[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63984-63993]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20077]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98353; File No. SR-MSRB-2023-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB
Rule G-3 To Create an Exemption for Municipal Advisor Representatives
From Requalification by Examination and Remove Waiver Provisions and To
Amend MSRB Rule G-8 To Establish Related Books and Records Requirements

September 12, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On July 21, 2023, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to: (1) amend MSRB
Rule G-3 (``Rule G-3''), on professional qualification requirements, to
(i) remove the waiver provisions with respect to municipal advisor
representative and municipal advisor principal qualification
requirements; (ii) establish a new, criteria-based exemption to permit
certain individuals to requalify as a municipal advisor representative

without reexamination; (iii) retitle and replace Supplementary Material
.02, on extraordinary waivers, with text specifying the means for
electronic delivery of the requisite notice to the MSRB regarding
satisfaction of the criteria-based exemption; and (iv) make technical
changes to the rule to update certain phrases and clauses; and (2)
amend MSRB Rule G-8 (``Rule G-8''), on books and records, to establish
accompanying recordkeeping requirements (collectively, the ``proposed
rule change'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB requested that the proposed rule change be approved with a
compliance date of no more than 30 days following the Commission
approval date.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 97984 (July 25, 2023), 88 FR
49528, 49529 (July 31, 2023) (File No. SR-MSRB-2023-05)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on July 31, 2023.\4\ The Commission received one comment
letter on the proposed rule change.\5\ On August 31, 2023, the MSRB
responded to the comment letter.\6\ As further described below, the
Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See id. at 49528.
    \5\ See Letter from Susan Gaffney, Executive Director, National
Association of Municipal Advisors, dated August 21, 2023 (``NAMA
Letter'').
    \6\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Ernesto A. Lanza,
Chief Regulatory and Policy Officer, MSRB, dated August 31, 2023
(``MSRB Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Background

    The MSRB explained that it is charged with setting professional
qualification standards for brokers, dealers, and municipal securities
dealers (collectively, ``dealers,'' and each individually, a
``dealer''), as well as municipal advisors.\7\ Specifically, the MSRB
stated that Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act \8\ authorizes the Board to
prescribe standards of training, experience, competence, and such other
qualifications as it finds necessary or appropriate in the public
interest or for the protection of investors and municipal entities or
obligated persons.\9\ The MSRB also stated that Sections
15B(b)(2)(A)(i) \10\ and 15B(b)(2)(A)(iii) \11\ of the Act provide that
the Board may appropriately classify associated persons of dealers and
municipal advisors and require persons in any such class to pass tests
prescribed by the Board.\12\ The MSRB explained that, accordingly, it
has adopted professional qualification standards to ensure that
associated persons of dealers and municipal advisors attain and
maintain specified levels of competence and knowledge for each
qualification category.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Notice, 88 FR at 49529.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
    \9\ Notice, 88 FR at 49529.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A)(i).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A)(iii).
    \12\ Notice, 88 FR at 49529.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to associated persons of municipal advisors, the MSRB
noted that Rule G-3(d)(i)(A) defines the term ``municipal advisor
representative'' to mean a natural person associated with a municipal
advisor who engages in municipal advisory activities on the municipal
advisor's behalf, other than a person performing only clerical,
administrative, support, or similar functions.\14\ The MSRB explained
that Rule G-3(d)(ii)(A) requires all persons meeting the definition of
a municipal advisor representative to be qualified in that capacity by
taking and passing the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification
Examination (``Series 50 examination'') prior to being qualified as a
municipal advisor representative.\15\ The MSRB further explained that,
under current Rule G-3(d)(ii)(B), any person who, after qualifying as a
municipal advisor representative, ceases to be associated with a
municipal advisor firm for two or more years shall retake and pass the
Series 50 examination, unless a waiver is granted from the Board in
``extraordinary cases'' pursuant to current Rule G-3(h)(ii).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 49529 n.3. The MSRB further stated that, pursuant to
Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii)) and MSRB Rules D-13, G-3(d)(i)(A), and G-
3(d)(ii)(A), municipal advisory activities requiring qualification
as a municipal advisor representative include providing advice to or
on behalf of a municipal entity or obligated person with respect to
municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal
securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing,
terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products
or issues; or undertaking a solicitation of a municipal entity or
obligated person. Id. at 49530 n.9.
    \15\ Id. at 49529 n.3.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, as MSRB guidance affirms, Rule G-3(e)(i) defines the
term ``municipal advisor principal'' to mean a natural person
associated with a municipal advisor who is directly engaged in the
management, direction, or supervision of the municipal advisory
activities of the municipal advisor and its associated persons; Rule G-
3(e)(ii) requires all persons meeting the definition of municipal
advisor principal to be qualified in that position by, among other
things, taking and passing both the Series 50 examination and the
Municipal Advisor Principal Qualification Examination (``Series 54
examination''); and Rule G-3(e)(iii) requires every municipal advisor
firm to have at least one municipal advisor principal.\17\ In the
Notice, the MSRB stated that, under current Rule G-3(e)(ii)(B), any
person who ceases to be associated with a municipal advisor for two or
more years after having qualified as a municipal advisor principal, in
accordance with the rule, must retake and pass both the Series 50
examination and Series 54 examination prior to being qualified as a
municipal advisor principal, unless a waiver is granted from the Board
in ``extraordinary cases'' pursuant to current Rule G-3(h)(ii).\18\ The
MSRB also stated that Rule G-3(e)(ii)(C) affords temporary relief to an
individual who is qualified as a municipal advisor representative, but
is functioning in the capacity of a municipal advisor principal, for a
period of 120 days after becoming designated as a municipal advisor
principal, to take and pass the Series 54 examination.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See MSRB, ``FAQs on Municipal Advisor Professional
Qualification and Examination Requirements,'' at Questions 3 & 19
(Dec. 2021), available at https://www.msrb.org/sites/default/files/FAQ-MSRB-Series-50-Exam.pdf (``MSRB Series 50 Examination FAQs'').
    \18\ Notice, 88 FR at 49530.
    \19\ Id. at 49537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB indicated that, as part of its rule book modernization
initiative and in light of an industry-wide continuing education
(``CE'') transformation initiative for broker-dealers,\20\ it undertook
a review of Rule G-3 to identify opportunities to provide individuals
associated with municipal advisor firms increased regulatory
flexibility with respect to maintaining their professional
qualifications.\21\ The MSRB indicated that it filed the proposed rule
change to that end.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The MSRB indicated that, as industry and market practices
evolved in recent years, the MSRB, in coordination with other self-
regulatory organizations, advanced rulemaking initiatives to
modernize applicable professional qualification and continuing
education program requirements for dealers (``CE Transformation'').
Id. at 49529 n.7 (citing, as an example, Exchange Act Release No.
95684 (Sept. 7, 2022), 87 FR 56137 (Sept. 13, 2022) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to
Amend MSRB Rule G-3 Continuing Education Program Requirements to
Harmonize with Industry-Wide Transformation) (File No. SR-MSRB-2022-
07)).
    \21\ Id. at 49529.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of the Proposed Rule Change

