[Federal Register: August 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 156)]
[Notices]
[Page 49546-49547]
[DOCID:fr13au10-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62670; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. Amending Its
Fee Schedule

August 9, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on August 4, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
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 Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services (the ``Schedule''). While changes to the Schedule
pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes
will become operative on August 4, 2010. The amended section of the
Schedule is included as Exhibit 5 to the 19b-4 form. A copy of this
filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com,
at the Exchange's principal office, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Schedule to reflect new
transaction pricing that will become operative on August 4, 2010.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the fees charged to Firms that
manually facilitate their customer order flow. Currently, all Firm
proprietary manual transactions are charged $0.18 per contract and are
further capped at $2,000 per issue per day.
    NYSE Arca proposes to eliminate fees charged for any transaction
involving a Firm's proprietary trading account that has a customer of
that same Firm on the contra side of the transaction. Under the revised
Schedule, all such transactions, known as Firm Facilitation--Manual
trades, will be subject to a rate of $0.00 per contract.
    With the reduction of Firm Facilitation--Manual trades to $0.00 the
transaction fee for all other Firm proprietary manual trades will be
$0.25 per contract. The fee for Firm proprietary electronic
transactions will continue to be $0.50 per contract. Firm transaction
fees will be applied on the same basis as all other Broker Dealer
transaction fees.
    Additionally, there will no longer be a daily cap on Firm
proprietary manual transactions in the same option class.
    The fees for electronic complex orders, where two complex orders
trade against each other, will be reduced to $0.00 when the same Firm
represents both sides.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \5\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \6\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by NYSE Arca on its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-77 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-77. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. 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-
NYSEArca-2010-77 and should be submitted on or before September 3,
2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20003 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74426-74427]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications

Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic 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. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Docket No.               File date     Presenter or requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP16-9-000, PF15-12-000.       10-7-2016  Alice Arena.
Exempt:
    1. P-10482-000.............       10-3-2016  State of New York
                                                  Assemblyman Aileen M.
                                                  Gunther.
    2. CP15-558-000............       10-6-2016  Delaware Township, New
                                                  Jersey Mayor Susan D.
                                                  Lockwood.
    3. CP15-490-000............       10-7-2016  U.S. Department of
                                                  Transportation.
    4. CP15-138-000............       10-7-2016  U.S. House
                                                  Representative Joseph
                                                  R. Pitts.
    5. P-10810-000.............      10-12-2016  U.S. House
                                                  Representative John
                                                  Moolenaar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: October 18, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25880 Filed 10-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51698-51705]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87075; File No. SR-MSRB-2019-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change To Amend MSRB Rule A-11, on Assessments for Municipal Advisor
Professionals, To Increase the Annual Professional Fee Over a Two-Year
Phase-In Period

September 24, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on September 11, 2019 the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend
MSRB Rule A-11, on assessments for municipal advisor professionals, to
increase the annual professional fee over a two-year phase-in period
from $500 to $1,000 (the ``Revised Professional Fee'') for each person
associated with the municipal advisor who is qualified as a municipal
advisor representative in accordance with MSRB Rule G-3 and for whom
the municipal advisor has a Form MA-I \3\ on file with the Commission
(each a ``covered representative'') and to make other technical changes
(the ``proposed rule change''). The phase-in period of the Revised
Professional Fee will operate as follows: \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Form MA-I: Information Regarding Natural Persons Who
Engage in Municipal Advisory Activities,'' is an SEC form that must
be completed and filed by a municipal advisor firm with respect to
each natural person associated with the firm and engaged in
municipal advisory activities on the firm's behalf, including
employees of the firm. Independent contractors are included in the
definition of ``employee'' for these purposes. The same form is also
used to amend a previously submitted Form MA-I. A natural person
doing business as a sole proprietor must complete and file Form MA-I
in addition to Form MA. See ``Instructions for the Form MA Series,''
available at https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formmadata.pdf.
    \4\ Consistent with the Board's prohibition on charging or
otherwise passing through MSRB fees to issuers, municipal advisors
are prohibited from charging or otherwise passing through any fees
required under Rule A-11 to their issuer clients. See Release No.
34-81841 (October 10, 2017), 82 FR 48135, at note 9 and
corresponding discussion (October 16, 2017) (File No. SR-MSRB-2017-
07) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change to MSRB Rule A-11, on Assessments for Municipal Advisor
Professionals, To Amend the Annual Municipal Advisor Professional
Fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     MSRB fiscal year 2020 \5\ will be year one of the phase-in
period, with municipal advisors being assessed $750 for each covered
representative as of January 31, 2020. The payment of $750 per such
covered representative will be due by April 30, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The MSRB's fiscal year 2020 commences on October 1, 2019 and
concludes on September 30, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Revised Professional fee will be fully phased-in
during MSRB fiscal year 2021,\6\ with municipal advisors being assessed
$1,000 for each covered representative as of January 31 of that fiscal
year. The payment of $1,000 per such covered representative will be due
by April 30 of that fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The MSRB's fiscal year 2021 commences on October 1, 2020 and
concludes on September 30, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB has designated the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's
website at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2019-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adjust the annual
municipal advisor professional fee assessed on municipal advisor firms
to better defray the costs and expenses of operating and administering
the MSRB. In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act of 2010 (the ``Dodd-Frank Act''),\7\ Congress charged the
Commission and the MSRB with the regulation of municipal advisors and,
at the same time, granted the MSRB authority to charge municipal
advisors ``reasonable fees and charges'' to defray the overall ``costs
and expenses of operating and administering the Board.'' \8\ Since the
passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the MSRB has exercised this statutory
authority to implement a comprehensive regulatory framework for
municipal advisors.\9\ In furtherance of this framework, the MSRB
adopted

