49908 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / Notices 

20For purposes only of waiving the 30-day 

operative delay, the Commission has also 

considered the proposed rule’s impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 

15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

21 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Form G–45 is an electronic form on which 

submissions of the information required by Rule G– 

45 are made to the MSRB. 

4The ABLE Act was enacted on December 19, 

2014 as part of The Tax Increase Prevention Act of 

2014 (Pub. L. 113–295). 

5As noted under ‘‘Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, 

the Proposed Rule Change’’ below, the proposed 

rule change does not alter the date that 

underwriters to ABLE programs must submit data 

under Rule G–45 to the MSRB. 

technology integration that will 

ultimately reduce complexity for Users 

of the Exchange that are also 

participants on other CBOE Affiliated 

Exchanges. 

The Commission believes that waiver 

of the 30-day operative delay is 

consistent with the protection of 

investor and the public interest. The 

Commission notes that the proposed 

rule change is based on rules of its 

affiliated exchanges, CBOE and C2, and 

thus does not raise any new or novel 

issues. Accordingly, the Commission 

hereby waives the 30-day operative 

delay and designates the proposed rule 

change as operative upon filing.20

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: (1) Necessary or appropriate in 

the public interest; (2) for the protection 

of investors; or (3) otherwise in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

If the Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or 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– 

BatsBZX–2017–68 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–BatsBZX–2017–68. 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 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 Web site 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–BatsBZX–2017–68 and 

should be submitted on or before 

November 17, 2017. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.21

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23372 Filed 10–26–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–81921; File No. SR–MSRB– 

2017–08] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Municipal Securities Rulemaking 

Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend MSRB Form 

G–45 To Collect Additional Data About 

the Transactional Fees Primarily 

Assessed by Programs Established To 

Implement the ABLE Act 

October 23, 2017. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

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

19b–4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby 

given that on October 13, 2017 the 

Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board 

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

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(the ‘‘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 to amend Form 

G–45 under MSRB Rule G–45, on 

reporting of information on municipal 

fund securities,3 to collect additional 

data about the transactional fees 

primarily assessed by programs 

established to implement the Stephen 

Beck, Jr., Achieving a Better Life 

Experience Act of 2014 (the ‘‘ABLE Act’’ 

and an ‘‘ABLE program’’) (the 

‘‘proposed rule change’’).4 The MSRB 

requests that the proposed rule change 

become effective on June 30, 2018.5

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the MSRB’s Web site at 

www.msrb.org/Rules-andInterpretations/SEC-Filings/2017- 

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 ABLE Act added Section 529A to 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 

amended (the ‘‘Code’’), to permit a state, 

or an agency or instrumentality thereof, 

to establish and maintain a new type of 

tax-advantaged savings program to help 

support individuals with disabilities in 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / Notices 49909 

6 26 U.S.C. 529A. 

7Report to accompany H.R. 647, Committee on 

Ways and Means, H.R. Rept. No. 113–614, part 1 

at 7 (2014). 

8 26 U.S.C. 529(b)(1)(A)(ii). Section 529 also 

established prepaid tuition plans. 26 U.S.C. 

529(b)(1)(A)(i). Under a prepaid tuition plan, an 

investor may purchase tuition credits or certificates 

on behalf of a designated beneficiary, which entitle 

the beneficiary to the waiver or payment of 

qualified higher education expenses. Prepaid 

tuition plans generally have residency 

requirements. Such credits or certificates generally 

are not viewed as being municipal securities, and 

dealers generally do not participate in the 

marketing of prepaid tuition plans. 

9Exchange Act Release No. 70462 (Sept. 20, 

2013), 78 FR 67468, 67472–73 (Nov. 12, 2013). See 

Letter from Catherine McGuire, Chief Counsel, 

Division of Market Regulation, U.S. Securities and 

Exchange Commission, to Diane G. Klinke, General 

Counsel, Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board 

(Feb. 26, 1999) (determining that at least some 

interests in higher education trusts are municipal 

securities under the Act). 

10Letter dated March 31, 2016 from Jessica S. 

Kane, Director, Office of Municipal Securities, U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission to Robert A. 

Fippinger, Esq., Chief Legal Officer, Municipal 

Securities Rulemaking Board, in response to letter 

dated December 31, 2015 from Robert A. Fippinger 

to Jessica S. Kane, both letters are available at 

https://www.sec.gov/info/municipal/msrb-letter033116-interests-in-able-accounts.pdf. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 

13MSRB Notice 2016–14 (Apr. 12, 2016). 

