Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 30893 

3 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60314 

(July 15, 2009), 74 FR 36300 (July 22, 2009) (the 

‘‘original proposed rule change’’). 

4See letters from: Ernesto A. Lanza, General 

Counsel, MSRB, dated August 6, 2009; Michael 

Decker, Co-CEO and Mike Nicholas, Co-Chief 

Executive Officer, Regional Bond Dealers 

Association (‘‘RBDA’’), dated August 12, 2009 

(‘‘RBDA Letter’’); Leon J. Bijou, Managing Director 

and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry 

and Financial Markets Association (‘‘SIFMA’’), 

dated August 12, 2009 (‘‘SIFMA Letter’’); John 

Wallingford, Executive Board Member, Virginia 

Government Finance Officers’ Association 

(‘‘Virginia GFOA’’), dated August 12, 2009; William 

A. Holby, President, The National Association of 

Bond Lawyers (‘‘NABL’’), dated August 13, 2009 

(‘‘NABL Letter’’); Marycarol C. White, CPA, CPFO, 

President, Virginia Government Finance Officers’ 

Association, dated August 14, 2009 (‘‘Virginia 

GFOA Letter’’); Denise L. Nappier, Connecticut 

State Treasurer, dated August 20, 2009 

(‘‘Connecticut Treasurer Letter’’); and Heather 

Traeger, Associate Counsel, Investment Company 

Institute (‘‘ICI’’), dated August 21, 2009 (‘‘ICI 

Letter’’). 

5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

6 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61238 

(December 23, 2009), 75 FR 492 (January 5, 2010). 

8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

9 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

10This is a technical amendment and is not 

subject to notice and comment. 

by professional market participants, 

would justify any potentially negative 

impact on such existing information 

services from the display of credit rating 

and related information on the EMMA 

Web site. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants or Others 

Written comments were neither 

solicited nor received on the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Within 35 days of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register or within 

such longer period (i) as the 

Commission may designate up to 90 

days of such date 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 the proposed 

rule change, or 

(B) Institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be disapproved. 

The MSRB has requested an effective 

date for the proposed rule change of a 

date to be announced by the MSRB in 

a notice published on the MSRB Web 

site, which date shall be no later than 

nine months after Commission approval 

of the proposed rule change and shall be 

announced no later than five (5) 

business days prior to the effective date. 

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 e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–MSRB–2010–03 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–MSRB–2010–03. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for inspection and copying in 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, 

DC 20549, on official business days 

between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 

Copies of the filing also will be available 

for inspection and copying at the 

principal office of the MSRB. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change; the Commission does 

not edit personal identifying 

information from submissions. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–MSRB–2010–03 and should 

be submitted on or before June 23, 2010. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.3

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13159 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–62182, File No. SR–MSRB– 

2009–09] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Municipal Securities Rulemaking 

Board; Order Granting Approval of 

Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by 

Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, 

Relating to Rule G–32, on Disclosures 

in Connection with Primary Offerings, 

Form G–32, and the Primary Market 

Disclosure and Primary Market 

Subscription Services of the MSRB’s 

Electronic Municipal Market Access 

System (EMMA®) 

May 26, 2010. 

I. Introduction 

On July 14, 2009, the Municipal 

Securities Rulemaking Board (‘‘MSRB’’), 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’), 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Exchange Act’’),1 and Rule 19b-4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change 

relating to Rule G–32, relating to 

disclosures in connection with primary 

offerings, Form G–32, and the primary 

market disclosure and primary market 

subscription services of the MSRB’s 

Electronic Municipal Market Access 

System (‘‘EMMA’’). The proposed rule 

change was published for comment in 

the Federal Register on July 22, 2009.3

The Commission received eight 

comment letters about the proposed rule 

change.4 On December 18, 2009, the 

MSRB filed with the Commission, 

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

Exchange Act 5 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,6 Amendment No. 1 to the 

proposed rule change. Amendment No. 

1 to the proposed rule change was 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register on January 5, 2010.7 The 

Commission received no comment 

letters concerning Amendment No. 1. 

On May 21, 2010, the MSRB filed with 

the Commission, pursuant to Section 

19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act 8 and Rule 

19b-4 thereunder,9 Amendment No. 2 to 

the proposed rule change requesting an 

additional three months to implement 

the proposal.10 This order approves the 

proposed rule change, as modified by 

Amendment Nos. 1 and 2. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
30894 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 

11Amendment No. 1 proposes to modify the 

original proposed rule change by conforming the 

definition of obligated person more closely with the 

definition used in Rule 15c2–12 and by making 

clear that the obligated persons to be identified are 

those that are specifically identified in the 

continuing disclosure undertaking. 

12Amendment No. 1 proposes to modify the 

original proposed rule change by permitting this 

information to be provided as the number of days 

or months after the end of the fiscal year, if the 

fiscal year end date is also submitted, as an 

alternative to submission of the specific deadline 

date as provided in the original proposed rule 

change. 

13See supra note 4. 

14See, e.g., RBDA Letter, SIFMA Letter, Virginia 

GFOA Letter, Connecticut Treasurer Letter, ICI 

Letter. The MSRB filed a comment letter noting that 

it was extending the time period for Commission 

action on the proposed rule change. The first letter 

from the Virginia GFOA requested an extension of 

time to submit a comment letter. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change, as Modified by Amendment 

Nos. 1 and 2 to the Proposed Rule 

Change 

The proposed rule change consists of 

amendments to Rule G–32 and Form G– 

32 to require underwriters of primary 

offerings of municipal securities to 

submit to the MSRB’s EMMA system, as 

part of their primary offering 

submission obligation under Rule G– 

32(b), certain key items of information 

relating to continuing disclosure 

undertakings made by issuers and other 

obligated persons in connection with 

such primary offerings. These items of 

information would be made available to 

the public through the EMMA Web 

portal and are intended to inform 

investors in advance whether 

continuing disclosures will be made 

available with respect to a particular 

municipal security, from and about 

whom such continuing disclosures are 

expected to be made, and the timing by 

which such disclosures should be made 

available. 

The items of information regarding 

continuing disclosure undertakings to 

be provided by underwriters through 

Form G–32 would include: 

• Whether the issuer or other 

obligated persons have agreed to 

undertake to provide continuing 

disclosure information as contemplated 

by Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c2– 

12; 

• The name of any obligated person, 

other than the issuer of the municipal 

securities, that has or will undertake, or 

is otherwise expected to provide, 

continuing disclosure as identified in 

the continuing disclosure 

undertaking;11

• The timing set forth in the 

continuing disclosure undertaking, 

pursuant to Rule 15c2–12(b)(5)(ii)(C) or 

otherwise, for the submission of annual 

financial information each year by the 

issuer and/or any obligated persons to 

the EMMA system, either as a specific 

date or as the number of days or months 

after a specified end date of the issuer’s 

or obligated person’s fiscal year.12

Amendment No. 1 proposes to make 

certain modifications to the original 

proposed rule change based on 

comments received on the original 

proposed rule change. Amendment No. 

1 would modify the original proposed 

rule change by eliminating the proposed 

requirement to submit contact 

information for a representative of the 

issuer and/or any obligated persons for 

purposes of establishing continuing 

disclosure submission accounts for such 

issuer and/or obligated persons in 

connection with their submissions to 

the EMMA system. Underwriters 

currently are able to provide contact 

information for issuer or obligated 

person representatives with respect to 

current and past primary offerings 

through EMMA on a voluntary basis and 

the MSRB believes that this process has 

been effective. 

The name or names of obligated 

persons to be provided would be of the 

entity acting as an obligated person 

identified in the continuing disclosure 

undertaking, not an individual at such 

entity, unless the obligated person is in 

fact an individual. The timing for 

submission of annual financial 

information could be provided either as 

a specific date each year (i.e., month and 

day, such as June 30) or the number of 

days or months after the end of the 

fiscal year (i.e., 120 days after the end 

of the fiscal year). The underwriter 

could use the day/month count 

alternative only if the underwriter also 

submits the day on which the issuer’s or 

obligated person’s fiscal year ends (i.e., 

month and day, such as June 30). If 

annual financial information is expected 

to be submitted by more than one entity 

and such information is expected to be 

submitted by different deadlines, each 

such deadline would be provided 

matched to the appropriate issuer and/ 

or obligated person. 

The underwriter would be required to 

provide information regarding whether 

the issuer or other obligated persons 

have agreed to undertake to provide 

continuing disclosure information as 

contemplated by Rule 15c2–12 by no 

later than the date of first execution of 

transactions in municipal securities sold 

in the primary offering. The remaining 

items of information would be required 

to be provided by the closing date of the 

primary offering. Until closing, the 

underwriter would be required to 

update promptly any information it has 

previously provided on Form G–32 

which may have changed or to correct 

promptly any inaccuracies in such 

information, and would be responsible 

for ensuring that such information 

provided by it is accurate as of the 

closing date. So long as the underwriter 

has provided such information 

accurately as of the closing date, it 

would not be obligated to update the 

information provided if there are any 

subsequent changes to such 

information, such as additions, 

deletions or modifications to the 

identities of obligated persons or 

changes in the timing for providing 

annual financial information. Issuers 

and obligated persons will be able to 

make changes to such information 

through their submission accounts 

established in connection with EMMA’s 

continuing disclosure service. 

Information regarding whether an 

offering is subject to a continuing 

disclosure undertaking, the names of 

obligated persons and the deadlines for 

providing annual financial information 

would be displayed on the EMMA Web 

portal and also would be included in 

EMMA’s primary market disclosure 

subscription service. These items are 

intended to provide investors and others 

with information on the expected 

availability of disclosures following the 

initial issuance of the securities. In 

particular, users of the EMMA Web 

portal would be able to determine 

which obligated persons are expected to 

submit annual financial information, 

audited financial statements and 

material event notices on an on-going 

basis, as well as the date each year by 

which they should expect to have access 

to the annual financial information. 

In Amendment No. 2, the MSRB 

requested an effective date for the 

proposed rule change of a date to be 

announced by the MSRB in a notice 

published on the MSRB Web site, which 

date shall be no later than one year after 

Commission approval of the proposed 

rule change and shall be announced no 

later than sixty (60) days prior to the 

effective date. 

III. Summary of Comments Received 

and the MSRB’s Response 

General Comments 

As previously noted, the Commission 

received eight comment letters on the 

original proposed rule change 13 and no 

comments on Amendment No. 1. Most 

of the commenters expressed support 

for the proposal’s general goal of 

increasing transparency and disclosure 

in the market for municipal securities.14

However, some commenters objected to 

specific new requirements that the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 30895 

15See, e.g., RBDA Letter, SIFMA Letter, NABL 

Letter, Connecticut Treasurer Letter. 

16See, e.g., NABL Letter, Connecticut Treasurer 

Letter. 

17See, e.g., RBDA Letter, SIFMA Letter. 

18See, e.g., SIFMA Letter. 

19See Amendment No. 1, supra note 7. 

20 Id. 

21 Id. 

22 Id. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. 

proposal would place on 

underwriters,15 requested clarification 

of certain aspects of the proposal,16

suggested alternative approaches,17 or 

expressed concern with the timing of 

the proposal.18

The Connecticut Treasurer, ICI and 

Virginia GFOA were generally 

supportive. The Connecticut Treasurer 

stated that the original proposed rule 

change would make municipal 

disclosure more transparent, efficient, 

consistent, comparable and accessible to 

investors, particularly individual 

investors. ICI stated that the original 

proposed rule change would ensure the 

accessibility and improve the utility of 

continuing disclosure information for 

investors and would further enhance 

transparency in the municipal securities 

market. 

RBDA supported the goal of the 

original proposed rule change but 

suggested that underwriters be required 

to submit continuing disclosure 

agreements rather than the information 

specified in the proposal. SIFMA 

opposed the original proposed rule 

change. Both RBDA and SIFMA 

expressed concern that requiring 

underwriters to extract information from 

documents could result in submission 

of erroneous information to EMMA and 

would create an undue burden and 

compliance risk for underwriters. ICI 

stated, however, that it believes that the 

benefits to investors stemming from the 

original proposed rule change would 

outweigh the perceived costs and risks, 

and that integrating and packaging the 

proposed information would greatly 

assist investors and potential investors 

in monitoring their investments by 

easily identifying for them whether and 

when they should expect to have access 

to key continuing disclosure 

information. 

RBDA distinguished the type of 

information currently required to be 

reported on Form G–32, characterized as 

data necessary to create the database 

record of the issue on the EMMA 

system, from the type of information 

proposed to be collected in the 

proposed rule change, which RBDA 

characterized as unnecessary for 

creating the record in EMMA. SIFMA 

stated that the continuing disclosure 

undertaking is already required to be 

summarized in the official statement 

available through EMMA and that 

extracting information from the official 

statement would effectively discourage 

investors from having to read the official 

statement itself. SIFMA further stated 

that, if the MSRB wants to highlight 

issuers’ continuing disclosure 

obligations, this can be done by creating 

a best practices standard. Finally, 

SIFMA urged the MSRB to commit to 

making EMMA compatible with 

information underwriters are providing 

to the Depository Trust and Clearing 

Corporation’s New Issue Information 

Dissemination System (‘‘NIIDS’’). 

NABL did not state a position 

regarding the original proposed rule 

change but recommended clarifications 

and modifications. NABL recommended 

that the Commission clarify, consistent 

with Rule 15c2–12, that the proposed 

amendment to Rule G–32 does not alter 

the ‘‘reasonable determination’’ standard 

of Rule 15c2–12(b)(5)(i) or require 

underwriters to provide information 

about obligated persons that could be 

viewed as additional certification 

beyond the obligations prescribed by 

Rule 15c2–12(b)(5)(i). NABL also 

suggested that a more complete analysis 

of the MSRB’s statutory authority for 

adopting the original proposed rule 

change be provided. 

The MSRB noted that collecting and 

displaying on the EMMA Web portal the 

existence of a continuing disclosure 

obligation, the names of any obligated 

persons other than the issuer, and the 

deadline for submission of annual 

financial and operating data, all as 

fielded information rather than merely 

as information provided within 

documents, would provide significant 

benefits to investors and other market 

participants.19 According to the MSRB, 

the close proximity of this information 

to the links to posted continuing 

disclosure documents on the EMMA 

Web portal would assist investors with 

understanding whether and when they 

should expect to have access to key 

continuing disclosure information in the 

future and about whom such 

information is expected to be 

provided.20 The MSRB stated that 

investors and other market participants 

would be able to include an assessment 

of ongoing access to information along 

with other factors upon which they may 

evaluate their investment decisions.21

The MSRB remarked that it firmly 

believes that the proposed rule change 

is within its statutory authority and 

noted that an MSRB rule change or 

system requirement would not have the 

effect of altering any obligations or 

standards under Rule 15c2–12 or any 

other Commission rule.22

Identification of Obligated Persons 

The original proposed rule change 

would require the underwriter to 

provide, on amended Form G–32, the 

name of any obligated person, other 

than the issuer of the municipal 

securities, that has or will undertake, or 

is otherwise expected to provide, 

continuing disclosure pursuant to the 

continuing disclosure undertaking. 

NABL suggested that underwriters 

only be required ‘‘to identify those 

persons expressly specified in the 

continuing disclosure undertaking who 

will be required to make continuing 

disclosure filings or to state that such 

persons will be determined by the 

functional descriptions contained in the 

continuing disclosure undertaking.’’ 

NABL recommended that the 

Commission make clear in any approval 

order that Rule G–32 is intended to be 

a mechanical reporting requirement by 

which the underwriter is required to 

report which persons are identified in 

the applicable continuing disclosure 

agreement as being responsible for 

continuing disclosure, and is not 

intended to impose on the underwriter 

any new requirement to determine who 

are the various obligated persons with 

respect to a particular offering. NABL 

also recommended that the definition of 

obligated person more closely mirror the 

definition thereof in Rule 15c2–12. The 

Connecticut Treasurer noted that, for 

some issues, obligated persons can 

change over time and believed that it 

was unclear whether the original 

proposed rule change accommodated 

this possibility. 

In Amendment No. 1, the MSRB 

noted its view that collecting the 

identity of obligated persons in a fielded 

manner that permits automated 

indexing and search functions is an 

important feature that would make the 

EMMA Web portal considerably more 

useful for users.23 The MSRB stated that 

such indexed information would assist 

EMMA Web users in finding some or all 

of the offerings for a particular obligated 

person, thereby allowing the user to 

review the continuing disclosure 

undertakings that more fully spell out 

how the continuing disclosure 

obligations will be fulfilled.24

In Amendment No. 1, the MSRB 

proposes to modify the definition of 

obligated person in proposed Rule G– 

32(d)(xiii) to more closely conform to 

the definition thereof in Rule 15c2– 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
30896 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 

25 Id. The MSRB indicated that issuers and 

obligated persons would be able to make changes 

to such information through their submission 

accounts established in connection with EMMA’s 

continuing disclosure service. 

26See Amendment No. 1, supra note 7. 

27 Id. 

28 Id. 

29 Id. 

30 In approving this proposed rule change, the 

Commission notes that it has considered the 

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition 

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

31 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C). 32 Id. 

12(f)(10) to avoid any definitional 

ambiguity. Furthermore, Amendment 

No. 1 would modify Form G–32 to 

explicitly provide that the obligated 

persons to be identified are those that 

are specifically identified in the 

continuing disclosure undertaking. The 

MSRB emphasized that the 

underwriter’s obligation is solely to 

provide the identities of those obligated 

persons who have a specific 

commitment under the continuing 

disclosure agreement to provide 

continuing disclosures. The MSRB 

stated that underwriters would not be 

required to undertake any independent 

analysis of what other persons might be 

covered, to submit descriptions of bases 

for determining future obligated 

persons, or to maintain the currency of 

the list of obligated persons beyond the 

closing date.25

Deadline for Annual Filing and End of 

Fiscal Year 

The original proposed rule change 

would require the underwriter to 

provide, on amended Form G–32, the 

date or dates identified in the 

continuing disclosure undertaking, 

pursuant to Rule 15c2–12(b)(5)(ii)(C) or 

otherwise, by which annual financial 

information is expected to be submitted 

each year by the issuer and/or any 

obligated persons to the EMMA system. 

NABL recommended that the proposed 

Form G–32 be revised to list those dates 

by which the issuer or those expressly 

identified obligated persons who have 

agreed to provide continuing disclosure 

pursuant to the continuing disclosure 

undertaking have agreed to provide 

such information, as opposed to dates 

by which the data is expected to be 

submitted. 

In Amendment No. 1, the MSRB 

stated that there is considerable value in 

providing the deadline for submission 

of annual financial information in a 

manner that is extracted from the 

official statement.26 This would permit 

investors and the general public to 

readily identify when such disclosures 

should become available from each 

issuer or obligated person expected to 

provide the annual filings.27 The MSRB 

further noted that issuers and obligated 

persons would be able to update the 

timing requirement, as well as the 

identity of any obligated persons, 

through EMMA as appropriate.28

In Amendment No. 1, the MSRB 

proposed a new alternative method for 

reporting the deadline for submissions 

of annual financial and operating data 

based on the disclosed end of fiscal 

year, so that underwriters could disclose 

as the submission deadline either a 

specific date each year (i.e., month and 

day, such as June 30) or the number of 

days or months after the end of the 

fiscal year (i.e., 120 days after the end 

of the fiscal year). The underwriter 

could use the day/month count 

alternative only if the underwriter also 

submits the day on which the issuer’s or 

obligated person’s fiscal year ends (i.e., 

month and day, such as June 30). Form 

G–32 would be modified to allow for 

submission of this new data element. 

Issuer/Obligated Person Contact 

Information 

The original proposed rule change 

would require the underwriter to 

provide, on amended Form G–32, 

contact information for a representative 

of the issuer and/or any obligated 

persons for purposes of establishing 

continuing disclosure submission 

accounts for such issuer and/or 

obligated persons in connection with 

their submissions to the EMMA system. 

The Connecticut Treasurer requested 

that the current voluntary process for 

providing contact information for 

representatives of the issuer or obligated 

person for purposes of establishing 

EMMA submission accounts not be 

made mandatory. 

The MSRB noted that its current 

voluntary process has been effective; 

therefore Amendment No. 1 would 

eliminate from Form G–32 the 

requirement that underwriters provide 

the contact information for a 

representative of the issuer and/or any 

obligated person.29

IV. Discussion and Commission 

Findings 

The Commission has carefully 

considered the proposed rule change, 

the comment letters received, and the 

MSRB’s responses to the comment 

letters and finds that the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the 

requirements of the Exchange Act and 

the rules and regulations thereunder 

applicable to the MSRB30 and, in 

particular, the requirements of Section 

15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act31 and 

the rules and regulations thereunder. 

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

Act requires, among other things, that 

the MSRB’s rules 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, to remove 

impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market in 

municipal securities, and, in general, to 

protect investors and the public 

interest.32 In particular, the Commission 

finds that the proposed rule change is 

consistent with the Exchange Act 

because it serves to remove 

impediments to and helps perfect the 

mechanisms of a free and open market 

in municipal securities and would serve 

to promote the statutory mandate of the 

MSRB to protect investors and the 

public interest. The information that 

underwriters would provide and that 

would be made available to the public 

with regard to the continuing disclosure 

undertakings of issuers and obligated 

persons would assist investors in 

understanding whether and when they 

should expect to have access to key 

continuing disclosure information in the 

future. Investors and other market 

participants would be able to include 

such assessment of on-going access to 

information in the mix of factors upon 

which they may evaluate their 

investment decisions. 

The Commission believes that the 

MSRB has adequately responded to the 

concerns expressed in the comment 

letters. The Commission agrees with the 

MSRB that any additional burdens on 

underwriters are outweighed by the 

benefits of providing information to 

investors and other users in a user 

friendly manner. Investors, potential 

investors and other users of the EMMA 

system would not have to search 

through official statements to locate 

continuing disclosure information. The 

type of information to be reported by 

underwriters pursuant to the proposal is 

not substantially different from other 

information underwriters already 

submit to EMMA. 

Amendment No. 1 should adequately 

address commenters’ concerns about the 

definition and identification of 

obligated parties and the expected date 

of filing of annual financial information. 

The additional disclosure and 

transparency made possible by this 

proposal will serve to promote the 

statutory mandate of the MSRB to 

protect investors and the public interest. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 30897 

33 In approving this proposed rule change, the 

Commission notes that it has considered the 

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition 

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

34 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C). 

35 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

36 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

The proposed rule change, as 

amended, will become effective on a 

date to be announced by the MSRB in 

a notice published on the MSRB Web 

site, which date shall be no later than 

one year after Commission approval of 

the proposed rule change and shall be 

announced no later than sixty (60) days 

prior to the effective date, as requested 

by the MSRB in Amendment No. 2. 

V. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change, as amended, is consistent 

with the Exchange Act and the rules and 

regulations thereunder applicable to the 

MSRB33 and, in particular, the 

requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of 

the Exchange Act34 and the rules and 

regulations thereunder. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,35

that the proposed rule change (SR– 

MSRB–2009–09), as amended, be, and it 

hereby is, approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.36

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13156 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Request and 

Comment Request 

The Social Security Administration 

(SSA) publishes a list of information 

collection packages requiring clearance 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) in compliance with 

Public Law (Pub. L.) 104–13, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

effective October 1, 1995. This notice 

includes revisions and extensions of 

OMB-approved information collections. 

SSA is soliciting comments on the 

accuracy of the agency’s burden 

estimate; the need for the information; 

its practical utility; ways to enhance its 

quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to 

minimize burden on respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Mail, e-mail, or 

fax your comments and 

recommendations on the information 

collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer 

and SSA Reports Clearance Director to 

the following addresses or fax numbers. 

(OMB) Office of Management and 

Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, 

Fax: 202–395–6974, E-mail address: 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov 

(SSA) Social Security Administration, 

DCBFM, Attn: Director, Center for 

Reports Clearance, 1333 Annex 

Building, 6401 Security Blvd., 

Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410–965– 

0454, E-mail address: 

OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov. 

I. The information collection below is 

pending at SSA. SSA will submit it to 

OMB within 60 days from the date of 

this notice. To be sure we consider your 

comments, we must receive them no 

later than August 2, 2010. Individuals 

can obtain copies of the collection 

instruments by calling the SSA Director 

for Reports Clearance at 410–965–0454 

or by writing to the above e-mail 

address. 

1. Request for Accommodation in 

Communication Method—0960–0777. 

In American Council of the Blind, et al. 

v. Michael Astrue and Social Security 

Administration, class plaintiffs 

representing Social Security applicants, 

beneficiaries, recipients, and 

representative payees who are blind or 

visually impaired challenged the 

adequacy of the communication 

methods SSA uses in its notices and 

other communications. Prior to the 

court’s order of October 20, 2009 in 

American Council of the Blind, SSA 

offered three modes of communications 

for blind and visually impaired Social 

Security recipients: (1) A standard print 

notice by first-class mail; (2) a standard 

print notice by first-class mail with a 

follow-up telephone call; and (3) 

certified mail. In American Council of 

the Blind, the court required SSA to 

offer two additional modes of 

communication to blind or visually 

impaired applicants, beneficiaries, 

recipients, and representative payees: 

(4) Braille, and (5) Microsoft Word files 

(on data compact discs). 

In American Council of the Blind, the 

court further ordered SSA to implement 

Section 504 through 45 CFR 85.51 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

meaning SSA must ‘‘take appropriate 

steps to ensure effective communication 

with applicants, participants, personnel 

of other Federal entities, and members 

of the public.’’ To meet the court’s 

mandates, SSA uses Form SSA–9000, 

Request for Accommodation in 

Communication Method, to gather 

information from blind or visually 

impaired individuals about why their 

particular accommodation (other than 

the five accommodations already offered 

by the agency) will allow SSA to 

communicate effectively with them. 

This form asks respondents to describe 

the type of accommodation they want, 

to disclose the condition they have that 

necessitates the need for a different type 

of accommodation, and to explain why 

none of the five methods described 

above are sufficient for their needs. The 

respondents are Social Security 

applicants, beneficiaries, recipients, and 

representative payees who are blind or 

visually impaired and are asking SSA to 

send them notices and other 

communications in an alternative 

method besides the five modalities we 

describe in this notice. 

Type of Request: Revision of an OMBapproved information collection. 

Method of information collection Number of 

respondents 

Frequency 

of response 

Response time 

(min.) 

Burden 

(hours) 

Personal Interview (over the phone or in-person) ........................................... 2,250 1 10 375 

Form (taken or mailed from field office) .......................................................... 250 1 15 63 

Total .......................................................................................................... 2,500 ........................ ........................ 438 

II. SSA has submitted the information 

collections listed below to OMB for 

clearance. Your comments on the 

information collections would be most 

useful if OMB and SSA receive them 

within 30 days from the date of this 

publication. To be sure we consider 

your comments, we must receive them 

no later than July 2, 2010. You can 

obtain a copy of the OMB clearance 

packages by calling the SSA Director for 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES