[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47332-47333]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18143]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043]

TUV SUD America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition and
Modification to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand
the scope of recognition of TUV SUD America, Inc. (TUVAM) as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA
announces the final decision to add one test standard to the NRTL
Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
August 24, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor by phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor by phone
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Applications for Expansion

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the extension of the scope of
recognition of TUV SUD America, Inc. (TUVAM) as a NRTL. TUVAM's
expansion covers the addition of eighteen test standards to its NRTL
scope of recognition. OSHA also hereby gives notice that it is adding
one test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test
Standards.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require
testing and certification of the products.
    The agency processes applications by NRTLs or applicant
organizations for initial recognition, as well as for expansion or
renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A, 29 CFR
1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in
the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice,
OSHA announces the application and provides its preliminary finding. In
the second notice, the agency provides the final decision on the
application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page
for each NRTL, including TUVAM, which details that NRTL's scope of
recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA website at: http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    TUVAM submitted an application, dated June 8, 2020 (OSHA-2007-0043-
0036), to expand its recognition to include six additional test
standards. Additionally, TUVAM submitted an application on May 19, 2015
(OSHA-2007-0043-0020) to expand its recognition to include two
additional recognized test sites and twelve additional test standards.
However, due to an omission, OSHA did not rule on the May 19, 2015
application to the extent TUVAM applied to expand its recognition to
include the twelve additional test standards (82 FR 13143, March 9,
2017; 82 FR 28359, June 21, 2017). Those twelve standards are included
in this notice. Therefore, the expansion announced in this notice
covers eighteen standards, including one which OSHA proposes to add to
the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. OSHA staff
performed a detailed analysis of both application packets and reviewed
other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews
in relation to these applications insofar as the applications sought
expansions of recognition to include the eighteen additional test
standards.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVAM's expansion
applications in the Federal Register on July 2, 2021 (86 FR 35347). The
agency requested comments by July 19, 2021, but it received no comments
in response to this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this final
notice to grant expansion of TUVAM's scope of recognition.
    To review copies of all public documents pertaining to TUVAM's
applications, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043 contains all
materials in the record concerning TUVAM's recognition.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined TUVAM's expansion applications, the capability
to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent
information. Based on a review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVAM
meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition,
subject to the specified limitations and conditions listed. OSHA,
therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of
TUVAM's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVAM's
scope of recognition to testing and certification of products for
demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1.

  Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in TUVAM's
                        NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* UL 347A.........................  Medium Voltage Power Conversion
                                     Equipment.
UL 1004-1.........................  Rotating Electrical Machines--
                                     General Requirements.
UL 2594...........................  Standard for Electric Vehicle Supply
                                     Management.
UL 61010-2-030....................  Safety Requirements for Electrical
                                     Equipment for Measurement, Control
                                     and Laboratory Use--Part 2-030:
                                     Particular Requirements for Testing
                                     and Measuring Circuits.
UL 61010-2-81.....................  Standard for Safety Requirements for
                                     Electrical Equipment for
                                     Measurement, Control and Laboratory
                                     Use--Part 2-081: Particular
                                     Requirements for Automatic and Semi-
                                     Automatic Laboratory Equipment for
                                     Analysis and Other Purposes.
UL 61010-2-101....................  Safety Requirements for Electrical
                                     Equipment for Measurement, Control
                                     and Laboratory Use--Part 2-101:
                                     Particular Requirements for In
                                     Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Medical
                                     Equipment.

UL 122............................  Photographic Equipment.
UL 153............................  Portable Electric Luminaires.
UL 429............................  Electrically Operated Valves.
UL 1776...........................  High-Pressure Cleaning Machines.
UL 60730-1A.......................  Automatic Electrical Controls for
                                     Household and Similar Use; Part 1:
                                     General Requirements.
UL 60730-2-7......................  Automatic Electrical Controls for
                                     Household and Similar Use; Part 2:
                                     Particular Requirements for Timers
                                     and Time Switches.
UL 60730-2-10A....................  Automatic Electrical Controls for
                                     Household and Similar Use; Part 2:
                                     Particular Requirements for Motor
                                     Starting Relays.
UL 60730-2-11A....................  Automatic Electrical Controls for
                                     Household and Similar Use; Part 2:
                                     Particular Requirements for Energy
                                     Regulators.
UL 60730-2-12A....................  Automatic Electrical Controls for
                                     Household and Similar Use; Part 2:
                                     Particular Requirements for
                                     Electrically Operated Door Locks.
UL 60730-2-13A....................  Automatic Electrical Controls for
                                     Household and Similar Use; Part 2:
                                     Particular Requirements for
                                     Humidity Sensing Controls.
UL 60730-2-14.....................  Automatic Electrical Controls for
                                     Household and Similar Use; Part 2:
                                     Particular Requirements for
                                     Electric Actuators.
UL 60730-2-16A....................  Automatic Electrical Controls for
                                     Household and Similar Use; Part 2:
                                     Particular Requirements for
                                     Automatic Electrical Water Level
                                     Controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents Test Standard new to the NRTL Program.

