[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66106-66111]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20802]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98443; File No. SR-ISE-2023-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 3,
Section 13 Related to PIM

September 20, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 8, 2023, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, 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 Options 3, Section 7, Types of
Orders and Order and Quote Protocols; Options 3, Section 11, Auction
Mechanisms; and Options 3, Section 13, Price Improvement Mechanism for
Crossing Transactions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/ise/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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 Options 3, Section 7, Types of
Orders and Order and Quote Protocols; Options 3, Section 11, Auction
Mechanisms; and Options 3, Section 13, Price Improvement Mechanism for
Crossing Transactions. Each change is described below.
Options 3, Section 7
Opening Only
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 7(u), Opening
Sweep \3\ and Supplementary Material .02(e) to Options 3, Section 7
related to Opening Only \4\ or ``OPG'' orders. The proposed rule text
was adopted as part of a planned System migration.\5\

Options 3, Section 7(t) currently provides that an Opening Sweep would
not be subject to any protections listed in Options 3, Section 15,
except Automated Quotation Adjustments in Options 3, Section 15.
Supplementary Material .02(e) to Options 3, Section 7 currently
provides that an OPG Order would not be subject to any protections
listed in Options 3, Section 15, except Size Limitation. At this time,
the Exchange proposes to amend the rule text to specify that an Opening
Sweep and an OPG Order would be subject to the Market Wide Risk
Protection in Options 3, Section 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An Opening Sweep is a one-sided order entered by a Market
Maker through SQF for execution against eligible interest in the
System during the Opening Process. This order type is not subject to
any protections listed in Options 3, Section 15, except for
Automated Quotation Adjustments. The Opening Sweep will only
participate in the Opening Process pursuant to Options 3, Section
8(b)(1) and will be cancelled upon the open if not executed. See
Options 3, Section 7(u).
    \4\ An Opening Only (``OPG'') order is entered with a TIF of
``OPG.'' This order can only be executed in the Opening Process
pursuant to Options 3, Section 8. This order type is not subject to
any protections listed in Options 3, Section 15, except Size
Limitation. Any portion of the order that is not executed during the
Opening Process is cancelled. OPG orders may not route. See
Supplementary Material .02(e) to Options 3, Section 7.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96821 (February 6,
2023), 88 FR 8950 (February 10, 2023) (SR-ISE-2023-06) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Rules in Connection With a Technology Migration to Enhanced
Nasdaq, Inc. (``Nasdaq'') Functionality) (``SR-ISE-2023-06'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Market Wide Risk Protection in Options 3, Section 15(a)(1)(C)
automatically removes Member orders when certain firm-set thresholds
are met. Specifically, the Market Wide Risk Protection requires all
Members to provide parameters for the order entry and execution rate
protections. The Market Wide Risk Protection would apply to an Opening
Sweep and an OPG Order because it captures the order entry and
execution rate for both Opening Sweeps and OPG Orders that are entered
in the Opening Process as described in Options 3, Section 8. The
Exchange believes the availability of the Market Wide Risk Protection
during the Opening Process would assist Members in managing their pre-
open risk by allowing Members to adhere to their firm thresholds. The
Exchange notes that other risk protections within Options 3, Section 15
do not apply to wither an Opening Sweep or an Opening Only Order
because the risk protection either relies on the BBO, which available
after the Opening Process, or the risk protection is optional. Finally,
the Exchange also proposes a technical amendment to capitalize the word
``orders'' in Supplementary Material .02(e) to Options 3, Section 7.
Options 3, Sections 11 and 13
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(A)
related to the Facilitation Mechanism. Currently, the last sentence in
Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(A) provides that a facilitation order will
be cancelled at the end of an exposure period if an execution would
take place at a price that is inferior to the best bid (offer) on ISE.
The Exchange proposes to amend this sentence to state, the ``Exchange
best bid (offer)'' and remove the phrase ``on Nasdaq ISE.''
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to add the following rule text to
the end of the sentence, ``or if there is a Priority Customer order on
the same side Exchange best bid (offer) at the same price as the
facilitation price unless the Facilitation Order can execute at a price
that is better than the same side Priority Customer Order.'' Today, a
facilitation order must execute at a price that is better than the same
side BBO if there is a Priority Customer order on the same side. The
proposed rule text is being amended to align to current System
functionality which prevents a Facilitation Order from trading ahead of
a Priority Customer Order. As such, a Priority Customer order on the
same side of the offer must be considered when executing a Facilitation
Order. The Exchange proposes to add similar language to the last
sentence of Options 3, Section 11(d)(3)(A) related to the Solicited
Order Mechanism. The Exchange notes that these amendments do not amend
the current System functionality.
    The Exchange proposes to add a new Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(iv)
to describe the allocation percentage that an Electronic Access Member
is able to obtain in the Facilitation Mechanism. Today, under the
current System operation, the facilitating Electronic Access Member may
not receive an allocation percentage, at the final price point, of more
than 40% of the original size of the Facilitation Order with one or
multiple competing quote(s), order(s), or Response(s), except for
rounding,\6\ when competing quotes, orders, or Responses have contracts
available for execution. Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(ii) makes clear
that the facilitating Electronic Access Member will be allocated up to
forty percent (40%) (or such lower percentage requested by the Member)
of the original size of the facilitation order, but only after better-
priced Responses, orders and quotes, as well as Priority Customer
Orders and Priority Customer Responses at the facilitation price, are
executed in full at such price point. The proposed rule text expressly
notes that the allocation percentage will not be exceeded except for
rounding purposes. This language represents current System
functionality. The Exchange proposes to add similar language to Options
3, Section 11(c)(7)(E) related to the Complex Facilitation Mechanism,
Options 3, Section 13(d)(7) related to the Price Improvement Mechanism
for Crossing Transactions, and Options 3, Section 13(e)(5)(vi) related
to the Complex Price Improvement Mechanism to note the limitations with
respect to allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ISE's System will round up to the nearest whole number
during the allocation in the Facilitation Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .04 to
Options 3, Section 11 to replace the word ``quotes'' with ``Responses''
in the Split Price description. Orders and responses in the market that
receive the benefit of the facilitation price may receive executions at
Split Prices. This change to the rule text is intended to utilize the
defined term ``Response'' pursuant to Options 3, Section 11(b)(3) may
be priced at the price of the order to be facilitated or at a better
price and will only be considered up to the size of the order to be
facilitated.
    The Exchange proposes to add a new Supplementary Material .09 to
Options 3, Section 11 and a new Supplementary Material .09 to Options
3, Section 11 to provide that, today, if an allocation would result in
less than one contract, then one contract will be allocated. The
Exchange does not allocate fractional contracts. This language
represents the current System functionality. The Exchange proposes to
add the same sentence within new Supplementary Material .10 to Options
3, Section 13 regarding a PIM. Phlx has similar language.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Phlx Options 3, Section 13(b)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 13(b)(1) through
(3) to harmonize the language within the PIM entry checks with language
within Nasdaq GEMX, LLC's (``GEMX'') PIM, Nasdaq MRX, LLC's (``MRX'')
PIM, Nasdaq Phlx LLC's (``Phlx'') PIXL and BX's PRISM, without changing
the substantive operations of these price improvement auctions. The
Exchange believes that by utilizing similar language, Members will be
able to compare ISE's PIM entry checks with similar mechanisms on
Nasdaq affiliated markets.
    ISE proposes to add ``a price that is'' to the end of Options 3,
Section 13(b)(1) and add new subparagraphs (A) and (B) to distinguish
opposite and same side checks. The opposite side check is currently
spelled out in the current rule text, however the same side check does
not specify the NBBO check. Today, if the Agency Order is for less than
50 option contracts, and if the difference between the NBBO or the
difference between the internal best bid and the internal best offer is
$0.01, the Crossing Transaction must be entered at a price that is, on
the same side of the Agency Order equal or better than the NBBO and
better than any Limit Order or quote on ISE's order book. The Exchange
believes that the addition of the NBBO

check will add clarity to the rule text because the NBBO check is
always relevant in the same side check to avoid a trade-through. The
Exchange also proposes to capitalize ``Limit Order,'' remove the word
``Nasdaq'' before ``ISE'' and remove other extraneous words as the
sentence has been rearranged.
    Next, the Exchange proposes to bifurcate the entry check for Agency
Orders of 50 options contracts or more for the account of a Priority
Customer from the entry checks for the account of a broker dealer or
any other person or entity that is not a Priority Customer similar to
other Nasdaq affiliated markets to provide consistent formatting. While
the entry checks for new Options 3, Section 13(b)(2) and (b)(3) will
not differ, the Exchange believes that retaining the same rule text
format across its Nasdaq affiliated markets will allow for an easier
comparison. To that end, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 3,
Section 13(b)(2) to format it similar to Options 3, Section 13(b)(1).
The Exchange proposes to add ``for the account of a Priority Customer''
to (b)(2) to distinguish it from (b)(3) which addresses the account of
a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a Priority
Customer. Options 3, Section 13(b)(2)(A) will also add rule text to
address the opposite side of the market, which is not explicitly noted.
Proposed Options 3, Section 13(b)(2)(A) will provide that if the Agency
Order is for the account of a Priority Customer, and such order is for
50 option contracts or more, or if the difference between the NBBO or
the difference between the internal BBO is greater than $0.01, a
Crossing Transaction must be entered only at a price that is equal to
or better than the internal BBO and NBBO on the opposite side of the
market from the Agency Order. Further, Options 3, Section 13(b)(2)(B)
will explicitly note the entry check on the same side of the market and
similar to Options 3, Section 13(b)(1) will include the NBBO check.
Proposed Options 3, Section 13(b)(2)(B) will provide that if the Agency
Order is for the account of a Priority Customer, and such order is for
50 option contracts or more, or if the difference between the NBBO or
the difference between the internal BBO is greater than $0.01, a
Crossing Transaction must be entered only on the same side of the
market as the Agency Order, at a price that is at least $0.01 better
than any Limit Order or quote on the ISE order book and equal to or
better than the NBBO.\8\ The Exchange believes that the addition of the
NBBO check will add clarity to the rule text because the NBBO check is
always relevant in the same side check to avoid a trade-through. The
Exchange also proposes to capitalize ``Limit Order,'' remove the word
``Nasdaq'' before ``ISE'' and remove other extraneous words as the
sentence has been rearranged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, if the market is 0.98 bid and 0.99 offer, a
Priority Customer PIM Order to buy for less than 50 contracts must
be stopped at 0.98 cents in this scenario to be accepted into a PIM
Auction, provided there is no resting order or quote on the Exchange
order book at 0.98 in which case the PIM Order would be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted herein, proposed Options 3, Section 13(b)(3) will mirror
Options 3, Section 13(b)(2) except that it will refer to the account of
a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a Priority
Customer. The Exchange also proposes to renumber the remainder of the
paragraphs within Options 3, Section 13(b).
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to add a new Options 3, Section
13(e)(5)(vii), similar to rule text in Phlx at Options 3, Section
13(b)(8) for Complex Orders. The current ISE Complex Price Improvement
Mechanism rule text is silent as to same side execution price
validations. The Exchange proposes to state,

    [i]f the Complex PIM execution price would be the same or better
than a Complex Order on the Complex Order Book on the same side of
the market as the Agency Complex Order, for options classes assigned
to allocate in time priority or pro-rata pursuant to Options 3,
Section 14(d)(2), the Agency Complex Order may be executed at a
price that is equal to the resting Complex Order's limit price.

    Today, if the Complex PIM execution is the same or better than the
Complex Order resting on the Complex Order Book on the same side of the
market as the Agency Complex Order, for options assigned to allocate in
time priority or pro-rata pursuant to Options 3, Section 14(d)(2), the
Agency Complex Order may execute at a price that is equal to the
resting Complex Order's limit price. This proposed rule text would make
clear the manner in which the System validates prices for Complex PIMs
on the same side of the market.
Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Opening Sweep and Opening Only
rule text only, within Options 3, Section 7, with its planned migration
to enhanced Nasdaq functionality. Similar to SR-ISE-2023-10,\9\ the
Exchange intends to begin implementation of the amendments to the
Opening Sweep and Opening Only rule text within Options 3, Section 7
prior to December 20, 2024. The Exchange would commence its
implementation with a limited symbol migration and continue to migrate
symbols over several weeks. The Exchange will issue an Options Trader
Alert to Members to provide notification of the symbols that will
migrate and the relevant dates. The other rule amendments would be
operative 30 days from the effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97605 (May 26,
2023), 88 FR 36350 (June 2, 2023) (SR-ISE-2023-10) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delay the
Implementation of Certain Trading Functionality) (``SR-ISE-2023-
10'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 3, Section 7
Opening Only
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 7(u), Opening
Sweeps and Supplementary Material .02(e) to Options 3, Section 7
related to OPG Orders is consistent with the Act and the protection of
investors and the general public because the Market Wide Risk
Protection would capture the order entry and execution rate for those
Opening Sweeps and OPG Orders entered in the Opening Process, which is
described in Options 3, Section 8, and would assist Members in managing
their pre-open risk by allowing Members to adhere to their firm
thresholds. The Exchange is providing both order and quote risk
protections in the Opening Process to allow Members to manage their
risk. The Exchange notes that other risk protections within Options 3,
Section 15 do not apply to either an Opening Sweep or an Opening Only
Order because the risk protection either relies on the BBO, which is
available after the Opening Process or the risk protection is optional.
Options 3, Sections 11 and 13
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(A)
related to the Facilitation Mechanism is consistent with the Act and
the protection of investors and the general public because the System
ensures that the facilitation order is at a price that is not inferior
to the Exchange best bid (offer) or if there is a Priority Customer on
the same side Exchange best bid (offer) at the same price as the
facilitation price, otherwise

the order would be cancelled. This price check ensures that the auction
order may not trade at or through the Priority Customer order on the
same side. This language represents the current System functionality.
Similar changes are proposed to Options 3, Section 11(d)(3)(A) related
to the Solicited Order Mechanism, and Options 3, Section 11(e)(4)(A)
related to the Complex Solicited Order Mechanism with respect to the
contra-side. These amendments represent current System functionality
and similarly ensure that the auction order may not trade at or through
the Priority Customer order on the contra side. This is consistent with
the treatment of Priority Customer in ISE's order book allocation,
described in Options 3, Section 10, wherein Priority Customer interest
is executed within PIM ahead of any other interest of Members.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See also ISE Options 3, Section 13(d)(1), ``At a given
price, `Priority Customer Interest' (Priority Customer Orders and
Improvement Orders from Priority Customers) is executed in full
before `non-Priority Customer Interest' (non-Priority Customer
Orders, Improvement Orders from non-Priority Customers and Market
Maker quotes).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend new Options 3, Section
11(b)(4)(iv) related to the Facilitation Mechanism, Options 3, Section
11(c)(7)(E) related to the Complex Facilitation Mechanism, Options 3,
Section 13(d)(7) related to the Price Improvement Mechanism for
Crossing Transactions, and Options 3, Section 13(e)(5)(vi) related to
the Complex Price Improvement Mechanism is consistent with the Act and
the protection of investors and the general public by permitting
rounding to occur as specified in the Exchange's rules. The proposal
states how rounding interacts with the allocation percentages. The
Exchange proposes to state that it will not permit an allocation
percentage greater than the stated amounts in the auction rules, unless
rounding is necessary. The proposed language represents the current
System functionality.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Supplementary Material .04 to
Options 3, Section 11 to replace the word ``quotes'' with ``Responses''
in the Split Price description is consistent with the Act and the
protection of investors and the general public because orders and
Responses in the market that receive the benefit of the facilitation
price may receive executions at Split Prices. This change to the rule
text is intended to utilize the defined term Response which pursuant to
Options 3, Section 11(b)(3) may be priced at the price of the order to
be facilitated or at a better price and will only be considered up to
the size of the order to be facilitated.
    The Exchange's proposal to add a new Supplementary Material .09 to
Options 3, Section 11 and a new Supplementary Material .10 to Options
3, Section 13 to provide that if an allocation would result in less
than one contract, then one contract would be allocated is consistent
with the Act and the protection of investors and the general public
because one contract is the minimum unit in which an option may trade
on ISE. This language represents the current System functionality. Phlx
has similar language.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Phlx Options 3, Section 13(b)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(b)(1)
through (3) to harmonize the language within the PIM entry checks with
language within GEMX's PIM, MRX's PIM, Phlx's PIXL and BX's PRISM,
without changing the substantive operations of these price improvement
auctions, is consistent with the Act and the protection of investors
and the general public because by utilizing similar language, Members
will be able to compare ISE's PIM entry checks with similar mechanisms
on Nasdaq affiliated markets.
    Amending Options 3, Section 13(b)(1) to add new subparagraphs (A)
and (B) to distinguish opposite and same side checks and add within the
same side check a reference to the NBBO check, is consistent with the
Act and the protection of investors and the general public because the
NBBO check is always relevant in the same side check to avoid a trade-
through. The Exchange believes that the addition of the NBBO check will
add clarity to the rule text because the NBBO check is always relevant
in the same side check to avoid a trade-through. The remainder of the
changes are non-substantive.
    The Exchange's proposal to bifurcate the entry check for Agency
Orders of 50 options contracts or more for the account of a Priority
Customer from the entry checks for the account of a broker dealer or
any other person or entity that is not a Priority Customer into two new
paragraphs, a (b)(2) and a (b)(3), is consistent with the Act and the
protection of investors and the general public because retaining the
same rule text format across its Nasdaq affiliated markets will allow
for an easier comparison.
    The Exchange's proposal to add ``for the account of a Priority
Customer'' to new subparagraph (b)(2) to explicitly address the
opposite side of the market and also note the NBBO entry check on the
same side of the market is consistent with the Act and the protection
of investors and the general public because the new format will provide
the parameters for each check. Further, the NBBO check is always
relevant in the same side check to avoid a trade-through. The remainder
of the changes are non-substantive. Mirroring the same language within
Options 3, Section 13(b)(2)(B), except to note that it is for the
account of a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a
Priority Customer will allow Members to compare ISE's PIM entry checks
with similar mechanisms on Nasdaq affiliated markets.
    The Exchange's proposal to add a new Options 3, Section
13(e)(5)(vii) for Complex PIM Orders is consistent with the Act and the
protection of investors and the general public because it ensures the
Complex PIM would not execute at a price that trades at or through the
Complex Order's limit price. Today, the rule text does not specify the
price at which an Agency Complex Order may execute. The Exchange notes
that there are no Priority Customer overlays in Options 3, Section
14(d)(2) and therefore, the Agency Complex Order may be executed at a
price that is equal to the resting Complex Order's limit price. Phlx
has substantially similar rule text at Options 3, Section 13(b)(8).

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Options 3, Section 7
Opening Only
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 7(u), Opening
Sweeps and Supplementary Material .02(e) to Options 3, Section 7
related to OPG Orders does not impose an intra-market burden on
competition because the Market Wide Risk Protection is available to all
Members in the Opening Process. The Exchange's proposal to amend
Opening Sweeps and OPG Orders does not impose an inter-market burden on
competition because other options exchanges may similarly offer such
risk protections on their opening order types.
Options 3, Sections 11 and 13
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(A)
related to the Facilitation Mechanism, Options 3, Section 11(d)(3)(A)
related to the Solicited Order Mechanism, and Options 3, Section
11(e)(4)(A) related to the Complex Solicited Order

Mechanism to state that that the order must execute at a price that is
better than the same side BBO if these is a Priority Customer on the
same side does not impose an intra-market burden on competition because
all auction orders in these aforementioned auction mechanisms would be
handled in a uniform manner by the System such that those orders would
not be permitted to trade at or through the Priority Customer order on
the same side. The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section
11(b)(4)(A) related to the Facilitation Mechanism, Options 3, Section
11(d)(3)(A) related to the Solicited Order Mechanism, and Options 3,
Section 11(e)(4)(A) related to the Complex Solicited Order Mechanism to
make clear that that the order must execute at a price that is better
than the same side BBO if these is a Priority Customer on the same side
does not impose an inter-market burden on competition because other
options markets similarly have customer overlay priorities.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend new Options 3, Section
11(b)(4)(iv) related to the Facilitation Mechanism, Options 3, Section
11(c)(7)(E) related to the Complex Facilitation Mechanism, Options 3,
Section 13(d)(7) related to the Price Improvement Mechanism for
Crossing Transactions, and Options 3, Section 13(e)(5)(vi) related to
the Complex Price Improvement Mechanism does not impose an intra-market
burden on competition because the Exchange's rules regarding rounding
are applied in a uniform manner to all Members submitting an order into
an auction mechanism. The Exchange's proposal to amend new Options 3,
Section 11(b)(4)(iv) related to the Facilitation Mechanism, Options 3,
Section 11(c)(7)(E) related to the Complex Facilitation Mechanism,
Options 3, Section 13(d)(7) related to the Price Improvement Mechanism
for Crossing Transactions, and Options 3, Section 13(e)(5)(vi) related
to the Complex Price Improvement Mechanism does not impose an inter-
market burden on competition because other options exchanges similarly
round in excess of allocation percentages such as BX.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See BX Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Supplementary Material .04 to
Options 3, Section 11 to replace the word ``quotes'' with ``Responses''
in the Split Price description does not impose an intra-market burden
on competition because orders and responses in the market that receive
the benefit of the facilitation price may receive executions at Split
Prices. This clarification to the rule text is intended to correct the
current language. The Exchange's proposal to amend Supplementary
Material .04 to Options 3, Section 11 to replace the word ``quotes''
with ``Responses'' in the Split Price description does not impose an
inter-market burden on competition because this rule text change is
specific to ISE's rule language.
    The Exchange's proposal to add a new Supplementary Material .09 to
Options 3, Section 11 and a new Supplementary Material .10 to Options
3, Section 13 to provide that, today, if an allocation would result in
less than one contract, then one contract will be allocated does not
impose an intra-market burden on competition because the System would
uniformly allocate contracts with a minimum unit of one contract. The
Exchange's proposal to add a new Supplementary Material .09 to Options
3, Section 11 and a new Supplementary Material .10 to Options 3,
Section 13 to provide that, today, if an allocation would result in
less than one contract, then one contract will be allocated does not
impose an inter-market burden on competition because other options
markets similarly specify a minimum unit of rounding such as Phlx.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Phlx Options 3, Section 13(b)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(b)(1)
through (3) to harmonize the language within the PIM entry checks
within GEMX's PIM, MRX's PIM, Phlx's PIXL and BX's PRISM, without
changing the substantive operations of these price improvement
auctions, distinguishing opposite and same side checks, and adding the
NBBO check reference within the same side check do not impose an intra-
market undue burden on competition because harmonizing the language
will enable Members to compare ISE's PIM entry checks with similar
mechanisms on Nasdaq affiliated markets. Further, the NBBO check is
always relevant in the same side check to avoid a trade-through. The
Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(b)(1) through (3) to
harmonize the language within the PIM entry checks within GEMX's PIM,
MRX's PIM, Phlx's PIXL and BX's PRISM, without changing the substantive
operations of these price improvement auctions, distinguishing opposite
and same side checks, and adding the NBBO check reference within the
same side check do not impose an inter-market undue burden on
competition because other options markets have their own price
improvement auctions and are free to denote their entry checks in a
similar fashion and have both same and opposite side entry checks which
may differ from ISE's rule.
    The Exchange's proposal to add a new Options 3, Section
13(e)(5)(vii) for Complex Orders does not impose an intra-market undue
burden on competition because the Exchange would uniformly apply the
price check for the Agency Complex Orders such that the Agency Complex
Order may be executed at a price that is equal to the resting Complex
Order's limit price. The Exchange's proposal to add a new Options 3,
Section 13(e)(5)(vii) for Complex Orders does not impose an inter-
market undue burden on competition because the price check is similar
to price checks on other options markets such as Phlx.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Phlx Options 3, Section 13(b)(5)(B)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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 \17\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \18\ 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-ISE-2023-19 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-ISE-2023-19. 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 a.m. and 3 p.m.
Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal
identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in
part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is
obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should
refer to file number SR-ISE-2023-19 and should be submitted on or
before October 17, 2023.

