[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48787-48788]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17524]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-117-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: Supplement to May 10, 2016 Application of Northern
States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation for Authorization under
FPA Section 203 to Acquire Jurisdictional Assets.
    Filed Date: 7/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20160713-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-150-000.
    Applicants: Agera Energy LLC, energy.me midwest llc, Aequitas
Energy, Inc.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act and Request for Confidential Treatment of
Agera Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-151-000.
    Applicants: Raven Power Holdings LLC, C/R Energy Jade, LLC,
Sapphire Power Holdings LLC, Talen Energy Corporation.
    Description: Joint Application of Talen Energy Corporation, et.
al., for Approval Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-281-010.
    Applicants: Northampton Generating Company, L.P.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status [including Pro
Forma sheets] of Northampton Generating Company, L.P.
    Filed Date: 7/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20160714-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2570-012; ER13-618-011.
    Applicants: Panther Creek Power Operating, LLC, Westwood
Generation, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Panther
Creek Power Operating, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20160714-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-230-001.
    Applicants: GP Energy Management LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of GP Energy
Management LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20160714-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2198-000.
    Applicants: Macquarie Energy LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ME Revised MBR re Locational
Exchange to be effective 9/12/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20160714-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2199-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: MSS-4 Replacement Tariff
Compliance to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20160714-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2201-000.
    Applicants: Antelope DSR 1, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Antelope DSR 1, LLC MBR
Tariff to be effective 7/16/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2204-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA No. 4493, Queue
No. AB1-096 to be effective 6/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2205-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: GIA & DSA Mirasol
Development LLC Mirasol Murrieta 1 Project to be effective 7/16/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2206-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Amended SGIA and DSA
for the SEPV Sierra Solar Project to be effective 7/16/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2210-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SGIA and Service Agreement
for Division Solar Project to be effective 7/16/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2211-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Wisconsin Electric FERC
Electric Tariff Volume No. 9-2016 to be effective 9/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2212-000.
    Applicants: Brandon Shores LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Market-Based Rate Filing to be
effective 9/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2213-000.
    Applicants: H.A. Wagner LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to
be effective 9/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2214-000.
    Applicants: Pedricktown Cogeneration Company LP.
    Description: Compliance filing: Market Based Rate Tariff Filing to
be effective 9/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2215-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Permanent De-List Bids and Retirement De-List Bids
submitted for 2020-21 Forward Capacity Auction of ISO New England Inc.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 15, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17524 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15593]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06632]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12635-002; Project No. 12152-000]

Moriah Hydro Corporation; Notice of Pre-Filing Activities in
Another Docket

    Take notice that some pre-filing activities related to the
preparation of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage
Project (P-12635-002) were undertaken in docket number P-12152-000.
Documents pertaining to that proceeding are available in the
Commission's eLibrary under docket number P-12152.
    For further information, please contact John Mudre at (202) 502-
8902.

     Dated: March 17, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06632 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9580-9588]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03059]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96840; File No. SR-MSRB-2023-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Amendments to MSRB Rule G-40, on Advertising by Municipal Advisors, and
MSRB Rule G-8, on Books and Records

February 8, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on January 31, 2023, the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of amendments to MSRB Rule G-40, on advertising by municipal
advisors. Specifically, the proposed rule change consists of amendments
to MSRB Rule G-40 to (i) permit municipal advisors to use testimonials
in advertisements, subject to certain conditions; (ii) specify
additional supervisory obligations with respect to the use of
testimonials; (iii) modify the definition of municipal advisory client
to better align with MSRB Rule G-38, on solicitation of municipal
securities business; (iv) specify the obligation to keep a record of
any payment for a testimonial; and (v) create a conforming obligation
under MSRB Rule G-8, on books and records to be made by brokers,
dealers, municipal securities dealers and municipal advisors, to
include records to correspond with the current obligation under MSRB
Rule G-40 to maintain records relating to the supervision of
advertisements as well as the proposed obligation to maintain records
of any payments for a testimonial (together ``the proposed rule
change''). The MSRB requests that the proposed rule change be approved
with an implementation date to be announced by the MSRB in a regulatory
notice published no later than one month following the Commission
approval date, which implementation date shall be no later than three
months following the Commission approval date.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's
website at https://msrb.org/2023-SEC-Filings, 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
    Consistent with the MSRB's strategic goal to modernize the MSRB
Rulebook, the proposed rule change would amend MSRB Rule G-40 to allow
municipal advisors to use testimonials in certain circumstances, which
would better align MSRB Rule G-40 with, to the extent appropriate, the
principles of MSRB Rule G-21, on advertising by brokers, dealers or
municipal securities, as well as Rule 206(4)-1 \3\ under the Investment

Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act'') \4\ adopted by the
Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.
    \5\ See Investment Advisers Act Release No. 5653 (Dec. 22,
2020), the adopting release for Investment Adviser Marketing (the
``SEC 2020 Adopting Release''), 86 FR 13024-13147 (Mar. 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
Advertisements Under MSRB Rule G-40
    In recognition of the fact that municipal advisors bear
similarities with both brokers, dealers and municipal securities
dealers (collectively and individually, ``dealers'') and investment
advisers and to promote regulatory consistency for regulated entities
dually registered as a dealer and as a municipal advisor, or as an
investment adviser registered with the SEC, the MSRB established
advertising standards for municipal advisors in 2018.\6\ These
advertising standards were developed by aligning with, to the extent
practicable, the then existing standards for investment advisers under
Rule 206(4)-1 and the then existing standards for dealers under MSRB
Rule G-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 83177 (May 7, 2018), 83 FR
21794 (May 10, 2018), approval of proposed rule change File No. SR-
MSRB-2018-01 (``SEC approval order of MSRB Rule G-40''). The
effective date for municipal advisors to comply with MSRB Rule G-40
was August 23, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSRB Rule G-40 is designed to protect municipal entities, obligated
persons and the general public by requiring a municipal advisor's
advertisement to adhere to specific content standards based on the
principles of fair dealing and good faith. An advertisement is
generally defined in MSRB Rule G-40 to include any material published
or used in any electronic or other public media, or any written or
electronic promotional literature distributed or made generally
available to municipal entities, obligated persons, municipal advisory
clients or the public, including any notice, circular, report, market
letter, form letter, telemarketing script, seminar text, press release
concerning the services of the municipal advisor or the engagement of a
municipal advisory client or reprint, or any excerpt of the foregoing
or of a published article.\7\ MSRB Rule G-40 specifies content
standards that require, among other things, that all advertisements by
a municipal advisor be fair and balanced and provide a sound basis for
evaluating the facts in regard to any particular municipal security or
type of municipal security, municipal financial product, industry, or
service.\8\ A municipal advisor may not make any false, exaggerated,
unwarranted, promissory or misleading statement or claim in any
advertisement or omit any material fact or qualification if the
omission, in light of the context of the material presented, would
cause the advertisement to be misleading.\9\ Additionally, a municipal
advisor is prohibited from publishing false or misleading
advertisements concerning the services of the municipal advisor or the
engagement of a municipal advisory client or concerning the facilities,
services, or skills of any municipal advisor.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See MSRB Rule G-40(a)(i).
    \8\ See MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv)(A).
    \9\ See MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv)(B).
    \10\ See MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing MSRB Rule G-40, the MSRB determined to prohibit
municipal advisors, directly or indirectly, from publishing,
circulating or distributing any advertisement which refers, directly or
indirectly, to any testimonial of any kind concerning the municipal
advisor or concerning the advice, analysis, report or other service
rendered by the municipal advisor.\11\ At that time, the MSRB expressed
the view that a testimonial in a municipal advisor's advertisement
would present significant issues, including the possibility of being
misleading.\12\ As a basis for this view, the MSRB noted that the
Commission had taken a similar position in adopting Advisers Act Rule
206(4)-1 in 1961 (the ``Initial IA Advertising Rule'' or ``Initial Rule
206(4)-1''), determining that the use of a testimonial by an investment
adviser would constitute a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act,
practice, or course of action.\13\ Believing that doing so would help
ensure consistent regulation between regulated entities subject to a
fiduciary standard, the MSRB determined to act consistently with the
language of Initial Rule 206(4).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G).
    \12\ See Exchange Act Release No. 82616 (Feb. 1, 2018), 83 FR
5474 (Feb. 7, 2018), notice of proposed rule change File No. SR-
MSRB-2018-01) (``Notice of proposed Rule G-40'').
    \13\ See Investment Advisers Act Release No. 121 (Nov. 1, 1961)
(the ``1961 Advertising Rule Adopting Release''), 26 FR 10548 (Nov.
9, 1961). The Commission adopted the Advertising Rule in 1961 to
target advertising practices that the Commission believed were
likely to be misleading.
    \14\ See Notice of Proposed MSRB Rule G-40, 83 FR 5474, 5478
n.26, 5488 & n.119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testimonials Under MSRB Rule G-21
    In establishing MSRB Rule G-40, the MSRB also sought, to the extent
practicable, to harmonize with its existing rule governing the
advertisements of dealers, MSRB Rule G-21. While not identical, the two
MSRB rules are analogous in that they both are based on principles of
fair dealing and maintain rigorous content standards. However, MSRB
Rule G-40 currently prohibits a municipal advisor from using a
testimonial in an advertisement. This prohibition is based in part on
the fiduciary duty that a non-solicitor municipal advisor (as opposed
to a dealer) owes its municipal entity clients.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See generally Notice of Proposed MSRB Rule G-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSRB Rule G-21 permits a dealer to use a testimonial in an
advertisement if certain conditions are met. Specifically, if a
dealer's advertisement contains a testimonial, then the person
providing the testimonial concerning a technical aspect of investing
must have the knowledge and experience to form a valid opinion.\16\
Additionally, if an advertisement contains a testimonial about the
investment advice or investment performance of the dealer, the
advertisement must prominently disclose (i) the fact that the
testimonial may not be representative of the experience of other
customers; (ii) the fact that the testimonial is no guarantee of future
performance or success; and (iii) if more than $100 in value is paid
for the testimonial, the fact that it is a paid testimonial.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ MSRB Rule G-21(a)(iii)(G)(1).
    \17\ MSRB Rule G-21(a)(iii)(G)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testimonials Under Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1
    In establishing MSRB Rule G-40 in 2018, the MSRB recognized that
the Commission was considering modernizing the Initial IA Advertising
Rule and noted that it would monitor developments related to the
testimonial ban.\18\ On December 22, 2020, the Commission adopted
amendments to modernize and consolidate the Initial IA Advertising Rule
and Rule 206(4)-3 of the Adviser's Act (the ``IA Solicitation Rule'')
\19\ into one marketing rule for investment advisers, under the
Advisers Act (the ``Modernized IA Marketing Rule'' or ``SEC Rule
206(4)-1'').\20\ When adopting the Modernized IA Marketing Rule, the
SEC noted that, among other things, it replaces the previous rule's
``broadly drawn limitations with principles-based provisions designed
to accommodate the continual evolution and interplay of technology and
advice

and includes tailored requirements for certain types of
advertisements.'' \21\ Significantly, the Modernized IA Marketing Rule
replaced the prior ban on testimonials under the Initial IA Advertising
Rule with a permissive use of testimonials and endorsements in
advertisements,\22\ which includes traditional referral and
solicitation activity, subject to certain conditions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Notice of Proposed MSRB Rule G-40, 83 FR 5474, 5487.
    \19\ 17 CFR 275.206(4)-3. The IA Solicitation Rule was adopted
in 1979 ``to help ensure that clients are aware that paid solicitors
who refer them to advisers have a conflict of interest.'' See SEC
2020 Adopting Release, 86 FR 13025.
    \20\ SEC 2020 Adopting Release. The Modernized IA Marketing Rule
applies to any investment adviser registered or required to be
registered with the Commission under Sec.  203 of the Advisers Act
that directly or indirectly disseminates an advertisement.
    \21\ SEC Press Release, SEC Adopts Modernized Marketing Rule for
Investment Advisers, dated December 22, 2020.
    \22\ A ``testimonial'' is a statement made by a current client
or investor in a private fund advised by the investment adviser,
whereas an ``endorsement'' is a statement made by a person other
than a current client or investor in a private fund advised by the
investment adviser. See 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1(e)(17) and 17 CFR
275.206(4)-1(e)(5).
    \23\ 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1(b) (relating to compensated
testimonials and endorsements); see also 17 CFR 206(4)-1(e)(1)(ii)
(defining the term ``advertisement'' to include compensated
testimonials and endorsements). These conditions differ depending on
whether the testimonial or endorsement is compensated or
uncompensated. 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1(b)(4)(i) (exempting a testimonial
or endorsement disseminated for no compensation or de minimis
compensation from paragraphs 206(4)-1(b)(2)(ii) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Modernized IA Marketing Rule requires advertisements that
include testimonials or endorsements to provide disclosures of certain
information.\24\ Specifically, the Modernized IA Marketing Rule
requires that an investment adviser clearly and prominently disclose
the following at the time the testimonial or endorsement is
disseminated: (i) that the testimonial was given by a current client or
investor or, if an endorsement, that the endorsement was given by a
person other than a current client or investor; (ii) that cash or non-
cash compensation was provided for the testimonial, if applicable; and
(iii) a brief statement of any material conflicts of interest on the
part of the person giving the testimonial or endorsement resulting from
the adviser's relationship with such person.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1(b)(1).
    \25\ 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1(b). See 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1(b)(4)
discussing exemptions from the disclosure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, disclosure of the material terms of any compensation
arrangement and a description of any material conflicts of interest on
the part of the person giving the testimonial or endorsement resulting
from the advisers' relationship with such person and/or any
compensation arrangement must be provided to the recipient(s) of the
testimonial.\26\ All testimonials, including those that are compensated
and uncompensated are subject to oversight and compliance.
Specifically, the investment adviser must have (i) a reasonable basis
for believing that any testimonial or endorsement complies with the
requirements of the rule, and (ii) a written agreement with any person
giving a compensated testimonial or endorsement that describes the
scope of the agreed upon activities. The requirement to have a written
agreement only applies when the adviser is providing compensation for
testimonials and endorsements is above the de minimis threshold (i.e.,
$1,000 or less, or the equivalent value in non-cash compensation during
the preceding twelve months).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ This includes a description of the compensation provided or
to be provided, directly or indirectly, to the person for the
testimonial or endorsement. 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1(b)(1).
    \27\ 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the Commission's adoption of the Modernized IA
Marketing Rule, the MSRB has conducted a review of MSRB Rule G-40 and
is filing the proposed rule change to promote regulatory consistency
among regulated entities subject to a fiduciary standard. The proposed
rule change would permit municipal advisors to use testimonials in
advertisements, subject to certain conditions, as discussed below.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The term ``testimonial'' is not specifically defined in
MSRB Rule G-21 or MSRB Rule G-40; based on the application of each
rule, the term has been understood to include a statement given by a
current client or person other than a current client and does not
distinguish between a testimonial and an endorsement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Proposed Amendments
    To promote regulatory consistency, where practicable, among MSRB
Rule G-40, MSRB Rule G-21, and the SEC's Modernized IA Marketing Rule,
proposed amended MSRB Rule G-40 would permit the use of testimonials
subject to disclosures and other tailored conditions. The proposed rule
change would not only align MSRB Rule G-40 with the analogous
requirements for dealers under MSRB Rule G-21, but, because municipal
advisors have a fiduciary duty to their clients, the proposed rule
change would also include certain provisions, tailored to apply to
municipal advisors, which align with the SEC's Modernized IA Marketing
Rule. Specifically, the proposed rule change would amend the content
standards under MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv) to permit municipal advisors to
use testimonials in advertisements subject to certain conditions; amend
the supervisory obligations under MSRB Rule G-40(c) to specify
additional supervisory obligations with respect to the use of
testimonials; modify the definition of municipal advisory client; and
amend MSRB Rule G-8 to include records to correspond with the current
obligation under MSRB Rule G-40 to maintain records relating to the
supervision of advertisements.
MSRB Rule G-40 Content Standards
    MSRB Rule G-40 currently prohibits the use of testimonials in
advertisements by municipal advisors.\29\ The MSRB is not proposing to
alter the fundamental content standards of MSRB Rule G-40 that require
advertisements to be based on the principles of fair dealing and good
faith, be fair and balanced, and provide a sound basis for evaluating
the facts and that the advertisements not make any false, exaggerated,
unwarranted, promissory, or misleading statement or claim.\30\
Consistent with those standards, and recognizing the fiduciary duty
owed by municipal advisors to their municipal entity clients, the MSRB
is proposing to permit the use of testimonials in advertisements by
municipal advisors subject to certain conditions that the MSRB believes
would diminish the concern, expressed in establishing MSRB Rule G-40,
that testimonials could cause a municipal advisor's advertisement to be
misleading.\31\ Specifically, as proposed, MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G)
would be amended to provide that municipal advisor advertisements that
contain testimonials would be subject to additional content standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G).
    \30\ MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv)(A)-(F), G-40(a)(v) and G-40(b)(ii).
    \31\ See Notice of Proposed MSRB Rule G-40, 83 FR 5474, 5487.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a municipal advisor's advertisement contains a testimonial of
any kind concerning the municipal advisor or concerning the advice,
analysis, report, or other service rendered by the municipal advisor,
the person making the testimonial would be required to have the
knowledge and experience to form a valid opinion.\32\ This obligation
would standardize the content standard with that applicable to dealers'
use of testimonials under MSRB Rule G-21.\33\ The MSRB believes
applying this standard to municipal advisors is consistent with the
existing content standards of MSRB Rule G-40 established to prevent
false or misleading advertisements and would promote regulatory
consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Proposed MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G)(1).
    \33\ This content standard in MSRB Rule G-21 currently aligns
with the standard established in Rule 2210, Communications with the
Public, of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'').
Specifically, FINRA Rule 2210(d)(6)(A) provides that ``if any
testimonial in a communication concerns a technical aspect of
investing, the person making the testimonial must have the knowledge
and experience to form a valid opinion.''

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

    If an advertisement contains a testimonial concerning the municipal
advisor or concerning the advice, analysis, report, or other service
rendered by the municipal advisor, that advertisement must include,
clearly and prominently, disclosures designed to reduce the risk that
the use of a testimonial in an advertisement could be misleading.
First, the testimonial must include a clear and prominent disclosure
that the person providing the testimonial is a current municipal
advisory client or, if not currently a municipal advisory client, the
timeframe, denoted by calendar year(s), during which the person was a
municipal advisory client.\34\ The MSRB believes that allowing the use
of a testimonial only when the testimonial is from a current or former
client reinforces the proposed requirement that the person providing
the testimonial have the knowledge and experience to form a valid
opinion and helps ensure that the municipal advisor's advertisement is
fair and balanced. In addition, disclosing the time frame when a person
providing a testimonial was a municipal advisory client would provide
important context to help reduce the risk that the use of a testimonial
could be misleading, which would benefit the likely recipients of the
advertisement (i.e., municipal entities and obligated persons). The
clear and prominent disclosure standard requires that the disclosures
be included within the advertisement that includes the testimonial such
that the testimonial and disclosures are read at the same time and
improve the salience and impact of the disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Proposed MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G)(2)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The testimonial would also be required to include clear and
prominent disclosures that the testimonial may not be representative of
the experience of other clients,\35\ that the testimonial is no
guarantee of future performance or success,\36\ and, if more than $100
in total value in cash or non-cash compensation is paid for the
testimonial, the fact that it is a paid testimonial.\37\ Requiring
municipal advisors that use testimonials to adhere to these disclosure
requirements would harmonize the content standards with those
applicable to dealers' use of testimonials under MSRB Rule G-21.\38\
The MSRB believes requiring such disclosures is consistent with the
existing content standards of MSRB Rule G-40 and would promote
regulatory consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Proposed MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G)(2)(b).
    \36\ Proposed MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G)(2)(c).
    \37\ Proposed Rule MSRB G-40(a)(iv)(G)(2)(d).
    \38\ These disclosure requirements in MSRB Rule G-21 currently
align with the disclosure requirements in FINRA Rule
2210(d)(6)(B)(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the testimonial also would be required to include, clearly
and prominently, a brief statement of any material conflicts of
interest on the part of the person providing the testimonial resulting
from the municipal advisor's relationship with such person. Recognizing
the fiduciary duty owed by municipal advisors to their municipal entity
clients, the MSRB considered the obligations of registered investment
advisers, who, like municipal advisors, are subject to a fiduciary
standard in determining the disclosures that would be appropriate for
municipal advisors when using testimonials in advertisements. This
disclosure obligation parallels a disclosure obligation required of
registered investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-1(b)(1)(iii). The
MSRB believes that a brief statement of any material conflicts of
interest on the part of the person providing the testimonial resulting
from the municipal advisor's relationship with such person would result
in information that informs the likely recipients of the advertisement
(i.e., municipal entities and obligated persons) which serves to ensure
that the advertisement is fair and balanced and reduces the risk that
the use of a testimonial could be misleading. Furthermore, the MSRB
believes establishing the same disclosure obligation for municipal
advisors under MSRB Rule G-40 promotes regulatory consistency,
particularly among regulated entities subject to a fiduciary standard.
To that end, the MSRB expects this disclosure to be succinct.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ In adopting Rule 206(4)-1(b)(1)(iii), the SEC noted that
``[s]imilar to the other disclosures subject to the clear and
prominent standard, we expect this disclosure to be succinct. For
example, it would be sufficient for an adviser to simply state that
the testimonial or endorsement was provided by an affiliate of the
adviser, or that the promoter is related to the adviser, if this
relationship is the source of the conflict.'' SEC 2020 Adopting
Release, 86 FR 13025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two broad categories of municipal advisors \40\ -- those
that provide certain advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or
obligated person and those that undertake certain solicitations of a
municipal entity or obligated person on behalf of certain third-party
financial professionals, often referred to as solicitors.\41\ The MSRB
understands that municipal entity clients generally do not accept
compensation for testimonials and believes that the payment of more
than a de minimis amount (more than $1000 in total value in cash or
non-cash compensation during the preceding 12 months) to a municipal
entity client could present a potential conflict of interest.
Therefore, proposed MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G)(3) would prohibit a non-
solicitor municipal advisor from paying more than a de minimis amount
of compensation for a testimonial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Section 15B(e)(4) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(e)(4)) generally defines ``municipal advisor'' to mean a person
(who is not a municipal entity or an employee of a municipal entity)
that (i) provides advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or
obligated person with respect to municipal financial products or the
issuance of municipal securities, including advice with respect to
the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning
such financial products or issues; or (ii) undertakes a solicitation
of a municipal entity. Notwithstanding the omission of the term,
``obligated person'' in connection with the undertaking of a
solicitation under Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act (15
U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(4)(A)(ii)), the SEC has interpreted the definition
of ``municipal advisor'' to include a person who engages in the
solicitation of an obligated person acting in the capacity of an
obligated person. See Exchange Act Release No. 70462 (September 20,
2013), 78 FR 67467, at notes 138 and 408 (November 12, 2013) (File
No. S7-45-10) (``Order Adopting SEC Final MA Rule''). See also
Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(d)(1)(i) (17 CFR 240.15Ba1-1(d)(1)(i)).
    \41\ Section 15B(e)(9) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(e)(9)) generally defines ``solicitation of a municipal entity or
obligated person'' to mean a direct or indirect communication with a
municipal entity or obligated person made by a person, for direct or
indirect compensation, on behalf of a broker, dealer, municipal
securities dealer, municipal advisor, or investment adviser . . .
that does not control, is not controlled by, or is not under common
control with the person undertaking such solicitation for the
purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement by a municipal
entity or obligated person of a broker, dealer, municipal securities
dealer, or municipal advisor for or in connection with municipal
financial products, the issuance of municipal securities, or of an
investment adviser to provide investment advisory services to or on
behalf of a municipal entity. The SEC has interpreted this phrase
generally in a manner similar to the statutory definition. However,
it has also added two exceptions to the statutory definition for (i)
advertising by a dealer, municipal advisor or investment adviser and
(ii) solicitations of an obligated person where such obligated
person is not acting in the capacity of an obligated person or the
solicitation is not in connection with the issuance of municipal
securities or with respect to municipal financial products. See
Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(n) (17 CFR 240.15Ba1-1(n)). Additionally,
the SEC has exempted from the municipal advisor definition a person
that undertakes a solicitation of a municipal entity or obligated
person for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement by a
municipal entity or by an obligated person of a dealer or a
municipal advisor for or in connection with municipal financial
products that are investment strategies, to the extent such
investment strategies are not plans or programs for the investment
of the proceeds of municipal securities or the recommendation of and
brokerage of municipal escrow investments. See Exchange Act Rule
15Ba1-1(d)(1) (17 CFR 240.15Ba1-1(d)(1)) and 15Ba1-1(d)(3)(viii) (17
CFR 240.15Ba1-1(d)(3)(viii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid this concern and to avoid creating complexity in MSRB Rule
G-40 by establishing different standards for

obligated person clients of non-solicitor municipal advisors, the MSRB
determined to prohibit non-solicitor municipal advisors from paying any
compensation for a testimonial to a person, directly or indirectly, of
more than $1000 in total value in cash or non-cash compensation during
the preceding 12 months. However, the proposed rule change would permit
solicitor municipal advisors to pay such compensation to a municipal
advisor, or an investment adviser (as defined under section 202 of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940) on behalf of whom the municipal
advisor undertakes, or has undertaken, a solicitation of a municipal
entity or obligated person, as defined in Rule 15Ba1-1(n) \42\ subject
to certain conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 240.15Ba1-1(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first condition would require a solicitor municipal advisor to
conclude, based on the exercise of reasonable diligence, that the
municipal advisor or investment adviser who will provide the
testimonial is currently registered with the Commission. The MSRB
believes requiring a solicitor municipal advisor to determine that the
municipal advisor or investment adviser providing the testimonial is
registered with the Commission would establish a reasonable basis to
believe that the entity providing the testimonial would not be the
subject of a ``disqualifying Commission action'' or ``disqualifying
event'' as those terms are defined in SEC Rule 206(4)-1(e)(3) and
(4).\43\ While this proposed requirement under MSRB Rule G-40 is
similar to a requirement imposed on investment advisers under the
Modernized IA Marketing Rule, the requirement under MSRB Rule G-40 is
tailored to solicitor municipal advisors with the recognition that the
intended recipients of municipal advisors' advertisements are municipal
entities and obligated persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ SEC Rule 206(4)-1(e)(3) defines a ``disqualifying
Commission action'' to mean a Commission opinion or order barring,
suspending, or prohibiting the person from acting in any capacity
under the Federal securities laws. SEC Rule 206(4)-1(e)(4) defines a
``disqualifying event'' as any of the following events that occurred
within ten years prior to the person disseminating an endorsement or
testimonial: (i) a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction
within the United States of any felony or misdemeanor involving
conduct described in paragraph (2)(A) through (D) of section 203(e)
of the Act; (ii) a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction
within the United States of engaging in any of the conduct specified
in paragraphs (1), (5), or (6) of section 203(e) of the Act; (iii)
the entry of any final order by any entity described in paragraph
(9) of section 203(e) of the Act, or by the U.S. Commodity Futures
Trading Commission or a self-regulatory organization (as defined in
the Form ADV Glossary of Terms), of the type described in paragraph
(9) of section 203(e) of the Act; (iv) the entry of an order,
judgment or decree described in paragraph (4) of section 203(e) of
the Act, and still in effect, by any court of competent jurisdiction
within the United States; and (v) a Commission order that a person
cease and desist from committing or causing a violation or future
violation of (A) any scienter-based anti-fraud provision of the
Federal securities laws, including without limitation section
17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77q(a)(1)),
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78j(b)) and Sec.  240.10b-5 of this chapter, section 15(c)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(1)), and section
206(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-6(1)),
or any other rule or regulation thereunder; or (B) section 5 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77e). 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second condition would require a solicitor municipal advisor
that compensates a municipal advisor or investment adviser, directly or
indirectly, more than $1000 in total value in cash or non-cash
compensation during the preceding 12 months, to have a written
agreement with the municipal advisor or investment adviser.\44\ The
written agreement would be required to describe the scope of the
agreed-upon activities with respect to the testimonial and the terms of
the compensation for those activities. The proposed obligation for a
solicitor municipal advisor to have a written agreement with the
municipal advisor or investment adviser that describes the scope of the
agreed-upon activities with respect to the testimonial is akin to an
obligation under the Modernized IA Marketing Rule.\45\ The MSRB
believes the proposed additional conditions that would permit solicitor
municipal advisors to pay more than a de minimis amount of compensation
to a municipal advisory client providing a testimonial would reduce the
potential concerns raised by permitting a non-solicitor municipal
advisor to pay more than a de minimis amount of compensation to
municipal advisory clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ As discussed below, MSRB Rule G-38 prohibits dealers from
paying persons who are not affiliated with the dealers for a
solicitation of municipal securities business on their behalf. As a
result, the proposed rule change assumes that solicitor municipal
advisors would not obtain testimonials from dealers since dealers
are prohibited from paying solicitor municipal advisors for their
solicitations.
    \45\ See SEC Rule 206(4)-1(b)(2)(ii), 17 CFR 275.206(4)-
1(b)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MSRB Rule G-40 Supervisory Obligations
    MSRB Rule G-40 currently requires that each advertisement subject
to the requirements of the rule be approved in writing by a municipal
advisor principal, as defined in MSRB Rule G-3(e)(i), prior to first
use. The proposed rule change would broaden these supervisory
obligations to require, with respect to an advertisement that includes
a testimonial, that such approval be based on a reasonable belief that
the testimonial complies with the requirements of proposed MSRB Rule G-
40(a)(iv)(G). The MSRB believes this additional supervisory obligation
is appropriate in allowing municipal advisors the use of testimonials
in advertisements. This obligation would be consistent with the
oversight obligation under the Modernized IA Marketing Rule that
requires an investment adviser to have a reasonable basis for believing
that a testimonial complies with the requirements of SEC Rule 206(4)-
1.\46\ The MSRB believes establishing the same obligation for municipal
advisors under MSRB Rule G-40 would promote regulatory consistency,
particularly among regulated entities subject to a fiduciary standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See SEC Rule 206(4)-1(b)(2)(i), 17 CFR 275.206(4)-
1(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MSRB Rule G-40 Definitions
    MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iii) currently defines ``municipal advisory
client,'' for purposes of MSRB Rule G-40, to include either: a
municipal entity or obligated person for whom the municipal advisor
engages in municipal advisory activities, as defined in MSRB Rule G-
42(f)(iv); or a broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, municipal
advisor, or investment adviser (as defined under section 202 of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940) on behalf of whom the municipal
advisor undertakes a solicitation of a municipal entity or obligated
person, as defined in Rule 15Ba1-1(n), 17 CFR 240.15Ba1-1(n), under the
Act.\47\ However, MSRB Rule G-38 prohibits dealers from paying persons
who are not affiliated with the dealers for a solicitation of municipal
securities business on their behalf. Accordingly, to avoid confusion
and promote standardization across MSRB rules, the proposed rule change
would modify the definition of municipal advisory client. Specifically,
as proposed, the amended definition would exclude a broker, dealer, and
municipal securities dealer from the list of entities on behalf of whom
the municipal advisor undertakes a solicitation of a municipal entity
or obligated person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recordkeeping Requirements Under Rule G-40 and G-8
    MSRB Rule G-40 currently requires that each municipal advisor make
and keep current in a separate file, records of all advertisements.\48\
The proposed rule change would extend that

obligation to include records of any payment made to a municipal
advisory client for a testimonial. The proposed rule change also would
make a conforming amendment to the recordkeeping obligations under MSRB
Rule G-8(h) to add subparagraph (viii) to include records concerning
compliance with MSRB Rule G-40.\49\ Specifically, the proposed rule
change would amend MSRB Rule G-8(h) to specify that every municipal
advisor that is registered or required to be registered under Section
15B of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder would be
required to make and keep current the records specified under MSRB Rule
G-40. This would, therefore, include not only a record of all
advertisements, which is currently required under MSRB Rule G-40(e),
but also, to align with the proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-40(e), a
record of any cash or non-cash compensation provided to a municipal
advisory client, as that term is defined in MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iii) and
a record of any written agreement with a municipal advisor or
investment adviser required under proposed MSRB Rule G-
40(a)(iv)(G)(3)(b), which is required to describe the scope of the
agreed-upon activities with respect to the testimonial and the terms of
the compensation for such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ MSRB Rule G-40(e).
    \49\ Today the MSRB also filed a proposed rule change to adopt
new MSRB Rule G-46, on duties of solicitor municipal advisors, and
amend MSRB Rule G-8 by adding subparagraph (h)(ix) to include
records concerning compliance with MSRB Rule G-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that specifying these recordkeeping requirements
would provide more certainty for municipal advisors with respect to
their recordkeeping obligations. In addition, with the application of
existing MSRB Rule G-9, which requires that municipal advisors
generally preserve the books and records described in Rule G-8(h) for a
period of not less than five years, the proposed amendments to MSRB
Rule G-8(h) would provide examining authorities beneficial information
to assist in evaluating a municipal advisor's compliance with MSRB Rule
G-40.\50\ In addition, the proposed amendment to MSRB Rule G-8 would
align with SEC recordkeeping requirements, which require a municipal
advisor to make and keep true, accurate, and current certain books and
records relating to its municipal advisory activities, including
originals or copies of all written communications sent, by such
municipal advisor (including inter-office memoranda and communications)
relating to municipal advisory activities, regardless of the format of
such communications.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Municipal advisors are also subject to the recordkeeping
requirements described in SEC Rule 15Ba1-8(a)(1)-(8) under the Act.
    \51\ See Rule 15Ba1-8(a)(1)-(8), 240.15Ba1-8. MSRB Rule G-8
requires that municipal advisors make and keep current all books and
records described in Rule 15Ba-18(a)(1)-(8) under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\52\ which provides that the
Board shall propose and adopt rules to effect the purposes of this
title with respect to transactions in municipal securities effected by
brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers and advice provided
to or on behalf of municipal entities or obligated persons by brokers,
dealers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors with
respect to municipal financial products, the issuance of municipal
securities, and solicitations of municipal entities or obligated
persons undertaken by brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers,
and municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act \53\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \54\ because proposed MSRB Rule G-40,
while permitting the use of testimonials, would continue to: prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; protect municipal
entities, obligated persons and the public interest; promote just and
equitable principles of trade; remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities; and foster
cooperation and coordination with regulators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would help prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices. The proposed rule
change does not alter the standards that advertisements be based on the
principles of fair dealing and good faith, be fair and balanced, and
provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts and that the
advertisements do not include any false, exaggerated, unwarranted,
promissory or misleading statement or claim. As a result, the MSRB
believes that permitting municipal advisors to use only testimonials
that are consistent with these standards would help ensure that MSRB
Rule G-40 continues to prevent fraudulent and manipulatives acts and
practices.
    Proposed MSRB Rule G-40 also would protect municipal entities,
obligated persons and the public interest. It would do so by ensuring
that recipients of any advertisement containing a testimonial have the
necessary context to evaluate the testimonial because the proposed rule
change would only permit the use of testimonials if certain conditions
are met, including that specified disclosures are made. Since municipal
entities and obligated persons are the likely recipients of municipal
advisor's testimonials, the MSRB believes that the requisite
disclosures would help ensure that the proposed rule change would not
result in an erosion of protection for municipal entities, obligated
persons and the public interest.
    The MSRB also believes that the proposed rule change would promote
just and equitable principles of trade by aligning the advertising rule
for municipal advisors, to the extent practicable, with the advertising
rules for dealers and for investment advisers. This serves to provide
regulatory consistency for entities that may be dually registered, for
example as a municipal advisor and an investment adviser, and therefore
promotes compliance with the advertising rules, which in turn serves to
help prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices and protect
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.
Additionally, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule change may
remove impediments to a free and open municipal securities market by
permitting municipal advisors to also use testimonials in
advertisements, which could improve competition among municipal
advisors by allowing another method for advertising.
    In addition, the proposed rule change would foster coordination
with persons engaged in regulating transactions in municipal
securities. The amendments to MSRB Rule G-40 would more tightly align
the content standards for MSRB Rule G-40 with the content standards of
the SEC's Modernized IA Marketing

Rule. Providing a more uniform standard for regulated entities subject
to a fiduciary standard serves to foster greater cooperation and
coordination among the examining authorities responsible for ensuring
compliance with MSRB rules. The MSRB further believes that the proposed
amendment to MSRB Rule G-8 (with the related application of existing
MSRB Rule G-9 on records preservation) would help municipal advisors
create an audit trail for compliance and, in turn, would assist
examination and enforcement authorities in their examination for
compliance with MSRB Rule G-40, which would further help prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.
    Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Exchange Act \55\ requires that
rules adopted by the Board not impose a regulatory burden on small
municipal advisors that is not necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and for the protection of investors, municipal entities, and
obligated persons, provided that there is robust protection of
investors against fraud. The MSRB believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Exchange Act
\56\ because the proposed rule change would allow the use of
testimonials by all municipal advisors, including small municipal
advisors. The use of testimonials in advertising would be subject to
tailored obligations designed to impose only the necessary and
appropriate regulatory burdens needed to promote compliance with the
proposed rule change. The proposed rule change represents a balanced
approach to prescriptive standards for those municipal advisors that
choose to have the potential benefit of using testimonials in
advertisements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the MSRB sought to harmonize standards, where
applicable, between those applicable to solicitor municipal advisors,
non-solicitor municipal advisors, dealers, and registered investment
advisers such that those regulated entities that engage in conduct that
would make them two or more of the above could leverage some of their
existing processes to comply with relevant obligations under a
comparable regulatory framework. Moreover, the MSRB believes that
permitting municipal advisors to use a testimonial in an advertisement
would be particularly helpful for small municipal advisors to highlight
the services provided to other municipal advisory clients.
    The MSRB also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 15B(b)(2)(G) of the Exchange Act,\57\ which provides that
the MSRB's rules shall prescribe records to be made and kept by
municipal securities brokers, municipal securities dealers, and
municipal advisors and the periods for which such records shall be
preserved. The proposed rule change would require municipal advisors,
consistent with current MSRB Rule G-40(e), to make and keep current a
record of all advertisements and, consistent with proposed MSRB Rule G-
40(e), a record of any payment made to a municipal advisory client, as
that term is defined in MSRB Rule G-40(a)(iii) for a testimonial and a
record of any written agreements required under proposed MSRB Rule G-
40(a)(iv)(G)(3)(b). The MSRB believes that the proposed amendments to
MSRB Rule G-8 related to recordkeeping (with the ensuing application of
existing MSRB Rule G-9 on records preservation) would promote
regulatory consistency and compliance as well as facilitate the
examination for compliance with MSRB Rule G-40, other MSRB rules, and
other applicable securities laws and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act \58\ requires that MSRB
rules not be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The
MSRB believes the proposed rule change to amend MSRB Rule G-40 and MSRB
Rule G-8 would not impose any burden on competition and would not have
an impact on competition, as the proposed rule change would apply a
similar regulatory regime to all municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the Board's policy on the use of economic
analysis in rulemaking, the Board has reviewed proposed amended MSRB
Rule G-40 and proposed amended MRB Rule G-8.\59\ The MSRB believes that
the proposed changes to MSRB Rule G-40 and MSRB Rule G-8 would promote
regulatory consistency and would benefit municipal advisors by removing
the prohibition that an advertisement does not refer, directly or
indirectly, to any testimonial of any kind concerning the municipal
advisors. The proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-40 and MSRB Rule G-8,
by design, would continue to prevent any fraudulent or manipulative
practices, and therefore would protect issuers and investors, as
municipal advisors could only include the usage of a testimonial as
part of an advertisement if certain conditions are met, and if abiding
by the standards of the advertising rule in general. In addition, by
aligning MSRB rules with the SEC's Modernized IA Marketing Rule, as
well as MSRB Rule G-21, the proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-40 and
MSRB Rule G-8 would also improve efficiency by providing regulatory
consistency for regulated entities dually registered as a dealer and as
a municipal advisor, or as an investment adviser registered with the
SEC and as a municipal advisor. The MSRB therefore believes the
proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-40 and MSRB Rule G-8 would promote
competition and would not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking
is available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/Economic-Analysis-Policy.aspx. In evaluating whether there was a burden on
competition, the Board was guided by its principles that required
the Board to consider costs and benefits of a rule change, its
impact on capital formation and the main reasonable alternative
regulatory approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Necessity of the Amendments to MSRB Rule G-40 and MSRB Rule G-8
    As part of the MSRB's strategic goal to modernize the MSRB
Rulebook, the MSRB proposes to amend MSRB Rule G-40 on advertising by
municipal advisors to permit municipal advisors to use testimonials in
advertisements. As MSRB Rule G-40 is currently written, municipal
advisors are prohibited from using testimonials. This was due to the
MSRB modeling MSRB Rule G-40 on the original 1961 Initial IA
Advertising Rule specifying that using a testimonial by an investment
adviser would constitute a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act,
practice, or course of action. In December 2020, the SEC amended Rule
206(4)-1, establishing the Modernized IA Marketing Rule and reversed
the prior ban on the use of testimonials for traditional referral and
solicitation activity, subject to certain conditions.\60\ At the time
of the 1961 Initial IA Advertising Rule, the SEC explained that
investment advisers had stricter standards of conduct than those for
other commercial enterprises and that clients and prospective clients
of investment advisers are frequently unsophisticated in investment
matters.\61\ The advent of the internet and the growth of technological
advances, in general, have made social

media and websites key parts of commerce, including investment advisory
services.\62\ To provide investment advisers with more flexibility, and
to increase investors' awareness of service providers' offerings and
potentially reduce investors' search costs for an adviser, the SEC
amended the Initial IA Advertising Rule to reflect the common use of
testimonials and to provide a principles-based regulatory approach.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See SEC 2020 Adopting Release.
    \61\ See 1961 Advertising Rule Adopting Release.
    \62\ See 84 FR 67518. ``People continue to seek out and consider
the views of others when making a multitude of transactions or
decisions--from purchasing a coffee maker to finding the right
medical expert to consult.''
    \63\ See SEC 2020 Adopting Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the proposed amendments to MSRB
Rule G-40 are intended to align MSRB Rule G-40's provision governing
the use of testimonials by municipal advisors to the analogous
requirements under the SEC's Modernized IA Marketing Rule, by
prohibiting the use of testimonials in an advertisement unless a
municipal advisor complies with disclosure and oversight provisions.
The proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-40 are intended to promote
regulatory consistency for regulated entities dually registered as a
dealer and as a municipal advisor, or as an investment adviser with the
SEC and as a municipal advisor. Because municipal advisors have a
fiduciary duty to their clients, the MSRB believes the associated
requirements for using testimonials as part of the advertising, which
are meant to protect potential issuer clients from misleading
advertisements of municipal advisors, would ensure the proposed
amendments to MSRB Rule G-40 would not result in an erosion of
protections for issuers, obligated persons and other market
participants.
Baseline for Evaluation and Reasonable Alternative Approaches
    To evaluate the potential impact of amending MSRB Rule G-40 and
MSRB Rule G-8, a baseline or baselines must be established as a point
of reference to compare the expected future state with the proposed
change to MSRB Rule G-40 and MSRB Rule G-8. The economic impact of the
proposed change is generally viewed as the difference between the
baseline state and the expected state. The baseline is the current
iteration of MSRB Rule G-40 and MSRB Rule G-8.
    The MSRB has considered reasonable alternatives where applicable
when considering the costs, benefits, and impact of a proposed
amendment. One alternative would be to merge MSRB Rule G-40 with MSRB
Rule G-21 on advertising for dealers. Consolidating advertising
requirements for dealers and municipal advisors would provide the
benefit of holding both groups to the same standards, including the
usage of testimonials in advertisements. However, dealers and municipal
advisors provide vastly different services because, unlike dealers,
most municipal advisors have a fiduciary duty to their clients. As a
result, the MSRB believes that there is a need for a separate municipal
advisor advertising rule.\64\ In addition, prioritizing harmonization
solely within MSRB rules, as opposed to harmonization of MSRB rules
with Commission rules, as appropriate, would still result in
inconsistency in rule requirements as related to advertisements between
municipal advisors and investment advisers, both of which are subject
to a fiduciary standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Response to Comments on File No. SR-MSRB-2014-08,
February 5, 2015. ``. . . market for municipal advisory services is
separate and distinct from the market for services of municipal
securities brokers and dealers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As another alternative, the MSRB considered harmonizing MSRB Rule
G-40 with FINRA Rule 2210(2)(6) on communications with the public,
including the usage of testimonials. Harmonizing with FINRA rules would
provide a benefit to dually registered entities with FINRA and the
MSRB. This position has previously been proposed by SIFMA in response
to MSRB's SEC filing on creating MSRB Rule G-40.\65\ However, FINRA
Rule 2210 governs a broker-dealer's communications, as opposed to a
municipal advisor's communications. This alternative may still cause
inconsistency and confusion for advisory entities that provide both
investment advisory and municipal advisory services because they would
need to follow two separate testimonial rules (the SEC's Modernized IA
Marketing Rule and a FINRA-aligned MSRB Rule G-40), which may also
result in more costs associated with compliance. For the reasons stated
above, the current proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-40, which are
designed, to the extent practicable, to align with MSRB Rule G-21 and
the SEC's Modernized IA Market Rule are deemed to be superior to the
alternative of aligning with FINRA's rule requirements related to the
use of testimonials by broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, dated February 28, 2018 (``SIFMA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits and Costs
    The MSRB believes that the proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-40
and MSRB Rule G-8, in aggregate, would benefit municipal advisors by
allowing testimonials in their advertisements subject to certain
requirements, which would provide municipal advisors another marketing
method to solicit potential clients, subject to certain conditions. In
addition, the proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-40 and MSRB Rule G-8
would potentially reduce the compliance burden for regulated entities
dually registered as a dealer and as a municipal advisor, or as an
investment adviser with the SEC and as a municipal advisor by aligning
MSRB Rule G-40 with the SEC's Modernized IA Marketing Rule, as well as
with MSRB Rule G-21 as related to the usage of testimonials in
advertisements.
    The ability to provide testimonials in advertisements may benefit
municipal advisors by allowing municipal advisors to show satisfied
clients or other individuals willing to endorse their business
practices. In addition, the MSRB believes the associated requirements
for using testimonials as part of an advertisement, which are meant to
protect potential issuer clients and obligated persons of municipal
advisors, would help ensure the proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-40
and MSRB Rule G-8 would not result in an erosion of protection for
issuers, obligated persons and other market participants.
    The MSRB believes that the proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-40
and MSRB Rule G-8 would impose minor costs on municipal advisors.
Municipal advisors would incur the upfront costs related to updating
policies and procedures on using testimonials in advertising, which
would be a one-time effort only. In addition, on an ongoing basis,
there would be minor compliance costs to assure municipal advisors'
adherence to the disclosure requirements and supervisory obligations
when using testimonials in advertisements, which would likely be
greater than the current ongoing compliance costs of ensuring no
testimonial is included in an advertisement. If a municipal advisor
opts to use testimonials in advertisements, there would also be a cost
from the resultant recordkeeping obligations, recognizing that absent
proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-8, municipal advisors are subject to
SEC recordkeeping requirements to make and keep records of all written
communications received, and originals

or copies of all written communications sent, by such municipal advisor
relating to municipal advisory activities.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Rule 15Ba1-8(a)(1)-(8) and MSRB Rule G-8(h)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB estimates that the annual costs for fulfilling the
requirements associated with the use of testimonials in advertisements
would be no more than $400 per municipal advisor per year, assuming
each municipal advisor would use approximately five testimonials per
year, based on the SEC's 2019 estimated ongoing costs for investment
advisers using testimonials and endorsements.\67\ The MSRB does not
expect any of the cost components to be a major burden for municipal
advisors. Furthermore, individual municipal advisory firms may decide
whether it is cost-effective to use testimonials in advertising when
weighing against the associated requirements and the compliance costs,
as the usage of testimonials is optional. It is expected that municipal
advisors would only choose to include testimonials in their
advertisements if the expected benefits exceed the expected costs of
doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See SEC 2020 Adopting Release. In 2019, the Commission
estimated that the aggregate internal cost of providing the
disclosures associated with testimonials and endorsements would be
$337 per investment adviser per year, assuming each investment
adviser would use approximately five testimonials or endorsements
per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect on Competition, Efficiency and Capital Formation
    The proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-40 and MSRB Rule G-8 would
be applicable to all municipal advisors and would help ensure that all
regulated entities dually registered as a dealer and as a municipal
advisor, or as an investment adviser with the SEC and as a municipal
advisor, are subject to consistent standards on the use of testimonials
in advertisements. The proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-40 and MSRB
Rule G-8 would therefore promote efficiency in the marketplace.
    The MSRB believes that proposed amended MSRB Rule G-40 and MSRB
Rule G-8 would not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate regulatory
burden on small municipal advisory firms, as the potential benefits
from using testimonials in advertising would be applicable to all
municipal advisors and should be proportionate to each municipal
advisory firm's business activities. The proposed amendments to MSRB
Rule G-40 and MSRB Rule G-8 therefore should not negatively affect
competition and capital formation; it may improve competition among
municipal advisors by allowing another method for advertising. The MSRB
believes that permitting municipal advisors to use a testimonial in an
advertisement would be particularly helpful for small municipal
advisors to highlight the services provided to other municipal advisory
clients.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please
include File Number SR-MSRB-2023-01 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-2023-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2023-01 and should be submitted on
or before March 7, 2023.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03059 Filed 2-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 67 (Monday, April 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17152-17153]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0067]

Pipeline Safety: Guidance on Training and Qualifications for the
Integrity Management Program

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Issuance of advisory bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) published the gas transmission pipeline integrity management
(IM) rule in the Federal Register on December 15, 2003. This rule, in
part, established requirements for supervisory and other personnel with
IM program functions. PHMSA has recognized inconsistencies in how the
requirements have been implemented by operators and is issuing this
Advisory Bulletin to remind operators of their responsibility to
include qualification requirements for IM personnel, as required by
PHMSA regulations and discussed in the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) ASME B31.8S-2004.

DATES: April 10, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy White by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All materials in this docket are
electronically accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. Information
about PHMSA is available at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    PHMSA has long recognized and communicated the critical importance
of training and qualifications for operator personnel who perform tasks
related to pipeline safety. For example, in 1999 PHMSA adopted general
qualification requirements for all individuals performing covered tasks
under Sec.  192.805. PHMSA established specific qualification
requirements for supervisory and other personnel with IM-assigned tasks
under Sec.  192.915 as part of the gas transmission pipeline IM rule
(December 15, 2003, 68 FR 69777). Specifically, PHMSA requires IM
programs to assure certain persons have appropriate training or
experience to be considered qualified for their areas of
responsibility. These requirements apply to operator and contractor
personnel (contractors, suppliers, vendors, etc.) who perform certain
IM-related tasks.
    For supervisory personnel, Sec.  192.915 requires that the IM
program must ensure that:
     Each supervisor whose responsibilities relate to the IM
program possess and maintain a thorough knowledge of the IM program and
the elements for which the supervisor is responsible; and
     Any person who qualifies as a supervisor for the IM
program has appropriate training or experience in the area for which
that person is responsible.
    For personnel performing IM-assigned tasks, the rule requires an
operator's IM program to provide criteria for their training and
qualifications. The elements of IM covered under Sec.  192.915 apply to
individuals who:
     Conduct assessments;
     Review and analyze results from integrity assessments; or
     Make decisions on actions to be taken based on these
assessments.
    The program must also include criteria for the qualification of
individuals who:
     Implement preventive measures and mitigative measures to
carry out the requirements of the rule, including the marking and
locating of buried structures; or
     Directly supervise excavation work carried out in
conjunction with an integrity assessment.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2017-02)

    To: Owners and Operators of Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines
    Subject: Guidance on Training and Qualifications for the Integrity
Management Program
    Advisory: PHMSA is issuing this Advisory Bulletin to remind
operators of natural gas transmission pipelines of PHMSA's expectations
regarding how mature IM programs should implement the training and
qualification requirements included in Sec.  192.915 and discussed in
ASME B31.8S-2004. PHMSA's expectations for operator implementation of
each subsection in Sec.  192.915 are outlined as follows:

Section 192.915--``What knowledge and training must personnel have to
carry out an integrity management program?''

     This rule requires operator personnel involved in the IM
program to be qualified for their assigned responsibilities, including
the following:
    [cir] Personnel qualification requirements must be identified for
anyone involved in the IM program. This applies to both operator and
contractor personnel (contractors, suppliers, vendors, etc.);
    [cir] Qualification criteria must include minimum requirements for
experience or training in order to verify individuals have the
knowledge and skills necessary to perform IM-related tasks; and
    [cir] The operator must determine whether qualifications are
current.
     The rule requires operators to verify that the personnel
who execute activities within the IM program are qualified in
accordance with the quality assurance process required by Sec.
192.911(l).
     Documentation of qualification must be maintained in
accordance with the operator's IM program.

Section 192.915(a)--``Supervisory Personnel''

    The regulation covers qualification and training requirements for
supervisory personnel with responsibilities in an IM program.
     This rule requires operators to verify that the IM program
requires supervisory personnel to have the appropriate training or
experience for their assigned responsibilities, including the
following:
    [cir] Personnel with supervisory authority that relates to the
operator's IM process must meet documented qualification requirements
for the aspects of the IM program that fall under their authority;
    [cir] Qualification requirements must include minimum requirements
for experience or training to verify individuals have the knowledge to
perform IM-related tasks; and
    [cir] Tracking of qualification deficiencies and requalification
requirements is essential to verify that individuals in supervisory
positions are qualified.

Section 192.915(b)--``Persons who Carry out Assessments and Evaluate
Assessment Results''

    The regulation covers qualification requirements for personnel
performing certain IM tasks related to the conduct of integrity
assessments, analysis of integrity assessment results, and the
decisions on actions to be taken based on integrity assessments.
     This rule requires operators to verify the IM program
requires qualification of personnel who carry out assessments and
evaluate assessment results, including the following:
    [cir] Personnel who carry out or evaluate assessment information
must meet documented qualification requirements--this applies to both
operator and contractor personnel.

    [cir] Qualification requirements must include minimum requirements
for experience or training to verify that individuals have the
knowledge and skills necessary to perform IM-related tasks, including
analysis, data integration, integrity assessments, and assessment
results evaluation.
    [cir] Qualification requirements must be established for all tasks
necessary to carry out integrity assessments and evaluate assessment
results, including:
    [ssquf] Performing the integrity assessment;
    [ssquf] Evaluating the results of the integrity assessment;
    [ssquf] Integrating any other available information or data
gathered in accordance with Sec.  192.917(b) that is applicable to the
covered segment being assessed; and
    [ssquf] Deciding on actions to be taken based on these assessments.
    [cir] The operator is responsible for verifying the qualifications
of contractor personnel who conduct essential tasks in performing or
evaluating assessments.

Section 192.915(c)--``Persons Responsible for Preventive and Mitigative
Measures''

    The regulation covers qualification requirements for personnel who
implement preventive and mitigative measures and who supervise
excavation work carried out in conjunction with an integrity
assessment.
     This rule mandates that operators verify their IM program
requires qualification of personnel who participate in implementing
preventive measures and mitigative measures, including: (1) Personnel
who mark and locate buried structures, (2) personnel who directly
supervise integrity assessment excavation work, and (3) other personnel
who participate in implementing preventive measures and mitigative
measures.
    [cir] Personnel who implement preventive measures and mitigative
measures may hold a range of job positions, including (but not limited
to): Management and technical personnel, risk evaluators, operators,
excavation crews, welders, and pipeline safety engineers. With respect
to these personnel, the rule requires that operators:
    [ssquf] Define the roles and responsibilities of personnel
implementing preventive measures and mitigative measures;
    [ssquf] Define the qualification requirements as they relate to
implementing preventive measures and mitigative measures; and
    [ssquf] Verify personnel satisfy the defined qualification
requirements.
     The rule requires that qualification requirements be
established for all tasks required to implement preventive measures and
mitigative measures, including:
    [cir] Marking and locating buried structures;
    [cir] Supervising integrity assessment excavation work; and
    [cir] Applying risk assessment results to determine what additional
preventive measures and mitigative measures need to be implemented for
the covered segment being assessed in accordance with Sec.  192.917(c).
    PHMSA inspectors will use this Advisory Bulletin to clarify the
intent of existing regulatory language when evaluating operator IM
program personnel training and qualification effectiveness.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 29, 2017, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2017-06805 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P