    The MSRB explained that the proposed rule change would: (1) create
a one-time, criteria-based exemption, under Rule G-3, for former
municipal advisor representatives to, without reexamination, requalify
in that capacity

no later than one year after their two-year lapse in qualification; (2)
remove language from Rule G-3 that currently permits the Board, in
extraordinary cases, to waive the reexamination requirements for
municipal advisor representatives and municipal advisor principals; (3)
make certain clarifying amendments to Rule G-3 to address an
interpretive question pertaining to a lapse in qualification for an
individual associated with a dually registered firm that is both a
dealer and a municipal advisor; (4) retitle and replace the current
text of Supplementary Material .02 of Rule G-3 with text specifying the
means for electronic delivery of the requisite notice to the MSRB
regarding satisfaction of the criteria-based exemption; (5) make
technical amendments to Rule G-3 to update certain phrases, clauses,
and referenced provisions to, among other things, improve the overall
readability of the rule; and (6) amend Rule G-8 to require municipal
advisors to make and keep certain books and records relating to the
exemption to be created under the proposed rule change, as prescribed
under Rule G-3(h)(ii)(I).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB explained that the proposed rule change is intended to
offer flexibility, provide additional certainty, and eliminate the
extraordinary nature of the waiver process for individuals and
municipal advisor firms without reducing protection for municipal
entity and obligated person clients who expect that municipal advisor
professionals have satisfied professional qualification standards.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. at 49535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB further explained that the proposed rule change is
specific to the professional qualification obligations of municipal
advisors, including associated persons thereof, under Rule G-3, and
does not modify any requirements to firms registered solely as dealers,
or associated persons thereof.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 49529.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A more detailed description of the proposed rule change follows.
i. Proposed Amendments to Rule G-3(d)(ii)(B)
    The MSRB noted that currently, pursuant to Rule G-3(d)(ii)(B), on
qualification requirements for municipal advisor representatives, any
person who ceases to be associated with a municipal advisor \26\ for
two or more years after having qualified as a municipal advisor
representative, in accordance with the rule, must take and pass the
Series 50 examination prior to being qualified as a municipal advisor
representative, unless a waiver is granted.\27\ The MSRB stated that
its proposed amendments to this provision would provide that any person
who ceases to be associated with ``or engaged in municipal advisory
activities on behalf of'' a municipal advisor for two or more years
after having qualified by examination as a municipal advisor
representative (i.e., experiences a ``lapse in qualification'') must
take and pass the Series 50 examination unless exempt from such
requirement pursuant to Rule G-3(h)(ii), as amended by the proposed
rule change.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For purposes of this Order, when the term ``municipal
advisor'' is used it refers only to the firm and not associated
persons of the firm. See also id. at 49529 n.8 (same, for purposes
of the Notice and Exhibit 5 thereto).
    \27\ Id. at 49529.
    \28\ Id. at 49529-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to Rule G-3(d)(ii)(B) would add the new
language ``or engaged in municipal advisory activities on behalf of,''
which the MSRB stated is intended to provide clarity on the requirement
for an individual associated with a firm that is dually registered as a
dealer and municipal advisor.\29\ The MSRB explained that if an
individual associated with such firm ceases to be engaged in activity
requiring qualification as a municipal advisor representative and
instead engages only in municipal securities business on behalf of the
firm for a period of two or more years, then that individual's
municipal advisor representative qualification would have lapsed,
notwithstanding the fact that such person remains associated with a
firm that is also a registered municipal advisor.\30\ The MSRB noted
that the proposed amendments to Rule G-3(d)(ii)(B) also would delete
the mention of a waiver (i.e., the clause ``a waiver is granted'')
because, subsequent to the proposed rule change, such persons would
need to qualify by examination as municipal advisor representatives,
unless obtaining the one-time criteria-based exemption.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id. at 49530.
    \30\ Id. The MSRB stated that, under Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-2
(17 CFR 240.15Ba1-2), SEC Form MA-I: Information Regarding Natural
Persons Who Engage in Municipal Advisory Activities (``SEC Form MA-
I'' or ``Form MA-I'') is filed with the Commission to indicate
natural persons who are associated with the municipal advisor and
engaged in municipal advisory activities on its behalf. Id. at 49530
n.10. The MSRB further stated that firms are required to promptly
amend SEC Form MA-I, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-5 (17 CFR
240.15Ba1-5), in such cases where an individual ceases to engage in
municipal advisory activities on behalf of a firm. Id.
    \31\ Id. at 49530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Proposed Amendments to Rule G-3(e)(ii)(A) and (B)
    The MSRB noted that currently, pursuant to Rule G-3(e)(ii)(A), as a
pre-requisite to becoming qualified as a municipal advisor principal a
person must take and pass the Series 50 examination.\32\ The MSRB
stated that its proposed amendments to this provision would provide
that taking and passing the Series 50 examination is the pre-requisite
to becoming qualified as a municipal advisor principal ``unless exempt
from taking the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification
Examination pursuant to paragraph (h)(ii) of this rule,'' \33\ which
the MSRB stated is intended to allow for individuals previously
qualified as municipal advisor principals to use the criteria-based
exemption to obtain requalification with the Series 50 examination and
explicitly provide for its application to such individuals.\34\ The
MSRB explained that, notwithstanding the availability of the criteria-
based exemption from requalification with the Series 50 examination,
such municipal advisor principals would still need to take and pass the
Series 54 examination.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the MSRB noted that currently, pursuant to Rule G-
3(e)(ii)(B), any person who ceases to be associated with a municipal
advisor for two or more years after having qualified as a municipal
advisor principal, in accordance with the rule, must take and pass the
Series 50 examination and the Series 54 examination prior to being
qualified as a municipal advisor principal, unless a waiver is granted
under current subparagraph (h)(ii) of this rule.\36\ The MSRB stated
that its proposed amendments to this provision would provide that any
person who ceases to be associated with ``or engaged in municipal
advisory activities on behalf of'' a municipal advisor for two or more
years after having qualified by examination as a municipal advisor
principal must take and pass the Series 50 examination unless exempt
from such requirement pursuant to Rule G-3(h)(ii), as amended by the
proposed rule change.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to Rule G-3(e)(ii)(B) would add the new
language

