Document ID: SEC-2023-1362-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
Posted Date: 2023-11-24T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82464-82482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25886]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98982; File No. SR-FINRA-2023-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory 
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt 
Supplementary Material .18 (Remote Inspections Pilot Program) Under 
FINRA Rule 3110 (Supervision)

November 17, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On April 14, 2023, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change SR-FINRA-2023-007 pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange 
Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, to adopt a voluntary, three-
year remote inspections pilot program to allow eligible member firms to 
elect to fulfill their obligation under paragraph (c) (Internal 
Inspections) of FINRA Rule 3110 (Supervision) by conducting inspections 
of eligible branch offices,\3\ offices of supervisory jurisdiction 
(``OSJ''),\4\ and non-branch locations \5\ remotely without an on-site 
visit to such locations,\6\ subject to specified safeguards and 
limitations (the ``Pilot'').\7\ The proposed rule change was published 
for public comment in the Federal Register on May 4, 2023.\8\ The 
Commission received thirteen comment letters in response to the 
Notice.\9\ On June 7, 2023, FINRA consented to an extension of the time 
period in which the Commission must approve the proposed rule change, 
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to 
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to 
August 2, 2023.\10\ On

[[Page 82465]]

August 1, 2023, FINRA filed an amendment to modify the proposed rule 
change (``Amendment No. 1'').\11\ On August 2, 2023, the Commission 
published a notice of filing of Amendment No. 1 and an order 
instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove 
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (hereinafter, 
the ``proposed rule change'' unless otherwise specified).\12\ The 
Commission received ten comment letters in response to the notice of 
Amendment No. 1 and order instituting proceedings.\13\ On August 29, 
2023, FINRA responded to the comment letters received in response to 
the Notice.\14\ On September 22, 2023, FINRA consented to an extension 
of the time period in which the Commission must approve or disapprove 
the proposed rule change to December 30, 2023.\15\ On October 25, 2023, 
FINRA responded to comments received in response to the notice of 
Amendment No. 1 and order instituting proceedings.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ A ``branch office'' is defined as: (1) ``any location where 
one or more associated persons of a member firm regularly conducts 
the business of effecting any transactions in, or inducing or 
attempting to induce the purchase or sale of, any security, or is 
held out as such''; or (2) ``any location that is responsible for 
supervising the activities of persons associated with the member at 
one or more non-branch locations of the member.'' FINRA Rule 
3110(f)(2)(A) and (B). A branch office is either ``supervisory'' 
(i.e., it supervises one or more non-branch locations) or ``non-
supervisory'' (i.e., it does not supervise one or more non-branch 
locations). See FINRA Rule 3110(c)(1).
    \4\ An OSJ is any office of a member firm at which any one or 
more of the following functions take place: (1) order execution or 
market making; (2) structuring of public offerings or private 
placements; (3) maintaining custody of customers' funds or 
securities; (4) final acceptance (approval) of new accounts on 
behalf of the member firm; (5) review and endorsement of customer 
orders, pursuant to FINRA Rule 3110(b)(2); (6) final approval of 
retail communications for use by persons associated with the member 
firm, pursuant to FINRA Rule 2210(b)(1), except for an office that 
solely conducts final approval of research reports; or (7) having 
responsibility for supervising the activities of persons associated 
with the member firm at one or more other branch offices of the 
member firm. See FINRA Rule 3110(f)(1).
    \5\ Seven types of locations--often referred to as 
``unregistered offices'' or ``non-branch locations''--are excluded 
from the definition of ``branch office'': (1) any location that is 
established solely for customer service or back office type 
functions where no sales activities are conducted and that is not 
held out to the public as a branch office; (2) any location that is 
the associated person's primary residence, subject to certain 
conditions; (3) any location, other than a primary residence, that 
is used for securities business for less than 30 business days in 
any one calendar year, subject to certain conditions; (4) any office 
of convenience, where associated persons occasionally and 
exclusively by appointment meet with customers, which is not held 
out to the public as an office; (5) any location that is used 
primarily to engage in non-securities activities and from which the 
associated person(s) effects no more than 25 securities transactions 
in any one calendar year (provided that any retail communication 
identifying such location also sets forth the address and telephone 
number of the location from which the associated person(s) 
conducting business at the non-branch locations are directly 
supervised); (6) the ``floor'' of a registered national securities 
exchange where a member firm conducts a direct access business with 
public customers; and (7) a temporary location established in 
response to the implementation of a business continuity plan. See 
FINRA Rule 3110(f)(2)(A)(i)-(vii).
    \6\ Unless otherwise specified, the Commission uses the term 
``location'' in this Order to refer to any location where a member 
firm does business, such as an OSJ, supervisory branch office, non-
supervisory branch office, or non-branch location, as applicable.
    \7\ See proposed Rule 3110.18.
    \8\ Exchange Act Release No. 97398 (Apr. 28, 2023), 88 FR 28620 
(May 4, 2023) (File No. SR-FINRA-2023-007) (``Notice'').
    \9\ The comment letters are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2023-007/srfinra2023007.htm.
    \10\ See letter from Sarah Kwak, Associate General Counsel, 
Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Daniel Fisher, Branch Chief, 
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated June 7, 2023, 
https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/sr-finra-2023-007-extension-no-1.pdf.
    \11\ See Amendment No. 1, https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/SR-FINRA-2023-007-Amendment-1.pdf.
    \12\ Exchange Act Release No. 98046 (Aug. 2, 2023), 88 FR 53569 
(Aug. 8, 2023) (File No. SR-FINRA-2023-007).
    \13\ See supra note 9.
    \14\ See letter from Sarah Kwak, Associate General Counsel, 
Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, 
Commission, dated August 29, 2023, https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2023-007/srfinra2023007-252179-579662.pdf (``FINRA Response to 
Comments I'').
    \15\ See letter from Sarah Kwak, Associate General Counsel, 
Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Daniel Fisher, Branch Chief, 
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated September 22, 
2023, https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/sr-finra-2023-007-ext2.pdf.
    \16\ See letter from Kosha Dalal, Vice President and Associate 
General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Vanessa 
Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated October 25, 2023, https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2023-007/srfinra2023007-281119-686483.pdf (``FINRA Response to Comments II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Order approves the proposed rule change.

A. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA stated that technological advancements and an emerging remote 
workplace prompted FINRA to further study the effectiveness of remote 
inspections as part of a reasonably designed supervisory system.\17\ As 
a result of this evaluation, FINRA determined the Pilot would provide 
it ``the opportunity to gauge the effectiveness of remote inspections 
as part of a modernized, reasonably designed supervisory system that 
reflects the current work environment and availability of technologies 
that did not exist when the on-site inspection originally was 
conceived.'' \18\ After describing the current regulatory framework and 
FINRA's stated reasons for proposing the Pilot, the Commission 
describes the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice at 28620.
    \18\ See Notice at 28620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background

1. FINRA Rule 3110 (Supervision)
    FINRA Rule 3110(a) (Supervisory System) requires a member firm to 
establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each 
associated person that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance 
with applicable securities laws and regulations, and applicable FINRA 
rules (hereinafter, a ``reasonably designed supervisory system'').\19\ 
As part of a reasonably designed supervisory system, FINRA Rule 3110(c) 
(Internal Inspections) requires a member firm to conduct a review, at 
least annually, of the businesses in which it engages in a manner 
reasonably designed to assist the member firm in detecting and 
preventing violations of, and achieving compliance with, applicable 
securities laws and regulations, and with applicable FINRA rules. FINRA 
Rule 3110(c) also requires a review of the activities of each of the 
member firm's locations, including a periodic examination of customer 
accounts to detect and prevent irregularities or abuses, and each 
member firm also must retain a written record of the date upon which 
each review and inspection is conducted.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See FINRA Rule 3110(a).
    \20\ See FINRA Rule 3110(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA Rule 3110(c) sets forth three main components for conducting 
internal inspections. First, a member firm must conduct an inspection 
of each location on a designated frequency. The designated frequency 
varies depending on the classification of the location and the nature 
of the securities activities for which each location is responsible: 
OSJs and supervisory branch offices must be inspected at least 
annually; \21\ non-supervisory branch offices must be inspected at 
least every three years; \22\ and non-branch locations must be 
inspected on a periodic schedule, presumed to be at least every three 
years.\23\ FINRA has interpreted the rule to require that inspections 
take place on-site, irrespective of the type of office.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See FINRA Rule 3110(c)(1)(A).
    \22\ See FINRA Rule 3110(c)(1)(B).
    \23\ See FINRA Rules 3110(c)(1)(C) and 3110.13 (General 
Presumption of Three-Year Limit for Periodic Inspection Schedules). 
On November 17, 2023, the Commission issued an approval order for 
File Number FINRA-2023-006, which adopted new Supplementary Material 
.19 (Residential Supervisory Location) under FINRA Rule 3110 
(Supervision). FINRA Rule 3110.19 treats a private residence at 
which an associated person engages in certain supervisory activities 
as a non-branch location, subjecting it to inspections on a regular 
periodic schedule (presumed to be at least every three years) 
instead of the annual schedule required for OSJs and supervisory 
branch offices.
    \24\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-38 (Nov. 2017), https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/17-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, a member firm must make and retain a written record of each 
inspection. Specifically, a member firm must retain a written record of 
the date upon which each review and inspection occurred; \25\ reduce 
each location's inspection to a written report; \26\ and keep each 
inspection report on file either for a minimum of three years or, if 
the location's inspection schedule is longer than three years, at least 
until the next inspection report has been written.\27\ If applicable to 
the location being inspected, the inspection report must include the 
testing and verification of the member firm's policies and procedures, 
including supervisory policies and procedures, in specified areas.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See FINRA Rule 3110(c)(1).
    \26\ See FINRA Rule 3110(c)(2).
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ See FINRA Rule 3110(c)(2)(A) (providing that the inspection 
report must include, without limitation, the testing and 
verification of the member firm's policies and procedures, including 
supervisory policies and procedures for: (1) safeguarding customer 
funds and securities; (2) maintaining books and records; (3) 
supervising supervisory personnel; (4) transmitting funds from 
customers to third party accounts, from customer accounts to outside 
entities, from customer accounts to locations other than a 
customer's primary residence, and between customers and registered 
representatives, including the hand delivery of checks; and (5) 
changing customer account information, including address and 
investment objectives changes and validation of such changes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, a member firm must address potential conflicts of interest 
related to inspections of its locations. For example, a member firm 
must: (1) have procedures reasonably designed to prevent the 
effectiveness of the inspections from being compromised due to the 
conflicts of interest that may be present with respect to the location; 
\29\ and (2) ensure that the person conducting the inspection is not an 
associated person assigned to the location or is not directly or 
indirectly supervised by, or otherwise reporting to,

[[Page 82466]]

an associated person assigned to that location.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ FINRA Rule 3110(c)(3)(A).
    \30\ FINRA Rule 3110(c)(3)(B). FINRA Rule 3110(c)(3)(C) provides 
a limited exception from this requirement if a member firm 
determines compliance is not possible either because of its size or 
its business model. FINRA Rule 3110.14 (Exception to Persons 
Prohibited from Conducting Inspections) reflects FINRA's expectation 
that a member firm generally will rely on the exception in instances 
where it has only one location or has a business model where small 
or single-person locations report directly to an OSJ manager who is 
also considered the location's branch office manager. However, these 
situations are non-exclusive, and a member firm may still rely on 
the exception in other instances where it cannot comply because of 
its size or business model, provided it complies with the 
documentation requirements under the rule. See Notice at 28622 n.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA Rule 3110.12 describes the components of a reasonable review. 
In particular, the rule requires a member firm to establish and 
maintain supervisory procedures that take into consideration, among 
other things, the member firm's size, organizational structure, scope 
of business activities, number and location of the member firm's 
offices, the nature and complexity of the products and services offered 
by the member firm, the volume of business done, the number of 
associated persons assigned to a location, the disciplinary history of 
registered representatives or associated persons, and any indicators of 
irregularities or misconduct (i.e., ``red flags'').\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Red flags that suggest the existence or occurrence of 
violations, prompting an unannounced visit, may include: customer 
complaints; a large number of elderly customers; a concentration in 
highly illiquid or risky investments; an unexplained increase or 
change in the types of investments or trading concentration that a 
representative is recommending or trading; an unexpected improvement 
in a representative's production, lifestyle, or wealth; questionable 
or frequent transfers of cash or securities between customer or 
third party accounts, or to or from the representative; a 
representative that serves as a power of attorney, trustee or in a 
similar capacity for a customer or has discretionary control over a 
customer's account(s); representatives with disciplinary records; 
customer investments in one or a few securities or class of 
securities that is inconsistent with member firm policies related to 
such investments; churning; trading that is inconsistent with 
customer objectives; numerous trade corrections, extensions, 
liquidations; or significant switching activity of mutual funds or 
variable products held for short time periods. See Notice at 28622 
n.23 (citing SEC Division of Market Regulation, Staff Legal Bulletin 
No. 17: Remote Office Supervision (Mar. 19, 2004) (``SLB 17''), 
https://www.sec.gov/interps/legal/mrslb17.htm); see also NASD Notice 
to Members 98-38 (May 1998) (``Notice 98-38'') and NASD Notice to 
Members 99-45 (Jun. 1999) (``Notice 99-45'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. FINRA's Stated Reasons for the Proposed Rule Change
    FINRA has identified, among others, three factors supporting 
consideration of this Pilot. First, in response to the COVID pandemic, 
FINRA adopted Rule 3110.17 to provide member firms the option, subject 
to specified conditions, to complete remotely their calendar year 
inspection obligations without an on-site visit to their locations.\32\ 
Under FINRA Rule 3110.17, member firms generally have been performing 
remote inspections to satisfy their inspection obligations since 
2021.\33\ FINRA stated that during this period, the variance between 
member firms' rates of inspection findings through an on-site process 
and findings through a remote process were not material.\34\ This 
relief was extended on several occasions, and is currently scheduled to 
last until the earlier of June 30, 2024, or the effective date of the 
Pilot.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Notice at 28625.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id. FINRA stated that its overall examination findings in 
recent years across all member firm examinations conducted during 
the period in which firms were conducting fully remote inspections 
or operating in a fully remote or hybrid work environment have 
remained within the bounds of general norms. See id.
    \35\ See Exchange Act Release No. 98560 (Sept. 27, 2023), 88 FR 
68258 (Oct. 3, 2023) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness 
of File No. SR-FINRA-2023-012) (``2024 Extension''); see also 
Exchange Act Release No. 96241 (Nov. 4, 2022), 87 FR 67969 (Nov. 10, 
2022) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-
FINRA-2022-030) (extending the relief through December 31, 2023); 
Exchange Act Release No. 94018 (Jan. 20, 2022), 87 FR 4072 (Jan. 26, 
2022) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-
FINRA-2022-001) (extending the relief through December 31, 2022); 
Exchange Act Release No. 93002 (Sept. 15, 2021), 86 FR 52508 (Sept. 
21, 2021) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. 
SR-FINRA-2021-023) (extending the relief through June 30, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, FINRA stated that ``developments in technology have 
enhanced firms' overall and ongoing supervision and monitoring of the 
activities occurring at branch offices and non-branch locations'' such 
that an on-site visit may not be required as part of every 
inspection.\36\ Specifically, recordkeeping, correspondence, opening 
customer accounts, placing trades, and transmitting customer funds and 
securities are increasingly done electronically.\37\ As such, a large 
portion of inspection work can be conducted electronically, prior to 
any on-site visit to the location, and electronic reviews of many 
locations have become one component of a member firm's overall 
supervisory system of associated persons and locations.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Notice at 28622.
    \37\ Id. at 28623.
    \38\ See id. FINRA stated that it observed member firms making 
broad use of technology to supervise the activities of their 
associated persons remotely to: identify undisclosed private 
securities transactions and outside business activities; identify 
problematic electronic communications; surveil trades and movements 
of customer assets; conduct interviews with supervisors and other 
associated persons assigned to the office or location; take and 
record online office tours; and review associated persons' computers 
in real-time using tools such as remote desktop software. Id. at 
28625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, FINRA stated that, in general, the U.S. workforce has 
demanded greater workplace flexibility and the securities industry is 
subject to the same national pressures as it aims to recruit and retain 
diverse, talented, and qualified employees.\39\ For example, FINRA 
stated that member firms have conveyed that the flexibility of hybrid 
work has made a positive impact in attracting more diverse talent and 
retaining existing talent.\40\ However, retaining the hybrid workplace 
model means that more locations are subject to inspections and, but for 
this Pilot, those locations would have to be physically inspected. 
According to FINRA, ``a system of risk-based on-site and remote 
inspections will allow firms to more efficiently deploy compliance 
resources and to use an on-site component only when appropriate.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See id. at 28624.
    \40\ Id. FINRA stated that the proposed rule change may also 
support the competitiveness of the broker-dealer industry for 
individuals who seek professional positions in compliance, as 
``[t]he expectation of workplace flexibility and remote work by such 
individuals may lead them away from the broker-dealer industry if 
other segments of financial services or professional occupations 
offer more flexible workforce arrangements, with regulatory 
frameworks that offer more discretion in how the supervision is 
conducted.'' See id. at 28637.
    \41\ See id. at 28636-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the confluence of advances in compliance technology and the 
shift to a remote or hybrid work environment made more pronounced by 
the pandemic, FINRA stated that the optimal use of on-site inspections 
deserves further consideration.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See id. at 28637.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Proposed Rule Change

    As stated above, FINRA Rule 3110(c)(1) currently provides that an 
inspection of a location must occur on a designated frequency that 
varies depending on the classification of the location as an OSJ, 
branch office, or non-branch location.\43\ FINRA is proposing to amend 
FINRA Rule 3110 to adopt a voluntary, three-year pilot program to allow 
eligible member firms to elect to fulfill their inspection obligations 
under FINRA Rule 3110(c) by conducting inspections of eligible OSJs, 
branch offices, and non-branch locations remotely without an on-site 
visit to such locations, subject to specified safeguards and 
limitations (such member firms hereinafter referred to as 
``participating member firms''). To help mitigate the potential risks 
associated with not conducting an on-

[[Page 82467]]

site inspection of every location, the proposed rule change would 
establish safeguards that limit eligibility to participate in the Pilot 
to certain member firms and locations based on criteria designed to 
minimize risk.\44\ These safeguards and limitations would: (1) exclude 
certain member firms from participating in the Pilot; (2) exclude 
certain locations of participating member firms from participating in 
the Pilot; (3) impose certain conditions that a participating member 
firm and its eligible locations would be required to meet prior to 
participating in the Pilot; and (4) require any participating member 
firm to provide specified data to FINRA on a regular basis.\45\ These 
safeguards and limitations, as well as others, are discussed in more 
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See id. at 28621.
    \44\ See id. (stating that ``FINRA believes that proposed Rule 
3110.18, on balance, preserves investor protection objectives 
through the proposed safeguards while also providing FINRA the 
opportunity to gauge the effectiveness of remote inspections as part 
of a modernized, reasonably designed supervisory system that 
reflects the current work environment and availability of 
technologies that did not exist when the on-site inspection 
originally was conceived.'').
    \45\ See id. at 28620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Length of Pilot
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(a) would permit participating member firms to 
perform required inspections of OSJs, branch offices, and non-branch 
locations remotely under the applicable provisions of FINRA Rule 
3110(c)(1), subject to specified safeguards and limitations. The 
proposed Pilot would automatically sunset on a date that is three years 
after its effective date.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ In addition, if FINRA Rule 3110.17 (the temporary remote 
inspections relief currently in place) has not already expired by 
its own terms, Rule 3110.17 will automatically sunset on the 
effective date of the Pilot. See proposed Rule 3110.18(m); see also 
Notice at 28634; 2024 Extension at 68258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Member Firm-Level Requirements
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(f) would establish: (1) a list of criteria 
that would render a member firm ineligible to participate in the Pilot; 
and (2) a list of conditions to which participating member firms would 
be required to adhere to during the Pilot.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Member Firm-Level Ineligibility Criteria
    Under proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1), a member firm would be 
ineligible to conduct remote inspections of any of its locations if at 
any time during the Pilot the member firm: (1) is or becomes designated 
as a Restricted Firm under FINRA Rule 4111 (``Restricted Firm''); \48\ 
(2) is or becomes designated as a Taping Firm under FINRA Rule 3170 
(``Taping Firm''); \49\ (3) receives a notice from FINRA pursuant to 
FINRA Rule 9557 regarding compliance with FINRA Rule 4110 (Capital 
Compliance), Rule 4120 (Regulatory Notification and Business 
Curtailment), or Rule 4130 (Regulation of Activities of Section 15C 
Members Experiencing Financial and/or Operational Difficulties); \50\ 
(4) is or becomes suspended from membership by FINRA; \51\ (5) had its 
FINRA membership become effective within the prior 12 months based on 
the date in the Central Registration Depository (``CRD''); \52\ or (6) 
is or has been found within the past three years by the Commission or 
FINRA to have violated FINRA Rule 3110(c).\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1)(A). In general, FINRA Rule 
4111 (Restricted Firm Obligations) requires member firms that are 
identified as ``Restricted Firms'' to deposit cash or qualified 
securities in a segregated, restricted account; adhere to specified 
conditions or restrictions; or comply with a combination of such 
obligations. See Notice at 28629 n.74.
    \49\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1)(B). In general, FINRA Rule 
3170 (Tape Recording of Registered Persons by Certain Firms) 
requires a member firm to establish, enforce, and maintain special 
written procedures for supervising the telemarketing activities of 
all of its registered persons, including the tape recording of 
conversations, if the firm has hired more than a specified 
percentage of registered persons from firms that meet FINRA Rule 
3170's definition of ``disciplined firm.'' See Notice at 28629 n.75.
    \50\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1)(C).
    \51\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1)(D).
    \52\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1)(E). FINRA stated that CRD 
is the central licensing and registration system that FINRA operates 
for the benefit of the Commission, FINRA and other self-regulatory 
organizations, state securities regulators, and broker-dealers. The 
information maintained in the CRD system is reported by registered 
broker-dealers, associated persons, and regulatory authorities in 
response to questions on specified uniform registration forms. See 
Notice at 28629 n.76; see generally FINRA Rule 8312 (FINRA 
BrokerCheck Disclosure).
    \53\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1)(F). FINRA stated that the 
term ``found'' as used in this proposed criterion would carry the 
same meaning as in FINRA Rule 4530.03 (Meaning of ``Found''). See 
Notice at 28630 n.77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Member Firm-Level Conditions
i. Recordkeeping System
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(2)(A) would require each participating 
member firm to have a recordkeeping system that: (1) makes, keeps 
current, and preserves records required to be made, kept current, and 
preserved under applicable securities laws and regulations, FINRA 
rules, and the participating member firm's own written supervisory 
procedures under FINRA Rule 3110; (2) ensures such records are not 
physically or electronically maintained and preserved at the location 
subject to remote inspection; and (3) gives the participating member 
firm prompt access to such records.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Surveillance and Technology Tools
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(2)(B) would require each participating 
member firm to determine that its surveillance and technology tools are 
appropriate to supervise the types of risks presented by each remotely 
supervised location. Proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(2)(B) would also set 
forth a non-exclusive list of surveillance and technology tools a 
participating member firm may use, including: (1) firm-wide tools, such 
as electronic recordkeeping systems, electronic surveillance of email 
and correspondence, electronic trade blotters, regular activity-based 
sampling reviews, and tools for visual inspections; (2) tools 
specifically applied to such location based on the activities of 
associated persons, products offered, restrictions on the activity of 
the location (including holding out to customers and handling of 
customer funds or securities); and (3) system security tools, such as 
secure network connections and effective cybersecurity protocols.
3. Location-Level Requirements
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(g) would establish: (1) a list of criteria 
that would render a location of a participating member firm ineligible 
for remote inspection; and (2) a list of conditions a location would be 
required to satisfy to be eligible for remote inspection.
a. Location-Level Ineligibility Criteria
    Under proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1), a participating member firm's 
location would not be eligible for a remote inspection if at any time 
during the Pilot: (1) one or more associated persons at such location 
is or becomes subject to a mandatory heightened supervisory plan under 
the rules of the Commission, FINRA, or a state regulatory agency; \55\ 
(2) one or more associated persons at such location is or becomes 
statutorily disqualified, unless such disqualified person (A) has been 
approved (or is otherwise permitted pursuant to FINRA rules and the 
federal securities laws) to associate with a member firm and (B) is not 
subject to a mandatory heightened supervisory plan described in 
proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1)(A) or otherwise as a condition to approval 
or permission for such association; \56\ (3) the member firm

[[Page 82468]]

is or becomes subject to FINRA Rule 1017(a)(7) as a result of one or 
more associated persons at such location (hereinafter, a ``continuing 
membership review''); \57\ (4) one or more associated persons at such 
location has an event in the prior three years that required a ``yes'' 
response to any item in Questions 14A(1)(a) and (2)(a), 14B(1)(a) and 
(2)(a), 14C, 14D and 14E on Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities 
Industry Registration or Transfer Registration) (``Form U4''); \58\ (5) 
one or more associated persons at such location is or becomes subject 
to a disciplinary action taken by the participating member firm that is 
or was reportable under FINRA Rule 4530(a)(2); \59\ (6) one or more 
associated persons at such location is engaged in proprietary trading, 
including the incidental crossing of customer orders, or the direct 
supervision of such activities; \60\ or (7) the location handles 
customer funds or securities.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1)(A).
    \56\ Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act identifies a list of 
events that disqualify someone from membership in, participation in, 
or association with a member of a self-regulatory organization. 15 
U.S.C. 78c(a)(39).
    \57\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1)(C); see also Notice at 
28631 n.83. In general, a member firm must file a Continuing 
Membership Application when a natural person seeking to become an 
owner, control person, principal or registered person of the member 
firm has, in the prior five years, one or more defined ``final 
criminal matters'' or two or more ``specified risk events'' unless 
the member firm has submitted a written request to FINRA seeking a 
materiality consultation for the contemplated activity. FINRA Rule 
1017(a)(7); see generally FINRA Regulatory Notice 21-09 (Mar. 2021) 
(announcing FINRA's adoption of rules to address brokers with a 
significant history of misconduct), https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/21-09.
    \58\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1)(D); see also Notice at 
28631 n.84. Form U4's Questions 14A(1)(a), 14(2)(a), 14B(1)(a), and 
14B(2)(a) elicit reporting of criminal convictions, and Questions 
14C, 14D, and 14E pertain to regulatory action disclosures. See Form 
U4, https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/form-u4.pdf.
    \59\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1)(E); see also Notice at 
28631 n.85. A member firm must report to FINRA if an associated 
person of the member firm is the subject of any disciplinary action 
taken by the member firm involving suspension, termination, the 
withholding of compensation or of any other remuneration in excess 
of $2,500, the imposition of fines in excess of $2,500 or is 
otherwise disciplined in any manner that would have a significant 
limitation on the individual's activities on a temporary or 
permanent basis. See FINRA Rule 4530.
    \60\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1)(F).
    \61\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1)(G). In accordance with 
existing guidance, the meaning and interpretation of the term 
``handled'' that currently appears in Rule 3110(f)(2)(A)(ii) would 
remain consistent in the proposed Pilot. See Notice at 28631 n.86 
(citing NASD Notice to Members 06-12 (Mar. 2006)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Location-Level Conditions
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(2) would require a specific location of a 
participating member firm to satisfy certain conditions to be eligible 
for a remote inspection. These conditions are: (1) electronic 
communications would be required to be made through the participating 
member firm's electronic system; (2) the associated person's 
correspondence and communications with the public would be required to 
be subject to the participating member firm's supervision in accordance 
with FINRA Rule 3110; and (3) no books or records of the participating 
member firm required to be made and kept current, and preserved under 
applicable securities laws and regulations, FINRA rules, and the 
participating member firm's own written supervisory procedures under 
FINRA Rule 3110, can be physically or electronically maintained and 
preserved at such location.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Risk Assessment
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(1) (Standards for Reasonable Review) would 
require that prior to electing a remote inspection for a location, a 
participating member firm would be required to develop a reasonable 
risk-based approach to using remote inspections and conduct and 
document a risk assessment for that location. The risk assessment would 
require the participating member firm to document the factors 
considered, including the factors set forth in FINRA Rule 3110.12 and 
would require the participating member firm take into account any 
higher-risk activities that take place at, or higher-risk associated 
persons that are assigned to, that location.\63\ Proposed Rule 
3110.18(b)(2) (Other Factors to Consider for Risk Assessment) sets 
forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that a participating member firm 
would be required to consider and document as part of the risk 
assessment for each location, including: (1) the volume and nature of 
customer complaints; (2) the volume and nature of outside business 
activities, particularly investment-related; (3) the volume and 
complexity of products offered; (4) the nature of the customer base, 
including vulnerable adult investors; (5) whether associated persons 
are subject to heightened supervision; (6) failures by associated 
persons to comply with the participating member firm's written 
supervisory procedures; and (7) any recordkeeping violations.\64\ In 
addition, proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(2) states that participating member 
firms should conduct on-site inspections or make more frequent use of 
unannounced, on-site inspections for high-risk locations or locations 
where there are red flags.\65\ Amendment No. 1 modified proposed Rule 
3110.18(b)(2) to add that, consistent with FINRA Rule 3110(a), a 
participating member firm's supervisory system would be required to 
take into consideration any red flags when determining whether to 
conduct a remote inspection of a location.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(1).
    \64\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(2).
    \65\ Id.; see also supra note 31 and accompanying text.
    \66\ See Amendment No. 1. In addition to the substantive 
modifications made by Amendment No. 1 discussed here and below, 
FINRA stated that Amendment No. 1 contains non-substantive updates 
to the proposed rule text to improve readability. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Written Supervisory Procedures for Remote Inspections
    As originally proposed, Rule 3110.18(c) would have required a 
participating member firm to adopt written supervisory procedures 
regarding remote inspections that are reasonably designed to detect and 
prevent violations of, and achieve compliance with, applicable 
securities laws and regulations, and with applicable FINRA rules. Under 
the proposed provision, reasonably designed procedures for conducting 
remote inspections of locations would be required to address, among 
other things: (1) the methodology, including technology, that may be 
used to conduct remote inspections; (2) the factors considered in the 
risk assessment made for each applicable location; (3) the procedures 
specified in proposed Rules 3110.18(h)(1)(G) \67\ and (h)(4) \68\ of 
the data and information collection section of the proposed rule; and 
(4) the use of other risk-based systems employed generally by the 
participating member firm to identify and prioritize for review those 
areas that pose the greatest risk of potential violations of applicable 
securities laws and regulations, and of applicable FINRA rules.\69\ 
Amendment No. 1 modified proposed Rule 3110.18(c) to state that a 
participating member firm would be required to ``establish, maintain, 
and enforce''

[[Page 82469]]

written supervisory procedures regarding remote inspections rather than 
solely ``adopt'' such procedures.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(1)(G) requires written supervisory 
procedures in the following four areas: (1) procedures for 
escalating significant findings; (2) procedures for new hires; (3) 
procedures for supervising brokers with a significant history of 
misconduct; and (4) procedures related to outside business 
activities (``OBAs'') and doing business as (``DBA'') designations.
    \68\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(4) states that a participating 
member firm shall establish, maintain, and enforce written policies 
and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the data 
and information collection, and transmission requirements of the 
Pilot.
    \69\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(c).
    \70\ See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Effective Supervisory System
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(d) (Effective Supervisory System) states that 
the requirement to conduct inspections of locations is one part of the 
member firm's overall obligation to have an effective supervisory 
system, and therefore a member firm would be required to maintain its 
ongoing review of the activities and functions occurring at all 
locations, whether or not the member firm conducts inspections 
remotely. Proposed Rule 3110.18(d) additionally states that a 
participating member firm's use of a remote inspection of a location 
would be held to the same standards for review applicable to on-site 
inspections as set forth in FINRA Rule 3110.12 (Standards for 
Reasonable Review), which requires that the review must be reasonably 
designed to assist in detecting and preventing violations of, and 
achieving compliance with, applicable securities laws and regulations 
and with FINRA rules, and that the member firm shall establish and 
maintain supervisory procedures that must take into consideration, 
among other things, any red flags.\71\ Finally, proposed Rule 
3110.18(d) would provide that where a participating member firm's 
remote inspection of a location identifies any red flags, the 
participating member firm may need to impose additional supervisory 
procedures for that location or may need to provide for more frequent 
monitoring or oversight of that location, including potentially a 
subsequent physical, on-site visit on an announced or unannounced 
basis.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See also supra note 31 (discussing red flags).
    \72\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Documentation Requirement
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(e) would require a participating member firm 
to maintain and preserve a centralized record for each Pilot Year \73\ 
in which it participates that separately identifies: (1) all locations 
that were inspected remotely; and (2) any locations for which the 
participating member firm determined to impose additional supervisory 
procedures or more frequent monitoring, as provided in proposed Rule 
3110.18(d). Further, proposed Rule 3110.18(e) would require a 
participating member firm's documentation of the results of a remote 
inspection for a location to identify any additional supervisory 
procedures or more frequent monitoring for that location imposed as a 
result of the remote inspection, including whether an on-site 
inspection was conducted at such location.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(l) would set forth the meanings 
underlying ``Pilot Year'' as follows: (1) Pilot Year 1 would be the 
period beginning on the effective date of the Pilot and ending on 
December 31 of the same year; (2) Pilot Year 2 would mean the 
calendar year period following Pilot Year 1, beginning on January 1 
and ending on December 31; (3) Pilot Year 3 would mean the calendar 
year period following Pilot Year 2, beginning on January 1 and 
ending on December 31; and (4) if applicable, where Pilot Year 1 
covers a period that is less than a full calendar year, then Pilot 
Year 4 would mean the period following Pilot Year 3, beginning on 
January 1 and ending on a date that is three years after the 
effective date of the Pilot. See proposed Rule 3110.18(l).
    \74\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Data and Information Collection Requirement
a. Data and Information During Pilot
    As originally proposed, proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(1) would have 
required a participating member firm to collect and provide to FINRA on 
a quarterly basis and in the manner and format determined by FINRA the 
following data and information:\75\ (1) the total number of locations 
with an inspection completed during each calendar quarter; \76\ (2) the 
number of locations from that total quarterly number that were 
inspected remotely; \77\ (3) the number of those locations from that 
total quarterly number that were inspected on-site; \78\ (4) the number 
of those locations in each calendar quarter that were subject to an on-
site inspection because of a finding; \79\ (5) the number of locations 
for which a remote inspection was conducted in the calendar quarter 
that identified a finding, the number of those findings, and a list of 
the most significant findings; \80\ and (6) the number of locations for 
which an on-site inspection was conducted in the calendar quarter that 
identified a finding, the number of those findings, and a list of the 
most significant findings.\81\ Amendment No. 1 modified proposed Rule 
3110.18(h)(1) to change the requirement to provide a list of 
``significant findings'' by deleting the word ``most'' from the phrase 
``most significant findings.'' \82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ The participating member firm would be required to provide 
separate counts for OSJs, supervisory branch offices, non-
supervisory branch offices, and non-branch locations consistent with 
FINRA Rule 3110(c)(1)(A)-(C). See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(1).
    \76\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(1)(A).
    \77\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(1)(B).
    \78\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(1)(C).
    \79\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(1)(D). For purposes of this 
paragraph, the term ``finding'' means a discovery made during an 
inspection that led to a remedial action or was listed on the 
participating member firm's inspection report. See proposed Rule 
3110.18(h)(1).
    \80\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(1)(E).
    \81\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(1)(F).
    \82\ See Amendment No. 1. According to FINRA, a ``significant 
finding'' would be one that should prompt the member firm to take 
further action that could include escalation to the appropriate 
channels at the firm for further review, the result of which may be 
enhanced monitoring or surveillance of a particular event or 
activity through more frequent inspections (remotely or on-site), on 
an announced or unannounced basis, of the location, or other 
targeted reviews of the root cause of the finding. FINRA stated that 
examples of some findings that may prompt escalation or further 
internal review by the appropriate firm personnel include, among 
other things, the use of unapproved communication mediums, customer 
complaints, or undisclosed outside business activities or private 
securities transactions. See Amendment No. 1 (citing Notice at 28632 
n.92).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, at the time a participating member firm first delivers 
the quarterly data described above, it would also be required to 
provide to FINRA the following written supervisory procedures for 
conducting remote inspections: (1) procedures for escalating 
significant findings; (2) procedures for new hires; (3) procedures for 
supervising brokers with a significant history of misconduct; and (4) 
procedures related to outside business activities and ``doing business 
as'' designations.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(1)(G)(i)-(iv). If a 
participating member firm amends its written supervisory procedures 
for remote inspections, it is required to provide such amendments to 
FINRA with its next delivery of quarterly data. See proposed Rule 
3110.18(h)(1)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Additional Data and Information for Pilot Year 1, if Less Than Full 
Calendar Year
    As originally proposed, if the first year of the Pilot (``Pilot 
Year 1'') \84\ would cover a period of time that is less than a full 
calendar year, the proposed rule change would have required a 
participating member firm to collect and provide to FINRA the following 
data and information no later than December 31 of Pilot Year 1:\85\ (1) 
the number of locations with an inspection completed during the full 
calendar year of Pilot Year 1; \86\ (2) the number of locations 
referenced in item (1) that were inspected remotely during the full 
calendar year of Pilot Year 1; \87\ and (3) the number of locations 
referenced in item (1) that were inspected on-site

[[Page 82470]]

during the full calendar year of Pilot Year 1.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ ``Pilot Year 1'' is defined in proposed Rule 3110.18(l). 
See also supra note 73.
    \85\ The participating member firm would be required to provide 
separate counts for OSJs, supervisory branch offices, non-
supervisory branch offices, and non-branch locations consistent with 
FINRA Rule 3110(c)(1)(A)-(C).
    \86\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2)(A) as originally proposed.
    \87\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2)(B) as originally proposed.
    \88\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2)(C) as originally proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 3110.18(h)(2) as originally proposed did not divide data and 
information collection and reporting into inspections that occurred 
prior to, and after, the effective date of the Pilot, but rather would 
have required reporting for the full calendar year of Pilot Year 1. 
Amendment No. 1 amended proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2) so that 
participating member firms would be required to collect and provide 
information under this provision for the time period between January 1 
of Pilot Year 1 and the day before the effective date of the Pilot, in 
addition to the other data requirements set forth in the Pilot.\89\ 
More specifically, if Pilot Year 1 covers a period of time that is less 
than a full calendar year, the proposed rule change, as modified by 
Amendment No. 1, would require a participating member firm to collect 
and provide to FINRA the following data and information no later than 
December 31 of Pilot Year 1:\90\ (1) the number of locations with an 
inspection completed between January 1 of Pilot Year 1 and the day 
before the effective date of the Pilot; \91\ (2) the number of 
locations referenced in item (1) that were inspected remotely between 
January 1 of Pilot Year 1 and the day before the effective date of the 
Pilot; \92\ and (3) the number of locations referenced in item (1) that 
were inspected on-site between January 1 of Pilot Year 1 and the day 
before the effective date of the Pilot.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2)(A)-(C); see also Amendment 
No. 1.
    \90\ The participating member firm would be required to provide 
separate counts for OSJs, supervisory branch offices, non-
supervisory branch offices, and non-branch locations consistent with 
FINRA Rule 3110(c)(1)(A)-(C).
    \91\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2)(A); see also Amendment No. 
1.
    \92\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2)(B); see also Amendment No. 
1.
    \93\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2)(C); see also Amendment No. 
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Amendment No. 1 modified proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2) 
to impose two new obligations for participating member firms to collect 
and provide to FINRA certain data and information. Specifically, if 
Pilot Year 1 covers a period of time that is less than a full calendar 
year, the proposed rule change would require a participating member 
firm to collect and provide to FINRA the following additional data and 
information no later than December 31 of Pilot Year 1: (1) the number 
of locations referenced in item (2) above where findings were 
identified, the number of those findings, and a list of the significant 
findings; \94\ and (2) the number of locations referenced in item (3) 
above where findings were identified, the number of those findings, and 
a list of the significant findings.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2)(D); see also Amendment No. 
1.
    \95\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2)(E); see also Amendment No. 
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Additional Data and Information for Calendar Year 2019
    As originally proposed, Rule 3110.18(h)(3) would have required a 
participating member firm to collect and provide to FINRA the following 
calendar year 2019 data and information (``2019 data'') no later than 
December 31 of Pilot Year 1: \96\ (1) the number of locations with an 
inspection completed during calendar year 2019; \97\ and (2) the number 
of locations referenced in item (1) where findings were identified, the 
number of those findings, and a list of the most significant 
findings.\98\ Amendment No. 1 modified the proposed rule change to 
require a participating member firm to ``act in good faith using best 
efforts'' to collect and provide to FINRA such data, as FINRA rules in 
general only require that member firms preserve these records for a 
period of three years.\99\ Amendment No. 1 also clarified the data and 
information requirement to require that participating member firms 
provide a list of ``significant findings'' by deleting the word 
``most'' from the phrase ``most significant findings.'' \100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ The participating member firm would be required to provide 
separate counts for OSJs, supervisory branch offices, non-
supervisory branch offices, and non-branch locations consistent with 
FINRA Rule 3110(c)(1)(A)-(C).
    \97\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(3)(A) as originally proposed.
    \98\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(3)(B) as originally proposed.
    \99\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(3); see also FINRA Rule 
3110(c)(2), stating that an inspection report must be kept on file 
by the member firm for a minimum of three years, unless the regular 
periodic schedule is longer than a three-year cycle, in which case 
the report must be kept on file at least until the next inspection 
report has been written.
    \100\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(3)(B); see also Amendment No. 
1; supra note 82 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Written Policies and Procedures
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(4) would require a participating member 
firm to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and 
procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the data and 
information collection, and transmission requirements of proposed Rule 
3110.18(h).\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Election To Participate in Pilot
    In general, proposed Rule 3110.18(i) would require a participating 
member firm, at least five calendar days before the beginning of a 
Pilot Year,\102\ to provide FINRA an opt-in notice in the manner and 
format determined by FINRA. The proposed rule states that by providing 
such opt-in notice to FINRA, the member firm agrees to participate in 
the Pilot for the duration of such Pilot Year and to comply with the 
requirements of Rule 3110.18.\103\ A member firm that provides an opt-
in notice for a Pilot Year would be automatically deemed to have 
elected and agreed to participate in the Pilot for subsequent Pilot 
Years until the Pilot expires.\104\ To opt out, proposed Rule 
3110.18(i) would require a participating member firm to provide FINRA 
with an opt-out notice in the manner and format determined by FINRA at 
least five calendar days before the end of the then current Pilot 
Year.\105\ The proposed rule change also states that FINRA may, in 
exceptional cases and where good cause is shown, waive the applicable 
timeframes for the required opt-in or opt-out notices.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See supra note 73.
    \103\ As stated in the Notice, a member firm that participates 
in a Pilot Year would be committed to complying with the terms of 
proposed Rule 3110.18 for that entire Pilot Year. See Notice at 
28633 n.97.
    \104\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(i).
    \105\ See id.
    \106\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Failure To Satisfy Conditions
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(j) states that a member firm that fails to 
satisfy the conditions of Rule 3110.18, including the requirement to 
timely collect and submit the data and information to FINRA as set 
forth in proposed Rule 3110.18(h), would be ineligible to participate 
in the Pilot and would be required to conduct on-site inspections of 
each location on the required cycle in accordance with FINRA Rule 
3110(c).\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Determination of Ineligibility
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(k) would authorize FINRA to make a 
determination in the public interest and for the protection of 
investors that a participating member firm is no longer eligible to 
participate in the Pilot if the participating member firm fails to 
comply with the requirements of Rule 3110.18.\108\ In such instances, 
FINRA would provide written notice to the participating member firm of 
such determination and the participating member firm would no longer be 
eligible to participate in the Pilot and

[[Page 82471]]

would be required to conduct on-site inspections of required locations 
in accordance with FINRA Rule 3110(c).\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(k).
    \109\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment 
letters, and FINRA's responses to the comments, the Commission finds 
that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is 
consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and 
regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities 
association.\110\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed 
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, 
which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to 
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just 
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect 
investors and the public interest.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ In approving this rule change, the Commission has 
considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital 
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \111\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to FINRA Rule 3110, member firms must ``establish and 
maintain a system to supervise the activities of each associated person 
that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable 
securities laws and regulations, and with applicable FINRA rules.'' 
\112\ Rule 3110 provides that ``[e]ach member shall establish and 
maintain supervisory procedures that must take into consideration, 
among other things, the firm's size, organizational structure, scope of 
business activities, number and location of the firm's offices, the 
nature and complexity of the products and services offered by the firm, 
the volume of business done, the number of associated persons assigned 
to a location, the disciplinary history of registered representatives 
or associated persons, and any indicators of irregularities or 
misconduct (i.e., `red flags'), etc.'' \113\ Importantly, Rule 3110 
provides that ``[f]inal responsibility for proper supervision . . . 
rest[s] with the member.'' \114\ A reasonably designed supervisory 
system must include an inspection of each location subject to 
supervision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ FINRA Rule 3110(a).
    \113\ FINRA Rule 3110.12.
    \114\ FINRA Rule 3110(a)(1)-(7) identify certain minimum 
requirements for the reasonably designed supervisory system. See 
generally FINRA Rule 3110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot is consistent with these obligations, permitting a 
participating member firm the flexibility to consider whether remote 
inspections of its eligible locations would be consistent with the 
member firm's broader obligation to establish and maintain a reasonably 
designed supervisory system. At the same time, to help mitigate the 
potential risks associated with not conducting an on-site inspection of 
certain locations, the proposed rule change would establish safeguards 
that limit eligibility to participate in the Pilot to certain member 
firms and locations and that impose on member firms electing to 
participate in the Pilot affirmative obligations tailored to the risks. 
Similarly, the Pilot would mandate the collection of data and 
information that should help FINRA make well-informed decisions about 
improvements to, and the prudence of, any permanent rule changes. 
Accordingly, as explained in more detail below, the Commission finds 
that the Pilot is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange 
Act.

A. Member Firm-Level Requirements

    The proposed rule change would impose various safeguards and 
limitations that preclude certain member firms from participating in 
the Pilot. The Commission addresses the safeguards and limitations, and 
any related comments, in turn.
1. Member Firm Ineligibility Criteria
    As stated above, under proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1), a member firm 
would be ineligible to participate in the Pilot if at any time during 
the pilot period the member firm is subject to any of six firm-level 
ineligibility criteria.\115\ FINRA stated that these proposed 
ineligibility criteria ``would appropriately limit the potential 
population of pilot program participants to those firms that may be 
better positioned to conduct remote inspections.'' \116\ For example, 
FINRA stated that ``a member firm that is experiencing issues complying 
with its capital requirements or has been suspended from membership by 
FINRA is more likely to face significant operational challenges that 
may negatively impact the firm's inspection program.'' \117\ 
Additionally, FINRA stated that new member firms are often still 
implementing business plans and ``may not have sufficient experience to 
develop a sufficiently robust inspection program.'' \118\ Moreover, 
firms with recent FINRA Rule 3110(c) (Internal Inspections) violations 
have demonstrated challenges in developing or maintaining robust 
inspection programs and should not be able to participate, according to 
FINRA.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Member firms would be generally ineligible to participate 
in the Pilot if at any time during the Pilot the member firm: (1) is 
or becomes designated as a Restricted Firm; (2) is or becomes 
designated as a Taping Firm; (3) receives a notice from FINRA 
pursuant to FINRA Rule 9557 regarding compliance with FINRA Rule 
4110 (Capital Compliance), Rule 4120 (Regulatory Notification and 
Business Curtailment), or Rule 4130 (Regulation of Activities of 
Section 15C Members Experiencing Financial and/or Operational 
Difficulties); (4) is or becomes suspended from membership by FINRA; 
(5) had its FINRA membership become effective within the prior 12 
months based on the date in the CRD; or (6) is or has been found 
within the past three years by the Commission or FINRA to have 
violated FINRA Rule 3110(c) (Internal Inspections). See proposed 
Rule 3110.18(f)(1).
    \116\ See Notice at 28630.
    \117\ Id. FINRA also stated that rules related to Restricted 
Firms and Taping Firms expressly address member firms that pose 
higher risks, and for that reason, they would be ineligible to 
participate in the Pilot. Id.
    \118\ Id.
    \119\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three commenters offered general support for the firm-level 
ineligibility criteria, each expressing the idea that these 
ineligibility criteria ``would help to ensure that firms and locations 
that present higher risks to investors would remain subject to in-
person inspection requirements, thereby helping to protect investors 
from unnecessary risks under the pilot program.'' \120\ No commenter 
opposed these firm-level ineligibility criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Letter from Andrew Hartnett, NASAA President and Deputy 
Commissioner, Iowa Insurance Division, North American Securities 
Administrators Association, Inc., to Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant 
Secretary, Commission, dated May 25, 2023 (``NASAA I'') at 6; see 
also letter from Bernard V. Canepa, Managing Director & Associate 
General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets 
Association, to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated 
May 25, 2023 (``SIFMA'') at 2 (describing the Pilot as including 
``numerous safeguards to ensure onsite inspections are conducted 
when appropriate'' and as ``well designed,'' noting that it scopes 
out ``certain, higher-risk . . . firms''); letter from Eversheds 
Sutherland LLP on behalf of the Committee of Annuity Insurers, to 
Secretary, Commission, dated May 25, 2023 (``CAI'') at 2-3 (stating 
that by ``disallowing certain firms . . . from participating in 
remote inspections if they present a higher risk of possible 
investor harm,'' FINRA is appropriately balancing investor 
protection and permitting the regulatory regime to evolve). See also 
generally letter from David T. Bellaire, Esq., Executive Vice 
President & General Counsel, Financial Services Institute, to 
Secretary, Commission, dated May 25, 2023 (``FSI'') at 3-4; Letter 
from Mark Quinn, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Cetera Financial 
Group, to Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant Secretary, Commission, dated 
May 25, 2023 (``Cetera I'') at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA reasonably determined to exclude a member firm from 
participation in the Pilot if the member firm is subject to any of the 
six proposed firm-level ineligibility criteria. Each of these criteria 
identifies--and excludes--member firms with characteristics that may 
indicate increased risk of non-compliance. Specifically, Restricted

[[Page 82472]]

Firms have a history of misconduct or a high concentration of 
registered persons with a significant history of misconduct that gave 
rise to the designation,\121\ while Taping Firms are subject to 
heightened regulatory oversight because they employ a ``significant 
number of registered persons [who] previously worked for firms that 
have been expelled from the industry or have had their registrations 
revoked for inappropriate sales practices.'' \122\ Moreover, if the 
Commission or FINRA has found that a member firm has violated FINRA 
Rule 3110(c) within the past three years, the member firm has 
demonstrated a recent difficulty implementing a compliant inspection 
program.\123\ Member firms covered by these exclusions therefore have a 
history of non-compliance or have registered representatives who have a 
history of (or come from a member firm with a history of) non-
compliance. It is therefore reasonable for FINRA to determine that 
member firms that fall into these categories are not eligible for 
participation in the Pilot and the flexibility that it provides in 
designing their supervisor systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1)(A); see FINRA, Rule 4111 
Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/protecting-investors-from-misconduct/faq.
    \122\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1)(B); see FINRA, FINRA Taping 
Rule (FINRA Rule 3170), https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/guidance/taping-rule.
    \123\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, Rule 9557 notices are sent to member firms that are 
experiencing financial or operational difficulties.\124\ Additionally, 
suspension of a member firm by FINRA would be based on FINRA's 
determination that the member firm has failed to comply with its 
regulatory requirements or suspension is needed for the safety of 
investors, creditors, or other members because of the member firm's 
financial or operational difficulties.\125\ Such member firms raise 
concerns about their ability to comply with their obligations and may 
present risk to others. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that 
these member firms should not be eligible for the proposed rule change 
that is designed to afford member firms greater flexibility in 
designing their supervisory systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1)(C); see FINRA Rule 9557 
(Procedures for Regulating Activities Under Rules 4110, 4120 and 
4130 Regarding a Member Experiencing Financial or Operational 
Difficulties); see also FINRA Regulatory Notice 09-71 (Dec. 2009) 
(announcing SEC approval of consolidated FINRA rules governing 
financial responsibility), https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/09-71.
    \125\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1)(D). A suspended firm may have 
been suspended because of a violation of ``federal securities laws, 
rules or regulations thereunder, the rules of the Municipal 
Securities Rulemaking Board, or FINRA rules.'' FINRA Rule 
8310(a)(3), (5); see FINRA Rule 9550 Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, member firms that have been FINRA members for less than 
12 months may need additional time to develop their supervisory and 
compliance systems to effectively comply with applicable securities 
laws and rules.\126\ This time period also provides FINRA and other 
regulators with time to conduct inspections of new member firms to 
determine their compliance with their regulatory obligations before 
they may be eligible for the flexibility provided in the proposed 
rule.\127\ It is therefore reasonable for FINRA to determine that firms 
must be operating for a certain amount of time before they can be 
eligible for participation in the Pilot. One year provides a reasonable 
balance between providing member firms with the flexibility for 
supervision allowed in the proposed rule and concerns that member firms 
need to develop experience operating before they are given such 
flexibility. In sum, these proposed ineligibility criteria limit Pilot 
participation to certain member firms without indicia that their 
business operations, supervisory system, or inspection programs may 
lack the maturity or safeguards to fully address the potential risks 
associated with remote inspections are reasonable.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1)(E).
    \127\ See Exchange Act Rule 15b2-2, 17 CFR 240.15b2-2 (generally 
requiring inspection of a newly registered broker dealer within six 
months for compliance with applicable financial responsibility rules 
and within 12 months for all other applicable regulatory 
requirements).
    \128\ Cf. Exchange Act Release No. 90635 (Dec. 10, 2020), 85 FR 
81540 (Dec. 16, 2020) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2020-011 to 
Address Brokers With a Significant History of Misconduct); Exchange 
Act Release No. 92525 (July 30, 2021), 86 FR 42925 (Aug. 5, 2021) 
and 86 FR 49589 (Sept. 3, 2021) (Corrected Order Approving File No. 
SR-FINRA-2020-041 to Adopt FINRA Rules 4111 (Restricted Firm 
Obligations) and 9561 (Procedures for Regulating Activities Under 
Rule 4111)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Member Firm Conditions for Eligibility To Participate in the Pilot
a. Firm Recordkeeping System
    As stated above, proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(2)(A) would require a 
participating member firm to meet certain requirements regarding its 
recordkeeping system, including that it have a recordkeeping system and 
that the participating member firm have prompt access to the records 
required by that system and that those records are not physically or 
electronically maintained at remotely inspected locations.\129\ One 
commenter expressed support for this provision, stating that it is 
responsive to concerns about a participating member firm's access to 
and control over records and ``will better enable firms to supervise 
their associated persons.'' \130\ No commenter objected to this 
provision of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ Each participating member firm would be required to have a 
recordkeeping system that: (1) makes, keeps current, and preserves 
records required to be made, kept current, and preserved under 
applicable securities laws and regulations, FINRA rules, and the 
participating member firm's own written supervisory procedures under 
FINRA Rule 3110; (2) ensures such records are not physically or 
electronically maintained and preserved at the location subject to 
remote inspection; and (3) gives the participating member firm 
prompt access to such records. See proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(2)(A).
    \130\ NASAA I at 6-7. In a comment letter related to FINRA-2022-
021 (the original Pilot proposal), NASAA requested that FINRA 
require participating member firms to maintain written supervisory 
procedures for ``technology used to ensure that records are 
maintained within the firm's access and control.'' See letter from 
Andrew Hartnett, President, NASAA, to Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant 
Secretary, Commission, dated December 7, 2022 (``NASAA Dec. 2022'') 
at 5, https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2022-021/srfinra2022021-20152479-320342.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change's recordkeeping conditions are reasonable. 
A key component of remote--as opposed to on-site--inspection is prompt 
access to the records of the remotely inspected location from an 
alternative location. Because the proposed rule change couples this 
prompt-access requirement with a prohibition of the storage of a 
remotely inspected location's records at the location itself, the 
member firm need not conduct an on-site visit to gather and review 
records during an inspection. The proposed rule change therefore should 
facilitate timely and effective remote inspection of locations 
participating in the Pilot and decrease, though not always eliminate, 
the need for on-site inspections. For these reasons, the proposed 
condition is reasonable.
b. Surveillance and Technology Tools
    As noted above, proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(2)(B) would require that 
each participating member firm determine that its surveillance and 
technology tools are appropriate to supervise the types of risks 
presented by each remotely inspected location. These tools may include, 
but are not limited to, firm-wide electronic tools, tools specifically 
applied to a location, and system security tools.\131\ FINRA stated

[[Page 82473]]

that it believes that the absence of ``adequate surveillance and 
technology tools would raise questions about the reasonableness of 
remote inspections'' and therefore proposed the non-exhaustive list to 
help set regulatory expectations for remote inspections.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ The participating member firm would be required to 
determine that its surveillance and technology tools are appropriate 
to supervise the types of risks presented by each such remotely 
supervised location. These tools may include but are not limited to: 
(1) firm-wide tools such as electronic recordkeeping systems; 
electronic surveillance of email and correspondence; electronic 
trade blotters; regular activity-based sampling reviews; and tools 
for visual inspections; (2) tools specifically applied to such 
location based on the activities of associated persons, products 
offered, restrictions on the activity of the location (including 
holding out to customers and handling of customer funds or 
securities); and (3) system security tools such as secure network 
connections and effective cybersecurity protocols. See proposed Rule 
3110.18(f)(2)(B).
    \132\ See FINRA Response to Comments I at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter opposed the principle-based nature of the proposed 
condition by stating that the listed technology and surveillance tools 
should be ``mandatory, rather than permissive.'' \133\ This commenter 
stated that the listed technologies are ``critical,'' should be 
``standard features of all risk assessments and remote inspections,'' 
and are the ``bare minimum necessary for a firm to participate 
safely.'' \134\ In particular, this commenter pointed to 
videoconferencing and related technology as ``crucial to a rigorous 
inspection.'' \135\ Similarly, another commenter who opposed the Pilot 
expressed skepticism in particular about FINRA's reliance on the 
increased use of technology to support approval of the proposed rule 
change, stating that remote inspections would leave ``considerable 
opportunity for advisors to skirt the rules.'' \136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ NASAA I at 7; see also, e.g., NASAA Dec. 2022 at 6.
    \134\ NASAA I at 7. NASAA also added that it would not be 
inconsistent to establish a defined floor despite the principle-
based standard of reasonable supervision. Id.
    \135\ Id.
    \136\ See letter from Hugh Berkson, President, Public Investors 
Advocate Bar Association, to Vanessa Countryman, Commission, dated 
May 24, 2023 (``PIABA I'') at 3; letter from Hugh Berkson, 
President, Public Investors Advocate Bar Association, to Vanessa 
Countryman, Commission, dated August 28, 2023 (``PIABA II'') at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA stated that, while the proposed condition would 
require that a member firm must determine that its surveillance and 
technology tools are appropriate, it believes that flexibility among 
the use of specific tools that may be used for remote inspections is 
appropriate because these tools may vary among member firms depending 
upon their business activities, size, and structure.\137\ FINRA also 
stated that the proposed list of surveillance and technology tools is 
non-exhaustive in order to account for ongoing advances in 
technologies.\138\ For these reasons, FINRA declined to modify the 
proposed rule change. However, while FINRA did not mandate video 
conferencing technology or portable cameras, as suggested, it did 
include ``visual inspection tools'' as a general description of this 
technology in its non-exhaustive list of tools.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See FINRA Response to Comments I at 11.
    \138\ Id.
    \139\ Id. at 11 n.27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA further noted that the proposed rule change would separately 
require a participating member firm to adopt reasonably designed 
written supervisory procedures that must include, among other things, a 
description of the methodology, including the technology, that a 
participating member firm may use to conduct remote inspections.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ Id. at 12; see also proposed Rule 3110.18(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given variances in firm size, business models, and risk, and the 
rapid development and use of technology among member firms, FINRA 
reasonably determined to provide flexibility to each participating 
member firm to determine that its surveillance and technology tools are 
appropriate to supervise the types of risks presented by each remotely 
inspected location. Requiring a member firm to determine that its 
existing surveillance and technology tools are appropriate to supervise 
the types of risks presented by each remotely inspected location before 
participating in the Pilot is reasonable and should help ensure that 
participating member firms employ appropriate tools to manage the 
potential risks posed by the remote inspection of eligible locations. 
The Commission acknowledges the commenter's request to require that 
participating member firms use the technology tools identified by FINRA 
to perform remote inspections. Indeed, a number of commenters indicated 
that they already rely extensively on technology to supervise their 
associated persons, and FINRA relied broadly on technological 
developments in the securities industry in support of this 
proposal.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See Notice at 28622; see also, e.g., letter from Raymond 
James & Associates, Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. 
to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated May 23, 2023 
(collectively ``Raymond James I'') at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, while the proposed rule change takes a principle-based 
approach rather than mandating specific surveillance tools, it does set 
expectations for the supervision of locations participating in the 
Pilot. First, a participating member firm must determine that its 
surveillance and technology tools are appropriate, starting by taking 
stock of the methodology, including the technology, that the 
participating member firm may use to conduct remote inspections and 
incorporating it into its written supervisory procedures. Second, FINRA 
identifies surveillance and technology tools that a participating 
member firm may consider, including firm-wide electronic tools, tools 
specifically applied to a location, and system security tools, which 
will help clarify FINRA's expectations and assist participating member 
firms with operationalizing the rules. These requirements, combined 
with other safeguards and limitations, along with a participating 
member firm's overarching obligation under FINRA Rule 3110(a) to 
maintain an effective supervisory system, serve a crucial gatekeeping 
role for member firms to participate in the Pilot. Furthermore, even a 
participating member firm with state-of-the art tools may ultimately 
determine that an unannounced on-site inspection, or more frequent 
inspections, are appropriate to discharge its obligation to reasonably 
supervise that location.\142\ For the reasons set forth above, the 
proposed condition is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(2) (``In addition, consistent 
with Rule 3110.12, members should conduct on-site inspections or 
make more frequent use of unannounced, on-site inspections for high-
risk offices or locations or where there are indicators of 
irregularities or misconduct (i.e., `red flags').''); see also 
proposed Rule 3110.18(d) (``Where a member's remote inspection of an 
office or location identifies any `red flags,' the member may need 
to impose additional supervisory procedures for that office or 
location or may need to provide for more frequent monitoring of that 
office or location including potentially a subsequent on-site visit 
on an announced or unannounced basis.''); supra note 31 (discussing 
red flags).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Location-Level Requirements

1. Location-Level Ineligibility Criteria
    As noted above, proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1) would prohibit remote 
inspections for any location subject to any of seven location-level 
ineligibility criteria. Six of these seven location-level ineligibility 
criteria address locations with associated persons who: (1) are subject 
to a mandatory heightened supervisory plan; (2) are statutorily 
disqualified; (3) have caused the participating member firm to undergo 
a continuing membership review pursuant to FINRA Rule 1017(a)(7); (4) 
are required to make disclosures about certain criminal and regulatory 
actions; (5) are subject to certain disciplinary actions taken by the 
participating member firm; or, (6) are engaged in proprietary trading. 
The seventh criteria

[[Page 82474]]

would make locations that handle customer funds or securities 
ineligible for the Pilot.\143\ FINRA stated that these seven location-
level ineligibility criteria are ``events or activities of an 
associated person of the member firm that . . . [are] more likely to 
raise investor protection concerns based on the individual's record of 
specified regulatory or disciplinary events.'' \144\ FINRA stated that 
it believes that ``these objective categorical restrictions will 
provide safeguards that will help ensure that firms maintain effective 
supervisory procedures during the pilot period.'' \145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1).
    \144\ See Notice at 28630; see also Notice at 28631 (``FINRA 
believes the proposed list of ineligibility categories is 
appropriately derived from existing rule-based criteria that are 
part of processes to identify . . . associated persons that may pose 
greater concerns due to the specified activities and nature of 
disclosures of regulatory or disciplinary events on the uniform 
registration forms.''); FINRA Response to Comments II at 10 (``FINRA 
believes that these proposed criteria impose appropriate controls 
and conditions regarding participation in the proposed Pilot Program 
to further promote investor protection.'').
    \145\ Notice at 28631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters offered general support for these exclusions.\146\ 
As discussed in more detail below, one commenter recommended that FINRA 
expand the exclusion for locations with associated persons that are 
required to make disclosures about certain criminal and regulatory 
actions set forth in proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1)(D),\147\ and another 
asked FINRA to clarify the exclusions for locations that engage in 
proprietary trading or handle customer funds or securities as set forth 
in proposed Rules 3110.18(g)(1)(F) and (G).\148\ No commenter offered 
specific support for, or opposition to, any of the remaining 
ineligibility criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See SIFMA at 2 (noting that the proposed rule change 
scopes out ``certain, higher-risk locations [and] individuals''); 
see also CAI at 3. See also generally NASAA I at 6 (stating that 
``the ineligibility criteria would help to ensure that firms and 
locations that present higher risks to investors would remain 
subject to in-person inspection requirements, thereby helping to 
protect investors from unnecessary risks under the pilot 
program.'').
    \147\ See PIABA I at 4; PIABA II at 4.
    \148\ See letter from Jessica R. Giroux, General Counsel & Head 
of Fixed Income Policy, American Securities Association, to Vanessa 
Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated August 29, 2023 (``ASA 
II'') at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Criminal Convictions and Adjudicated Regulatory Actions
    Proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1)(D) would exclude a location from the 
Pilot where one or more associated persons at such location is required 
to disclose certain criminal convictions or regulatory actions on Form 
U4.\149\ One commenter recommended that FINRA expand this ineligibility 
criterion to include locations with associated persons who: have a 
``substantial number'' of customer complaints; are subject to pending 
regulatory investigations; have been terminated for cause; or have 
``significant'' judgments or liens.\150\ The commenter stated that such 
associated persons are ``problematic'' and thus the locations at which 
they work should be subject to on-site inspections, which offer greater 
scrutiny.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ See Form U4 Questions 14A(1)(a) and (2)(a), 14(B)(1)(a) 
and (2)(a), and Questions 14C, 14D, and 14E.
    \150\ See PIABA I at 4; PIABA II at 4. PIABA stated that FINRA 
should exclude individuals with ``a substantial number'' of customer 
complaints but did not suggest a particular number or threshold. Id. 
Similarly, PIABA suggested that FINRA exclude locations with 
associated persons who have ``significant'' judgments or liens, 
without commenting on a specific amount. Id.
    \151\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA declined to expand the location-level 
ineligibility criteria, stating that, as currently proposed, the 
ineligibility criteria are based on clear, objective factors.\152\ 
Nonetheless, FINRA agreed with the commenter that the presence of such 
disclosures would be factors a participating member firm should 
consider as part of its required risk assessment.\153\ FINRA concluded 
that the risk assessment, along with other provisions of the proposed 
rule change, such as the requirement that a participating member firm 
establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures for 
remote inspections, would provide the appropriate safeguards related to 
whether a particular location should be eligible to undergo a remote 
inspection.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ See FINRA Response to Comments I at 12.
    \153\ Id. at 13. The risk assessment would require a 
participating member firm's consideration of higher-risk activities 
occurring at a location, higher-risk associated persons that are 
assigned to a location, and the presence of red flags. See proposed 
Rule 3110.18(b).
    \154\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An individual with certain regulatory or criminal-action 
disclosures on Form U4 has a history of criminal conviction(s) or 
regulatory finding(s) that may indicate an increased risk of non-
compliance. Because of the heightened risks associated with such 
registered persons, it is reasonable for the proposed rule change to 
exclude locations from the Pilot where one or more associated persons 
at such location is required to disclose certain criminal convictions 
or regulatory actions on Form U4. The Commission also recognizes, 
however, that there may be other indicators of heightened risk.
    Customer complaints, investigations, terminations, and judgments or 
liens may, in certain circumstances, indicate heightened levels of 
risk. However, they are not formal investigations or proceedings 
initiated by a regulator charged with enforcing securities laws, 
regulations, and rules. For example, they may be overly broad in scope 
or lack the factual development of a comparable regulatory action. 
Because assessing the risk associated with customer complaints, 
investigations, terminations, and judgments or liens may require 
investigation and a consideration of the totality of the circumstances, 
FINRA reasonably determined that--in lieu of creating a blanket 
exclusion for such locations--these factors could be considered in the 
mandatory risk assessment of each location to determine whether a 
remote inspection is appropriate. Specifically, it is reasonable for 
participating member firms to gauge the level of risk of a location by, 
among other things, requiring participating member firms to: (1) 
consider the ``volume and nature of customer complaints'' in the 
mandatory risk assessment prior to inspecting a location remotely; and 
(2) take into consideration any red flags when determining whether to 
conduct a remote inspection of a location. For these reasons, the 
proposed ineligibility criteria are reasonable.
b. Proprietary Trading and Handling Customer Funds or Securities
    As stated above, locations that engage in proprietary trading or 
handle customer funds or securities would be excluded from the 
Pilot.\155\ One supportive commenter requested that FINRA provide a 
clearer definition of the types of trading activities that would 
trigger these exclusions, fearing that certain common activities could 
be interpreted in a way that would result in eliminating a significant 
number of branches from eligibility for remote inspections.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See proposed Rules 3110.18(g)(1)(F) and (G).
    \156\ See ASA II at 3 (stating that the processing and 
supervisory activities related to accepting funds or securities 
happen at nearly every branch location).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA stated that these two ineligibility criteria are 
based on ``significant activities potentially impacting the operations 
and financial stability of the firm and, as a result, may also 
significantly impact customers and the markets generally.'' \157\ In 
reference to the proprietary trading exclusion, FINRA stated that 
providing an exhaustive list of the types of trading activities that 
would trigger this exclusion ``is not practicable'' because the 
analysis is fact-specific, but would consider providing additional 
guidance,

[[Page 82475]]

as appropriate.\158\ With regard to the handling of customer funds and 
securities, FINRA stated that in addition to having the potential for 
significant impact on customers, this ineligibility criteria is derived 
from one of several existing conditions that a member firm must satisfy 
in order to deem a primary residence as a non-branch location.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ FINRA Response to Comments II at 10.
    \158\ Id. at 11. Because of the fact-specific nature of the 
definition of proprietary trading, FINRA stated that it believes 
that this commenter's request would be better addressed through 
FINRA's interpretative guidance process so that FINRA has the 
opportunity to fully consider relevant facts and circumstances. Id.
    \159\ Id. at 10-11. FINRA also stated that it has previously 
provided guidance on the meaning and interpretation of the term 
``handled'' that currently appears in Rule 3110(f)(2)(A)(ii) and 
such existing guidance would apply to the Pilot. Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proprietary trading activities can rapidly and adversely impact the 
operational and financial stability of a member firm, and the resulting 
instability can pose a significant risk of harm to the member firm's 
customers. In light of this risk, FINRA reasonably determined that a 
location conducting propriety trading should remain subject to on-site 
inspection and not be permitted to participate in a temporary pilot 
program designed to evaluate the prudence of a permanent remote-
inspection program. For this reason, the proposed exclusion is 
reasonable.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Because additional guidance about the types of trading 
activities that would trigger the proprietary trading ineligibility 
criteria could assist participating member firms in complying with 
the Pilot, the Commission notes that FINRA has offered to consider 
issuing such guidance through its interpretive guidance process, as 
appropriate. See FINRA Response to Comments II at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, a member firm handling its customers' funds or 
securities increases, among other things, the risk of loss of those 
customers' assets. In light of that risk, FINRA reasonably determined 
that a location handling customer funds or securities should remain 
subject to on-site inspection and not be permitted to participate in a 
temporary pilot program designed to evaluate the prudence of a 
permanent remote-inspection program. For this reason, the proposed 
exclusion is reasonable.
c. Other Location-Level Ineligibility Criteria
    The proposed rule change would also prohibit remote inspections for 
any location with an associated person who: (1) is subject to a 
mandatory heightened supervisory plan under the rules of the 
Commission, FINRA, or a state regulatory agency; (2) is statutorily 
disqualified, unless such disqualified person (A) has been approved (or 
is otherwise permitted pursuant to FINRA rules and the federal 
securities laws) to associate with a member firm and (B) is not subject 
to a mandatory heightened supervisory plan under item (1), above, or 
otherwise as a condition to approval or permission for such 
association; (3) causes the member firm to undergo a continuing 
membership review pursuant to FINRA Rule 1017(a)(7); or, (4) is subject 
to certain disciplinary actions by the participating member firm.\161\ 
FINRA stated that these location ineligibility criteria are necessary 
to address the indicia of increased risk posed by some locations and 
represent appropriate controls and conditions regarding participation 
in the Pilot.\162\ No commenter offered specific support for, or 
opposition to, any of these exclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ See proposed Rules 3110.18(g)(1)(A)-(C) and (E); see also 
supra note 59.
    \162\ See FINRA Response to Comments II at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA reasonably determined to exclude each of these locations from 
the Pilot given the increased risk each category of person could pose. 
First, if a regulator has imposed a heightened supervisory plan on a 
specific associated person, the regulator has determined that they 
require additional supervision to help ensure their compliance with 
securities laws, regulations, and rules. Second, an individual subject 
to a statutory disqualification has engaged in violative conduct that 
may indicate an increased risk of non-compliance.\163\ Third, an 
individual who has triggered a continuing membership review pursuant to 
FINRA Rule 1017(a)(7) is seeking to become an owner, control person, 
principal, or registered person of the member firm and has, in the 
previous five years, one or more ``final criminal matters'' or two or 
more ``specified risk events.'' \164\ Fourth, an individual who is 
subject to a reportable disciplinary action initiated by a member firm 
has necessarily engaged in misconduct that warranted the member firm's 
imposition of significant discipline.\165\ Because each of these 
proposed exclusions identifies a category of person who has a history 
of law violations, misconduct, or non-compliance with laws and rules 
designed to protect investors, the proposed rule change reasonably 
requires an on-site inspection for each location from which such 
associated persons operate, rather than allowing those locations to be 
inspected remotely. Therefore, FINRA reasonably determined to exclude 
such locations from eligibility in the Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act identifies a list of 
events that disqualify someone from membership in, participation in, 
or association with a member of a self-regulatory organization. 15 
U.S.C. 78c(a)(39).
    \164\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1)(C) (exclusion applicable where 
the person responsible for triggering a continuing membership review 
is located at the location subject to inspection); FINRA Rule 
1017(a)(7). ``The term `final criminal matter' means a criminal 
matter that resulted in a conviction of, or plea of guilty or nolo 
contendere (`no contest') by, a person that is disclosed, or is or 
was required to be disclosed, on the applicable Uniform Registration 
Forms.'' FINRA Rule 1011(h). ``Specified risk events'' include 
certain investment-related, consumer-initiated (1) customer 
arbitration awards, (2) civil judgments, (3) customer arbitration 
settlements, or (4) civil litigation settlements. FINRA Rule 
1011(p)(1), (2). ``Specified risk events'' also include certain 
investment-related civil actions or regulatory actions that result 
in (1) monetary sanctions for a dollar amount at or above $15,000 or 
(2) a bar, expulsion, revocation, recission, or suspension. See 
FINRA Rule 1011(p)(3), (4).
    \165\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(1)(E). A member firm must 
report to FINRA if an associated person of the member firm is the 
subject of any disciplinary action taken by the member firm 
involving suspension, termination, the withholding of compensation 
or of any other remuneration in excess of $2,500, the imposition of 
fines in excess of $2,500 or is otherwise disciplined in any manner 
that would have a significant limitation on the individual's 
activities on a temporary or permanent basis. See FINRA Rule 4530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Location-Level Conditions
a. Location-Level Recordkeeping System
    The proposed rule change would require a participating location to 
make all electronic communications through the participating member 
firm's electronic system, subject all communications with the public to 
the firm's supervision, and preclude books and records from being 
physically or electronically maintained and preserved at the 
location.\166\ FINRA stated that it believes this provision 
``appropriately conveys a reasonable set of conditions related to 
communications of associated persons and the creation and preservation 
of books and records at a specific office or location.'' \167\ No 
commenter expressly supported or objected to these proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ As part of the requirement to develop a reasonably 
designed risk-based approach to using remote inspections, and the 
requirement to conduct and document a risk assessment for each 
location in accordance with the risk assessment provision of the 
Pilot, a specific location of the participating member firm would be 
required to also satisfy the following conditions: (1) electronic 
communications (e.g., email) are made through the participating 
member firm's electronic system; (2) the associated person's 
correspondence and communications with the public are subject to the 
participating member firm's supervision in accordance with FINRA 
Rule 3110; and (3) no books or records of the member firm required 
to be made and kept current, and preserved under applicable 
securities laws and regulations, FINRA rules and the participating 
member firm's own written supervisory procedures under FINRA Rule 
3110 are physically or electronically maintained and preserved at 
such location. See proposed Rule 3110.18(g)(2).
    \167\ See Notice at 28631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change's location-level recordkeeping conditions 
are

[[Page 82476]]

reasonable. As discussed above, a key component of remote--as opposed 
to on-site--inspection is prompt access to the records of the remotely 
inspected location from an alternative location. The proposed location-
level recordkeeping conditions strengthen this component of the Pilot. 
Prompt access should help provide the participating member firm with 
the necessary insight into the location's operations, both at the 
outset and on an ongoing basis. Mandating the use of the participating 
member firm's electronic system for the location's electronic 
communications and requiring the firm to supervise the location's 
correspondence and communications help to ensure that the participating 
location's activities lend themselves to remote inspection. Because the 
proposed conditions prohibit the storage of a participating location's 
records at the location itself, the participating member firm need not 
conduct an on-site visit to gather and review records during an 
inspection. The proposed rule change therefore should facilitate timely 
and effective remote inspection of locations participating in the Pilot 
and decrease, though not always eliminate, the need for on-site 
inspections.

C. Risk Assessment

    The proposed rule change would require a participating member firm 
to conduct and document a risk assessment for each location prior to 
choosing to conduct a remote inspection for that location.\168\ The 
risk assessment would require that a participating member firm take 
into account any higher risk activities at, or higher risk associated 
persons assigned to, that location, as well as mandate consideration of 
a non-exhaustive list of factors, including: (1) the volume and nature 
of customer complaints; (2) the volume and nature of outside business 
activities, particularly investment-related; (3) the volume and 
complexity of products offered; (4) the nature of the customer base, 
including vulnerable adult investors; (5) whether associated persons 
are subject to heightened supervision; (6) failures by associated 
persons to comply with the participating member firm's written 
supervisory procedures; and (7) any recordkeeping violations.\169\ 
According to FINRA, the inclusion of this non-exhaustive list would 
help ensure that participating member firms consider certain high risk 
criteria when determining whether to conduct a remote inspection.\170\ 
FINRA further stated that it ``expects that higher risk factors at a 
particular location would cause a firm to conduct on-site inspections 
of such location.'' \171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(1); see also supra note 63 
and accompanying text.
    \169\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(1) and (b)(2); see also supra 
note 64 and accompanying text.
    \170\ See Notice at 28627.
    \171\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Five commenters generally supported the proposed risk 
assessment.\172\ Three of these commenters stated that the requirement 
to conduct risk assessments for each location would promote investor 
protection.\173\ A fourth commenter stated that the use of a risk 
assessment would enable a participating member firm to dedicate more 
resources to specialized inspections targeting higher risk areas.\174\ 
The fifth commenter expressed general support for the provision.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See SIFMA; Raymond James I; Cetera I; NASAA I; FSI.
    \173\ See Cetera I at 1 (stating that the Pilot ``includes 
significant safeguards that are designed to maintain or enhance 
investor protection'' including requiring participating member firms 
to conduct and document risk-based assessments); SIFMA at 2 (``[The 
Pilot] includes numerous safeguards to ensure onsite inspections are 
conducted when appropriate, such as requiring firms to perform a 
risk assessment that considers a non-exhaustive list of risk 
factors, and scoping out certain, higher-risk locations, 
individuals, and firms from the pilot.''); FSI at 3-4 (``The 
required risk-based assessment, coupled with restrictions that limit 
or restrict the ability of certain higher-risk firms and firm 
offices from participating in remote inspections, will ensure that 
investors are protected.'').
    \174\ Raymond James I at 2 (stating that risk assessments would 
also allow participating member firms to tailor their inspection 
programs to attract and retain a broader candidate pool who may not 
be interested in, or be able to, travel).
    \175\ NASAA I at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two of the five supporting commenters also suggested modifications 
to the proposed rule change.\176\ One commenter expressed concern that 
FINRA would use the benefit of hindsight to evaluate a participating 
member firm's determination to conduct a remote inspection where one of 
the listed risk factors is present.\177\ In response, FINRA disagreed, 
emphasizing that ``the `reasonably designed' standard requires that the 
supervisory system, of which an inspection program is a part, `be a 
product of sound thinking and within the bounds of common sense, taking 
into consideration the factors that are unique to a member's 
business[.]' '' \178\ FINRA also noted that the presence of one 
particular enumerated factor or others may not be dispositive as to 
whether an on-site or remote inspection of a location is appropriate, 
and such factors should be reviewed in their totality under the facts 
and circumstances.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ FSI; NASAA I.
    \177\ See FSI at 4.
    \178\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 8 (quoting Notice 99-45).
    \179\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second commenter sought additional conditions to the risk 
assessment. First, this commenter stated that a participating member 
firm should be required to conduct and document a risk assessment after 
identifying red flags and fully consider any significant change in 
circumstances that may warrant higher scrutiny.\180\ In the 
alternative, this commenter stated that FINRA should revise proposed 
Rule 3110.18(b)(1) to require a risk assessment for each location 
before ``each'' remote inspection of that location. The commenter 
explained its concern that participating member firms may ignore red 
flags and rely on a previous risk assessment to continue inspecting a 
location remotely because the rule would require that a risk assessment 
be conducted ``prior to electing a remote inspection.'' \181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ NASAA I at 4-5.
    \181\ Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, this commenter stated that a participating member firm 
should be required to provide FINRA with documentation of all risk 
assessments conducted after identifying red flags during the Pilot. The 
commenter reasoned that it would ``maintain accountability'' to require 
a participating member firm to articulate a sound basis for its 
decisions upon identifying red flags.\182\ Moreover, this commenter 
stated that the data would aid FINRA's and the Commission's 
understanding of risk assessment practices and consider the merits of 
any potential policy changes around remote inspections.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ Id. at 5.
    \183\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address this concern, FINRA amended the proposed rule change to 
expressly require that, consistent with FINRA Rule 3110(a), a 
participating member firm ``take into consideration any red flags when 
determining whether to conduct a remote inspection of an office or 
location.'' \184\ FINRA stated, ``[w]here there are indications of 
problems or red flags at any office or location, FINRA expects members 
to investigate them as they would for any other office or location 
subject to FINRA Rule 3110(c), which may include an unannounced, on-
site inspection of the office or location.'' \185\ FINRA also noted 
that red flags ``would be required to be considered not only when an 
office or location is first determined to be

[[Page 82477]]

appropriate for a remote inspection but, consistent with Rule 3110(a)'s 
overall obligation for a firm to establish and maintain a reasonably 
designed supervisory system, as part of a firm's ongoing determination 
to conduct subsequent inspections of the office or location remotely.'' 
\186\ One commenter expressed support for this amendment, stating that 
it ``strengthen[ed] the Pilot's safeguards.'' \187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(2); see also Amendment No. 1.
    \185\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 7 (quoting Notice at 
28634).
    \186\ FINRA Response to Comments II at 8.
    \187\ Letter from Jim McHale, Executive Vice President, Head of 
WIM Compliance and Peter Macchio, Executive Vice President, Head of 
CIB Compliance, Wells Fargo, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, 
Commission, dated August 29, 2023 (``Wells Fargo'') at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA declined to amend the proposed rule change to require 
participating member firms provide FINRA the risk assessments conducted 
after identifying red flags. FINRA stated that the Pilot already 
requires submission of comprehensive data and information to FINRA that 
is sufficient for FINRA to conduct its assessment.\188\ FINRA also 
noted that it could obtain such assessments during a FINRA examination, 
which should provide sufficient accountability.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ See FINRA Response to Comments I at 7.
    \189\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the proposed rule change's ineligibility criteria, 
safeguards, and limitations prohibit member firms and locations from 
participating in the Pilot in certain higher-risk circumstances. 
However, other factors not explicitly identified among the exclusions 
can, in certain circumstances, indicate heightened levels of risk 
either before or after determining whether a remote inspection is 
appropriate. The risk assessment required by the proposed rule change 
will help to mitigate residual risk not addressed by the ineligibility 
criteria and the affirmative conditions imposed to participate in the 
Pilot. Specifically, the proposed rule change would require a 
participating member firm to consider certain indicia of risk for each 
candidate location for remote inspection, including the volume and 
nature of customer complaints; the volume and nature of outside 
business activities, particularly investment-related; the volume and 
complexity of products offered; the nature of the customer base, 
including vulnerable adult investors; whether associated persons are 
subject to heightened supervision; failures by associated persons to 
comply with the member's written supervisory procedures; and any 
recordkeeping violations. In addition, the proposed rule change would 
mandate that a participating member firm consider higher-risk 
activities, higher-risk persons, and red flags occurring at any 
location when determining whether a remote inspection is or continues 
to be appropriate. Furthermore, the proposed rule change emphasizes 
consideration of red flags as part of a participating member firm's 
ongoing determination of whether to remotely inspect a location. In 
this way, the proposed rule change helps to ensure that a participating 
member firm appropriately accounts for the full range of risks 
associated with each location throughout the term of the Pilot. For 
these reasons, the proposed rule change is reasonable.
    The commenter requested that participating member firms submit 
documentation of risk assessments following the identification of red 
flags, but FINRA reasonably determined not to require such 
documentation, given that it would be required to be maintained by the 
participating member firms and be made available to FINRA and the 
Commission during an examination. In addition, the proposed rule change 
already contains provisions requiring quarterly submission of data and 
information to FINRA, including submission of ``significant findings,'' 
which should help FINRA to study trends and promptly identify any 
regulatory oversight concerns, as well as provide FINRA with periodic 
data to evaluate a participating member firm's continued participation 
in the Pilot. For these reasons, the proposed risk assessment provision 
is reasonable.

D. Written Supervisory Procedures

    The proposed rule change would require that a participating member 
firm ``establish, maintain, and enforce'' certain written supervisory 
procedures for conducting remote inspections.\190\ Reasonably designed 
written supervisory procedures for conducting remote inspections would 
be required to address, among other things: (1) the methodology, 
including technology, that may be used to conduct remote inspections; 
(2) the factors considered in the risk assessment made for each 
applicable location pursuant to the risk assessment provision of the 
Pilot; (3) the procedures specified elsewhere in the Pilot regarding 
escalating significant findings, new hires, supervising brokers with a 
significant history of misconduct, OBA and DBA designations, and data 
and information collection and transmission; and (4) the use of other 
risk-based systems employed generally by the participating member firm 
to identify and prioritize for review those areas that pose the 
greatest risk of potential violations of applicable securities laws and 
regulations, and of applicable FINRA rules.\191\ FINRA stated that it 
``expects firms to take into account the factors affecting their 
systems and businesses in crafting reasonably designed policies and 
procedures'' to comply with the Pilot.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(c); see also proposed Rule 
3110.18(h)(1)(G), (h)(4).
    \191\ See id.
    \192\ See Notice at 28629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter recommended that the proposed rule change also 
require each participating member firm's written supervisory procedures 
to include four additional factors: (1) the specific technologies that 
the participating member firm would use for remote inspections and 
evidence that the participating member firm and its supervisory 
personnel have sufficient access to and proficiency with those 
technologies; (2) the circumstances in which the participating member 
firm will conduct physical inspections, both in the ordinary course and 
as a result of red flags; (3) whether and how the participating member 
firm intends to conduct unannounced inspections; and (4) how the 
participating member firm will use its remote inspection procedures to 
control for the possibility of active deception such as concealment, 
removal, or destruction of evidence of misconduct.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ NASAA I at 5-6 (stating that ``it is not inconsistent with 
a principle-based approach to establish certain minimums or 
otherwise set boundaries around the principle to ensure at least a 
minimum level of efficacy and investor protection.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA stated that the proposed written supervisory 
procedures provision reflects a balanced approach between dictating the 
content of a participating member firm's written supervisory procedures 
for remote inspections and maintaining flexibility in alignment with 
FINRA Rule 3110's principle-based view of what constitutes reasonably 
designed written supervisory procedures.\194\ Nevertheless, FINRA also 
stated that many of this commenter's recommendations are already 
addressed by specific terms in its rules and in the proposed rule 
change. For example, proposed Rule 3110.18(c) would require a 
participating member firm's reasonably designed supervisory procedures 
to address the technology tools that may be used to conduct

[[Page 82478]]

remote inspections. FINRA stated that it believes that the failure to 
have adequate surveillance and technology tools, and the knowledge of 
and access to them, would raise questions about the reasonableness of 
remote inspection.\195\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(2) also would require, 
among other things, participating member firms to conduct on-site 
inspections or more frequent unannounced, on-site inspections of a 
location where there are indicators of irregularities or misconduct; 
\196\ and proposed Rule 3110.18(c) would require participating member 
firms to ``establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory 
procedures regarding remote inspections that are reasonably designed to 
detect and prevent violations of and achieve compliance with applicable 
securities and regulations, and with FINRA rules.'' \197\ In addition, 
FINRA stated that, overall, FINRA Rule 3110 established a framework 
that requires a firm to have a reasonably designed supervisory system, 
including written supervisory procedures, to achieve compliance with 
applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable FINRA 
rules. As such, FINRA declined to amend the proposed rule change to 
explicitly include the commenter's suggested prescriptive 
elements.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 9; see also id. at 9 n.21 
(quoting Notice 99-45) (``[w]ritten supervisory procedures are not 
static documents that can be used for an indefinite period of time 
without modification. A firm's existing supervisory system may 
become outdated or ineffective as a result of changes in the firm's 
business lines, products, practices, or new or amended securities 
laws.'').
    \195\ FINRA Response to Comments II at 6.
    \196\ Id.
    \197\ Id.
    \198\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requiring participating member firms to establish, maintain, and 
enforce written supervisory procedures for conducting remote 
instructions is reasonable and should help such member firms detect and 
prevent violations of and achieve compliance with applicable securities 
laws and regulations, and with applicable FINRA rules. In particular, 
requiring those procedures to address technology, risk assessment 
factors, data and information collection and transmission, and other 
risk-based systems to identify and prioritize for review areas that 
pose the greatest risk should reasonably address aspects of remote 
inspections that may raise a threat of heightened risk of compliance 
failures. While the proposed rule change prescribes several items that 
would be required to be addressed, participating member firms are not 
limited to these items alone and have flexibility to tailor their 
procedures to their business activities and other relevant factors to 
meet the obligation under FINRA Rule 3110 that the procedures be 
``reasonably designed to detect and prevent violations of and achieve 
compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with 
applicable FINRA rules.'' \199\ In addition, the proposed rule change 
makes clear that the requirement to conduct inspections of locations is 
only one part of the member firms' overall obligation to have an 
effective supervisory system.\200\ For these reasons, the proposed 
written supervisory provisions are reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ See FINRA Rule 3110(a).
    \200\ See also FINRA Response to Comments I at 9 (``FINRA 
believes that proposed Rule 3110.18(c), which must be read with 
proposed Rule 3110.18(d) and Rule 3110, would provide the 
appropriate guardrails that NASAA seeks while also remaining aligned 
with the core tenet of Rule 3110--that is, a member firm must have a 
`reasonably designed' supervisory system, including written 
supervisory procedures, to achieve compliance with applicable 
securities laws and regulations, and with applicable FINRA 
rules.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Effective Supervisory System

    As stated above, the proposed rule change would hold a remote 
inspection of a location to the same standards applicable to on-site 
inspections.\201\ Specifically, the proposed rule change would 
reiterate that the requirement to conduct inspections of locations is 
one part of the member firm's overall obligation to have an effective 
supervisory system and therefore a participating member firm would be 
required to maintain its ongoing review of the activities and functions 
occurring at all locations, whether or not the member firm conducts 
inspections remotely.\202\ In addition, where a participating member 
firm's remote inspection of a location identifies any red flags, the 
proposed rule states that the participating member firm may need to 
impose additional supervisory procedures for that location or may need 
to provide for more frequent monitoring of that location, including 
potentially a subsequent on-site visit on an announced or unannounced 
basis.\203\ No commenter offered specific support for, or opposition 
to, this proposed provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(d).
    \202\ Id.
    \203\ Id. FINRA has emphasized, in guidance issued to member 
firms, that a well-designed branch inspection program is important 
to both a firm's supervisory program as well as a firm's risk 
management program. For example, Regulatory Notice 11-54 stated, 
``[a]n effective risk assessment process will help drive the 
frequency, intensity and focus of branch office inspections; it 
should also serve as an important consideration in the decision to 
conduct the [inspection] on an announced or unannounced basis. 
Therefore, branch offices should be continuously monitored with 
respect to changes in their overall business, products, people and 
practices.'' See FINRA Regulatory Notice 11-54 (Nov. 2011), https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/11-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is reasonable and will serve as an 
appropriate reminder to participating member firms that any location 
subject to a remote inspection is still subject to the same standard 
for review as that of an on-site inspection. As such, there should be 
no diminution in on-going supervision, regardless of the method a 
participating member firm uses to inspect its locations. The proposed 
rule change should also help ensure that participating member firms are 
aware that even if a location is eligible for a remote inspection at 
one point in time, a participating member firm may need to take 
additional steps (e.g., an on-site visit on an announced or unannounced 
basis) should it become aware of any red flags associated with that 
location.\204\ For these reasons, the proposed rule change is 
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(b); see also Notice at 28628.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Documentation Requirement

    As stated above, the proposed rule change would require that a 
participating member firm maintain and preserve a centralized record 
for each year of the Pilot that identifies: (1) all locations that were 
inspected remotely; and (2) any locations for which the participating 
member firm determined to impose additional supervisory procedures or 
more frequent monitoring.\205\ FINRA stated that requiring the 
retention of such written reports would act as an important safeguard 
for the Pilot.\206\ No commenter expressly supported or objected to 
these proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(e). A participating member firm's 
documentation would be required to include whether an on-site 
inspection was conducted at such location because of the results of 
a remote inspection. Id.
    \206\ See Notice at 28635.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Documenting locations that were inspected remotely, as well as 
locations where additional supervisory procedures or more frequent 
monitoring were imposed, is reasonable and should provide regulators 
with relevant information when conducting their examination and risk 
monitoring responsibilities. Specifically, this information should help 
regulators assess the reasonableness of a participating member firm's 
use of remote inspection as one component of a reasonably designed 
supervisory system. For these reasons, the proposed documentation 
requirement is reasonable.

G. Data Collection

1. Quarterly Data and Information
    As stated above, the proposed rule change would require 
participating member firms to collect and submit

[[Page 82479]]

certain data and information to FINRA on a quarterly basis. 
Specifically, it would cover information about the number and nature of 
inspections completed during the quarter, and a list of the significant 
findings, among other things.\207\ The proposed rule change also would 
require that a participating member firm establish, maintain, and 
enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to 
comply with the data and information collection, and transmission 
requirements of the Pilot.\208\ FINRA stated that it believes that 
``formalized, uniform collection of data is critical'' for it to 
meaningfully assess the effectiveness of remote inspections and shape 
potential permanent amendments to FINRA Rule 3110(c).\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(1).
    \208\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(4) is also referenced in proposed 
Rule 3110.18(c) (Written Supervisory Procedures), discussed above.
    \209\ See Notice at 28632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters agreed that the data and information 
requirements would benefit the Pilot by providing FINRA the information 
it needs to make informed decisions about potential future rule changes 
regarding remote inspections.\210\ Two commenters suggested 
modifications to the proposed rule change, stating that requiring 
quarterly reporting was too onerous.\211\ In particular, one of these 
commenters stated that quarterly reporting ``creates an outsized burden 
on smaller, middle-market, and regional firms'' due to the detailed 
data and information required.\212\ The other commenter described the 
expected burden on larger firms and requested FINRA change the 
reporting frequency to twice a year.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ See, e.g., SIFMA at 2; CAI at 3; Wells Fargo at 2; Raymond 
James I at 2; NASAA I at 8; FSI at 4; letter from Gail Merken, Chief 
Compliance Officer, Janet Dyer, Chief Compliance Officer, John 
McGinty, Chief Compliance Officer, Fidelity Investments; Janet Dyer, 
Chief Compliance Officer, National Financial Services LLC; and John 
McGinty, Chief Compliance Officer, Fidelity Distributors Company 
LLC, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated May 25, 
2023, at 1; letter from Barbara Armeli, Managing Director, Chief 
Compliance Officer, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and Lynn Konop, 
Managing Director, Chief Compliance Officer, TD Ameritrade, Inc., to 
Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated May 25, 2023, at 1; 
letter from Gail Merken, Chief Compliance Officer, Janet Dyer, Chief 
Compliance Officer, John McGinty, Chief Compliance Officer, Fidelity 
Investments; Janet Dyer, Chief Compliance Officer, National 
Financial Services LLC; and John McGinty, Chief Compliance Officer, 
Fidelity Distributors Company LLC, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, 
Commission, dated August 29, 2023, at 1-2. See also generally Cetera 
I at 1.
    \211\ See letter from Mark Seffinger, Chief Compliance Officer; 
LPL Financial, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated 
May 25, 2023 (``LPL I'') at 2; letter from Christopher A. Iacovella, 
President & Chief Executive Officer, American Securities 
Association, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated May 
25, 2023 (``ASA I'') at 2.
    \212\ ASA I at 2.
    \213\ LPL I at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA declined to amend the required frequency of data 
and information reporting.\214\ FINRA stated that it ``believes that 
the cadence and amount of comprehensive data are appropriate and 
necessary for FINRA to effectively study trends and firms' experiences 
with their remote inspection programs in a timely manner.'' \215\ 
However, FINRA also stated that it is exploring ways for participating 
member firms to provide the data and information to FINRA in a more 
efficient and timely manner.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 14.
    \215\ Id.
    \216\ Id.; see also FINRA Response to Comments I at 14 n.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter recommended that FINRA amend the proposed rule change 
to require participating member firms provide ``all findings'' made 
during remote inspections or, at a minimum, ``all significant 
findings'' as opposed to ``most significant findings.'' \217\ The 
commenter reasoned that allowing subjectivity and discretion in data 
reporting would undermine the uniformity of the data and hinder FINRA's 
ability to assess trends and developments.\218\ The commenter 
maintained that ``all findings'' would therefore be appropriate because 
any finding significant enough to be documented in an inspection report 
should be reported.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ See NASAA I at 8-9; see also letter from Andrew Hartnett, 
NASAA President and Deputy Commissioner, Iowa Insurance Division, 
North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc., to 
Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant Secretary, Commission, dated August 29, 
2023 (``NASAA II'') at 2.
    \218\ See NASAA I at 8.
    \219\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA amended the proposed rule change to require 
participating member firms to report ``significant findings'' rather 
than ``most significant findings.'' \220\ FINRA, however, declined to 
require participating member firms to report ``all findings'' because 
it would yield overly broad data, making it ``challenging to discern 
key trends in a meaningful way.'' \221\ FINRA stated that providing 
participating member firms ``the agency to assess what constitutes 
their significant findings'' would enhance FINRA's ability to review a 
discrete set of data that would focus on key areas of concern, which 
would help it assess the effectiveness of remote inspections.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 15; see also supra note 82 
(describing the definition of ``significant findings.''). FINRA has 
used the same definition for ``significant finding'' in the Notice, 
Amendment No. 1, and FINRA Response to Comments I. Id.
    \221\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 15-16; see also Notice at 
28632. FINRA noted that it could obtain any additional findings in a 
participating member firm's inspection reports during a FINRA 
examination. See FINRA Response to Comments I at 16.
    \222\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 15; see also supra note 82 
(describing the definition of ``significant findings.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same commenter acknowledged FINRA's amendment and requested 
that FINRA define the term ``significant findings'' with more precision 
to avoid varying subjective judgments that might skew the data used to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the Pilot.\223\ In response, FINRA stated 
that it provided several clarifying examples of findings that may 
prompt escalation or further internal review, including the use of 
unapproved communication mediums, customer complaints, or undisclosed 
outside business activities or private securities transactions.'' \224\ 
FINRA further explained that it decided to include flexibility in the 
definition of ``significant findings'' because a finding that is 
significant for one participating member firm ``may differ from another 
participant due to their respective attributes (e.g., size, business 
model, organizational structure) and tailored supervisory system.'' 
\225\ Moreover, findings that may suggest a pattern could be deemed 
``significant'' for purposes of the proposed Pilot.\226\ As a result, 
FINRA stated that it believes that participating member firms ``should 
have the ability to exercise their reasonable judgment of what findings 
are significant based on the relevant facts and circumstances.'' \227\ 
FINRA stated it believes that this proposed approach is consistent with 
the principle-based framework of Rule 3110.\228\ In addition, while the 
commenter suggested that FINRA take a more prescriptive approach, FINRA 
reiterated its belief that the proposed rule change's definition of 
``significant findings'' would provide a balanced approach to obtain 
meaningful data and information to appropriately assess the

[[Page 82480]]

effectiveness of a participating member firm's inspection program.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ NASAA II at 2-3. The commenter stated that, without a more 
precise standard, participating member firms will inevitably reach 
different conclusions. Id. at 3. In addition, this commenter 
repeated the request to require participating member firms provide 
``all findings'' to FINRA. Id. at 2.
    \224\ See FINRA Response to Comments II at 8 n.25.
    \225\ Id. at 8.
    \226\ Id. at 9 n.28.
    \227\ Id. at 8-9.
    \228\ Id. at 9.
    \229\ Id. In particular, the commenter suggested that there be a 
``more precise standard (or set of standards) for when a ``finding'' 
is ``significant.'' NASAA II at 3, n.12 (pointing to the ``very 
clear reporting standards in FINRA Rule 4530). In response, FINRA 
declined to change the definition, stating the current approach is 
consistent with the principle-based framework of FINRA Rule 3110. 
See FINRA Response to Comments II at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quarterly reporting of Pilot data should allow FINRA to review and 
assess data about participating member firms' inspection programs in a 
timely manner. While a quarterly reporting obligation is more 
burdensome than a less frequent one, participation in the Pilot is 
voluntary, and a quarterly schedule should help FINRA to study trends 
in the data and information and more promptly identify any regulatory 
oversight concerns than with a less frequent reporting interval. A more 
frequent reporting cycle would also provide FINRA with more up-to-date 
data to evaluate a participating member firm's continued participation 
in the Pilot.
    A commenter expressed concerns about the potential subjectivity of 
the data and information that would be collected during the Pilot if 
parties were required to report only ``significant findings.'' However, 
FINRA has made a reasonable distinction between the quantity and the 
quality of the data it would seek from participating member firms 
during the Pilot, and narrowing the focus to study significant areas of 
concern should help serve the Pilot's purpose to assess the 
effectiveness of remote inspections. Also, to help alleviate concerns 
around subjectivity, FINRA defined ``significant finding'' in the 
proposed rule change and provided examples to further clarify its 
meaning, which will help standardize reporting of data by participating 
member firms.\230\ The proposed principle-based approach to this aspect 
of data reporting should allow firms flexibility to determine what 
types of findings need to be reported based on their unique business 
models. Further, as FINRA stated, whether a finding is significant may 
change depending on the relevant facts and circumstances. Moreover, 
findings that may suggest a pattern could be deemed ``significant'' for 
purposes of the proposed Pilot even where they might not be considered 
significant individually. Thus, having reasonable flexibility is 
beneficial. Accordingly, FINRA's principle-based approach to 
interpreting the term ``significant finding'' is reasonable. For these 
reasons, the Commission finds the proposed data and information 
collection provision is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ See supra note 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Additional Data and Information if the First Year of the Pilot is 
Less Than a Full Year
    As stated above, if Pilot Year 1 covers less than a full calendar 
year, the proposed rule change would require a participating member 
firm to provide additional data and information to cover the period of 
time between January 1 and the day prior to the effective date of the 
Pilot.\231\ FINRA stated that this would enable it to capture, in the 
aggregate, complete inspection counts (including remote and on-site) 
for the entire calendar year in addition to the quarterly data it would 
receive during the Pilot.\232\ Aside from general comments in support 
of the Pilot's data and information requirements discussed above, no 
commenter offered specific support for, or opposition to, this 
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2); see also Amendment No. 1. 
The additional data and information would include: (1) the number of 
locations with an inspection completed between January 1 of the 
first Pilot Year and the day before the effective date of the Pilot; 
(2) the number of locations referenced in item (1) that were 
inspected remotely between January 1 of the first Pilot Year and the 
day before the effective date of the Pilot; and (3) the number of 
locations referenced in item (1) that were inspected on-site between 
January 1 of first Pilot Year and the day before the effective date 
of the Pilot. In addition, Amendment No. 1 imposed two new 
obligations to collect and produce data and information to FINRA. 
Specifically, participating member firms would also be required to 
collect and provide to FINRA the following: (4) the number of 
locations referenced in item (2) where findings were identified, the 
number of those findings, and a list of the significant findings; 
and (5) the number of locations referenced in item (3) where 
findings were identified, the number of those findings, and a list 
of the significant findings.
    \232\ See Notice at 28632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change should provide FINRA with a fuller picture 
of the nature, amount, and outcomes of the inspections conducted by 
participating member firms and allow FINRA to aggregate the data and 
information provided with the quarterly data received during the Pilot 
to obtain a full picture of inspections completed for the entire 
calendar year. More specifically, the requirement to provide this 
additional data and information to FINRA should help address the 
potential gap of time that would result in FINRA lacking complete data 
if the first year of the Pilot is less than a full calendar year. The 
data and information should also provide FINRA with useful information 
regarding those remote inspections conducted under the temporary relief 
of FINRA Rule 3110.17 if those inspections are completed between 
January 1 and the day before the effective date of the Pilot. 
Therefore, the proposed data and information collection should improve 
FINRA's ability to assess the effectiveness of the Pilot during its 
pendency. For these reasons, the proposed data and information 
collection provision is reasonable.
3. Additional Data and Information for Calendar Year 2019
    As originally proposed, the proposed rule change would have 
required that a participating member firm collect and provide to FINRA 
data about inspections completed in 2019.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(3). The data and information 
would include: (1) the number of locations with an inspection 
completed during calendar year 2019; and (2) the number of locations 
referenced in item (1) where findings were identified, the number of 
those findings, and a list of the most significant findings. Id. As 
originally proposed, the proposed rule change required a list of the 
``most significant findings,'' which FINRA amended to ``significant 
findings.'' See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter expressed support for the collection of 2019 data, 
stating that it would ``significantly enhance'' FINRA's ability to more 
broadly judge the efficacy of remote supervisions.\234\ Two other 
commenters similarly acknowledged the value in obtaining this data and 
information from participating member firms, but raised concerns that 
some member firms may no longer maintain inspection reports from 2019 
since inspection reports are generally only required to be maintained 
for a period of three years.\235\ These two commenters stated that a 
member firm should not be excluded from participation in the Pilot if 
it is unable to provide the 2019 data to FINRA, despite having complied 
with the applicable record retention requirement. Instead, they 
recommended that FINRA amend the proposed rule change to require 
participating member firms to collect and provide to FINRA the 2019 
data ``if available in the firm's records'' and to require member firms 
to make a ``best efforts'' attempt to collect it.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ NASAA I at 8.
    \235\ See CAI at 3; FSI at 4-5. Both commenters cite FINRA Rule 
3010(c)(2), which states: ``An inspection and review by a member . . 
. must be reduced to a written report and kept on file by the member 
for a minimum of three years, unless the inspection is [of a non-
branch location] and the regular periodic schedule is longer than a 
three-year cycle, in which case the report must be kept on file at 
least until the next inspection report has been written.''
    \236\ FSI at 5; see also CAI at 3 (``[T]here is concern that the 
requirement to provide such information from 2019 may exclude 
certain firms from being able to participate since they may not be 
able to provide information for 2019 inspections.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA amended the proposed rule change to require

[[Page 82481]]

participating member firms to ``act in good faith using best efforts'' 
to collect and provide the 2019 data to FINRA (``good faith 
exception'').\237\ As such, FINRA stated that if a participating member 
firm is unable to provide these data, the member firm would not 
necessarily be precluded from participating in the Pilot. FINRA 
acknowledged that not all member firms will have maintained the 2019 
data, but strongly encouraged firms that plan to participate in the 
Pilot to retain their 2019 data, as it would enhance the value of the 
Pilot for any future rulemaking regarding remote inspections.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(3); see also Amendment No. 1.
    \238\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter opposed this amendment to the proposed rule change, 
stating that it was insufficient. This commenter recommended that FINRA 
further amend the proposed rule change to require any member firm 
seeking to avail itself of this exception to ``document the precise 
steps in support of [its] `best efforts in good faith' '' to recover 
its 2019 data.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ NASAA II at 4 (reasoning that it is unlikely an exception 
is needed because firms routinely retain data for far longer than is 
required by rule; however, if FINRA keeps this exception, the 
commenter's suggested language would help protect the integrity of 
the Pilot against firms that are ``slipshod'' in their document 
retention (or are actively seeking to evade the Pilot 
requirements)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA stated that because the concepts of ``good 
faith'' and ``best efforts'' are commonly understood legal standards, 
there is no need to require a participating member firm to document the 
steps it took to recover its 2019 data.\240\ Furthermore, FINRA stated 
that while some participating member firms may keep their inspection 
reports beyond the minimum rule-based retention period, they are not 
required to do so.\241\ Thus, FINRA declined to amend the proposed rule 
change.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ See FINRA Response to Comments II at 10.
    \241\ Id.
    \242\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is reasonable and should help ensure that 
FINRA has the data and information it needs to best meet a key 
objective for the Pilot--to determine the effectiveness of the Pilot. 
Since 2019 is the last full calendar year that member firms were 
required to include an on-site visit in their inspections, the 2019 
data should represent a baseline of data about on-site inspections 
against which FINRA could measure changes due to using remote 
inspections. Specifically, the proposed rule change would enable FINRA 
to compare the 2019 data with the quarterly data that would be 
collected during the Pilot to identify and assess any differences. Some 
participating member firms may not have maintained 2019 inspection 
reports beyond the time period required by FINRA Rule 3110(c)(2) and 
such member firms should not be excluded from participating in the 
Pilot for that reason. As such, FINRA reasonably determined that such 
member firms may continue to participate if they act in good faith 
using best efforts to provide the data and information in order to 
maintain a level of accountability and mitigate concerns that a 
participating member firm would purposely withhold this information.

H. Other Safeguards and Limitations Provisions

1. Length of Pilot
    As stated above, under the proposed rule change the Pilot would 
expire three years after its effective date. FINRA stated that it 
believes the Pilot would provide FINRA the appropriate amount of time 
and population sample to better evaluate the use of remote inspections 
in the current hybrid work environment.\243\ No commenter expressly 
supported or objected to these proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ See Notice at 28635.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed length of the Pilot should suffice to allow FINRA to 
evaluate the efficacy of the Pilot, and to consider any adjustments as 
necessary. For these reasons, the scope of the Pilot provision is 
reasonable.
2. Method of Pilot Participation
    As stated above, the proposed rule change would set forth the 
process for opting in and out of the Pilot.\244\ FINRA stated that it 
believes the proposed process would lend continuity to the data and 
information collected during the Pilot.\245\ No commenter expressly 
supported or objected to these proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(i). A member firm seeking to 
participate would be required to provide FINRA an opt-in notice at 
least five calendar days before the beginning of the Pilot Year and 
agree to participate and comply with the Pilot requirements for the 
duration of such Pilot Year. A participating member firm would be 
deemed to have elected and agreed to participate in the Pilot in 
subsequent Pilot Years until the Pilot expires. To opt out, a 
participating member firm would need to provide FINRA with notice at 
least five calendar days before the end of the current Pilot Year.
    \245\ See Notice at 28633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed process for opting in and out of the Pilot is 
reasonable and should help FINRA obtain consistent data and information 
from participating member firms, helping it assess the Pilot's 
effectiveness. Specifically, setting minimum commitments for 
participation and requiring a set time period for opting out should 
help ensure that FINRA will receive a full set of data from any 
participating member firm for any given Pilot Year. In addition, such 
commitments should help safeguard against a participating member firm 
trying to exit the Pilot in order to avoid submitting problematic data 
or complying with other conditions in the Pilot. For these reasons, the 
Pilot participation provision is reasonable.
3. Failure To Satisfy Conditions and Determination of Ineligibility
    As stated above, the proposed rule change would deem a 
participating member firm that failed to satisfy the safeguards and 
limitations of the Pilot, including the requirement to timely collect 
and submit data, ineligible to participate in the Pilot, thus requiring 
it to conduct on-site inspections of each location.\246\ In addition, 
as stated above, the proposed rule change would give FINRA discretion 
to make a determination in the public interest and for the protection 
of investors that a member firm is no longer eligible to participate in 
the Pilot if the member firm fails to comply with the Pilot's 
requirements.\247\ FINRA stated that it proposed this second provision 
to address concerns regarding allowing FINRA to more effectively assess 
whether particular member firms pose a higher risk when monitoring for 
compliance with the Pilot.\248\ Specifically, FINRA stated that the 
proposed rule change would permit FINRA to exclude higher risk firms 
and locations that were not otherwise excluded from participation by 
the Pilot's other safeguards and limitations.\249\ No commenter 
expressly supported or objected to these proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(j).
    \247\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(k).
    \248\ See Notice at 28633; see also, e.g., letter from Melanie 
Senter Lubin, President, NASAA, to J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 
Assistant Secretary, Commission, regarding FINRA-2022-021, dated 
August 23, 2022, at 8-9 (relaying concerns regarding FINRA's ability 
to monitor the Pilot).
    \249\ See Notice at 28633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot's safeguards and limitations, discussed herein, are 
reasonable and should help reduce the potential risk of non-compliance 
among member firms participating in the Pilot. Member firms who fail to 
satisfy the conditions of the Pilot should not be eligible to 
participate in the Pilot or conduct remote inspections and should be 
required to conduct all inspections on-site. Additionally, FINRA would 
have the flexibility to address situations

[[Page 82482]]

where a participating member firm may pose a heightened risk of non-
compliance but has not been otherwise excluded by the safeguards and 
limitations of the Pilot. For these reasons, proposed Rule 3110.18(j) 
and proposed Rule 3110.18(k) are reasonable.

III. Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that the 
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent 
with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, which requires, among other 
things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and 
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles 
of trade, and, in general, protect investors and the public 
interest.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the 
Exchange Act \251\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2023-007), 
as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25886 Filed 11-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P