14 Id. 

15See SR–MSRB–2016–11 (Aug. 12, 2016). 

16Further, as part of that August filing, the MSRB 

provided guidance in supplementary material 

under (i) Rule G–42, that such rule applies to 

municipal advisors that engage in municipal 

advisory activities for sponsors or trustees of ABLE 

programs and (ii) Rule G–44, that such rule equally 

applies to municipal advisors that engage in 

municipal advisory activities for sponsors or 

trustees of 529 college savings plans, ABLE 

programs, and other municipal fund securities. That 

guidance provided clarity about the applicability of 

such rules to municipal advisors that engage in 

municipal advisory activities for sponsors or 

trustees of municipal fund securities. The MSRB 

provided that guidance in response to requests from 

industry groups in other Board rulemaking 

proposals. Id.; see also MSRB Notice 2016–20 (Aug. 

12, 2016). 

17The MSRB believes that the transactional fees 

assessed by an ABLE program reflect the nature of 

an ABLE program as more of a short-term, rather 

than as a longer-term, savings vehicle when 

compared to a 529 college savings plan. Further, the 

MSRB believes that the variance in the level or 

amount of the account maintenance fee assessed by 

an ABLE program between an in-state and an outof-state resident account owner reflects state 

disability policies. 

maintaining health, independence, and 

quality of life.6 Section 529A was 

modeled, in part, on Section 529 of the 

Code.7 Section 529 established college 

savings plans (‘‘529 college savings 

plans’’) to encourage saving for future 

higher education costs.8 The SEC has 

determined that interests offered by 

such 529 college savings plans are 

municipal securities under Section 

3(a)(29) of the Act.9

Given the similarities between the 

structure of ABLE accounts and 529 

college savings plan accounts and the 

manner in which interests in ABLE 

accounts would be distributed, the 

MSRB requested and received 

interpretive guidance from the SEC staff 

about the status of interests in ABLE 

accounts under the federal securities 

laws.10 SEC staff stated that ‘‘at least 

some interests in ABLE accounts . . . 

may be ‘municipal securities’ as defined 

in Section 3(a)(29) of the Exchange Act, 

depending on the facts and 

circumstances’’ 11 and that ‘‘[i]f a dealer 

is acting as an ‘underwriter’ (as defined 

in Rule 15c2–12(f)(8)) in connection 

with that primary offering, the dealer 

may be subject to the requirements of 

Rule 15c2–12.’’ 12

After the MSRB received the SEC staff 

guidance, the MSRB provided 

interpretative guidance relating to 

interests in ABLE programs under 

MSRB Rule D–12, on the definition of 

‘‘municipal fund security.’’ 13 That 

guidance was followed by the August 

2016 guidance published by the Board 

to address particular issues, including 

Rule G–45, applicable to the sale of 

interests in ABLE programs by brokers, 

dealers and municipal securities dealers 

(collectively, ‘‘dealers’’).14

Specifically, in August 2016, the 

MSRB filed for immediate effectiveness 

an amendment to Rule G–45 to delay, by 

two years from August 29, 2016 until 

August 29, 2018, the date that 

submissions are due under Rule G–45 

from underwriters to ABLE programs 

(the ‘‘August filing’’).15 The MSRB 

believed that the delay would help 

ensure that the MSRB would receive 

reliable, complete and accurate filings 

on Form G–45 from such underwriters. 

The MSRB also believed that the delay 

would help ensure that the MSRB 

would receive more meaningful data 

about a larger set of ABLE programs on 

Form G–45.16 Similarly, to receive more 

meaningful data about ABLE programs, 

the MSRB submits the proposed rule 

change. However, this proposed rule 

change does not alter the date that 

underwriters to ABLE programs must 

begin to submit data to the MSRB under 

Rule G–45. 

(ii) The Collection of Additional 

Relevant Fee and Expense Data 

At the time the MSRB submitted the 

August filing, there were two ABLE 

programs that were operational. Since 

that time, the MSRB understands that 27 

more ABLE programs have become 

operational. As each additional ABLE 

program has become operational, the 

MSRB has reviewed the disclosure 

booklet for the program to determine 

whether there is data about the 

programs that would be beneficial for 

the MSRB to analyze under Rule G–45 

that an underwriter to an ABLE program 

would not be required to submit under 

current Form G–45. But for the program 

type, the review process of ABLE 

program fees was identical to the review 

process that the MSRB used in 

determining the data elements relating 

to the fees and expenses associated with 

an investment in a 529 college savings 

plan when the MSRB first developed 

Form G–45. 