    OSHA also announces the addition of one new test standard to the
NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Table 2, below,
lists the test standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA has
determined that this test standard is an appropriate test standard.

   Table 2--Test Standard OSHA Is Adding to the NRTL Program's List of
                       Appropriate Test Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 347A...................................  Medium Voltage Power
                                             Conversion Equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.

A. Conditions

    Recognition is contingent on continued compliance with 29 CFR
1910.7, including, but not limited to, abiding by the following
conditions of recognition:
    1. TUVAM must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in the operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. TUVAM must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. TUVAM must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on TUVAM's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of TUVAM, subject to
the limitation and conditions specified above.

IV. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Section 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020),
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 17, 2021.
James S. Frederick,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-18143 Filed 8-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62118-62119]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25828]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65456; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2011-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a
Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.96(b)(2) To Make
Permanent the Pilot Program That Permits the Exchange To Accept Inbound
Orders Routed by Archipelago Securities LLC in Its Capacity as a
Facility of Affiliated Exchanges and To Clarify the Text of NYSE Arca
Options Rule 6.96(b)(1)(B) to More Accurately Reflect the Regulatory
Services Agreement Between the Exchange and the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority

September 30, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On August 18, 2011, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
make permanent the existing pilot program that permits the Exchange to
accept inbound orders routed by Archipelago Securities LLC (``Arca
Securities'') in its capacity as a facility of an affiliated exchange
(with the attendant obligations and conditions), and to clarify the
text of NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.96(b)(1)(B) to more accurately reflect
the regulatory services agreement (``RSA'') between the Exchange and
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''). The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on August
26, 2011.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters regarding the
proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65182 (August 22,
2011), 76 FR 53515 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    Arca Securities is a broker-dealer that is an NYSE Arca options
trading permit holder (``OTP Holder''),\4\ and, among other things, is
permitted to provide to members of NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'')
optional routing services to other market centers.\5\ On June 16, 2011,
the Exchange filed an immediately effective proposed rule change to,
among other things, permit the Exchange to receive inbound routes of
option orders that Arca Securities routes in its capacity as a facility
of NYSE Amex on a pilot basis ending September 30, 2011.\6\ The
Exchange now seeks permanent approval of this inbound routing pilot.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``OTP Holder'' is defined in NYSE Arca Options Rule 1.1(q).
Arca Securities is owned indirectly by NYSE Euronext (``NYSE
Euronext''), which also indirectly owns three registered securities
exchanges--NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''), the Exchange, and New York
Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''). Thus, Arca Securities is an affiliate
of each of these exchanges.
    \5\ Arca Securities operates as a facility of NYSE Amex that
provides outbound routing from NYSE Amex to other market centers,
subject to certain conditions. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 64732 (June 23, 2011), 76 FR 38240 (June 29, 2011) (SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-40); and 58705 (October 1, 2008) 73 FR 58995 (October
8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64731 (June 23,
2011), 76 FR 38237 (June 29, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-39) (``Routing
Pilot Release''). See also Notice, 76 FR at 53515, n.5 and
accompanying text.
    \7\ See Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among
other things, that a national securities exchange be so organized and
have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act, and to comply
and enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its
members, with the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulation
thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. Further, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\10\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices; to promote just and equitable
principles of trade; to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, and processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities; to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system; and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Section 6(b)(5) also
requires that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that the Commission has expressed concern regarding the
potential for conflicts of interest in instances where a member firm is
affiliated with an exchange to which it is routing orders, the Exchange
previously implemented limitations and conditions to Arca Securities's
affiliation with the Exchange to permit the Exchange to accept orders
routed inbound to NYSE Arca by Arca Securities from its affiliate, NYSE
Amex, on a pilot basis.\11\ The Exchange now seeks to make this pilot
permanent, and to more accurately reflect in its rule text its RSA with
FINRA. Specifically, the Exchange states it is in compliance with the
following obligations and conditions: \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Routing Pilot Release. See also supra note 6 and
accompanying text.
    \12\ See Notice, 76 FR at 53515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     First, the Exchange will maintain an agreement pursuant to
Rule 17d-2 under the Exchange Act with FINRA to relieve the Exchange of
regulatory responsibilities for Arca Securities with respect to rules
that are common rules between the Exchange and FINRA, and maintain an
RSA with FINRA to perform regulatory responsibilities for Arca
Securities for unique Exchange rules.
     Second, the RSA will require the Exchange to provide FINRA
with information, in an easily accessible manner, regarding all
exception reports, alerts, complaints, trading errors, cancellations,
investigations, and enforcement matters (collectively ``Exceptions'')
in which Arca Securities is identified as a participant that has
potentially violated Exchange or Commission Rules and of which the
Exchange becomes aware, and shall require that FINRA provide a report,
at least quarterly, to the Exchange quantifying all Exceptions in which
Arca Securities is identified as a participant that has potentially
violated Exchange or Commission Rules; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, 76 FR at 53515, n.7 and accompanying text. The
Exchange proposed to modify this provision, as set forth in NYSE
Arca Options Rule 6.96(b)(1)(B) to more accurately reflect its RSA
with FINRA and specify that the quarterly report of Exceptions shall
be provided to the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer (``CRO'').
The Exchange states that upon approval of this change, it will
continue to comply with the obligations and conditions as set forth
in NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.96(b). See Notice, 76 FR at 53516.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Third, the Exchange, on behalf of its parent, NYSE
Euronext, will establish and maintain procedures and internal controls
reasonably designed to prevent

Arca Securities from receiving any benefit, taking any action or
engaging in any activity based on non-public information regarding
planned changes to Exchange systems, obtained as a result of its
affiliation with the Exchange, until such information is available
generally to similarly situated OTP Holders of the Exchange in
connection with the provision of inbound order routing to the Exchange;
and
     Fourth, the Exchange may furnish to Arca Securities the
same information on the same terms that the Exchange makes available in
the normal course of business to any other OTP Holder.\14\

    \14\ See NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.96(b). See also Notice, 76 FR
at 53515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Exchange believes that by meeting the above-listed conditions it
has set up mechanisms that protect the independence of the Exchange's
regulatory responsibility with respect to Arca Securities, and has
demonstrated that Arca Securities cannot use any information it may
have because of its affiliation with the Exchange to its advantage.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, 76 FR at 53515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past, the Commission has expressed concern that the
affiliation of an exchange with one of its members raises potential
conflicts of interest, and the potential for unfair competitive
advantage.\16\ Although the Commission continues to be concerned about
potential unfair competition and conflicts of interest between an
exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its commercial interest when
the exchange is affiliated with one of its members, for the reasons
discussed below, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the
Act to permit Arca Securities to provide inbound routing to the
Exchange on a permanent basis instead of a pilot basis, subject to the
other conditions described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54170 (July
18, 2006), 71 FR 42149 (July 25, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-006) (order
approving Nasdaq's proposal to adopt Nasdaq Rule 2140, restricting
affiliations between Nasdaq and its members); 53382 (February 27,
2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77) (order
approving the combination of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and
Archipelago Holdings, Inc.); 58673 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 57707
(October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-62) (order approving the combination
of NYSE Euronext and the American Stock Exchange LLC); 59135
(December 22, 2008), 73 FR 79954 (December 30, 2008) (SR-ISE-2009-
85) (order approving the purchase by ISE Holdings of an ownership
interest in DirectEdge Holdings LLC); and 59281 (January 22, 2009),
74 FR 5014 (January 28, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-120) (order approving a
joint venture between NYSE and BIDS Holdings L.P.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed four ongoing conditions applicable to
Arca Securities's routing activities, which are enumerated above. The
Commission believes that these conditions mitigate its concerns about
potential conflicts of interest and unfair competitive advantage. In
particular, the Commission believes that FINRA's oversight of Arca
Securities,\17\ combined with FINRA's monitoring of Arca Securities's
compliance with the Exchange's rules and quarterly reporting to NYSE
Arca's CRO, will help to protect the independence of the Exchange's
regulatory responsibilities with respect to Arca Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This oversight will be accomplished through the Regulatory
Contract between the Exchange and FINRA and a 17d-2 Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2011-62) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25828 Filed 10-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16485-16487]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06990]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74561; File No. SR-MSRB-2015-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change Consisting of Amendments to MSRB Rule A-16, on Examination Fees

March 23, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 17, 2015, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the
``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of amendments to MSRB Rule A-16, on examination fees
(``proposed rule change''). The MSRB designated the proposed rule
change as ``establishing or changing a due, fee or other charge'' under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\
thereunder, which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the
Commission. The implementation date of the proposed rule change is
April 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at http://www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2015-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish a test
development fee for the MSRB's new municipal advisor representative
qualification examination (``Series 50 examination'') and to better
align the MSRB's existing test development fees (which have not been
adjusted since 2009) with the costs of developing, implementing and
maintaining the tests (hereinafter, the ``program costs''). Under the
proposed rule change, the MSRB will institute a test development fee of
$150 for the Series 50 examination and change the test development fee
for each of the three existing MSRB-owned examinations from $60 to
$150. The development fee of $150 will, on April 1, 2015, be assessed
on brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (``dealers'') and
municipal advisors based on the number of their associated persons that
take an MSRB-owned professional qualification examination.
    Any person associated with a dealer who is engaged in or supervises
municipal securities activities and any person associated with a
municipal advisor who is engaged in or supervises municipal advisory
activities must be qualified in accordance with MSRB Rule G-3.\5\ As a
prerequisite to qualification, each individual must pass the applicable
examination to demonstrate a basic competence in the subject matter
related to the professional qualification classification. The

examinations seek to measure accurately and reliably the degree to
which each candidate possesses the knowledge, skills and abilities
necessary to perform the relevant job function. The examinations
measure a candidate's knowledge of business activities, as well as the
regulatory requirements, including MSRB rules, rule interpretations and
other federal law applicable to a particular classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The SEC recently approved MSRB rule amendments, effective
April 27, 2015, that establish professional qualification standards
for municipal advisors. The amendments to MSRB Rule G-3 establish
two professional qualification classifications for municipal
advisors--municipal advisor representative and municipal advisor
principal. See Exchange Act Release No. 74384 (Feb. 26, 2015), 80 FR
11706 (Mar. 4, 2015), File No. SR-MSRB-2014-08 (Nov. 18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the MSRB recognizes two types of professional
qualification examinations: MSRB-owned examinations and examinations
owned by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''). There
are three existing MSRB-owned examinations and one in development. The
Municipal Fund Securities Limited Principal Qualification Examination
(``Series 51 examination''), Municipal Securities Representative
Qualification Examination (``Series 52 examination''), and Municipal
Securities Principal Qualification Examination (``Series 53
examination'') are developed, implemented, maintained, and owned by the
MSRB. The Series 50 examination, which is under development for
municipal advisor representatives, is also owned by the MSRB. Each of
the existing MSRB-owned examinations is administered by FINRA, and it
is expected that FINRA also will administer the Series 50 examination.
    MSRB-owned professional qualification examinations are developed by
the MSRB in conjunction with industry-wide advisory committees and
retained test design experts in accordance with established national
standards. The test development fee assessed under Rule A-16 is
intended to partially offset the program costs. Pursuant to the
proposed rule change, the MSRB will change the test development fee
from $60 to $150 for the Series 51 examination, Series 52 examination
and Series 53 examination. This is the first time the MSRB has adjusted
its examination development fees since 2009 when the fees were first
established under MSRB Rule A-16.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 61023 (Nov. 18, 2009), 74 FR
61402 (Nov. 24, 2009), File No. SR-MSRB-2009-16 (Nov. 5, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB is amending Rule A-16 to better align the fees with the
current program costs because the MSRB's current examination fees, as a
percentage of the program costs, have decreased significantly since the
fees were established in 2009. The examination development fees have
not previously been, and are not intended to fully offset the program
costs, but to help defray a portion of the cost of developing and
implementing the examinations, as well as the costs associated with
monitoring the examinations for effectiveness and updating the
examinations' content and questions. To address the growing disparity
between the examination fees collected and the program costs, the MSRB
is changing the examination fee to $150 for each MSRB-owned
examination. The MSRB believes this fee adjustment is reasonable and
appropriate.
    The proposed rule change also amends Rule A-16 to clarify that the
examination fee is assessed to dealers and municipal advisors, rather
than their associated persons who take the professional qualification
tests. In addition to the MSRB's examination fee, FINRA assesses an
administrative fee for each examination that it administers. These fees
are assessed by FINRA at the time a broker, dealer, municipal
securities dealer or municipal advisor enrolls an associated person to
take an examination and then FINRA remits the aggregate MSRB
examination fees to the MSRB periodically.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act,\7\ which requires,
in pertinent part, that the MSRB promulgate rules to require dealers
and municipal advisors to pay such reasonable fees and charges as may
be necessary or appropriate to defray the costs and expenses of
operating and administering the MSRB. The proposed rule change provides
for reasonable fees to partially defray the program costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \8\ requires that MSRB rules not be
designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In addition,
Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering these standards, the MSRB was guided by the Board's
Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis. The MSRB does not believe that
the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The MSRB considered as alternatives whether to maintain the current
fee, or to propose an increase that was lower or higher than the
proposed increase. Since the current examination fees were instituted,
the costs relating to the development, implementation and maintenance
of the examinations have increased. The examination fees have, as
noted, remained unchanged since 2009 and the proposed rule change is
designed to better align the fees with the current program costs. The
revenue from such fees will still fall well-short of the actual program
costs. Finally, the examination fees are equitable to each dealer and
municipal advisor without regard to the nature of that entity's
business and are assessed only as to those individuals who are
associated with the entity who enroll to take an MSRB-owned
qualification examination.
    To evaluate the impact of the adjustment in the MSRB test
development fees for the Series 51, 52, and 53 examinations and the
establishment of a development fee of $150 for the Series 50
examination, the MSRB considered the fees charged to take other
professional qualification examinations in the financial services
field. When including the administrative fee assessed by FINRA, the
total fee that will be charged to take any MSRB-owned examination is
comparable to the total fee charged to take other FINRA-administered
professional qualification examinations, which currently range from
$70-$335.\10\ As another example, in the financial services field, the
fee to take the Chartered Financial Analyst Level I examination is
$630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See FINRA Administered Qualification Examinations
www.finra.org/industry/compliance/registration/qualificationsexams/qualifications/p011096. Effective April 1, 2015, the total fee
charged to take other FINRA-administered professional qualification
examinations will range from $75-$350. See File No. SR-FINRA-2015-
006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the MSRB considered the fees charged to take
professional qualification examinations in other fields. The average
state bar examination fee as of 2013 was approximately $490.\11\ Note
that nearly

50 percent of the attorneys who were in private practice that year,
were sole practitioners and an additional 14 percent work in firms made
up of five or fewer attorneys.\12\ As another example, the Project
Management Professional examination fee is $250. The MSRB is not aware
of evidence that the fees associated with other examinations represent
a significant burden on smaller firms or that they negatively impact
the competitiveness of the associated professional services markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See American Bar Association Bar Exam Directory,
www.americanbar.org/publications/student_lawyer/2012-13/nov/2012_2013_bar_exam_directory.html. The cost of examinations varies
substantially from state to state, as does whether the fee includes
other professional certification costs (e.g., moral character
reviews).
    \12\ See American Bar Association Bar Lawyer Demographics,
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/market_research/lawyer_demographics_2013.authcheckdam.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the MSRB recognizes that examination fees do represent an
initial barrier to entry in markets where they are required, the MSRB
also recognizes that professionals wishing to engage in municipal
securities activities and/or municipal advisory activities face other
costs associated with complying with applicable laws and regulations.
The fees for professional qualification examinations, which are one-
time fees for those who pass, typically represent a relatively small
share of all legal and compliance costs associated with a government-
regulated activity. The MSRB anticipates that potential market entrants
that are actually deterred by a professional examination fee would find
it difficult to bear the costs to fully comply with the other
regulatory and legal requirements associated with the market in which
they wish to offer services.
    With regard to the impact on small municipal advisors, the MSRB
notes that because the total fee assessed to a firm is based on the
number of individuals associated with that firm who enroll to take an
MSRB-owned qualification examination, the total costs assessed will
bear a reasonable relationship to the size of the firm, with smaller
firms likely to be assessed lower fee totals. Nonetheless, larger, more
diversified firms may have a larger overall revenue base than smaller
firms and may be more able to pass expenses on to clients than smaller
firms. On net, the MSRB believes that the burdens associated with the
proposed rule change on small municipal advisors are limited and that,
as the SEC concluded in its final rule on the permanent registration of
municipal advisors, the market would be likely to remain competitive
despite the potential exit of some municipal advisors (including small
entity municipal advisors), consolidation of municipal advisors, or
lack of new entrants into the market.\13\ The MSRB also believes that
its professional qualification examinations promote compliance with
applicable laws and regulations are necessary for the protection of
investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\See Registration of Municipal Advisors, Exchange Act Release
No. 70462 (Sept. 20, 2013), 78 FR 67467 (Nov. 12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the MSRB believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The forgoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \15\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml; or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2015-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2015-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2015-01 and should be
submitted on or before April 17, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06990 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P