[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16466-16471]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06993]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74564; File No. SR-MSRB-2015-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Proposed Amendments to the MSRB Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures, and the
Real-Time Transaction Reporting System and Subscription Service

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

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

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

    The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of proposed amendments to the MSRB Rule G-14 RTRS
Procedures, and the Real-Time Transaction Reporting System and
subscription service (collectively, the ``proposed rule change''). The
MSRB is proposing that the effective date for the proposed rule change
be no later than May 23, 2016 and announced by the MSRB in a notice
published on the MSRB Web site no later than sixty (60) days prior to
the effective date.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2015-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    MSRB Rule G-14, on reports of sales or purchases, requires brokers,
dealers and municipal securities dealers (collectively ``dealers'') to
report all executed transactions in municipal securities to RTRS within
15 minutes of the time of trade, with limited exceptions.\3\ RTRS
serves the dual objectives of price transparency and market
surveillance. Because a comprehensive database of transactions is
needed for the surveillance function of RTRS, Rule G-14, with limited
exceptions, requires dealers to report all of their purchase-sale
transactions to RTRS, not only those that qualify for public
dissemination to serve the transparency function of the system.\4\ The
MSRB makes transaction data available to the general public through the
Electronic Municipal Market Access (``EMMA'') Web site at no cost, and
disseminates such data through paid subscription services to market
data vendors, institutional market participants and others that
subscribe to the data feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Transactions in securities without CUSIP numbers, in
municipal fund securities, and certain inter-dealer securities
movements not eligible for comparison through a clearing agency are
the only transactions exempt from the reporting requirements of Rule
G-14.
    \4\ In this respect, RTRS serves as an audit trail for municipal
securities trading, with the exception of certain internal movements
of securities within dealers that currently are not required to be
reported, customer identifications, and other related specific items
of information. Compare Consolidated Audit Trail, Release No. 34-
67457 (July 18, 2012), 77 FR 45722 (August 1, 2012), File No. S7-11-
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As more fully described below, the proposed rule change would
enhance the post-trade price transparency information provided through
RTRS by:
     Expanding the application of the existing list offering
price and takedown indicator to cases involving distribution
participant dealers and takedown transactions that are not at a
discount from the list offering price;
     eliminating the requirement for dealers to report yield on
customer trade reports and, instead, enabling the MSRB to calculate and
disseminate yield on customer trades;
     establishing a new indicator for customer trades involving
non-transaction-based compensation arrangements; and
     establishing a new indicator for alternative trading
system (``ATS'') transactions.
Expanding the Application of Existing List Offering Price and RTRS
Takedown Indicator
    Transaction reporting procedures require dealers that are part of
the underwriting group for a new issuance of municipal securities to
include an indicator on trade reports, which indicator is disseminated
to the public, for transactions executed on the first day of trading in
a new issue with prices set under an offering agreement for the new
issue. These transactions include sales to customers by a sole
underwriter, syndicate manager, syndicate member or selling group
member at the published list offering price for the security (``List
Offering Price Transaction'') or by a sole underwriter or syndicate
manager to a syndicate or selling group member at a discount from the
published list offering price for the security (``RTRS Takedown
Transaction''). Such trade reports are provided an end-of-day exception
from Rule G-14's general 15-minute reporting requirement.
    Since the introduction of the List Offering Price Transaction
indicator in 2005 and RTRS Takedown Transaction indicator in 2007,
certain market practices in this area have evolved. First, outside of
traditional underwriting syndicates or selling groups, some dealers
have entered into long-term marketing arrangements with other dealers
that serve in the syndicate or selling group relating to purchases and
re-sales of new issue securities

