[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76526-76527]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27043]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34769; File No. 812-15388]

Monroe Capital Corporation, et al.

December 8, 2022.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an order (``Order'') under sections 17(d)
and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and rule
17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise
prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1
under the Act.

Summary of Application:  Applicants request an order to amend a
previous order granted by the Commission that permits certain business
development companies (``BDCs'') and closed-end management investment
companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with
certain affiliated investment entities.

Applicants:  Monroe Capital Corporation, Monroe Capital Income Plus
Corporation, Monroe Capital BDC Advisors, LLC, Monroe Capital
Management Advisors, LLC, Monroe Capital Asset Management LLC, Monroe
Capital Management LLC, Monroe Capital CLO Manager LLC, Monroe Capital
CLO Manager II LLC, Monroe Capital Partners Fund Advisors, Inc., Monroe
Capital Partners Fund II Advisors, Inc., MRCC Holding Company I, LLC,
MRCC Holding Company II, LLC, MRCC Holding Company III, LLC, MRCC
Holding Company IV, LLC, MRCC Holding Company V, LLC, MRCC Holding
Company VI, LLC, MRCC Holding Company VII, LLC, MRCC Holding Company
VIII, LLC, MRCC Holding Company IX, LLC, MRCC Holding Company X, LLC,
MRCC Holding Company XI, LLC, MRCC Holding Company XII, LLC, MRCC

Holding Company XIII, LLC, MRCC Holding Company XIV, LLC, MRCC Holding
Company XV, LLC, MRCC Holding Company XVI, LLC, MRCC Holding Company
XVII, LLC, MRCC Holding Company XVIII, LLC, MRCC Holding Company XIX,
LLC, MRCC Holding Company XX, LLC, MC Income Plus Financing SPV LLC,
Monroe Capital Income Plus ABS Funding, LLC, MCIP Holding Company I,
LLC, MCIP Holding Company II, LLC, MCIP Holding Company III, LLC, MCIP
Holding Company IV, LLC, MCIP Holding Company V, LLC, MCIP Holding
Company VI, LLC, MCIP Holding Company VII, LLC, MCIP Holding Company
VIII, LLC, MCIP Holding Company IX, LLC, MCIP Holding Company X, LLC,
MCIP Holding Company XI, LLC, MCIP Holding Company XII, LLC, MCIP
Holding Company XIII, LLC, MCIP Holding Company XIV, LLC, MCIP Holding
Company XV, LLC, MCIP Holding Company XVI, LLC, MCIP Holding Company
XVII, LLC, MCIP Holding Company XVIII, LLC, Monroe (NP) U.S. Private
Debt Fund LP, Monroe Capital Fund SCSp SICAV-RAIF--Private Credit Fund
(Marsupial), Monroe Capital Fund SCSp SICAV RAIF-Private Credit Fund
III, Monroe Capital Fund SCSp SICAV RAIF-Private Credit Fund III
(Unleveraged), Monroe Capital CLO 2014-1. Ltd., Monroe Capital MML CLO
2016-1, Ltd., Monroe Capital MMML CLO 2017-1, Ltd., Monroe Capital MML
CLO VI, Ltd., Monroe Capital MMML CLO VII, Ltd., Monroe Capital MML CLO
VIII, Ltd., Monroe Capital MML CLO IX, Ltd., Monroe Capital MML CLO X,
LLC, Monroe Capital MML CLO XI, Ltd., Monroe Capital MML CLO XII, Ltd.,
Monroe Capital MML CLO XIII, LLC, Monroe Capital MML CLO XIV, Ltd.,
Monroe Capital MML CLO XV, Ltd., Monroe Capital Opportunistic Private
Credit Master Fund SCSp, Monroe Capital Opportunistic II Private Credit
Master Fund SCSp SICAV-RAIF, Monroe Capital Partners Fund II, LP,
Monroe Capital Partners Fund, L.P., Monroe Capital Private Credit Fund
559 LP, Monroe Capital Private Credit Fund I LP, Monroe Capital Private
Credit Fund II (Unleveraged Offshore) LP, Monroe Capital Private Credit
Fund II-O (Unleveraged Offshore) LP, Monroe Capital Private Credit Fund
II (Unleveraged) LP, Monroe Capital Private Credit Fund II LP, Monroe
Capital Private Credit Fund III (Unleveraged) LP, Monroe Capital
Private Credit Fund III LP, Monroe Capital Private Credit Fund L LP,
Monroe Capital Private Credit Fund VT LP, Monroe Capital Private Credit
Master Fund IV (Unleveraged) SCSp, Monroe Capital Private Credit Master
Fund IV SCSp, Monroe Capital Private Credit STARR (Unleveraged) Master
Fund 1 LP, Monroe Capital Private Credit STARR Fund 1 LP, Monroe
Capital Private Credit Versailles Master Fund SCSp SICAV-RAIF, Monroe
Opportunistic Fund GG, LLC, Monroe Private Credit Fund A LP, Monroe FCM
Direct Loan Fund, LP, Monroe Capital Fund O, LLC, Monroe Capital
Insurance Fund Series Interests of the SALI Multi-Series Fund, L.P.,
Panther Lender MRCC BDC, LLC, Panther Lender MCIP BDC LLC.

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on September 26, 2022.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on January
3, 2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants,
in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
[email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Theodore Koenig at [email protected]. Steven B. Boehm, Esq.,
Stephani Hildebrandt, Esq., and Anne G. Oberndorf, Esq., Eversheds
Sutherland (US) LLP, at [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, or
Terri Jordan, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of Investment
Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application,
dated September 26, 2022, which may be obtained via the Commission's
website by searching for the file number at the top of this document,
or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's
EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at, at http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also
call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27043 Filed 12-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30531-30533]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10735]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94910; File No. SR-OCC-2022-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change by The Options Clearing
Corporation Concerning Cash-Settled FLEX ETF Options

May 13, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On March 16, 2022, the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2022-003 (``Proposed Rule Change'')
pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder to amend various
provisions of the OCC By-Laws and Rules to accommodate the issuance,
clearance and settlement of flexibly structured options on exchange-
traded funds (``fund shares'' or ``ETFs'') that are cash-settled
(``Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options'').\3\ The Proposed Rule Change was
published for public comment in the Federal Register on April 4,
2022.\4\ The Commission received no comments regarding the substance of
the Proposed Rule Change.\5\ This order approves the Proposed Rule
Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Notice of Filing infra note 4, 87 FR at 19566.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94542 (Mar. 29, 2022),
87 FR 19566 (Apr. 4, 2022) (File No. SR-OCC-2022-003) (``Notice of
Filing'').
    \5\ The Commission received one comment letter that addressed
market conduct generally; however, additional discussion is
unnecessary because the comment letter does not bear on the purpose
or legal basis of the Proposed Rule Change. The comment on the
Proposed Rule Change is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2022-003/srocc2022003.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in OCC's Rules and By-Laws, available at https://www.theocc.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NYSE American Exchange (``NYSE American'') received approval to
list Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options as a variation of the currently-
traded, physically-settled equity flex options.\7\ Cash-Settled Flex
ETF Options generally have the same characteristics as physically-
settled equity flex options, except Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options are
cash-settled, not physically-settled, with a settlement amount based on
the difference between the price of the underlying security on the date
of exercise and the strike price of the exercised option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88131 (Feb. 5, 2020), 85
FR 7806 (Feb. 11, 2020) (File No. SR-NYSEAmer-2019-038).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC submitted the Proposed Rule Change because its rules do not
allow for the settlement of equity options in cash, except in two
specific circumstances: (i) The underlying security undergoes a
corporate action resulting in the conversion of the option deliverable
to only cash,\8\ or (ii) the underlying security is otherwise

unavailable for delivery.\9\ Within the By-Laws and Rules, certain
provisions apply to physically-settled options and certain provisions
apply to cash-settled options. To accommodate the Cash-Settled Flex ETF
Option product, OCC proposes to revise its By-Laws and Rules to do the
following: (i) Make distinctions between Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options
and physically-settled options on the same underlying security; (ii)
clarify that certain provisions that currently apply only to
physically-settled options will also apply to Cash-Settled Flex ETF
Options; and (iii) exclude application of certain provisions to Cash-
Settled Flex ETF Options that otherwise would apply to all cash-settled
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See OCC By-Laws Article VI, Section 11A, Interpretations and
Policies .05.
    \9\ See OCC By-Laws Article VI, Section 19(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC proposes the following modifications to its By-Laws to
distinguish physically-settled flexibly structured options from Cash-
Settled Flex ETF Options:
     In Article I (Definitions), Section 1(F)(8), OCC proposes
to revise the definition of ``Flexibly Structured Option'' to (i) allow
such options to be physically-settled or cash-settled depending on the
listing exchange's rules, and (ii) state that Cash-Settled Flex ETF
Options would not be fungible with physically-settled flexibly
structured options and would not be consolidated with standard options
listed after a flexibly-structured option with the same strike,
expiration date, and underlying security, as is the case with a
physically-settled flexibly structured option that is fungible.
     In Article I (Definitions), Section 1(S)(12), OCC proposes
to revise the definition of ``Series'' to state that the options of the
same series have the same settlement method.
     In Article I (Definitions), Section 1(V)(1), OCC proposes
to revise the definition of ``Variable Terms'' to recognize that in
addition to the variable terms itemized in the definition, flexibly-
structured options on fund shares may be either physically- or cash-
settled.
     In Article XVII (Index Options and Certain Other Cash-
Settled Options), Introduction, OCC proposes to revise the introduction
to add flexibly-structured options that cash-settle to the list of
options for which Article XVII of the By-Laws applies.
     In Article XVII (Index Options and Certain Other Cash-
Settled Options), Section 1(C)(4), OCC proposes to revise the
definition of ``Class of Options'' to state that flexibly-structured
options that cash-settle shall constitute a different class of options
from physically-settled options on the same underlying interest.
    OCC also proposes the following modifications to its By-Laws and
Rules to require the application of certain provisions to Cash-Settled
Flex ETF Options that otherwise would apply only to physically-settled
options, and to exclude Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options from certain
provisions that otherwise would apply to all cash-settled options:
     In Article I (Definitions), Section 1(C)(15), OCC proposes
to revise the definition of ``Clearing Member'' to state that a
Clearing Member is not an ``Index Clearing Member'' solely by virtue of
being approved to clear Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options.
     In Article I (Definitions), Section 1(R)(5), OCC currently
defines ``Reporting Authority'' when used with respect of any cash-
settled contract to mean the source that OCC uses as the official
source for the current price or value of the underlying interest. OCC
proposes to revise this definition to state that the reporting for
Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options will be the same source used by OCC for
physically-settled equity options with the same underlying interest.
According to OCC, this change is designed to facilitate the use of the
same closing price for automatic exercise determinations on both
physically- and cash-settled options with the same underlying security,
thereby ensuring that expiration processing for a Cash-Settled Flex ETF
Option will align with expiration processing for a physically-settled
product on the same underlying security.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 19567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In Article XVII (Index Options and Certain Other Cash-
Settled Options), Section 1(R)(3), defines ``Reporting Authority''
specifically in the context of index options and certain other cash-
settled options. OCC proposes to revise this definition to explicitly
exclude Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options and to state that the reporting
authority for Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options is the same source used by
OCC for physically-settled equity options.
     Article XVII (Index Options and Certain Other Cash-Settled
Options), Sections 3(a) and 3(h) currently state that the adjustment
provisions of Article VI, Section 11A do not apply to cash-settled
equity contracts. To ensure that adjustment decisions for Cash-Settled
Flex ETF Options and physically-settled options on the same underlying
are the same, OCC is proposing to add language to this section to state
that Article VI, Section 11A of the By-Laws applies to Cash-Settled
Flex ETF Options.
     Article XVII (Index Options and Certain Other Cash-Settled
Options), Section 4(a)(2) states the method by which the exercise
settlement amount for exercised contracts of an affected series is
fixed for index options and certain other cash-settled options. OCC
proposes to amend this provision to state that the exercise settlement
amount for Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options shall be determined by using
the last reported sale price for the underlying security during regular
trading hours, which is consistent with the expiration closing price
determination for physically-settled options under OCC's Rule 805(j).
     Chapter VI (Margins), Rule 610 (Deposits in Lieu of
Margin) allows Clearing Members to use specific deposits of the
underlying security as collateral to cover short customer positions on
call options. Specific deposits fully cover a short call position
because the Clearing Member pledges the security, in the appropriate
amount, that must be delivered if the call option writer is assigned.
OCC proposes to modify Rule 610 to disallow specific deposits for Cash-
Settled Flex ETF Options because such options do not require delivery
of the underlying security upon assignment.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OCC would, however, allow escrow deposits to be made for
Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Chapter VIII (Exercise and Assignment), Rule 805(j)
(Expiration Exercise Procedure) states that the ``closing price'' used
for any underlying security in Rule 805 is the last reported sale price
for the underlying security during regular trading hours (as determined
by OCC) on the trading day immediately preceding the expiration date,
or on the expiration date if the expiration date is a trading day, on
such national securities exchange or other domestic securities market
as OCC shall determine. OCC proposes to revise Rule 805(j) to state
explicitly that the same definition of ``closing price'' applies to
underlying securities for Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options.
     Chapter XVIII (Index Options and Certain Other Cash
Settled Options), Rule 1804(a) (Expiration Exercise Procedure for Cash-
Settled Options) generally provides for the expiration exercise
procedure for cash-settled options. OCC is proposing to add an
interpretation and policy to Rule 1804 to clarify that, notwithstanding
its general application to cash-settled options, the determination of
the closing price for an underlying security of a flexibly-structured
cash-settled equity

option is the same as the determination of the closing price per Rule
805(j).
     In Chapter XVIII (Index Options and Certain Other Cash
Settled Options), Rule 1804 (Expiration Exercise Procedure for Cash
Settled Options), OCC proposes to revise Rule 1804(a) and Rule 1804(b)
to state that Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options will be deemed exercised on
expiration if the strike price is $0.01 or more in-the-money in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 805(d). The change would set the
threshold for automatic exercise of Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options at
the threshold established for physically-settled equity options rather
than the $1.00 per contract threshold established in Rule 1804.
     In Chapter VIII (Exercise and Assignment), Rule 805
(Expiration Exercise Procedure), Interpretation and Policy .03 states
that the exercise procedures set forth in Rule 805 apply to flexibly-
structured equity options. OCC proposes to add language excepting from
application of Rule 805(d) American-style Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options
subject to delayed settlement for any deliverable component. Similarly,
in Chapter XVIII (Index Options and Certain Other Cash Settled
Options), Rule 1804 (Expiration Exercise Procedure for Cash Settled
Options), OCC is proposing to add language to Rule 1804(a) to state
explicitly that Rule 805(d) does not apply to American-style Cash-
Settled Flex ETF Options that have a deliverable component subject to
delayed settlement. OCC states that the changes are necessary because
any such option with a pended delivery component on its expiration date
should not be automatically exercised, as the total value of the option
deliverable can only be estimated.\12\ OCC anticipates this outcome
would be rare, and likely the result of a contract adjustment that
involves cash in lieu of fractional shares that have yet to be
finalized on an option's expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 19568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to such organization.\13\ After carefully
considering the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to OCC. More
specifically, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act \14\ as
described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires, among other
things, that a clearing agency's rules are designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions.\15\ Based on its review of the record, and for the
reasons described below, the Commission believes that the proposed
changes to its By-Laws and Rules are reasonably designed to be
consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions for which OCC is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Rule Change would amend the By-Laws and Rules to
maintain consistency between OCC's By-Laws and Rules and NYSE
American's rules as applied to the clearance and settlement of Cash-
Settled Flex ETF Options. To maintain consistency with NYSE American's
rules, the Proposed Rule Change ensures that OCC is able to provide two
different types of settlement methods for flexibly-structured ETF
options, in order to accommodate the clearance and settlement of Cash-
Settled Flex ETF Options in addition to physically-settled options.
Maintaining this congruence between OCC and NYSE American's rules
provides assurance to market participants that the two self-regulatory
organizations are treating the clearance and settlement processes of
the Cash-Settled Flex ETF Option product in the same manner. This is
consistent with facilitating the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of these products.
    OCC proposes numerous By-Law and Rule changes to distinguish
between physically-settled flexibly structured options and Cash-Settled
Flex ETF Options. The Commission believes that these changes will make
clear to market participants that, despite certain similarities, these
two products are entirely distinct and should be treated as such for
clearance and settlement purposes. In particular, the Proposed Rule
Change states that Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options are not fungible with
physically-settled flexibly structured options, and that the two
products are not to be consolidated even if they have the same strike,
expiration date, and underlying security. As such, the proposed changes
provide unambiguous requirements for clearing and settling such
transactions, and the Commission believes that the resulting clarity
may facilitate prompt and accurate clearance and settlement by avoiding
confusion or errors.
    Additionally, OCC proposes numerous By-Law and Rule changes to
state that certain provisions that currently apply only to physically-
settled options will also apply to Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options, while
other provisions that currently apply to all cash-settled options will
not apply to Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options. The proposed changes are
designed to treat the Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options like all other Flex
ETF options instead of as cash-settled options generally, given the
difference in the form of settlement and the lack of fungibility.
Accordingly, the changes to OCC's By-Laws and Rules facilitate the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of these transactions.
    The Commission believes, therefore, that the proposal to revise
OCC's By-Laws and Rules to accommodate the clearance and settlement of
Cash-Settled Flex ETF Options is consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) under the Exchange Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the
Exchange Act, and in particular, the requirements of Section 17A of the
Exchange Act \17\ and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In approving this Proposed Rule Change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\18\ that the Proposed Rule Change (SR-OCC-2022-003) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10735 Filed 5-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 64 (Thursday, April 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18610-18612]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06857]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88502; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-027]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend Rule 6.6 in Connection With Updates Permitted Through the
Clearing Editor

March 27, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 26, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend Rule 6.6 in connection with updates permitted through the
Clearing Editor. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in
Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 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 proposed rule change amends Rule 6.6(d), which describes
updates that may be made to trades executed in open outcry through the
Clearing Editor and accompanied by a Reason Code, to permit such
updates to be made to trades executed electronically.
    The Clearing Editor allows Trading Permit Holders to update
executed trades on their trading date and revise them for clearing. The
Clearing Editor may be used to update certain information entered
pursuant to Rule 6.1 or to correct certain bona fide errors. Rule
6.6(b) permits Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') to change certain
fields in Clearing Editor in connection with orders executed
electronically and in open outcry. Such fields may include: (1)
Executing Firm and Contra Firm; (2) Executing Broker and Contra Broker;
(3) CMTA; (4) Account and Sub Account; (5) Client Order ID; (6)
Position Effect (open/close); (7) Capacity; \5\ (8) Strategy ID; (9)
Frequent Trader ID; (10) Compression Trade ID; or (11) ORS ID. Rule
6.6(d) currently provides that, in addition to the fields listed in
paragraph (b), TPHs may change the following fields through the
Clearing Editor for trades executed in open outcry: (1) Series, (2)
Quantity, (3) Buy or Sell; or (4) Price. Each of these changes must be
accompanied by a Reason Code.\6\ Notification of changes made pursuant
to this paragraph (d) will automatically be sent to the Exchange with
the submission of the changes through the Clearing Editor. The Exchange
notes that, prior to a recent technology migration,\7\ the Exchange
Rules allowed for TPHs to make the updates enumerated in 6.6(d) to
their trades executed electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ If the change is from a customer Capacity code of (C) to any
other Capacity code, it must be accompanied by a Reason Code and
notice of such change will automatically be sent to the Exchange
with the submission of the change through the Clearing Editor.
    \6\ Example Reason Codes include: Input Error; Unmatched Trade;
Unknown; Manual Add; Other Text Required; Trade Nullification; Trade
Adjustment; Error Account; and System Issue.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87079 (September 24,
2019) 84 FR 51693 (September 30, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-062).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many TPHs currently split single trades into multiple smaller
trades (or post-trade allocations), each of which may be adjusted or
nullified according to the mutual adjustment process in Rule 6.5
(Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious
Error). A TPH may easily update (adjust or nullify) an allocated
portion of a trade executed in open outcry via the Clearing Editor and
pursuant to Rule 6.6(d). A TPH that seeks to update an allocated
portion of an electronically executed trade, however, must do so
through the Trade Desk,\8\ and the TPH may then only nullify and re-
enter the single trade in its entirety, despite the fact that only one
partial trade needed to be busted and re-entered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See C1 Options Mutual Adjust/Bust Form, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/trading/mutual_adjust_or_bust_form/?mkt=cone (March 23, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, a broker may execute a trade of 100 contracts for
Buyer 1 and then may add the Contra Firm via Clearing Editor, pursuant
to Rule 6.6(b), allocating 50 contracts to Seller 1, 25 contracts to
Seller 2, and 25 contracts to Seller 3.\9\ The broker may subsequently
realize that the 25 contracts allocated to Seller 3 should have been
allocated to Seller 4. If executed in open outcry, the broker would be
able to update the relevant allocated portion (Quantity) in the
Clearing Editor pursuant to Rule 6.6(d) and the appropriate Clearing
Editor messages would then be sent to the relevant TPHs (i.e., Seller 3
receives a Clearing Editor cancel message for 25 contracts, Buyer 1
receives a cancel message for 25 contracts with Seller 3 as the Contra
Firm; Seller 4 receives an execution message for 25 contracts with
Buyer 1 as the Contra Firm, and Buyer 1 receives a new execution
message for 25 with Seller 4 as the Contra Firm). If executed
electronically, the broker is currently unable to make these updates
via the Clearing Editor, and instead, must nullify the entire trade
(including the allocations apportioned to Seller 1 and Seller 2) and
re-enter the trade details for all three portions via the Trade Entry
tool.\10\ Re-entry of trades using this process does not currently
disseminate messages regarding updated trade executions and Contra
Firms to relevant parties, which results in trade processing issues for
Clearing TPHs. As such, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.6(d) by
removing its restriction to trades executed in open outcry in order

to permit TPHs to make updates through the Clearing Editor to the
fields enumerated in Rule 6.6(d), accompanied by a Reason Code, for
their trades executed in either open outcry or electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that a broker might do this for a trade
executed electronically where, for example, the broker executes a
trade in the Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM Auction'')
through PULSe, which does not currently provide functionality that
allows a broker to add Contras to the trade. Therefore, the broker
would have to allocate the trade and submit the Contras via the
Clearing Editor following the transaction.
    \10\ The Trade Entry Tool allows TPHs to enter the other side of
unmatched trades and is part of the Clearing Editor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated above, up until October 2019, the Exchange Rules
permitted TPHs to make changes permitted by Rule 6.6(d) to their trades
executed electronically and in open outcry, and currently, TPHs may
essentially continue to adjust the same fields enumerated in Rule
6.6(d) for their electronic orders by submitting a mutual adjustment
request through the Trade Desk, and thereafter re-entering the entire
trade with the updated fields. Because the same reasons that require
TPHs to update trades pursuant to Rule 6.6(d) apply to executions
electronically and in open outcry, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to permit TPHs to updates all trades pursuant to Rule
6.6(d) as they previously could. The Exchange believes this will
streamline the process when updates need to be made in connection with
busts and adjusts of partial trades. The Exchange notes that, like for
open outcry trades today, all TPHs that update Rule 6.6(d) fields for
their electronic trades will be required to accompany such changes with
a Reason Code (which is automatically prompted by the Clearing Editor).
Accordingly, this enables the Exchange to better surveil for and
enforce against potential issues or abusive behavior via the Clearing
Editor and in connection with the adjustment process by allowing the
Exchange to automatically receive information regarding the changes and
understand the rationale behind all such changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
clearing and processing information with respect to securities and will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, as it is intended to reduce
potential issues in the processing of post-trade information and
facilitate a more effective adjustment process. The proposed rule
change will allow TPHs to adjust and/or nullify only the relevant
portions of electronically executed trades, rather than having to
nullify and re-enter the entire trade, and will ensure that all
relevant parties to the revised transaction receive information
regarding the changes. The Exchange further believes that the proposed
rule change does not raise and new or novel issues or processes for
TPHs, as they are currently able to update the same fields for their
trades executed in open outcry (and were until fewer than six months
ago permitted to make such updates to their trades executed
electronically), pursuant to Rule 6.6(d), previously filed with the
Commission.\14\ As described above, TPHs make currently make the same
updates to their electronic executions through another, more onerous
process through the Trade Desk and Trade Entry tool. The Exchange
believes the proposed rule change will streamline the process when
updates need to be made in connection with busts and adjusts of partial
trades, which efficiency the Exchange believes will remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, which in general will benefit TPHs. Furthermore, the
Exchange believes that continuing to require a TPH to submit a Reason
Code via the Clearing Editor in conjunction with any change made
pursuant to Rule 6.6(d), will assist in preventing fraudulent and
manipulative acts and otherwise promote just and equitable principles
of trade because it would allow the Exchange to automatically be
notified of Rule 6.6(d) changes and the rationale behind such changes.
This, in turn, will continue to allow the Exchange to better surveil
for and enforce against potential issues or abusive behavior via the
Clearing Editor, thus, protecting investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73439 (October 27,
2014) 79 FR 64846 (October 31, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-082). Prior to
the October 7, 2019 technology migration, current Rule 6.6(d) was
Rule 6.67(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change would impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
Act, because it would again allow all TPHs to make updates to
(including providing a requisite Reason Code) the fields enumerated
under Rule 6.6(d) for their trades executed electronically and in open
outcry in the same manner. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule
change does not restrict any the fields that a TPH may currently change
via the Clearing Editor, but merely extends the existing permissible
changes to all trades. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed
rule change would impose any burden on intermarket competition, because
the proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues,
but rather, is concerned with the correction of post-trade information
and the reduction of any post-trade processing issues.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

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

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \17\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \18\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because, as the
Exchange discussed above, its proposal is intended to facilitate the
processing of post-trade information and mitigate any issues that may
arise from the current post-electronic trade update process.
Particularly, the Exchange believes that putting the proposed rule
change into operation as soon as possible would assist floor brokers
currently trading electronically to continue to use the Clearing Editor
for post-trade adjustments while the Exchange's trading floor is
inoperable due to the novel coronavirus.\19\ As stated above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not impact TPHs
nor raise any new or novel issues or processes for them, as they are
able (when the Exchange floor is operable) to implement the same
process for their open outcry trades, and have, up until recently,\20\
been able to do so for their electronic executions. For these reasons,
the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay
and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ See Tradedesk Update No. C2020031204 (March 12, 2020) Novel
Coronavirus Update, Trading Floor Closure.
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87079 (September
24, 2019) 84 FR 51693 (September 30, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-062).
    \21\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-CBOE-2020-027 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-027. 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 website (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 website 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 also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-027 and should be submitted on
or before April 23, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06857 Filed 4-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34030-34031]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13881]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13458-001]

BOST1 Hydroelectric LLC; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    b. Project No.: 13458-001.
    c. Date Filed: March 21, 2012.
    d. Submitted By: BOST1 Hydroelectric LLC (BOST1).
    e. Name of Project: Coon Rapids Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Mississippi River in Hennepin and Anoka counties,
Minnesota at the existing Coon Rapids Dam which is owned and operated
by the Three Rivers Park District.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant: Mr. Douglas A. Spaulding, P.E., Nelson
Energy LLC, 8441 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 101, Golden Valley, MN 55426;
(952) 544-8133.
    i. FERC Contact: Lesley Kordella at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. BOST1 Hydroelectric LLC filed a request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on March 21, 2012. BOST1 Hydroelectric LLC provided
public notice of the request on April 4, 2012. In a letter dated May
17, 2012, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved
the request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c)
the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by
section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. BOST1 Hydroelectric LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    m. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number (P-13458), excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    n. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: June 1, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13881 Filed 6-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM: From Chloe Kolman, Attorney
TO: Section 111 (b) Docket
RE: EPAct05
DATE: July 29, 2015
                                  MEMORANDUM
Pursuant to its authority under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b), the EPA proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants on September 20, 2013. When establishing new source performance standards for a source category, the EPA sets the standard based on what it determines to be the "best system of emission reduction," or BSER, that is "adequately demonstrated" (also taking into account additional factors enumerated in section 111). The EPA's determination of the BSER for new sources is based in part on an assessment of technology in use or in development within the industry, including at pilot and demonstration projects, but need not be limited to technology that is in "actual routine use." In establishing standards for new plants, the EPA may also consider the technology that "may fairly be projected for the regulated future."
In 2005, Congress passed the Energy and Policy Act of 2005, or EPAct05, which included three similar provisions bearing on the EPA's execution of its rulemaking powers under section 111 and two other sections of the Clean Air Act. These provisions, found in EPAct05 sections 402(i), 421(a), and 1307(b) (adding 26 U.S.C. § 48A(g) to the Internal Revenue Code), bound the EPA's ability to consider information from facilities receiving assistance under EPAct05 when assessing whether a particular technology, or emission reduction, has been "adequately demonstrated." In the 111(b) proposed rule for new power plants, the EPA proposed that the BSER for fossil-fuel fired steam EGUs requires the partial implementation of carbon capture and storage ("CCS"). Since 2005, a number of projects employing CCS, or components of CCS, have received support under EPAct05. Consequently, in assessing the evidence for its determination of the BSER, the EPA has been compelled to interpret the scope of the limitation in the three EPAct05 provisions. As these provisions relate to grant programs and a tax credit administered by the Department of Energy and the Internal Revenue Service, the EPA solicits your views on the EPA's interpretation of this language.
Interpretation of Sections 402(i) and 421(a) of EPAct05, and of Section 48A(g) of the IRC
In considering sections 402(i), 421(a), and 48A(g), the EPA has concluded that each of the three provisions prevents the EPA, in determining the BSER, from finding that a technology or emission limit is adequately demonstrated based exclusively on evidence from facilities supported under EPAct05. However, the EPA interprets all three provisions to allow the EPA to consider and rely upon information from EPAct05-supported facilities in combination with information from other facilities. The EPA's interpretation is based on the plain language of the three provisions and Congressional intent that EPAct05 support the advancement and commercialization of CCS technology.
   A.    Sections 402(i) and 421(a)
Sections 402 and 421 of EPAct05 establish two Department of Energy grant programs for projects advancing clean coal technologies -- the Clean Coal Power Initiative ("CCPI") and the Clean Air Coal Program ("CACP"). The language of the two limiting provisions bearing on the EPA's consideration of projects receiving CCPI or CACP assistance, found in sections 402(i) and 421(a) respectively, is nearly identical.
Section 402(i) reads:
No technology, or level of emission reduction, solely by reason of the use of the technology, or the achievement of the emission reduction, by 1 or more facilities receiving assistance under this Act, shall be considered to be -- (1) adequately demonstrated for purposes of section 7411 of this title; (2) achievable for purposes of section 7479 of this title; or (3) achievable in practice for purposes of section 7501 of this title.
42 U.S.C. § 15962(i).
Section 421(a) reads:
No technology, or level of emission reduction, shall be treated as adequately demonstrated for purpose [sic] of section 7411 of this title, achievable for purposes of section 7479 of this title, or achievable in practice for purposes of section 7501 of this title solely by reason of the use of such technology, or the achievement of such emission reduction, by one or more facilities receiving assistance under section 13572(a)(1) of this title.
42 U.S.C. § 13573(e). The EPA believes the meaning of these two provisions, particularly when read together, is plain: no technology, or level of emission reduction, can be deemed to be adequately demonstrated where the exclusive -- sole -- basis for that conclusion is the evidence provided by EPAct05-supported facilities. These provision thus limit the EPA from making a BSER determination where the only available evidence comes from the technology's use (or the emission reduction's achievement) at EPAct05 facilities. However, the limitation does not prevent the EPA from relying on information from EPAct05 facilities as part of a broader array of support that also includes information from non-EPAct05 facilities; in that case, the EPAct05 information would not be the "sole" basis for the EPA's conclusion.
EPA received several public comments disputing this interpretation. Some commenters suggest that the EPA misreads the relevance of the phrase "solely by reason of," which should be read as a narrow qualification on the "level of emission reduction." Other commenters agree with the EPA's parsing of the two provisions' clauses, but read the provisions to mean that the EPA may reference information from EPAct05 facilities but may not rely on that information where the EPA could not reach the same determination without it. Still others suggest that the EPA cannot consider EPAct05 facility information at all. Considering the grammar and syntax of sections 402(i) and 421(a), the EPA believes these commenters are incorrect.
   1.    What does the clause beginning "solely by reason of" refer to?

No technology, or level of emission reduction, solely by reason of the use of the technology, or the achievement of the emission reduction, by 1 or more facilities receiving assistance under this Act, shall be considered to be -- (1) adequately demonstrated for purposes of section 7411 of this title . . . (Section 402(i).)
EPA reads the language "solely by reason of the use of the technology, or the achievement of the emission reduction," which appears in both provisions, as a single clause that informs the evidentiary basis for the EPA's determination: the EPA may make a determination based on a technology or level of emission reduction at EPAct05 facilities, so long as the determination is not "solely by reason of" the use or achievement demonstrated at those facilities. However, some commenters believe this language should not be read as a single clause. Looking only at section 402(i), these commenters suggest that the language should be split so that "solely" only modifies the phrase "level of emission reduction," while "the achievement of the emission reduction" becomes an additional list item like "technology" or "level of emission reduction." These commenters would read section 402(i) to establish three categories that the EPA cannot consider to be adequately demonstrated based on information from EPAct05 facilities: (1) "technology"; (2) "level of emission reduction, solely by reason of the use of the technology"; and (3) "the achievement of the emission reduction."
This interpretation is contrary to the plain language of these provisions. The whole clause "solely by reason of the use of the technology, or the achievement of the emission reduction" appears in both sections 402(i) and 421(a). In section 402(i), it follows directly after "no technology, or level of emission reduction" -- giving rise to commenters' suggested interpretation:
      No technology, or level of emission reduction, solely by reason of the use of the technology, or the achievement of the emission reduction . . . shall be considered to be [] adequately demonstrated . . .
But in section 421(a), the clauses are rearranged and "solely by reason of" appears after the enumeration of the three Clean Air Act sections:
      No technology, or level of emission reduction, shall be treated as adequately demonstrated . . . solely by reason of the use of such technology, or the achievement of such emission reduction . . .
In section 421(a), it is impossible to regroup the language so that "solely" only modifies "level of emission reduction," which appears much earlier in the provision.
Even ignoring the clear structure of section 421(a), the grammar and syntax of 402(i) alone cannot support the commenters' reading. Unlike "technology" and "level of emission reduction," which lack articles, "the achievement of the emission reduction" begins with an article, "the." If commenters were correct that "the achievement of the emission reduction" should be read as a third category that the EPA is barred from considering, the statute would read "No technology, or [no] level of emission reduction, . . . or [no] the achievement of the emission reduction . . . shall be considered to be [] adequately demonstrated . . . ." This reading is unsound. By contrast, the EPA's reading maintains the coherence of the provision by creating two parallel clauses:
      Clause 1: 	"No [(A)] technology, or [(B)] level of emission reduction,"
      Clause 2: 	"solely by reason of [(A)] the use of the technology, or [(B)] the achievement of the emission reduction . . ."
With this reading, the EPA gives effect to all of the language in section 402(i).
   2.    What is the scope of the limitation created by the term "solely"?

No technology, or level of emission reduction, solely by reason of the use of the technology, or the achievement of the emission reduction, by 1 or more facilities receiving assistance under this Act, shall be considered to be -- (1) adequately demonstrated for purposes of section 7411 of this title . . . (Section 402(i).)
EPA believes the meaning of the term "solely" in sections 402(i) and 421(a) is clear. The dictionary defines "solely" as "involving nothing except the person or thing mentioned"; its synonyms include "only" and "exclusively." Accordingly, the EPA believes that it may rely on information from EPAct05 facilities so long as this information is not the only support for its determination. The EPA does not believe that the use of "solely" here can be read to imply a "but for" test as commenters suggest, whereby the EPA could not use EPAct05 facility information in any circumstance where, "but for" that information, it would not have made the same determination. The EPA believes that commenters have confused a "necessary" cause (the EPA's determination would fail "but for" the EPAct05 information) with a "sufficient" cause (the EPAct05 information is the "sole" basis for the EPA's determination). For example, the assent of each Supreme Court Justice in the majority may be necessary to a Court's 5-4 decision (a "but for" cause), but the assent of a single Justice in the majority is not sufficient for the outcome (the "sole" basis). For that reason, the EPA interprets sections 402(i) and 421(a) to allow it to rely on information from EPAct05 facilities even where that information is a necessary component of its determination, so long as the information from these facilities is not the sole support for the determination.
   3.    Is EPA barred from all consideration of EPAct05 facilities?

No technology, or level of emission reduction, solely by reason of the use of the technology, or the achievement of the emission reduction, by 1 or more facilities receiving assistance under this Act, shall be considered to be -- (1) adequately demonstrated for purposes of section 7411 of this title . . . (Section 402(i).)
The EPA does not agree that it is barred from all consideration of EPAct05 facilities because section 402(i) specifies that no technology or emission reduction "shall be considered to be [] adequately demonstrated" on the basis of EPAct05 information. Commenters attempt to read "shall be considered" as barring all "consideration," but this confuses two meanings of the verb "to consider." Here, the use of the phrase "considered to be [] adequately demonstrated" makes clear that the language means "shall be deemed to be" or "shall be adjudged to be." The provision does not use "consider" in the sense of "think about" or "contemplate." The EPA's interpretation is supported by the text of section 421(a), where Congress instead used the phrase "shall be treated as [] adequately demonstrated." Both sections 402(i) and 421(a) can thus be read naturally to mean that the EPA shall not "deem" these technologies to be adequately demonstrated on the basis of EPAct05 facilities, but neither provision can be read to prohibit the EPA from "thinking about" these facilities.
   A.    Section 48A(g)
A similar, but more varied limitation appears in section 1307(b) of EPAct05, as codified at 26 U.S.C. § 48A(g). Unlike sections 402(i) and 421(a), which concern DOE grant programs, this provision concerns tax incentives for facilities that employ clean coal technology. However, section 48A(g) includes some of the same language that appears in the two DOE grant provisions. It reads:
No use of technology (or level of emission reduction solely by reason of the use of the technology), and no achievement of any emission reduction by the demonstration of any technology or performance level, by or at one or more facilities with respect to which a credit is allowed under this section, shall be considered to indicate that the technology or performance level is -- (1) adequately demonstrated for purposes of section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411); (2) achievable for purposes of section 169 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7479); or achievable in practice for purposes of section 171 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7501).
26 U.S.C. § 48A(g). Although this provision has some notable differences from sections 402(i) and 421(a), the EPA believes that it creates a similar limitation. The EPA acknowledges that the addition of parentheses changes the meaning of the phrase "solely" in section 48A(g) (a deviation that, the EPA notes, accompanies several other small deviations in the language of section 48A(g) as compared to sections 402(i) and 421(a)). However, the remaining language prescribes that the demonstration of a technology or performance level at an EPAct05-supported facility cannot "be considered to indicate that the technology or performance level is [] adequately demonstrated." This phrase is best interpreted to mean that the EPA shall not deem a technology or emission level to be adequately demonstrated based exclusively on information from EPAct05 facilities.
As in section 402(i), the use of the verb "to consider" in section 48A(g) plainly means "to deem" or "to adjudge" rather than "to think about" or "to contemplate." Comparing the two possibilities, only the first definition ("to deem") is intelligible in context:
   (1) "No use of technology . . . shall be [deemed] to indicate that the technology . . . is adequately demonstrated . . ."
   (2) "No use of technology . . . shall be [contemplated] to indicate that the technology . . . is adequately demonstrated . . ."
Meanwhile, the verb "to indicate (that)" is defined as meaning "to show that something will happen, is true, or exists," as in the sentence, "A survey indicated that 89 percent of people recycle paper." Under this definition, synonyms include "to show" or "to prove." Accordingly, the limitation that "[n]o use of technology . . . by or at one or more [EPAct05-supported facilities] . . . shall be considered to indicate that the technology . . . is [] adequately demonstrated" prevents the EPA from concluding that the use of a technology at an EPAct05 facility can be deemed to prove that the technology is adequately demonstrated. This limitation thus prevents the EPA from making a BSER determination on EPAct05 evidence alone (which would require that the EPA believe the EPAct05 evidence, in itself, could be deemed to prove the EPA's conclusion), but does not prevent the EPA from relying on that evidence in tandem with information from non-EPAct05 facilities (where the EPAct05 information would not prove, but only support, the EPA's conclusion). Section 48A(g) thus establishes a "sole basis" limitation, like that in sections 402(i) and 421(a), even where the broader language of the provision deviates from the construction in the other two sections.
While it is not necessary to conclude that section 48A(g), concerning IRS tax credits, be read to create similar limitation to those appearing in sections 402(i) and 421(a), concerning DOE grant programs, the EPA believes the natural reading of all three provisions warrants this outcome, as does the broader purpose of the subsidies established in these sections. Congress intended these programs to advance the development of clean coal technologies, and to serve as a bridge to their commercialization. Although Congress set reasonable limitations to ensure that EPAct05-supported facilities did not form the exclusive basis for technological determinations under the Clean Air Act before such technology appeared elsewhere in the industry, it would be contrary to the intent of the legislation to preclude the EPA from recognizing advances in CCS technology when projecting the future availability of clean coal technologies for new sources. Allowing the EPA to rely on information from these demonstration projects, provided the EPA can show -- with other evidence -- that these technologies are beginning to take root in the broader market, is most consistent with Congressional intent and with the plain language of these provisions.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 49912]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17317]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2010-0048]

Southern California Regional Rail Authority's Request To Amend
Its Positive Train Control Safety Plan and Positive Train Control
System

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on July
29, 2022, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink)
submitted a request for amendment (RFA) to its FRA-approved Positive
Train Control Safety Plan (PTCSP). As this RFA may involve a request
for FRA's approval of proposed material modifications to an FRA-
certified positive train control (PTC) system, FRA is publishing this
notice and inviting public comment on the railroad's RFA to its PTCSP.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by September 1, 2022. FRA
may consider comments received after that date to the extent
practicable and without delaying implementation of valuable or
necessary modifications to a PTC system.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this host
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2010-0048. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports. All comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov;
this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host
railroad's PTC system complies with title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be
operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-
certified PTC system or the associated FRA-approved PTCSP, a host
railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to its PTCSP
under 49 CFR 236.1021.
    Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register and invite public comment in
accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an RFA includes a request for
approval of a material modification of a signal and train control
system. Accordingly, this notice informs the public that, on July 29,
2022, Metrolink submitted an RFA to its PTCSP for its Interoperable
Electronic Train Management Systems (I-ETMS) and that RFA is available
in Docket No. FRA-2010-0048.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on Metrolink's RFA to its
PTCSP by submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of
this railroad's RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted
within the timeline specified in this notice and to the extent
practicable, without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to a PTC system. See 49 CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR
236.1011(e). Under 49 CFR 236.1021, FRA maintains the authority to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny a railroad's RFA to its PTCSP
at FRA's sole discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-17317 Filed 8-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2240-2241]
[DOCID:fr14ja08-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF07-11-000]

North Baja Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Yuma Lateral Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

January 4, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed Yuma Lateral Project
involving construction and operation of natural gas facilities by North
Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja) in Yuma County, Arizona. The EA will be
used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine
whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help determine which issues
need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period
will close on February 4, 2008. Details on how to submit comments are
provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
North Baja would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval
conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, North Baja could initiate
condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries
and newspapers. State and local government representatives are asked to
notify their constituents of this proposed project and to encourage
them to comment on their areas of concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' addresses a number
of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and
how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The Yuma Lateral Project would involve construction of
approximately 3.3 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline from the
international border at the Colorado River to the Yucca Power Plant,
also in Yuma County, Arizona. An additional 3.1 miles would be
constructed in Mexico. A meter station would be constructed at the
Yucca Power Plant along with a pig receiver. The majority of the Yuma
Lateral would be constructed on public lands, primarily a Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) canal right-of-way (ROW). The majority of the
proposed pipeline ROW route is co-located immediately adjacent to an
existing railroad ROW.
    The purpose of the proposed project is to provide the Yucca Power
Plant with access to existing and future power generation needs. Gas
would be shipped from Sempra's Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline through a
new 3.1-mile-long lateral in Mexico to the international border, from
which 81,250 Dth/day of gas would be shipped via the Yuma Lateral to
supply the Yucca Power Plant.
    The general location of the proposed project is shown in Appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) at the

``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference Room at
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the ``Additional Information'' section at the end of this notice.
Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this
notice in the mail. Requests for detailed maps of the well locations
and other proposed facilities should be made directly to North Baja.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed project would affect a total of about
29.5 acres during construction. Following construction, about 21.0
acres would be allowed to revert to its previous conditions.
Disturbance associated with aboveground facilities would permanently
impact 0.5 acre of land.
    North Baja proposes a typical construction ROW for the proposed
pipeline of between 52 and 80 feet, which is 32 to 60 feet of temporary
workspace and 20 feet of permanent ROW.

The EA Process

    We \2\ are preparing this EA to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires the Commission to take
into account the environmental impact that could result if it
authorizes North Baja's proposal. By this notice, we are also asking
federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special
expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate
with us in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to
request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEPA also requires the FERC to discover and address concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
Notice of Intent, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the
issues to address in the EA. All

comments received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:
     geology and soils
     wetlands and waterbodies
     land use
     cultural resources
     vegetation and wildlife (including sensitive species)
     air and noise quality
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    Although no formal application has been filed, the FERC staff has
already initiated its NEPA review under its Pre-filing Process. The
purpose of the Pre-filing Process is to encourage the early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC. Once a formal application is filed
with the FERC, a new docket number will be established.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, reasonable alternatives to the proposal including alternative
locations and routes, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments
are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberley D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St. NE.; Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 1.
     Reference Docket No. PF07-11-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before February 4, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments. See 18
Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on
the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the

``eFiling'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Prepare your
submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper and save
it to a file on your hard drive. Before you can file comments you will
need to create an account by clicking on ``Login to File'' and then
``New User Account.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing
you are making. This filing is considered a ``Comment on Filing.''
    We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving
it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 2). If you do not
return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.
    Once North Baja formally files its application with the Commission,
you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and
are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts
if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's web site.
Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time.
You must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary''

link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-395 Filed 1-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 49826]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

International Building Technologies Group, Inc., Regeneca, Inc.,
Retail Pro, Inc., and Tri-Valley Corporation, Order of Suspension of
Trading

August 20, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
International Building Technologies Group, Inc. because it has not
filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Regeneca, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Retail Pro, Inc. 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
Tri-Valley Corporation because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended March 31, 2012.
    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 20, 2014, through 11:59
p.m. EDT on September 3, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20110 Filed 8-20-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P