[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52020-52021]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21177]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD12-12-000]

Coordination Between Natural Gas and Electricity Markets;
Supplemental Notice for Mid-Atlantic Region Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notices issued on July 5, 2012 \1\ and July 17,
2012,\2\ the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff
will hold a technical conference on Thursday, August 30, 2012, from 9
a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. local time to discuss gas-electric
coordination issues in the Mid-Atlantic

region.\3\ The agenda and list of roundtable participants for this
conference are attached. This conference is free of charge and open to
the public. Commission members may participate in the conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Coordination between Natural Gas and Electricity Markets,
Docket No. AD12-12-000 (July 5, 2012) (Notice Of Technical
Conferences) (http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13023450); 77 FR 41184 (July 12, 2012) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-12/pdf/2012-16997.pdf).
    \2\ Coordination between Natural Gas and Electricity Markets,
Docket No. AD12-12-000 (July 17, 2012) (Supplemental Notice Of
Technical Conferences) (http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13029403).
    \3\ As indicated in the July 5, 2012 notice, for purposes of
this technical conference, the Mid-Atlantic region includes New York
Independent System Operator Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and
related areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Mid-Atlantic region technical conference will be held at the
following venue: Commission Headquarters, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    If you have not already done so, those who plan to attend the Mid-
Atlantic region technical conference are strongly encouraged to
complete the registration form located at: www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/nat-gas-elec-mkts-form.asp. There is no deadline to
register to attend the conference. The dress code for the conference
will be business casual.
    The Mid-Atlantic region technical conference will not be
transcribed. However, there will be a free webcast of the conference.
The webcast will allow persons to listen to the Mid-Atlantic region
technical conference, but not participate. Anyone with Internet access
who desires to listen to the Mid-Atlantic region conference can do so
by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating the
Mid-Atlantic region technical conference in the Calendar. The Mid-
Atlantic region technical conference will contain a link to its
webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the
webcast and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-
bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The webcast will continue to be available on the Calendar of
Events on the Commission's Web site www.ferc.gov for three months
after the conference.
_____________________________________-

    Information on this and the other regional technical conferences
will also be posted on the Web site www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/electric-coord.asp, as well as the Calendar of Events on the
Commission's Web site www.ferc.gov. Changes to the agenda or list of
roundtable participants for the Mid-Atlantic region technical
conference, if any, will be posted on the Web site www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/electric-coord.asp prior to the
conference.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a Fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this and the other regional technical
conferences, please contact:

Pamela Silberstein, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robert Snow, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sarah McKinley, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21177 Filed 8-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 28316-28317]
[DOCID:fr20my10-5198]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Buy America Waiver Request by Oregon Department of
Transportation for Steel Roof Tiles To Be Used in Union Station Roof
Rehabilitation

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), United States Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Buy America waiver request and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that the
Oregon Department of Transportation (``ODOT'') has requested a waiver
from the Buy America requirements of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 (``PRIIA'') (49 U.S.C. 24405(a)) for the
purchase of metal roof tiles made of 40/45 KSI 2, 24 Gauge
(0.0276'') Galvanized ``Non-Fluting'' Steel Stock with Kynar PPG
5LR82411 or L/G Rodda Red II Paint finish color. ODOT is seeking a
waiver in order to complete the rehabilitation of the historic Union
Station roof in Portland, Oregon as one component of a project funded
by FRA under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(``Recovery Act''). The purpose of this notice is to seek public
comment on whether the FRA should grant a waiver to its Buy America
requirements in 49 U.S.C. 24405(a).

DATES: Written Comments: Written comments must be received by June 3,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number FRA-
2010-0085 by any one of the following methods:
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251;
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays; or
     Electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (``RIN'')
for this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act section of this
document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    For Further Information Contact: For questions about this notice,
please contact Mr. Chris Van Nostrand, Attorney-Advisor, FRA Office of
Chief Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER> or via e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Recovery Act requires the FRA to apply the Buy America
provisions contained in PRIIA, at 49 U.S.C. 24405(a), to grants
obligated with Recovery Act funds. PRIIA section 24405(a)(1) authorizes
the Secretary of Transportation (``Secretary'') to obligate grant funds
only if the steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in the project are
produced in the United States. However, PRIIA section 24405(a)(2) also
permits the Secretary to waive the Buy America requirements if he finds
that; (A) applying paragraph (1) would be inconsistent with the public
interest; (B) the steel, iron, and goods manufactured in the United
States are not produced in sufficient and reasonably available amount
or are not of a satisfactory quality; (C) rolling stock or power train
equipment cannot be bought or delivered to the United States within a
reasonable time; or (D) including domestic material will increase the
cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent.
    If the Secretary determines that it is necessary to waive the Buy
American provisions, PRIIA section 24405(a)(4) requires that the
Secretary provide public notice of such a finding and

