Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB Rule G-39, on Telemarketing, 32483-32487 [2013-12850]
Download as PDF
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 2013 / Notices
has been publicly announced that
application will be made to such
exchange for the listing thereon of such
securities.
24. Contracts of ASA, other than those
executed on an Established Exchange
which do not involve affiliated persons,
will provide that: (a) the contracts,
irrespective of the place of their
execution or performance, will be
performed in accordance with the
requirements of the Act, the Securities
Act of 1933, and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended,
if the subject matter of the contracts is
within the purview of these Acts; and
(b) in effecting the purchase or sale of
assets, the parties to the contracts will
utilize the U.S. mails or means of
interstate commerce.
25. ASA will keep at least 20% of its
assets in the United States in the
custody of a U.S. bank. ASA’s remaining
assets will be kept in the custody of (a)
an eligible foreign custodian, as defined
in rule 17f–5 under the Act, in South
Africa, Hong Kong, the United
Kingdom, Canada, or Australia; or (b) an
eligible securities depository, as defined
in rule 17f–7 under the Act, in South
Africa, Hong Kong, the United
Kingdom, Canada, or Australia.
26. If removal of securities purchased
on the Tokyo Stock Exchange and the
SIX Swiss Exchange becomes either
prohibited by law or regulation or
financially impracticable, up to 5% of
ASA’s assets may be held by an eligible
foreign custodian or overseas branch of
ASA’s custodian in each of Japan and
Switzerland.
27. ASA will withdraw its assets from
the care of a subcustodian as soon as
practicable, and in any event within 180
days of the date when a majority of the
Board makes the determination that a
particular subcustodian may no longer
be considered eligible under rule 17f–5
under the Act or that continuance of the
subcustodian arrangement would not be
consistent with the best interests of ASA
and its shareholders.
28. ASA will cause its custodian to
enter into an agreement (to be filed by
ASA with the Commission when the
custodian commences service to ASA),
which will provide that the custodian
agrees: (a) To comply with the Act and
the rules of the Commission under the
Act and the undertakings and
agreements contained in the application
as applicable to the custodian and as
each may be amended from time to
time, as applicable to the custodian; (b)
to do nothing inconsistent with the
undertakings and agreements contained
in the application, the provisions of the
Act, or the rules under the Act; and (c)
that the undertakings described in (a)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 May 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
and (b) above constitute representations
and inducements to the Commission to
issue the requested order.21
29. So long as ASA is registered under
the Act, ASA’s custody contract with its
custodian will provide that the
custodian will: (a) Consummate all
purchases and sales of securities by
ASA through the delivery of securities
and receipt of cash, or vice versa as the
case may be, within the United States,
except for (i) purchases and sales on the
Established Exchanges, and (ii)
purchases and sales, through ASA’s
custodian or custodian’s agent, in South
Africa of South African Treasury Bills
from or to the South African Treasury,
South African Reserve Bank securities,
or CSD-eligible securities; and (b)
distribute ASA’s assets, or the proceeds
thereof, to ASA’s creditors and
shareholders, upon service upon the
custodian of an order of the Commission
or court directing such distribution as
provided in conditions 17, 20, and 30.
30. With respect to an alleged
violation of the Act or the requested
order by ASA’s custodian, eligible
foreign custodian, or eligible securities
depository, the Commission, on its own
motion, will have the right to initiate a
proceeding: (a) Before the Commission
for the revocation of the order
permitting registration of ASA; or (b)
before a court of competent jurisdiction
for the liquidation of ASA and a
distribution of its assets to its
shareholders and creditors. The court
may enter the order in the event that it
finds, after notice and opportunity for
hearing, that ASA’s custodian has
violated any provision of the Act or the
requested order.
31. The Chief Compliance Officer, as
defined in Rule 38a–l(a)(4) under the
Act, shall prepare a report, as part of the
annual report to the Board, that
evaluates ASA’s compliance with the
terms and conditions of the Application
and the procedures established to
achieve such compliance. The Chief
Compliance Officer will also annually
file a certification pursuant to item
77Q3 of Form N–SAR as such Form may
be revised, amended or superseded from
time to time, that certifies that ASA and
the Board have established procedures
reasonably designed to achieve
compliance with Conditions 22, 25 and
21 ASA acknowledges that: (a) Every agreement
and undertaking of ASA and its custodian
contained in the application constitutes (i)
inducements to the Commission for the issuance
and continuance in effect of the requested order,
and (ii) a contract among ASA, the Commission and
ASA’s shareholders; and (b) the failure by ASA or
the custodian to comply with any of the agreements
or undertakings, unless permitted by the
Commission, will constitute a violation of the
requested order.
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32483
26 regarding location of ASA’s assets.
Additionally, ASA’s independent public
accountants, in connection with their
audit examination of ASA, will review
the operations and procedures
pertaining to the location of ASA’s
assets and custody arrangements for
compliance with the conditions of the
Application, and their review will form
the basis, in part, of the auditor’s report
on internal accounting controls in Form
N–SAR.
By the Commission.
Kevin M. O’Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–12797 Filed 5–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–69635; File No. SR–MSRB–
2013–02]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Approving a Proposed
Rule Change To Amend MSRB Rule G–
39, on Telemarketing
May 24, 2013.
I. Introduction
On February 11, 2013, the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board (‘‘MSRB’’)
filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Exchange Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule
19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule
change to amend MSRB Rule G–39, on
telemarketing. Specifically, the
proposed rule change would amend
certain provisions of MSRB Rule G–39
and add new provisions to make the
rule substantially similar to the
telemarketing rules of the Federal Trade
Commission (‘‘FTC’’). The proposed
rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on March 4,
2013.3 The Commission received no
comments on the proposed rule change.
The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the MSRB’s Web site at
www.msrb.org/Rules-andInterpretations/SEC-Filings/2013Filings.aspx, at the MSRB’s principal
office, and at the Commission’s Public
Reference Room. This order approves
the proposed rule change.
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 See Exchange Act Release No. 68987 (Feb. 16,
2013), 78 FR 14144 (Mar. 4, 2013) (‘‘Notice’’). The
comment period closed on March 25, 2013.
2 17
E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM
30MYN1
32484
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 2013 / Notices
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
II. Description of the Proposal
As stated in the Notice, the proposed
rule change would amend MSRB Rule
G–39, on telemarketing, to include
provisions substantially similar to those
contained in the FTC rules that prohibit
deceptive and other abusive
telemarketing acts or practices.4 Rule G–
39 currently requires brokers, dealers,
and municipal securities dealers
(‘‘dealers’’) to, among other things,
maintain do-not-call lists and limit the
hours of telephone solicitations. In
1996, the SEC directed the MSRB (along
with the other self-regulatory
organizations) to enact a telemarketing
rule in accordance with the Prevention
Act.5 The Prevention Act requires the
Commission to promulgate, or direct
any national securities exchange or
registered national securities association
(collectively, ‘‘self-regulatory
organizations’’ or ‘‘SROs’’) to
promulgate, rules substantially similar
to the FTC rules, to prohibit deceptive
and other abusive telemarketing acts or
practices, unless the Commission
determines either that the rules are not
necessary or appropriate for the
protection of investors or the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets,
or that existing federal securities laws or
Commission rules already provide for
such protection.6
In 1997, the SEC determined that
telemarketing rules promulgated and
expected to be promulgated by the
SROs, together with the other rules of
the SROs, the federal securities laws,
and the SEC’s rules thereunder, satisfied
the requirements of the Prevention Act
because, at the time, the applicable
provisions of those laws and rules were
substantially similar to the
Telemarketing Sales Rule.7 Since 1997,
the FTC has amended its telemarketing
rules in light of changing telemarketing
practices and technology.8
4 The FTC initially adopted its rules prohibiting
deceptive and other abusive telemarketing acts or
practices (the ‘‘Telemarketing Sales Rule,’’ codified
at 16 CFR 310.1–9) in 1995 under the Telemarketing
and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act
(‘‘Prevention Act’’) codified at 15 U.S.C. 6101–6108.
See FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 60 FR 43842
(Aug. 23, 1995). The Telemarketing Sales Rule has
been amended since 1995, prompting the SEC’s
request for the MSRB to review its telemarketing
rule. See amendments cited infra note 8.
5 See Prevention Act supra note 4.
6 See 15 U.S.C. 6102.
7 See Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and
Abuse Prevention Act; Determination that No
Additional Rulemaking Required, Exchange Act
Release No. 38480 (Apr. 7, 1997), 62 FR 18666 (Apr.
16, 1997). The Commission also determined that
some provisions of the FTC’s telemarketing rules
related to areas already extensively regulated by
existing securities laws or activities not applicable
to securities transactions. Id. at 62 FR 18667–69.
8 See, e.g., FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 73 FR
51164 (Aug. 29, 2008) (amendments to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 May 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
In May 2011, Commission staff
directed the MSRB (along with all other
SROs) to conduct a review of its
telemarketing rule and propose rule
amendments that provide protections
that are at least as strong as those
provided by the FTC’s telemarketing
rules.9 Commission staff had concerns
‘‘that the [self-regulatory organization]
rules overall have not kept pace with
the FTC’s rules, and thus may no longer
meet the standards of the Prevention
Act.’’ 10
The proposed rule amendments, as
directed by the Commission staff, would
amend and adopt provisions in Rule G–
39 that would be substantially similar to
the FTC’s current rules that prohibit
deceptive and other abusive
telemarketing acts or practices as
described below.11
honored under the FTC’s Telemarketing
Sales Rule 14 is indefinite.15
Additionally, the proposed rule change
would clarify that the record of do-notcall requests must be permanent.
General Telemarketing Requirements
Proposed Rule G–39(a)(iv) would
remind dealers that engage in
telemarketing that they are also subject
to the requirements of relevant state and
federal laws and rules, including the
Prevention Act, the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act,12 and the
rules of the Federal Communications
Commission relating to telemarketing
practices and the rights of telephone
consumers.13
Proposed Rule G–39(g) would provide
that dealers engaging in telemarketing
must transmit caller identification
information 16 and are explicitly
prohibited from blocking caller
identification information. The
telephone number provided would have
to permit any person to make a do-notcall request during regular business
hours. These provisions are similar to
the caller identification provision in the
FTC rules.17
Maintenance of Do-Not-Call Lists
Proposed Rule G–39(d)(vi) would
maintain the requirement in Rule G–39
that a dealer making telemarketing calls
must maintain a record of a caller’s
request not to receive further calls. The
amendment, however, would delete the
requirement that a dealer honor a firmspecific do-not-call request for five years
from the time the request is made. This
amendment makes this provision
consistent with the FTC’s Telemarketing
Sales Rule because the time for which
the firm-specific opt-out must be
Unencrypted Consumer Account
Numbers
Telemarketing Sales Rule relating to prerecorded
messages and call abandonments); and FTC,
Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68 FR 4580 (Jan. 29,
2003) (amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule
establishing requirements for, among other things,
sellers and telemarketers to participate in the
national do-not-call registry).
9 See Letter from Robert W. Cook, Director,
Division of Trading and Markets, SEC, to Michael
G. Bartolotta, then Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the MSRB, dated May 10, 2011 (the
‘‘Cook Letter’’). SEC staff also asked the MSRB to
coordinate with the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (‘‘FINRA’’) regarding proposed
telemarketing rule amendments.
10 Id.
11 The MSRB believes that proposed amended
Rule G–39 also would be similar in most material
respects to FINRA Rule 3230 (Telemarketing). The
material differences between FINRA Rule 3230 and
proposed Rule G–39 are described below.
12 See 47 U.S.C. 227.
13 See 47 CFR 64.1200.
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Outsourcing Telemarketing
MSRB Rule G–39(f) would continue to
state that, if a dealer uses another entity
to perform telemarketing services on its
behalf, the dealer remains responsible
for ensuring compliance with all
provisions of the rule. The proposed
amendments would clarify that dealers
must consider whether the entity or
person that a dealer uses for
outsourcing, is appropriately registered
or licensed, where required.
Caller Identification Information
Proposed Rule G–39(h) would
prohibit a dealer from disclosing or
receiving, for consideration,
unencrypted consumer account
numbers for use in telemarketing. The
MSRB believes that this proposed
provision would be substantially similar
to the FTC’s provision regarding
unencrypted consumer account
numbers.18 Additionally, the proposed
rule change would define
‘‘unencrypted’’ to include not only
complete, visible account numbers,
whether provided in lists or singly, but
also encrypted information with a key to
its decryption. The MSRB believes that
this approach is substantially similar to
the approach taken by the FTC.19
14 See
16 CFR 310.4.
the Cook Letter.
16 Caller identification information includes the
telephone number and, when made available by the
broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer’s
telephone carrier, the name of the broker, dealer, or
municipal securities dealer.
17 See 16 CFR 310.4(a)(8); see also FINRA Rule
3230(g).
18 See 16 CFR 310.4(a)(6); see also FINRA Rule
3230(h). The FTC provided a discussion of the
provision when it was adopted pursuant to the
Prevention Act. See FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule,
68 FR 4580, 4615–16 (Jan. 29, 2003).
19 See Id. at 4616.
15 See
E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM
30MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 2013 / Notices
Submission of Billing Information
Proposed Rule G–39(i) would provide
that, for any telemarketing transaction, a
dealer must obtain the express informed
consent of the person to be charged and
to be charged using the identified
account. If the telemarketing transaction
involves preacquired account
information 20 and a free-to-pay
conversion 21 feature, the dealer would
have to: (1) Obtain from the customer,
at a minimum, the last four digits of the
account number to be charged; (2)
obtain from the customer an express
agreement to be charged and to be
charged using the identified account
number; and (3) make and maintain an
audio recording of the entire
telemarketing transaction. For any other
telemarketing transaction involving
preacquired account information, the
dealer would have to: (1) Identify the
account to be charged with sufficient
specificity for the customer to
understand what account will be
charged; and (2) obtain from the
customer an express agreement to be
charged and to be charged using the
identified account number. The MSRB
believes that these proposed provisions
would be substantially similar to the
FTC’s provisions regarding the
submission of billing information.22
Although the MSRB expressed the view
that some of these provisions may not
be directly applicable to securities
transactions generally, and, more
specifically, municipal securities
transactions, the proposed rule is
substantially similar to FINRA’s
telemarketing rule, which includes
similar provisions.23
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Abandoned Calls
Proposed Rule G–39(j) would prohibit
a dealer from abandoning 24 any
20 The term ‘‘preacquired account information’’
would mean any information that enables a dealer
to cause a charge to be placed against a customer’s
or donor’s account without obtaining the account
number directly from the customer or donor during
the telemarketing transaction pursuant to which the
account will be charged. See proposed Rule
G–39(n)(xix).
