Notice2026-19213
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB Rule G-27 to Exclude Certain Public Finance Activities From the Term “Structuring of Public Offerings or Private Placements,” Extend the Length of the Exclusion for Non-Primary Residences From Municipal Branch Office Designation, and Make a Technical Update to the Rule's Title
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 21, 2026
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 181 (Monday, September 21, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 181 (Monday, September 21, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59828-59832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19213]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-106393; File No. SR-MSRB-2026-04]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB
Rule G-27 to Exclude Certain Public Finance Activities From the Term
``Structuring of Public Offerings or Private Placements,'' Extend the
Length of the Exclusion for Non-Primary Residences From Municipal
Branch Office Designation, and Make a Technical Update to the Rule's
Title
September 16, 2026.
I. Introduction
On July 27, 2026, 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 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend MSRB Rule G-27 (``Rule
G-27''), on supervision, to (i) exclude certain public finance
activities from the term ``structuring of public offerings or private
placements'' as used within MSRB Rule G-27, (ii) extend the length of
the exclusion for non-primary residences from municipal branch office
designation, and (iii) make a technical update to the title of MSRB
Rule G-27 (collectively, the ``proposed rule change'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-106014 (July 30, 2026), 91
FR 49460 (August 4, 2026) (File No. SR-MSRB-2026-04) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB will announce the operative date of the proposed rule
change in a regulatory notice to be published on the MSRB website no
later than 30 days following Commission approval.\4\ The compliance
date would be no earlier than 90 days and no later than 180 days
following Commission approval.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49460.
\5\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on August 4, 2026.\6\ The Commission received four comment
letters \7\ on the proposed rule change. On September 2, 2026, the MSRB
responded to the comment letters.\8\ As described further below, the
Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See id.
\7\ See Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, dated August 25, 2026 (``SIFMA Letter''); Letter from
Susan Gaffney, Executive Director, National Association of Municipal
Advisors, dated August 25, 2026 (``NAMA Letter''); Letter from
Michael Decker, Senior Vice President, Research & Public Policy,
Bond Market Association, dated August 24, 2026 (``BMA Letter''); and
Letter from Jessica R. Giroux, Chief Legal Officer, American
Securities Association, dated August 25, 2026 (``ASA Letter'').
\8\ See Letter from Ernesto A. Lanza, Chief Regulatory and
Policy Officer, MSRB, dated September 2, 2026 (``MSRB Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change
A. Background
MSRB Rule G-27(a), on obligation to supervise, requires each
broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealers (``dealer'') to
supervise the conduct of the municipal securities activities of the
dealer and its associated persons to ensure compliance with MSRB rules,
and the applicable provisions of the Exchange Act and rules thereunder.
As such, MSRB Rule G-27(b)(iii) requires dealers to designate as an
office of municipal supervisory jurisdiction (``OMSJ'') any office at
which any one or more of the enumerated activities under MSRB Rule G-
27(g)(i) occurs at such office with respect to municipal securities.
Locations that are not required to be designated as an OMSJ constitute
either a municipal branch office or a non-branch location.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49461.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB notes it has never publicly defined the scope of the term
``structuring of public offerings or private placements,'' \10\ which
the MSRB believes has led to dealers designating some locations as an
OMSJ out of an abundance of caution.\11\ The MSRB notes that there are
additional compliance and regulatory obligations for locations
classified as an OMSJ or a municipal branch office, including annual
inspections.\12\ According to the MSRB, advancements in technology and
compliance tools have enhanced dealers' ability to more effectively
supervise the conduct of the municipal securities activities of the
dealer and that of its associated persons in a decentralized
environment due to hybrid work arrangements.\13\ The MSRB also stated
that certain surveillance and monitoring technology can provide a more
real-time supervision of associated persons regardless of their
physical location.\14\ Thus, according to the MSRB, dealers have made
strides in modernizing their workplace while also undertaking the
necessity of putting proper safeguards in place to ensure compliance
with MSRB rules and the applicable provisions of the Exchange Act and
rules thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49462. The MSRB notes that FINRA has
also never defined the term ``structuring of public offerings or
private placements'' in FINRA Rule 3110.
\11\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49461.
\12\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49462.
\13\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49461.
\14\ See id.
\15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above and as further described in the Notice,
according to the MSRB, the proposed rule change will provide greater
flexibility to dealers and their associated persons with respect to
hybrid work arrangements without modifying the OMSJ and municipal
branch office definitions within MSRB Rule G-27(g)(i) and MSRB Rule G-
27(g)(ii), respectively.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Summary of the Proposed Rule Change
As discussed below and in the Notice, the proposed rule change
would amend Rule G-27 to (i) exclude certain public finance activities
from the term ``structuring of public offerings or private placements''
as used within MSRB Rule G-27, (ii) extend the length of the exclusion
for non-primary residences from municipal branch office designation,
and (iii) make a technical update to the title of MSRB Rule G-27.\17\
Specifically, the proposed rule change would extend an exemption from
municipal branch office designation under MSRB Rule G-27(g)(ii)(A)(3)
for non-primary residences from less than
[[Page 59829]]
30 business days per year to up to 90 business days per year.\18\ The
proposed rule change would also provide guidance in new Supplementary
Materials .06 and .07 on the meaning of the term ``structuring of
public offerings or private placements'', also commonly referred to as
public finance banking activities.\19\ More specifically, the proposed
rule change describes the types of activities that would be included or
excluded from the meaning of ``structuring of public offerings or
private placements'' under MSRB Rule G-27.\20\ The proposed rule change
would also make clarifying edits to the title of MSRB Rule G-27 to
plainly state that the rule is applicable to brokers, dealers, and
municipal securities dealers.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49462-65.
\18\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49462-63.
\19\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49463-64.
\20\ See id.
\21\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49464.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extend the 30-Business Day Exclusion for Non-Primary Residences from
Municipal Branch Office Designation
MSRB Rule G-27(g)(ii)(A)(3) currently allows for a non-primary
residence where municipal securities business is conducted for less
than 30 business days per calendar year to be excluded from municipal
branch office designation, if the location meets the provisions of MSRB
Rule G-27(g)(ii)(A)(2)(a) through (h). The proposed rule change would
increase this limit in MSRB Rule G-27(g)(ii)(A)(3) to up to 90 business
days per calendar year without amending the conditions outlined in MSRB
Rule G-27.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49462-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the MSRB, the increase from less than 30 business days
per calendar year to up to 90 business days per calendar year for an
associated person to work from a non-primary residence without
triggering municipal branch office designation would provide dealers
greater latitude in permitting their associated persons to work at non-
primary residential locations, such as a vacation home or the home of a
partner or family member, or at another location.\23\ The MSRB believes
that the proposed rule change would also provide dealers additional and
reasonable flexibility in implementing hybrid work arrangements that
acknowledge and account for advances in technology that could allow for
effective remote supervision capabilities, while also appropriately
limiting the municipal securities related work that could be done away
from a municipal branch office.\24\ In addition to changing the annual
business day limit from 30 to 90, the proposed rule change would also
make minor technical edits to MSRB Rule G-27(g)(ii)(A)(3) to improve
clarity of the rule by removing the term ``less than'' and adding the
term ``or fewer'' into the text of the rule.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49462.
\24\ See id.
\25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB notes that the current less than 30-business days per
calendar year exclusion from municipal branch office designation for
work performed at a non-primary residence, and the potential extension
to up to 90 business days per calendar year under the proposed rule
change, is an exclusion that would be allowed under MSRB Rule G-27.\26\
However, the MSRB also notes that dealers would need to conduct their
own risk analysis to determine if this type of remote work, and the 90-
business day limit allowed under the proposed rule change, is
appropriate for their business model, supervisory structure and
overarching supervisory system.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See id.
\27\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49462-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structuring of Public Offering or Private Placements
The proposed rule change would add proposed new Supplementary
Material .06, on Exemption of Excluded Public Finance Activities from
Office of Municipal Supervisory Jurisdiction and Municipal Branch
Office Designation, and .07, on Definition of Excluded Public Finance
Activities to MSRB Rule G-27.\28\ Proposed new Supplementary Material
.06 of MSRB Rule G-27 would state that a location would not meet the
definition of an OMSJ under MSRB Rule G-27(g)(i) if associated persons
at such location engage in excluded public finance activities, so long
as that location does not engage in any other activities that would
require designation as an OMSJ.\29\ The proposed supplementary material
would also expressly state that these excluded public finance
activities would not be deemed to constitute ``structuring of public
offerings or private placements'' within the meaning of OMSJ under MSRB
Rule G-27(g)(i)(B).\30\ Furthermore, under proposed new Supplementary
Material .06 of MSRB Rule G-27, a primary residence that otherwise
meets the exception from municipal branch office designation under MSRB
Rule G-27(g)(ii)(A)(2), and from which an associated person engages in
excluded public finance activities, would be deemed a non-branch
location, as long as the associated person does not engage in any other
activities that would require designation of such location as an OMSJ,
under MSRB Rule G-27(g)(i).\31\ The MSRB notes that dealers would need
to look carefully at the activities of their non-branch locations to
ensure that they are not considered by MSRB Rule G-27 to be a municipal
branch office.\32\ In addition, the proposed rule change would add a
reference to new Supplementary Materials .06 and .07.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49463-64.
\29\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49463.
\30\ See id.
\31\ See id.
\32\ See id.
\33\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed new Supplementary Material .07 of MSRB Rule G-27 would
define the term excluded public finance activities as activities that
are associated with the structuring of public offerings or private
placements, including but not limited to, debt modeling, financial
analysis, number running and the solicitation of issuers or obligated
persons for the dealer's investment banking services in connection with
municipal securities (e.g. public finance banking services).\34\
However, the MSRB states that this does not include final approval of a
public offering or private placement transaction (i.e., structuring)
conducted by the dealer.\35\ Proposed new Supplementary Material .07 of
MSRB Rule G-27 would also make clear that the activities described
within the definition of excluded public finance activities are not an
exhaustive list of excluded public finance activities, and other
activities could fall within the definition if a dealer can demonstrate
that such other activities do not include the final approval of a
public offering or private placement transaction.\36\ According to the
MSRB, activities such as preliminary data analysis and modeling, as
well as running standard debt capacity or sensitivity analyses using
established firm models controlled by senior personnel, which are much
more specific than the broader enumerated list of excluded public
finance activities, would be examples of activities that would be
categorized as excluded public finance activities under proposed new
Supplementary Material .07 of MSRB Rule G-27.\37\ The MSRB stated that
it is intentionally leaving the definition of excluded public finance
activities under proposed new Supplementary Material .07 as business
[[Page 59830]]
model neutral, without listing an exhaustive list of activities that
would qualify as excluded public finance activities, to account for the
diversity in business models among dealers.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See id.
\35\ See id.
\36\ See id.
\37\ See id.
\38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed new Supplementary Material .07 of MSRB Rule G-27 would
also expressly state that the final approval of a public offering or
private placement transaction would be explicitly outside of the scope
and definition of excluded public finance activities, since such final
approval of a public offering or private placement transaction is
deemed structuring for purposes of the OMSJ definition, pursuant to
MSRB Rule G-27(g)(i).\39\ The MSRB stated that it recognizes that there
are many individual supportive decisions made in the overall work to be
done on a municipal securities public offering or private placement
and, as a result, the MSRB is clarifying that it deems the final
approval of a public offering or private placement transaction as
constituting ``structuring of public offerings or private placements.''
\40\ The MSRB stated that such final approval of a public offering or
private placement transaction should be conducted by a person in a
principal-level capacity.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See id.
\40\ See id.
\41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB believes that proposed new Supplementary Material .06 and
.07 of MSRB Rule G-27 would not alter the definition of OMSJ, but
rather, would clarify that certain activities performed by municipal
securities professionals in furtherance of the ``structuring of a
public offering or private placements'' do not constitute structuring
and therefore do not rise to the level of activities that need to take
place at an OMSJ.\42\ Furthermore, according to the MSRB, clarifying
that the MSRB deems structuring as the final approval of a public
offering or private placement transaction, means that dealers are
better equipped, given varying business models, to evaluate their
specific business model and make determinations as to where ultimate
decision making and supervisory authority rest for purposes of
designating such locations as an OMSJ.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See id.
\43\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB notes that the phrase ``final approval of a public
offering or private placement transaction'' in proposed new
Supplementary Material .07 would reference actions internal to the
dealer relating to the decision to approve such transaction, the timing
of which may vary depending on the specific transaction or the
processes undertaken by a specific dealer.\44\ According to the MSRB,
it is not the MSRB's intention for final approval to entail the act
itself of executing a bond purchase agreement (which may occur at an
issuer's location or at some other location away from the offices of
the dealer) or submitting a bid in response to a notice of sale.\45\
Rather, according to the MSRB, this provision of the proposed rule
change turns on dealers' actions that ultimately leads to the formality
of executing the bond purchase agreement or submitting a bid.\46\ The
MSRB stated that, while the proposed rule change takes a principles-
based approach to the determination of what constitutes final approval
of a public offering or private placement transaction, proposed new
Supplementary Material .07 would require dealers to adopt compliance
policies and procedures reasonably designed to make clear what action
taken constitutes such final approval by the dealer.\47\ Proposed new
Supplementary Material .07 would also require dealers to take into
consideration all relevant factors in determining what action taken
constitutes final approval of a public offering or private placement
transaction to ensure dealers' supervisory systems are reasonably
designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and
regulations, and with applicable MSRB rules.\48\ The proposed rule
change also prescribes that such compliance policies and procedures
should support evidencing compliance to the appropriate examining
authority.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See id.
\45\ See id.
\46\ See id.
\47\ See id.
\48\ See id.
\49\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49463-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Title Clarification
The proposed rule change would change the title of MSRB Rule G-27
from ``Supervision'' to ``Supervisory and Compliance Obligations of
Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers.'' \50\ According to
the MSRB, this non-substantive, technical change would clarify that
MSRB Rule G-27 is applicable to dealers only, as well as standardize
the title with MSRB Rule G-44, on Supervisory and Compliance
Obligations of Municipal Advisors.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49464.
\51\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Comments Received and the MSRB's Response
The Commission received four comment letters \52\ on the proposed
rule change, as well as a response from the MSRB to the comment
letters.\53\ Three commenters expressed support for the proposed rule
change,\54\ one commenter stated that it supports the goals proposed in
the proposed rule change,\55\ and no commenters objected to the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See SIFMA Letter; BMA Letter; NAMA Letter; ASA Letter.
\53\ See MSRB Letter.
\54\ See SIFMA Letter; BMA Letter; ASA Letter.
\55\ See NAMA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter expressed support for extending the exclusion for
non-primary residential locations from municipal branch office
designation from 30 to 60 business days and the proposed definition of
``structuring of public offerings or private placements'' as used in
the definition of an office of OMSJ under MSRB Rule G-27(g)(i).\56\ The
commenter also urged the MSRB to address additional items in future
rulemakings, including express confirmation that drafting presentations
and materials for issuer meetings and routine data gathering and
document coordination qualify as ``excluded public finance activities''
under MSRB Rule G-27(g)(i).\57\ In its response letter, the MSRB stated
that the proposed rule change contains a non-exhaustive list of
activities that could be considered excluded public finance activities
and that, so long as the activities outlined by the commenter do not
include final approval of a public offering or private placement
transaction conducted by a dealer, such activities would normally fall
within the proposed rule change's definition of excluded public finance
activities.\58\ The MSRB also stated that it did not create an
exhaustive or definitive list of excluded public finance activities to
account for the diversity in business models among dealers.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See ASA Letter at 1-2.
\57\ See ASA Letter at 2.
\58\ See MSRB Letter at 1-2.
\59\ See MSRB Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter stated that the proposed rule change is an important
``first step'' towards a larger overhaul of MSRB and FINRA supervision
rules and believes that the proposed definition of ``structuring of
public offerings or private placements'' provides clarity because firms
have been inconsistent in their interpretations of that term.\60\ The
commenter also stated that location-based supervision regimes are
obsolete
[[Page 59831]]
because compliance tools can monitor traders' work no matter where they
are physically located and would like to see the MSRB remove
distinctions among various types of offices and locations, or rely on a
centralized supervision model.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See BMA Letter at 1-2.
\61\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter believes that the proposed rule change will reduce
``undue compliance burdens'' and urges the MSRB to eliminate ``all
location-based concepts of supervision.'' \62\ The commenter also
stated that MSRB rules should be neutral as to business model and
structure and urged FINRA to adopt similar changes to its supervision
rules.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See SIFMA Letter at 1.
\63\ See SIFMA Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter stated that it ``supports the goals proposed'' in the
proposed rule change and noted that the proposed rule change would
create a framework for broker-dealer firms to supervise their dealer
professionals in a manner more in line with the current workplace
environment that is not always tethered to a physical firm office.\64\
The commenter also stated that the definitions of ``excluded public
finance activities'' and by inference ``structuring'' in the proposed
rule change ``need continued discussion, especially if they could have
implications outside of Rule G-27, to avoid any potential conflicts
with SEC regulations and other MSRB rules.'' \65\ In its response
letter, the MSRB stated that it does not believe that the proposed rule
change would conflict with any SEC regulations or other MSRB rules
because the applicability of MSRB Rule G-27 and the proposed rule
change is limited to MSRB-registered dealers in the context of their
supervisory obligations and the commenter had not identified any rule
or regulation that may conflict with the proposed rule change.\66\ The
MSRB further stated in its response letter that the terms in the
proposed rule change are defined solely for purposes of MSRB Rule G-
27,\67\ which is not explicit in the proposed rule change. The
Commission expects that if, in the future, the MSRB were to use the
term ``excluded public finance activities'' in another rule, the MSRB
would also need to amend Supplementary Material .07 of Rule G-27 or
make other conforming changes to address the applicability of such
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See NAMA Letter at 1.
\65\ See id.
\66\ See MSRB Letter at 2.
\67\ See id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB also stated that it ``remains committed to considering
additional opportunities to modernize MSRB Rule G-27'' and that it
believes that the proposed rule change would ``support the
competitiveness of the municipal securities market and provide greater
workplace flexibility while maintaining appropriate supervisory
requirements.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See MSRB Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion and Commission Findings
The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the MSRB.
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with the provisions of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the
Exchange Act,\69\ 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 Commission believes that the
proposed rule change will promote just and equitable principles of
trade because it provides context and clarity regarding the meaning of
the previously undefined term ``structuring of public offerings or
private placements'' which, according to the MSRB, has been interpreted
inconsistently by dealers.\70\ Clear guidance as to what work functions
are included within the meaning of the term ``structuring'' for the
municipal securities market will facilitate dealers' understanding and
implementation of sound compliance policies and procedures when
applying the principles of MSRB Rule G-27 to each dealer's business
model.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
\70\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49464.
\71\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also believes that the proposed rule change will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market in municipal securities and municipal financial products because
it provides flexibility to firms implementing hybrid work models.\72\
Allowing the additional flexibility of working remote from a non-
primary residence for up to 90 business days per calendar year, and
clarifying that excluded public finance activities can generally be
conducted at a primary residence if the applicable conditions are met,
in both cases without triggering municipal branch office designation,
would remove an impediment to dealers and their municipal securities
professionals by allowing dealers more flexibility to craft hybrid work
models that reflect their own individual risk factors and technological
capabilities.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49464-65.
\73\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the proposed rule change would result in a move away from
harmonization with FINRA Rule 3110, the Commission believes that the
particular nature of the municipal securities market outweighs the
benefit of rule harmonization.\74\ As noted by the MSRB, the broad
geographic dispersion of municipal issuers across all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and U.S. territories creates challenges for
dealers in the municipal market, compared to other securities markets,
to effectively engage with prospective issuer clients and service
existing issuer clients.\75\ Resultingly, many dealers choose to have
public finance bankers operate in a much more geographically dispersed
manner--with many operating as a single-person OMSJ--as compared to
other segments of their securities activities so as to meet the needs
of their municipal clients.\76\ Therefore, the Commission believes that
extending the length of the exclusion for non-primary residences from
municipal branch office designation and defining the term ``structuring
of public offerings or private placements'' provides ample benefits to
dealers that are particular to the municipal securities market and
outweigh any potential costs of reduced harmonization with FINRA Rule
3110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49464.
\75\ See id.
\76\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange
Act,\77\ which requires that MSRB rules not be designed to impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The Commission finds
that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition not
[[Page 59832]]
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange
Act because the proposed rule change applies equally to all
dealers.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
\78\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49465.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has also
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation under Section 3(f) of the Exchange
Act.\79\ The Commission finds that the record for the proposed rule
change does not contain any information to indicate that the proposed
rule change would have a negative impact on efficiency, competition, or
capital formation.\80\ In fact, the proposed rule change could promote
market efficiency and capital formation by providing clarity on the
interpretation of the previously undefined term ``structuring of public
offerings or private placements'' and providing dealers with greater
flexibility in achieving the regulatory obligations outlined in MSRB
Rule G-27.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\80\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\81\ See Notice, 91 FR at 49466.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act.
V. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\82\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2026-04) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Office of Municipal Securities,
pursuant to delegated authority.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ 17 CFR 200.30-3a(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-19213 Filed 9-18-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 21, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.