[Federal Register: August 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 150)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47247-47249]
[DOCID:fr05au10-25]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0760; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-086-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault-Aviation Model FALCON 7X
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    A design review has shown that the Lightning Sensor System (LSS)
antenna which is optionally installed on certain Falcon 7X
aeroplanes might, in the event of belly or gear-up landing, puncture
the rear fuel tank, which could result in fuel leakage and post-
landing fire.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 20,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Dassault

Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0760;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-086-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2010-0032, dated March 3, 2010 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    A design review has shown that the Lightning Sensor System (LSS)
antenna which is optionally installed on certain Falcon 7X
aeroplanes might, in the event of belly or gear-up landing, puncture
the rear fuel tank, which could result in fuel leakage and post-
landing fire.
    This AD requires the reinforcement of the rear fuel tank by
bonding a titanium shield plate on the tank structure above the LSS
antenna connector.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Dassault has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X-104, dated
October 30, 2009. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 5 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $384 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $6,170, or $1,234 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Dassault-Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2010-0760; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-086-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by September 20, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Dassault-Aviation Model FALCON 7X
airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers, on
which Dassault modification M-OPT 5 has been incorporated, except
those on which Dassault modification M-OPT 511 has also been
incorporated.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A design review has shown that the Lightning Sensor System (LSS)
antenna which is optionally installed on certain Falcon 7X
aeroplanes might, in the event of belly or gear-up landing, puncture
the rear fuel tank, which could result in fuel leakage and post-
landing fire.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Within 25 months after the effective date of this AD,
install a shield plate on the rear fuel tank structure, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault
Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X-104, dated October 30, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2010-0032, dated March 3, 2010; and Dassault
Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X-104, dated October 30, 2009; for
related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 26, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19295 Filed 8-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25215-25216]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10423]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121 and 135

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1136; Amdt. Nos. 121-371A and 135-132A]
RIN 2120-AJ33

Air Carrier Contract Maintenance Requirements; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a final rule published on March 4, 2015
(80 FR 11537). In that rule, the FAA amended its maintenance
regulations for domestic, flag, and supplemental operations, and for
commuter and on-demand operations for aircraft type certificated with a
passenger seating configuration of 10 seats or more (excluding any
pilot seat). The FAA originally proposed to make the effective date of
the rule one year after its publication date to give affected operators
time to come into compliance with the new requirements, and to allow
the FAA time to review information submitted by the operators under the
rule. However, in the final rule, the FAA inadvertently overlooked the
proposed one-year compliance time, and included an effective date of 60
days after publication. This document corrects the effective date of
that document.

DATES: This correction is effective on May 4, 2015. The effective date
of the final rule published March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11537), is corrected
to March 4, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Wende T.
DiMuro, AFS-330, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Edmund Averman,
AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 4, 2015, the FAA published a final rule entitled, ``Air
Carrier Contract Maintenance Requirements'' (80 FR 11537).
    In that final rule, the FAA revised its maintenance regulations for
domestic, flag, and supplemental operations, and for commuter and on-
demand operations for aircraft type certificated with a passenger
seating configuration of 10 seats or more (excluding any pilot seat).
The new rules require affected air carriers and operators to develop
policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for performing contract
maintenance that are acceptable to the FAA, and to include them in
their maintenance manuals. The rules also require the air carriers and
operators to provide a list to the FAA of all persons with whom they
contract their maintenance, which also must include the physical
address where the work will be carried out and a description of the
type of work that is to be carried out at each location.
    In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (77 FR 67584; Nov. 13,
2012), the FAA proposed to make the effective date one year after the
publication of the final rule. The stated reason for this was that the
agency recognized that the affected operators would need time to fully
develop the policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for
contract maintenance and to provide them in an acceptable format to the
FAA. We also noted that operators would need time to prepare the list
with the required information of their contract maintenance providers
and to provide them in an acceptable format to their Certificate
Holding District Offices (77 FR 67587). The FAA also noted that it
would need time to review the information submitted by the operators.
In publishing the final rule, the FAA inadvertently overlooked this
proposed one-year compliance time, and included an effective date of 60
days after publication. This document corrects that oversight so that
the effective date is one year after the publication of the final rule,
or March 4, 2016.

Correction

    In FR Doc. 2015-04179, beginning on page 11537 in the Federal
Register of March 4, 2015, make the following corrections:

Correction

    1. On page 11537, in the second column, in the paragraph entitled
``DATES:'', correct ``May 4, 2015'' to read ``March 4, 2016.''

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) in
Washington, DC, on April 29, 2015.
John Barbagallo,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-10423 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2483-2489]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00463]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71255; File No. SR-MSRB-2013-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Consisting of Amendments to MSRB Rules A-12,
on Initial Fee, G-14, on Reports of Sales or Purchases, and the
Facility for Real-Time Transaction Reporting and Price Dissemination
(``RTRS Facility''); Deletion of Rules A-14, on Annual Fee, A-15, on
Notification to the Board of Change in Status or Change of Name or
Address, and G-40, on Electronic Mail Contacts; Deletion of References
to RTRS Testing Requirements Under Rules G-14(b)(v), G-14(c), on RTRS
Procedures, and in the RTRS Facility; Elimination of MSRB Forms RTRS
and G-40; and Adoption of a Single, Consolidated Electronic
Registration Form, New Form A-12

January 8, 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 December 24, 2013, 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. On January 7, 2014, the Board filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1 thereto, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ By Amendment No. 1, the Board: (1) Added footnote 5 to Item
II(A)(1) explaining that Form A-12 included as Exhibit 3 to SR-MSRB-
2013-09 as filed with the SEC is a pre-production depiction of an
electronic form and the final appearance of which may vary in non-
substantive respects; (2) added text and footnotes 6, 8, and 9 to
Item II(A)(1) to clarify that the current requirement for all
registrants to provide a Primary Electronic Mail Contact and for
municipal securities dealers that report trades to the MSRB to
provide a primary Trade Data Quality contact would be replaced by
the requirement that all registrants provide a Primary Regulatory
Contact, Master Account Administrator, Billing Contact, Compliance
Contact, and Data Quality Contact. Additionally, the new text
explains that the optional Trade Data Quality Contact, Optional
Electronic Mail Contact, and optional Technical Contact would be
replaced with the Optional Regulatory Contact, Optional Data Quality
Contact, and Optional Technical Contact; and (3) included an
additional graphic illustration on new Form A-12, found in Exhibit 3
to SR-MSRB-2013-09 as filed with the SEC, that depicts where
registrants would describe the reason(s) for the involuntary
withdrawal of their registration with the MSRB on the new Form A-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of amendments to MSRB Rules A-12, on initial fee, Rule G-14,
on reports of sales or purchases, and the Facility for Real-Time
Transaction Reporting and Price Dissemination (``RTRS Facility''). The
MSRB also proposes a deletion of the entire rule language (reserving
the rule numbers for potential future use) for Rules A-14, on annual
fee, A-15, on notification to the Board of change in status or change
of name or address, and G-40, on electronic mail contacts.
Additionally, references to RTRS testing requirements under G-14(b)(v),
G-14(c), on RTRS Procedures, and in the RTRS Facility will be deleted.
Finally, the MSRB proposes to eliminate two MSRB forms, Forms RTRS and
G-40, and adopt a single, consolidated electronic registration form,
new Form A-12 (collectively, the ``proposed rule change''). The MSRB
will provide at least thirty days notice of the effective date, which
shall be announced within ten days of SEC approval in a notice
published on the MSRB Web site. The notice will also announce a
compliance date for completion of new Form A-12 of ninety days from the
effective date.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The MSRB anticipates that the effective date will be on or
about April 28, 2014 when new Form A-12 will be available and that
registrants will have ninety days from such date to complete the
form in accordance with the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2013-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
    The proposed rule change would amend Rule A-12 to create new
registration procedures for MSRB-regulated brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers (``dealers'') and municipal advisors
(dealers and municipal advisors are referred to herein collectively as
``registrants'' or ``regulated entities''). These new procedures would
be incorporated into new Form A-12.\5\ The proposed rule change would
consolidate the MSRB registration process in Rule A-12 and delete the
rule language under Rules A-14, A-15, and G-40; eliminating Forms RTRS
and G-40; and amending Rule G-14(b)(iv). The MSRB believes, as
explained below, that the proposed rule change will make it easier for
registrants to complete the registration process and will provide the
MSRB with additional information regarding registrants that will be
useful for regulatory purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The new Form A-12 found in Exhibit 3 to SR-MSRB-2013-09 as
filed with the SEC is a pre-production depiction of an electronic
form, the final appearance of which may vary in non-substantive
respects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, regulated entities must reference a series of MSRB rules
when registering with the MSRB, as there is no single ``registration''
rule. Prior to engaging in municipal securities or municipal advisory
activities, regulated entities are required, consistent with current
Rule A-12, to supply only basic identifying information to the MSRB and
pay an initial fee. Each regulated entity that changes its name or
address, or ceases to be engaged in municipal securities business,
whether voluntarily or otherwise, must so notify the MSRB, pursuant to
current Rule A-15. Under Rules G-14(b)(iv) and G-40, regulated entities
must complete Forms RTRS and G-40 that require registrants to provide
the MSRB with an official contact, certain business information, and
certain other information necessary to process their transaction
reports correctly. Additionally, Rule G-14(b)(v) requires registrants
that submit transaction data to the MSRB to test their ability to
interface with MSRB systems. Finally, under Rule A-14, regulated
entities must pay an annual fee upon registration and annually
thereafter. The proposed rule change reflects the MSRB's determination
that additional rulemaking in this area is necessary to improve the
efficiency by which regulated entities register, and maintain
registration, with the MSRB.
    The proposed rule change addresses concerns expressed by
registrants regarding the current registration process and the number
of rules and forms governing that process. The MSRB believes that the
proposed rule change would clarify and simplify the registration
process for new registrants, who, as noted, currently must follow
requirements spread across several rules and forms. In addition to
increased efficiency, the proposed rule change would allow the MSRB to
collect additional data from and about registrants. Such information
would further support the MSRB and other appropriate regulators in
their regulatory activities.
    The proposed rule change would require registrants to provide
contact information (name, title, phone number, address, and email
address) for several new contact persons on Form A-12. In addition to
the Primary Regulatory Contact, Form A-12 would require all registrants
to identify a Master Account Administrator, Billing Contact,\6\
Compliance Contact, and Data Quality Contact, as further described
below under ``Form A-12.'' \7\ The Trade Data Quality Contact required
for dealers engaged in certain business activities \8\ under the
current Form RTRS would be replaced by the Data Quality Contact under
the proposed rule change and would be required of all registrants
regardless of their business activities. These required contacts would
alleviate the need for the MSRB to direct all communications through a
Primary Electronic Mail Contact, as is currently the case under Rule G-
40.\9\ Instead, the MSRB would be able to communicate issues and make
requests directly relevant to the contact person tasked with handling
such matters. The MSRB believes that this will increase regulatory
efficiency for the MSRB and reduce the burdens on registrants when
responding to MSRB inquiries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Currently, Form G-40 permits registrants to provide a
billing contact; however, such a contact is not required under
current MSRB rules.
    \7\ MSRB Rule G-14(b)(iv) currently requires only dealers to
provide a data quality contact for trade submissions.
    \8\ Current Form RTRS requires a dealer to provide a primary
Trade Data Quality Contact if such dealer (1) effects purchases and
sales transactions in municipal securities, (2) clears and settles
transactions as an NSCC participant, or (3) acts as a broker's
broker. In addition, currently, registrants have the option of
providing a secondary Trade Data Quality Contact and/or a Technical
Contact.
    \9\ Currently, Rule G-40 permits registrants to provide an
Optional Electronic Mail Contact; however, such a contact is not
required under current MSRB rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also would provide a waiver of the annual
fee for dealers and municipal advisors that register in the last month
of the MSRB's fiscal year. This relief would address concerns raised by
regulated entities that they must pay two annual fees in a short period
of time if they register with the MSRB near the end of the fiscal year.
Finally, the proposed rule change would impose a late fee on those
regulated entities that fail to pay MSRB assessments in a timely
manner, as further described below under ``Summary of the Proposed Rule
Change'' and under ``Discussion of Comments.'' The MSRB currently does
not impose late fees and believes that this change will promote
compliance with fee requirements and reduce the necessity for the MSRB
to expend resources to collect untimely fees.
    The proposed rule change would eliminate the requirement for
registrants who submit transaction data to the MSRB to test their
ability to interface with MSRB systems. The MSRB has determined that
testing is no longer necessary due to improvements in technology and
the establishment of other controls, though dealers would still have
the ability to test transaction submissions at their discretion.
    The MSRB will provide at least thirty days notice of the effective
date, which shall be announced within ten days of SEC approval in a
notice published on the MSRB Web site. The notice will also announce a
compliance date for completion of new Form A-12 of ninety days from the
effective date. This would allow the MSRB sufficient time to develop
the automated system needed to support the new registration process. It
also would allow new and existing registrants approximately three
months to complete new Form A-12. The MSRB anticipates that the
effective date will be on or about April 28, 2014 when new Form A-12
will be available and that registrants will have ninety days from such
date to complete the form in accordance with the proposed rule change.
Summary of the Proposed Rule Change
Rule A-12
    Proposed Rule A-12, as explained in detail below, would require
regulated entities to register with the MSRB prior to engaging in any
municipal securities or municipal advisory activities by completing the
new electronic Form A-12. Note that, prior to registration with the
MSRB, each dealer and municipal advisor must first register with and
receive approval from the Commission.
    Rule A-12(a) would require each dealer, prior to engaging in
municipal securities activities, and each municipal advisor, prior to
engaging in municipal

advisory activities, to register with the MSRB. Rule A-12(a) also would
require registrants to notify, as appropriate, a registered securities
association or appropriate regulatory agency \10\ of their intent to
engage in municipal securities and/or municipal advisory activities and
provide the MSRB, on their Form A-12, with a written statement
evidencing such notification.\11\ Registration with the MSRB would be
effective only after the MSRB notifies a registrant that its Form A-12
is complete and all fees have been received and processed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``appropriate regulatory agency,'' as used in this
filing and proposed Rule A-12(a) means the Comptroller of the
Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or SEC as defined in 15
U.S.C. 78c(a)(34)(A).
    \11\ This requirement would only be applicable to dealers or
municipal advisors first registering on or after April 28, 2014.
Registrants would have the flexibility to submit any form of
documentation, such as a letter on company letterhead, evidencing
notice to a registered securities association or appropriate
regulatory agency, as applicable, of their intent to engage in
municipal securities and/or municipal advisory activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule A-12(b) would provide for the amount and method of payment of
the initial registration fee. New registrants would be required to pay
an initial fee of $100 to the MSRB in the manner prescribed by the MSRB
Registration Manual. Rule A-12(c) would provide that the annual
registration fee would continue to be $500 and would be paid in
accordance with the method described in the MSRB Registration Manual.
The MSRB Registration Manual would provide specifications for complying
with the registration process set forth in proposed Rule A-12 and would
be available in advance of the Form A-12 release date. The MSRB
Registration Manual would contain instructions for completion of Form
A-12, as well as graphical representations of the form. It would not,
however, contain any substantive requirements not contained in MSRB
rules or fairly and reasonably implied from those rules. Rule A-12(d)
would establish late fees for any assessment due under Rule A-12 or A-
13. Although the initial and annual fee amounts would remain unchanged,
the MSRB reviews its fee structure periodically in connection with its
budget. The annual fee would continue to be due by October 31 each
year, but proposed Rule A-12 would provide that a regulated entity that
registers in September and pays an annual fee at the time of
registration need not pay the annual fee for the following fiscal year,
beginning October 1. Any registrant that fails to pay any fee due under
Rules A-12 or A-13 (underwriting, transaction or technology fee) would
be assessed a monthly late fee computed based on the overdue balance
and the prime rate plus an additional $25 per month.
    Rule A-12(e) would permit registrants to use the designation ``MSRB
registered'' when referencing their registrant status. The MSRB has
received inquiries from registrants regarding the proper manner for
denoting their registration status in their advertising material and on
their Web sites. The MSRB has been informed of instances where
registrants have used various designations, such as ``MSRB member.''
This designation is inappropriate because the MSRB is not a membership
organization. Section (e) would provide clarity to registrants and the
general public in this regard.
    Rule A-12(f), rather than the current requirement to provide only a
primary electronic mail contact, would require the provision of a
primary regulatory contact, master account administrator, billing
contact, compliance contact, and primary data quality contact. MSRB
registrants could also provide an optional regulatory contact, data
quality contact and technical contact. For dealers, the primary
regulatory contact would be required to be a registered principal. It
would be the responsibility of the primary regulatory contact to
receive official communications from the MSRB, similar to the role of
the primary electronic mail contact under current Rule G-40.
    Rule A-12(g) would require dealers, prior to registering with the
MSRB, to provide trade reporting information so that their trade
reports can be processed correctly, or notify the MSRB that they are
exempt from the trade reporting requirements, as further described
below under ``Rule G-14(b)(iv).''
    Rule A-12(h), similar to current Rule G-40(d), would require
dealers and municipal advisors to comply, within 15 days or such longer
period as may be agreed to by the requesting authority, with any
request from the MSRB, a registered securities association or other
appropriate regulatory authority, for information required as a
function of their registration with the MSRB. The MSRB requirement of
registrants to comply with such requests from the MSRB or a registered
securities association, as applicable, would be a new obligation not
required under current Rule G-40(d).
    Sections (i)-(k) of proposed Rule A-12 establish the requirements
for completing, updating, and annually affirming the information on new
electronic Form A-12, as further described below under ``Form A-12.''
The proposed rule provides for an annual affirmation process, similar
to the current process under Rule G-40(c), which would require
registrants to review, update and affirm the information on Form A-12
during the first seventeen business days of each calendar year. Similar
to the current requirement in Rule A-15, registrants would be required
to update Form A-12, within 30 days, if any information on the form
becomes inaccurate or the firm ceases to be engaged in municipal
securities or municipal advisory activities either voluntarily or
involuntarily through a regulatory or judicial bar, suspension or
otherwise. Registrants that involuntarily cease to be engaged in
municipal securities or municipal advisory activities would be required
to provide a written explanation, on their Form A-12, of the
circumstances that lead to, and resulted in, the involuntary cessation
of such activities. Finally, to collect more complete data concerning
the activities engaged in by MSRB registrants, regulated entities would
be required to inform the MSRB of the types of municipal securities and
municipal advisory activities engaged in by such firms. Currently, the
MSRB collects similar information from municipal advisor registrants on
Form G-40, and from dealers on Form RTRS. Finally, MSRB registrants
would be able to withdraw their registration, either fully or
partially, by amending Form A-12.
    The instructions for completing and amending Form A-12, as well as
information about the method of payment under Rule A-12, would be
located in the MSRB Registration Manual as described in section (l) of
the proposed rule.
Form A-12
    The information required by Form A-12 would be submitted
electronically by each registrant through a web portal located on the
MSRB's Web site. In order to mitigate the burden on current registrants
and ease the transition process, information from registrants' current
Forms RTRS and G-40 would be pre-populated on new Form A-12, as
feasible. To the extent that any part of a registrant's Form A-12 is
pre-populated, the registrant would be able to amend, edit or delete
such information prior to submitting the completed form. Form A-12
would require the submission of the following information:
     Registration Categories: Form A-12 would require the
registrant to identify its registration category, such as dealer or
municipal advisor. Registrants would be permitted to select both
registration

categories, either initially or at a later date. Similarly, registrants
that are registered as both dealers and municipal advisors would be
permitted to withdraw either of these categories or submit a complete
withdrawal. Registered entities that would like to add a category would
be required to update Form A-12 to change their status prior to
engaging in activities in the additional category. Moreover, those
registered in multiple categories would be required to amend Form A-12
if they cease to engage in either municipal securities or municipal
advisory activities. The registrants would be able to designate their
firm as a broker-dealer, municipal securities dealer (e.g., bank
dealer), or municipal advisor, or as both a broker-dealer or municipal
securities dealer and municipal advisor. In instances of complete
withdrawal, the registrant would select the indicator on Form A-12 for
a complete withdrawal.
     General Firm Information:
     Firm Identifiers: Each registrant would be required to
enter the 1) name of the firm or individual, if registrant is a sole
proprietorship, 2) dealer SEC identification number, if applicable, 3)
municipal advisor SEC identification number, if applicable, 4) FINRA
identification (Central Registration Depository) number, if applicable,
and 5) legal entity identifier, if any.
     Intent to Engage in Municipal Securities and/or Municipal
Advisory Activities: Registrants would be required to upload an
electronic copy (PDF format) of the documentation evidencing the
registrant's notification to a registered securities association or
appropriate regulatory agency (bank regulator), as applicable, of its
intent to engage in municipal securities and/or municipal advisory
activities.
     Business Information: Registrants would provide their
firm's physical address and Web site address, if any.
     Form of Organization: Each registrant would be required to
disclose its legal form from a list that includes: Corporation, Sole
Proprietorship (for individuals), Limited Liability Partnership,
Partnership, Limited Liability Company, Limited Partnership, or Other
(registrant would be required to specify). This list is identical to
the list of organization types on the Commission's Form MA, which will
be completed by municipal advisors. Registrants would also be required
to provide the city and state in which they are incorporated, organized
or established.
     Types of Business Activity: Each registrant would be
required to identify its types of business activities. Multiple
activities may be selected. The types of business activities a
registrant would be able to select from are based on the registration
category or categories selected by the registrant (i.e., dealer and/or
municipal advisor). The municipal advisor business activities
substantially mirror the business activity categories available on the
Commission's Form MA. However, abbreviated titles are used in Form A-
12. Detailed descriptions of each business activity would be provided
in the MSRB Registration Manual. The following are the business
activities that would be available on Form A-12 for each registration
category:
     Business Activities of Broker/Dealers--Municipal Fund
Securities: 529 Plan Underwriting, 529 Plan Sales, Local Government
Investment Pool Distributor/Sales, Other (registrant to specify).
     Business Activities of Broker/Dealers--Sales/Trading:
Retail Sales, Institutional Sales, Trading--Proprietary, Trading--
Inter-Dealer, Broker's Broker Activities, Online Brokerage.
     Business Activities of Broker/Dealer--Other: Underwriting,
Clear and settle transactions as National Securities Clearing
Corporation (NSCC) participant, Alternative Trading System, Remarket
Variable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDOs), Auction Rate Securities (ARS)
Program Dealer, Research, Engage in other activities that require
registration (registrant to specify).
     Business Activities of Municipal Advisors: Issuance
Advice, Investment Advice--Proceeds of Municipal Securities, Investment
Advice--Funds of Municipal Entity, Municipal Escrow Investment Advice,
Municipal Escrow Investment Brokerage, Guaranteed Investment Contracts
Advice, Municipal Derivatives Advice, Solicitation of Business--
Investment Advisory, Solicitation of Business--Other than Investment
Advisory, Municipal Advisor/Underwriter Selection Advice, Other
(registrant to specify).
     Contact Information: Rather than provide a primary
electronic mail contact as is required currently, registrants would
provide contact information on Form A-12 for a primary regulatory
contact, master account administrator, billing contact, compliance
contact, and data quality contact. Registrants may also provide an
optional regulatory contact, optional data quality contact and/or
optional technical contact. Registrants would be required to provide
the name, title, address, phone number, and email address of each
contact entered on the form. Registrants would be permitted to
designate one individual for any or all of the contacts required under
the proposed rule change. Below are brief descriptions of each contact:
     Primary & Optional Regulatory Contact: For dealers, the
primary regulatory contact would be required to be a registered
principal. It would be the responsibility of the primary regulatory
contact to receive official communications from the MSRB, similar to
the role of the primary electronic mail contact under current Rule G-
40. Also, the primary regulatory contact, optional regulatory contact
or compliance contact would be required to annually affirm the
information in Form A-12.
     Master Account Administrator: The master account
administrators would maintain each registrant's MSRB Gateway account (a
web portal containing all MSRB Market Transparency submission services,
applications and the associated forms), ensure only appropriate
personnel of the registrant have access to MSRB systems, and serve as
the MSRB's primary contact for any and all issues that may arise
regarding the account.
     Billing Contact: Each registrant would provide a billing
contact who is responsible for receiving electronic statements and
invoices from the MSRB that relate to fees assessed under MSRB Rules A-
12 and A-13, facilitating payment of such invoices, and acting as the
MSRB's first point of contact regarding billing and payment questions
for such fees. The addition of this contact would assist registrants by
directing the MSRB's billing questions to the individual at the
registered entity, thereby avoiding unnecessary communications with the
primary regulatory contact.
     Compliance Contact: The compliance contact would be an
individual capable of competently responding to inquiries from the MSRB
about registrants' monitoring of day-to-day operations, internal
controls, and policies and procedures established to comply with
applicable rules and regulations. Also, the compliance contact, primary
regulatory contact or optional regulatory contact would be required to
annually affirm the information in Form A-12.
     Primary & Optional Data Quality Contact: Each registrant
would be required to identify an individual that would respond to MSRB
inquiries relating to the quality and control of the data the
registrant transmits to the MSRB as part of its trade reporting and

other regulatory obligations.\12\ Registrants would also have the
option to provide a second contact person capable of responding to MSRB
communications regarding the quality and control of the registrant's
data transmissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ There are no data submission requirements for municipal
advisors or dealers exempt from the transaction reporting
requirements under current Rule G-14(b)(vi) (proposed Rule G-
14(b)(v)) at this time. However, these registrants must designate a
data quality contact because future rulemaking may impose new data
submission requirements on these registrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Optional Technical Contact: Registrants would have the
option of providing a technical contact that would be able to respond
to inquiries from the MSRB related to a registrant's technical
capabilities and any technical issues in connection with trade
reporting and other programs.
     Trade Reporting: Form A-12 would require registrants to
select a prescribed method for reporting municipal securities
transactions to the MSRB and receiving and responding to transaction
and error feedback messages from the MSRB.
     Submission Information: Registrants would select among
three manners of reporting transactions to the MSRB: (1) Self-report
trades using a message-based trade portal operated by the NSCC and RTTM
Web (an electronic platform maintained by NSCC-Fixed Income Services
for the submission, collection and monitoring of trade data); (2) have
their trades reported by another dealer acting as agent; or (3) self-
report through RTRS Web (a web based reporting mechanism maintained by
the MSRB for submitting, modifying and canceling municipal securities
transactions as well as for modifications to regulatory data on inter-
dealer transactions). If a registrant chooses to submit trades through
another dealer acting as agent, the registrant must include the
identity of such intermediary dealer to be used as a submitter.
     Feedback Information: Registrants would be required to
select among three methods to receive and respond to transaction status
and error feedback messages from the MSRB: (1) Email; (2) Process MT509
messages (a standardized electronic messaging format used by dealers
when reporting trade data from computer to computer); or (3) RTRS Web.
If registrants select to receive transaction status and error feedback
messages through email, the registrant would be required to include the
email address that would receive such messages.
     Trade Reporting Identifiers: Registrants would continue to
be required to provide certain trade reporting identifiers, as
currently required under Rule G-14. These include their Executing
Broker Symbols (EBS) (also known as Market Participant Identifiers or
MPIDs) assigned by NASDAQ and, for registrants that report transactions
using a message-based portal operated by the NSCC, their NSCC
Participant Identifier.
Rules A-14, A-15 and G-40
    The entire rule language for Rules A-14, A-15 and G-40 would be
deleted.
Forms RTRS and G-40
    Forms RTRS and G-40 would be discontinued.
Rule G-14(b)(iv)
    Amended Rule G-14(b)(iv) would replace a requirement to provide a
completed Form RTRS with a provision exempting dealers from all of the
requirements listed in Rule G-14(b), related to trade reporting, if the
dealer does not effect any municipal securities transactions or if the
dealer's transactions in municipal securities are limited to (1)
transactions in securities without assigned CUSIP numbers, (2)
transactions in municipal fund securities, or (3) inter-dealer
transactions for principal movement of securities between dealers that
are not inter-dealer transactions eligible for comparison in a clearing
agency registered with the Commission.\13\ Furthermore, the amended
rule would require dealers to confirm that they qualified for the
exemption as provided in proposed Rule A-12(g).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ MSRB Rule G-14(b)(vi).
    \14\ In connection with the proposed rules change, as a result
of the proposed deletion of Form RTRS, the MSRB proposes deleting
the following sentence in the description of the Facility for Real-
Time Transaction Reporting and Price Dissemination (the ``REAL-TIME
TRANSACTION REPORTING SYSTEM'' or ``RTRS''): ``The requirement for
testing and submission of a ``Form RTRS'' with the name of a contact
person is reflected in Rule G-14.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule G-14(b)(v)
    The entire language from this section would be deleted.
Rule G-14(c)
    The reference to the testing procedures contained in the RTRS Users
Manual would be deleted.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\15\ which provides that the MSRB's
rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).

be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, and, in general, to protect investors,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.

    As summarized above, the proposed rule change removes impediments
to dealers and municipal advisors by streamlining the registration
process for new registrants. The MSRB believes that the consolidation
into a single rule of requirements currently located in multiple rules
will clarify and simplify the identification of regulatory
requirements. The MSRB also believes that the new electronic form will
reduce the burden on registrants who currently must complete multiple
forms to register with the MSRB. The proposed rule change also would
allow the MSRB to collect information on the business activities of
registrants, which would assist the MSRB and other appropriate
regulatory authorities in regulating dealers and municipal advisors.
    The MSRB also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act,\16\ which provides that the
MSRB's rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).

provide that each municipal securities broker, municipal securities
dealer, and municipal advisor shall pay to the Board such reasonable
fees and charges as may be necessary or appropriate to defray the
costs and expenses of operating and administering the Board. Such
rules shall specify the amount of such fees and charges, which may
include charges for failure to submit to the Board, or to any
information system operated by the Board, within the prescribed
timeframes, any items of information or documents required to be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
submitted under any rule issued by the Board.

    The MSRB regards the obligation to pay late fees for failure to pay
any fee assessed under Rules A-12 and A-13 as reasonable for several
reasons. No dealer or municipal advisor will be obligated to pay a late
fee if it remits the applicable fee under Rules A-12 or A-13 in the
timeframe required by MSRB rules. Furthermore, the MSRB believes that
the existence of late fee provisions will promote timely compliance
with MSRB rules on fees.

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

    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. The MSRB solicited comments on the potential
burden of the proposed rule change in a request for comment.\17\ Among
the questions asked were:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See MSRB Notice 2013-19 (August 19, 2013) (the ``August
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Would the proposed changes make it easier for regulated
entities to understand and follow the registration requirements of the
MSRB? Are there other ways for the MSRB to assist new registrants in
meeting their registration requirements?
     Relative to the process for registration today, do the
proposed changes offer any benefits to regulated entities?
     To the extent the proposed changes would impose any new
burdens on regulated entities, please describe those burdens in detail
and quantify them, to the extent possible.
     Would the waiver of the following year's annual fee for
firms that register in September be appropriate relief for firms that
seek to register at the end of a fiscal year?
     Would the assessment of late fees impose any undue burden
on firms that fail to pay the requisite fees in a timely fashion? If
so, what alternatives should the MSRB consider as means to promote the
payment of fees in a timely manner?
     Are there any other provisions in MSRB rules that should
be consolidated into the proposed new registration rule?
    The specific comments and responses that were received to these
questions are discussed below. The MSRB believes that the proposed rule
change would benefit dealers and municipal advisors by improving the
efficiency by which they register with the MSRB. Specifically, the
proposed rule change would consolidate and clarify the registration
process through a single rule and form, rather than multiple rules and
forms, as is the case currently. The MSRB believes that the proposed
rule and form would reduce the amount of inquiries by registrants to
the MSRB about the registration process, thereby reducing the amount of
time and expense incurred by registrants when registering and
maintaining their registration. In addition, registrants would benefit
from the changes proposed to the assessment of the annual fee by
permitting regulated entities that register and pay the annual fee in
September to avoid the annual fee for the following fiscal year. This
change would reduce costs to new registrants by eliminating the need to
pay for the entire year when registering in the last month of the
fiscal year.
    The MSRB recognizes that there are costs of compliance associated
with the proposed rule change. The MSRB notes, however, that the
requirement to submit additional information about each regulated
entity and its business activities would apply equally to all
registered entities. Moreover, the MSRB believes that other elements of
the proposed rule change, including the consolidation of various
``registration'' rules and forms would serve to make the registration
process more efficient for dealers and municipal advisors.
    The MSRB notes that several commenters have stated that the
proposed rule change would improve the municipal securities market and
its efficient operation, and that any burden created by the proposed
rule change is outweighed by the benefits received by registrants and
the municipal securities marketplace.

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

    The proposed rule change was developed with input from a diverse
group of market participants. On August 19, 2013, the MSRB published
the August Notice soliciting comment on the rule proposals regarding
registration under Rule A-12, Rule G-14 and Form A-12. The MSRB
received four letters in response to the August Notice.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Comment Letters were received from: Financial Services
Institute (``FSI''); National Association of Independent Public
Finance Advisors (``NAIPFA''); Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (``SIFMA''); and Herbert Neufeld of U.S. Bancorp
Investments, Inc. (``Neufeld/U.S. Bancorp'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Comments
Support for the Consolidation of the Registration Rules
    Comments: SIFMA, NAIPFA and FSI expressed support of the
consolidation of the registration process, the proposed rules and the
new electronic registration form. SIFMA stated that the proposed rule
change makes ``the registration process easier to understand, and that
is a benefit to regulated entities'' and that there were no additional
provisions in the MSRB rules that needed to be consolidated into the
new rule. NAIPFA and FSI expressed their support of the consolidation
and wrote that the proposed rule change would simplify the registration
process and add clarity to the registration rules and process. In
expressing its support for the proposed rule change, FSI stated that
the provision of the proposed rule change that allows registrants who
register in the last month of the fiscal year to not pay the annual fee
for the following fiscal year would ``allow flexibility and relief for
some new registered entities.'' FSI also stated that the proposed rule
change is a ``net positive'' that would ``increase the uniformity
between [the] information collected by the MSRB and other self-
regulatory organizations.'' Mr. Neufeld of U.S. Bancorp stated that he
supported a simplification of the registration process that removes
ambiguities.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB acknowledges these comments.
Application and Structure of Fees
    Comments: SIFMA sought clarification that the initial fee assessed
under Rule A-12 would be required only of new MSRB registrants and not
of current registrants that have already paid the $100 initial fee and
would be submitting a new Form A-12 in compliance with the proposed
Rule A-12.
    MSRB Response: MSRB would not charge existing registrants an
additional $100 initial fee for completing the new form, if such
registrants have already paid the initial fee.
Creation of a New Fee: Late Fees
    Comments: While FSI expressed a general concern about fee
increases, it stated that it is not opposed to the MSRB charging the
late fees because such fees are ``de minimis in nature.''
    MSRB Response: The MSRB acknowledges these comments but notes that
the applicable standard under the Act for these fees is that they be
reasonable.
Functions of Form A-12
    Comments: SIFMA asked for clarification on whether registrants
would be able to enter multiple business activity types on Form A-12.
SIFMA expressed concern that the part of Form A-12 that requires
regulated entities to provide the ``type of business activity'' in
which the regulated entity plans to conduct is singular and does not
consider the fact that many regulated entities engage in multiple types
of business activities. SIFMA recommended that Form A-12 permit a
singular registration by a regulated entity for multiple business
activities.
    MSRB Response: On the new Form A-12, registrants would be able to
indicate that they engage in multiple types of municipal securities
and/or municipal advisory activities. Therefore, regulated entities
need only complete a single Form A-12, even for multiple types of
municipal securities activities and/or

multiple types of municipal advisory activities, and even if
registering as both a dealer and municipal advisor.
Improvements to Registration Forms and Process
    Comments: SIFMA suggested that the MSRB use a spreadsheet to
maintain the registrant contact information similar to a spreadsheet
purportedly used by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
to collect contact information for submitters to FINRA's Trade
Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) system.
    MSRB Response: MSRB staff has been informed by FINRA that it no
longer collects contact information in the manner described by SIFMA.
Under the proposed rule change, the trade reporting information would
be entered directly on Form A-12, thereby streamlining the registration
process.
    Comments: NAIPFA stated that it would welcome additional efforts by
the MSRB to harmonize its registration process with that of the SEC in
terms of developing a more standardized or uniform initial registration
form/system designed to avoid the current duplicative SEC and MSRB
registration process. Also, NAIPFA suggested that the MSRB standardize
its forms and process for updating registrant information between the
MSRB and the SEC.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB has reviewed the SEC forms and process
established for registering municipal advisors in creating new Form A-
12 and has harmonized the business activities on Form A-12 with SEC
Form MA.

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, as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, 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-2013-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2013-09. 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 such 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-2013-09, and should be
submitted on or before February 4, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00463 Filed 1-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P