[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7898-7904]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01300]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79801; File No. SR-MSRB-2016-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Extend the MSRB's Customer Complaint and Related
Recordkeeping Rules to Municipal Advisors and To Modernize Those Rules

January 13, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On November 1, 2016, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the
``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``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 consisting of (i) proposed
amendments to Rule G-10, on delivery of investor brochure, Rule G-8, on
books and records to be made by brokers, dealers, and municipal
securities dealers and municipal advisors, and Rule G-9, on
preservation of records, and (ii) a proposed Board notice regarding
electronic delivery and receipt of information by municipal advisors
under Rule G-32, on disclosures in connection with primary offerings
(collectively, the ``proposed rule change''). The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 18,
2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79295 (November 14,
2016) (the ``Notice of Filing''), 81 FR 81837 (November 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received five comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\4\ On January 10, 2017, the MSRB responded to the comments
received by the Commission \5\ and filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change (``Amendment No. 1'').\6\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change from interested persons and is approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letters to Secretary, Commission, from Mike Nicholas,
Chief Executive Officer, Bond Dealers of America (``BDA''), dated
December 9, 2016 (the ``BDA Letter''); Matthew J. Gavaghan,
Associate General Counsel, Janney Montgomery Scott LLC (``Janney''),
dated December 9, 2016 (the ``Janney Letter''); Marnie Lambert,
President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (``PIABA''),
dated December 9, 2016 (the ``PIABA Letter''); Susan Gaffney,
Executive Director, National Association of Municipal Advisors
(``NAMA''), dated December 12, 2016 (the ``NAMA Letter''); and Leo
Karwejna, Chief Compliance Officer and Cheryl Maddox, General
Counsel, Public Financial Management, Inc. and PFM Financial
Advisors LLC (collectively, ``PFM''), dated December 13, 2016 (the
``PFM Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Pamela K. Ellis,
Associate General Counsel, MSRB, dated January 10, 2017 (the ``MSRB
Response Letter''), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2016-15/msrb201615-1473509-130471.pdf.
    \6\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Pamela K. Ellis,
Associate General Counsel, MSRB, dated January 10, 2017, available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2016-15/msrb201615-1473522-130450.pdf. In Amendment No. 1, the MSRB partially amended the text
of the proposed rule change to provide certain clarifications
relating to the notifications that would be provided by municipal
advisors to their municipal advisory clients and to the terms used
with the recordkeeping of municipal advisory client complaints, to
extend the proposed effective date, and to make other technical
changes to clarify or simplify rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, consists
of (i) proposed amendments to Rule G-10, on delivery of investor
brochure, Rule G-8, on books and records to be made by brokers,
dealers, and municipal securities dealers and municipal advisors, and
Rule G-9, on preservation of records, and (ii) a proposed MSRB notice
regarding electronic delivery and receipt of information by municipal
advisors under Rule G-32, on disclosures in connection with primary
offerings.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice of Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the financial crisis of 2008, Congress enacted the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank
Act'').\8\ The Dodd-Frank Act amended Section 15B of the Exchange Act
to establish a new federal regulatory regime requiring municipal
advisors to register with the Commission, deeming them to owe a
fiduciary duty to their municipal entity clients and granting the MSRB
rulemaking authority over them. The MSRB, in the exercise of that
rulemaking authority, has been developing a comprehensive regulatory
framework for municipal advisors and their associated persons.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Public Law No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \9\ MSRB Rule D-11 defines ``associated persons'' as follows:
    Unless the context otherwise requires or a rule of the Board
otherwise specifically provides, the terms ``broker,'' ``dealer,''
``municipal securities broker,'' ``municipal securities dealer,''
``bank dealer,'' and ``municipal advisor'' shall refer to and
include their respective associated persons. Unless otherwise
specified, persons whose functions are solely clerical or
ministerial shall not be considered associated persons for purposes
of the Board's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, and concurrent with its efforts to develop a comprehensive
regulatory framework for municipal advisors and their associated
persons, the MSRB initiated a review of its rules and related
interpretive guidance for brokers, dealers and municipal securities
dealers (collectively, ``dealers'') and municipal advisors (municipal
advisors, together with dealers, ``regulated entities''). The MSRB
initiated that review in the context of the Board's obligation to
protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the
public interest. As part of that review, the MSRB solicited comments
from market participants.\10\ In response, market participants
recommended that the Board update Rule G-10.\11\ The MSRB has stated
that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
consisting of amendments to Rule G-10 and its related recordkeeping
rules, Rules G-8 and G-9, and guidance under Rule G-32, is an important
element of both MSRB regulatory initiatives.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ MSRB Notice 2012-63, Request for Comment on MSRB Rules and
Interpretive Guidance (Dec. 18, 2012).
    \11\ See, e.g., Letter from David L. Cohen, Managing Director
and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association, dated February 19, 2013, to Ronald W. Smith,
Corporate Secretary, Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(commenting that (i) the requirement to deliver an investor brochure
under Rule G-10 should be eliminated, (ii) the investor brochure is
of limited value, if any, to institutional investors as well as
investors in municipal fund securities, and (iii) alternatively, the
MSRB could accomplish the objective of Rule G-10 by posting the
investor brochure on its Web site); Letter from Gerald K. Mayfield,
Senior Counsel, Wells Fargo & Company Law Department, dated February
19, 2013, to Ronald W. Smith, Corporate Secretary, Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board (commenting that (i) the requirement to
deliver an investor brochure under Rule G-10 should be eliminated,
(ii) the investor brochure is of limited value, if any, to
institutional investors as well as investors in municipal fund
securities, and (iii) alternatively, the MSRB could accomplish the
objective of Rule G-10 by posting the investor brochure on its Web
site).
    \12\ See Notice of Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To extend its customer complaint and recordkeeping rules to
municipal advisors and to modernize those rules, the Board filed the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, with the
Commission. Specifically,

the proposed rule change would (i) extend the Board's customer
complaint recordkeeping requirements to all municipal advisors (i.e.,
non-solicitor and solicitor municipal advisors) as well as align those
recordkeeping requirements more closely with the customer complaint
recordkeeping requirements of other financial regulators, (ii) require
that all regulated entities retain their customer or municipal advisory
client \13\ complaint records for six years, (iii) overhaul Rule G-10
so that the rule would more closely focus on customer and municipal
advisory client education and protection as well as align that rule
with customer education and protection rules of other financial
regulators, and (iv) extend the Board's guidance under Rule G-32,
Notice Regarding Electronic Delivery and Receipt of Information by
Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers (Nov. 20, 1998) (the
``1998 Notice''), to municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, in
Rule G-8(e)(ii), would define a municipal advisory client as either
a municipal entity or obligated person for whom the municipal
advisor engages in municipal advisory activities as defined in MSRB
Rule G-42(f)(iv), or a broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer,
municipal advisor, or investment adviser (as defined in section 202
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940) on behalf of whom the
municipal advisor undertakes a solicitation of a municipal entity or
obligated person, as defined in Rule 15Ba1-1(n), 17 CFR 240.15Ba1-
1(n), under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, by regulated entity, the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, would do the following:

Municipal Advisors

     amend Rule G-8 to exclude municipal advisors from the
definition of ``customers;''
     amend Rule G-8 to include the definition of ``municipal
advisory client;''
     amend Rule G-8 to extend the requirements that are similar
to the rule's customer complaint recordkeeping requirements to
municipal advisory client complaint recordkeeping;
     amend Rule G-8 to provide guidance in supplementary
material that would define electronic recordkeeping;
     amend Rule G-8 to provide guidance in supplementary
material that would remind a municipal advisor that it may be required
to promptly report certain municipal advisory client complaints to
other regulatory authorities;
     amend Rule G-9 to require that the records of municipal
advisory client complaints be kept for at least six years;
     amend Rule G-10 to extend requirements that are similar to
the rule's dealer customer protection and education requirements to
municipal advisory client protection and education; and
     extend to municipal advisors, under Rule G-32, the
guidance provided by the 1998 Notice, as relevant.

Dealers

     Amend Rule G-8 to require that dealers keep a standardized
complaint log electronically, using product and problem codes tailored
for municipal securities, to document the written complaints of
customers;
     amend Rule G-8 to define written customer complaints to
include complaints received electronically by the dealer;
     amend Rule G-8 to provide guidance in supplementary
material that would define electronic recordkeeping;
     amend Rule G-8 to provide guidance in supplementary
material that would remind a dealer that it may be required to promptly
report certain written customer complaints to other regulatory
authorities; and
     amend Rule G-10 in its entirety so that the rule would
more clearly focus on customer protection and education.
    A detailed rule discussion of the proposed rule change's
recordkeeping requirements, customer and municipal advisory client
education and protection requirements, and electronic delivery guidance
to municipal advisors is contained in the Notice of Filing.
    The MSRB requested in the Notice of Filing that the proposed rule
change be approved with an implementation date of six months after the
Commission approval date for all changes.\14\ Pursuant to Amendment No.
1, the MSRB now requests that the proposed rule change be approved with
an implementation date of nine months after the Commission approval
date for all changes.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice of Filing.
    \15\ See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments Received and MSRB's Responses to Comments

    As noted previously, the Commission received five comment letters
on the proposed rule change, and the MSRB Response Letter. Commenters
generally expressed support for the principles behind the proposed rule
change, but also expressed various concerns or suggested revisions.
1. Effective Date
    BDA urged that the MSRB provide at least 12 months, rather than the
six months proposed in the Notice of Filing, to provide dealers with
adequate time for implementation, especially given the resources
required to implement other ongoing regulatory initiatives.\16\ The
MSRB acknowledged that those other regulatory initiatives require
significant attention by compliance and technology staff. In response,
the MSRB, pursuant to Amendment No. 1, proposes an effective date of
nine months after the Commission's approval date of all changes.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See BDA Letter.
    \17\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Municipal Advisor Terms
    NAMA suggested that certain terms used in the proposed amendments
to Rule G-8 be revised to more closely reflect terms more commonly used
by municipal advisors. In particular, NAMA noted that the proposed
rulemaking refers to a municipal advisory client's ``account.'' \18\
NAMA stated that such a phrase does not ``translate'' to municipal
advisors. In response, the MSRB, pursuant to Amendment No. 1, proposes
to replace ``account'' when used with a municipal advisory client with
the phrase ``number or code, if any.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NAMA Letter.
    \19\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Customer and Municipal Advisory Client Brochures
    PIABA supported giving investors information about the protections
provided by the MSRB and about how to file a complaint with a
regulator, noting that the proposed amendments to Rule G-10 would
provide for the education of customers or municipal advisory clients
before they encounter a problem.\20\ PFM submitted that the ``proposed
Rules . . . unnecessarily impose undue encumbrances of additional
brochure delivery.'' \21\ BDA also requested clarity about when a
municipal advisor should send the investor brochure to a municipal
advisory client, and suggested that it was not necessary to send the
investor brochure to an institutional investor. BDA suggested that the
Board should develop a brochure that focuses on municipal advisory
clients.\22\ NAMA and PFM commented that they needed

to review the brochure to provide sufficient comment.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See PIABA Letter.
    \21\ See PFM Letter.
    \22\ BDA states that it ``requests clarity with when a municipal
advisor should send the G-10 brochure to a municipal advisory
client.'' BDA also stated that ``[i]f the MSRB is committed to
requiring dealers to send the investor brochure to institutional
investors, BDA recommends that MSRB provide clarity on `customer'
for the purposes of G-10.'' See BDA Letter.
    \23\ See NAMA Letter, PFM Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded by stating that, unlike the current requirements
of Rule G-10, the proposed amendments to Rule G-10 would not require
that a regulated entity deliver a Rule G-10 brochure to its customer or
municipal advisory client, but would require that a regulated entity
provide only annual notifications to its customer or municipal advisory
client about the availability of the brochure on the MSRB's Web
site.\24\ Further, after carefully considering BDA's request for
clarity regarding the use of the term ``promptly'' relating to when a
municipal advisor must send the annual notifications required by the
amendments to Rule G-10 to its municipal advisory client, the MSRB
provided a technical change in Amendment No. 1 to clarify that
``promptly'' means ``promptly, after the establishment of a municipal
advisory relationship.'' \25\ Although municipal advisors may elect to
provide the first notification earlier, the MSRB believes this standard
is consistent with the flexibility provided by the proposed rule change
to include the proposed annual notifications with other materials
required to be given by municipal advisors.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See MSRB Response Letter.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB further states that it believes that all customers and
municipal advisory clients should be aware of the important protections
provided by the MSRB's rules, the reminder that regulated entities are
registered with the Commission, and the information about how to file a
complaint with a regulator. Rule G-10 currently provides no exception
from its requirements for institutional investors, and the MSRB
believes that there is no reason why institutional investors should
receive less of this information about the protections provided by MSRB
rules and education than other investors.\27\ As discussed in the
Notice of Filing, the MSRB believes that the annual notifications
required by Rule G-10 present only a slight burden to regulated
entities, but could represent a significant enhancement to customer or
municipal advisory client protection and education.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
    \28\ See Notice of Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB agrees with BDA's view that the Board should use a
separate brochure focused on municipal advisory activities. The Notice
of Filing contemplated a separate brochure focused on municipal
advisory activities, and the MSRB has stated that it will develop such
a brochure.\29\ However, the MSRB notes that the content of the current
investor brochure was not made part of Rule G-10. Likewise, the content
of the future brochures has not been made part of the proposed
amendment text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Product and Problem Codes
    BDA, Janney, NAMA and PFM commented on the problem and product
codes that would be required by the proposed amendments to Rule G-8 for
the electronic customer or municipal advisory client complaint
logs.\30\ BDA and Janney commented that such codes should harmonize
with the problem and product codes required by FINRA Rule 4530. BDA
also commented that it believed that the MSRB and the Commission have
existing independent reporting systems that allow municipal entities or
obligated persons to file complaints directly to a regulator, which are
more appropriate systems to monitor complaints than the MSRB developing
an ``expansive set of problem codes.'' BDA, NAMA, and PFM urged that
the Board publish the product and problem codes for comment.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See BDA Letter, NAMA Letter, Janney Letter, PFM Letter.
    \31\ See BDA Letter, NAMA Letter, PFM Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB notes that it coordinates its rule interpretations and
requirements with those of other financial regulators, including FINRA.
This coordination has been and is occurring on an ongoing basis with
respect to the product and problem codes. The MSRB is aware that having
two different sets of compliance codes for dually registered regulated
entities would impose significant compliance and cost burdens, and to
lessen such burdens, the MSRB states that it would coordinate and
harmonize the product and problem codes, and the methods for
determining the appropriate codes, required by the proposed amendments
to Rule G-8 with FINRA.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to BDA's comment that the MSRB and the SEC have
existing independent reporting systems that allow municipal entities or
obligated persons to file complaints directly with a regulator, the
MSRB states that its complaint referral system is quite different than,
for example, the Commission's well-established and comprehensive
independent reporting system through its Office of Investor Education
and Advocacy. The MSRB notes that its role has been to provide
information about how an individual or firm may make a complaint to a
regulator. If an individual or a regulated entity is unsure about which
regulator the individual or firm should file the complaint with, that
individual or firm may submit the complaint with the MSRB, and the MSRB
then will forward the complaint to the appropriate regulator. The MSRB
states that, unlike the Commission, the MSRB neither enforces its own
rules nor surveils regulated entities; rather, other financial
regulators enforce MSRB rules and perform market surveillance
functions.\33\ The MSRB further notes that other financial regulators
subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, such as FINRA, currently
require that written customer complaints be tracked using an electronic
log. In approving FINRA Rule 4530, the Commission found that the FINRA
Rule 4530 was consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
association.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63260 (Nov. 5, 2010),
75 FR 69508 (Nov. 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the assertion that the electronic complaint log represents
overregulation by the MSRB, the MSRB notes that dealers that are
registered with FINRA are currently using electronic logs to track and
code written customer complaints. The MSRB believes that the electronic
complaint log requirement not only would assist regulators in enforcing
MSRB rules and performing market surveillance, but also that the
electronic complaint log would be used as a tool by regulated entities
as part of their risk management programs. The MSRB believes that
FINRA, the Commission, and numerous FINRA members, including members
that are also registered with the MSRB, have found such electronic
complaint logs to be valuable.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB states that federal securities laws do not require that
the Board solicit public comment on the product and problem codes to be
used under the proposed amendments to Rule G-8. The MSRB notes that
FINRA recently revised its product and problem codes used for reporting
customer complaints under FINRA Rule 4530.\36\ FINRA did not seek
public comment on the revisions to those product and problem codes; the
Board

would not expect to seek public comment on the product and problem
codes to be used with the proposed amendments to Rule G-8.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ In 2014, FINRA updated FINRA Rule 4530's problem and
product codes and provided a six-month implementation date. See
Regulatory Notice 14-20 (May 7, 2014).
    \37\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Recordkeeping
    BDA, NAMA, PIABA, and PFM provided comments and suggestions about
the Board's proposed amendments to Rule G-8.\38\ Those comments and
suggestions related to the regulatory burden caused by the proposed
amendments to Rule G-8, guidance as to certain of the terms used in the
electronic complaint log, and guidance as to the development of the
electronic complaint log itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See BDA Letter, NAMA Letter, PIABA Letter, PFM letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PFM asserted that the proposed rule change ``unnecessarily
impose[s] undue encumbrances of additional brochure delivery and
recordkeeping requirements.'' \39\ BDA submitted that it did not think
that this type of ``complaint and recordkeeping system is valuable for
municipal advisory clients,'' \40\ and NAMA asserted that the recording
of ``actions'' in the electronic complaint log required by the proposed
amendments to Rule G-8 is not necessary because of the supervisory
requirements set forth in MSRB Rule G-44.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See PFM Letter.
    \40\ See BDA Letter.
    \41\ See NAMA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB states that it believes that the burden on regulated
entities from the proposed rule change would not be significant.\42\
The proposed rule change would align Rule G-8 with the customer
complaint recordkeeping requirements of other financial regulators.
Rule 17a-3(a)(18) under the Act \43\ and FINRA Rules 4513 and 4530
require information about customer complaints that is similar to what
is required by the proposed rule change. The MSRB has stated that it
would harmonize its product and problem codes with those required by
FINRA Rule 4530.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See MSRB Response Letter.
    \43\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \44\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the proposed rule change would represent a new
recordkeeping burden on municipal advisors, the MSRB believes that it
would not be a significant burden. The MSRB states that it is generally
a good business practice, especially for the development of a regulated
entity's risk management systems, to track written complaints using
standard codes in an electronic complaint log. Any regulatory burden
imposed by the proposed rulemaking is, in part, dependent upon the
municipal advisor and the number of municipal advisory client
complaints that the municipal advisor receives. The MSRB anticipates
that smaller municipal advisors would have fewer clients and
accordingly may be likely to receive fewer complaints than larger
municipal advisors. Further, the MSRB states that it mitigates that
regulatory burden by providing flexibility as to how those electronic
records may be kept.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that an electronic log of complaints is
necessary, and that such need is not lessened by the supervisory and
compliance obligations of municipal advisors set forth in MSRB Rule G-
44. The standard electronic format required by the proposed amendments
would enhance the ability of financial regulators to conduct more cost-
effective and efficient inspections and surveillance of regulated
entities. MSRB Rule G-44 does not require that records of complaints be
kept in a standard electronic format across all regulated entities.
Further, the MSRB notes that many dealers that have been subject to
MSRB Rule G-27, on supervision, a rule that is similar to MSRB Rule G-
44, also have been subject to FINRA's electronic customer complaint
recordkeeping requirements. The MSRB believes that the FINRA electronic
customer complaint log requirements have proven useful in addition to
general supervisory obligations.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAMA requested guidance about the meaning of certain terms to be
used in the electronic complaint log.\47\ The MSRB believes that the
titles of the codes, as well as the brief description of those codes
published by the Board, as appropriate, will provide guidance as to the
terms used with the electronic complaint log. Further, as discussed
above under ``Product and Problem Codes,'' the MSRB would harmonize the
product and problem terms used for the electronic log of customer and
municipal advisory client complaints with the codes required by FINRA
Rule 4530.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See NAMA Letter.
    \48\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAMA requested guidance as to how a municipal advisor should create
an electronic complaint log. The MSRB notes that Proposed Supplementary
Material .01 broadly defines electronic format to include ``any
computer software program that is used for storing, organizing and/or
manipulating data that can be provided promptly upon request to a
regulatory authority.'' \49\ The MSRB states that it has determined
that the degree of flexibility the MSRB is providing with the proposed
rule change about the format of the electronic complaint log is
preferable at this juncture.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Notice of Filing and Amendment No. 1.
    \50\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAMA and PFM commented about the municipal advisor record retention
requirements set forth in the proposed amendments to Rule G-9. NAMA
commented that municipal advisor records should be kept for five years
and not six years.\51\ PFM commented that the Board lacked statutory
authority to extend the record retention period for municipal advisors
for one year and expressed ``genuine concern regarding the misalignment
regarding the proposed MSRB Rule changes and current Exchange Act
requirements.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See NAMA Letter.
    \52\ See PFM Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After carefully considering the comments, the MSRB states that it
has determined that the important reasons for retaining records of
municipal advisory client complaints for six years remain valid. As
discussed in the Notice of Filing, such retention period would assist
other financial regulators with their inspections of municipal advisors
(those inspections may not occur for several years after the municipal
advisory client submitted the complaint) and with their surveillance of
municipal advisors. Further, by requiring that municipal advisors
retain records of municipal advisory client complaints for six years,
the MSRB states that it would be ``leveling the playing field'' between
dealers and municipal advisors and between dealer municipal advisors
and non-dealer municipal advisors.\53\ Dealers, including dealer
municipal advisors, are required to retain records of customer
complaints for six years under current Board rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB states that it disagrees with PFM's assertions that the
Board lacks statutory authority to develop a record retention period
under the Act for municipal advisor records. The MSRB notes that
Section 15B(b)(2)(g) of the Act \54\ specifically requires that the
MSRB prescribe the records that are to be made and kept by dealers and
municipal advisors and to prescribe the length of time the records are
to be kept. The MSRB further notes that the Commission has approved as
consistent with the Exchange Act the MSRB's several previous municipal
advisor

recordkeeping proposals, including select six-year retention
periods.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(g).
    \55\ See, e.g., Exchange Act Release No. 76753 (Dec. 23, 2015),
80 FR 81614 (Dec. 30, 2015) (approving Rule G-42 and amendments to
Rule G-8); Exchange Act Release No. 73415 (Oct. 23, 2014), 79 FR
64423 (Oct. 29, 2014) (approving Rule G-44 and amendments to Rules
G-8 and G-9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Annual Notifications
    The Commission received several comments about the annual
notifications concerning the municipal advisor's registration, the
MSRB's Web site address, and availability of a municipal advisory
client brochure about the protections provided by the MSRB's rules and
information about filing a complaint with a financial regulator
required by the proposed amendments to Rule G-10 (the ``annual
notifications''). Those comments concerned the location of those annual
notifications and the ability to include the annual notifications with
other materials. NAMA suggested that in lieu of providing the written
annual notifications to their municipal advisory clients, municipal
advisors should have the option to post the annual notifications on
their Web sites.\56\ NAMA and PFM \57\ suggested that the annual
notifications be included with the written disclosure of all material
conflicts of interest and other information required to be made by a
municipal advisor by Rule G-42(b).\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See NAMA Letter.
    \57\ See NAMA Letter, PFM Letter.
    \58\ Rule G-42(b) provides, in part: ``Disclosure of Conflicts
of Interest and Other Information. A municipal advisor must, prior
to or upon engaging in municipal advisory activities, provide to the
municipal entity or obligated person client full and fair disclosure
in writing of:
    (i) all material conflicts of interest . . . [and]
    (ii) any legal or disciplinary event that is material to the
client's evaluation of the municipal advisor or the integrity of its
management or advisory personnel. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB states that it has carefully considered commenters'
suggestions, and has determined that a municipal advisor should not
have the option to post the annual notifications on its Web site in
lieu of sending those notifications to its municipal advisory client.
The Board believes that the purpose of the proposed amendments is best
achieved by individual annual notifications to a customer or municipal
advisor client. Nonetheless, if a regulated entity would like to post
the annual notifications on its Web site, in addition to sending the
written annual notifications to its customers or municipal advisory
clients, the regulated entity may do so as long as the information on
the regulated entity's Web site complies with Board and any other
applicable laws, rules and regulations.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the amendments to Rule G-10 would provide a regulated
entity with the flexibility to include the written annual notifications
with other materials. The MSRB notes that those other materials may
include the written disclosure of material conflicts of interest and
other information required to be provided by a municipal advisor under
MSRB Rule G-42(b). Because the proposed rule change would provide
municipal advisors with the option to include the annual notifications
with the written disclosure of material conflicts of interest and other
information required by MSRB Rule G-42(b), the MSRB believes that the
rule language, as proposed, provides sufficient flexibility to address
NAMA's and PFM's suggestion that the annual notifications be included
with the written disclosures required under Rule G-42(b).\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Sufficiency of Comment Period
    BDA, NAMA, and PFM commented that the Board did not solicit public
comment on the proposed rule change before the Board filed the proposed
rule change with the Commission.\61\ BDA submitted that the MSRB is
proceeding with ``unnecessary haste'' and that if the MSRB issued a
request for comment on the proposed rule change, it could have
``received feedback and tailored these rule amendments to the
activities of municipal advisors.'' \62\ NAMA commented that the
municipal advisor community should be afforded the same opportunity to
comment prior to a proposal being sent to the Commission that the
dealer community is afforded and submitted that municipal advisors
would have flagged some of the vague and duplicative provisions of the
proposed rulemaking as well as use of clearly inapplicable
terminology.\63\ PFM stated that it was ``a bit dismayed'' that the
MSRB did not publish a request for comment before filing the proposed
rule change with the Commission, and suggested that without such a
prior comment opportunity, PFM did not have ``adequate opportunity for
review and written comment.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See BDA Letter, NAMA Letter, PFM Letter.
    \62\ See BDA Letter.
    \63\ See NAMA Letter.
    \64\ See PFM Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responds that the Commission provided market participants
with the fulsome comment period generally required under the federal
securities laws, which do not require the Board to seek public comment
before submitting a rulemaking proposal to the Commission.\65\ Market
participants provided comment on the proposed rule change, and as noted
earlier, in response to those comments, the Board is filing Amendment
No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the MSRB notes that, in this case, not only did market
participants request the proposed rule change, but every commenter
supported the purposes of the proposed rule change. The proposed rule
change would enhance the MSRB's ability to protect and educate
customers and municipal advisory clients, which protections are vital
to the Board's mission. The proposed rule change also would harmonize
the Board's customer complaint rule with that of other financial
regulators--a goal that is important both to the Board and to market
participants.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Electronic Guidance
    BDA commented that the MSRB's Notice Regarding Electronic Delivery
and Receipt of Information by Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities
Dealers--November 20, 1998 (the ``1998 Notice'') should not apply to
municipal advisory relationships. BDA stated that ``[a]s with attorney-
client relationships . . ., municipal entities and obligated persons
know exactly how they prefer to communicate and there is no need for a
Federal regulator to regulate electronic communications in those
relationships.'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See BDA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated that the 1998 Notice provides dealers with the
MSRB's interpretation about the use of electronic media to deliver and
receive information under Board rules. The proposed rule change would
extend that interpretation to municipal advisors. Without that
extension, some vagueness might exist regarding municipal advisors'
ability to use electronic media to deliver and receive information
required under Board rules.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Other Comments
    The other suggestions that the Commission received about the
proposed rule change related to (i) expansion of the proposed rule
change, (ii) concerns about the complaint process, and (iii) concerns
about the economic impact of the proposed rule change on small
municipal advisors. PIABA supported the proposed rule change, but also
suggested that the

proposed rule change ``go a step further'' to provide investors with
access to the electronic complaint logs.\69\ NAMA expressed concern
that the proposed rule change would require that a municipal advisory
client make its complaint directly with the municipal advisor instead
of with a regulator. NAMA also suggested that the Board consider the
economic impact of the proposed rule change, and the cumulative effect
of all Board rules on small municipal advisors.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See PIABA Letter.
    \70\ See NAMA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB states that it recognizes that market transparency is
important for investors. However, the MSRB is concerned that requiring
electronic complaint logs to be available to customers and municipal
advisory clients may not only mislead them because certain complaints
may not be as material as others, but also may have a chilling effect
on a regulated entity's reporting of written customer or client
complaints, which could undermine the goals of the rule.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed amendments to Rule G-10 do not set forth
any requirement that a municipal advisory client make a complaint to
its municipal advisor nor do those proposed amendments require that a
municipal advisory client submit any complaint that it may have to a
particular regulator. A municipal advisory client would continue to be
able to submit its complaint to any party it considers appropriate,
based on, among other things, the notifications and educational
materials it receives.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, in connection with concerns about the economic impact of
the proposed rule change on small municipal advisors, the MSRB states
that it anticipates that smaller municipal advisors would have fewer
clients and accordingly may be likely to receive fewer complaints than
larger municipal advisors.\73\ Further, the MSRB states that it
mitigates that regulatory burden by providing flexibility as to how
those electronic records may be kept.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See MSRB Response Letter.
    \74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, the comments letters received, and the
MSRB Response Letter. The Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to the MSRB.
    In particular, the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No.1, is consistent with Sections 15B(b)(2) and 15B(b)(2)(C) of the
Act.\75\ Section 15B(b)(2) of the Act provides that the MSRB shall
propose and adopt rules to effect the purposes of that title with
respect to transactions in municipal securities effected by brokers,
dealers, and municipal securities dealers and advice provided to or on
behalf of municipal entities or obligated persons by brokers, dealers,
municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors with respect to
municipal financial products, the issuance of municipal securities, and
solicitations of municipal entities or obligated persons undertaken by
brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers and municipal
advisors.\76\ Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act, provides that, among
other things, the rules of the MSRB 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, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal
securities and municipal financial products, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal
securities and municipal financial products, and, in general, to
protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the
public interest.\77\ The Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is reasonably designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating
transactions in municipal securities and municipal financial products,
and protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons and the
public interest by developing more comprehensive and modern customer
and municipal advisory client complaint and recordkeeping rules.
Furthermore, the Commission believes that by focusing on customer and
municipal advisory client education and protection and enhancing the
related recordkeeping requirements, the proposed rule change is
reasonably designed to protect investors, municipal entities, obligated
persons, and the public interest. Additionally, the proposed rule
change would align the MSRB's customer and municipal advisory client
complaint rules and related recordkeeping requirements with those of
other financial regulators which will, among other things, promote
compliance with MSRB rules by providing regulated entities with the
opportunity to streamline their compliance procedures. In addition, the
proposed rule change, according to the MSRB, would enhance the ability
of other financial regulators to conduct more cost-effective and
efficient inspections and surveillance of regulated entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2) and (b)(2)(C).
    \76\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2).
    \77\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No.1, is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv)
of the Act in that it does 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.\78\ Although the proposed rule change would
affect all municipal advisors, including small municipal advisors, the
proposed rule change is a necessary and appropriate regulatory burden
in order to protect municipal entities and obligated persons. For
example, under the proposed rule change, a municipal advisory client
would be able to receive detailed and relevant information about its
municipal advisor, the protections provided by MSRB rules, and how to
make a complaint in a timely and consistent fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No.1, is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(G) of
the Act which provides that the MSRB's rules shall prescribe records to
be made and kept by municipal securities brokers, municipal securities
dealers, and municipal advisors and the periods for which such records
shall be preserved.\79\ The proposed rule change would, among other
things, enhance the current customer complaint recordkeeping
requirements under Rule G-8 by requiring that dealers keep more
detailed information about written customer complaints in an electronic
format and then would extend those recordkeeping requirements to
municipal advisors. In addition, the proposed rule change would extend
the

six-year record retention period applicable to customer complaints to
municipal advisory client complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No.1, the Commission has also considered the impact of the proposed
rule change on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.\80\ The
Commission does not believe that the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1 would impose any burden on competition not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons noted above, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with the Act.

V. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 1, including whether the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No.1, 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-2016-15 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-2016-15. 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-2016-15 and should be
submitted on or before February 13, 2017.

VI. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the
date of publication of Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register. As
discussed above, Amendment No. 1 partially amends the text of the
proposed rule change to provide certain clarifications relating to the
notifications that would be provided by municipal advisors to their
municipal advisory clients and to the terms used with the recordkeeping
of municipal advisory client complaints, to extend the proposed
effective date, and to make other technical changes to clarify or
simplify rule text.\81\ Specifically, the changes respond to
commenters' concerns, are technical in nature, and clarify or simplify
the proposed rule change. The MSRB states that Amendment No. 1 in many
respects eliminates unnecessary language by relying on terms that are
defined in the MSRB's rule book, the Act, or Commission rules under the
Act.\82\ In addition, the MSRB notes that the changes are consistent
with the purposes of the proposed rule change to advance the
development of a comprehensive regulatory framework for municipal
advisors and to update the Board's customer complaint rules. With
respect to those portions of Amendment No. 1 that modify certain
definitions, the MSRB notes that the proposed rule change, as described
in the Notice of Filing, contemplated that the clients of both
solicitor and non-solicitor municipal advisors would be covered by the
proposed rule change.\83\ According to the MSRB, the precision added to
certain definitions by Amendment No. 1 parallels the precision with
which the MSRB defines a municipal advisory client of a solicitor
municipal advisor and eliminates unnecessary language.\84\ The MSRB
believes other technical changes made serve to clarify or simplify the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Supra note 6.
    \82\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \83\ See Notice of Filing.
    \84\ See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds good cause for
approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on
an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\85\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
(SR-MSRB-2016-15) be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01300 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


subpart per Method 30B
                                                                                run or Hg CEMS or
                                                                                sorbent trap
                                                                                monitoring system
                                                                                only.
7. Eastern Bituminous Coal Refuse      a. Filterable            3.0E-2 lb/MMBtu or 3.0E- Collect a minimum of 1
 (EBCR)-fired unit.                     particulate matter       1 lb/MWh 2.              dscm per run.
                                        (PM).
                                       OR                       OR                       .......................
                                       Total non-Hg HAP metals  5.0E-5 lb/MMBtu or 5.0E- Collect a minimum of 1
                                                                 1 lb/GWh.                dscm per run.
                                       OR                       OR                       .......................
                                       Individual HAP metals:.  .......................  Collect a minimum of 3
                                                                                dscm per run.
                                       Antimony (Sb)..........  8.0E-1 lb/TBtu or 8.0E-  .......................
                                                                 3 lb/GWh.
                                       Arsenic (As)...........  1.1E0 lb/TBtu or 2.0E-2  .......................
                                                                 lb/GWh.
                                       Beryllium (Be).........  2.0E-1 lb/TBtu or 2.0E-  .......................
                                                                 3 lb/GWh.
                                       Cadmium (Cd)...........  3.0E-1 lb/TBtu or 3.0E-  .......................
                                                                 3 lb/GWh.
                                       Chromium (Cr)..........  2.8E0 lb/TBtu or 3.0E-2  .......................
                                                                 lb/GWh.
                                       Cobalt (Co)............  8.0E-1 lb/TBtu or 8.0E-  .......................
                                                                 3 lb/GWh.
                                       Lead (Pb)..............  1.2E0 lb/TBtu or 2.0E-2  .......................
                                                                 lb/GWh.
                                       Manganese (Mn).........  4.0E0 lb/TBtu or 5.0E-2  .......................
                                                                 lb/GWh.
                                       Nickel (Ni)............  3.5E0 lb/TBtu or 4.0E-2  .......................
                                                                 lb/GWh.
                                       Selenium (Se)..........  5.0E0 lb/TBtu or 6.0E-2  .......................
                                                                 lb/GWh.
                                       b. Hydrogen chloride     4.0E-2 lb/MMBtu or.....  For Method 26A at
                                        (HCl).                  4.0E-1 lb/MWh..........   appendix A-8 to part
                                                                                60 of this chapter,
                                                                                collect a minimum of
                                                                                0.75 dscm per run; for
                                                                                Method 26, collect a
                                                                                minimum of 120 liters
                                                                                per run. For ASTM
                                                                                D6348-03 3 or Method
                                                                                320 at appendix A to
                                                                                part 63 of this
                                                                                chapter, sample for a
                                                                                minimum of 1 hour.
                                       OR                                                .......................
                                       Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 4.  6E-1 lb/MMBtu or 9E0 lb/ SO2 CEMS.
                                                                 MWh.
                                       c. Mercury (Hg)........  1.2E0 lb/TBtu or 1.3E-2  LEE Testing for 30 days
                                                                 lb/GWh.                  with a sampling period
                                                                                consistent with that
                                                                                given in section 5.2.1
                                                                                of appendix A to this
                                                                                subpart per Method 30B
                                                                                at appendix A-8 to
                                                                                part 60 of this
                                                                                chapter run or Hg CEMS
                                                                                or sorbent trap
                                                                                monitoring system
                                                                                only.
                                                                OR                       .......................

                                                                1.0E0 lb/TBtu or 1.1E-2  LEE Testing for 90 days
                                                                 lb/GWh.                  with a sampling period
                                                                                consistent with that
                                                                                given in section 5.2.1
                                                                                of appendix A to this
                                                                                subpart per Method 30B
                                                                                run or Hg CEMS or
                                                                                sorbent trap
                                                                                monitoring system
                                                                                only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For LEE emissions testing for total PM, total HAP metals, individual HAP metals, HCl, and HF, the required
  minimum sampling volume must be increased nominally by a factor of 2.
\2\ Gross output.
\3\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   63.14.
\4\ You may not use the alternate SO2 limit if your EGU does not have some form of FGD system and SO2 CEMS
  installed.

[FR Doc. 2020-07878 Filed 4-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20213-20214]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08553]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-138-000; PF14-8-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on March 31, 2015, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC (Transco), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251-1396 filed an
application pursuant to section 7 (c) of the Natural Gas Act requesting
authorization to construct and operate its Atlantic Sunrise Project to
provide 1,700,002 dekatherms per day of capacity from northern
Pennsylvania to Alabama. Specifically, Transco requests authorization
to construct (i) 57.3 miles of 30-inch diameter pipeline and 125.2
miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline in Pennsylvania; (ii) two new
compressor stations totaling 70,000 horsepower (hp) in Pennsylvania;
(iii) the addition of 62,000 hp at three existing compressor stations
in Pennsylvania and Maryland; and (iv) to modify its existing system to
enable north-to-south flow, all as more fully set forth in the
application. The filing is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site
that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document
is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to
Bill Hammons at Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Post
Office Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251 or at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Scott
Turkington, Director, Rates & Regulatory, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251-1396 or at
(713) 215-3391(phone), or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    On April 4, 2014, the Commission staff granted Transco's request to
utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process
and assigned Docket No. PF14-8-000 to staff activities involving the
project. Now, as of the filing of this application on March 31, 2015,
the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time
forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP15-138-000,
as noted in the caption of this Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental impact statement (EIS) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EIS for this proposal. The filing of the EIS in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EIS.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18

CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the
service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: April 29, 2015.

    Dated: April 8, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08553 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 41402]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[AD12-17-000, et al.]

Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

Review of Small Generator      Docket Nos. AD12-17-000.
 Interconnection Agreements
 and Procedures.
Solar Energy Industries        Docket Nos. RM12-10-000.
 Association.
California Independent System  Docket Nos. ER12-502-001, ER12-502-002.
 Operator Corporation.
PJM Interconnection, LLC.....  Docket Nos. ER12-1177-001.
California Independent System  Docket Nos. ER12-1855-000.
 Operator Corporation.

    On June 13, 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) announced that a Technical Conference on issues related to
a petition for rulemaking recently submitted by the Solar Energy
Industries Association (Docket No. RM12-10-000) will be held on
Tuesday, July 17, 2012. Please note that the time for the conference
has been changed; the conference will be convened from 9 a.m. to
approximately 4 p.m. (EDT). The staff-led conference will be held in
the Commission Meeting Room at the Commission's headquarters at 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Members of the Commission may
attend the conference, which will also be open for the public to
attend. Advance registration is not required, but is encouraged. We
will provide nametags for those who register on or before July 10,
2012. Participants may register at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/small-generator-7-17-12-form.asp.
    Attached to this supplemental notice is an agenda for the
conference. If any changes are made, the revised agenda will be posted
prior to the event on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web
site, www.ferc.gov.
    Notice is also hereby given that discussions at the conference may
address matters at issue in the above-referenced individual proceedings
that are either pending or within their rehearing period.
    A free webcast of the technical conference will be available.
Anyone with Internet access who desires to listen to this event can do
so by navigating to the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site
and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link
to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for
webcasts and will offer the option of listening to the conference via
phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions about the webcast,
visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This conference will also be transcribed. Transcripts will be
available from Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the requested accommodations.
    Anyone wishing to comment on issues raised at the technical
conference should submit written comments to the Commission no later
than August 16, 2012.
    For information related to the agenda, please contact Leslie Kerr
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. For information related to
logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
(202) 502-8368.

    Dated: July 3, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16883 Filed 7-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P