[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20127-20132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10730]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 3
Ethics Training for Registrants
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Final rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 14, 1995, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(Commission or CFTC) published for comment proposed amendments to
Sec. 3.34, which governs
[[Page 20128]]
ethics training for Commission registrants. These amendments require
ethics training providers, who have not already been authorized by the
Commission to provide ethics training, to pass the Series 3
Examination, the standard industry proficiency test, and possess three
years of relevant experience. The rule is now also applicable to state-
accredited entities, which in the past were exempt from certain
requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These rule amendments will become effective June 5,
1996. However, with respect to state-accredited persons or entities
providing ethics training pursuant to Sec. 3.34 as of March 29, 1996,
the applicable date shall be August 6, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence B. Patent, Associate Chief
Counsel or Myra R. Silberstein, Attorney-Advisor, Division of Trading
and Markets, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. Telephone
(202) 418-5450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 210 of the Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992 added a
new paragraph (b) to Section 4p of the Commodity Exchange Act (Act) to
mandate ethics training for persons required to be registered under the
Act.1 On April 6, 1993, the Commission adopted Rule 3.34 to
implement this Congressional mandate.2 Rule 3.34 requires natural
persons registered under the Act to attend ethics training to ensure
that they understand their responsibilities to the public under the
Act. The required training must address the requirements of the Act and
relevant rules concerning the treatment and handling of customer orders
and business. Issues to be addressed may include: Honesty, fairness and
the interests of customers and the integrity of the markets; effective
supervisory systems and controls; assessment of financial circumstances
and investment experience of customers; disclosure of material
information; and avoidance of conflicts of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This provision of the Act is codified at 7 U.S.C. 6p(b)
(1994) and states that:
The Commission shall issue regulations to require new
registrants, within 6 months after receiving such registration, to
attend a training session, and all other registrants to attend
periodic training sessions, to ensure that registrants understand
their responsibilities to the public under this Act, including
responsibilities to observe just and equitable principles of trade,
any rule or regulation of the Commission, any rule of any
appropriate contract market, registered futures association, or
other self-regulatory organization, or any other applicable Federal
or state law, rule or regulation.
\2\ 58 FR 19575, 19584-19587, 19593-19594 (Apr. 15, 1993). In
September, 1993, the Commission issued a Federal Register release to
clarify the procedures to be followed by persons seeking to provide
ethics training pursuant to Rule 3.34. 58 FR 47890 (Sept. 13, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New registrants must attend ethics training within six months of
being granted registration and every three years thereafter. The
initial training is required to be at least four hours in duration;
subsequent training must be at least one hour in duration. Persons
registered when Rule 3.34 became effective on April 26, 1993 were
granted until April 26, 1996 to attend an initial training session of
at least two hours in duration and thereafter to attend a one-hour
session every three years. Ethics trainers must maintain records of
materials used in such training and of attendees at such training.
In December 1995, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 3.34 to
enhance the operation of the ethics training program and furnish
additional guidance with respect to the activities of ethics training
providers.3 These amendments, which became effective on January
12, 1996, require, among other things, that a person seeking to provide
ethics training certify that he is not subject to a statutory
disqualification from registration under the Act,4 barred from
service on self-regulatory organization (SRO) governing boards or
committees,5 or subject to a pending proceeding concerning
possible violations of the Act or rules or orders promulgated
thereunder.6 Also in December 1995, the Commission published
proposals for further amendments to Rule 3.34 which would require that
persons who seek to provide ethics training: (1) present satisfactory
evidence of successful completion of proficiency testing requirements
established by a registered futures association; and (2) possess a
minimum of three years of relevant experience. The Commission also
proposed to amend Rule 3.34 to eliminate the provision permitting
state-accredited entities to provide ethics training without compliance
with the requirements applicable to other providers under the
rule.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 60 FR 63907 (Dec. 13, 1995).
\4\ 7 U.S.C. 12a(2) and (3)(1994). The Act specifies several
grounds for disqualification from registration including, among
others, a prior revocation of registration, felony conviction, and
an injunction relating to futures or securities activities.
