[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9499-9501]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03040]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC21-10-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725F); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC 725F (Mandatory Reliability Standard for
Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due April 19,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC21-10-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov.
     U.S. Postal Service Mail: Persons unable to file
electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426
     Delivery of filings other than by eFiling or the U.S.
Postal Service should be delivered to Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user
assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC 725F, Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant
Interface Coordination.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0249.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725F information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission requires the information collected by the
FERC-725F to implement the statutory provisions of section 215 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824o). On August 8, 2005, the
Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title XII, Subtitle A,
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), was

enacted into law.\1\ EPAct 2005 added a new section 215 to the FPA,
which required a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization
(ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which
are subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the
Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission
oversight, or the Commission can independently enforce Reliability
Standards.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, Title XII,
Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (2005), 16 U.S.C. 824o.
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672,
implementing section 215 of the FPA.\3\ Pursuant to Order No. 672, the
Commission certified one organization, North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), as the ERO. The Reliability Standards
developed by the ERO and approved by the Commission apply to users,
owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System as set forth in each
Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC Stats.
& Regs. 31,212 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 19, 2007, NERC filed its petition for Commission
approval of the Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination Reliability
Standard, designated NUC-001-1. In Order No. 716, issued October 16,
2008, the Commission approved the standard while also directing certain
revisions.\4\ Revised Reliability Standard, NUC-001-2, was filed with
the Commission by NERC in August 2009 and subsequently approved by the
Commission January 21, 2010.\5\ On November 4, 2014, in Docket No.
RD14-13, the Commission approved revised Reliability Standard NUC-001-
3.\6\ On February 21, 2020 NERC filed a petition in Docket No. RD20-4
to revise Reliability Standard NUC-001-3 to NUC-0001-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant Interface
Coordination, Order No. 716, 125 FERC 61,065, at P 189 & n.90
(2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 716-A, 126 FERC 61,122 (2009).
    \5\ North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 130 FERC
61,051 (2010). When the revised Reliability Standard was approved,
the Commission did not go to OMB for approval. It is assumed that
the changes made did not substantively affect the information
collection and therefore a formal submission to OMB was not needed.
    \6\ The Letter Order is posted at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=13675845.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of Reliability Standard NUC-001-4 is to require
``coordination between nuclear plant generator operators and
transmission entities for the purpose of ensuring nuclear plant safe
operation and shutdown.'' \7\ The Nuclear Reliability Standard applies
to nuclear plant generator operators (generally nuclear power plant
owners and operators, including licensees) and ``transmission
entities,'' defined in the Reliability Standard as including a nuclear
plant's suppliers of off-site power and related transmission and
distribution services. To account for the variations in nuclear plant
design and grid interconnection characteristics, the Reliability
Standard defines transmission entities as ``all entities that are
responsible for providing services related to Nuclear Plant Interface
Requirements (NPIRs),'' and lists eleven types of functional entities
(heretofore described as ``transmission entities'') that could provide
services related to NPIRs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Reliability Standard NUC-001-4 at http://www.nerc.com/files/NUC-001-4.pdf.
    \8\ The list of functional entities consists of transmission
operators, transmission owners, transmission planners, transmission
service providers, balancing authorities, reliability coordinators,
planning authorities, distribution providers, load-serving entities,
generator owners, and generator operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC-725F information collection requirements include establishing
and maintaining interface agreements, including record retention
requirements. These agreements are not filed with FERC, but with the
appropriate entities as established by the Reliability Standard.
    Type of Respondent: Nuclear operators, nuclear plants, transmission
entities
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \9\ The Commission estimates the average
annual burden and cost \10\ for this information collection as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. Refer to
5 CFR 1320.3 for additional information.
    \10\ The wage and benefit figures are based on the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) data (at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) for May 2019 for Sector 22, Utilities. (The benefits
figure is based on BLS data as of May 2020 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).) The estimated hourly cost (for wages
plus benefits) for reporting requirements is $85.41/hour, based on
the average for an electrical engineer (occupation code 17-2071,
$70.19/hour), legal (occupation code 23-0000, $142.65/hour), and
office and administrative staff (occupation code 43-0000, $43.38/
hour). The estimated hourly cost (wages plus benefits) for record
keeping is $34.79/hour for a file clerk (occupation code 43-4071).
    \11\ This figure of 120 transmission entities is based on the
assumption that each agreement will be between 1 nuclear plant and 2
transmission entities (57 x 2 = 114). However, there is some double
counting in this figure because some transmission entities may be
party to multiple agreements with multiple nuclear plants. The
double counting does not affect the burden estimate, and the correct
number of unique respondents will be reported to OMB.
    \12\ The 171 respondents affected by the reporting requirements
are also affected by the recordkeeping requirements.
    \13\ The reporting requirements have not changed. The decrease
in the number of respondents is due to: (a) Normal fluctuations in
industry (e.g., companies merging and splitting, and coming into and
going out of business), and (b) no new agreements being issued due
to the lack of new nuclear plants being developed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annual number                  Average burden hrs.  Total annual burden
            FERC-725F                  Number of        of responses    Total number   & cost per response  hrs. & total annual  Cost per respondent ($)
                                      respondents      per respondent   of responses      ($) (rounded)      cost ($) (rounded)         (rounded)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  (1)................             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)................  (3) * (4) = (5)....                (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New or Modifications to Existing  57 nuclear plants +               2             342  66.67 hrs.; $5,694.  22,801 hrs.;                         $11,388
 Agreements (Reporting).           114 transmission                                                          $1,947,433.
                                   entities \11\.
New or Modifications to Existing  57 nuclear plants +               2             342  6.67 hrs.; $232....  2,281 hrs.; $79,356                   464.07
 Agreements (Record Keeping).      114 transmission
                                   entities.
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ...................  ..............        \12\ 342  ...................  25,082 hrs.; \13\    .......................
                                                                                $2,026,789.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: February 9, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03040 Filed 2-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 80854]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32704]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Yayi International, Inc.,; Order of Suspension
of Trading

December 23, 2015.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') that there is a lack of current and accurate
information concerning the securities of Yayi International, Inc.
(``YYINE'') \1\ (CIK No. 789860), a void Delaware corporation whose
principal place of business is listed as Zhongbei Town, Xiqing
District, Tianjin, China because it is delinquent in its periodic
filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports
since it filed a Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2011. On
April 22, 2015, the Commission's Division of Corporation Finance sent a
delinquency letter to YYINE at the address shown in its then-most
recent filing in the Commission's EDGAR system requesting compliance
with its periodic filing requirements. To date, YYINE has failed to
cure its delinquencies. As of December 15, 2015, the common stock of
YYINE was quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc.
(formerly ``Pink Sheets'') had seven market makers and was eligible for
the ``piggyback'' exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The short form of the issuer's name is also its ticker
symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on December 23, 2015, through 11:59 p.m.
EST on January 7, 2016.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32704 Filed 12-23-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 249 (Monday, December 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67772-67775]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28398]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84926; File No. SR-MSRB-2018-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Content
Outline for the Municipal Advisor Principal Qualification Examination
and Its Associated Selection Specifications for the Examination

December 21, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on December 20, 2018 the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board (the ``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II 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 the content outline for the
Municipal Advisor Principal Qualification Examination (``Series 54
examination'') and its associated selection specifications for the
examination (``selection specifications'') (collectively, the
``proposed rule change'').\3\ The MSRB is not proposing any textual
changes to its rules. The proposed rule change has been filed for
immediate effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The MSRB is also proposing the question bank for the Series
54 examination, but based upon instructions from the Commission
staff, the MSRB is not filing the question bank for Commission
review. See letter to Diane G. Klinke, General Counsel, MSRB, from
Belinda Blaine, Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation,
SEC, dated July 24, 2000, attached as Exhibit 3b. The question bank
is available for Commission review.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's
website at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2018-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
    Section 15B of the Act authorizes the MSRB to prescribe ``standards
of training, experience, competence, and such other qualifications as
the Board finds necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for
the protection of investors and municipal entities or obligated
persons'' \6\ and requires persons in any such class to pass tests
prescribed by the Board.\7\ Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iii) of the Act
further requires the MSRB to establish professional standards for
municipal advisors.\8\ A professional qualification examination is
intended to determine whether an individual meets the MSRB's required
qualification standards. The MSRB believes that professional
qualification examinations, such as the Municipal Advisor
Representative Qualification Examination (``Series 50 examination'')
and the Series 54 examination, are means for determining the competency
of individuals in particular qualification classifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 20, 2018, the Commission approved amendments \9\ to
MSRB Rule G-3, on professional qualification requirements, to require,
among other things, that municipal advisor principals--those who engage
in the management, direction or supervision of the municipal advisory
activities of the municipal advisor and its associated persons
(``principal-level activity'')--pass the Series 54 examination, in
addition to the Series 50 examination, to become appropriately
qualified as a municipal advisor principal. The Series 50 examination
is designed to establish that persons associated with a municipal
advisor who engage in municipal advisory activities and persons who
engage in principal-level activity demonstrate a baseline knowledge of
the municipal market, municipal advisory activities, as well as the
regulatory requirements. Conversely, the Series 54 examination is
designed to establish that persons who engage in principal-level
activity demonstrate a specified level of knowledge of the application
of federal securities laws, including MSRB rules to the municipal
advisory activities of a municipal advisor and that of its associated
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Act Release No. 84630 (November 20, 2018), 83
FR 60927 (November 27, 2018) (File No. SR-MSRB-2018-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes the establishment of qualification requirements
for municipal advisor principals would assist in ensuring that such
persons have a specified level of competency necessary with respect to
the supervision of the municipal advisory activities of the municipal
advisor that is appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors, and municipal entities and obligated persons.
    The MSRB has, in consultation with the MSRB's Professional
Qualification Advisory Committee (PQAC), and in

accordance with The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
\10\ developed the Series 54 examination to ensure that a person
seeking to qualify as a municipal advisor principal satisfies a
specified level of competency and knowledge by measuring a candidate's
ability to apply the applicable federal securities laws, including MSRB
rules to the municipal advisory activities of a municipal advisor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in
Education, The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
(2d ed. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Series 54 examination content outline has been developed to
serve as a guide to the subject matters tested on the examination and
prescribes the specified knowledge required in each functional area
that is specific to the role and responsibilities of associated
persons.\11\ From October 17, 2017 through November 7, 2017, the MSRB
conducted a job study \12\ of municipal advisor principals to identify
the subject matters to be represented on the content outline and to be
covered on the Series 54 examination. The job study was sent to over
500 municipal advisors, representing municipal advisors with at least
one person qualified with the Series 50 examination. The job study,
coupled with consultation with the MSRB's psychometrician, provided the
empirical basis for the representation of topic areas on the Series 54
examination content outline.\13\ The Series 54 examination content
outline comprises three sections of the examination as follows: (1)
Understanding the Municipal Advisor Regulatory Framework (25
questions); (2) Supervising Municipal Advisory Activities (35
questions); and (3) Supervising Municipal Advisor Firm Operations (40
questions). Additionally, to familiarize individuals with the format of
the Series 54 examination, the content outline includes sample
questions that are similar to the type of questions that may be found
on the Series 54 examination. The Series 54 examination content outline
is attached as Exhibit 3a and will be made available on the MSRB's
website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Series 54 examination content outline attached hereto
as Exhibit 3a.
    \12\ A job study is an assessment of the essential skills and
functions that are required to complete a particular job.
    \13\ While the topic areas represented on the Series 54
examination content outline may have redundancies with topic areas
appearing on the Series 50 examination content outline, the Series
54 examination is designed to test the specific application of
federal securities laws to the municipal advisory activities of the
municipal advisor, whereas the Series 50 examination is meant to
test the baseline competency of individuals engaged in municipal
advisory activities and is not designed to specifically or
extensively test the application of federal securities laws and MSRB
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB will announce the effective date of the permanent Series
54 examination at a later date in an MSRB Notice published on the
MSRB's website. In advance of the permanent Series 54 examination,
however, the MSRB will conduct a pilot of the Series 54 examination,
the results of which will be used to determine the passing score for
the permanent Series 54 examination. The pilot of the Series 54
examination will consist of 100 unique computer-generated questions
drawn from a large collection of test questions available for the
Series 54 examination. The random selection of Series 54 examination
questions is subject to restrictions designed to ensure that the
content covered by the Series 54 examination and the overall difficulty
of the Series 54 examination is similar for all individuals.
Individuals will receive 10 additional questions that are randomly
distributed throughout the Series 54 examination and do not count for
scoring purposes; these 10 questions serve to pretest questions to be
used in future administration of the Series 54 examination. Individuals
will be allowed 180 minutes to complete the Series 54 examination and
will be provided with a brief tutorial on the administration of the
computerized exam before the Series 54 examination begins.
    The pilot of the Series 54 examination will be from February 2019
through June 2019 (the ``pilot period'') with municipal advisor
principals having a full 120 calendar days from opening an exam
enrollment window to take the exam. Individuals will only be afforded
one opportunity to take the pilot of the Series 54 examination during
the pilot period. The MSRB will announce, in an MSRB Notice, the time
period for, and the process of opening an enrollment to take the Series
54 examination.\14\ The MSRB will notify individuals who take the pilot
of the Series 54 examination of their results by email in the Fall of
2019. Those municipal advisor principals who take and pass the pilot of
the Series 54 examination during the pilot period will be considered
qualified as a municipal advisor principal when the MSRB permanently
establishes the Series 54 examination in the Fall of 2019 and will not
be required to take the permanent Series 54 examination. An individual
who fails to pass the pilot of the Series 54 examination will,
consistent with MSRB Rule G-3(g), still be permitted three attempts to
pass the permanent Series 54 examination before having to wait a period
of 6 months to take the permanent Series 54 examination again.\15\ More
specifically, a failure of the pilot of the Series 54 examination will
not count as one of the three attempts an individual has to
successfully pass the examination prior to having to wait 6 months from
the date the candidate last failed the examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For the most up-to-date information on the pilot of the
Series 54 examination visit the Municipal Advisor Principal
Qualification Examination web page on the MSRB's website.
    \15\ Pursuant to Rule G-3(g), an individual would be permitted
to take the examination again after a period of 30 days has elapsed
from the date of the individual's last attempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB will announce the launch of the permanent examination in
an MSRB Notice published on the MSRB's website. The selection
specifications for the Series 50 examination, which the MSRB has
submitted under separate cover with a request for confidential
treatment to the Commission, pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Act,\16\
describe additional confidential information regarding the Series 54
examination. As noted above, the MSRB has designated the proposed rule
change to provide the Series 54 examination content outline for
immediate effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act,\17\ which authorizes the MSRB to
prescribe ``standards of training, experience, competence, and such
other qualifications as the Board finds necessary or appropriate in the
public interest or for the protection of investors and municipal
entities or obligated persons'' and Sections 15B(b)(2)(A)(i) \18\ and
15B(b)(2)(A)(iii) \19\ of the Act, which provides that the Board may
appropriately classify associated persons of municipal advisors and
require such persons in any such class to pass tests prescribed by the
Board. The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act in that the
content outline details the functional tasks, key concepts and rules to
be tested on the examination to ensure individuals are sufficiently
prepared to take and pass the examination in order to demonstrate the
specified level of competence that would be appropriate and in
furtherance of the public interest. Also, consistent

with the purpose of Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act, providing
individuals with a guide to the subject matter covered on the Series 54
examination will aid individuals in their preparation for the
examination and facilitates standards of competence being attained to
carry out a municipal advisor principal's role of supervision of the
municipal advisory activities of the municipal advisor and that of its
associated persons, which is in furtherance of the public interest.
More generally, the MSRB's professional qualification examinations are
designed to measure knowledge of the business activities and regulatory
requirements under federal securities laws, including MSRB rules,
applicable to a particular qualification classification, which is also
in furtherance of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A)(i).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB also believes the proposed rule change is in accordance
with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\20\ which requires, among other
things, that MSRB rules ``be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, . . . and, in general, to protect investors,
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest . . .''
The MSRB notes the proposed rule change is consistent with this
provision of the Act, to foster the prevention of fraudulent practices,
because by ensuring municipal advisor principals demonstrate competence
in the application of federal securities laws and MSRB rules to a
firm's municipal advisory activities, such individuals are likely
better equipped to mitigate problems associated with advice provided by
municipal advisor representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act \21\ provides that MSRB
rules may ``not impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors
that is not necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons,
provided that there is robust protection of investors against fraud.''
The MSRB believes, 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
furtherance of the Act because establishing a specified level of
competence for those functioning in a principal capacity promotes
compliance with the rules and regulations governing the conduct of
municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \22\ requires that MSRB rules not
be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. In addition,
Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act \23\ provides that MSRB rules may
``not impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors that is
not necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons,
provided that there is robust protection of investors against fraud.''
In determining whether these standards have been met, the MSRB has been
guided by the Board's adopted policy to more formally integrate
economic analysis into the rulemaking process.\24\ The MSRB does not
believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
these provisions and their purposes under the Act. Relative to the
economic baseline, which includes the requirement that municipal
advisor professionals demonstrate by passing an examination that they
meet professional standards deemed necessary or appropriate in the
public interest or for the protection of investors, municipal entities
and obligated persons, the MSRB believes that the economic impact of
the proposed rule change is de minimis and no greater than what is
necessary or appropriate in the furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
    \24\ Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking
is available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/Economic-Analysis-Policy.aspx. In evaluating whether there was a burden on
competition, the Board was guided by its principles that required
the Board to consider costs and benefits of a rule change, its
impact on capital formation and the main reasonable alternative
regulatory approaches.
    \25\ The MSRB recognizes that municipal advisors will incur
programmatic costs associated with municipal advisor principals
having to take and pass the Series 54 examination. The MSRB
estimates the total costs incurred for taking the examination should
be no more than $715 per each municipal advisor principal. See supra
note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, based on the well-established and nationally-accepted
process \26\ used by the MSRB to develop the Series 54 examination
content outline, the MSRB has no reason to believe that the Series 54
examination content outline will pose any greater burden on individuals
associated with smaller municipal advisors than those associated with
larger municipal advisors or that the burden could be materially
reduced while still achieving the purposes of the Act of robust
protection of investors against fraud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Board did not solicit comment on the proposed change.
Therefore, there are no comments on the proposed rule change received
from members, participants or others.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \27\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \28\ thereunder, the MSRB has designated the proposed rule
change as one that effects a change that: (i) Does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does
not impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its
terms, does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the
filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative until 30 days after the date of filing.\29\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \30\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.\31\ The MSRB has requested that the
Commission designate the proposed rule change operative upon
filing,\32\ as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\33\ which would make
the proposed rule change operative on December 20, 2018. The MSRB has
stated that an earlier operative date would provide individuals acting
in a principal capacity for a municipal advisor with an earlier
opportunity to begin preparation for the qualification requirement.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \31\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file a proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of such proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The MSRB satisfied this requirement on
December 12, 2018.
    \32\ See SR-MSRB-2018-10.
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \34\ See SR-MSRB-2018-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission hereby grants the MSRB's request and believes that
designating the proposed rule change operative upon filing is
consistent with the protection of investors and the

public interest.\35\ According to the MSRB, the Series 54 examination
content outline is designed to ensure that individuals are sufficiently
qualified to supervise municipal advisory activities.\36\ The
Commission believes that designating the proposed rule change operative
upon filing is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because it will allow individuals to prepare for the
Series 54 examination without delay. In addition, the proposed rule
change is not proposing any textual changes to MSRB rules. Therefore,
the Commission hereby designates the proposed rule change operative
upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ For the purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule
change's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \36\ See SR-MSRB-2018-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-2018-10 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-2018-10. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2018-10 and should be submitted on
or before January 22, 2019.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-28398 Filed 12-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P