(``distribution participant dealers''). The MSRB understands that these
distribution participant dealers agree to execute transactions with
customers at the published list offering prices. Accordingly, the
proposed rule change would expand the application of List Offering
Price Transaction and RTRS Takedown Transaction indicators to sale
transactions by distribution participant dealers to customers at the
list offering price and sale transactions by a sole underwriter or
syndicate manager to distribution participant dealers.
    A second evolution in market practice in this area relates to the
prices at which takedown transactions occur. The RTRS Takedown
Transaction indicator currently is limited to inter-dealer transactions
occurring at a discount from the published list offering price. The
MSRB understands that, in some new issues, transactions between a sole
underwriter or syndicate manager to a syndicate member, selling group
member or distribution participant dealer are not executed at a
discount from the published list offering price or at the full takedown
amount. This typically occurs in the case of group net or net
designated order arrangements. The proposed rule change expands the
application of the RTRS Takedown Transaction indicator to any sale
transaction by a sole underwriter or syndicate manager to a syndicate
member, selling group member or distribution participant dealer on the
first day of trading in the new issue.
Eliminating the Requirement for Dealers To Report Yield on Customer
Trade Reports
    Transaction reporting procedures currently require dealers to
include on most reports of customer transactions to RTRS both a dollar
price and yield.\5\ The yield required to be reported to RTRS for
customer trades is consistent with the yield required to be displayed
on a customer confirmation under Rule G-15(a), which requires that
yield be computed to the lower of an ``in whole'' call or maturity,
subject to certain requirements set forth in the rule for specific
special situations (generally referred to as the ``yield to worst'').
Rule G-15(a) requires the confirmation to include the date to which
yield is calculated if that date is other than the nominal maturity
date, and also requires the confirmation for a transaction effected
based on a yield other than yield to worst to include both yields.
Since April 30, 2012, the MSRB has calculated and included in
disseminated RTRS information the yield on inter-dealer trades computed
in the same manner as required for customer trades.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For inter-dealer transactions, dealers report the dollar
price at which the transaction was effected and the MSRB calculates
and includes in disseminated information the corresponding yield.
    \6\ See ``SEC Approves Amendments to MSRB Rule G-14, on Reports
of Sales or Purchases, Including Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures, and
Amendments to the Real-Time Transaction Reporting System,'' MSRB
Notice 2012-15 (March 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would eliminate the requirement for
dealers to include yield on customer trade reports.\7\ Consistent with
the manner in which the MSRB calculates and includes in disseminated
RTRS information yield on inter-dealer trades, the MSRB would calculate
and disseminate yield on customer trade reports.\8\ This would remove
one aspect of a dealer's burden in reporting customer transactions to
the MSRB in compliance with MSRB Rule G-14 \9\ and ensure that the
calculation and dissemination of yields for both inter-dealer and
customer transactions are consistent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This change is anticipated to also have the benefit of
alleviating particular operational concerns cited by dealers in
connection with reporting certain ``away from market'' trade
reports.
    \8\ Note that dealers would continue to be able to report that a
when, as and if issued transaction was executed on the basis of
yield in the event that the settlement date is not known at the time
the trade is executed, which prevents an accurate calculation of the
corresponding dollar price to be performed.
    \9\ RTRS currently performs price/yield calculations, compares
RTRS-computed values to dealer-reported values, and returns errors
to dealers when discrepancies are found. This results in dealers
researching and responding to such errors which, in many cases, are
the results of differences in vendor-provided security descriptive
information utilized by dealers and RTRS. By removing the
requirement to include yield on customer trade reports, the proposed
rule change would have the effect of eliminating these errors. In
addition, in the case of transactions arising from customer
repurchase agreements, the proposed rule change would eliminate the
burden on dealers of calculating for trade reporting purposes a
yield consistent with the requirements of Rule G-15(a), which the
MSRB understands presents operational challenges given that this
represents a different calculation from the calculation used to
determine the yield resulting from the terms of the repurchase
agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishing a New Indicator for Customer Trades Involving Non-
Transaction-Based Compensation Arrangements
    For principal transactions by dealers, the trade price reported to
and publicly disseminated by the MSRB includes all aspects of the
price, including any mark-up or mark-down that compensates the dealer
for executing the transaction. In agency transactions, dealers are
required to report to the MSRB both the price of the security and the
commission charged to the customer. The prices publicly disseminated
for agency transactions incorporate the reported commission to provide
for comparability with the prices for principal trades. However,
dealers effecting transactions with customers as part of an arrangement
that does not provide for dealer compensation to be paid on a
transaction-based basis, such as in certain wrap fee arrangements,
report to the MSRB transaction prices that do not include a
compensation component.
    To distinguish in the transaction information disseminated publicly
between customer transactions that do not include a dealer compensation
component and those that include a mark-up or mark-down or a
commission, the proposed rule change would require dealers to include a
new indicator on their trade reports that would be disseminated
publicly. This would improve the usefulness of the transaction
information disseminated publicly by enabling users of the price
transparency information to distinguish those customer transactions
that do not include a dealer compensation component.
Establishing a New Indicator for ATS Transactions
    Dealers may use a variety of means to transact in municipal
securities, including broker's brokers or ATSs as well as traditional
direct transactions with a known counterparty. The MSRB currently
identifies all transactions reported as having been executed by a
broker's broker in the transaction information disseminated publicly.
This identifier is applied based on the broker's broker informing the
MSRB that it acts in such capacity. The MSRB does not currently
identify trades as having been executed through an ATS.
    To better ascertain the extent to which ATSs are used in the
municipal market and to indicate to market participants on disseminated
transaction information that an ATS was used, the proposed rule change
would establish an additional new indicator. For those ATSs that take a
principal position between a buyer and seller, the ATS and the dealers
that transact with the ATS would be required to include the ATS
indicator on trade reports. In instances where an ATS connects a buyer
and seller but does not take a principal or agency position between
those parties and therefore does not have a transaction reporting
requirement under MSRB rules, the dealers that transact with each other
as a result of using the services of the ATS would be required to
include the ATS indicator on their trade reports. In all cases, the ATS
indicator would be included on transaction information