provide an opportunity for comment. In addition, PRIIA requires a
detailed written justification for the decision be published in the
Federal Register. This notice informs the public that ODOT has
requested a Buy America waiver for the roofing tiles and requests
public comment on the potential waiver. ODOT has requested the waiver
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 24405(a)(2)(B) because it believes that for the
reasons set forth in this notice below the manufactured goods, the
metal roofing tiles, are not reasonably available in the United States
and that therefore a waiver is warranted.
    In its Buy America waiver request to the FRA, ODOT distinguishes
between ``field'' tiles which are used for the majority of the roof
rehabilitation and ``specialty'' tiles which are used for the ridge,
hip and valley area of the roof. ODOT states that after researching
potential manufacturers of the roof tiles it found only two companies
in North America capable of manufacturing the tiles necessary to
complete this project. Furthermore, the one American firm ODOT
identified, W.F. Norman, stated it might be a good source for the
specialty tiles but turned down the request to manufacture the field
tiles. The other firm capable and willing to produce the field tiles is
Heather & Little Limited located in Ontario, Canada. ODOT has also
explored the possibility of custom fabricating the tiles. However, ODOT
found that custom fabrication would cost upwards of $1.5 million
whereas the cost of purchasing the manufactured tiles would be
approximately $1 million.
    While this $500,000 price disparity does not trigger the PRIIA
section 24405(a)(2)(D) waiver for instances where procuring domestic
material would increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25
percent, it does represent a substantial increase in project cost. In
addition, custom fabrication does not equate to ``reasonably
available'' manufactured goods as ODOT would have to specially
fabricate field tiles that are otherwise available through mass
production albeit from a foreign source. Thus, since ODOT could not
find a reasonable domestic source and the only other option is
procuring the field tiles from a foreign manufacturer, it requests that
the Secretary grant a Buy America waiver based on non-availability.
    In addition to FRA's grant, the Federal Highway Administration
(``FHWA'') is also providing funding for the Union Station
rehabilitation with a portion of its Recovery Act funds. Pursuant to
FHWA's Buy America policy contained in 23 CFR. 635.410 and Division K,
section 130 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Pub. L.
110-161), FHWA published a notice of intent to issue a waiver on its
Web site for the roof tiles (available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
construction/contracts/waivers.cfm?id=39). FHWA posted its request for
comments on its Web site on October 22, 2009 and sought public comment
for a period of fifteen days while it considered the waiver request.
After determining the Buy America waiver was appropriate, FHWA
published a Notice of Finding in the Federal Register on December 4,
2009 and invited comment for an additional fifteen days (74 FR 63316,
Dec. 4, 2009). According to its Notice, FHWA did not receive any
substantive comments that led it to believe that the roof tiles made of
40/45 KSI 2, 24 Gauge (0.0276'') Galvanized ``Non-Fluting''
Steel Stock with Kynar PPG 5LR82411 or L/G Rodda Red II Paint Finish
Color are available from a domestic source. Furthermore, FHWA conducted
its own nationwide review to locate potential domestic manufacturers
for the roof tiles but did not uncover any additional domestic sources
of the field tiles. After considering ODOT's waiver request and its own
internal review of potential tile manufacturers, FHWA concluded that
``[b]ased on all of the information available to the agency, the FHWA
concludes that there are no domestic manufacturers of the roof tiles''
and that the Buy America waiver was appropriate based on non-
availability.
    With this information in mind and in order to completely understand
the facts surrounding ODOT's request, FRA seeks comment from all
interested parties regarding the availability of domestically
manufactured field tiles of the materials described above and the
potential Buy America waiver.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 17, 2010.
Paul Nissenbaum,
Director, Office of Passenger and Freight Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-12157 Filed 5-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46290-46292]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18651]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72743; File No. SR-MSRB-2014-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Proposed Amendments to Rule G-3, on Classification of Principals and
Representatives, Numerical Requirements, Testing, Continuing Education
Requirements; Rule G-7, on Information Concerning Associated Persons;
and Rule G-27, on Supervision

August 1, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On June 6, 2014, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the
``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change consisting of proposed
amendments to Rule G-3, on classification of principals and
representatives, numerical requirements, testing, continuing education
requirements; Rule G-7, on information concerning associated persons;
and Rule G-27, on supervision. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on June 24, 2014.\3\ The Commission
received one comment letter on the proposal.\4\ This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-72425 (June 18,
2014), 79 FR 35829 (June 24, 2014) (the ``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from David L. Cohen, Managing Director and Associate General
Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association,
dated July 15, 2014 (``SIFMA Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The MSRB states that the proposed rule change would: (1) Amend MSRB
Rule G-3(a) to limit the scope of permitted activities of a limited
representative--investment company and variable contracts products
(``Limited Representative'') to sales to and purchases from customers
of municipal fund securities; (2) eliminate the Financial and
Operations Principal (``FINOP'') classification, qualification and
numerical requirements in MSRB Rule G-3(d); (3) clarify in
Supplementary Material .01 to Rule G-3 that references to sales include
the solicitation of sales of municipal securities; and (4) make certain
technical amendments to (i) re-title Rule G-3 and its subparagraph (a)
and define the Limited Representative classification, (ii) reorganize
Rules G-3 and G-7(a), and (iii) remove references to the FINOP in Rules
G-7 and G-27.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Proposed Changes to Rule G-3(a)--Limited Representative

    According to the MSRB, the proposed rule change will better align
the activities permitted of Limited Representatives with the
competencies tested in the Limited Representative--Investment Company
and Variable Contracts Products Examination (``Series 6 examination'')
administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'').\6\ Currently, Limited Representatives are individuals
whose activities, with respect to municipal fund securities,\7\ may
include (1) underwriting or sales; (2) research or investment advice
with regard to underwriting or sales; or (3) any other activities that
involve communication, directly or indirectly, with public investors
with regard to underwriting or sales. According to the MSRB, Limited
Representatives qualify as such by, among other requirements, passing
the Series 6 examination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Under MSRB Rule D-12, ``municipal fund security shall mean a
municipal security issued by an issuer that, but for the application
of Section 2(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, would
constitute an investment company within the meaning of Section 3 of
the Investment Company Act of 1940.''
    \8\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB has represented that the proposed rule change would narrow
the activities permitted of Limited Representatives exclusively to
sales to and purchases from customers of municipal fund securities.\9\
The MSRB stated that the proposed rule change is appropriate because
the Series 6 examination focuses on purchases and sales activities,
commensurate with the scope of permissible activities under NASD Rule
1032(b).\10\ The MSRB believes that individuals engaging in activities
other than sales of municipal fund securities should be required to
take and pass the Municipal Securities Representative Qualification
Examination (``Series 52 exam''), which tests the basic competency to
perform the activities described in MSRB Rule G-3(a)(i)(A).\11\
According to the MSRB, the proposed rule change would harmonize MSRB
and FINRA rules by limiting the activities of individuals solely
qualified by having passed the Series 6 examination to sales-related
activities and, under MSRB rules, exclusively to municipal fund
securities sales-related activities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ NASD Rule 1032(b) has been incorporated in the FINRA Manual
and continues to be referred to as an NASD rule.
    \11\ See supra note 3.
    \12\ Under NASD Rule 1032(b), individuals who have taken and
passed the Series 6 examination may only engage in sales activity
related to investment company and variable contracts products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Elimination of MSRB's FINOP Requirement

    According to the MSRB, the proposed rule change also would
eliminate the MSRB FINOP classification and the requirement that
certain dealers designate at least one such principal (collectively
referred to herein as the ``FINOP requirement'').\13\ The MSRB
conducted a review of the professional qualification requirements in
Rule G-3 and determined that the FINOP requirement in Rule G-3(d) is
unnecessary and duplicative of other regulations, such as NASD Rule
1022(b).\14\ According to the MSRB, the responsibilities and duties of
FINOPs pertaining to municipal securities are not unique, and FINRA
rules establish general responsibilities and duties for such
individuals.\15\ The MSRB believes that FINRA's regulation of FINOPs is
more appropriate in that the core responsibilities of a FINOP pertain
to the dealer's financial reports and supervision of the dealer's
activities