\5\ No person may serve on SRO governing boards or committees
who, among other things, has been found within the prior three years
to have committed a ``disciplinary offense'' or entered into a
settlement agreement with respect to a charge involving a
``disciplinary offense,'' is currently suspended from trading on any
contract market, is suspended or expelled from membership in any
SRO, or is currently subject to an agreement with the Commission or
an SRO not to apply for registration or membership. A ``disciplinary
offense'' for these purposes means any violation of the Act or the
rules promulgated thereunder or SRO rules other than those relating
to: (1) Decorum or attire; (2) financial requirements; or (3)
reporting or recordkeeping, unless resulting in fines aggregating
more than $5,000 in a calendar year, provided such SRO rule
violations did not involve fraud, deceit or conversion, or result in
a suspension or expulsion. 17 CFR 1.63 (1995).
\6\ See Commission Rule 3.34(b)(3), 60 FR 63907, 63912.
\7\ 60 FR 64132 (Dec. 14, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission received five comment letters on the proposed rule
amendments. The commenters included a registered futures association,
an SRO and three ethics training providers. The commenters generally
supported the objectives of the proposed rule amendments, but some
commenters recommended modifications of the proposals. Comments
addressed to specific provisions of the proposed rule amendments and
the Commission's resolution of the issues raised therein are discussed
below in the context of the relevant rule provision.
Based upon its review of the comments received and in light of its
experience in administering this program, the Commission has adopted,
substantially in the form proposed, the amendments to Rule 3.34
regarding ethics training providers published in December 1995. The
amendments adopted herein will require any person other than an SRO
seeking to provide ethics training to meet a proficiency testing
requirement and possess a minimum of three years of relevant
experience. These amendments have been adopted generally as proposed,
with certain clarifications based upon the Commission's review of the
comments received. The provisions of the rule relating to the topics to
be covered in ethics training and the minimum requirements for
attendance by registrants at such training remain unchanged.
II. Amendments to Commission Rule 3.34
A. Proficiency Testing and Minimum Experience Requirements
Currently, Rule 3.34 requires that any person seeking to provide
ethics training to registrants under Rule 3.34, other than an SRO or a
state-accredited entity, certify to a registered futures association
that such person, any principals thereof (as defined in Commission Rule
3.1(a)) 8 and any individuals who, on behalf of such person,
present ethics training or prepare ethics training videotapes or
electronic presentations are not subject
[[Page 20129]]
to: (1) Statutory disqualification from registration under Sections 8a
(2) or (3) of the Act; (2) a bar from service on SRO governing boards
or committees based upon disciplinary histories pursuant to Commission
Rule 1.63 or any SRO rule adopted thereunder; and (3) a pending
adjudicatory proceeding under Sections 6(c), 6(d), or 9 of the Act, or
similar proceeding under Section 8a of the Act, or Commission Rules
3.55, 3.56 or 3.60. If the person intends to conduct training via
videotape or electronic presentation, he must also certify that he will
maintain documentation reasonably designed to verify attendance of
registrants at such presentations for the minimum time required. These
certifications are continuous; thus, if circumstances change which
result in the certification becoming inaccurate, the ethics training
provider must promptly so inform the registered futures association
which, upon being so notified, shall refuse to include in, or shall
remove such person from, the list of ethics training providers.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 17 CFR 3.1(a) (1995).
\9\ Commission Rule 3.34(b)(3), 60 FR 63907, 63912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendments to Rule 3.34 proposed in December 1995 would require
any person seeking to provide ethics training (other than an SRO) to
furnish satisfactory evidence to a registered futures association that
he has met the proficiency testing requirement established by a
registered futures association pursuant to Section 17(p)(1) of the Act
for the registration of commodity professionals 10 and possesses
three years of relevant experience. Currently, the National Commodity
Futures Examination (Series 3 Exam) is the proficiency test required to
be completed by most commodity professionals.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Section 17(p)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 21(p)(1)(1994),
provides, in part, that a registered futures association must
establish training standards and proficiency testing for persons
involved in the solicitation of transactions subject to the Act,
supervisors of such persons, and all persons for whom it has
registration responsibilities.
\11\ See NFA Registration Rule 401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proficiency requirement, coupled with a three-year experience
requirement, provides an even-handed, objective basis for assuring a
minimum level of expertise. Further, such standards are compatible with
the method used by the Commission to date in reviewing applications
from potential offerors of ethics training. As the Commission noted in
proposing the original Rule 3.34, ``pedagogical expertise and knowledge
of futures are factors that should be taken into consideration in
evaluating potential offerors of ethics training.'' 12
Consequently, in reviewing applications filed under Rule 3.34 by
persons seeking to provide ethics training, the Commission has
endeavored to assure that such providers demonstrate pedagogical
experience and knowledge of the futures markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 58 FR 19575, 19586.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In commenting on these proposed amendments, the National Futures
Association (NFA) stated that it fully supports the concept of
requiring ethics training providers to meet objective and readily
measurable standards of proficiency. NFA reiterated its view, expressed
initially in commenting upon the amendments to Rule 3.34 in December
1995, that it is imperative that these standards assure that ethics
training providers possess a working knowledge of the futures industry
and relevant regulations. NFA expressed its belief that satisfactory
completion of the Series 3 Exam, in conjunction with three years of
relevant experience, generally will achieve this end.
Two commenters suggested that persons having certain types of
experience, e.g., former CFTC Commissioners or non-compensated
instructors, should be automatically exempted from the proficiency
testing requirement. One commenter expressed concern that the proposed
amendments would exclude attorneys who have practiced extensively in
this field but who would be unwilling to incur the time and expense
associated with taking the Series 3 Exam. This commenter recommended an
alternative proficiency requirement to the Series 3 Exam based upon
representations that the proposed provider is not subject to a
statutory disqualification, is a member in good standing of a state bar
association and: (1) Was a CFTC Commissioner or staff attorney or SRO
staff attorney for at least two years; (2) has taught a futures course
at an accredited university or law school for at least two years; or
(3) has had a law practice consisting of at least thirty percent
futures work over the previous three years. A second commenter proposed
that the Commission exempt from the proficiency testing requirement
experienced new instructors who participate in ethics training programs
previously authorized by the Commission. This commenter suggested that
such an exemption could be limited, so as not to detract from
achievement of the objective of assuring effective, high quality ethics
training, to instructors who: (1) Co-instruct with at least one other
instructor who has passed the Series 3 Exam; (2) possess qualifications
similar to those instructors previously participating as ethics
training providers; (3) are not compensated; and (4) meet minimum
experience requirements. The commenter supported such an exemption as a
means of assuring a healthy influx of additional qualified instructors.
This commenter noted that its pro bono instructors are highly
experienced in-house counsel and compliance officers of future
commission merchants, commodity pool operators and commodity trading
advisors and attorneys specializing in financial services law and
regulation who have been very effective instructors of ethics training.
The Commission believes that requiring persons who seek to provide
ethics training to provide proof of satisfactory completion of a
proficiency testing requirement and of three years of relevant industry
or pedagogical experience provide objective, readily administered
standards for determining knowledge of relevant matters, compliance
with which should not be unduly burdensome.13 Compliance with the
proficiency test requirements applicable to registrants is an
appropriate benchmark for a minimum level of knowledge of relevant
statutory and rule requirements.14 However, the Commission
appreciates that the proficiency requirement may be unduly restrictive
in some cases and believes that this requirement can be implemented
with sufficient flexibility to permit highly qualified instructors, at
least those providing services on a pro bono basis, to participate in
ethics training programs with providers who
[[Page 20130]]
have passed the Series 3 Exam. Such service is itself in furtherance of
the public interest and established ethical precepts, and the
Commission believes that alternative indicia of experience can be
relied upon in such cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ One commenter suggested that the minimum experience
requirement be two years rather than three, because two years
corresponds to the minimum experience required by NFA before APs of
member futures commission merchants and introducing brokers are
permitted to exercise discretion over accounts. See NFA Rule 2-8(d).
However, the Commission believes that the special responsibilities
of ethics training instructors warrant a three-year minimum
experience requirement.
\14\ The Commission believes that the Series 3 Exam is the only
relevant proficiency test currently available for ethics training
providers, since it is the proficiency test that is generally
applicable to Commission registrants and is designed to assure a
broad working knowledge of the futures industry. Although the
Commission recently approved an alternative proficiency testing
requirement under which general securities representatives whose
commodity interest activity will be limited to managed accounts or
commodity pool interests may take the Futures Managed Funds
Examination (Series 31 Exam) in lieu of the Series 3 Exam, the
Commission believes that even if an ethics training provider wishes
to instruct only commodity pool operators, commodity trading
advisors and their associated persons (APs), the more comprehensive
based Series 3 Exam is the appropriate proficiency test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission therefore believes that it would be appropriate for
NFA, in establishing proficiency standards, to create either on a case-
by-case or generic basis, a waiver of the proficiency test requirement
in appropriate cases, where the proposed instructors would serve
without compensation and have qualifications that evidence expertise at
least comparable to that provided by successful completion of the
Series 3 Exam. Such an exception might appropriately be granted in
circumstances in which the person: (1) Co-instructs with at least one
other instructor who has passed the Series 3 Exam; (2) meets the
minimum experience requirements and has experience in financial
services law and regulation; and (3) is acting on a pro bono basis,
i.e., without compensation other than reimbursement for travel
expenses. The Commission contemplates that NFA may grant other
exemptions from the proficiency test requirement in special
circumstances, such as where a scheduled instructor becomes
unavailable.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ NFA Rule 402 permits NFA's Vice-President of Compliance to
waive the general proficiency requirements under circumstances
approved by NFA's Board of Directors. See also NFA Interpretive
Notices under Rule 402 at para.9018 and para.9022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission intends that the requirement of three years of
relevant experience may be satisfied not only by pedagogical experience
but, also, by relevant industry experience. For example, such industry
experience might be acquired through legal practice in the fields of
futures or securities or employment as a compliance officer or risk
manager at a brokerage or end-user firm. NFA suggests in its comment
letter that guidelines, rather than an itemized list of acceptable
positions, be provided to address the types of experience that would be
acceptable for this purpose. Such guidelines could include examples of
acceptable relevant experience, such as those suggested by the
Commission, but would not preclude satisfaction of the relevant
experience requirement by other means. NFA (or the Commission if it
chose to retain that responsibility) would have the discretion to
determine whether a potential provider had demonstrated the relevant
experience.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ NFA noted that it employs a similar approach under NFA
Compliance Rule 2-8. Rule 2-8 requires NFA associates who exercise
discretion over customer accounts to have been registered for two
years. NFA may, at its discretion, waive this requirement if the
associate shows that he has equivalent experience. Although
``equivalent experience'' is not defined in the rule, NFA has
encountered no difficulties in administering this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NFA expressed its willingness to establish experience re-quirements
but requested confirmation that the Commission intends that it do so.
The Commission believes that it is appropriate for NFA to promulgate
rules establishing experience and proficiency standards for ethics
training providers, subject to the general standards set forth in Rule
3.34.17 The Commission hereby delegates authority to NFA to
promulgate rules establishing experience and proficiency standards for
ethics training providers. Such standards may consist of guidelines
consistent with the views set forth herein.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 60 FR 64132, 64133.
\18\ Of course, NFA's rules must be submitted to the Commission
for review pursuant to Section 17(j) of the Act, which governs
Commission review and approval of registered futures association
rules. 7 U.S.C. 21(j) (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Applicability of Certification, Proficiency Testing and Experience
Requirements
Rule 3.34 requires that any provider of ethics training, other than
an SRO offering ethics training to its members or employees or an
entity accredited to conduct continuing education programs by a state
professional licensing authority in the fields of law, finance,
accounting or economics, file the certification referred to above in
order to be included on a list of ethics training providers maintained
by a registered futures association. In December 1995, the Commission
proposed to amend Rule 3.34 to eliminate the provision permitting
state-accredited entities to provide ethics training without compliance
with the requirements applicable to other providers under the rule.