``or engaged in municipal advisory activities on behalf of,'' which the
MSRB stated is intended to provide clarity on the requirement for an
individual associated with a firm that is dually registered as a dealer
and municipal advisor.\38\ For example, the MSRB explained that if an
individual associated with such firm ceases to be engaged in activity
requiring qualification as a municipal advisor principal and instead
engages only in municipal securities business on behalf of the firm for
a period of two or more years, then that individual's municipal advisor
representative and municipal advisor principal qualifications would
have lapsed, notwithstanding the fact that such person remains
associated with a firm that is also a registered municipal advisor.\39\
The proposed amendments to Rule G-3(e)(ii)(B) would also delete the
mention of a waiver (i.e., the clause ``a waiver is granted''), which
the MSRB stated is intended to specify that such persons would need to
qualify by examination as municipal advisor principals.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Proposed Removal of Extraordinary Waiver Provisions Under Rule G-
3(h)(ii)
    The MSRB stated that its proposed amendments to Rule G-3(h)(ii)
would remove references, in their entirety, to the ability to obtain a
waiver in extraordinary cases for a former municipal advisor
representative or municipal advisor principal and would replace such
language with a criteria-based exemption for former municipal advisor
representatives.\41\ The MSRB indicated it believes that this standard
set forth within the four corners of the rule would provide greater
flexibility to municipal advisor firms and their associated persons
while simultaneously providing greater certainty for firms and such
individuals who may wish to seek an exemption from the obligation to
requalify as a municipal advisor representative by reexamination.\42\
The MSRB also indicated it believes, at this time, that the objective
nature of the criteria-based exemption is preferable to the subjective
nature of the waiver provisions in current Rule G-3(h)(ii).\43\
Additionally, the MSRB stated that the removal of the ability to seek
and obtain a waiver for municipal advisor principals furthers municipal
entity and obligated person protection by ensuring, through
requalification by reexamination, that individuals have demonstrated
knowledge and skills necessary to discharge the responsibilities of a
municipal advisor principal, including the vested authority for the
supervision, oversight, and management of firms' municipal advisory
activities and that of its associated persons.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id. at 49531.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Id. The MSRB indicated it has previously stated that the
Series 54 examination is intended to ensure that a person seeking to
qualify as a municipal advisor principal satisfies a specified level
of competency and knowledge by measuring a candidate's ability to
apply the applicable federal securities laws, including MSRB rules,
to the municipal advisory activities of a municipal advisor. Id. at
49531 n.11 (citing Exchange Act Release No. 84341 (Oct. 2, 2018), 83
FR 50708, 50710 (Oct. 9, 2018) (Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule
Change To Amend MSRB Rule G-3, on Professional Qualification
Requirements, To Require Municipal Advisor Principals To Become
Appropriately Qualified by Passing the Municipal Advisor Principal
Qualification Examination) (File No. SR-MSRB-2018-07)). In contrast,
the MSRB indicated it has previously stated that the Series 50
examination ensures a minimum level of knowledge of the job
responsibilities and regulatory requirements by passing the general
qualification examination. Id. (citing Exchange Act Release No.
73708 (Dec. 1, 2014), 79 FR 72225, 72227 (Dec. 5, 2014) (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) (File No. SR-MSRB-2014-08)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule G-3(h)(ii)(A)-(I) To Establish
Conditions for Obtaining the Criteria-Based Exemption
    The MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would amend Rule G-
3(h)(ii) to prescribe that an individual shall be exempt from the
requirements of subparagraph (d)(ii)(B) if the specified conditions
under proposed Rule G-3(h)(ii)(A)-(I) are met.\45\ Specifically, the
MSRB stated that the proposed amendments to adopt Rule G-3(h)(ii)(A)-
(I) would establish nine specified criteria-based conditions that must
be met in order for an individual (and the municipal advisor firm with
which such individual is associated \46\ or seeks to be associated) to
take advantage of the exemption.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id. at 49531.
    \46\ The MSRB noted that an individual who has associated with a
municipal advisor firm would be prohibited from engaging in any
municipal advisory activities, as defined under Rule D-13 and
described in Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78o-4(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii)) and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder (i.e., activities involving the provision of
advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or obligated person
with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of
municipal securities or undertaking a solicitation of a municipal
entity or obligated person), until such time that the individual has
satisfied the conditions set forth under the proposed rule change.
Id. at 49531 n.12.
    \47\ Id. at 49531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB described the criteria-based conditions that would be
required to be met in order to qualify for the exemption as follows:
\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id. at 49531-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The individual was previously qualified as a municipal advisor
representative by taking and passing the Series 50 examination.
    (2) The individual maintained the municipal advisor representative
qualification for a period of at least three consecutive years while
associated with and engaging in municipal advisory activities on behalf
of one or more municipal advisor firm(s).
    (3) Such qualification lapsed pursuant to proposed amended Rule G-
3(d)(ii)(B) and no more than one year has passed since such lapse in
qualification.
    (4) The individual has not engaged in activities requiring
qualification as a municipal advisor representative \49\ during the
individual's lapse in qualification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See id. at 49531 n.13 (citing Rule G-3(d)(i)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) The individual is not subject to any events or proceedings that
resulted in a regulatory action disclosure report, civil judicial
action disclosure report, customer complaint/arbitration/civil
litigation disclosure report, criminal action disclosure report, or
termination disclosure report on SEC Form MA-I.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The MSRB explained that it included these types of
disclosures in the proposed exemption criteria, as opposed to other
types of disclosures required by SEC Form MA-I, because these relate
most closely to violations of municipal advisor-related or
investment-related regulations, rules, or industry standards of
conduct. Id. at 49531 n.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) The individual has not previously obtained the exemption from
requalification by examination described in the proposed amended Rule
G-3(h)(ii).\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The MSRB noted that, should an individual's municipal
advisor representative qualification lapse again after such person
obtains the criteria-based exemption under the proposed rule change,
that individual would be required to requalify by taking and passing
the Series 50 examination. Id. at 49531 n.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) Prior to engaging in municipal advisory activities on behalf of
the municipal advisor firm with which the individual is to associate
(or reassociate), as evidenced by the filing of SEC Form MA-I, the
municipal advisor firm provided, and the individual completed, CE
covering, at minimum, the subject areas of: (i) the principles of fair
dealing; (ii) the applicable regulatory obligations under MSRB Rules G-
20, on gifts and gratuities, G-37, on political contributions and
prohibitions on municipal securities business and

municipal advisory business, G-40, on advertising by municipal
advisors, and G-8, on books and records to be made and maintained;
(iii) for non-solicitor municipal advisors, the core conduct standards
under MSRB Rule G-42, including the fiduciary duty obligations owed to
municipal entity clients, or for solicitor municipal advisors, the core
obligations of MSRB Rule G-46; and (iv) any changes to applicable
securities laws and regulations, including applicable MSRB rules, that
were adopted since the individual was last associated with a municipal
advisor.
    (8) Prior to engaging in municipal advisory activities on behalf of
the municipal advisor firm with which the individual is to associate
(or reassociate), as evidenced by the filing of an SEC Form MA-I, the
municipal advisor firm provided, and the individual reviewed, the
compliance policies and procedures of the municipal advisor firm.
    (9) Upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth in the paragraphs
above, the municipal advisor firm filed a completed SEC Form MA-I with
the Commission with respect to such individual. Within 30 days of the
acceptance \52\ of a completed SEC Form MA-I identifying such
individual as engaging in municipal advisory activities on behalf of
the municipal advisor firm, the municipal advisor firm provided the
notification (``affirmation notification'') electronically to the MSRB
that the individual met the criteria in order to be exempt from the
requalification requirements of Rule G-3(d)(ii)(B) following a lapse in
qualification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The MSRB noted that the Commission currently does not make
the form acceptance date publicly available, but this information is
made available to the form submitter as part of the form filing
process. Id. at 49532 n.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated that the affirmation notification would be required
to be on firm letterhead and include the following information: \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Id. at 49532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The municipal advisor firm's MSRB ID number;
    2. The first and last name of the individual seeking to obtain the
exemption;
    3. The individual's Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') Central Registration Depository (``CRD'') number if
applicable;
    4. The start date of the individual's association (or
reassociation) with the municipal advisor firm;
    5. An affirmative statement that the municipal advisor has
undertaken a diligent effort to reasonably conclude that the individual
met the applicable requirements set forth in proposed amended Rule G-
3(h)(ii);
    6. An affirmative statement attesting that the municipal advisor
firm provided both the requisite CE and the municipal advisor's
compliance policies and procedures to the individual for review along
with the date the individual completed the CE and review of the
municipal advisor's compliance policies and procedures provided by the
municipal advisor firm;
    7. The date the municipal advisor firm filed SEC Form MA-I (and the
date of its acceptance) on behalf of the individual as required under
proposed amended Rule G-3(h)(ii)(I); and
    8. A signature by the individual seeking to obtain the criteria-
based exemption and a signature by a municipal advisor principal of the
municipal advisor firm each attesting the accuracy of certain content
set forth in the affirmation notification. Specifically, the individual
must sign the affirmation notification attesting that the conditions
outlined in proposed amended Rule G-3(h)(ii)(A) through (H) were met.
And, a municipal advisor principal must sign the affirmation
notification, on behalf of the municipal advisor firm, attesting that,
based on the exercise of reasonable diligence, the conditions outlined
in proposed amended Rule G-3(h)(ii)(A) through (I) were met.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The MSRB noted that the respective individual and firm
signature requirements are intended to differentiate and confirm the
distinct responsibilities and obligations of the individual seeking
to obtain the criteria-based exemption and those of the municipal
advisor firm itself, as evidenced by the signature of a municipal
advisor principal on behalf of the municipal advisor firm. Id. at
49532 n.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the MSRB, the proposed conditions were designed to
ensure that individuals seeking to obtain the exemption (i.e.,
requalification without reexamination) have obtained and maintained the
baseline level of knowledge and experience, and have exhibited conduct
aligned with being a fiduciary, which the MSRB indicated is in
furtherance of municipal entity and obligated person protection.\55\
The MSRB indicated it believes that the criteria outlined above balance
the goal of providing reasonable regulatory flexibility with the
demands of the fiduciary standard applicable to municipal advisors.\56\
For example, the MSRB explained that the requirement that individuals
be duly qualified as a municipal advisor representative for at least
three consecutive years prior to, for example, seeking other career
opportunities in related capacities (e.g., working for a dealer or
municipal entity) or stepping away for family obligations ensures that
a reasonable level of professional experience has been established
before an individual can obtain the exemption.\57\ In contrast, the
MSRB noted that this period is not so long as to hinder the ability, at
a given point, for an individual to, for example, temporarily engage in
other meaningful roles within the municipal securities industry or to
step away from their position due to family obligations.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Id. at 49532.
    \56\ Id.
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the MSRB, these conditions were also designed to
enhance an individual's familiarity with regulatory and business
developments that occurred while they were not associated with a
municipal advisor firm, before reengaging in municipal advisory
activities, but not be so unduly burdensome as to hinder
reassociation.\59\ The MSRB explained that the proposed requirement to
provide the MSRB with notice of individuals who have obtained the
exemption (i.e., by submitting the affirmation notification to the
MSRB) is designed to facilitate transparency and provide an audit trail
regarding an individual's status as a municipal advisor
representative.\60\ The MSRB indicated that it will use the affirmation
notification, as described in the proposed amended Rule G-3(h)(ii)(I),
to help identify qualified municipal advisor representatives and keep
the list of such representatives updated on its website.\61\
Additionally, the MSRB stated that the conditions pertaining to
requisite filings with the SEC would also provide an audit trail and
permit the entities charged with examination and enforcement authority
to confirm compliance with relevant obligations.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Id.
    \60\ Id.
    \61\ The MSRB noted that it currently publishes a list of
registered municipal advisors and qualified municipal advisor
professionals at https://www.msrb.org/Municipal-Advisors. Id. at
49532 n.18.
    \62\ Id. at 49532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Proposed Amendments to Supplementary Material .02, on Waivers, Under
Rule G-3
    Relatedly, the MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would
amend Supplementary Material .02, on waivers, under Rule G-3 to retitle
the paragraph header from ``Waivers'' to ``Affirmation Notification.''
\63\ The MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would also delete
the entirety of that

supplementary material, which currently pertains to extraordinary
waivers, and replace it with text that specifies how the firm would be
required to submit to the MSRB the affirmation notification asserting
that the criteria-based exemption has been met.\64\ Specifically, the
MSRB stated that the affirmation notification would be required to be
sent to [email protected].\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Id. at 49531, 49532.
    \64\ Id. at 49531, 49532.
    \65\ Id. at 49532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. Proposed Amendments to Rule G-8, on Books and Records To Be Made
and Maintained
    The MSRB stated that its proposed amendments to Rule G-8, on books
and records, would add recordkeeping obligations designed to help
facilitate and document compliance with its proposed amendments to Rule
G-3.\66\ Specifically, the MSRB stated that the proposed rule change
would add new paragraph (C) to subsection (h)(vii) of Rule G-8
requiring municipal advisor firms to make and maintain certain records
to evidence compliance with the requirements of Rule G-3(h)(ii)(A)-
(I).\67\ The MSRB described these records as follows: \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Id. at 49533.
    \67\ Id.
    \68\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A record evidencing that the individual seeking to obtain
the exemption was previously duly qualified as a municipal advisor
representative (e.g., a copy of the print-out of the individual
examination results \69\ or examination result certification letter
provided by the MSRB);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ The MSRB stated that Question 11 of the MSRB Series 50
Examination FAQs reminds individuals that the test center will
provide a print-out of their examination results. Id. at 49533 n.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Documentation supporting the municipal advisor firm's
exercise of reasonable diligence in determining that the conditions
outlined in proposed amended Rule G-3(h)(ii)(A) through (I) were met in
making the required affirmation notification in accordance with
proposed amended Rule G-3(h)(ii)(I)(8) (e.g., copies of relevant SEC
form filings reviewed; records related to CE provided and completed;
compliance policies and procedures provided and reviewed; and
attestations or other documentation to support such a determination);
     A copy of the affirmation notification sent to the MSRB as
required by proposed amended Rule G-3(h)(ii)(I); and
     A record evidencing that the affirmation notification was
made in the prescribed manner and within the required period of time as
described in proposed amended Rule G-3(h)(ii)(I) (e.g., automatic email
delivery receipt).
    The MSRB noted that the proposed rule change outlining the specific
recordkeeping requirements supports the municipal advisor principal's
supervision, review, and sign-off that the conditions for the exemption
have been met, which supports regulatory compliance.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Id. at 49533.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vii. Proposed Technical Amendments to Rule G-3 and Rule G-8
    Finally, the MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would make
the following technical amendments to Rule G-3 and Rule G-8 (the
``technical amendments''):
     With respect to Rule G-3(d)(ii)(B), the MSRB stated that
the proposed rule change would: (i) add the phrase ``lapse in
qualification'' to define for purposes of the rule when a person ceases
to be associated with a municipal advisor for two or more years at any
time after having qualified as a municipal advisor representative; (ii)
replace the phrase ``a waiver is granted'' with ``exempt'' to make
clear that the waiver provision for extraordinary cases is being
deleted and replaced with a criteria-based exemption; (iii) change the
word ``shall'' to ``must,'' which is intended to add clarity without
changing the meaning of the term; and (iv) replace the reference to
``subparagraph'' (h)(ii) with ``paragraph'' (h)(ii) to create better
uniformity across Rule G-3; \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Id. at 49530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     With respect to Rules G-3(e)(ii)(A)(1) and G-3(e)(ii)(B),
the MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would: (i) to clarify the
qualification requirements specific to municipal advisor principals, as
prescribed under Rule G-3(e)(ii)(A)(1), add the phrase ``unless exempt
from taking the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification
Examination pursuant to paragraph (h)(ii) of this rule'' to make clear
municipal advisor principals have to requalify by reexamination unless
such individuals have obtained the one-time exemption; (ii) delete the
phrase ``a waiver is granted'' and replace with the clause ``exempt
from taking the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification
Examination'' to make clear that the waiver provision for extraordinary
cases is being deleted and replaced with an exemption-based criteria
for municipal advisor principals to use for requalification without
reexamination for the Series 50 examination; (iii) replace the word
``shall'' with ``must'' to promote clarity; and (iv) replace the
reference to ``subparagraph'' (h)(ii) with ``paragraph'' (h)(ii) to
create better uniformity across Rule G-3; \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Id. at 49530-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     With respect to Rule G-3(h), the MSRB stated that the
proposed rule change would retitle the header from ``Waiver of
Qualification Requirements'' to ``Waiver of and Exemption from
Qualification Requirements'' to promote clarity; \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Id. at 49532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     With respect to Rule G-3(h)(ii), the MSRB stated that the
proposed rule change would replace the introductory sentence ``The
requirements of paragraph (d)(ii)(A) and (e)(ii)(A) may be waived by
the Board in extraordinary cases for a municipal advisor representative
or municipal advisor principal'' with the new introductory sentence
``An individual shall be exempt from the requirements of subparagraph
(d)(ii)(B) if all of the following conditions are met'' for purposes of
setting forth the enumerated criteria outlined under the provision;
\74\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     With respect to Rule G-8(h)(vii), the MSRB stated that the
proposed rule change would: (i) retitle the paragraph header from
``Records Concerning Compliance with Continuing Education
Requirements'' to ``Records Concerning Compliance with Professional
Qualification Requirements of Rule G-3'' to clarify the broader
recordkeeping obligations and documentation requirements proposed in
draft amendments to Rule G-8(h)(vii) that are accompanying proposed
rule changes to Rule G-3(h)(ii); and (ii) reposition the word ``and''
and make other minor grammatical changes to the items in the series to
aid readability.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Id. at 49533.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments Received to the Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission received one comment letter \76\ on the proposed
rule change, as well as a response \77\ from the MSRB to the comment
letter. The commenter expressed support for the proposed rule
change.\78\ Among other things, the commenter stated that ``the
requirements specified in the amendments are reasonable and helpful for
MAs to navigate and implement.'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See NAMA Letter.
    \77\ See MSRB Letter.
    \78\ NAMA Letter at 1.
    \79\ Id. For purposes of the comment letter, the commenter
defined the term ``MA'' to include ``municipal advisory firms and
individual municipal advisors.'' Id.

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

    In addition to expressing support for the proposed rule change, the
commenter addressed certain content that it believes should be included
in a compliance resource that the MSRB represented it anticipates
publishing in close proximity to the compliance date of the rule which
would highlight the regulatory obligations for municipal advisors (and
dealers) with respect to professional qualification standards, CE
requirements, and related registration matters.\80\ The commenter
stated that this MSRB compliance resource should, among other things:
(i) address remaining questions about ``the sequence of events that
need to occur for an MA to take advantage of the amendments'' in the
proposed rule change; (ii) address longstanding questions on ``how a MA
new to the profession and yet to be associated with a firm can take the
Series 50 exam[ination];'' and (iii) because the MSRB's proposed
exemption for the Series 50 examination does not also apply to the
Series 54 examination as the commenter desired, ``clearly explain how a
MA will be able to utilize and MA firms comply with the Series 50
exemption and meet the Series 54 requirements to engage in MA
activity.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Id. See Notice, 88 FR at 49538.
    \81\ NAMA Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded that it had outlined, within the Notice itself,
the sequence of events and timing for satisfying the criteria-based
exemption, including as applied to solo-practitioners.\82\ With respect
to the compliance resource that the MSRB anticipates publishing in
close proximity to the rule's compliance date, the MSRB stated that the
resource will: (i) restate the sequence of events that must be
undertaken to satisfy the criteria-based exemption; (ii) include
additional materials related to Rule G-3(e)(ii)(C), which the MSRB
stated permits an individual who is duly qualified as a municipal
advisor representative and has been designated by the municipal advisor
firm as a municipal advisor principal a period of 120 days, after being
designated, to take and pass the Series 54 examination, thereby
allowing individuals qualified as municipal advisor representatives,
including those seeking to be solo-practitioners, to function in the
principal-level capacity for a limited time before taking and passing
the Series 54 examination; and (iii) address additional questions
outside the scope of the present proposal related to professional
qualification and CE standards, and registration requirements for
municipal advisors and dealers.\83\ Finally, with respect to the
commenter's desire to extend the MSRB's proposed exemption for the
Series 50 examination to the Series 54 examination, the MSRB reiterated
its belief that extending the proposed rule change to municipal advisor
principals is not warranted because, as set forth in the Notice: (i)
such an extension would be inappropriate due to the heightened
supervisory, oversight, and management responsibilities of municipal
advisor principals; and (ii) even if such relief were appropriate,
additional, more stringent requirements would be necessary in
consideration of these broader obligations, resulting in two different
standards and additional regulatory complexity.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ MSRB Letter at 2. The MSRB also restated that sequence of
events in its response. See id. at 2-3. With respect to solo-
practitioners, the MSRB stated in part that such individuals
``should,'' ``in the following order,'' complete and file SEC Form
MA-I and then complete and file SEC Form MA: Application for
Municipal Advisor Registration (``SEC Form MA'' or ``Form MA'').
Notice, 88 FR at 49533; MSRB Letter at 2. Pursuant to Exchange Act
Rule 15Ba1-2(c) (17 CFR 250.15Ba1-2(c)), Form MA shall be considered
filed with the Commission upon submission of a completed Form MA,
together with all additional required documents, including all
required filings of Form MA-I. However, Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-2(c)
does not specify an order in which Forms MA and MA-I must be
submitted.
    \83\ MSRB Letter at 3.
    \84\ Id.; see Notice, 88 FR at 49534, 49537, 49539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
the comment letter received, and the MSRB's response thereto. The
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to the MSRB.
    In particular, the Commission has reviewed Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of
the Act, which provides, in part, that: (1) the MSRB's rules shall
provide that a municipal advisor's ability to 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 is
conditioned on meeting 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; and (2) 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 examinations.\85\ The Commission also has reviewed Section
15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act, which provides, in part, that the MSRB's rules
shall 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
municipal securities and municipal financial products, and, in general,
to protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the
public interest; and not be designed to impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.\86\ Additionally, the Commission has considered
Section 15B(b)(2)(G) of the Act, which provides, in part, that the
MSRB's rules shall prescribe records to be made and kept by municipal
advisors.\87\ Finally, the Commission has reviewed Section
15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act, which provides that the MSRB's rules shall
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.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
    \86\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \87\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(G).
    \88\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After such review, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of
municipal entities and obligated persons consistent with Section
15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act, designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of
the Act, and will: (i) foster cooperation and coordination among
regulators consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act; (ii)
promote just and equitable principles of trade consistent with Section
15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act; (iii) protect municipal entities, obligated
persons, and the public interest consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C)
of the Act; and (iv) not impose an inappropriate impact or burden on
efficiency, competition, or capital formation, including with respect
to small municipal advisors, consistent with Sections 15B(b)(2)(C) and
15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act.

A. Appropriate in the Public Interest and for the Protection of
Municipal Entities and Obligated Persons

    The Commission believes that, consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(A)
of the Act,\89\ the proposed rule change is appropriate in the public
interest and for the protection of municipal entities and obligated
persons. In particular, the new, criteria-based exemption from
requalification by reexamination applicable to municipal advisor
representatives (including the increase in the amount of time in which
an individual may maintain their qualification as a municipal advisor
representative without reexamination) will likely result in fewer
individuals being required to retake the Series 50 examination, which
would expand the potential number of municipal advisor representative
candidates. A broader municipal advisor representative applicant pool
is in the public interest and may help protect municipal entities and
obligated persons by offering firms a greater choice in hiring
qualified individuals who could potentially draw upon their diverse
perspectives, experience, education, and/or institutional knowledge to
enhance the informed advice provided to a municipal advisor firm's
municipal entity and obligated person clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, as the MSRB noted, individuals that may disassociate
with a municipal advisor firm may determine to associate with a dealer
in a public finance capacity or to work for a municipal entity.\90\
Such individuals may receive valuable and directly applicable
experience from a different vantage point in the industry that would
augment their prior and future experience as a municipal advisor
representative upon reassociating with a municipal advisor firm.\91\
Similarly, the proposed rule change provides flexibility for certain
individuals to step away from their position to pursue higher education
and then return to the municipal advisory industry. This diversity of
perspective, experience, education, and/or institutional knowledge
could put such municipal advisor representative candidates in a
position to provide more informed advice than they may otherwise have
provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Notice, 88 FR at 49533.
    \91\ Id. at 49533-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed rule change reduces uncertainty for
individuals seeking to requalify by providing clarity on the specific
criteria needed to requalify without reexamination, and therefore
expedites the process by which such individuals can begin to engage in
municipal advisory activities. In addition, municipal advisor firms
would be better positioned to assess a potential hire's qualifications
by evaluating the conditions specified in the proposed rule change.
    At the same time, and as further described in Sections IV.B. and
IV.E. below, the proposed rule change requires the satisfaction of
conditions that establish safeguards and help ensure that only
qualified candidates may obtain the criteria-based exemption from
requalification, thereby furthering municipal entity and obligated
person protection and the public interest.
    Because the proposed rule change would likely lead to a broader
municipal advisor representative applicant pool, improve the quality of
municipal advisor representative candidates, and increase diversity in
the municipal advisory industry--all while requiring the satisfaction
of conditions that establish safeguards and help ensure that only
qualified candidates may obtain the criteria-based exemption from
requalification--the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of municipal
entities and obligated persons consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of
the Act.

B. Prevention of Fraudulent and Manipulative Acts and Practices

    The Commission believes that, consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C)
of the Act,\92\ Rule G-3 would continue to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices by ensuring that municipal advisor
representatives meet competence, training, experience, and
qualification standards, and such protections would not be diminished
by the proposed rule change. The stated criteria of at least three
years of experience before eligibility for the exemption, and no more
than three years since ceasing to be associated with a municipal
advisor firm, provide for a baseline level of experience and competence
for individuals availing themselves of the exemption. In addition, the
proposed rule change would require individuals seeking to obtain the
exemption to, upon associating (or reassociating) with a municipal
advisor firm, receive relevant and updated core training pertaining to
regulatory obligations under applicable securities laws and
regulations, including MSRB rules, which furthers the prevention of
manipulative acts and practices because such trainings serve to educate
individuals about the avoidance of such manipulative acts and
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the three-year thresholds coupled with the more robust CE
requirements would continue to support municipal advisor
representatives in meeting competence, training, experience, and
qualification standards, and such protections would not be diminished
by the proposed rule change, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act.

C. Foster Cooperation and Coordination Among Regulators

    In accordance with Section 15B(b)(2)(G) of the Act,\93\ the
proposed amendments to Rule G-8(h)(vii)(C) would prescribe specific
records to be made and kept by municipal advisors. The Commission
believes that, consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\94\
those amendments would foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in regulating municipal securities and municipal financial
products. In particular, they would provide all relevant examining and
enforcement authorities with the same documentation containing the
information necessary to assist them in examining for, investigating,
and evaluating compliance with the new, criteria-based exemption under
Rule G-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(G).
    \94\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further believes that an in-concert review by all
relevant examining and enforcement authorities of the same
documentation under the prescribed recordkeeping obligations of the
proposed rule change would foster municipal entity and obligated person
protection. In particular, municipal advisor firms would be
incentivized to take due care to ensure compliance with the
qualification standards under the criteria-based exemption and that
only such individuals that satisfy such exemption are engaging in
municipal advisor activities.
    Because the books and records requirements would facilitate
efficiency among regulators by providing all relevant examining and
enforcement authorities with the same documentation containing the
information necessary to assist them in examining for, investigating,
and evaluating compliance with the new, criteria-based exemption, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change would foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged

in regulating municipal securities and municipal financial products
consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act.

D. Promote Just and Equitable Principles of Trade

    The Commission also believes that, consistent with Section
15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\95\ the various technical amendments
enumerated above \96\ promote just and equitable principles of trade.
Specifically, the Commission believes the technical amendments would
ensure that Rules G-3 and G-8 remain accurate, clear, and
understandable for the municipal advisory community. If the MSRB's
rules are accurate, clear, and understandable, MSRB registrants,
including municipal advisors and associated persons, will better be
able to comply with the MSRB's rules and apply them in a consistent
matter. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the technical amendments
promote just and equitable principles of trade consistent with Section
15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Id.
    \96\ Supra, Section II.B.vii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Protect Municipal Entities, Obligated Persons, and the Public
Interest

    The Commission believes that, consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C)
of the Act \97\ and the above discussion, the proposed rule change
would continue to protect municipal entities, obligated persons, and
the public interest because municipal advisor representatives would be
required to obtain CE pertaining to specified topics and regulatory
obligations under applicable securities laws and regulations, including
MSRB rules, in order to requalify as a municipal advisor professional.
Additionally, such individuals would not be able to obtain the
criteria-based exemption if they either engaged in activities requiring
qualification as a municipal advisor representative during their lapse
in qualification or they are subject to any events or proceedings that
resulted in a regulatory action disclosure report, civil judicial
action disclosure report, customer complaint/arbitration/civil
litigation disclosure report, criminal action disclosure report, or
termination disclosure report on SEC Form MA-I. These conditions help
ensure that basic municipal entity and obligated person protections
remain in place while also providing municipal advisor representatives
flexibility to pursue other meaningful roles within the securities
industry or to step away from their position for other reasons; and
benefits municipal advisor firms by providing the increased ability to
attract qualified talent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as noted above, a broader municipal advisor representative
applicant pool is in the public interest and will help protect
municipal entities and obligated persons because it can improve the
quality of municipal advisor representative candidates and increase
diversity in the municipal advisory industry, both of which could
enhance the quality of advice provided to municipal entity and
obligated person clients.
    Because the proposed rule change requires the satisfaction of
conditions that establish safeguards and ensure that only qualified
municipal advisor representative candidates may obtain the criteria-
based exemption from requalification--while also leading to a broader
municipal advisor representative applicant pool, improving the quality
of municipal advisor representative candidates, and increasing
diversity in the municipal advisory industry--the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change protects municipal entities, obligated
persons, and the public interest consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C)
of the Act.

F. No Inappropriate Impact or Burden on Efficiency, Competition, or
Capital Formation

    In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.\98\ Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act
\99\ requires that MSRB rules not be designed to impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Furthermore, Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act
\100\ requires that MSRB rules 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \99\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \100\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to impact on efficiency, the Commission believes that
the proposed rule change would improve the municipal securities
market's operational efficiency and promote regulatory certainty by
providing individuals with a specific exemption process to requalify as
municipal advisor representatives and to begin engaging in municipal
advisory activities on behalf of municipal advisor firms. Moreover, as
discussed above,\101\ the Commission believes that the proposed
amendments to Rule G-8 would facilitate efficiency among regulators by
providing all relevant examining and enforcement authorities with the
same documentation containing the information necessary to assist them
in examining for, investigating, and evaluating compliance with the
new, criteria-based exemption under Rule G-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Supra, Section IV.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to impact on capital formation, as discussed
above,\102\ the proposed amendments to Rule G-3 would make it easier
for individuals seeking to requalify as municipal advisor
representatives to reassociate with a municipal advisor firm and for
municipal advisor firms to recruit experienced professionals. The
Commission believes that the potential increased number of skilled
professionals furthers capital formation because municipal entity and
obligated person clients would have ranging areas of expertise to
select from when utilizing the services of municipal advisor
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Supra, Section IV.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to competition, the Commission does not
believe that the proposed amendments to Rule G-3 and Rule G-8 would
impose any unnecessary or inappropriate burden or impact on
competition, as they would provide additional flexibility and certainty
to those seeking to associate with municipal advisor firms as municipal
advisor representatives and to municipal advisor firms, thereby
enhancing the hiring of qualified, experienced individuals; and they
would also support evidencing compliance with the criteria-based
exemption. The Commission notes that individuals who are away from
their municipal advisor representative capacity (or cease to be engaged
in activity requiring qualification as a municipal advisor
representative) for more than three years would be required to take and
pass the Series 50 examination again under the proposed rule change, as
the waiver request provisions, available only in extraordinary cases,
would no longer be available; however, given the limited use of the
waiver process currently, the Commission does not believe the
elimination of this option would have a significant impact on
individuals seeking to reassociate in a municipal advisor
representative capacity.

    Although the proposed amendments to Rule G-3 and Rule G-8 would
benefit, and be applied equally to, all individuals seeking to
associate with municipal advisor firms and all such municipal advisor
firms, the Commission believes that there are potential burdens on
competition for small municipal advisor firms, and solo-practitioners
in particular. However, as described below, the Commission believes
that these potential burdens are mitigated.
    First, the Commission believes that there is a potential burden on
competition for solo-practitioners looking to establish a municipal
advisor firm because, unlike larger firms, such solo-practitioners may
not have developed CE materials addressing all of the prescribed
subject matters necessary to meet the exemption's CE requirements.
However, the Commission believes that this potential burden is
mitigated because the MSRB has indicated that such firms would be able
to utilize ``off-the-shelf content'' or widely available industry
educational materials (to the extent such materials meet the
requirements set forth in the proposed rule change), which would be a
less burdensome approach than creating new CE materials.\103\ The MSRB
noted that sources of such educational materials may include industry
trade associations, in addition to podcasts, webinars, and educational
materials developed by the MSRB.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Notice, 88 FR at 49537.
    \104\ Id. at 49537 n.43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Commission believes that there is a potential burden on
competition for solo-practitioners and smaller municipal advisory firms
because the new, criteria-based exemption would not extend to those
seeking to associate and function in a municipal advisor principal
capacity and, as noted above, Rule G-3(e)(iii) requires every municipal
advisor firm to have at least one municipal advisor principal.
Accordingly, individuals seeking to act as a municipal advisor
principal (e.g., a solo-practitioner) would still have to take and pass
the Series 54 examination in order to engage in principal-level
activities. As a result, although all firms would benefit from the
proposed rule change for municipal advisor representatives, smaller
municipal advisor firms and solo-practitioners in particular may
experience a smaller benefit than larger municipal advisor firms.
    The Commission believes that this potential burden is mitigated,
however, because the MSRB has indicated that current Rule G-3(e)(ii)(C)
permits solo-practitioners (or individuals associating or reassociating
with a firm and designated as a principal) who are qualified as
municipal advisor representatives to function as municipal advisor
principals for up to 120 days before having to take and pass the Series
54 examination.\105\ The MSRB noted that, in concert with the proposed
rule change, these provisions would allow such individuals to start
their own firm, requalify as municipal securities representatives
without reexamination, and then qualify as municipal advisor
principals.\106\ As a result, all such persons, including those persons
seeking to be solo-practitioners and seeking to associate with small
(or larger) municipal advisor firms would be able to function in the
principal-level capacity for several months before having to take and
pass the Series 54 examination.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Id. at 49534 n.29; MSRB Letter at 3.
    \106\ Notice, 88 FR at 49534 n.29.
    \107\ The Commission believes this potential burden may also be
mitigated, in part, because the MSRB represented that it anticipates
publishing a compliance resource in close proximity to the
compliance date of the rule which would highlight the regulatory
obligations for municipal advisors (and dealers) with respect to
professional qualification standards, CE requirements, and related
registration matters. See id. at 49538; MSRB Letter at 3. In
addition, in the Notice itself, the MSRB addressed the timing and
sequence of satisfying the exemption's criteria, the filing of SEC
Form MA-I (and SEC Form MA, as applicable), and the submission of
the affirmation notification to the MSRB, including for solo-
practitioners. See Notice, 88 FR at 49532-33; MSRB Letter at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ultimately, municipal advisor principals are subject to additional
regulatory standards given their supervisory, oversight, and management
duties. The process of reexamination for municipal advisor principals
helps to ensure that the specified level of competency and knowledge of
the applicable securities laws and regulations, including MSRB rules,
is sufficiently demonstrated.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that, consistent
with Sections 15B(b)(2)(C) and 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act, the
proposed rule change would not impact or impose any additional burdens
on efficiency, competition, or capital formation that are not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    As noted above, the Commission received one comment letter on the
filing. The Commission believes that the MSRB, through its response,
addressed the commenter's concerns. For the reasons noted above, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Exchange Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\108\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2023-05) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20077 Filed 9-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


"Flynn, Amy E."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
09/13/2006 02:02 PM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

comments--PM NAAQS Preamble

Lydia,

Please find below comments from DOE on the PM NAAQS Preamble.  Please
let me know if you have any questions.  Thank you, --Amy

1. Pg. 41 (footnote 11)

This footnote is not inaccurate, but could be more complete.  Propose
adding the following language at end of the current footnote 11 as it
runs over to pg. 41:

“The 98th percentile PM level in Fairley et al (2003) was 59 g/m3;
in Burnett and Goldberg (2003) it was 38.9 g/m3; and in Mar et al
(2003) it was 32.2 g/m3.  Burnett et al (2000) found in
multi-pollutant analysis that gases appeared to be more important than
PM measures in effects; the Burnett and Goldberg 2003 reanalysis of this
earlier study didn’t perform multipollutant analysis with gases.  Mar
et al (2003) analyzed many gases separately, but not in multi-pollutant
analyses.”

2.  The Krewski et al (2000) reanalysis of the original ACS study is
mentioned at the bottom of pg. 47, running over to pg. 48, and on pg.
63.  The Pope et al (2002) ACS study update is mentioned on pg. 41 and
pg. 48.   Both are mentioned several other places as well.  In light of
the extensive discussion in the Jan. 17 Preamble to the rule of Krewski
et al (2000) finding that inclusion of SO2 in the model causes fine PM
and sulfate to become insignificant, and the tangential reference to
this issue in the present document, suggest a footnote after the first
mention of Pope et al (2002) on the third line of pg. 48:

“The Pope et al (2002) update of the original ACS study did not report
findings with regard to inclusion of SO2 in model runs, together with
fine PM or with sulfate, as in Krewski et al (2000).”

3.  At the bottom of pg. 63, the following statement is not inaccurate,
but relevant information is not included:

For example, while the association was stronger for the subset of the
ACS cohort with the least education, there was an association with
cardiorespiratory mortality in the entire population.

We suggest that the following sentence be substituted for the above
sentence from pg. 63:

For example, there was an association with cardiorespiratory mortality
in the entire population when people from all education levels were
combined; the association was significant and positive for the subset of
the ACS cohort with the least education, but was insignificant and
virtually zero for those with better than a high school education.

4. Also on pg. 63, mention is made of the findings of Krewski et al
(2000) with regard to spatial correlation.  What this means should be
spelled out.

5.  On pg. 74, the Mar et al (2003) findings with regard to sulfate are
mentioned in line 3.  Suggest the following clarifying footnote:

The Mar et al (2000) study noted that sulfate alone in a single
pollutant model was not associated with cardiovascular mortality, but
that the sulfate “factor,” which was so associated, contained
elevated levels of lead and bromine.  The authors state that the health
association with the sulfate factor “may be reflective of the
contribution of Pb and Br to the S factor.”  Mar et al (2003) did not
provide information about single pollutant model analysis of sulfate or
about contribution of Pb and Br to the S factor.

6.  On pg. 96, there is discussion of the Burnett and Goldberg (2003)
study.  Suggest the following clarifying footnote:

Burnett and Goldberg (2003) is a reanalysis of Burnett et al (2000).
The earlier study analyzed gases and PM in multipollutant models and
found that gases had larger effects than fine PM.  Burnett and Goldberg
(2003) did not analyze gases or do multipollutant analysis with gases.

7.  On pg. 11, we suggest the following footnote to the sentence
discussing the updated ACS study’s findings of lung cancer
associations (the sentence ending in “in the original studies”):

“In the extended ACS study, significant lung cancer associations were
found for those with high school education or less, but not for those
with better than a HS education.  When data is combined for all
educational levels, a significant association is found.  These are the
same patterns found for all-cause and cardiopulmonary mortality.”
[The last sentence would be informative, but optional.]

8. Pg. 128, in regard to the Children’s Health Study in Southern
California.  Gauderman et al (2004) state the following, after stating
that the lung deficits were associated with a correlated set of
pollutants (NO2, acid vapor, fine PM, and EC):

î

ð

%

&

E

F

U

V

Œ

Wdue to vehicular emissions, with regard to the pollutants discussed at
the bottom of pg. 128.  This appears to buttress the point made on the
next page with regard to the study of Kim et al (2004).


[Federal Register: October 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 64625-64626]
[DOCID:fr30oc08-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1802-DR]

Kentucky; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1802-DR), dated October 9, 2008,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 21, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President
in his declaration of October 9, 2008.

    Kenton County for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters);97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-25877 Filed 10-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources Management, Office of Acquisition Management 2. OMB control number b.

None a. 2030 0005 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a.

New collection b.

Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d.

Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e.

Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f.

Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b.

Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c.

Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b.

Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Monthly Progress Reports ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR No. 1039.11 9. Keywords Procurement, Government 10. Abstract Agency contractors with cost reimbursable, time and material, labor hour, or indefinite quantity/ indefinite delivery fixed rate contracts report the technical and financial progress of the contract on a monthly basis. EPA uses this information to monitor the contractor's progress under the contract.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. X Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a.

Voluntary b. P Required to obtain or retain benefits c.

Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 363 b. Total annual responses 4,356 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 121,968 d. Current OMB inventory 140,940 e. Difference  18,972 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment  18,972 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 44 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 44 d. Current OMB inventory $ 39 e. Difference $ 5 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 0 2. Adjustment $ 5 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. X Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b.

Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1.

On occasion 2.

Weekly 3. X Monthly 4.

Quarterly 5.

Semi annually 6.

Annually 7.

Biannually 8.

Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Nikki Burley Phone: ( 202) 564 9723 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Leigh Pomponio, Manager Policy Service Center Office of Acquisition Management Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Information Collection Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register: October 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 63979-63980]
[DOCID:fr28oc08-65]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0094; FRL-8735-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reporting Requirements Under
EPA's Climate Leaders Partnership (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 2100.03, OMB
Control No. 2060-0532

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 28,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0094, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (preferred
method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, MC 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Manuel J. Oliva, Climate Protection
Partnerships Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 6202J,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
343-9094; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 30, 2008 (73 FR 31087), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0094, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in-person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives
them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Reporting Requirements under EPA's Climate Leaders
Partnership (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2100.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0532.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2008.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable.
    Abstract: In an effort to aid implementation of U.S. commitments in
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the
President announced a Climate Change Strategy on February 14, 2002,
wherein he set a national U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity goal of
18 percent by 2012. Part of that strategy challenges companies to set
GHG reduction goals by working with EPA through the voluntary Climate
Leaders program. EPA has developed this renewal ICR to ensure that the
program remains credible by obtaining continued authorization to
collect information from Climate Leaders Partners to ensure the
partners are meeting their GHG goals over time. Companies that join
Climate Leaders voluntarily agree to the following: Completing and
submitting a Partnership Agreement; negotiating a corporate GHG
reduction goal; submitting a GHG inventory management plan;
participating in an onsite review of the inventory management plan, and
reporting to EPA, on an annual basis, the company's GHG emissions
inventory, and progress toward their GHG reduction goal via Climate
Leaders Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form. The
information contained in the inventories of the companies that join
Climate Leaders may be considered Confidential Business Information
(CBI) and is maintained as such. EPA uses the data obtained from the
companies to assess the success of the program in achieving its GHG
reduction goals. Responses to the information collection are voluntary.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to equal 19,636
hours and to average 87 hours per respondent. Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Climate Leaders Partner
Corporations.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 225.
    Frequency of Response: Annually, on occasion, one-time.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 19,636.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,847,826, which includes $0
annualized capital/startup costs; $105 annualized Operating and
Maintenance (O&M) costs and $1,847,721 annualized labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 7,681 hours in
the total estimated burden compared with that identified in the ICR
currently approved by OMB. Although the reporting requirements of the
Climate Leader Partnership have been streamlined to reduce the
individual burden for each reporter, the increase in overall costs are
due to the continued growth in the number of companies participating in
the Partnership. EPA has collaborated with partners to develop these
revised reporting requirements, which are better suited for
establishing and tracking progress of corporate GHG reduction goals.
This change is result of a more interactive program approach between
EPA and Climate Leaders Partners and a larger number of partners in the
program since the currently approved ICR.

    Dated: October 23, 2008.
Deborah Williams,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E8-25679 Filed 10-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P