37538 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Notices 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Release No. 34–63621 (Dec. 29, 2010), 76 FR 

604 (Jan. 5, 2011) (File No. SR–MSRB–2010–10). 

be minimized, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology? 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day 

of July 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

David Cullison, 

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16428 Filed 7–31–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–83713; File No. SR–MSRB– 

2018–06] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Municipal Securities Rulemaking 

Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate 

Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule 

Change To Amend MSRB Rule A–13 to 

Temporarily Reduce the Rate of 

Assessment for the MSRB’s 

Underwriting, Transaction and 

Technology Fees on Brokers, Dealers 

and Municipal Securities Dealers 

July 26, 2018. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘Exchange Act’’) 1 and Rule 

19b–4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby 

given that on July 23, 2018 the 

Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board 

(the ‘‘MSRB’’ or ‘‘Board’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘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. 

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 to amend MSRB 

Rule A–13 to temporarily reduce the 

rate of assessment for the MSRB’s 

underwriting, transaction and 

technology fees on brokers, dealers and 

municipal securities dealers (‘‘dealers’’) 

with respect to assessible activity that 

occurs during the months of October, 

November and December 2018 (the 

‘‘proposed rule change’’). The MSRB has 

designated the proposed rule change for 

immediate effectiveness. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the MSRB’s website at 

www.msrb.org/Rules-andInterpretations/SEC-Filings/2018- 

Filings.aspx, at the MSRB’s principal 

office, and at the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

MSRB included statements concerning 

the purpose of and basis for the 

proposed rule change and discussed any 

comments it received on the proposed 

rule change. The text of these statements 

may be examined at the places specified 

in Item IV below. The MSRB has 

prepared summaries, set forth in 

Sections A, B, and C below, of the most 

significant aspects of such statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of the proposed rule 

change is to temporarily reduce the rate 

of assessment for the MSRB’s 

underwriting, transaction and 

technology fees for dealers under Rule 

A–13, with respect to assessible activity 

that occurs during the months of 

October, November and December 2018. 

The proposed rule change is designed to 

reduce, in a carefully considered and 

strategic manner, excess MSRB reserves 

in a way that achieves a fair and 

equitable balance of fees across 

regulated entities. 

The MSRB discharges its statutory 

mandate under the Exchange Act 

through the establishment of rules for 

dealers and municipal advisors 

(together with dealers, ‘‘regulated 

entities’’); the collection and 

dissemination of market information; 

and market leadership, outreach and 

education. As a self-regulatory 

organization, the MSRB must maintain 

sufficient reserves to discharge its 

responsibilities and operate without 

interruption, even in an economic 

downturn. Reserves are necessary to 

mitigate fluctuations in the MSRB’s 

revenue stream, which is primarily 

market-driven, and provide a backstop 

for funding services essential to the 

efficiency of the market. However, as 

current reserves exceed the target 

thresholds that have been established by 

its Board of Directors, the MSRB is now 

seeking to temporarily reduce its three 

largest sources of revenue, which 

collectively, make up approximately 

80% of the MSRB’s FY 2018 budgeted 

revenue. The proposed rule change is 

projected to reduce the MSRB’s excess 

reserves by approximately $2.6 million 

and will help align reserve levels with 

target levels. 

Pursuant to Rule A–13, each dealer 

must pay to the Board underwriting, 

transaction and technology fees based 

upon the rates specified in that rule. 

The proposed rule change would add a 

new section (h) setting forth revised 

temporary assessment rates for these 

three types of assessments, generally 

reducing by one-third the fees for 

activity that occurs during the months 

of October, November and December 

2018. New Rule A–13(h)(i) would 

provide that the underwriting 

assessment for certain primary offerings 

for this time period would be .00185% 

of the par value ($0.0185 per $1,000), a 

reduction from .00275% of the par value 

($.0275 per $1,000). New Rule A– 

13(h)(ii) would provide that the 

transaction assessment would be 

.00067% of the par value ($0.0067 per 

$1,000), a reduction from .001% ($.01 

per $1,000). And, new Rule A–13(h)(iii) 

would provide that the technology 

assessment would be $0.67 per 

transaction (a reduction from $1.00 per 

transaction). Rates of assessment would 

revert to current levels effective January 

1, 2019. 

Importantly, the temporary reduced 

rates are for activity that occurs during 

this three-month period. Dealers are 

typically billed for these fees after the 

relevant month end. Specifically, the 

underwriting fee is billed immediately 

after the respective month end, while 

the transaction and technology fees are 

billed thirty days in arrears. 