The Commission received one comment letter addressing this aspect
of the proposals. The commenter, an SRO, supported the proposal to
impose proficiency testing and experience requirements upon ethics
training providers other than SROs, even if they are state-accredited
entities. The SRO stated that until now almost all exchange members
received their ethics training from the exchange itself. While the SRO
believes that most members will continue to attend ethics training
provided by the exchange, a greater number of exchange members may
choose to enroll in ethics training programs offered by providers other
than the SRO as a result of the December 1995 amendments to Rule 3.34
which may increase the availability of videotape and electronic ethics
training programs. Therefore, the SRO expressed a strong interest in
assuring that non-SRO providers have the necessary knowledge and
experience to provide such training.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The SRO commenter also recommended an additional amendment
of Rule 3.34(b)(4) to require that ethics training providers submit
records of ethics training attendance by floor traders and floor
brokers to the contract markets that have granted them trading
privileges as well as to NFA. The Commission adopted an amendment to
Rule 3.34(b)(4) in December 1995 to require ethics training
providers to furnish records of attendees at such training to a
registered futures association but did not propose further
amendments to this provision. 60 FR 63907, 63911-63912. While the
Commission is generally supportive of contract markets receiving
ethics training records on floor traders and floor brokers to whom
they have granted trading privileges, the Commission does not
believe that an additional amendment to Rule 3.34(b)(4) is necessary
to achieve that end. Contract markets may encourage or require their
own floor trader and floor broker members to provide satisfactory
proof of satisfactory completion of the ethics training
requirements. Further, the Commission encourages ethics training
providers instructing floor traders and floor brokers to provide
this information to the relevant contract markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is adopting as proposed an amendment to Rule 3.34 to
require that state-accredited entities file with the NFA the
certification required under Rule 3.34(b)(3)(iii) and comply with the
other relevant provisions of Rule 3.34, including proficiency testing
and experience requirements. In the absence of such compliance and in
light of the potential for significant variations among state-
accreditation regimes, the Commission would have no ready means of
assuring that such providers have a minimum level of relevant knowledge
or experience.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As to whether SROs themselves should be subject to the
requirements applicable to other providers under 3.34, the
Commission believes that the business purposes and functions of
SROs, the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to SROs,
and the Commission's oversight program for assuring compliance by
SROs with their responsibilities under the Act and Commission rules
provide sufficient assurance of the expertise and fitness of SROs as
ethics training providers without the necessity for imposing
additional requirements. Consequently, the Commission's proposals
with respect to proficiency training and pedagogical or industry
experience did not apply to SROs seeking to provide ethics training
to their members or employees. 60 FR 64132, 64134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission proposed that the proficiency testing and minimum
experience requirements apply to the provider or sponsor of the ethics
training program, to any instructors or presenters employed by the
provider of such ethics training, and to those persons who prepare
ethics training videotapes or electronic presentations. NFA expressed
concern that the rule as proposed appeared to require that the ethics
training provider itself, which in many instances would be a corporate
[[Page 20131]]
entity, meet the proficiency and experience requirements. NFA
recommended that the Commission clarify this aspect of the rule to make
clear that the persons who will be required to meet these standards
include the principals of the ethics training provider, any instructors
or presenters employed by the provider and persons who prepare ethics
training materials, including videotaped and electronic presentations.
NFA also recommended that only those principals of registered firms
that offer in-house ethics training who are directly involved with the
ethics training process be required to meet the proficiency and
experience requirements, noting that it would serve no purpose to
require all principals of a registered firm to comply with these
requirements.
The Commission agrees that clarification of the applicability of
the testing and experience requirements is desirable and that these
requirements should not apply to all principals of registered firms.
The Commission believes that the proficiency testing and experience
requirements should apply to persons who are direct participants in
ethics training, whether as presenters of such programs, preparers of
course materials, or supervisors of such activities. Consequently, the
Commission believes that unlike the required representations concerning
fitness, which apply to all principals of the ethics training provider,
the testing and experience requirements should not apply solely by
virtue of status as a principal, but, rather, should be applicable
based upon involvement in such programs as instructors, developers,
supervisors or managers of such programs.
A person who is currently acting as an instructor or course
preparer for an ethics training provider whose application to provide
ethics training has previously been granted by the Commission will not
be subject to the proficiency testing and minimum relevant experience
standards of Rule 3.34. However, should such an ethics training
provider seek to add a new instructor or course preparer, such person
would be subject to the proficiency testing and minimum relevant
experience standards. Persons acting as instructors or presenters of
in-person ethics training or preparing videotapes or electronic
presentations on behalf of a state-accredited entity must meet the
proficiency and experience requirements, even if such persons have
previously been operating under Rule 3.34. However, for existing ethics
training providers operating as of March 29, 1996 pursuant to the
former Rule 3.34 provision permitting certain state-accredited entities
to provide ethics training without further authorization, the effective
date for these rule amendments will be deferred for 60 days to allow
adequate time for filing the requisite certification and to take and
pass the Series 3 Exam.
III. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-611 (1994),
requires that agencies, in proposing rules, consider the impact of
those rules on small businesses. The rule amendments discussed herein
will not affect SROs who wish to provide ethics training but would
affect all others who seek to be included on a list of authorized
ethics training providers, including entities accredited to conduct
continuing education programs by state professional licensing
authorities in the fields of law, finance, accounting or economics. The
impact of this proposal on persons seeking to become providers of
ethics training should be minimal. At this time, a one-time processing
fee for the Series 3 Exam offered by the NFA is $75.00. This should not
constitute an unduly burdensome entry cost for ethics training
providers; the same cost is incurred by all the attendees at ethics
training as a cost of registration. Requiring a minimum level of
experience also should not adversely impact small businesses as this
requirement should not impose additional financial cost upon such
entities. Further, the ethics training requirement, reflects a
Congressional mandate to assure that registrants understand their
responsibilities to the public under the Act. Therefore, these rule
amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
imposes certain requirements on federal agencies (including the
Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any
collection of information as defined by the PRA. In compliance with the
PRA, the Commission has previously submitted the proposed rule and its
associated information collection requirements to the Office of
Management and Budget. While the amendments proposed herein have no
burden, Rule 3.34 is a part of a group of rules which has the following
burden:
Rules 3.16, 3.32 and 3.34 (3038-0023, approved June 2, 1993):
Average Burden Hours Per Response: 1.13.
Number of Respondents: 60,980.
Frequency of Response: On Occasion and Triennially.
Persons wishing to comment on the information which will be
required by these rules as amended should contact Jeff Hill, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 3228, NEOB, Washington, D.C. 20503, (202)
395-7340. Copies of the information collection submission to OMB are
available from Joe F. Mink, CFTC Clearance Officer, 1155 21st St. NW,
Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5170.
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 3
Registration, Ethics Training.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to the authority contained in
the Commodity Exchange Act and, in particular, sections 1a, 4d, 4e, 4g,
4m, 4p, 8a and 17 thereof (7 U.S.C. 1a, 6d, 6e, 6g, 6m, 6p, 12a and 21
(1994), hereby amends Part 3 of Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 3--REGISTRATION
1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. la, 2, 4, 4a, 6, 6b, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i,
6k, 6m, 6o, 6p, 8, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21 and 23;
5 U.S.C. 552, 552b.
2. Section 3.34 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) and revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(3)(iii)
and paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 3.34 Mandatory ethics training for registrants.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) A person included on a list maintained by a registered
futures association who has presented satisfactory evidence to the
registered futures association that any individuals, on behalf of such
person, who present ethics training, prepare an ethics training
videotape or electronic presentation, or who supervise the foregoing,
have taken and passed the proficiency testing requirements for an
ethics training provider, as established by rules of a registered
futures association that have been approved by the Commission, and
possess a minimum of three years of relevant experience for an ethics
training
[[Page 20132]]
provider, as established by rules of a registered futures association
that have been approved by the Commission, and who certifies that:
(A) * * *
(3) A pending adjudicatory proceeding under sections 6(c), 6(d),
6c, 6d, or 9 of the Act, or similar proceeding under Section 8a of the
Act, or Secs. 3.55, 3.56, or 3.60; and
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC on April 25, 1996, by the Commission.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-10730 Filed 5-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