under the financial responsibility rules.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 3.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, MSRB Rule G-3(d) requires that every dealer, excluding
bank dealers or certain other dealers identified by reference to the
SEC net capital rule, designate at least one FINOP, including its chief
financial officer.\17\ According to the MSRB, given the exclusions in
the rule, only a limited number of dealers are required to designate an
individual as a FINOP, and under Rule G-3(d)(ii) these individuals must
be qualified in accordance with FINRA rules.\18\ As such, individuals
seeking qualification as a FINOP must pass the Financial and Operations
Principal Qualification Examination (``Series 27 examination'')
administered by FINRA.\19\ According to the MSRB, the Series 27
examination focuses primarily on financial reporting requirements, net
capital requirements, customer protection rules, and other regulations
relevant to the role of a chief financial officer or similar financial
officer at an investment firm.\20\ The MSRB stated that the examination
tests few concepts specifically related to MSRB rules or municipal
securities, and the MSRB believes that adding additional municipal
securities content to the examination would likely be at odds with
regulatory priorities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ MSRB Rule G-3(d)(i) excludes from the financial and
operations principal requirement, any ``bank dealer or a broker,
dealer or municipal securities dealer meeting the requirements of
subparagraph (a)(2)(iv), (v) or (vi) of rule 15c3-1 under the Act or
exempted from the requirements of Rule 15c3-1 in accordance with
paragraph (b)(3) thereof.''
    \18\ See supra note 3.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB further stated that a dealer's municipal securities
principal would remain responsible for supervising its municipal
securities activities, including its operations (such as processing,
clearance and safekeeping of municipal securities), pursuant to Rule G-
3(b)(i) and G-27(b)(ii)(C).\22\ The MSRB believes that the municipal
securities principal requirement ensures sufficient oversight of the
operations activities of dealers pertaining to municipal securities
transactions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Rule G-3 Supplementary Material .01

    Supplementary Material .01 makes clear that the term ``sales'' in
Rule G-3 also includes the solicitation of sales.\24\ According to the
MSRB, including the solicitation of sales would apply to all references
to sales in the rule and would serve to clarify the permissible
activities of municipal securities professionals that are appropriately
registered to engage in, or to supervise, sales to and purchases from
customers of municipal securities.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Technical and Conforming Amendments

    To clarify certain MSRB rules and to conform other rules to the
rules amended by the proposed rule change, the MSRB proposed several
technical amendments.\26\ The MSRB believes that these non-substantive
changes will provide clarity and promote a better understanding of MSRB
rules.\27\ First, the MSRB proposed to simplify the title of Rule G-3
by changing it to the more self-explanatory: ``Professional
Qualification Requirements.'' \28\ Second, (i) the heading of Rule G-
3(a) would be changed to incorporate the Limited Representative
classification, (ii) paragraph (a)(i)(C) of Rule G-3 would be added to
define the Limited Representative classification, (iii) paragraph
(a)(ii)(C) would be renumbered as new paragraph (a)(ii)(B)(3), with
slight modification to make it consistent with paragraph (a)(i)(C), and
(iv) the introductory paragraph preceding Rule G-3(a) would be amended
to eliminate the reference to the FINOP while also adding references to
municipal securities sales limited representatives, limited
representative--investment company and variable contracts products, and
municipal fund securities limited principals.\29\ Third, Rule G-7(a)
would be amended to add Limited Representatives and general securities
principals to the list of associated persons.\30\ Fourth, the MSRB
proposed to delete Rule G-3(g)(ii), waiver of qualification
requirements with respect to the FINOP, as such an exemption would be
rendered moot by the elimination of the FINOP classification.\31\
Lastly, the proposed rule change would make conforming changes by
eliminating references in Rule G-7 and G-27 to the FINOP.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comment Received

    The Commission notes that it received only one comment letter.\33\
The comment letter expressed general support and agreement with the
proposed rule change.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ SIFMA Letter.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
as well as the SIFMA Letter. The Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB. In particular,
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.\35\ The Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act because the
proposed rule change would better align the responsibilities of the
Limited Representative with the competencies a Limited Representative
is tested for. The Commission also believes the proposed rule change
would result in consistent regulatory treatment of Limited
Representatives by the MSRB and FINRA, thereby reducing potential
dealer confusion. In addition, the Commission believes the proposed
rule change will ease burdens on dealers by eliminating the FINOP
requirement. The Commission notes that the MSRB has represented the
FINOP requirement is unnecessary and duplicative of other regulations
and that municipal securities principals will continue to be
responsible for overall supervision of the municipal securities
activities of dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation.\36\ The Commission believes that the proposed rule
change includes accommodations that help promote efficiency and legal
certainty. Specifically, the Commission does not

believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. In addition, the Commission believes, as discussed above,
that the proposed rule change will ease burdens on dealers and reduce
compliance costs by clarifying dealer obligations and eliminating
regulatory redundancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons noted above, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\37\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2014-04) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18651 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P