21 The term ‘‘free-to-pay conversion’’ would
mean, in an offer or agreement to sell or provide
any goods or services, a provision under which a
customer receives a product or service for free for
an initial period and will incur an obligation to pay
for the product or service if he or she does not take
affirmative action to cancel before the end of that
period. See proposed Rule G–39(n)(xiii).
22 See 16 CFR 310.4(a)(7); see also FINRA Rule
3230(i). The FTC provided a discussion of the
provision when it was adopted. See FTC,
Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68 FR 4580, 4616–23
(Jan. 29, 2003).
23 See FINRA Rule 3230(i). See also the Cook
Letter.
24 Under the proposed amended rule, an
outbound call would be ‘‘abandoned’’ if a called
person answers it and the call is not connected to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 May 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
outbound telephone call. The
abandoned calls prohibition would be
subject to a ‘‘safe harbor’’ under
proposed subparagraph (j)(ii) that would
require the dealer: (1) To employ
technology that ensures abandonment of
no more than three percent of all calls
answered by a person, measured over
the duration of a single calling
campaign, if less than 30 days, or
separately over each successive 30-day
period or portion thereof that the
campaign continues; (2) for each
outbound telephone call placed, to
allow the telephone to ring for at least
15 seconds or four rings before
disconnecting an unanswered call; (3)
whenever a dealer is not available to
speak with the person answering the
outbound telephone call within two
seconds after the person’s completed
greeting, to promptly play a recorded
message stating the name and telephone
number of the dealer on whose behalf
the call was placed; and (4) to maintain
records establishing compliance with
the ‘‘safe harbor.’’ The MSRB believes
that these proposed provisions would be
substantially similar to the FTC’s
provisions regarding abandoned calls.25
Prerecorded Messages
Proposed Rule G–39(k) would
prohibit a broker, dealer, or municipal
securities dealer from initiating any
outbound telephone call that delivers a
prerecorded message without a person’s
express written agreement 26 to receive
such calls. The proposed rule change
also would require that all prerecorded
a dealer within two seconds of the called person’s
completed greeting.
25 See 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(iv) and (b)(4); see also
FINRA Rule 3230(j) (Throughout FINRA Rule
3230(j) and (k), referred to in note 30 infra, FINRA
uses the term ‘‘telemarketing call’’ where the
proposed MSRB rule would use the term ‘‘outbound
telephone call.’’ The MSRB believes that its
proposed terminology is substantially similar
because proposed MSRB Rule G–39(n)(xvi) defines
‘‘outbound telephone call’’ as a telephone call
initiated by a telemarketer to induce the purchase
of goods or services or to solicit a charitable
contribution from a donor.). The FTC provided a
discussion of the provisions when they were
adopted pursuant to the Prevention Act. See FTC,
Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68 FR 4580, 4641 (Jan.
29, 2003).
26 The express written agreement would have to:
(a) Have been obtained only after a clear and
conspicuous disclosure that the purpose of the
agreement is to authorize the dealer to place
prerecorded calls to such person; (b) have been
obtained without requiring, directly or indirectly,
that the agreement be executed as a condition of
opening an account or purchasing any good or
service; (c) evidence the willingness of the called
person to receive calls that deliver prerecorded
messages by or on behalf of the dealer; and (d)
include the person’s telephone number and
signature (which may be obtained electronically
under the Electronic Signatures in Global and
National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001, et seq. (‘‘ESign Act’’)).
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32485
outbound telephone calls provide
specified opt-out mechanisms so that a
person can opt out of future calls. The
prohibition would not apply to a
prerecorded message permitted for
compliance with the ‘‘safe harbor’’ for
abandoned calls under proposed
subparagraph (j)(ii). The MSRB believes
that the proposed provisions would be
substantially similar to the FTC’s
provisions regarding prerecorded
messages.27
Credit Card Laundering
Except as expressly permitted by the
applicable credit card system, proposed
Rule G–39(l) would prohibit a dealer
from: (1) Presenting to or depositing
into, the credit card system 28 for
payment, a credit card sales draft 29
generated by a telemarketing transaction
that is not the result of a telemarketing
credit card transaction between the
cardholder 30 and the dealer; 31 (2)
employing, soliciting, or otherwise
causing a merchant,32 or an employee,
27 See 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(v); see also FINRA Rule
3230(k). The FTC provided a discussion of the
provisions when they were adopted pursuant to the
Prevention Act. See FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule,
73 FR 51164, 51165 (Aug. 29, 2008).
28 The term ‘‘credit card system’’ would mean any
method or procedure used to process credit card
transactions involving credit cards issued or
licensed by the operator of that system. The term
‘‘credit card’’ would mean any card, plate, coupon
book, or other credit device existing for the purpose
of obtaining money, property, labor, or services on
credit. The term ‘‘credit’’ would mean the right
granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment
of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment. See
proposed Rule G–39(n)(vii), G–39(n)(viii), and
G–39(n)(x), respectively.
29 The term ‘‘credit card sales draft’’ would mean
any record or evidence of a credit card transaction.
See proposed Rule G–39(n)(ix).
30 The term ‘‘cardholder’’ would mean a person
to whom a credit card is issued or who is
authorized to use a credit card on behalf of or in
addition to the person to whom the credit card is
issued. See proposed Rule G–39(n)(vi).
31 The Commission staff asked the MSRB to
remind its registrants that extending or arranging
for the extension of credit to purchase securities
raises a number of issues under the federal
securities laws, including whether the person
extending or arranging credit needs to register as a
broker-dealer.
32 The term ‘‘merchant’’ would mean a person
who is authorized under a written contract with an
acquirer to honor or accept credit cards, or to
transmit or process for payment credit card
payments, for the purchase of goods or services or
a charitable contribution. See proposed Rule
G–39(n)(xiv). The term ‘‘acquirer’’ would mean a
business organization, financial institution, or an
agent of a business organization or financial
institution that has authority from an organization
that operates or licenses a credit card system to
authorize merchants to accept, transmit, or process
payment by credit card through the credit card
system for money, goods or services, or anything
else of value. See proposed Rule G–39(n)(ii). A
‘‘charitable contribution’’ would mean any donation
or gift of money or any other thing of value, for
example, a transfer to a pooled income fund. See
proposed Rule G–39(n)(iii).
