.0028 per share. The proposed change would enable the Exchange to
pass through the rate that BATS Trading, Inc. (``BATS Trading''), the
Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is charged for routing
orders to PSX when it does not qualify for a volume tiered reduced fee.
The proposed change is in response to PSX's June 2015 fee change where
PSX decreased the fee to remove liquidity via routable order types it
charges its customers, from a fee of $0.0029 per share to a fee of
$0.0027 per share for Tapes A and B securities and $0.0028 per share
for Tape C securities.\7\ When BATS Trading routes to PSX, it will now
be charged a standard rate of $0.0027 per share for Tapes A and B
securities and $0.0028 per share for Tape C securities.\8\ BATS Trading
will pass through this rate to the Exchange and the Exchange, in turn,
will pass through of a rate of $0.0028 per share for Tape A, B, and C
securities to its Members.\9\ The proposed increase to the

fee under fee code K would enable the Exchange to equitably allocate
its costs among all Members utilizing fee code K. The Exchange proposes
to implement this amendment to its Fee Schedule immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See PSX, Equity Trader Alert 2015-05, Updates to PSX Pricing
for June 2015, dated May 28, 2015, available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/MicroNews.aspx?id=ETA2015-78.
    \8\ The Exchange notes that to the extent BATS Trading does or
does not achieve any volume tiered reduced fee on PSX, its rate for
fee code K will not change.
    \9\ The Exchange notes that, due to billing system limitations
that do not allow for separate rates by tape, it will pass through
the higher fee of $0.0028 per share for all Tapes A, B & C
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the fee
for Members' orders that yield fee code K from $0.0026 per share to
$0.0028 per share represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its
facilities because the Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer
additional rebates for orders that it routes to PSX through BATS
Trading. As of June 1, 2015, PSX amended its fee to remove liquidity
via routable order types it charges its customers, from a fee of
$0.0029 per share to a fee of $0.0027 per share for Tapes A and B
securities and $0.0028 per share for Tape C securities.\12\ Therefore,
the Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a fee of
$0.0028 per share for orders that yield fee code K is equitable and
reasonable because it accounts for the pricing changes on PSX. In
addition, the proposal allows the Exchange to now charge its Members a
pass-through rate for orders that are routed to PSX. Furthermore, the
Exchange notes that routing through BATS Trading is voluntary. Lastly,
the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is non-
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of these changes
represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the
Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors.
Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor EDGA's pricing if they
believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive
standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its
proposal to pass through a fee of $0.0028 per share for Members' orders
that yield fee code K would increase intermarket competition because it
offers customers an alternative means to route to PSX. The Exchange
believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition
because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\14\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGA-2015-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2015-23. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also 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-EDGA-2015-23 and should be
submitted on or before July 8, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-14820 Filed 6-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [ EPA R03 OAR 2005 VA 0007; FRL ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Redesignation of the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and Stafford County Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State Implementation Plan ( SIP)

revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ( VADEQ) is requesting that the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and Stafford County ( the Fredericksburg area) be redesignated as attainment for the 8 hour ozone national ambient air quality standard ( NAAQS). In conjunction with its redesignation request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg area that provides for continued attainment of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years.

EPA is also approving the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets ( MVEBs) that are identified in the 8 hour maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg area for purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is approving the redesignation request and the maintenance plan revision to the Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on [ insert date 30 days from date of publication]. 2 ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPAR03 OAR 2005 VA 0007. All documents in the docket are listed in the www. regulations. gov website. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i. e.,

confidential business information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www. regulations. gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond,

Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio, ( 215) 814 2156, or by e mail at caprio. amy@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background On September 12, 2005 ( 70 FR 53746), EPA proposed approval of a redesignation request and maintenance plan submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Fredericksburg area. On September 30, 2005 ( 70 FR 57238), EPA withdrew the September 12, 2005 proposed rule.

On November 2, 2005 ( 70 FR 66316), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of both Virginia's redesignation 3 request and a SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg area that sets forth how the Fredericksburg area will maintain attainment of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the VADEQ on May 2, 2005 and May 4, 2005. Other specific requirements of Virginia's redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance plan, and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

II. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment ( audit) " privilege"' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed.

Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1 1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information ( 1) that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; ( 2) that are prepared independently of the assessment process; ( 3) that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or 4 environment; or ( 4) that are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1 1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information " required by law," including documents and information " required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval," since Virginia must " enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . ." The opinion concludes that "[ r] egarding § 10.1

1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval."

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1 1199, provides that "[ t] o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law," any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since " no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity."

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude 5 the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113,

167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

III. Final Action EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's May 2, 2005 redesignation request and May 4, 2005 maintenance plan because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has evaluated Virginia's redesignation request, submitted on May 2, 2005, and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107( d)( 3)( E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Fredericksburg area has attained the 8 hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Fredericksburg area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8 hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for this area, submitted on May 4,

2005, as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg area because it meets the requirements of section 175A. EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by Virginia for this area in conjunction with its redesignation request. The Fredericksburg area is subject to the CAA's requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment. 6 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a " significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 Fed.

Reg. 28355 ( May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107( d)( 3)( e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( Public Law 104 4). This proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the 7 States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to affect the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA,

when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 ( 61 FR 4729,

February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 ( 53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988)

by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the " Attorney General's 8 Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings"

issued under the executive order.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307( b)( 1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [ insert date 60 days from date of publication of this document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed,

and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance plan and adequacy determination 9 for MVEBs for the Fredericksburg area, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307( b)( 2).)

List of Subjects 40 CFR part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen Oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81 Air Pollution Control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas _________ ___________________________ Dated: Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 10 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52  [ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart VV  Virginia 2. In Section 52.2420, the table in paragraph ( e) is amended by adding an entry for the 8 Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, Fredericksburg, VA Area at the end of the table to read as follows:

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

( e)***

Name of nonregulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * *

8 Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Fredericksburg VA Area City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and Stafford County 5/ 4/ 05 [ Insert Federal Register publication date] [ Insert page number where the document begins] 11 PART 81  [ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq.

2. Section 81.347 is amended by revising the ozone table entry for the Fredericksburg,

VA Area to read as follows:

§ 81.347 Virginia * * * * *

Virginia  Ozone ( 8 Hour Standard)

Designated Area Designation Classification Date1 Type Date1 Type * * * * * * *

Fredericksburg, VA Area City of Fredericksburg [ Insert date of publication] Attainment Spotsylvania County [ Insert date of publication] Attainment Stafford County [ Insert date of publication] Attainment * * * * * *

1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *


[Federal Register: August 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 49005]
[DOCID:fr12au10-96]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Geotec, Inc., InnoPet Brands Corp., Marbledge
Group, Inc. (n/k/a AR Growth Finance Corp.), Phlo Corp., Pliant
Systems, Inc., Southeast Banking Corp., TNX Television Holdings, Inc.,
and WestPoint Stevens, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

August 10, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Geotec, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended March 31, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
InnoPet Brands Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended March 31, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Marbledge Group, Inc. (n/k/a AR Growth Finance Corp.) because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the period ended November 30,
1996.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Phlo Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended December 31, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Pliant Systems, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Southeast Banking Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 1991.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
TNX Television Holdings, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
WestPoint Stevens, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2004.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on August 10, 2010, through 11:59
p.m. EDT on August 23, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20001 Filed 8-10-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P