[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13225-13226]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05590]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 11 and 101

[Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0172]

Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and
Similar Retail Food Establishments; Small Entity Compliance Guide;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Nutrition Labeling
of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food
Establishments--Small Entity Compliance Guide''. The small entity
compliance guide (SECG) is intended to help small entities comply with
the final rule entitled ``Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in
Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments.''

DATES: The SECG will be available as of March 13, 2015. Submit either
electronic or written comments on FDA guidances at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the SECG to the
Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Food Labeling
and Standards Staff, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College
Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that
office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for electronic access to the SECG.
    Submit electronic comments on the SECG to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the SECG to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Y. Reese, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71156), we
issued a final rule requiring nutrition labeling of standard menu items
in restaurants and similar retail food establishments (the final rule).
The final rule, which is codified at 21 CFR 101.11, is effective
December 1, 2015.
    We examined the economic implications of the final rule as required
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and determined
that the final rule will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. In compliance with section 212 of
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-
121, as amended by Pub. L. 110-28), we are making available the SECG to
explain the actions that a small entity must take to comply with the
rule.

    We are issuing the SECG consistent with our good guidance practices
regulation (21 CFR 10.115(c)(2)). The SECG represents our current
thinking on nutrition labeling of standard menu items in restaurants
and similar retail food establishments. It does not create or confer
any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This SECG refers to collections of information described in FDA's
final rule that published in the Federal Register of December 1, 2014
(79 FR 71156), and that will be effective on December 1, 2015. As
stated in the final rule, these collections of information are subject
to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In
compliance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Agency has submitted
the information collection provisions of the final rule to OMB for
review. FDA will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
OMB's decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the information
collection provisions in this final rule. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
the SECG to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the SECG at either
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: March 6, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-05590 Filed 3-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53545-53546]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24752]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 17f-2(d); SEC File No. 270-36, OMB Control No. 3235-0028

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17f-
2(d) (17 CFR 240.17f-2(d)), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17f-2(d) requires that records created pursuant to the
fingerprinting requirements of Section 17(f)(2) of the Act be
maintained and preserved by every member of a national securities
exchange, broker, dealer, registered transfer agent and registered
clearing agency (``covered entities'' or ``respondents''); permits,
under certain circumstances, the records required to be maintained and
preserved by a member of a national securities exchange, broker, or
dealer to be maintained and preserved by a self-regulatory organization
that is also the designated examining authority for that member, broker
or dealer; and permits the required records to be preserved on
microfilm. The general purpose of Rule 17f-2 is to: (i) Identify
security risk personnel; (ii) provide criminal record information so
that employers can make fully informed employment decisions; and (iii)
deter persons with criminal records from seeking employment or
association with covered entities. The rule enables the Commission or
other examining authority to ascertain whether all covered persons are
being fingerprinted and whether proper procedures regarding
fingerprinting are being followed. Retention of these records for a
period of not less than three years after termination of a covered
person's employment or relationship with a covered entity ensures that
law enforcement officials will have easy access to fingerprint cards on
a timely basis. This in turn acts as an effective deterrent to employee
misconduct.
    Approximately 4,200 respondents are subject to the recordkeeping
requirements of the rule. Each respondent maintains approximately 68
new records per year, each of which takes approximately 2 minutes per
record to maintain, for an annual burden of approximately 2.2666667
hours (68 records times 2 minutes). The total annual burden for all
respondents is approximately 9,520 (4,200 respondents times 2.2666667
hours). As noted above, all records maintained subject to the rule must
be retained for a period of not less than three years after termination
of a covered person's employment or relationship with a covered entity.
In addition, we estimate the total cost to respondents is approximately
$42,000 in third party storage costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: November 9, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24752 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 74384-74386]
[DOCID:fr15de05-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52917; File No. SR-Amex-2005-121]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Revisions to the Series 9/10
Examination Program

December 7, 2005.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 21, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by Amex. On
November 23, 2005, Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. Amex has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a
stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-
regulatory organization pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Amex is filing revisions to the study outline and selection
specifications for the Limited Principal--General Securities Sale
Supervisor (Series 9/10) examination program (``Series 9/10
Examination''). The proposed revisions update the material to reflect
changes to the laws, rules, and regulations covered by the Series 9/10
Examination, as well as modify the content of the Series 9/10
Examination to track more closely the functional workflow of a Series
9/10 limited principal.
    The revised study outline is available on Amex's Web site (http://www.amex.com
), at Amex, and at the Commission. However, Amex has

omitted the Series 9/10 Examination selection specifications from this
filing and has submitted the specifications under separate cover to the
Commission with a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule
24b-2 under the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Amex 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. Amex 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
    Amex Rule 341 prohibits members from permitting a direct supervisor
of a Registered Representative \6\ to perform his duties in such
capacity until the direct supervisor is registered with, qualified by
and approved by the Exchange. Pursuant to Commentary .06 to Amex Rule
320, a Registered Representative supervisor's responsibilities include
approving new accounts and reviewing correspondence of Registered
Representatives, transactions and customer accounts. The only
examination that qualifies a Registered Representative supervisor is
the Series 9/10 Examination. The Series 9/10 Examination tests a
candidate's knowledge of securities industry rules and regulations and
certain statutory provisions pertinent to the supervision of sales
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``Registered Representative'' engages in the solicitation
of orders for the purchase or sale of securities or other similar
instruments for the account of customers; or in the solicitation of
subscriptions to investment advisory or to investment management
services furnished on a fee basis. The term Registered
Representative does not apply to individuals who are engaged solely
in the solicitation or handling of business in, or the sale of,
commodity contracts or who are engaged solely as securities traders
or securities arbitrageurs. See Amex Definition 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Series 9/10 Examination is shared by Amex and the following
SROs: the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''),
the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the New York Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``NYSE''), the Municipal Securities Rule Making Board (``MSRB''),
the Pacific Exchange, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
    A committee of industry representatives, together with the staff of
Amex and the other SROs, recently undertook a periodic review of the
Series 9/10 Examination. As a result of this review, Amex is proposing
to update the content of the Series 9/10 Examination to cover
Regulation S-P,\7\ MSRB Rules G-37/G-38, SRO research analyst and anti-
money laundering rules, municipal fund securities (e.g., 529 college
savings plans), and exchange traded funds. Amex is further proposing
revisions to the Series 9/10 Examination study outline to reflect the
SEC short sale requirements. In addition, as part of an ongoing effort
to align the Series 9/10 Examination more closely to the supervisory
duties of a Series 9/10 limited principal, Amex is proposing to modify
the content of the Series 9/10 Examination to track the functional
workflow of a Series 9/10 limited principal. Also, Amex is proposing to
include questions related to parallel rules of NASD, the options
exchanges, the MSRB, and the NYSE in the same section of the exam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 248.1-18; 17 CFR 248.30; and 17 CFR 248, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the revisions, Amex is proposing to modify the main
section headings and the number of questions on each section of the
Series 9/10 Examination study outline as follows: Section 1--Hiring,
Qualifications, and Continuing Education, 9 questions; section 2--
Supervision of Accounts and Sales Activities, 94 questions; section 3--
Conduct of Associated Persons, 14 questions; section 4--Recordkeeping
Requirements, 8 questions; section 5--Municipal Securities Regulation,
20 questions; section 6--Options Regulation, 55 questions. Sections 1
through 5 constitute the Series 10 portion of the Series 9/10
Examination. Section 6 constitutes the Series 9 portion of the Series
9/10 Examination. Series 10 covers general securities and municipal
securities, and Series 9 covers options. The revised Series 9/10
Examination continues to cover the areas of knowledge required for the
supervision of sales activities.
    Amex is proposing these changes to the entire content of the Series
9/10 Examination, including the selection specifications and question
bank. The number of questions on the Series 9/10 Examination will
remain at 200, and candidates will continue to have four hours to
complete the Series 10 portion and one and one-half hours to complete
the Series 9 portion. Also, each question will continue to count one
point, and each candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of the
questions on each series, 9 and 10, to receive a passing grade.
    As noted below, NASD has filed with the Commission a similar
proposed rule change reflecting the revisions to the Series 9/10
Examination \8\ and Amex understands that the other SROs also will file
similar proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52548 (September 30,
2005), 70 FR 59111 (October 11, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-111).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Amex believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6 of the Act \9\ in general and furthers the objectives of
section 6(c)(3) \10\ which authorizes Amex to prescribe standards of
training, experience and competence for persons associated with Amex
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change, as amended, does not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change, as amended, has become effective pursuant
to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1)
thereunder,\12\ in that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated
policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of Amex. While the
Series 9/10 Examination is co-owned by certain SROs, NASD administers
the Series 9/10 Examination. Amex will announce the implementation date
in a Notice to Members to be published no later than 60 days after SEC
Notice of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The effective date of the original proposed rule is
November 21, 2005. The effective date of Amendment No. 1 is November
23, 2005. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on November 23, 2005, the date on which Amex submitted
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2005-121 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-121. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Amex. 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-Amex-2005-121 and should be submitted on or before
January 5, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E5-7366 Filed 12-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 178 (Friday, September 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51953-51954]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[DOT Docket Number: FAA-2021-0847]

NextGen Advisory Committee; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the NextGen Advisory
Committee (NAC).

DATES: The meeting will be held virtually, on October 19, 2021, from
1:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. EDT. Requests to attend the meeting virtually and
request for accommodations for a disability must be received by October
5, 2021. If you wish to make a public statement during the meeting, you
must submit a written copy of your remarks by October 5, 2021. Written
materials requested to be reviewed by NAC Members before the meeting
must be received no later than October 5, 2021.

ADDRESSES: This will be a virtual meeting. Virtual meeting information
will be provided upon registration. Information on the NAC, including
copies of previous meeting minutes, is available on the NAC internet
website at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ang/nac/. Members of the public interested in attending must send the
required information listed in the SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION section to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Schwab, NAC Coordinator, U.S.
Department of Transportation, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 202-267-
1201. Any requests or questions not regarding attendance registration
should be sent to the person listed in this section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Secretary of Transportation established the NAC under agency
authority in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), as amended, Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2,
to provide independent advice and recommendations to the FAA, and to
respond to specific taskings received directly from the FAA. The NAC
recommends consensus-driven advice for FAA consideration relating to
Air Traffic Management System modernization.

II. Agenda

    At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:

 NAC Chairman's Report
 FAA Report
 NAC Subcommittee Chairman's Report
    [cir] Risk and Mitigations update for the following focus areas:
Multiple Runway Operations, Data Communications, Performance Based
Navigation, Surface and Data Sharing, and Northeast Corridor
 NAC Chairman Closing Comments

The detailed agenda will be posted on the NAC internet website at least
one week in advance of the meeting.

III. Public Participation

    This virtual meeting will be open to the public. Members of the
public who wish to attend are asked to register via email by submitting
their full legal name, country of citizenship, contact information
(telephone number and email address), and name of your industry
association, or applicable affiliation. Please email this information
to the email address listed in the ADDRESSES section. When registration
is confirmed, registrants will be provided the virtual meeting
information/teleconference call-in number and passcode. Callers are
responsible for paying associated long-distance charges (if any).

    Note: Only NAC Members, members of the public who have
registered to make a public statement, and NAC working groups and
FAA staff who are providing briefings will have the ability to
speak. All other attendees will be able to listen only.

    The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing
equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need
alternative formats or services because of a disability, please contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Five minutes will be allotted for oral comments from members of the
public joining the meeting. This time may be extended if there is a
significant number of members of the public wishing to provide an oral
comment. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for each
commenter may be limited. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time
during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration,
as well as the name, address, and organizational affiliation of the
proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make
statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the
meeting, FAA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers
are required to submit a copy of their prepared remarks for inclusion
in the meeting records and for circulation to NAC members to the person
listed under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All prepared
remarks submitted on time will be accepted and considered as part of
the meeting's record.
    Members of the public may submit written statements for inclusion
in the meeting records and circulation to the NAC members. Written
statements need to be submitted to the person listed under the heading
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Comments received after the due date
listed in the DATES section will be distributed to the members but may
not be reviewed prior to the meeting. Any member of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 14th day of September, 2021.
Tiffany Ottilia McCoy,
General Engineer, NextGen Office of Collaboration and Messaging, ANG-M,
Office of the Assistant Administrator for NextGen, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-20103 Filed 9-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 149 (Friday, August 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36472-36476]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16399]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81264; File No. SR-MSRB-2017-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change To Assess an Underwriting Fee on Dealers That Are Underwriters
of Primary Offerings of Plans

July 31, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on July 19, 2017 the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') 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 amendment to MSRB
Rule A-13, on underwriting and transaction assessments for brokers,
dealers and municipal securities dealers (collectively ``dealers''), to
assess an underwriting fee on dealers that are underwriters of primary
offerings of plans, as the terms ``underwriter'' and ``plan'' are
defined under MSRB Rule G-45, on reporting of information on municipal
fund securities (the ``proposed rule change'').\3\ The MSRB has
designated the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness.
Beginning in May 2018, the Board will invoice underwriters for the
assessments due under the proposed rule change. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under Rule G-45(d)(xiv), an ``underwriter'' shall mean a
dealer that is an underwriter, as defined in Rule 15c2-12(f)(8)
under the Act, of municipal fund securities that are not local
government investment pools.
    Under Rule G-45(d)(ix), a ``plan'' is a college savings plan or
program established by a state, or agency or instrumentality of a
state, to operate as a qualified tuition program in accordance with
Section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The
proposed rule change will not apply to underwriters of other types
of municipal fund securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2017-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to assess an
underwriting fee on underwriters to plans to defray the costs and
expenses of operating and administering the MSRB. The proposed rule
change will amend Rule A-13 to add a new fee on an underwriter to a
plan at a rate of .0005% ($.005 per $1,000) of the total aggregate
assets for the plan underwritten as of December 31 each year, as
reported on MSRB Form G-45, reporting of information on municipal fund
securities. The MSRB believes that the proposed fee is reasonable as
well as necessary and appropriate to help defray the costs of operating
and administering the MSRB. The MSRB is committed to appropriately and
equitably assessing fees across all regulated activities to ensure
fairness, and, as summarized below, the MSRB's activity concerning
underwriters to plans has historically been funded with minimal fees.

Background

A. MSRB's Regulatory Authority Over Dealers and Underwriters to Plans

    The MSRB's regulation of dealers that sell interests in and dealers
that are underwriters to plans began over 18 years ago. In 1998, after
certain states created 529 college savings plans,\4\ the MSRB contacted
the SEC to determine whether plan investments were securities and,
further, whether they were municipal securities under the federal
securities laws.\5\ In early 1999, in response to the MSRB's inquiry,
SEC staff informed the Board that ``at least some interests in . . .
higher education trusts may be, depending on the facts and
circumstances, `municipal securities' for purposes of the Exchange
Act.'' \6\ Based on that guidance, the MSRB began its regulation of
dealer and underwriter activity in plans and local government
investment pools,\7\ collectively known as municipal fund securities
under Rule D-12, ``municipal fund security.'' Further, the Board
expanded its mission to include, among other things, the protection of
investors in plans and the public interest by promoting a fair and
efficient market for interests in those plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A 529 college savings plan is a plan, as defined under Rule
G-45(d)(ix).
    \5\ Section 529(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the ``Code'') provides, in part, that a 529 college savings
plan is a ``program established and maintained by a State or agency
or instrumentality thereof.'' 26 U.S.C. 529(b)(1).
    Although Congress amended the Code to add Section 529 in 1996,
the market for 529 college savings plans did not grow significantly
until after the enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 (``EGTRRA''). EGTRRA made several
improvements, such as permitting distributions to be withdrawn free
of federal income tax, if the distributions were used for qualified
higher education expenses.
    \6\ Letter dated February 26, 1999 from Catherine McGuire, Chief
Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, to Diane G. Klinke,
General Counsel of the Board, in response to letter dated June 2,
1998 from Diane G. Klinke to Catherine McGuire.
    \7\ Local government investment pools (``LGIPs'') are
established by state or local governmental entities as trusts that
serve as vehicles for the pooled investment of public moneys of
participating governmental entities. Although most LGIPs are fully
administered by governmental personnel or non-dealer contractors, a
limited number of LGIPs involve dealers undertaking transaction-
based activities. Such dealers are subject to the MSRB's rules
regarding municipal fund securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support the MSRB's regulation of dealers that are underwriters
to plans, as well as its mission to protect investors in those plans,
the MSRB has engaged in significant rulemaking, market transparency,
educational and market outreach initiatives. In addition, the MSRB has
provided examination and enforcement support to other regulatory
agencies related to dealer activity regarding plans. Those initiatives
and support require the Board's resources, including the resources of
its staff and of its Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA[supreg])
\8\ system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EMMA is a registered trademark of the MSRB, and is the
official repository for information on virtually all municipal
bonds, providing free access to official disclosures, trade data and
other information about the municipal securities market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Rulemaking Initiatives
    Approximately one third of the MSRB's general rules specifically

address municipal fund securities. The MSRB's rulemaking relating to
dealers that sell interests in and dealers that are underwriters to
plans has addressed, among other areas, professional qualifications
(e.g., the MSRB added a new permanent category of principal--Series
51--municipal fund securities limited principal--to supervise
activities regarding plans under Rule G-3, on professional
qualification requirements),\9\ fair practice (e.g., the Board
addressed under Rule G-20, on gifts, gratuities, non-cash compensation
and expenses of issuance, promotional gifts and ``other business
logos'' of a 529 college savings plan for which a dealer is acting as a
distributor,\10\ and advertising, including a proposed rule change
relating to municipal fund security product advertisements submitted to
the Commission on June 22, 2017, under Rule G-21(e), on municipal fund
security product advertisements),\11\ and market transparency (e.g.,
the Board addressed disclosures in connection with the offering of
interests in 529 college savings plans under Rule G-32, on disclosures
in connection with primary offerings).\12\ Since 2001, the Board has
issued over 60 regulatory notices pertaining to plans. Many of those
notices provided guidance to dealers regarding the application of
existing MSRB rules to plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Act Release No. 45652 (Mar. 26, 2002), 67 FR
15844 (Apr. 3, 2002), SR-MSRB-2002-03.
    \10\ See Exchange Act Release No. 76381 (Nov. 6, 2015), 80 FR
70271 (Nov. 13, 2015), SR-MSRB-2015-09.
    \11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 81060 (Jun. 30, 2017), 82 FR
31644 (Jul. 7, 2017), SR-MSRB-2017-04.
    \12\ See Exchange Act Release No. 43858 (Jan. 18, 2001), 66 FR
8126 (Jan. 29, 2001), SR-MSRB-00-06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Market Transparency Initiatives
    The MSRB has engaged in several market transparency initiatives
relating to municipal fund securities. For example, under MSRB Rule G-
32, on disclosures relating to primary offerings, an underwriter to a
plan, among other things, must submit the official offering statement
and any amendment thereto, i.e., the program disclosure booklet for the
plan it distributes, to the MSRB. To assist the underwriter in making
its submission, the MSRB developed a filing portal on EMMA as well as
the database for the underwriter's submissions. In addition, to assist
an investor with finding the program disclosure booklet for a plan of
interest, the MSRB developed an interactive Web site with a 50-state
map that allows the investor to more quickly and easily access that
information.
    Under Rule G-45, an underwriter must submit information about each
plan for which it is an underwriter on a semi-annual basis to the MSRB.
To facilitate such submissions, the MSRB developed two methods through
which an underwriter could make those submissions to the MSRB so that
the underwriter could select the method it prefers (either through the
EMMA dataport or through a computer-to-computer interface) as well as
developed the database for the submissions. The MSRB continues to
enhance the database as well as to assist underwriters to plans by
answering inquiries relating to the submission of that data through the
MSRB's call center. Further, MSRB staff utilizes the data submitted
under Rule G-45 to analyze plans, monitor their growth rate, size and
investment options, and compare plans based on fees, costs, and
performance.
iii. Educational and Market Outreach
    The MSRB has engaged in educational and market outreach both to
underwriters to plans and to investors in those plans. That outreach
has included: Conducting regional compliance seminars for dealers; MSRB
staff presentations and attendance at major industry conferences; and
the development and distribution of multiple educational pieces to
assist dealers and investors in 529 college savings plans, including an
investor's guide to 529 college savings plans.
iv. Market Leadership Activities
    Beyond its rulemaking, market transparency, educational and market
outreach initiatives, the MSRB has engaged in market leadership
activities relating to plans. Those market leadership activities, among
other things, have resulted in Congressional testimony and in the
development of voluntary industry disclosure standards for 529 college
savings plan program disclosure booklets.\13\ For example, MSRB staff
testified at a 2004 Senate subcommittee oversight hearing on sales and
disclosure practices in the 529 college savings plan market. In
addition, the MSRB encouraged the College Savings Plans Network to
promulgate more comprehensive voluntary disclosure standards and to
establish a central information clearinghouse on 529 college savings
plans. Further, in 2009, the MSRB submitted a comment letter on the use
of 529 college savings plans in advance of the Report on 529 College
Savings Plans prepared by the U.S. Department of the Treasury on behalf
of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The MSRB's Web site discusses the Board's market leadership
activities. http://www.msrb.org/Market-Topics.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Support to Other Regulatory Agencies
    To facilitate efficient and effective examination and enforcement
of MSRB rules, the MSRB provides support to the regulatory agencies
that enforce the MSRB's rules. Those regulatory agencies include the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') and the
Commission. That support includes education and guidance about MSRB
rules, training of the staff of those regulatory agencies regarding the
MSRB rules, and the provision of additional information about plans to
support the monitoring of the market for potential misconduct. The MSRB
continues and will continue in the future to provide this support.

B. Holistic Review of MSRB Fees

    The MSRB assesses dealers and municipal advisors (collectively,
``regulated entities'') various fees designed to defray the costs of
its operations and administration, including rulemaking, market
transparency, educational and market outreach initiatives that fulfill
its Congressional mandate to, among other things, protect investors,
state and local governments and other municipal entities by promoting
the fairness and efficiency of the municipal securities market. Section
15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act \14\ provides, in pertinent part, that each
regulated entity shall pay to the Board such reasonable fees and
charges as may be necessary or appropriate to defray the costs of
operating and administering the Board, and that the MSRB shall have
rules specifying the amount of such fees. The current MSRB fees are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Initial Registration Fee (Rule A-12, on Registration)
    $1,000 one-time registration fee to be paid by each dealer to
register with the MSRB before engaging in municipal securities
activities and each municipal advisor to register with the MSRB before
engaging in municipal advisory activities.
2. Annual Registration Fee (Rule A-12)
    $1,000 annual fee to be paid by each dealer and municipal advisor
registered with the MSRB.

3. Underwriting Fee (Rule A-13)
    $.0275 per $1,000 of the par value paid by a dealer, on all
municipal securities purchased from an issuer by or through such
dealer, whether acting as principal or agent as part of a primary
offering--except that this fee does not apply to commercial paper or
municipal fund securities, such as interests in plans.
4. Transaction Fee (Rule A-13)
    .001% ($.01 per $1,000) of the total par value to be paid by a
dealer, except in limited circumstances, for inter-dealer sales and
customer sales reported to the MSRB pursuant to Rule G-14(b), on
transaction reporting requirements--this fee does not apply to the sale
of interests in plans.
5. Technology Fee (Rule A-13)
    $1.00 paid by a dealer per transaction for each inter-dealer sale
and for each sale to customers reported to the MSRB pursuant to Rule G-
14(b)--this fee does not apply to the sale of interests in plans.
6. Municipal Advisor Professional Fee (Rule A-11, on Assessments for
Municipal Advisor Professionals)
    $300 per Form MA-I on file with the SEC by the municipal advisor--
this fee does not apply to dealers/underwriters to plans.
7. Examination Fee (Rule A-16, on Examination Fees)
    $150 test development fee assessed per candidate for each MSRB
examination.
8. Late Fee (Rule A-11 and Rule A-12)
    $25 monthly late fee and a late fee on the overdue balance
(computed according to the prime rate) until paid on balances not paid
within 30 days of the invoice date by the dealer or municipal
advisor.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In addition, the MSRB charges data subscription and service
fees for subscribers, including dealers and municipal advisors,
seeking direct electronic delivery of municipal trade data and
disclosure documents associated with municipal bond issues. However,
this information is available without direct electronic delivery on
the EMMA Web site without charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Begun in 2015, the Board's holistic review of fees that the Board
assesses on regulated entities continues. The Board evaluates those
fees with the goal of better aligning revenue sources with operating
expenses and all capital needs. The Board strives to diversify funding
sources among regulated entities and other entities that fund MSRB
services in a manner that ensures long-term sustainability, while
continuing to strike an equitable balance among regulated entities and
a fair allocation of the expenses of the regulatory activities, systems
development and operational activities undertaken by the MSRB. Proxies
used by the Board for fairly allocating to regulated entities the cost
of MSRB regulation include, but are not limited to: Being registered to
engage in municipal securities or municipal advisory activities; the
level of dealer market activity; and the number of associated persons
engaged in municipal advisory activities on behalf of a municipal
advisor. Recognizing that in any given year there could be more or less
activity by a particular class of regulated entities, the Board, as it
has historically, sought to establish a fee structure that would result
in a balanced and reasonable contribution over time from all regulated
entities to defray costs and expenses of operating and administering
the MSRB.
    The Board's most recent evaluation focused on the fees assessed on
dealers/underwriters to 529 college savings plans. Of the fees assessed
to defray the costs of operating and administering the Board, dealers
that sell interests in and dealers that act as underwriters to plans,
that do not otherwise engage in the municipal securities business, are
subject to three MSRB fees--the initial and annual registration fees,
the examination fees, and the late fees (when applicable). During
Fiscal Year 2016, the annual registration fees assessed on all
regulated entities accounted for slightly less than 6% of the Board's
total revenue, and of that amount, registration fees for dealers/
underwriters that engage in transactions relating to plans exclusively
accounted for 0.9% of that slightly less than 6% of registration fee
revenue, or less than 0.05% of total revenue.
    In 1999, the Board requested comment about a draft amendment to
Rule A-13 to assess an underwriting fee on underwriters to plans.\16\
The draft underwriting fee applicable to underwriters of plans would
have been assessed at the same level as the underwriting fee then
assessed on underwriters of municipal bonds, but based on the purchase
price the investor paid for the interests in the plan, exclusive of any
commission. In addition, the draft underwriting fee would not have
accounted for the redemption of interests in plans. The Board, however,
did not proceed with that draft amendment to Rule A-13. The Board
stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Request for Comments (March 17, 1999) (the ``March
request''). In response to the March request, commenters submitted
that the fee structure for dealers involved in the distribution of
529 college savings plans was more like an administrative fee, and
was significantly different from an underwriting discount or
commission since such dealers did not undertake underwriting risks.
Commenters also urged, if underwriting assessments were assessed,
that assessments be lower than the assessments charged in more
traditional municipal securities offerings and that the assessments
consider any securities that are retired/redeemed. Commenters noted
that the underlying mutual funds offered through a 529 college
savings plan pay registration fees to the SEC.

    Based on the . . . continuous nature of offerings in municipal
fund securities, the programmatic nature of most customer
investments and the heightened potential that underwriting
assessments could create significant financial burdens on issuers to
their customers' detriment justify caution in imposing the
underwriting assessment.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See File No. SR-MSRB-00-6 (Apr. 5, 2000).

The Board has exercised that caution, and now has determined to assess
an underwriting fee on dealers that are underwriters to plans at a
level far below the underwriting fee assessed on underwriters of
municipal bonds. As noted under ``Proposed Rule Change,'' underwriters,
consistent with the Board's long-standing prohibition, will be
prohibited under Rule A-13 from charging or otherwise passing through
the underwriting fee to issuers of plans.
Proposed Rule Change
    The proposed rule change will assess an underwriter to a primary
offering of a plan an underwriting fee of .0005% of the total aggregate
assets of the plan for the reporting period ending December 31 each
year, as required to be reported on Form G-45. For the purposes of the
proposed rule change, if there are multiple underwriters of the primary
offering of the interests in plans identified on Form G-45, the term
``underwriter'' will be limited to the underwriter identified as the
primary distributor in the official statement, i.e., the program
disclosure booklet, for the primary offering submitted under Rule G-32.
The Board will invoice that primary distributor for the assessment due
under the proposed rule change beginning in May 2018.
    Specifically, the proposed rule change will amend Rule A-13(a) to
reflect the amount of the proposed rule change's underwriting fee set
forth in new subsection (c)(ii). The proposed rule change also will
amend Rule A-13 to add new section (b) ``underwriting assessments--
certain municipal fund securities'' to Rule A-13. New section (b) will
require that an underwriter to a plan pay an underwriting fee to the
Board. As noted above, for the purposes of that new section, if there
are multiple

underwriters for the plan identified on MSRB Form G-45, the term
``underwriter'' will be limited to the underwriter identified as the
primary distributor in the official statement for the primary offering
submitted under Rule G-32 as of December 31 of the relevant year. The
proposed rule change will renumber current section (b) of Rule A-13 as
section (c). In new subsection (c)(i), the Board will set forth the
underwriting assessment for primary offerings subject to assessment in
section (a). In new subsection (c)(ii), the proposed rule change will
set forth the amount of the assessment of the underwriting fee on
underwriters to plans (.0005% of the total aggregate assets for the
reporting period ending December 31 each year, as required to be
reported on MSRB Form G-45). The proposed rule change will renumber
current section (c) of Rule A-13 as section (d) of Rule A-13. Further,
the proposed rule change will renumber current section (d) of Rule A-13
as section (e). New section (e) of Rule A-13 will address the billing
procedure as to how the Board will invoice dealers for payment of
underwriting assessments and transaction and technology assessments,
including dealers that act as underwriters to plans. For the
assessments set forth in new sections (c)(i) and (d), the Board monthly
will invoice brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers for
payment of underwriting assessments and transaction and technology
assessments. For the assessments set forth in new subsection (c)(ii),
the Board annually will invoice the underwriter identified in section
(b) for the payment of underwriting assessments.
    As previously stated, new section (e) will provide that if there
are multiple underwriters identified on Form G-45 for the reporting
period ending December 31 each year, the Board will invoice the
underwriter identified as the primary distributor in the official
statement for the primary offering submitted under Rule G-32 of the
relevant year. The proposed rule change will renumber current section
(e) of Rule A-13 as section (f). The proposed rule change will clarify
that the Board's long-standing prohibition on charging or otherwise
passing through the fees required under Rule A-13 to issuers applies to
all fees assessed under Rule A-13, including underwriting fees assessed
on underwriters to plans.\18\ Finally, the proposed rule change will
renumber current section (f) of Rule A-13 as section (g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For over twenty years, the Board has stated that:
    the fees paid to the Board under rule A-13 should be
characterized by dealers to issuers no differently than the annual
fees paid to the Board . . . [under Rule A-12] and any other
``overhead'' expenses that are incurred by virtue of the dealer
engaging in municipal securities business.
    Exchange Act Rel. No. 34601 (Aug. 25, 1994), 59 FR 169 (Sept. 1,
1994) (File No. SR-MSRB-94-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act \19\ which requires, in part, that the
MSRB's rules shall provide that each municipal securities broker,
municipal securities dealer, and municipal advisor shall pay to the
Board such reasonable fees and charges as may be necessary or
appropriate to defray the costs and expenses of operating and
administering the Board and that such rules shall specify the amount of
such fees and charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J). Section 15B(b)(2)(J) provides
that each dealer shall:
    pay to the Board such reasonable fees and charges as may be
necessary or appropriate to defray the costs and expenses of
operating and administering the Board. Such rules shall specify the
amount of such fees and charges, which may include charges for
failure to submit to the Board, or to any information system
operated by the Board, within the prescribed timeframes, any items
of information or documents required to be submitted under any rule
issued by the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that its rules provide for reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges among regulated entities. The MSRB believes that the
proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to fund the operation
and administration of the Board and satisfies the requirements of
Section 15B(b)(2)(J),\20\ achieving a more equitable balance among
regulated entities and a fairer allocation of the expenses of the
regulatory activities, system development, and operational activities
undertaken by the MSRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will account for the differences between
municipal fund securities and other municipal securities. The Board
accounts for those differences both in the manner and in the amount of
the underwriting fee that the Board will assess on underwriters to
plans.
    To recognize the continuous nature of offerings in plans, the MSRB
will assess the proposed fee in a manner that will be similar to how
the SEC assesses registration fees on mutual funds pursuant to Rule
24f-2 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. The MSRB
will assess the proposed rule change on the plan's total aggregate
assets as of December 31 each year, as reported by an underwriter on
Form G-45. Thus, the proposed rule change will account for the
redemption of units in plans. Further, to recognize the differences in
the commission structure between other municipal securities offerings,
such as municipal bonds, and offerings in plans, the Board will assess
the proposed rule change at a rate that is significantly lower than the
rate the Board uses to assess underwriters subject to assessment under
Rule A-13(a) (the amount of the underwriting assessment under Rule A-
13(a) is .00275% of the par value of the primary offering).
    The proposed rule change will defray the costs of the Board's
significant rulemaking, market transparency, educational and market
outreach initiatives, market leadership, and inspections/enforcement
support relating to underwriters to plans, an industry with
approximately $266 billion in assets as of December 31, 2016, as
reported in March 2017.\21\ The proposed rule change will diversify
funding sources among regulated entities in a manner that will achieve
a more equitable balance among regulated entities and a fairer
allocation of the costs, systems, and services among other users and
regulated entities. Looking forward to Fiscal Year 2020, the MSRB's pro
forma budgets reflect a gradual decrease in reserve levels, even with
the new underwriting fee on underwriters of 529 college savings plans,
as expenses are projected to increase annually while current sources of
revenue are projected to be flat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Strategic Insight 529 College Savings & ABLE 1Q 2017
529 Data Highlights available at http://www.529insiders.com/uploadedFiles/529-Insider/News/2017/January/1Q%202017%20Strategic%20Insight%20529%20Data%20Quarterly%20Highlights.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires that MSRB rules not be
designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In accordance
with certain aspects of the Board's policy on the use of economic
analysis,\22\ the Board has reviewed the proposed rule change. The
Board believes the

proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to ensure that MSRB
registrants that participate in the underwriting activities of plans
share in the costs and expenses of operating and administering the
MSRB. The MSRB has considered the economic impact of the proposed rule
change. The MSRB expects the impact of the proposed rule change to be
small and unlikely to negatively impact the competitiveness of the
underwriters or underwriting markets for 529 college savings plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The scope of the Board's policy on the use of economic
analysis in rulemaking provides that:
    [t]his policy addresses rulemaking activities of the MSRB that
culminate, or are expected to culminate, in a filing of a proposed
rule change with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 . . . other than a proposed rule change that
the MSRB reasonably believes would qualify for immediate
effectiveness under Section 19(b)(3)(A) if filed as such or as
otherwise provided under the exception process of this policy.
    Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking,
available at http://www.msrb.org/en/Rules-and-Interpretations/Economic-Analysis-Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will assess an annual fee of 0.0005%, or
1/20th of a basis point, on plan assets to underwriters of plans.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The SEC currently assesses a fee for mutual funds sold
annually, which in 2017 amounts to 1.159 basis point per year. The
fee rate which the SEC assessed for the mutual funds pursuant to
Rule 24f-2 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, is
by law, the same rate as the annual rate assessed for registered
securities under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The SEC determines the fee rate at the beginning of each
fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule
change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act since it will
apply equally to all underwriters engaged in a primary offering of
interests in plans required to submit data to the MSRB on Form G-45.
The assessment will be proportional to the overall size of each plan
being underwritten; therefore, the MSRB believes the total fee charged
to each underwriter will bear a reasonable relationship to the level of
underwriting activities that are undertaken by the underwriter.
Moreover, since the proposed rule change's amendment to Rule A-13 will
result in an underwriting fee that is de minimus, underwriters of 529
college savings plans that are not subject to Rule G-45 will not have
an unfair competitive advantage.

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

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

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \24\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\25\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2017-05 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-2017-05. 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-2017-05 and should be
submitted on or before August 25, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16399 Filed 8-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		July 23, 2014

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	EPA Region 1

SUBJECT:	July 22, 2014, Meeting with New England State Commissioners and Air Directors Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on July 22, 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. Discussion covered applicability, state goals and rate to mass conversions.

ATTENDEES (all by phone)
Connecticut: Jamieson Sinclair, Roslyn Reeps
Maine: Patricia Aho, Heather Parent, Marc Cone
Massachusetts: Will Space
New Hampshire: Joe Fontaine
Rhode Island: Janet Coit, Doug McVay
Vermont: Elaine O'Grady, David Mears

EPA: Joe Goffman, Cynthia Greene, Dave Conroy, Shutsu Wong, Kate Melanson, Doug Gutro, Jenny Noonan, Beth Conlin, Brian Fisher, Christopher Sherry, Dave Risley, David Solomon, Debra Dalcher, Joe Bryson, Julia Miller, Kevin Culligan, Matt Clouse, Michael Cohen

Attachment: "140722 list of questions - Region 1 AH call with EPA.docx"