[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20232-20236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10796]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-39883; File No. SR-NASD-97-69]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Granting Approval of 
Proposed Rule Change, as Amended, and Notice of Filing and Order 
Granting Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Proposed Rule 
Change by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Relating 
to the Tape Recording of Conversations

April 17, 1998.

I. Introduction

    On September 12, 1997, the National Association of Securities 
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), through its regulatory subsidiary NASD 
Regulation, Inc. (``NASD Regulation'') filed with the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposed rule change 
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ In this filing, NASD 
Regulation proposed amendments to Rule 3010 to require the tape 
recording of conversations where members hire more than a specified 
percentage of registered persons from certain firms that have been 
expelled or that have had their broker/dealer registration revoked for 
violations of sales practices rules. The proposed rule change also 
includes a conforming rule change to Rule 9610. Notice of this proposed 
rule change was published in the Federal Register on December 5, 1997 
(as amended, the ``Notice'').\3\ The Commission received one comment 
letter, which expressed concerns about using tape recording as a method 
of supervision, in response to the Notice.\4\ On March 9, 1998, NASD 
Regulation filed Amendment No. 2 with the Commission.\5\ This order 
approves the rule change, as amended, and grants accelerated approval 
of Amendment No. 2 to the rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39361 (November 26, 
1997), 62 FR 64422 (File No. SR-NASD-97-69). Amendment No. 1 to the 
proposed rule filing was filed on November 12, 1997. The changes 
contained in this amendment were included in the Notice. See Letter 
from Mary N. Revell, Associate General Counsel, NASD Regulation, to 
Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Division of Market 
Regulation, Commission (November 17, 1997).
    \4\ See Letter from R. Gerald Baker, Securities Industry 
Association (``SIA''), to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, 
dated February 11, 1998.
    \5\ See letter from Mary N. Revell, Associate General Counsel, 
NASD Regulation, to Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Office 
of Market Supervision, Division of Market Regulation (March 9, 
1998). In Amendment No. 2, NASD Regulation: (1) Applies the proposal 
to firms that have a work force comprised of a specified number of 
registered persons who were employed by a ``disciplined firm'' 
within the last three years instead of two years; (2) requires firms 
to establish special procedures to supervise the telemarketing 
activities of registered persons instead of registered 
representatives; (3) amends the definition of registered persons to 
include those persons who register as municipal securities 
principals or representatives pursuant to Municipal Securities 
Rulemaking Board Rule G-3; and (4) provides guidance on what would 
constitute ``reasonable procedures for reviewing the tape recordings 
made pursuant to the requirements of'' the taping rule in a Notice 
to Members announcing approval of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    At its meeting in July 1996, the NASD Regulation Board of Directors 
authorized the staff to issue a Notice to Members soliciting comment on 
proposed changes to NASD supervisory Rule 3010 to require the tape 
recording of telephone conversations of registered representatives in 
certain circumstances. The Rule was developed both to respond to 
concerns expressed in the Joint Regulatory Sales Practice Sweep 
(``Sweep'') Report \6\ regarding the

[[Page 20233]]

need for heightened supervision of certain registered representatives 
with troubled regulatory and compliance records and also to address the 
particular problems that occur when a firm hires a larger number of 
individuals who formerly worked at a firm that has been expelled or has 
had its registration revoked (a ``Disciplined Firm'') where they were 
inadequately supervised and trained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Staffs of the NASD, New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''), 
North American Securities Administrators Association (``NASAA''), 
and the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, SEC, 
Joint Regulatory Sales Practice Sweep: A Review of the Sales 
Practice Activities of Selected Registered Representatives and the 
Hiring, Retention, and Supervisory Practices of the Brokerage Firms 
Employing Them (March 1996). The Sweep was an initiative involving 
the staffs of the NASD, the SEC, the NYSE, and representatives of 
the NASAA (collectively, the ``Working Group'') to review the sales 
practice activities of selected registered representatives and the 
hiring, retention, and supervisory practices of the brokerage firms 
employing them in order to identify possible problem registered 
representatives, review their sales practices, and assess whether 
adequate hiring, retention, and supervisory mechanisms are in place. 
The Sweep Report was released on March 18, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Regulation stated in its filing that one of the key findings 
of the Sweep Report concerned the willingness of some firms to employ 
registered representatives with a history of disciplinary actions or 
customer complaints.\7\ Based on this finding, the Working Group 
collectively recommended that firms that hire registered 
representatives with a recent disciplinary history involving sales 
practice abuse or other customer harm should implement special 
supervisory procedures tailored to the individual registered 
representative, which include a heightened level of scrutiny of the 
registered representative's activities by his or her supervisor, for a 
period of time.\8\ The Sweep Report recommended that, if firms fail to 
establish such special supervisory procedures, the self-regulatory 
organizations (``SROs'') should consider revising their rules to 
specifically require that registered representatives with a recent 
history of disciplinary actions involving sales practice abuse or other 
customer harm be placed under special supervision by the firm for a 
period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The current proposal focuses on the disciplinary history of 
the firm that formerly employed the registered representative.
    \8\ Id. at ii, iv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Regulation and the NYSE have issued a memorandum discussing 
the Sweep Report and providing guidance on actions firms could take to 
provide heightened supervision of problem registered 
representatives.\9\ While the special procedures designed to provide a 
heightened level of supervision recommended by the Sweep Report and 
described in the NASD/NYSE memorandum may provide adequate supervision 
of associated persons in most circumstances, NASD Regulation proposes 
to adopt specific procedures in certain situations in order to provide 
the level of supervision required by Rule 3010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NASD Notice of Members 97-19 (April 1997); NYSE Information 
Memo 97-20 (April 15, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Regulation proposes to amend NASD Rule 3010 to require firms 
that hire a specified number of individuals from Disciplined Firms to 
tape-record telephone conversations between their registered persons 
and existing and potential customers. The proposed Rule would apply 
when a firm hires a substantial number of registered persons from a 
firm or firms that have been expelled or had their registrations 
revoked for sales practice abuse. The measures are designed to prevent 
a reoccurrence of sales practice abuse or other customer harm that 
caused the Disciplined Firm to be expelled or have its registration 
revoked. The proposal is similar to an interpretation adopted by the 
National Futures Association (``NFA'') in 1993 to combat abusive cold 
calling.\10\ The NFA's interpretation is discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Letter from Lynn K. Gilbert, Deputy Director, Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, to Daniel J. Roth, General Counsel, NFA 
(January 19, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Notice to Members 96-59 and Original Proposal

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD Regulation described Notice 
to Members 96-59 (``NTM 96-59''), which contained the original proposed 
Rule (``original proposal'' or ``original Rule'').\11\ NASD 
Regulation's original proposal captured a broader swath of firms. It 
would have been triggered whenever a significant portion of a member's 
work force was comprised of associated persons who formerly were 
employed by a Disciplined Firm or firms or when the firm itself was a 
Disciplined Firm. The original proposal defined a Disciplined Firm, for 
purposes of the Rule, as one that had been disciplined (e.g., expelled, 
suspended, or enjoined) by a regulatory entity, an SRO, or a court 
within the previous five years for telemarketing or sales-practice 
abuses in connection with the solicitation, offer, or sale of 
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice to Members 96-59 (September 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Regulation's original proposal also stated that if more than 
20 percent of a member's sales force of associated persons previously 
were employed by a Disciplined Firm, the member would have been 
required to adopt special written procedures to supervise the 
telemarketing activities of its associated persons. Firms that were 
themselves Disciplined Firms also would have been required to adopt 
these procedures. The procedures would have required, at a minimum, 
that the employer member tape record all telephone conversations 
between all of its associated persons and both existing and potential 
customers, and maintain these procedures for two years. For each firm 
that was itself a Disciplined Firm, at the end of the two-year period, 
NASD Regulation would have conducted an evaluation to determine 
whether, and for how long, the firm would continue to be subject to the 
requirements of the Rule. The Rule also would have required firms 
subject to the taping requirement to review the tapes periodically to 
ensure compliance with securities laws and NASD rules, to submit 
reports to NASD Regulation on their supervision of telemarketing 
activities, and to retain and index the tapes.

B. Comments and Response on the Original Proposal

    NASD Regulation received 42 comment letters in response to its 
initial Notice to Members.\12\ Of the 42

[[Page 20234]]

comment letters, 39 were opposed to the proposal, including those filed 
by the Securities Industry Association, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, 
Morgan Stanley, and Smith Barney. NASD Regulation stated that most of 
the commenters supported the NASD's objective in proposing the taping 
Rule and agreed that firms should be discouraged from recruiting groups 
of registered persons from a Disciplined Firm, however, they did not 
believe that tape recording of conversations was an appropriate 
regulatory requirement and feared that regulators will require even 
more comprehensive tape recording in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NASD Regulation received the following comment letters: (1) 
Letter from Brian C. Underwood, A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. 
(``Edwards''), dated October 31, 1996; (2) Letter from Kevin P. 
Howe, American Express Financial Advisors (``AEFA''), dated October 
31, 1996; (3) Letter from G. Thomas Mitchell, Aurora Insurance and 
Securities, Inc. (``Aurora''), dated October 10, 1996; (4) Letter 
from Jerome Snyder, Barington Capital Group, L.P. (``Barington''), 
dated October 23, 1996; (5) Letter from Leslie D. Smith, Berthel 
Fisher Company (``Berthel''), dated October 25, 1996; (6) Letter 
from Walter I. Miller, Capital Growth Planning, Inc. (``Capital''), 
dated September 24, 1996; (7) Letter from Sanford D. Greenberg, 
Chatfield Dean & Co. (``Chatfield Dean''), dated October 31, 1996; 
(8) Letter from Neil Lawrence Lane, Citicorp Investment Services 
(``CIS''), dated October 31, 1996; (9) Letter from David J. Master, 
Coastal Securities (``Coastal''), dated October 31, 1996; (10) 
Letter from John Polanin, Jr., Cowen & Company (``Cowen''), dated 
November 7, 1996; (11) Letter from Richard L. Sandow, Cullum & 
Sandow Securities, Inc. (``Cullum''), dated October 17, 1996; (12) 
Letter from Gregg Thaler, Duke & Company, Inc. (``Duke I''), dated 
October 10, 1996; (13) Letter from William Rotholz, Duke & Company, 
Inc. (``Duke II''), dated October 29, 1996; (14) Letter from Shannon 
Braymen, Duncan-Smith Securities, Inc. (``Duncan-Smith''), dated 
October 22, 1996; (15) Letter from James H. Pyle et al., E.E. Powell 
& Company, Inc., dated October 21, 1996; (16) Letter from Nancy K. 
Port, Equity Services, Inc. (``ESI''), dated October 30, 1996; (17) 
Letter from Rick Fetterman, Fetterman Investments, Inc., dated 
October 1, 1996; (18) Letter from Herbert O. Sontz, GKN Securities 
(``GKN''), dated October 31, 1996; (19) Letter from Lawrence E. 
Wesneski, Hoak Breedlove Wesneski & Co. (``Hoak''), dated October 
21, 1996; (20) Letter from Cabell B. Birdsong, Investors Security 
Company, Inc. (``ISC''), dated October 22, 1996; (21) Letter from 
David A. Rich, Jefferies & Company, Inc., dated November 8, 1996; 
(22) Letter from Thomas P. Koutris, John Hancock Distributors, Inc., 
dated September 23, 1996; (23) Letter from A.E. Monahan, Keystone 
Capital Corporation (``Keystone''), dated October 7, 1996; (24) 
Letter from Paul B. Uhlenhop, Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop 
(``Lawrence, Kamin''), dated October 29, 1996; (25) Letter from 
Kathryn S. Reinmann, Lehman Brothers Inc. (``Lehman''), dated 
October 31, 1996; (26) Letter from Kenneth S. Spirer, Merrill Lynch, 
Pierce, Fenner & Smith (``Merrill Lynch''), dated November 14, 1996; 
(27) Letter from Jack G. Levin, Montgomery Securities 
(``Montgomery''), dated January 16, 1997; (28) Letter from Frederick 
W. Bogdan, Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated (``Morgan Stanley''), 
dated October 30, 1996; (29) Letter from Dennis S. Kaminski, Mutual 
Service Corporation (``MSC''), dated October 29, 1996; (30) Letter 
from Richard Berenger, Nathan & Lewis Securities, Inc. (``Nathan & 
Lewis''), dated October 18, 1996; (31) Letter from Douglas L. 
Dunahay, Neidiger/Tucker/Bruner Inc. (``Neidiger''), dated October 
29, 1996; (32) Letter from Edward T. Borer, Philadelphia Corporation 
(``PC''), dated October 17, 1996; (33) Letter from Michael 
Flannigan, Protective Group Securities Corporation (``PGSC''), dated 
September 24, 1996; (34) Letter from Robert A. Fitzner, Jr., RAF 
Financial Corporation (``RAF''), dated October 29, 1996; (35) Letter 
from Glen F. Hackmann, Robert W. Baird & Co., Incorporated 
(``Baird''), dated October 31, 1996; (36) Letter from Douglas F. 
Schofield, Schofield Investments, Inc., dated September 18, 1996; 
(37) Letter from Richard O. Scribner, Allen B. Holeman, and C. Evan 
Steward, SIA, dated November 4, 1996; (38) Letter from Dov S. 
Schecter, Smith Barney Inc. (``Smith Barney''), dated October 31, 
1996; (39) Letter from Patrick G. Haayes, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. 
(``Stratton''), dated October 30, 1996; (40) Letter from Walter H. 
Schlobohm, dated February 10, 1997; (41) Letter from John Maceranka, 
The Windmill Group, Inc., dated September 28, 1996; and (42) Letter 
from Stanley J. Allen Jr., Yee, Desmond, Schroeder & Allen, Inc. 
(``Yee''), dated October 28, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definition of a Disciplined Firm is too broad: NASD Regulation 
stated that many of the commenters believe the definition of a 
Disciplined Firm in the original Rule was too broad. For example, the 
original definition would have included a firm that was the subject of 
an injunction for a technical or inadvertent violation of state law or 
as the result of a consensual injunction involving only a fraction of 
the firm's business and employees. NASD Regulation responded by 
narrowing the definition of a Disciplined Firm to include firms that 
have been expelled from membership in a securities industry SRO or that 
have had their registration revoked by the SEC due to telemarketing or 
sales practice abuses.
    The Rule is too broad with respect to the individuals included in 
the percentage calculation and the time frame: NASD Regulation stated 
that commenters complained the Rule was too broad in several respects. 
First, commenters said the Rule would target firms and individuals for 
the actions of other firms and individuals of which they had no 
knowledge or control \13\ Second, the commenters criticized the Rule's 
application to all individuals that had ever been employed by a 
Disciplined Firm in the calculation of the percentage that would 
trigger the special supervisor procedures.\14\ Finally, NASD Regulation 
stated that commenters believed the Rule should be limited to personnel 
who have contact with customers, such as registered representatives, 
and should exclude clerical and ministerial employees from both the 20% 
calculation and the taping requirement.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., letters from Lehman and Morgan Stanley.
    \14\ See, e.g., letters from Edwards, Morgan Stanley, Nathan & 
Lewis, PC, SIA, and Stratton.
    \15\ See, e.g., letters from Edwards, Barington, Chatfield Dean, 
Cullum, Duke II, ESI, ISC, Morgan Stanley, Baird, and Stratton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, NASD Regulation narrowed the scope of the original 
Rule to apply only to firms that hire a specified percentage of 
individuals who were employed at a Disciplined Firm within the last 
three years. NASD Regulation also limited the individuals calculated in 
the percentage to register persons, leaving out clerical and 
ministerial personnel. Also, NASD Regulation limited the persons 
subject to the taping requirement to registered representative in 
conversations with both existing and potential customers.
    The Rule does not achieve the stated purpose: NASD Regulation noted 
that several commenters questioned whether the original Rule goes 
beyond the scope of the Sweep Report and would be effective in 
achieving the Sweep Report recommendations because taping is not an 
effective means of supervising sales efforts.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., letters from CIS, Duke II, ESI, Lehman, Merrill 
Lynch, MSC, Nathan & Lewis, and SIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Regulation responded by emphasing that the taping requirement 
is being restricted to particularly egregious situations. They stated 
their concern that when a firm hires high percentages of employees from 
firms that have been expelled by an SRO or that have had their 
registration revoked by the Commission, these groups of employees are 
unlikely to have been trained or supervised adequately. In addition, 
NASD Regulation stated its belief in the in terrorem effect of 
recording telephone conversations to deter sales practice abuses. 
Finally, the NASD believes the Rule directly addresses the issues 
raised when a firm hires a high percentage of individuals who were 
employed by a Disciplined Firm where they were inadequately trained and 
supervised.
    The costs of the Rule are too great: The NASD noted that some 
commenters expressed concerns that the costs of the original Rule would 
be too high, considering the limited benefits of the Rule. The 
commenters also stated that the Rule would have a disproportionate 
effect on small firms.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The commenters stated that small firms would be 
disproportionately effected both in the cost of taping and in the 
numbers of firms likely to become subject to the threshold 
percentage of 20%. See letters from Capital, Cowen, Duncan-Smith, 
Hoak, SIA, and Yee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD stated that its narrowing of many aspects of the Rule 
would result in lower compliance costs. Specifically, in the revised 
proposal, the NASD exempted firms with five or fewer registered persons 
from the Rule and tiered the structure for determining the percentage 
of employees that trigger the taping requirement so that smaller firms 
would have to hire 30% or more of their registered persons from 
Disciplined Firms before they would trigger the requirement. In 
addition, the NASD stated that by narrowing the definition of a 
Disciplined Firm, fewer firms will be subject to the taping 
requirement.\18\ Finally, with respect to certain practical compliance 
difficulties, the NASD agreed to provide firms with all the relevant 
information they need to determine whether they are in compliance with 
the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The NASD revised the definition of Disciplined Firm to 
include only expelled and revoked firms in order to focus, at least 
initially, on the most egregious cases with the greatest supervisory 
and disciplinary problems. For the two-year period 1995-1996, 14 
firms met the definition of Disciplined Firm: 4 firms were expelled 
from SRO membership and 10 had their registrations revoked. This 
approach is similar to the one taken by the NFA, and will allow the 
NASD to gain experience with the implementation of the Rule before 
it considers expanding the definition of Disciplined Firm to include 
firms that have been suspended from SRO membership or from SEC 
registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Privacy concerns: The NASD stated that many commenters felt the 
original Rule would invade the privacy of both a firm's customers as 
well as the firm's registered representatives, which would be unfair to 
both firms and registered representatives that did not have 
disciplinary histories. Commenters also believe that the Rule would 
conflict with federal and state wiretapping laws. Finally, they are 
concerned that the

[[Page 20235]]

Rule does not restrict the accessibility and manner in which the tapes 
may be used.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., letters from AEFA, Duke II, Lawrence, Kamin, 
Lehman, Morgan Stanley, MSC, Neidiger, Montgomery, SIA, and Smith 
Barney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, because the Rule has been revised to address only 
the most egregious situations, the impact on privacy will be minimized. 
Also, upon approval, NASD Regulation will inform NASD members that, in 
complying with this Rule, they must also comply with federal and state 
civil and criminal statutes governing the tape recording of 
conversations. This is the same approach the NFA has taken with respect 
to this issue.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Interpretive Notice to NFA Compliance Rule 2-9, 
Supervision of Telemarketing Activity, 9021 (February 18, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each state has a statute governing wiretapping; there also is a 
federal statute governing wiretapping and electronic surveillance.\21\ 
The federal statute and the majority of the state statutes permit 
taping of telephone conversations with the consent of one party (``one-
party statutes''),\22\ a minority of state statutes require the consent 
of all parties to the conversation (``two-party statutes'').\23\ Three 
issues arise from the proposed Rule: what is necessary to comply with 
one-party statutes; what is necessary to comply with two-party 
statutes; and how to comply where a conversation occurs between a 
person in a one-party state and a person in a two-party state. The NASD 
has left compliance with the state statutes on wiretapping and privacy 
for each broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2519 et seq.
    \22\ In one-party statute states, the only issue is whether the 
registered representative knows of and consents to the tape 
recording. Since the recording requirement would run to the firm, 
and the equipment would be the firm's, it might be argued that the 
firm, and not the representative, is doing the recording. Therefore, 
it would be necessary for the firm to insure that the representative 
has notice and consents to the tape recording of his or her 
telephone conversations. This could be accomplished through a clause 
in an employment agreement or employee handbook or other written 
notice to the representative.
    \23\ In two-party statute states, it would be necessary to 
insert on the firm's telephone line a recording stating that all 
telephone conversations are being taped, similar to customer service 
lines in other industries. Some states require a system of beeps or 
buzzers that sound throughout the conversation. Another possibility 
is to insert a clause into the customer agreement notifying 
customers that their calls will be tape recorded. Some states also 
have a ``business use exception'' to the two-party statute consent 
requirement, but it is worded and applied differently in each state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Rule