Financial Reserves and the Board’s 

Holistic Review of MSRB Fees 

In 2010, after several years of heavy 

investment in the technological 

infrastructure needed to launch the 

MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market 

Access (EMMA®) website, the MSRB’s 

financial reserve levels had dropped 

below the target of 12 months of 

operating expenses excluding 

depreciation expense, plus three-times 

annual capital needs. As a result, 

replenishing the MSRB’s reserves 

became a priority. The following year, 

the MSRB increased the transaction fee 

under Rule A–13 and began assessing a 

new technology fee for dealers under 

the same rule.3 By 2014, revenue from 

the technology fee had generated 

sufficient resources to stabilize the 

technology reserve and allowed the 

MSRB to rebate $3.6 million in 

technology fees to eligible dealers. The 

Board’s technology fee rebate decision 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Notices 37539 

4See Release No. 34–72019 (Apr. 25, 2014), 79 FR 

24798 (May 1, 2014) (File No. SR–MSRB–2014–03). 

5See Release No. 34–81264 (Jul 31, 2017), 82 FR 

36472 (Aug. 4, 2017) (File No. SR–MSRB–2017–05). 

6 In addition, the MSRB charges data subscription 

service fees for subscribers, including dealers and 

municipal advisors, seeking direct electronic 

delivery of municipal trade data and disclosure 

documents associated with municipal bond issues. 

However, this information is available without 

direct electronic delivery on the EMMA website 

without charge. 

7Reserves also grew due to fine revenue, a new 

revenue source first provided in 2010 under the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(c)(9). 

8See Release No. 34–81841 (Oct. 10, 2017), 82 FR 

48135, 48138 (Oct. 16, 2017) (File No. SR–MSRB– 

2017–07) (noting that the target revenue to be 

generated from the municipal advisor fee under 

Rule A–11 was approximately $2 million, or 

approximately 5% of the total MSRB revenues). At 

present, the municipal advisor professional fee 

generates approximately $1.5 million, or 4% of the 

MSRB’s Fiscal Year 2018 budgeted revenues. 

and analysis of reserve levels prompted 

it in 2015 to conduct a holistic review 

of fees from dealer assessments, 

municipal advisors and other sources to 

determine whether further changes to 

the funding structure were warranted. 

The Board evaluated the assessment 

of MSRB fees on regulated entities with 

the goal of better aligning revenue 

sources with operating expenses and all 

capital needs. The Board strives to 

diversify funding sources among 

regulated entities and other entities that 

fund MSRB services in a manner that 

ensures long-term sustainability, while 

continuing to strike an equitable balance 

in fees among regulated entities and a 

fair allocation of the cost of operating 

and administering the MSRB, including 

regulatory activities, systems 

development and operational activities. 

The Board, as it has historically, strives 

to continually refine its fee structure to 

ensure it is balanced and fair and 

provides for reasonable cost allocation. 

The first outcome of the holistic 

review was to substantially reduce (by 

8.3%) the fee assessed on municipal 

securities underwriters. At the same 

time, the MSRB raised initial 

registration fees (which had not been 

adjusted since 1975) and annual fees 

(which had not been adjusted since 

2009)—fees that are paid by all 

regulated entities—to better align with 

the cost of administering registrants and 

ensure that all registrants more fairly 

contributed to defraying the costs and 

expenses of operating and administering 

the MSRB. With the extension of the 

MSRB’s jurisdiction to regulate 

municipal advisors, this class of 

regulated entity began contributing to 

the cost of MSRB regulation in 2014.4

To further the objective of appropriately 

and equitably assessing fees across all 

regulated activities, in 2018, the MSRB 

introduced a new fee on underwriters of 

529 plans, as underwriters to 529 plans 

had not previously paid a fee in this 

capacity.5

The current fees assessed on regulated 

entities are: 

1. Municipal advisor professional fee 

(Rule A–11). $500 for each person 

associated with the municipal advisor 

who is qualified as a municipal advisor 

representative in accordance with Rule 

G–3 and for whom the municipal 

advisor has on file with the SEC a Form 

MA–I as of January 31 of each year; 

2. Initial registration fee (Rule A–12). 

$1,000 one-time registration fee to be 

paid by each dealer to register with the 

MSRB before engaging in municipal 

securities activities and by each 

municipal advisor to register with the 

MSRB before engaging in municipal 

advisory activities; 

3. Annual registration fee (Rule A– 

12). $1,000 annual fee to be paid by 

each dealer and municipal advisor 

registered with the MSRB; 

4. Late fee (Rule A–11 and Rule A– 

12). $25 monthly late fee and a late fee 

on the overdue balance (computed 

according to the prime rate) until paid 

on balances not paid within 30 days of 

the invoice date by the dealer or 

municipal advisor; 