E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM
30MYN1
32486
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 2013 / Notices
representative or agent of the merchant,
to present to or to deposit into the credit
card system for payment, a credit card
sales draft generated by a telemarketing
transaction that is not the result of a
telemarketing credit card transaction
between the cardholder and the
merchant; or (3) obtaining access to the
credit card system through the use of a
business relationship or an affiliation
with a merchant, when such access is
not authorized by the merchant
agreement 33 or the applicable credit
card system. The MSRB believes that
these proposed provisions would be
substantially similar to the FTC’s
provisions regarding credit card
laundering.34 Although the MSRB
expressed the view that some of these
provisions may not be directly
applicable to securities transactions
generally, and, more specifically,
municipal securities transactions, the
proposed rule is substantially similar to
FINRA’s telemarketing rule, which
includes these provisions.35
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Exemption
Proposed Rule G–39(m) would
exempt business-to-business calls from
most of the provisions of the amended
rule. Specifically, the exemption would
provide that outbound telephone calls
from a dealer to a business entity,
government, or political subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality of a
government are exempt from the rule,
other than sections (a)(ii) and (d)(i)–(iii),
(v) and (vi). The sections of the
proposed rule that would still apply to
business-to-business calls relate to the
firm-specific do-not-call list and
procedures related to (i) maintaining a
do-not-call list, (ii) training personnel
on the existence and use of the do-notcall list, (iii) the recording and honoring
of do-not-call requests, (iv) application
to affiliated persons or entities, and (v)
maintenance of do-not-call lists.
FINRA’s telemarketing rule, Rule 3230,
does not include an express exemption
for business-to-business calls.36 The
FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule,
however, includes an exemption from
all of its provisions for telephone calls
33 The term ‘‘merchant agreement’’ would mean a
written contract between a merchant and an
acquirer to honor or accept credit cards, or to
transmit or process for payment credit card
payments, for the purchase of goods or services or
a charitable contribution. See proposed Rule
G–39(n)(xv).
34 See 16 CFR 310.3(c); see also FINRA Rule
3230(l). The FTC provided a discussion of the
provisions when they were adopted pursuant to the
Prevention Act. See FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule,
60 FR 43842, 43852 (Aug. 23, 1995).
35 See FINRA Rule 3230(l); see also the Cook
Letter.
36 See FINRA Rule 3230.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 May 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
between a telemarketer and any
business, with a caveat that most of the
rule continues to apply to sellers and
telemarketers of nondurable office or
cleaning supplies.37
When initially adopting the exception
for business-to-business calls, the FTC
indicated that it believed Congress did
not intend that every business use of the
telephone be covered by the FTC’s
Telemarketing Sales Rule.38 The only
type of business-to-business calls that
are subject to the Telemarketing Sales
Rule are calls to induce the retail sale
of nondurable office or cleaning
supplies.39
The MSRB believes that exempting
business-to-business calls pertaining to
municipal securities from Rule G–39
would be consistent with the FTC’s
general approach to exempting
business-to-business calls because,
unlike sellers of nondurable office or
cleaning supplies, dealers are subject to
an entire regulatory regime, which
includes the federal securities laws, the
fair practice rules of the MSRB, and
examinations and enforcement by
FINRA, banking regulators and the SEC.
Nevertheless, the provisions of
proposed Rule G–39 pertaining to the
firm-specific do-not-call list and related
procedures would apply to business-tobusiness calls. Dealers are already
required to maintain a firm-specific donot-call list for requests that are not
related to business-to-business calls;
therefore, the MSRB believes that
requiring such a list with respect to
business-to-business calls should not
create an undue burden. Moreover, the
MSRB believes that it would be
reasonable to require dealers to honor
the wishes of businesses that do not
wish to be solicited by telephone by
37 See
16 CFR 310.6(b)(7).
FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 60 FR
43842, 43861 (Aug. 23, 1995).
39 See 16 CFR 310.6(b)(7). Sellers of these
products are treated differently because the FTC
believes that the conduct prohibitions and
affirmative disclosures mandated by the
Telemarketing Sales Rule ‘‘are crucial to protect
businesses—particularly small businesses and
nonprofit organizations—from the harsh practices
of some unscrupulous sellers of these products.’’
See FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 60 FR 43842,
43862 (Aug. 23, 1995). Additionally, the FTC’s
enforcement experience against deceptive
telemarketers indicated that office and cleaning
supplies had been ‘‘by far the most significant
business-to-business problem area.’’ Id. at 43861.
When adopting its Telemarketing Sales Rule in
1995, the FTC indicated that it would consider
expanding the list of business-to-business
telemarketing activities excluded from the
exemption if additional business-to-business
telemarketing activities became problems after the
Telemarketing Sales Rule became effective. Id. To
date, however, the only type of business-to-business
telemarketing activity that is excluded from the
exemption is the retail sale of nondurable office or
cleaning supplies.
38 See
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requiring dealers to maintain a list of
such do-not-call requests. The MSRB
believes that this approach also would
be consistent with FINRA’s
telemarketing rule and related
guidance.40
Definitions
Proposed Rule G–39(n) would include
the following definitions, which the
MSRB believes would be substantially
similar to the corresponding definitions
in the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales
Rule: 41 ‘‘acquirer,’’ ‘‘billing
information,’’ ‘‘caller identification
service,’’ ‘‘cardholder,’’ ‘‘charitable
contribution,’’ ‘‘credit,’’ ‘‘credit card,’’
‘‘credit card sales draft,’’ ‘‘credit card
system,’’ ‘‘customer,’’ ‘‘donor,’’ ‘‘free-topay conversion,’’ ‘‘merchant,’’
‘‘merchant agreement,’’ ‘‘outbound
telephone call,’’ ‘‘preacquired account
information’’ and ‘‘telemarketer.’’ 42
Additionally, the proposed rule change
would delete the reference to
‘‘telephone solicitation.’’
Proposed Rule G–39(n) also would
include definitions of ‘‘person’’ and
‘‘telemarketing’’ that differ substantively
from the FTC’s and FINRA’s definitions
of these terms but that reflect MSRB’s
jurisdictional scope. While the
definition of ‘‘person’’ in proposed
MSRB Rule G–39(n)(xvii) tracks the
definition in the FTC and FINRA rules
to include any individual, group,
unincorporated association, limited or
general partnership, corporation, or
other business entity, it further defines
a ‘‘person’’ to include a government, or
political subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality of a government. These
entities are included in the proposed
definition because dealers often solicit
these types of entities. While the MSRB
believes that the proposed definition of
‘‘telemarketing’’ would be substantially
similar to the FTC and FINRA rules, its
scope would be limited in MSRB Rule
G–39(n)(xxi) to calls ‘‘pertaining to
municipal securities or municipal
financial products’’ since the MSRB
only promulgates rules pertaining to the
municipal securities activities of
dealers. The MSRB intends the
40 See FINRA Rule 3230; see also FINRA guidance
dated November 1, 1995, Requirements of member
firms in maintaining do-not-call lists under NASD
Rule 3110 (‘‘[M]embers who are involved in
telemarketing, and whom make cold calls to the
public, [must] . . . establish and maintain a do-notcall list notwithstanding whether [the member]
contact[s] businesses or residences.’’).
41 The MSRB believes that these definitions are
also substantially similar to definitions in FINRA
Rule 3230, with the exception of ‘‘telemarketer,’’
which is not defined in FINRA’s rule.
42 See proposed Rule G–39(n)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi),
(vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xiii), (xiv), (xv), (xvi),
(xix), and (xx).
E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM
30MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 2013 / Notices
limitation in the definition to
correspond with the limits of the
MSRB’s rulemaking authority. As
described earlier, the MSRB has
implemented rules to address sales
practices by dealers that cover their
municipal securities activities,
including sales by telephone.
Technical and Conforming Changes
The proposed revisions to MSRB Rule
G–39 would make a number of technical
and conforming changes. First, the
proposed revisions would amend Rule
G–39 to delete the phrase ‘‘or person
associated with a broker, dealer or
municipal securities dealer’’ throughout
the rule since associated persons are
included in the definition of ‘‘broker,
dealer or municipal securities dealer’’ in
the MSRB rules.43 Second, the proposed
revisions would renumber and make
technical changes to the terms ‘‘account
activity,’’ ‘‘broker, dealer or municipal
securities dealer of record,’’
‘‘established business relationship,’’ and
‘‘personal relationship.’’ Third, the
proposed revisions would amend
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (c)(iv), and (e) by
replacing the term ‘‘telephone
solicitation’’ with the term ‘‘outbound
telephone call.’’ Fourth, the proposed
revisions would amend paragraphs
(d)(iii), (d)(iv), and (d)(vi) by replacing
the term ‘‘telemarketing’’ with the term
‘‘outbound telephone.’’ Fifth, the
proposed revisions would update a
reference to an ‘‘established business
relationship’’ in subparagraph (a)(1)(A).
Finally, the proposed rule change would
amend paragraph (b)(ii) to clarify that a
signed, written agreement may be
obtained electronically under the E-Sign
Act.
The MSRB requested an effective date
for the proposed rule change of 90 days
following the date of SEC approval.
III. Summary of Comments Received
As previously noted, the Commission
received no comments on the proposed
rule change.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
IV. Commission’s Findings
The Commission has carefully
reviewed the proposed rule change, and,
based on its review of the record, finds
that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the MSRB.44 In
43 See MSRB Rule D–11 which states: ‘‘Unless the
context otherwise requires or a rule of the Board
otherwise specifically provides, the terms ‘broker,’
‘dealer,’ . . . ‘municipal securities dealer,’ . . .
shall refer to and include their respective associated
persons.’’
44 In approving the proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 May 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
particular, the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of
the Act, 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.45
More specifically, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of
the Act because it should protect
investors and the public interest by
preventing dealers from engaging in
fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, particularly deceptive and
other abusive telemarketing acts or
practices. The Commission also finds
that the proposed rule is consistent with
the FTC’s and FINRA’s telemarketing
rules, which include provisions similar
to those described above. Accordingly,
the proposed rule change should foster
cooperation and coordination with
FINRA members and other persons
engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in
municipal securities and municipal
financial products, and remove
impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market in
municipal securities and municipal
financial products.
For the foregoing reasons, the
Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act
and the rules and regulations
thereunder. As requested by the MSRB,
the proposed rule change will become
effective 90 days following the date of
SEC approval.
V. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,46 that the
proposed rule change (SR–MSRB–2013–
02) be, and hereby is, approved.
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
45 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C).
46 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32487
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.47
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–12850 Filed 5–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–69634; File No. SR–
NYSEArca–2013–56]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE
Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Listing and
Trading of Shares of the PowerShares
China A-Share Portfolio Under NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 8.600
May 23, 2013.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3
notice is hereby given that, on May 21,
2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘Exchange’’ or
‘‘NYSE Arca’’) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been
prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to list and
trade the shares of the following under
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600
(‘‘Managed Fund Shares’’): PowerShares
China A-Share Portfolio. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange’s Web site at www.nyse.com,
at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission’s Public
Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission, the
self-regulatory organization included
statements concerning the purpose of,
and basis for, the proposed rule change
and discussed any comments it received
on the proposed rule change. The text
of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below.
47 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 15 U.S.C. 78a.
3 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
1 15
E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM
30MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32483-32487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12850]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-69635; File No. SR-MSRB-2013-02]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB Rule G-39,
on Telemarketing
May 24, 2013.
I. Introduction
On February 11, 2013, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend MSRB Rule G-39, on
telemarketing. Specifically, the proposed rule change would amend
certain provisions of MSRB Rule G-39 and add new provisions to make the
rule substantially similar to the telemarketing rules of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC''). The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on March 4, 2013.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposed rule change. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site at
www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2013-Filings.aspx,
at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 68987 (Feb. 16, 2013), 78 FR
14144 (Mar. 4, 2013) (``Notice''). The comment period closed on
March 25, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32484]]
II. Description of the Proposal
As stated in the Notice, the proposed rule change would amend MSRB
Rule G-39, on telemarketing, to include provisions substantially
similar to those contained in the FTC rules that prohibit deceptive and
other abusive telemarketing acts or practices.\4\ Rule G-39 currently
requires brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers
(``dealers'') to, among other things, maintain do-not-call lists and
limit the hours of telephone solicitations. In 1996, the SEC directed
the MSRB (along with the other self-regulatory organizations) to enact
a telemarketing rule in accordance with the Prevention Act.\5\ The
Prevention Act requires the Commission to promulgate, or direct any
national securities exchange or registered national securities
association (collectively, ``self-regulatory organizations'' or
``SROs'') to promulgate, rules substantially similar to the FTC rules,
to prohibit deceptive and other abusive telemarketing acts or
practices, unless the Commission determines either that the rules are
not necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors or the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets, or that existing federal
securities laws or Commission rules already provide for such
protection.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The FTC initially adopted its rules prohibiting deceptive
and other abusive telemarketing acts or practices (the
``Telemarketing Sales Rule,'' codified at 16 CFR 310.1-9) in 1995
under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act
(``Prevention Act'') codified at 15 U.S.C. 6101-6108. See FTC,
Telemarketing Sales Rule, 60 FR 43842 (Aug. 23, 1995). The
Telemarketing Sales Rule has been amended since 1995, prompting the
SEC's request for the MSRB to review its telemarketing rule. See
amendments cited infra note 8.
\5\ See Prevention Act supra note 4.
\6\ See 15 U.S.C. 6102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, the SEC determined that telemarketing rules promulgated
and expected to be promulgated by the SROs, together with the other
rules of the SROs, the federal securities laws, and the SEC's rules
thereunder, satisfied the requirements of the Prevention Act because,
at the time, the applicable provisions of those laws and rules were
substantially similar to the Telemarketing Sales Rule.\7\ Since 1997,
the FTC has amended its telemarketing rules in light of changing
telemarketing practices and technology.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention
Act; Determination that No Additional Rulemaking Required, Exchange
Act Release No. 38480 (Apr. 7, 1997), 62 FR 18666 (Apr. 16, 1997).
The Commission also determined that some provisions of the FTC's
telemarketing rules related to areas already extensively regulated
by existing securities laws or activities not applicable to
securities transactions. Id. at 62 FR 18667-69.
\8\ See, e.g., FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 73 FR 51164 (Aug.
29, 2008) (amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule relating to
prerecorded messages and call abandonments); and FTC, Telemarketing
Sales Rule, 68 FR 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003) (amendments to the
Telemarketing Sales Rule establishing requirements for, among other
things, sellers and telemarketers to participate in the national do-
not-call registry).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2011, Commission staff directed the MSRB (along with all
other SROs) to conduct a review of its telemarketing rule and propose
rule amendments that provide protections that are at least as strong as
those provided by the FTC's telemarketing rules.\9\ Commission staff
had concerns ``that the [self-regulatory organization] rules overall
have not kept pace with the FTC's rules, and thus may no longer meet
the standards of the Prevention Act.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Letter from Robert W. Cook, Director, Division of
Trading and Markets, SEC, to Michael G. Bartolotta, then Chairman of
the Board of Directors of the MSRB, dated May 10, 2011 (the ``Cook
Letter''). SEC staff also asked the MSRB to coordinate with the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') regarding
proposed telemarketing rule amendments.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule amendments, as directed by the Commission staff,
would amend and adopt provisions in Rule G-39 that would be
substantially similar to the FTC's current rules that prohibit
deceptive and other abusive telemarketing acts or practices as
described below.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The MSRB believes that proposed amended Rule G-39 also
would be similar in most material respects to FINRA Rule 3230
(Telemarketing). The material differences between FINRA Rule 3230
and proposed Rule G-39 are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Telemarketing Requirements
Proposed Rule G-39(a)(iv) would remind dealers that engage in
telemarketing that they are also subject to the requirements of
relevant state and federal laws and rules, including the Prevention
Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,\12\ and the rules of the
Federal Communications Commission relating to telemarketing practices
and the rights of telephone consumers.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 47 U.S.C. 227.
\13\ See 47 CFR 64.1200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance of Do-Not-Call Lists
Proposed Rule G-39(d)(vi) would maintain the requirement in Rule G-
39 that a dealer making telemarketing calls must maintain a record of a
caller's request not to receive further calls. The amendment, however,
would delete the requirement that a dealer honor a firm-specific do-
not-call request for five years from the time the request is made. This
amendment makes this provision consistent with the FTC's Telemarketing
Sales Rule because the time for which the firm-specific opt-out must be
honored under the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule \14\ is
indefinite.\15\ Additionally, the proposed rule change would clarify
that the record of do-not-call requests must be permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 16 CFR 310.4.
\15\ See the Cook Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outsourcing Telemarketing
MSRB Rule G-39(f) would continue to state that, if a dealer uses
another entity to perform telemarketing services on its behalf, the
dealer remains responsible for ensuring compliance with all provisions
of the rule. The proposed amendments would clarify that dealers must
consider whether the entity or person that a dealer uses for
outsourcing, is appropriately registered or licensed, where required.
Caller Identification Information
Proposed Rule G-39(g) would provide that dealers engaging in
telemarketing must transmit caller identification information \16\ and
are explicitly prohibited from blocking caller identification
information. The telephone number provided would have to permit any
person to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours.
These provisions are similar to the caller identification provision in
the FTC rules.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Caller identification information includes the telephone
number and, when made available by the broker, dealer, or municipal
securities dealer's telephone carrier, the name of the broker,
dealer, or municipal securities dealer.
\17\ See 16 CFR 310.4(a)(8); see also FINRA Rule 3230(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unencrypted Consumer Account Numbers
Proposed Rule G-39(h) would prohibit a dealer from disclosing or
receiving, for consideration, unencrypted consumer account numbers for
use in telemarketing. The MSRB believes that this proposed provision
would be substantially similar to the FTC's provision regarding
unencrypted consumer account numbers.\18\ Additionally, the proposed
rule change would define ``unencrypted'' to include not only complete,
visible account numbers, whether provided in lists or singly, but also
encrypted information with a key to its decryption. The MSRB believes
that this approach is substantially similar to the approach taken by
the FTC.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 16 CFR 310.4(a)(6); see also FINRA Rule 3230(h). The
FTC provided a discussion of the provision when it was adopted
pursuant to the Prevention Act. See FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule,
68 FR 4580, 4615-16 (Jan. 29, 2003).
\19\ See Id. at 4616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32485]]
Submission of Billing Information
Proposed Rule G-39(i) would provide that, for any telemarketing
transaction, a dealer must obtain the express informed consent of the
person to be charged and to be charged using the identified account. If
the telemarketing transaction involves preacquired account information
\20\ and a free-to-pay conversion \21\ feature, the dealer would have
to: (1) Obtain from the customer, at a minimum, the last four digits of
the account number to be charged; (2) obtain from the customer an
express agreement to be charged and to be charged using the identified
account number; and (3) make and maintain an audio recording of the
entire telemarketing transaction. For any other telemarketing
transaction involving preacquired account information, the dealer would
have to: (1) Identify the account to be charged with sufficient
specificity for the customer to understand what account will be
charged; and (2) obtain from the customer an express agreement to be
charged and to be charged using the identified account number. The MSRB
believes that these proposed provisions would be substantially similar
to the FTC's provisions regarding the submission of billing
information.\22\ Although the MSRB expressed the view that some of
these provisions may not be directly applicable to securities
transactions generally, and, more specifically, municipal securities
transactions, the proposed rule is substantially similar to FINRA's
telemarketing rule, which includes similar provisions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The term ``preacquired account information'' would mean any
information that enables a dealer to cause a charge to be placed
against a customer's or donor's account without obtaining the
account number directly from the customer or donor during the
telemarketing transaction pursuant to which the account will be
charged. See proposed Rule G-39(n)(xix).
\21\ The term ``free-to-pay conversion'' would mean, in an offer
or agreement to sell or provide any goods or services, a provision
under which a customer receives a product or service for free for an
initial period and will incur an obligation to pay for the product
or service if he or she does not take affirmative action to cancel
before the end of that period. See proposed Rule G-39(n)(xiii).
\22\ See 16 CFR 310.4(a)(7); see also FINRA Rule 3230(i). The
FTC provided a discussion of the provision when it was adopted. See
FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68 FR 4580, 4616-23 (Jan. 29, 2003).
\23\ See FINRA Rule 3230(i). See also the Cook Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abandoned Calls
Proposed Rule G-39(j) would prohibit a dealer from abandoning \24\
any outbound telephone call. The abandoned calls prohibition would be
subject to a ``safe harbor'' under proposed subparagraph (j)(ii) that
would require the dealer: (1) To employ technology that ensures
abandonment of no more than three percent of all calls answered by a
person, measured over the duration of a single calling campaign, if
less than 30 days, or separately over each successive 30-day period or
portion thereof that the campaign continues; (2) for each outbound
telephone call placed, to allow the telephone to ring for at least 15
seconds or four rings before disconnecting an unanswered call; (3)
whenever a dealer is not available to speak with the person answering
the outbound telephone call within two seconds after the person's
completed greeting, to promptly play a recorded message stating the
name and telephone number of the dealer on whose behalf the call was
placed; and (4) to maintain records establishing compliance with the
``safe harbor.'' The MSRB believes that these proposed provisions would
be substantially similar to the FTC's provisions regarding abandoned
calls.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Under the proposed amended rule, an outbound call would be
``abandoned'' if a called person answers it and the call is not
connected to a dealer within two seconds of the called person's
completed greeting.
\25\ See 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(iv) and (b)(4); see also FINRA Rule
3230(j) (Throughout FINRA Rule 3230(j) and (k), referred to in note
30 infra, FINRA uses the term ``telemarketing call'' where the
proposed MSRB rule would use the term ``outbound telephone call.''
The MSRB believes that its proposed terminology is substantially
similar because proposed MSRB Rule G-39(n)(xvi) defines ``outbound
telephone call'' as a telephone call initiated by a telemarketer to
induce the purchase of goods or services or to solicit a charitable
contribution from a donor.). The FTC provided a discussion of the
provisions when they were adopted pursuant to the Prevention Act.
See FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68 FR 4580, 4641 (Jan. 29, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prerecorded Messages
Proposed Rule G-39(k) would prohibit a broker, dealer, or municipal
securities dealer from initiating any outbound telephone call that
delivers a prerecorded message without a person's express written
agreement \26\ to receive such calls. The proposed rule change also
would require that all prerecorded outbound telephone calls provide
specified opt-out mechanisms so that a person can opt out of future
calls. The prohibition would not apply to a prerecorded message
permitted for compliance with the ``safe harbor'' for abandoned calls
under proposed subparagraph (j)(ii). The MSRB believes that the
proposed provisions would be substantially similar to the FTC's
provisions regarding prerecorded messages.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The express written agreement would have to: (a) Have been
obtained only after a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the
purpose of the agreement is to authorize the dealer to place
prerecorded calls to such person; (b) have been obtained without
requiring, directly or indirectly, that the agreement be executed as
a condition of opening an account or purchasing any good or service;
(c) evidence the willingness of the called person to receive calls
that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf of the dealer; and
(d) include the person's telephone number and signature (which may
be obtained electronically under the Electronic Signatures in Global
and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001, et seq. (``E-Sign
Act'')).
\27\ See 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(v); see also FINRA Rule 3230(k). The
FTC provided a discussion of the provisions when they were adopted
pursuant to the Prevention Act. See FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule,
73 FR 51164, 51165 (Aug. 29, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Card Laundering
Except as expressly permitted by the applicable credit card system,
proposed Rule G-39(l) would prohibit a dealer from: (1) Presenting to
or depositing into, the credit card system \28\ for payment, a credit
card sales draft \29\ generated by a telemarketing transaction that is
not the result of a telemarketing credit card transaction between the
cardholder \30\ and the dealer; \31\ (2) employing, soliciting, or
otherwise causing a merchant,\32\ or an employee,
[[Page 32486]]
representative or agent of the merchant, to present to or to deposit
into the credit card system for payment, a credit card sales draft
generated by a telemarketing transaction that is not the result of a
telemarketing credit card transaction between the cardholder and the
merchant; or (3) obtaining access to the credit card system through the
use of a business relationship or an affiliation with a merchant, when
such access is not authorized by the merchant agreement \33\ or the
applicable credit card system. The MSRB believes that these proposed
provisions would be substantially similar to the FTC's provisions
regarding credit card laundering.\34\ Although the MSRB expressed the
view that some of these provisions may not be directly applicable to
securities transactions generally, and, more specifically, municipal
securities transactions, the proposed rule is substantially similar to
FINRA's telemarketing rule, which includes these provisions.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The term ``credit card system'' would mean any method or
procedure used to process credit card transactions involving credit
cards issued or licensed by the operator of that system. The term
``credit card'' would mean any card, plate, coupon book, or other
credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, property,
labor, or services on credit. The term ``credit'' would mean the
right granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or
to incur debt and defer its payment. See proposed Rule G-39(n)(vii),
G-39(n)(viii), and G-39(n)(x), respectively.
\29\ The term ``credit card sales draft'' would mean any record
or evidence of a credit card transaction. See proposed Rule G-
39(n)(ix).
\30\ The term ``cardholder'' would mean a person to whom a
credit card is issued or who is authorized to use a credit card on
behalf of or in addition to the person to whom the credit card is
issued. See proposed Rule G-39(n)(vi).
\31\ The Commission staff asked the MSRB to remind its
registrants that extending or arranging for the extension of credit
to purchase securities raises a number of issues under the federal
securities laws, including whether the person extending or arranging
credit needs to register as a broker-dealer.
\32\ The term ``merchant'' would mean a person who is authorized
under a written contract with an acquirer to honor or accept credit
cards, or to transmit or process for payment credit card payments,
for the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution.
See proposed Rule G-39(n)(xiv). The term ``acquirer'' would mean a
business organization, financial institution, or an agent of a
business organization or financial institution that has authority
from an organization that operates or licenses a credit card system
to authorize merchants to accept, transmit, or process payment by
credit card through the credit card system for money, goods or
services, or anything else of value. See proposed Rule G-39(n)(ii).
A ``charitable contribution'' would mean any donation or gift of
money or any other thing of value, for example, a transfer to a
pooled income fund. See proposed Rule G-39(n)(iii).
\33\ The term ``merchant agreement'' would mean a written
contract between a merchant and an acquirer to honor or accept
credit cards, or to transmit or process for payment credit card
payments, for the purchase of goods or services or a charitable
contribution. See proposed Rule G-39(n)(xv).
\34\ See 16 CFR 310.3(c); see also FINRA Rule 3230(l). The FTC
provided a discussion of the provisions when they were adopted
pursuant to the Prevention Act. See FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule,
60 FR 43842, 43852 (Aug. 23, 1995).
\35\ See FINRA Rule 3230(l); see also the Cook Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exemption
Proposed Rule G-39(m) would exempt business-to-business calls from
most of the provisions of the amended rule. Specifically, the exemption
would provide that outbound telephone calls from a dealer to a business
entity, government, or political subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality of a government are exempt from the rule, other than
sections (a)(ii) and (d)(i)-(iii), (v) and (vi). The sections of the
proposed rule that would still apply to business-to-business calls
relate to the firm-specific do-not-call list and procedures related to
(i) maintaining a do-not-call list, (ii) training personnel on the
existence and use of the do-not-call list, (iii) the recording and
honoring of do-not-call requests, (iv) application to affiliated
persons or entities, and (v) maintenance of do-not-call lists. FINRA's
telemarketing rule, Rule 3230, does not include an express exemption
for business-to-business calls.\36\ The FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule,
however, includes an exemption from all of its provisions for telephone
calls between a telemarketer and any business, with a caveat that most
of the rule continues to apply to sellers and telemarketers of
nondurable office or cleaning supplies.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See FINRA Rule 3230.
\37\ See 16 CFR 310.6(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When initially adopting the exception for business-to-business
calls, the FTC indicated that it believed Congress did not intend that
every business use of the telephone be covered by the FTC's
Telemarketing Sales Rule.\38\ The only type of business-to-business
calls that are subject to the Telemarketing Sales Rule are calls to
induce the retail sale of nondurable office or cleaning supplies.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 60 FR 43842, 43861 (Aug.
23, 1995).
\39\ See 16 CFR 310.6(b)(7). Sellers of these products are
treated differently because the FTC believes that the conduct
prohibitions and affirmative disclosures mandated by the
Telemarketing Sales Rule ``are crucial to protect businesses--
particularly small businesses and nonprofit organizations--from the
harsh practices of some unscrupulous sellers of these products.''
See FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 60 FR 43842, 43862 (Aug. 23,
1995). Additionally, the FTC's enforcement experience against
deceptive telemarketers indicated that office and cleaning supplies
had been ``by far the most significant business-to-business problem
area.'' Id. at 43861. When adopting its Telemarketing Sales Rule in
1995, the FTC indicated that it would consider expanding the list of
business-to-business telemarketing activities excluded from the
exemption if additional business-to-business telemarketing
activities became problems after the Telemarketing Sales Rule became
effective. Id. To date, however, the only type of business-to-
business telemarketing activity that is excluded from the exemption
is the retail sale of nondurable office or cleaning supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB believes that exempting business-to-business calls
pertaining to municipal securities from Rule G-39 would be consistent
with the FTC's general approach to exempting business-to-business calls
because, unlike sellers of nondurable office or cleaning supplies,
dealers are subject to an entire regulatory regime, which includes the
federal securities laws, the fair practice rules of the MSRB, and
examinations and enforcement by FINRA, banking regulators and the SEC.
Nevertheless, the provisions of proposed Rule G-39 pertaining to the
firm-specific do-not-call list and related procedures would apply to
business-to-business calls. Dealers are already required to maintain a
firm-specific do-not-call list for requests that are not related to
business-to-business calls; therefore, the MSRB believes that requiring
such a list with respect to business-to-business calls should not
create an undue burden. Moreover, the MSRB believes that it would be
reasonable to require dealers to honor the wishes of businesses that do
not wish to be solicited by telephone by requiring dealers to maintain
a list of such do-not-call requests. The MSRB believes that this
approach also would be consistent with FINRA's telemarketing rule and
related guidance.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See FINRA Rule 3230; see also FINRA guidance dated November
1, 1995, Requirements of member firms in maintaining do-not-call
lists under NASD Rule 3110 (``[M]embers who are involved in
telemarketing, and whom make cold calls to the public, [must] . . .
establish and maintain a do-not-call list notwithstanding whether
[the member] contact[s] businesses or residences.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions
Proposed Rule G-39(n) would include the following definitions,
which the MSRB believes would be substantially similar to the
corresponding definitions in the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule: \41\
``acquirer,'' ``billing information,'' ``caller identification
service,'' ``cardholder,'' ``charitable contribution,'' ``credit,''
``credit card,'' ``credit card sales draft,'' ``credit card system,''
``customer,'' ``donor,'' ``free-to-pay conversion,'' ``merchant,''
``merchant agreement,'' ``outbound telephone call,'' ``preacquired
account information'' and ``telemarketer.'' \42\ Additionally, the
proposed rule change would delete the reference to ``telephone
solicitation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The MSRB believes that these definitions are also
substantially similar to definitions in FINRA Rule 3230, with the
exception of ``telemarketer,'' which is not defined in FINRA's rule.
\42\ See proposed Rule G-39(n)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi), (vii),
(viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xiii), (xiv), (xv), (xvi), (xix), and
(xx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule G-39(n) also would include definitions of ``person''
and ``telemarketing'' that differ substantively from the FTC's and
FINRA's definitions of these terms but that reflect MSRB's
jurisdictional scope. While the definition of ``person'' in proposed
MSRB Rule G-39(n)(xvii) tracks the definition in the FTC and FINRA
rules to include any individual, group, unincorporated association,
limited or general partnership, corporation, or other business entity,
it further defines a ``person'' to include a government, or political
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of a government. These entities
are included in the proposed definition because dealers often solicit
these types of entities. While the MSRB believes that the proposed
definition of ``telemarketing'' would be substantially similar to the
FTC and FINRA rules, its scope would be limited in MSRB Rule G-
39(n)(xxi) to calls ``pertaining to municipal securities or municipal
financial products'' since the MSRB only promulgates rules pertaining
to the municipal securities activities of dealers. The MSRB intends the
[[Page 32487]]
limitation in the definition to correspond with the limits of the
MSRB's rulemaking authority. As described earlier, the MSRB has
implemented rules to address sales practices by dealers that cover
their municipal securities activities, including sales by telephone.
Technical and Conforming Changes
The proposed revisions to MSRB Rule G-39 would make a number of
technical and conforming changes. First, the proposed revisions would
amend Rule G-39 to delete the phrase ``or person associated with a
broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer'' throughout the rule
since associated persons are included in the definition of ``broker,
dealer or municipal securities dealer'' in the MSRB rules.\43\ Second,
the proposed revisions would renumber and make technical changes to the
terms ``account activity,'' ``broker, dealer or municipal securities
dealer of record,'' ``established business relationship,'' and
``personal relationship.'' Third, the proposed revisions would amend
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (c)(iv), and (e) by replacing the term
``telephone solicitation'' with the term ``outbound telephone call.''
Fourth, the proposed revisions would amend paragraphs (d)(iii),
(d)(iv), and (d)(vi) by replacing the term ``telemarketing'' with the
term ``outbound telephone.'' Fifth, the proposed revisions would update
a reference to an ``established business relationship'' in subparagraph
(a)(1)(A). Finally, the proposed rule change would amend paragraph
(b)(ii) to clarify that a signed, written agreement may be obtained
electronically under the E-Sign Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See MSRB Rule D-11 which states: ``Unless the context
otherwise requires or a rule of the Board otherwise specifically
provides, the terms `broker,' `dealer,' . . . `municipal securities
dealer,' . . . shall refer to and include their respective
associated persons.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB requested an effective date for the proposed rule change
of 90 days following the date of SEC approval.
III. Summary of Comments Received
As previously noted, the Commission received no comments on the
proposed rule change.
IV. Commission's Findings
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change,
and, based on its review of the record, finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB.\44\ In particular, the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the
Act, 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.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\45\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act because it
should protect investors and the public interest by preventing dealers
from engaging in fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
particularly deceptive and other abusive telemarketing acts or
practices. The Commission also finds that the proposed rule is
consistent with the FTC's and FINRA's telemarketing rules, which
include provisions similar to those described above. Accordingly, the
proposed rule change should foster cooperation and coordination with
FINRA members and other persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in municipal securities and municipal financial products,
and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market in municipal securities and municipal financial products.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder. As requested by the MSRB, the proposed rule change will
become effective 90 days following the date of SEC approval.
V. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\46\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2013-02) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12850 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P