    As revised and filed with the Commission, the proposed Rule would 
apply whenever a specified percentage of a member firm's sales force is 
comprised of registered persons who were employed within the last three 
years by a firm that has been expelled from membership in a securities 
industry SRO or has had its registration as a broker/dealer revoked by 
the SEC. The requisite percentage varies depending on the size of the 
firm, from 40 percent for a small firm to 20 percent for a larger firm. 
The firm must establish the required supervisory procedures within 30 
days of receiving notice from NASD Regulation or obtaining actual 
knowledge that it is subject to the provisions of the Rule.
    Under the proposed Rule, if the requisite percentage of a member's 
sales force previously was employed by a Disciplined Firm, the member 
would be required to adopt special written procedures to supervise the 
telemarketing activities of all of its registered persons. The 
procedures would require, at a minimum, that the member tape record all 
telephone conversations between all of its registered persons and both 
existing and potential customers for a period of three years, and 
maintain these supervisory procedures for two years. The Rule would 
require firms to ensure that they tape record all regularly used means 
of telecommunications, including cellular phones. The Rule also would 
require firms subject to the taping requirement to establish reasonable 
procedures for reviewing the tape recordings to ensure compliance with 
securities laws and NASD rules, to submit reports to the NASD on their 
supervision of telemarketing, and to retain and catalog the tapes.
    While each firm is responsible for complying with the Rule, NASD 
Regulation will provide firms with all of the information that they 
need to determine if they are subject to the requirements of the Rule. 
NASD Regulation believes that firms should be able to rely on the 
accuracy of the information provided to them by the NASD. Therefore, 
the NASD anticipates that a firm will be disciplined for failure to 
comply with the Rule only if it has actual knowledge of information 
that would make the firm subject to the Rule that is inconsistent with 
the information provided by NASD Regulation to the firm that indicated 
that the firm was not subject to the Rule.
    NASD Regulation will compile and maintain several lists that firms 
will be able to review on a quarterly basis to assist them to determine 
if they are in compliance with the Rule. The primary list that will be 
prepared will be a list of firms that meet the definition of 
Disciplined Firm. Two additional lists will be prepared that should be 
helpful. One list will contain an alphabetical listing of all 
registered persons who had worked for Disciplined Firms within the last 
three years. Another list will be compiled containing the same list of 
people grouped according to the firm for which they currently work. In 
order to alert firms that they are approaching the percentage that 
would make them subject to the requirements of the Rule, the second 
list will contain a computation of the percentage of all registered 
persons at the firm represented by registered persons who had been 
employed at a Disciplined Firm within the last three years.
    The Rule is thus very similar to an NFA interpretation concerning 
supervision of telemarketing activity.\24\ NFA member firms subject to 
the requirements of the interpretation must tape record all sales 
solicitations. The NFA interpretation applies to firms that meet 
criteria relating to the percentage of the firm's associated persons 
who formerly were employed at a firm that was closed down and barred 
from the industry through enforcement actions for deceptive 
telemarketing practices.\25\ These firms are required by the NFA 
interpretation to tape record sales solicitations. An NFA member 
subject to these procedures may seek a waiver of the taping requirement 
upon a satisfactory showing that its current supervisory procedures 
provide effective supervision over its employees, including enabling 
the member to identify potential problem areas before customer abuse 
occurs. The NFA has rarely granted such waivers. In one instance, a 
waiver was granted to a firm that did not engage in telemarketing and 
had only institutional customers. In two other instances, partial 
waivers were granted to firms that hired outside consultants. NFA 
informed NASD Regulation that they were not satisfied with the work 
performed by the outside consultants and would not grant such waivers 
in the future.\26\ In response to commenter requests, NASD Regulation 
has included a waiver provision in the proposed Rule, and also has 
proposed a

[[Page 20236]]

conforming change to the Rule 9600 Series.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Interpretive Notice to NFA Compliance Rule 2-9, 
Supervision of Telemarketing Activity, para. 9021 (February 18, 
1997).
    \25\ In early 1997, 44 firms met the NFA definition of 
Disciplined Firm. See Interpretive Notice to NFA Compliance Rule 2-
9, Supervision of Telemarketing Activity, para. 9021 (February 18, 
1997).
    \26\ Telephone conversation between Mary N. Revell, Associate 
General Counsel, NASD, and Daniel Driscoll, Vice President, 
Compliance, NFA (February 26, 1997).
    \27\ See, e.g., letters from Edwards, Barington, Cullum, Duke I, 
Duke II, Duncan-Smith, GKN, Hoak, Morgan Stanley, Baird, and 
Montgomery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds that the 
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and 
the rules and the regulations thereunder applicable to registered 
securities associations, in particular the requirements of Section 
15A(b)(6) of the Act.\28\ Among other things, Section 15A(b)(6) of the 
Act requires that the rules of a national securities association be 
designed to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in 
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, 
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to 
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national 
market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public 
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule 
change will discourage the revival of disciplined firms that have been 
barred by the industry or that have had their registrations revoked by 
the Commission. In essence, firms that decide to hire significant 
numbers of employees from disciplined firms will be required to ensure 
a proper supervisory environment that protects investors and prevents 
fraudulent and manipulative telemarketing acts and practices. The 
monitoring of registered persons' telephone conversations will help to 
provide additional supervision of individuals who formerly worked at a 
disciplined firm where they were inadequately trained and supervised.
    In the Notice, the Commission requested comments on all aspects of 
the proposal, as well as the need to inform investors that their calls 
are being taped. The Commission received one comment letter concerning 
the proposal. The SIA expressed general concerns about tape recording 
conversations as a method of supervision. While the Commission 
recognizes the limitations of this form of supervision, the Commission 
believes that if registered persons know their phone calls are being 
taped then they are more likely to avoid making false or exaggerated 
representations. In addition, compliance officals will have another 
tool to monitor persons who worked previously at firms with significant 
sales practice problems. Moreover, the fact that tapes of the telephone 
conversations will be available to persons who have disputes with 
broker-dealer firms will spur firms with a substantial percentage of 
representatives from an expelled firm to take extra measures to 
supervise these persons.
    No comments were received concerning the issue of notice to 
investors that their calls are being taped. NASD Regulation has 
indicated its belief that the issue of notification is addressed by 
state privacy laws and that firms will be required to independently 
determine that state laws are satisfied. The Commission believes that 
the best practice would be for member firms to notify their registered 
persons and customers that their telephone calls are being tape 
recorded.
    The Commission expects the NASD to monitor the Rule and assess its 
effectiveness. For example, the NASD should monitor the number of firms 
that become subject to the Rule as well as firms that hire 
representatives from disciplined firms but do not trigger the taping 
requirement to see if there is a need to adjust the percentages. Also, 
the NASD should monitor the number of firms exempt from the Rule 
because they have five or fewer employees to determine if this is an 
effective exclusion. Furthermore, the NASD should make sure firms 
comply with state laws on notification.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 2 prior 
to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice thereof in 
the Federal Register. Amendment No. 2 applies the proposal to member 
firms with a work force comprised of a specified number of registered 
persons who were employed by a ``disciplined firm'' within the last 
three years instead of two years.\29\ In the Notice, the Commission 
requested comment on whether the original two-year time frame was 
appropriate. Although no comments were received on this issue, NASD 
Regulation and the Commission believe that a three-year time frame will 
better capture registered persons who worked at disciplined firms 
during a period of inadequate training, supervision, and sales practice 
abuses. Therefore, the Commission believes that granting accelerated 
approval to Amendment No. 2 is appropriate and consistent with Section 
15A of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Amendment No. 2 also makes several technical amendments 
which clarify the application of the previously noticed changes to 
Rules 3010 and 9610.
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78o-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and 
arguments concerning Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, 
including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. 
Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with 
the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the submission, all subsequent 
amendments,' all written statements with respect to Amendment No. 2 
that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications 
relating to Amendment No. 2 between the Commission and any persons, 
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance 
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552, will be available for 
inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 
Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and copying 
at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to 
File No. SR-NASD-97-69 and should be submitted by May 15, 1998.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the 
Act,\31\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-97-69), including 
Amendment No. 2 thereto, is approved on an accelerated basis.

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-10796 Filed 4-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M