[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43065-43072]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15307]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95272; File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders, and Exchange Rule 515, Execution of
Orders and Quotes, To Permit Pricing of Stock-Option Complex Strategies
in any Decimal Price the Exchange Determines

July 13, 2022.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on July 1, 2022, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX
Emerald'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Rulebook to permit pricing of
stock-option complex strategies in any decimal price the Exchange
determines.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald at MIAX
Emerald's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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 Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders,
and Exchange Rule 515, Execution of Orders and Quotes, to permit
pricing of stock-option complex strategies in any decimal price the
Exchange determines. The Exchange notes that this proposal is
substantively identical to a recent proposal by the MIAX Options
Exchange that was noticed by the Commission.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94836 (May 3, 2022),
87 FR 27670 (May 9, 2022) (SR-MIAX-2022-17) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC to Amend Exchange Rule 518,
Complex Orders and Exchange Rule 515, Execution of Orders and
Quotes, To Permit Pricing of Stock-Option Complex Strategies In any
Decimal Price the Exchange Determines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In August 2019, the Exchange adopted rules governing the trading
in, and detailing the functionality of the Emerald Options System \4\
in the handling of complex orders on the Exchange.\5\ The Exchange
defines a ``complex order'' as any order involving the concurrent
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options in the same
underlying security (the ``legs'' or ``components'' of the complex
order), for the same account, in a ratio that is equal to or greater
than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00)
and for the purposes of executing a particular investment strategy.
Mini-options may only be part of a complex order that includes other
mini-options. Only those complex orders in the classes designated by
the Exchange and communicated to Members \6\ via Regulatory Circular
with no more than the applicable number of legs, as determined by the
Exchange on a class-by-class basis and communicated to Members via
Regulatory Circular,\7\ are eligible for processing. A Post-Only order
may not be a component of a complex order and will be rejected by the
System.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85345 (March 18,
2019), 84 FR 10848 (March 22, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-13).
    \6\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \7\ See MIAX Emerald Regulatory Circular 2019-67, Trading of
Complex Orders on MIAX Emerald (August 13, 2019) available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Emerald_RC_2019_67.pdf.
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 518(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A complex order can also be a ``stock-option order'' as described
further, and subject to the limitations set forth, in Interpretation
and Policy .01 of this Rule. A stock-option order is an order to buy or
sell a stated number of units of an underlying security (stock or
Exchange Traded Fund Share (``ETF'')) or a security convertible into
the underlying stock (``convertible security'') coupled with the
purchase or sale of options contract(s) on the opposite side of the
market representing either (i) the same number of units of the
underlying security or convertible security, or (ii) the number of
units of the underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral
position, but in no case in a ratio greater than eight-to-one (8.00),
where the ratio represents the total number of units of the underlying
security or convertible security in the option leg to the total number
of units of the underlying security or convertible security in the
stock leg. Only those stock-option orders in the classes designated by
the Exchange and communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular with
no more than the applicable number of legs as determined by the
Exchange on a class-by-class basis and communicated to Members via
Regulatory Circular,\9\ are eligible for processing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 7.
    \10\ See Exchange Rule 518(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange offers a Complex Qualified Contingent
Cross Order or ``cQCC'' Order which is comprised of an originating
complex order to buy or sell where each component is at least 1,000
contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified contingent
trade, as defined in Rule 516, Interpretations and Policies .01,\11\
coupled with a contra-side complex order or orders totaling an equal
number of contracts. The trading of cQCC Orders is governed by Rule
515(h)(4).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A ``qualified contingent trade'' is a transaction
consisting of two or more component orders, executed as agent or
principal, where: (a) At least one component is an NMS Stock, as
defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act; (b)
all components are effected with a product or price contingency that
either has been agreed to by all the respective counterparties or
arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent; (c) the
execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all
other components at or near the same time; (d) the specific
relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread between
the prices of the component orders) is determined by the time the
contingent order is placed; (e) the component orders bear a
derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes
of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of
participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been
announced or cancelled; and (f) the transaction is fully hedged
(without regard to any prior existing position) as a result of other
components of the contingent trade. See Interpretations and Polices
.01 of Exchange Rule 516.
    \12\ See Exchange Rule 518(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 515(h)(4) currently provides that, cQCC Orders, as
defined in Rule 518(b)(6), are automatically executed upon entry
provided that, with respect to each option leg of the cQCC Order, the
execution (i) is not at the same price as a Priority Customer Order on
the Exchange's Book; and (ii) is at or between the NBBO. The System
will reject a cQCC Order if, at the time of receipt of the cQCC Order:
(i) the strategy is subject to a cPRIME Auction pursuant to Rule 515A,
Interpretation and Policy .12 or to a Complex Auction pursuant to Rule
518(d); or (ii) any component of the strategy is subject to a SMAT
Event as described in Rule 518(a)(16). Further paragraph (A) of
Exchange Rule 515(h)(4) provides that cQCC Orders will be automatically
canceled if they cannot be executed. Paragraph (B) of Exchange Rule
515(h)(4) provides that, cQCC Orders may only be entered in the minimum
trading increments applicable to complex orders under Rule
518(c)(1)(i). Paragraph (C) of Exchange Rule 515(h)(4) provides that,
the Exchange will determine, on a class-by-class basis, the option
classes in which cQCC Orders are available for trading on the Exchange,
and will announce such classes to Members via Regulatory Circular.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Exchange Rule 515(h)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trading of complex orders on the Exchange is governed by Exchange
Rule 518, Complex Orders. Minimum increments and trade prices for
complex orders are described in current subparagraph (i) of Rule
518(c)(1) which states, bids and offers on complex orders and quotes
may be expressed in $0.01 increments, and the component(s) of a complex
order may be executed in $0.01 increments, regardless of the minimum
increments otherwise applicable to individual components of the complex
order. Current subparagraph (ii) of Exchange Rule 518(c)(1) states, if
any component of a complex strategy would be executed at a price that
is equal to a Priority

Customer \14\ bid or offer on the Simple Order Book,\15\ at least one
other component of the complex strategy must trade at a price that is
better than the corresponding EBBO.\16\ Current subparagraph (iii) of
Exchange Rule 518(c)(1) states, a complex order will not be executed at
a net price that would cause any component of the complex strategy to
be executed: (A) at a price of zero; or (B) ahead of a Priority
Customer order on the Simple Order Book without improving the EBBO of
at least one component of the complex strategy. Current subparagraph
(iv) of Exchange Rule 518(c)(1) states, a complex order or eQuote (as
defined in Interpretation and Policy .02 of this Rule) will not be
executed at a price that is outside of its MPC Price (as defined in
Interpretation and Policy .05(f) of this Rule) or its limit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity
that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not
place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \15\ The term ``Simple Order Book'' is the Exchange's regular
electronic book of orders and quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(15).
    \16\ The term ``EBBO'' means the best bid or offer on the Simple
Order Book on the Exchange. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange now proposes to (i) amend its rule pertaining to the
pricing of complex orders to permit the pricing of stock-option complex
strategies in any decimal price the Exchange determines; and (ii) make
additional changes to the Exchange's rulebook necessary to support the
implementation of the proposed pricing structure. The Exchange notes
that its proposal is substantively identical to a recent proposal made
by the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Options.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 518 Complex Orders
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend subsection (c)(1)
Minimum Increments and Trade Prices of Rule 518, to adopt new paragraph
(ii), and to renumber current paragraph (c)(1)(ii) as paragraph
(c)(1)(iii). New paragraph (c)(1)(ii) will provide that, bids and
offers on complex orders, quotes, and RFR Responses for stock-option
complex strategies (including a cQCC Order entered with a stock
component) may be expressed in any decimal price the Exchange
determines. The option component(s) of such a complex order may be
executed in $0.01 increments, regardless of the minimum increments
otherwise applicable to individual components of the complex order, and
the stock component of such a complex order may be executed in any
decimal price permitted in the equity market. The Exchange notes that
its proposed rule text is identical to that of the Exchange's
affiliate, MIAX Options.\18\ Minimum increments less than $0.01 are
appropriate for stock-option orders as the stock component can trade at
finer decimal increments permitted by the equity market. Furthermore,
the Exchange notes that even with the flexibility provided in the
proposed rule, the individual options and stock legs must trade at
increments allowed by the Commission in the options and equities
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 518(c)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support the pricing of stock-option orders in any decimal price
the Exchange determines, the Exchange is proposing to make a number of
conforming changes throughout its Rulebook to clearly differentiate
pricing and support of complex strategies with only option components,
(which remains unchanged under this proposal in $0.01 increments), and
pricing and support of stock-option complex strategies which may be in
sub-penny increments, as determined by the Exchange. The Exchange notes
that the proposed changes described herein are substantively identical
to changes made by the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Options.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Exchange proposes to make a minor conforming change
to the rule text of current paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of Rule 518, which
will be renumbered as paragraph (c)(1)(iii). The current rule text
states that, if any component of a complex strategy would be executed
at a price that is equal to a Priority Customer bid or offer on the
Simple Order Book, at least one other component of the complex strategy
must trade at a price that is better than the corresponding EBBO. The
Exchange now proposes to amend the rule to add additional detail and
specificity by stating that, if any component of a complex strategy
would be executed at a price that is equal to a Priority Customer bid
or offer on the Simple Order Book, at least one other option component
of the complex strategy must trade at a price that is better than the
corresponding EBBO. The Exchange believes that clarifying that the
component of the complex strategy must be an option component adds
additional detail to the rule and makes it clear in the Exchange's
rules that a Priority Customer bid or offer must be improved by at
least $0.01 by the option component of either a complex strategy with
only option components or the option component of a stock-option
complex strategy. The Exchange notes that its proposed rule text is
identical to that of the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Options.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 518(c)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (i) of
subsection (c)(1), Minimum Increments and Trade Prices, of Exchange
Rule 518, to add additional detail and clarity to the rule text.
Currently, the rule provides that, bids and offers on complex orders
and quotes may be expressed in $0.01 increments, and the component(s)
of a complex order may be executed in $0.01 increments, regardless of
the minimum increments otherwise applicable to individual components of
the complex order. The Exchange now proposes to amend the rule text to
provide that, bids and offers on complex orders, quotes, and RFR
Responses for complex strategies having only option components may be
expressed in $0.01 increments, and the component(s) of such a complex
order may be executed in $0.01 increments, regardless of the minimum
increments otherwise applicable to individual components of the complex
order. The Exchange notes that its proposed rule text is identical to
that of the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Options.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 518(c)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(1)(i) pertains to complex strategies that have only
option components (as opposed to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) which pertains to
stock-option complex strategies) and therefore provides that bids,
offers, and RFR Responses for complex strategies having only option
components may be expressed in $0.01 increments. The Exchange believes
this change is necessary to differentiate between which strategies are
required to be priced in $0.01 increments (complex strategies having
only option components) and which strategies may be priced in an
increment other than $0.01 (stock-option complex strategies). The
Exchange believes this amendment provides additional detail and clarity
regarding the pricing of complex strategies having only option
components, which is not changing under this proposal.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the rule text of current
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of Rule 518 to make two minor conforming changes
and to renumber the paragraph as new paragraph (c)(1)(iv). Currently,
the rule states that, a complex order will not be executed at a net
price that would cause any component of the complex strategy to be

executed: (A) at a price of zero; or (B) ahead of a Priority Customer
order on the Simple Order Book without improving the EBBO of at least
one component of the complex strategy. The Exchange now proposes to add
additional detail and specificity to the rule to state that, a complex
order will not be executed at a net price that would cause any option
component of the complex strategy to be executed: (A) at a price of
zero; or (B) ahead of a Priority Customer order on the Simple Order
Book without improving the EBBO of at least one option component of the
complex strategy.\22\ The Exchange believes that clarifying that the
component of the complex strategy must be an option component adds
additional detail and clarity to the rule. The Exchange also proposes
to make a non-substantive change to existing paragraph (c)(1)(iv) to
renumber the paragraph as (c)(1)(v). The Exchange notes that its
proposed rule text is identical to that of the Exchange's affiliate,
MIAX Options.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange also proposes to make an identical conforming
change to paragraph (d)(6) of Rule 518 that is identical to MIAX
Options Exchange Rule 518(d)(6).
    \23\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 518(c)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (i) of section (c)(4),
Managed Interest Process for Complex Orders, of Rule 518 to add
additional detail and clarity to the rule text. The managed interest
process for complex orders ensures that a complex order will never be
executed at a price that is through the individual component prices on
the Simple Order Book.
    Currently, the rule provides that, when the opposite side icEBBO
\24\ includes a Priority Customer Order, the System will book and
display such booked complex order on the Strategy Book \25\ at a price
(the ``book and display price'') that is $0.01 away from the current
opposite side icEBBO. The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text to
provide that, when the opposite side icEBBO includes a Priority
Customer Order, the System will book and display such booked complex
order on the Strategy Book at a price (the ``book and display price'')
such that at least one option component is priced $0.01 away from the
current opposite side EBBO. The EBBO is comprised of the best bid and
the best offer on the Simple Order Book on the Exchange.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The icEBBO is a calculation that uses the best price from
the Simple Order Book for each component of a complex strategy
including displayed and non-displayed trading interest. For stock-
option orders, the icEBBO for a complex strategy will be calculated
using the best price (whether displayed or non-displayed) on the
Simple Order Book in the individual option component(s), and the
NBBO in the stock component. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(12).
    \25\ The ``Strategy Book'' is the Exchange's electronic book of
complex orders and complex quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(17).
    \26\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This change supports the proposed change to 518(c)(1)(iii) which
provides that if any component of a complex strategy would be executed
at a price that is equal to a Priority Customer bid or offer on the
Simple Order Book, at least one option component of the complex
strategy must trade at a price that is better than the corresponding
EBBO. Together, these changes ensure that no complex strategy (either a
complex strategy with only option components or a stock-option complex
strategy) will execute ahead of a Priority Customer order on the Simple
Order Book without improving the EBBO of at least one option component
of the complex strategy by at least $0.01.\27\ The Exchange believes
this change provides additional detail and clarity regarding the
managed interest process for complex strategies with only option
components and for stock-option complex strategies, and harmonizes the
rule text to the System behavior. The Exchange notes that its proposed
rule text is substantively identical to that of the Exchange's
affiliate, MIAX Options.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Exchange Rule 518(c)(1)(iv) as proposed herein.
    \28\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 518(c)(4)(i) (The MIAX
Options Exchange's rule text references the MBBO whereas the
proposed rule text references the EBBO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (d)(4), RFR Response, of
Rule 518 to make a conforming change to the rule necessary to support
pricing of stock-option complex strategies in any decimal price
determined by the Exchange. Currently, Rule 518(d)(4) provides that,
RFR responses may be submitted in $0.01 increments. The Exchange
proposes to amend this provision to provide that RFR Responses may be
submitted in the increments defined in proposed subparagraphs (c)(1)(i)
and (c)(1)(ii) of this Rule. This proposed change is consistent with
the proposed change to Rule 518(c)(1), Minimum Increments and Trade
Prices, as described above, and aligns the pricing of complex
strategies with only option components in $0.01, which is not changing
under this proposal, and the pricing of complex strategies with a stock
component in any decimal price the Exchange determines as proposed
herein. RFR responses submitted for a complex strategy having only
option components may be expressed in $0.01 increments as proposed in
subparagraph (c)(1)(i), whereas RFR responses submitted for a stock-
option complex strategy may be expressed in any decimal price the
Exchange determines as proposed in subparagraph (c)(1)(ii). This change
aligns RFR responses for complex strategies with only option components
to the current price interval for complex orders of $0.01, which is not
changing under this proposal, and aligns the pricing interval for
stock-option complex strategies with the proposed change discussed
herein to be in any decimal price as determined by the Exchange.\29\
The Exchange notes that its proposed rule text is identical to that of
the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Options.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Exchange also proposes to make an identical conforming
change to Rule 518(e) for cLEP Responses that is identical to MIAX
Options Exchange Rule 518(e), Responses.
    \30\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 518(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (d)(6)(i) of Rule 518 to
add additional detail and clarity to the operation of the rule
necessary to support pricing of stock-option complex strategies in sub-
penny increments and clarify that the pricing and processing of complex
strategies with only option components will remain unchanged under this
proposal. Currently, the rule states that, at the conclusion of the
Response Time Interval, Complex Auction-eligible orders will be priced
and executed as follows, and allocated pursuant to subparagraph (7) of
Rule 518: \31\ (i) Using $0.01 inside the current icEBBO as the
boundary (the ``boundary''), the System will calculate the price where
the maximum quantity of contracts can trade and also determine whether
there is an imbalance.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Exchange Rule 518(d)(6).
    \32\ See Exchange Rule 518(d)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend the rule text to state that, at
the conclusion of the Response Time Interval, Complex Auction-eligible
orders will be priced and executed as follows, and allocated pursuant
to subparagraph (7) of Rule 518: (i) Using $0.01 inside the current
icEBBO for complex strategies with only option components or using a
decimal price increment (as determined by the Exchange) inside the
current icEBBO for stock-option complex strategies as the boundary (the
``boundary''), the System will calculate the price where the maximum
quantity of contracts can trade and also determine whether there is an
imbalance. This proposed change is consistent with the proposed change
to Rule 518(c)(1), Minimum Increments and Trade Prices, as described
above and allows the Exchange to accurately

calculate prices for stock-option complex strategies. Using the same
pricing increments that each complex strategy is priced in ($0.01 for
complex strategies with only option components and the decimal price
increment as determined by the Exchange for stock-option complex
strategies) ensures that there are no calculation or rounding errors
which ensures the accuracy and integrity of the Exchange's price
calculations and the System's determination of the price where the
maximum quantity of contracts can trade and also the System's
determination of an imbalance. The Exchange believes this change adds
additional detail and clarity to the rule, by clarifying current
behavior as it relates to complex strategies with only option
components and facilitates the proposed change to permit pricing of
complex strategies with an option component in any decimal price the
Exchange determines. The Exchange notes that its proposed rule text is
substantively identical to that of the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX
Options.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 518(d)(6)(i) (MIAX Options
Exchange's rule text references the icMBBO whereas the proposed rule
text references the icEBBO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (d)(6)(i)(A)2.a. of Rule
518 to provide for calculations in $0.01 increments to support complex
strategies with only option components and to provide for calculations
in any decimal price increment as determined by the Exchange to support
stock-option complex strategies. Currently, the rule provides that, if
the midpoint price is not in a $0.01 increment, the System will round
toward the midpoint of the dcEBBO \34\ to the nearest $0.01. The
Exchange now proposes to amend the rule text to state that, for complex
strategies with only option components if the midpoint price is not in
a $0.01 increment, the System will round toward the midpoint of the
dcEBBO to the nearest $0.01; for stock-option complex strategies, if
the midpoint price is not in a decimal price increment as determined by
the Exchange, the System will round toward the midpoint of the dcEBBO
to the nearest decimal price increment as determined by the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that its proposed rule text is substantively
identical to that of the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Options.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The dcEBBO is calculated using the best displayed price for
each component of a complex strategy from the Simple Order Book. For
stock-option orders, the dcEBBO for a complex strategy will be
calculated using the Exchange's best displayed bid or offer in the
individual option component(s) and the NBBO in the stock component.
See Exchange Rule 518(a)(8).
    \35\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 518(d)(6)(i)(A)2.a. (MIAX
Options Exchange's rule text references the dcMBBO whereas the
proposed rule text references the dcEBBO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph
(d)(6)(i)(A)2.b. of Rule 518 to provide for calculations in $0.01
increments to support complex strategies with only option components
and to provide for calculations in any decimal increment as determined
by the Exchange to support stock-option complex strategies. Currently,
the rule provides that if the midpoint of the highest and lowest prices
is also the midpoint of the dcEBBO and is not in a $0.01 increment the
System will round the price up to the next $0.01 increment. The
Exchange now proposes to amend the rule text to state that, if the
midpoint of the highest and lowest prices is also the midpoint of the
dcEBBO and is not in a $0.01 increment for complex strategies with only
option components or in a decimal price increment as determined by the
Exchange for stock-option complex strategies, the System will round the
price up to the next $0.01 increment for complex strategies with only
option components or to a decimal price increment as determined by the
Exchange for stock-option complex strategies The Exchange notes that
its proposed rule text is identical to that of the Exchange's
affiliate, MIAX Options.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 518(d)(6)(i)(A)2.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To properly perform the internal calculations described in Exchange
Rule 518(d)(6)(i)(A)2.a. and b. correctly it is imperative that the
decimal increment being used in the calculation properly aligns to the
decimal quoting increment being used on the Exchange for that strategy,
be it for complex strategies with only option components or stock-
option complex strategies. Using the appropriate decimal increment that
the strategy is priced in ($0.01 for complex strategies with only
option components or any decimal price as determined by the Exchange
for stock-option complex strategies) ensures that the Exchange
accurately calculates the auction start price to the proper decimal
precision for either complex strategies with only option components
(which may only be in $0.01 increments) or stock-option complex
strategies (which may be in any price increment as determined by the
Exchange). The Exchange believes these changes provide additional
detail and clarification regarding the differentiation in calculations
for complex strategies with only option components that are priced in
$0.01 increments, which remains unchanged under this proposal, and
calculations for stock-option complex strategies, which may be priced
in increments other than $0.01. This change is necessary to support the
proposed change discussed herein to price stock-option strategies in
any decimal price increment as determined by the Exchange. The Exchange
notes that its proposed rule text is substantively identical to that of
the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Options.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 518(d)(6)(i) (MIAX Options
Exchange's rule text references the icMBBO whereas the proposed rule
text references the icEBBO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 515 Execution of Orders and Quotes
Customer to Customer Cross Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (h), Crossing Orders, of
Rule 515, to clarify that Complex Customer Cross (``cC2C'') pricing is
not changing under this proposal. Currently, subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (3), of Rule 515(h), Complex Customer Cross (``cC2C'') Orders
provides that cC2C Orders \38\ may only be entered in the minimum
trading increments applicable to complex orders under Rule
518(c)(1)(i). Current Rule 518(c)(1)(i) provides that the minimum
trading increments applicable to complex orders is $0.01.\39\ The
Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (B) to state that, cC2C Orders
may only be entered in minimum trading increments of $0.01. The
Exchange notes that its proposed rule text is identical to that of the
Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Options.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ A Complex Customer Cross or ``cC2C'' Order is comprised of
one Priority Customer complex order to buy and one Priority Customer
complex order to sell at the same price and for the same quantity.
Trading of cC2C Orders is governed by Rule 515(h)(3). See Exchange
Rule 518(b)(5).
    \39\ Bids and offers on complex orders and quotes may be
expressed in $0.01 increments, and the component(s) of a complex
order may be executed in $0.01 increments, regardless of the minimum
increments otherwise applicable to individual components of the
complex order. See Exchange Rule 518(c)(1)(i).
    \40\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 515(h)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complex Qualified Contingent Cross Orders
    cQCC Orders \41\ may be entered into the Exchange's System with a
stock

component or without the stock component. To support and facilitate the
pricing proposal for stock-option strategies as proposed herein, a cQCC
entered without the stock component will be treated as a complex
strategy with only option components for pricing purposes (pricing in
$0.01 increments only), whereas a cQCC entered with the stock component
will be treated as a complex strategy with a stock component under the
Exchange's new quoting structure as proposed herein. Therefore, the
Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4), Complex
Qualified Contingent Cross (``cQCC'') Orders to provide that cQCC
Orders may only be entered in the minimum trading increments applicable
to complex orders under proposed Rule 518(c)(1)(i) or 518(c)(1)(ii) if
the cQCC Order includes the stock component upon entry. The Exchange
notes that its proposed rule text is identical to that of the
Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Options.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ A Complex Qualified Contingent Cross or ``cQCC'' Order is
comprised of an originating complex order to buy or sell where each
component is at least 1,000 contracts that is identified as being
part of a qualified contingent trade, as defined in Rule 516,
Interpretations and Policies .01, coupled with a contra-side complex
order or orders totaling an equal number of contracts. Trading of
cQCC Orders is governed by Rule 515(h)(4). See Exchange Rule
518(b)(6).
    \42\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 515(h)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (D)
to paragraph (4) of Rule 515(h) to provide a more fulsome description
of cQCC Order handling of a cQCC Order entered without the stock
component and a cQCC Order entered with the stock component. New
subparagraph (D) will provide that, a cQCC Order may be entered with or
without the stock component. A cQCC Order entered without the stock
component will be treated as a complex strategy with only option
components. A cQCC Order entered with the stock component shall be
subject to Rule 518.01. A Member that submits a cQCC Order to the
Exchange (with or without the stock component) represents that such
order satisfies the requirements of a qualified contingent trade (as
described in Interpretations and Policies .01 of Rule 516) and agrees
to provide information to the Exchange related to the execution of the
stock component as determined by the Exchange and communicated via
Regulatory Circular.\43\ The Exchange notes that its proposed rule text
is identical to that of the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Options.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See proposed Rule 515(h)(4)(D) and see also MIAX Emerald
Regulatory Circular 2019-66, Regulatory Requirements when entering a
Qualified Contingent Cross Order (``QCC'') or a Complex Qualified
Contingent Cross Order (``cQCC'') (August 13, 2019) available at:
https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Emerald_RC_2019_66.pdf.
    \44\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 515(h)(4)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange plans to implement the proposed rule change at the end
of Q3, 2022, or early Q4 of 2022, and will announce the implementation
date to its Members via Regulatory Circular.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \45\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \46\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change benefits
investors and promotes just and equitable principles of trade because
it provides investors with the ability to price stock-option complex
strategies with greater precision.\47\ This provides investors with
greater opportunities for execution as it allows for more accurate
pricing of stock-option complex strategies. The net price of a complex
strategy with a stock component may result in a price that is
accurately expressed in a finer decimal increment than $0.01 as a
result of the stock ratio being used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The Exchange notes that other options exchanges permit
stock-option orders to be priced in decimal increments. See Cboe
Options Rule 5.33(f)(i)(B), Nasdaq ISE Options 3, Section 14(c)(1),
Cboe EDGX Rule 21.20(f)(1)(B); and MIAX Options Exchange Rule
518(c)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1 Stock-Option Complex Strategy
    The current market is:

EBBO XYZ Jan 15 Put 0.95 (10) x 1.00 (10)
NBBO XYZ Stock 20.00 (100) x 20.01 (100)

    Customer strategy: A customer order to Buy 1 XYZ Jan 15 Put and Buy
33 Shares of XYZ is received. The customer would like to pay $1.00 for
the option and pay $20.01 for the stock for a net price $7.6033 as per
the calculation of the strategy market below.
    The market for the Strategy is:

Strategy Bid = (Option Bid * Option Ratio) + (Stock Bid * Stock Ratio/
100)
Strategy Bid = (0.95 * 1) + (20.00 * .33)
Strategy Bid = 7.5500
Strategy Ask = (Option Ask * Option Ratio) + (Stock Ask * Stock Ratio/
100)
Strategy Ask = (1.00 * 1) + (20.01 * .33)
Strategy Ask = 7.6033
Strategy market = 7.5500 x 7.6033

    As the Exchange does not support stock option strategies priced in
four decimal increments this strategy would be sent to a venue that
supports four decimal pricing for execution.
    Under the Exchange's proposal to permit stock-option complex
strategies to be expressed in any decimal price as determined by the
Exchange, if the Exchange determines to price stock-option complex
strategies in $0.0001 increments, the above strategy could be placed on
the Exchange's Strategy Book at its calculated net price. The customer
who would like to pay $1.00 for the option and pay $20.01for the stock
can now pay $1.00 for the option and pay $20.01 for the stock for a net
price of $7.6033 as per the calculation above.
    Pricing stock-option complex strategies in sub-penny increments
permits more precision pricing and allows for complex strategies with a
stock component to be effectively traded on the Exchange. Currently,
firms that wish to execute these types of strategies will not send them
to the MIAX Emerald Exchange due to the current System limitation which
constrains the price to two decimal places, whereas the strategy may be
more precisely priced in sub-penny increments on exchanges that permit
sub-penny pricing of stock-option complex strategies to four decimal
places.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors
and the public interest by offering similar functionality to Members
that can be found on other competing option exchanges.\49\ Competition
benefits investors by providing investors an additional venue to choose
from when making order routing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes its proposal to leave Complex
Customer Cross Order functionality unchanged promotes just and
equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protects investors and the public interest. A Complex
Customer Cross Order is

comprised of one Priority Customer complex order to buy and one
Priority Customer complex order to sell at the same price and for the
same quantity.\50\ Complex Customer Cross Orders are not exposed to the
marketplace and are executed upon entry, provided that the execution is
at least $0.01 better than the icEBBO, or the best net price of a
complex order on the Strategy Book, whichever is more aggressive.\51\
The Exchange believes that requiring a minimum improvement of $0.01
benefits investors and the public interest as it is not a de minimis
price improvement amount. Further, the Exchange does not believe that
Members on the Exchange are disadvantaged in any way by not being able
to execute Complex Customer Cross Orders with a stock component in a
sub-penny interval, as Members may use the cQCC Order type for stock-
option complex strategies, or expose their stock-option complex
strategy order to the market via the Exchange's cPRIME for price
improvement in sub-penny increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Exchange Rule 518(b)(2)(d).
    \51\ See Exchange Rule 515(h)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support the pricing of stock-option orders in any decimal price
the Exchange determines, the Exchange is proposing to make a number of
non-substantive conforming changes throughout its rules to clearly
differentiate pricing and support of complex strategies with only
option components, (which remains unchanged under this proposal in
$0.01 increments), and pricing and support of stock-option complex
strategies, which may be in any decimal price the Exchange determines.
The Exchange believes that its proposed non-substantive changes to add
additional detail and clarity to the Exchange's rulebook benefits
investors and the public interest as it provides transparency and
eliminates the potential for confusion regarding the operation of the
Exchange's rules.

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 that its proposal will impose any burden on intra-market
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because all Members of the Exchange that transact
stock-option complex strategies will be able to price stock-option
complex strategies in more precise increments.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
believes that its proposal may benefit inter-market competition as
other competing option exchanges offer similar price precision for
stock-option complex strategies.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See CboeEDGX Exchange Rule 21.20(f)(1)(B) which provides
that Users may express bids and offers for a stock-option order
(including a QCC with Stock Order) in any decimal price the Exchange
determines. The option leg(s) of a stock-option order may be
executed in $0.01 increments, regardless of minimum increments
otherwise applicable to the option leg(s), and the stock leg of a
stock-option order may be executed in any decimal price permitted in
the equity market; and Cboe Exchange Rule 5.33(f)(1)(B) which
similarly provides that Users may express bids and offers for a
stock-option order (including a QCC with Stock Order) in any decimal
price the Exchange determines. The minimum increment for the option
leg(s) of a stock-option order is $0.01 or greater, which the
Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis, regardless of the
minimum increments otherwise applicable to the option leg(s), and
the stock leg of a stock-option order may be executed in any decimal
price permitted in the equity market. See also Tradedesk Updates,
Cboe Options Exchange Announces Support for QCC with an Equity Leg
and Improved Pricing Precision on Complex Orders with an Equity Leg
(March 2, 2018) (allowing a price with four decimal places on all
complex orders that include a stock leg and that are routed for
electronic trading) available at https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/release_notes/2018/QCC-w-equity-leg-and-CPS-4-digit-decimal.pdf; See
also MIAX Options Exchange Rule 518(c)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the non-substantive changes proposed by the Exchange
will have no impact on competition as they provide additional clarity
and detail in the Exchange's rules and are not changes made for any
competitive purpose.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    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)(iii) of the Act \53\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \54\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-EMERALD-2022-23 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-EMERALD-2022-23. 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 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-
EMERALD-2022-23, and should be submitted on or before August 9, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15307 Filed 7-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From: cneufeld [  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>]

Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:22 AM

To: Wood, Gil

Subject: RE: Catalyst timeline for BlazeKing Apex?

Gil:

It's fine for the docket.

Chris

From: Wood, Gil [  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>]

Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 5:38 AM

To:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Cc: Cole, David

Subject: RE: Catalyst timeline for BlazeKing Apex?

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your prompt response. Is this okay for the docket? I
don’t see any CBI…

Gil

From:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>[
HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>]

Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 10:14 PM

To: Wood, Gil

Subject: Re: Catalyst timeline for BlazeKing Apex?

see below

On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:40 AM, "Wood, Gil" <  HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>> wrote:

 Hi Chris,

 What is the typical catalyst replacment timeline for the BlazeKing
Apex furnace?  We have been offering the 3 years 100%, plus 3 year
prorated warranty.  However, our supplier has approved the same 10
year, 100% voluntary warranty we are offering on our wood stoves and
inserts.  We have an exceptionally low warranty rate and expect
consumers to see a 10 year life span out of their combustors.

Replacement cost?  As stated in Boston, Blaze King has asked our
suppliers to sell direct to consumer.  This has eliminated cost
increases from multistep sales.  The combustor is available on line for
less than $265.00

Is the catalyst larger, or special material?  It is the same
dimensional combustor as we use in our King wood stove model.  However,
we supply the Dura Foil stainless steel combustor as it is proven to
tolerate higher temperatures.

 Does it have special cleaning recommendations/features?  Blaze King
recommends consumers use the low burn rate with a full fire box of wood.
 Combustor temps are elevated as residence time is increased and
temperatures are high enough to breakdown any build up.  If additional
cleaning is required, we suggest the removal and then cleaning with a
50/50 mix of distilled water and vinegar.  The acid nature eats away at
the organic build up and rejuvenates the combustor.  We also have
designed all our units to be "tool free" for inspection, maintenance and
service.

 Thanks,

You are most welcome.

Chris


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 18 (Friday, January 29, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7509-7512]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01992]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8663]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur. Information identifying the current participation status of a
community can be obtained from FEMA's CSB available at www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-nfip/community-status-book. Please note that
per Revisions to Publication Requirements for Community Eligibility
Status Information Under the National Flood Insurance Program, notices
such as this one for scheduled suspension will no longer be published
in the Federal Register as of June 2021 but will be available at
National Flood Insurance Community Status and Public
Notification[bond]FEMA.gov. Individuals without internet access will be
able to contact their local floodplain management official and/or State
NFIP Coordinating Office directly for assistance.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Details
regarding updated publication requirements of community eligibility
status information under the NFIP can be found on the CSB section at
www.fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives, new and
substantially improved construction, and development in general from
future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood
insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain
management measures with effective enforcement measures. The
communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory
requirement for compliance with NFIP regulations, 44 CFR part 59.
Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date
listed in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no
longer be available in the community. FEMA recognizes communities may
adopt and submit the required documentation after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. Their current NFIP participation status can be
verified at anytime on the CSB section at fema.gov.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the published FIRM is indicated in the fourth column of the
table. No direct federal financial assistance (except assistance
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for
construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for
communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than
a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone
areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42
U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of
federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the
date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and
unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been
adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Effective date
                                                                         authorization/                                         Date certain federal
                  State and location                      Community   cancellation of sale    Current effective map date        assistance no longer
                                                             No.       of flood insurance                                        available in SFHAs
                                                                          in community
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Region I

New Hampshire:
    Exeter, Town of, Rockingham County.                       330130  May 12, 1975, Emerg;  January 29, 2021.............  January 29, 2021.
                                                                       May 17, 1982, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
    Greenland, Town of, Rockingham County.                    330210  May 19, 1976, Emerg;  ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       May 17, 1989, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
    Hampton, Town of, Rockingham County.                      330132  July 25, 1974,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; July 3,
                                                                       1986, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Hampton Falls, Town of, Rockingham County.                330133  October 31, 1975,     ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; April 15,
                                                                       1982, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    New Castle, Town of, Rockingham County.                   330135  September 10, 1975,   ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; August 5,
                                                                       1986, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Newfields, Town of, Rockingham County.                    330228  July 26, 1978,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; June 5,
                                                                       1989, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Newington, Town of, Rockingham County.                    330229  N/A, Emerg; July 27,  ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       2006, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Newmarket, Town of, Rockingham County.                    330136  August 26, 1975,      ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; May 2, 1991,
                                                                       Reg; January 29,
                                                                       2021, Susp.
    North Hampton, Town of, Rockingham County.                330232  November 17, 1975,    ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; June 3,
                                                                       1986, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Portsmouth, City of, Rockingham County.                   330139  July 10, 1975,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; May 17,
                                                                       1982, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Rye, Town of, Rockingham County.                          330141  September 8, 1975,    ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; June 17,
                                                                       1986, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Seabrook, Town of, Rockingham County.                     330143  March 30, 1978,       ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; June 17,
                                                                       1986, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Seabrook Beach Village District, Rockingham               330854  N/A, Emerg;           ......do.....................   Do.
     County.                                                           September 17, 1986,
                                                                       Reg; January 29,
                                                                       2021, Susp.
    Stratham, Town of, Rockingham County.                     330197  September 26, 1977,   ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; May 17,
                                                                       1989, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Village District of Little Boar's Head, Rockingham        330856  N/A, Emerg; June 27,  ......do.....................   Do.
     County.                                                           2017, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.

                      Region III

Virginia:

    Frederick County, Unincorporated Areas.                   510063  November 5, 1973,     ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; July 17,
                                                                       1978, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Middletown, Town of, Frederick County.                    510274  February 24, 1975,    ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; August 3,
                                                                       1984, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Stephens City, Town of, Frederick County.                 510064  June 17, 1975,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; September
                                                                       10, 1984, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
    Winchester, City of, Independent City.                    510173  September 6, 1974,    ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; November 15,
                                                                       1978, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.

                       Region IV

Kentucky:
    Bell County, Unincorporated Areas.                        210010  March 28, 1975,       ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; February 18,
                                                                       1981, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Boyd County, Unincorporated Areas.                        210016  December 12, 1975,    ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; December 2,
                                                                       1980, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Pineville, City of, Bell County.                          210012  November 21, 1973,    ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; June 1,
                                                                       1978, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
South Carolina:
    Awendaw, Town of, Charleston County.                      450262  N/A, Emerg; June 28,  ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       1993, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Charleston, City of, Berkeley and Charleston              455412  October 30, 1970,     ......do.....................   Do.
     Counties.                                                         Emerg; April 9,
                                                                       1971, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Folly Beach, City of, Charleston County.                  455415  September 11, 1970,   ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; April 2,
                                                                       1971, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Hollywood, Town of, Charleston County.                    450037  February 18, 1986,    ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; June 17,
                                                                       1986, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Isle of Palms, City of, Charleston County.                455416  September 4, 1970,    ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; April 2,
                                                                       1971, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    James Island, Town of, Charleston County.                 450263  June 30, 1970,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; July 10,
                                                                       2017, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Kiawah Island, Town of, Charleston County.                450257  June 30, 1970,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; April 23,
                                                                       1971, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    McClellanville, Town of, Charleston County.               450039  December 16, 1975,    ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; March 16,
                                                                       1981, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Rockville, Town of, Charleston County.                    450249  N/A, Emerg; March 9,  ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       1998, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Sullivan's Island, Town of, Charleston County.            455418  September 18, 1970,   ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; April 2,
                                                                       1971, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.

                       Region V

Indiana: Evansville, City of, Vanderburgh County.             180257  June 25, 1971,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; October 15,
                                                                       1981, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.

                       Region VI

Texas:
    Fort Bend County, Unincorporated Areas.                   480228  N/A, Emerg; March     ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       19, 1987, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
    Fulshear, City of, Fort Bend County.                      481488  April 3, 1981,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; July 31,
                                                                       1981, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Rosenberg, City of, Fort Bend County.                     480232  July 21, 1975,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; December 4,
                                                                       1984, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Simonton, City of, Fort Bend County.                      481564  March 4, 1980,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; August 4,
                                                                       1987, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.

                      Region VII

Iowa:
    Bremer County, Unincorporated Areas.                      190847  August 12, 1980,      ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; July 16,
                                                                       1990, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Chillicothe, City of, Wapello County.                     190269  January 25, 2007,     ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
    Denver, City of, Bremer County.                           190026  May 27, 1975, Emerg;  ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       July 16, 1990, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
    Dunlap, City of, Harrison County.                         190144  June 25, 1975,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; September
                                                                       18, 1985, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
    Eddyville, City of, Mahaska, Monroe and Wapello           190270  October 20, 1975,     ......do.....................   Do.
     Counties.                                                         Emerg; August 1,
                                                                       1987, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Eldon, City of, Wapello County.                           190271  January 27, 1976,     ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; May 1, 1987,
                                                                       Reg; January 29,
                                                                       2021, Susp.
    Frederika, City of, Bremer County.                        190027  N/A, Emerg; December  ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       7, 1990, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
    Harrison County, Unincorporated Areas.                    190143  January 14, 1998,     ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; August 9,
                                                                       2000, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Janesville, City of, Bremer and Black Hawk                190023  May 28, 1982, Emerg;  ......do.....................   Do.
     Counties.                                                         July 16, 1990, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
    Little Sioux, City of, Harrison County.                   190145  September 25, 1975,   ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; August 19,
                                                                       1985, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Missouri Valley, City of, Harrison County.                190147  May 26, 1972, Emerg;  ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       August 1, 1977,
                                                                       Reg; January 29,
                                                                       2021, Susp.
    Modale, City of, Harrison County.                         190148  April 18, 2012,       ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; April 27,
                                                                       2012, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Mondamin, City of, Harrison County.                       190149  May 22, 1975, Emerg;  ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       June 10, 1980, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
    Plainfield, City of, Bremer County.                       190327  June 18, 1979,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; March 1,
                                                                       1986, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Sumner, City of, Bremer County.                           190029  August 8, 1975,       ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; July 16,
                                                                       1990, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Tripoli, City of, Bremer County.                          190669  N/A, Emerg;           ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       September 28, 1994,
                                                                       Reg; January 29,
                                                                       2021, Susp.
    Wapello County, Unincorporated Areas.                     190911  May 23, 1983, Emerg;  ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       June 1, 1987, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
    Waverly, City of, Bremer County.                          190030  May 2, 1975, Emerg;   ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       March 2, 1981, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
Kansas:
    Hutchinson, City of, Reno County.                         200283  January 19, 1973,     ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; September 5,
                                                                       1978, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Nickerson, City of, Reno County.                          200284  January 16, 1975,     ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; January 3,
                                                                       1979, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    South Hutchinson, City of, Reno County.                   200530  August 7, 1975,       ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; September
                                                                       28, 1990, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
    Willowbrook, City of, Reno County.                        200285  May 1, 1975, Emerg;   ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       August 1, 1986,
                                                                       Reg; January 29,
                                                                       2021, Susp.
Missouri: Wayland, City of, Clark County.                     290084  September 4, 1975,    ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; September 4,
                                                                       1986, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.

                       Region IX

California:
    Ojai, City of, Ventura County.                            060416  June 18, 1975,        ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; October 17,
                                                                       1978, Reg; January
                                                                       29, 2021, Susp.
    Port Hueneme, City of, Ventura County.                    065051  May 14, 1971, Emerg;  ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       September 24, 1984,
                                                                       Reg; January 29,
                                                                       2021, Susp.
    San Buenaventura, City of, Ventura County.                060419  November 27, 1970,    ......do.....................   Do.
                                                                       Emerg; September
                                                                       29, 1986, Reg;
                                                                       January 29, 2021,
                                                                       Susp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* do = Ditto.
 Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

Katherine B. Fox,
Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration--FEMA Resilience, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-01992 Filed 1-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16031-16032]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0040]

SGS North America, Inc.: Application for Expansion of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of SGS North
America, Inc., for expansion of recognition as a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's preliminary finding
to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before April 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at: https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY
(877) 889-5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions. Please
note: While OSHA's docket office is continuing to accept and process
submissions by regular mail, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Docket
Office is closed to the public and not able to receive submissions to
the rulemaking record by express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger
service.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number for this Federal Register notice (OSHA-2006-0040). OSHA
places comments and other materials, including any personal
information, in the public docket without revision, and these materials
will be available online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the
agency cautions commenters about submitting statements they do not want
made available to the public, or submitting comments that contain
personal information (either about themselves or others) such as Social
Security numbers, birth dates and medical data.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before April 5, 2022 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency

Management, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing
notice that SGS North America, Inc. (SGS) is applying for an expansion
of its current recognition as a NRTL. SGS requests the addition of two
test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes applications by NRTLs or applicant
organizations for initial recognition, as well as for expansion or
renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR
1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in
the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice,
OSHA announces the application and provides a preliminary finding. In
the second notice, the agency provides the final decision on the
application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page
for each NRTL, including SGS, which details that NRTL's scope of
recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    SGS currently has nine facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification, with the headquarters located at:
SGS North America, Inc., 620 Old Peachtree Road, Suwanee, Georgia
30024. A complete list of SGS's scope of recognition is available at
https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/sgs.html.

II. General Background on the Application

    SGS submitted an application to OSHA to expand the scope of
recognition as a NRTL to include six additional test standards on April
19, 2018 (OSHA-2006-0040-0074). This application was amended on January
19, 2022 (OSHA-2006-0040-0075), to remove four standards from the
original application. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the
application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did
not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
    Table 1 lists the appropriate test standards found in SGS's
application for expansion for testing and certification of products
under the NRTL Program.

  Table 1--Proposed List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in
                     SGS's NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 991...............................  Tests for Safety-Related Controls
                                        Employing Solid-State Devices.
UL 2111..............................  Overheating Protection for
                                        Motors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Findings on the Application

    SGS submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the scope
of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and pertinent
documentation preliminarily indicates that SGS can meet the
requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition
to include the addition of the two test standards listed in Table 1,
above, for NRTL testing and certification. This preliminary finding
does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of SGS's
application.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether SGS meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of the recognition as a
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit
the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request
is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits
identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket,
contact the Docket Office, at the above address. These materials also
are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
OSHA-2006-0040.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health as to whether to grant SGS's application
for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will
make the final decision on granting the application. In making this
decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings
prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public
notice of the final decision in the Federal Register.

IV. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, September 18, 2020)
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 11, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-05885 Filed 3-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P