Rule A-11 to begin to defray a portion of the costs and expenses
associated with its regulation of municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Public Law No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \8\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).
    \9\ The MSRB developed professional qualification exams, adopted
new rules for municipal advisors, and extended rules to municipal
advisors that previously applied only to brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers (collectively, ``dealers.'') These
include, but are not limited to: Rule G-44 regarding the supervisory
and compliance obligations of municipal advisors, see Release No.
34-73415 (October 23, 2014), 79 FR 64423 (October 29, 2014) (File
No. SR-MSRB-2014-06) (SEC order approving Rule G-44); Rule G-42
regarding the duties of non-solicitor municipal advisors, see
Release No. 34-76753 (December 23, 2015), 80 FR 81614 (December 30,
2015) (File No. SR-MSRB-2015-03) (SEC order approving Rule G-42);
amendments to Rule G-20, on gifts, gratuities and non-cash
compensation, to extend provisions of the rule to municipal
advisors, see Release No. 34-76381 (November 6, 2015), 80 FR 70271
(November 13, 2015) (File No. SR-MSRB-2015-09) (SEC order approving
amendments to Rule G-20); amendments to Rule G-37, on political
contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business, to
extend its provisions to municipal advisors, see Release No. 34-
76763 (December 23, 2015), 80 FR 81710 (December 30, 2015) (File No.
SR-MSRB-2015-14) (notice of filing of proposed amendments to Rule G-
37); and amendments to Rule G-3 to establish registration and
professional qualification requirements for municipal advisors, see
Release No. 34-74384 (February 26, 2015), 80 FR 11706 (March 4,
2015) (File No. SR-MSRB-2014-08) (SEC order approving registration
and professional qualification requirements for municipal advisor
representatives and municipal advisor principals).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the MSRB has expended significant resources in developing a
regulatory framework for municipal advisory activities, the Board has
previously deferred raising municipal advisor fees to more equitably
defray the expenses associated with this activity in order to allow
municipal advisors additional time to adapt to the regulations.\10\ As
more fully discussed below,\11\ the MSRB's fee structure remains
predominantly dependent on dealer fees, particularly market activity
fees paid exclusively by dealers. Although the organization does offset
some portion of its costs and expenses through its fees on municipal
advisors, the Board believes that its present fee structure does not
appropriately allocate the costs of operating the MSRB between dealers
and municipal advisors (collectively, ``regulated entities''). The
Board has determined that the Revised Professional Fee will result in a
fairer and more equitable fee structure when compared to the current
distribution of fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See MSRB Regulatory Notice 2017-20 (September 29, 2017)
(describing how the MSRB reconsidered the amount of the municipal
advisor professional fee, ``but determined not to increase it at
that time in order to allow municipal advisors additional time to
adapt to regulation'' and stating that the ``MSRB will continue to
review and evaluate its fees over time to ensure that fees are
allocated fairly and equitably across all regulated entities.'').
    \11\ See related discussion under The Board's Current Revenue
Sources infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to continue rebalancing
this dealer-fee concentration by phasing-in an increase to the
municipal advisor professional fee under Rule A-11 over the next two
years. The Board believes that the Revised Professional Fee is
necessary and appropriate to achieve (1) a more equitable allocation of
fees among its regulated entities and (2) a fairer distribution of the
total expenses of its regulatory activities, systems development, and
other operational activities. Moreover, by incrementally increasing the
fee contribution of municipal advisors, the proposed rule change will
advance the Board's goal of developing a sustainable financial model
that will enable the MSRB to year-over-year fulfill its statutory
mandate and meet the unique responsibilities of being the self-
regulatory organization for the municipal securities market.
The Board's Statutory Mandate
    The MSRB's statutory mandate under the Exchange Act encompasses the
protection of investors, state and local government issuers, other
municipal entities and obligated persons, and the public interest by
promoting a fair and efficient municipal market. The MSRB discharges
its statutory mandate through (1) the establishment of rules for
dealers and municipal advisors, (2) the collection and dissemination of
market information, and (3) other related activities, such as
regulatory coordination, compliance support, the development of
professional qualifications programs, education, and outreach.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Section 15B(b)(2) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2))
(in relevant part, requiring the Board to propose and adopt rules
that ``at a minimum'' meet a baseline of statutory mandates,
including the adoption of rules with respect to municipal advisors
that ``prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent acts,
practices, and courses of business as are not consistent with a
municipal advisor's fiduciary duty to its clients''); Section
15B(b)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(3)) (permitting the Board
to establish information systems); Section 15B(b)(4) of the Act (15
U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(4)) (permitting the Board to provide guidance and
assistance in the enforcement of, examination for, compliance with
the rules of the Board); and MSRB Rule A-2 (``Subject to the
provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations of the
Commission thereunder, and other applicable law, the Board shall
have the power to determine all matters relating to the operation
and administration of the Board and to exercise all other rights and
powers granted by the Act and other applicable law to the Board.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Board's Comprehensive Regulatory Framework for Municipal Advisors
    In accordance with its statutory mandate under the Exchange Act,
the MSRB has established a comprehensive regulatory framework for the
regulation of municipal advisors. This framework includes the
development, implementation, and maintenance of (1) a set of rules
governing the activities of municipal advisors,\13\ (2) municipal
advisor recordkeeping requirements,\14\ (3) municipal advisory client
education and protection provisions,\15\ and (4) professional standards
meant to ensure that all municipal advisor professionals have a
baseline knowledge of federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations.\16\ As part of this latter category of activities, the
MSRB has established the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification
Examination (the ``Series 50 Exam'') \17\ and is finalizing the
Municipal Advisor Principal Qualification Examination (the ``Series 54
Exam'').\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule G-17, on conduct of municipal securities and
municipal advisory activities; Rule G-20, on gifts gratuities, non-
cash compensation and expenses of issuance; Rule G-37, on political
contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business and
municipal advisory business; Rule G-40, on advertising by municipal
advisors; Rule G-42, on duties of non-solicitor municipal advisors;
Rule G-44, on supervisory and compliance obligations of municipal
advisors, each respectively, available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/MSRB-Rules.aspx.
    \14\ See Rule G-8, on books and records to be made by brokers,
dealers, and municipal securities dealers and municipal advisors,
available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/MSRB-Rules.aspx.
    \15\ See Rule G-10, on investor and municipal advisory client
education and protection, available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/MSRB-Rules.aspx.
    \16\ See Rule G-2, on standards of professional qualification;
and Rule G-3, on professional qualification requirements,
respectively, available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/MSRB-Rules.aspx.
    \17\ See Release No. 34-74384 (February 26, 2015), 80 FR 11706
(March 4, 2015) (File No. SR-MSRB-2014-08).
    \18\ See Release No. 34-84630 (November 20, 2018), 83 FR 60927
(November 27, 2018) (File No. SR-MSRB-2018-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB has also undertaken considerable efforts to assist
municipal advisors in understanding and complying with this regulatory
framework. These efforts include the creation of compliance resources,
compliance-oriented notices, and similar publications \19\ and the
development of, and participation in, outreach events and educational
webinars.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For example, the MSRB supports regulatory compliance by
municipal advisors by providing resources about MSRB requirements,
as well as more general educational material. Municipal advisors may
access these resources and others, including the Municipal Advisor
Review, the MSRB's quarterly newsletter for municipal advisors at
http://www.msrb.org/Regulated-Entities/Resources.aspx. In addition,
the MSRB has published several regulatory notices for municipal
advisors to help keep market participants informed of regulatory
changes and to provide guidance on the application of existing
rules. See, e.g., MSRB Notice 2017-08, Application of MSRB Rules to
Solicitor Municipal Advisors (May 4, 2017); MSRB Notice 2017-13,
MSRB Provides Guidance on Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors
in Conduit Financing Scenarios (July 13, 2017).
    \20\ For example, the MSRB provides free education and training
webinars on municipal market topics, regulatory and compliance
issues, and the use of MSRB market transparency systems. Municipal
advisors may register for new webinars and access on-demand
webinars, including some webinars that provide CPE credit at http://www.msrb.org/Regulated-Entities/Webinars.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Board's Ongoing Fee Review
    The Board has set a long-term strategic goal of developing a
sustainable financial model that ensures the MSRB will continue to
achieve its unique regulatory mission. The Board believes that its
financial model must reasonably balance the costs of achieving its
mission with appropriate expense management and the fair and equitable
allocation of fees from a diversity of funding sources. The Board

routinely examines revenues and expenses in the normal course of its
prudent fiscal management in continuous pursuit of fairness and equity
in the revenue framework and to ensure expenses are appropriately
calibrated. Recognizing that in any given year there could be more or
less activity by a particular class of regulated entities, the Board,
as it has historically, seeks to maintain a fee structure that results
in a balanced and reasonable contribution, over time, from all
regulated entities. Revenues are managed through new fees,\21\ fee
increases, deficit budgets funded by excess reserves,\22\ revisions to
pricing for propriety products, and other activities. The Board
monitors its funding to determine whether the respective sources are
contributing appropriately in light of the MSRB's statutory mandate and
unique responsibilities in the municipal securities market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As an example, the MSRB introduced a new fee on
underwriters of 529 savings plans in 2018. Prior to this fee,
underwriters of 529 savings plans had not paid a fee in this
capacity since the MSRB began regulating such underwriters in 1999.
See Release No. 34-81264 (July 31, 2017), 82 FR 36472 (August 4,
2017) (File No. SR-MSRB-2017-05).
    \22\ As an example, the MSRB is generating a deficit budget for
this fiscal year 2019 and utilizing a portion of its excess reserves
by temporarily reducing the rate of assessment for the MSRB's
underwriting, transaction, and technology fees for dealers under
Rule A-13 with respect to assessible activity occurring from April
1, 2019 through September 30, 2019. See Release No. 34-85400 (March
22, 2019), 84 FR 11841 (March 28, 2019) (``Temporary Reduction
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its ongoing fee review, and, in light of the current
concentration in revenue sources discussed immediately below, the MSRB
believes that its current fee structure should be revised to strive for
greater fairness in its allocation of expenses and costs among its
regulated entities and, thereby, promote less concentration in certain
of its revenue sources.
The Board's Current Fee Structure
    The MSRB assesses regulated entities various fees designed to
defray the costs of its operations and administration. Section
15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act \23\ provides, in pertinent part, that each
regulated entity shall pay to the Board such reasonable fees and
charges as may be necessary or appropriate to defray the costs of
operating and administering the Board and that the MSRB shall have
rules specifying the amount of such fees. The current fees are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).

1. Municipal advisor professional fee (Rule A-11)
    $500 for each covered representative as of January 31 of each year,
as further described herein;
2. Initial registration fee (Rule A-12)
    $1,000 one-time registration fee to be paid by each dealer to
register with the MSRB before engaging in municipal securities
activities and by each municipal advisor to register with the MSRB
before engaging in municipal advisory activities;
3. Annual registration fee (Rule A-12)
    $1,000 annual fee to be paid by each dealer and municipal advisor
registered with the MSRB;
4. Late fee (Rules A-11 and A-12)
    $25 monthly late fee and a late fee on overdue balances computed
according to the prime rate until such balance is paid; \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Consistent with Rule A-11(b), a municipal advisor firm is
only required to pay one $25 monthly late fee (regardless of the
number of its covered representative(s) for which the per
professional fee was not timely paid) if it fails timely to pay in
full the total fee due under Rule A-11(a). This late fee is in
addition to a late fee on the total overdue balance based on the
Prime Rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Underwriting fee (Rule A-13) \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The MSRB temporarily reduced the rate of assessment for the
MSRB's underwriting fees for activity that occurs from April 1, 2019
through and including September 30, 2019 to .00185% ($0.0185 per
$1,000) of the applicable par value. See Rule A-13(h)(i). The
temporary fee reduction is targeted at this fee, the transaction
fee, and the technology fee in acknowledgment that these three fees
``contributed to the excess reserve position'' as compared to the
MSRB's other fees. See Temporary Reduction Release, supra note 23,
84 FR at 11842 (March 28, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    $.0275 per $1,000 of the par value paid by a dealer, on all
municipal securities purchased from an issuer by or through such
dealer, whether acting as principal or agent as part of a primary
offering, except in limited circumstances; and in the case of an
underwriter of a primary offering of certain municipal fund securities
(as defined in Rule G-45), $.005 per $1,000 of the total aggregate
assets for the reporting period (i.e., the 529 savings plan fee on
underwriters); \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As of May 2018, the Board invoices underwriters of a
primary offering of certain municipal fund securities for the
assessments due. See Release No. 34-81264 (July 31, 2017), 82 FR
36472 (August 4, 2017) (File No. SR-MSRB-2017-05) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Assess an
Underwriting Fee on Dealers That Are Underwriters of Primary
Offerings of Plans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Transaction fee (Rule A-13) \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The MSRB temporarily reduced the rate of assessment for the
MSRB's transaction fees for activity that occurs from April 1, 2019
through and including September 30, 2019 to .00067% ($0.0067 per
$1,000) of the applicable par value. See Rule A-13(h)(ii). The
temporary fee reduction is targeted at this fee, the underwriting
fee, and the technology fee in acknowledgment that these three fees
``contributed to the excess reserve position'' as compared to the
MSRB's other fees. See Temporary Reduction Release, supra note 23,
84 FR at 11842 (March 28, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .001% ($.01 per $1,000) of the total par value to be paid by a
dealer, except in limited circumstances, for inter-dealer sales and
customer sales reported to the MSRB pursuant to Rule G-14(b), on
transaction reporting requirements;
7. Technology fee (Rule A-13) \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The MSRB temporarily reduced the rate of assessment for the
MSRB's technology fees for activity that occurs from April 1, 2019
through and including September 30, 2019 to $0.67 per transaction.
See Rule A-13(h)(iii). The temporary fee reduction is targeted at
this fee, the underwriting fee, and the transaction fee in
acknowledgment that these three fees ``contributed to the excess
reserve position'' as compared to the MSRB's other fees. See
Temporary Reduction Release, supra note 23, 84 FR at 11842 (March
28, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    $1.00 paid by a dealer per transaction for each inter-dealer sale
and for each sale to customers reported to the MSRB pursuant to Rule G-
14(b); and
8. Professional qualification examination fee (Rule A-16)
    $150 test development fee assessed per candidate for each MSRB
professional qualification examination.

    As discussed in the following section, the MSRB's present fee
structure leads to a concentration of fee revenue paid by dealer firms
and, thereby, creates certain revenue dependencies.
The Board's Current Revenue Sources
    The MSRB funds its operations primarily by assessing fees on
regulated entities, but also generates a small percentage of its
revenue from other sources, like the sale of certain proprietary data
subscription services.\29\ The vast majority of the MSRB's revenue is
generated from dealer-paid market activity fees, namely transaction
fees, underwriting fees, and technology fees. Although the
organization's revenue sources have become marginally more diversified
since the initial enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act--when market activity
fees accounted for 90% or more of the Board's annual revenue in certain
fiscal years--dealer fees still accounted for more than 80% of revenue
in fiscal year 2018. Absent further action, this desired shift towards
more equitable fee allocations may not continue under the existing
revenue framework, so the Board is evaluating changes to its fee
structure that will further alleviate the

MSRB's concentrated dependency on dealer-paid revenue sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The MSRB charges data subscription service fees for
subscribers, who include dealers, municipal advisors, and entities
not regulated by the MSRB, seeking direct electronic delivery of
municipal trade data and disclosure documents associated with
municipal bond issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, market activity fees consistently comprise the
majority of MSRB-revenue. The Board has determined that it must
evaluate its other revenue sources, particularly to determine whether
non-dealer fee changes may be enacted to strike a more sustainable and
fairer balance of funding. The proposed rule change partially addresses
this issue by increasing the total fee contribution of municipal
advisor firms and, thereby, growing the MSRB's revenue base away from
the strong dependency on dealer-paid market activity fees and more
fairly and equitably allocating the costs associated with the
organization's regulation of municipal advisors.
    While the Board seeks to increase the aggregate fee contribution
paid by municipal advisors as compared to dealers, it also seeks a fee
increase that is equitable among all registered municipal advisor firms
and does not place an undue fee burden on small firms. Of the
approximately 500 municipal advisor firms registered with the MSRB in
fiscal year 2018, a small minority of firms paid $10,000 or more in
total annual municipal advisor professional fees, while the vast
majority of firms paid no more than $2,500.\30\ By assessing the fees
on a per professional basis, the Board believes the fee increase is
allocated fairly across the universe of municipal advisor firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Based on internal data, the MSRB calculates that 24 firms,
or about 5% of firms registered in fiscal year 2018, fell into this
highest tier of annual municipal advisor professional fee payments,
while 401 firms, or about 80% of then-registered firms, fell into
this lowest tier of these fee payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard, the Board considered a range of alternative fee
modifications before deciding on the proposed rule change, including,
among others, the collection of additional data to enable the
assessment of fees based on a firm's overall market activity, as well
as fees based on new issue par volume analogous to the dealer
underwriting fee. However, the lack of uniformity in the services
provided by municipal advisor firms \31\ and the potential burden of
new reporting requirements, particularly on small firms, led the Board,
at this time, to elect an increase in the existing municipal advisor
professional fee under Rule A-11. The Board believes that the number of
covered representatives serves as a reasonable proxy for overall market
activity, especially in the absence of other market data, and, thus,
the proposed rule change will lead to a fee structure that better
reflects a firm's overall municipal advisory activities by increasing
the total proportion of fees paid by larger firms with more covered
representatives. The proposed rule change is expected to result in the
increased total aggregate contribution of all municipal advisor firms
and, particularly, the total fees paid by larger firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ For example, the MSRB understands that some municipal
advisor firms may focus solely on providing advice to clients about
swap activities and, thus, a municipal advisor fee analogous to the
dealer underwriting fee based on new issue par volume would not
affect such a firm, regardless of whether the firm was very active
or inactive in the market. Similarly, the MSRB understands that
municipal advisors can have varying compensation structures, such as
hourly rates, per-transaction fees, and/or project-based
compensation. MSRB fees that did not adequately account for this
variation could lead to inequitable payment outcomes or other market
distortions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Board's Annual Municipal Advisor Professional Fee
    The MSRB established Rule A-11 in 2014 to help defray the costs and
expenses of operating and administering the MSRB, particularly the
increased costs as a result of the regulation of municipal
advisors.\32\ Rule A-11(a) currently provides that each municipal
advisor that is registered with the Commission shall pay to the Board a
recurring annual fee equal to $500 \33\ for each covered representative
\34\ by April 30th of each year.\35\ The annual professional fee under
Rule A-11(a) is due by April 30th each year in the manner provided by
the MSRB Registration Manual. Rule A-11(b) also provides for late fees
on annual professional fees that are not paid in full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Release No. 34-72019 (April 25, 2014), 79 FR 24798,
24798 (May 1, 2014) (File No. SR-MSRB-2014-03) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of New
Rule A-11, on Assessments for Municipal Advisor Professionals); see
also MSRB Notice 2014-09, MSRB to Implement New MSRB Rule A-11
Establishing Fees for Municipal Advisor Professionals (April 17,
2014).
    \33\ As first adopted in 2014, Rule A-11 required payment to the
Board of an annual fee equal to $300 for each covered
representative. Id. The MSRB amended Rule A-11 in 2017 to increase
this fee from $300 to $500 for each covered representative and made
other technical changes. See Release No. 34-81841 (October 10,
2017), 82 FR 48135 (October 16, 2017) (File No. SR-MSRB-2017-07)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change Consisting to MSRB Rule A-11, on Assessments for Municipal
Advisor Professionals, To Amend the Annual Municipal Advisor
Professional Fee).
    \34\ As previously defined above, the term ``covered
representative'' for purposes of this filing means each person
associated with the municipal advisor who is qualified as a
municipal advisor representative in accordance with Rule G-3 and for
whom the municipal advisor has on file with the Commission a Form
MA-I as of January 31 of each year.
    \35\ A person is qualified as a municipal advisor representative
in accordance with Rule G-3(d) when such person has taken and passed
the Series 50 Exam. As of September 12, 2017, only an associated
person of a municipal advisor firm who has passed the Series 50 Exam
may engage in municipal advisory activities on behalf of the
municipal advisor firm. Additionally, municipal advisor principals
must likewise qualify as a municipal advisor representative by
passing the Series 50 Exam. See MSRB Notice 2017-09, MSRB Reminds
Municipal Advisors that the Series 50 Exam Deadline is September 12,
2017 (May 8, 2017). Because, pursuant to Rule G-3, all municipal
advisor principals must also qualify by examination as a municipal
advisor representative, the proposed fee increase will equally apply
to municipal advisor principals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will provide that each municipal advisor
that is registered with the Commission shall pay to the Board an annual
fee equal to $750 for each covered representative for the MSRB's fiscal
year 2020 and equal to $1,000 for each covered representative for the
MSRB's fiscal year 2021 and thereafter.\36\ The Board estimates that
the proposed rule change will generate approximately $760,000 in
additional revenue for fiscal year 2020 and $1.5 million in additional
revenue for fiscal year 2021, as compared to current estimates under
the present fee structure. In percentage terms, the proposed rule
change is expected to result in the municipal advisor professional fee
accounting for approximately 5.7% of the MSRB's fiscal year 2020
budgeted revenue and approximately 7.0% of MSRB's fiscal year 2021
budgeted revenue, up from 3.9% and 3.6%, respectively, under
projections absent the proposed rule change. Specific to the allocation
of fees among municipal advisors, the MSRB estimates that the vast
majority of municipal advisor firms will have an incremental increase
above current fee rates of between $250 and $1,250 in fiscal year 2020
and between $500 and $2,500 in fiscal year 2021. The forecasted median
increase for municipal advisor firms will be $500 in fiscal year 2020
and $1,000 in fiscal year 2021. Accordingly, the Board believes the
proposed increases will not impose an undue fee burden on small firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ While the MSRB has designated the proposed rule change for
immediate effectiveness, by its terms, the assessment of the amended
annual professional fees for each covered representative will be
based on the number of covered representatives as of January 31 of
each respective fiscal year. The MSRB intends to send the first
invoice of the applicable fee level (measured as of January 31 for
each year) to firms on or about the beginning of April each year for
payment by April 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion
    The Board believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable as
well as necessary and appropriate to help defray the expenses and costs
of

operating and administering the MSRB. It is an important step towards
the Board's strategic goal of promoting the organization's long-term
financial stability. The Board believes the proposed fee increases will
help the organization provide for assessments that are more fairly and
equitably apportioned among all MSRB regulated entities by further
diversifying the MSRB's revenue base away from its strong dependency on
dealer-paid market activity fees.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act,\37\ which states that the MSRB's rules
shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).