While the MSRB believes that current 

Form G–45 would capture most of the 

data that would be informative to the 

MSRB, the MSRB noted that there are 

differences between the pricing 

structure of certain ABLE programs and 

the typical 529 college savings plan. 

Specifically, based on the MSRB’s 

review, there are transactional fees 

assessed by ABLE programs that 

generally are not assessed by 529 college 

savings plans, and there is variance 

based on state residency in the level of 

the account maintenance fee assessed by 

ABLE programs that generally does not 

occur with 529 college savings plans.17

Rule G–45 requires dealers acting in 

the capacity as underwriters to ABLE 

programs or 529 college savings plans to 

submit on a semi-annual or annual basis 

(in the case of performance data) certain 

information about the programs or plans 

they underwrite. That information 

includes program or plan descriptive 

information, assets, asset allocation 

information (at the investment option 

level), contributions, withdrawals, fee 

and cost structure, performance, and 

other information. The MSRB and other 

regulatory authorities use this data to 

analyze 529 college savings plans (and 

will be able to use this data to analyze 

ABLE programs), monitor their growth 

rate, size and investment options, and 

compare 529 college savings plans 

based on fees, costs, and performance. 

By collecting this information, the 

MSRB enhances its understanding of 

529 college savings plans (and will be 

able to enhance its understanding of 

ABLE programs). The Commission has 

agreed with the MSRB that the 

collection of information under Rule G– 

45 is intended to protect investors, 

municipal entities and the public 

interest and prevent fraudulent and 

manipulative acts and practices by 

allowing the MSRB to collect 

comprehensive, reliable, and consistent 

electronic data about such programs or 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
49910 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / Notices 

18Exchange Act Release No. 71598 (Feb. 21, 

2014), 79 FR 11161, 11167 (Feb. 27, 2014) (SR– 

MSRB–2013–04). 

19 Id. 

20CSPN published its voluntary Disclosure 

Principles Statement No. 6 (‘‘Disclosure Principles 

No. 6’’) on July 1, 2017 available at http://

www.collegesavings.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 

06/CSPN-Disclosure-Principles-Statement-No.- 

6.pdf. Disclosure Principles No. 6 recommends 

acceptable disclosure practices for state entities that 

establish and maintain 529 college savings plans. 

CSPN states that Disclosure Principles No. 6 also 

may be of use to qualified ABLE programs. See 

Disclosure Principles No. 6. 

To assist underwriters, the MSRB included 

subheadings in how certain investment options fees 

and expenses are displayed on Form G–45 to more 

closely correspond with the subheadings used in 

Disclosure Principles No. 6. The subheadings, 

however, do not change any of the data elements 

required to be submitted on Form G–45. 

21See SR–MSRB–2013–04 (Jun. 10, 2013). 

22The MSRB, however, anticipates that most of 

the data that would be collected by the proposed 

rule change would relate to ABLE programs. As 

noted, the MSRB believes that 529 college savings 

plans generally do not assess the fees and charges 

that are the subject of this proposed rule change. 

23 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C). 

plans.18 The Commission has stated that 

‘‘to fulfill its statutory responsibilities to 

investors and municipal entities in the 

context of 529 plans, the Commission 

believes that it is appropriate for the 

MSRB to possess basic, reliable 

information regarding 529 plans, 

including the underlying investment 

options.’’ 19

To help ensure that the MSRB 

continues to receive comprehensive 

information regarding ABLE programs 

and 529 college savings plans, the 

proposed rule change would amend 

Form G–45 to collect additional 

information relating to fees and 

expenses. This data would enhance the 

MSRB’s understanding of the markets 

for ABLE programs and 529 college 

savings plans, including the differences 

among such programs or plans. Further, 

as discussed under ‘‘Statutory Basis’’ 

below, the additional fee and expense 

information would assist the MSRB in 

fulfilling its investor protection mission. 

The information about fees and 

expenses would continue to be 

submitted in a format that is consistent 

with the disclosure principles of the 

College Savings Plan Network 

(‘‘CSPN’’), an affiliate of the National 

Association of State Treasurers,20 which 

commenters on previous MSRB 

rulemaking proposals relating to Form 

G–45 have stated is the industry norm.21

Under the proposed rule change, an 

underwriter to an ABLE program or a 

529 college savings plan would be 

required to submit data on Form G–45 

about the following additional fees and 

expenses, as applicable: 

• Account opening fee; 

• investment administration fee; 

• change in account owner fee; 

• cancellation/withdrawal fee; 

• change in investment option/ 

transfer fee; 

• rollover fee; 

• returned excess aggregate 

contributions fee; 

• rejected ACH or EFT fee; 

• overnight delivery fee; 

• in-network ATM fee; 

• out-of-network ATM fee; 

• ATM mini statement fee; 

• international POS/ATM transaction 

fee; 

• foreign transaction fee; 

• overdraft fee; 

• copy of check or statement fee (per 

request); 

• copy of check images mailed with 

monthly statement fee; 

• check fee (i.e., fee for blank checks); 

• returned check fee; 

• checking account option fee; 

• re-issue of disbursement check fee; 

• stop payment fee; 

• debit card fee; 

• debit card replacement fee; 

• outgoing wire fee; 

• expedited debit card rush delivery 

fee; 

• paper fee; and 

• miscellaneous fee (to address any 

miscellaneous transactional fee that is 

not otherwise specified on Form G–45). 

In addition, under the proposed rule 

change, the MSRB would collect data 

about any variance in the annual 

account maintenance fee due to the 

residency of the account owner. The 

proposed rule would apply to 

underwriters to ABLE programs as well 

as to underwriters to 529 college savings 

plans.22

2. Statutory Basis 

The MSRB believes that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Section 

15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,23 which 

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 Act requires that the MSRB 

protect investors. To fulfill this 

responsibility, it is necessary for the 

MSRB to have a complete and reliable 

data set about ABLE programs and 529 

college savings plans. That data 

includes data about the fees and 

expenses associated with an investment 

in an ABLE program or a 529 college 

savings plan. The proposed rule change 

would provide the MSRB with more 

meaningful data about the transactional 

fees primarily assessed by ABLE 

programs and about variances in the 

account maintenance fee due to the 

residency of the account owner. The 

additional information about fees and 

expenses associated with ABLE 

programs and 529 college savings plans 

would facilitate the MSRB’s ability to 

analyze the market for ABLE programs 

and 529 college savings plans as well as 

to evaluate trends and differences 

among the ABLE programs and 529 

college savings plans. The MSRB 

believes that understanding the costs 

associated with ABLE programs and 529 

college savings plans as well as the 

other data collected under Rule G–45 

are basic requirements for regulation 

and necessary to assist the MSRB with 

its evaluation as to whether its 

regulatory scheme for dealers that sell 

interests in or underwrite ABLE 

programs and/or 529 college savings 

plans is sufficient, or whether 

additional rulemaking is necessary to 

protect investors. Further, the 

information that would be collected by 

the proposed rule change would help 

the MSRB and other regulators that 

examine dealers prioritize their efforts 

with respect to those dealers that sell 

interests in or underwrite ABLE 

programs and 529 college savings plans. 

Those other regulators may use this 

information to determine the nature or 

timing of risk-based dealer 

examinations. In short, the MSRB 

believes that the information to be 

collected by the proposed rule change 

would better enable the MSRB to protect 

investors in these programs and plans 

and the public interest. 

Further, the MSRB has a statutory 

obligation to prevent fraudulent and 

manipulative acts and practices and to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade. In general, underwriters to ABLE 

programs and 529 college savings plans 

draft or participate in the drafting of the 

program or plan disclosure booklets, as 

well as the marketing materials for the 

ABLE program or 529 college savings 

plans. The MSRB or other regulators 

may use the information submitted on 

Form G–45 to, among other things, 

determine if the disclosure documents 

or marketing materials prepared or 

reviewed by underwriters are consistent 

with the data submitted to the MSRB for 

regulatory purposes. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / Notices 49911 

24 Id. 

25Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in 

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

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

26The proposed rule change would not impose 

any burden on non-underwriting dealers that only 

sell interests in either ABLE programs or 529 

college savings plans, as the obligation to submit 

information semi-annually to the MSRB will only 

be imposed on underwriters. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

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

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.24 In accordance 

with the Board’s policy on the use of 

economic analysis in rulemaking, the 

Board has reviewed the proposed rule 

change.25 To fulfill its responsibility to 

protect investors, as ABLE programs and 

529 college savings plans have 

significant retail investor components, 

the MSRB must become well informed 

about the fees and expenses assessed 

under such programs or plans and about 

the market for ABLE programs and 529 

college savings plans as a whole. The 

proposed rule change is necessary for 

the MSRB to gather relevant data 

required to ensure the MSRB’s 

regulatory scheme is sufficient and/or to 

determine whether additional 

rulemaking is necessary to protect 

investors and the public interest. 

