[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81650-81664]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32894]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76767; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-056]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
FINRA Rule 2030 and FINRA Rule 4580 To Establish ``Pay-To-Play'' and
Related Rules

December 24, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act,'' ``Exchange Act'' or ``SEA'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on December 16, 2015,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. 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 substantially prepared by FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt FINRA Rules 2030 (Engaging in
Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities) \3\
and 4580 (Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution
and Solicitation Activities) to establish ``pay-to-play'' \4\ and
related rules that would regulate the activities of member firms that
engage in distribution or solicitation activities for compensation with
government entities on behalf of investment advisers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FINRA published the proposed rule change as FINRA Rule 2390
in Regulatory Notice 14-50 (Nov. 2014) (``Regulatory Notice 14-
50''). FINRA has determined that the proposed rule change is more
appropriately categorized under the FINRA Rule 2000 Series relating
to ``Duties and Conflicts.''
    \4\ ``Pay-to-play'' practices typically involve a person making
cash or in-kind political contributions (or soliciting or
coordinating others to make such contributions) to help finance the
election campaigns of state or local officials or bond ballot
initiatives as a quid pro quo for the receipt of government
contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
Background & Discussion
    In July 2010, the SEC adopted Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'') addressing pay-to-play
practices by investment advisers (the ``SEC Pay-to-Play Rule'').\5\ The
SEC Pay-to-Play Rule prohibits an investment adviser from providing
advisory services for compensation to a government entity for two years
after the adviser or its covered associates make a contribution to an
official of the government entity, unless an exception or exemption
applies. In addition, it prohibits an investment adviser from
soliciting from others, or coordinating, contributions to government
entity officials or payments to political parties where the adviser is
providing or seeking to provide investment advisory services to a
government entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Advisers Act Release No. 3043 (July 1, 2010), 75 FR
41018 (July 14, 2010) (Political Contributions by Certain Investment
Advisers) (``SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release''). See also
Advisers Act Release No. 3221 (June 22, 2011), 76 FR 42950 (July 19,
2011) (Rules Implementing Amendments to the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940); Advisers Act Release No. 3418 (June 8, 2012), 77 FR 35263
(June 13, 2012) (Political Contributions by Certain Investment
Advisers; Ban on Third Party Solicitation; Extension of Compliance
Date).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SEC Pay-to-Play Rule also prohibits an investment adviser and
its covered associates from providing or agreeing to provide, directly
or indirectly, payment to any person to solicit a government entity for
investment advisory services on behalf of the investment adviser unless
the person is a ``regulated person.'' A ``regulated person'' includes a
member firm, provided that: (a) FINRA rules prohibit member firms from
engaging in distribution or solicitation activities if political
contributions have been made; and (b) the SEC finds, by order, that
such rules impose substantially equivalent or more stringent
restrictions on member firms than the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule imposes on
investment advisers and that such rules are consistent with the
objectives of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule.\6\ The SEC stated that this SEC
ban on third-party solicitations would be effective nine months after
the compliance date of a final rule adopted by the SEC by which
municipal advisors must register under the Exchange Act.\7\ The SEC
adopted such a final rule on September 20, 2013, with a compliance date
of July 1, 2014.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(f)(9). A ``regulated
person'' also includes SEC registered investment advisers and SEC-
registered municipal advisors, subject to specified conditions.
    \7\ See Advisers Act Release No. 3418 (June 8, 2012), 77 FR
35263 (June 13, 2012).
    \8\ See Exchange Act Release No. 70462 (Sept. 20, 2013), 78 FR
67468 (Nov. 12, 2013) (Registration of Municipal Advisors). On June
25, 2015, the SEC issued notice of the compliance date for its third
party solicitation ban as July 31, 2015. See Advisers Act Release
No. 4129 (June 25, 2015), 80 FR 37538 (July 1, 2015). In addition,
staff of the Division of Investment Management added Question I.4 to
its Staff Responses to Questions About the Pay to Play Rule stating,
among other things, that until the later of (i) the effective date
of a FINRA pay-to-play rule or (ii) the effective date of an MSRB
pay-to-play rule, the Division of Investment Management would not
recommend enforcement action to the Commission against an investment
adviser or its covered associates under SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-
5(a)(2)(i) for the payment to any person to solicit a government
entity for investment advisory services. See https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/pay-to-play-faq.htm. See also infra Effective
Date, for a more detailed discussion regarding the effective date of
FINRA Rules 2030 and 4580.

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

    Based on this regulatory framework, FINRA is proposing a pay-to-
play rule, Rule 2030, modeled on the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule that would
impose substantially equivalent restrictions on member firms engaging
in distribution or solicitation activities to those the SEC Pay-to-Play
Rule imposes on investment advisers. FINRA is also proposing rules that
would impose recordkeeping requirements on member firms in connection
with political contributions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In connection with the adoption of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule,
the Commission also adopted recordkeeping requirements related to
political contributions by investment advisers and their covered
associates. See Advisers Act Rule 204-2(a)(18) and (h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rules would establish a comprehensive regime to
regulate the activities of member firms that engage in distribution or
solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of
investment advisers. FINRA believes that establishing requirements for
member firms that are modeled on the SEC's Pay-to-Play-Rule is a more
effective regulatory response to the concerns the SEC identified in the
SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release regarding third-party
solicitations than an outright ban on such activity. For example, in
the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, the SEC stated that
solicitors \10\ or ``placement agents'' \11\ have played a central role
in actions that it and other authorities have brought involving pay-to-
play schemes.\12\ The SEC noted that in several instances, advisers
allegedly made significant payments to placement agents and other
intermediaries to influence the award of advisory contracts.\13\ The
SEC also acknowledged the difficulties that advisers face in monitoring
or controlling the activities of their third-party solicitors.\14\
Accordingly, the proposed rules are intended to enable member firms to
continue to engage in distribution and solicitation activities with
government entities on behalf of investment advisers while at the same
time deterring member firms from engaging in pay-to-play practices.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Solicitors'' typically locate investment advisory clients
on behalf of an investment adviser. See Advisers Act Release No.
2910 (Aug. 3, 2009), 74 FR 39840, 39853 n.137 (Aug. 7, 2009)
(Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers).
    \11\ ``Placement agents'' typically specialize in finding
investors (often institutional investors or high net worth
investors) that are willing and able to invest in a private offering
of securities on behalf of the issuer of such privately offered
securities. See id.
    \12\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41037 (discussing the reasons for proposing a ban on using third
parties to solicit government business).
    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ In response to a request from SEC staff, FINRA previously
indicated its intent to prepare rules for consideration by the SEC
that would prohibit its member firms from soliciting advisory
business from a government entity on behalf of an adviser unless the
member firms comply with requirements prohibiting pay-to-play
practices. See Letter from Andrew J. Donohue, Director, Division of
Investment Management, SEC, to Richard G. Ketchum, Chairman & CEO,
FINRA (Dec. 18, 2009), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-18-09/s71809-252.pdf (requesting whether FINRA would consider
adopting a rule preventing pay-to-play activities by registered
broker-dealers acting as legitimate placement agents on behalf of
investment advisers). See also Letter from Richard G. Ketchum,
Chairman & CEO, FINRA, to Andrew J. Donohue, Director, Division of
Investment Management, SEC (Mar. 15, 2010), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-18-09/s71809-260.pdf (stating ``[w]e believe
that a regulatory scheme targeting improper pay to play practices by
broker-dealers acting on behalf of investment advisers is . . . a
viable solution to a ban on certain private placement agents serving
a legitimate function'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA sought comment on the proposed rule change in Regulatory
Notice 14-50.\16\ As discussed further in Item II.C below, commenters
were generally supportive of the proposed rule change, but also
expressed some concerns. In considering the comments, FINRA has engaged
in discussions with SEC staff. In addition, as discussed in Item II.B
below, FINRA has engaged in an analysis of the potential economic
impacts of the proposed rule change. As a result, FINRA has revised the
proposed rule change as published in Regulatory Notice 14-50. In
particular, as discussed in more detail in Item II.C, FINRA has
determined not to propose a disclosure requirement for government
distribution and solicitation activities at this time. In addition,
FINRA has determined not to propose a disgorgement requirement as part
of the pay-to-play rule. FINRA believes that these revisions will more
closely align FINRA's proposed pay-to-play rule with the SEC Pay-to-
Play Rule and help reduce cost and compliance burden concerns raised by
commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change, as revised in response to comments on
Regulatory Notice 14-50, is set forth in further detail below.
Proposed Pay-to-Play Rule
A. Two-Year Time Out
    Proposed Rule 2030(a) would prohibit a covered member from engaging
in distribution \17\ or solicitation \18\ activities for compensation
with a government entity on behalf of an investment adviser that
provides or is seeking to provide investment advisory services to such
government entity within two years after a contribution to an official
of the government entity is made by the covered member or a covered
associate (including a person who becomes a covered associate within
two years after the contribution is made). As discussed in more detail
below, the terms and scope of this prohibition are modeled on the SEC
Pay-to-Play Rule.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As discussed in Item II.C below, FINRA is not eliminating
the term ``distribution'' from the proposed rule as suggested by
some commenters. Thus, subject to the limitations discussed in Item
II.C, the proposed rule would apply to covered members engaging in
distribution (as well as solicitation) activities with government
entities. Specifically, the proposed rule would apply to
distribution activities involving unregistered pooled investment
vehicles such as hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital
funds, and collective investment trusts, and registered pooled
investment vehicles such as mutual funds, but only if those
registered pools are an investment option of a participant-directed
plan or program of a government entity.
    \18\ Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, proposed Rule
2030(g)(11) defines the term ``solicit'' to mean: ``(A) With respect
to investment advisory services, to communicate, directly or
indirectly, for the purpose of obtaining or retaining a client for,
or referring a client to, an investment adviser; and (B) With
respect to a contribution or payment, to communicate, directly or
indirectly, for the purpose of obtaining or arranging a contribution
or payment.'' The determination of whether a particular
communication would be a solicitation would depend on the facts and
circumstances relating to such communication. As a general
proposition, any communication made under circumstances reasonably
calculated to obtain or retain an advisory client would be
considered a solicitation unless the circumstances otherwise
indicate that the communication does not have the purpose of
obtaining or retaining an advisory client. See also infra note 40.
    \19\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would not ban or limit the amount of political
contributions a covered member or its covered associates could make.
Instead, it would impose a two-year time out on engaging in
distribution or solicitation activities for compensation with a
government entity on behalf of an investment adviser after the covered
member or its covered associates make a contribution to an official of
the government entity. Consistent with the two-year time out in the SEC
Pay-to-Play Rule, the two-year time out in the proposed rule is
intended to discourage covered members from participating in pay-to-
play practices by requiring a cooling-off period during which the
effects of a political contribution on the selection process can be
expected to dissipate.