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

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is necessary and
appropriate to fund the operation and administration of the Board and
satisfies the requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(J).\38\ The MSRB
believes the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate because
it will help defray the costs of the Board's rulemaking, compliance
support, professional qualifications programs, and other activities
relating to municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the MSRB has engaged in significant rulemaking
to put into place a regulatory framework for municipal advisors and has
engaged in considerable activities to assist municipal advisors in
understanding their obligations and complying with the applicable
rules. Because the MSRB does not have authority to examine or enforce
its rules, the MSRB coordinates closely with the regulatory authorities
responsible for such examination and enforcement, including by making
market statistics, analytical data, and other municipal securities
information available in support of their examination and enforcement
activities and providing training regarding the municipal market and
MSRB rules. The MSRB expects to continue its many activities relating
to the municipal securities market, including the regulation of
municipal advisors, with a continued focus on providing resources that
enhance the understanding of MSRB rules and improve compliance
therewith.
    The proposed rule change will assist in defraying some of the costs
and expenses associated with these activities and will help ensure the
MSRB is funding these regulatory activities in a financially
responsible way. However, even with the proposed rule change's fee
increase, the Revised Professional Fee will only defray a small portion
of the costs and expenses of operating and administering the MSRB--
generating an estimated 5.7% of fiscal year 2020 budgeted revenue and
7.0% of fiscal year 2021 budgeted revenue.\39\ Thus, the Board believes
the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate because it is a
measured, incremental approach that moves towards a more equitable
balance of fees among regulated entities and a fairer allocation of the
expenses of the regulatory activities, systems development, and
operational activities undertaken by the organization, while not overly
burdening municipal advisors with more accelerated fee increases at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The Board does not believe that it is necessary to strictly
allocate its fees among regulated entities based upon the proportion
of the MSRB's activities devoted to that class of regulated entity
(i.e., dealers versus municipal advisors). See, e.g., Release No.
34-63621 (December 29, 2011), 76 FR 604, at 606-607 (January 5,
2011) (File No. SR-MSRB-2010-10) (summarizing the MSRB's response to
comments from dealers desiring the increase of municipal advisor
fees to an amount that covers the ``entire cost of their own
regulation''). Section 15B(b)(2)(J) (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J))
grants the Board discretion to provide for the payment of ``such
reasonable fees and charges as may be necessary or appropriate to
defray the costs and expenses of operating and administering the
Board'' (emphasis added). Regardless of the Board's statutory
authority to collect payments from municipal advisors to fund its
overall operation and administration, the Board has determined that
the percentages stated above are far less than the proportion of the
MSRB's activities that are related to municipal advisors and the
historical costs associated with such activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Board has conducted an analysis on the proposed rule change to
gauge its overall economic impact and assess its burden on
competition.\40\ For the reasons discussed below, the Board has
determined that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Exchange Act, nor will it impose any unnecessary or
inappropriate regulatory burden on small municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The scope of the Board's policy on the use of economic
analysis generally excludes proposed rule changes that are qualified
to be filed as immediately effective. See Policy on the Use of
Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking, at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/Economic-Analysis-Policy.aspx. Despite this
exclusion, the MSRB typically conducts such an analysis on those
rule changes for which the MSRB seeks immediate effectiveness. Such
analyses primarily focus on the burden of competition on regulated
entities for those immediately effective rule changes. Consistent
with its prior proposed rule changes, the Board conducted the
analysis described herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Board's Determinations Regarding the Proposed Rule Change's Burden
on Competition
    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) \41\ of the Exchange Act provides that MSRB
rules shall ``not be designed . . . to impose any burden on competition
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of this
title.'' The Board believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(C),\42\ because the proposed rule change is necessary
and appropriate to ensure that municipal advisors more equitably
contribute to defraying the costs and expenses of operating and
administering the MSRB. The Board also believes that the proposed rule
change does not result in any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate, principally because the fee applies equally
to all municipal advisors based on the number of covered
representatives at each municipal advisor firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The Board's Analysis of the Existing Fee Structure and the
Necessity of the Revised Professional Fee
    The goal of the proposed rule change is to diversify the MSRB's
revenue base away from its strong dependency on dealer-paid market
activity fees and to more fairly align the aggregate amount of fees
paid by a given class of regulated entities with the overall costs of
the MSRB's regulatory activities associated with those entities and the
overall costs of the organization. When the Board analyzed the
aggregate amount of fees paid by dealers against the aggregate amount
of fees paid by municipal advisors, the Board determined that the fees
historically paid, and forecasted to be paid, by municipal advisors are
out of proportion to the overall costs and expenses of operating and
administering the Board. Similarly, when it analyzed its expenses, the
Board determined that the amounts paid by municipal advisors under the
current fee structure have not, and are not projected to, fully defray
the costs and expenses associated with the MSRB's comprehensive
regulatory framework for municipal advisors.
    The Board came to these determinations based in part on the fact

that the vast majority of the MSRB's revenue is generated from dealer
firms, particularly market activity fees paid exclusively by dealers.
Fiscal year 2018 revenue is generally representative of this fee
concentration. Dealer market activity fees paid pursuant to Rule A-13
amounted to about 80% of revenue in fiscal year 2018. Registration fees
paid by dealers pursuant to Rule A-12 amounted to approximately 3.3% in
additional revenue for that fiscal year. By comparison, the aggregate
amount of registration fees paid by municipal advisors pursuant to Rule
A-12 totaled about 1.2% of revenue and annual professional fees paid by
municipal advisors pursuant to Rule A-11 totaled about 3.8%,
respectively, in the same period. In sum, municipal advisors paid a
total of approximately 5.0% of the MSRB's aggregate revenue in fiscal
year 2018.
    The Board has determined that the proportion of revenue generated
by fees from municipal advisors is significantly below the costs of
MSRB activities related to municipal advisors.\43\ As a result, the
proportion of the MSRB operations funded by contributions from dealers
is above the costs of MSRB activities related to dealers, and some
portion of dealer-paid fees are effectively subsidizing the MSRB's
regulatory activities associated with municipal advisors. The Board
believes the Revised Professional Fee is necessary and appropriate to
ensure that municipal advisors more equitably contribute to defraying
the costs and expenses of operating and administering the MSRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Despite the fee increase of the proposed rule change, the
Board has determined that revenues generated by the Revised
Professional Fee will continue to be below these costs going
forward. Expenses associated with market regulation and professional
qualifications amounted to more than $6,400,000 in fiscal year 2018.
Limiting the attribution of expenses solely to these activities, and
excluding any expenses attributable to other activities that
municipal advisors benefit from or are impacted by--such as outreach
and education; administration of the board of directors; executive,
financial, and risk management; and market structure, transparency,
and operations--the revenue generated from the annual municipal
advisor professional fee offsets less than 25% of the MSRB's market
regulation and professional qualification expenses. The Board,
however, declines to more steeply increase fees on municipal
advisors in this proposed rule change for the reasons stated in this
section, including because of the Board's determination that an
incremental increase of an existing municipal advisor fee is
superior to possible alternatives at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The Board's Determinations Regarding the Revenue Impacts of
the Revised Professional Fee
    The proposed rule change will be implemented in two phases--first,
from the current level of $500 to $750 in MSRB fiscal year 2020, and,
then, to $1,000 in MSRB fiscal year 2021 and thereafter. With these
incremental increases, the Revised Professional Fee will account for an
estimated 5.7% of MSRB's total revenue in fiscal year 2020 and an
estimated 7.0% of total revenue in fiscal year 2021. Nonetheless, the
MSRB believes that even after the Revised Professional Fee has been
implemented, the fee revenue paid by municipal advisors will not fully
defray the costs and expenses of their comprehensive regulatory
framework and the proportionate costs associated with operating the
organization.\44\ The Board has determined that the Revised
Professional Fee will result in a fairer and more equitable fee
structure when compared to this current distribution of fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While further increases may be necessary and appropriate in the
future, the Board has determined that an incremental, phase-in approach
is superior to possible alternatives, particularly less incremental
alternatives that would not allow municipal advisors the same amount of
time to adjust to the increased amount of the Revised Professional Fee.
Among other benefits, the incremental approach of the proposed rule
change will give a municipal advisor firm a period to implement the
Revised Professional Fee. This incremental approach will also have the
ancillary benefit of providing the Board additional time to calibrate
the costs of MSRB operations and evaluate possible fee alternatives.
Accordingly, the Board believes the phase-in of the Revised
Professional Fee over the following two years is appropriate to
establish a transitional period for the increased fee.
 Other Precedents for SRO Fee Assessments Based on Firm Size
    Lastly, the MSRB notes that other self-regulatory organizations and
independent oversight and rulemaking boards, such as the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''), the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (``PCAOB''), National Futures Association
(``NFA'') and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (``FASB''), all
have some annual fee assessment structure that is based on the size of
firms under regulation. For example, FINRA's annual registration fee
and new member application fee assessments for broker-dealers are based
on the number of branch offices and the number of registered persons;
the PCAOB's annual fee assessment is based on the number of issuer
audit clients and the number of personnel within each public accounting
firm; NFA's annual member dues for swap dealers and Forex dealers are
based on the tier size of member firms; and FASB's accounting support
fees are allocated based on the average market capitalization of each
issuer. The Board believes the Revised Professional Fee is similar to
these other SRO annual fees, where the number of covered
representatives is a reasonable proxy for firm size, and so analogously
consistent and appropriate under the Act.
The Board's Determinations Regarding Small Municipal Advisors
    Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act \45\ provides that MSRB rules
``not impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors that is
not necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons,
provided that there is robust protection of investors against fraud.''
The Board believes that the Revised Professional Fee is consistent with
this provision of the Act, because it will not impose an unnecessary or
inappropriate regulatory burden on small municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is the case today, the total amount of the assessment payable by
each municipal advisor will be dependent on the number of covered
representatives employed by the firm and, therefore, will result in
lower assessments for smaller firms with less covered
representatives.\46\ In this way, each firm's annual professional fee
will bear a reasonable relationship to the level of regulated municipal
advisory activities that are undertaken by the firm, in that the MSRB
believes that firms with more covered representatives generally will
engage in more regulated municipal advisory activities. As illustrated
in Table 1 below, a firm with 50 professionals currently pays about 17
times as much in total fees as a firm with only a single professional.
Under the Revised Professional Fee, however, the same firm with 50
professionals will pay over 25 times as much in total fees as the firm
with one professional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The MSRB understands that the Form MA-I should be withdrawn
for any person who fails to qualify as a municipal advisor
representative in accordance with Rule G-3. See Registration of
Municipal Advisors Frequently Asked Questions, at Question 16.1,
available at https://www.sec.gov/info/municipal/mun-advisors-faqs.shtml.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE19.000

The Board's Analysis of Alternatives to the Revised Professional Fee
    The Board considered a number of alternatives to the Revised
Professional Fee. For example, the Board considered assessing a fee
specifically tailored to the amount of regulated advisory activity each
municipal advisory firm undertakes. The Board believed that such an
approach would be more analogous to the market activity fees paid by a
dealer, as the underwriting, transaction, and technology fees paid by a
dealer firm under Rule A-13 roughly approximate the overall market
activity of a dealer firm. However, the fees charged under Rule A-13
are dependent on the data individual dealers firms report to the MSRB
about their primary market offerings and secondary market trades. MSRB
rules do not currently require a municipal advisor to report analogous
information about its activities, and the MSRB does not otherwise
collect such information. Although the Board could draft rules
requiring the submission of this data, instituting such a requirement
would add novel compliance and reporting burdens.\47\ Consequently, the
Board determined that the Revised Professional Fee was superior at this
time to these alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ In contrast to the reporting requirements of dealer firms
under MSRB Rule G-14 and MSRB Rule G-34 that provide important
transparency to the market in addition to being a tool for tailoring
dealer fee assessments, the Board believes that requiring municipal
advisors to report data about their regulatory activities primarily
for the purpose of the calculation of fees is a less desirable
alternative at this time to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Board's Ongoing Analysis of the Revised Professional Fee
    Developing a fair and equitable, yet sustainable, financial model
is, and will remain, an ongoing focus of the Board, as the organization
continues to assess the costs of the MSRB's activities against the
impacts and benefits its activities have on various stakeholders. The
Board will continue to analyze the impact of the Revised Professional
Fee, in the context of its overall fee structure, to inform future
budgeting decisions and develop a more optimal allocation of revenues
in the future. This analysis will necessarily focus on the fee burden
of municipal advisors in particular, but also any broader impact the
Revised Professional Fee may have on the municipal securities market.

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 rule 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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \48\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\49\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \49\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-MSRB-2019-11 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-2019-11. 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-2019-11 and should be submitted on
or before October 21, 2019.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21100 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76982-76984]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31079]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9237-6; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0664]

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS); Announcement of
Availability of Literature Searches for IRIS Assessments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Announcement of availability of literature searches for IRIS
assessments; request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing
the availability of literature searches for four IRIS assessments,
acetaldehyde (CAS No. 75-07-0), hexachlorobutadiene (CAS No. 87-68-3),
hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) (CAS No. 121-82-4), and
naphthalene (CAS No. 91-20-3) and requesting scientific information on
health effects that may result from exposure to these chemical
substances. EPA's IRIS is a human health assessment program that
evaluates quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that
may result from exposure to specific chemical substances found in the
environment.

DATES: EPA will accept information related to the specific substances
included herein as well as any other compounds being assessed by the
IRIS Program. Please submit any information in accordance with the
instructions provided below.

ADDRESSES: Please submit relevant scientific information identified by
docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0664, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to Office of Environmental Information (OEI)
Docket (Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery
or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Information on a disk or CD-
ROM should be formatted in Word or as an ASCII file, avoiding the use
of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to
the mailing address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the IRIS program,
contact Karen Hammerstrom, IRIS Program Deputy Director, National
Center for Environmental Assessment,

(mail code: 8601D), Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (703)
347-8642, facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general questions about access to IRIS, or the content of IRIS,
please call the IRIS Hotline at<PHONE_NUMBER> or send electronic mail
inquiries to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EPA's IRIS is a human health assessment program that evaluates
quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that may
result from exposure to specific chemical substances found in the
environment. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality
science-based human health assessments to support the Agency's
regulatory activities. The IRIS database contains information for more
than 540 chemical substances that can be used to support the first two
steps (hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of the risk
assessment process. When supported by available data, IRIS provides
oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference concentrations
(RfCs) for chronic noncancer health effects as well as assessments of
potential carcinogenic effects resulting from chronic exposure.
Combined with specific exposure information, government and private
entities use IRIS to help characterize public health risks of chemical
substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk
management decisions designed to protect public health.
    This data call-in is a step in the IRIS process. As literature
searches are completed, the results will be posted on the IRIS Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/iris). The public is invited to review the
literature search results and submit additional information to EPA.

Request for Public Involvement in IRIS Assessments

    EPA is soliciting public involvement in assessments on the IRIS
agenda, including new assessments starting in 2011. While EPA conducts
a thorough literature search for each chemical substance, there may be
unpublished studies or other primary technical sources that are not
available through the open literature. EPA would appreciate receiving
scientific information from the public during the information gathering
stage for the assessments listed in this notice or any other
assessments on the IRIS agenda. Interested persons may provide
scientific analyses, studies, and other pertinent scientific
information. While EPA is primarily soliciting information on new
assessments, the public may submit information on any chemical
substance at any time.
    This notice provides (1) a list of new IRIS assessments for which
literature searches have recently become available; and (2)
instructions to the public for submitting scientific information to EPA
pertinent to the development of assessments.
    EPA is announcing the availability of additional literature
searches on the IRIS Web site (http://www.epa.gov/iris). The public is
invited to review the literature search results and submit additional
information to EPA. Literature searches are now available for
acetaldehyde (CAS No. 75-07-0), hexachlorobutadiene (CAS No. 87-68-3),
hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) (CAS No. 121-82-4), and
naphthalene (CAS No. 91-20-3) at http://www.epa.gov/iris under ``IRIS
Agenda and Literature Searches.'' Additional literature searches will
be posted as they are completed. Availability will be announced in the
Federal Register. Instructions on how to submit information are
provided below under General Information.

General Information

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
0664 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket,
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center's Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide information
by mail or hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages
numbered consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For
attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the main
text, and submit an unbound original and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2007-0664. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in
the public docket without change and to make the comments available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficultiesand cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the
use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: December 3, 2010.
Darrell A. Winner,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2010-31079 Filed 12-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P