The proposed rule change would 

require an underwriter to submit 

additional information about the fees 

and expenses associated with the 

applicable ABLE program or 529 college 

savings plan. The proposed rule change 

would enable the MSRB to carry out its 

regulatory responsibilities under the Act 

and fulfill its mission to ensure 

efficiency in the market for these 

programs. The MSRB would realize 

substantial benefits in obtaining reliable 

and consistent information about the 

fees and expenses of ABLE programs 

and 529 college savings plans, 

promoting greater regulatory oversight 

and investor protection. 

Although there are costs associated 

with compliance with the proposed rule 

change, these costs should be minimal. 

The data that the MSRB wishes to 

collect are readily available and should 

be known to the underwriters of these 

plans. Additionally, underwriters are 

already required to submit certain 

information to the MSRB on Form G–45 

on a semi-annual basis.26

Among the possible alternatives to the 

proposed rule change are (a) a manual 

review of information in program or 

plan disclosure documents submitted to 

EMMA or on program or plan Web sites; 

or (b) a review of data supplied by 

information vendors voluntarily. 

However, neither of these alternatives 

would satisfy the regulatory needs of the 

MSRB. A manual review of information 

would be insufficient because some of 

the information sought by the MSRB is 

not disclosed in public documents in a 

uniform and consistent manner. 

Moreover, a manual review of 

information would be time consuming 

and inefficient, especially given that 

underwriters are already required to 

submit certain information to the MSRB 

on a semi-annual basis. In addition, 

while a review of information 

voluntarily submitted to informational 

vendors may be of interest, it is 

unreliable from a regulatory standpoint. 

Information supplied by dealers that are 

underwriters to ABLE programs and/or 

529 college savings plans to information 

vendors may differ with respect to its 

reliability and quality. Essentially, the 

MSRB would be relying on such 

information vendors for important 

regulatory activities. For regulatory 

purposes, the MSRB seeks a consistent 

set of uniform, reliable and relevant 

information about ABLE programs and 

529 college savings plans. 

On balance, the MSRB believes that 

semi-annual reporting of limited 

information, which is readily available 

to dealers that are underwriters to ABLE 

programs and/or 529 college savings 

plans, would not pose an unreasonable 

burden on such underwriters, and the 

likely benefits of the proposed 

amendments justify the likely associated 

costs in both the near and long term. 

The MSRB does not believe that the 

proposed rule change would impose any 

burden on competition not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. The additional 

information would be submitted on an 

equal and non-discriminatory basis, and 

the requirement would apply equally to 

all dealers that serve as underwriters to 

ABLE programs and/or 529 college 

savings plans. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

Written comments were neither 

solicited nor received on the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Within 45 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register or within such longer period of 

up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may 

designate if it finds such longer period 

to be appropriate and publishes its 

reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which 

the self-regulatory organization 

consents, the Commission will: 

(A) By order approve or disapprove 

such proposed rule change, or 

(B) institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

MSRB–2017–08 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–2017–08. 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 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 Web site 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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
49912 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / Notices 

27 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)(6)(iii). 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79585 

(December 16, 2016), 81 FR 93988 (December 22, 

2016) (SR–BatsBZX–2016–68; SR–BatsBYX–2016– 

29; SR–BatsEDGA–2016–24; SR–BatsEDGX–2016– 

60). 

6 ‘‘Market Orders’’ are orders to buy or sell at the 

best price available at the time of execution. Market 

Orders to buy or sell an option traded on are 

rejected if they are received when the underlying 

security is subject to a ‘‘Limit State’’ or ‘‘Straddle 

State’’ as defined in the Plan to Address 

Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 

608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the ‘‘Limit 

Up-Limit Down Plan’’). Any portion of a Market 

Order that would execute at a price more than $0.50 

or 5 percent worse than the NBBO at the time the 

order initially reaches BZX Options, whichever is 

greater, will be cancelled. See Exchange Rule 

21.1(d)(5). 

7See CBOE Rule 6.53, Interpretation and Policy 

.01C. 

8See C2 Rule 6.10, Interpretation and Policy .01C. 

9See Exchange Rule 21.1(d)(5). 

to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–MSRB–2017–08 and should 

be submitted on or before November 17, 

2017. 