1. Covered Members
    Proposed Rule 2030(g)(4) defines a ``covered member'' to mean ``any
member except when that member is engaging in activities that would
cause the member to be a municipal advisor as defined in Exchange Act
Section 15B(e)(4), SEA Rule 15Ba1-1(d)(1) through (4) and other rules
and regulations thereunder.'' As noted above, the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule
includes within its definition of ``regulated person'' SEC-registered
municipal advisors, subject to specified conditions.\20\ Specifically,
the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule prohibits an investment adviser from providing
or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to an SEC-
registered municipal advisor unless the municipal advisor is subject to
a Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') pay-to-play
rule.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 6.
    \21\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(a)(2)(i)(A) and 206(4)-
5(f)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A member firm that solicits a government entity for investment
advisory services on behalf of an unaffiliated investment adviser may
be required to register with the SEC as a municipal advisor as a result
of such activity.\22\ Under such circumstances, MSRB rules applicable
to municipal advisors, including any pay-to-play rule adopted by the
MSRB, would apply to the member firm.\23\ On the other hand, if the
member firm solicits a government entity on behalf of an affiliated
investment adviser, such activity would not cause the firm to be a
municipal advisor. Under such circumstances, the member firm would be a
``covered member'' subject to the requirements of proposed Rule
2030.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(9) and Rule 15Ba1-1(n)
thereunder (defining ``solicitation of a municipal entity or
obligated person'' to mean ``a direct or indirect communication with
a municipal entity or obligated person made by a person, for direct
or indirect compensation, on behalf of a broker, dealer, municipal
securities dealer, municipal advisor, or investment adviser . . .
that does not control, is not controlled by, or is not under common
control with the person undertaking such solicitation for the
purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement by a municipal
entity or obligated person of a broker, dealer, municipal securities
dealer, or municipal advisor for or in connection with municipal
financial products, the issuance of municipal securities, or of an
investment adviser to provide investment advisory services to or on
behalf of a municipal entity.'')
    \23\ On August 18, 2014, the MSRB issued a Regulatory Notice
requesting comment on draft amendments to MSRB Rule G-37, on
political contributions made by brokers, dealers and municipal
securities dealers and prohibitions on municipal securities
business, to extend the rule to cover municipal advisors. See MSRB
Regulatory Notice 2014-15 (Aug. 2014). MSRB Rule G-37 was approved
by the Commission in 1994 and, since that time, has prohibited
brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers engaging in
municipal securities business from participating in pay-to-play
practices. See Exchange Act Release No. 33868 (Apr. 7, 1994), 59 FR
17621 (Apr. 13, 1994) (Order Approving File No. SR-MSRB-94-2).
    \24\ FINRA notes that a person that is registered under the
Exchange Act as a broker-dealer and municipal advisor, and under the
Advisers Act as an investment adviser could potentially be a
``regulated person'' for purposes of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule. Such
a regulated person would be subject to the rules that apply to the
services the regulated person is performing. See also supra note 23
(noting that brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers
engaging in municipal securities business are subject to MSRB Rule
G-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Investment Advisers
    The proposed rule would apply to covered members acting on behalf
of any investment adviser registered (or required to be registered)
with the SEC, or unregistered in reliance on the exemption available
under Section 203(b)(3) of the Advisers Act for foreign private
advisers, or that is an exempt reporting adviser under Advisers Act
Rule 204-4(a).\25\ Thus, it would not apply to member firms acting on
behalf of advisers that are registered with state securities
authorities instead of the SEC, or advisers that are unregistered in
reliance on exemptions other than Section 203(b)(3) of the Advisers
Act. The proposed rule's definition of ``investment adviser'' is
consistent with the definition of ``investment adviser'' in the SEC
Pay-to-Play Rule.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See proposed Rule 2030(g)(7).
    \26\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1). FINRA notes that,
consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, the proposed rule would
not apply to state-registered investment advisers as few of these
smaller firms manage public pension plans or other similar funds.
See also infra note 98 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Official of a Government Entity
    An official of a government entity would include an incumbent,
candidate or successful candidate for elective office of a government
entity if the office is directly or indirectly responsible for, or can
influence the outcome of, the hiring of an investment adviser or has
authority to appoint any person who is directly or indirectly
responsible for, or can influence the outcome of, the hiring of an
investment adviser.\27\ Government entities would include all state and
local governments, their agencies and instrumentalities, and all public
pension plans and other collective government funds, including
participant-directed plans such as 403(b),\28\ 457,\29\ and 529
plans.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, proposed Rule
2030(g)(8) defines an ``official'' to mean ``any person (including
any election committee for the person) who was, at the time of the
contribution, an incumbent, candidate or successful candidate for
elective office of a government entity, if the office: (A) Is
directly or indirectly responsible for, or can influence the outcome
of, the hiring of an investment adviser by a government entity; or
(B) Has authority to appoint any person who is directly or
indirectly responsible for, or can influence the outcome of, the
hiring of an investment adviser by a government entity.''
    \28\ A 403(b) plan is a tax-deferred employee benefit retirement
plan established under Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 403(b)).
    \29\ A 457 plan is a tax-deferred employee benefit retirement
plan established under Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (26 U.S.C. 457).
    \30\ A 529 plan is a ``qualified tuition plan'' established
under Section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.
529). Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, proposed Rule
2030(g)(6) defines a ``government entity'' to mean ``any state or
political subdivision of a state, including: (A) Any agency,
authority or instrumentality of the state or political subdivision;
(B) A pool of assets sponsored or established by the state or
political subdivision or any agency, authority or instrumentality
thereof, including but not limited to a ``defined benefit plan'' as
defined in Section 414(j) of the Internal Revenue Code, or a state
general fund; (C) A plan or program of a government entity; and (D)
Officers, agents or employees of the state or political subdivision
or any agency, authority or instrumentality thereof, acting in their
official capacity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the two-year time out would be triggered by contributions,
not only to elected officials who have legal authority to hire the
adviser, but also to elected officials (such as persons with
appointment authority) who can influence the hiring of the adviser. As
noted in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, a person appointed
by an elected official is likely to be subject to that official's
influences and recommendations. It is the scope of authority of the
particular office of an official, not the influence actually exercised
by the individual that would determine whether the individual has
influence over the awarding of an investment advisory contract under
the definition.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41029 (discussing the terms ``official'' and ``government entity'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Contributions
    The proposed rule's time out provisions would be triggered by
contributions made by a covered member or any of its covered
associates. A contribution would include a gift, subscription, loan,
advance, deposit of money, or anything of value made for the purpose of
influencing the election for a federal, state or local office,
including any payments for debts incurred in such an election. It would
also include transition or inaugural expenses incurred by a successful
candidate for state or local office.\32\

Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, FINRA would not consider a
donation of time by an individual to be a contribution, provided the
covered member has not solicited the individual's efforts and the
covered member's resources, such as office space and telephones, are
not used.\33\ Similarly, FINRA would not consider a charitable donation
made by a covered member to an organization that qualifies for an
exemption from federal taxation under the Internal Revenue Code,\34\ or
its equivalent in a foreign jurisdiction, at the request of an official
of a government entity to be a contribution for purposes of the
proposed rule.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, proposed Rule
2030(g)(1) defines a ``contribution'' to mean ``any gift,
subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of
value made for: (A) The purpose of influencing any election for
federal, state or local office; (B) Payment of debt incurred in
connection with any such election; or (C) Transition or inaugural
expenses of the successful candidate for state or local office.''
    \33\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41030. The SEC also noted that a covered associate's donation of his
or her time generally would not be viewed as a contribution if such
volunteering were to occur during non-work hours, if the covered
associate were using vacation time, or if the adviser is not
otherwise paying the employee's salary (e.g., an unpaid leave of
absence). See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41030 n.157. FINRA would take a similar position in interpreting the
proposed rule.
    \34\ Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.
501(c)(3)) contains a list of charitable organizations that are
exempt from Federal income tax.
    \35\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41030 (discussing the scope of the term ``contribution'' under the
SEC Pay-to-Play Rule). Note, however, proposed Rule 2030(e)
providing that it shall be a violation of Rule 2030 for any covered
member or any of its covered associates to do anything indirectly
that, if done directly, would result in a violation of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Covered Associates
    As stated in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release,
contributions made to influence the selection process are typically
made not by the firm itself, but by officers and employees of the firm
who have a direct economic stake in the business relationship with the
government client.\36\ Accordingly, consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play
Rule, under the proposed rule, contributions by each of these persons,
which the proposed rule describes as ``covered associates,'' would
trigger the two-year time out.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41031.
    \37\ Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, proposed Rule
2030(g)(2) defines a ``covered associate'' to mean: ``(A) Any
general partner, managing member or executive officer of a covered
member, or other individual with a similar status or function; (B)
Any associated person of a covered member who engages in
distribution or solicitation activities with a government entity for
such covered member; (C) Any associated person of a covered member
who supervises, directly or indirectly, the government entity
distribution or solicitation activities of a person in subparagraph
(B) above; and (D) Any political action committee controlled by a
covered member or a covered associate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contributions by an executive officer of a covered member would
trigger the two-year time out. As discussed in Item II.C below,
commenters requested that FINRA define the term ``executive officer''
for purposes of the proposed pay-to-play rule. Accordingly, consistent
with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, proposed Rule 2030(g)(5) defines an
``executive officer of a covered member'' to mean: ``(A) The president;
(B) Any vice president in charge of a principal business unit, division
or function (such as sales, administration or finance); (C) Any other
officer of the covered member who performs a policy-making function; or
(D) Any other person who performs similar policy-making functions for
the covered member.'' Whether a person is an executive officer would
depend on his or her function or activities and not his or her title.
For example, an officer who is a chief executive of a covered member
but whose title does not include ``president'' would nonetheless be an
executive officer for purposes of the proposed rule.
    In addition, a covered associate would include a political action
committee, or PAC, controlled by the covered member or any of its
covered associates as a PAC is often used to make political
contributions.\38\ Under the proposed rule, FINRA would consider a
covered member or its covered associates to have ``control'' over a PAC
if the covered member or covered associate has the ability to direct or
cause the direction of governance or operations of the PAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. ``Look Back''
    Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, the proposed rule would
attribute to a covered member contributions made by a person within two
years (or, in some cases, six months) of becoming a covered associate.
This ``look back'' would apply to any person who becomes a covered
associate, including a current employee who has been transferred or
promoted to a position covered by the proposed rule. A person would
become a ``covered associate'' for purposes of the proposed rule's
``look back'' provision at the time he or she is hired or promoted to a
position that meets the definition of a ``covered associate.''
    Thus, when an employee becomes a covered associate, the covered
member must ``look back'' in time to that employee's contributions to
determine whether the time out applies to the covered member. If, for
example, the contributions were made more than two years (or, pursuant
to the exception described below for new covered associates, six
months) prior to the employee becoming a covered associate, the time
out has run. If the contribution was made less than two years (or six
months, as applicable) from the time the person becomes a covered
associate, the proposed rule would prohibit the covered member that
hires or promotes the contributing covered associate from receiving
compensation for engaging in distribution or solicitation activities on
behalf of an investment adviser from the hiring or promotion date until
the two-year period has run.
    In no case would the prohibition imposed be longer than two years
from the date the covered associate made the contribution. Thus, if,
for example, the covered associate becomes employed (and engages in
solicitation activities) one year and six months after the contribution
was made, the covered member would be subject to the proposed rule's
prohibition for the remaining six months of the two-year period. This
``look back'' provision, which is consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play
Rule, is designed to prevent covered members from circumventing the
rule by influencing the selection process by hiring persons who have
made political contributions.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Similarly, consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, to
prevent covered members from channeling contributions through
departing employees, covered members must ``look forward'' with
respect to covered associates who cease to qualify as covered
associates or leave the firm. The covered associate's employer at
the time of the contribution would be subject to the proposed rule's
prohibition for the entire two-year period, regardless of whether
the covered associate remains a covered associate or remains
employed by the covered member. Thus, dismissing a covered associate
would not relieve the covered member from the two-year time out. See
SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018, 41033
(discussing the ``look back'' in that rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Prohibition on Soliciting and Coordinating Contributions

