[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4548-4552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-1956]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-49127; File No. SR-MSRB-2003-07]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking 
Board.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Notice of Filing and 
Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 1 Relating to 
Proposed Amendment to the MSRB's Telemarketing Rules to Require 
Participation in the National Do-Not-Call Registry

January 26, 2004.

I. Introduction

    On August, 19, 2003, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board 
(``MSRB''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to the MSRB's adoption 
of telemarketing rules to require brokers, dealers and municipal 
securities dealers (collectively ``dealers'') to participate in the 
national do-not-call registry. The proposed rule change was published 
for comment in the Federal Register on August 27, 2003.\3\ On January 
21, 2003, the MSRB submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule 
change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Commission published the proposed rule changes filed by 
the MSRB and the NASD simultaneously. See Securities Exchange Act 
Release Nos. 48389 (August 22, 2003), 68 FR 51609 (August 27, 2003) 
(SR-MSRB-2003-07); 48390 (August 22, 2003), 68 FR 51613 (August 27, 
2003) (SR-NASD-2003-131).
    \4\ See letter from Ronald W. Smith, Senior Legal Associate, 
MSRB to Martha M. Haines, Office Chief, Division of Market 
Regulation, Commission, dated January 21, 2004 (``Amendment No. 
1'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received three comment letters on the proposed rule 
change.\5\ The text of proposed Amendment No. 1 is below. Additions 
from the original filing are in italics; deletions are in [brackets].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See letters from Mary Talbutt-Glassberg, Fixed Income 
Trader, Davidson Capital Management, to MSRB, dated Aug. 20, 2003 
(``Davidson Letter''); Ted F. Angus, V.P. and Senior Corporate 
Counsel for Retail Brokerage, Charles Schwab, to Mr. Jonathan G. 
Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated September 17, 2003, (``Schwab 
Letter''); and James Y. Chin, A.V.P., Director and Counsel, State 
Government Affairs & Staff Advisor to the State Telemarketing 
Subcommittee, Securities Industry Association, to Mr. Jonathan G. 
Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated September 17, 2003, (``SIA 
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Rule G-39. Telemarketing

    (a)-(f) No change.

[[Page 4549]]

    (g) Definitions
    (i) Established business relationship.
    (A) An established business relationship exists between a broker, 
dealer or municipal securities dealer and a person if:
    (1) the person has made a financial transaction or has a security 
position, a money balance, or account activity with the broker, dealer 
or municipal securities dealer or at a clearing firm that provides 
clearing services to such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer 
within the [previous] eighteen months immediately preceding the date of 
the telemarketing call; [or]
    (2) the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer is the 
broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer of record for an account 
of the person within the eighteen months immediately preceding the date 
of the telemarketing call; or
    [(2)](3) the person has contacted the broker, dealer or municipal 
securities dealer to inquire about a product or service offered by the 
broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer within the [previous] 
three months immediately preceding the date of the telemarketing call.
    (B) A person's established business relationship with a broker, 
dealer or municipal securities dealer does not extend to the broker, 
dealer or municipal securities dealer's affiliated entities unless the 
person would reasonably expect them to be included. Similarly, a 
person's established business relationship with a broker, dealer or 
municipal securities dealer's affiliate does not extend to the broker, 
dealer or municipal securities dealer unless the person would 
reasonably expect the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer to 
be included.
    (ii)-(iii) (No change).
    (iv) the term ``account activity'' shall include, but not be 
limited to, purchases, sales, interest credits or debits, charges or 
credits, dividend payments, transfer activity, securities receipts or 
deliveries, and/or journal entries relating to securities or funds in 
the possession or control of the broker, dealer or municipal securities 
dealer.
    (v) the term ``broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer of 
record'' refers to the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer 
identified on a customer's account application for accounts held 
directly at an issuer of municipal fund securities or by the issuer's 
agent.
* * * * *

II. Description

A. General

    The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'') and the Federal 
Communications Commission (``FCC'') established requirements for 
sellers and telemarketers to participate in a national do-not-call 
registry.\6\ Since June 2003, consumers have been able to enter their 
home and mobile telephone numbers into the national do-not-call 
registry, which is maintained by the FTC. Under rules of the FTC and 
FCC, sellers and telemarketers generally are prohibited from making 
telephone solicitations to consumers whose numbers are listed in the 
national do-not-call registry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer 
Protection Act of 1991 (``TCPA''), FCC 03-153, adopted June 26, 
2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 2, 2003, the SEC requested that the MSRB amend its 
telemarketing rules to include a requirement for dealers to participate 
in the national do-not-call registry.\7\ Because broker/dealers and 
banks are subject to the FCC's jurisdiction, the MSRB modeled its rules 
after the FCC, specifically tailoring the rules to broker/dealers and 
the securities industry.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention 
Act of 1994 requires the Commission to promulgate telemarketing 
rules substantially similar to those of the FTC or direct self-
regulatory organizations to do so, unless the Commission determines 
that such rules are not in the interest of investor protection. 15 
U.S.C. 6102(d) (2003).
    \8\ See The Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, 108 Pub. L. 10, 117 
Stat. 557 (Mar. 11, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB submitted a proposed rule change to amend MSRB Rule G-39, 
to implement rules that prohibit dealers from making telemarketing 
calls to people who have registered on the FTC's national do-not-call 
registry.\9\ The proposal retains the requirement that dealers make 
their a telemarketing calls only during certain times of day (8 a.m. to 
9 p.m. local time at the called party's location) and a restriction 
against making calls to persons who have requested to be on a firm-
specific do-not-call list.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(a)(iii).
    \10\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(a)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Exceptions

    The MSRB currently provides dealers with an ``existing customer'' 
exception to its requirement that dealers make their a telemarketing 
calls only during certain times of day (8 a.m. to 9 p.m. local time at 
the called party's location) and to its requirement that dealers 
provide certain information about the caller during the course of the 
telephone conversation.\11\ The proposed rule change would replace the 
``existing customer'' exception with an ``established business 
relationship'' exception, a ``prior express invitation or permission'' 
exception and a ``personal relationship exception.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See MSRB Rule G-39(b)(i) and (b)(ii).
    \12\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As originally proposed, the established business relationship 
exception would have enabled dealers to make a telephone solicitation 
as long as the call's recipient had made a financial transaction with 
the dealer within 18 months preceding the date of the telemarketing 
call, or if the recipient had contacted the dealer to inquire about a 
product or service offered by the dealer within the three months 
preceding the date of the telemarketing call.\13\ The proposed 
established business relationship exception would not provide an 
exception for those individuals who have requested to be put on a 
dealer's firm-specific do-not-call list or from the time-of-day 
restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See original proposed MSRB Rule G-39(g)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second exception to the national do-not-call rules pertains to 
those persons from whom the dealer has obtained prior express written 
invitation or permission to make a telemarketing call.\14\ The final 
exception pertains to those persons with whom an associated person of a 
dealer has a ``personal relationship.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(b)(ii).
    \15\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(b)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Telemarketing Procedures

    The MSRB also proposed that dealers must institute certain 
procedures related to do-not-call lists. As proposed, these procedures 
must include requirements to: Have a written policy for maintaining a 
do-not-call list, train personnel engaged in telemarketing in the 
existence and use of the do-not-call list, record and disclose requests 
from a person to be added to the dealer's do-not-call list, and have 
the dealer provide the called party with the name of the individual 
caller, the name of the dealer, a telephone number or address at which 
the dealer may be contacted, and that the purpose of the call is to 
solicit the purchase of securities or related services.\16\ The 
proposed rules clarify that, absent a specific request, a person's do-
not-call request would apply to the dealer making a call, but not an 
affiliated entity of such a dealer unless the person would expect such 
an affiliated entity to be included, given the identification of the 
caller and the product being advertised.\17\ Further, the MSRB proposed 
that dealers must maintain a record of a caller's request to receive no 
further telemarketing calls

[[Page 4550]]

and must honor that request for a period of five years.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(d)(i)--(d)(iv).
    \17\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(d)(v).
    \18\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(d)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Safe Harbor

    In addition to proposing certain baseline procedures that dealers 
must follow, the MSRB proposed a ``safe harbor'' under which a dealer 
would not be liable for calling a person on the national do-not-call 
registry if that call is the result of an error and if the 
telemarketer's routine business practice meets certain specified 
standards.\19\ In order to benefit from this safe harbor the dealer 
must establish and implement written procedures to comply with the 
national do-not-call rules, train its personnel in those procedures, 
maintain a list of telephone numbers that the dealer may not contact, 
and use a process to prevent telephone solicitations to any telephone 
number that appears on any national do-not-call registry, including a 
version of the list obtained from the administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Miscellaneous

    The MSRB proposed that the applicability of the telemarketing and 
telephone solicitation restrictions and exceptions would extend to 
wireless telephone subscribers.\20\ Further, the MSRB proposed that if 
a dealer uses another entity to perform telemarketing services on its 
behalf, the dealer remains responsible for ensuring compliance with all 
provisions contained in proposed MSRB Rule G-39.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(e).
    \21\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments

    The commission received three comment letters addressing the 
proposed rule change.\22\ All three letters expressed concerns with the 
MSRB's proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, two commenters believe that the proposed rule change, 
as proposed in the original filing, would restrict the ability of 
dealer firms to contact their existing customers.\23\ The commenters' 
primary concern relates to the MSRB's proposed definition of an 
``established business relationship'' exception.\24\ The commenters 
generally stated the MSRB's proposed version of the established 
business relationship exception, which is created when a customer has 
made a financial transaction with a dealer, is too limited in scope and 
appears inconsistent with the TCPA and FCC Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Charles Schwab Letter, at 4; SIA Letter, at 4.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The established business relationship exclusion, under the FCC's 
amendment to the TCPA, provides that formation of an existing 
relationship involves a voluntary two-way communication ``with or 
without an exchange of consideration.'' \25\ By limiting the scope of 
the established business relationship exclusion, one commenter believes 
that the proposed rule change restricts opportunities for both dealers 
and customers.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(3).
    \26\ See Davidson Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, commenters expressed concerns that changing the 
interpretation from a customer that ``carries an account'' to requiring 
a ``financial transaction'' within the previous eighteen months imposes 
difficult compliance issues, increases confusion, and generally 
restricts the ability of dealers to contact their customers. These 
commenters believe the change undermines the broker-client 
relationship. In addition, some commenters claimed that narrowing the 
scope of existing customers for the established business relationship 
exception would force dealers to implement costly system changes that 
distinguish among their account holders.\27\ As a whole, the commenters 
assert that the MSRB is setting forth a new concept that was not 
included in the FCC Rules under the amended TCPA.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Schwab Letter, at 5; SIA Letter, at 2.
    \28\ See Schwab Letter; SIA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters believe that the MSRB's definition of an established 
business relationship is too narrow and omits various situations under 
which a broker/dealer may need to contact its customers.\29\ These 
commenters state that the proposed definition of an established 
business relationship is significantly narrower than the MSRB's 
definition of existing customer, which is used for MSRB's existing 
telemarketing rules and the FCC's and FTC's definition of established 
business relationship.\30\ Two commenters also believe that an 
established business relationship generally should exist when a 
customer is an account holder at a dealer.\31\ Charles Schwab states 
that the proposed rule should permit a dealer to win back a customer's 
account.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Schwab Letter, at 4; SIA Letter, at 4.
    \30\ See SIA Letter, at 3-4; Charles Schwab Letter at 2-4.
    \31\ See SIA Letter at 3; and Schwab Letter at 3.
    \32\ See Schwab Letter, at 5. The FCC has stated, ``a consumer 
who once had telephone service with a particular carrier or a 
subscription with a particular newspaper could expect to receive a 
call from those entities in an effort to ``win back'' or ``renew'' 
that consumer's business within eighteen (18) months.'' 68 FR 44144, 
44158 (July 25, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters request a review of the proposal with consideration 
of the wide array of business activities of all dealer firms. One 
commenter urged the MSRB to revise the proposed rule change by 
expanding the definition of ``established business relationship'' to 
accommodate an effective means for dealers to deliver products and 
services to customers.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See SIA Letter, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Amendment No. 1

    In its letter included within Amendment No. 1, MSRB noted that 
proposed MSRB Rule G-39 would restrict only ``telephone 
solicitations,'' which would be defined as ``the initiation of a 
telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase 
or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is 
transmitted to any person.'' Accordingly, under the original proposed 
definition, the MSRB interpreted a telephone call to a customer 
concerning a margin call or similar administrative event would not 
constitute a telephone solicitation.
    In response to commenters' concerns about the narrow scope of the 
established business relationship exception, the MSRB stated that a 
dealer may, at times, be compelled to contact a customer to satisfy the 
dealer's attendant agency obligations, including situations where 
market swings, interest rate changes, new tax laws, or specific 
industry or company news may necessitate a broker contacting his or her 
customer.
    In addition, the MSRB proposed two changes to the definition of an 
``established business relationship.'' The first change to the 
definition would encompass situations where the person has a security 
position, a money balance, or account activity at a clearing firm on 
behalf of such dealer within the previous 18 months. The second change 
to the definition would include situations where a dealer was the 
``broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer of record'' for an 
account of a person within the 18 months immediately preceding the date 
of the telemarketing call. Both definitions of established business 
relationship continue for 18 months after a triggering event, thus 
providing an opportunity for a firm to win back a customer.
    Moreover, the MSRB noted that the proposed rule change, as amended, 
cannot assure dealers that compliance with the proposed MSRB Rule G-39

[[Page 4551]]

ensures compliance with FCC rules because dealers also must comply with 
the telemarketing rules of the FCC and any FCC interpretations of those 
rules.

V. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, as amended, and 
the related comments, the Commission finds that the proposed rule 
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and 
the rules and regulations thereunder which govern the MSRB \34\ and, in 
particular, the requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act and the 
rules and regulations thereunder.\35\ Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act 
requires, among other things, that MSRB's rules must be designed to 
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just 
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect 
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ In addition, in approving this rule the Commission notes 
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, 
competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General

    The Commission believes that the investing public's participation 
in the do-not-call registry, as described in the proposed rule change, 
creates an expectation among national do-not-call registrants that they 
will not receive unwanted telephone solicitations from dealers. The 
Commission believes that the MSRB's proposal generally prohibits its 
dealers from making telemarketing calls to people who have registered 
on the national do-not-call registry, while retaining time-of-day and 
firm-specific do-not-call list restrictions.\36\ The Commission 
believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, establishes 
adequate procedures to prevent dealers from making telephone 
solicitations to do-not-call registrants, which should have the effect 
of protecting investors, while providing appropriate exception to the 
rule for certain enumerated situations, which should promote just and 
equitable principles of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(a)(i)--(a)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Exceptions

    The Commission recognizes the importance of having certain 
exceptions to the general prohibition of dealers from soliciting 
persons who have signed up on the FCC's national do-not-call registry. 
The Commission believes that the ``established business relationship'' 
exception, ``prior express invitation or permission'' exception, and a 
``personal relationship'' exception provide appropriate scenarios where 
dealer should not be precluded from making a telemarketing call to do-
not-call registrants.
    The Commission further believes that the MSRB's expansion of 
``established business relationship'' is appropriate. As originally 
drafted, an established business relationship would exist between the 
customer and a dealer as long as the call's recipient had made a 
financial transaction with the dealer within 18 months preceding the 
date of the telemarketing call, or if the recipient had contacted the 
dealer to inquire about a product or service offered by the dealer 
within the three months preceding the date of the telemarketing 
call.\37\ In response to commenters concerns about the narrowness of 
the exception, the MSRB expanded the definition of ``established 
business relationship'' to include situations where the telemarketing 
call recipient has a security position, a money balance, or account 
activity at a clearing firm on behalf of such dealer within the 
previous 18 months, and where a dealer was the ``broker/dealer of 
record'' for an account of a person within the 18 months immediately 
preceding the date of the telemarketing call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See original proposed MSRB Rule G-39(g)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that a dealer should be able to discuss the 
purchase or sale of a security with a customer who has registered on 
the national do-not-call registry without fear of violating an MSRB 
rule when there is some development that could materially impact the 
investment decision of a reasonable investor. As originally proposed, 
an established business relationship did not exist unless an account 
holder had made a financial transaction within the previous eighteen 
months or affirmatively contacted the dealer to make an account inquiry 
within the past three months. The Commission believes that the 
definition, as originally proposed, would have restricted a dealer from 
making a telemarketing call to its customer in many situations where a 
prudent investor would ordinarily desire to be contacted, such as the 
existence of market swings, interest rate changes, new tax laws, or 
specific industry or company news. The Commission believes that the 
expansion of the definition of ``established business relationship'' 
exception to include persons that have a security position, money 
balance or account activity with a dealer or at a clearing firm that 
provides clearing services on behalf of a dealer will, among other 
things, assist dealers in upholding their agency obligations to 
customers. In addition, the Commission believes that broker/dealers of 
record who have served as such for a customer within the eighteen 
months preceding the date of the telemarketing call should be allowed 
to contact a customer whose account is held directly at an issuer of a 
municipal fund or by the issuer's agent.
    Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposed established 
business relationship exception adequately protects customers who are 
most interested in not being contacted by a dealer by specifying that 
the exception does not apply to those individuals who have specifically 
requested to be put on a dealer's do-not-call list. The Commission 
further believes a dealer should not generally be restricted from 
contacting those do-not-call registrants from whom the dealer has 
received express written consent to contact and those registrants who 
have a personal relationship with the associated person making the 
call.

C. Telemarketing Procedures

    As described above, the MSRB also proposed that dealers must 
institute certain procedures related to do-not-call lists.\38\ The 
Commission believes that the procedures that the MSRB has proposed 
provide adequate guidelines for a dealer to establish education and 
training of its affiliated persons and adequately provides that a 
dealer will incorporate the names of persons who request to be put on a 
firm's do-not-call list among the list of names that a dealer may not 
contact. Further, the Commission believes that the identification 
procedure that a dealer or associated person must follow when making a 
telemarketing call should enhance the ability of consumers to hold 
dealers accountable for adhering to firm-specific and national do-not-
call registry restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(d)(i)-(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Safe Harbor

    As described above, the MSRB proposed ``safe harbor'' procedures 
that a dealer could follow to avoid liability for do-not-call list 
violations that arise out of errors if the telemarketer's routine 
business practice meets certain specified standards.\39\ The Commission 
believes that the safe harbor that the MSRB has proposed should ensure 
that a dealer incorporates national do-not-call registrants in its own 
list of telephone numbers that it may not contact, and that dealers 
follow procedures to refrain from contacting such persons. Accordingly, 
the

[[Page 4552]]

Commission believes it is appropriate for the MSRB to grant dealers who 
have established the appropriate routine business practices a safe 
harbor exemption from liability for calls made out of genuine error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See proposed MSRB Rule G-39(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Miscellaneous

    The Commission believes that the MSRB's proposal to apply the 
telemarketing and telephone solicitation restrictions to wireless 
telephone numbers is appropriate, given that consumers can register 
wireless telephone numbers in the national do-not-call registry. 
Further, the Commission believes that a dealer should not be able to 
avoid accountability for complying with telemarketing restrictions and 
regulations by employing another entity to perform telemarketing 
services on behalf of the dealer. Accordingly, the Commission finds 
proposed MSRB Rule G-39(f), relating to outsourcing telemarketing, to 
be appropriate.

F. Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of 
the Act, for approving Amendment No. 1 prior to the thirtieth day after 
the date of publication of notice thereof in the Federal Register. As 
discussed above, in Amendment No. 1, the MSRB expanded the breadth of 
the established business relationship exception. The Commission 
believes that the proposed Amendment No. 1 will, among other things, 
facilitate dealers' ability to uphold their agency obligations by 
enabling them to make a telemarketing call under certain circumstances 
to customers who have not actively traded or made deposits to their 
brokerage accounts. In making the determination to accelerate approval 
of Amendment No. 1, the Commission notes that the majority of 
commenters supported a broader definition of ``established business 
relationship.''\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Schwab Letter, at 4; SIA Letter, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning Amendment No. 1, including whether Amendment No. 1 
is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should 
file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments 
may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address: 
[email protected]. All comment letters should refer to File No. SR-
MSRB-2003-07. This file number should be included on the subject line 
if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your 
comments more efficiently, comments should be sent in hardcopy or by e-
mail but not by both methods. 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public 
Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for 
inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All 
submissions should refer to File No. SR-MSRB-2003-07 and should be 
submitted by February 20, 2004.

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the 
Act,\41\ that the proposed rule change, as amended (File No. SR-MSRB-
2003-07) is approved, and Amendment No. 1 is approved on an accelerated 
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-1956 Filed 1-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P