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

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20802 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


C. 2 Measurement Error   Dust Lead Measurements Dust samples were taken at all surveyed homes from the floor at the main entrance and from the floors, window sills, and window troughs of the sampled rooms. Separate measurement error adjustments were performed for the floor and window dust samples.

Floor Dust Lead Loading The model for predicting floor dust lead loading included factors for household ID ( as a class variable), surface characteristics at the sample location, and the interaction of the type of floor cover and year of construction. The measurement error adjustment procedures excluded three percent of the floor dust measurements as outliers. The regression analysis predicts the approximate median of the floor dust lead loading.

Figure C. 6 shows the relative median floor dust lead loading estimated from regression, by construction year category and type of floor cover in the sampled room. The predicted median floor dust lead loadings were highest for the oldest homes and decrease for homes constructed more recently. The National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 11 October 31, 2002 floor lead loading was generally higher in rooms with no floor covering than in rooms with wall to wall carpets. Rooms with some floor covering had floor dust loadings similar to or somewhat greater than in rooms with wall to wall carpets, and lower than rooms with no floor covering. The floor lead loadings for the unknown floor cover category represent primarily the floor dust lead loadings for the main entrance ( 94% of the data in the unknown category, as this information was not recorded). The dust lead loading at the main entrance was similar to dust lead loading from other rooms that have no floor covering.

Figure C. 6 Predicted Relative Median Floor Dust Lead Loadings by Construction Year Category and Floor Cover in the Sampled Room ( based on regression model)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1750 1939 1940 1959 1960 1977 1978 1998 Construction Year Category Relative Median Floor Lead Loading, µ g/ ft2 ( see text)

No floor cover Some floor cover ( area rug, mat, etc.) Wall to wall carpet Unknown ( primarily main entrance samples) Floor cover in sampled room National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 12 October 31, 2002 Figure C. 7 shows the relative median floor dust lead loading estimated from regression, by home cleanliness, household income, and surface sampled. Dust lead loadings were on average higher in lower income homes, and in homes that show no evidence of cleaning ( a small minority of all homes). 63 Dust lead loadings were also higher on hard surfaces that were not smooth and cleanable ( a small minority of all surfaces), perhaps because these surfaces are more difficult to clean or perhaps because they collect dust faster between cleanings. Carpets had lower lead loading than smooth and cleanable surfaces, using the wipe sampling methods employed.

Figure C. 7 Predicted Relative Median Floor Dust Lead Loadings by Cleanliness, Household Income, and Surface Condition ( based on regression model)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appears clean Some evidence of cleaning No evidence of cleaning Unknown up to 30K 30K or over Carpeted Smooth and cleanable Hard but not smooth/ cleanable Unknown Relative Median Dust Lead Loading, µ g/ ft 2 ( see text)

Overall Household Cleanliness Household Income Surface Condition at Sample Location 63 These results suggest that cleaning activity will generally affect dust lead loading. National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 13 October 31, 2002 As part of the exploratory analysis to identify the model for the data, additional variables were considered and not found to be significant predictors. In particular, the type of room ( bedroom, bathroom,

kitchen, etc.) and presence of pets were not significant.

Figure C. 8 shows the cumulative distribution of the maximum floor dust lead loading at homes. The figure shows three cumulative distributions:

1. The maximum of the floor dust lead loading measurements at a home ( bottom thin black line).

2. The maximum measurement error adjusted floor dust lead loading across the sampled rooms ( top gray line).

3. The maximum measurement error adjusted floor dust lead loading across all rooms, sampled and unsampled ( middle thick black line).

The difference between the first ( bottom thin black) and second ( top gray) curves shows the effect of the measurement error adjustment on the classification of the measured surfaces. The difference between the second ( top gray) and the third ( middle thick black) curves illustrates the effect of random selection of rooms on the classification of homes. Measurement error tends to increase the number of homes, and incomplete sampling of rooms tends to decrease the number of homes, classified as having maximum floor dust lead loading above a selected value. For the floor data, these effects partially cancel out so that the number of homes classified as having floor lead over a specified value using either the maximum adjusted lead loading value or the maximum observed measurements is similar. The difference between the first ( bottom thin black) and the third ( middle thick black) curves illustrates the combined effect of doing both the measurement error adjustment and unsampled room adjustment.

Using the measurement error corrected values, an estimated four percent of homes ( about 4 million homes) have floor dust lead loadings of 40 µ g/ ft2 or more in one or more rooms. This is about one percent fewer homes than estimated using the actual floor dust measurements.

Figure C. 8 Cumulative Distribution of the Maximum Floor Dust Lead Loading for Homes National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 14 October 31, 2002 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 10 100 1000 Floor dust lead loading ( µ g/ ft2) Percent of homes with lower floor dust lead loadings Measurements Adjusted for measurement error Adjusted for unsampled rooms Window Dust Lead Loading Window dust samples were taken from randomly selected windows in the sampled rooms within surveyed homes. For the measurement error correction, one objective was to estimate the number of rooms having or not having average window sill dust lead loading and average window trough dust lead loading less than a selected value. A second objective was to estimate the number of homes with average room window sill and window trough dust lead loading less than a selected value in all rooms. The first objective required estimating lead loadings for the missing values and adjusting for measurement error.

The second objective also required adjusting for the unknown lead loading in the unsampled rooms.

Scatter plots of the data showed that the log transformed window sill and trough measurements are linearly related, with the ratio of the trough to sill lead loading being roughly constant at National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 15 October 31, 2002 about 11. The proximity of the sill to the trough suggests that the similar factors may affect the lead loading at these two locations. Therefore, the analysis below used both the window sill and window trough dust lead loadings in the same model for calculating the measurement error adjustment. Because the log transformation was used, the model assumes that the same factors predict the relative sill and trough lead loadings and that the ratio of the sill to trough lead loading was constant across homes. Although a separate measurement error adjustment could have been performed separately for sill and trough measurements, this combined approach was expected to provide a similar adjustment. The measurement error adjustment procedures excluded three percent of the floor dust measurements as outliers.

Two models were fit to the data. One was used for predicting window dust lead loading in homes with at least one window lead loading measurement. A second model was used to predict window dust lead loading for homes with no window dust lead loading measurements in the data files. The predictors in each model are presented in Table C. 1.

Table C. 1 Regression Model Used for Different Categories of Homes Category of homes Number of homes Factors for predicting window dust lead loading I. Homes with no window dust samples 17 Sample location ( sill or trough), year of construction, tenure, race category of occupants, overall household cleanliness as judged by the interviewer, and room type.

II. Homes with at least one window dust sample 808 Sample location ( sill or trough), household ID ( as a class variable), surface characteristics at the sample location, whether the window has a vinyl mini blind, and room type.

Figure C. 9 shows the relative differences in median window dust lead loading associated with different levels of sample location ( sill or trough), year of construction, tenure, race category, overall household cleanliness, surface characteristics, room type, and presence of vinyl mini blinds. National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 16 October 31, 2002 Figure C. 9 Predicted Median Window Dust Lead Loading by Various Factors ( based on regression model)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Some evidence of cleaning Window sill Window trough 1750 1939 1940 1959 1960 1977 1978 1998 Privately owned Publically owned Rented African American Other/ Unknown White Appears clean No evidence of cleaning Unknown Adult bedroom Bathroom Child bedroom Kitchen Living room Other Unknown Smooth and cleanable Not smooth/ cleanable No vinyl mini blinds Vinyl mini blinds Unknown Relative Median Dust Lead Loading, µ g/ ft 2 ( see text)

Sample location Construction date Tenure Race category Overall Household Cleanliness Room type Sample surface Vinyl miniblinds The predicted median window dust lead loading is much higher in the window trough than on the window sill. Lead loading is highest for the oldest homes and lower for homes constructed more recently. The window lead loading is generally higher for rented homes than in private owned homes and higher in homes with African American residents and in homes with residents of other races. The small number of homes that have no apparent indication of cleaning have higher window dust lead loadings than homes that were classified as showing some evidence of cleaning or appearing clean. Although most rooms had similar window dust lead loading measurements, measurements were somewhat higher in adult bedrooms and " Other" rooms ( rooms not classified as kitchen, living room, or bedroom). Samples from window surfaces that were not smooth and cleanable had higher lead loading than samples from smooth National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 17 October 31, 2002 and cleanable surfaces. Finally, windows with vinyl mini blinds had somewhat higher dust lead loading than windows without vinyl mini blinds. Differences for other window coverings were not statistically significant.

Figure C. 10 shows the cumulative distribution of the maximum window sill dust lead loading within homes. The figure shows four cumulative distributions:

1. The maximum of the window dust lead loading measurements within a home ( thin black line).

2. The maximum of the window dust lead loading measurements or predicted values for missing data ( also a thin black line).

3. The maximum measurement error adjusted window dust lead loading across the sampled rooms ( thick gray line).

4. The maximum measurement error adjusted window dust lead loading across all rooms, sampled and unsampled ( thick black line).

For various reasons, such surfaces being inaccessible, data were not available for some window surfaces. The first curve assumes that the lead loading on all surfaces with missing data is negligible. As a result of the measurement error adjustment, predicted values are available for all surfaces.

For surfaces with no data, the predicted values were used. The second curve, to the right of the first curve,

shows the cumulative distribution of the best estimate of the lead loading on all window surfaces, i. e., the measurement on surfaces with data and the predicted values on surfaces with no measurements. The predicted values are referred to as imputed values. The imputation generally affects the lower portion of the distribution.

The third curve shows the distribution of the measurement error adjusted estimates. Since measurement error will generally increase the maximum within home measurements, the effect of the measurement error correction is to slightly reduce estimated maximum within home window dust lead loading. The fourth curve shows the cumulative distribution of the measurement error corrected measurements after accounting for the incomplete sampling of rooms. These values will be referred to as the adjusted values. The primary difference between the maximum of the observed window sill dust lead loading measurements and the final adjusted maximum in each home is due to the incomplete sampling of rooms. National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 18 October 31, 2002 Using the adjusted values, a predicted 19 percent of homes ( 18 million homes) have a window sill dust lead loading of at least 250 µ g/ ft2 in at least one room. This is about five percent more homes than estimated using the actual measurements. A predicted 22 percent of homes ( 21 million homes) have a window trough dust lead loading of at least 800 µ g/ ft2 in at least one room. This is about 20 percent more than estimated using the actual measurements.

Figure C. 10 Cumulative Distribution of the Maximum Within Home Window Sill Dust Lead Loading 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Maximum within home window sill dust lead loading ( µ g/ ft2) Percent of homes Measurements Measurements + imputed values Adjusted for measurement error Adjusted for measurement error and unsampled rooms National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 19 October 31, 2002 Figure C. 11 shows the cumulative distribution of the maximum window trough dust lead loading within homes. The figure shows four cumulative distributions for the measurements ( thin upper thin black line), the measurements plus imputed values ( lower thin black line), the measurement error corrected values for the sampled rooms ( gray line) and the final adjusted values that account for the incomplete sampling of rooms Because there were many surfaces for which window trough data could not be obtained, there are relatively large differences between the distributions for the measurements and the measurements with imputed values. As with the window sill lead loading, the measurement error adjustment for the available measurements makes only a small difference compared to the effect of missing data and the incomplete sampling of rooms.

Figure C. 11 Cumulative Distribution of the Maximum Within Home Window Trough Dust Lead Loading 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Maximum within home window trough dust lead loading ( µ g/ ft2) Percent of homes Measurements Adjusted for measurement error and unsampled rooms Also adjusted for unsampled rooms Measurements + imputed values National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 20 October 31, 2002 C. 3 Measurement Error   Soil Lead Measurements Soil samples were taken at all surveyed homes at the major entrance and along the dripline and midyard of two sides of the home, if soil was present. For the soil measurement error correction, the objective was to determine the number and percentage of homes with average soil lead concentrations above a selected value at the three sample sites  midyard, dripline, and main entrance. 64 Note that this analysis was performed on preliminary data, before the play area survey samples were collected.

Table C. 2 describes the regression model used for different categories of homes.

For Category I homes, there was no soil at any of the three sample sites, and so no model was required. This situation occurred if all areas of the yard were covered with concrete, asphalt, or rock. Also, a specific sample site could have no soil if the site did not exist ( for example, the dripline and the property line coincided so that there was no midyard sample site).

For Category II homes, at least one of the sample sites had soil, but there were no soil lead measurements for the home. This situation could arise if the respondent denied permission to collect soil samples, or if adverse conditions existed, such as an ongoing storm, frozen ground, the presence of a dog, or large rocks mixed in with the soil. The measurement error corrected soil lead concentrations are the predicted values from the regression model.

For Category III homes, all soil measurements were equal to zero. While the sample detection limit was determined to be 20 ppm, the laboratory provided an estimate of the soil lead for all samples with levels below the detection limit. However, negative laboratory estimates were reported as zero. The measurement error corrected soil lead concentrations are assumed to be less than the detection limit.

For Category IV homes, some or all of the soil measurements were equal to a non zero value ( i. e., a value at or more than the detection limit). These values were used to predict soil lead concentrations for the category IV and category II homes.

64 The average of the available midyard and average of available dripline samples were used for the measurement error analysis, regardless of which side of the house they were collected. That is, separate assessments were not made for midyard and dripline areas on each side of the home. National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 21 October 31, 2002 Table C. 2 Regression Model Used for Different Categories of Homes Category of homes Number of homes Model for measurement error corrected soil concentrations I. Homes with no soil at any sample site 45 Not applicable.

II. Homes with soil, but no soil measurements 8 Log transformed soil lead concentration = a mean for each combination of construction year category and soil sample location and a mean for each combination of construction year category and region.

III. Homes with all soil lead measurements equal to zero ( therefore no within home variation) 33 All measurements assumed to be less than the detection limit.

IV. Homes with soil lead measurements, some or all of which are nonzero 745 Log transformed soil lead concentration = a mean for each combination of construction year category and soil sample location, a mean for each combination of construction year category and region, and a mean for each home The regression analysis predicts the approximate median of the soil lead concentrations.

Figures C. 12 and C. 13 show the relative median soil lead concentration for homes within each construction year category by sample location and region. As expected, older homes have higher soil lead concentrations. Concentrations are also higher on average in the northeast region and lower in the western region of the country. Soil lead concentrations are higher on average at the dripline sample location and lower at the midyard sample location. The measurement error adjustment procedures excluded three percent of the floor dust measurements as outliers.

As part of the exploratory analysis to identify the model for the data, additional variables were considered. In particular, orientation of the side of the building ( north, east, south, or west) and ground cover ( bare soil, grass, ivy, moss, mulch, and other or unknown) were examined. Neither the side of the National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 22 October 31, 2002 house on which the samples were taken nor the ground cover was a significant predictor of soil lead concentrations, after adjusting for the effects of year of construction, region, and sample location.

Figure C. 12 Predicted Relative Median Soil Lead Concentrations by Construction Year Category and Sample Location ( based on regression model)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1750 1939 1940 1959 1960 1977 1978 1998 Year built category Relative Estimated median soil lead concentration Main entry Midyard Dripline National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 23 October 31, 2002 Figure C. 13 Predicted Median Soil Lead Concentrations by Construction Year Category and Region ( based on regression model)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1750 1939 1940 1959 1960 1977 1978 1998 Year built category Relative Estimated median soil lead concentration Midwest Northeast South West Figure C. 14 shows the cumulative distribution of the maximum soil lead concentration at homes. The figure shows three cumulative distributions:

The maximum of the soil lead measurements at a home ( bottom thin black line).

The maximum within each home of the average soil lead measurements at the entrance,

dripline, and midyard ( middle gray line). National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 24 October 31, 2002

The maximum measurement error corrected soil lead measurements ( top thick black line).

Figure C. 14 Cumulative Distribution of the Maximum Soil Lead Concentration for All Homes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

10 100 1000 10000 100000 Maximum soil lead concentration Percent of homes Measurement Mean measurement by location Adjusted measurements Note: Play area soil sample results were not included in the analysis for Figure C. 14. Thus, data may vary slightly from that presented in Chapter 6.

The difference between the first and second curves shows the effect of taking replicate soil measurements ( i. e. more than one sample for a given sample location at a home). As more measurements are taken, it is more likely that a sample will be taken which has an unusually high measurement ( either due to laboratory variation or due to sampling a small area with a locally high concentration). The second curve is most comparable to the third curve. The difference between the second and the third curve is due to the measurement error correction. The fact that the third ( measurement error corrected) curve is to the National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT C 25 October 31, 2002 left of the other curve is because, after correcting for measurement error, the percentage of homes judged to have soil lead concentrations above any selected value is decreased.

Using the measurement error corrected values, an estimated 5.6 percent of homes with soil ( about 5.3 million homes) have soil lead concentrations above 1,200 ppm in one or more of the sampling locations ( dripline, midyard, and main entrance). This is about two million fewer homes than estimated using the observed soil lead measurements. Even fewer homes have maximum soil lead concentrations over 1,200 ppm on bare soil. National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT D 1 October 14, 2002 APPENDIX D Calculation of Soil Related Estimates National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT D 2 October 14, 2002 CALCULATION OF SOIL RELATED ESTIMATES In the main survey, soil samples were collected near the main entrance, along the drip line and in the midyard on the side of the house with the main entrance, and along the dripline and in the mid yard on a second randomly selected side of the home. In a follow on survey of children's play areas involving a subset of the homes in the main survey, residents were asked where children play around the home. If there was play equipment at the home or soil samples were not previously collected in children's play areas, additional soil samples were collected at the home in a follow up visit. In the play area survey, soil samples were collected from below play equipment and from areas designated by the respondent as children's play areas. The main survey has data from 831 homes. The follow on survey has information on 375 homes. Details of the survey procedures are described in the Design and Methodology report.

The tables in this report are based on data from the 831 homes whenever possible. However, for estimates involving soil in children's play areas, data was only available from 375 homes. Therefore, estimates not involving soil were based on the main survey data. Estimates involving only soil were based on the play area survey data. For estimates that involve both soil data and data from other locations, such as the number of homes with significant lead based paint ( LBP) hazards, estimates from the main survey were combined with estimates from the play area survey, as described below.

To construct estimates of significant LBP hazards using as much of the data as possible the following procedure was used. Estimates of the number of homes with significant LBP hazards due to paint, dust, and soil sources other that play soil were calculated from the 831 homes from the main survey. Estimates of the number of homes with significant LBP hazards due only to soil hazards in play areas were calculated from the 375 homes in the play area survey. These two estimates were added together to obtain the combined estimate of the number of homes with significant LBP hazards from any source.

For example, the estimated number of homes with a significant LBP hazard is 24,026 thousand. This is the sum of 23,312 thousand homes with paint hazards, dust hazards, or soil lead hazards in non play areas ( based on data from 831 homes) and 714 thousand homes with significant LBP hazards in play areas only ( based on data from 375 homes).

The variance of the combined estimate depends on the portion of the estimate contributed by the two data sources, the variance of each estimate, and the correlation between the estimates. Calculation of the variance of the combined estimate is difficult because the correlation is difficult to estimate. However, the estimate from the main survey contributes 97% of the combined estimate. As a result, the variance of the combined estimate is primarily due to uncertainty in the estimate from the main survey. Therefore, the confidence intervals in the tables involving lead hazards, are based on the confidence intervals calculated from the main survey. The resulting confidence interval will tend to underestimate the true variance by a small amount. Thus, the confidence intervals for the number of homes are calculated as follows:

1) The confidence interval and estimate for the number of homes with significant LBP hazards in all but play soil are calculated from the main survey data.

2) The estimate for the number of additional homes with a significant LBP hazards in only the play soil is calculated from the play survey data. National Survey of Lead Final Report, Vol. I and Allergens in Housing Analysis of Lead Hazards WESTAT D 3 October 14, 2002 3) The estimate from the play survey data is added to the estimate from the main survey to get the combined estimate, and 4) The estimate from the play survey data is added to the confidence limits for the estimate from the main survey to approximate the confidence limits for the combined estimate.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26998-26999]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09788]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0096]

Safety Zone; Four Seasons Hotel Fireworks Display Event, New
Orleans, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a temporary safety zone for a
fireworks display located on the navigable waters of the Lower
Mississippi River (LMR) between Mile Marker (MM) 94.5 and MM 95.5 Above
Head of Passes (AHP). This action is needed to provide for the safety
of life on these navigable waterways during the event. During the
enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area
must comply with directions from the Captain of the Port or designated
representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.845 will be enforced from 8:45
p.m. to 10 p.m. on May 18, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Commander William
Stewart, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce safety zone
located in 33 CFR 165.845 for the Four Seasons Hotel Fireworks Display
event. The regulations will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m.
on May 18, 2022. This action is being taken to provide for the safety
of life on navigable waterways during this event, which will be located
between MM 94.5 and MM 95.5 AHP, LMR, LA. During the enforcement
periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply
with directions from the Captain of the Port or designated
representative.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs),
Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Broadcast Notice to Mariners
(BNMs).

    Dated: May 2, 2022.
K.K. Denning,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2022-09788 Filed 5-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P