disseminated publicly. Identifying in disseminated transaction
information that an ATS was employed should facilitate higher quality
research and analysis of market structure by providing information
about the extent to which ATSs are used and should complement the
existing indicator disseminated for transactions involving a broker's
broker.
Effective Date of the Proposed Rule Change
    To provide time for the MSRB to undertake the programming changes
to implement the proposed rule change, as well as to provide an
adequate testing period for dealers and subscribers that interface with
RTRS, the MSRB is proposing an effective date for the proposed rule
change to be announced by the MSRB in a notice published on the MSRB
Web site, which date shall be no later than May 23, 2016 and shall be
announced no later than sixty (60) days prior to the effective date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act, which provides that the MSRB's rules
shall:

be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, and, in general, to protect investors,
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act. The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in
municipal securities by increasing the quality and usefulness of the
post-trade price transparency information provided through RTRS. The
MSRB believes the expansion of the application of the existing list
offering price and takedown indicator to cases involving distribution
participant dealers and takedown transactions that are not at a
discount from the list offering price, establishment of a new indicator
for customer trades involving non-transaction-based compensation
arrangements, and establishment of a new indicator for ATS transactions
would enable users of the post-trade price transparency information
provided through RTRS to better understand the pricing of certain
transactions as well as how such transactions were executed. As
previously noted, identifying in disseminated transaction information
that an ATS was employed should facilitate higher quality research and
analysis of market structure by providing information about the extent
to which ATSs are used and should complement the existing indicator
disseminated for transactions involving a broker's broker. Accordingly,
the proposed rule change would contribute to the MSRB's continuing
efforts to improve market transparency and to protect investors,
municipal entities, obligated persons and the public interest.

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

    The MSRB does not believe the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. Information disseminated by RTRS is available
to all persons on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. In addition to
making the information available for free on the EMMA web portal to all
members of the public, the MSRB makes the information collected by RTRS
available by subscription on an equal and non-discriminatory basis
without imposing restrictions on subscribers from, or imposing
additional charges on subscribers for, re-disseminating such
information or otherwise providing value-added services and products to
third parties based on such information on terms determined by each
subscriber.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The MSRB notes that subscribers may be subject to
proprietary rights of third parties in information provided by such
third parties that is made available through the subscription.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB recognizes that the proposed rule change would impose a
burden on dealers and subscribers that interface with RTRS to comply
with the reporting and dissemination of the new indicators that would
be required by the proposed rule change. The MSRB solicited and
received comment on several potential burdens of the proposed rule
change and the specific comments and responses thereto are discussed
below.\11\ The MSRB plans to provide a six month testing period in
advance of the effective date. The MSRB believes that a six month
testing period in advance of the effective date would provide dealers
and subscribers with sufficient time to make any required changes in
due course without causing adverse disruptions to their information
technology plans or budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Request for Comment on Enhancements to Post-Trade
Transaction Data Disseminated Through a New Central Transparency
Platform,'' MSRB Notice 2014-14 (August 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On January 17, 2013, the MSRB provided background information on
the MSRB's initiative under the Long-Range Plan \12\ to refresh the
technology of RTRS and sought public comment on the appropriate
standard for ``real-time'' reporting and dissemination of transaction
price and related information, as well as on baseline technology,
processing and data protocols for post-trade transaction information
(``January Release'').\13\ On July 31, 2013, the MSRB sought public
comment on enhancements to data elements disseminated publicly through
RTRS (``July Release'').\14\ Based upon the comments received in
response to the January and July Releases, the MSRB identified specific
enhancements to RTRS and solicited on August 13, 2014 public input on
the specific components of the post-trade reporting and public
dissemination enhancements as well as on the likely benefits and
burdens associated with the potential enhancements (``August
Release'').\15\ The MSRB received comments on the January Release from
fifteen commenters,\16\ on the July Release from

nine commenters,\17\ and on the August Release from seven
commenters.\18\ The portions of these notices relating to the proposed
rule change, the comments received in response to such portions, and
the MSRB's responses are discussed below.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ``MSRB Publishes Long-Range Market Transparency Plan,''
MSRB Notice 2012-06 (February 23, 2012).
    \13\ See ``Request for Comment on More Contemporaneous Trade
Price Information Through a New Central Transparency Platform,''
MSRB Notice 2013-02 (January 17, 2013).
    \14\ See ``Concept Release on Pre-Trade and Post-Trade Pricing
Data Dissemination Through a New Central Transparency Platform,''
MSRB Notice 2013-14 (July 31, 2013).
    \15\ See ``Request for Comment on Enhancements to Post-Trade
Transaction Data Disseminated Through a New Central Transparency
Platform,'' MSRB Notice 2014-14 (August 13, 2014).
    \16\ Comments were received on the January Release from Barclays
Capital Inc.: Letter from Scott Coya, Director, Municipal
Compliance, dated March 15, 2013 (``Barclays''); Bond Dealers of
America: Letter from Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer,
dated March 15, 2013 (``BDA-1''); Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.: Letter
from Michael P. Moran, Vice President, Fixed Income Compliance,
dated March 15, 2013 (``Schwab''); Eastern Bank: Email from James N.
Fox, SVP and Managing Director, dated March 15, 2013 (``Eastern'');
Financial Information Forum: Letter from Arsalan Shahid, Program
Director, dated March 15, 2013 (``FIF-1''); Financial Services
Institute: Letter from David T. Bellaire, Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, dated March 15, 2013 (``FSI''); Frost Bank:
Letter from Robert N. Jacobs, Assistant Vice President/Compliance
Officer, dated March 11, 2013 (``Frost''); Investment Company
Institute: Letter from Dorothy Donohue, Deputy General Counsel-
Securities Regulation, dated March 15, 2013 (``ICI''); J.W. Korth &
Company LP: Email from James Korth dated March 14, 2013
(``JWKorth''); R.W. Smith & Associates, Inc.: Email from Paige
Pierce dated March 20, 2013 (``RWSmith-1''); Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood,
Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated March 15,
2013 (``SIFMA-1''); Seidel & Shaw, LLC: Letter from Thomas W. Shaw,
President, dated March 15, 2013 (``Seidel''); Standish Mellon Asset
Management Company LLC: Email from Daniel Rabasco dated March 15,
2013 (``Standish''); TMC Bonds, L.L.C.: Letter from Thomas S. Vales,
Chief Executive Officer, dated March 15, 2013 (``TMCBonds''); and
Tradition Asiel Securities, Inc.: Letter from Eric M. Earnhardt,
Chief Compliance Officer, dated March 19, 2013 (``TASI'').
    \17\ Comments were received on the July Release from Bond
Dealers of America: Letter from Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive
Officer, dated November 1, 2013 (``BDA-2''); Corporate Treasury
Investment Consulting LLC: Letter from Mark O. Conner, Principal,
dated August 16, 2013 (``CTIC''); Financial Information Forum:
Letter from Manisha Kimmel, Executive Director, dated November 1,
2013 (``FIF-2''); Interactive Data Corporation: Letter from Mark
Hepsworth, President, Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data,
dated November 1, 2013 (``IDC''); Leonard, Jack: Letter dated August
1, 2013 (``Mr. Leonard''); Long, Cate: Email dated November 1, 2013
(``Ms. Long''); Sayer, Steven: Email dated November 3, 2013 (``Mr.
Sayer''); Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association:
Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate
General Counsel, dated November 1, 2013 (``SIFMA-2''); and Wells
Fargo Advisors, LLC: Letter from Robert J.McCarthy, Director of
Regulatory Policy, dated November 1, 2013 (``Wells Fargo'').
    \18\ Comments were received on the August Release from Bond
Dealers of America: Letter from Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive
Officer, dated September 26, 2014 (``BDA-3''); Financial Information
Forum: Letter from Darren Wasney, Program Manager, dated September
19, 2014 (``FIF-3''); Income Securities Advisor Inc.: Email from
Richard Lehmann dated August 26, 2014 (``ISA''); Murez, Herbert:
Email dated August 13, 2014 (``Mr. Murez''); RW Smith & Associates,
LLC: Email from Paige W. Pierce, President and Chief Executive
Officer, dated September 26, 2014 (``RWSmith-2''); Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M.
Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated
September 25, 2014 (``SIFMA-3''); and Trigo, Loren: Email dated
August 13, 2014 (``Trigo'').
    \19\ The January, July and August Releases contemplated
additional enhancements to RTRS as well as the establishment of a
new program for pre-trade transparency. Comments in response to
those items are not addressed in this proposed rule change but would
be addressed in any future rulemaking on those items that the MSRB
determines to undertake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expanding the Application of Existing List Offering Price and RTRS
Takedown Indicators
    The July Release solicited input on whether changes to the List
Offering Price Transaction and RTRS Takedown Transaction indicators
would be warranted given evolutions in market practices and the
information publicly available through the EMMA Web site. The August
Release proposed expanding the application of the List Offering Price
Transaction and RTRS Takedown Transaction indicators to include
scenarios where: (i) Dealers have entered into long-term marketing
arrangements with other dealers that serve in the syndicate or selling
group for purchasing and re-selling new issue securities
(``distribution participant dealers''); (ii) takedown transactions are
not at a discount from the list offering price; and (iii) offerings
that occur over a number of days with different list offering prices
set each day.
    FIF-3 and SIFMA-3 stated support for expanding the application of
the List Offering Price Transaction and RTRS Takedown Transaction
indicators. With respect to including distribution participant dealers
in the definition of which dealers must use the indicator, SIFMA-3
noted that these dealers perform ``a similar function to a selling
group member.'' Further, in response to whether takedown transactions
that are not at a discount from the list offering price, which would
occur in the case of a group net or net designated order arrangement,
should be included in the definition of an RTRS Takedown Transaction,
FIF-3 and SIFMA-3 indicated support and SIFMA-3 stated that this change
``will conform the rule to widespread industry practice'' although FIF-
3 noted that they ``see this happening frequently in the corporate bond
market but infrequently in the municipal bond market.''
    Comments were mixed in response to whether offerings that occur
over a number of days with different list offering prices set each day
should be included in the List Offering Price Transaction and RTRS
Takedown Transaction indicators. FIF-3 offered support for this change
and stated that it ``agree[s] that if the distribution occurs on days
that are not the first day of trading of a new issue, the distribution
should still be reported as the list price.'' SIFMA-3 did not support
this change and stated that this ``change would be confusing for
investors.''
    After careful consideration of the comments received, and given the
absence of evidence of widespread use of offerings occurring over a
number of days with different list offering prices set each day, the
MSRB has determined not to propose to expand the application of the
indicator to address this scenario at this time, although the MSRB may
revisit this issue if these types of offerings become more frequent.
Eliminating the Requirement for Dealers To Report Yield on Customer
Trade Reports
    The July and August Releases proposed to eliminate the requirement
for dealers to include yield on customer trade reports and, instead,
enable the MSRB to calculate and disseminate yield on customer trades.
The August Release solicited input on whether this change would
alleviate operational concerns cited by dealers in connection with
reporting certain ``away from market'' trade reports.
    BDA-3, FIF-2, FIF-3, IDC, SIFMA-2 and SIFMA-3 supported eliminating
the requirement to include yield on customer trade reports. Eliminating
this requirement would make the MSRB's RTRS yield reporting
requirements consistent with those established by Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') for corporate bond transactions and
reduce the amount of error feedback returned to dealers when minor
discrepancies arise. BDA-3 stated that ``MSRB's calculation of yields
would avoid differences in yield calculations across dealers due to
security master differences'' and ``[c]ustomers and dealers would also
benefit from the improved consistency in the calculation of yield to
worst.'' SIFMA-3 noted that the ``elimination of the broker-dealer
requirement to report yield on customer trade reports does also
alleviate some operational concerns in connection with reporting
certain `away from market' trade reports, such as transactions arising
from customer repurchase agreements.''
    FIF-3, SIFMA-2 and SIFMA-3 cited a concern related to potential
differences in the yield calculated by MSRB and displayed on EMMA and
the yield calculated by dealers and displayed on customer
confirmations. FIF-3 stated that the MSRB should ``consider the impact
of discrepancies between the MSRB's calculations and dealer-calculated
yield to worst which will appear on a customer's confirm'' and
recommends that the MSRB ``[provide] guidance for cases where there are
discrepancies between the MSRB's calculations and dealer-calculated
yield to worst on a customer's confirm.'' SIFMA-2 observed that dealers
have the responsibility to report yield to customers on trade
confirmations and that, due to the complicated nature of some
redemption provisions, the dealer-calculated yield and the MSRB-
calculated yield may not always match precisely. FIF-2 and IDC
suggested that the display of the date to which this

yield-to-worst calculation is determined would be helpful.
    After carefully considering commenters' concerns, the MSRB believes
potential confusion would be addressed by additionally displaying on
EMMA the calculation method (yield to call or maturity) and, for yield
to call, the call date and price used. Under this approach, any
differences between dealer and MSRB calculations could be understood by
viewing the inputs the MSRB used in its calculation.
Establishing a New Indicator for Customer Trades Involving Non-
Transaction-Based Compensation Arrangements
    The July and August Releases proposed the establishment of a new
indicator to distinguish in the price transparency data between
customer transactions that do not include a dealer compensation
component and those that include a mark-up or mark-down or a
commission.
    BDA-3, FIF-2, FIF-3, Ms. Long, SIFMA-2, SIFMA-3, and Wells Fargo
favored the addition of an indicator for identifying transactions that
are not inclusive of a compensation component. SIFMA-2, however,
opposed requiring the reporting of the details of the non-transaction
based compensation arrangement. BDA-3 stated that a new indicator
``would provide the users of trade transparency products with
information that could explain certain variations in trade prices and
assist in best execution determinations.'' SIFMA-3 suggested that, if
the MSRB publicly disseminates the existing agency or principal trade
indicator currently collected, this would accomplish the same benefit
and also stated that the MSRB should not consider collecting
information on the nature of alternative compensation beyond an
indicator as such information would be burdensome to report.
    The MSRB does not believe that SIFMA-3's suggestion that
disseminating the existing agency or principal trade indicator
currently collected would help distinguish in the price transparency
data customer transactions that do not include a dealer compensation
component, particularly because the MSRB understands that both agency
and principal transactions can occur under current market practices
without a dealer compensation component. With respect to SIFMA-2's view
that the MSRB should not consider collecting information on the nature
of alternative compensation, the MSRB notes that this was not
contemplated in the July or August Release and is not part of the
proposed rule change.
Establishing a New Indicator for ATS Transactions
    The July and August Releases proposed adding an indicator to
identify transactions executed using the services of an ATS, which
indicator would be included in the information disseminated publicly.
The August Release also proposed that, in instances where an ATS does
not take a principal position between two dealers, each dealer would be
required to report the identity of the ATS employed.
    In response to the July Release, Ms. Long supported the addition of
an ATS indicator on trades, and stated that the specific ATS used
should be identified, initially for surveillance purposes and
potentially for future public dissemination. FIF-2 noted operational
burdens associated with identifying trades executed using the services
of an ATS, particularly in instances where the ATS does not act as the
counter-party to the trade. SIFMA-2 questioned the ``tangible
transparency benefits to the market'' of including an ATS indicator. In
response to the August Release, SIFMA-3 and FIF-3 noted that this
indicator would result in a cost to dealers to implement. SIFMA-3
stated that it ``recognizes that the MSRB has a legitimate interest in
determining ATS participation in the market, and likely has no other
way to get this information on a real-time basis.'' FIF-3 noted that
FINRA is pursuing the establishment of a similar ATS indicator for
corporate bond trade reports.
    In response to a potential requirement that dealers also would need
to identify in some cases the ATS employed, SIFMA-3 and FIF-3 suggested
that this component would add operational complexity and compliance
costs to the requirement. SIFMA-3 stated that ``[a]lthough flagging
these trades would be a significant operational and administrative
burden, the burden would be minimized for the broker-dealer community
if the result was a mere change in an `M code' '' (which is the change
that would be made to simply identify that an ATS was employed,
exclusive of the ATS's identity). FIF-3 stated in response to the
proposed requirement to identify the ATS employed that they ``believe
this would be challenging to implement.''
    From a market structure perspective, the MSRB believes that it is
important to know the extent to which ATSs are employed for inter-
dealer transactions as such information could inform future system
development, research and rulemaking initiatives. While also having the
identity of the ATS in instances where the ATS does not take a
principal position between two dealers would increase the usefulness of
the ATS indicator, the MSRB is sensitive to the burden such a
requirement would impose, particularly given the future potential
establishment by the MSRB of a pre-trade transparency system. The MSRB
notes that under a comprehensive pre-trade transparency system, it is
anticipated that the identity of each ATS would be known and the extent
to which each is used in the municipal market would therefore be
quantifiable. Accordingly, the MSRB believes that proceeding with the
establishment of an ATS indicator, which the MSRB plans to implement
utilizing the existing special condition indicator (the ``M code'')
field in RTRS, is appropriate. The MSRB, however, in acknowledgement of
the burdens identified by commenters, has not included in this proposed
rule change a requirement to report the identity of the ATS that was
used.

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 of up to 90 days (i) as
the Commission may designate 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-MSRB-2015-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2015-02. This file
number should be included on the

subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the MSRB. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-MSRB-2015-02 and should be submitted on or before April
17, 2015.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06993 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36767-36768]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14546]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13160-004]

Red River Hydro LLC; Notice of Availability of Draft
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC)
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380 (Order No.
486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Red River
Hydro LLC's application for an original license for the Overton Lock
and Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 13160-004) and has
prepared a draft environmental assessment (draft EA). The project would
be located on the Red River in Rapides Parish, Louisiana, at an

existing lock and dam operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
project, if licensed, would occupy a total of 38.7 acres of federal
land.
    In the draft EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential
environmental effects of licensing the project and concludes that
licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the draft EA is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
202-502-8659.
    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please affix,
``Overton Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project, P-13160-004'' to all
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lesley Kordella by telephone at 202-
502-6406 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 12, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14546 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 40850-40851]
[DOCID:fr25jy07-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12778-000]

Fall Creek Hydro, LLC; Notice of Scoping Meetings, Site Visit,
and Soliciting Scoping Comments

July 17, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 12778-000.
    c. Date filed: February 16, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Fall Creek Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Fall Creek Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On Fall Creek, near the towns of Springfield and
Eugene, Lane County, Oregon. The project is located in the Willamette
National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Brent L. Smith, Northwest Power Services,
Inc., P.O. Box 535, Rigby, Idaho 83442; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Kim A. Nguyen, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426; telephone
(202) 502-6105 or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: September 17, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The Fall Creek Dam Hydroelectric Project will consist of a
powerhouse with three turbine generator units of approximately 10
megawatt capacity. Fall Creek Hydro proposes to: (1) Bifurcate the
existing south rectangular conduits, about 50 feet upstream of the
outlet, with a steel penstock; (2) construct a new valve house with
hydraulically operated vertical gates; (3) trifurcate the steel
penstock at the entrance to the powerhouse into three penstocks feeding
the three turbines; (4) construct a new powerhouse located on the west
bank of the existing stilling basin, immediately downstream of the toe
of the dam; and (5) construct a 12.5-kilovolt single-circuit
transmission line running from the powerhouse to the existing line at
the base of the dam. Fall River Hydro will use the head from the Corps
of Engineer's (Corps) Fall Creek Dam and will operate the project in
coordination with the Corps' authority to operate the dam for flood
control, irrigation, navigation, improved downstream water quality, and
water-based recreation.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Scoping Process: The Commission intends to prepare an
Environmental assessment (EA) on the project in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-
specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action.

Scoping Meetings

    FERC staff will conduct one daytime scoping meeting and one evening
meeting. The daytime scoping meeting will focus on resource agency and
non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening scoping
meeting is primarily for public input. All interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the
meetings and to assist the staff in identifying the scope of the
environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EA. The times and
locations of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

Date: Thursday, August 16, 2007.
Time: 9 a.m.
Place: Lane Community College--Center for Meeting and Learning.
Address: 4000 East 30th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon.

Evening Scoping Meeting

Date: Thursday, August 16, 2007.
Time: 7 p.m.
Place: Lane Community College--Center for Meeting and Learning.
Address: 4000 East 30th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon.

    Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to
be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the
Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the
scoping meeting or may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link (see item m above).

Site Visit

    The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct a project site visit
beginning at 9 a.m. on August 17, 2007. All interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies are invited to attend. All participants
planning to attend should call Kim Nguyen of FERC at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
Erik Steimle of Fall River Hydro at<PHONE_NUMBER> no later than August
9, 2007. We will be meeting at the base of Fall Creek Dam. All
participants are responsible for their own transportation to the site.

Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EA; (2)
solicit from the meeting participants all available information,
especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage
statements from experts and the public on issues that should be
analyzed in the EA, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in
support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource
issues to be addressed in the EA; and (5) identify those issues that
require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not
require a detailed analysis.

Procedures

    The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the
formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.

    Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to
assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed
in the EA.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14304 Filed 7-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734

FROM:	Jill Mozier, EC/R Inc.

DATE:			February 14, 2014

SUBJECT:	Notes from the EPA Air Toxics Risk Assessors Call, February 13, 2014, with Leigh Herrington and Gil Wood as presenters

The EPA Air Toxics Risk Assessors (ATRA) Call was moderated by Kyle Olson of USEPA Region 8. Leigh Herrington of EPA's voluntary Burn Wise program presented her overview slides first (attached) and then answered questions. Next, Gil Wood presented overview slides (also attached) summarizing the proposed Residential Wood Heater NSPS and answered questions following his presentation.

The questions and answers following Leigh's Burn Wise presentation were as follows:

   * Question for Leigh: Are you going to expand the voluntary program to firepits and other backyard devices?
Answer: Leigh noted that this is becoming a higher priority for regions and that Region 5, for example, has developed policy around burn barrels. Leigh answered that overall, no, EPA's Burn Wise program is not expanding within the next few months although they are not discounting expanding at some point in the future. Currently the program's focus is to educate regarding the appropriate fuel source characteristics for wood burning.

   * Question for Leigh: How successful has this program been, given that there are no incentives or money to help homeowners? And are there incentives being offered from or to manufacturers?
Answer: Leigh noted that there are many ways to measure success and that one measure is the number of manufacturers who have joined the program. One incentive the manufacturers have is that they know they must improve their technology to remain in the market long-term. While the number of manufacturers in the program is not very large, it is a decent portion of the market and there are now cleaner devices in homes as a result of this voluntary program. For example, Libby, Montana and other places are seeing a difference in their PM levels due to changeout programs. Manufacturers are behind changeouts as well; changouts are in their interests and bringing cleaner technology to the market helps manufacturers stay relevant. In terms of consumer penetration, the Burn Wise program is still too shallow and needs help from locals and states to reach consumers. But the program has been successful in helping to encourage and bring cleaner technologies to market.

   * Question for Leigh and Gil: Are cleaner technologies also more efficient technologies?
   * Answer: Leigh answered that cleaner technologies are not necessarily also more efficient and asked Gil to explain further. Gil Wood explained that in general as device technology becomes cleaner it also becomes more efficient, but that as Leigh noted it is not a one-to-one correlation. A typical stove default efficiency value based on the current 1988 rule is 65% (although many devices are not as efficient as this default value). Today's cleaner technologies can reach 85% efficiency.

   * Question for Leigh: A call participant noted that there exist conspiracy theories which purport that EPA is making a concerted effort to freeze out rural Americans who are living off the grid  -  i.e., that EPA is seeking to make wood stoves illegal or at least much more difficult for rural America to use.
Answer: Leigh noted that EPA is aware that there are many misconceptions being propagated about both the Burn Wise program and the proposed NSPS, and that EPA is considering directly addressing the top myths that are circulating in an effort to correct the misinformation. She noted that Larry Brockman (also of EPA's Burn Wise program) is working with Alison Davis, an EPA press officer, to address the misconceptions and conspiracy theories. The bottom line is that EPA is not going after people's wood stoves and in fact does not have that goal or such authority in any event. EPA is merely attempting to educate consumers about the best type wood to burn in terms of least polluting and most efficient, the cleanest wood stoves available on the market, and to push manufacturers to produce the cleanest technologies possible for future market sales.

The questions and answers following Gil's proposed NSPS presentation were as follows:

   * Question for Gil: There will presumably be more inspections under the proposed NSPS and yet everything we're reading about regarding EPA's realignment (specifically with regards to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, OECA) implies there will be less EPA inspections.
Answer: Gil noted that there will continue to be the appropriate and necessary inspections by EPA's OECA, but that initial inspections will be performed not by EPA but by ISO-accredited bodies. With EPA resource limitations, OECA is faced with more rules than current resources allow for OECA-only inspections everywhere. Hence the proposed wood heater NSPS calls for ISO-accredited bodies to perform quarterly unannounced inspections at all manufacturing facilities and also allows delegation to the states [upon request and approval] so that states can also conduct site observations of manufacturing and of testing.

   * Question for Gil: Can we send out your presentation slides to the states participating in the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)?
Answer: Gil answered that yes, there is no problem in releasing the slides; they are public information.

   * Question for Gil: Do you want us to encourage the NESCAUM states to register to speak at the public hearing?
Answer: Gil answered that yes, the more who register to speak the better. Although submitting a comment to the public docket is just as good/effective, it is nice to hear from people directly.

   * There were no further questions.