    Proposed Rule 2030(b) would prohibit a covered member or covered
associate from coordinating or soliciting \40\ any

person or PAC to make any: (1) Contribution to an official of a
government entity in respect of which the covered member is engaging
in, or seeking to engage in, distribution or solicitation activities on
behalf of an investment adviser; or (2) payment \41\ to a political
party of a state or locality of a government entity with which the
covered member is engaging in, or seeking to engage in, distribution or
solicitation activities on behalf of an investment adviser. This
provision is modeled on a similar provision in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule
\42\ and is intended to prevent covered members or covered associates
from circumventing the proposed rule's prohibition on direct
contributions to certain elected officials such as by ``bundling'' a
large number of small employee contributions to influence an election,
or making contributions (or payments) indirectly through a state or
local political party.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Proposed Rule 2030(g)(11)(B) defines the term ``solicit''
with respect to a contribution or payment as ``to communicate,
directly or indirectly, for the purpose of obtaining or arranging a
contribution or payment.'' This provision is consistent with a
similar provision in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule. See SEC Pay-to-Play
Rule 206(4)-5(f)(10)(ii). Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule,
whether a particular activity involves a solicitation or
coordination of a contribution or payment for purposes of the
proposed rule would depend on the facts and circumstances. A covered
member that consents to the use of its name on fundraising
literature for a candidate would be soliciting contributions for
that candidate. Similarly, a covered member that sponsors a meeting
or conference which features a government official as an attendee or
guest speaker and which involves fundraising for the government
official would be soliciting contributions for that government
official. Expenses incurred by the covered member for hosting the
event would be a contribution by the covered member, thereby
triggering the two-year ban on the covered member receiving
compensation for engaging in distribution or solicitation activities
with the government entity over which that official has influence.
Such expenses may include, but are not limited to, the cost of the
facility, the cost of refreshments, any expenses paid for
administrative staff, and the payment or reimbursement of any of the
government official's expenses for the event. The de minimis
exception under proposed Rule 2030(c)(1) would not be available with
respect to these expenses because they would have been incurred by
the firm, not by a natural person. See also SEC Pay-to-Play Rule
Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018, 41043 n.328, 329 (discussing the term
``solicit'' with respect to a contribution or payment).
    \41\ Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, proposed Rule
2030(g)(9) defines the term ``payment'' to mean ``any gift,
subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or anything of
value.'' This definition is similar to the definition of
``contribution,'' but is broader, in the sense that it does not
include limitations on the purposes for which such money is given
(e.g., it does not have to be made for the purpose of influencing an
election). Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, FINRA is
including the broader term ``payments,'' as opposed to
``contributions,'' to deter a covered member from circumventing the
proposed rule's prohibitions by coordinating indirect contributions
to government officials by making payments to political parties. See
SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018, 41043 n.331 and
accompanying text (discussing a similar approach with respect to
restrictions on soliciting and coordinating contributions and
payments).
    \42\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(a)(2).
    \43\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41043 (discussing restrictions on soliciting and coordinating
contributions and payments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as discussed in Item II.C below, in response to a
request for clarification from a commenter regarding the application of
this provision of the proposed rule, FINRA notes that, consistent with
guidance provided by the SEC in connection with SEC Pay-to-Play Rule
206(4)-5(a)(2), a direct contribution to a political party by a covered
member or its covered associates would not violate the proposed rule
unless the contribution was a means for the covered member to do
indirectly what the rule would prohibit if done directly (for example,
if the contribution was earmarked or known to be provided for the
benefit of a particular government official).

C. Direct or Indirect Contributions or Solicitations

    Proposed Rule 2030(e) further provides that it shall be a violation
of Rule 2030 for any covered member or any of its covered associates to
do anything indirectly that, if done directly, would result in a
violation of the rule. This provision is consistent with a similar
provision in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule \44\ and would prevent a covered
member or its covered associates from funneling payments through third
parties, including, for example, consultants, attorneys, family
members, friends or companies affiliated with the covered member as a
means to circumvent the proposed rule.\45\ In addition, as discussed in
Item II.C below, in response to a request for clarification from a
commenter regarding the application of this provision of the proposed
rule, FINRA notes that, consistent with guidance provided by the SEC in
connection with SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(d), proposed Rule 2030(e)
would require a showing of intent to circumvent the rule in order for
such persons to trigger the two-year time out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(d).
    \45\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41044 (discussing direct and indirect contributions or
solicitations). This provision would also cover, for example,
situations in which contributions by a covered member are made,
directed or funded through a third party with an expectation that,
as a result of the contributions, another contribution is likely to
be made by a third party to ``an official of the government
entity,'' for the benefit of the covered member. Contributions made
through gatekeepers thus would be considered to be made
``indirectly'' for purposes of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Covered Investment Pools

    Proposed Rule 2030(d)(1) provides that a covered member that
engages in distribution or solicitation activities with a government
entity on behalf of a covered investment pool \46\ in which a
government entity invests or is solicited to invest shall be treated as
though the covered member was engaging in or seeking to engage in
distribution or solicitation activities with the government entity on
behalf of the investment adviser to the covered investment pool
directly.\47\ Proposed Rule 2030(d)(2) provides that an investment
adviser to a covered investment pool in which a government entity
invests or is solicited to invest shall be treated as though that
investment adviser were providing or seeking to provide investment
advisory services directly to the government entity.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, proposed Rule
2030(g)(3) defines a ``covered investment pool'' to mean: ``(A) Any
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act that
is an investment option of a plan or program of a government entity,
or (B) Any company that would be an investment company under Section
3(a) of the Investment Company Act but for the exclusion provided
from that definition by either Section 3(c)(1), 3(c)(7) or 3(c)(11)
of that Act.'' Thus, the definition includes such unregistered
pooled investment vehicles as hedge funds, private equity funds,
venture capital funds, and collective investment trusts. It also
includes registered pooled investment vehicles, such as mutual
funds, but only if those registered pools are an investment option
of a participant-directed plan or program of a government entity.
    \47\ Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, under the
proposed rule, if a government entity is an investor in a covered
investment pool at the time a contribution triggering a two-year
time out is made, the covered member must forgo any compensation
related to the assets invested or committed by the government entity
in the covered investment pool. See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting
Release, 75 FR 41018, 41047.
    \48\ As discussed in Item II.C below, FINRA has added proposed
Rule 2030(d)(2) in response to comments on Regulatory Notice 14-50
to clarify, for purposes of the proposed rule, the relationship
between an investment adviser to a covered investment pool and a
government entity that invests in the covered investment pool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 2030(d) is modeled on a similar prohibition in the
SEC Pay-to-Play Rule \49\ and would apply the prohibitions of the
proposed rule to situations in which an investment adviser manages
assets of a government entity through a hedge fund or other type of
pooled investment vehicle. Thus, the provision would extend the
protection of the proposed rule to public pension plans that access the
services of investment advisers through hedge funds and other types of
pooled investment vehicles sponsored or advised by investment advisers
as a funding vehicle or investment option in a government-sponsored
plan, such as a ``529 plan.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(c).
    \50\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41044 (discussing the applicability of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule to
covered investment pools).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Exceptions and Exemptions

    As discussed in more detail below, the proposed rule contains
exceptions that are modeled on similar exceptions in the SEC Pay-to-
Play Rule for de minimis contributions, new covered associates and
returned contributions.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, proposed Rule 2030(f) includes an exemptive provision
for covered members that is modeled on the

exemptive provision in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule \52\ that would allow
covered members to apply to FINRA for an exemption from the proposed
rule's two-year time out. Under this provision, FINRA would be able to
exempt covered members from the proposed rule's time out requirement
where the covered member discovers contributions that would trigger the
compensation ban after they have been made, and when imposition of the
prohibition would be unnecessary to achieve the rule's intended
purpose. This provision would provide covered members with an
additional avenue by which to seek to cure the consequences of an
inadvertent violation by the covered member or its covered associates
that falls outside the limits of one of the proposed rule's exceptions.
In determining whether to grant an exemption, FINRA would take into
account the varying facts and circumstances that each application
presents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. De Minimis Contributions
    Proposed Rule 2030(c)(1) would except from the rule's restrictions
contributions made by a covered associate who is a natural person to
government entity officials for whom the covered associate was entitled
to vote \53\ at the time of the contributions, provided the
contributions do not exceed $350 in the aggregate to any one official
per election. If the covered associate was not entitled to vote for the
official at the time of the contribution, the contribution must not
exceed $150 in the aggregate per election. Consistent with the SEC Pay-
to-Play Rule, under both exceptions, primary and general elections
would be considered separate elections.\54\ These exceptions are based
on the theory that such contributions are typically made without the
intent or ability to influence the selection process of the investment
adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, for purposes of
proposed Rule 2030(c)(1), a person would be ``entitled to vote'' for
an official if the person's principal residence is in the locality
in which the official seeks election. For example, if a government
official is a state governor running for re-election, any covered
associate who resides in that state may make a de minimis
contribution to the official without causing a ban on the covered
member being compensated for engaging in distribution or
solicitation activities with that government entity on behalf of an
investment adviser. If the government official is running for
president, any covered associate in the country would be able to
contribute the de minimis amount to the official's presidential
campaign. See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41034 (discussing the applicability in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule of
the exception for de minimis contributions).
    \54\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. New Covered Associates
    Proposed Rule 2030(c)(2) would provide an exception from the
proposed rule's restrictions for covered members if a natural person
made a contribution more than six months prior to becoming a covered
associate of the covered member unless the covered associate engages
in, or seeks to engage in, distribution or solicitation activities with
a government entity on behalf of the covered member. This provision is
consistent with a similar provision in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule.\55\ As
stated in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, the potential link
between obtaining advisory business and contributions made by an
individual prior to his or her becoming a covered associate who is
uninvolved in distribution or solicitation activities is likely more
attenuated than for a covered associate who engages in distribution or
solicitation activities and, therefore, should be subject to a shorter
look-back period.\56\ This exception is also intended to balance the
need for covered members to be able to make hiring decisions with the
need to protect against individuals marketing to prospective employers
their connections to, or influence over, government entities the
employer might be seeking as clients.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(b)(2).
    \56\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41034 (discussing the applicability of the ``look back'' in the SEC
Pay-to-Play Rule).
    \57\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Certain Returned Contributions
    Proposed Rule 2030(c)(3) would provide an exception from the
proposed rule's restrictions for covered members if the restriction is
due to a contribution made by a covered associate and: (1) The covered
member discovered the contribution within four months of it being made;
(2) the contribution was less than $350; and (3) the contribution is
returned within 60 days of the discovery of the contribution by the
covered member.
    Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, this exception would
allow a covered member to cure the consequences of an inadvertent
political contribution to an official for whom the covered associate is
not entitled to vote. As the SEC stated in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule
Adopting Release, the exception is limited to the types of
contributions that are less likely to raise pay-to-play concerns.\58\
The prompt return of the contribution provides an indication that the
contribution would not affect a government entity official's decision
to award business. The 60-day limit is designed to give contributors
sufficient time to seek the contribution's return, but still require
that they do so in a timely manner. In addition, the relatively small
amount of the contribution, in conjunction with the other conditions of
the exception, suggests that the contribution was unlikely to have been
made for the purpose of influencing the selection process. Repeated
triggering contributions suggest otherwise. Thus, the proposed rule
would provide that covered members with 150 or fewer registered
representatives would be able to rely on this exception no more than
two times per calendar year. All other covered members would be
permitted to rely on this exception no more than three times per
calendar year. In addition, a covered member would not be able to rely
on an exception more than once with respect to contributions by the
same covered associate regardless of the time period. These limitations
are consistent with similar provisions in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41035.
    \59\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(b)(3). The SEC Pay-to-
Play Rule includes different allowances for larger and smaller
investment advisers based on the number of employees they report on
Form ADV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Recordkeeping Requirements
    Proposed Rule 4580 would require covered members that engage in
distribution or solicitation activities with a government entity on
behalf of any investment adviser that provides or is seeking to provide
investment advisory services to such government entity to maintain
books and records that would allow FINRA to examine for compliance with
its pay-to-play rule. This provision is consistent with similar
recordkeeping requirements imposed on investment advisers in connection
with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule.\60\ The proposed rule would require
covered members to maintain a list or other record of:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Advisers Act Rule 204-2(a)(18) and (h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The names, titles and business and residence addresses of
all covered associates;
     the name and business address of each investment adviser
on behalf of which the covered member has engaged in distribution or
solicitation activities with a government entity within the past five
years (but not prior to the rule's effective date);
     the name and business address of all government entities
with which the covered member has engaged in distribution or
solicitation activities for

compensation \61\ on behalf of an investment adviser, or which are or
were investors in any covered investment pool on behalf of which the
covered member has engaged in distribution or solicitation activities
with the government entity on behalf of the investment adviser to the
covered investment pool, within the past five years (but not prior to
the rule's effective date); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ As discussed in Item II.C below, FINRA has added ``for
compensation'' to proposed Rule 4580(a)(3) to clarify that,
consistent with the SEC recordkeeping requirements, FINRA's proposed
recordkeeping requirements would apply only to government entities
that become clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     all direct or indirect contributions made by the covered
member or any of its covered associates to an official of a government
entity, or direct or indirect payments to a political party of a state
or political subdivision thereof, or to a PAC.
    The proposed rule would require that the direct and indirect
contributions or payments made by the covered member or any of its
covered associates be listed in chronological order and indicate the
name and title of each contributor and each recipient of the
contribution or payment, as well as the amount and date of each
contribution or payment, and whether the contribution was the subject
of the exception for returned contributions in proposed Rule 2030.
Effective Date
    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will
announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory
Notice to be published no later than 60 days following Commission
approval. FINRA intends to establish an effective date that is no
sooner than 180 days following publication of the Regulatory Notice
announcing Commission approval of the proposed rule change, and no
later than 365 days following Commission approval of the proposed rule
change. This transition period will provide member firms with time to
identify their covered associates and government entity clients and to
modify their compliance programs to address new obligations under the
rules.
    Proposed Rule 2030(a)'s prohibition on engaging in distribution or
solicitation activities for compensation with a government entity on
behalf of an investment adviser that provides or is seeking to provide
investment advisory services to such government entity within two years
after a contribution is made to the government entity, will not be
triggered by contributions made prior to the effective date. Similarly,
the prohibition will not apply to contributions made prior to the
effective date by new covered associates to which the two years or, as
applicable, six months ``look back'' applies.
    As of the effective date, member firms must begin to maintain books
and records in compliance with proposed Rule 4580. Member firms will
not be required, however, to look back for the five years prior to the
effective date of the proposed rule to identify investment advisers and
government entity clients in accordance with proposed Rule 4580(a)(2)
and (a)(3).
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\62\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change establishes a
comprehensive regime to allow member firms to continue to engage in
distribution or solicitation activities for compensation with
government entities on behalf of investment advisers following the
compliance date for the SEC's ban on third-party solicitations while
deterring member firms from engaging in pay-to-play practices. In the
absence of a FINRA pay-to-play rule, covered members will be prohibited
from receiving compensation for engaging in distribution and
solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of
investment advisers. FINRA believes that establishing a pay-to-play
rule modeled on the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule is a more effective regulatory
response to the concerns identified by the SEC regarding third-party
solicitations than an outright ban on such activity. At the same time,
FINRA believes that the proposed two-year time out will deter member
firms from engaging in pay-to-play practices and, thereby, protect
investors and the public interest.

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    As discussed above, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 14-50 to
request comment on the proposed rule change.\63\ Regulatory Notice 14-
50 included an analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed rule
change and requested comment regarding the analysis. The assessment
below includes a summary of the comments received regarding the
economic impact of the proposed rule change as set forth in Regulatory
Notice 14-50 as well as FINRA's responses to the comments.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See supra note 3.
    \64\ All references to commenters are to comment letters as
listed in Exhibit 2b and as further discussed in Item II.C of this
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Impact Assessment
A. Need for the Rule
    As discussed above, the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule prohibits an
investment adviser and its covered associates from providing or
agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any person to
solicit a government entity for investment advisory services on behalf
of the investment adviser unless the person is a ``regulated person.''
A ``regulated person'' includes a member firm, provided that: (a) FINRA
rules prohibit member firms from engaging in distribution or
solicitation activities if political contributions have been made; and
(b) the SEC finds, by order, that such rules impose substantially
equivalent or more stringent restrictions on member firms than the SEC
Pay-to-Play Rule imposes on investment advisers and that such rules are
consistent with the objectives of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule. Thus, FINRA
must propose its own pay-to-play rule to enable member firms to
continue to engage in distribution and solicitation activities for
compensation with government entities on behalf of investment advisers.
B. Regulatory Objective
    The proposed rule change would establish a comprehensive regime to
regulate the activities of member firms that engage in distribution or
solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of
investment advisers. FINRA aims to enable member firms to continue to
engage in such activities for compensation while at the same time
deterring member firms from engaging in pay-to-play practices.
C. Economic Baseline
    The baseline used to evaluate the impact of the proposed rule
change is the regulatory framework under the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule and
the MSRB pay-to-play rules.\65\ In the absence of the proposed rules,
some member firms currently engaging in distribution or solicitation
activities with government

entities on behalf of investment advisers may not be able to receive
payments from investment advisers for engaging in such activities.
Since a ``regulated person'' also includes SEC-registered investment
advisers and SEC-registered municipal advisors that would be subject to
MSRB pay-to-play rules, member firms dually-registered with the SEC as
investment advisers or municipal advisors may be able to engage in
distribution or solicitation activities for compensation with
government entities on behalf of investment advisers.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See supra note 23 (discussing MSRB Rule G-37).
    \66\ See supra note 24 (noting that a regulated person that is
registered under the Exchange Act as a broker-dealer and municipal
advisor, and under the Advisers Act as an investment adviser would
be subject to the rules that apply to the services the regulated
person is performing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The member firms that would have to cease their distribution or
solicitation activities for compensation with government entities on
behalf of investment advisers may bear direct losses as a result of the
loss of this business. In addition, the absence of a FINRA pay-to-play
rule that the SEC finds by order is substantially equivalent to or more
stringent than the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule may impact investment advisers
and public pension plans.
    Specifically, without such a rule, there could be a decrease in the
number of third-party solicitors which may reduce the competition in
the market for solicitation services. Some investment advisers may need
to search for and hire new solicitors as a result of the absence of a
FINRA pay-to-play rule to continue their solicitation activities. Due
to the potentially limited capacity of third-party solicitors,
investment advisers may encounter difficulties in retaining solicitors
or delays in solicitation services. These changes would likely increase
the costs to investment advisers that rely on third-party solicitors to
obtain government clients.
    To the extent that higher costs may reduce the number of investment
advisers competing for government business, public pension plans may
face more limited investment opportunities. In such an instance, there
may be an opportunity cost to a government entity either as it may not
invest its assets optimally, or when seeking capital due to limitations
on its access to funding.
D. Economic Impacts
1. Benefits
    The proposed rule change would enable member firms to continue to
engage in distribution or solicitation activities for compensation with
government entities on behalf of investment advisers within the
regulatory boundaries of the proposed rule change. The proposed rule
change would prevent a potentially harmful disruption in the member
firms' solicitation business, and accordingly may help member firms
avoid some of the likely losses associated with the absence of such a
rule change. The proposed rule change may also help promote competition
by allowing more third-party solicitors to participate in the market
for solicitation services, which may in turn reduce costs to investment
advisers and improve competition for advisory services.
    The proposed rule change is intended to establish a comprehensive
regime to allow member firms to continue to engage in distribution or
solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of
investment advisers while deterring member firms from engaging in pay-
to-play practices. FINRA believes the proposed rules would curb
fraudulent conduct resulting from pay-to-play practices and, therefore,
help promote fair competition in the market and protect public pension
funds and investors. FINRA also believes the proposed rules would
likely reduce the search costs of government entities and increase
their ability to efficiently allocate capital, and thereby would
promote capital formation.
2. Costs
    FINRA recognizes that covered members that engage in distribution
or solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of
investment advisers would incur costs to comply with the proposed rules
on an initial and ongoing basis. Member firms would need to establish
and maintain policies and procedures to monitor contributions the firm
and its covered associates make and to ensure compliance with the
proposed requirements. In addition, member firms that wish to engage in
distribution or solicitation activities with government entities may
face hiring constraints as a result of the two-year (or, in some cases,
six months) ``look back'' provision.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ FINRA notes, however, the availability of the exemptive
provision in proposed Rule 2030(f) that would allow covered members
to apply to FINRA for an exemption from the proposed rule's two-year
time out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The compliance costs would likely vary across member firms based on
a number of factors such as the number of covered associates, business
models of member firms and the extent to which their compliance
procedures are automated, whether the covered member is (or is
affiliated with) an investment adviser subject to the SEC Pay-to-Play
Rule, and whether the covered member is a registered municipal
securities dealer and thus subject to MSRB pay-to-play rules.\68\ A
small covered member with fewer covered associates may expend fewer
resources to comply with the proposed rules than a large covered
member. Covered members subject to (or affiliated with entities subject
to) the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule or MSRB pay-to-play rules may be able to
borrow from or build upon compliance procedures already in place. For
example, FINRA estimates that approximately 400 member firms are
currently subject to the MSRB pay-to-play rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See supra note 23 (discussing MSRB Rule G-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The potential burden arising from compliance costs associated with
the proposed rules can be initially gauged from the SEC's cost
estimates for the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule. The SEC has estimated that
investment advisers would spend between 8 and 250 hours to establish
policies and procedures to comply with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule.\69\
The SEC further estimated that ongoing compliance would require between
10 and 1,000 hours annually.\70\ The SEC estimated compliance costs for
firms of different sizes. The SEC assumed that a ``smaller firm'' would
have fewer than five covered associates that would be subject to the
SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, a ``medium firm'' would have between five and 15
covered associates, and a ``larger firm'' would have more than 15
covered associates.\71\ The SEC estimated that the initial compliance
costs associated with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule would be approximately
$2,352 per smaller firm, $29,407 per medium firm, and $58,813 per
larger firm.\72\ It also estimated that the annual, ongoing compliance
expenses would be approximately $2,940 per smaller firm, $117,625 per
medium firm, and $235,250 per larger firm.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41056.
    \70\ See id.
    \71\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41055.
    \72\ See supra note 69.
    \73\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the SEC estimated the costs for investment advisers to
engage outside legal services to assist in drafting policies and
procedures. It estimated that 75 percent of larger advisory firms, 50
percent of medium firms, and 25 percent of smaller firms subject to the
SEC Pay-to-Play Rule

would engage such services.\74\ The estimated cost included fees for
approximately 8 hours of outside legal review for a smaller firm, 16
hours for a medium firm and 40 hours for a larger firm, at a rate of
$400 per hour.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41057.
    \75\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SEC estimated that the recordkeeping requirements of the SEC
Pay-to-Play Rule would increase an investment adviser's burden by
approximately 2 hours per year,\76\ which would cost the adviser $118
per year based on the SEC's assumption of a compliance clerk's hourly
rate of $59.\77\ In addition, the SEC estimated that some small and
medium firms would incur one-time start-up costs, on average, of
$10,000, and larger firms would incur, on average, $100,000 to
establish or enhance current systems to assist in their compliance with
the recordkeeping requirements.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41063.
    \77\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41061 n.541.
    \78\ See supra note 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA requested comment on the economic impacts of the proposed
rule change as set forth in Regulatory Notice 14-50, including on
whether the proposed rule change would impose similar compliance costs
on member firms as the SEC estimated for investment advisers. Several
commenters raised cost and compliance burden concerns in connection
with the disclosure requirements set forth in Regulatory Notice 14-50,
stating among other things, that the disclosure requirements are
``overly burdensome and create difficult compliance challenges'' \79\
and that FINRA's cost estimates in Regulatory Notice 14-50 ``do not
accurately reflect the true compliance costs associated with the
Proposed Rules, and particularly the costs associated with the
disclosure requirements . . . .'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Monument Group.
    \80\ SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Monument Group stated that the vast majority of independent
placement agents that would be subject to the proposed rules are small
businesses, many of which are minority- or women-owned. Monument Group
stated that these firms operate with focused staff and no revenues from
other lines of business. Accordingly, Monument Group stated that
incremental regulatory requirements that have little impact on larger
firms can create significant resource and cost issues for these smaller
firms. Specifically, Monument Group stated that the disclosure
requirements would place significant and unique burdens on independent
third-party private fund placement agents. Another commenter, 3PM,
stated that the proposed rule change would add a new and significant
burden on small firms in terms of the disclosure and recordkeeping
requirements. 3PM also stated that not only would small firms be
impacted by cost, but also by their limited personnel resources who
would have to take on additional responsibilities to comply with the
proposed rule change.
    Monument Group requested that FINRA consider the already existing
state, municipal and local lobbying registration, disclosure and
reporting requirements and pay-to-play regimes in calculating the cost
and competitive impact of the proposed rule change. Monument Group
stated that the proposed rule change disproportionately affects FINRA-
registered placement agents (as compared with other broker-dealers) and
has the largest economic and anti-competitive effect on small
independent firms.
    As discussed above and in more detail in Item II.C below, after
considering the comments, FINRA has determined not to propose a
disclosure requirement for government distribution and solicitation
activities at this time. FINRA believes that this determination will
reduce substantially the cost and compliance burden concerns raised by
commenters regarding the proposed rule change. FINRA however may
consider a disclosure requirement for government distribution and
solicitation activities as part of a future rulemaking and would
consider the economic impact of any such revised proposed disclosure
requirement as part of that rulemaking.
    Although FINRA has determined to retain a recordkeeping
requirement, FINRA notes that, in response to commenter concerns to
Regulatory Notice 14-50 regarding the significant costs associated with
maintaining lists of unsuccessful solicitations,\81\ FINRA has modified
the proposed rule such that covered members would only be required to
maintain lists of government entities that become clients.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See, e.g., 3PM.
    \82\ See proposed Rule 4580(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the scope of the proposed rule after the modifications is
substantially equivalent to the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, FINRA believes
that the SEC's cost estimates serve as a reasonable reference for the
potential compliance costs on member firms. In response to the question
on the costs of engaging outside legal services to assist in drafting
policies and procedures to comply with the proposed rule, 3PM estimated
that the majority of member firms would spend between $1,500 and $2,500
or approximately five to 10 hours of a professional consultant's time.
In addition, 3PM estimated that a member firm would exert approximately
10 to 20 additional hours of compliance oversight in connection with
the proposed rule each year. These estimates are slightly lower than
the SEC's estimates discussed above.
    The proposed rule is not expected to have competitive effects among
member firms engaging in distribution or solicitation activities, since
all member firms will be subject to the same prohibitions. Moreover,
because the restrictions imposed by the proposed rule are substantially
equivalent to the restrictions imposed by the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, the
proposed rule is not expected to create an uneven playing field between
member firms and investment advisers. There may be a potential impact
on the competition between member firms and municipal advisors
depending on the differences between the proposed rule and the
finalized MSRB rules regulating similar activities of municipal
advisors.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See supra note 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Regulatory Alternatives
    Since the SEC requires that FINRA impose ``substantially equivalent
or more stringent restrictions'' on member firms that wish to act as
``regulated persons'' than the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule imposes on
investment advisers, FINRA believes it is appropriate (and achieves the
right balance between the costs and benefits) to model the proposed
rule change on the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule rather than impose a regulatory
alternative, including a more stringent regulatory alternative, on such
member firms.

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

    In November 2014, FINRA published the proposed rule change for
comment in Regulatory Notice 14-50. FINRA received 10 comment letters
in response to Regulatory Notice 14-50. A copy of Regulatory Notice 14-
50 is attached as Exhibit 2a to the proposed rule change that was filed
with the Commission. A list of the comment letters received in response
to Regulatory Notice 14-50 is attached as Exhibit 2b.\84\ Copies of the

comment letters received in response to Regulatory Notice 14-50 are
attached as Exhibit 2c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ All references to commenters are to the comment letters as
listed in Exhibit 2b to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most commenters expressed appreciation or support for FINRA's
decision to propose a pay-to-play rule, noting the potential disruption
of an SEC ban on third party solicitations if FINRA were not to propose
and adopt a pay-to-play rule. The commenters raised, however, a number
of concerns with the proposed pay-to-play rule, as well as the related
proposed disclosure and recordkeeping requirements. A summary of the
comments and FINRA's responses are discussed below.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Comments that speak to the economic impacts of the proposed
rule change are addressed in Item II.B above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Amendment Concerns
    CCP expressed First Amendment concerns with the proposed rule
change. Among other things, CCP raised vagueness and over-breadth
concerns with a number of the provisions in the proposed rule
change,\86\ and asserted that the prohibition on soliciting and
coordinating contributions is a ``grave infringement of the basic
`right to associate for the purpose of speaking.' ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See CCP (discussing, among other things, the proposed
definitions of the terms ``official of a government entity,''
``solicit'' and ``contribution,'' as well as the provision
prohibiting any covered member or any of its covered associates from
doing anything indirectly that, if done directly, would result in a
violation of the proposed pay-to-play rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of CCP raising these constitutional concerns, FINRA notes
that the proposed pay-to-play rule does not impose any restrictions on
making independent expenditures, ban political contributions, or
attempt to regulate State and local elections. FINRA acknowledges that
the two-year time out provision may affect the propensity of covered
members and their covered associates to make political
contributions.\87\ As discussed in Regulatory Notice 14-50 and as
recognized by CCP, however, establishing requirements to regulate the
activities of member firms that engage in distribution or solicitation
activities with government entities on behalf of investment advisers is
a more effective response to the requirements of the SEC Pay-to-Play
Rule than an outright ban on such activity. If FINRA were not to have a
pay-to-play rule, the result would be a ban on member firms soliciting
government entities for investment advisory services for compensation
on behalf of investment advisers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ CCP requested that FINRA state explicitly whether the
proposed rule would permit contributions in support of independent
expenditures. FINRA notes that, consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play
Rule, the proposed rule would not in any way impinge on a wide range
of expressive conduct in connection with elections. For example, the
rule would not impose any restrictions on activities such as making
independent expenditures to express support for candidates,
volunteering, making speeches, and other conduct. See also SEC Pay-
to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018, 41024 (discussing
independent expenditures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, for an investment adviser and its covered associates to
provide or agree to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to a
member firm to solicit a government entity for investment advisory
services on behalf of the investment adviser, the SEC must find that
FINRA's pay-to-play rule imposes substantially equivalent or more
stringent restrictions on member firms than the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule
imposes on investment advisers and that FINRA's rule is consistent with
the objectives of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule. CCP suggested alternative
approaches to the proposed pay-to-play rule that it argued would be
``less restrictive,'' but FINRA does not believe that CCP's suggested
less restrictive alternatives would meet the SEC's requirements.
Accordingly, FINRA has crafted its proposal such that it is
substantially similar to the SEC's Pay-to-Play Rule.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ In addition, FINRA notes that, to the extent there are
interpretive questions regarding the application and scope of the
provisions and terms used in its pay-to-play rule, FINRA will work
with the industry to understand the interpretive questions and
provide additional guidance where warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA notes that the SEC modeled the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule on
similarly designed MSRB Rule G-37, which the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld against a First
Amendment challenge in Blount v. SEC.\89\ As stated in the SEC Pay-to-
Play Rule Adopting Release, the Blount opinion served as an important
guidepost in helping the SEC shape the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule.\90\
Similar to MSRB Rule G-37 and the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, FINRA believes
it has closely drawn its proposal to accomplish the goal of preventing
quid pro quo arrangements while avoiding unnecessary burdens on the
protected speech and associational rights of covered members and their
covered associates. This analysis is further supported by the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's recent unanimous en banc
decision in Wagner v. FEC, which relied on Blount to uphold against a
First Amendment challenge a law barring campaign contributions by
federal contractors.\91\ As detailed below, the proposed rule is
closely drawn in terms of the conduct it prohibits, the persons who are
subject to its restrictions, and the circumstances in which it is
triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ 61 F.3d 938 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1119
(1996).
    \90\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41023.
    \91\ Wagner v. FEC, No. 13-5162, 2015 U.S. App LEXIS 11625 (D.C.
Cir. July 7, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Pay-to-Play Rule
A. Two-Year Time Out
    Consistent with Regulatory Notice 14-50, proposed Rule 2030(a)
would impose a two-year time out on engaging in distribution or
solicitation activities for compensation with a government entity on
behalf of an investment adviser after the covered member or its covered
associates make a contribution to an official of the government entity.
NASAA stated that member firms should be prohibited from engaging in
distribution or solicitation activities on behalf of an investment
adviser directed at any government entity for a period of four years
following any qualifying contribution by the member firm. In addition,
NASAA stated that if a member firm has engaged in solicitation or
distribution activities with a government entity on behalf of an
investment adviser, the member firm should be prohibited from making
any qualifying contributions to that government entity for a period of
four years following the conclusion of the solicitation or distribution
activities. FINRA has declined to make NASAA's suggested changes. The
proposed two-year time out is consistent with the time-out period in
the SEC's Pay-to-Play Rule, and FINRA believes that a two-year time out
from the date of a contribution is sufficient to discourage covered
members from engaging in pay-to-play practices.
1. Government Entity
    Government entities would include all state and local governments,
their agencies and instrumentalities, and all public pension plans and
other collective government funds, including participant-directed plans
such as 403(b),\92\ 457,\93\ and 529 \94\ plans. CAI urged FINRA or the
SEC to provide additional guidance as to the criteria for determining
whether an entity is an ``instrumentality'' under the proposed rule.
CAI noted that its members have struggled to understand the contours of
this term in the context of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule. As stated in
Regulatory Notice 14-50 and above, the definition of a ``government
entity'' is consistent with the definition of that term in the SEC Pay-
to-Play Rule. The SEC has not provided additional guidance regarding

the meaning of the term ``instrumentality'' in connection with its Pay-
to-Play Rule. Thus, at this time, FINRA declines to provide additional
guidance as part of the proposed rule. FINRA recognizes, however, the
concerns raised by CAI and will continue to discuss with the industry
interpretive questions relating to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See supra note 28.
    \93\ See supra note 29.
    \94\ See supra note 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Solicitation
    Consistent with Regulatory Notice 14-50, the proposed pay-to-play
rule defines the term ``solicit'' to mean, with respect to investment
advisory services, ``to communicate, directly or indirectly, for the
purpose of obtaining or retaining a client for, or referring a client
to, an investment adviser'' and, with respect to a contribution or
payment, ``to communicate, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of
obtaining or arranging a contribution or payment.'' \95\ CAI sought
confirmation that the proposed rule would not apply when a covered
member communicates with a third party and has no intent to obtain a
client for, or refer a client to, an investment adviser (in the context
of investment advisory services) and there is no intent to obtain or
arrange a contribution or payment (in the context of contributions to
officials of government entities and payments to political parties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Proposed Rule 2030(g)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Regulatory Notice 14-50 and above, the determination
of whether a particular communication is a solicitation for investment
advisory services or a contribution or payment would be dependent upon
the specific facts and circumstances relating to such communication. As
a general proposition, if there is no intent to obtain a client for, or
refer a client to, an investment adviser (in the context of investment
advisory services) or to obtain or arrange a contribution or payment
(in the context of contributions to officials of government entities
and payments to political parties), FINRA would not consider the
communication to be a solicitation.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See supra notes 18 and 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Investment Advisers
    The proposed pay-to-play rule would apply to covered members acting
on behalf of any investment adviser registered (or required to be
registered) with the SEC, or unregistered in reliance on the exemption
available under Section 203(b)(3) of the Advisers Act for foreign
private advisers, or that is an exempt reporting adviser under Advisers
Act Rule 204-4(a).\97\ NASAA and 3PM suggested that FINRA expand the
definition of ``investment adviser'' to include state-registered
investment advisers, stating, among other things, that it would further
reduce the disruptions created by pay-to-play schemes. To remain
consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, FINRA has determined not to
expand the scope of the proposed rule as suggested by commenters. FINRA
notes that the SEC declined to make a similar change to its proposed
rule, stating that it is their understanding that few of these smaller
firms manage public pension plans or other similar funds.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See proposed Rule 2030(g)(7).
    \98\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Covered Associates/Executive Officers
    A ``covered associate'' includes any general partner, managing
member or executive officer of a covered member, or other individual
with a similar status or function.\99\ SIFMA requested that FINRA
define the term ``executive officer'' for purposes of the proposed
rule. Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule and for purposes of the
FINRA pay-to-play rule only, FINRA has added proposed Rule 2030(g)(5)
to define an ``executive officer of a covered member'' to mean: ``(A)
The president; (B) Any vice president in charge of a principal business
unit, division or function (such as sales, administration or finance);
(C) Any other officer of the covered member who performs a policy-
making function; or (D) Any other person who performs similar policy-
making functions for the covered member.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See supra note 37 (defining the term ``covered
associate'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A covered associate also would include a PAC controlled by the
covered member or any of its covered associates. FSI asserted that the
restrictions on PAC contributions, and the definition of ``control''
with respect to covered associates are vague and potentially over-
broad. For example, FSI stated that ``[i]t is unclear whether an
employee or executive of a member firm that holds a position on a PAC
board of directors or other advisory committee would have `control' of
the PAC under the Proposed Rules. It would also cover PACs that are not
connected to the employee or executive's member firm.'' As stated in
Regulatory Notice 14-50 and above, FINRA would consider a covered
member or its covered associates to have ``control'' over a PAC if the
covered member or covered associate has the ability to direct or cause
the direction of governance or operations of the PAC. This position is
consistent with the position taken by the SEC in connection with the
SEC Pay-to-Play Rule.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41032 (discussing PACs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Distribution
a. Inclusion of Distribution Activities
    Consistent with Regulatory Notice 14-50, proposed Rule 2030(a)
would impose a two-year time out on engaging in distribution or
solicitation activities for compensation with a government entity on
behalf of an investment adviser after the covered member or its covered
associates makes a contribution to an official of the government
entity. Some commenters questioned the meaning of the term
``distribution'' in the context of the proposed rule. For example,
SIFMA stated that it is their understanding ``that the phrase
`distribution and solicitation,' as used in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule,
is interpreted to mean `the solicitation of investment advisory
services.' '' CAI stated that ``[s]ince the term `distribution' has no
meaning in the context of an investment adviser and is inconsistent
with the personal nature of the services provided by investment
advisers, [it] strongly recommends that FINRA eliminate each and every
reference to the word `distribution' throughout the Notice and the
Proposed Rules. . . . [I]t is not clear what activity the term
`distribution' is meant to cover that is not captured by the term
`solicitation.' ''
    The SEC Pay-to-Play Rule prohibits an investment adviser and its
covered associates from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or
indirectly, payment to any person to solicit a government entity for
investment advisory services on behalf of the investment adviser unless
the person is a ``regulated person.'' \101\ The SEC Pay-to-Play Rule
defines a ``regulated person'' to include a member firm, provided that
FINRA rules prohibit member firms from engaging in distribution or
solicitation activities if political contributions have been made.\102\
Thus, the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule requires FINRA to have a rule that
prohibits member firms from engaging in distribution (as well as
solicitation) activities if political contributions have been made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(a)(2).
    \102\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(f)(9)(ii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Language in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release further
supports the inclusion of distribution activities by broker-dealers in
a FINRA pay-to-play rule. For example, when discussing comments related
to its proposed ban on using third parties to solicit government
business, the SEC addressed

commenters' concerns that the provision would interfere with
traditional distribution arrangements of mutual funds and private funds
by broker-dealers, by clarifying under what circumstances distribution
payments would violate the SEC's Pay-to-Play Rule.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41040 n.298 (stating that ``[m]utual fund distribution fees are
typically paid by the fund pursuant to a 12b-1 plan, and therefore
generally would not constitute payment by the fund's adviser. As a
result, such payments would not be prohibited [under the SEC Pay-to-
Play Rule] by its terms. Where an adviser pays for the fund's
distribution out of its `legitimate profits,' however, the rule
would generally be implicated. . . . For private funds, third
parties are often compensated by the adviser or its affiliated
general partner and, therefore, those payments are subject to the
rule.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the SEC's definition of ``regulated person'' as well as
its discussion regarding the treatment of distribution fees paid
pursuant to a 12b-1 plan, FINRA believes its proposed rule must apply
to member firms engaging in distribution activities. Accordingly, FINRA
has not revised the proposed rule to remove references to the term
``distribution.'' \104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ In addition, FINRA notes that many of the concerns raised
by commenters in connection with including distribution activities
in the proposed rule related to the additional burden associated
with the proposed disclosure requirements and such activities. As
discussed further below, FINRA has determined not to propose a
disclosure rule relating to government distribution and solicitation
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Scope of Distribution Activities
    ICI requested confirmation that, with respect to mutual funds, the
proposed rule would be triggered only when a member firm solicits a
government entity to include a mutual fund in a government entity's
plan or program and not when the member is selling mutual fund shares
to a government entity. FSI asked for clarification with respect to the
treatment of traditional brokerage activities by a financial advisor as
``distribution or solicitation activities'' in the context of
government entity plans.
    As discussed above, the proposed pay-to-play rule would apply to
distribution activities by covered members. FINRA notes, however, that
based on the definition of a ``covered investment pool,'' the proposed
rule would not apply to distribution activities related to registered
investment companies that are not investment options of a government
entity's plan or program.\105\ Thus, the proposed rule would apply to
distribution activities involving unregistered pooled investment
vehicles such as hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital
funds, and collective investment trusts, and registered pooled
investment vehicles such as mutual funds, but only if those registered
pools are an investment option of a participant-directed plan or
program of a government entity.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Proposed Rule 2030(g)(3) defines a ``covered investment
pool'' to mean: ``(A) Any investment company registered under the
Investment Company Act that is an investment option of a plan or
program of a government entity, or (B) Any company that would be an
investment company under Section 3(a) of the Investment Company Act
but for the exclusion provided from that definition by either
Section 3(c)(1), 3(c)(7) or 3(c)(11) of that Act.''
    \106\ Although the proposed rule would not apply to distribution
activities relating to all registered pooled investment vehicles,
FINRA notes the language of proposed Rule 2030(e) that ``[i]t shall
be a violation of this Rule for any covered member or any of its
covered associates to do anything indirectly that, if done directly,
would result in a violation of this Rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAI requested clarification that ``compensation'' in the context of
covered investment pools does not include conventional compensation
arrangements for the distribution of mutual funds, variable annuity
contracts and other securities included within the definition of
``covered investment pool.'' Consistent with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule,
to the extent the mutual fund distribution fees are paid by the fund
pursuant to a 12b-1 plan, such payments would not be prohibited under
the proposed rule as they would not constitute payments by the fund's
investment adviser. If, however, the adviser pays for the fund's
distribution out of its ``legitimate profits,'' the proposed rule would
generally be implicated.\107\ For private funds, third parties are
often compensated by the investment adviser or its affiliated general
partner. Thus, such payments would be subject to the proposed rule. In
addition, FINRA notes that structuring such a payment to come from the
private fund for purposes of evading the rule would violate the
rule.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ For a discussion of a mutual fund adviser's ability to use
``legitimate profits'' for fund distribution, see Investment Company
Act of 1940 Release No. 11414 (Oct. 28, 1980), 45 FR 73898 (Nov. 7,
1980) (Bearing of Distribution Expenses by Mutual Funds)
(explaining, in the context of the prohibition on the indirect use
of fund assets for distribution, unless pursuant to a 12b-1 plan,
``[h]owever, under the rule there is no indirect use of fund assets
if an adviser makes distribution related payments out of its own
resources. . . . Profits which are legitimate or not excessive are
simply those which are derived from an advisory contract which does
not result in a breach of fiduciary duty under section 36 of the
[Investment Company] Act.'').
    \108\ See also SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR
41018, 41040 n.298 and accompanying text. CAI also asked FINRA to
consider afresh the SEC's position in its Pay-to-Play Rule that
payments originating with an investment adviser should be treated as
a payment for solicitation, regardless of the purpose or context for
the payment. As discussed above, for purposes of the proposed rule,
FINRA is taking a position consistent with the SEC's position in its
Pay-to-Play Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Prohibitions as Applied to Covered Investment Pools

1. General
    In Regulatory Notice 14-50, proposed Rule 2390(e) (now proposed as
Rule 2030(d)) provided that a covered member that engages in
distribution or solicitation activities with a government entity on
behalf of an investment adviser to a covered investment pool in which a
government entity invests or is solicited to invest shall be treated as
though the covered member was engaging in or seeking to engage in
distribution or solicitation activities with the government entity on
behalf of the investment adviser directly. CAI raised concerns
regarding the application of the prohibitions of the proposed rule to
covered investment pools stating, among other things, ``that a broker-
dealer that offers and sells interests in a mutual fund or private fund
cannot be characterized as soliciting on behalf of the investment
adviser to a covered investment pool.'' CAI reasoned that ``[t]here is
no basis for this notion given the [SEC] staff's interpretation in the
Mayer Brown no-action letter and the Goldstein case . . ., as well as
the lack of any relationship between the selling firm and the
investment adviser.'' \109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See Goldstein v. SEC, 451 F.3d 873 (D.C. Cir. 2006) and
Mayer Brown LLP, SEC No-Action Letter (``Mayer Brown letter''),
available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/2008/mayerbrown072808-206.htm#P15_323. In Goldstein, the court held that
the SEC's ``Hedge Fund Rule,'' which would have given the SEC
greater oversight over hedge funds, was invalid because it was
arbitrary and in conflict with the purpose of the underlying statute
in which the new rule was included. The court concluded that hedge
fund investors are not clients of fund advisers for the purpose of
the Adviser's Act registration requirement.
    In the Mayer Brown letter, SEC staff stated that Rule 206(4)-3
generally does not apply to a registered investment adviser's cash
payment to a person solely to compensate that person for soliciting
investors or prospective investors for, or referring investors or
prospective investors to, an investment pool managed by the adviser.
The letter distinguishes between a person referring other persons to
the adviser where the adviser manages only investment pools and is
not seeking to enter into advisory relationships with these other
persons (but rather the other persons will be investors or
prospective investors in one or more of the investment pools managed
by the adviser), versus referring other persons as prospective
advisory clients. The letter notes that whether the rule applies
will depend on the facts and circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering CAI's concerns, FINRA has modified the language
of the proposed rule to recognize the relationship between the selling
member and the covered investment

pool, but also to clarify that for purposes of the proposed rule, a
covered member engaging in distribution or solicitation activities on
behalf of a covered investment pool in which a government entity
invests or is solicited to invest shall be treated as though the
covered member was engaging in, or seeking to engage in, distribution
or solicitation activities with the government entity on behalf of the
investment adviser to the covered investment pool directly.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See proposed Rule 2030(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Regulatory Notice 14-50, proposed Rule 2390(e) (now
proposed as Rule 2030(d)) was modeled on a similar provision in the SEC
Pay-to-Play Rule, Rule 206(4)-5(c),\111\ and was intended to extend the
protections of the proposed rule to government entities that access the
services of investment advisers through hedge funds and other types of
pooled investment vehicles sponsored or advised by investment
advisers.\112\ As noted by CAI, however, FINRA recognizes that without
a provision corresponding more closely to SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-
5(c), there is nothing in the proposed rule that deems an investment
adviser to a covered investment pool to have a direct investment
advisory relationship with government entities investing in the pool.
CAI noted that: ``Without such a provision, proposed rule 2390(e) would
not apply the two year time out restriction in proposed rule 2390(a) to
advisers to [covered investment pools]. This is because proposed Rule
2390(a) would only apply where an investment adviser `provides or is
seeking to provide investment advisory services to such government
entity.' ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(c) provides that ``an
investment adviser to a covered investment pool in which a
government entity invests or is solicited to invest shall be treated
as though that investment adviser were providing or seeking to
provide investment advisory services directly to the government
entity.''
    \112\ In adopting this provision, the SEC noted a commenter's
questioning of its authority to apply the rule in the context of
covered investment pools in light of the opinion of the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Goldstein case.
See supra note 109. The SEC concluded, however, that it has
authority to adopt rules proscribing fraudulent conduct that is
potentially harmful to investors in pooled investment vehicles
pursuant to Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and, therefore,
adopted SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(c) as proposed. See SEC Pay-
to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018, 41045 n.355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, FINRA has modified the proposed rule to include
proposed Rule 2030(d)(2) that provides that for purposes of the
proposed rule ``an investment adviser to a covered investment pool in
which a government entity invests or is solicited to invest shall be
treated as though that investment adviser were providing or seeking to
provide investment advisory services directly to the government
entity.''
2. Two-Tiered Investment Products
    CAI sought confirmation from FINRA that the proposed pay-to-play
rule would not apply in the context of two-tiered investment products,
such as variable annuities. CAI asserted, among other things, that
``[o]rdinarily, there is no investment adviser providing investment
advisory services to the separate account supporting the variable
annuity contract, although there are investment advisers providing
investment advisory services to the underlying mutual funds or
unregistered investment pools.'' CAI requested clarification that a
covered member selling two-tiered investment products is not engaging
in solicitation activities on behalf of the investment adviser and sub-
advisers managing the underlying funds. FINRA notes that the SEC did
not exclude specific products from the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule and,
therefore, FINRA has determined not to exclude specific products from
its proposed rule.

C. Disgorgement

    In Regulatory Notice 14-50, FINRA proposed a ``disgorgement''
provision that, among other things, would have required that the
covered member pay, in the order listed, any compensation or other
remuneration received by the covered member pertaining to, or arising
from, distribution or solicitation activities during the two-year time
out to: (A) A covered investment pool in which the government entity
was solicited to invest, as applicable; (B) the government entity; (C)
any appropriate entity designated in writing by the government entity
if the government entity or covered investment pool cannot receive such
payments; or (D) the FINRA Investor Education Foundation, if the
government entity or covered investment pool cannot receive such
payments and the government entity cannot or does not designate in
writing any other appropriate entity.
    NASAA expressed support for FINRA's inclusion of a disgorgement
provision for violations of the proposed rule. Most commenters,
however, opposed the requirement.\113\ SIFMA stated that ``[w]hile
disgorgement is the almost universal remedy for violations of various
pay-to-play rules, . . . making application of the remedy mandatory
could have the deleterious effect of dissuading covered members from
voluntary disgorgement of fees where such members discover pay-to-play
violations themselves.'' ICI stated that ``including disgorgement as a
penalty is not necessary given that the SEC and FINRA both have full
authority to require disgorgement of fees, and indeed, disgorgement has
been the penalty universally applied (along with additional penalties)
in enforcement actions under existing pay-to-play rules, such as MSRB
Rule G-37 and SEC Rule 206(4)-5.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See, e.g., SIFMA, CAI and ICI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments and, in particular, that FINRA has
authority to require disgorgement of fees in enforcement actions, FINRA
has determined not to include a disgorgement requirement in the
proposed rule.

D. Prohibition on Soliciting and Coordinating Contributions

    Consistent with Regulatory Notice 14-50, proposed Rule 2030(b)
would prohibit a covered member or covered associate from coordinating
or soliciting any person or PAC to make any: (1) Contribution to an
official of a government entity in respect of which the covered member
is engaging in, or seeking to engage in, distribution or solicitation
activities on behalf of an investment adviser; or (2) payment to a
political party of a state or locality of a government entity with
which the covered member is engaging in, or seeking to engage in,
distribution or solicitation activities on behalf of an investment
adviser. As stated in Regulatory Notice 14-50 and above, this provision
is modeled on a similar provision in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAI sought confirmation that the proposed prohibition on soliciting
and coordinating contributions would not apply when a contribution is
made to a political action committee, political party or other third
party, where there is no knowledge or indication of how such
contribution will be used. Similar to guidance provided in the context
of SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(a)(2), FINRA notes that a direct
contribution to a political party by a covered member or its covered
associates would not violate the proposed rule unless the contribution
was a means for the covered member to do indirectly what the rule would
prohibit if done directly (for example, if the contribution was
earmarked or known to be provided for the benefit of a particular
government official).\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See also SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR
41018, 41044 n.337.

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

E. Direct or Indirect Contributions or Solicitations

    Consistent with Regulatory Notice 14-50, proposed Rule 2030(e)
provides that it shall be a violation of the proposed pay-to-play rule
for any covered member or any of its covered associates to do anything
indirectly that, if done directly, would result in a violation of the
rule. CAI requested that FINRA incorporate a knowledge and support
requirement into this provision of the proposed rule so that it would
be violated only if a covered member has direct knowledge of, and takes
measures to aid and support, activities undertaken by its affiliates.
As stated in Regulatory Notice 14-50 and above, this provision is
modeled on SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(d). Consistent with guidance
provided by the SEC in connection with that provision, FINRA has
clarified that it would require a showing of intent to circumvent the
rule for a covered member or its covered associates funneling payments
through a third party to trigger the two-year time out.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41044 n.340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Exceptions

    In Regulatory Notice 14-50, FINRA included exceptions to the
prohibition in the proposed pay-to-play rule for de minimis
contributions and returned contributions. CAI and CCP stated that they
believe that the $350 and $150 de minimis contribution limits are
unreasonably low. CAI stated that it believes the $350 amount for
returned contributions is unnecessary because ``[i]f the contribution
is returned as is required under the exception, then no harm will
result as both the contributor and contributee are placed in the same
position they would have been in had no contribution been made.''
    FINRA has determined not to modify the proposed exceptions. As
stated in Regulatory Notice 14-50 and above, the exceptions are modeled
on similar exceptions in the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule for de minimis
contributions and returned contributions.\117\ Moreover, FINRA believes
that it is necessary to keep the amounts at the levels as proposed in
Regulatory Notice 14-50 to meet the requirement in the SEC Pay-to-Play
Rule that the restrictions in FINRA's rule must be substantially
equivalent to, or more stringent than, the restrictions in the SEC Pay-
to-Play Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule 206(4)-5(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Recordkeeping Requirements
A. Unsuccessful Solicitations
    Proposed Rule 4580 would require covered members that engage in
distribution or solicitation activities with a government entity on
behalf of any investment adviser that provides or is seeking to provide
investment advisory services to such government entity to maintain
books and records that would allow FINRA to examine for compliance with
its proposed pay-to-play rule. SIFMA requested that FINRA not extend
the recordkeeping requirements to unsuccessful solicitations where the
covered member does not receive compensation because maintaining such
records would impose significant costs on covered members with little
corresponding benefit. \118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See also CAI, 3PM and FSI (requesting that FINRA not apply
the proposed recordkeeping requirements to unsuccessful
solicitations of government entities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA intends that the recordkeeping requirements of proposed Rule
4580 be consistent with similar recordkeeping requirements imposed on
investment advisers in connection with the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule.\119\
The SEC does not require investment advisers to maintain lists of
government entities that do not become clients.\120\ Accordingly, FINRA
has added the term ``for compensation'' to proposed Rule 4580(a)(3) to
clarify that the proposed Rule would not apply to unsuccessful
solicitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See Advisers Act Rule 204-2(a)(18) and (h)(1).
    \120\ See SEC Pay-to-Play Rule Adopting Release, 75 FR 41018,
41050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Indirect Contributions
    Consistent with Regulatory Notice 14-50, proposed Rule 4580(a)(4)
would require a covered member to maintain books and records of all
direct and indirect contributions made by the covered member or any of
its covered associates to an official of a government entity, or direct
or indirect payments to a political party of a state or political
subdivision thereof or to a PAC. 3PM requested that FINRA eliminate the
requirement to maintain a list of indirect contributions, arguing that
``requiring firms to . . . track and monitor indirect contributions
could become extremely time consuming and costly for firms.'' CAI
asserted that not all payments to political parties or PACs should have
to be maintained. Instead, CAI stated that only payments to political
parties or PACs where the covered member or covered associate: (i)
Directs the political party or PAC to make a contribution to an
official of a government entity which the covered member is soliciting
on behalf of an investment adviser, or (ii) knows that the political
party or PAC is going to make a contribution to an official of a
government entity which the covered member is soliciting on behalf of
an investment adviser, should have to be maintained.
    As stated in the Regulatory Notice and above, the proposed
recordkeeping requirements are intended to allow FINRA to examine for
compliance with its proposed pay-to-play rule. Thus, the reference to
indirect contributions in proposed Rule 4580(a)(4) is intended to
include records of contributions or payments a covered member solicits
or coordinates another person or PAC to make under proposed Rule
2030(b) (Prohibition on Soliciting and Coordinating
Contributions).\121\ In addition, payments to political parties or PACs
can be a means for a covered member or covered associate to funnel
contributions to a government official without directly contributing.
Thus, FINRA is proposing to require a covered member to maintain a
record of all payments to political parties or PACs as such records
would assist FINRA in identifying situations that might suggest an
intent to circumvent the rule.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ This interpretation is consistent with the SEC's
interpretation of a similar provision in Advisers Act Rule 204-
2(a)(18)(i).
    \122\ ICI stated that if FINRA applies the requirements of
proposed Rule 4580(a)(4) to a member firm holding an omnibus account
on behalf of another broker-dealer that solicited a government
entity, and the omnibus dealer is unaware of the broker-dealer's
solicitation activities, the omnibus dealer will likely be unable to
maintain records required by proposed Rule 4580. As a potential way
in which to address this concern, ICI referenced an SEC staff no-
action relief letter that addresses a similar concern regarding the
recordkeeping requirements related to the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule. See
ICI referencing Investment Company Institute, SEC No-Action Letter
dated September 12, 2011, available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/2011/ici091211-204-incoming.pdf. FINRA
recognizes the concern raised by ICI and will address interpretive
questions as needed regarding the application of the proposed
recordkeeping requirements to covered members holding omnibus
accounts on behalf of other broker-dealers that engage in
distribution or solicitation activities with government entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Disclosure Requirements
    In Regulatory Notice 14-50, FINRA proposed Rule 2271 to require a
covered member engaging in distribution or solicitation activities for
compensation with a government entity on behalf of one or more
investment advisers to make specified disclosures to the government
entity regarding each investment adviser. Several commenters raised
concerns regarding the proposed disclosure requirements.\123\ For

example, commenters raised concerns regarding the scope and timing of
the disclosure requirements \124\ and that the requirements would be
duplicative of existing federal and state investor protection-related
disclosure requirements.\125\ In addition, commenters raised concerns
regarding the costs and compliance burdens associated with the proposed
disclosure requirements.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See, e.g., SIFMA, Monument Group, ICI, IAA, FSI, CAI and
3PM.
    \124\ See, e.g., SIFMA, Monument Group, ICI, IAA, CAI and 3PM.
    \125\ See, e.g., SIFMA, Monument Group and FSI.
    \126\ See, e.g., SIFMA, Monument Group and 3PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, FINRA has determined not to propose
a disclosure rule at this time. FINRA will continue to consider whether
such a rule would be appropriate. If FINRA determines to propose a
disclosure rule at a later date, it would do so pursuant to FINRA's
notice and comment rulemaking process.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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-FINRA-2015-056 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-056. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2015-056 and should be
submitted on or before January 20, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32894 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P