For the Commission, pursuant to delegated 

authority.27

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23374 Filed 10–26–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–81920; File No. SR– 

BatsEDGX–2017–39] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats 

EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing 

and Immediate Effectiveness of a 

Proposed Rule Change to Rule 21.1, 

Definitions, To Modify Stop Orders and 

Stop Limit Orders Applicable to the 

Exchange’s Equity Options Platform in 

Preparation for the C2 Options 

Exchange, Incorporated Technology 

Migration 

October 23, 2017. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

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

notice is hereby given that on October 

10, 2017, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the 

‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘EDGX’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the Exchange. The Exchange has 

designated this proposal as a ‘‘noncontroversial’’ proposed rule change 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 

thereunder,4 which renders it effective 

upon filing with the Commission. 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 Exchange filed a proposal to 

update Rule 21.1 to make modifications 

to the Exchange’s rules and 

functionality applicable to the 

Exchange’s options platform (‘‘EDGX 

Options’’) in preparation for the 

technology migration of the Exchange’s 

affiliated options exchange, C2 Options 

Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘C2’’), onto the 

same technology as the Exchange. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available at the Exchange’s Web site 

at www.bats.com, at the principal office 

of the Exchange, 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 

Exchange 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 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of 

the most significant parts of such 

statements. 

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

In 2016, the Exchange and its 

affiliates Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. 

(‘‘BZX’’), Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. 

(‘‘BYX’’), and Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. 

(‘‘EDGA’’) received approval to affect a 

merger (the ‘‘Merger’’) of the Exchange’s 

indirect parent company, Bats Global 

Markets, Inc. (‘‘BGM’’), with CBOE 

Holdings, Inc. (‘‘CBOE Holdings’’), the 

direct parent of Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘CBOE’’) and 

C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated 

(‘‘C2’’, and together with the Exchange, 

BZX, BYX, EDGA, and CBOE the ‘‘CBOE 

Affiliated Exchanges’’).5 The CBOE 

Affiliated Exchanges are working to 

align certain system functionality, 

retaining only intended differences 

between the CBOE Affiliated Exchanges, 

in the context of a technology migration. 

Thus, the proposals set forth below are 

intended to add certain system 

functionality that is more similar to 

functionality offered by CBOE and C2 in 

order to ultimately provide a consistent 

technology offering for market 

participants who interact with the CBOE 

Affiliated Exchanges. Although the 

Exchange intentionally offers certain 

features that differ from those offered by 

its affiliates and will continue to do so, 

the Exchange believes that offering 

similar functionality to the extent 

practicable will reduce potential 

confusion for Users. 

The Exchange adopt Stop Orders and 

Stop Limit Orders, to be defined in 

Rules 21.1(d)(11) and (d)(12), 

respectively. In order to adopt such 

rules, the Exchange also proposes to renumber current Rule 21.1(d)(10) (related 

to ‘‘Intermarket Sweep Orders’’) as Rule 

21.1(d)(9) (currently reserved), and 

current Rule 21.1(d)(11) (related to 

‘‘Qualified Continent Cross Orders’’) as 

Rule 21.1(d)(10). 

A Stop Order would be defined in 

Rule 21.1(d)(11) as an order that 

becomes a Market Order 6 when the stop 

price is elected. A Stop Order to buy 

would be elected when the consolidated 

last sale in the option occurs at or 

above, or the NBB is equal to or higher 

than, the specified stop price. A Stop 

Order to sell would be elected when the 

consolidated last sale in the option 

occurs at or below, or the NBO is equal 

to or lower than, the specified stop 

price. 

In addition, the Exchange proposes to 

restrict Stop Orders, which, as described 

above, are converted to Market Orders 

when elected, from being elected when 

the underlying security is in a Limit 

State, as defined in the Limit Up-Limit 

Down Plan. Such an order would be 

held until the end of the Limit State, at 

which point the order would again 

become eligible to be elected. This 

aspect of the proposal is also based on 

the rules of CBOE 7 and C2 8 and is 

consistent with the Exchange’s current 

handling of Market Orders, which are 

not accepted when the underlying 

security is in a Limit State.9 As Stop 

Orders become Market Orders when 

elected, the Exchange believes that this 

change is merely an extension of its 

existing functionality. 

A Stop Limit Order would be defined 

in Rule 21.1(d)(12) as an order that 

becomes a limit order when the stop 

price is elected. A Stop Limit Order to 

buy would be elected and would 

become a buy limit order when the 

consolidated last sale in the option 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES