41846 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 

31 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3These eight items are set forth in current MSRB 

Rule G–34(a)(i)(A)(4)(a) through (h). 

4See MSRB Notice 2019–04, MSRB Identifies 

Priority Rules for Retrospective Rule Review 

(February 5, 2019). 

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– 

MEMX–2022–16 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–MEMX–2022–16. 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 Exchange. 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–MEMX–2022–16 and 

should be submitted on or before 

August 3, 2022. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.31

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14877 Filed 7–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–95208; File No. SR–MSRB– 

2022–05] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Municipal Securities Rulemaking 

Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed 

Rule Change Consisting of 

Amendments to MSRB Rule G–34 To 

Better Align the CUSIP Requirements 

for Underwriters and Municipal 

Advisors With Current Market 

Practices 

July 7, 2022. 

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 July 1, 2022 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. 

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–34, on 

CUSIP numbers, new issue, and market 

information requirements (the 

‘‘proposed rule change’’). The proposed 

rule change would make minor 

amendments to better align Rule G–34’s 

requirements for obtaining CUSIP 

numbers with the process followed by 

market participants and facilitate 

compliance with MSRB Rule G–34 by 

streamlining the rule text. 

If the Commission approves the 

proposed rule change, the MSRB will 

publish a Notice announcing the 

effective date of the proposed rule 

change no later than 10 days following 

Commission approval. The effective 

date will be no later than 30 days 

following Commission approval. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the MSRB’s website at 

www.msrb.org/Rules-andInterpretations/SEC-Filings/2022- 

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 

Among other things, MSRB Rule G–34 

on CUSIP numbers, new issue, and 

market information requirements 

establishes requirements relating to 

CUSIP numbers for brokers, dealers and 

municipal securities dealers 

(collectively and individually ‘‘dealers’’) 

acting as underwriters and for 

municipal advisors (dealers and 

municipal advisors together, ‘‘regulated 

entities’’). In particular, Rule G– 

34(a)(i)(A) requires dealers acting as 

underwriters and municipal advisors 

advising the issuer with respect to a 

competitive sale of a new issue of 

municipal securities to apply for a 

CUSIP number or numbers based on 

eight specified items of information 

about the new issue.3 MSRB Rule G– 

34(a)(i)(A)(5) addresses the obligations 

to update application information that 

has changed. The rule further stipulates 

details on how these regulated entities 

must apply for CUSIP numbers in detail 

that includes specific data points to be 

included in the application for 

obtaining CUSIP numbers. 

In 2019, the MSRB announced 

priority rules to be considered as part of 

its ongoing retrospective rule review. 

The goal of the review was to help 

ensure that: MSRB rules and 

interpretive guidance are effective in 

their principal goal of protecting 

investors, issuers and the public 

interest; not overly burdensome; clear; 

harmonized with the rules of other 

regulators, as appropriate; and reflective 

of current market practices.4 In this 

announcement, the MSRB listed MSRB 

Rule G–34 as a rule to be prioritized for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 41847 

5 Id. at 3. 

6See MSRB Notice 2019–08, Request for 

Comment on MSRB Rule G–34 Obligation of 

Municipal Advisors to Apply for CUSIP Numbers 

When Advising on Competitive Sales (February 27, 

2019). Comments submitted in response to 

Regulatory Notice 2019–08 are available here: 

https://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/ 

Regulatory-Notices/2019/2019-08?c=1. 

7The proposed rule change also makes similar 

amendments to Rule G–34(a)(i)(A)(5) and G– 

34(a)(i)(D) to remove references to the Board and 

make clear that the CUSIP number application 

discussed in those paragraphs must be made to the 

Board’s designee. 

8 In 1983, the Board designated the CUSIP Service 

Bureau as its designee to assign CUSIP numbers to 

new issues of municipal securities. See MSRB 

Reports, Vol. 3, No. 3 at 11 (May 1983), available 

at https://msrb.org/-/media/Files/MSRB-Reports/ 

1983/May1983-Volume3—Number3.ashx. The 

CUSIP Service Bureau has since changed its name 

to CUSIP Global Services. Pursuant to a contract 

between the CUSIP Service Bureau and the MSRB, 

all references to the CUSIP Service Bureau were 

amended to read CUSIP Global Services. 

Accordingly, CUSIP Global Services (formerly 

known as the CUSIP Service Bureau) remains the 

MSRB’s designee. 

9See Letter from Susan Gaffney, Executive 

Director, NAMA, dated May 28, 2019 available at: 

https://www.msrb.org/rfc/2019-08/gaffney.pdf 

(stating that there is an inherent timing 

inconsistency with respect to Rule G–34(a)(i)(A)(3) 

as it requires application for CUSIP numbers no 

later than one business day after the Notice of Sale, 

which will almost always be before the identity of 

the investors are known, and therefore the 

[municipal advisor] could not reasonably obtain the 

investors’ written representations) (‘‘NAMA 

Letter’’). 

review.5 The MSRB sought comment in 

2019 on MSRB Rule G–34, but the 

following year determined to maintain 

the obligations under the rule with 

respect to the responsible party for 

obtaining a CUSIP number in new 

issues.6

In recent years, the MSRB has heard 

from industry members through 

stakeholder engagement that MSRB Rule 

G–34’s requirements on obtaining 

CUSIP numbers, in its current form, do 

not accurately reflect the actual process 

that an underwriter or municipal 

advisor must go through when obtaining 

a CUSIP number. This discrepancy 

further complicates efforts when a 

municipal advisor or underwriter 

creates written supervisory procedures 

that are mapped to the rule text but do 

not accurately reflect the actual or 

logistical process that they must 

undertake for appropriately obtaining a 

CUSIP number. After reviewing rule 

requirements relating to obtaining a 

CUSIP number, the MSRB is submitting 

this proposed rule change to: modernize 

the rule to better align with the realities 

of obtaining a CUSIP number; provide 

flexibility in the rule; and clear up areas 

of confusion for underwriters and 

municipal advisors attempting to 

comply with the rule. 

In summary, the proposed rule 

change: 

• specifies that CUSIP applications 

must be made to the Board’s designee 

(and not the Board itself); 

• removes the obligation for 

municipal advisors providing advice 

with respect to a competitive offering to 

apply for the CUSIP number by no later 

than one business day after 

dissemination of a notice of sale in favor 

of a more flexible standard that still 

obligates the application to be made 

within sufficient time to ensure timely 

CUSIP number assignment; 

• removes language dictating the 

precise content of a CUSIP number 

application that the Board feels would 

more appropriately be left to the Board’s 

designee for receiving and reviewing 

such applications; and 

• explicitly provides that certain 

obligations set forth in the rule do not 

apply when CUSIP numbers have been 

preassigned. 

Designee of the Board 

MSRB Rule G–34(a)(i)(A) currently 

requires an underwriter or municipal 

advisor to obtain CUSIP numbers 

through an application in writing to the 

Board or its designee. The proposed rule 

change amends this language by 

providing that underwriters and 

municipal advisors must apply to the 

Board’s designee and removing the 

language in the rule text that makes 

reference to the Board in that 

requirement.7 This revised language is 

designed to avoid the potential for 

confusion associated with the current 

rule text and to more clearly convey the 

MSRB’s expectations with respect to the 

process of obtaining a CUSIP number. 

The Board does not currently assign 

CUSIP numbers to municipal securities; 

underwriters and municipal advisors 

may only obtain one by application to 

the only entity that provides these 

identifiers, CUSIP Global Services. The 

Board’s current designee is CUSIP 

Global Services.8 This designation 

would remain unchanged by the 

proposed rule change and would be 

reflected in new Supplementary 

Material .01. If CUSIP numbers become 

available from another source or another 

identifier for municipal securities 

becomes market practice at some point 

in the future, the MSRB would notify 

the market of a decision to modify the 

designee via publication of an MSRB 

regulatory notice. 

In addition, as it is the Board’s 

designee, and not the Board, that 

controls the CUSIP number application 

process, the Board proposes to remove 

the in-writing requirement for the 

application made for obtaining CUSIP 

numbers. Because the Board does not 

receive or review CUSIP applications, it 

believes that the manner in which an 

applicant applies for CUSIP numbers is 

best left to the entity that reviews 

applications and assigns the CUSIP 

number (i.e., the Board’s designee). 

One Business Day Obligation 

MSRB Rule G–34(a)(i)(A)(3) states that 

a municipal advisor advising the issuer 

with respect to a competitive sale of a 

new issue of municipal securities shall 

make an application by no later than 

one business day after dissemination of 

a notice of sale or other such request for 

bids. The proposed rule change removes 

the obligation to make such application 

by no later than one business day since 

it is not always practical for municipal 

advisors to comply given the realities of 

the marketplace and therefore may place 

an undue burden on municipal 

advisors. The rule already obligates the 

application to be made at a time 

sufficient to ensure final CUSIP number 

assignment occurs prior to the award of 

the issue. The MSRB believes that this 

language is sufficient to ensure that any 

such application is timely without 

dictating a more burdensome approach 

of requiring a specific numeric time 

obligation. Additionally, the MSRB 

understands that, from an operational 

perspective, it may be impracticable for 

municipal advisors to apply for a CUSIP 

number within one business day after 

dissemination of a notice of sale, as 

currently required by Rule G– 

34(a)(i)(A)(3).9 Accordingly, removal of 

this language would better align the rule 

text with the operational process 

followed by municipal advisors in 

connection with their CUSIP 

applications. 

Information To Be Provided When 

Applying for CUSIP Numbers 

MSRB Rule G–34(a)(i)(A)(4) lists 

specific data points that must be 

provided when applying for CUSIP 

numbers. These data points include the 

complete name of issue and series 

designation, if any; interest rate(s) and 

maturity date(s) (provided, however, 

that, if the interest rate is not 

established at the time of application, it 

may be provided at such time as it 

becomes available); dated date; type of 

issue (e.g., general obligation, limited 

tax or revenue); type of revenue, if the 

issue is a revenue issue; details of all 

redemption provisions; the name of any 

company or other person in addition to 

the issuer obligated, directly or 

indirectly, with respect to the debt 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
41848 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 

10 15.U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2). 

11 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C). 

12 Id. 

service on all or part of the issue (and, 

if part of the issue, an indication of 

which part); and any distinction(s) in 

the security or source of payment of the 

debt service on the issue, and an 

indication of the part(s) of the issue to 

which such distinction(s) relate. 

The proposed rule change removes 

these data points from the rule and 

instead provides that underwriters and 

municipal advisors shall provide the 

information required by the Board’s 

designee in connection with their 

CUSIP application. The proposed rule 

change also makes a similar amendment 

to Rule G–34(a)(i)(D), removing from the 

rule text the three specified pieces of 

information that must be included in an 

application to obtain a CUSIP number in 

connection with certain new issuances 

that refund part of an outstanding 

issuance. The MSRB believes that Rule 

G–34 should not contain specific data 

points to be provided to its designee, as 

the MSRB does not control the specifics 

of the application process, nor does it 

make a determination on the sufficiency 

of an application to receive CUSIP 

numbers. The MSRB believes that the 

entity providing CUSIP numbers, the 

Board’s designee, is the appropriate 

entity to dictate what individual data 

points must be provided with an 

application for CUSIP numbers in order 

to sufficiently evaluate an application. 

The MSRB believes that this flexibility 

will help create a rule that is less likely 

to become stale over time. 

CUSIP Pre-Assignment 

The proposed rule change specifies 

that the Rule G–34(a)(i)(A)(3) obligation 

to apply for a CUSIP number only 

applies where no CUSIP numbers have 

been pre-assigned. The Board believes 

that this aligns with the common 

understanding among market 

participants that there is no obligation 

to seek a CUSIP number where one has 

already been pre-assigned. A similar 

amendment to Rule G–34(a)(i)(C) 

provides that the provisions of Rule G– 

34(a)(i) regarding the assignment and 

affixture of CUSIP numbers do not 

apply with respect to any new issue of 

municipal securities on which CUSIP 

numbers have been preassigned. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The MSRB believes that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Section 

15B(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,10 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. 

Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange 

Act 11 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. 

The MSRB believes the proposed rule 

change is consistent with Section 

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

because the proposed rule change 

would foster cooperation and 

coordination with persons engaged in 

regulating, processing information with 

respect to and facilitating transactions 

in municipal securities. It does so by 

modernizing the rule to align with the 

realities of the process followed by 

underwriters and municipal advisors in 

obtaining a CUSIP number, allowing the 

Board’s designee to dictate the details of 

the CUSIP application process without 

the distraction of the rule text 

describing the application process that 

may not necessarily reflect the 

designee’s process, and creating a more 

efficient CUSIP application process 

more generally. Specifically, the MSRB 

believes that by removing potential 

ambiguities as to the identity of the 

entity to whom CUSIP applications 

should be sent, specifying directly in 

the rule that such application should be 

sent to CUSIP Global Services, and 

allowing CUSIP Global Services to 

dictate the details of the CUSIP 

application process, the MSRB is 

fostering coordination with those 

processing information with respect to 

municipal securities and fostering 

cooperation with underwriters and 

municipal advisors by facilitating 

compliance with a clearer rule. 

The MSRB believes that the proposed 

rule change also will remove 

impediments to a free and open 

municipal securities market because it 

will align MSRB Rule G–34’s obligations 

associated with obtaining CUSIP 

numbers with the actual process an 

underwriter or municipal advisor must 

undertake when obtaining CUSIP 

numbers for new issues of municipal 

securities. It would do so by removing 

burdens on underwriters and municipal 

advisors that result in no appreciable 

benefit for the market and promoting 

clarity of the rule and compliance 

expectations. The MSRB believes that 

removal of these burdens may facilitate 

better and more timely compliance with 

the rule. For example, in some cases, the 

proposed rule change may facilitate 

more timely applications for CUSIP 

numbers. By removing potential 

ambiguities as to the identity of the 

entity to whom CUSIP number 

applications should be made, 

underwriters and municipal advisors 

are less likely to spend time trying to 

learn to whom such applications should 

be made and potentially are more likely 

to make their applications in a timely 

manner. 

Additionally, the Board sees no 

benefit to requiring municipal advisors 

to apply for a CUSIP number within a 

specific numerical time frame— 

particularly in circumstances where it 

may be impractical or impossible to do 

so—where the rule already requires that 

the application must be made within 

sufficient time to obtain a CUSIP 

number. By removing this burden and 

by specifying that CUSIP applications 

are not necessary for any new issue on 

which CUSIP numbers have been 

preassigned, the proposed rule change 

would reduce compliance burdens and 

permit municipal advisors to spend the 

time that would have been spent trying 

to comply with those burdens in service 

of their municipal entity and obligated 

person clients instead. The MSRB again 

believes that removal of these 

obligations does not negatively impact 

investors, issuers or the public interest, 

but does facilitate compliance and the 

establishment of more practical written 

supervisory procedures for underwriters 

and municipal advisors that reflect the 

actual process followed in connection 

with the process to obtain CUSIP 

numbers. 

The MSRB also believes that the 

proposed rule change will remove 

impediments to a free and open 

municipal securities market because it 

would create a rule that is less likely to 

become stale over time. As market 

practices evolve, rule text that specifies 

detailed information that must be 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 41849 

13 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(L)(iv). 

14 Id. 

15 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C). 

16See Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in 

MSRB Rulemaking, available at http://msrb.org/ 

Rules-and-Interpretations/Economic-AnalysisPolicy.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 approach. 

17The current obligations require CUSIP number 

applicants to provide (a) complete name of issue 

and series designation, if any; (b) interest rate(s) and 

maturity date(s); (c) dated date; (d) type of issue 

(e.g., general obligation, limited tax or revenue); (e) 

type of revenue, if the issue is a revenue issue; (f) 

details of all redemption provisions; (g) the name 

of any company or other person in addition to the 

issuer obligated, directly or indirectly, with respect 

to the debt service on all or part of the issue; and 

(h) any distinction(s) in the security or source of 

payment of the debt service on the issue. 

18The eight data elements are listed in footnote 

17. 

included in a CUSIP application or that 

otherwise governs the details of the 

CUSIP application process may become 

impediments to an efficient CUSIP 

application process, instead of 

facilitating that very process. The MSRB 

believes that the proposed rule change 

provides the appropriate degree of 

flexibility in the rule text. 

Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the 

Exchange Act 13 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 14

because the proposed rule change 

would relieve all municipal advisors, 

including small municipal advisors of 

the same compliance burdens and 

would not impose any new compliance 

burdens on municipal advisors. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The MSRB believes that the proposed 

rule change does not impose a burden 

on competition. Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of 

the Act 15 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 MSRB has 

considered the economic impact 

associated with the proposed rule 

change, including a comparison to 

reasonable alternative regulatory 

approaches, relative to the baseline.16

The MSRB believes that the proposed 

rule change would lessen the 

compliance burden for underwriters and 

municipal advisors, and encourage fair 

competition by reducing confusion and 

ensuring compliance with existing 

CUSIP number requirements. 

Furthermore, the proposed rule change 

would apply equally to all MSRB 

regulated entities. The MSRB believes 

the proposed rule change would relieve 

a burden on competition without any 

erosion of protection for issuers and 

investors. Therefore, the MSRB believes 

the proposed rule change would not 

impose any burden on competition that 

is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the 

Exchange Act. 

The purpose of amending Rule G–34 

is to better align the CUSIP 

requirements for underwriters and 

municipal advisors with current market 

practices, clarify the identity of the 

Board’s designee for CUSIP number 

applications, and modernize Rule G–34 

by reducing prescriptive requirements 

on how applicants obtain CUSIP 

numbers. The proposed rule change 

would accurately reflect that the MSRB 

does not assign CUSIP numbers. The 

proposed rule change would also reflect 

the Board’s designee as CUSIP Global 

Services. Additionally, the proposed 

amendments would remove eight 

currently identified data fields for 

CUSIP number application and instead 

require regulated entities to provide the 

information required by the Board’s 

designee, CUSIP Global Services, to 

determine the appropriate information 

that an applicant shall provide when 

applying to receive CUSIP numbers.17

Finally, the proposed rule change would 

eliminate the no later than one business 

day after the dissemination of a notice 

of sale or other such request for bids 

time limit requirement for obtaining 

CUSIP numbers by municipal advisors, 

though it would continue to require 

municipal advisors to obtain CUISP 

numbers at a time sufficient to ensure 

final CUSIP number assignment occurs 

prior to the award of the issue. As the 

MSRB is not, and never was, involved 

in assigning CUSIP numbers to 

applicants, amending the rule text to 

specify that the Board’s designee assigns 

CUSIP numbers should not affect the 

practical implementation of Rule G–34. 

The remainder of the MSRB’s statement 

on burden on competition mostly 

focuses on the removal of eight data 

points and the time limit required for 

CUSIP registration. 

For this filing, the current iteration of 

Rule G–34, where MSRB-registered 

underwriters and municipal advisors 

are required to obtain CUSIP numbers 

for competitive sales, is used as the 

baseline to evaluate the costs and 

benefits for the proposed amendments, 

as well as other reasonable regulatory 

alternatives. 

The MSRB considered and assessed a 

couple of reasonable regulatory 

alternatives but determined the 

proposed rule change is superior to 

these alternatives. One alternative 

would be to modify the data fields 

requirements for CUSIP number 

applicants to be consistent with what 

the Board’s designee, CUSIP Global 

Services requires. There are currently 

eight data elements proscribed in the 

rule.18 However, CUSIP Global Services, 

as an independent entity from the 

MSRB, may amend the requirements 

periodically in the future. In this 

alternative, the MSRB would have to 

amend Rule G–34 whenever there is a 

change initiated by CUSIP Global 

Services. This would be an 

unpredictable alternative which may 

require the MSRB to revise Rule G–34 

on a regular basis; in addition, it would 

create inconsistency for a period of time 

before the MSRB is able to revise Rule 

G–34. 

Another alternative the MSRB 

considered was to keep a numeric time 

limit requirement for municipal 

advisors applying for CUSIP numbers in 

place but expand the time limit from no 

later than one business day to more than 

one business day to provide applicants 

more flexibility. However, since the 

MSRB is not involved in any aspect of 

the CUSIP number application process, 

the MSRB would not be able to 

determine what the ideal application 

time limit would be other than being 

prior to the award of an issue. As a 

result, the MSRB determined that 

eliminating the no later than one 

business day time limit requirement 

would be an even better option than 

simply extending the time limit. 

Benefits and Costs 

The MSRB believes the proposed 

amendments to Rule G–34, on aggregate, 

would reduce the burden for 

underwriters and municipal advisors by 

providing more clarity and aligning 

CUSIP number applicants’ 

responsibility with the real-world 

practice, without any erosion of 

protection for issuers and investors. 

Benefits 

The proposed rule change to Rule G– 

34 would reduce the uncertainty and 

challenge in collecting multiple data 

points by CUSIP number applicants 

which may not be necessary for, or 

helpful to, the Board’s designee at the 

time of CUSIP obtainment. As it is 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
41850 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 

19 Internal analysis conducted by the MSRB using 

data on CUSIP issuance obtained from CUSIP 

Global Services for select months in 2018, 2019, 

2020 and 2021. 

20See https://www.cusip.com/pdf/ 

FeesforCUSIPAssignment.pdf. 

21As of January 2021, less than 9% of all CUSIP 

numbers were obtained via the express request 

process, based on internal analysis conducted by 

the MSRB using data on CUSIP issuance obtained 

from CUSIP Global Services. 

22See MSRB Notice 2017–05, Request for 

Comment on Draft Amendments to Clarifications of 

MSRB Rule G–34, on Obtaining CUSIP Numbers 

(March 1, 2017). Comments submitted in response 

to Regulatory Notice 2017–05 are available here: 

https://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/ 

Regulatory-Notices/2017/2017-05?c=1. See MSRB 

Notice 2017–11, Second Request for Comment on 

Draft Amendments to and Clarifications of MSRB 

Rule G–34, on Obtaining CUSIP Numbers (June 1, 

2017). Comments submitted in response to 

Regulatory Notice 2017–11 are available here: 

https://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/ 

Regulatory-Notices/2017/2017-11?c=1. 

23See MSRB Notice 2019–08, Request for 

Comment on MSRB Rule G–34 Obligation of 

Municipal Advisors to Apply for CUSIP Numbers 

When Advising on Competitive Sales (February 27, 

2019). Comments submitted in response to MSRB 

Notice 2019–08 are available here: https://msrb.org/ 

Rules-and-Interpretations/Regulatory-Notices/2019/ 

2019-08?c=1. 

24NAMA Letter at 3. 

currently written, all underwriters and 

municipal advisors, as part of a 

competitive sale, are required to provide 

security level information such as 

revenue source, redemption provisions 

and any obligor related information. 

This information may not be in line 

with the information required by the 

entity providing CUSIP numbers. The 

proposed rule change would reduce the 

need to source each data point by 

removing the list of information that 

must be given to the Board’s designee 

and simply replacing it with the 

obligation to provide the Board’s 

designee with the information which 

the Board’s designee requires to obtain 

a CUSIP number. Additionally, if the 

Board’s designee pre-assigns CUSIP 

numbers to an issuance, the regulated 

entity would not need to specify the 

eight data fields simply to evidence its 

compliance with Rule G–34 

requirements. 

The proposed rule change also would 

remove uncertainty by explicitly 

identifying CUSIP Global Services as the 

Board’s designee and reduce the burden 

on municipal advisors by eliminating 

the time limit for CUSIP number 

application, which may not be practical 

in the real world. 

Costs 

The MSRB believes the changes to 

Rule G–34 would have minimal costs 

associated with the amendments. One 

potential upfront cost would be for 

underwriters and municipal advisors to 

update their policies and procedures. 

The MSRB believes the revisions would 

be straightforward and should not take 

much time and effort to implement. The 

ongoing compliance costs also would be 

reduced, as the proposed rule change is 

intended to reduce the compliance 

burden on underwriters and municipal 

advisors. 

In addition, there is a possibility that 

the proposed rule change may lead to 

more usage of express requests for 

CUSIP numbers with CUSIP Global 

Services than the current state, if 

municipal advisors delay their CUSIP 

number applications until shortly before 

the competitive bidding process. For 

example, it currently takes CUSIP 

Global Services approximately one to 

two business days to process a standard 

CUSIP request,19 which costs $192 for 

the first maturity, plus $27 for each 

additional maturity or class per series in 

the same application/offering document 

in 2022.20 The express request is more 

expensive, with a 50% surcharge, but 

will result in a CUSIP number produced 

within one hour of the request. While 

the MSRB does not have the information 

to estimate the future usage of express 

requests,21 there is a chance that 

eliminating the no later than one 

business day time limit required to 

obtain a CUSIP number may result in 

more CUSIP numbers being obtained 

using the express request process, 

which would be 50% more expensive 

than the standard process. The MSRB 

believes, however, with the current 

CUSIP number application process in 

place since June 2018, most municipal 

advisors are unlikely to change the 

timing of obtaining CUSIP numbers. 

Effect on Competition, Efficiency and 

Capital Formation 

At present, the MSRB is unable to 

quantitatively evaluate the magnitude of 

efficiency gains or losses, or the impact 

on capital formation but believes that 

the benefits outweigh the costs. The 

MSRB believes that the proposed rule 

change may improve the operational 

efficiency of the municipal securities 

market by aligning the requirements 

with the real-world practice, promoting 

consistency, and reducing potentially 

misaligned requirements. Additionally, 

the MSRB believes the proposed rule 

change would encourage fair 

competition by reducing confusion and 

ensuring compliance with existing 

CUSIP number requirements. 

Furthermore, a smooth and efficient 

process for CUSIP number applications 

also helps ensure a successful onset of 

secondary market trading, which would 

benefit investors seeking to change their 

positions in newly issued municipal 

securities. This would in turn benefit 

issuers by potentially lowering an 

issuance’s liquidity risk premium, 

which would also benefit the capital 

formation process. Finally, the proposed 

rule change would apply equally to all 

MSRB regulated entities. Accordingly, 

the MSRB believes the proposed rule 

change would relieve a burden on 

competition without any erosion of 

protection for issuers and investors. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

The Board did not specifically solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

to MSRB Rule G–34. However, as 

previously referenced, the Board did 

seek comment on MSRB Rule G–34 

more generally as part of its 

retrospective rule review initiative in 

2017 22 and 2019.23

In response to the 2019 request for 

comment, NAMA was of the view that 

Rule G–34(a)(i)(A)(3) presents a timing 

inconsistency insofar as that section of 

the rule requires application for CUSIP 

numbers no later than one business day 

after the Notice of Sale. NAMA noted 

that this will almost always be before 

the identity of the investors are known, 

and therefore before a municipal advisor 

could reasonably obtain written 

representations from investors.24 The 

MSRB believes that the proposed rule 

change’s removal of the one business 

day requirement would remove the 

timing inconsistency raised by NAMA. 

The MSRB does not believe that the 

remaining comments received in 

response to the 2017 or 2019 requests 

for comment are applicable to 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 41851 

25 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

(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 rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

MSRB–2022–05 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–MSRB–2022–05. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet 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–2022–05 and should 

be submitted on or before August 3, 

2022. 

For the Commission, pursuant to delegated 

authority.25

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14881 Filed 7–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #17503 and #17504; 

MISSISSIPPI Disaster Number MS–00145] 

Administrative Declaration of a 

Disaster for the State of Mississippi 

AGENCY: Small Business Administration. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an 

Administrative declaration of a disaster 

for the State of Mississippi dated 07/06/ 

2022. 

Incident: Severe Storms, Straight-Line 

Winds, and Tornadoes. 

Incident Period: 03/30/2022. 

DATES: Issued on 07/06/2022. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 09/06/2022. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: 04/06/2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing and 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. 

Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, 

Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that as a result of the 

Administrator’s disaster declaration, 

applications for disaster loans may be 

filed at the address listed above or other 

locally announced locations. 

The following areas have been 

determined to be adversely affected by 

the disaster: 

Primary Counties: Wayne. 

Contiguous Counties: 

Mississippi: Clarke, Greene, Jasper, 

Jones, Perry. 

Alabama: Choctaw, Washington. 

The Interest Rates are: 

For Physical Damage: 

Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere ...................... 2.875 

Homeowners without Credit 

Available Elsewhere .............. 1.438 

Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere ...................... 5.880 

Businesses without Credit 

Available Elsewhere .............. 2.940 

Non-Profit Organizations with 

Credit Available Elsewhere ... 1.875 

Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere ..................................... 1.875 

For Economic Injury: 

Businesses & Small Agricultural 

Cooperatives without Credit 

Available Elsewhere .............. 2.940 

Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere ..................................... 1.875 

The number assigned to this disaster 

for physical damage is 17503 B and for 

economic injury is 17504 0. 

The States which received an EIDL 

Declaration # are Alabama, Mississippi. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 59008) 

Isabella Guzman, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14865 Filed 7–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8026–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Opportunity for Public 

Comment on Surplus Property Land 

Swap and Release at the Cyril E. King 

Airport, St. Thomas, United States 

Virgin Islands 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the 

FAA is considering a request from the 

Virgin Islands Port Authority to release 

and exchange 0.822 acres of airport 

property with the University of the 

Virgin Islands. The current Port 

Authority parcel is isolated from the rest 

of airport property and currently houses 

a shopping center. The property will be 

exchanged for a parcel adjacent to the 

general aviation area and allow 

aeronautical development. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 12, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice 

may be mailed or delivered in triplicate 

to the FAA to the following address: 

Atlanta Airports District Office Attn: 

Joseph Robinson, Airport Planner, 1701 

Columiba Ave., Suite 220, College Park, 

GA 30337. 

In addition, one copy of any 

comments submitted to the FAA must 

be mailed or delivered to the Virgin 

Islands Port Authority, Attn: Ms. 

Catherine Hendry, 8074 Lindbergh Bay, 

St. Thomas, VI 00802. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Robinson, Airport Planner, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1