[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7886-7888]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02418]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0201; FRL-10437-02-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revisions to Control of Sulfur
Dioxide Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing the
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), through a letter date June 1, 2021. The SIP
submittal revises SIP requirements regarding the installation,
maintenance, and termination of ambient air sulfur dioxide
(SO2) monitors near large industrial SO2 emitting
sources in the State. EPA is approving the adoption of the changes to
the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR) related to the
control of SO2 emissions into the SIP. EPA's analysis
indicates that this SIP revision would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
standards) or any other Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective March 9, 2023.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0201. All documents in the docket
are listed on the regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josue Ortiz, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-8085. Mr. Ortiz can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Chapter 1200-3-14 of TAPCR regulates SO2 emissions
within the State of Tennessee. Under the General Provisions of this
chapter, found in TAPCR 1200-03-14-.01(6), the State requires every
owner or operator of a certain large fuel burning installations and
process emission sources to: (1) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Technical Secretary that their SO2 emissions will not cause
interference with attainment and maintenance of any air quality
standard, and (2) install and maintain air quality sensors to monitor
attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards in the
areas influenced by their SO2 emissions. The rule also
allows owners or operators to petition the Technical Secretary to
terminate ambient monitoring previously commenced provided certain
conditions are met.
    The June 1, 2021, SIP revision includes changes to Tennessee's
ambient SO2 monitoring requirements for affected emission
sources, including adding a provision to require the use of permitted
allowable SO2 emissions for the demonstration that subject
sources are required to make to show that their SO2
emissions will not cause interference with attainment and maintenance
of any air quality standard, the removal of a less than 20,000 tons per
year threshold to qualify for the termination of monitors, the addition
of a data completeness requirement for the two years of ambient data
collected prior to termination of monitoring, and the addition of a
monitoring exemption for any fuel burning installation or process
emission source located in an area in which the Technical Secretary
operates one or more ambient SO2 air quality monitors in the
area under the influence of the source's emissions. Tennessee's SIP
submittal also provides a CAA section 110(l) non-interference
demonstration to show that the changes to paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)
will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment of any NAAQS and reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable CAA requirement. Lastly, the SIP includes clarifying
administrative changes to the regulatory language at paragraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6).
    Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published on
December 5, 2022 (87 FR 74356), EPA proposed to approve the June 1,
2021, changes to Tennessee's Section 1200-03-14-.01. The details of
Tennessee's submission, as well as EPA's rationale for approving the
changes, are described in more detail in the December 5, 2022, NPRM.
Comments on the December 5, 2022, NPRM were due on or before January 4,
2023. No comments were received on the December 5, 2022, NPRM, adverse
or otherwise.

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, and as discussed in Section I of the preamble, EPA is finalizing
the incorporation by reference of TAPCR 1200-03-14-.01, General
Provisions, state effective on May 31, 2021, into the Tennessee SIP.
This regulation includes the changes described in Section I, above. EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP,
have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing the approval of Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP
submission revising paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6). Specifically, the SIP
revision updates Tennessee's regulations related to SO2
criteria for applicable sources to install, maintain and terminate
SO2 ambient air monitors near large SO2 emitting
industrial sources. Tennessee's June 1, 2021, submittal changes
SO2 monitoring requirements for process emission sources
emitting more than 1,000 tons of SO2 per year and fuel
burning installations having a total rated capacity greater than 1,000
MMBtu/hr, including provisions to allow the owner or operator of these
SO2 sources to petition to terminate ambient air quality
monitoring. The SIP submittal also included a CAA section 110(l) non-
interference demonstration showing that the changes will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA is approving these
changes because they are consistent with the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 10, 2023. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 31, 2023.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. In Sec.  52.2220(c), amend Table 1 by revising the entry for
``Section 1200-3-14-.01'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   Table 1--EPA Approved Tennessee Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          State citation              Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 1200-3-14-.01............  General Provisions.       5/31/2021  2/7/2023,..........
                                                                        [Insert citation of
                                                                         publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-02418 Filed 2-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72225-72233]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28543]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73708; File No. SR-MSRB-2014-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Proposed Amendments to MSRB Rules G-1, on Separately Identifiable
Department or Division of a Bank; G-2, on Standards of Professional
Qualification; G-3, on Professional Qualification Requirements; and D-
13, on Municipal Advisory Activities

December 1, 2014.
    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 November 18, 2014, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(the ``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. 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 MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of proposed amendments to MSRB Rules G-1, on separately
identifiable department or division of a bank; G-2, on standards of
professional qualification; G-3, on professional qualification
requirements; and D-13, on municipal advisory activities (the
``proposed rule change''). The MSRB is

proposing that these amendments become effective 60 days following the
date of SEC approval.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2014-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB'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 MSRB 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 MSRB 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
Description of the Proposed Rule Change
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish
professional qualification requirements for municipal advisors and
their associated persons and to make related changes to select MSRB
rules. The MSRB is charged with setting professional standards and
continuing education requirements for municipal advisors. Specifically,
the Act requires associated persons of brokers, dealers and municipal
securities dealers (``dealers'') and municipal advisors to pass
examinations as the MSRB may establish to demonstrate that such
individuals meet the standards of competence as the MSRB finds
necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection
of investors and municipal entities or obligated persons.\3\ A
professional qualification examination is intended to determine whether
an individual meets the MSRB's basic qualification standards for a
particular registration category. The examination measures a
candidate's knowledge of the business activities, as well as the
regulatory requirements, including MSRB rules, rule interpretations and
federal law applicable to a particular registration category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSRB Rule G-3 establishes classifications and qualification
requirements for associated persons of dealers. The proposed rule
change would add the following two new registration classifications for
municipal advisors under Rule G-3: (a) Municipal advisor
representatives--those individuals who engage in municipal advisory
activities; and (b) municipal advisor principals--those individuals who
engage in the management, direction or supervision of the municipal
advisory activities of the municipal advisor and its associated
persons.\4\ The proposed amendments also would require each prospective
municipal advisor representative to take and pass the municipal advisor
representative qualification examination being developed by the MSRB
prior to being qualified as a municipal advisor representative.
Qualification as a municipal advisor representative would be a
prerequisite to qualification as a municipal advisor principal. Each
municipal advisor would be required to designate at least one
individual as a municipal advisor principal who would be responsible
for supervising the municipal advisory activities of the municipal
advisor, and each municipal advisor principal would be required to pass
the municipal advisor representative qualification examination to
perform the supervisory activities of a principal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The definition of municipal advisor representative would be
substantially identical to the category of individuals for whom a
Form MA-I is required to be completed as part of a municipal
advisor's registration with the SEC--natural persons associated with
the municipal advisor engaged in municipal advisory activities on
behalf of the firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide prospective municipal advisor representatives with
sufficient time to prepare for and take the examination, the MSRB
proposes a one-year grace period for test takers to pass the
examination. In addition, given the general view of industry
participants that the 90-day apprenticeship requirement for municipal
securities representatives in Rule G-3 does not provide any additional
benefit, the MSRB proposes to eliminate the requirement for municipal
securities representatives and, similarly, does not propose an
apprenticeship requirement for municipal advisor representatives.
    MSRB Rule G-2 establishes the standards of professional
qualification for dealers and currently provides that no dealer shall
engage in municipal securities activities unless such dealer and every
natural person associated with such dealer is qualified in accordance
with MSRB rules. The proposed rule change amends Rule G-2 to add a
basic requirement that no municipal advisor shall engage in municipal
advisory activities unless such municipal advisor and every natural
person associated with such municipal advisor is qualified in
accordance with MSRB rules.
    The proposed rule change would also amend Rule D-13, on municipal
advisory activities, to incorporate SEC rules by providing that the
term ``municipal advisory activities'' means, except as otherwise
specifically provided by rule of the Board, the activities described in
Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act \5\ and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder. In recognition of the new
regulatory scheme for municipal advisors, the proposed rule change
would amend Rules G-1 and G-3 to provide that dealers and their
municipal securities representatives may continue to perform financial
advisory or consultative services for issuers in connection with the
issuance of municipal securities, except to the extent the municipal
securities representatives engaged in the activities must be qualified
as municipal advisor representatives to perform such services. Finally,
Rule G-1 also would be amended to provide that, for purposes of its
municipal advisory activities, the term ``separately identifiable
department or division of a bank'' would have the same meaning as in
Securities Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(d)(4).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.
78o-4(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.15Ba1-1(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Registration Classifications
    The proposed amendments to Rule G-3 would create two new
registration classifications: (a) Municipal advisor representative and
(b) municipal advisor principal. These classifications are consistent
with other regulatory schemes, including those for broker-dealers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Examples of these other schemes include the following
classifications: Series 7 (General Securities Representative) and
Series 24 (General Securities Principal); Series 42 (Registered
Options Representative) and Series 4 (Registered Options Principal);
Series 22 (Direct Participation Programs Limited Representative) and
Series 39 (Direct Participation Programs Limited Principal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new classifications would distinguish between municipal advisor
representatives who would be qualified to engage in municipal advisory
activities and municipal advisor principals who would be qualified to
engage in and supervise the municipal advisory activities of the
municipal

advisor and its associated persons. The proposed amendments to Rule G-3
would define a municipal advisor representative as a natural person
associated with a municipal advisor, other than a person performing
only clerical, administrative, support or similar functions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule D-13 defines municipal advisory activities as the
activities described in Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
Rule D-13 would be amended to reflect the SEC's interpretation of
the statutory definition of municipal advisor. Hence, ``municipal
advisory activities'' would mean the activities described in Section
15B(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments would define a municipal advisor principal
as a natural person associated with a municipal advisor who is directly
engaged in the management, direction or supervision of the municipal
advisory activities, as defined in Rule D-13, of the municipal advisor.
In addition, the proposed amendments to Rule G-3 would require each
municipal advisor to designate at least one municipal advisor principal
to be responsible for the municipal advisory activities of the
municipal advisor.\9\ Further, the proposed rule change would require
each municipal advisor representative and municipal advisor principal
to take and pass the municipal advisor representative qualification
examination prior to being qualified as a municipal advisor
representative or municipal advisor principal, respectively. The
examination is discussed in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ MSRB Rule G-44 sets forth the obligation of municipal
advisors to supervise the municipal advisory activities of the
municipal advisor and its associated persons to ensure compliance
with applicable MSRB and SEC rules. Exchange Act Release No. 73415
(Oct. 23, 2014), 79 FR 64423 (Oct. 29, 2014), File No. SR-MSRB-2014-
06, available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/msrb/2014/34-73415.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grace Period
    To provide for an orderly transition to the new professional
qualification requirements for municipal advisors, the MSRB proposes
that prospective municipal advisor representatives have one year from
the effective date of the examination to pass it.\10\ During this grace
period, municipal advisor professionals could continue to engage in
municipal advisory activities. The grace period is intended to provide
municipal advisor representatives with sufficient time to study and
take (and, if necessary retake) the examination without causing undue
disruption to the business of the municipal advisor. As is the case for
all MSRB qualification examinations, individuals who do not pass the
examination would be permitted to retake the examination after 30 days.
However, any person who fails the examination three or more times in
succession would be prohibited from taking the examination for six
months.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The MSRB will announce the effective date of the municipal
advisor representative qualification examination at a later date.
    \11\ See MSRB Rule G-3(f), proposed MSRB Rule G-3(g) in Exhibit
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the effective date of the examination and prior to the
commencement of the one-year grace period, the MSRB will file a study
outline describing the topics on the examination, the percentage of the
examination devoted to the topic areas, and the number of questions on
the examination. The study outline will also contain reference material
and sample examination questions to assist examination takers. The MSRB
expects that it will provide more information about the study outline
through a webinar or other means, subsequent to the filing of the study
outline with the SEC. A pilot examination is expected to be delivered
in 2015. The MSRB will use the results of the pilot examination to set
the passing grade, which will be added to the study outline.
Uniform Requirement--Grandfathering
    The proposed rule change would require that all persons deemed
municipal advisor representatives under Rule G-3 pass the qualification
examination, regardless of whether such persons have passed other MSRB
or MSRB-recognized examinations (such as the Series 52 or 7
examinations), or previously have been engaged in municipal advisory
activities. While commenters requested, as discussed below, that the
MSRB waive the requirement or ``grandfather'' those individuals who
have passed certain other professional qualifications examinations or
have experience in providing municipal advisory services, the MSRB
believes that the significant changes that accompany the new regulatory
regime for municipal advisors dictate that each individual engaged in
municipal advisory activities demonstrate a minimum level of knowledge
of the job responsibilities and regulatory requirements by passing a
general qualification examination.
    The MSRB has considered this issue carefully and has determined
that the practice of grandfathering will not effectively ensure a
minimum level of competency by those individuals acting as municipal
advisor representatives. For example, the MSRB has no practical means
to determine whether an individual is competent based on experience.
The MSRB believes that Congress, through the Act, requires more than
reliance on a representation of competence.\12\ As for those who
suggest they have demonstrated a basic competence by passing another
qualification examination, the MSRB believes the job responsibilities
of a municipal advisor professional and the regulations governing such
individuals are sufficiently distinct in application as to require that
they pass a separate examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Exchange Act Release No. 70462 at 6 (Sept. 20, 2013),
78 FR 67467 at 67469 (Nov. 12, 2013) (``SEC Final Registration
Rule'') and Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waivers
    The Board will consider waiving the requirement that a municipal
advisor representative or municipal advisor principal pass the
municipal advisor representative qualification examination in
extraordinary cases: (1) Where the applicant participated in the
development of the municipal advisor representative qualification
examination as a member of the Board's Professional Qualifications
Advisory Committee (PQAC); or (2) where good cause is shown by an
applicant who previously qualified as a municipal advisor
representative by passing the municipal advisor representative
qualification examination and such qualification lapsed. The Board will
review each waiver request on its individual merits, taking into
consideration relevant facts presented by the applicant. For example,
the Board may consider granting a waiver for an individual whose
municipal advisor representative qualification lapsed but who
demonstrated subsequent investment industry or related professional
experience.
Apprenticeship
    MSRB Rule G-3 currently requires a municipal securities
representative to serve an apprenticeship period of 90 days before
transacting business with any member of the public or receiving
compensation for such activities. The intent of the provision was to
ensure that persons with no prior experience in the securities industry
would learn from an experienced professional before conducting business
with the public. Regulated entities have provided feedback that the
requirement does not provide any additional benefit because the 90-day
training period is short and the rule provides no specific training
requirements. Moreover, the SEC approved a similar rule change by
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

(FINRA) in eliminating the apprenticeship requirement established under
prior New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) Rule 345 for certain registered
persons, noting that the change would permit its member firms to
determine, consistent with their supervisory obligations, the extent
and duration of the initial training of such registered persons.\13\
The MSRB believes that dealers and municipal advisors should determine
the length and nature of the initial training for newly registered
persons, consistent with the approach taken by FINRA. Consequently, the
MSRB proposes to eliminate the apprenticeship requirement for municipal
securities representatives and proposes no such requirement for
municipal advisor representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 08-64 (Oct. 2008). Exchange Act
Release No. 58103 (Jul. 3, 2008), 73 FR 40403 (Jul. 14, 2008), File
No. SR-FINRA-2008-036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Amendments
    The MSRB is amending Rule G-3(a)(ii) to correctly re-letter G-
3(a)(ii)(D) as G-3(a)(ii)(C).
Effective Date
    The MSRB is proposing that these amendments become effective 60
days following the date of SEC approval. The effective date and the
compliance date of the municipal advisor representative qualification
examination will be announced by the MSRB with at least 30 days notice.
The one-year grace period will extend from the effective date to the
compliance date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act,\14\ which provides that the MSRB's
rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(b)(2)(A).

provide that no municipal securities broker or municipal securities
dealer shall effect any transaction in, or induce or attempt to
induce the purchase or sale of, any municipal security, and no
broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, or municipal advisor
shall provide advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or
obligated person with respect to municipal financial products or the
issuance of municipal securities, unless . . . such municipal
securities broker or municipal securities dealer and every natural
person associated with such municipal securities broker or municipal
securities dealer meet such standards of training, experience,
competence, and such other qualifications as the Board finds
necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
protection of investors and municipal entities or obligated persons.

    This provision provides the MSRB with authority to establish
standards of competence as the MSRB finds necessary to carry out its
regulatory duties. It also provides that, in connection with the
definition and application of such standards, the MSRB may
appropriately classify municipal advisors and their associated persons,
specify that all or any portion of such standards shall be applicable
to any such class, and require persons in any such class to pass an
examination regarding such standards of competence.
    Professional qualification examinations are an established means
for determining the basic competency of individuals in a particular
class. The proposed rule change would require individuals who engage in
or supervise municipal advisory activities to pass such an examination.
The MSRB believes that requiring prospective municipal advisor
representatives to pass a basic qualification examination will protect
investors, municipal entities and obligated persons by ensuring such
representatives have a basic understanding of the role of a municipal
advisor representative and the rules and regulations governing such
individuals.
    In its final rule on the permanent registration of municipal
advisors, the SEC noted that ``[t]he new registration requirements and
regulatory standards are intended to mitigate some of the problems
observed with the conduct of some municipal advisors, including . . .
advice rendered by financial advisors without adequate training or
qualifications. '' \15\ The municipal advisor representative
qualification examination is consistent with the intent to mitigate
problems associated with advice provided by those individuals without
adequate training or qualifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 78 FR 67467 at 67469 (Nov. 12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iii) of the Act,\16\ which
provides that the MSRB's rules shall, with respect to municipal
advisors, provide professional standards. The proposed rule change
would establish professional standards for those individuals engaged in
or supervising municipal advisory activities by requiring such
individuals to demonstrate a basic competency regarding the role of
municipal advisor representatives and the rules and regulations
governing the conduct of such persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iii) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(b)(2)(L)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act \17\ requires that rules
adopted by the Board not impose a regulatory burden on small municipal
advisors that is not necessary or appropriate in the public interest
and for the protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated
persons, provided that there is robust protection of investors against
fraud. The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with this provision. While the proposed rule change would affect all
municipal advisors, including small municipal advisors, it would be a
necessary and appropriate regulatory burden in order to establish the
baseline competence of those individuals engaged in municipal advisory
activities, and it also would promote compliance with MSRB rules. While
there will be one-time costs associated with preparing for and taking
the municipal advisor representative qualification examination, the
MSRB does not believe that such costs will impose a regulatory burden
on small municipal advisors that is not necessary or appropriate to
protect investors, municipal entities and obligated persons. A
discussion of the economic analysis of the proposed rule change and its
impact on small municipal advisors is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \18\ requires that MSRB rules not
be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In determining
whether this standard has been met, the MSRB has been guided by the
Board's recently-adopted policy to more formally integrate economic
analysis into the rulemaking process. In accordance with this policy
the Board has evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed rule
change, including in comparison to reasonable alternative regulatory
approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, in so far as the proposed rule
change merely establishes baseline professional qualification standards
for all municipal advisors. The baseline standard would provide the
MSRB assurance that individuals

who take and pass the municipal advisor representative qualification
examination demonstrate a basic knowledge of the role of a municipal
advisor representative and the rules and regulations governing the
conduct of individuals engaging in municipal advisory activities. The
MSRB has considered whether it is possible that the costs associated
with preparing for and taking the municipal advisor representative
qualification examination, relative to the baseline of no professional
qualification examination, may affect the competitive landscape by
leading some municipal advisors to exit the market, curtail their
activities or consolidate with other firms. For example, some municipal
advisors may determine to consolidate with other municipal advisors in
order to benefit from economies of scale (e.g., by leveraging existing
resources of a larger firm to prepare candidates to take the
qualification examination) rather than to incur separately the costs
associated with the proposed rule change. Others may exit the market,
rather than incurring the cost of preparing for and taking a
qualification examination.
    In the SEC Final Registration Rule, the SEC recognized that
municipal advisors would incur programmatic costs, including ``costs to
meet standards of training, experience, competence, and other
qualifications, as well as continuing education requirements, that the
MSRB may establish in the future.'' \19\ Such exits from the market may
lead to a reduced pool of municipal advisors. However, the SEC also
noted that the market for municipal advisory services is likely to
remain competitive despite the potential exit of some municipal
advisors (including small entity municipal advisors), consolidation of
municipal advisors, or lack of new entrants into the market.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 78 FR 67467 at 67611 (Nov. 12, 2013).
    \20\ See 78 FR 67467 at 67630 (Nov. 12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is also possible that competition for municipal advisory
services can be affected by whether incremental costs associated with
the municipal advisor representative qualification examination are
passed on to advisory clients. The amount of costs passed on may be
influenced by the size of the municipal advisory firm. For smaller
municipal advisors with fewer clients, the incremental costs associated
with the qualification examination may represent a greater percentage
of annual revenues, and, thus, such advisors may be more likely to pass
those costs along to their advisory clients. As noted above, however,
the costs of preparing for and taking the examination would be incurred
only once for each municipal advisor representative, assuming the
representative passed the examination on the first occasion.
    The Act provides that MSRB rules may not impose a regulatory burden
on small municipal advisors that is not necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and for the protection of investors, municipal
entities, and obligated persons provided that there is robust
protection of investors against fraud.\21\ The MSRB is sensitive to the
potential impact of the requirements contained in the proposed rule
change on small municipal advisors. The MSRB understands that some
small municipal advisors and sole proprietors, unlike larger municipal
advisory firms, may not employ full-time staff to train individuals to
take and pass professional qualification examinations and that the cost
of complying with the requirements of the proposed rule change may be
proportionally higher for these smaller firms. To minimize potential
disruption to firms' business activities and to allow sufficient time
for municipal advisor professionals to study for the examination, the
proposed rule change would provide covered registered persons with a
one-year grace period to pass the examination. The MSRB recognizes that
requiring all individuals engaged in municipal advisory activities to
take the examination means that many individuals with ongoing business
obligations would be required to prepare for and take the examination
in addition to fulfilling their business commitments. The MSRB believes
that the one-year grace period would provide such individuals with
sufficient flexibility to plan their examination preparation time
around their existing and ongoing business obligations. Going forward,
new municipal advisor professionals entering the market would be able
to study for and take the examination before incurring municipal
advisory business commitments. The MSRB believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act's provision with respect to burdens
imposed on small municipal advisors because the financial burden of
preparing for and taking the qualification examination is offset by the
need to ensure that municipal advisor professionals have a basic level
of competency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 17, 2014, the MSRB published a request for public comment
on a draft of the proposed rule change.\22\ In response, the MSRB
received thirty-five comment letters.\23\ The comments, which are
summarized in Section 5 below, focused principally on the qualification
examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See MSRB Notice 2014-08 (Mar. 17, 2014) (March Notice).
    \23\ Letters were received from Arrow Partners (``Arrow''),
Association of Registration Management (``ARM''), Bond Dealers of
America (``BDA''), Cedar Partners, Ltd (``Cedar''), Central States
Capital Markets (``Central States''), CFA Institute (``CFA''),
Compass Securities Corporation (``Compass''), Dixworks LLC
(``Dixworks''), Fitzgibbon Toigo Associates (``Fitzgibbon''),
Fortress Group, Inc. (``Fortress''), Frank Taylor, George K. Baum &
Company (``George K. Baum''), Government Credit Corporation
(``GCC''), Hamersley Partners, LLC (``Hamersley''), IMMS LLC
(``IMMS''), Investment Company Institute (``ICI''), Jorge Rosso,
Monahan & Roth, LLC (``Monahan''), MVision Private Equity Advisers
USA LLC (``MVision''), National Association of Independent Public
Finance Advisors (``NAIPFA''), New Albany Capital Partners, LLC
(``New Albany''), Oyster River Capital LP (``Oyster River''),
Perkins Fund Marketing LLC (``Perkins''), Raftelis Financial
Consultants, Inc. (``Raftelis''), Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (``SIFMA''), Sonja Sullivan, Stacy Havener,
Stonehaven, Tessera Capital Partners (``Tessera''), Third Party
Marketers Association (``3PM''), Tibor Partners Inc. (``Tibor''),
Timothy D. Wasson, Yuba Group (``Yuba''), Zions First National Bank,
by W. David Hemingway (``Zions Bank I''), Zions First National Bank,
by James G. Livingston (``Zions Bank II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The qualification examination is intended to determine whether a
municipal advisor representative meets a minimum level of competency
and, in general, commenters acknowledged that municipal advisor
representatives should meet or exceed a minimum level of competency.
However, several commenters expressed concerns about implementation
costs associated with the proposed examination. These commenters
suggested that the MSRB consider alternatives for determining a
municipal advisor representative's competency. Although the suggested
alternatives vary, they fall into two main categories. First, several
commenters asked the MSRB to reconsider the scope of the proposed
qualification examination, suggesting the examination should be
administered separately or as part of an existing qualification
examination. Second, commenters suggested that municipal advisor
professionals be grandfathered based on either their experience or
their existing professional qualifications. These options are discussed
in Section 5 below.
    Commenters expressed concerns about the costs of preparing for and
taking a qualification examination. SIFMA offered estimates of the
costs to firms and individuals associated with taking the examination.
These costs included fees per examination, study materials, the value
of time used to

study for the exam, recordkeeping costs, and compliance costs. Although
many of these costs are unknown, SIFMA estimates that the known likely
costs to individuals and firms will be at least $5,000 per individual
taking the examination. In addition, SIFMA noted that costs also would
be incurred by the MSRB to support development of questions for the new
examination and by FINRA to administer the examination. SIFMA argued
that these costs would ``multiply exponentially'' as potentially
thousands of people who are or will be dually registered as municipal
securities representatives and municipal advisory representatives--or
will be moving from one classification to another--will need to take an
additional qualification examination and incur additional expenses.
SIFMA suggested that costs could be reduced by broadening the scope of
the Series 52 examination to include questions related to competency as
a municipal advisor representative.
    BDA estimated costs of up to $100,000 per individual to meet the
requirements as a municipal securities representative and as a
municipal advisor representative. BDA did not explain how it arrived at
this estimate, although it indicated that the figure includes the lost
time of municipal advisor representatives that could have been used
serving clients. BDA assumes that 75,000 individuals (33,000
individuals from non-dealer municipal advisors and 42,000 from dealer-
municipal advisors) would need to take the new examination.\24\ The
product of BDA's estimated cost per individual and their estimated
number of test takers yields a total estimated cost in the billions of
dollars. Although BDA admits that it performed a ``back of the
envelope'' assessment of the costs, the MSRB does not believe this cost
estimate has adequate foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ BDA also expressed concern about the administration of the
qualification examination, positing that the number of individuals
taking the examination would create congestion at examination
centers and may result in professionals unable to complete their
required testing. The MSRB is confident that FINRA--assuming it is
designated as the administrator of the municipal advisor
representative qualification examination under Section
15B(c)(7)(A)(iii) of the Act--and the examination centers employed
by FINRA have the capacity to accommodate all individuals who will
be required to take the qualification examination during the one-
year grace period and thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA's estimates of cost per individual are better supported.
Although cost estimates will vary, the SIFMA estimates appear to be
more credible and useful and were considered by the MSRB. SIFMA notes
that there will be unknown costs, so their estimate should be regarded
as a minimum amount. The costs to the MSRB and FINRA in creating and
administering the examination are relevant. However, a portion of those
costs will likely be covered by examination fees. Given that these fees
have been considered as part of the costs borne by individuals and
firms, the relevant costs to the MSRB and FINRA would be those costs
not covered by examination fees.
    The BDA estimate of 75,000 test takers appears high and
inconsistent with the permanent municipal advisor registration
information received by the SEC to date. A more accurate figure has
been provided by the SEC, which estimates in the SEC Final Registration
Rule that municipal advisors will need to submit a new Form MA-I for
approximately 950 individuals annually.\25\ Using SIFMA's cost
estimate, the total cost to the industry per year, excluding unknown
recordkeeping and compliance costs, yields an estimate of approximately
$4,750,000 in annual costs. Of course, in the first year the costs
would be higher because those individuals currently engaged in
municipal advisory activities will take the examination. Based on the
initial analysis, the Board expects approximately 3,000 initial
examination takers. This could result in a total cost of $15 million,
using SIFMA's cost estimate of $5,000 per person. Most of this cost
will be borne by large dealer-municipal advisors that elect to qualify
a large number of their associated persons as municipal advisor
representatives. The MSRB expects that many of these firms will
leverage their training resources to lower the cost per examination
candidate. The MSRB also believes that the total cost to municipal
advisors to prepare individuals to take the qualification examination
will drop significantly after the one-year grace period, as the number
of examination takers decreases and then levels off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 78 FR 67467 at 67589 (Nov. 12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Scope of the Qualification Examination
    Commenters expressed varying views about the proper scope of a
qualification examination. BDA offered three alternatives for the Board
to consider: (a) Qualifying municipal advisor professionals using the
Series 52 examination; (b) creating a single, new, comprehensive
examination for all municipal securities and advisor professionals; and
(c) creating a supplemental examination for previously registered
municipal securities professionals that would cover the new municipal
advisor material.
    SIFMA recommended that the Board consider adding questions to the
existing Series 52 qualification examination. SIFMA stated that this
alternative would be less burdensome to the industry, and would ensure
that there was no delay in developing examination material and
administering the examination. SIFMA also stated that examining
municipal securities and advisory competency in one examination would
aid small dealers, many of whom perform both functions and are very
sensitive to compliance costs. Further, SIFMA stated that there are
potentially thousands of individuals who are dually registered and
would benefit from having a single examination. This is essentially the
same approach as the universal examination recommended by BDA.
    Consistent with SIFMA's recommendation for a single qualification
examination, ARM also suggested that if the MSRB feels that the duties
of municipal advisor representatives require additional expertise that
additional questions be added to existing examinations rather than
creating entirely new examinations.
    The Board maintains there is a need for separate qualification
examinations because the content of such an examination will be
designed to meet the MSRB's goal of determining whether a prospective
municipal advisor representative meets the minimum level of competency
required of a municipal advisor professional. The examination, while
covering a variety of municipal advisory activities, will be more
targeted than a combined examination that attempts to evaluate the
competence of individuals engaged in varied municipal securities and
municipal advisory activities. As discussed below, certain commenters
take issue with the breadth of the proposed municipal advisor
representative examination because of the more limited nature of their
functions. These concerns could be exacerbated by combining the
municipal advisor and securities representative examinations. Although
a combined examination may be less costly to create and administer, and
may place a smaller cost burden on dealers, such an examination may
place a larger cost burden on non-dealer municipal advisors and their
associated persons who have no need for or interest in demonstrating
competency as a municipal securities representative but

would be required to prepare for and pass an examination that included
significant content relating to the role and regulation of municipal
securities representatives.
    BDA suggests, alternatively, that the MSRB develop a supplemental
examination for municipal securities representatives. Under this
approach, municipal advisor professionals not qualified as municipal
securities representatives could take the municipal securities
representative qualification examination and municipal advisor
supplement or a new municipal advisor representative qualification
examination developed by the MSRB. The net effect of this alternative
is a separate examination for municipal advisory activities. While a
supplemental examination might require fewer questions than a stand-
alone examination, the practicalities of maintaining many different
examinations should not be underestimated. Moreover, to maintain
consistency, the MSRB would then need to develop a supplemental
examination for municipal advisors seeking to register as municipal
securities representatives, which would necessitate a total of four
examinations, adding further and unnecessary complexity to the
registration process. Lastly, the MSRB believes that existing municipal
securities representatives should be proficient on those portions of a
municipal advisor representative examination that overlap with the
municipal securities representative examination.
    In contrast to other commenters, ICI argued against a single
general qualification exam. ICI recommended that the MSRB create a
separate qualification examination for those who provide advice
regarding municipal fund securities. ICI cites the MSRB's policy on
economic analysis that allows for consideration of different rule
specifications or differing requirements for different market
participants. Alternatively, ICI recommends grandfathering those
individuals who have passed the Series 6 examination.\26\ The Board
believes that passing the Series 6 examination would demonstrate only a
basic competency in servicing retail customers who purchase mutual
funds, interests in 529 college savings plans and variable annuities
and, hence, would not establish an individual's competency as a
municipal advisor representative. The Board appreciates ICI's
contention that the activities of municipal advisors who provide advice
to municipal entities regarding municipal fund securities are different
than the municipal advisory activities of traditional municipal
advisors. The MSRB also acknowledges that some of the content on the
examination will not be directly related to municipal fund securities.
Nevertheless, the Board believes that individuals who engage in
municipal advisory activities regarding municipal fund securities
should demonstrate knowledge of the rules and regulations governing
municipal advisors by taking the municipal advisor representative
qualification examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products
Representative Qualifications Examination, (Series 6) authorizes
individuals to sell a limited set of securities products including,
mutual funds and variable annuities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grandfathering
    ARM suggested that the MSRB consider grandfathering individuals who
have corresponding registrations as a municipal securities
representative or municipal securities principal on the grounds that
these individuals have completed more encompassing examinations and
that they are experienced municipal securities professionals whose
expertise should be sufficient to engage in municipal advisory
activities. SIFMA, BDA and 3PM also recommended that individuals who
are currently qualified to perform municipal securities activities be
grandfathered.
    Yuba commented that the Board should make the supervisor
examination available before, or simultaneously with, the
representative examination and eliminate the need for a supervisor to
take both examinations. The Board believes it is important that the
representative examination be introduced prior to any principal
examination because the examination will determine the basic competency
of those individuals who are engaged in municipal advisory activity and
have the most direct impact on municipal entities and investors. While
the supervisory activities of municipal advisor principals are
important, the MSRB will consider an examination for principals at a
later date, and should not delay the introduction of an examination
that has been in preparation for nearly four years. And in any event, a
principal is customarily required to pass the representative
examination.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See MSRB Rule G-3(b)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A focused examination for municipal advisor professionals will
likely be more effective in meeting the MSRB's goal of determining
whether a municipal advisor representative meets a minimum level of
competency than recognizing a professional qualification examination
for municipal securities representatives or accepting the self-reported
experience of an individual who worked in a previously unregulated
environment. While it is self-evident that relying on existing
qualifications (such as having passed the Series 52 examination) or
general experience would place a smaller cost burden on firms and
individuals than requiring all individuals engaged in municipal
advisory activities to take and pass a new qualification examination,
the MSRB believes such an examination is necessary to establish a
baseline of competency for municipal advisors.
    The Board determined that grandfathering would not be consistent
with the intent of Congress and the SEC in creating a new municipal
advisor regulatory regime. The new regulation was created in response
to problems that Congress and the SEC observed regarding the activities
of municipal advisors. Requiring municipal advisor professionals to
take and pass a basic qualification examination ensures that such
individuals demonstrate a minimum level of understanding of the role
and responsibilities of municipal advisors and applicable rules and
regulations.
    By contrast, grandfathering presumes that each municipal advisor
representative has a basic competency in the subject matter. Congress
explicitly called for the development of professional standards for
municipal advisors.\28\ Given the MSRB's statutory obligation to
protect investors, municipal entities and obligated persons that
interact with and/or rely on municipal advisor professionals, there
should be a compelling reason to rely on their prior experience as
evidence of their competence. Even if an individual passed the Series 7
or 52 examinations, the content was not specifically related to
municipal advisory activities or the regulation of such activities.
While examinations such as the Series 52 may have some overlapping
content, the examination questions being developed for municipal
advisor professionals by PQAC are being drafted based on the particular
job responsibilities of municipal advisor professionals and the rules
and regulations governing such responsibilities. In this regard, the
Series 7 and 52 examinations do not adequately test the specific job
responsibilities of municipal advisor professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Section 15B(b)(2)(L) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(b)(2)(L).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The focus of the Series 52 examination is on underwriting, trading,

research and sales, not municipal advisory activities. Approximately
one-quarter of the examination covers rules and regulations applicable
to these activities and over half of the examination covers municipal
securities features and principles relevant to municipal securities
activities. There are few questions directly related to the job
responsibilities of municipal advisor professionals, and those that
exist are generally written from the perspective as municipal
securities representative. Without significant content related to the
job responsibilities of municipal advisor professionals, the Board
believes that passing the Series 52 examination does not establish an
individual's basic competency to perform municipal advisory
activities.\29\ Moreover, the municipal advisor regulatory regime is
still being developed by the Board, and individuals who have passed the
Series 52 examination would not have demonstrated knowledge of the new
core municipal advisor regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ While the Series 52 examination covers concepts related to
the activities of a traditional financial advisor, those concepts
are discrete and do not extend to the broader set of municipal
advisory activities that will be covered on the municipal advisor
representative qualification examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain commenters urged the Board to adopt the approach taken by
FINRA when implementing the investment banking representative
qualification examination (Series 79).\30\ FINRA grandfathered general
securities representatives (Series 7 or Series 7 equivalent) if they
opted-in within six months of the effective date of the rule.\31\ FINRA
explained that the new examination would provide a more targeted
assessment (than the Series 7 examination) of the competency of
investment banking professionals. Some commenters further suggested
that, if grandfathering is permitted, the MSRB could ensure that
relevant municipal advisor content is delivered through the continuing
education program. While continuing education is important, it should
not serve as a substitute for a basic competency examination unless
other alternatives are not feasible. The Board believes the approach
taken by FINRA (then National Association of Securities Dealers,
``NASD'') in implementing the research analyst qualification
examination (Series 86/87) is a more appropriate analogue. In that
instance, no grandfathering was permitted due to the FINRA's desire
that all research analysts demonstrate the same level of analytical
competency and knowledge of the law.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The following commenters suggested using FINRA's approach
to grandfathering: BDA, George K. Baum, SIFMA, and 3PM.
    \31\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 09-41 (Jul. 2009).
    \32\ See NASD Notice to Members 04-25 (Mar. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The argument for grandfathering individuals based on experience is
not persuasive because the MSRB has no way of determining the
competence of individuals who have been acting as municipal advisors
but have been unregulated at the federal level. While it is likely that
many municipal advisor professionals are experienced and knowledgeable
and have more than a basic level of competency, the MSRB is not in a
position to review the background and experience of each professional
to determine whether such individual is qualified. Qualifying all
individuals as municipal advisor representatives based solely on their
experience would likely result in the qualification of some individuals
who could not demonstrate a basic competency regarding the
responsibilities of municipal advisors and the regulations governing
municipal advisory activities.
    Given the new regulatory regime for municipal advisors, the
differences in size and type of municipal advisors, as well as the
varied experience and background of municipal advisor professionals, it
is important that each individual demonstrate a basic competency.

Apprenticeship, Grace Period, and Classifications

    Commenters broadly supported the elimination of the apprenticeship
requirement for municipal securities representatives and not
establishing one for municipal advisor representatives.\33\ There also
was broad support for establishing a one-year grace period to provide
municipal advisor representatives with sufficient time to study and
take the examination without causing undue disruption to the business
of the municipal advisor.\34\ 3PM, however, suggested that more time
was necessary, and NAIPFA said it could not opine as to whether the
one-year grace period would be sufficient because it was unsure if the
study guide would be available before the grace period commenced. As
noted above, prior to the commencement of the grace period, the MSRB
will file with the SEC a study outline for the examination and then
conduct a pilot examination. The pilot examination will likely be
administered in 2015 and will enable the Board to establish a passing
score for the examination. After a passing score is established, the
MSRB will issue a regulatory notice establishing an effective date and
compliance date for the examination. The grace period will commence on
the effective date and conclude on the compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The following commenters were supportive of eliminating the
apprenticeship requirement: George K. Baum, SIFMA, Zions Bank II,
Yuba and 3PM.
    \34\ The following commenters were supportive of the one-year
grace period: BDA, New Albany, ICI, SIFMA, Zions Bank II and 3PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Municipal Advisor Representative Examination Delivery and
Administration
    Several commenters raised questions regarding the administration
and delivery of the examination, specifically about retention of the
registration information for non-dealer municipal advisors that are not
included in FINRA's central registration depository.\35\ Commenters
want to ensure a similar process is in place for non-dealer municipal
advisors. Similarly, commenters asked that the MSRB utilize the
existing securities industry registration forms (e.g., Form U4). These
issues are beyond the scope of the proposed rule change. The MSRB will
address the administration of the examination at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The following commenters raised issues regarding the
administration and delivery of the examination: ARM, BDA and George
K. Baum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment on the Implication of Revising Rule G-1
    In response to the proposed revisions to MSRB Rule G-1, Zions Bank
(Zions Bank I) commented that the proposed amendments should not be
interpreted or applied in any way that would preclude a bank, or a
separately identifiable department or division of a bank (``SID''), or
a bank affiliate, from engaging in municipal securities and municipal
advisory activities. It is not the intent of the amendments to preclude
banks, SIDS, or bank affiliates from engaging in a broad range of
municipal securities and/or municipal advisory activities, so long as
they are properly registered under MSRB rules and the federal
securities laws and otherwise comply with any limitations therein.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period of up to 90 days (i) as
the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2014-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2014-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. 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-MSRB-2014-08 and should be
submitted on or before December 26, 2014.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28543 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 62968]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 6, 2016--9:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Round Room (10th Floor),
Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chinita A. Roundtree-Coleman at (609)
485-7149 or Web site at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2),
notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Research, Engineering and
Development (RE&D) Advisory Committee. The meeting agenda will include
receiving from the Committee guidance for FAA's research and
development investments in the areas of air traffic services, airports,
aircraft safety, human factors and environment and energy. Attendance
is open to the interested public but seating is limited. With the
approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral
statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to attend the meeting,
present statements, or obtain information should contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the
public may present a written statement to the Committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 6, 2016.
Chinita A. Roundtree-Coleman,
Computer Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2016-21967 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 49379]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21308]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF18-5-000]

Notice of Filing; Western Area Power Administration

    Take notice that on September 19, 2018, Western Area Power
Administration submitted tariff filing per: DSW_Intertie_WAPA181-
20180918 to be effective 10/11/2018.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 19, 2018.

    Dated: September 25, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21308 Filed 9-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45122-45124]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0016]

Meetings To Implement Pandemic Response Voluntary Agreement Under
Section 708 of the Defense Production Act

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Announcement of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is holding
quarterly status meetings under each of the six Plans of Action, in the
corresponding order listed below, to

implement the Voluntary Agreement for the Manufacture and Distribution
of Critical Healthcare Resources Necessary to Respond to a Pandemic.
They include: Plan of Action to Establish a National Strategy for the
Manufacture, Allocation, and Distribution of Medical Gases to Respond
to COVID-19; Plan of Action to Establish a National Strategy for the
Manufacture, Allocation, and Distribution of Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) to Respond to COVID-19; Plan of Action to Establish a
National Strategy for the Manufacture, Allocation, and Distribution of
Diagnostic Test Kits and other Testing Components to Respond to COVID-
19; Plan of Action to Establish a National Strategy for the
Manufacture, Allocation, and Distribution of Medical Devices to Respond
to COVID-19; Plan of Action to Establish a National Strategy for the
Coordination of National Multimodal Healthcare Supply Chains to Respond
to COVID-19; Plan of Action to Establish a National Strategy for the
Manufacture, Allocation, and Distribution of Drug Products, Drug
Substances, and Associated Medical Devices to Respond to COVID-19.

DATES:
     Thursday, August 18, 2022, from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET).
     Thursday, September 15, 2022, from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
ET.
     Thursday, September 22, 2022, from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
ET.
     Thursday, October 6, 2022, from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. ET.
     Thursday, October 13, 2022, from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
ET.
     Thursday, October 20, 2022, from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
ET.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Hill, Office of Business,
Industry, and Infrastructure Integration, via email at
[email protected] or via phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of these meetings is provided as
required by section 708(h)(8) of the Defense Production Act (DPA), 50
U.S.C. 4558(h)(8), and consistent with 44 CFR part 332.
    The DPA authorizes the making of ``voluntary agreements and plans
of action'' with representatives of industry, business, and other
interests to help provide for the national defense.\1\ The President's
authority to facilitate voluntary agreements with respect to responding
to the spread of COVID-19 within the United States was delegated to the
Secretary of Homeland Security in Executive Order 13911.\2\ The
Secretary of Homeland Security further delegated this authority to the
FEMA Administrator.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 50 U.S.C. 4558(c)(1).
    \2\ 85 FR 18403 (Apr. 1, 2020).
    \3\ DHS Delegation 09052, Rev. 00.1 (Apr. 1, 2020); DHS
Delegation Number 09052 Rev. 00 (Jan. 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 17, 2020, after the appropriate consultations with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, FEMA
completed and published in the Federal Register a ``Voluntary
Agreement, Manufacture and Distribution of Critical Healthcare
Resources Necessary to Respond to a Pandemic'' (Voluntary
Agreement).\4\ Unless terminated earlier, the Voluntary Agreement is
effective until August 17, 2025, and may be extended subject to
additional approval by the Attorney General after consultation with the
Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. The Agreement may be used to
prepare for or respond to any pandemic, including COVID-19, during that
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 85 FR 50035 (Aug. 17, 2020). The Attorney General, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, made
the required finding that the purpose of the voluntary agreement may
not reasonably be achieved through an agreement having less
anticompetitive effects or without any voluntary agreement and
published the finding in the Federal Register on the same day. 85 FR
50049 (Aug. 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 7, 2020, the first plan of action under the Voluntary
Agreement--the Plan of Action to Establish a National Strategy for the
Manufacture, Allocation, and Distribution of Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) to Respond to COVID-19 (PPE Plan of Action)--was
finalized.\5\ The PPE Plan of Action established several sub-committees
under the Voluntary Agreement, focusing on different aspects of the PPE
Plan of Action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 85 FR 78869 (Dec. 7, 2020). See also 85 FR 79020 (Dec.
8, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 24, 2021, four additional plans of action under the
Voluntary Agreement--the Plan of Action to Establish a National
Strategy for the Manufacture, Allocation, and Distribution of
Diagnostic Test Kits and other Testing Components to respond to COVID-
19; the Plan of Action to Establish a National Strategy for the
Manufacture, Allocation, and Distribution of Drug Products, Drug
Substances, and Associated Medical Devices to respond to COVID-19; the
Plan of Action to Establish a National Strategy for the Manufacture,
Allocation, and Distribution of Medical Devices to respond to COVID-19;
and the Plan of Action to Establish a National Strategy for the
Manufacture, Allocation, and Distribution of Medical Gases to respond
to COVID-19--were finalized.\6\ These plans of action established
several sub-committees under the Voluntary Agreement, focusing on
different aspects of each plan of action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 86 FR 27894 (May 24, 2021). See also 86 FR 28851 (May
28, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 15, 2021, the sixth plan of action under the Voluntary
Agreement--the Plan of Action to Establish a National Strategy for the
Coordination of National Multimodal Healthcare Supply Chains to Respond
to COVID-19--was finalized.\7\ This Plan of Action established several
sub-committees under the Voluntary Agreement, focusing on different
transportation categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 86 FR 57444 (Oct. 15, 2021). See also 87 FR 6880 (Feb.
7, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The meetings are chaired by the FEMA Administrator's delegates from
the Office of Response and Recovery (ORR) and Office of Policy and
Program Analysis (OPPA), attended by the Attorney General's delegates
from the U.S. Department of Justice, and attended by the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission's delegates. In implementing the Voluntary
Agreement, FEMA adheres to all procedural requirements of 50 U.S.C.
4558 and 44 CFR part 332.
    Meeting Objectives: The objectives of the meetings are as follows:

    1. Convene the Requirements Sub-Committees under each of the six
Plans of Action to establish priorities related to the COVID-19
response under the Voluntary Agreement.
    2. Gather Requirements Sub-Committee Participants and Attendees
to ask targeted questions for situational awareness.
    3. Identify pandemic-related information gaps and areas that
merit sharing by holding these regular quarterly meetings of the
Requirements Sub-Committees with key stakeholders.
    4. Identify potential Objectives and Actions that should be
completed under the Requirements Sub-Committees.

    Meetings Closed to the Public: By default, the DPA requires
meetings held to implement a voluntary agreement or plan of action be
open to the public.\8\ However, attendance may be limited if the
Sponsor \9\ of the Voluntary Agreement finds that the matter to be
discussed at a meeting falls within the purview of matters described in
5 U.S.C. 552b(c), such as trade secrets and commercial or financial
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 50 U.S.C. 4558(h)(7).
    \9\ ``[T]he individual designated by the President in subsection
(c)(2) [of section 708 of the DPA] to administer the voluntary
agreement, or plan of action.'' 50 U.S.C. 4558(h)(7).

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

    The Sponsor of the Voluntary Agreement for the Manufacture and
Distribution of Critical Healthcare Resources Necessary to Respond to a
Pandemic, the FEMA Administrator, found that these meetings to
implement the Voluntary Agreement involve matters which fall within the
purview of matters described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) and the meetings are
therefore closed to the public.
    Specifically, these meetings may require participants to disclose
trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged
or confidential. Disclosure of such information allows for meetings to
be closed to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).
    The success of the Voluntary Agreement depends wholly on the
willing participation of the private sector participants. Failure to
close these meetings to the public could reduce active participation by
the signatories due to a perceived risk that sensitive company
information could be released to the public. A public disclosure of a
private sector participant's information executed prematurely could
reduce trust and support for the Voluntary Agreement. A resulting loss
of support by the participants for the Voluntary Agreement would
significantly hinder the implementation of the Agency's objectives.
Thus, these meeting closures are permitted pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(9)(B).

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-16108 Filed 7-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P.