5. Underwriting fee (Rule A–13). 

$.0275 per $1,000 of the par value paid 

by a dealer, on all municipal securities 

purchased from an issuer by or through 

such dealer, whether acting as principal 

or agent as part of a primary offering; 

and in the case of an underwriter (as 

defined in Rule G–45) of a primary 

offering of certain municipal fund 

securities, $.005 per $1,000 of the total 

aggregate assets for the reporting period; 

6. Transaction fee (Rule A–13). .001% 

($.01 per $1,000) of the total par value 

to be paid by a dealer, except in limited 

circumstances, for inter-dealer sales and 

customer sales reported to the MSRB 

pursuant to Rule G–14(b), on transaction 

reporting requirements; 

7. Technology fee (Rule A–13). $1.00 

paid by a dealer per transaction for each 

inter-dealer sale and for each sale to 

customers reported to the MSRB 

pursuant to Rule G–14(b); and 

8. Examination fee (Rule A–16). $150 

test development fee assessed per 

candidate for each MSRB examination.6

Notably, while all regulated entities 

contribute to the MSRB’s revenue base, 

the three fees that are the subject of the 

proposed rule change (underwriting, 

transaction and technology fees) 

constitute approximately 80% of the 

MSRB’s FY 2018 budgeted revenue. As 

the most significant contributors to 

MSRB funding, as well as being market 

based and historically contributing more 

than budgeted, these three fees are the 

primary drivers for the excess reserves.7

While the fees generated from 

municipal advisors contribute to the 

MSRB’s budget, the fees charged for this 

newly regulated category of 

professionals remain relatively modest 

and do not yet meet target revenues.8

Accordingly, the Board determined that 

these three fees exclusively should be 

temporarily reduced for the designated 

period. 

Since the initiation of the Board’s 

holistic review of fees, MSRB reserves 

continued to grow due to strong revenue 

results compared to budget, as well as 

expense savings, and bolstered reserve 

levels to the point where another rebate 

was warranted in 2016. That year, the 

MSRB rebated $5.5 million of excess 

reserves to dealers who were assessed 

underwriting, transaction and 

technology fees during the first nine 

months of the fiscal year. In total, $9.1 

million was returned to dealers in fee 

rebates since 2014. However, the fee 

rebates were not without their 

operational challenges. Industry 

feedback suggested that underwriting 

fee rebates can be problematic due to 

inherent complications of processing 

and potentially redistributing pro rata 

shares to syndicate members. Moreover, 

the MSRB believes that the approach 

taken in the proposed rule change (i.e., 

a temporary reduction in dealer fees) 

would be fairer than another alternative 

approach, such as a fee holiday. For a 

fee holiday, the MSRB would forego 

charging fees for one month—but, 

because of the difficulties in selecting a 

single month that is representative of 

dealer activity for all dealers subject to 

the relevant fees, the MSRB believes 

that a temporary fee reduction that 

occurs over the course of several months 

is more likely to lead to a fair and 

equitable fee reduction across dealers. 

Accordingly, the Board has determined 

that a temporary three-month fee 

reduction, rather than a fee rebate or fee 

holiday, is a preferable mode of 

reducing its reserves. 

The Board strives to be fiscally 

responsible. Since approximately 80% 

of the Board’s revenue sources are 

market based, which is inherently 

unpredictable and largely has exceeded 

budget, and the Board has a historical 

track record of managing expenses to 

below budget, reserves continue to 

grow. The Board seeks to strike the right 

balance in fee assessments to maintain 

sufficient reserves to ensure fiscal 

sustainability, while providing relief to 

regulated entities that have contributed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
37540 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Notices 

9 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(J). 

10 Id. 

11See supra n. 8. 

12 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C). 

13The scope of the Board’s policy on the use of 

economic analysis in rulemaking provides that: 

[t]his Policy addresses rulemaking activities of 

the MSRB that culminate, or are expected to 

culminate, in a filing of a proposed rule change 

with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange 

Act, other than a proposed rule change that the 

MSRB reasonably believes would qualify for 

immediate effectiveness under Section 19(b)(3)(A) 

of the Exchange Act if filed as such or as otherwise 

provided under the exception process of this Policy. 

Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB 

Rulemaking, available at http://msrb.org/Rules-andInterpretations/Economic-Analysis-Policy.aspx. For 

those rule changes which the MSRB seeks 

immediate effectiveness, the MSRB usually focuses 

exclusively its examination on the burden of 

competition on regulated entities. 

14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

15 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

to the excess reserves position. The 

temporary three-month fee reduction 

continues these ongoing efforts. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The MSRB believes that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Section 

15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act 9 which states that 

the MSRB’s rules shall: 

provide that each municipal securities 

broker, municipal securities dealer, and 

municipal advisor shall pay to the Board 

such reasonable fees and charges as may be 

necessary or appropriate to defray the costs 

and expenses of operating and administering 

the Board. Such rules shall specify the 

amount of such fees and charges, which may 

include charges for failure to submit to the 

Board, or to any information system operated 

by the Board, within the prescribed 

timeframes, any items of information or 

documents required to be submitted under 

any rule issued by the Board. 

The MSRB believes that its rules 

provide for reasonable dues, fees, and 

other charges among regulated entities. 

The MSRB believes that the proposed 

rule change is necessary and 

appropriate to fund the operation and 

administration of the Board and satisfies 

the requirements of Section 

15B(b)(2)(J),10 achieving a more 

equitable balance of fees among 

regulated entities and a fairer allocation 

of the expenses of the regulatory 

activities, system development, and 

operational activities undertaken by the 

MSRB because it temporarily decreases 

fees for the regulated entities that 

financially contribute the greatest to the 

cost of MSRB activities. 

As described above, current reserve 

levels exceed targets, but looking 

forward to FY 2020, the MSRB’s pro 

formas project reserves to fall modestly 

below targeted levels with the 

temporary fee reduction. As a result, the 

MSRB believes that it is preferable to 

temporarily reduce fees rather than take 

an alternative approach, such as a 

permanent fee reduction. Also, the 

MSRB believes a temporary fee 

reduction is preferable to a fee rebate 

because it would be operationally easier 

for dealers as dealers would be able to 

incorporate temporarily reduced fee 

rates into their business processes in 

advance rather than receive a rebate 

associated with past activity that may 

need to be redistributed through or 

across organizations. Finally, the MSRB 

believes that the proposed rule change 

would achieve a more equitable balance 

among regulated entities and a fairer 

allocation of the MSRB’s expenses 

because the three fees that are the 

subject of the proposed rule change, 

representing approximately 80% of the 

MSRB’s FY 2018 revenue budget, have 

contributed most to funding operations 

of the MSRB and concurrently 

contributed the most to the current 

reserve levels. 

While the MSRB has progressively 

budgeted for municipal advisor fees to 

defray a greater portion of the cost of the 

MSRB’s municipal advisor-related 

activity,11 municipal advisor fees have 

comprised a very small portion of the 

MSRB’s revenues and have not 

contributed to the MSRB’s excess 

reserves position. For these same 

reasons, the beneficiaries of the 

proposed rule change are generally the 

same group of regulated entities that 

received the fee rebates in 2014 and 

2016, as described above. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act 12

requires that MSRB rules not be 

designed to impose any burden on 

competition not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

The Board’s policy on the use of 

economic analysis limits its 

applications regarding those rules for 

which the Board seeks immediate 

effectiveness.13 However, an internal 

analysis is still conducted to gauge the 

economic impact, with an emphasis on 

the burden on competition involving 

regulated entities. 

In this regard, the Board believes the 

proposed rule change is necessary and 

appropriate to promote fairness in 

funding the operation and 

administration of the Board and would 

achieve a more equitable balance among 

regulated entities and a more balanced 

allocation of the expenses of the 

regulatory activities, system 

development, and operational activities 

undertaken by the MSRB. Because the 

three fees that are the subject of the 

proposed rule change (underwriting, 

transaction and technology fees) are the 

primary drivers for the MSRB’s excess 

reserves, the Board believes that it is 

appropriate to temporarily reduce these 

fees for the designated period. 

The MSRB does not believe that the 

proposed rule change will result in any 

burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act, as it would 

temporarily decrease by the same 

percentage the underwriting, transaction 

and technology fees for all dealers 

subject to these fees. 

The MSRB believes that the proposed 

rule change would not impose an 

unnecessary or inappropriate regulatory 

burden on small regulated entities, as 

smaller dealers would benefit from the 

temporary fee reduction in the same 

proportion as larger dealers in relation 

to the assessible activity during the 

relevant three-month period. 

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. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing proposed rule change 

has become effective pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 14 and 

Rule 19b–4(f)(2)15 thereunder. At any 

time within 60 days of the filing of the 

proposed rule change, the Commission 

summarily may temporarily suspend 

such rule change if it appears to the 

Commission that such action is 

necessary or appropriate in the public 

interest, for the protection of investors, 

or otherwise in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

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 rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number 

SR–MSRB-2018–06 on the subject line. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Notices 37541 

16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(4). 

5Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined 

in the Rules, By-Laws and Organization Certificate 

of DTC (the ‘‘Rules’’), available at www.dtcc.com/ 

∼/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/dtc_rules.pdf, 

and the DTC Operational Arrangements for 

Securities to Become and Remain Eligible for DTC 

Services (‘‘OA’’), available at http://www.dtcc.com/ 

∼/media/Files/Downloads/legal/issue-eligibility/ 

eligibility/operational-arrangements.pdf. 

6Available at http://www.dtcc.com/∼/media/ 

Files/Downloads/legal/service-guides/UnderwritingService-Guide.pdf. The Underwriting Guide and the 

OA constitute Procedures of DTC. Pursuant to the 

Rules, the term ‘‘Procedures’’ means the 

Procedures, service guides, and regulations of DTC 

adopted pursuant to Rule 27, as amended from time 

to time. See Rule 1, Section 1, supra note 5. DTC’s 

Procedures are filed with the Commission. They are 

binding on DTC and each Participant in the same 

manner as they are bound by the Rules. See Rule 

27, supra note 5. The OA is also binding on each 

Issuer and Agent of an Eligible Security. See OA at 

5, supra note 5. DTC also maintains service guides 

that constitute Procedures relating to other services 

it offers, including the ‘‘Canadian-Link Service 

Guide,’’ ‘‘Custody Service Guide’’ (defined below as 

‘‘Custody Guide’’), ‘‘Deposits Service Guide,’’ 

‘‘Distributions Service Guide,’’ ‘‘Redemptions 

Service Guide,’’ ‘‘Reorganizations Service Guide’’ 

and ‘‘Settlement Service Guide.’’ Available at 

http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-andprocedures?subsidiary=DTC&pgs=1. 

7 Generally, Eligible Securities must have been 

issued in a transaction: (i) Registered with the 

Commission pursuant to the Securities Act; (ii) 

exempt from registration pursuant to a Securities 

Act exemption without transfer or ownership 

restrictions; or (iii) pursuant to Rule 144A, 17 CFR 

230.144A, or Regulation S, 17 CFR 230.901– 

230.905, under the Securities Act. See OA, supra 

note 5 at 2–3. 

8See OA, supra note 5 at 1–2. 

9 Id. 

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–2018–06. 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–2018–06 and should 

be submitted on or before August 22, 

2018. 

For the Commission, pursuant to delegated 

authority.16

Robert W. Errett, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16419 Filed 7–31–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–83712; File No. SR–DTC– 

2018–004] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The 

Depository Trust Company; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change To Make 

Clarifying Changes and Updates to the 

DTC Underwriting Service Guide 

July 26, 2018. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on July 20, 

2018, The Depository Trust Company 

(‘‘DTC’’) filed with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

the proposed rule change as described 

in Items I, II and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by the clearing 

agency. DTC filed the proposed rule 

change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(4) 

thereunder.4 The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 

I. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Terms of Substance of the Proposed 

Rule Change 

The proposed rule change of DTC5

consists of modifications to the DTC 

Underwriting Service Guide 

(‘‘Underwriting Guide’’) 6 to (i) promote 

consistency with respect to processes 

and requirements described in other 

Procedures that are related to those set 

forth in the Underwriting Guide, (ii) 

make clarifying and technical changes 

and (iii) provide enhanced readability 

and transparency for users of DTC’s 

underwriting service (‘‘Underwriting 

Service’’), as described below. 

II. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

clearing agency 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 

clearing agency has prepared 

summaries, set forth in sections A, B, 

and C below, of the most significant 

aspects of such statements. 

(A) Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule Change 

1. Purpose 

The proposed rule change consists of 

proposed modifications to the 

Underwriting Guide to (i) promote 

consistency with respect to processes 

and requirements described in other 

Procedures that are related to those set 

forth in the Underwriting Guide, (ii) 

make clarifying and technical changes 

and (iii) provide enhanced readability 

and transparency for users of DTC’s 

Underwriting Service, as described 

below. 

Background 

Eligible Securities 7 may be 

introduced into DTC as new issuances 

(‘‘New Issues’’) through the 

Underwriting Service, in connection 

with a Participant, or a correspondent 

working though a Participant’s Account, 

submitting an eligibility request.8 In 

addition to the process for New Issues, 

there are separate eligibility processes 

for (i) older issues (‘‘Older Issues’’), i.e., 

those already available in the market but 

not previously made eligible for deposit 

at DTC 9 and (ii) Eligible Securities in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES