[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37335-37337]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15976]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75278; File No. SR-C2-2015-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Amending Rule 6.4 To Extend the Penny Pilot through June
30, 2016

June 24, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 17, 2015, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The 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 text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Penny Pilot Program (the ``Pilot Program'') is scheduled to
expire on June 30, 2015. C2 proposes to extend the Pilot Program until
June 30, 2016. C2 believes that extending the Pilot Program will allow
for further analysis of the Pilot Program and a determination of how
the Pilot Program should be structured in the future.
    During this extension of the Pilot Program, C2 proposes that it may
replace any option class that is currently included in the Pilot
Program and that has been delisted with the next most actively traded,
multiply listed option class that is not yet participating in the Pilot
Program (``replacement class''). Any replacement class would be
determined based on national average daily volume in the preceding six
months,\3\ and would be added on the second trading day following July
1, 2015 and January 1, 2016. C2 will announce to its Trading Permit
Holders by circular any replacement classes in the Pilot Program. The
Exchange notes that it intends to utilize the same parameters to
prospective replacement classes as was originally approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The month immediately preceding a replacement class's
addition to the Pilot Program (i.e., June) would not be used for
purposes of the six-month analysis. Thus, a replacement class to be
added on the second trading day following July 1, 2015 would be
identified based on The Option Clearing Corporation's trading volume
data from December 1, 2014 through May 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C2 is specifically authorized to act jointly with the other options
exchanges participating in the Pilot Program in identifying any
replacement class.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the

``Act'') and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitation transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. In particular, the proposed
rule change allows for an extension of the Pilot Program for the
benefit of market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    C2 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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot
Program and a determination of how the Program shall be structured in
the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. In addition, the
Exchange has been authorized to act jointly in extending the Pilot
Program and believes the other exchanges will be filing similar
extensions.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing.\10\ However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the
Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because doing so will allow the Pilot Program to continue without
interruption in a manner that is consistent with the Commission's prior
approval of the extension and expansion of the Pilot Program and will
allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the
impact of the Pilot Program.\12\ Accordingly, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the
Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61061 (November 24,
2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-44).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \14\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2015-015 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-C2-2015-015. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal

office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-C2-2015-015 and should be submitted on or before July 21, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15976 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Lead and Copper Rule Revisions Public Listening Sessions
April 28, 2021
Overview:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) first set of public listening sessions on the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) was held on April 28, 2021. This was the first of EPA's planned public engagements to obtain further input on the LCRR. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this set of public listening sessions was held virtually over the Zoom platform. Members of the public who had registered to speak were each given three minutes to provide their comments. These meetings were also broadcast to YouTube so that members of the public wishing to listen could watch the sessions in real time.
Each session was structured with one EPA facilitator and three EPA senior staff, referred to as listeners, who listened to commenters' statements. At the beginning of every session, the facilitator welcomed and thanked commenters for joining and invited them to view two videos prepared by EPA, a welcome video from EPA Administrator Michael S. Reagan as well as an introduction video on the LCRR and the public engagements titled "LCR 101", at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/lead-and-copper-rule-revisions-virtual-engagements.
The EPA listeners introduced themselves and thanked commenters for taking the time to participate in these sessions and for providing statements about the impacts of lead in drinking water and the LCRR. The facilitator then reviewed the rules, designed to ensure an orderly and productive listening session, and invited commenters to make their statements.
At the end of every session, the facilitator informed commenters and members of the public viewing the broadcast of the opportunity to submit written comments on the LCRR at https://www.regulations.gov using the docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255.
The sessions held on April 28[th] are described below and can be viewed as an .mp4 file posted to the docket, EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255 at https://www.regulations.gov.

Session 1: 10am-12pm EDT
The EPA facilitator for this session was Ryan Albert. The EPA listeners were Benita Best-Wong, Jennifer McLain, and Yu-Ting Guilaran. During this session, EPA heard comments from 11 members of the public that identified themselves as representing national associations, local governments, private citizens, and industry.
Comment Themes:
Health Concerns
Commenters were concerned about the impacts of lead on the health of young children in addition to those who are over six years old. It was mentioned that end users are not always aware of drinking water issues due to a lack of visibility of contaminants in water. Impacts are often felt more heavily on low-income communities and communities of color.
Lead Service Line Replacement
Commenters in this session were advocating for a thorough lead service line replacement program that is consistent with President Biden's proposal to remove all lead service lines. Some commenters implored EPA to not forget about lead service lines owned by private citizens in their program. Commenters encouraged EPA to be aggressive with the timeline and goals of the lead service line replacement program.
Sampling in Schools and Child Care Facilities
Commenters supported enhancing protection for schools and child care facilities but wanted to ensure the efficiency and viability of the program. One commenter pointed out that infrequent sampling cycles may give child care centers, schools, and the utilities that supply them a false sense of security that lead is not present in drinking water. Adding in a requirement for filters would further protect these highly vulnerable end-users.

Session 2: 12:30pm-2:30pm EDT
The EPA facilitator for this session was Karen Wirth. The EPA listeners were Dimple Chaudhary, Eric Burneson, and Anita Thompkins. During this session, EPA heard comments from 13 members of the public that identified themselves as representing national associations and organizations, and private citizens.
Comment Themes:
General Comments
Commenters stated that they believe there is a significant misrepresentation of lead levels in water due to the small number of samples required under the law. One commenter indicated that they felt it was appropriate for EPA to withdraw the LCRR to make it more effective and protective of public health. Another commenter stated that the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule has not been fully implemented and requested that EPA address factors that may impede implementation.
Health Concerns
Multiple commenters pointed out that there is no safe level of lead consumption according to most national organizations and as such, a 15 ppb Action Level is far too high. Multiple commenters advocated for EPA to implement a revised action level of 5 ppb.
Lead Service Line Replacement
As with the previous session, commenters indicated their support for President Biden's call to replace 100% of the lead service lines in the U.S. and EPA should push to have full lead service line replacement within 10 years. One commenter added that while working towards that goal, EPA should prioritize service line replacement for people that are most vulnerable and at risk for lead poisoning. Commenters identified a need for a publicly available map identifying the presence or absence of lead service lines.
Sampling in Schools and Child Care Facilities
Some commenters spoke to the difficulties in sampling at child care facilities and schools, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic and moving forward. One commenter believed the responsibility of testing should fall on the school or child care facility and not on the water system. Others indicated that more testing at child care facilities and schools would be appropriate to give those facilities a better picture of their lead risks -- without a proper understanding of risks and exposure, facilities could have a false sense of security.

Session 3: 5:30-7:30pm EDT
The EPA facilitator for this session was Andrea Barbery. The EPA listeners were Joe Tiago, Casey Katims, and Eric Burneson. During this session, EPA heard comments from 5 members of the public that identified themselves as representing national associations and organizations, and private citizens.
Comment Themes:
General Rule
Multiple commenters indicated that they believed the revised rule, as published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021, should not be promulgated. Commenters believed that the action level was too high and not protective of public health. One commenter pointed out that lead contamination incidents could still occur under the revised rule.
Lead Service Line Replacement
Multiple commenters indicated that the lead service line replacement timeline is too slow and that low-income communities of color are being disproportionately impacted due to their inability to afford replacing their portion of the lead service line. They also indicated that EPA should prioritize the removal of lead service lines from communities defined as environmental justice communities.
Health Effects
Multiple commenters reiterated that research shows there is no safe level of lead and because of this, the rule is not protecting public health. One commenter proposed higher frequencies of blood level testing in children to help identify communities that have higher exposures to lead.
Sampling in Schools and Child Care Facilities
One commenter argued for higher amounts of sampling in schools and that the remediation requirements for schools should be clarified further in the revised rule. Another commenter emphasized that if one school in the community is found to have low lead levels that the community may have a false sense of security that other schools have similar lead levels, when that may not be true.