82 FR 59148 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB Form G-45 To Collect Additional Data About the Transactional Fees Primarily Assessed by Programs Established To Implement the ABLE Act
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 239 (December 14, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 239 (December 14, 2017)
| Page Range | 59148-59151 | |
| FR Document | 2017-26909 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 59148-59151] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-26909] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82238; File No. SR-MSRB-2017-08] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB Form G-45 To Collect Additional Data About the Transactional Fees Primarily Assessed by Programs Established To Implement the ABLE Act December 8, 2017. I. Introduction On October 13, 2017, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the ``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend MSRB Form G-45 under MSRB Rule G-45, on reporting of information on municipal fund securities,\3\ to collect additional data about the transactional fees primarily assessed by programs established to implement the Stephen Beck, Jr., Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014 (the ``ABLE Act'' and an ``ABLE program'') (the ``proposed rule change'').\4\ The proposed rule change [[Page 59149]] was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 27, 2017.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. \3\ Form G-45 is an electronic form on which submissions of the information required by Rule G-45 are made to the MSRB. \4\ The ABLE Act was enacted on December 19, 2014 as part of The Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-295). \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81921 (October 23, 2017) (the ``Notice of Filing''), 82 FR 49908 (October 27, 2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule change.\6\ On December 1, 2017, the MSRB responded to the comments received by the Commission.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Leslie Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, and Bernard Canepa, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), dated November 17, 2017 (the ``SIFMA Letter''). \7\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Pamela K. Ellis, Associate General Counsel, MSRB, dated December 1, 2017 (the ``MSRB Response Letter''), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2017-08/msrb201708-2743045-161576.pdf . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Description of Proposed Rule Change In the Notice of Filing, the MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would amend Form G-45 to collect additional information relating to fees and expenses to help ensure that the MSRB continues to receive comprehensive information regarding ABLE programs and 529 college savings plans.\8\ The MSRB stated that this data would enhance the MSRB's understanding of the markets for ABLE programs and 529 college savings plans, including the differences among such programs or plans.\9\ Further, the MSRB stated that the additional fee and expense information would assist the MSRB in fulfilling its investor protection mission.\10\ The MSRB also stated that the information about fees and expenses would continue to be submitted in a format that is consistent with the disclosure principles of the College Savings Plan Network (``CSPN''), an affiliate of the National Association of State Treasurers, which, the MSRB added, commenters on previous MSRB rulemaking proposals relating to MSRB Form G-45 have stated is the industry norm.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ See Notice of Filing. \9\ Id. \10\ Id. \11\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As further described by the MSRB in the Notice of Filing, under the proposed rule change, an underwriter to an ABLE program or a 529 college savings plan would be required to submit data on Form G-45 about the following additional fees and expenses, as applicable:account opening fee; investment administration fee; change in account owner fee; cancellation/withdrawal fee; change in investment option/transfer fee; rollover fee; returned excess aggregate contributions fee; rejected ACH or EFT fee; overnight delivery fee; in-network ATM fee; out-of-network ATM fee; ATM mini statement fee; international POS/ATM transaction fee; foreign transaction fee; overdraft fee; copy of check or statement fee (per request); copy of check images mailed with monthly statement fee; check fee (i.e., fee for blank checks); returned check fee; checking account option fee; re-issue of disbursement check fee; stop payment fee; debit card fee; debit card replacement fee; outgoing wire fee; expedited debit card rush delivery fee; paper fee; and miscellaneous fee (to address any miscellaneous transactional fee that is not otherwise specified on Form G-45).\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, under the proposed rule change, the MSRB stated that it would collect data about any variance in the annual account maintenance fee due to the residency of the account owner.\13\ The MSRB also stated that the proposed rule would apply to underwriters to ABLE programs as well as to underwriters to 529 college savings plans.\14\ The MSRB, however, stated that it anticipates that most of the data that would be collected by the proposed rule change would relate to ABLE programs.\15\ The MSRB also noted that it believes that 529 college savings plans generally do not assess the fees and charges that are the subject of this proposed rule change.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ Id. \14\ Id. \15\ Id. \16\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The MSRB requested in the Notice of Filing that the proposed rule change be approved with an effective date of June 30, 2018.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Summary of Comments Received and MSRB's Responses to Comments As noted previously, the Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule change, as well as the MSRB Response Letter. The commenter, SIFMA, stated that it was ``supportive of the MSRB's efforts to fully understand the ABLE programs and 529 college savings plans market and fulfill its mission'' but believed that municipal securities dealers who underwrite ABLE programs and 529 college savings plans ``should only be required to submit the information required by Form G- 45 to the extent it is within their possession, custody, or control''.\18\ SIFMA also stated that the MSRB should be mindful of the possibility that additional regulatory requirements such as the proposed rule change could increase costs to investors in dealer-sold 529 college savings plans and ABLE programs versus direct-sold programs that are not regulated by the MSRB.\19\ The MSRB stated that it believes the proposed rule change is consistent with its statutory mandate and has responded to the comments, as discussed below.\20\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See SIFMA Letter. \19\ Id. \20\ See MSRB Response Letter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Submission of Information Within Custody of Dealer SIFMA stated that some of the information about fees that underwriters would be required to submit on MSRB Form G-45, under the proposed rule change, may be contained in ABLE program or 529 college savings plan disclosure documents and suggested that those underwriters could provide hyperlinks to those documents to the MSRB.\21\ The MSRB responded by stating that even if some of the information required to be submitted on MSRB Form G-45 were contained in those ABLE program or 529 college savings plan disclosure documents, that the information would not be published in a uniform electronic format that would allow for the MSRB's efficient analysis or comparison of such information.\22\ The MSRB noted that, at this time, there is no requirement that state issuers prepare those disclosure documents in a uniform format and, unlike for 529 college savings plans, there are not even voluntary disclosure principles for state issuers in the preparation of their disclosure documents that are applicable to ABLE programs.\23\ As result, the MSRB stated, it is even more likely that the information in the ABLE program disclosure documents would not be presented in a uniform format that would allow the MSRB to readily analyze and compare ABLE programs.\24\ In addition, the MSRB stated that referencing the ABLE program or 529 [[Page 59150]] college savings plan disclosure documents would not meet the MSRB's regulatory need because the data provided to the MSRB must be in a uniform electronic format that can be aggregated and analyzed.\25\ The MSRB acknowledged that the proposed rule change would result in some up-front costs to underwriters due to technical changes to underwriters' reporting systems, but the MSRB stated that those costs should mostly be one-time only costs and that the cumulative benefits of receiving data in a uniform electronic format should exceed the upfront costs over time.\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ See SIFMA Letter. \22\ See MSRB Response Letter. \23\ Id. \24\ Id. \25\ Id. \26\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Applicability of Proposed Rule Change to Advisor-Sold and Direct- Sold ABLE Programs and 529 College Savings Plans SIFMA suggested that the duty to submit information about the fees assessed by ABLE programs and 529 college savings plans on MSRB Form G- 45 would create an undue burden because, in SIFMA's view, the MSRB's jurisdiction is limited to underwriters to dealer-sold ABLE programs or 529 college savings plans.\27\ The MSRB responded by stating that such an undue burden on competition would not exist because the MSRB believes it has jurisdiction over all underwriters of ABLE programs and 529 college savings plans.\28\ The MSRB stated that it has jurisdiction over underwriters to all 529 college savings plans, regardless of the marketing channel through which such plans are sold (whether sold with the advice of a dealer, i.e., ``advisor-sold,'' or without the advice of a dealer, i.e., ``direct-sold''), and this view has equal application to similar ABLE programs.\29\ The MSRB also stated that it has previously discussed the application of Rule G-45 to dealers, and in doing so has said that the activities of an entity may cause that entity to be within the definition of dealer and/or underwriter set forth in the Act or rules thereunder and thus subject to MSRB Rule G- 45.\30\ The MSRB stated that, for example, the activities of a program manager to an ABLE program or 529 college savings plan, or its affiliates or contractors, could include direct contact with investors through the development and distribution of ABLE program or 529 college savings plan advertising sales literature, or maintaining ABLE program or 529 college savings plan websites, including processing enrollment funds.\31\ The MSRB stated that those activities could, depending on the facts and circumstances, cause one or more of those entities to be underwriters under Rule G-45.\32\ The MSRB also noted that it believed the Commission has agreed with the MSRB that each entity must make its own determination about whether its activity would qualify as ``underwriting'' activity as that term is defined in SEC Rule 15c2- 12(f)(8) under the Act.\33\ In addition, the MSRB stated that, beginning in 2015, the MSRB has received data from underwriters to 529 college savings plans under Rule G-45.\34\ The MSRB stated that it has every reason to believe that there is widespread compliance by those underwriters with their reporting obligations under Rule G-45.\35\ Consequently, the MSRB stated, it does not believe that the requirement to submit fee information, as would be required under the proposed rule change, on MSRB Form G-45 would unduly burden competition between underwriters to advisor-sold ABLE programs or 529 college savings plans versus underwriters to direct-sold ABLE programs or 529 college savings plans.\36\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ See SIFMA Letter. \28\ See MSRB Response Letter. \29\ Id. \30\ Id. \31\ Id. \32\ Id. \33\ Id. \34\ Id. \35\ Id. \36\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Underwriter Reporting Obligation SIFMA stated that it believed dealers that underwrite ABLE programs and 529 college savings plans should only be required to submit information required by MSRB Form G-45 to the extent that such information is within their possession, custody and control.\37\ The MSRB stated that, under the proposed rule change, and consistent with the MSRB's previous position on this issue, an underwriter to an ABLE program or 529 college savings plan would not be required to submit information on MSRB Form G-45 that the underwriter neither possesses nor has the legal right to obtain.\38\ The MSRB also noted that the legal right to obtain the information for purposes of the proposed rule change is not affected by a voluntary relinquishment, by contract or otherwise, of such right.\39\ Therefore, the MSRB stated, an underwriter may designate an affiliate or contractor to perform activities in the underwriter's stead in connection with the underwriting, but that the underwriter would be properly viewed as having the legal right to obtain all information.\40\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\ See SIFMA Letter. \38\ See MSRB Response Letter. \39\ Id. \40\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Discussion and Commission Findings The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change, the comment letter received, and the MSRB Response Letter. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB. In particular, the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act.\41\ Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act states 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.\42\ The Commission believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) and necessary and appropriate to help the MSRB receive complete and reliable information about ABLE programs and 529 college savings plans which it can use to monitor such programs and plans and detect potential investor harm. The Commission believes that, for that data set to be complete and reliable, such data should include the data about the fees and expenses associated with an investment in an ABLE program or a 529 college savings plan that are included in the proposed rule change. In addition, the Commission believes the proposed rule change is necessary for the MSRB to gather relevant data required to ensure the MSRB's regulatory scheme is sufficient and/or to determine whether additional rulemaking is necessary to protect investors and the public interest. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C). \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission believes that the proposed rule change would facilitate the MSRB's ability to better analyze the market for ABLE programs and 529 college savings plans as well as improve the MSRB's ability to evaluate trends and differences among ABLE programs and 529 college savings plans. Further, [[Page 59151]] the Commission believes that the MSRB, as well as other financial regulators charged with enforcing the MSRB's rules, use (or will use) the information submitted on MSRB Form G-45 to enhance their understanding of, and ability to monitor, ABLE programs and 529 college savings plans. The Commission believes that the MSRB or other regulators could use the information submitted on MSRB Form G-45 to, among other things, determine if the disclosure documents or marketing materials prepared or reviewed by underwriters are consistent with the data submitted to the MSRB for regulatory purposes. In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission also has considered the impact of the proposed rule change on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.\43\ The Commission does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The additional data that the proposed rule change would collect is understood by the Commission to be readily available and known to the underwriters of ABLE programs and 529 college savings plans. Additionally, the Commission understands that these underwriters are already required to submit certain information to the MSRB on MSRB Form G-45 on a semi-annual basis. Also, the Commission believes that the additional information required to be submitted by the proposed rule change would be submitted on an equal and non-discriminatory basis, and the requirement would apply equally to all dealers that serve as underwriters to ABLE programs and/or 529 college savings plans. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the potential burdens created by the proposed rule change are to be likely outweighed by the benefits. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the reasons noted above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. V. Conclusion It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\44\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2017-08) be, and hereby is, approved. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\45\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \45\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017-26909 Filed 12-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![59148 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 239 / Thursday, December 14, 2017 / Notices
Burden on Competition and Barriers to (a) Whether any of the national inspection and copying at the principal
Entry securities exchanges or FINRA are office of the Exchange. All comments
disadvantaged by the fees; and received will be posted without change.
(12) Commenters’ views as to whether (b) If so, whether any such Persons submitting comments are
the allocation of 75% of CAT costs to disadvantages would be of a magnitude cautioned that we do not redact or edit
Industry Members (other than Execution that would alter the competitive personal identifying information from
Venue ATSs) imposes any burdens on landscape. comment submissions. You should
competition to Industry Members, (21) Commenters’ views on any submit only information that you wish
including views on what baseline potential burden imposed by the fees on to make available publicly. All
competitive landscape the Commission competitive quoting and other liquidity submissions should refer to File
should consider when analyzing the provision in the market, including, Number SR–NYSEMKT–2017–26 and
proposed allocation of CAT costs. specifically: should be submitted on or before
(13) Commenters’ views on the (a) Commenters’ views on the kinds of January 4, 2018.
burdens on competition, including the disincentives that discourage liquidity
relevant markets and services and the For the Commission, by the Division of
provision and/or disincentives that the Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
impact of such burdens on the baseline Commission should consider in its authority.101
competitive landscape in those relevant analysis;
markets and services. Robert W. Errett,
(b) Commenters’ views as to whether
(14) Commenters’ views on any the fees could disincentivize the Deputy Secretary.
potential burdens imposed by the fees provision of liquidity; and [FR Doc. 2017–27022 Filed 12–13–17; 8:45 am]
on competition between and among (c) Commenters’ views as to whether BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
CAT Reporters, including views on the fees limit any disincentives to
which baseline markets and services the provide liquidity.
fees could have competitive effects on (22) Commenters’ views as to whether SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
and whether the fees are designed to the amendment adequately responds to COMMISSION
minimize such effects. and/or addresses comments received on
[Release No. 34–82238; File No. SR–MSRB–
(15) Commenters’ general views on related filings.
2017–08]
the impact of the proposed fees on Electronic Comments
economies of scale and barriers to entry. Self-Regulatory Organizations;
(16) Commenters’ views on the • Use the Commission’s internet
Municipal Securities Rulemaking
baseline economies of scale and barriers comment form (http://www.sec.gov/
Board; Order Granting Approval of a
to entry for Industry Members and rules/sro.shtml); or
Proposed Rule Change To Amend
• Send an email to rule-comments@
Execution Venues and the relevant MSRB Form G–45 To Collect
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
markets and services over which these Additional Data About the
NYSEMKT–2017–26 on the subject line.
economies of scale and barriers to entry Transactional Fees Primarily Assessed
exist. Paper Comments by Programs Established To
(17) Commenters’ views as to whether • Send paper comments in triplicate Implement the ABLE Act
a tiered fee structure necessarily results to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities December 8, 2017.
in less active tiers paying more per unit and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
than those in more active tiers, thus NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090. I. Introduction
creating economies of scale, with All submissions should refer to File On October 13, 2017, the Municipal
supporting information if possible. Number SR–NYSEMKT–2017–26. This Securities Rulemaking Board (the
(18) Commenters’ views as to how the file number should be included on the ‘‘MSRB’’ or ‘‘Board’’) filed with the
level of the fees for the least active tiers subject line if email is used. To help the Securities and Exchange Commission
would or would not affect barriers to Commission process and review your (the ‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’), pursuant
entry. comments more efficiently, please use to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
(19) Commenters’ views on whether only one method. The Commission will Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule
the difference between the cost per unit post all comments on the Commission’s 19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule
(messages or market share) in less active internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ change to amend MSRB Form G–45
tiers compared to the cost per unit in rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the under MSRB Rule G–45, on reporting of
more active tiers creates regulatory submission, all subsequent information on municipal fund
economies of scale that favor larger amendments, all written statements securities,3 to collect additional data
competitors and, if so: with respect to the proposed rule about the transactional fees primarily
(a) How those economies of scale change that are filed with the assessed by programs established to
compare to operational economies of Commission, and all written implement the Stephen Beck, Jr.,
scale; and communications relating to the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act
(b) Whether those economies of scale proposed rule change between the of 2014 (the ‘‘ABLE Act’’ and an ‘‘ABLE
reduce or increase the current Commission and any person, other than program’’) (the ‘‘proposed rule
advantages enjoyed by larger those that may be withheld from the change’’).4 The proposed rule change
competitors or otherwise alter the public in accordance with the
competitive landscape. provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
101 17CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
(20) Commenters’ views on whether available for website viewing and 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
the fees could affect competition printing in the Commission’s Public 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
between and among national securities Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 3 Form G–45 is an electronic form on which
exchanges and FINRA, in light of the Washington, DC 20549 on official submissions of the information required by Rule
G–45 are made to the MSRB.
fact that implementation of the fees does business days between the hours of 4 The ABLE Act was enacted on December 19,
not require the unanimous consent of all 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 2014 as part of The Tax Increase Prevention Act of
such entities, and, specifically: filing also will be available for 2014 (Pub. L. 113–295).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:28 Dec 13, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00357 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM 14DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_59387/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 239 / Thursday, December 14, 2017 / Notices 59151
the Commission believes that the MSRB, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE and a response to comments from the
as well as other financial regulators COMMISSION Participants.5 On June 30, 2017, the
charged with enforcing the MSRB’s Commission temporarily suspended and
[Release No. 34–82251; File No. SR–CHX–
rules, use (or will use) the information 2017–08]
initiated proceedings to determine
submitted on MSRB Form G–45 to whether to approve or disapprove the
enhance their understanding of, and Self-Regulatory Organizations; proposed rule change.6 The Commission
ability to monitor, ABLE programs and Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice thereafter received seven comment
529 college savings plans. of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to a letters,7 and a response to comments
The Commission believes that the Proposed Rule Change To Amend the from the CAT NMS Plan Participants.8
MSRB or other regulators could use the Schedule of Fees and Assessments To On November 9, 2017, the Exchange
information submitted on MSRB Form Adopt a Fee Schedule To Establish filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
G–45 to, among other things, determine Fees for Industry Members Related to rule change, as described in Items I and
if the disclosure documents or the National Market System Plan II below, which Items have been
marketing materials prepared or Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail prepared by the Exchange.9 On
reviewed by underwriters are consistent November 9, 2017, the Commission
with the data submitted to the MSRB for December 8, 2017. extended the time period within which
regulatory purposes. On May 3, 2017, the Chicago Stock to approve the proposed rule change or
In approving the proposed rule Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CHX’’ or the disapprove the proposed rule change to
change, the Commission also has ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities
considered the impact of the proposed and Exchange Commission comments/sr-batsedgx-2017–22/batsedgx201722-
rule change on efficiency, competition, (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 154443.pdf. The Commission also received a
and capital formation.43 The 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act comment letter which is not pertinent to these
proposed rule changes. See Letter from Christina
Commission does not believe that the of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 Crouch, Smart Ltd., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
proposed rule change will impose any thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to Commission (dated June 5, 2017), available at:
burden on competition not necessary or adopt a fee schedule to establish the fees https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2017-38/
appropriate in furtherance of the for Industry Members related to the batsbzx201738-1785545-153152.htm.
5 See Letter from CAT NMS Plan Participants to
purposes of the Act. The additional data National Market System Plan Governing Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated June
that the proposed rule change would the Consolidated Audit Trail (the ‘‘CAT 29, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/
collect is understood by the NMS Plan’’). The proposed rule change comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-
Commission to be readily available and was published in the Federal Register 1832632-154584.pdf.
6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81067
known to the underwriters of ABLE for comment on May 22, 2017.3 The
(June 30, 2017), 82 FR 31656 (July 7, 2017).
programs and 529 college savings plans. Commission received seven comment 7 See Letter from W. Hardy Callcott, Partner,
Additionally, the Commission letters on the proposed rule change,4 Sidley Austin LLP, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
understands that these underwriters are Commission (dated July 27, 2017), available at:
already required to submit certain 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/
information to the MSRB on MSRB 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. batsbyx201711-2148338-157737.pdf; Letter from
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80691 Kevin Coleman, General Counsel and Chief
Form G–45 on a semi-annual basis. Compliance Officer, Belvedere Trading LLC, to
(May 16, 2017), 82 FR 23344 (May 22, 2017)
Also, the Commission believes that the (‘‘Original Proposal’’). Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated July
additional information required to be 4 Since the CAT NMS Plan Participants’ proposed 28, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/
submitted by the proposed rule change rule changes to adopt fees to be charged to Industry comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-
2148360-157740.pdf; Letter from Joanna Mallers,
would be submitted on an equal and Members to fund the consolidated audit trail are
Secretary, FIA Principal Traders Group, to Brent J.
non-discriminatory basis, and the substantively identical, the Commission is
considering all comments received on the proposed Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated July 28, 2017),
requirement would apply equally to all rule changes regardless of the comment file to available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-
dealers that serve as underwriters to which they were submitted. See text accompanying batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2151228-
157745.pdf; Letter from Theodore R. Lazo,
ABLE programs and/or 529 college notes 13–16 infra, for a list of the CAT NMS Plan
Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
savings plans. Furthermore, the Participants. See Letter from Theodore R. Lazo,
Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission
Commission believes that the potential Securities Industry and Financial Markets (dated July 28, 2017), available at: https://
burdens created by the proposed rule Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/
Commission (dated June 6, 2017), available at: batsbyx201711-2150977-157744.pdf; Letter from
change are to be likely outweighed by Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President and
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2017-38/
the benefits. batsbzx201738-1788188-153228.pdf; Letter from Managing Director, General Counsel, Managed
For the reasons noted above, the Patricia L. Cerny and Steven O’Malley, Compliance Funds Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission believes that the proposed Consultants, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated July 28, 2017), available at:
rule change is consistent with the Act. Commission (dated June 12, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2017-040/ batsbyx201711-2150818-157743.pdf; Letter from
V. Conclusion cboe2017040-1799253-153675.pdf; Letter from John Kinahan, Chief Executive Officer, Group One
Daniel Zinn, General Counsel, OTC Markets Group Trading, L.P., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Inc., to Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary, Commission (dated August 10, 2017), available at:
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,44 that the Commission (dated June 13, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/
proposed rule change (SR–MSRB–2017– https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/ finra2017011-2214568-160619.pdf; Letter from
finra2017011-1801717-153703.pdf; Letter from Joseph Molluso, Executive Vice President and CFO,
08) be, and hereby is, approved. Virtu Financial, to Brent J. Fields, Commission
Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principal Traders
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated Group, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated August 18, 2017), available at: https://
authority.45 (dated June 22, 2017), available at: https:// www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/
www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2017-040/ finra2017011-2238648-160830.pdf.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Eduardo A. Aleman, 8 See Letter from Michael Simon, Chair, CAT
cboe2017040-1819670-154195.pdf; Letter from
Assistant Secretary. Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President and NMS Plan Operating Committee, to Brent J. Fields,
[FR Doc. 2017–26909 Filed 12–13–17; 8:45 am] Managing Director, General Counsel, Managed Commission, Secretary (dated November 2, 2017),
Funds Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
Commission (dated June 23, 2017), available at: batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2674608-
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/ 161412.pdf.
43 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 9 Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change
finra2017011-1822454-154283.pdf; and Letter from
44 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Suzanne H. Shatto, Investor, to Commission (dated replaces and supersedes the Original Proposal in its
45 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). June 27, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/ entirety.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:28 Dec 13, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM 14DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_59387/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-25 10:53:04
Document Modified: 2018-10-25 10:53:04
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 59148 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR