# Ethics Training for Registrants

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-17880

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** July 22, 1994

## Text

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 3

Ethics Training for Registrants

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rules.

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

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) is
proposing amendments to its rule governing ethics training for
registrants to provide additional guidance relative to ethics training
providers. The proposed amendments would: allow a person to provide
ethics training if he certifies to a registered futures association
that he is not subject to statutory disqualification from registration
under the Commodity Exchange Act (Act), barred from service on self-
regulatory organization (SRO) governing boards or committees, or
subject to a pending proceeding or investigation with respect to
possible violations of the Act or rules or orders promulgated
thereunder; prohibit certain representations with respect to a person's
status as an ethics training provider; prohibit an ethics training
provider from using that fact to qualify as an expert witness in an
adjudicatory proceeding before the Commission or from proffering
evidence of that fact to qualify as an expert witness in any
adjudicatory proceeding to which the Commission is a party; allow wider
use of ethics training presentation by interactive means and videotape;
and require ethics training providers to furnish records of attendees
to a registered futures association upon request.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 20, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Office of the Secretariat,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 2033 K Street NW., Washington, DC
20581 and should refer to ``Ethics Training for Registrants.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence B. Patent, Associate Chief
Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, at the above address.
Telephone (202) 254-8955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 210 of the Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992 added a
new paragraph (b) to Section 4p of the Act mandating ethics training
for registrants.1 The Commission adopted Rule 3.34 to implement
this Congressional mandate.2 The Commission subsequently issued a
notice to give further guidance with respect to information to be
supplied in applications by persons seeking to provide ethics training
to registrants.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\This provision of the Act is codified at 7 U.S.C. 6p(b)
(Supp. IV 1992) 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 (April 15, 1993).
\3\58 FR 47890 (September 13, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission has reviewed several applications from persons
seeking to provide ethics training to registrants and several other
applications are currently pending with the Commission. In light of
this experience, the Commission is now proposing amendments to Rule
3.34 regarding ethics training providers in an effort to enhance the
operation of this program. Those provisions of the rule that relate to
what must be covered in ethics training and specific requirements
concerning attendance at such training by registrants would remain
unchanged.

II. Proposed Amendments

A. Certification by Ethics Training Provider

Presently, there are three categories of persons that may provide
ethics training to registrants under the Act: (1) an SRO, such as an
exchange which may have a program for its member floor brokers (FBs)
and floor traders (FTs); (2) an entity accredited to conduct continuing
education programs by a state professional licensing authority in the
fields of law, finance, accounting or economics; or (3) any other
person ``if its program is approved by the Commission for this
purpose.''4 The proposals set forth herein would maintain SROs and
state-accredited continuing education programs as ethics providers. The
Commission is also proposing, however, to permit any other person to
provide ethics training if the person files a notice with a registered
futures association certifying that the person, any principals thereof
(as defined in Commission Rule 3.1(a))5 and any individuals, on
behalf of such person, who conduct in-person ethics training or who
prepare ethics training videotape or electronic presentations, are not
subject to: (1) statutory disqualification from registration under
Sections 8a (2) or (3) or the Act;6 (2) a bar from service on SRO
governing boards or committees based on disciplinary histories,
pursuant to Commission Rule 1.637or any SRO rule adopted
thereunder;8 (3) a pending adjudicatory proceeding under Sections
6(c), 6(d), 6c, 6d, 8a or 9 of the Act or Commission Rules 3.55, 3.56
or 3.60;9 or (4) a pending investigation by the Commission's
Division of Enforcement of which the subject has been notified.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\Rule 3.34(b)(3).
\5\17 CFR 3.1(a) (1993).
\6\7 U.S.C. 12a(2) and (3) (1988 and Supp. IV 1992). The Act
specifies several grounds for disqualification including, among
others, prior revocation of registration, felony convictions, and
injunctions related to futures or securities activities.
\7\17 CFR 1.63 (1993), as amended by 58 FR 37644 (July 13,
1993).
\8\Thus, if Mr. Jones sets up Jones, Inc. to offer ethics
training and hires Ms. Smith to conduct the lectures, the
certification must include Jones, Inc., Mr. Jones and Ms. Smith.
Such certification must also cover any additional instructors who
would be hired if necessary to handle the number of registrants
enrolling in the ethics training program.
\9\A pending proceeding is a basis to bar a person whose
registration has expired within the preceding sixty days from
obtaining a temporary license upon mailing a new registration
application to NFA (see 17 CFR 3.11(c)(1)(i)(B), 3.11(c)(1)(ii)(B),
3.12(d)(1)(iv), and 3.12(i)(1)(iv) (1993)), to bar a person from
serving as a sponsor or special supervisor of a conditioned or
restricted registrant (see 17 CFR 3.60(b)(2)(i)(A) (1993)), and to
prevent withdrawal from registration (see 17 CFR 3.33(f)(1)(1993)).
\1\0The Commission also notes that this has been used as a basis
to prevent withdrawal from registration (see 17 CFR 3.33(f)(3)
(1993)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission believes that it is appropriate for an ethics
training provider to make such a certification.11 The
Congressional mandate for ethics training is intended ``to ensure that
registrants understand their responsibilities to the public under [the]
Act, including responsibilities to observe just and equitable
principles of trade, any rule or regulation of the Commission, any
rules of any appropriate contract market, registered futures
association, or other self-regulatory organization or any other
applicable Federal or State law, rule or regulation.''12 The
Commission believes that it would be anomalous, inconsistent with the
Congressional mandate and contrary to the public interest for a person
to teach others about their responsibilities under those laws and rules
if such person has a disciplinary history that would disqualify him
from registration under the Act or service on SRO governing broads or
committees, or is involved in an adjudicatory proceeding or the subject
of an investigation pertaining to violations of such laws and rules.
The Commission is also proposing that the certification requirement be
a continuous one so that if circumstances change and the certification
becomes inaccurate, the person must so inform the registered futures
association, which shall then refuse to include such person on, or
remove such person from, the list of ethics training providers.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\1The items discussed above would apply to a certification
from any ethics training provider. If the ethics training provider
will offer training via videotape or electronic presentation, the
provider's certification would also be required to include a
statement with respect to verification of the registrant's
attendance. This is discussed below under Heading C, Videotape or
Electronic Presentation.
\1\2Section 4p(b) of the Act.
\1\3However, if a firm is subject to a pending adjudicatory
proceeding or investigation as described above, the Commission
believes that it could submit a certification to a registered
futures association with an explanation describing the circumstances
of the proceeding or investigation, particularly with respect to the
scope and nature of the proceeding or investigation in relation to
the size of the firm. For example, an investigation limited to a
single branch office of a firm that does not involve fraud or
failure to supervise might be treated differently than a proceeding
involving such allegations against the top management of a firm. The
Commission would expect the registered futures association to
consult the Commission as to any particular certification submitted
or in cases where a firm on the list becomes subject to a proceeding
or investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this amendment is to permit National Futures
Association (NFA), currently the only registered futures association,
to maintain the list of eligible ethics training providers for purposes
of Commission Rule 3.34 and to clarify that the specific content of an
ethics training program is not being approved by the Commission or by
NFA, as discussed more fully below. The Commission would delegate
authority to NFA to establish guidance as to the required experience of
ethics training providers and permit NFA to receive and evaluate
complaints concerning such providers and make other appropriate review
of providers' operations, subject to Commission oversight. NFA would
also be delegated authority to develop appropriate procedures to verify
certifications filed by a potential ethics training provider, for
having such certifications updated periodically and for refusing to
include persons on the list of ethics training providers.14 NFA
would submit its procedures to the Commission for review pursuant to
Section 17(j) of the Act,15 which governs approval of registered
futures association rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\4Misrepresentations contained in such certification would
also constitute federal criminal violations. See 18 U.S.C. 1001
(1988).
\1\57 U.S.C. 21(j)(1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Permissible Representations

When the Commission has granted applications to provide ethics
training, it has stated in letters to the applicants, among other
things, that it has not approved the specific content of the ethics
training program proposed and expresses no opinion as to the program's
quality or accuracy. Indeed, it would be impossible for the Commission
to do so since it has normally been presented with only an outline of
the training course from those who filed applications.16 The
Commission therefore believes that it is appropriate to clarify the
effect of the blanket reference in Rule 3.34 to an SRO or state-
accredited continuing education entity as ethics training providers, as
well as the effect of a registered futures association's listing of
other persons providing such training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\6See Item B4 in the September 1993 notice, 58 FR 47890,
47891.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to provide in new
paragraph (b)(5)(i) that no SRO, state-accredited continuing education
entity or other person included on a list of ethics training providers
``may represent or imply in any manner whatsoever that such person has
been sponsored, recommended or approved, or that such person's
abilities or qualifications, the content, quality or accuracy of his
training program, or the positions taken in the course of resolving any
actual or hypothetical situations presenting ethical issues, have in
any respect been passed upon or endorsed, by the Commission or a
registered futures association.'' Proposed new paragraph (b)(5)(i)
would further provide that any promotional or instructional material
used in connection with ethics training ``must prominently state that
the Commission and any registered futures association have not reviewed
or approved the specific content of the training program and do not
recommend the provider of such training.''17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\7Proposed paragraph (b)(5)(i) would also contain a proviso
that it ``shall not be construed to prohibit a statement that a
person is included on a list of ethics training providers maintained
by a registered futures association if such statement is true in
fact and if the effect of such a listing is not misrepresented.''
The effect of this statement is intended to be that such person is
not precluded from providing ethics training by reason of
``unfitness'' as defined by the Act and the Commission's rules on
statutory disqualification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission believes that these clarifications with respect to
representations that may be made as to the effect of providing ethics
training, whether pursuant to self-executing provisions of the rule or
to inclusion on a list maintained by a registered futures association,
are appropriate, particularly in light of existing limitations upon the
representations that may be made by registered commodity trading
advisors (CTAs), commodity pool operators (CPOs) or associated persons
(APs) of CTAs and CPOs as to the effect of registration under the Act,
which encompasses a greater level of review than pertains to ethics
providers.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\8See Section 4o(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 6o(2) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission similarly believes that it is appropriate to limit
the use an ethics training provider may make of that fact in certain
adjudicatory proceedings. An ethics training provider should not be
able to use that fact to qualify as an expert witness or to present
expert testimony in an adjudicatory proceeding before the Commission
under Sections 6(c), 6(d), 8a or 14 of the Act19 or Commission
Rules 3.55, 3.56 or 3.60.20 Nor should an ethics training provider
proffer evidence of that fact in order to demonstrate experience,
competence or knowledge that would qualify the provider as an expert
witness in any adjudicatory proceeding to which the Commission is a
party, for example, a civil injunctive action brought by the Commission
under Section 6c of the Act (7 U.S.C. 13c (Supp. IV 1992)). The
Commission is therefore proposing new paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) and
(b)(5)(iii) to so provide. The Commission believes that because the
rule amendments proposed herein provide for a person to be included on
a list of ethics providers based on a self-certification process, it
would be inappropriate for any person included on such a list to use
that fact to demonstrate credentials as an expert witness. The
Commission would not consider evidence of a person's status as an
ethics provider in any administrative proceeding before it, and would
object to any such proffer in any adjudicatory proceeding to which it
is a party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\97 U.S.C. 9, 13b, 12a or 18 (1988 & Supp. IV 1992).
\2\017 CFR 3.55, 3.56 or 3.60 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Videotape or Electronic Presentation

When the Commission adopted Rule 3.34, it provided in paragraph
(b)(3) that a program of ethics training could include a videotape or
electronic presentation. The Commission stated that such training would
be acceptable if the provider could substantiate the registrant's
completion of the program. The Commission further stated that such
substantiation contemplates, for example, an interactive computerized
training program that requires and records the registrant's
participation and return of such computer disk to the ethics training
provider for verification of such participation and the provider's
issuance of a certificate to that effect to the registrant.21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\158 FR 19575, 19586-19587.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission had originally proposed allowing the use of
videotape or electronic presentation in recognition of the fact that it
could be difficult for registrants located substantial distances from
major metropolitan areas to attend in-person training sessions without
incurring significant expense or business disruption.22 One
contract market commenter on the Commission's proposal stated that all
registrants should have the opportunity to use an interactive computer
program. Since all of the contract markets are located in major
metropolitan areas, the Commission responded by expressing its belief
that FTs and FBs will generally attend in-person training sessions
sponsored by a contract market. The Commission also indicated, however,
that it ``may consider in its review of proposed ethics training
courses whether a particular proposal that includes an interactive
computer program would be appropriate for those whom attendance at an
in-person session would not be unduly burdensome.''23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\258 FR 6748, 6756 (February 2, 1993).
\2\358 FR 19575, 19587.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the persons authorized to provide ethics training to date
currently do so by means of in-person presentation. Originally, a firm
authorized to provide such training by means of videotape or electronic
presentation was required to represent that videotape or electronic
training would be limited to registrants who live in locations outside
those metropolitan areas where in-person training will be given and for
those registrants that can provide a valid excuse for their inability
to attend sessions in those cities. The firm was further required to
represent that it would review all excuses given by registrants for
being unable to attend an in-person program in their metropolitan areas
and would assure that each such registrant is unable to attend due to
illness, vacation, business trips or other commitments that genuinely
precluded his presence.
Subsequently, the Commission's staff received several inquiries,
both from existing ethics training providers and potential new
providers, concerning the offering of interactive training in lieu of
in-person training where locational or other factors rendering in-
person training less feasible did not exist. The Commission has
reviewed this issue and believes that the previously required
representations may be difficult to interpret and may prevent the most
economic means of compliance for firms with multiple, dispersed
branches. Given the numbers of registrants, it may also be more
efficient and cost-effective to permit greater use of videotaped and
interactive training, without sacrificing the usefulness of such
training, subject to the verification procedures described below.
Accordingly, the Commission is now of the view that any registrant may
meet his ethics training requirement through in-person or through
videotaped or electronic presentations.
The Commission also wishes to make clear, however, that if
videotaped or electronic training is offered, the provider must be able
to verify that the video has been viewed or the training completed by
the registrant before the provider issues a certificate of attendance
to the registrant. Accordingly, if a provider will conduct training via
videotape or electronic presentation, either exclusively or in addition
to in-person training, the Commission is proposing that the provider's
certification referred to above be supplemented to include a
representation that the provider will maintain documentation reasonably
designed to verify that registrants have properly completed ethics
training for the minimum time required (one, two or four hours).
The Commission envisages that an appropriate verification regime
for a provider would include procedures such as the following. The
provider would maintain a list of the computer-based ethics program
purchasers and match each completed program with a record of purchase.
Registrants would be required to enter identifying information, such as
name, firm's name, business address, telephone number, date of birth,
NFA and/or Social Security number, on the control diskette and return a
signed statement with the completed computer diskette certifying that
he did in fact complete the ethics training course in the manner set
out in the instructions.
With respect to the fulfillment of the minimum time requirements
and verification of the registrants' participation in the program, the
ethics training provider could use a computer-based test to assure that
the registrant has attained a minimum level of understanding of the
materials covered, drawing upon matters covered in video and written
materials, as well as the computer program, to the extent applicable.
Registrants would be required to pass each section of the test prior to
answering questions in later sections of the test to assure that each
section of the program is completed. While those who fail the test
would be required to retake it until it is successfully completed, only
the time spent on the first test could be credited toward the ethics
training time required by Rule 3.34. Registrants answering quickly
would be given additional questions to answer, and the program would
cease recording elapsed time for those slow to answer questions. Thus,
registrants would be monitored both as to time spent and material
covered.24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\4If an ethics training provider develops a computer-based
ethics training program for use by a particular registered firm and
its APs that in addition to the required subject matter also
includes material tailored to that firm, such as the firm's specific
professional conduct policies, the ethics training provider could
verify completion by the APs by relying on the registered firm's
representation as to its APs' attendance if the firm can verify the
identity of participants through the firm's in-house computer
communication system or through monitoring by the firm's supervisory
or managerial staff. The ethics training provider should require
registered firms using a tailored ethics training program to furnish
periodic reports of specified identifying information for each AP
accessing the training program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a provider wished to follow a different verification regime, he
could do so if such steps had been submitted to and not found
objectionable by a registered futures association.
The Commission contemplates that an ethics training provider would
be able to document that a registrant had undertaken various steps
required for the provider to verify completion. The provider would be
required under revised paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 3.34 to keep
documentation to support its determination that ethics training has
been properly completed by a registrant and to support its issuance of
a certificate of attendance.25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\5The Commission is also proposing under revised paragraph
(b)(4) of Rule 3.34 that records of trainer evaluations be
maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Recordkeeping

Rule 3.34(b)(4) governs recordkeeping by an ethics training
provider. The Commission is proposing to add a provision to the current
recordkeeping requirements that would require providers of ethics
training to furnish records of attendees at such training to a
registered futures association in such format as the registered futures
association may request. When the Commission adopted Rule 3.34, it
required that providers of ethics training maintain records of
attendees at such training in accordance with Commission Rule 1.31,
i.e., for a five-year period.26 The Commission also stated that it
would monitor the effectiveness of the requirement for maintaining a
record of ethics training attendance and may reconsider the issue at a
later date if appropriate.27 The Commission understands that NFA
is willing to compile information on ethics training attendance for
inclusion in the registration database and believes that ethics
training providers should cooperate with NFA requests for the
information which providers are already required to maintain. This will
allow for a central repository of such information which should benefit
all registrants and facilitate oversight of compliance with the ethics
training requirement. To facilitate NFA's incorporation of this data in
the registration database, ethics training providers should include
appropriate identifiers of registrants, such as NFA ID number, and
follow other format conventions requested by NFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\617 CFR 1.31 (1993).
\2\758 FR 19575, 19587.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Related Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-611 (1988),
requires that agencies, in proposing rules, consider the impact of
those rules on small businesses. The proposed rule amendments discussed
herein will affect ethics training providers, which include SROs,
entities accredited to conduct continuing education programs by a state
professional licensing authority in the fields of law, finance,
accounting or economics, and any other person who complies with the
requirements to be included on a list of ethics training providers. The
SROs offering ethics training to their members are the contract markets
and the Commission has previously determined that contract markets are
not small entities under the RFA.28 As to the impact of these
proposals on other providers of ethics training or persons seeking to
become providers of ethics training, the Commission believes that such
impact will be minimal. The procedure for becoming an ethics training
provider would be simplified. The permissible representations by ethics
training providers which the Commission is proposing to codify are
consistent with the statements set forth in Commission letters issued
to date to ethics training providers. Finally, since ethics training
providers are already required to maintain records of attendees,
furnishing such information to NFA upon request should not cause an
undue burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\847 FR 18618-18619 (April 30, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, the Acting Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the rules proposed herein
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The Commission nonetheless invites comments from any
person or entity which believes that these proposed rule amendments
would have a significant impact on its operations.

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 submitted this 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 would be
required by these rules as amended should contact Gary Waxman, 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, 2033 K St.
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20581, (202) 254-9735.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 3

Ethics training, Registration.

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
(1988 & Supp. IV. 1992)), hereby proposes to amend 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. 1a, 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 proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs
(b)(3) and (b)(4) and by adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:

Sec. 3.34 Mandatory ethics training for registrants.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) The training required by this section must be provided by or
pursuant to a program of training (including videotape or electronic
presentation) sponsored by:
(i) A self-regulatory organization;
(ii) An entity accredited to conduct continuing education programs
by a state professional licensing authority in the fields of law,
finance, accounting or economics; or,
(iii) A person included on a list maintained by a registered
futures association who has filed a notice with the registered futures
association certifying that:
(A) The person, any principals thereof (as defined in Sec. 3.1(a))
and any individuals, on behalf of such person, who conduct in-person
ethics training or who prepare an ethics training videotape or
electronic presentation are not subject to:
(1) Statutory disqualification from registration under Sections
8a(2) or (3) of the Act;
(2) A bar from service on self-regulatory organization governing
boards or committees based on disciplinary histories pursuant to
Sec. 1.63 of this chapter or any self-regulatory organization rule
adopted thereunder;
(3) A pending adjudicatory proceeding under Sections 6(c), 6(d),
6c, 6d, 8a or 9 of the Act, or Secs. 3.55, 3.56 or 3.60; or
(4) A pending investigation by the Commission's Division of
Enforcement of which the subject has been notified; and
(B) If the person will conduct training via videotape or electronic
presentation, either exclusively or in addition to in-person training,
he will maintain documentation reasonably designed to verify the
attendance of registrants at such videotape or electronic presentation
for the minimum time required.
(iv) The certification requirement under paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of
this section is continuous and if circumstances change so that such
certification becomes inaccurate, the person must so inform the
registered futures association, which shall then refuse to include such
person on or remove such person from the list referred to in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii) of this section.
(4) Any person providing ethics training under this section must
maintain records of materials used in such training, attendees at such
training, documentation to verify completion by a registrant of
training through videotape or electronic presentation and trainer
evaluations in accordance with Sec. 1.31 of this chapter. All such
books and records shall be open to inspection by any representative of
the Commission or the U.S. Department of Justice and persons providing
ethics training shall be subject to audit by any representative of the
Commission. Records of attendees at such training shall be provided
upon request to a registered futures association in such format as
specified by the registered futures association.
(5) No person referred to in paragraph (b)(3) of this section may:
(i) Represent or imply in any manner whatsoever that such person
has been sponsored, recommended or approved, or that such person's
abilities or qualifications, the content, quality or accuracy of his
training program, or the positions taken in the course of resolving any
actual or hypothetical situations presenting ethical issues, have in
any respect been passed upon or endorsed, by the Commission, a
registered futures association, or any representative thereof. Any
promotional or instructional material used in connection with the
training required by this section must prominently state that the
Commission and any registered futures association have not reviewed or
approved the specific content of the training program and do not
recommend the provider of such training: Provided, however, that this
paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit a statement that a person
is included on a list of ethics training providers maintained by a
registered futures association if such statement is true in fact and if
the effect of such a listing is not misrepresented;
(ii) Use in any manner whatsoever the fact that he is offering
training required by this section to qualify as an expert witness or to
present expert testimony in an adjudicatory proceeding before the
Commission or one of its Administrative Law Judges under Sections 6(c),
6(d), 8a or 14 of the Act, or Secs. 3.55, 3.56 or 3.60; or
(iii) Proffer evidence that he is offering training required by
this section to demonstrate experience, competence or knowledge that
would qualify him as an expert witness in any adjudicatory proceeding
to which the Commission is a party.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC on July 19, 1994, by the Commission.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 94-17880 Filed 7-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-17880. Public record. Not legal advice.