Document ID: SEC-2023-0404-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
Posted Date: 2023-04-12T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22075-22078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07612]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97257; File No. SR-MSRB-2023-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking 
Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB Rules 
G-12 and G-15 To Define Regular-Way Settlement for Municipal Securities 
Transactions as Occurring One Business Day After the Trade Date and To 
Amend Rule G-12 To Update an Outdated Cross Reference

April 6, 2023.
    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 March 28, 2023 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance 
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend 
MSRB Rules G-12, on uniform practice, and G-15, on confirmation, 
clearance, settlement and other uniform practice requirements with 
respect to transactions with customers, to define regular-way 
settlement for municipal securities transactions as occurring one 
business day after the trade date and a proposed amendment to Rule G-12 
to update an outdated cross reference (the ``proposed rule change'').
    The MSRB requests that the proposed rule change be approved with an 
implementation date of May 28, 2024, to align with the implementation 
date for Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1, as amended.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 96930 (Feb. 15, 2023), 88 FR 
13872 at 13916 (Mar. 6, 2023) (File No. S7-050-22) (``SEC's T+1 
Adopting Release''). If the Commission's compliance date were to 
change, the MSRB would issue a regulatory notice to modify the 
compliance date to remain aligned with the Commission's compliance 
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's 
website at https://msrb.org/2023-SEC-Filings, 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
    Consistent with the MSRB's strategic goal to modernize the MSRB 
Rule Book, the proposed rule change would amend MSRB Rule G-
12(b)(ii)(B)-(D) and MSRB Rule G-15(b)(ii)(B)-(C) to define regular-way 
settlement for municipal securities transactions as occurring on one 
business day after the trade date (``T+1''). This proposed rule change 
would align with regular-way settlement on T+1 for equities and 
corporate bonds under Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1, as amended.\4\ Although 
Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1, as amended \5\ does not apply to municipal 
securities transactions, the MSRB believes that the regular-way 
settlement cycle for municipal securities transactions in the secondary 
market should be consistent with that for equity and corporate bond 
transactions. Therefore, to facilitate a T+1 standard settlement cycle, 
the MSRB is proposing to amend MSRB Rule G-12(b)(ii)(B)-(D) and Rule G-
15(b)(ii)(B)-(C) to define regular-way settlement as occurring on the 
first business day following the trade date rather than on the second 
business day following the trade date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.15c6-1.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The SEC initially adopted Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1 \6\ in 1993 to 
shorten the settlement cycle of most equity and corporate bond 
transactions from the industry standard of within five business days 
(``T+5'') to requiring settlement within three business days 
(``T+3'').\7\ The T+3 settlement cycle remained in effect until 2017 
when the SEC amended Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1 \8\ to require the 
settlement of most equity and corporate bond transactions within two 
business days (``T+2'').\9\ On February 15, 2023, the SEC adopted 
amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1 (``Amended SEC Rule 15c6-1'') 
\10\ to further shorten the settlement process, requiring the 
settlement of most equity and corporate bond transactions on T+1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Exchange Act Release No. 33023 (Oct. 6, 1993), 58 FR 52891 
(Oct. 13, 1993). In adopting Rule 15c6-1, the Commission set a 
compliance date of June 1, 1995, 58 FR at 52891 (Oct. 13, 1993).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.15c6-1.
    \9\ Exchange Act Release No. 80295 (Mar. 22, 2017), 82 FR 15564 
(Mar. 29, 2017).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.15c6-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amended SEC Rule 15c6-1(a) \11\ prohibits a broker-dealer from 
effecting or entering into a contract for the purchase or sale of a 
security (other than an exempted security,\12\ a government security, a 
municipal security, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, or 
commercial bills) that provide for payment of funds and delivery of 
securities later than T+1, unless the parties expressly agree to a 
different settlement date at the time of the transaction.\13\ The 
recent

[[Page 22076]]

amendments to SEC Rule 15c6-1 \14\ change only the standard settlement 
date for securities transactions covered by the existing rule and do 
not impact the existing exclusions enumerated in the rule.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.15c6-1(a).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12), (amended Apr. 5, 2012).
    \13\ Subsection (c) of Rule15c6-1, 17 CFR 240.15c6-1(c), was 
also amended to prohibit a broker-dealer from effecting or entering 
into a contract for firm commitment offerings of securities (other 
than exempt securities) priced after 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time that 
provide for payment of funds and delivery of securities later than 
T+2, unless the parties expressly agree to a different settlement 
date at the time of the transaction.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.15c6-1. See also SEC's T+1 Adopting Release, 88 
FR at 13874 (Mar. 6, 2023).
    \15\ In addition, the SEC adopted a new rule, Rule 15c6-2, 17 
CFR 240.15c6-2, to improve the processing of institutional trades 
through new requirements for broker-dealers and registered 
investment advisers related to same-day affirmations. As SEC Rule 
15c6-2 does not apply to municipal securities, the MSRB is 
evaluating whether a like requirement should be considered under 
MSRB rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    Shortening the settlement process can serve to reduce operational 
risks that can be present between trade date and settlement date, which 
can promote investor protection, help reduce the risk of counterparty 
default and the capital required to mitigate this risk.\16\ In support 
of these objectives and to promote regulatory consistency, the MSRB has 
consistently stated that the regular-way settlement cycle for municipal 
securities transactions in the secondary market should be consistent 
with that for equity and corporate bond transactions.\17\ Market 
efficiencies could be eroded if market participants encounter different 
settlement cycles when replacing equity or corporate bonds with 
municipal securities. For that reason, the MSRB adopted a T+3 
settlement cycle in 1994,\18\ and a T+2 settlement cycle in 2017.\19\ 
In order to continue to maintain consistency across asset classes and 
harmonize with Amended SEC Rule 15c6-1,\20\ the MSRB is proposing to 
amend MSRB Rule G-12(b)(ii)(B)-(D) and MSRB Rule G-15(b)(ii)(B)-(C), 
which both currently define regular-way settlement as occurring on T+2, 
to define regular-way settlement as occurring on T+1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See SEC's T+1 Adopting Release, 88 FR at 13919 (Mar. 6, 
2023).
    \17\ See, e.g., ``T+3 Settlement, Amendments Filed: Rules G-12 
and G-15,'' MSRB Reports, Vol. 14, No. 4 (August 1994) at 3; 
``Report of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board on T+3 
Settlement for the Municipal Securities Market'' (Mar.17, 1994); and 
Exchange Act Release No. 77364; File No. SR-MSRB-2016-04 (Mar. 14, 
2016), 81 FR 14906 (Mar. 18, 2016).
    \18\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34541 (Aug. 17, 1994), File 
No. SR-MSRB-1994-10 (Aug. 9, 1994).
    \19\ See Exchange Act Release No. 77744 (Apr. 29, 2016), File 
No. SR-MSRB-2016-04 (Mar. 1, 2016). See also MSRB Notice 2016-15 
(``MSRB to Amend Rules to Define Two-Day Settlement Cycle'').
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.15c6-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, with regular-way settlement occurring on T+1, 
settlement for ``when, as and if issued'' transactions under MSRB Rule 
G-12(b)(ii)(C) would be required to be a date agreed upon by both 
parties that is not earlier than one business day after notification of 
the initial settlement date for the issue.\21\ Specifically, the 
proposed rule change would amend MSRB G-12(b)(ii)(C)(2) for ``when, as 
and if issued'' transactions not eligible for automated comparison to 
specify that the date agreed upon by both parties shall not be earlier 
than the first business day, rather than the second business day, 
following the date that the confirmation indicating the final 
settlement date is sent.\22\ For all other municipal securities 
transactions under MSRB Rule G-12(b)(ii)(D), the proposed rule change 
would amend the current time frame to provide that a broker, dealer or 
municipal securities dealer (a ``dealer'') would be prohibited from 
effecting a transaction that provides for payment of funds and delivery 
of securities later than the first business day, rather than the second 
business day, after the transaction unless expressly agreed to by the 
parties.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Pursuant to MSRB Rule G-34, on CUSIP numbers, new issue, 
and market information requirements, subparagraph (a)(ii)(E)(2), the 
initial settlement is to be provided to the registered clearing 
agency by the managing underwriter for the issue. With respect to 
transactions not eligible for automated comparison, the settlement 
date shall not be earlier than the first business day after the date 
that the confirmation indicating the final settlement date is sent.
    \22\ For ``when, as and if issued'' transactions required to be 
compared in an automated comparison system under Rule G-12(f)(i), 
the settlement date shall continue to be not earlier than two 
business days after notification of initial settlement date for the 
issue is provided to the registered clearing agency by the managing 
underwriter for the issue as required by Rule G-34(a)(ii)(E)(2).
    \23\ For example, variable rate demand obligations may establish 
a settlement date expressly agreed to by the parties that may occur 
later than regular-way settlement to coincide with the reset date 
(e.g., T+5, T+3, etc.). See Three Day Settlement: Rules G-12(b) and 
G-15(b), MSRB Reports, Vol. 15, No. 12 (July 1995), available at 
https://www.msrb.org/sites/default/files/July1995-Volume15-Number2.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the proposed rule change would correct an outdated cross-
reference within MSRB Rule G-12. Specifically, MSRB Rule G-12(b)(ii)(C) 
regarding the settlement date for ``when, as and if issued'' 
transactions currently cross-references MSRB Rule G-34 subsection 
paragraph (a)(ii)(D)(2) in referring to the obligation that a managing 
underwriter has to provide notification of initial settlement date of 
an issue to the registered clearing agency. This obligation remains in 
MSRB Rule G-34 but was moved to subparagraph (a)(ii)(E)(2) due to 
previous amendments to Rule G-34. Correcting the cross-reference will 
not alter the obligation of dealers under MSRB Rule G-34 or MSRB Rule 
G-12.
Compliance Date
    The compliance date of the proposed rule change will be announced 
by the MSRB in a notice published on the MSRB website, which date would 
correspond with the industry's transition to a T+1 regular-way 
settlement consistent with the implementation of Amended SEC Rule 15c6-
1,\24\ which is currently scheduled for May 28, 2024. If the SEC's 
compliance date were to change, the MSRB would issue a regulatory 
notice to modify the compliance date to remain aligned with the SEC's 
compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See SEC's T+1 Adopting Release, 88 FR at 13916 (Mar. 6, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with 
Section 15B(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\25\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act \26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes the proposed rule change is consistent with 
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act.\27\ The proposed amendments to MSRB 
Rule G-12(b)(ii)(B) and (D) and MSRB Rule G-15(b)(ii)(B)-(C) would 
define regular-

[[Page 22077]]

way settlement for municipal securities transactions to occur on T+1. 
The proposed rule change will 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 by applying the standard 
for regular-way settlement established by the SEC to transactions in 
municipal securities. Fostering a consistent standard across asset 
classes of securities would continue to promote just and equitable 
principles of trade by facilitating compliance and reducing the risk of 
potential confusion that could result from an obligation to apply 
different standards for different asset classes of securities. The MSRB 
believes the proposed rule change would serve to remove impediments to 
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by yielding long-
term benefits for a range of market participants including, but not 
limited to, operational cost savings, reduced counterparty risk due to 
a shorter settlement cycle, reduced market risk for unsettled trades, 
decreasing clearing capital requirements, reduced pro-cyclical margin 
and therefore reduced liquidity demands and risk. A shortened 
settlement cycle, as facilitated by the proposed rule change, will 
promote regulatory consistency, ensuring that market participants will 
not encounter differing settlement cycles when replacing other 
securities with municipal securities. The MSRB believes that the 
proposed rule change would promote investor protection and the public 
interest by reducing the timeframe for regular-way settlement and 
avoiding misaligned settlement dates, which can serve to reduce risks 
that can be present between trade date and settlement date, including 
the incidence of failed transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes the proposed amendment to correct an outdated 
cross-reference in MSRB Rule G-12(b)(ii)(C) is consistent with Section 
15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act.\28\ Correcting the cross-reference will not 
alter a dealer's obligations under MSRB Rule G-34 or MSRB Rule G-12. 
The proposed amendment promotes coordination with persons engaged in 
facilitating transactions in municipal securities by aiding dealers' 
understanding of the rule and facilitating compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act \29\ requires that MSRB 
rules not be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary 
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The 
MSRB believes the proposed rule change to amend MSRB Rule G-
12(b)(ii)(B)-(D) and MSRB Rule G-15(b)(ii)(B)-(C) would not impose any 
burden on competition and would not have an impact on competition, as 
the proposed rule change would apply a uniform standard for regular-way 
settlement for municipal securities to align with the standard 
applicable to, among other securities, equity and corporate bond 
transactions under Amended SEC Rule 15c6-1.\30\ In addition, the 
proposed rule change would be applied equally to all dealers. Lastly, 
the proposed rule change to correct an outdated cross-reference in MSRB 
Rule G-12(b)(ii)(C) to properly reference MSRB Rule G-34(a)(ii)(E)(2) 
rather than MSRB Rule G-34(a)(ii)(D)(2) would not impose any burden on 
competition or have an impact on competition as the proposed change is 
technical in nature, does not impose any new obligation and enhances 
understanding of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.15c6-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. In determining 
whether these standards have been met the MSRB was guided by the 
Board's Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking 
is available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/Economic-Analysis-Policy.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 approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with this policy, the MSRB has evaluated the 
potential impacts on competition of the proposed rule change.
    With the adoption of the Amended SEC Rule 15c6-1, the regular-way 
settlement cycle for all securities (other than an exempted security, a 
government security, commercial paper, commercial bills, bankers' 
acceptances and municipal securities) is being shortened from T+2 to 
T+1 starting on May 28, 2024. Without the MSRB's proposed amendments, 
market participants would encounter different settlement cycles between 
municipal securities and other securities such as equity and corporate 
bonds, which would result in market inefficiencies and cause confusion 
in the clearing and settlement process, especially for investors who 
trade both municipal securities and other securities. The proposed 
amendments are necessary to ensure a consistent settlement cycle for 
municipal securities transactions and other securities transactions.
Benefits and Costs
    The MSRB considered the economic impact associated with the 
proposed rule change relative to the baseline, which is the current T+2 
settlement cycle, and assessed incremental changes in benefits and 
costs in a proposed future state with a T+1 settlement cycle.
    The proposed rule change would yield long-term benefits for a range 
of market participants including, but not limited to, operational cost 
savings, reduced counterparty risk due to a shorter settlement cycle, 
reduced market risk for unsettled trades, decreasing clearing capital 
requirements, reduced pro-cyclical margin and therefore reduced 
liquidity demands and risk. The MSRB believes the proposed rule change 
would promote regulatory consistency \32\ and market efficiency by 
having regular-way settlement for municipal securities transactions 
consistent with the standard settlement for other security classes, 
harmonized with Amended SEC Rule 15c6-1.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The MSRB has previously updated rules to harmonize with the 
Commission to change regular-way settlement from T+5 to T+3 in 1995 
and T+3 to T+2 in 2017.
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.15c6-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB does not have the data necessary to form its own firm-
level estimates of the costs of updates to systems and processes and 
utilized the Commission's estimates for its analysis.\34\ The MSRB 
believes that dealers would incur some cost for the systems changes to 
shift from a T+2 to T+1 settlement cycle. Firms with relatively smaller 
revenue bases and/or firms that only participate in the municipal 
securities market may be disproportionately impacted by changes that 
require system investments. Since most firms, whether they clear 
themselves or through a third-party firm, would be required to upgrade 
the technology for the transition to a T+1 settlement cycle for all 
other relevant securities, the system costs would already be realized 
and there should be minimal or no incremental cost for the municipal 
securities settlement cycle change. The MSRB does not have the data 
necessary to form its own firm-level estimates of the costs of updates 
to systems and processes and utilized the

[[Page 22078]]

Commission's estimates for its analysis. For select municipal dealers 
who only trade municipal securities and clear themselves, the one-time 
upfront costs for system upgrades and policy and procedure revision 
would be approximately $874,000 per firm for dealers serving 
institutional investors only and $1,276,000 per firm for dealers also 
serving retail investors. This calculation is based on the Commission's 
estimate of the one-time upfront cost of $8,740,000 per firm for 
broker-dealers that serve institutional investors and $12,760,000 per 
firm for broker-dealers that also serve retail investors when including 
all securities, other than an exempted security (a government security, 
a municipal security, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, or 
commercial bills).\35\ The MSRB believes these select dealers may 
choose to use a third-party clearing firm if the cost for outsourcing 
the clearing practice is lower than the estimated costs above. Finally, 
the MSRB also believes that dealers would incur minimal ongoing direct 
compliance costs after the initial transition to a T+1 standard 
settlement cycle.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ SEC's T+1 Adopting Release, 88 FR at 13937-13978 (March 6, 
2023).
    \35\ Id. The MSRB's internal analysis assumes a cost saving of 
90% for the one-time upfront cost for municipal securities only, as 
opposed to many other securities, such as equities, corporate bonds, 
asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities, and stock 
options, etc., accounting for some fixed costs when working on a 
single security product. In addition, the MSRB's internal analysis 
assumes that dealers who trade municipal securities only and self-
clear are smaller in size than a typical broker-dealer in the SEC's 
estimate.
    \36\ See SEC's T+1 Adopting Release, 88 FR at 13937 (March 6, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the MSRB believes that the industry is equipped with 
readily available technology for the transition to a T+1 settlement 
cycle, and the changes are necessary or appropriate in furtherance of 
the purposes of the Exchange Act. The MSRB believes the proposed rule 
change would promote regulatory consistency and market efficiency by 
having regular-way settlement for municipal securities transactions 
consistent with the standard settlement for other security classes and 
harmonized with Amended SEC Rule 15c6-1.\37\ As the proposed rule 
change would be applied equally to all registered dealers transacting 
in municipal securities, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule 
change would not impose any additional burdens on competition, that are 
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the 
Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 240.15c6-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 [email protected]. Please 
include File Number SR-MSRB-2023-03 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-2023-03. 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-2023-03 and should be submitted on 
or before May 3, 2023.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07612 Filed 4-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P