Document ID: SEC-2015-1917-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
Posted Date: 2015-11-17T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 221 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71858-71862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29226]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76420; File No. SR-MSRB-2015-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking 
Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to Proposed Rule Change 
Consisting of Proposed New Rule G-42, on Duties of Non-Solicitor 
Municipal Advisors, and Proposed Amendments to Rule G-8, on Books and 
Records To Be Made by Brokers, Dealers, Municipal Securities Dealers, 
and Municipal Advisors

    November 10, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On April 24, 2015, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board 
(``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' 
or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change consisting of proposed new Rule 
G-42, on duties of non-solicitor municipal advisors, and proposed 
amendments to Rule G-8, on books and records to be made by brokers, 
dealers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors. The 
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register 
on May 8, 2015.\3\ The Commission received fifteen comment letters on 
the proposal.\4\ On June 16, 2015, the MSRB granted an extension of 
time for the Commission to act on the filing until August 6, 2015. On 
August 6, 2015, the Commission issued an order instituting proceedings 
(``OIP'') under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to determine whether 
to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ On August 12, 
2015, the MSRB

[[Page 71859]]

responded to the comments \7\ and filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed 
rule change. \8\ In response to the OIP or Amendment No. 1, the 
Commission received 13 comment letters.\9\ On October 28, 2015, the 
MSRB granted an extension of time for the Commission to act on the 
filing until January 3, 2016. On November 9, 2015, the MSRB filed 
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\10\ The text of Amendment 
No. 2 is available on the MSRB's Web site. The Commission is publishing 
this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule 
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 74860 (May 4, 2015), 80 FR 26752 
(``Notice''). The comment period closed on May 29, 2015.
    \4\ Comment letters are available at www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2015-03/msrb201503.shtml.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75628 (August 6, 
2015), 80 FR 48355 (August 12, 2015). The comment period closed on 
September 11, 2015.
    \7\ See Letter from Michael L. Post, MSRB, to Secretary, SEC, 
dated August 12, 2015, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2015-03/msrb201503-19.pdf.
    \8\ See Letter from Michael L. Post, MSRB, to Secretary, SEC, 
dated August 12, 2015, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2015-03/msrb201503-20.pdf.
    \9\ Letters from Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, Bond 
Dealers of America (``BDA''), dated September 11, 2015 and November 
4, 2015; John C. Melton, Sr., Executive Vice President, Coastal 
Securities (``Coastal Securities''), dated September 11, 2015; Jeff 
White, Principal, Columbia Capital Management, LLC (``Columbia 
Capital''), dated September 10, 2015; Joshua Cooperman, Cooperman 
Associates (``Cooperman''), dated September 9, 2015; David T. 
Bellaire, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Financial 
Services Institute (``FSI''), dated September 11, 2015; Dustin 
McDonald, Director, Federal Liaison Center, Government Finance 
Officers Association (``GFOA''), dated September 14, 2015; Tamara K. 
Salmon, Associate General Counsel, Investment Company Institute 
(``ICI''), dated September 11, 2015; Lindsey K. Bell, Millar Jiles, 
LLP (``Millar Jiles''), dated September 11, 2015; Terri Heaton, 
President, National Association of Municipal Advisors (``NAMA''), 
dated September 11, 2015; Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and 
Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets 
Association (``SIFMA''), dated September 11, 2015; Joy A. Howard, WM 
Financial Strategies (``WM Financial''), dated September 11, 2015; 
W. David Hemingway, Executive Vice President, Zions First National 
Bank (``Zions''), dated September 10, 2015.
    \10\ See Letter from Michael L. Post, MSRB, to Secretary, SEC, 
dated November 9, 2015, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2015-03/msrb201503-36.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance 
of the Proposed Amendment

    The MSRB is proposing to add paragraphs .14 and .15 of the 
Supplementary Material to Proposed Rule G-42. Proposed paragraph .14 
would provide a narrow exception (``Exception'') to the proposed 
prohibition on certain principal transactions in Proposed Rule G-
42(e)(ii) for transactions in specified types of fixed income 
securities. Proposed paragraph .15 would define those types of fixed 
income securities. Amendment No. 2 also makes five minor technical 
changes to clarify or renumber proposed rule text.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The MSRB will address issues raised in the comment letters 
received in response to the OIP or Amendment No. 1 that are not 
addressed through this Amendment No. 2 concurrently with its 
response to comment letters received, if any, in response to this 
Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule G-42 would establish core standards of conduct and 
duties of non-solicitor municipal advisors when engaging in municipal 
advisory activities. Proposed Rule G-42(a)(ii), consistent with the 
Exchange Act,\12\ provides that a municipal advisor, in the conduct of 
all municipal advisory activities for a municipal entity client, is 
subject to a fiduciary duty that includes a duty of loyalty and a duty 
of care. Under proposed paragraph .02 of the Supplementary Material to 
Proposed Rule G-42, the duty of loyalty requires, among other things, a 
municipal advisor to act in the municipal entity client's best interest 
without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal 
advisor. In light of this fiduciary duty, and to prevent acts, 
practices or courses of business inconsistent with this duty, Proposed 
Rule G-42(e)(ii) would prohibit a municipal advisor, and any affiliate 
of such municipal advisor, from engaging with its municipal entity 
client in a principal transaction that is the same, or directly related 
to the, municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product 
as to which the municipal advisor is providing or has provided advice 
to the municipal entity client (``principal transaction ban'' or 
``ban'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(c)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment letters in response to the OIP or Amendment No. 1 that 
addressed the principal transaction ban generally expressed concerns 
about the breadth of the ban and the lack of any exception. They noted 
that fiduciaries governed by other regulatory regimes, such as 
investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 
(``Advisers Act''),\13\ are not flatly prohibited from engaging in 
principal transactions with their clients if proper disclosures are 
made and consent is obtained. Several commenters, including GFOA, FSI, 
SIFMA and BDA, generally urged the inclusion of an exception in cases, 
at a minimum, where the advice provided is in connection with the 
execution of a securities transaction by the municipal advisor on 
behalf of the municipal entity, the principal transaction is in a fixed 
income security, and the municipal entity client is involved in the 
process for the management of the relevant conflicts of interest. GFOA 
expressed concerns that the ban ``could force small governments to open 
a more expensive fee-based arrangement with an outside advisor in order 
to receive this very limited type of advice on investments that are not 
considered to be risky.'' \14\ Several other commenters, including BDA, 
FSI, Millar Jiles, SIFMA and Zions, commented on the importance of 
preserving a municipal entity's choices and access to services and 
products at favorable prices, preserving choices regarding financial 
advisors with whom they had relationships of trust, and avoiding 
increased costs to municipal entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.
    \14\ GFOA, however, acknowledged that the ban would be 
appropriate in the context of a traditional financial advisor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the most recent set of comments, the MSRB consistently 
concluded that the principal transaction ban should be retained with 
the breadth as proposed. After carefully considering the additional 
comments, including those of GFOA, generally representative of a key 
class of entities that Proposed Rule G-42 is intended to protect, the 
MSRB has determined to incorporate the Exception into Proposed Rule G-
42. The MSRB believes that the Exception will address the primary 
concerns expressed by commenters that, without an exception for 
transactions in certain fixed income securities when advice is given by 
the municipal advisor in connection with executing such transactions, 
the proposed ban would restrict the access of municipal entities to 
trusted financial advisors, limit their ability to obtain certain 
financial services and products, create undue burdens on competition, 
and impose unjustified costs for issuers.
    Significantly, the MSRB has developed Proposed Rule G-42 as a 
cornerstone of a regulatory framework that recognizes and is tailored 
to the unique characteristics of the municipal securities market, the 
special responsibilities of municipal entities in their financial 
matters and in their relationship to their constituents, and the 
particular role that municipal advisors play in the municipal 
securities market. The design of the proposed rule, as amended by 
Amendment No. 2, is in recognition that municipal advisors serve a 
diverse array of clients, and, in particular, municipal entity clients, 
which range from large state issuers to small school districts, special 
districts and other instrumentalities, public pension plans, and 
collective vehicles, such as local government investment pools 
(``LGIPs'')

[[Page 71860]]

and college savings plans that comply with Section 529 of the Internal 
Revenue Code.\15\ The design of the proposed rule is also in 
recognition that municipal entity clients may have special needs of 
access to a range of services and particular types financial products 
from municipal advisors and affiliated financial intermediaries. At the 
same time, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, 
will further the protection of municipal entities, investors and the 
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 26 U.S.C. 529.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description. The Exception, to be incorporated as new proposed 
paragraph .14 of the Supplementary Material to Proposed Rule G-42, 
would provide a municipal advisor two options by which it might engage 
in certain principal transactions with a municipal entity client, 
provided the municipal advisor also complies with the first three 
requirements set forth in paragraph .14 (organized as sections (a) 
through (c)). A municipal advisor would have the option to act, on a 
transaction-by-transaction basis, in accordance with a short set of 
procedural requirements, some of which are drawn from and similar to 
the requirements set forth in Advisers Act Section 206(3).\16\ 
Alternatively, a municipal advisor that wishes to satisfy procedural 
requirements on other than a transaction-by-transaction basis would be 
subject to more and different procedural requirements, including 
obtaining from the municipal entity client a prospective blanket, 
written consent. These procedural requirements are drawn from and 
similar to those set forth in Advisers Act Rule 206(3)-3T.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-6(3).
    \17\ 17 CFR 275.206(3)-3T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, the Exception would operate only to take certain 
conduct out of the specified prohibition on certain principal 
transactions in proposed Rule G-42(e)(ii). It would not provide a safe 
harbor from complying with any other applicable law or rules. Thus, a 
municipal advisor engaging in a principal transaction in compliance 
with the Exception would need to continue to be mindful of, and comply 
with, its broader and foundational obligations owed to the client as a 
fiduciary under the Exchange Act and Proposed Rule G-42, as well as all 
other applicable provisions of the federal securities laws and state 
law.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The MSRB's approach in this regard is consistent with that 
of the Commission with respect to principal transactions executed by 
investment advisers under Advisers Act Section 206(3) (15 U.S.C. 
80b-6(3)) or Advisers Act Rule 206(3)-3T (17 CFR 275.206(3)-3T).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the requirements for the Exception take the form of various 
conditions and limitations. As provided in proposed section (a) of 
paragraph .14 of the Supplementary Material, a principal transaction 
could be excepted from the specified prohibition only if the municipal 
advisor also is a broker-dealer registered under Section 15 of the 
Exchange Act,\19\ and each account for which the municipal advisor 
would be relying on the Exception is a brokerage account subject to the 
Exchange Act,\20\ the rules thereunder, and the rules of the self-
regulatory organization(s) of which the broker-dealer is a member. In 
addition, the municipal advisor could not exercise investment 
discretion (as defined in Section 3(a)(35) of the Exchange Act) \21\ 
with respect to the account, unless granted by the municipal entity 
client on a temporary or limited basis.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78o.
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78(c)(a)(35).
    \22\ The proposed requirements are similar to those found in 
Advisers Act Rule 206(3)-T(a)(7) and (1), respectively. 17 CFR 
275.206(3)-3T(a)(7) and (1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed section (b) of paragraph .14 of the Supplementary 
Material, neither the municipal advisor nor any affiliate of the 
municipal advisor may be providing, or have provided, advice to the 
municipal entity client as to an issue of municipal securities or a 
municipal financial product that is directly related to the principal 
transaction, except advice as to another principal transaction that 
also meets all the other requirements of proposed paragraph .14. For 
example, a municipal advisor could not use the Exception to reinvest 
proceeds from an issue of municipal securities where it was a municipal 
advisor as to such issue. A municipal advisor could use the Exception, 
however, for two principal transactions with the same municipal entity 
client where the transactions are directly related to one another, so 
long as all of the conditions and limitations of the Exception are met 
as to each transaction.
    Proposed section (c) of paragraph .14 of the Supplementary Material 
would limit a municipal advisor's principal transactions under the 
Exception to sales to or purchases from a municipal entity client of 
any U.S. Treasury security, agency debt security or corporate debt 
security. In addition, the proposed Exception would not be available 
for transactions involving municipal escrow investments as defined in 
Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(h) \23\ because the MSRB believes that this 
is an area of heightened risk where, historically, significant abuses 
have occurred. The inclusion in the Exception of transactions in this 
class of fixed income securities is intended to address the concerns of 
commenters that an absolute ban on principal transactions in fixed 
income securities, which are frequently sold by broker-dealers as 
principal or riskless principal, would be particularly problematic, and 
also addresses comments that an exception limited to these generally 
relatively liquid securities trading in relatively transparent markets 
would raise significantly less risk for municipal entity clients.\24\ 
The proposed class of securities may be broader than what would be 
permitted by relevant bond documents or a particular municipal entity's 
investment policies, but, in such cases, the restrictions in the bond 
documents or the municipal entity's investment policies would 
appropriately control. The terms ``U.S. Treasury security,'' ``agency 
debt security'' and ``corporate debt security,'' and related terms, 
``agency,'' ``government-sponsored enterprise,'' ``money market 
instrument'' and ``securitized product'' would be defined for purposes 
of proposed paragraphs .14 and .15 of the Supplementary Material in new 
proposed paragraph .15 of the Supplementary Material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.15Ba1-1(h).
    \24\ For example, SIFMA noted the need for an exception to the 
ban was particularly acute with respect to transactions between a 
municipal advisor/broker-dealer and its municipal entity client in 
fixed income securities since ``nearly all transactions in fixed-
income securities are effected on a principal basis.'' GFOA noted 
that municipal entities might be subject to additional costs 
regarding advice on ``investments that are not considered to be 
risky,'' and FSI specifically suggested that an exception to the ban 
for broker-dealers providing advice incidental to securities 
execution services be limited to transactions in a similar group of 
fixed income securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To comply with proposed section (d) of paragraph .14 of the 
Supplementary Material, a municipal advisor would have two options. 
These two options draw, as generally urged by commenters, upon the 
procedural requirements in Advisers Act Section 206(3) \25\ and 
Advisers Act Rule 206(3)-3T(a),\26\ respectively. Under the first 
option, which is set forth in proposed subsection (d)(1) of paragraph 
.14, a municipal advisor would be required, on a transaction-by-
transaction basis, to disclose to the municipal entity client in 
writing before the completion of the principal transaction the capacity 
in which the municipal advisor is acting and obtain the consent of the 
client to such transaction. Consent would mean informed consent, and in 
order to make

[[Page 71861]]

informed consent, the municipal advisor, consistent with its fiduciary 
duty, would be required to disclose specified information, including 
the price and other terms of the transaction, as well as the capacity 
in which the municipal advisor would be acting. ``Before completion'' 
would mean either prior to execution of the transaction, or after 
execution but prior to the settlement of the transaction.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-6(3).
    \26\ See 17 CFR 275.206(3)-3T(a).
    \27\ These parameters are substantially similar to long-standing 
interpretive guidance regarding Advisers Act Section 206(3). See SEC 
Interpretation of Section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 
1940, Rel. No. IA-1732 (July 17, 1998) (``The protection provided to 
advisory clients by the consent requirement of Section 206(3) would 
be weakened, however, without sufficient disclosure of the potential 
conflicts of interest and the terms of a transaction. In our view, 
to ensure that a client's consent to a Section 206(3) transaction is 
informed, Section 206(3) should be read together with Sections 
206(1) and 206(2) to require the adviser to disclose facts necessary 
to alert the client to the adviser's potential conflicts of interest 
in a principal . . . transaction.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatively, a municipal advisor could comply with proposed 
subsection (d)(2) of paragraph .14 by meeting six requirements, as set 
forth in proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(A) through (F) of paragraph .14 and 
summarized below. First, under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(A), neither 
the municipal advisor nor any of its affiliates could be the issuer, or 
the underwriter (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 15c2-12(f)(8)),\28\ of 
a security that is the subject of the principal transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-12(f)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(B), the municipal advisor 
would be required to obtain from the municipal entity client an 
executed written, revocable consent that would prospectively authorize 
the municipal advisor directly or indirectly to act as principal for 
its own account in selling a security to or purchasing a security from 
the municipal entity client, so long as such written consent were 
obtained after written disclosure to the municipal entity client 
explaining: (i) The circumstances under which the municipal advisor 
directly or indirectly may engage in principal transactions; (ii) the 
nature and significance of conflicts with the municipal entity client's 
interests as a result of the transactions; and (iii) how the municipal 
advisor addresses those conflicts.
    Third, under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(C), the municipal advisor, 
prior to the execution of each principal transaction, would be required 
to: (i) Inform the municipal entity client, orally or in writing, of 
the capacity in which it may act with respect to such transaction and 
(ii) obtain consent from the municipal entity client, orally or in 
writing, to act as principal for its own account with respect to such 
transaction.
    Fourth, under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(D), a municipal advisor 
would be required to send a written confirmation at or before 
completion of each principal transaction that includes the information 
required by 17 CFR 240.10b-10 or MSRB Rule G-15, and a conspicuous, 
plain English statement informing the municipal entity client that the 
municipal advisor: (i) Disclosed to the client prior to the execution 
of the transaction that the municipal advisor may be acting in a 
principal capacity in connection with the transaction and the client 
authorized the transaction and (ii) sold the security to, or bought the 
security from, the client for its own account.
    Fifth, under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(E), a municipal advisor 
would be required to send its municipal entity client, no less 
frequently than annually, written disclosure containing a list of all 
transactions that were executed in the client's account in reliance 
upon this Exception, and the date and price of the transactions.
    Sixth, under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(F), each written disclosure 
would be required to include a conspicuous, plain English statement 
regarding the ability of the municipal entity client to revoke the 
prospective written consent to principal transactions without penalty 
at any time by written notice.
    A municipal advisor's use and compliance with the requirements of 
the Exception would not be construed as relieving it in any way from 
acting in the best interests of its municipal entity client nor from 
any obligation that may be imposed by the Exchange Act, other 
provisions of Proposed Rule G-42 (other than subsection (e)(ii) of the 
proposed rule), or other applicable provisions of the federal 
securities laws and state law.

Other Amendments

    In Amendment No. 2, the MSRB makes five minor, technical 
amendments, which would clarify, correct cross-references in, or 
renumber certain provisions of Proposed Rule G-42. First, the MSRB is 
making minor, technical changes to Proposed Rule G-42(d) regarding 
recommendations. These amendments set forth the initial text that 
precedes proposed subsection (d)(i) in two sentences rather than one. 
The purpose of this change is to clarify the requirements that would 
apply when a municipal advisor makes a recommendation of a municipal 
securities transaction or municipal financial product and when a 
municipal advisor reviews such a recommendation of another party. These 
amendments also clarify in the initial text that precedes proposed 
subsection (d)(i), consistent with Proposed Rule G-42(d)(ii), that a 
municipal advisor reviewing a recommendation of another party could 
determine that the recommended municipal securities transaction or 
municipal financial product is not suitable for the client.
    Second, Amendment No. 2 revises proposed Rule G-42(e)(ii) to begin 
with the new clause, ``Except as provided in paragraph .14 of the 
Supplementary Material of this rule,'' and then continue as previously 
proposed, except that the phrase ``municipal securities transaction'' 
is changed to ``issue of municipal securities'' in order to more 
closely track the relevant statutory language.\29\ Third, to 
alphabetize the definitions set forth in proposed section (f), the 
proposed definition of the term ``Principal transaction'' is renumbered 
from subsection (f)(i) to subsection (f)(ix). The other eight 
definitions, set forth as subsections (f)(ii) through (f)(ix), are 
renumbered, accordingly, as subsections (f)(i) through (f)(viii). 
Fourth, in proposed paragraphs of the Supplementary Material, 
references to ``this paragraph'' are amended to include the appropriate 
paragraph number (e.g., in proposed paragraph .01 of the Supplementary 
Material, ``this paragraph'' is amended to read ``this paragraph 
.01''). Fifth, the order of proposed paragraphs .12 and .13 of the 
Supplementary Material is reversed, which organizes the two paragraphs 
addressing principal transactions to appear consecutively and improves 
the readability of the rule. In addition, in proposed paragraph .13 (as 
renumbered), the cross-reference to the definition of the term 
``principal transaction'' is corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB proposes to make the proposed rule change effective six 
months after Commission approval of all changes.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments regarding the foregoing, including whether the filing as 
amended by Amendment No. 2 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

[[Page 71862]]

     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-MSRB-2015-03 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-2015-03. 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 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; 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-2015-03 and should be 
submitted on or before December 1, 2015.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The Commission believes that a 14-day comment period is 
reasonable, given the urgency of the matter. It will provide 
adequate time for comment.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29226 Filed 11-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P