Consolidated Audit Trail, 32556-32610 [2010-13129]
Download as PDF
32556
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 242
[Release No. 34–62174; File No. S7–11–10]
RIN 3235–AK51
Consolidated Audit Trail
Securities and Exchange
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is
proposing new Rule 613 under Section
11A(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’) that would
require national securities exchanges
and national securities associations
(‘‘self-regulatory organizations’’ or
‘‘SROs’’) to act jointly in developing a
national market system (‘‘NMS’’) plan to
develop, implement, and maintain a
consolidated order tracking system, or
consolidated audit trail, with respect to
the trading of NMS securities.
The Commission preliminarily
believes that with today’s electronic,
interconnected markets, there is a
heightened need for regulators to have
efficient access to a more robust and
effective cross-market order and
execution tracking system. Currently,
many of the national securities
exchanges and the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’)
have audit trail rules and systems to
track information relating to orders
received and executed, or otherwise
handled, in their respective markets.
While the information gathered from
these audit trail systems aids the SRO
and Commission staff in their regulatory
responsibility to surveil for compliance
with SRO rules and the federal
securities laws and regulations, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
existing audit trails are limited in their
scope and effectiveness in varying ways.
In addition, while the SRO and
Commission staff also currently receive
information about orders or trades
through the electronic bluesheet (‘‘EBS’’)
system, Rule 17a–25 under the
Exchange Act,1 or from equity cleared
reports, the information is limited, to
varying degrees, in detail and scope.
A consolidated audit trail would
significantly aid in SRO efforts to detect
and deter fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices in the marketplace,
and generally to regulate their markets
and members. In addition, such an audit
trail would benefit the Commission in
its market analysis efforts, such as
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
1 17
CFR 240.17a–25.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
investigating and preparing market
reconstructions and understanding
causes of unusual market activity.
Further, timely pursuit of potential
violations can be important in seeking
to freeze and recover any profits
received from illegal activity.
DATES: Comments should be received on
or before August 9, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/proposed.shtml); or
• Send an e-mail to
rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include
File No. S7–11–10 on the subject line;
or
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(https://www.regulations.gov). Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
No. S7–11–10. This file number should
be included on the subject line if e-mail
is used. To help us process and review
your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission
will post all comments on the
Commission’s Internet Web site (https://
www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml).
Comments are also available for Web
site viewing and printing in the
Commission’s Public Reference Room,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All
comments received will be posted
without change; we do not edit personal
identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebekah Liu, Special Counsel, at (202)
551–5665; Jennifer Colihan, Special
Counsel, at (202) 551–5642, or Leigh W.
Duffy, Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 551–
5928, Division of Trading and Markets,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549–7010.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Basis for Proposed Rule
III. Description of Proposed Rule
IV. Request for Comments
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
VI. Consideration of Costs and Benefits
VII. Consideration of Burden on Competition,
and Promotion of Efficiency,
Competition and Capital Formation
VIII. Consideration of Impact on the
Economy
IX. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
X. Statutory Authority
I. Background
The U.S. securities markets have
undergone a significant transformation
over the last few decades, and
particularly in the last few years.
Regulatory changes and technological
advances have contributed to a
tremendous growth in trading volume
and the further distribution of order
flow across multiple trading centers.
Today’s markets are widely dispersed,
with securities often trading on multiple
markets, including over-the-counter
(‘‘OTC’’). Additionally, products that are
closely related in nature and objective
are also traded on different markets. For
example, various markets trade either
options on the S&P 500 index,2 futures
on the S&P 500 index,3 exchange traded
funds (‘‘ETFs’’) based on the S&P 500
index,4 and options and futures on
those ETFs.5 This dispersion of
significant trading volume has led the
Commission in the past to ask for
comment on how best to enhance the
capability of SROs and the Commission
to effectively and efficiently conduct
cross-market supervision of trading
activity.6
The individual SROs are responsible
for regulating their markets and their
members.7 Further, the Commission has
responsibilities to oversee the SROs, the
securities markets, and registered
broker-dealers, and routinely conducts
examinations of or investigations into
trading activity as part of its oversight
and enforcement programs.8 The SROs
and the Commission need tools to
2 The Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (‘‘CBOE’’) lists options on the S&P 500
Index (SPX) and on the Mini-S&P 500 Index (XSP)
(1/10th the value of the S&P 500 Index).
3 For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Inc. (‘‘CME’’) offers S&P 500 futures and ‘‘E-Mini’’
futures on the S&P 500 Index ($50 × S&P 500 Index
price).
4 For example, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’)
lists an ETF based on the S&P 500 SPDR (SPY) and
the iShares S&P 500 Index Fund (IVV).
5 For example, OneChicago, LLC lists futures on
the SPY, and CBOE lists options on the iShares S&P
500 Value Index Fund.
6 See infra Section I.G. (discussing past
Commission requests for comment on regulation of
intermarket trading).
7 See, e.g., Sections 6(b)(1), 15A(b)(2), and 19(g)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1), 15 U.S.C.
78o–3(b)(2), and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g).
8 See, e.g., Sections 2, 6(b)(1), 10, 15(b)(4)(D) and
(E), and 19(h) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78b,
15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. 78j, 15 U.S.C.
78o(b)(4)(D) and (E), and 15 U.S.C. 78s(h).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
effectively carry out these
responsibilities even when trading
occurs on multiple markets. For
example, it is important that the SRO
and Commission staff have order and
trade data sufficient to monitor crossmarket trading activity, assist with
investigations of potential violations of
federal securities laws and exchange
rules, and perform market
reconstructions or other analysis
necessary to understand trading
activity.9 Such information also is
important to the Commission in
carrying out its oversight
responsibilities.
The SROs’ staff currently uses both
EBS 10 and SRO audit trail data to help
fulfill their regulatory obligations.11
Commission staff also uses this data to
perform its regulatory oversight
obligations. The Commission and SROs
have depended on the bluesheet system
for decades to request trading records
from broker-dealers needed for
regulatory inquiries. Most SROs also
maintain their own specific audit trail
requirements applicable to their
members. As discussed more fully
below, for example, the National
Association of Securities Dealers
(‘‘NASD’’) 12 established the Order Audit
9 As discussed below in Sections II and III, the
Commission preliminarily believes that the
proposal would improve the ability of regulators to
conduct timely and accurate trading analyses for
market reconstructions and complex investigations,
as well as inspections and examinations. Indeed,
the Commission believes that the proposed
consolidated audit trail, if implemented, would
have significantly enhanced the Commission’s
ability to quickly reconstruct and analyze the severe
market disruption that occurred on May 6, 2010. If
approved and implemented, the proposal also
would enhance the Commission’s ability to
similarly respond to future severe market events.
10 Bluesheets are trading records requested by the
Commission and SROs from broker-dealers that are
used in regulatory investigations to identify buyers
and sellers of specific securities.
11 The Commission recently published for
comment a proposal to establish a large trader
reporting system. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 61908 (April 14, 2010), 75 FR 21456
(April 23, 2010) (‘‘Large Trader Proposal’’). Under
that proposal, large traders would be issued unique
identifiers that they would be required to provide
to the broker-dealers that execute transactions on
their behalf, and the broker-dealers would be
required to maintain, and provide to the
Commission upon request, transaction records for
each large trader customer. The large trader
proposal is designed to address in the near term the
Commission’s current need for access to more
information about large traders and their activities.
As discussed below, the Commission anticipates
that the proposed consolidated audit trail discussed
in this release, which is much broader in scope,
would take a significant amount of time to fully
implement. This proposal would require that, if the
Large Trader proposal is adopted, the large trader
identification number be reported to the central
repository as part of the identifying customer
information. See proposed Rule 613(j)(2).
12 In 2007, the NASD and the member-related
functions of NYSE Regulation, Inc., the regulatory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Trail System (‘‘OATS’’) 13 in 1996, and
the New York Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’)
implemented its Order Tracking System
(‘‘OTS’’) 14 in 1999. Beginning in 2000,
several of the current options exchanges
implemented the Consolidated Options
Audit Trail System (‘‘COATS’’).15
Currently, there is significant
disparity in the audit trail requirements
among the exchanges and FINRA,
especially with respect to the
information captured by each.16
Further, the information for each must
be provided in different formats. The
differences result in inconsistent
requirements imposed on exchange and
FINRA members, and also make it
difficult to view trading activity across
multiple markets. The lack of
uniformity in, and cross-market
compatibility of, SRO audit trails can
make detection of illegal trading activity
carried out across multiple markets and
multiple products more difficult. The
Commission has voiced concern about
the lack of uniformity in, and crossmarket compatibility of, the audit trails
in the past.17 The Commission
preliminarily believes that these
differences may hinder the ability of the
SROs and the Commission to effectively
view and regulate trading activity across
markets.
Further, risks imposed on the markets
by violative conduct can be
substantially increased by automated
trading, as market participants have the
ability to trade numerous products and
subsidiary of the New York Stock Exchange LLC
(‘‘NYSE’’), were consolidated. As part of this
regulatory consolidation, the NASD changed its
name to FINRA. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 56146 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42190
(August 1, 2007). FINRA and the National Futures
Association (‘‘NFA’’) are currently the only national
securities associations registered with the
Commission; however, the NFA has a limited
purpose registration with the Commission under
Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o–
3(k). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
44823 (September 20, 2001), 66 FR 49439
(September 27, 2001).
13 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39729
(March 6, 1998), 63 FR 12559 (March 13, 1998)
(order approving proposed rules comprising OATS)
(‘‘OATS Approval Order’’).
14 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47689
(April 17, 2003), 68 FR 20200 (April 24, 2003)
(order approving proposed rule change by NYSE
relating to order tracking) (‘‘OTS Approval Order’’).
15 See In the Matter of Certain Activities of
Options Exchanges, Administrative Proceeding File
No. 3–10282, Securities Exchange Act Release No.
43268 (September 11, 2000) (Order Instituting
Public Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to
Section 19(h)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial
Sanctions) (‘‘Options Settlement Order’’). See also,
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50996
(January 7, 2005), 70 FR 2436 (order approving
proposed rule change by CBOE relating to Phase V
of COATS).
16 See infra Sections I.C, I.D, I.E, and I.F.
17 See infra Section I.G.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32557
enormous volume in mere seconds. As
trading venues have become more
automated, and trading systems have
become computerized, trading volumes
have increased significantly,18 and
trading has become more dispersed
across more trading centers and
therefore more difficult to monitor and
trace.19 The Commission is concerned
that current audit trail requirements are
insufficient to capture in a timely
manner all of the information necessary
to efficiently and effectively monitor
trading activity in today’s highly
automated and dispersed markets. The
Commission also is concerned that the
current lack of cohesive, readily
available order and execution
information impacts the ability of the
SROs and the Commission staff to
effectively perform their respective
regulatory and oversight responsibilities
with respect to trading activity by
market participants across markets and
products.
A. Electronic Bluesheets and Rule 17a–
25
The Commission and the SROs
frequently request bluesheets from
broker-dealers to aid in investigations of
possible Federal securities law
violations and to create market
reconstructions.20 Until the late 1980s,
bluesheets consisted of questionnaire
forms that Commission and SRO
regulatory staff mailed to firms to be
manually completed and returned.21
Obtaining bluesheets in this manner
was particularly onerous as there were
substantial delays in the production and
receipt of the requested information.
Additionally, the data was submitted in
a variety of formats, making analysis
time-consuming, and requests could
result in vast amounts of information
requiring lengthy manual
examination.22
In the late 1980s, as the volume of
trading and securities transactions
18 For example, consolidated average daily share
volume and trades in NYSE-listed stocks increased
from just 2.1 billion shares and 2.9 million trades
in January 2005, to 5.9 billion shares (an increase
of 181%) and 22.1 million trades (an increase of
662%) in September 2009. See Large Trader
Proposal, supra note 11, at 21456.
19 See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (January 21,
2010) (‘‘Concept Release on Equity Market
Structure’’) at 3594–3596.
20 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44494
(June 29, 2001), 66 FR 35836 (July 9, 2001) (File No.
S7–12–00) (‘‘Rule 17a–25 Adopting Release’’), at
35836.
21 Id.
22 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25859
(June 27, 1988), 53 FR 25029 (July 1, 1988)
(approving both the NYSE and the American Stock
Exchange’s (‘‘Amex’’) rules for the electronic
submission of transaction information).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32558
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
dramatically increased, the manual
bluesheet system was replaced by the
EBS system.23 The EBS system allows
broker-dealers to electronically submit
the requested information in a specific
format and transmit it to the Securities
Industry Automation Corporation
(‘‘SIAC’’).24 SIAC then routes the
information to the Commission or to an
SRO as applicable.
The EBS system, supplemented by the
requirements of Rule 17a–25 under the
Exchange Act,25 currently is used by
Commission and SRO regulatory staff
primarily to assist the staff in the
investigation of possible federal
securities law violations primarily
involving insider trading and other
market manipulations, and to conduct
market reconstructions, especially
following periods of significant market
volatility.26 In its electronic format, the
EBS system provides detailed execution
information upon request by the
Commission and the SROs’ staff for
specific securities during specified time
frames.27 However, because the EBS
system is designed for use in narrowlyfocused enforcement investigations that
generally involve trading in particular
securities, it is less useful for large-scale
market reconstructions and analyses
involving numerous stocks during peak
trading volume periods.28
In 2000, the Commission proposed
Rule 17a–25 under the Exchange Act to
supplement the existing EBS system
23 See Rule 17a–25 Adopting Release, supra note
20, at 3–4. See also, e.g., id. and Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 26235 (November 1,
1988), 53 FR 44688 (November 4, 1988) (approving
the CBOE rule for the electronic submission of
transaction information); 26539 (February 13, 1989),
54 FR 7318 (February 17, 1989) (approving the
NASD’s rule for the electronic submission of
transaction information); and 27170 (August 23,
1989), 54 FR 37066 (September 6, 1989) (approving
the Philadelphia Stock Exchange’s rule for the
electronic submission of transaction information).
24 See Rule 17a–25 Adopting Release, supra note
20, at 35836. SIAC is a subsidiary of NYSE Euronext
and serves as the securities information processor
of the Consolidated Tape Plan (‘‘CTA Plan’’), which
governs the dissemination of trade information; the
Consolidated Quotation Plan (‘‘CQ Plan’’), which
governs the dissemination of quotation information;
and the Options Price Reporting Authority Plan
(‘‘OPRA Plan’’), which governs the dissemination of
trade and quotation information for listed options.
In this capacity, it provides real time quotation and
transaction information to market participants.
25 17 CFR 240.17a–25.
26 See Rule 17a–25 Adopting Release, supra note
20, at 35836.
27 EBS data does not, however, include the time
of execution, and often does not include the
identity of the beneficial owner. See infra note 147.
28 A 1990 Senate Report acknowledged the
immense value of the EBS system, but noted that
‘‘it is designed for use in more narrowly focused
enforcement investigations that generally relate to
trading in individual securities. It is not designed
for use for multiple inquiries that are essential for
trading reconstruction purposes.’’ See S. Rep. No.
300, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 2–5 (1990), at 48.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
with data elements incorporating
institutional and professional trading
strategies, to assist regulatory staff in
reviewing and analyzing EBS data.29
Adopted in June 2001,30 the rule
codified the requirement that brokerdealers submit to the Commission, upon
request, information on their customer
and proprietary securities transactions
in an electronic format.31 Rule 17a–25
requires submission of the same
standard customer and proprietary
transaction information that SROs
request through the EBS system in
connection with their market
surveillance and enforcement
inquiries.32
Specifically, for a proprietary
transaction, Rule 17a–25 requires a
broker-dealer to provide the following
information electronically upon request:
(1) Clearing house number or alpha
symbol used by the broker-dealer
submitting the information; (2) clearing
house number(s) or alpha symbol(s) of
the broker-dealer(s) on the opposite side
to the trade; (3) security identifier; (4)
execution date; (5) quantity executed;
(6) transaction price; (7) account
number; (8) identity of the exchange or
market where the transaction was
executed; (9) prime broker identifier;
(10) average price account identifier;
and (11) the identifier assigned to the
account by a depository institution.33
For customer transactions, the brokerdealer also is required to include the
customer’s name, customer’s address,
the customer’s tax identification
number, and other related account
information.34 The new data elements
added by Rule 17a–25—prime broker
identifiers, average price account
identifiers, and depository institution
account identifiers—assist the
Commission in aggregating, without
double-counting, securities transactions
by entities trading through multiple
accounts at more than one brokerdealer.35
29 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42741
(May 2, 2000), 65 FR 26534 (May 8, 2000) (‘‘Rule
17a–25 Proposing Release’’).
30 See Rule 17a–25 Adopting Release, supra note
20.
31 Id. at 35836, and 17 CFR 240.17a–25.
32 See e.g. NYSE Rule 410A and FINRA Rule
8211.
33 See Rule 17a–25(a)(1) and Rule 17a–25(b)(1)–
(3), 17 CFR 240.17a–25(a)(1) and 17 CFR 240.17a–
25(b)(1)–(3).
34 See Rule 17a–25(a)(2), 17 CFR 240.17a–
25(a)(2). Rule 17a–25 also requires broker-dealers to
submit, and keep current, contact person
information for requests under the rule. This
provision was designed to ensure that the
Commission could effectively direct its data
requests to broker-dealers. See Rule 17a–25
Proposing Release, supra note 29, at 26537.
35 This information was deemed especially
necessary for the creation of massive market
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
B. Equity Cleared Reports
In addition to the EBS system and
Rule 17a–25, the Commission also relies
upon the National Securities Clearing
Corporation’s (‘‘NSCC’’) 36 equity cleared
report for initial regulatory inquiries.37
This report is generated on a daily basis
by the SROs and is provided to the
NSCC, in a database accessible by the
Commission, and shows the number of
trades and daily volume of all equity
securities in which transactions took
place, sorted by clearing member. The
information provided is end of day data
and is searchable by security name and
CUSIP number.38 Since the information
made available on the report is limited
to the date, the clearing firm, and the
number of transactions cleared by each
clearing firm on each SRO, it basically
serves as a starting point for an
investigation, providing a tool the
Commission can use to narrow down
which clearing firms to contact
concerning a transaction in a certain
security.
C. FINRA’s Order Audit Trail System
In 1996, the Commission instituted
public administrative proceedings
against the NASD, alleging that it failed
to enforce and investigate potential
misconduct by its members.39 In settling
the Commission’s enforcement action,
the NASD was ordered to design and
implement an audit trail to enable it to
reconstruct its markets promptly and
effectively surveil them.40 The
Commission mandated that the audit
trail at a minimum: (1) Provide an
accurate time-sequenced record of
orders and transactions, beginning with
reconstructions performed by Commission staff. See
Rule 17a–25 Adopting Release, supra note 20, at
35836.
36 NSCC is a subsidiary of the Deposit Trust and
Clearing Corporation and provides centralized
clearing information and settlement services to
broker-dealers for trades involving equities,
corporate and municipal debt, American depository
receipts, exchange traded funds, and unit
investment trusts.
37 The Commission also uses the Options Cleared
Report, with data supplied by the Options Clearing
Corporation (‘‘OCC’’), for analysis of trading in listed
options. OCC is an equity derivatives clearing
organization that is registered as a clearing agency
under Section 17A of the Exchange Act and
operates under the jurisdiction of both the
Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission (‘‘CFTC’’).
38 A CUSIP number is a unique alphanumeric
identifier assigned to a security and is used to
facilitate the clearance and settlement of trades in
the security.
39 See In the Matter of National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc., Administrative Proceeding
File No. 3–9056, Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 37538 (August 8, 1996) (Order Instituting
Public Proceedings Pursuant to Section 19(h)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making
Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions).
40 Id. at 11–12.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the receipt of an order at the first point
of contact between the broker-dealer
and the customer or counterparty, and
further documenting the life of the order
through the process including
execution, modification and
cancellation; and (2) provide for marketwide synchronization of clocks used in
connection with the new audit trail
system.41 In response to the order, the
NASD created OATS.42
Currently, OATS is used to capture
order information reported by FINRA
members in equity securities listed on
the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(‘‘Nasdaq’’) and OTC equity securities.43
OATS requires reporting members 44 to
record and report to FINRA 45 detailed
information covering the receipt and
origination of an order,46 order terms,
transmission, and modification,
cancellation and execution.47
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
41 Id.
42 See FINRA Rules 7400 to 7470. See also OATS
Approval Order, supra note 13.
43 FINRA defines an OTC equity security as any
equity security that (1) is not listed on a national
securities exchange, or (2) is listed on one or more
regional stock exchanges and does not qualify for
dissemination of transaction reports via the
facilities of the Consolidated Tape. See FINRA Rule
7410(l).
44 A reporting member is a member that receives
or originates an order and has an obligation to
record and report information under FINRA Rules
7440 and 7450. A member shall not be considered
a reporting member in connection with an order if
the following conditions are met: (1) The member
engages in a non-discretionary order routing
process, pursuant to which it immediately routes,
by electronic or other means, all of its orders to a
single reporting member; (2) the member does not
direct and does not maintain control over
subsequent routing or execution by the receiving
reporting member; (3) the receiving reporting
member records and reports all information
required under FINRA Rules 7440 and 7450 with
respect to the order; and (4) the member has a
written agreement with the receiving reporting
member specifying the respective functions and
responsibilities of each party to effect full
compliance with the requirements of Rule 7440 and
7450. See FINRA Rule 7410(o).
45 Each reporting member must record each item
of information required by OATS in electronic form
by the end of each business day. See FINRA Rule
7440(a)(3). Reporting members must transmit to
OATS a report of order information whenever an
order is originated, received, transmitted to another
department within the member or to another
member, modified, canceled, or executed. Each
report shall be transmitted on the day such event
occurred if the information is available that day.
Order information reports may be aggregated into
one or more transmissions. See FINRA Rule
7450(b)(2).
46 OATS recording and reporting requirements
apply to any oral, written, or electronic instruction
to effect a transaction in an equity security listed
on the Nasdaq Stock Market or an OTC equity
security that is received by a member from another
person for handling or execution, or that is
originated by a department of a member for
execution by the same or another member, other
than any such instruction to effect a proprietary
transaction originated by a trading desk in the
ordinary course of a member’s market making
activities. See FINRA Rule 7410(j).
47 See FINRA Rules 7440 and 7450.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Specifically, for each of these stages in
the life of an order, FINRA Rule 7440
requires the recording and reporting of
the following information, as applicable,
including but not limited to:
• For the receipt or origination of the
order,48 the date and time the order was
first originated or received by the
reporting member; a unique order
identifier; the market participant symbol
of the receiving reporting member; and
the material terms of the order;49
• For the internal or external routing
of an order, the unique order identifier;
the market participant symbol of the
member to which the order was
transmitted; the identification and
nature of the department to which the
order was transmitted if transmitted
internally; the date and time the order
was received by the market participant
or department to which the order was
transmitted; the material terms of the
order as transmitted; 50 the date and
time the order is transmitted; and the
market participant symbol of the
member who transmitted the order;
• For the modification or cancellation
of an order, a new unique order
identifier; original unique order
identifier; the date and time a
modification or cancellation was
originated or received; and the date and
time the order was first received or
originated; 51 and
• For the execution of an order, in
whole or in part, the unique order
identifier; the designation of the order
as fully or partially executed; the
number of shares to which a partial
execution applies and the number of
48 FINRA Rule 7440 also requires reporting of the
account type; the identification of the department
or terminal where an order is received from a
customer; the identification of the department or
terminal where an order is originated by a reporting
member; and the identification of a reporting agent
if the agent has agreed to take on the
responsibilities of a reporting member under Rule
7450. See FINRA Rule 7440(b).
49 The specific information required to be
reported includes: The number of shares;
designation as a buy or sell or short sale;
designation of the order as market, limit, stop, or
stop limit; limit or stop price; date on which the
order expires and if the time in force is less than
one day, the time when the order expires; the time
limit during which the order is in force; any request
by a customer that an order not be displayed, or that
a block size be displayed, pursuant to Rule 604(b)
of Regulation NMS; any special handling requests;
and identification of the order as related to a
program trade or index arbitrage trade. See FINRA
Rule 7440(b).
50 The specific information required includes the
number of shares to which the transmission applies,
and whether the order is an intermarket sweep
order. See FINRA Rule 7440(c).
51 For cancellations or modification, the following
information also is required: If the open balance of
an order is canceled after a partial execution, the
number of shares canceled; and whether the order
was canceled on the instruction of a customer or the
reporting member. See FINRA Rule 7440(d).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32559
unexecuted shares remaining; the date
and time of execution; the execution
price; the capacity in which the member
executed the transaction; the
identification of the market where the
trade was reported; and the date and
time the order was originally received.52
FINRA uses this information to recreate
daily market activity for FINRA’s market
surveillance activities.53
D. NYSE’s Order Tracking System
The Commission instituted public
administrative proceedings against the
NYSE in 1999, alleging that the
exchange had failed to detect violations
of federal securities laws and its own
rules by its independent floor broker
members, failed to police for
performance-based compensation
arrangements involving these members,
and failed to adequately surveil them.54
In settling the Commission’s
enforcement action, the NYSE was
ordered to continue its development of
an electronic floor system for the entry
of order details prior to representation
on the exchange floor, as well as to
design and implement an audit trail to
enable it to effectively surveil and
reconstruct its market promptly, and
facilitate the NYSE’s effective
enforcement of the federal securities
laws and exchange rules.55 Like OATS,
this audit trail was required to provide
an accurate, time-sequenced record of
orders, quotations and transactions,
documenting the life of an order from
receipt through execution or
cancellation. The NYSE also was
required to provide for synchronization
of all clocks used in connection with the
audit trail.56
In response to the Commission’s
order, the NYSE created OTS.57 OTS
currently is used for the provision of
audit trail data for orders 58 in NYSE
52 For executions, the reporting member also must
report its market participant symbol; its number
assigned for purposes of identifying transaction
data; and the identification number of the terminal
where the order was executed. See FINRA Rule
7440(d).
53 See OATS Reporting Technical Specifications,
January 5, 2010, available at https://www.finra.org/
web/groups/industry/@ip/@comp/@regis/
documents/appsupportdocs/p120686.pdf.
54 See In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange,
Inc., Administrative Proceeding File No. 3–9925,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41574 (June
29, 1999) (Order Instituting Public Proceedings
Pursuant to Section 19(h)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and
Ordering Compliance with Undertakings), at 4–5.
55 Id. at 28–29.
56 Id.
57 See NYSE Rule 132B, and OTS Approval
Order, supra note 14.
58 OTS is applicable to all orders in NYSE-listed
securities, regardless of account type (firm or
customer). See NYSE Rule 132B(a)(1).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32560
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
and NYSE Amex-listed cash equity
securities by NYSE and NYSE Amex
members, including for orders in NYSE
or NYSE Amex-listed cash equity
securities initiated by a NYSE or NYSE
Amex member or routed by a NYSE or
NYSE Amex member to another market
center for execution.59 OTS is similar in
scope to OATS, as detailed information
is required to be recorded for the stages
of an order’s life, from origination and
receipt and transmittal, through order
modification, cancellation, and/or
execution.60 Specifically, for each of
these stages in the life of an order, OTS
requires the recording of the following
information, as applicable, including
but not limited to:
• For order receipt or origination,61
the date and time the order is originated
or received by a member or member
organization; a unique order identifier;
market participant symbol; and the
material terms of the order; 62
• For the internal or external routing
of an order, the unique order identifier;
the identification of the department to
which an order was transmitted if
transmitted internally; the date and time
59 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59022
(November 26, 2008), 73 FR 73683 (December 3,
2008). NYSE Alternext adopted NYSE Rules 1–1004
as the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules to govern all
cash equities trading on the NYSE Alternext
Trading Systems and NYSE Alternext Bonds. In
March 2009, NYSE Alternext changed its name to
NYSE Amex LLC (‘‘NYSE Amex’’) (the successor to
Amex, see infra note 73). See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 59575 (March 13, 2009), 74 FR
11803 (March 19, 2009).
60 See NYSE Rule 132B and NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 132B. Each member or member organization
shall, by the end of each business day, record each
item of information required to be recorded under
the rule in such electronic form as is prescribed by
the NYSE (or NYSE Amex) from time to time. See
NYSE Rule 132B(a)(3) and NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 132B(a)(3). Members and member
organizations shall be required to transmit to the
NYSE or NYSE Amex, in such format as the
applicable exchange may from time to time
prescribe, such order tracking information as the
exchange may request. See NYSE Rule 132C and
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 132C.
61 Members are also required to report: The
identification of the department or terminal where
an order is received directly from a customer; and
where the order is originated by a member or
member organization, the identification of the
department (if appropriate) of the member that
originated the order. See NYSE Rule 132B(b) and
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 132B(b).
62 The specific information required to be
reported includes: Number of shares; designation of
the order as a buy or sell; designation of the order
as a short sale; designation of the order as a market
order, limit order, auction market order, stop order,
auction stop order, or ISO; security symbol; limit
or stop price; type of account; the date on which
the order expires, and, if the time in force is less
than one day, the time when the order expires; the
time limit during which the order is in force; any
request by a customer that an order not be
displayed pursuant to Rule 604(c) under the
Exchange Act; and special handling requests. See
NYSE Rule 132B(b) and NYSE Amex Equities Rule
132B(b).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
the order was received by the
department receiving a transmitted
order; the market participant symbol
assigned to the member or member
organization receiving the transmitted
order or notation that the order was
transmitted to a non-member; 63 the
material terms of the order as
transmitted; 64 and the date and time the
order is transmitted; and
• For the modification or cancellation
of an order, a new unique order
identifier; the original unique order
identifier; and the date and time a
modification or cancellation was
originated or received.65
Additionally, the NYSE and NYSE
Amex require the recording of detailed
information concerning the receipt,
cancellation or execution of orders in
NYSE and NYSE Amex-listed cash
equity securities originated on or
transmitted to the exchange floor.66
Immediately following receipt of an
order on the floor, the member receiving
the order must record the following
information: (1) The material terms of
the order; 67 (2) a unique order
identifier; (3) the clearing member
organization and the identification of
the member or member organization
recording order details; 68 and (4)
63 The information required to be reported also
includes whether the order was transmitted and
received manually or electronically; the date the
order was first originated or received by the
transmitting member or member organization; and,
for each order to be included in a bunched order,
the bunched order route indicator assigned to the
bunched order. See NYSE Rule 132B(c) and NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 132B(c).
64 The information required to be reported
includes the number of shares to which the
transmission applies. See NYSE Rule 132B(c) and
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 132B(c).
65 For cancellations or modifications, the
following information also is required: The order
identifier assigned to the order prior to
modification; if the open balance of an order is
canceled after a partial execution, the number of
shares canceled; and whether the order was
canceled on the instruction of a customer or the
member or member organization. See NYSE Rule
132B(d) and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 132B(d).
66 See NYSE Rule 123 and NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 123, each of which require, among other
things, a record of the cancellation of an order,
which must include the time the cancellation was
entered, and a record of the receipt of an execution
report, which must include the time of receipt of
the report.
67 The specific information required includes the
security symbol; quantity; side of the market;
whether the order is a market, auction market, limit,
stop, or auction limit order; any limit or stop price,
discretionary price range, discretionary volume
range, discretionary quote price, pegging ceiling
price, pegging floor price and/or whether
discretionary instructions are active in connection
with interest displayed by other market centers;
time in force; designation as held or not held; and
any special conditions. See NYSE Rule 123(e) and
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123(e).
68 The required information also includes the
system-generated time of recording order details.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
modification of terms of the order or
cancellation of the order.69
Further, once an order is executed,
the following information must be
recorded: (1) The material terms of the
execution; 70 (2) the unique order
identifier; (3) the identity of the firms
involved in the execution; 71 and (4)
certain other information related to the
execution.72
E. Consolidated Options Audit Trail
System
In September 2000, the Commission
instituted public administrative
proceedings against Amex,73 CBOE, the
Pacific Exchange,74 and the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange 75 for
failing to uphold their obligations to
enforce compliance with exchange rules
and the federal securities laws,
including those relating to reporting.
Specifically, the Commission alleged
that they had either conducted no
See NYSE Rule 123(e) and NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 123(e).
69 See NYSE Rule 123(e) and NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 123(e).
70 The specific information required includes
security symbol; quantity; transaction price; and
execution time. See NYSE Rule 123(f) and NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 123(f).
71 The specific information required includes the
executing broker badge number or alpha symbol;
the contra side executing broker badge number or
alpha symbol; the clearing firm number or alpha;
and the contra side clearing firm number or alpha.
See NYSE Rule 123(f) and NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 123(f).
72 The required information includes whether the
account for which the order was executed was that
of a member or member organization or nonmember or non-member organization; the
identification of member or member organization
which recorded order details; the date the order was
entered into an exchange system; an indication as
to whether this is a modification to a previously
submitted report; settlement instructions; special
trade indication (if applicable); and the Online
Comparison System control number. See NYSE
Rule 123(f) and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123(f).
73 Amex was acquired by NYSE Euronext on
October 1, 2008. Initially, the successor entity to
Amex was established as NYSE Alternext U.S. LLC,
but the name was changed in 2009 to NYSE Amex.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59575
(March 13, 2009), 74 FR 11803 (March 19, 2009).
74 In 2001, the Archipelago Exchange LLC
(‘‘ArcaEx’’) was established as an electronic trading
facility for Pacific Exchange’s subsidiary PCX
Equities, Inc. (‘‘PCX Equities’’). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (October 25, 2001),
66 FR 55225 (November 1, 2001). In 2005,
Archipelago Holdings, Inc., the parent company of
ArcaEx, acquired PCX Holdings, Inc., which
included subsidiaries Pacific Exchange (PCX) and
PCX Equities. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 52497 (September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56949
(September 29, 2005). The NYSE merged with
Archipelago Holdings in 2006. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 53382 (February 27,
2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006). NYSE Arca is
the successor to PCX.
75 The Philadelphia Stock Exchange was acquired
by The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. in 2008, and is
now called NASDAQ OMX Phlx (‘‘Phlx’’). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58179 (July 17,
2008), 73 FR 42874 (July 23, 2008).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
automated surveillance, or inadequate
automated surveillance, of trade
reporting and consequently failed to
adequately detect noncompliance with
their rules.76 In settling the
Commission’s enforcement action, the
exchanges were required to jointly
design and implement COATS to enable
them to reconstruct markets promptly,
surveil them, and enforce compliance
with trade reporting, firm quote, order
handling, and other rules.77 The
exchanges were required to complete
this undertaking in five phases.78
In particular, each exchange was
required to achieve the following
through its audit trail: (1) Synchronize
trading and support system clocks with
all other options exchanges; (2) design
and implement a method to merge all
options exchanges’ reported and
matched transaction data on a daily
basis in a common computer format; (3)
incorporate its quotations and the
national best bid and offer as displayed
in its market with the merged
transaction data so that it could be
promptly retrieved and merged in the
common computer format with other
options exchanges’ merged transactions
and quotation data; (4) design and
implement an audit trail readily
retrievable (in the common computer
format) providing an accurate, timesequenced record of electronic orders,
quotations and transactions on such
exchange, beginning with the receipt of
an electronic order, and further
documenting the life of the order
through the process of execution, partial
execution, or cancellation; (5)
incorporate into the audit trail all nonelectronic orders so that such orders
were also subject to the audit trail
requirements for electronic orders; and
(6) design effective surveillance systems
to use this newly available data to
enforce the Federal securities laws and
the exchange’s rules.79
The exchanges subject to the Options
Settlement Order fully implemented the
requirements in 2005. In addition, the
International Securities Exchange, LLC
(‘‘ISE’’), Boston Options Exchange
Group, LLC (‘‘BOX’’), the Nasdaq
Options Market (‘‘NOM’’), and BATS
Options Exchange Market (‘‘BATS
Options’’) also comply with the COATS
requirements.80
76 See Options Settlement Order, supra note 15,
at 12.
77 Id. at 22.
78 Id. at 22–25.
79 See Options Settlement Order, supra note 15,
at 22–25.
80 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
61154 (December 11, 2009), 74 FR 67278 (December
18, 2009), at 67280 (stating ‘‘ISE and the other
options exchanges are required to populate a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
A majority of options exchanges
require their members to provide the
following information with respect to
orders entered onto their exchange: (1)
The material terms of the order; 81 (2)
order receipt time; 82 (3) account type;
(4) the time a modification is received;
(5) the time a cancellation is received;
(6) execution time; and (7) the clearing
member identifier of the parties to the
transaction.83
F. Other Audit Trail Requirements
SRO audit trail rules regarding
information on orders for NMS stocks to
be recorded by their members, and in
some cases provided to the SRO, tend to
be less uniform than SRO audit trail
rules relating to listed options.84 Some
exchanges and FINRA have detailed
audit trail data submission requirements
for their members covering order entry,
transmittal, and execution.85 For
example, the rules of one exchange
require the recording of the following
information for each order originating
with an exchange participant that is
given to or received from another
participant for execution, transmitted by
an exchange participant to another
market, or originating off the exchange
and transmitted to an exchange
participant, and subsequent execution
of any such orders: 86
• Information relating to receipt or
transmission of the order, including the
consolidated options audit trail (‘‘COATS’’) system
in order to surveil member activities across
markets’’); 61388 (January 20, 2010), 75 FR 4431
(January 27, 2010), at 4433 (Nasdaq OMX BX filing
amending BOX’s fee schedule, with similar
language as Release No. 61154); and 61419 (January
26, 2010), 75 FR 5157 (February 1, 2010) (BATS
Exchange, Inc. (‘‘BATS’’) represented that BATS
Options would comply with the specifications of
COATS in submitting data to create a consolidated
audit trail, as well as receiving COATS data for its
own surveillance purposes).
81 The specific information required includes
option symbol; underlying security; expiration
month; exercise price; contract volume; call/put;
buy/sell; opening/closing transaction; price or price
limit; and special instructions.
82 The required information also includes
identification of the terminal or individual
completing the order ticket.
83 See e.g. BATS Rule 20.7; BOX Chapter V,
Section 15; CBOE Chapter VI, Rules 6.24 and 6.51;
NOM Rule Chapter V, Section 7; NYSE Amex Rules
153, Commentary .01, and 962; NYSE Arca Rules
6.67, 6.68, and 6.69; and Phlx Rules 1063 and 1080.
84 For purposes of this release, the Commission
does not consider SRO EBS rules to be audit trail
rules.
85 See Chicago Stock Exchange (‘‘CHX’’) Article
11, Rule 3(b); FINRA Rules 7400 to 7470 (the OATS
rules); Nasdaq Rules 6950 to 6958 (substantially
similar to the OATS rules); BX Rules 6950 to 6958
(substantially similar to OATS rules); NYSE Rule
123 and 132B; and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123
and 132B (OTS rules). See supra Sections I.C. and
I.D. for a discussion of FINRA’s OATS rules and the
NYSE and NYSE Amex’s OTS rules, respectively.
86 See CHX Article 11, Rule 3(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32561
material terms of the order; 87 a unique
order identifier; the identification of the
clearing participant and the participant
recording the order details; the date and
time of order receipt or transmission (if
applicable); the market or participant to
which the order was transmitted or from
which the order was received (if
applicable);
• Information relating to
modifications to or cancellation of the
order, including any modifications to
the order, any cancellation of all or part
of the order; the date and time of receipt
and transmission of any modifications
to the order or cancellations; and the
identification of the party canceling or
modifying the order; 88
• For executions of the order,89 in
whole or in part, the transaction price;
the number of shares or quantity
executed; the date and time of
execution; the contra party to the
execution; and any settlement
instructions.90
The audit trail rules of the other
exchanges incorporate only standard
books and records requirements in
accordance with Section 17 of the
Exchange Act.91
G. Prior Commission Request for
Comment
The Commission has previously
requested comment regarding cross87 Id. The specific information required includes
the symbol; number or shares or quantity of
security; side of the market; order type; limit and/
or stop price; whether the order is agency or
proprietary; whether an order is a bona fide
arbitrage order; whether the order is short; time in
force; designation as held or not held; any special
conditions or instructions (including any customer
display instructions and any all-or-none
conditions); and the date and time of any order
expiration.
88 Id.
89 Id.
90 Id. The participant also must record the systemgenerated times of recording this required
information. This information must be recorded
immediately after the information is received or
becomes available. CHX Article 11, Rule 3(c).
Additionally, before any such orders are executed,
exchange participants must record the name or
designation of the account for which the order is
being executed. CHX Article 11, Rule 3(d). This rule
does not apply to orders sent or received through
the exchange’s matching system or any other
electronic systems the exchange recognizes as
providing the required information in a format
acceptable to the exchange. See CHX Article 11,
Rule 3, Interpretations and Policies .03.
91 See e.g. National Stock Exchange (‘‘NSX’’)
Chapter VI, Rule 4.1.; BATS Chapter IV, Rule 4.1;
CBOE Rule 15.1 (applicable to CBSX); ISE Stock
Exchange Rule 1400; NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.24;
15 U.S.C. 78q et seq. For example, one exchange
only requires its members to make and keep books
and records and other correspondence in
conformity with Section 17 of the Exchange Act and
the rules thereunder, with all other applicable laws
and the rules, regulations and statements of policy
promulgated thereunder, and with the exchange’s
rules. See NSX Chapter VI, Rule 4.1.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32562
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
market regulation, including whether
changes should be made to existing
audit trail rules, in two concept releases
in 2003 and 2004.92
In 2003, the Commission sought
public comment on a petition submitted
by Nasdaq that raised concerns about
the impact of market fragmentation on
the trading in, and regulation of trading
in, Nasdaq-listed securities.93 Nasdaq,
through OATS, collected data from its
members trading Nasdaq-listed
securities, which the NASD then used to
surveil for potential rule violations.94
Nasdaq requested that the Commission
require all SROs trading Nasdaq-listed
securities to implement an electronic
audit trail identical to OATS.95 Nasdaq
also noted that the available crossmarket audit trail information provided
by the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(‘‘ISG’’) 96 was comprised of audit trail
information from each of the exchanges
and provided two day delayed data at
the clearing firm level, with time data
from non-synchronized clocks.97
Nasdaq believed that the information
provided by ISG was insufficient to
identify potentially violative activity.98
92 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
47849 (May 14, 2003), 68 FR 27722 (May 20, 2003)
(File No. S7–11–03) (‘‘Intermarket Trading Concept
Release’’) and 50700 (November 18, 2004), 69 FR
71256 (December 8, 2004) (File No. S7–40–04)
(‘‘Concept Release Concerning Self-Regulation’’).
93 See letter to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Commission, from Edward Knight, Executive Vice
President and General Counsel, Nasdaq, dated April
11, 2003 (File No. 4–479) (‘‘Nasdaq Petition’’). In
particular, Nasdaq was concerned over what it
deemed ‘‘unequal and inadequate regulation’’ by
other markets trading Nasdaq-listed securities. Id. at
2. See also Intermarket Trading Concept Release,
supra note 92, at 27223.
94 See Nasdaq Petition, supra note 93, at 10, and
Intermarket Trading Concept Release, supra note
92, at 27224.
95 See Nasdaq Petition, supra note 93, at 11, and
Intermarket Trading Concept Release, supra note
92, at 27224.
96 The ISG was created in 1983 and its members
include all of the registered national securities
exchanges and FINRA. ISG states that its goals are
to enhance intermarket surveillance, assure the
integrity of trading, and provide investor protection.
To achieve these goals, ISG members share data
such as audit trail information and short interest
data among themselves. ISG provides surveillance
tools to supplement its participant members’
existing surveillance systems, such as the ISG
Unusual Activity Report and the Consolidated
Equity Audit Trail. These reports are made
available from SIAC to members of ISG and are
intended to provide a consolidated view across all
markets of trade, quote, and clearing activity. See
comment letter from Brian F. Colby, Chairman,
Intermarket Surveillance Group, to Jonathan G.
Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated June 18, 2003
(‘‘ISG 2003 Comment Letter’’) (commenting in
response to the Intermarket Trading Concept
Release).
97 See Nasdaq Petition, supra note 93, at 10, and
Intermarket Trading Concept Release, supra note
92, at 27224.
98 See Nasdaq Petition, supra note 93, at 10–11,
and Intermarket Trading Concept Release, supra
note 92, at 27224.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
In response to the Intermarket Trading
Concept Release, the Commission
received a variety of comments on
intermarket surveillance and order audit
trail issues.99 Of those commenters that
addressed the general concept of
creating a uniform electronic audit trail,
some supported the concept while
others did not.100
One commenter expressed the view
that once broker-dealers have
99 See comment letters from Darla C. Stuckey,
Corporate Secretary, NYSE, to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Commission, dated June 19, 2003 (‘‘NYSE
Comment Letter’’); Jeffrey T. Brown, General
Counsel, Cincinnati Stock Exchange, to Jonathan G.
Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated June 19, 2003
(‘‘CSE Comment Letter’’); Michael J. Simon, Senior
Vice President and Secretary, International
Securities Exchange, Inc., to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Commission, dated June 19, 2003 (‘‘ISE
Comment Letter’’); William O’Brien, Chief
Operating Officer, Brut, LLC, to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Commission, dated June 19, 2003 (‘‘Brut
Comment Letter’’); Kim Bang, President, Bloomberg
Tradebook LLC, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Commission, dated June 20, 2003 (‘‘Bloomberg
Tradebook Comment Letter’’); Donald D. Kittell,
Executive Vice President, Securities Industry
Association, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Commission, dated June 27, 2003 (‘‘SIA Comment
Letter’’); Edward J. Joyce, President and Chief
Operating Officer, CBOE, to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Commission, dated June 30, 2003 (‘‘CBOE
Comment Letter’’); W. Hardy Callcott, Senior Vice
President and General Counsel, Charles Schwab &
Co., Inc., to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Commission, dated July 7, 2003 (‘‘Schwab Comment
Letter’’); Richard Ketchum, General Counsel,
Citigroup, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Commission, dated July 8, 2003 (‘‘Citigroup
Comment Letter’’); John S. Markle, Associate
General Counsel, Ameritrade Holding Corp., to
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated July
10, 2003 (‘‘Ameritrade Comment Letter’’); and Eric
Schwartz, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs, and
Duncan Niederauer, Co-Chief Executive Officer,
Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Commission, dated July 25, 2003
(‘‘Goldman Sachs and Spear, Leeds & Kellogg
Comment Letter’’).
100 Of the commenters that clearly commented on
the creation of a uniform intermarket audit trail,
Citigroup and Goldman Sachs and Spear, Leeds &
Kellogg were in favor of the idea, and Bloomberg
supported a consolidated audit trail for those SROs
trading Nasdaq-listed securities. See Citigroup
Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 6; Goldman
Sachs and Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Comment Letter,
supra note 99, at 3–4; and Bloomberg Tradebook
Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 3. Brut, CBOE,
and the NYSE did not appear to be in favor of a
standardized intermarket audit trail. See Brut
Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 5 (arguing for
addressing improvements to surveillances falling
short of Exchange Act requirements individually
instead of ‘‘costly and comprehensive technology
overhauls’’); CBOE Comment Letter, supra note 99,
at 2 (explaining that it ‘‘supports expanding the use
of existing tools and enhancing [SRO] and
Commission coordination to strengthen
surveillance and to achieve more uniform
regulation * * *’’ and noting that the Commission
could ‘‘play a significant role in achieving uniform
SRO regulation [by] establishing guiding principles
on a variety of areas that affect all SROs.’’ CBOE also
noted that there should be enhanced coordination
of SRO regulatory efforts through ISG and through
17d–2 agreements); and NYSE Comment Letter,
supra note 99, at 5 (suggesting linking SRO audit
trails in the manner of the ISG Consolidated Audit
Trail).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
implemented systems necessary to
comply with audit trail requirements, it
would not be incrementally significant
from a cost perspective to supply the
same data in a common format to
additional SROs, but that there would
be a significant cost if the data to be
captured and the methods of encoding
and delivering the data differed from
market to market.101 This commenter
urged the Commission, if it were to
require all market centers to adopt audit
trail requirements, to ensure that the
requirements are uniform and
standardized. This commenter
recommended a single standard for real
time electronic trade and audit trail
reporting, which would be applicable to
all equity securities traded in the
national market regardless of where
listed or traded, and where data would
be captured in a central depository,
aggregated and made immediately
available to each relevant market center,
possibly through direct electronic data
feeds.102 Likewise, another commenter
stated that it would be preferable for
there to be one uniform audit trail
system, rather than each SRO adopting
its own audit trail requirements and
systems, to reduce the potential for
conflicting rules and regulations and
duplicative systems and technology
requirements.103 Another commenter
recommended that if the Commission
determined that the need for a particular
SRO to have enhanced audit trail
information outweighs costs to member
firms, SROs be required to coordinate
efforts so as to reduce duplication of
systems and regulatory efforts.104
Several commenters urged the
Commission to consider the costs to
broker-dealer firms of supplying the
audit trail data when considering the
appropriateness of extending OATS-like
audit trail requirements to other market
centers.105 One commenter stated the
101 See Goldman Sachs and Spear, Leeds &
Kellogg Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 3.
102 Id at 4.
103 See Citigroup Comment Letter, supra note 99,
at 6.
104 See SIA Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 4.
One commenter agreed that the Commission would
be justified in requiring all SROs trading Nasdaqlisted securities to coordinate electronic audit trail
systems with the NASD. See Bloomberg Tradebook
Comment Letter, supra note 99. On the other hand,
one commenter stated its belief that if there is a
legitimate need to improve on the ISG audit trail,
the markets should act jointly to do so, without
being forced to adopt Nasdaq’s proprietary audit
trail. See ISE Comment Letter, supra note 99.
105 See SIA Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 4;
Goldman Sachs and Spear, Leeds & Kellogg
Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 3 (stating that
any decision about extending OATS to other
markets should take into account the costs imposed
on SROs, market intermediaries and the markets);
and Ameritrade Comment Letter, supra note 99, at
3.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
belief that firms already are required to
maintain all of the customer and
transaction information that regulators
would want under their current books
and records requirements and that most
firms do not believe there is a
justification for requiring firms to spend
the money necessary to send this
information to every market center
where an order may be routed.106
Another commenter was concerned
about the impact on each individual
market’s structure of mandating
uniformity.107
Some commenters supported the ISG
as a facilitator of a coordinated
regulation.108 One commenter noted
that the ISG Consolidated Equity Audit
Trail was a valuable supplement to
existing SRO market data.109 One
commenter also endorsed the ISG audit
trail as well as CSE’s Firm Order
Submission system,110 stating that it
was preferable to enhance these systems
rather than conduct a ‘‘mass migration’’
to OATS.111 The ISG itself stated that no
other market had reported any problems
with ISG’s timing of the incorporation of
the clearing data into the Consolidated
Equity Audit Trail, nor with the
delivery of its audit trail information.112
In 2004, in a release seeking comment
on a variety of issues relating to selfregulation, the Commission again
sought public comment on intermarket
surveillance.113 The Commission
discussed the individual audit trails
developed by several equity markets,
COATS, and ISG’s clearing level audit
trail.114 The Commission suggested that
a more robust intermarket order audit
trail for options and equity markets
could enhance the surveillance of order
106 See
SIA Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 4.
CSE Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 6–
7 (noting that the data formats among exchanges
may vary due to structural needs and system
designs; thus, while this commenter advocated that
exchanges should be required to have internal audit
trails tracking orders from inception to execution,
it argued that design flexibility be maintained so
that exchanges could create the audit trail systems
best suited to monitor their markets).
108 See Ameritrade Comment Letter, supra note
99, at 2; CSE Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 13;
ISE Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 4; and NYSE
Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 3.
109 See NYSE Comment Letter, supra note 99.
110 In its comment letter, CSE stated that its Firm
Order Submission system (‘‘FOS’’) was more
comprehensive than OATS and that the exchange
had pioneered order audit trail development. See
CSE Comment Letter, supra note 99. In its petition,
Nasdaq argued that FOS was used voluntarily for
settling commercial disputes between traders and
was not meant for surveillance. See Nasdaq
Petition, supra note 93, at 4.
111 See Brut Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 6.
112 See ISG 2003 Comment Letter, supra note 99.
113 See Concept Release Concerning SelfRegulation, supra note 92, at Sections IV.C and
V.A.2.
114 Id.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
107 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
flow and requested comment on the
issue.115
One commenter on the Concept
Release Concerning Self-Regulation
stated that, because trading in most
liquid securities now occurs on multiple
markets, no single SRO could capture a
complete picture of all the trading in
each product, all trading by one brokerdealer, and even all the trading related
to a single order.116 This commenter
stated its belief that the lack of uniform
order and transaction data creates
regulatory gaps and may provide
incentives for market participants to
conduct activities on markets where less
regulatory data is collected on an
automated basis.117 This commenter
believed that minimum data-collection
standards should be required to ensure
adequate regulation across all markets,
and that consolidating that data would
permit effective intermarket regulation
while ensuring that no single market has
a competitive advantage.118
Another commenter gave an example
of how it believed the lack of real time
reporting across markets was
detrimental to surveillances relating to
certain illegal activities. This
commenter stated its belief that
‘‘effective surveillances relating to
insider trading, market manipulation
and stock or options frontrunning in
multiple markets can be hindered
because away-market data such as order
information, position limit reports and
large position reports (for options) are
not available electronically on a real
time or near real time basis to the SRO
that has generated an alert or flag in the
course of its routine surveillance.119
This commenter suggested that
consolidating this type of data in real
time or near real time would permit
SROs to immediately detect and review
all aberrational activity in the multiple
market centers, which could
significantly deter or prevent violative
conduct.120
Another commenter stated its belief
that the lack of a coordinated
surveillance system is potentially one of
the more significant problems facing the
markets, and that as trading strategies
become more sophisticated across
multiple markets and national borders,
the potential for sophisticated fraud also
115 Id.
at 71277.
comment letter from Robert R. Glauber,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NASD, to
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated
March 15, 2005 (‘‘NASD Comment Letter’’), at 10.
117 Id. at 11.
118 Id.
119 See comment letter from Mary Yeager,
Secretary, NYSE, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Commission, dated March 8, 2005, at 8.
120 Id.
116 See
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32563
increases.121 One commenter
recommended a consolidated
information base that all regulators
could access, stating that ‘‘having
separate and uncoordinated regulatory
data is inefficient and detracts from the
quality of regulation.’’ 122 Further,
another commenter suggested a
voluntary regulatory cooperative, jointly
owned by participant exchanges, that
would be the central regulator for
surveillance, investigations and
examinations and would include an
electronic interface with the SEC; this
commenter believed that the costs of
developing an intermarket consolidated
order audit trail system should be
justified by the regulatory value of the
data to be captured.123
II. Basis for Proposed Rule
As noted above, the U.S. securities
markets have experienced a dynamic
transformation in recent years. Rapid
technological advances and regulatory
developments have produced
fundamental changes in the structure of
the securities markets, the types of
market participants, the trading
strategies employed, and the array of
products traded. Trading of securities
has become more dispersed among
exchanges and various other trading
venues, including the OTC market. The
markets have become even more
competitive, with exchanges and other
trading centers aggressively competing
for order flow by offering innovative
order types, new data products and
other services, and through fees charged
or rebates provided by the markets. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
with today’s fast, electronic and
interconnected markets, there is a
heightened need for a single uniform
electronic cross-market order and
execution tracking system that includes
more information than is captured by
the existing SRO audit trails, and in a
uniform format. Such a system would
enable SROs to better fulfill their
regulatory responsibilities to monitor for
and investigate illegal activity in their
markets and by their members. Further,
the Commission preliminarily believes
that such a system would enable the
Commission staff to better carry out its
121 See comment letter from Rebecca T. McEnally,
Director, and Linda L. Rittenhouse, Senior Policy
Analyst, Centre for Financial Market Integrity, to
Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated
July 14, 2006, at 6.
122 See comment letter from Kim Bang, Chief
Executive Officer, Bloomberg L.P., to Jonathan G.
Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated March 8, 2005,
at 4.
123 See comment letter from Meyer S. Frucher,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Philadelphia
Stock Exchange, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Commission, dated March 9, 2005, at 3.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32564
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
oversight of the NMS for securities and
to perform market analysis in a more
timely fashion, whether on one market
or across markets.
Each national securities exchange and
national securities association must be
organized and have the capacity to
comply, and enforce compliance by its
members, with its rules, and with the
federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations.124 The Commission
preliminarily believes that the
exchanges and FINRA could more
effectively and efficiently fulfill these
statutory obligations if the SROs had
direct, electronic real time access to
consolidated and more detailed order
and execution information across all
markets.125 Likewise, the Commission
has the statutory obligation to oversee
the exchanges and associations,126 and
to enforce compliance by the members
of exchanges and associations with the
respective exchange’s or association’s
rules, and the federal securities laws
and regulations.127 The Commission
also preliminarily believes that
electronic real time access to
consolidated information and more
detailed cross-market order and
execution information also would aid
the Commission in carrying out its
statutory obligations.
Section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange
Act provides in part that the
Commission may, by rule, require SROs
to act jointly with respect to matters as
to which they share authority under the
Exchange Act in regulating an NMS for
securities.128 Pursuant to this authority,
the Commission today is proposing a
rule that would require all national
securities exchanges and national
securities associations to jointly submit
to the Commission an NMS plan to
create, implement, and maintain a
consolidated audit trail that would be
more comprehensive than any audit
trail currently in existence.129 The
proposed Rule would require the
consolidated audit trail to capture
certain information about each order for
an NMS security, including the identity
124 See, e.g., Sections 6(b)(1), 19(g)(1) and
15A(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1),
78s(g)(1), and 78o–3(b)(2).
125 The Commission notes that, if adopted as
proposed, its Large Trader Proposal would not
amend or impact the scope of any of the existing
SRO audit trail rules. See Large Trader Proposal,
supra note 11.
126 See, e.g., Sections 2, 6(b), 15A(b), and 19(h)(1)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78b, 15 U.S.C. 78f(b),
15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b), and 15 U.S.C. 78s(h)(1).
127 See, e.g., Section 19(h)(1) of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. 78s(h)(1).
128 See Section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. 78k–1(a)(3)(B).
129 See infra Section III for a description of
proposed Rule 613.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
of the customer placing the order and
the routing, modification, cancellation
or execution of the order, in real time.
In effect, the proposal would create a
time-stamped ‘‘electronic audit trail
record or report’’ for every order, and
each market participant that touches the
order would be required to report
information about certain reportable
events, such as routing or execution of
the order.
The Commission preliminarily
believes that a consolidated order audit
trail, such as the one proposed today,
could enhance the ability of the SROs to
carry out their obligations to regulate
their markets and their members. The
Commission also preliminarily believes
that the proposed consolidated order
audit trail could aid the Commission in
fulfilling its statutory obligations to
oversee SROs,130 monitor for the
manipulation of security prices,131 and
detect the use of manipulative or
deceptive devices in the purchase or
sale of a security,132 as well as to
perform market reconstructions.
The Commission preliminarily
believes that proposed Rule 613 would
benefit the industry, through potential
cost reductions, by eliminating the need
for certain SRO and Commission rules
that currently mandate the collection
and provision of information, at least
with respect to NMS securities.133 The
Commission also preliminarily believes
that the proposal would benefit SROs,
as well as the NMS for NMS securities,
by ultimately reducing some regulatory
costs, which may result in a more
effective re-allocation of overall costs.134
The Commission recognizes that SRO
rules requiring members to capture and
disclose audit trail information already
exist, and considered whether more
modest improvements to existing rules,
and corresponding SRO and member
systems, would achieve the proposed
Rule’s objective at lower cost. For
example, the Commission considered
whether to standardize and expand the
order information collected by existing
audit trails, the EBS system, Rule 17a–
25 and equity cleared reports. Without
centralization of the trading data in a
uniform electronic format, however, the
Commission’s goals of cross-market
comparability and ready access could
not be achieved. Additionally, this
approach would not resolve concerns
130 See, e.g., Sections 6(b)(1) and 19(h) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78s(h).
131 See Section 9 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
78i.
132 See Section 10 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
78j.
133 See infra Section VI.A (discussion of benefits
of the proposed Rule).
134 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
over how long it takes to obtain order
and execution information because the
data is often not available in real time
and is provided only upon request.135
Similarly, the Commission considered
whether assuring access to existing
audit trails to other SROs and the
Commission would sufficiently advance
its goals. Even if SROs could view order
activity on a real time basis on other
exchanges, this would not eliminate the
need for SROs to check multiple
repositories to view and obtain order
information. Moreover, the information
may be captured, stored and displayed
in a variety of formats, making
comparisons more difficult. The
Commission, therefore, preliminarily
does not believe that ‘‘retrofitting’’
existing rules and systems would be a
more effective way to achieve the goals
of the proposed consolidated audit trail
than having the requirements contained
in a single Commission rule, and a
single NMS plan.
As discussed below, the Commission
preliminarily believes that existing
audit trails are limited in their scope
and effectiveness in varying ways. SRO
and Commission staff also currently
obtain information about orders or
trades through the EBS system, Rule
17a–25,136 and from equity cleared
reports.137 However, as discussed
below, the information provided
pursuant to the EBS system, Rule 17a–
25, and the equity cleared reports also
is limited, to varying degrees, in detail
and scope.
A. Lack of Uniformity of, and Gaps in,
Current Required Audit Trail
Information
As noted above, the type of
information relating to orders and
executions currently collected by the
exchanges and FINRA differs widely.
For example, FINRA’s OATS rules and
NYSE/NYSE Amex’s OTS rules (as
supplemented by the requirements of
NYSE and NYSE Amex Rule 123) both
set forth in relative detail the
information required to be recorded by
a FINRA, NYSE or NYSE Amex member
upon receipt or origination of an order;
following transmission of an order to
another FINRA, NYSE or NYSE Amex
member; and following modification,
cancellation or execution of such
order.138 In contrast, some other
135 See
infra note 149.
CFR 240.17a–25.
137 See supra Sections I.A. and I.B. for a
description of the EBS system, Rule 17a–25, and
equity cleared reports.
138 See FINRA Rules 7400 through 7470, NYSE
Rules 123 and 132B, NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123
and 132B, and supra Sections I.C. and I.D. See also
136 17
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
exchanges’ rules only require their
members to keep records in compliance
with the member’s recordkeeping
obligations under Section 17(a) of the
Exchange Act and rules thereunder,139
rather than requiring that specific
information be captured for orders sent
to and executed on the exchange.140
Although Rule 17a–3 under the
Exchange Act 141 requires that a member
make and keep detailed information
with respect to each brokerage order, it
does not, for instance, require
information with respect to the routing
of the order, or that each order be
assigned a unique order identifier.142
Similarly, the scope of securities
covered by existing audit trail rules also
differs among the exchanges and
FINRA. FINRA’s OATS rules, for
instance, apply to orders for equity
securities listed on Nasdaq and OTC
securities, while OTS captures
information for orders in NYSE and
NYSE Amex-listed cash equity
securities.143
While there is no current requirement
that all SROs record the same
information for orders and executions in
the same or different securities, each
SRO has a statutory obligation to
regulate its market and its members. The
Commission is concerned that the lack
of uniformity as to the type of audit trail
information gathered by the different
exchanges and FINRA, and the lack of
compatibility in the format of each
SRO’s audit trail data, may hinder the
ability of SRO and Commission staff to
effectively and efficiently monitor for,
detect, and deter illegal trading that
occurs across markets. If a market
participant is engaging in manipulative
behavior across various markets, but the
rules of one market do not require its
CHX Article II, Rule 3; Nasdaq Rules 6950 to 6958;
and BX Rules 6950 to 6958.
139 15 U.S.C. 78q(a).
140 See, e.g., NSX Rules 4.1 and 4.2, NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 9.17, and BATS Rule 4.1.
141 17 CFR 240.17a–3.
142 Rule 17a–3(a)(6)(i) under the Exchange Act
requires that a member keep a memorandum of
each brokerage order given or received for the
purchase or sale of securities, whether executed or
not, showing the terms and conditions of the order
and any modification or cancellation thereof; the
account for which it was entered; the time the order
was received; the time of entry; the execution price;
the identity of each associated person, if any,
responsible for the account; the identity of any
other person who entered or accepted the order on
behalf of the customer, or, if a customer entered the
order on an electronic system, a notation of that
entry; and, to the extent feasible, the time of
execution or cancellation. See 17 CFR 240.17a–
3(a)(6)(i).
143 See supra Sections I.C. and I.D. See also supra
the discussion in the introduction to Section II
relating to the Commission’s consideration of
whether ‘‘retrofitting’’ existing SRO audit trail rules
and systems would achieve the goals of the
proposed consolidated audit trail.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
members to provide detailed
information regarding the orders sent to
its market, it may be difficult for
regulators to determine that trading
activity on one market was related to
trading activity on another market. For
example, Section 9 of the Exchange Act
expressly prohibits ‘‘wash sales.’’ 144 A
trader could attempt to disguise such
trading by executing various legs of
wash transactions on different markets.
Individual market surveillance based on
individual SRO audit trail data would
not always be able to detect this kind of
cross-market abuse.
Further, while current order audit
trail rules provide a framework for
capturing order information, the
Commission is concerned that certain
information about orders and executions
that would be useful to efficient and
effective regulation of inter-market
trading activity and prevention of
manipulative practices is not captured
by existing audit trails. Most
importantly, the existing audit trails do
not require members to provide
information identifying the customer
submitting an order, the person with
investment discretion for the order, or
the beneficial owner. The identity of
this ‘‘ultimate customer,’’ however, often
is necessary to tie together potential
manipulative activity that occurs across
markets and through multiple accounts
at various broker-dealers. While the
Commission notes that exchange and
FINRA regulatory staff, as well as
Commission staff, eventually can obtain
identifying customer or beneficial
account information by submitting
requests for information through ISG or
to various broker-dealers involved in
potentially wrongful activities, this
process can result in significant delays
in investigating market anomalies or
potentially manipulative behavior. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
gaps such as this in required audit trail
information may hinder the ability of
regulatory authorities to enforce
compliance with SRO rules and the
federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations in a timely manner.
In addition, an exchange’s audit trail
information effectively ends when an
order is routed to another exchange. For
example, although the NYSE’s OTS rule
requires a NYSE member or member
organization to record the fact that an
order was transmitted to a non-member,
the rules do not require the recording of
what subsequently happens to the
144 See Section 9(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. 78i(a)(1). Wash sales are transactions
involving no change in beneficial ownership. See
Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 205 n.
25 (1976).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32565
order.145 Likewise, FINRA’s OATS data
collection effectively ends if an order is
routed from a member of FINRA to an
exchange.146 As a result, key pieces of
information about the life of an order
may not be captured, or easily tracked,
if an order is routed from one exchange
to another, or from one broker-dealer to
an exchange. For example, the name, or
identifier, of a broker-dealer that
initially received an order may be
captured by the audit trail of the
exchange of which that broker-dealer is
a member when the broker-dealer sends
the order to the exchange. However, if
the order is routed to and executed on
a second exchange, the identifying
information for that initial broker-dealer
may not be captured by the second
exchange’s audit trail requirements.
Similarly, under current audit trail
rules, an incoming order may be
assigned an order identifier by the
initial receiving exchange; however, if
the order is routed to a second
exchange, there is no requirement that
this order identifier be passed along to
or maintained by the second exchange.
Thus, one order that is routed across
markets can have multiple order
identifiers, each unique to one
exchange. The Commission
preliminarily believes that, from a
regulatory standpoint, the lack of
standardized cross-market order
identifiers can pose significant obstacles
and delays in effectively detecting and
deterring manipulative behavior
because SRO and Commission staff
cannot readily collect the necessary data
(that is, they cannot readily piece
together activity related to the same
order or the same customer occurring
across several markets) to determine
whether violative behavior has
occurred.
Additionally, the Commission is
concerned that the data generated by the
EBS system or that is available through
the equity cleared reports also lacks
items of information needed to match
up order and trade information across
markets to fully understand a particular
trading pattern or to reconstruct a
certain type of trading activity. EBS data
does not include the time of execution,
and often does not include the identity
of the beneficial owner.147 The equity
cleared data also lacks the time of
145 See
NYSE Rule 132B(c)(3).
FINRA Rule 7440(c)(6). The Commission
understands that FINRA is able to link OATS order
information to Nasdaq order and execution data.
147 If a customer has an account directly with a
clearing firm, or if an introducing firm clears its
customers’ transactions on a fully disclosed basis
with the clearing firm, the clearing firm should be
able to identify the beneficial owner of the account
on its EBS response.
146 See
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
32566
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
execution, as well as time of order
receipt, often the identity of the
beneficial owner, the identity of the
broker-dealer(s) that received and/or
executed the order (if different from the
clearing broker-dealer), and short sale
borrow and fails information. In order to
obtain the time an order was received or
the identity of the beneficial owner,
therefore, SRO or Commission staff may
take the additional step of submitting an
electronically generated blue sheet
request to the clearing broker-dealer
identified in the equity cleared report to
ask that broker-dealer to identify the
beneficial ownership of the account(s)
effecting the relevant transactions and/
or the introducing broker,148 and this
may take a few steps if the clearing
broker-dealer does not know the
introducing broker, but only the
executing broker (if different). If the
beneficial ownership of the account(s)
was not specified in the clearing brokerdealer’s response, the staff could then
ask the introducing broker-dealer for the
time an order was received and the
beneficial account holder information.
Often, additional steps are required to
identify the beneficial account holder,
such as when the ‘‘customer’’ is an
omnibus account. Furthermore, the
equity cleared data could be
duplicative. For example, one side of a
trade can appear multiple times in the
equity cleared reports because it may be
reported by a specialist, a clearing
broker-dealer, and the broker-dealer
holding the customer’s allocation
account and the customer’s trading
account.
The lack of cohesive, readily available
order and execution information creates
significant hurdles for investigators at
both the SROs and at the Commission.
In order for SROs to investigate
potential violations of their rules and
the federal securities laws and rules by
their members, the SROs should have
the ability to analyze the activities of
their members taking place across
different market centers. This requires
the accumulation and interpretation of
data from numerous, disparate sources
sometimes presenting inconsistent
information. Similarly, the experience
of the Commission staff shows that the
lack of a consolidated audit trail results
in the investment of significant
resources to investigate potential market
abuses. For example, when investigating
potential insider trading and other
market manipulations, Commission staff
first obtains an equity cleared report to
148 For purposes of this discussion, introducing
broker means the broker-dealer that received or
originated the order, and that is not also the
clearing broker.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
identify the clearing broker-dealers for
trades involving the stock under
investigation and the trading volume for
a particular period of time. Then staff
sends document requests to those
clearing broker-dealers to identify the
broker-dealers that executed trades in
the stock over that period of time. This
process can be complicated further by
potential market manipulators that trade
through small introducing brokers or
use offshore corporate accounts and
prime brokerage or other arrangements
to conduct transactions. Commission
staff also may request trade data for
additional time periods identified
during the course of the investigation,
resulting in further delays. Commission
staff thus often must make multiple
requests to broker-dealers to obtain
sufficient order information about the
purchase or sale of a specific security to
be able to adequately analyze trading.
These multiple requests and responses
can take a significant amount of time
and delay the Commission’s efforts to
analyze the data on an expedited
basis.149 While the investigative
protocols of each SRO may differ from
those used by the Commission, in each
case, collecting, interpreting and
analyzing diverse data sources is labor
intensive and time consuming.
The Commission is concerned that
inadequacies in the current audit trail
rules, EBS system, and equity cleared
reports also impede the ability of SRO
or Commission staff to promptly analyze
trading patterns, particularly to prepare
market reconstructions. For example, if
Commission staff wants to undertake an
analysis of an extreme market
movement over a limited period of time,
Commission staff would need to analyze
audit trail information and EBS
submissions of trading data to
determine if specific trading strategies,
techniques or participants appeared to
be associated with the movement.
Because of difficulties in linking trades
in the audit trails with aggregate dayend trading data in EBS submissions,
conducting this analysis is difficult and
time-consuming. While the audit trail
data could identify the precise
execution times of trades by particular
clearing broker-dealers, it would not
identify the specific customers or
beneficial owners involved in the
trades. On the other hand, while EBS
submissions provide summary trading
149 Rule 17a–25 (as well as the SRO EBS rules)
does not specify a definitive deadline by which
such information must be furnished to the
Commission and, in the Commission’s experience,
data collected through the EBS system often is
subject to lengthy delays, particularly with respect
to files involving a large number of transactions
over an extended period of time.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
information for particular accounts at
the clearing broker-dealers, they lack
execution times for these trades. Further
complications can arise due to the
common practice for large traders to
route their orders through multiple
accounts at multiple clearing firms, as
well as practices at some firms that use
‘‘average price accounts’’ to effect trades
that are eventually settled in multiple
proprietary and/or customer accounts.
While these practices are not, in
themselves, improper, their use makes it
more challenging to establish with
certainty when trading on behalf of a
particular trader was effected during the
trading session.
The Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposed consolidated
audit trail would help alleviate the
difficulties faced by Commission staff in
performing market reconstructions, such
as those described in the above
example, by requiring that national
securities exchanges, national securities
associations, and their members provide
order and execution data to one central
location, largely on a real time basis, in
a uniform electronic format. Having this
information readily available in a
central location would reduce the need
for staff to request and collect such
information from multiple brokerdealers and then examine, analyze and
reconcile the disparate information
provided to accurately ‘‘reconstruct’’ the
market.150
B. Books and Records Requirements
Because brokers-dealers often are
members of several exchanges and
FINRA, they are subject to and must
comply with the differing audit trail
rules. Brokers and dealers also have a
statutory obligation to maintain records
in compliance with Commission and
SRO rules.151 As a result of the differing
audit trail rules, brokers and dealers
may be required to keep records to
comply with each audit trail rule
relating to trading in a certain security.
Thus, some broker-dealers may now
150 As discussed, the Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposal would improve the
ability of regulators to conduct timely and accurate
trading analyses for market reconstructions and
complex investigations, as well as inspections and
examinations. Indeed, the Commission believes that
the proposed consolidated audit trail, if
implemented, would have significantly enhanced
the Commission’s ability to quickly reconstruct and
analyze the severe market disruption that occurred
on May 6, 2010. If approved and implemented, the
proposal also would enhance the Commission’s
ability to similarly respond to future severe market
events.
151 See Section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. 78q(a)(1), and Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4 under
the Exchange Act, 17 CFR 240.17a–3 and 17a–4.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
face significant costs to comply with
varying audit trail rules.152
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. Time Lags
Current audit trail rules require that
an SRO’s members submit order and
execution information by the end of
each business day (in the case of OATS),
or in certain cases, upon request by the
regulating entity (for instance, like
OTS).153 End-of-day or upon request
reporting, by definition, limits
regulators’ ability to carry out real time
cross-market surveillance and
investigations of market anomalies. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
end-of-day reporting, coupled with the
current laborious process of identifying
the ultimate customer responsible for a
particular securities transaction that
may take several days, weeks or even
months, can impact effective oversight
by hindering the ability of SRO
regulatory staff to identify manipulative
activity close in time to when it is
occurring, and respond to instances of
potential manipulation quickly. This
process also hinders the Commission’s
ability to detect and investigate
potentially manipulative behavior.
Manipulative activity by some market
participants can result in other market
participants, such as retail investors,
losing money. The longer that
manipulative behavior goes undetected
over time, the greater the potential harm
to investors. Further, timely pursuit of
potential violations can be important in
seeking to freeze and recover any profits
received from illegal activity.
D. Access to Audit Trail Information
While each SRO has direct access to
audit trail information received from its
members, as well as its own data
relating to orders received and executed
on its market, one SRO cannot directly
or easily access the audit trail
information collected by other SROs,
despite the interconnectedness of
today’s securities markets and the fact
that orders are often routed from one
marketplace to another marketplace for
execution. In addition, Commission staff
itself does not have immediate access to
the exchanges’ and FINRA’s audit trail
information, and instead must
specifically request that an exchange or
FINRA produce its audit trail
information.154
152 See Goldman Sachs and Spear, Leeds &
Kellogg Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 3, and
SIA Comment Letter, supra note 99, at 3 (each
commenting on the Nasdaq Petition and
Intermarket Trading Concept Release).
153 See supra Sections I.C. and I.D.
154 The different data fields and unique formats
of each SRO audit trail present difficulties for
Commission examinations and investigations,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
The Commission notes that ISG
provides a framework for the voluntary
sharing of information and coordination
of regulatory efforts among the
exchanges and FINRA to address
potential intermarket manipulations and
trading abuses. The Commission
believes that ISG plays an important
role in information sharing among
markets that trade the same securities,
as well as related securities or futures
on the same products.155 However, the
information provided to ISG, which is
drawn from each individual exchange’s
audit trail and books and records, is not
in any uniform or comparable format. In
addition, information is only submitted
to ISG upon a request by one of its
members, and the information is not
provided by ISG members in real time.
Further, the operation of ISG is not
subject to the Commission’s oversight,
including approval of what, and how,
information is collected from and
shared across SROs. The Commission
preliminarily believes that it is now
appropriate to mandate a structure
whereby the regulatory staff of all
exchanges and FINRA, as well as the
Commission, can directly access
comprehensive uniform cross-market
order and execution information in real
time pursuant to Commission rule,
rather than through an informationsharing cooperative governed only by
contract.
E. Scalability of the EBS System and
Rule 17a–25
Although the EBS system and Rule
17a–25 can be used to obtain
information in conjunction with the
SRO audit trail information, the
Commission is concerned with the
ability of the EBS system, as enhanced
by Rule 17a–25, to keep pace with
changes in the securities markets over
recent years. Various changes in market
dynamics have affected the utility of the
EBS system and Rule 17a–25. For
example, decimal trading has increased
the number of price points for
securities, and the volume of quotations
and orders has correspondingly
dramatically increased. Thus, the
volume of transaction data subject to
reporting under the EBS system can be
significantly greater than the EBS
system was intended to accommodate in
a typical request for data. As a requestbased system that is most useful when
targeting trading in a specific security
for a specific time, the EBS system is not
well-suited as a broad-based tool to
detect illegal or manipulative activity.
where time constraints can make it impractical to
manually consolidate diverse data sets.
155 See supra note 96.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32567
The increased use of sponsored access
(or other indirect access to an exchange)
also has made it more difficult to use
the EBS system and Rule 17a–25 to
identify the ultimate customer that
originates an order because the member
broker-dealer through whom an order is
sent to an exchange may not know the
identity of the underlying customer.156
In addition, the increasing number of
alternative trading venues creates more
opportunities for orders to be routed to
other markets and thus can result in
delays in producing EBS data as
requests must be made to several brokerdealers in the ‘‘chain’’ of an order.
Finally, the increased trading of
derivative instruments and products
also has affected the ongoing
effectiveness of the EBS system and
Rule 17a–25. A market participant can
use derivative instruments and products
as a substitute for trading in a particular
equity, and likewise engage in illegal
trading activity in derivative
instruments and products. However,
because information related to some
derivative instruments over which the
Commission has anti-fraud authority
(such as security-based swaps) is not
included within the EBS data or
provided pursuant to Rule 17a–25, the
EBS system and Rule 17a–25 are not
effective tools for ascertaining activity
in those markets or how that activity
may be affecting the underlying equity
market.157
In the Commission staff’s experience,
the EBS is most effective when
investigating or analyzing trading in a
small sample of securities over a limited
period of time. But even under those
circumstances, Commission staff often
must make multiple requests to brokerdealers to obtain sufficient order
information about the purchase or sale
of a specific security to be able to
adequately analyze the suspect trading.
These multiple requests and responses
can take a significant amount of time.
The Commission preliminarily believes
that the EBS system may no longer be
able to fully support the regulatory
156 Indirect access is when a non-member of an
exchange accesses an exchange through a member.
For example, to comply with regulatory obligations
such as Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (17 CFR
242.611), exchanges increasingly rely on indirect
access to other exchanges through member brokerdealers of the other exchanges, so called ‘‘private
linkage’’ access. Sponsored access is one type of
indirect access and is governed by exchange rules.
See, e.g., Nasdaq Rule 4611(d). The Commission
recently proposed rules that would address
sponsored access to exchanges. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61379 (January 26, 2010),
75 FR 4713 (January 29, 2010).
157 See infra Section III.A for a discussion of the
scope of products to be covered by the proposed
Rule and the intent to expand the scope to cover
other products and transactions.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32568
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
challenges currently facing SRO and
Commission regulatory staff.
The consolidated audit trail that the
Commission is proposing today would
provide significant improvements in the
order and execution information
available to SRO and Commission staff
in several discrete ways. Among other
things, the proposed audit trail would
require that national securities
exchanges and national securities
associations and their members submit
uniform order and execution
information to a central repository on a
real time basis, where possible. National
securities exchanges and associations,
and their member firms, would be
required to identify the person with
investment discretion for the order, and
beneficial account holder, if different,
along with other key information about
the customer or proprietary desk that
placed or originated the order. The
proposed consolidated audit trail also
would cover any action taken with
respect to the order through execution,
or cancellation, as applicable, and thus
would allow regulators to more easily
trace the order from inception to
cancellation or execution.158
The Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposed audit trail
information would greatly enhance the
ability of SRO staff to effectively
monitor and surveil the securities
markets on a real time basis, and thus
to detect and investigate illegal activity
in a more timely fashion, whether on
one market or across markets. The
Commission also preliminarily believes
that the proposal would improve the
ability of Commission and SRO staff to
conduct more timely and accurate
trading analysis, as well as to conduct
more timely and accurate market
reconstructions, complex enforcement
inquiries or investigations, and
inspections and examinations of
regulated entities and SROs.
III. Description of Proposed Rule
To help address the deficiencies
described above, the Commission is
proposing to adopt a rule that would
require national securities exchanges 159
and national securities associations 160
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
158 The
proposed Rule also would require the
reporting of certain post-trade information. See
infra Section III.D.2.
159 National securities exchange is defined in
Rule 600(a)(45) of Regulation NMS as any exchange
registered pursuant to Section 6 of the Exchange
Act (15 U.S.C. 78f). 17 CFR 242.600(a)(45).
160 National securities association is defined in
Rule 600(a)(44) of Regulation NMS as any
association of brokers and dealers registered
pursuant to Section 15A of the Exchange Act (15
U.S.C. 78o–3). 17 CFR 242.600(a)(44). As noted
above, see supra note 12, FINRA currently is the
only national securities association to which the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
to create and implement a consolidated
audit trail that captures customer and
order event information, in real time, for
all orders in NMS securities, across all
markets, from the time of order
inception through routing, cancellation,
modification, or execution.
If adopted, the proposed Rule would
require each national securities
exchange and national securities
association to file jointly with the
Commission on or before 90 days from
approval of this proposed Rule an NMS
plan to govern the creation,
implementation, and maintenance of a
consolidated audit trail and a central
repository.161 The NMS plan would be
required to be filed with the
Commission pursuant to, and subject to
the requirements of, Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS.162 As such, the
proposed NMS plan would be published
in the Federal Register and subject to
public notice and comment in
accordance with Rule 608(b). Further,
the NMS plan filed pursuant to the
proposed Rule, or any amendment to
such a plan, would not become effective
unless approved by the Commission or
otherwise permitted in accordance with
Rule 608.163
The Commission would expect the
exchanges and FINRA to cooperate with
each other and to take joint action as
necessary to develop, file, and
ultimately implement a single NMS
plan to fulfill this requirement. The
Commission requests comment on this
approach. Specifically, the Commission
requests comment on whether requiring
the exchanges and associations to act
jointly by filing an NMS plan that
would contain the requirements for a
consolidated audit trail is the most
effective and efficient way to achieve
the objectives of a consolidated audit
trail. Or, should the Commission require
the exchanges and associations to
standardize or otherwise enhance their
existing rules? What approach would be
proposal would apply, as the NFA is restricted to
regulating its members who are registered as brokerdealers in security futures products due to its
limited purpose registration with the Commission
under Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. 78o–3(k). The NFA could, of course, seek to
expand its current registration. Thus, for ease of
reference, this proposal refers to FINRA but the
proposed requirements would apply to any national
securities association registered with the
Commission.
161 See infra Section III.F. for a discussion of the
central repository. The proposed Rule would
explicitly require each national securities exchange
and national securities association to be a sponsor
of the NMS plan submitted pursuant to the Rule
and approved by the Commission. See proposed
Rule 613(a)(4).
162 17 CFR 242.608. See proposed Rule 613(a)(2).
163 See proposed Rule 613(a)(5) and 17 CFR
242.608.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
most efficient in improving the ability to
monitor cross-market trading, or
undertake market analysis or
reconstructions, and why?
As discussed in further detail below,
the proposed Rule would require that
the NMS plan include provisions
regarding: (1) The operation and
administration of the NMS plan; (2) the
creation and oversight of a central
repository; (3) the data required to be
provided by SROs and their members to
the central repository; (4) clock
synchronization; (5) compliance by
national securities exchanges, FINRA,
and their members with the proposed
Rule and the NMS plan; and (6) the
possible expansion of the NMS plan to
products other than NMS securities.
The proposed Rule is designed to
allow the national securities exchanges
and national securities associations to
develop the details of the NMS plan that
they believe should govern the creation,
implementation and maintenance of the
central repository and consolidated
audit trail, within the parameters set
forth in the proposed Rule. The
Commission believes that the national
securities exchanges and national
securities associations working jointly
are in the best position to propose for
themselves and their members the
specifics of how the consolidated audit
trail should be structured and
administered. To this end, the proposed
Rule contains a broad framework within
which the exchanges and associations
would provide the details that they
believe would result in a functional,
cooperative mechanism to create and
maintain a consolidated audit trail, as
well as certain explicit requirements the
NMS plan must meet. As noted above,
the proposed NMS plan developed by
the exchanges and FINRA would be
subject to public comment and approval
by the Commission.
A. Products and Transactions Covered
Proposed Rule 613 would apply to
secondary market transactions in all
NMS securities, which means NMS
stocks and listed options.164 The
Commission ultimately intends for the
consolidated audit trail to cover
164 NMS security is defined in Rule 600(a)(46) of
Regulation NMS to mean any security or class of
securities for which transaction reports are
collected, processed, and made available pursuant
to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an
effective national market system plan for reporting
transactions in listed options. 17 CFR
242.600(a)(46). NMS stock is defined in Rule
600(47) to mean any NMS security other than an
option. 17 CFR 242.600(a)(46). A listed option is
defined in Rule 600(a)(35) of Regulation NMS to
mean any option traded on a registered national
securities exchange or automated facility of a
national securities association. 17 CFR
242.600(a)(35).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
secondary market transactions in other
securities, including equity securities 165
that are not NMS securities, corporate
bonds, municipal bonds, and assetbacked securities and other debt
instruments; 166 credit default swaps,
equity swaps, and other security-based
swaps; and any other products that may
come under the Commission’s
jurisdiction in the future. Further, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
it would be beneficial to provide for the
possible expansion of the consolidated
audit trail to include information on
primary market transactions in NMS
stocks and other equity securities that
are not NMS stocks, as well as primary
market transactions in debt
securities.167 Such information could be
used to monitor for violations of certain
rules under the Exchange Act, such as
Regulation M and Rule 10b–5 under the
Exchange Act.168 Further, FINRA’s
165 Equity security is defined in Section 3(a)(11)
of the Exchange Act to include any stock or similar
security; or any security future on any such
security; or any security convertible, with or
without consideration, into such a security, or
carrying any warrant or right to subscribe to or
purchase such a security; or any such warrant or
right; or any other security which the Commission
shall deem to be of similar nature and consider
necessary or appropriate, by such rules and
regulations as it may prescribe in the public interest
or for the protection of investors, to treat as an
equity security. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(11).
Rule 3a11–1 under the Exchange Act defines
equity security to include any stock or similar
security, certificate of interest or participation in
any profit sharing agreement, preorganization
certificate or subscription, transferable share, voting
trust certificate or certificate of deposit for an equity
security, limited partnership interest, interest in a
joint venture, or certificate of interest in a business
trust; any security future on any such security; or
any security convertible, with or without
consideration into such a security, or carrying any
warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase such
a security; or any such warrant or right; or any put,
call, straddle, or other option or privilege of buying
such a security from or selling such a security to
another without being bound to do so. See 17 CFR
240.3a11–1.
166 Asset-backed security means a security that is
primarily serviced by the cash flows of a discrete
pool of receivables or other financial assets, either
fixed or revolving, that by their terms convert into
cash within a finite time period, plus any rights or
other assets designed to assure the servicing or
timely distributions of proceeds to the security
holders; provided that in the case of financial assets
that are leases, those assets may convert to cash
partially by the cash proceeds from the disposition
of the physical property underlying such leases. See
17 CFR 229.1101(c)(1).
167 A primary market transaction is any
transaction other than a secondary market
transaction and refers to any transaction where a
person purchases securities in an offering. See, e.g.,
FINRA Rule 6710 (defining two types of primary
market transactions for TRACE-eligible securities, a
List or Fixed Offering Price Transaction or a
Takedown Transaction).
168 See 17 CFR 242.100 et. seq. and 17 CFR
240.10b–5. Rule 105 prohibits the short selling of
equity securities that are the subject of a public
offering for cash and the subsequent purchase of the
offered securities from an underwriter or broker or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
transaction reporting requirements for
debt securities already cover primary
market transactions in debt
securities,169 and thus FINRA members
should already be recording information
relating to such transactions that could
be included in an audit trail. The
Commission proposes that the scope of
the Rule initially be limited to
secondary market transactions in NMS
securities, however, to allow for a
manageable implementation of the
proposed consolidated audit trail, and
because market participants already
have experience with audit trails for
these types of transactions in these
securities.
As discussed above, the Commission
believes that implementing a
consolidated audit trail for NMS
securities would aid the SROs in more
effectively and efficiently carrying out
their regulatory responsibilities. It
would also assist the Commission in
carrying out its statutory
responsibilities. The Commission
further preliminarily believes that a
timely expansion of the scope of the
consolidated audit trail beyond NMS
securities would be beneficial, as illegal
trading strategies that the consolidated
audit trail would be designed to help
detect and deter, such as insider trading,
may involve trading in multiple related
products other than NMS securities
across multiple markets.
For example, the Commission
routinely receives information relating
to possible upward manipulation of
security prices in violation of Sections
9(a) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act,170
and alleged abusive short selling in the
over-the-counter market, which
includes FINRA’s Bulletin Board and
Pink Sheets. If the consolidated audit
trail were expanded to cover these
dealer participating in the offering if the short sale
was effected during a period that is the shorter of
the following: (i) Beginning five business days
before the pricing of the offered securities and
ending with such pricing; or (ii) beginning with the
initial filing of such registration statement or
notification on Form 1–A or Form 1–E and ending
with the pricing. Thus, Rule 105 prohibits any
person from selling short an equity security
immediately prior to an offering and purchasing the
security by participating in the offering. The
primary market transaction data would allow for
the ability to more quickly identify whether any
participant in the offering sold short prior to the
offering.
Rule 10b–5 prohibits any act or omission
resulting in fraud or deceit in connection with the
purchase or sale of any security. The primary
market transaction data for bonds would allow for
identification of the cost basis for bond purchases
by intermediaries and make it easier to assess
whether subsequent mark-ups to retail investors in
primary offerings are fair and reasonable and, if not,
whether there has been a violation of the antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws.
169 See FINRA Rule 6730(a)(5).
170 15 U.S.C. 78i(a) and 78j(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32569
securities, it would be possible for SROs
and the Commission to make
comparisons between current and
historical data in a more timely manner
than is currently possible, to more
quickly determine whether or not a
complaint merits additional attention
and the corresponding commitment of
enforcement resources. Similarly, to the
extent that instruments currently not
considered NMS securities can be
substitutes for long or short positions in
NMS securities, having access to an
audit trail that documents trading
activity in such securities would
improve the Commission’s ability to
make a risk assessment as to
information it has received about
possibly manipulative activity.171
Having ready access to this information
in an audit trail also would improve the
Commission’s inspection process
because it would enhance risk
assessment and allow for better
selection as to which broker-dealers to
examine. For example, the information
would allow for better trend analysis
and outlier identification. It also would
improve pre-examination work and the
asset verification process,172 and focus
document requests, making the
examination process more efficient for
the Commission staff and the registrants
subject to the process.
To help ensure that such an
expansion would occur in a reasonable
time and that the systems and
technology that would be used to
implement the Rule as proposed are
designed to be easily scalable, proposed
Rule 613(i) would require that the NMS
plan contain a provision requiring each
national securities exchange and
national securities association that is a
sponsor of the plan 173 to jointly provide
the Commission a document outlining
how the sponsors could incorporate into
the consolidated audit trail information
with respect to: (1) Equity securities that
171 The Commission’s Division of Enforcement
has recently established an Office of Market
Intelligence. This Office, among other things,
conducts intake and triage of investor and industry
referrals that are received by the Commission each
year. Currently, a thorough review of referrals
requires extensive resource allocation as the
primary source for evaluating trading data in the
EBS system. Expansion of the consolidated audit
trail to non-NMS securities would allow that Office
to evaluate the merits of each referral faster and
more effectively, and more efficiently allocate
enforcement resources to appropriate cases.
172 Asset verification is an exam process that
attempts to locate independent information to
verify certain customer positions, transactions, and
balances at broker-dealers.
173 Sponsor, when used with respect to an NMS
plan, is defined in Rule 600(a)(70) of Regulation
NMS to mean any self-regulatory organization
which is a signatory to such plan and has agreed
to act in accordance with the terms of the plan. See
17 CFR 242.600(a)(70).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
32570
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
are not NMS securities; (2) debt
securities, including asset-backed
securities; and (3) primary market
transactions in NMS stocks, equity
securities that are not NMS securities,
and debt securities. The sponsors
specifically would be required to
address, among other things, details for
each order and reportable event that
they would recommend requiring to be
provided; which market participants
would be required to provide the data;
an implementation timeline; and a cost
estimate.
The Commission requests comment
on the proposed scope of products to be
covered by the consolidated audit trail.
Should the consolidated audit trail
initially cover securities other than
NMS securities? Why or why not? The
Commission also requests comment on
whether the approach to expand the
consolidated audit trail to include the
products and transactions specified
above represents an appropriate
expansion of the consolidated audit
trail, and what additional capital
commitment would be required by the
various market participants to
implement such an expansion. Please be
specific in your response with respect to
different products or transactions (e.g.
security-based swaps, or primary market
transactions in NMS stocks). Are there
other securities or products that should
be identified and included in a future
expansion? What would be the
challenges to any expansion to the
products and transactions listed above?
Are there any other actions that the
Commission or SROs would need to
take to be able to expand the audit trail
to certain products or transactions?
Should the Commission consider
expansion to certain products or
transactions before others? The
Commission also requests comment on
an appropriate and realistic time frame
for including these other products and
transactions in the consolidated audit
trail and whether an expansion should
be done in phases.
The Commission also requests
comment on whether implementation of
the proposed Rule, which would apply
to NMS securities, would have an
impact on trading activity by market
participants in products not initially
covered by the proposed Rule. The
proposed consolidated audit trail is
designed to provide the SROs and the
Commission a tool to more effectively,
and in a more timely manner, identify
potential manipulative or other illegal
activity. More timely detection and
investigation of such activity may lead
to greater deterrence of future illegal
activity if potential wrongdoers perceive
a greater chance of regulators
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
identifying their activity in a more
timely fashion. Do commenters believe
that the existence of the proposed audit
trail would alter market participants’
trading behavior, such as by shifting
their trading to products or markets not
covered by the proposed Rule to avoid
detection of illegal activity using
consolidated audit trail data? Would the
proposal impact a market participant’s
analysis of the potential risks and
benefits of manipulative activity
involving NMS securities? If so, how so?
In addition, to the extent commenters
believe that market participants may
alter their trading behavior, such as by
shifting trading to products that are not
initially covered by the proposed Rule
to avoid detection of manipulative
activity, the Commission requests
comment on the importance of
expanding the consolidated audit trail
to cover additional products.
B. Orders and Quotations
The proposed Rule would require that
information be provided to the central
repository for every order in an NMS
security originated or received by a
member of an exchange or FINRA. The
proposed Rule would define ‘‘order’’ to
mean: (1) Any order received by a
member of a national securities
exchange or national securities
association from any person; (2) any
order originated by a member of a
national securities exchange or national
securities association; or (3) any bid or
offer.174 Thus, the proposed
consolidated audit trail would cover all
orders (whether for a customer or for a
member’s own account) as well as
quotations in NMS stocks and listed
options.175 Each member would be
required to report to the central
repository the origination of its own
orders or quotations, and the SRO to
which the member sends its orders and
quotations would be required to report
receipt and execution, if applicable, of
those orders and quotations. Because
the origination of the quotations would
already be reported to the central
repository by the member, an SRO
would not be required to separately
submit to the central repository its best
174 See proposed Rule 613(j)(4). Bid or offer is
defined in Rule 600(a)(8) of Regulation NMS to
mean the bid price or the offer price communicated
by a member of a national securities exchange or
member of a national securities association to any
broker or dealer, or to any customer, at which it is
willing to buy or sell one or more round lots of an
NMS security, as either principal or agent, but shall
not include indications of interest. 17 CFR
242.600(a)(8).
175 Quotation is defined in Rule 600(a)(62) of
Regulation NMS to mean a bid or an offer. 17 CFR
242.600(a)(62).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
bids and offers that it is required to
submit to the central processors.176
The Commission preliminarily
believes that the inclusion of orders for
a member’s own account (‘‘proprietary
orders’’) and their bids and offers in the
scope of the consolidated audit trail is
necessary and appropriate to effectively
and efficiently carry out the stated
objectives of the consolidated audit
trail. The SROs would not be able to use
the consolidated audit trail data to
surveil trading by broker-dealers
through their proprietary accounts if
that information is not included in the
audit trail. Further, including
proprietary orders and quotations in the
consolidated audit trail would permit
SROs to harness the intended benefits of
the consolidated audit trail to more
efficiently monitor for violations of SRO
rules where the exact sequence of the
receipt and execution of customers
orders in relation to the creation and
execution of proprietary orders or
quotations is important to determine
whether or not a violation occurred. For
example, SROs would be able to use the
consolidated audit trail data to more
efficiently monitor for instances where
a broker-dealer receives a customer
order, then sends a proprietary order to
one exchange or updates its quotations
on an exchange prior to sending the
customer order to another exchange, in
possible violation of the trading ahead
prohibitions in their rules.177
Another example where information
on proprietary orders or quotations
would be useful to have included in the
consolidated audit trail is in the
investigation of a possible ‘‘spoofing’’
allegation. In those cases, a market
participant enters and may immediately
cancel limit orders or quotations in a
specific security with the intent of
having those non-bona fide orders or
quotations change the national best bid
and national best offer (‘‘NBBO’’).
Because a market participant could
conduct this activity across multiple
markets, using different accounts, the
lack of consolidated data makes it much
more difficult to identify the source of
the orders or quotations and thus to
determine whether the quoted price was
manipulated or simply responding to
market forces. The Commission
therefore preliminarily believes that
having information on proprietary
orders and quotations in the
consolidated audit trail along with
customer order information would
176 See Rule 601 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.601.
177 See, e.g., FINRA Rule 5320 and NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 6.16.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
greatly enhance the ability of the SROs
to detect potentially violative activity.
The Commission requests comment
on its proposed definition of ‘‘order’’ and
the scope of the proposed consolidated
audit trail. Specifically, the definition
would include orders received and
originated by SRO members, as well as
quotations originated by SRO members.
Should it include quotations? Why or
why not? Are there any differences
between orders and quotations that
should be taken into account with
respect to the information that would be
required to be provided to the central
repository with respect to each bid or
offer, or with respect to how, or which
entity, should be required to report
quotation information to the central
repository? For example, the
Commission understands that out-ofthe-money options generate a high
volume of automated quotation updates
to reflect changes in the price of the
underlying security, yet these series
often have very little trading activity.
Should this type of quotation be
required to be submitted to the central
repository? If not, is there any way to
distinguish these quotations from other
quotations that commenters believe
should be reported, such as quotations
generated by a profit-seeking algorithm?
What is the magnitude of quotation data
compared to order data and trade data,
for both NMS stocks and listed options?
Please provide any empirical data.
Would there be a significant cost
savings to the submission and collection
of certain quotation information (for
example, quotations in listed options)
by end-of-day instead of in real time? If
so, please quantify.
The Commission also requests
comment with respect to including
proprietary orders as well as customer
orders in the scope of the consolidated
audit trail. Specifically, are there any
differences between customer orders
and proprietary orders that should be
taken into account with respect to the
information that would be required to
be provided to the central repository
with respect to proprietary orders? The
Commission also requests comment on
how, if at all, the consolidated audit
trail should take into account instances
where an SRO’s quotations (which can
include orders received from members
as well as quotations) are not actionable,
such as when an exchange has a systems
failure. Should non-firm quotations be
marked in the consolidated audit trail to
show they are not firm? If so, how
would that be accomplished where it is
the exchange making the determination
its quotations are not firm, not the
member that submitted the order or
quotation?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
C. Persons Required To Provide
Information to the Central Repository
Proposed Rule 613 would require,
through the mechanism of an NMS plan
and exchange and association rules
adopted pursuant to an NMS plan,
national securities exchanges, national
securities associations, and their
respective members 178 to provide
certain information regarding each order
and each reportable event 179 to the
central repository.180 The Commission
notes that requiring all members to
provide certain information would
178 A member of a national securities exchange is
defined in Section 3(a)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act
to mean: (1) Any natural person permitted to effect
transactions on the floor of the exchange without
the services of another person acting as broker; (2)
any registered broker or dealer with which such a
natural person is associated; (3) any registered
broker or dealer permitted to designate as a
representative such a natural person; and (4) any
other registered broker or dealer which agrees to be
regulated by such exchange and with respect to
which the exchange undertakes to enforce
compliance with the provisions of the Exchange
Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and its
own rules. Further, for purposes of Sections 6(b)(1),
6(b)(4), 6(b)(6), 6(b)(7), 6(d), 17(d), 19(d), 19(e),
19(g), 19(h), and 21 of the Exchange Act, the term
‘‘member’’ when used with respect to a national
securities exchange also means, to the extent of the
rules of the exchange specified by the Commission,
any person required by the Commission to comply
with such rules pursuant to Section 6(f) of this title.
See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(3)(A).
A member of a registered securities association is
defined in Section 3(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act to
mean any broker or dealer who agrees to be
regulated by such association and with respect to
whom the association undertakes to enforce
compliance with the provisions of the Exchange
Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and its
own rules. See Section 3(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(3)(B). Section 15(b)(8) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(8), states that it
shall be unlawful for any registered broker or dealer
to effect any transaction in, or induce or attempt to
induce the purchase or sale of, any security (other
than commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, or
commercial bills), unless such broker or dealer is
a member of a securities association registered
pursuant to Section 15A of the Exchange Act or
effects transactions in securities solely on a national
securities exchange of which it is a member.
Rule 15b9–1(a) under the Exchange Act, 17 CFR
240.15b9–1(a), generally states that any broker or
dealer required by Section 15(b)(8) of the Exchange
Act to become a member of a registered national
securities association shall be exempt from such
requirement if it is a member of a national securities
exchange; carries no customer accounts; and has
annual gross income derived from purchases and
sales of securities otherwise than on a national
securities exchange of which it is a member in an
amount no greater than $1,000.
179 Reportable event would be defined in
proposed Rule 613(j)(5) to include, but not be
limited to, the receipt, origination, modification,
cancellation, routing, and execution (in whole or in
part) of an order.
180 See infra Section III.D. for a detailed
discussion of the information that would be
required to be provided to the central repository,
and infra Section III.H.2. for a discussion of the
requirement that the exchanges and FINRA adopt
rules to implement the requirements of the NMS
plan for their members.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32571
capture alternative trading systems
(‘‘ATSs’’).181
The Commission’s intent is to require
any entity acting in a broker or dealer
capacity that would receive an order
from a customer or originate an order for
its own account to provide information
to the central repository. The
Commission requests comment on
whether requiring all members of each
exchange and association to provide the
required information would encompass
all broker or dealers or other persons
that would receive or originate orders,
as defined in the proposed Rule. If not,
why not? The Commission requests
comment on whether it should, in the
alternative, require all brokers and
dealers registered with the Commission
to provide such information, rather than
all members of an exchange or
association. Would applying the
requirements to registered brokers and
dealers encompass all persons that
would be able to receive or originate
orders as defined in the proposed rule?
Are there persons that are not registered
as a broker or dealer, and that are not
a member of an exchange or association,
that would still receive or originate
orders in NMS securities? How should
the Commission address that situation
to promote inclusion of all relevant
orders and executions in a consolidated
audit trail?
D. Provision of Information to the
Central Repository
Proposed Rule 613(c)(1) generally
would require the NMS plan to provide
for an accurate, time-sequenced record
of orders beginning with the receipt or
origination of an order by a member of
a national securities exchange or
national securities association, and
further documenting the life of the order
through the process of routing,
modification, cancellation, and
execution (in whole or in part). To
effectuate this goal, proposed Rule
613(c)(2) would require the NMS plan to
require each national securities
exchange, national securities
association, and member of such
exchange or association to collect and
provide to the central repository certain
information with respect to orders in
NMS securities.182
181 An ATS is defined in Rule 300(a) of
Regulation ATS. See 17 CFR 242.300(a). Regulation
ATS requires ATSs to be registered as brokerdealers with the Commission, which entails
becoming a member of FINRA and fully complying
with the broker-dealer regulatory regime. See
Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, supra
note 19, at 3599.
182 See Sections III.D.1. and III.D.2. below for a
detailed discussion of the information that would
be required to be provided to the central repository.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32572
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Specifically, the proposed Rule would
require the NMS plan to require each
national securities exchange and its
members to collect and provide to the
central repository certain order
information for each NMS security
registered or listed for trading on such
exchange or admitted to unlisted trading
privileges on such exchange.183 The
proposed Rule also would require the
NMS plan to require each national
securities association and its members
to collect and provide to the central
repository certain order information for
each NMS security for which
transaction reports are required to be
submitted to the association.184 The
Commission requests comment on
whether requiring exchanges and their
members, and associations and their
members, to report information for
orders for these securities to a central
repository is appropriate, and whether
the requirements, as proposed, would
cover all NMS securities.185
As discussed below in Section III.D.1.,
certain of the information would be
required to be captured and transmitted
to the central repository on a real time
basis, meaning immediately and with no
built in delay from when the reportable
event occurs.186 Other information
would be permitted to be captured and
transmitted to the central repository
promptly after the exchange,
association, or member receives the
information, but in no instance later
than midnight of the day that the
reportable event occurs or the exchange,
association, or member receives such
information.187 The data collected by
the national securities exchanges,
national securities associations, and
their members would be required to be
electronically transmitted to the central
repository in a uniform electronic
format.188
1. Information To Be Provided to the
Central Repository in Real Time
As discussed above in Section II.A.4.,
the Commission preliminarily believes
that requiring the submission of
consolidated audit trail information on
a real time basis would help enable
more timely cross-market monitoring or
surveillance and investigations of, or
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
183 See
proposed Rule 613(c)(5).
proposed Rule 613(c)(6).
185 See infra Section III.F. for a discussion of the
central repository.
186 See proposed Rule 613(c)(3). See supra note
179 for a definition of reportable event.
187 See proposed Rule 613(c)(4). This requirement
to report no later than midnight on the day that the
reportable event occurs or the exchange, association
or member receives the information would be
determined using the local time of the entity
reporting the information to the central repository.
188 See proposed Rule 613(c)(2).
184 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
other responses to, market anomalies.
Regulators therefore could more easily
and quickly identify manipulative or
other undesirable activity. Having the
information available in real time would
allow the staff of the SROs to run certain
cross-market surveillances in real time
to ascertain whether anomalous trading
activity is occurring, and the SROs
could then more quickly begin an
investigation into the suspected
anomalous trading. Timely pursuit of
potential violations can be important in
seeking to freeze any profits received
from illegal activity before they are
spent or otherwise become unreachable
(for instance, by being transferred out of
the country). The Commission also
preliminarily believes that requiring the
submission of audit trail information in
real time would enable the Commission
to access the information on a more
timely basis than currently is the case,
to support its examination and
enforcement activities, as well as its
analysis of market activity.189
The Commission requests comment as
to whether it is feasible to require the
submission of the proposed audit trail
information, as detailed below, to the
central repository on a real time basis.
If the information is not submitted on a
real time basis, when should the
information be submitted to the central
repository? Would real time order and
execution information be useful for
cross-market surveillance and
investigations of market anomalies? If
so, how? If not, why not? Please discuss
the costs and benefits of recording and
transmitting the data in real time, or not
in real time. For example, how would
costs differ between submitting end-ofday data compared to real time data?
Are there categories of information that
would be easier to produce on a real
time basis than others? What types of
systems modifications by the exchanges,
FINRA, and their respective members
would be necessary to collect and
submit the required audit trail
information to the central repository on
a real time basis? Please respond with
specificity. The Commission further
requests comment on whether the
requirement to report information in
real time should be limited to a specific
time period during the day, such as
when the markets for trading NMS
stocks and listed options are open for
trading? Or some other time period?
How much lower would the cost be to
submit data in real time during trading
hours than during the whole day? Or
some other time period? Are there
practical issues with requiring real time
189 See supra notes 28, 154, and 171 and
accompanying text.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reporting throughout the day? Would
requiring data to be submitted in real
time all day, as proposed, allow the
ability to perform systems maintenance
if necessary? If commenters support the
requirement to report information in
real time, do they believe that there are
times during the day when real time
reporting may be unnecessary? Why or
why not?
Proposed Rule 613(c)(3) would
require the NMS plan to require each
exchange, association, and member to
collect and provide to the central
repository on a real time basis details for
each order and each reportable event,190
as outlined below. Each exchange,
association, or member would be
required to report the information for
each order, for each reportable event,
only with respect to an action taken by
the exchange, association, or member.
For example, if a member receives an
order from a customer, the member
would be required to report the receipt
of that order (with the required
information) to the central repository. If
the member then routed that order to an
exchange for execution, the member
would be required to report the routing
of that order (with the required
information) to the central repository.
Likewise, the exchange would be
required to report the receipt of that
order from the member (with the
required information) to the central
repository. If the exchange executed the
order on its trading system(s), the
exchange would be required to report
that execution of the order (with the
required information) to the central
repository, but the member would not
also be required to report the execution
of the order to the central repository. If
the member executed the order in the
over-the-counter market, however,
rather than routing the order to an
exchange (or other market center) for
execution, the member would be
required to report the execution of the
order to the central repository.
i. Customer Information
The proposed Rule specifically would
require, for the receipt or origination of
each order, information to be reported to
the central repository with respect to the
customer that generates the order—
specifically, the beneficial owner(s) of
the account originating the order and
the person exercising investment
discretion for the account originating
the order, if different from the beneficial
owner.191 As discussed above in Section
190 See supra note 179 for a definition of
reportable event.
191 The proposed Rule would define ‘‘customer’’
to mean the beneficial owner(s) of the account
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
II.A.1, such information generally is
neither required nor captured on
existing audit trails. While Rule 17a–25
requires broker-dealers to electronically
submit information about customer and
proprietary securities trading, such
information is required to be submitted
to the Commission only upon request.
The Commission preliminarily believes
that the usefulness of audit trail
information for purposes of effective
enforcement and cross-market
surveillance of trading activity would be
greatly improved by having the identity
of the customer electronically attached
to the report of the receipt or origination
of each order that is sent to the central
repository.192
The proposed Rule would require that
the NMS plan require, for the receipt or
origination of an order, the provision to
the central repository of information of
sufficient detail to identify the
customer.193 The Commission
preliminarily believes that the customer
name and address would be sufficient
detail to identify the customer. In
addition, the proposed Rule would
require the provision of customer
account information, which would be
defined in proposed Rule 613(j)(2) to
include but not be limited to: (1) The
account number; (2) account type (e.g.
options); (3) customer type (e.g., retail,
mutual fund, broker-dealer proprietary);
(4) the date the account was opened;
and (5) the large trader identifier (if
applicable).194 The Commission
preliminarily believes that information
on the type of account and when it was
opened would be important to
investigations of potential insider
trading. For example, knowing when in
time the customer opened the account
in relation to the suspicious trading
activity, or whether the customer
changed account authorization to permit
options trading just before suspicious
options trading, could be evidence of
intent. The Commission notes that
currently any member receiving orders
from a customer would be required, as
part of its compliance with its books
originating the order and the person exercising
investment discretion for the account originating
the order, if different from the beneficial owner(s).
See proposed Rule 613(j)(1). The Commission notes
that this proposed definition of customer is only for
purposes of proposed Rule 613, and what
information would be required to be collected and
disclosed by members to the central repository. The
Commission does not intend to alter the
responsibilities that broker-dealers are already
subject to pursuant to SRO rules, or the federal
securities laws, rules or regulations or other laws,
with respect to the customers (for example,
suitability rules, see, e.g. NASD Rule 2310).
192 See supra Section II.A.
193 See proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(A).
194 See proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(C). See also
Large Trader Proposal, supra note 11.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
and records requirements,195 to take
reasonable and appropriate steps to
ensure the accuracy of the customer
information received. This should not
change, if this proposal were adopted,
with respect to customer information
recorded and provided to the central
repository.
The proposed Rule also would require
a unique customer identifier for each
customer.196 The unique customer
identifier should remain constant for
each customer, and have the same
format, across all broker-dealers. This
unique customer identifier would serve
a similar purpose to a customer’s social
security number or tax identification
number, obviating the need to include
that information in the consolidated
audit trail data. The Commission is not
proposing to mandate the method for
achieving this requirement, so as to
allow those entities subject to the
proposed Rule flexibility to determine
the most practical way to accomplish
the requirement of having unique
customer identifiers. However, one
alternative could be to have the central
repository be responsible for assigning a
unique customer identifier in response
to an input by a member of a customer’s
social security number or tax
identification number. If the customer
already has been assigned a unique
identifier because of a prior request by
another member, the central repository
would provide to the member that same
identifier. If no unique identifier has
previously been assigned, the central
repository could assign a new one.
Access to this part of the central
repository’s functionality could be more
tightly controlled than access to the
consolidated audit trail data, to help
ensure the confidentiality of the social
security or tax identification numbers.
The Commission requests comment as
to whether each item of information
regarding the customer is necessary for
an effective consolidated audit trail. Is
there any additional data that should be
included to help identify the customer
submitting the order? The Commission
also requests comment on the proposed
definition of customer. For example,
should the definition only include the
person exercising investment
discretion? Should the definition
include the beneficial owner? Should
the customer information requirement
also include a unique identifier for the
particular computer algorithm used by
the firm to generate the order, if
applicable? Is there a better way to
195 See, e.g., Rules 17a–3, 17a–4, and 17a–25
under the Exchange Act, 17 CFR 240.17a–3, 17a–
4, and 17a–25.
196 See proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(B).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32573
identify in the audit trail individual
algorithmically-generated trading
strategies? Should each trading desk at
a member be required to have its own
unique customer identifier, to the extent
the trading desk is originating orders for
the account of the member? This
information on specific algorithms or
trading desks could be useful to focus
an inspection or investigation, if
regulators could tell from the audit trail
data that there was a pattern of
suspicious trading activity from a
specific algorithm or desk.
The Commission requests comment as
to what systems modifications, if any,
would be required for members to
collect and to provide this customer
identification information to the central
repository. Do broker-dealers currently
keep this information electronically? If
not, what changes would need to be
made to collect and provide this
information for existing accounts to the
central repository? What would be the
cost of converting this information into
an electronic, accessible and linked
format? Please be specific in your
response. Further, the Commission
requests comment on whether there are
laws or other regulations in non-U.S.
jurisdictions that would limit or
prohibit a member from obtaining the
proposed customer information for nonU.S. customers. If so, what are they?
How do members currently obtain such
information for such customers? If there
are special difficulties in obtaining
customer information from non-US
jurisdictions, how should the
consolidated audit trail be modified or
otherwise reflect that difficulty?
The Commission requests comment
on other possible ways to develop and
implement unique customer identifiers.
For example, who should be responsible
for generating the identifier? The
Commission also requests comment on
whether a unique customer identifier,
together with the other information with
respect to the customer that would be
required to be provided under the
proposed Rule, is sufficient to identify
individual customers. Are there any
concerns about how the customer
information will be protected? If so,
what steps should be taken to ensure
appropriate safeguards with respect to
the submission of customer information,
as well as the receipt, consolidation,
and maintenance of such information in
the central repository.
In addition, the Commission requests
comment on whether the requirement to
provide customer information to the
central repository in real time would
impact market participants’ trading
activity? If so, how so? For example,
would market participants be hesitant to
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32574
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
engage in certain legal trading activity
because of a concern about providing
customer information in real time?
Would market participants shift their
trading activity to products or markets
that do not require the capture of
customer information to avoid
compliance with this requirement of the
proposed Rule? If so, how should the
Commission address those concerns?
On the other hand, would enhanced
surveillance of the markets as a result of
the consolidated audit trail attract
additional trading volume to the U.S.
markets?
ii. National Securities Exchange,
National Securities Association and
Broker-Dealer Identifier Information
Each member originating or receiving
an order from a customer, and each
national securities exchange, national
securities association, and member that
subsequently handles the order, would
be required to include its own unique
identifier in each report it sends to the
central repository for a reportable event.
Such an identifier would allow the
Commission and SRO staff to determine
which member facilitated the
transaction and assist in assessing
compliance with various SRO or
Commission rules, such as the limit
order display rule (Rule 604 of
Regulation NMS).197 This is especially
important for ensuring that individual
customer orders are handled and
executed in accordance with SRO and
Commission rules. In addition, routing
decisions are an important aspect in
assessing order execution quality and
compliance with a member’s duty of
best execution. Further, if applicable,
the member receiving an order from a
customer would be required to report an
identifier specifying the branch office
and the registered representative at the
member receiving the order. These
identifiers would be unique to the
exchange, association, member, branch
office, and registered representative.
The proposed Rule would not require
that these unique identifiers ‘‘travel’’
with an order throughout its life, but
would require that the unique identifier
of each member or SRO that is taking an
action with respect to the order be
attached to the report of each reportable
event that the member, exchange or
association is reporting to the central
repository. Each report in the life of the
order would be able to be linked
together at the central repository
through the unique order identifier.
Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily does not believe that the
unique identifier of each member or
197 17
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
iii. Receipt or Origination of an Order
The proposed Rule would require the
NMS plan to require members of each
of the exchanges and FINRA to collect
and provide to the central repository
certain key items of information about
an order as soon as the member receives
or originates an order, including the
customer information as described
above. The proposed Rule would
require the member to report the date
and time (to the millisecond) that an
order was originated or received.198 The
198 See proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(H). Requiring
time to the millisecond is consistent with current
CFR 242.604.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
market that touches an order needs to
travel with the order for the life of the
order as long as the unique identifier of
the member or exchange taking the
action is included. For example, if
Member A receives an order from a
customer, Member A would be required
to report the receipt of that order to the
central repository and include Member
A’s unique identifier. If Member A then
routed that order to another member,
Member B, Member A would be
required to report the routing of that
order to the central repository and
include Member A’s unique identifier as
well as the unique identifier of Member
B. Likewise, Member B would be
required to report the receipt of that
order from Member A to the central
repository and include the unique
identifiers of Member A and Member B.
If Member B then routed the order to
Exchange A for execution, Member B
would be required to report the routing
of the order to the central repository and
include the unique identifier of Member
B and Exchange A, but not Member A.
The Commission requests comment as
to who should be responsible for
generating unique identifiers for
national securities exchanges, national
securities associations, and their
members. Would it be feasible for each
national securities exchange, national
securities association, or member to
develop its own identifier for this
purpose? The Commission also requests
comment on the level of specificity for
each unique member identifier—should
it be designed to identify the firm,
trading desk or individual registered
representative? What are the advantages
or disadvantages of requiring a unique
identifier that would allow
identification of an individual registered
representative as opposed to just the
member entity? The Commission also
requests comment on procedures or
safeguards market participants believe
are necessary or appropriate so that
these unique identifiers are routed
accurately.
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
member also would be required to
report the material terms of the order.199
Material terms of the order would be
defined to include, but not be limited to,
the following information: (1) The NMS
security symbol; (2) the type of security;
(3) price(s) (if applicable); (4) size
(displayed and non-displayed); (5) side
(buy/sell); (6) order type; (7) if a sell
order, whether the order is long, short,
or short exempt;200 (8) if a short sale, the
locate identifier; (9) open/close
indicator; (10) time in force (if
applicable); (11) whether the order is
solicited or unsolicited; (12) whether
the account has a prior position in the
security; (13) if the order is for a listed
option, option type (put/call), option
symbol or root symbol, underlying
symbol, strike price, expiration date,
and open/close; and (14) any special
handling instructions.201
The information described would
assist the SROs, and the Commission as
well, in determining the exact time of
order receipt or origination, as well as
provide a record of all of the original
material terms of an order. The entry
time of orders can be critical
information in enforcement cases. In
insider trading investigations, for
example, the entry time of the order
may be a critical piece of evidence in
determining whether or not an
individual acted with the requisite
scienter to violate the federal securities
laws. Similarly, in investigating possible
market abuse violations, such as trading
ahead of a customer order, the
relationship between order origination,
the terms of the order, and order entry
of various other orders on multiple
venues, may be at issue. As noted above,
requiring that the time of a reportable
event be reported in milliseconds is
consistent with current industry
standards. The Commission requests
comment on whether this is an
appropriate time standard. Do
commenters believe that the time
standard should be shorter? If so, what
should be the standard, and why?
Would requiring a shorter time standard
for reporting actually provide more
industry standards. The SIPs currently support
millisecond time stamps. See, e.g. SIAC’s CQS
Output Specifications Revision 40 (January 11,
2010); SIAC’s CTS Output Specifications Revision
55 (January 11, 2010); and Nasdaq’s UTP Plan
Quotation Data Feed Interface Specifications
Version 12.0a (November 9, 2009).
199 See proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(I).
200 A broker or dealer must mark all sell orders
of any equity security as long, short, or short
exempt. See Rule 200(g)(1) under the Exchange Act,
17 CFR 242.200(g)(1). A sell order may be marked
short exempt only if the conditions of Rule 201(c)
or (d) under the Exchange Act are met (17 CFR
242.201(c) and (d)). See Rule 200(g)(2), 17 CFR
242.200(g)(2).
201 See proposed Rule 613(j)(3).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
precision in the timing of events? How
would your answer be impacted by the
extent to which market participants’
clocks are synchronized? Alternatively,
do commenters believe that it would be
more appropriate to require in the
proposed Rule that the time of reporting
be consistent with industry standards,
rather than including a specific time
standard (recognizing that the SROs
could choose to include a specific time
standard in the NMS plan)?
An open/close indicator currently is
required to be submitted to exchanges
for listed option orders 202 and indicates
whether the trade is opening a new
position or increasing an existing
position rather than closing or
decreasing an existing position. The
open/close indicator provides
information to more easily track the size
and holding time for individual
positions, and thus to more easily track
open interest and short interest. In
addition, an open/close indicator could
be used to indicate when a buy order in
a stock is a buy to cover on a short sale.
This information is useful in
investigating short selling abuses and
short squeezes. For example, a build up
of a large short position by one investor
along with the spreading of rumors may
be indicative of using short selling as a
tool to potentially manipulate prices.
Information on when the position
decreases is also useful for indicating
potential manipulation, insider trading,
or other rule violations. Information on
whether the account has a prior position
in the security is useful in a number of
investigations. For example, the ability
to easily determine whether an order
adds to a position, along with the timing
of the order, is particularly important in
detecting and investigating portfolio
pumping or marking the close. Also,
information on whether the account has
a prior position may be important in
investigating ‘‘layering’’ or ‘‘spoofing.’’
Layering and spoofing are
manipulations where orders are placed
close to the best buy or sell price with
no intention to trade in an effort to
falsely overstate the liquidity in a
security.
The Commission intends that the
items of information required to be
reported to the central repository for the
receipt or origination of an order, at a
minimum, include substantially all of
the information currently required to be
reported, or provided upon request,
under the exchanges’ and FINRA’s
existing order audit trail rules, as well
as the EBS system rules and Rule 17a–
25 under the Exchange Act. The
202 See, e.g., CBOE Rule 6.51; BATS Rule 20.7;
and ISE Rule 1404.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Commission requests comment as to
whether there are any items of
information that are required to be
recorded and reported by existing audit
trail rules, or to be provided to the SROs
or Commission upon request, that are
not included within the proposed Rule
that commenters believe should be
included. If there are, please identify
each item of information and discuss
why you believe that such information
should be included in the proposed
consolidated audit trail. The
Commission also requests comment on
whether there are items of information
included in the current SRO audit trails,
and which are proposed to be included
in the consolidated audit trail, that are
unnecessary for surveillance,
investigative or other regulatory
purposes. If so, what are these data
elements and why are they not
necessary as part of a consolidated audit
trail? Are they relevant for other
purposes? The Commission further
requests comment on whether it should
require, as part of the disclosure of
special handling instructions, the
disclosure of an individual algorithm
that may be used by a member or
customer to originate or execute an
order, and if so, how such an algorithm
should be identified.
As noted above, members currently
are required to indicate whether an
order would open or close a position for
listed options.203 The Commission
requests comment as to what extent
members currently obtain or have access
to this information from their
customers, or track this information for
their own proprietary orders, for all
NMS securities. If members currently do
obtain this information, is the
information collected and stored
electronically? If members currently do
not have access to or obtain this
information for customer orders, what
would be the impact of the proposed
requirement to collect and provide this
information to the central repository?
What would be the costs, if any, of
collecting and providing this
information? Please explain and
quantify any potential impact or costs.
The proposed Rule does not specify
exact order types (e.g., market, limit,
stop, pegged, stop limit) to be included
as material terms of an order because
order types may differ across markets,
and even an order type with the same
title may have a different meaning from
one exchange to another. Further,
markets are frequently creating new
order types and eliminating existing
order types. In addition, the
Commission notes that it may be
203 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
difficult to distinguish between an
‘‘order type’’ and a special handling
instruction, such as ‘‘do not display.’’
The Commission therefore preliminarily
believes that it would not be practical to
include in the proposed Rule a list of
order types in the required information
to be reported to the central repository.
The Commission notes, however, that
the SROs may choose to include more
detail in the NMS plan. The
Commission requests comment on this
approach. The Commission also
requests comment as to whether there
are other items of information that
would be required to be reported to the
central repository that have, or may
have, different meanings across different
exchanges. If so, what are they? How
should these differences be addressed in
the proposed Rule?
The proposed Rule also would require
the NMS plan to require each member
of an exchange or FINRA to ‘‘tag’’ each
order received or originated by the
member with a unique order identifier
that would be reported to the central
repository and that would stay with that
order throughout its life, including
routing, modification, execution, and
cancellation.204 The members,
exchanges, and FINRA would be
required to pass along the unique order
identifier with the order when routing
the order, and the unique order
identifier would be required on each
reportable event report. For example,
Member ABC that receives an order
from a customer would immediately
assign it a unique order identifier, and
would report that identifier to the
central repository along with the rest of
the required information. If Member
ABC subsequently routed the order to
another member, Member DEF, Member
ABC would be required to pass along to
Member DEF the unique order
identifier, as well as to attach the
unique order identifier when reporting
the routing of the order to the central
repository. If Member DEF routed the
order to Exchange A for execution,
Member DEF would pass along to
Exchange A with the order the unique
order identifier, and would attach the
identifier on the report of the route sent
to the central repository. Exchange A
would be required to attach the unique
order identifier when reporting receipt
of the order, and an execution of the
order (if applicable) to the central
repository.
The Commission recognizes that the
reality of how orders are routed and
executed often is complex, and that it
likely is not feasible to anticipate how
the proposed requirement for a unique
204 See
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32575
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(D).
08JNP2
32576
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
order identifier would or would not
apply to each different factual scenario.
For example, members may often
execute customer orders on a ‘‘riskless
principal’’ basis,205 rather than on an
agency basis. The Commission
preliminarily believes that it would not
be practical or feasible to ‘‘link’’ through
related unique order identifiers the
customer order(s) and the member’s
proprietary order(s) from which the
customer order is given an allocation.
Rather, the Commission envisions that
the member would create a new unique
order identifier for each proprietary
order, and that the manner in which the
execution of the customer order would
be ‘‘linked’’ with one (or more)
proprietary order(s) (if at all) would be
through the inclusion of the unique
order identifier for the contra-side
order(s) on the report of the execution
of the customer order sent to the central
repository.206 However, in a situation
where a member merely broke up a
larger customer order into smaller
orders and sent those orders, on an
agency basis, to multiple markets for
execution, the Commission
preliminarily believes that the unique
order identifier of the original customer
order should carry through in some
manner to the individual smaller orders
that result when the original order is
broken up. For example, it may be
necessary to attach two unique order
identifiers to an order—the original
order identifier (i.e. parent order) and
the individual smaller order identifier
(i.e. child order). Alternatively, the
unique order identifier of the parent
order could be modified to carry
through to the child orders (for example,
the parent order could have an identifier
ABC and the child orders could have
identifiers of ABC1 and ABC2).
The Commission preliminarily
believes that a unique order identifier
that is essentially transferred along with
an order from origination through
execution or cancellation is useful for a
consolidated audit trail. The use of such
an identifier would allow the SROs and
the Commission to efficiently link all
events in the life of an order and help
205 For example, a member receives a customer
order, and rather than sending the customer order
as an agency order to an exchange or other
marketplace to execute, the member creates an
order for its proprietary account that it sends to an
exchange or other marketplace to be executed. Once
an execution occurs in the proprietary account, the
member would then execute the customer order
against its proprietary account. This process can be
complicated by the member receiving and handling
more than one customer order at a time, and
creating one or more proprietary orders to send to
one or more markets, and the manner in which the
member allocates executions from its proprietary
account among the customer orders.
206 See proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(vi)(C).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
create a complete audit trail across
markets and broker-dealers that handle
the order. In this manner, being able to
link the parent order with the child
orders through the unique order
identifiers would allow for ease of
tracking of the original parent order
throughout its life. While the
Commission believes that a unique
order identifier is an important data
element for the consolidated audit trail,
the Commission is not proposing at this
time to mandate the format of such an
identifier or how the identifier would be
generated.
The Commission requests comment
on whether, and why, a unique order
identifier that would stay with the order
for the life of the order is useful or
essential for an effective consolidated
audit trail. In addition, the Commission
requests comment on whether there is
an alternative to a unique order
identifier that would stay with the order
for the life of the order. For example,
would permitting each member or SRO
that receives an order from another
member or SRO to attach its own unique
identifier to an order allow the SROs to
efficiently link all events in the life an
order and ensure the creation of a
complete audit trail across each market
and broker-dealer that handled the
order? The Commission requests
comment on the feasibility and merits of
the manner in which it proposes unique
order identifiers be handled for riskless
principal transactions. The Commission
also requests comment on the feasibility
and merits of requiring that a unique
order identifier be attached to an order,
as well as the multiple orders that may
result if the original order is
subsequently broken up into several
orders, in a manner that would permit
regulators to trace the subsequent orders
back to the original single order. The
Commission also requests comment on
the feasibility and merits of requiring
that a unique order identifier be
attached to an order that is the result of
a combination of two more orders in a
manner that would permit regulators to
trace the combined order back to its
component orders. The Commission
further requests comment as to how
unique order identifiers could be
generated for both electronic and
manual orders, and who should be
responsible for generating them. Given
the significant number of orders
(including quotations) for which
information would be required to be
collected and provided to the central
repository pursuant to the proposed
Rule, the Commission requests
comment on the feasibility of allowing
unique order identifiers to be re-used. If
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
unique order identifiers were to be reused, at what point should that be
allowed? Are there any concerns with
re-use that should be addressed?
Additionally, the Commission requests
comment on whether it is feasible to
require unique order identifiers if the
consolidated audit trail is implemented
in the proposed phased approach? For
example, is it appropriate to require that
national securities exchanges and
national securities associations comply
with this requirement before their
members are required to do so?
The Commission also requests
comment on procedures or safeguards
market participants may wish to
establish to ensure that unique order
identifiers are routed and reported
accurately. Further, the Commission
requests comment on what systems
modifications, if any, would be required
in order to ‘‘tag’’ every order with a
unique order identifier. Please respond
to each question with specificity.
iv. Routing
The proposed Rule would require that
the NMS plan require the collection and
reporting to the central repository of all
material information related to the
routing of an order. Specifically, the
proposed Rule would require the
reporting of the following information
each time an order is routed by the
member or SRO that is doing the
routing: (1) The unique order identifier;
(2) the date on which an order was
routed; (3) the exact time (in
milliseconds) the order was routed; (4)
the unique identifier of the brokerdealer or national securities exchange
that routes the order; (5) the unique
identifier of the broker-dealer or
national securities exchange that
receives the order; (6) the identity and
nature of the department or desk to
which an order is routed if a brokerdealer routes the order internally; 207
and (7) the material terms of the
order.208
Further, the proposed Rule would
require the collection and reporting by
the SRO or member receiving an order
of the following information each time
a routed order is received: (1) The
unique order identifier; (2) the date on
which the order is received; (3) the time
at which the order is received (in
milliseconds); (4) the unique identifier
of the broker-dealer or national
securities exchange receiving the order;
(5) the unique identifier of the broker207 Internal routing information can be a critical
element in assessing whether a member may be
disadvantaging customer orders, either by trading
ahead of customer orders, or by executing orders as
principal at prices inferior to the NBBO.
208 See proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(ii).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
dealer or national securities exchange
routing the order; and (6) the material
terms of the order.209
This information would allow
regulatory staff to easily identify each
member or exchange that ‘‘touches’’ the
order during its life, as well as the dates
and times at which each member or
exchange receives and reroutes the
order, and any changes that may be
made to the original terms of the order
along the way. The Commission
preliminarily believes that this
information for orders that are routed
would allow the Commission and SROs
to efficiently track an order from
inception through cancellation or
execution.
The Commission requests comment as
to whether such information regarding
the routing of orders is useful or
necessary for an effective consolidated
audit trail. Should any additional
information be included in the
consolidated audit trail relating to
routing? The Commission requests
comment as to what systems
modifications, if any, would be required
to provide this information. Do
members currently have, or have access
to, this information? If not, what
changes would need to be made to
collect this information for existing
accounts for submission to the central
repository? Do commenters believe that
it would be necessary to achieve the
purposes of the proposed Rule to
require information from each member
or SRO that ‘‘touches’’ an order? Please
explain with specificity why or why
not. Is it feasible to require information
relating to the routing of orders if the
consolidated audit trail is implemented
in the proposed phased approach? For
example, is it appropriate to require that
national securities exchanges and
national securities associations comply
with this requirement before their
members are required to do so?
v. Modification, Cancellation, and
Execution
The proposed Rule would require the
NMS plan to require that information be
reported to the central repository
concerning any modifications to the
material terms of an order or partial or
full order cancellations. The national
securities exchange, national securities
association, or member handling the
order at the time would be required to
immediately report to the central
repository the following information: (1)
The unique order identifier, (2) the date
and time (in milliseconds) that an order
modification or cancellation was
originated or received; (3) the identity of
209 See
proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(iii).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
the person responsible for the
modification or cancellation instruction;
(4) the price and remaining size of the
order, if modified; and (5) other
modifications to the material terms of
the order.210 Information pertaining to
order modifications and cancellations
would assist the Commission and SROs
in identifying all changes made to an
order and the persons and brokerdealers responsible for the changes.
The proposed Rule also would require
the following information on full or
partial executions of orders to be
collected and reported to the central
repository: (1) The unique order
identifier; (2) the execution date; (3) the
time of execution (in milliseconds); (4)
the capacity of the entity executing the
order (whether principal, agency, or
riskless principal); (5) the execution
price; (6) the size of the execution; (7)
the unique identifier of the national
securities exchange or broker-dealer
executing the order; 211 and (8) whether
the execution was reported pursuant to
an effective transaction reporting plan
or pursuant to the OPRA Plan, and the
time of such report.212
The Commission preliminarily
believes that the required execution
information, in combination with the
proposed information pertaining to
order receipt or origination,
modification, or cancellation, would
provide regulators with a
comprehensive, near real time view of
all stages and all participants in the life
of an order. The proposed Rule would
allow the Commission and SROs to
identify, for a particular transaction,
every member and national securities
exchange involved in the receipt or
origination, routing, modification, and
execution (or cancellation) of the order.
This order information, including the
readily accessible customer information,
should help regulators investigate
suspicious trading activity in a more
timely manner than currently possible.
Additionally, the requirement to
report whether and when the execution
of the order was reported to the
consolidated tape 213 should allow
210 See
proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(iv).
national securities exchange and national
securities association would have its own unique
identifier, as well as each broker-dealer (member)
(see supra Section III.D.1.ii.).
212 See proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(v).
213 Id. See also infra Section III.F.1. for a
discussion of the requirement in proposed Rule
613(e)(5) that the NMS plan require the central
repository to receive and retain on a current and
continuing basis (i) the national best bid and
national best offer for each NMS security, (ii)
transaction reports reported pursuant to a
transaction reporting plan filed with the
Commission pursuant to, and meeting the
requirements of, Rule 601 of Regulation NMS, and
211 Each
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32577
regulators to more efficiently evaluate
certain trading activity. For example,
trading patterns of reported and
unreported transactions may cause the
staff of an SRO or the Commission to
make further inquiry into the nature of
the trading to determine whether the
public was receiving accurate and
timely information regarding executions
and that market participants were
continuing to comply with the trade
reporting obligations under SRO rules.
Similarly, patterns of reported and
unreported transactions could be indicia
of market abuse, including failure to
obtain best execution for customer
orders or possible market manipulation.
Being able to more efficiently compare
the consolidated order execution data
with the trades reported to the
consolidated tape could thus be an
important component of overall
surveillance activity.
As discussed above, the Commission
recognizes that the execution of orders
often is complex.214 For example, a
customer order may be executed on a
riskless principal basis. When a member
receives a customer order, rather then
sending the customer order as an agency
order to an exchange or other
marketplace for execution, the member
creates an order for its proprietary
account that it sends to an exchange or
other marketplace to be executed. Once
an execution occurs in the proprietary
account, the member would then
execute the customer order against its
proprietary account. This process can be
complicated by the member receiving
and handling more than one customer
order at a time, and creating one or more
proprietary orders to send to one or
more markets, and the manner in which
the member allocates executions from
its proprietary account among the
customer orders. Each proprietary order
would have a unique order identifier
that is different from, and not linked to,
the unique order identifier for the
original customer order. How should the
reporting to the central repository of the
execution of the proprietary orders and
the customer order be handled? As
noted above, the Commission envisions
that the manner in which the execution
of the customer order would be ‘‘linked’’
with one (or more) of the proprietary
order(s) would be through the inclusion
of the unique order identifier for the
contra-side order(s) on the report of the
execution of the customer order sent to
(iii) last sale reports reported pursuant to the OPRA
Plan.
214 See supra notes 205–206 and accompanying
text.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32578
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
the central repository.215 Is this
practical? Is there another method by
which to link the execution of the
customer order to the proprietary
orders? Is it necessary to do so to
achieve the purposes of the
consolidated audit trail?
The Commission requests comment
on whether the information proposed to
be collected and reported would be
sufficient to create a complete and
accurate audit trail. Is there additional
information that should be collected
and reported? If yes, please describe the
information and the value its collection
and reporting would add to the
consolidated audit trail.
2. Information To Be Collected Other
Than in Real Time
While the majority of order and
execution information would be
required to be transmitted to the central
repository on a real time basis, the
Commission recognizes that this may
not be practical or feasible for all
information because the information
may not be known at the time of the
reportable event.216 Thus, the
Commission is proposing that certain
information be transmitted to the central
repository promptly after the national
securities exchange, national securities
association, or member receives the
information, but in no instance later
than midnight of the day that the
reportable event occurs or the national
securities exchange, national securities
association, or member receives such
information.217 The Commission
preliminarily believes that this
proposed time frame would provide
sufficient time for an exchange,
association, or a member to obtain the
information required to be reported
while still allowing regulators to access
the information for regulatory purposes
on a more timely basis than today.
Each national securities exchange,
national securities association and their
members would be required to report
the account number for any subaccounts
to which an execution is allocated.218
By requiring that this data be included
in the consolidated audit trail,
regulators would be able to more easily
identify the ‘‘ultimate’’ customer for the
trade. The Commission preliminarily
believes that it would be useful to know
the account number as well as the
required information on the beneficial
owner. For example, a person or groups
215 See
supra note 206 and accompanying text.
example, a member may receive an order
during the day from an advisory customer but not
know to which sub-accounts to allocate execution
of the order until later in the day.
217 See proposed Rule 613(c)(4).
218 See proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(vi)(A).
216 For
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
of persons could trade through a single
account or numerous accounts. Because
individual traders may use multiple
accounts at multiple broker-dealers,
being able to identify the beneficial
owner of the underlying accounts aids
in the identification and investigation of
suspicious trading activity. Similarly,
traders may seek to hide manipulative
activity from regulatory oversight by
trading anonymously through omnibus
accounts. In those instances, linking the
trade to the individual trader requires
the market center to be able to identify
both the accounts trading and the
beneficial owner or owners of those
accounts to determine what person or
group of persons is directing the specific
trades at issue. Requiring the identity of
the ultimate customer electronically to
be attached to each order would make
this information easily accessible and
searchable and thus would greatly
improve the usefulness of audit trail
information for purposes of effective
enforcement and cross-market
surveillance.
Each national securities exchange,
national securities association and their
members also would be required to
report the unique identifier of the
clearing broker or prime broker for the
transaction, if applicable, and the
unique order identifier of any contraside order.219 Finally, if the execution is
cancelled, a cancelled trade indicator
would be required to be reported. In
addition, the proposed Rule also would
require the reporting of any special
settlement terms for the execution, if
applicable; short sale borrower
information and identifier; and the
amount of a commission, if any, paid by
the customer, and the unique identifier
of the broker-dealer(s) to whom the
commission is paid.220
Broker-dealers have a duty of best
execution.221 Since commissions can be
219 See
220 See
proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(vi)(B) and (C).
proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(vi)(D), (E), and
(F).
221 A broker-dealer has a legal duty to seek to
obtain best execution of customer orders. See, e.g.,
Newton v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc., 135 F.3d 266, 269–70, 274 (3d Cir.), cert.
denied, 525 U.S. 811 (1998); Certain Market Making
Activities on Nasdaq, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 40900 (Jan. 11, 1999) (settled case)
(citing Sinclair v. SEC, 444 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1971);
Arleen Hughes, 27 SEC 629, 636 (1948), aff’d sub
nom. Hughes v. SEC, 174 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir. 1949)).
See also Order Execution Obligations, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 37619A (Sept. 6, 1996),
61 FR 48290 (Sept. 12, 1996) (‘‘Order Handling
Rules Release’’). A broker-dealer’s duty of best
execution derives from common law agency
principles and fiduciary obligations, and is
incorporated in SRO rules and, through judicial and
Commission decisions, the antifraud provisions of
the federal securities laws. See Order Handling
Rules Release, 61 FR at 48322. See also Newton, 135
F.3d at 270. The duty of best execution requires
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
charged either explicitly through a
separate fee or implicitly in the
transaction price, the lack of easily
accessible commission fee data
alongside transaction price data may
make it hard to identify the ‘‘all-in’’ price
of execution and, thus, hard to
determine whether the obligation to
seek best execution was met.222 In
addition, broker-dealers also must
comply with just and equitable
principles of trade under NASD rules
that require them to charge fair
commissions and mark-ups (markdowns), and the lack of easily accessible
commission fee data may make it hard
to determine whether just and equitable
principles of trade have been
observed.223 Also, FINRA rules prohibit
certain quid pro quo arrangements in
the distribution of IPOs.224
The Commission requests comment
on the usefulness and necessity of
requiring the reporting of each of these
items of information to achieve the
stated objectives of the consolidated
audit trail. Are there practical
difficulties associated with providing
this information as proposed? Is there
additional information that would be
useful or necessary in this regard? For
example, the proposed Rule would
require the reporting of a cancelled
trade indicator, for executions that are
cancelled. Should the proposed Rule
broker-dealers to execute customers’ trades at the
most favorable terms reasonably available under the
circumstances, i.e., at the best reasonably available
price. Newton, 135 F.3d at 270. Newton also noted
certain factors relevant to best execution—order
size, trading characteristics of the security, speed of
execution, clearing costs, and the cost and difficulty
of executing an order in a particular market. Id. at
270 n.2 (citing Payment for Order Flow, Exchange
Act Release No. 33026 (Oct. 6, 1993), 58 FR 52934,
52937–38 (Oct. 13, 1993) (Proposed Rules)). See In
re E.F. Hutton & Co., Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 25887 (July 6, 1988). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 34902 (October 27, 1994),
59 FR 55006, 55008–55009 (November 2, 1994)
(‘‘Approval of Payment for Order Flow Final
Rules’’). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29,
2005) (‘‘NMS Adopting Release’’), at 37537
(discussing the duty of best execution).
222 The term ‘‘all-in’’ price is intended to capture
the total costs for executing a trade.
223 See FINRA Rule 2010 and IM–2440–1.
224 See FINRA Rule 5130. The Rule ensures that:
(1) FINRA members make bona fide public offerings
of securities at the offering price; (2) members do
not withhold securities in a public offering for their
own benefit or use such securities to reward
persons who are in a position to direct future
business to members; and (3) industry insiders,
including FINRA members and their associated
persons, do not take advantage of their insider
position to purchase ‘‘new issues’’ for their own
benefit at the expense of public customers. For
example, information on commissions could help
detect a transaction in the secondary market
between an underwriter and an investor at an
excessively high commission rate that is a ‘‘quid pro
quo’’ for the underwriter allocating shares in a ‘‘hot’’
IPO to the investor.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
require separate identification of trades
that are broken pursuant to the rules of
the applicable SRO at the request of one
party to a transaction or upon the SRO’s
own motion, and trades that are
cancelled by mutual agreement of the
parties? Why or why not? The
Commission also requests comment on
whether the proposed requirement to
report the identity of the clearing broker
would provide sufficient information on
‘‘give-up’’ arrangements,225 or whether
additional information should be
required to be reported.
The Commission requests comment
on the proposed time frame for
reporting of this information. The
Commission is proposing that the
information not required to be reported
in real time be reported promptly after
receipt, but in no event later than
midnight on the day the reportable
event occurs or the exchange,
association, or member receives the
information. While one of the objectives
of the proposed Rule is to collect data
on a real time basis, the Commission
understands that certain information
may not be available at the time of the
reportable event (e.g., the execution or
cancellation). The Commission,
however, believes such information
should be provided promptly after
receipt, meaning as soon as possible
given the capabilities of a market
participant’s systems. While the
Commission is proposing that the
information be reported promptly, the
proposed Rule also would provide an
objective time limit for providing the
information—no later than midnight on
the day the event occurs or the
information is received by the exchange,
association, or member. Is the proposed
time frame reasonable with respect to
the information that would be required
to be reported? Should the proposed
Rule only require that information be
reported promptly after receipt? How
should promptly be measured?
Alternatively, should the proposed Rule
only require that information not
available at the time the reportable
event occurs be reported no later than
midnight on the day the information
was received? How would this standard
225 In a typical give-up arrangement, a brokerdealer that is not a member of an exchange (Brokerdealer A) may route the order to another brokerdealer that is a member of an exchange (Brokerdealer B) for execution on that exchange. If Brokerdealer B is not also a clearing member of the
exchange, it may ‘‘give-up’’ the execution of that
order to another broker-dealer that is a clearing
member of that exchange (Broker-dealer C). Further,
there may be a corresponding ‘‘flip’’ of the trade
from Broker-dealer C’s account to the account of the
broker-dealer that is the clearing firm for Brokerdealer A.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
impact the usefulness of the
consolidated audit trail?
E. Clock Synchronization
The Commission believes that clock
synchronization is necessary to ensure
an accurate audit trail, given the number
of market participants with internal
order handling and trading systems that
would be reporting information to the
central repository. Therefore, proposed
Rule 613(d) would provide that the
NMS plan filed with the Commission
include a requirement that each national
securities exchange and national
securities association, and their
members, synchronize their business
clocks that are used for the purposes of
recording the date and time of any event
that must be reported under the
proposed Rule. The proposed Rule
would require each exchange, FINRA,
and their members to synchronize their
clocks to the time maintained by the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (‘‘NIST’’), consistent with
industry standards.226 Exchanges,
associations, and the members would be
required to synchronize their business
clocks in accordance with these
requirements within four months after
effectiveness of the NMS plan.227
The Commission is not proposing to
set a standard within which the clocks
must be synchronized to the NIST (e.g.,
to within one second of the NIST clock),
in recognition of how quickly
technology can improve and increase
the speed at which orders are handled
and executed. Rather, the Commission
is proposing that the clocks be
synchronized ‘‘consistent with industry
standards.’’ The exchanges and FINRA
would be able, however, to set a limit
in the NMS plan to be filed with the
Commission. Also, in recognition of the
pace at which technology improves, the
proposed Rule provides that the NMS
plan shall require each national
securities exchange, national securities
association, and its respective members
to annually evaluate the actual
synchronization standard adopted to
consider whether it should be
shortened, consistent with changes in
industry standards.228 When engaging
in this annual evaluation, exchanges,
associations, and members could take
into account the feasibility of shortening
the time standard, and whether
shortening the standard would allow for
the conveyance of additional
meaningful information to the
consolidated audit trail.
226 See
proposed Rule 613(d)(1).
proposed Rule 613(a)(3)(ii).
228 See proposed Rule 613(d)(2).
227 See
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32579
The Commission requests comment
on whether this approach is practical
and would provide for sufficient
flexibility in determining how closely to
synchronize clocks. Is the proposed
Rule’s requirement that each exchange,
association, and member synchronize its
clocks in accordance with the time
maintained by NIST reasonable? To
what extent do SROs and their members
currently synchronize clocks? Please
answer with specificity. Would
synchronization as proposed require
significant systems modifications on
behalf of national securities exchanges,
national securities association, or their
respective members? Is it reasonable to
require clocks to be synchronized with
the time maintained by NIST within a
time frame that is ‘‘consistent with
industry standards’’? Is there another
standard that should be used by the
Commission? The Commission also
requests comment on the feasibility of
requiring the exchanges, FINRA, and
their members to comply with these
requirements within four months of
effectiveness of the NMS plan.
F. Central Repository
The proposed Rule would require that
the NMS plan provide for the creation
and maintenance of a central repository,
which would be a facility of each
exchange and FINRA.229 The central
repository would be jointly owned and
operated by the exchanges and FINRA,
and the NMS plan would be required to
provide, without limitation, the
Commission and SROs with access to,
and use of, the data reported to and
consolidated by the central repository
for the purpose of performing their
respective regulatory and oversight
responsibilities pursuant to the federal
securities laws, rules, and regulations.
Each of the exchanges and FINRA
would be a sponsor of the plan,230 and
as such would be responsible for
selecting a plan processor to operate the
central repository.231
The Commission requests comment
on the need for a central repository to
receive and retain the consolidated
audit trail information. Are there
alternatives to creating a central
repository for the receipt of order audit
trail information? The Commission also
requests comment on whether it is
practical or appropriate to require the
exchanges and FINRA to jointly own
and operate the central repository.
229 See
proposed Rule 613(e)(1).
supra note 173 for a definition of a plan
sponsor in Rule 600(a)(70) of Regulation NMS, 17
CFR 242.600(a)(70).
231 See infra Section III.I. for a definition and
discussion of the plan processor.
230 See
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32580
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
1. Responsibilities of Central Repository
To Collect, Consolidate, and Retain
Information
The central repository would be
responsible for the receipt,
consolidation, and retention of all data
submitted by the national securities
exchanges, national securities
associations and their members
pursuant to the proposed Rule and the
NMS plan.232 Further, the central
repository would be required to collect
from the central processors and retain
on a current and continuous basis the
NBBO for each NMS security,
transaction reports reported pursuant to
an effective transaction reporting plan
filed with the Commission pursuant to,
and meeting the requirements of, Rule
601 of Regulation NMS, and last sale
reports reported pursuant to the OPRA
Plan filed with the Commission
pursuant to, and meeting the
requirements of, Rule 608 of Regulation
NMS.233 The central repository would
be required to maintain this NBBO and
transaction data in a format compatible
with the order and event information
reported pursuant to the proposed Rule.
This requirement is intended to allow
SRO and Commission staff to easily
search across order, NBBO, and
transaction databases. The Commission
preliminarily believes that having the
NBBO information in a format
compatible with the order audit trail
information would be useful for
enforcing compliance with federal
securities laws, rules and regulations.
The NBBO is used by regulators to
evaluate members for compliance with
numerous regulatory requirements, such
as the duty of best execution or Rule 611
of Regulation NMS.234 Regulators would
be able to compare order execution
information to the NBBO information on
a more timely basis because the order
and execution information would be
available on a real time basis and all of
the information would be available in a
compatible format in the same database.
The SROs also may enjoy economies of
scale by adopting standard cross-market
232 See
proposed Rule 613(e)(1).
proposed Rule 613(e)(5). The central
repository would be required to retain the
information collected pursuant to subparagraph
(c)(7) and (e)(5) of the proposed Rule in a
convenient and usable standard electronic data
format that is directly available and searchable
electronically without any manual intervention for
a period of not less than five years. The information
would be required to be available immediately, or
if immediate availability could not reasonably and
practically be achieved, any search query would be
required to begin operating on the data not later
than one hour after the search query is made. See
proposed Rule 613(e)(6).
234 See Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.611. See also ISE Rule 1901, NYSE Arca 6.94,
and Phlx Rule 1084.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
233 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
surveillance parameters for these types
of violations. This information also
would be available to the Commission
to assist in its oversight efforts.
The Commission also preliminarily
believes that requiring the central
repository to collect and retain in its
database the transaction information in
a format compatible with the order
execution information would aid in
monitoring for certain market
manipulations. As discussed above, the
proposed Rule would require that each
report of the execution (in whole or in
part) of an order sent to the central
repository include a notation as to
whether the execution was reported to
the consolidated tape pursuant to an
effective transaction reporting plan or
the OPRA Plan.235 This requirement
should allow regulators to more
efficiently evaluate certain trading
activity. For example, trading patterns
of reported and unreported trades may
cause the staff of an SRO to make
further inquiry into the nature of the
trading to determine whether the public
was receiving accurate and timely
information regarding executions and
that market participants were
continuing to comply with the trade
reporting obligations under SRO rules.
Similarly, patterns of reported and
unreported transactions could be indicia
of market abuse, including failure to
obtain best execution for customer
orders or possible market manipulation.
Being able to more efficiently compare
the consolidated order execution data
with the trades reported to the
consolidated tape could thus be an
important component of overall
surveillance activity.
The Commission requests comment
on the usefulness or necessity of
requiring the central repository to
collect and retain in a format compatible
with the order audit trail information
the NBBO and transaction report
information to help achieve the stated
objectives of the consolidated audit
trail. Do commenters believe that it is
important for achieving the purposes of
the consolidated audit trail? If so, why?
If not, why not? What are the advantages
and disadvantages of maintaining
transaction information separately from
order and execution data included in
the consolidated audit trail? Should the
transaction information be included in
the consolidated audit trail report? The
Commission requests comment on
whether the requirement that the
transaction and NBBO information be
maintained in a format compatible with
the order information is practical.
Would this requirement achieve the goal
235 See
PO 00000
supra Section III.D.1.v.
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of helping SRO and Commission staff
conducts searches and run surveillances
across databases?
The Commission has recently
required that issuers report certain data
in interactive data format such as
XBRL.236 This proposal does not specify
any particular or required data format,
but allows the SROs to select a data
format. Should the Commission require
that the data be transmitted or stored in
any particular format? What are the
relative merits of flat data files,
relational data files, and interactive data
files? What other formats should be
considered? In what format can the
SROs and their members efficiently
transmit data? In what format would the
data required in the proposal be most
easily accessed?
The proposed Rule would require the
NMS plan to require the central
repository to retain the information
collected pursuant to subparagraph
(c)(7) and (e)(5) of the proposed Rule in
a convenient and usable standard
electronic data format that is directly
available and searchable electronically
without any manual intervention for a
period of not less than five years. The
information would be required to be
available immediately, or if immediate
availability could not reasonably and
practically be achieved, any search
query would be required to begin
operating on the data not later than one
hour after the search query is made.237
The Commission preliminarily
believes that the information (or the
results of a query searching the
information) should generally be
available immediately. However, the
Commission recognizes that the results
of an electronic search query may not be
immediately available because, for
instance, the system must check an
extremely large number of records to
answer the query or the system may
need to retrieve records from
electronically archived data. In the case
of archived data, the Commission
preliminarily proposes requiring that
the search query would need to begin
operating on the data not later than one
hour after the query is made. The
Commission requests comment as to
whether one hour would be reasonable
amount of time to allow for accessing
archived data. Under current
technological limitations, how long
should it take to access, in an electronic
query with no manual intervention,
archived data of the type to be held by
236 See Securities Act Release No. 9002 (January
30, 2009), 74 FR 6776 (February 10, 2009)
(Interactive Data to Improve Financial Reporting
adopting release) (File No. S7–11–08).
237 See proposed Rule 613(e)(6).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
comment as to whether the proposed
Rule as proposed would accomplish this
objective? If not, why not? If not, please
provide comment as to an alternative or
additional way to accomplish this
objective. The Commission also requests
comment on the advantages or
disadvantages of Commission
ownership or co-ownership of the data
maintained by the central repository.
As discussed above, the proposed
Rule would require the reporting of
customer information, as well as
information about ‘‘live’’ orders, to the
central repository on a real time basis.
The Commission recognizes the
sensitivity of this information, and
believes that maintaining the
2. Access to Central Repository and
confidentiality of, and limiting the use
Consolidated Audit Trail Information
of, the data is essential. Without such
and Confidentiality of Consolidated
protections, broker-dealers and the
Audit Trail Information
investing public could be at risk for
Each national securities exchange and security breaches that would potentially
have a detrimental impact on their
national securities association, as well
financial condition, as well as their
as the Commission, would have access
trading activity and the markets. The
to the central repository for purposes of
performing its respective regulatory and consolidated data also would include
information about members’ trading
oversight responsibilities pursuant to
activities on competitors’ markets. The
the federal securities laws, rules, and
Commission therefore is proposing
regulations. Such access would include
several requirements designed to limit
access to all systems of the central
access to, and help assure
repository, and access to and use of the
data reported to and consolidated by the confidentiality and proper use of, the
central repository.238 The proposed Rule information.
As noted above, the proposed Rule
also would require that the NMS plan
would limit the use of the consolidated
provide that such access to and use of
such data by each exchange, association, data by the SROs for purposes of
performing their respective regulatory
and the Commission for the purpose of
and oversight responsibilities pursuant
performing its regulatory and oversight
to the federal securities laws, rules, and
responsibilities pursuant to the federal
regulations.242 This proposed restriction
securities laws, rules, and regulations
would not prevent any SRO from using
shall not be limited.239 In addition, the
the data that it individually collects and
proposed Rule would require that the
NMS plan include a provision requiring provides to the central repository
pursuant to the proposed Rule for other
the creation and maintenance by the
purposes as permitted by applicable
central repository of a method of access
to the consolidated data.240 This method law, rule or regulation.
The Commission requests comment as
of access would be required to be
to whether access to the consolidated
designed to include search and
audit trail information should be limited
reporting functions to optimize the use
to the SROs and the Commission, or
of the consolidated data.
whether there should be other access
The Commission’s access to the
central repository, and access to and use allowed. For example, should SROs or
the central repository be allowed to
of the data maintained by the central
make the data available to third parties,
repository, for purposes of performing
the Commission’s responsibilities under such as for academic research? If so,
should the data be permitted to be sold
the federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations could not be limited in any
the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation
way.241 The Commission requests
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
the central repository? The Commission
also requests comment on whether it
should mandate a time standard, such
as one hour, in the proposed Rule.
Further, the Commission requests
comment on whether the central
repository should be required to retain
this information for longer or shorter
than five years. The Commission also
requests comment on the cost impact of
these proposed record retention
requirements. For example, could
comparable functionality be obtained at
lower cost with a different standard (for
example, what would be the cost
comparison for one hour versus two
hours)?
238 See
proposed Rule 613(e)(2).
239 Id.
240 See
proposed Rule 613(e)(3).
noted above, the central repository would
be a facility of each exchange and FINRA (see supra
note 229 and accompanying text), and as such,
subject to the Commission’s recordkeeping and
inspection authority. See, e.g., Section 17 of the
Exchange Act, 17 U.S.C. 78q. Further, any
amendment to the NMS plan would be filed with
241 As
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
NMS, and would not become effective unless
approved by the Commission or otherwise as
permitted in accordance with the requirements of
Rule 608. See proposed Rule 613(a)(5), and Rule
608(a) and (b) of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.608(a) and (b).
242 See proposed Rules 613(e)(2). See also
proposed Rule 613(e)(4)(i) (requiring in part that the
NMS plan include a provision requiring all plan
sponsors and their employees to agree not to use
the consolidated data for any purpose other than
surveillance and regulatory purposes).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32581
to help offset costs? By SROs? By the
central repository? If so, should there be
set parameters? If the data were made
available to third parties, what
protections should be put in place to
ensure the confidentiality of the data?
Are there particular data elements that
are more sensitive and should not be
sold to help ensure the privacy of any
individual and proprietary information?
Are there particular data elements that
would pose fewer concerns if released
on a significant time lag? How long
would such a time lag need to be? What
other concerns might arise from the use
of the data for non-regulatory purposes?
Would use of the data provide certain
market participants with undue
information advantages over other
market participants, increasing
informational asymmetry in the
markets? Would the provision of market
data to third parties affect the
willingness of market participants to
trade in the U.S. markets? On the other
hand, would enhanced surveillance of
the markets as a result of the
consolidated audit trail attract
additional trading volume to the U.S.
markets? What would be the
implications, if any, under the financial
privacy provisions of the Gramm-LeachBliley Act? 243 The Commission also
requests comment as to whether, and to
what extent, other regulators, such as
the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, should have access to the
data? For instance, to what extent do
commenters believe it would be
beneficial for the Commission to work
with other regulators to collectively
share information each regulator has
with respect to products and trading
activity under its jurisdiction, to help
the Commission and other regulators
carry out their respective oversight of
products and trading activity within
their own jurisdiction? Would such
sharing of information help the
Commission better understand the
impact of trading in other markets on
trading activity and products within the
Commission’s jurisdiction?
The Commission also requests
comment on the feasibility of, and need
for, a method of access to the
consolidated data that includes search
and reporting functions. In addition, the
Commission requests comment as to
whether, in addition to requiring the
central repository to provide a method
of access, the central repository should
be required to bear the cost of making
available the raw order data received by
the central repository, for purposes of
using that data to perform regulatory
functions. Commenters are requested to
243 15
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
U.S.C. 6801–6809.
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
32582
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
provide cost estimates for the provision
of this data by the central repository to
the SROs and the Commission.
Proposed Rule 613(e)(4)(i) also would
require that the NMS plan include
policies and procedures, including
standards, to be used by the plan
processor to ensure the security and
confidentiality of all information
submitted to, and maintained by, the
central repository. The plan sponsors,
and employees of the plan sponsors and
central repository, would be required to
agree to use appropriate safeguards to
ensure the confidentiality of such data,
and not to use such data for other than
for surveillance regulatory purposes.244
The Commission is not proposing to
mandate the content or format of the
policies and procedures and standards
that would be required. Rather, the
Commission believes that the SROs
themselves are in the best position to
determine how best to implement this
requirement.
The Commission requests comment
generally on the issue of appropriate
safeguards to be put in place by the
SROs and the central repository to help
ensure confidentiality. Are there
specific safeguards that the SROs and
the central repository could use to
ensure the confidentiality and
appropriate usage of the data collected
and submitted pursuant to the proposed
Rule? For example, should the proposed
Rule require that SROs put in place
specific information barriers or other
protections to help ensure that data is
used only for regulatory purposes?
Should there be an audit trail of the
SROs’ personnel access to, and use of,
information in the central repository to
help monitor for compliance with
appropriate usage of the data? Should
the requirement that the NMS plan
include policies and procedures to be
used by the plan processor to ensure the
security and confidentiality of
information submitted to, and
maintained by, the central repository be
expanded to include the content of any
searches or queries performed by the
SROs or the Commission on the data?
What should be required? Please be
specific in your answer.
The Commission would establish
appropriate protections within the
agency to help ensure the
confidentiality of the records.
244 See proposed Rule 613(e)(4)(i). However, a
plan sponsor would be permitted to use the data
that it submits to the central repository for
regulatory, surveillance, commercial, or other
purposes as otherwise permitted by applicable law,
rule or regulation. Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
3. Reliability of Data Collected and
Consolidated
An audit trail is only as reliable as the
data used to create it. The Commission
believes that it is critical to the integrity
of the consolidated audit trail that the
data submitted by the national securities
exchanges, national securities
associations and their members be
submitted in a timely manner, and be
accurate and complete. Proposed Rule
613(e)(4)(ii) therefore would require that
the NMS plan include policies and
procedures, including standards, for the
plan processor to use to help ensure the
integrity of the information submitted to
the central repository. Specifically, the
policies and procedures would be
required to be designed to help ensure
the timeliness, accuracy, and
completeness of the data provided to the
central repository by the SROs and their
members. The Commission expects that
these policies and procedures would
include the creation of certain
validation parameters that would need
to be met before data would be accepted
into the central repository.
The proposed Rule also would require
that the NMS plan include policies and
procedures, including standards,
governing how and when the plan
processor should reject data provided to
the central repository that does not meet
these validation parameters. Further, the
proposed Rule would require the NMS
plan to include policies and procedures
that would govern how to re-transmit
data that was rejected once it has been
corrected, and how to help ensure that
information is being resubmitted.245 The
Commission expects that re-transmitted
data would also be subject to the
validation parameters to assure that the
initial problem(s) with the data has been
corrected.
In addition, the proposed Rule would
require that the NMS plan include
policies and procedures to ensure the
accuracy of the consolidation of the data
by the plan processor provided to the
central repository. Again, the
Commission notes that it is not
proposing to mandate the form and
content of such policies and procedures.
Rather, it believes the SROs would be in
a better position to determine how best
to implement this requirement. The
Commission requests comment on these
proposed requirements. Is this approach
practical to ensure the integrity of the
data? Are there any alternative methods
that would achieve the same purpose
that are preferable? How much latency
would result from a validation
procedure?
245 See
PO 00000
proposed Rule 613(e)(4)(iii).
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
As noted above, the Commission
believes it is critical to the integrity of
the consolidated audit trail that data
submitted to the central repository be
submitted in a timely manner and be
accurate and complete. To support this
objective, as discussed below in
Sections III.H.1 and III.H.2, the
proposed Rule also would require the
NMS plan to include mechanisms to
ensure compliance by the plan sponsors
and their members with the
requirements of the plan.246 The
purpose of the provisions, with respect
to SRO compliance, is to require the
SROs themselves to implement a
method to help ensure compliance with
the NMS plan, as is required by Rule
608 of Regulation NMS. Although the
Commission is not proposing to
mandate the format of the mechanism,
the Commission preliminarily believes
that it could include the imposition of
penalties on an SRO in the event an
SRO failed to comply with any
provision of the NMS plan. Further, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
the mechanism to help ensure
compliance by members could include
the imposition of fines on a member,
subject to the rules of the SRO of which
it is a member, in the event a member
failed to comply with the requirements
of the NMS plan or the SRO’s rules.
G. Surveillance
Proposed Rule 613(f) would require
each national securities exchange and
national securities association subject to
the proposed Rule to develop and
implement a surveillance system, or
enhance existing surveillance systems,
reasonably designed to make use of the
consolidated information contained in
the consolidated audit trail. The
proposed Rule would require each
national securities exchange and
national securities association to
implement such new or enhanced
surveillance system within fourteen
months after effectiveness of the NMS
plan.247 Currently, SROs are required to
surveil members’ trading activity for
compliance with federal securities laws,
rules, and regulations, such as rules
relating to front running, trading ahead,
market manipulation, and quote rule
246 See proposed Rule 613(h)(3) and Rule
613(g)(4).
247 See proposed Rule 613(a)(3)(iv). The SROs
would be required to begin reporting information to
the central repository within twelve months after
effectiveness of the NMS plan. The Commission is
proposing to allow SROs two additional months (for
a total of fourteen months) to update their
surveillance systems to allow for testing of new
surveillances for some period of time after the SROs
begin providing information. The Commission
requests comment on this time period. Should it be
longer? Shorter? If so, why?
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
violations, as well as other Commission
and SRO rules. The Commission
understands that although SROs carry
out certain surveillances in real time,
such as for looking for pricing
anomalies or other indicators of
erroneous transactions, most
surveillance currently is not done on a
real time basis. The Commission
preliminarily believes the systems that
carry out this surveillance should be
updated, or new systems should be
created, to make use of the consolidated
audit trail information that would be
generated and maintained by the central
repository, otherwise the purpose of
requiring a consolidated audit trail
would not be achieved.
The Commission generally requests
comment on this proposed requirement,
as well as the proposed timing for
compliance. To what extent do SROs
currently conduct surveillance of
trading on their markets on a real time
basis? To what extent could SROs make
effective use of the proposed
consolidated information to enhance or
update their existing surveillance and
regulation? How would SROs be able to
enhance or change their existing
surveillance and regulation to make use
of the proposed consolidated
information? Would the benefits of
surveillance that the SROs would be
able to undertake be justified by the
costs of providing information to the
central repository on a real time basis?
Under the proposed Rule, national
securities exchanges and national
securities associations would be
required to implement or enhance their
surveillance systems prior to their
members being required to provide
information pursuant to the proposed
Rule. Do commenters believe that
surveillance systems should be in place
in advance of member compliance or
should these requirements happen
simultaneously, or otherwise?
The Commission is not proposing at
this time to require coordinated
surveillance across exchanges and
FINRA. Rather, the Commission intends
that each SRO would be responsible for
surveillance of its own market and its
own members using the consolidated
audit trail information. The Commission
would, however, encourage any
coordinated surveillance efforts by the
SROs, such as through a plan approved
pursuant to Rule 17d–2 under the
Exchange Act,248 or a regulatory
248 17 CFR 240.17d–2. For example, the
exchanges have entered into an agreement for the
allocation of regulatory responsibilities pursuant to
Rule 17d–2 under the Exchange Act concerning the
surveillance, investigation, and enforcement of
insider trading rules pertaining to members of the
NYSE and FINRA who are also members of at least
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
services agreement among one or more
SROs. The Commission requests
comment on whether it should
undertake to require coordinated
surveillance.
H. Compliance With the NMS Plan
1. Exchanges and Associations
Any failure by a national securities
exchange or national securities
association that is a sponsor of the NMS
plan to comply with the requirements of
the NMS plan would undermine the
effectiveness of the proposed Rule.
Therefore, the Commission would
consider full compliance by these
entities with the NMS plan of the
utmost importance. To this end, the
proposed Rule would provide that each
national securities exchange and
national securities association shall
comply with the provisions of the NMS
plan of which it is a sponsor submitted
pursuant to the proposed Rule and
approved by the Commission.249 In
addition, the proposed Rule would
provide that any failure by a national
securities exchange or national
securities association to comply with
the provisions of the NMS plan of
which it is a sponsor could be
considered a violation of the proposed
Rule.250 For example, a failure to
provide required information to the
central repository, a failure to develop
and implement a surveillance system or
enhance existing surveillance systems
reasonably designed to make use of the
consolidated data in the central
repository, or any limitation on the
ability of an SRO or the Commission to
access and use the data maintained by
the central repository for regulatory
purposes would violate the proposed
Rule. The Commission recognizes that
its staff, and the SRO staff, may have to
undertake certain technical actions to
access the data, such as arranging for a
live feed, querying the system, or
upgrading systems to be able to receive
the data. The Commission preliminarily
would not view having to take such
technical actions, by themselves, as a
limitation. The Commission notes that
the proposed Rule would require the
central repository to maintain the data
in a convenient and usable standard
electronic data format that is directly
available and searchable electronically
without any manual intervention for a
period of not less than five years. The
information would be required to be
available immediately, or if immediate
one of the other participating SROs. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58806 (File No. 4–566)
(October 17, 2008), 73 FR 63216 (October 23, 2008).
249 See proposed Rule 613(h)(1)
250 See proposed Rule 613(h)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32583
availability could not reasonably and
practically be achieved, any search
query would be required to begin
operating on the data not later than one
hour after the search query is made.251
The Commission requests comment on
whether other types of technical actions
should not be viewed as an
impermissible limitation on access. The
Commission further notes that Rule
608(c) under the Exchange Act provides
that ‘‘[e]ach self-regulatory organization
shall comply with the terms of any
effective national market system plan of
which it is a sponsor or a
participant.’’ 252 Thus, under this
proposed Rule, the Commission may
take any action authorized under the
Exchange Act to discipline national
securities exchanges and national
securities associations for failure to
comply with a rule under the Exchange
Act.
The proposed Rule also would require
that the NMS plan include a mechanism
to ensure compliance by the sponsors
with the requirements of the plan.253
The purpose of this provision is to
require the SROs themselves to
implement a method to help ensure
compliance with the NMS plan, as is
required by Rule 608 of Regulation
NMS. Although the Commission is not
proposing to mandate the format of the
mechanism, the Commission
preliminarily believes that it could
include the imposition of penalties on
an SRO in the event an SRO failed to
comply with any provision of the NMS
plan. The Commission request
comments on the types of sanctions or
penalties that would be appropriate for
the plan sponsors to levy for failure of
an SRO to comply with the terms of the
NMS plan.
2. Members
Any failure by a member of a national
securities exchange or national
securities association that is a sponsor
of the NMS plan to collect and provide
to the central repository the required
audit trail information also would
undermine the effectiveness of the
proposed Rule. Therefore, the
Commission would consider full
compliance by these entities with the
NMS plan of the utmost importance.
To implement the proposed
requirement that the NMS plan require
the submission of certain information to
the central repository by the members of
the exchange and association sponsors
of the plan, each exchange and
251 See proposed Rule 613(e)(6) and supra note
237 and accompanying text.
252 17 CFR 242.608(c).
253 See proposed Rule 613(h)(3).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32584
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
association would be required to file
with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act 254
and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,255 a
proposed rule change to require its
members to comply with the
requirements of the proposed Rule and
the NMS plan.256 The SROs would be
required to file these proposed rule
changes by 120 days after approval of
the proposed Rule. The Commission
preliminarily believes that this
proposed time frame would provide the
SROs sufficient time to file their
proposed rule changes after the NMS
plan has been approved,257 as the SRO
rule filings would be substantially based
on the content of the NMS plan.
Further, the proposed Rule would
directly require each member to (1)
collect and submit to the central
repository the information required by
the Rule, and (2) comply with the clock
synchronization requirements of the
proposed Rule.258 In addition, the
proposed Rule would require that the
NMS plan include a provision that by
subscribing to and submitting the plan
to the Commission, each exchange and
association that is a sponsor to the plan
agrees to enforce compliance by its
members with the provisions of the
plan.259
Finally, the proposed Rule would
require the NMS plan to include a
mechanism to ensure compliance with
the requirements of the plan by the
members of a national securities
exchange or national securities
association that is a sponsor of the NMS
plan submitted pursuant to this Rule
and approved by the Commission.260
The purpose of this provision is to
require the SROs to implement a
method to help ensure compliance with
the NMS plan and the corresponding
SRO rules by their members. Although
the Commission is not proposing to
mandate the format of the mechanism,
the Commission preliminarily believes
that it could include the imposition of
fines on a member by an SRO of which
it is a member in the event the member
failed to comply with any provision of
the NMS plan or the SRO’s rules
254 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
CFR 240.19b–4.
256 See proposed Rule 613(g)(1). This provision in
the proposed Rule echoes the requirement
contained in Rule 608 that provides ‘‘each selfregulatory organization also shall, absent reasonable
justification or excuse, enforce compliance with any
such plan by its members and persons associated
with its members,’’ 17 CFR 242.608(c).
257 The proposed Rule would require that the
NMS plan be filed within 90 days of approval of
the proposed Rule. See proposed Rule 613(a)(1).
258 See proposed Rule 613(g)(2).
259 See proposed Rule 613(g)(3).
260 See proposed Rule 613(g)(4).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
255 17
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
implementing the NMS plan. Any
action taken against the member,
including the imposition of the fine by
the SRO, would be subject to the
requirements of the SRO’s other
rules.261
The Commission requests comment
on these provisions regarding members’
compliance with the proposed Rule and
the NMS plan. Do commenters believe
that these provisions would encourage
members’ compliance with the
proposed Rule and the NMS Plan? If so,
why? If not, what other provisions
would be necessary or appropriate to
promote compliance? What mechanisms
should be part of a plan to promote
compliance by members? Would it be
appropriate to include violations of the
proposed Rule, the NMS plan, or the
SRO’s rules implementing the NMS
plan within existing SRO rules that
impose minimum fines for violations of
certain SRO rules? 262 Would the
exchanges or associations have to
amend their rules to implement such a
requirement? If so, how would they
have to amend their rules? Are there
other alternatives that would more
effectively help ensure the accuracy and
reliability of the information reported to
the central repository by members?
Would requiring the SROs to file their
proposed rule changes to implement the
requirements of the NMS plan with
respect to the members within 120 days
after approval of the proposed Rule
provide sufficient time for SROs to draft
the proposed rule changes? If not, why
not?
I. Operation and Administration of the
NMS Plan
The proposed Rule would require that
the NMS plan include a governance
structure to ensure fair representation of
the plan sponsors.263 The rule as
proposed gives flexibility to the SROs to
devise a governance structure as they
see fit. The proposed rule would require
the NMS plan to include a provision
addressing the percentage of votes
required by the plan sponsors to
effectuate amendments to the plan.264
For example, the plan sponsors could
261 See Sections 6(b)(6), 6(b)(7), and 6(d)(1) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6), 78f(b)(7), and
78f(d)(1). See also, e.g. FINRA Rule 9217, CHX
Article 12, Nasdaq OMX BX Rule 9216 and IM–
9216 and NYSE Rule 476A.
262 See, e.g., FINRA Rule 9217 (providing for the
imposition of fines in lieu of commencing a formal
disciplinary proceeding for violations of certain
rules, including the recording and reporting
requirements of the OATS rules) and NYSE Rule
476A (providing for the imposition of fines in lieu
of commencing a formal disciplinary proceeding for
violations of certain rules, including the OTS rules).
263 See proposed Rule 613(b)(1).
264 See proposed Rule 613(b)(3).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determine to provide each plan sponsor
one vote on matters subject to a vote.265
Or, if there was a concern that this
method would result in ‘‘blocs’’ of plan
sponsors under common control
exerting control in a one-sponsor, onevote system, the SROs could choose
another alternative to ensure fair
representation.
Further, most existing NMS plans
require unanimous consent from the
plan sponsors to effect an
amendment.266 The Commission
recognizes the unanimous consent
requirement could be desirable because
it helps to ensure that no plan sponsor
is forced to comply with requirements
with which it is unable to comply, or
forced by the other sponsors to pay fees.
However, a unanimous consent
requirement also could allow one plan
sponsor to effectively ‘‘veto’’ a provision
desired by all other plan sponsors for
competitive reasons, or permit one
sponsor to lag behind in making updates
to its systems or rules that would benefit
the industry as a whole. The
Commission proposes to allow the plan
sponsors to determine whether to
include in the NMS plan to be filed with
the Commission a unanimity
requirement for effectuating
amendments to the plan, or some other
convention.
The Commission also recognizes that
the scope or purpose of the proposed
NMS plan may differ from existing
plans. The Commission requests
comment on whether there are lessons
from previous experience that suggest
that the governance structure of the
NMS plan to be filed with the
Commission should differ from existing
plans. The Commission requests
comment on these provisions relating to
the governance structure of the plan.
Should the Commission require certain
governance standards to ensure efficient
265 For example, Section 4.3 of the OPRA Plan
provides that, except as otherwise provided, each
of the members of the Management Committee shall
be authorized to cast one vote for each Member that
he or she represents on all matters voted upon by
the Management Committee, and action of the
Management Committee shall be authorized by the
affirmative vote of a majority of the total number
of votes the members of the Management
Committee are authorized to cast, subject to the
approval of the Commission whenever such
approval is required under applicable provisions of
the Exchange Act, and the rules of the Commission
adopted thereunder. Action of the Management
Committee authorized in accordance with the
OPRA Plan shall be without prejudice to the rights
of any Member to present contrary views to any
regulatory body or in any other appropriate forum.
266 See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
60405 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39362 (August 6, 2009)
(order approving the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan) and 17638 (March 18,
1981), 22 S.E.C. Docket 484 (March 31, 1981) (order
approving the OPRA Plan).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
cooperation, or should the exchanges
and association be allowed to create a
governance structure of their own
choosing? What are the relative merits
of unanimity or super majority
requirements? What are the relative
merits of alternative voting mechanisms
and other governance structures
available to the plan sponsors? Should
the voting mechanism vary by the type
of decision or should different decision
making bodies have authority over
different types of decisions to avoid
situations where no decision is made
because the sponsors cannot agree? How
should the governance and voting
mechanisms be set up to avoid
inefficient operations or paralysis?
Should there be limits on the time
frames given to make decisions? Should
there be mechanisms to resolve
impasses once a decision has taken a
certain amount of time? The
Commission also requests comment on
whether the scope of the plan, including
the requirements on broker-dealers
members, and the expectation of
improved surveillances for investor
protection dictate that the governance
structure should differ from existing
plans. In particular, should the SRO
sponsors be required to include in the
governance structure and decisionmaking authority representatives of
members to address member interests
and independent representatives chosen
specifically to address investor and
other public interests?
The proposed Rule also would require
that the NMS plan include provisions to
govern the administration of the central
repository, including the selection of a
plan processor. A ‘‘plan processor’’ is
defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS
to mean any SRO or securities
information processor acting as an
exclusive processor in connection with
the development, implementation and/
or operation of any facility
contemplated by an effective national
market system plan.267 The Commission
expects that the plan sponsors would
engage in a thorough analysis and
formal competitive bidding process to
choose the plan processor. As proposed,
the plan sponsors would be required to
select a person to act as the plan
processor for the central repository no
later than two months after the
effectiveness of the national market
system plan.268 The Commission
preliminarily believes that this time
frame would provide the plan sponsors
with sufficient time to choose the plan
processor, while providing that such
entity would be in place with enough
267 See
268 See
17 CFR 242.600(55).
proposed Rule 613(a)(3)(i).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
time to create and build the central
repository to receive data from the SROs
within one year after effectiveness of the
NMS plan and from the members within
two years after such effectiveness.
The Commission requests comment as
to whether the proposed Rule should
include specific requirements detailing
the process for selection of a plan
processor. Should the Commission
require specific minimum requirements
or standards that a plan processor
should meet? If so, what requirement or
standards would be necessary or
appropriate? Should the plan processor
be a non-SRO? Would this promote
impartiality on the part of the plan
processor? The Commission also
requests comment on the proposed time
frame to choose the plan processor. Is it
too short? Too long? If so, why? Please
be specific in your response.
The proposed Rule also would require
that the NMS plan contain a
requirement that a Chief Compliance
Officer (‘‘CCO’’) be appointed to
regularly review the operation of the
central repository.269 The CCO would be
expected to establish reasonable
procedures designed to make sure the
operations of the central repository keep
pace with technical developments. To
the extent upgrades or other changes are
necessary to assure the central
repository’s effectiveness, the CCO
would be responsible for making
recommendations for enhancements to
the nature of the information collected
and the manner in which it is
processed.
The Commission requests comment
on the necessity for a CCO to oversee
the operation of the central repository.
If commenters support the proposal to
require a CCO, should the proposed
Rule include a requirement that the
CCO be independent from the plan
sponsors and their members? That is,
should the CCO be required to not have
any actual or potential conflicts of
interest with respect to the plan
sponsors and their members (e.g. such
as prior or future employment with a
plan sponsor or member, or a material
business relationship with a plan
sponsor or member)? What are the risks
of allowing a CCO who is affiliated or
associated with a plan sponsor or its
members? What types of conflicts of
interest should be avoided? Are there
any specific qualifications that a CCO
should possess? Should there be a
specific process in place for appointing
a CCO or for removing a CCO for failure
to perform his or her assigned duties?
Should there be a limit to the number
of years a CCO may serve as such?
The plan sponsors also would be
required to include in the NMS plan a
provision addressing the requirements
for the admission of new sponsors to the
plan and the withdrawal of sponsors
from the plan.270 Proposed Rule
613(b)(4) also would require that the
sponsors develop a process for
allocating among the plan sponsors the
costs associated with implementing and
operating the central repository,
including a provision addressing the
manner in which such costs would be
allocated to sponsors who join the plan
after it was approved. Various NMS
plans have developed different ways to
ensure that a fair cost or ‘‘new
participant fee’’ is assessed upon new
plan sponsors.271 For example, when
determining a new participation fee, the
OPRA Plan requires that the following
factors be considered: (1) The portion of
costs previously paid by OPRA for the
development, expansion and
maintenance of OPRA’s facilities which,
under generally accepted accounting
principles, would have been treated as
capital expenditures and would have
been amortized over the five years
preceding the admission of the new
member; (2) an assessment of costs
incurred and to be incurred by OPRA
for modifying the OPRA System or any
part thereof to accommodate the new
member, which are not otherwise
required to be paid or reimbursed by the
new Member; and (3) previous fees paid
by other new members. The plan
sponsors could choose to include in the
NMS plan to be filed a similar provision
or develop a new method for
determining the cost to join the plan
that would better suit the NMS plan
proposed to be required by this Rule.
The Commission requests comment
on whether the rule or plan should
specify a method for allocating costs
among the plan sponsors. The
Commission also requests comment as
to what provisions the exchanges and
FINRA should include in the NMS plan
relating to the admission of new plan
sponsors and the withdrawal of existing
plan sponsors. Should the Commission
specify the process for the admission of
new plan sponsors? What are the
concerns, if any, that should be taken
into account when providing for the
admission of new plan sponsors? The
Commission requests comment on all
aspects of the proposed Rule relating to
governance and administration of the
NMS plan.
270 See
269 See
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
proposed Rule 613(b)(5).
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32585
271 See
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
proposed Rule 613(b)(2).
e.g. Section 7.1 of OPRA Plan.
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
32586
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
J. Proposed Implementation Schedule
While the Commission preliminarily
believes a comprehensive consolidated
audit trail would be useful as soon as
possible, the Commission also believes
that it would be prudent to implement
the Rule at a measured pace to ensure
that all market participants are fully
able to meet the requirements of the
proposed Rule. Therefore, the proposed
Rule would provide that the proposed
data collection and submission
requirements would first apply to
national securities exchanges and
national securities associations, but not
to their individual members. As part of
operating their businesses, the national
securities exchanges and national
securities associations are accustomed
to handling large volumes of data and
many already have in place electronic
trading, routing and reporting
systems.272 Further, under the proposal
the exchanges would not be responsible
for providing to the central repository,
for each order, information relating to
the customer. The Commission therefore
preliminarily believes these systems
could more readily and quickly be
modified than the members’ systems to
comply with the requirements of the
proposed Rule.
Specifically, proposed Rule
613(a)(3)(iii) would require the
exchanges and associations to provide
to the central repository the data to be
required by the Rule within one year
after effectiveness of the NMS plan.
Members of the exchanges and
associations would be required to begin
providing to the central repository the
data required by the proposed Rule two
years after effectiveness of the NMS
plan, which would be one year
following the implementation deadline
for the national securities exchanges
and national securities associations.273
This phased approach is designed to
allow members additional time to
implement systems changes necessary
to begin providing the information to
the central repository and to develop
procedures designed to capture
customer and order information that
they may not have previously been
required to collect to comply with other
Commission and SRO rules.
The Commission requests comment
on the proposed implementation time
periods. Are these time periods practical
or feasible? Should they be shorter?
Longer? Please provide detailed reasons
272 For example, as part of COATS compliance,
the options exchanges are required to have in place
systems to electronically capture all order,
transaction, and quotation information on the
exchange.
273 See proposed Rule 613(a)(3)(v).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
in your response. As proposed, the
national securities exchanges and
national securities associations would
be required to submit data to the central
repository for one year before their
members are required to submit data. Is
requiring the exchanges and FINRA to
provide data before requiring their
members to do so a feasible way to
phase in compliance with the proposed
rule? How would this phased-in
approach affect the quality of the data
and the number of available data items
in the audit trail? Are there alternative
ways to phase in implementation that
would be more practical? For instance,
should the Commission consider
requiring all exchanges and FINRA and
their respective members to begin
reporting a subset of the data initially,
and phase in the collection of addition
data over time? Should the Commission
require all exchanges, FINRA, and their
members to implement the proposed
requirements first for NMS stocks, then
for listed options? Or vice versa? How
should the Commission take into
consideration any concern commenters
might have that market participants
might shift manipulative or other illegal
trading activity to products or markets
not covered by the proposed Rule in its
analysis of whether, or how, to phase in
compliance with the proposed Rule
across products classes (meaning, NMS
stock and listed options)? If so, how?
Should ATSs,274 including so-called
dark pools,275 be required to implement
the proposed requirements before
broker-dealers that are not registered as
ATSs? Would ATSs be able to more
quickly comply with the proposed
recording and reporting requirements,
since they generally are highly
automated and their business may be
more narrowly focused than, for
example, broker-dealers that engage in a
customer, proprietary, and/or market
making business? Are there any cost
savings associated with a phased
approach to implementation? Would
additional unnecessary costs be
incurred by implementing the plan in a
phased-in approach? Please provide
data to support your views.
274 See
supra note 181.
pools are ATSs that do not provide their
best-priced orders for inclusion in the consolidated
quotation data. In general, dark pools offer trading
services to institutional investors and others that
seek to execute large trading interest in a manner
that will minimize the movement of prices against
the trading interest and thereby reduce trading
costs. Dark pools fall within the statutory definition
of an exchange, but are exempted if they comply
with Regulation ATS. See Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure, supra note 19, at 3599,
and supra note 181.
275 Dark
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
IV. Request for Comments
We request and encourage any
interested person to comment generally
on the proposed Rule. In addition to the
specific requests for comment
throughout the release, the Commission
requests general comment on all aspects
of proposed Rule 613 of Regulation
NMS. The Commission encourages
commenters to provide information
regarding the advantages and
disadvantages of each aspect of the
proposed Rule. The Commission invites
commenters to provide views and data
as to the costs and benefits associated
with the proposed Rule. The
Commission also seeks comment
regarding other matters that may have
an effect on the proposed Rule. We
request comment from the point of view
of national securities exchanges,
national securities associations,
members, investors, and other market
participants. With regard to any
comments, we note that such comments
are of great assistance to our rulemaking
initiative if accompanied by supporting
data and analysis of the issues
addressed in those comments.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
Certain provisions of the proposal
contain ‘‘collection of information
requirements’’ within the meaning of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(‘‘PRA’’) 276 and the Commission has
submitted them to the Office of
Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for
review in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
3507 and 5 CFR 1320.11. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The title of the new collection
of information is ‘‘Creation of a
Consolidated Audit Trail Pursuant to
Section 11A of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rules Thereunder.’’
A. Summary of Collection of
Information Under Proposed Rule 613
1. Creation and Filing of an NMS Plan
As detailed above, the proposed Rule
would require each national securities
exchange and national securities
association to jointly file with the
Commission, on or before 90 days from
approval of the proposed Rule, an NMS
plan to govern the creation,
implementation, and maintenance of a
consolidated audit trail and central
repository for the collection of
information for NMS securities.277 The
276 44
U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.
proposed Rule 613(a)(1) and supra Section
277 See
III.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
NMS plan would be required to require
each exchange or association and its
respective members to provide certain
data to the central repository in
compliance with proposed Rule 613.278
The NMS plan also would need to
include certain specified provisions
related to administration and operation
of the plan,279 and the operation of the
central repository.280 Further, the NMS
plan would be required to include
certain provisions related to compliance
by the exchanges and associations and
their members with the requirement of
the proposed Rule and the NMS plan.281
Each national securities exchange and
national securities association would be
required to be a sponsor of the NMS
plan.282 The Commission preliminarily
believes that requiring the proposed
NMS plan would impose a paperwork
burden on national securities exchanges
and national securities associations
associated with preparing and filing the
joint NMS plan.
2. Report
Rule 613(i) also would require the
national securities exchanges and
national securities associations to
278 See
proposed Rule 613(c) and supra Section
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
III.D.
279 For example, the NMS plan would be required
to include provisions: (1) To ensure fair
representation of the plan sponsors; (2) for
administration of the central repository; (3)
addressing the requirements for admission of new
plan sponsors and withdrawal of existing plan
sponsors; (4) addressing the percentage of votes
required by the plan sponsors to effectuate
amendments to the plan; (5) addressing the manner
in which the costs of operating the central
repository would be allocated among the national
securities exchanges and national securities
associations that are sponsors of the plan, including
a provision addressing the manner in which costs
would be allocated to new sponsors to the plan. See
proposed Rule 613(b).
280 For example, the NMS plan would be required
to include a provision requiring the creation and
maintenance by the central repository of a method
of access to the data, including search and reporting
functions. See proposed Rule 613(e)(3).
Additionally, the NMS plan would be required to
include policies and procedures, including
standards, to be used by the plan processor to: (1)
Ensure the security and confidentiality of all
information submitted to, and maintained by, the
central repository; (2) ensure the timeliness,
accuracy, and completeness of the data provided to
the central repository; (3) require the rejection of
data that does not meet validation parameters and
the retransmission of corrected data; and (4) ensure
the accuracy of the consolidation by the plan
processor of the data provided to the central
repository. See proposed Rule 613(e)(4).
281 The NMS plan would be required to include:
(1) A provision that by subscribing to and
submitting the plan to the Commission, each
national securities exchange and national securities
association that is a sponsor to the plan agrees to
enforce compliance by its members with the
provisions of the plan; and (2) a mechanism to
ensure compliance by the sponsors of the plan with
the requirements of the plan. See proposed Rule
613(g)(3) and (h)(3).
282 See proposed Rule 613(a)(5).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
jointly provide to the Commission a
document outlining how such national
securities exchanges and national
securities associations would propose to
incorporate into the consolidated audit
trail information for: (1) Equity
securities that are not NMS securities;
(2) debt securities; and (3) primary
market transactions in NMS stocks,
equity securities that are not NMS
securities and debt securities.283 This
report would be required to specify in
detail the data that would be collected
and reported by each market
participant, an implementation
timeline, and a cost estimate. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
requiring the proposed report would
impose a paperwork burden on national
securities exchanges and national
securities associations associated with
preparing and submitting the report to
the Commission.
3. Rule Filings by National Securities
Exchanges and National Securities
Associations
Each national securities exchange and
national securities association would be
required to file with the Commission,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 19b–4
thereunder,284 a proposed rule change
to require its members to comply with
the requirements of the proposed Rule
and the NMS plan submitted pursuant
to the proposed Rule and approved by
the Commission of which the national
securities exchange or national
securities association is a sponsor.285
The burden of filing such proposed rule
change would already be included
under the collection of information
requirements contained in Rule 19b–4
under the Exchange Act.286
4. Collection and Retention of NBBO
and Last Sale Data
The central repository would be
required to collect and retain on a
current and continuing basis the
national best bid and national best offer
for each NMS security, transaction
reports reported pursuant to a
283 See
proposed Rule 613(i).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) and 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
285 See proposed Rule 613(g)(1).
286 See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
50486 (October 5, 2004), 69 FR 60287, 60293
(October 8, 2004) (File No. S7–18–04) (describing
the collection of information requirements
contained in Rule 19b–4 under the Exchange Act).
The Commission has submitted revisions to the
current collection of information titled ‘‘Rule 19b–
4 Filings with Respect to Proposed Rule Changes by
Self-Regulatory Organizations’’ (OMB Control No.
3235–0045). According to the last submitted
revision concluded as of August 5, 2008, the current
collection of information estimates 1,279 total
annual Rule 19b–4 filings with respect to proposed
rule changes by self-regulatory organizations.
284 15
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32587
transaction reporting plan filed with the
Commission pursuant to, and meeting
the requirements of, Rule 601 of
Regulation NMS, and last sale reports
reported pursuant to the OPRA Plan.287
The central repository would be
required to retain this information for a
period of not less than five years.288
5. Data Collection and Reporting
The proposed Rule would require
each national securities exchange,
national securities association, and any
member of such national securities
exchange or national securities
association to collect and electronically
provide to the central repository details
for each order and reportable event
documenting the life of an order
through the process of routing,
modification, cancellation, and
execution (in whole or in part).289 The
proposed Rule would require the
collection and reporting to the central
repository of some information that
national securities exchanges, national
securities associations, and their
members already are required to collect,
and under certain circumstances, report
to a third party, in compliance with
existing Commission 290 and SRO
requirements.291 The proposed Rule
287 See
proposed Rule 613(e)(5); 17 CFR 242.601.
proposed Rule 613(e)(6).
289 See proposed Rule 613(c)(1) and supra Section
III.D.
290 For example, Rule 17a–3 requires brokerdealers to maintain the following information that
would be captured by the proposed Rule: Customer
name and address; time an order was received; and
price of execution. 17 CFR 240.17a–3. Also, Rule
17a–25 requires brokers to maintain the following
information with respect to customer orders: Date
on which the transaction was executed; account
number; identifying symbol assigned to the
security; transaction price; the number of shares or
option contracts traded and whether such
transaction was a purchase, sale, or short sale, and
if an option transaction, whether such was a call or
put option; the clearing house number of such
broker or dealer and the clearing house numbers of
the brokers or dealers on the opposite side of the
transaction; prime broker identifier; the customer’s
name and address; the customer’s tax identification
number; and other related account information. 17
CFR 240.17a–25. This information would be
captured by the proposed Rule. See also Section
17(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78q(a), and
Rules 17a–1 and 17a–4 under the Exchange Act, 17
CFR 240.17a–1 and 17 CFR 240.17a–4.
291 The audit trail rules of several of the national
securities exchanges and FINRA require the
following information be recorded: Date order was
originated or received by a member, security or
option symbol, clearing member organization, order
identifier, market participant symbol, number of
shares executed, designation of order as short sale,
limit order, market order, stop order or stop limit
order, account type or number, date and time of
execution, and execution price and size. See BOX
Ch. V, Section 4; BX Rule 6955; FINRA Rule 7440;
Nasdaq Options Market Chapter IX, Section 4;
Nasdaq Rule 6955; NYSE Rule 132B; and NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 132B. This information would
be captured pursuant to the proposed Rule.
288 See
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32588
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
would, however, require exchanges,
associations, and their members to
report to the central repository
information not required to be currently
collected and reported pursuant to
existing SRO audit trail rules.
For example, although members of
national securities exchanges and
national securities associations already
should know the identity of their
customers, and in some instances may
be required to provide that information
to the Commission or SRO staff upon
request,292 the requirement to
electronically capture and report
detailed information sufficient to
identify the customer to the central
repository, in real time, would be new.
Further, although some existing audit
trail requirements include a unique
order identifier,293 the proposed Rule’s
requirement that the unique order
identifier remain with the order
throughout its entire life, across markets
and market participants, would go
beyond the current requirements. In
addition, although such members
currently have unique market
participant identifiers (‘‘MPIDs’’), such
MPIDs may differ across markets,
whereas the proposed Rule would
require that each member have a unique
identifier that is the same across all
markets. The proposed requirements to
report whether an order opens or closes
a position for NMS stocks, and to report
borrow information, also are not
required to be marked on orders by
current SRO or Commission rules.
Further, much of the information that
would be required for the first time to
be reported to the central repository
would be reported in real time, as the
event is occurring.
6. Central Repository
The proposed Rule would require that
the central repository be responsible for
the receipt, consolidation, and retention
of all data submitted to the central
repository by the national securities
exchanges, national securities
associations, and their members.294 The
proposed Rule also would require that
(1) the central repository retain the
information collected pursuant to
subparagraph (c)(7) and (e)(5) of the
proposed Rule in a convenient and
usable standard electronic data format
that is directly available and searchable
electronically without any manual
292 See supra Section I.A. (discussing Rule 17a–
25 and the EBS system).
293 See supra Section I.C. (discussing the
requirements of FINRA’s OATS).
294 See proposed Rule 613(e)(1). The Commission
notes that a plan processor would be responsible for
operating the central repository in compliance with
the proposed Rule and the NMS plan.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
intervention for a period of not less than
five years, and (2) the information be
available immediately, or if immediate
availability cannot reasonably and
practically be achieved, that any search
query begin operating on the data not
later than one hour after the search
query is made.295 The Commission
notes that a plan processor would be
responsible for operating the central
repository in compliance with the
proposed Rule and the NMS plan.
B. Proposed Use of Information
1. Creation and Filing of NMS Plan
As discussed in detail above, the NMS
plan would govern the creation,
implementation, and maintenance of a
consolidated audit trail for NMS
securities, which would aid the
Commission and national securities
exchanges and national securities
associations in effectively and
efficiently carrying out their regulatory
responsibilities. The information that
would be collected pursuant to the NMS
plan would allow the SROs to more
efficiently monitor trading activity in
the securities markets, and would
facilitate the Commission and the
national securities exchanges and
national securities associations’ trading
reconstruction efforts as well as enhance
their monitoring, enforcement, and
regulatory activities.
2. Report
As the Commission states above in
Section III.A., it ultimately intends for
the proposed consolidated audit trail, if
adopted, to be expanded to cover other
securities, including equity securities
that are not NMS securities, corporate
bonds and other debt instruments;
credit default swaps and other securitybased swaps; and any other products
that may come under the Commission’s
jurisdiction in the future. Further, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
it would be beneficial to expand the
consolidated audit trail to include
information on primary market
transactions in NMS stocks and other
equity securities that are not NMS
stocks, as well as primary market
transactions in debt securities. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
a timely expansion of the scope of the
consolidated audit trail beyond NMS
securities would be beneficial as illegal
trading strategies that the consolidated
audit trail would be designed to help
detect and deter, such as insider trading,
may involve trading in multiple related
products other than NMS securities
across multiple markets.
295 See
PO 00000
proposed Rule 613(e)(6).
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
To help ensure that such an
expansion would occur in a reasonable
time and that the systems and
technology that would be used to
implement the Rule as proposed are
designed to be easily scalable, proposed
Rule 613(i) would require that the NMS
plan contain a provision requiring each
national securities exchange and
national securities association that is a
sponsor of the plan to jointly provide to
the Commission within two months
after effectiveness of the NMS plan a
document outlining how the sponsors
would incorporate into the consolidated
audit trail information with respect to:
(1) Equity securities that are not NMS
securities; (2) debt securities; and (3)
primary market transactions in NMS
stocks, equity securities that are not
NMS securities, and debt securities. The
sponsors specifically would be required
to address, among other things, details
for each order and reportable event that
they would recommend requiring to be
provided; which market participants
would be required to provide the data;
an implementation timeline; and a cost
estimate. The Commission would be
able to use the information contained in
the report in its consideration and
analysis of whether to expand the
consolidated audit trail.
3. Collection and Retention of NBBO
and Last Sale Data
As discussed above, the requirement
that the central repository collect and
retain the NBBO and transaction data in
an electronic format compatible with
the order and event information
collected pursuant to the proposed Rule
is intended to allow SRO and
Commission staff to easily search across
order, NBBO, and transaction data
bases. The Commission preliminarily
believes that having the NBBO
information in an electronic format
compatible with the order audit trail
information would be useful for SROs to
enforce compliance with federal
securities laws, rules and regulations.296
The Commission also preliminarily
believes that requiring the central
repository to collect and retain in its
296 The NBBO is used by SROs and the
Commission to evaluate members for compliance
with numerous regulatory requirements, such as the
duty of best execution or Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS. See Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.611. See also ISE Rule 1901, NYSE Arca 6.94,
and Phlx Rule 1084. An SRO would be able to
compare order execution information to the NBBO
information on a more timely basis because the
order and execution information would be available
on a real time basis and all of the information
would be available in a compatible format in the
same database. The SROs also may enjoy economies
of scale by adopting standard cross-market
surveillance parameters for certain types of
violations.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
database the transaction information in
a format compatible with the order
execution information would aid the
SROs in being able to monitor for
certain market manipulations.297
4. Data Collection and Reporting
As discussed above, the Commission
preliminarily believes that the data
collection and reporting requirements of
the proposed Rule would enhance the
ability of SRO staff to effectively
monitor and surveil the securities
markets and thus detect and investigate
potentially illegal activity in a more
timely fashion, whether on one market
or across markets. Further, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
the ability to access such data would
improve the ability of SRO staff to
conduct timely and accurate trading
analysis for market reconstructions and
complex enforcement inquiries or
investigations, as well as inspections
and examinations. Further, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
the ability to access such data would aid
the Commission staff in its regulatory
and market analysis efforts.
5. Central Repository
The central repository would be
required to receive and retain the data
required to be submitted by the national
securities exchanges, national securities
associations, and their members
pursuant to the proposed Rule. SROs
and Commission staff would then have
access to the data for regulatory
purposes, as discussed above.
C. Respondents
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. National Securities Exchanges and
National Securities Associations
Proposed Rule 613 would apply to all
of the fourteen national securities
exchanges and to one national securities
297 See supra Section III.D.1.v. As discussed
above, the proposed Rule would require that each
report of the execution (in whole or in part) of an
order sent to the central repository include a
notation as to whether the execution was reported
to the consolidated tape pursuant to an effective
transaction reporting plan or the OPRA Plan. This
requirement should allow regulators to more
efficiently evaluate certain trading activity. For
example, trading patterns of reported and
unreported trades may cause the staff of an SRO or
the Commission to make further inquiry into the
nature of the trading to ensure that the public was
receiving accurate and timely information regarding
executions and that market participants were
continuing to comply with the trade reporting
obligations under SRO rules. Similarly, patterns in
the reported and unreported transactions could be
indicia of market abuse, including failure to obtain
best execution for customer orders or possible
market manipulation. Being able to more efficiently
compare the consolidated order execution data with
the trades reported to the consolidated tape could
thus be an important component of overall
surveillance activity.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
association (FINRA) currently registered
with the Commission.
2. Members of National Securities
Exchanges and National Securities
Associations
Proposed Rule 613 would apply to the
approximately 5,178 broker-dealers that
are currently registered with the
Commission and are members of the
national securities exchanges or
FINRA.298
D. Total Annual Reporting and
Recordkeeping Burden
1. Burden on National Securities
Exchanges and National Securities
Associations
a. Creation and Filing of NMS Plan
Proposed Rule 613 would require the
national securities exchanges and
FINRA to jointly file with the
Commission a joint NMS plan to govern
the creation, implementation, and
maintenance of a consolidated audit
trail and a central repository. The
Commission estimates that it would take
each national securities exchange and
national securities association
approximately 840 burden hours of
internal legal, compliance, information
technology, and business operations
time to develop and file the NMS plan,
including the required provisions
regarding governance, administration,
and operation of the plan.299
The Commission preliminarily
expects that national securities
exchange and national securities
association respondents may incur onetime external costs for outsourced legal
services to develop and draft the NMS
plan. While the Commission recognizes
that the amount of legal outsourcing
used may vary from SRO to SRO, the
staff estimates that on average, each
national securities exchange and
national securities association would
outsource 50 hours of legal time to
develop and draft the NMS plan, for a
298 This is the number of broker-dealers filing
FOCUS Reports at year-end 2008. FOCUS Reports
are required to be filed by all registered brokerdealers, with a few exceptions. Excluded from this
number were recently established broker-dealers
that had yet to become active, or broker-dealers no
longer doing business that had yet to deregister.
299 The Commission derived the total estimated
burdens from the following estimates, which are
based on the Commission’s understanding of, and
burden estimates for, existing NMS plans: (Attorney
at 400 hours) + (Compliance Manager at 100 hours)
+ (Programmer Analyst at 220 hours) + (Business
Analyst at 120 hours). The Commission
preliminarily believes that the cost of developing
and filing the NMS plan pursuant to the proposed
Rule would be comparable to the cost to create
other existing NMS plans, recognizing that the
proposed Rule may include more detail as to what
must be incorporated and addressed in the NMS
plan implementing the proposed Rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32589
capital cost of approximately $20,000
for each national securities exchange
and national securities association
resulting from outsourced legal work.300
Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily estimates that the average
one-time initial burden of developing
and filing the NMS plan would be 840
burden hours plus $20,000 external
costs for outsourced legal counsel per
SRO, for an aggregate estimated burden
of 12,600 hours plus $300,000 external
costs.
Once the national securities
exchanges and national securities
associations have established the NMS
plan, the Commission estimates that, on
average, each national securities
exchange and national securities
association would incur 192 burden
hours annually to ensure that the NMS
plan is up to date and remains in
compliance with the proposed Rule,301
for an aggregate estimated burden of
2,880 hours.
b. Report
The Commission estimates that it
would take each national securities
exchange or national securities
association approximately 420 burden
hours of internal legal, compliance,
business operations and information
technology staff time to create the report
required by the proposed Rule.302 The
Commission also expects that each
national securities exchange and
national securities association
respondent may incur one-time external
costs for outsourced legal services
helping to prepare the report.
Commission estimates that on average,
each national securities exchange and
national securities association would
outsource 25 hours of legal time to
create the report, for an aggregate onetime capital cost of approximately
$10,000.303 Therefore, the Commission
300 Based on industry sources, the Commission
estimates that the hourly rate for outsourced legal
services in the securities industry is $400 per hour.
301 The Commission derived the total estimated
burdens from the following estimates, which are
based on prior Commission experience with burden
estimates: (Attorney at 64 hours) + (Compliance
Manager at 64 hours) + (Programmer Analyst at 64
hours) = 192 burden hours.
302 The Commission derived the total estimated
burden from the following estimates, which
assumes preparation of the report would impose
approximately half of the approximate burden of
preparing the plan, reflects half of the approximate
burden of drafting and filing the NMS plan, and the
Commission’s preliminary view that the cost of
preparing the report would not be as extensive as
the drafting and filing of the NMS plan: (Attorney
at 200 hours) + (Compliance Manager at 50 hours)
+ (Programmer Analyst at 110 hours) + (Business
Analyst at 60 hours) = 420 burden hours per SRO.
303 The Commission derived the total estimated
burden for outsourced legal counsel based on the
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
Continued
08JNP2
32590
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
preliminarily estimates that the onetime initial burden of drafting the report
required by the proposed Rule would be
420 burden hours plus $10,000 external
costs for outsourced legal counsel per
SRO, for an aggregate estimated burden
of 6,300 hours and $150,000 external
costs.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
c. Data Collection and Reporting
The proposed Rule would require the
collection and reporting on a real time
basis of some information that national
securities exchanges and national
securities associations already collect to
operate their business, and are required
to maintain in compliance with Section
17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a–
1 thereunder.304 For instance, the
Commission believes that exchanges
keep records pursuant to Section 17(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a–1
thereunder in electronic form, of the
receipt of all orders entered into their
systems, as well as records of the
routing, modification, cancellation, and
execution of those orders. However, the
proposed Rule would require each SRO
to collect and report additional and
more detailed information, and to report
the information to the central repository
in real time in a specified uniform
format. The Commission anticipates that
exchanges may need to enhance or
replace their current systems to be able
to comply with the proposed
information collection and reporting
requirements of the proposed Rule.
The Commission recognizes that the
extent to which a particular SRO would
need to make systems changes would
differ depending upon the SRO’s
current market structure and existing
systems. However, the Commission
preliminarily estimates that, on average,
the initial one-time burden per national
securities exchange and national
securities association for development
and implementation of the systems
needed to capture the required
information and transmit it to the
central repository in a specified format
in compliance with the proposed Rule
to be 2,200 hours.305 Further, the
Commission estimates that, on average,
each exchange and association would
incur approximately 40 hours of
outsourced legal counsel legal time for
assumption that the report required by the proposed
Rule would require approximately half the effort of
drafting and filing the proposed NMS plan.
304 15 U.S.C. 78q(a); 17 CFR 240.17a–1.
305 The Commission derived the total estimated
burdens from the following estimates, which reflect
the Commission’s experience with, and burden
estimates for, SRO systems changes, and
discussions with market participants: (Attorney at
100 hours) + (Compliance Manager at 80 hours) +
(Programmer Analyst at 1,960 hours) + (Business
Analyst at 60 hours) = 2,200 burden hours per SRO.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
the development and implementation of
systems needed to capture the required
information and transmit it to the
central repository, and a one-time
software and hardware cost of
$4,542,940 per SRO to develop and
implement the necessary systems.
Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily estimates that the average
one-time initial burden per national
securities exchange and national
securities association for development
and implementation of the systems
needed to capture the required
information and transmit it to the
central repository in a specified format
in compliance with the proposed Rule
would be 2,200 burden hours plus
$16,000 costs for outsourced legal
counsel and $4,542,940 for hardware
and software costs,306 for an aggregate
estimated burden of 33,000 hours and
$68,384,100 external and systems costs.
Once a national securities exchange or
national securities association has
established the appropriate systems
required for collection and transmission
of the required information to the
central repository in a specified format,
the Commission preliminarily believes
that it would be necessary for each
national securities exchange or national
securities association to undertake
efforts to ensure that their system
technology is up to date and remains in
compliance with the proposed Rule,
which could include personnel time to
monitor each SRO’s reporting of the
required data and the maintenance of
the systems to report the required data;
activity related to adding extra systems
capacity to accommodate new order
types that would need to be reported to
the central repository; or implementing
changes to trading systems which might
result in additional reports to the central
repository. The Commission
preliminarily estimates that, on average,
it would take a national securities
exchange or national securities
association approximately 4,975 hours
per year to ensure that the system
technology is up to date and remains in
compliance with the proposed Rule.307
306 These estimates are based on the
Commission’s previous experience with, and cost
estimates for, SRO systems changes, and
discussions with market participants. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 50870 (December 16,
2004), 69 FR 77424 (December 27, 2004)
(‘‘Regulation NMS Reproposing Release’’) at 77480
(discussing costs to implement Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS). Although the Commission
recognizes that the substance of Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS is not the same as the proposed
Rule, the Commission preliminarily believes that
the scope of the systems changes would be
comparable.
307 The Commission derived the total estimated
burdens from the following estimates, which reflect
the Commission’s preliminary view that annual
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The Commission also estimates that it
would cost, on average, approximately
$1.25 million per year per SRO to
continue to comply with the proposed
requirements to provide information to
the central repository, including costs to
maintain the systems connectivity to the
central repository and purchase any
necessary hardware, software, and other
materials.308 Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily estimates that the average
ongoing annual burden per SRO would
be approximately 4,975 hours plus
$1.25 million external costs to maintain
the systems necessary to collect and
transmit information to the central
repository, for an aggregate estimated
annual burden of 74,625 hours and
$18,750,000 external systems costs.
d. Central Repository
The proposed Rule would require
national securities exchanges and
national securities associations to
jointly establish a central repository
tasked with the receipt, consolidation,
and retention of the reported order and
execution information. The central
repository thus would need its own
system(s) to receive, consolidate, and
retain the electronic data received from
the SROs and their members. The
system would be required to be
accessible by the sponsors and the
Commission for regulatory purposes,
with validation parameters allowing the
central repository to automatically
check the accuracy and completeness of
the data submitted, and reject data not
conforming to these parameters. It is
anticipated that the burdens of
development and operation of the
central repository would be shared
among the plan sponsors.
The Commission staff preliminarily
estimates that there would be an average
initial one-time burden of 17,500 hours
per plan sponsor for development and
implementation of the systems needed
to capture the required information in
compliance with the proposed Rule.309
ongoing costs would be approximately half the
costs of developing and implementing the systems
to capture the required information and transmit it
to the central repository, and discussions with
market participants: (Attorney at 1,500 hours) +
(Compliance Analyst at 1,600 hours) + (Programmer
Analyst at 1,375 hours) + (Business Analyst at 500
hours) = 4,975 burden hours per SRO.
308 This estimate includes an estimated cost of
approximately $10,000 per month to maintain
systems connectivity to the central repository,
including back-up connectivity. This estimate is
based on discussions with a market participant.
309 The Commission derived the total estimated
burdens based on the following estimates, which
are based on information provided to the
Commission regarding the development of reporting
systems for the collection, consolidation, and
dissemination of quotation and last sale data and
discussions with market participants: (Attorney at
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Further, the Commission estimates that
each exchange and association would
incur software and hardware costs of
approximately $4 million per plan
sponsor related to systems development.
Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily estimates a one-time
initial burden of 17,500 hours per plan
sponsor, plus software and hardware
costs of approximately $4 million
related to systems development,310 for
an aggregate estimated burden of
262,500 hours and $60 million in
external systems costs.
Once the plan sponsors have
established the systems necessary for
the central repository to receive,
consolidate, and retain the required
information, the Commission estimates
that the burden per plan sponsor to
ensure that the system technology and
functionality is up to date and remains
in compliance with the proposed Rule
would be 192 hours per year, for an
estimated aggregate burden per year of
2,880 hours.311 The estimated burden
would include actions taken to regularly
review the operation of the central
repository to assure its continued
effectiveness and to determine the need
for enhancements to accommodate the
information required to be collected, or
new information collected, and the
manner in which the data is processed,
as well as periodic assessments of the
adequacy of the system technology and
functionality of the central repository.
After the central repository systems
have been developed and implemented,
there would be ongoing costs for
operating the central repository,
including the cost of paying the CCO;
the cost of systems and connectivity
3,000 hours) + (Compliance Manager at 4,000
hours) + (Programmer Analyst at 7,500 hours) +
(Business Analyst at 3,000 hours) = 17,500 per SRO.
This figure excludes the number of burden hours
required to create and file the NMS plan.
310 This cost estimate includes the estimated costs
that each exchange and association would incur for
software and hardware costs related to systems
development. This cost estimate also would
encompass (1) costs related to engaging in an
analysis and formal bidding process to choose the
plan processor, and (2) any search undertaken to
hire a CCO. See proposed Rule 613(a)(3)(i) (the plan
sponsors would be required to select a person to act
as a plan processor for the central repository no
later than two months after the effectiveness of the
NMS plan) and 613(b)(5) (the plan sponsors would
be required to appoint a CCO to regularly review
the operation of the central repository to assure its
continued effectiveness in light of market and
technological developments, and make any
appropriate recommendations for enhancements to
the nature of the information collected and the
manner in which the information is processed).
311 The Commission derived the total estimated
burdens from the following estimates, which are
based on prior Commission experience with burden
estimates: (Attorney at 16 hours) + (Compliance
Manager at 16 hours) + (Programmer Analyst at 16
hours) = 48 burden hours per quarter, or 192 burden
hours per year.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
upgrades or changes necessary to
receive, consolidate, and store the
reported order and execution
information from SROs and their
members; the cost, including storage
costs, of collecting and maintaining the
NBBO and transaction data in a format
compatible with the order and event
information collected pursuant to the
proposed Rule; the cost of monitoring
the required validation parameters,
which would allow the central
repository to automatically check the
accuracy and completeness of the data
submitted and reject data not
conforming to these parameters
consistent with the requirements of the
proposed Rule; and the cost of
compensating the plan processor. The
Commission preliminarily assumes that
the plan processor would be responsible
for the ongoing operations of the central
repository. The Commission estimates
that these costs would be approximately
$100 million in external costs to the
plan processor for operation of the
central repository per year, or
approximately $6,666,666 per plan
sponsor per year.312
e. Collection and Retention of the NBBO
and Transaction Reports
The proposed Rule would require that
the central repository collect and retain
on a current and continuous basis the
NBBO for each NMS security,
transaction reports reported pursuant to
an effective transaction reporting plan,
and last sale reports reported pursuant
to the OPRA Plan. The central
repository would be required to
maintain this NBBO and transaction
data in a format compatible with the
order and event information collected
pursuant to the proposed Rule.313
Further, the central repository would be
required to retain the information
collected pursuant to paragraphs (c)(7)
and (e)(5) of the proposed Rule in a
convenient and usable standard
electronic data format that is directly
available and searchable electronically
without any manual intervention for a
period of not less than five years. The
information would be required to be
available immediately, or if immediate
availability could not reasonably and
practically be achieved, any search
312 The Commission derived the total estimated
burdens based on discussions with market
participants. The estimated annual cost includes an
annual salary for a CCO of $703,800. This figure is
based on a $391 per-hour figure for a Chief
Compliance Officer from SIFMA’s Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry
2008, modified by Commission staff to account for
an 1,800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to
account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits,
and overhead.
313 See proposed Rule 613(e)(5).
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32591
query would be required to begin
operating on the data not later than one
hour after the search query is made.314
The Commission preliminarily has
included in the burden estimates to the
plan sponsors of developing and
implementing the systems necessary to
capture the order audit trail information
(see supra Section V.D.1.d) the: (1)
Initial one-time hour burden per plan
sponsor for development and
implementation of the systems at the
central repository necessary to receive
and retain this NBBO and last sale
information; (2) associated software and
hardware costs; and (3) ongoing costs of
receiving and retaining the NBBO and
last sale information.315
The Commission estimates that the
ongoing external costs to receive the
NBBO and last sale data from the SIPs
would be approximately $1,370 per
year.316
2. Members
The Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposed Rule would
require the collection and reporting in
real time of much of the information
that registered broker-dealers already
maintain in compliance with existing
regulations.317 For example, Section 17
of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a–3
thereunder mandate that broker-dealers
keep certain records of orders handled
during the course of business.318 Certain
information also is required to be
collected and reported by broker-dealers
in compliance with a Commission
request pursuant to Rule 17a–25 under
314 See
proposed Rule 613(e)(6).
supra Section V.D.1.d.
316 The Commission derived this estimate based
on the average current cost of obtaining
consolidated quotation and transaction information
from existing quotation and transaction reporting
plans.
317 See Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act, 14
U.S.C. 78q(a), and Rules 17a–3, 17a–4, and 17a–25
under the Exchange Act, 17 CFR 240.17a–3, 17 CFR
240.17a–4, and 17 CFR 240.17a–25; see also, e.g.,
BATS Rule 20.7; BOX Chapter V, Section 4; CBOE
Chapter VI, Rule 6.24; CHX Article 11, Rule 3;
FINRA Rule 7440; Nasdaq Options Market Chapter
IX, Section 4; NYSE Rule 132B; and NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 132B.
318 15 U.S.C. 78q et seq.; 17 CFR 240.17a–3.
Generally, broker-dealers must keep a
memorandum of each brokerage order, including
the following information: The terms and
conditions of an order or instructions; the account
for which an order was entered; time of order entry
and receipt and, to the extent feasible, time of
execution; any modifications or cancellations (and,
to the extent feasible, time of cancellation);
execution price; and the identity of each associated
person, if any, responsible for the account. See Rule
17a–3(a)(6)(i) under the Exchange Act, 17 CFR
240.17a–3(a)(6)(i). Broker-dealers also are required
to keep a record for each cash and margin account
they hold, and the name and address of the
beneficial owner of each such account. See Rule
17a–3(a)(9) under the Exchange Act, 17 CFR
240.17a–3(a)(9).
315 See
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32592
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
the Exchange Act.319 The proposed Rule
would, however, require SRO members
to collect and report additional
information for each order in a specified
uniform format. In addition to the new
information, the members also would be
required to report most of the
information on a real time basis to the
central repository, which is not
currently required. The Commission
anticipates that SRO members would
need to either enhance or replace their
current order handling, trading, and
other systems to be able to collect and
report the required order and reportable
event information to the central
repository as required by the proposed
Rule.
The Commission recognizes that the
extent to which a particular member
would need to make systems changes or
replace existing systems would differ
depending upon the member’s current
business operations and systems. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
members that rely mostly on their own
internal order routing and execution
management systems would need to
make changes to or replace such
systems to collect and report the
required order and reportable event
information to the central repository as
required by the proposed Rule. The
Commission estimates that there are
approximately 1,114 of these types of
members.320 The Commission
preliminarily estimates the average
initial one-time burden to develop and
implement the needed systems changes
to capture the required information and
transmit it to the central repository in
compliance with the proposed Rule for
these members would be approximately
6,530 burden hours.321 The Commission
also preliminarily estimates that these
members would, on average, incur
approximately $1.5 million in one-time
external costs for hardware and software
319 See supra Section I.A for a detailed discussion
of what information is required to be submitted
upon request to the Commission pursuant to Rule
17a–25 under the Exchange Act, 17 CFR 240.17a–
25.
320 This number includes members that are
clearing broker-dealers that carry customer
accounts; broker-dealers that accept customer
monies but do no margin business; introducing
brokers that clear proprietary securities
transactions; ATSs registered with the Commission;
other clearing firms; and registered market makers.
This number was derived from annual FOCUS
reports filed with the Commission for the year
ending in 2008.
321 The Commission derived the total estimated
burdens on the following estimates, which reflect
the Commission’s previous experience with, and
burden estimates for, broker-dealer systems
changes, and discussions with market participants:
(Attorney at 1,240 hours) + (Compliance Manager
at 1,540 hours) + (Programmer Analyst at 2,750
hours) + (Business Analyst at 1,000 hours) = 6,530
hours.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
to implement the systems changes
needed to capture the required
information and transmit it to the
central repository.322 Therefore, the
Commission preliminarily estimates
that the average one-time initial burden
per member would be 6,530 hours and
$1.5 million, for an estimated aggregate
burden of 7,274,420 hours and
$1,671,000,000.
This number would likely
overestimate the costs for some of these
members and underestimate it for
others. For example, it may overestimate
the cost for ATSs as opposed to
members that engage in a customer and
proprietary (or market marking)
business, in part because of the
narrower business focus of some
ATSs.323 The Commission also
recognizes that some or all of these
members may contract with one or more
outside vendors to provide certain frontend order management systems. The
third-party vendor may make changes to
its systems to permit the members that
use the system to capture and provide
the required information to the central
repository. Likewise, some or all of
these members may contract with
outside vendors to provide back-office
functionality. These third-party vendors
may make changes to their systems to
permit the members that use the
systems to capture and provide the
required information to the central
repository. The cost of these changes
may be shared by the various members
that use the systems, and thus may
result in a reduced cost to an individual
member to implement changes to its
own systems to comply with the
requirements of the proposed Rule.
Once such a member has established
the appropriate systems and processes
required for collection and transmission
of the required information to the
central repository, the Commission
estimates that the proposal would
impose on each member ongoing annual
burdens associated with, among other
322 These estimates are based on the
Commission’s previous experience with, and cost
estimates for, broker-dealer systems changes, and
discussions with market participants. See
Regulation NMS Reproposing Release, supra note
306, at 77480 (discussing costs to implement Rule
611 of Regulation NMS). Although the Commission
recognizes that the substance of Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS is not the same as the proposed
Rule, the Commission preliminarily believes that
the scope of the systems changes would be
comparable.
These estimated hour burdens and systems costs
would include the burden and costs, if any, that
would be incurred by members to obtain the
required customer information, including beneficial
ownership, store it electronically, and transmit it to
the central repository.
323 See Regulation NMS Reproposing Release,
supra note 306, at 77480.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
things, personnel time to monitor each
member’s reporting of the required data
and the maintenance of the systems to
report the required data; activity related
to adding extra systems capacity to
accommodate new order types that
would need to be reported to the central
repository; or implementing changes to
trading systems which might result in
additional reports to the central
repository. The Commission
preliminarily estimates that, on average,
it would take a member of a national
securities exchange or national
securities association approximately
3,050 burden hours per year continued
compliance with the proposed Rule.324
The Commission also estimates that it
would cost, on average, approximately
$756,000 per year per member to
maintain the systems connectivity to the
central repository and purchase any
necessary hardware, software, and other
materials.325 Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily estimates that the average
ongoing annual burden per member
would be approximately 3,050 hours,
plus $756,000 external costs to maintain
the systems necessary to collect and
transmit information to the central
repository, for an estimated aggregate
annual burden of 3,397,700 hours and
$842,184,000.
The Commission preliminarily
believes that other members generally
would rely on functionality provided by
third parties to electronically capture
the required information and transmit it
to the central repository in real time. For
purposes of the proposed Rule, the
Commission assumes that these
members, which could include brokerdealers defined as ‘‘small entities’’ for
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act,326 generally do not clear
transactions and may not possess their
own internal order routing and
execution management systems, but
instead rely on third-party providers for
such functionality. Further, the
Commission assumes that many of these
members currently do not themselves
report order or trade information and
instead rely on their clearing firms or
other third parties to do it for them.
324 The Commission derived the total estimated
burdens on the following estimates, which reflect
the Commission’s preliminary view that ongoing
costs would be approximately half of the costs of
developing and implementing the systems to
comply with the proposed Rule: (Attorney at 800
hours) + (Compliance Manager at 1,000 hours) +
(Programmer Analyst at 500 hours) + (Business
Analyst at 750 hours) = 3,050 burden hours.
325 This estimate includes an estimated cost of
approximately $10,000 per month to maintain
systems connectivity to the central repository,
including back-up connectivity. This estimate is
based on discussions with a market participant.
326 See infra Section IX.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
These smaller members may look for
‘‘turn key’’ systems that could provide
the functionality required by the
proposed Rule. As such, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
these members would not undertake a
fundamental restructuring of their
business to comply with the proposed
Rule. Instead, they might continue to
rely on their clearing broker-dealer, or
they might purchase a standardized
software product provided by a third
party that would provide the
functionality to electronically capture
the required information and transmit it
to the central repository in real time.
The Commission estimates that there are
approximately 3,006 of these types of
members.327 For these members,
Commission staff preliminarily
estimates the average external cost to
compensate a third party, whether the
clearing broker-dealer or other third
party, for software that would provide
the necessary functionality to
electronically capture the required
information and transmit it to the
central repository, would be
approximately $50,000 per member.328
In addition, the Commission
preliminarily estimates that each of
these members, on average, would incur
a one-time burden of 140 hours to
incorporate this functionality.329
Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily estimates an initial
aggregate burden of 420,840 hours and
$150,300,000.
Once such a member has procured the
appropriate third party system(s) for
collection and transmission of the
327 This number includes introducing brokerdealers that do not clear transactions. This number
excludes non-clearing firms that specialize in direct
participation programs; non-clearing firms that sell
insurance products; and non-clearing firms that are
underwriters and retailers of mutual funds because
these firms do not deal in NMS securities. This
number was derived from annual FOCUS reports
filed with the Commission for the year ending in
2008.
328 This estimate is based on the Commission’s
previous experience with, and burden estimates for,
broker-dealer systems changes. See Regulation NMS
Reproposing Release, supra note 306, at 77480
(discussing costs to implement Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS). Although the Commission
recognizes that the substance of Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS is not the same as the proposed
Rule, the Commission preliminarily believes that
the scope of the systems changes would be
comparable.
329 The Commission derived the estimated
burdens from the following estimates, which are
based on prior Commission experience with burden
estimates: (Attorney at 50 hours) + (Compliance
Manager at 50 hours) + (Programmer Analyst at 40
hours) = 140 hours.
These estimated hour burdens and systems costs
would include the burden and costs, if any, that
would be incurred by members to obtain the
required customer information, including beneficial
ownership, store it electronically, and transmit it to
the central repository.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
required information to the central
repository, the Commission
preliminarily estimates that such a
member would continue to incur, on
average, an external cost of $50,000
annually to compensate a third party,
whether the clearing broker-dealer or for
software that would provide the
necessary functionality to capture the
required information and transmit it to
the central repository. The Commission
also preliminarily estimates that each
such member would incur a cost for
compliance personnel necessary to
oversee continued compliance with the
proposed Rule, which would result in
64 burden hours annually for such
member.330 Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily estimates an aggregate
ongoing burden of 192,384 hours and
$150,300,000 to ensure compliance with
the proposed Rule.
The Commission requests specific
comments on each of its estimates with
respect to the estimated burden and
costs on members to comply with the
proposed Rule. In particular, the
Commission requests comment on the
specific types and amount of costs, as
well as internal staff burden, that would
be incurred to modify members’ order
handling, trading, and other systems to
comply with the proposed Rule. The
Commission requests comment whether,
and if so how, the estimated costs
would be impacted if the members did
not have to provide the information in
proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(vi) and (vii)
(the non-real time information).331 For
instance, would requiring the reporting
to the central repository of the account
numbers for any subaccounts to which
an execution is allocated, and the
amount of a commission, if any, paid by
the customer and the unique identifier
of the broker-dealer(s) to whom the
commission is paid, require changes to
systems other than order handling and
execution systems?
330 The Commission bases this estimate one a fulltime Compliance Manager spending approximately
2 days per quarter of his time on overseeing ongoing
compliance with the proposed Rule.
331 Proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(vi) would require the
reporting to the central repository of the following
information: (1) The account number for any
subaccounts to which the execution is allocated (in
whole or part); (2) the unique identifier of the
clearing broker or prime broker, if applicable; (3)
the unique order identifier of any contra-side
order(s); (4) special settlement terms, if applicable;
(5) short sale borrow information and identifier; and
(6) the amount of a commission, if any, paid by the
customer, and the unique identifier of the brokerdealer(s) to whom the commission is paid.
Proposed Rule 613(c)(7)(vii) would require the
reporting to the central repository of a cancelled
trade indicator, if the trade is cancelled.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32593
E. Collection of Information Is
Mandatory
Each collection of information
discussed above would be a mandatory
collection of information.
F. Confidentiality
The proposed Rule would require that
the information to be collected and
electronically provided to the central
repository would only be available to
the national securities exchanges,
national securities association and the
Commission for the purpose of
performing their respective regulatory
and oversight responsibilities pursuant
to the federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations.332 Further, the national
market system plan submitted pursuant
to the proposed Rule would be required
to include policies and procedures to
ensure the security and confidentiality
of all information submitted to the
central repository, and to ensure that all
plan sponsors and their employees, as
well as all employees of the central
repository, shall use appropriate
safeguards to ensure the confidentiality
of such data and shall agree not to use
such data for any purpose other than
surveillance and regulatory purposes.333
G. Retention Period of Recordkeeping
Requirements
National securities exchanges and
national securities associations would
be required to retain records and
information pursuant to Rule 17a–1
under the Exchange Act.334 Members
would be required to retain records and
information in accordance with Rule
17a–4 under the Exchange Act.335
H. Request for Comments
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B),
the Commission solicits comment to: (1)
Evaluate whether each proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of each proposed
collection of information; (3) enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
minimize the burden of each collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
332 See
proposed Rule 613(e)(2).
proposed Rule 613(e)(4)(i).
334 17 CFR 240.17a–1.
335 17 CFR 240.17a–4.
333 See
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32594
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VI. Consideration of Costs and Benefits
The Commission is sensitive to the
anticipated costs and benefits of the
proposed Rule and requests comments
on the costs and benefits of the
proposed Rule. The Commission
encourages commenters to identify,
discuss, analyze, and supply relevant
data regarding any such costs or
benefits.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. Benefits
Proposed Rule 613 would require all
national securities exchanges and
national securities associations to
jointly submit to the Commission an
NMS plan to create, implement, and
maintain a consolidated audit trail. The
proposed consolidated audit trail would
capture, in real time, certain
information about each order (including
quotations) for an NMS security,
including the identity of the customer
placing the order, and the details of
routing, modification, cancellation, and
execution (in whole or in part). In effect,
an ‘‘electronic audit trail report’’ would
be created for every event in the life of
the order. The consolidated audit trail
would be maintained by a central
repository, and all exchanges, FINRA
and the Commission would have access
to the consolidated audit trail data for
regulatory purposes.
The Commission preliminarily
believes that proposed Rule 613 would
significantly aid each of the exchanges
and FINRA in carrying out its respective
statutory obligations to be organized and
have the capacity to comply, and
enforce compliance by its members,
with its rules, and with the federal
securities laws, rules, and regulations.
Likewise, the Commission believes that
proposed Rule 613 would significantly
aid the Commission in its ability to
oversee the exchanges and associations,
and to enforce compliance by the
members of exchanges and associations
with the respective exchange’s or
association’s rules, and the federal
securities laws and regulations. The
proposed consolidated audit trail also
would aid the Commission in its efforts
to limit the manipulation of security
prices, and to limit the use of
manipulative or deceptive devices in
the purchase or sale of a security.
Further, the proposal would benefit
exchanges, FINRA, and Commission
staff by improving the ability of
exchanges, FINRA and Commission staff
to conduct more timely and accurate
trading analysis for market
reconstructions, complex enforcement
inquiries or investigations, as well as
inspections and examinations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Specifically, the Commission
preliminarily believes that, as proposed,
Rule 613 would enable exchanges and
FINRA to more effectively and
efficiently detect, investigate, and deter
illegal trading activity, particularly
cross-market illegal activity, in
furtherance of their statutory
obligations. In addition, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
proposed Rule 613 would enhance the
ability of the Commission staff in its
regulatory and market analysis efforts.
The proposed rule would achieve these
objectives in several ways. First,
proposed Rule 613 would require the
central repository to collect the same
data on customer and order event
information from each exchange,
FINRA, and all members of the
exchanges and FINRA, in a uniform
format. Currently, the scope and format
of audit trail information relating to
orders and executions differs,
sometimes significantly, among
exchanges and FINRA. Thus, by
requiring that all exchanges, FINRA and
their members submit uniform customer
and order event data to the central
repository in a uniform format that
would more readily allow for
consolidation, the proposed Rule would
allow regulators to more easily, and in
a more timely manner, surveil potential
manipulative activity across markets
and market participants. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
this increased efficiency would enhance
the ability of SRO and Commission staff
to detect and investigate manipulative
activity in a more timely manner,
whether the activity is occurring on one
market or across markets (or across
different product classes). Timely
pursuit of potential violations can be
important in, among other things,
seeking to freeze and recover any profits
received from illegal activity.
The Commission also preliminarily
believes that the proposed consolidated
audit trail would enhance the ability of
SRO and Commission staff to regulate
the trading of NMS securities by
requiring that key pieces of information
currently not captured in existing audit
trails be reported to the proposed
consolidated audit trail. For example,
proposed Rule 613 would require that
the customer that submits or originates
an order be identified in the
consolidated audit trail. In addition, the
proposed Rule would require the
assignment of unique identifiers for
each order, each customer, and each
broker-dealer and SRO that handles an
order. Further, the proposed Rule would
greatly enhance the ability to track an
order from the time of order inception
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
through routing, modification,
cancellation, and execution. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
this information would allow regulators
to more easily track potential
manipulative activity across markets
and market participants, and would
place SRO and Commission staff in a
better position to surveil whether
exchange rules, as well as federal
securities laws, rules and regulations,
are complied with.
The proposal also would require that
most of the required audit trail
information be submitted on a real time
basis. Most existing audit trails
currently collect information on orders
at the end of the day, or upon request,
rather than in real time.336 Other order
and execution information, such as EBS
data and Rule 17a–25 data, is provided
to the Commission only upon request.
The proposed consolidated audit trail
would require that certain information
about orders and executions be
provided on a real time basis. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
this requirement could significantly
increase the ability of SRO and
Commission staff to identify and
investigate manipulative activity in a
more timely manner.337
The Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposal also would
benefit exchanges, FINRA, and
Commission staff by improving the
ability of exchanges, FINRA and
Commission staff to conduct timely and
accurate trading analysis for market
reconstructions, complex enforcement
inquiries or investigations, as well as
inspections and examinations. Today,
trading activity is widely dispersed
among various market centers, and one
or more related orders for one or more
securities or other related products may
be routed to multiple broker-dealers and
more than one exchange, or be executed
in the OTC market. Thus, SRO and
Commission regulatory staff
investigating potentially illegal behavior
may have to collect information from
multiple broker-dealers and then
examine, analyze and reconcile the
disparate information provided in
widely divergent formats to accurately
reconstruct all trading activity during a
particular time frame in the course of
investigating potentially manipulative
activity. Obtaining the necessary order
and execution information and
undergoing the necessary analysis to
determine whether any wrongdoing
exists based on the information
available today requires substantial
investment of time and effort on behalf
336 See
337 See
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
supra Sections I.C., I.D., II.A., and V.A.5.
supra Section III.D.1.
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
of regulatory authorities. Under
proposed Rule 613, regulatory
authorities would be able to access all
information about events in the life of
an order or related orders, and obtain
critical information identifying the
customer (or beneficial owner) behind
the order(s) directly from the central
repository in a uniform format. Thus,
the Commission preliminarily believes
that ability of SRO and Commission
staff to conduct timely and accurate
trading analysis for market
reconstructions, complex enforcement
inquiries and investigation, as well as
inspections and examinations, would be
significantly improved.
The Commission also preliminarily
believes that the proposal would benefit
SROs, as well as the NMS for NMS
securities, by ultimately reducing some
regulatory costs, which may result in a
more effective re-allocation of overall
costs. For example, by providing a more
comprehensive and searchable database,
the Commission preliminarily believes
that the consolidated audit trail would
significantly decrease the amount of
time invested by SRO staff to determine
whether any illegal activity is occurring
either on one market or across markets.
Currently, SRO regulatory staff may
need to submit multiple requests to its
members during the course of an
investigation into possible illegal
activity, or submit multiple requests to
ISG to obtain audit trail information
from other SROs about trading in a
particular security, and then commit
significant staff time to collating and
analyzing the data produced. The
proposal would benefit the Commission
in similar respects. For example,
Commission staff often must submit
numerous requests to members after the
Commission receives information from
equity cleared reports in an attempt to
identify the ultimate customer (or
beneficial account holder) that entered
the order or orders in question.
Substantial Commission staff resources
currently are invested in analyzing the
data that is received in response to these
requests.
Under proposed Rule 613, SRO
regulatory staff would have immediate,
easily searchable access to the
consolidated audit trail data through the
central repository for purposes of
conducting surveillance, investigations,
and enforcement activities. Commission
staff likewise would have more efficient
and timely access for purposes of
conducting risk assessments of referrals
received, investigations, and
enforcement activities, and for purposes
of conducting market reconstructions or
other analysis. Thus, the Commission
preliminarily believes that the proposal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
would benefit SRO and Commission
staff, as well as the market for NMS
securities as whole, by providing
immediately accessible audit trail
information to regulatory staff, which
would in turn reduce staff time and
effort that would otherwise be needed to
collect and analyze audit trail
information and allow such staff time
and effort to be redirected to more
effective uses, possibly even allowing
the staff to engage in more
investigations. In other words, if the
costs per investigation decreased
because of efficiencies in the proposed
consolidated audit trail information,
SRO or Commission staff may be able to
review and investigate a greater amount
of suspicious activity.
Likewise, the Commission
preliminarily believes that proposed
Rule 613 would benefit the exchanges,
FINRA, the Commission, and the
members of SROs, as well as investors
and the public interest, by reallocating
the overall cost of regulating the markets
for NMS securities on an ongoing basis
toward more efficient regulation. For
instance, the Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposed consolidated
audit trail would eliminate the need for
certain SRO and Commission rules that
currently mandate the collection and
provision of information, at least with
respect to NMS securities. As noted
above, many exchanges and FINRA each
have their own disparate audit trail
rules. Thus, a member of the various
exchanges and FINRA could be subject
to the audit trail rules of, and be
required to submit different information
to, more than one exchange and FINRA.
The Commission intends that the
proposed consolidated audit trail
replace the need to have disparate SRO
audit trail rules. If proposed Rule 613
were adopted, and the consolidated
audit trail was implemented, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
the exchanges and FINRA would not
need to have separate and disparate
audit trail rules that apply to NMS
securities applicable to their members.
Thus, the Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposed consolidated
audit trail would ultimately result in the
ability of SROs to repeal their existing
audit trail rules because SRO audit trail
requirements would be encompassed
within proposed Rule 613. Similarly,
the proposed consolidated audit trail
also may render duplicative and thus
unnecessary certain data obtained from
the EBS system pursuant to Rule 17a–
25 (and the SRO rules implementing the
EBS system), and from the equity
cleared data, at least as it relates to NMS
securities. SRO and Commission staff
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32595
instead would be able to access the
audit trail information for every order
directly from the central repository.338
The Commission requests comment
on any ongoing cost savings to SROs or
their members that could be achieved by
the proposal. Are there any other
systems or technologies that could be
replaced by the proposed audit trail?
Would additional Commission action be
required to achieve cost savings due to
redundant rules or systems? Are there
any new systems or technology
requirements that could offset these
potential cost savings? To what extent
would any cost savings amount to a
reallocation of resources towards more
effective or efficient uses? Please
provide specific examples. The
Commission also requests comment as
to whether the proposed Rule should
require the NMS plan to include
provisions relating to transition from the
existing audit trails to the proposed
consolidated audit trail.
As discussed above, the Commission
preliminarily believes that the proposal
would significantly enhance the ability
of SRO staff to efficiently and effectively
regulate their market and their
members, including detecting and
investigating potential manipulative
activity. The Commission also
preliminarily believes that the proposed
consolidated audit trail would benefit
the Commission in its regulatory and
market analysis efforts. More timely
detection and investigation of potential
manipulative activity may lead to
greater deterrence of future illegal
activity if potential wrongdoers perceive
a greater chance of regulators
identifying their activity in a more
timely fashion. To the extent investors
consider the improvement in regulators’
ability to detect and investigate
wrongdoing as significant to their
investment decisions, investor trust,
which is a component of investor
confidence, is improved and investors
may be more willing to invest in the
securities markets.339 An increase in
investor participation in the securities
markets, at least to the extent that the
increase is allocated efficiently, can
potentially benefit the securities
markets as a whole, through better
capital formation. Thus, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
the proposed consolidated audit trail
338 The Commission notes that, if the proposed
Rule were adopted, the SROs would need to
consider the continued need for their existing audit
trail rules until such time that their members begin
complying with the requirements of the proposed
Rule.
339 See Guiso, Sapienza, and Zingales, ‘‘Trusting
the Stock Market,’’ available at https://ssrn.acom/
abstract=811545.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
32596
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
would benefit the NMS for NMS
securities by encouraging more efficient
and potentially a higher level of capital
investment.
The Commission requests comment
on how the proposal would impact
investor protections and investor
confidence. In particular, would the
consolidated audit trail better align
investor protections to the expectations
that investors have about their
protections? What would be the
economic effect of the potential changes
to investor protections or to better
alignment of those protections with
investor expectations? Would any of the
anticipated benefits of the proposed
Rule be mitigated if market participants
alter their trading behavior, such as by
shifting their trading activity to
products or markets that do not require
the capture of customer information to
avoid compliance with the requirements
of the proposed Rule? If so, please
explain how so, and what, if any, steps
the Commission should take in
response.
The Commission also preliminarily
believes that proposed Rule 613 would
enhance the overall reliability of audit
trail data that is available to the
Commission and SRO regulatory staff.
Because the proposed Rule would
require that the NMS plan include
policies and procedures, including
standards, to be used by the plan
processor to ensure the timeliness,
accuracy, and completeness of the audit
data submitted to the central repository,
there would be an automatic check on
the incoming audit trail data submitted
by exchanges and FINRA, and their
members, for reliability and accuracy.
The Commission expects that these
policies and procedures would include
validation parameters that would need
to be met before audit trail data would
be accepted into the central repository,
and that the central repository would
reject data that did not meet certain
validation parameters, and require
resubmission of corrected data. Thus,
the Commission preliminarily believes
that the integrity of audit trail
information available to the
Commission and to the regulatory staff
of the exchanges and FINRA would be
enhanced and safeguarded by the
provisions applicable to the central
repository pursuant to proposed Rule
613.
B. Costs
As discussed below, the Commission
acknowledges that there likely would be
significant up-front costs to implement
the proposal. However, the Commission
preliminarily believes that SRO and
Commission staff, as well as SRO
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
members, would realize other cost
savings and benefits.
1. Creation and Filing of NMS Plan
The proposed Rule would require the
exchanges and FINRA to jointly develop
and file an NMS plan to create,
implement and maintain a consolidated
audit trail that would capture customer
and order event information in real time
for all orders in NMS securities, across
all markets, from the time of order
inception through execution,
cancellation or modification.340
Exchanges and FINRA would be
expected to undertake any joint action
necessary to develop and file the NMS
plan, and there would be attendant costs
in doing so. For example, the
Commission anticipates that exchange
and FINRA staff would need to meet
and draft the required terms and
provisions of the NMS plan.341 The
Commission preliminarily believes that
the existing exchanges and FINRA
would incur an aggregate one-time cost
of approximately $3,503,100 to prepare
and file the NMS plan.342 Once
340 See proposed Rule 613(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(7); see
also supra Sections III.A., III.B., III.D., and V.A.5.
341 As discussed above in Section III, these
required provisions include provisions relating to:
A governance structure to ensure the fair
representation of the plan sponsors; administration
of the plan, including the selection of the plan
processor; the admission of new sponsors of the
NMS plan and the withdrawal of existing sponsors
from the plan; the percentage of votes required by
the plan sponsors to effectuate amendments to the
plan; the manner in which costs of operating the
central repository would be allocated among the
exchanges and FINRA, including a provision
addressing the manner in which costs would be
allocated to new sponsors of the plan; the
appointment of a Chief Compliance Officer; the
provision stating that by subscribing to and
submitting the plan to the Commission each plan
sponsor agrees to enforce compliance by its
members with the provisions of the plan; and the
provision requiring the creation and maintenance
by the central repository of a method of access to
the consolidated data that includes search and
reporting functions. See proposed Rules 613(b),
613(e)(3), and 613(g)(3). The NMS plan also would
be required to include policies and procedures,
including standards, to be used by the plan
processor to ensure the security and confidentiality
of all information submitted to the central
repository; to ensure the timeliness, accuracy, and
completeness of the data provided to the central
repository; to require the rejection of data provided
to the central repository that does not meet the
validation parameters set out in the plan and the
re-transmission of corrected data; and to ensure the
accuracy of the processing of the data provided to
the central repository. See proposed Rule 613(e)(4).
342 This figure includes internal personnel time
and external legal costs. Commission staff estimates
that each exchange and association would expend
(400 Attorney hours × $305 per hour) + (100
Compliance Manager hours × $258 per hour) + (220
Programmer Analyst hours × $193 per hour) + (120
Business Analyst hours × $194 per hour) =
$213,540. The $305 per-hour figure for an Attorney;
the $258 per hour figure for a Compliance Manager;
the $193 per hour figure for a Programmer Analyst;
and the $194 per hour figure for a Business
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
exchanges and FINRA have established
the NMS plan, the Commission
estimates that, on average, each
exchange and FINRA would incur a cost
of $48,384 per year to ensure that the
plan is up to date and remains in
compliance with the proposed Rule,343
for an estimated aggregate annual cost of
$725,760.
In estimating the costs for creation of
the NMS plan, the Commission
considered exchange and FINRA staff
time necessary for preparing and filing
the plan with the Commission. The
Commission also considered the cost of
outsourced legal services. The
Commission requests comment on
whether there are additional costs that
would contribute to the expense of
creating and filing the NMS plan. Please
describe any such cost in detail and
provide an estimate of the costs. In
estimating the ongoing costs of the NMS
plan, the Commission considered
exchange and FINRA staff time
necessary for periodically reviewing the
plan in light of current market trends
and technology. The Commission
requests comment on these estimates
and what types of costs would be
incurred to keep the plan up to date.
2. Synchronizing Clocks
The proposed Rule would require
each exchange and FINRA, and the
members of each exchange and FINRA,
to synchronize its business clocks that
are used for the purpose of recording the
date and time of any reportable event
that must be reported pursuant to the
proposed Rule to the time maintained
by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, consistent with
industry standards.344 As part of the
initial implementation of the
consolidated audit trail, the exchanges,
FINRA and their members therefore
would have to ensure that their business
clocks are synchronized with the time
maintained by the National Institute of
Analysis (Intermediate) are from SIFMA’s
Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2008, modified by Commission
staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size,
employee benefits, and overhead. Commission staff
also estimates that each exchange and association
would outsource, on average, 50 hours of legal time,
at an average hourly rate of $400. Thus, the
Commission preliminarily estimates, on average, a
total cost of $233,540 per SRO. See supra Section
V.D.1.a. (discussing PRA costs for developing and
filing the NMS plan).
343 Commission staff estimates that annually each
exchange and association would expend (64
Attorney hours × $305 per hour) + (64 Compliance
Manager hours × $258 per hour) + (64 Programmer
Analyst hours × $193 per hour) = $48,384, to ensure
that the NMS plan is up to date and remains in
compliance with the proposed Rule. See supra note
301.
344 See proposed Rule 613(d)(1).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Standards and Technology. The
proposed Rule also would require that
the NMS plan provide for the annual
evaluation of the synchronization time
standard to determine whether it should
be shortened, consistent with industry
standards.345
The Commission recognizes that the
cost to each SRO and member to
synchronize their clocks consistent with
the proposed requirements would vary
depending upon the SRO or member’s
existing systems. The Commission
preliminarily believes, however, that
most SROs and their members currently
synchronize their clocks, and that
therefore the SROs and their members
would not incur significant costs to
comply with this requirement.346 The
Commission recognizes that each
individual member or SRO’s costs may
vary depending upon their current
synchronization practices, their
business structure, their order
management and trading systems, and
their geographic diversity. The
Commission preliminarily estimates
that an SRO or member that would need
to make system changes to comply with
the requirement would incur an average
one-time initial cost of approximately
$9,650.347
The Commission also preliminarily
estimates that there would be an average
ongoing annual cost of approximately
$11,580 to each exchange, FINRA, and
member to synchronize their business
clocks to the time maintained by the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology, consistent with industry
standards.348 Further, the Commission
preliminarily estimates that there would
be an average cost to exchanges, FINRA
and their members of approximately
$6,192 per SRO or member to annually
evaluate the synchronization time
standards to determine whether it
should be shortened, consistent with
industry standards.349
345 See
proposed Rule 613(d)(2).
CHX Rule 4, Interpretations and Policies
.02; FINRA Rule 7430; NYSE and NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 123, Supplementary Material .23;
NYSE and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 132A; and
NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.20.
347 Commission staff estimates that, on average,
each exchange, association, and member would
expend 50 hours of information technology time, at
a cost of $193 per hour to make systems changes
to comply with the requirement that clocks be
synchronized. This estimate is based on discussions
with market participants.
348 Commission staff estimates that each
exchange, association and member would expend
approximately five hours of information technology
time, per month, at $193 per hour. This estimate is
based on discussions with industry participants.
349 This estimate assumes that each SRO or
member would expend (16 Programmer Analyst
hours × $193 per hour) + (16 Business Analyst
hours × $194 per hour) = $6,192 to carry out this
annual evaluation.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
346 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
As stated above, the Commission
preliminarily believes that the costs to
the SROs and their members associated
with synchronizing their clocks would
not be significant because most SROs
and their members currently
synchronize their clocks. The
Commission requests comments on
whether commenters agree. If not, what
costs would be incurred? Please be
specific as to the type of changes
necessary and the costs of making them.
Further, the proposed Rule would
require that all SROs and their members
synchronize to same time standard and
to the same level of accuracy. The
Commission requests comment on its
estimate of the cost to SROs and their
members of initializing synchronizing
business clocks, the ongoing costs for
maintaining accurate synchronization,
and the costs associated with annual
evaluation of the synchronization time
standard. Would SROs or their members
incur costs, and if so, what types of
costs?
3. Costs To Provide Information
As discussed above in Section V.A.5,
the Commission preliminarily believes
that the proposed Rule would require
the collection and reporting on a real
time basis of some information that
national securities exchanges and
national securities associations already
record to operate their business, and are
required to maintain in compliance with
Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 17a–1 thereunder.350 However, the
proposed Rule would require each SRO
to collect and report additional and
more detailed information, and to report
the information to the central repository
in real time in a specified format. Based
on discussions with SROs, the
Commission anticipates that exchanges
would need to enhance or replace their
current systems to be able to comply
with the proposed information
collection and reporting requirements of
the proposed Rule.
Likewise, the Commission
preliminarily believes the proposed
Rule would require the collection of
much of the information that registered
broker-dealers already maintain in
350 15 U.S.C. 78q(a) et seq.; 17 CFR 240.17a–1.
Rule 17a–1 requires an exchange or association to
keep and preserve at least one record of all
documents or other records that shall be received
by it in the course of its business as such and in
the conduct of its self-regulatory activity. This
would include records of the receipt of all orders
entered into their systems, as well as records of the
routing, modification, cancellation, and execution
of those orders. The Commission understands that
SROs have automated this process and thus keep
these records in electronic format.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32597
compliance with existing regulations.351
The proposed Rule, however, would
require members to collect additional
information for each order and, in
addition to the new information, the
members also would be required to
report most of the information on a real
time basis to the central repository in a
specified uniform format. Based on
discussions with members, the
Commission anticipates that the SRO
members would need to enhance or
replace their current order handling,
trading and other systems to be able to
collect and report the required order
and reportable event information to the
central repository as required by the
proposed Rule.
The Commission recognizes that the
extent to which a particular SRO or
member would need to make systems
changes would differ depending upon
the SRO’s market structure (e.g., floor
vs. electronic) and systems, or the
member’s current business operations
and systems. The Commission
preliminarily estimates that the average
one-time, initial cost to exchanges and
FINRA to put in place the systems
necessary to identify, collect and
transmit the consolidated audit trail
information to the central repository
would total approximately $5 million
per SRO,352 for an aggregate estimated
cost of $75 million for all SROs. In
estimating this cost, the Commission
has considered SRO staff time necessary
to build new systems or enhance
existing systems to comply with the
proposed Rule.353 In addition, the
Commission estimated costs for system
hardware, software, and other
materials.354 What other types of costs
351 See
supra notes 317 to 319 and accompanying
text.
352 The Commission based this estimated cost on
the Commission’s previous experience with, and
burden estimates for, SRO systems changes and
discussions with market participants. See
Regulation NMS Reproposing Release, supra note
306, at 77480 (discussing costs of implementing
Rule 611 of Regulation NMS). Although the
Commission recognizes that the substance of Rule
611 is not the same as the proposed Rule, the
Commission preliminarily believes that the scope of
systems changes would be comparable.
353 Commission staff estimates that each exchange
and association would expend (100 Attorney hours
× $305 per hour) + (80 Compliance Manager hours
× $258 per hour) + 1,960 Programmer Analyst hours
× $193 per hour) + 60 Business Analyst hours ×
$194) = $441,060 to develop and implement the
systems needed to capture the required information
and transmit it. In addition, the Commission
estimates that each exchange and association would
expend 40 hours of outsourced legal time at an
average rate of $400 per hour. See supra note 305.
354 Commission staff estimates that the cost for
system hardware, software, and other materials
would be $4,542,940. See supra note 306 and
accompanying text.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32598
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
might SROs incur? Please be specific in
your response.
Once an SRO has implemented the
changes necessary to collect and
transmit the required information to the
central repository as required by the
proposed Rule, the Commission
estimates that each SRO would incur,
on average, an annual ongoing cost of
$2.5 million to ensure compliance with
the proposed Rule,355 for an estimated
ongoing annual aggregate cost of $37.5
million for all SROs.
The Commission understands that
many members, particularly smaller
members, currently rely on third parties
to report information required to be
reported pursuant to SRO audit trail or
other rules. For example, a member that
is an introducing broker who sends all
of its customer order flow to a clearing
broker currently may rely on that
clearing broker for reporting purposes.
The Commission preliminarily believes
that these members would not
undertake a fundamental restructuring
of their business to comply with the
proposed Rule. Instead, they might
continue to rely on their clearing brokerdealer, or they might look for the ability
to purchase a standardized software
product provided by a third party that
would provide the functionality to
electronically capture the required
information and transmit it to the
central repository in real time. The costs
of this approach are likely to be
significantly lower than the costs to a
member that enhances its own systems,
or creates new systems, to comply with
the proposed requirements to report
information to the central repository.
The Commission estimates that there are
approximately 3,006 of these types of
members, and that the average cost to
such members to compensate a third
party, whether a clearing broker-dealer
or other third party, for software that
would provide the necessary
functionality to electronically capture
the required information and transmit it
to the central repository would be
approximately $50,000 per member.356
355 Commission staff estimates that each exchange
and association would expend (1,500 Attorney
hours × $305 per hour) + (1,600 Compliance
Manager hours × $258 per hour) + (1,375
Programmer Analyst hours × $193 per hour) + (500
Business Analyst hours × $194 per hour) to ensure
that the systems technology is up to date and
remains in compliance with the proposed Rule, for
a total of $1,250,675. In addition, Commission staff
estimates that each exchange and association would
expend approximately $1.25 million on system
hardware, software, connectivity and other
materials. These estimates reflect the preliminary
view that ongoing costs to maintain compliance
with the proposed Rule would be half of the initial
costs. See supra notes 307 and 308.
356 See supra note 328. The Commission based
this estimated cost on the Commission’s previous
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
In addition, the Commission estimates
that, on average, each member would
incur a one-time cost of $35,870 to
incorporate the new functionality into
its existing systems to ensure
compliance with the proposed Rule.357
Thus, the Commission preliminarily
estimates that each of these members
would incur, on average, a one-time cost
of $85,870, for an estimated aggregate
cost of $258,125,220.
The Commission also preliminarily
estimates that each of these members
would continue to incur, on average,
annual costs of $66,512 to ensure
continued compliance with the
proposed Rule.358
Do commenters believe that smaller
members would likely rely on third
parties to provide a functionality that
would provide required data to the
central repository? Why or why not?
Would it be more cost effective for a
small member to enhance existing
systems or create new systems to
comply with the proposed Rule? Why or
why not? What would be the costs
associated with each approach? Should
members that currently rely on another
party to report, such as their clearing
broker, be able to have their clearing
firms report on their behalf? Why or
why not? How would allowing thirdparty reporting impact the ability to
report data in real time? Would the
manner in which these members
currently maintain customer
information create practical difficulties
for providing the beneficial ownership
information, or additional burdens that
have not been taken into account in
estimating costs? For example, is
customer information stored
electronically? What is the impact of the
manner in which this information is
experience with, and burden estimates for, brokerdealer systems changes. See Regulation NMS
Reproposing Release, supra note 306, at 77480
(discussing costs of implementing Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS). Although the Commission
recognizes that the substance of Rule 611 is not the
same as the proposed Rule, the Commission
preliminarily believes that the scope of systems
changes would be comparable.
357 Commission staff estimates that annually each
of these types of members would expend (50
Attorney hours × $305 per hour) + (50 Compliance
Manager hours × $258 per hour) + (40 Information
Analyst hours × $193 per hour) = $35,870 to
incorporate the new functionality into its existing
systems.
These costs would include any systems or other
changes necessary to obtain the required customer
information, including the identity of the beneficial
owner, and electronically storing it for transmittal
to the central repository with the order information.
358 This estimate is based on a cost of $50,000 per
year to compensate a third party for the
functionality to capture the required information
and transmit it to the central repository, and a cost
of $16,512 for personnel time to oversee compliance
with the proposed Rule (64 hours Compliance
Manager × $258 per hour). See supra note 330.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
currently stored on the Commission’s
cost estimates?
The Commission preliminarily
estimates that there are 1,114 members
that would undertake their own
development changes to implement the
proposed Rule.359 The Commission
preliminarily estimates that the average
one-time, initial cost to these members
for development, including
programming and testing of the systems
necessary to identify, collect and
transmit the consolidated audit trail
information to the central repository,
would be approximately $3 million per
member,360 for an estimated aggregate
cost of $3,342,000,000. This number
would likely overestimate the costs for
some of these members and
underestimate it for others. For
example, it likely overestimates the cost
for ATSs as opposed to broker-dealers
that have a customer and proprietary, or
market-making, business, in part
because of the narrower business focus
of some ATSs. The Commission
recognizes that some of these members
may contract with one or more outside
vendors to provide certain front-end
order management systems. The thirdparty vendor may make changes to its
systems to permit the members that use
the system to capture and provide the
required information to the central
repository. Likewise, some of these
members may contract with outside
vendors to provide back-office
functionality. These third-party vendors
may make changes to their systems to
permit the members that use the
systems to capture and provide the
required information to the central
repository. The cost of these changes
may be shared by the various members
that use the systems, and thus may
result in a reduced cost to an individual
359 See
supra Section V.D.2 and note 320.
staff estimates that each member
would expend (1,240 Attorney hours × $305 per
hour) + (1,540 Compliance Manager hours × $258
per hour) + (2,750 Programmer Analyst hours ×
$193 per hour) + (1,000 Business Analyst hours ×
$194 per hour) = $1,500,270 to develop and
implement the systems needed to capture the
required information and transmit it. In addition,
the Commission estimates that the cost for system
hardware, software, and other materials would be
approximately $1.5 million. This estimate is based
on the Commission’s previous experience with, and
burden estimates for, broker-dealer systems
changes. See Regulation NMS Reproposing Release,
supra note 306, at 77480 (discussing cost estimates
for implementing Rule 611 of Regulation NMS).
Although the Commission recognizes that the
substance of Rule 611 is not the same as the
proposed Rule, the Commission preliminarily
believes that the scope of systems changes would
be comparable. These costs would include any
systems or other changes necessary to obtain the
required customer information, including the
identity of the beneficial owner, and electronically
storing it for transmittal to the central repository
with the order information.
360 Commission
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
member to implement changes to its
own systems to comply with the
requirements of the proposed
consolidated audit trail.
The Commission requests comment
on this estimate. Specifically, what
types of costs would members incur
building new systems, or enhancing
existing systems, to comply with the
proposed Rule? Would members need to
expand their capacity as part of any
systems upgrades? What would be the
costs associated with this? Would the
manner in which these members
currently maintain customer
information create practical difficulties
for providing the beneficial ownership
information, or additional burdens that
have not been taken into account in
estimating costs? For example, is
customer information stored
electronically? What is the impact of the
manner in which this information is
currently stored on the Commission’s
cost estimates?
Once these members have largely
implemented the changes necessary to
collect and report the required order
and reportable event information to the
central repository as required by the
proposed Rule, the Commission
estimates that each such member would
incur, on average, an annual ongoing
cost of approximately $1.5 million,361
for an estimated aggregate ongoing cost
of $1,671,000,000. These estimates
would cover the costs associated with
continued compliance with the
proposed Rule.362
The Commission requests comment
on what ongoing costs SROs and their
members would incur to continue to
collect and report the required
information in compliance with the
proposed Rule. What types of costs
would be included? Are there
differences in the costs that SROs and
their members would incur? Why or
why not?
The proposal would require the
transmission of information in real time
to the central repository. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
this approach would have greater
benefits and would be lower cost than
361 Commission staff estimates that each member
would expend (800 Attorney hours × $305 per hour)
+ (1,000 Compliance Manager hours × $258 per
hour) + (500 Programmer Analyst hours × $193 per
hour) + (750 Business Analyst hours × $194 per
hour) = $744,000 to ensure that the systems
technology is up to date and remains in compliance
with the proposed Rule. In addition, Commission
staff estimates that each member would expend
approximately $756,000 on system hardware,
software, connectivity and other materials. These
estimates reflect the preliminary view that ongoing
costs to maintain compliance with the proposed
Rule would be half of the initial estimated costs.
362 See supra Section V.D.2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
an alternative of transmitting all reports
in batch mode. Real time submission
could simply require a ‘‘drop copy’’ of a
reportable event be sent to the central
repository at the same time that the
reportable event is otherwise occurring.
Batching, however, would require the
build up of reports to be sent
periodically, and the amount of data
sent in a batch could be significantly
larger than the data sent in real time.
The Commission requests comment on
the technology requirements and other
costs of real time transmission of
information versus periodically
batching the reports. Would real time
reporting be more or less costly than
batch reporting? Please explain with
specificity why or why not and provide
cost estimates. If real time reporting
would be more expensive, are the
greater costs justified by the benefits of
real time reporting described above? If
batch reporting is the better alternative,
what should be the frequency of the
batch reporting and why? Does the
answer depend on the type of security?
The Commission also requests comment
on what types of systems changes SROs
and members would need to make to
implement the proposed Rule and NMS
plan requirements, and the attendant
costs. What specific types or items of
information, if any, would be required
to be reported to the central repository
by a member that would not already be
collected and maintained in an
automated format?
4. Cost of Enhanced Surveillance
Systems
Pursuant to the proposed Rule,
exchanges and FINRA also would be
required to develop and implement a
surveillance system, or enhance existing
surveillance systems, reasonably
designed to make use of the
consolidated information collected
through the proposed consolidated
audit trail.363 The Commission
preliminarily estimates that the average
one-time cost to implement this
requirement would be approximately
$10 million for each exchange and
FINRA, for an estimated aggregate cost
of $150 million.364 The Commission
also estimates, on average, ongoing
annual costs associated with the
enhanced surveillance would be
approximately $2,610,600,365 for an
proposed Rule 613(f).
estimate is based on discussions with
market participants. This estimate does not
separately break out personnel time versus system
costs.
365 Commission staff estimates that each member
would expend (3,600 Senior Compliance Examiner
hours × $212 per hour) and (1,800 Information
Analyst hours × $193 per hour) to operate and
32599
estimated aggregate, ongoing cost of
$39,159,000. Based on discussions with
market participants, the Commission
recognizes that these estimated costs
may vary, perhaps significantly, based
on the market model utilized by a
particular SRO. For certain SROs, these
figures may overestimate the costs
associated with developing or
enhancing surveillance systems, while
for others, it may underestimate the
costs. The Commission requests
comment on whether these figures
accurately estimate the costs for
developing or enhancing surveillance
systems to comply with the proposed
Rule for the SROs. Would these figures
be lower or higher for SROs whose
trading systems are fully electronic?
Would the cost estimates be higher or
lower for those SROs that have a trading
floor? What other considerations would
impact individual SRO costs? Please be
specific in your response.
The Commission also requests
comment on whether SROs would be
able to enhance their existing
surveillance and regulation to make use
of the proposed consolidated
information or would they need to
develop new surveillance systems to
comply with the proposed Rule? How
would SROs enhance their current
surveillance systems? What would be
the costs associated with updating
current systems as opposed to
developing new surveillance systems?
Would it be more cost efficient to
establish coordinated surveillance
across exchanges and FINRA, rather
than having each SRO be responsible for
surveillance on its own market using the
consolidated data? What would be the
costs associated with developing
consolidated cross-market surveillance?
5. Central Repository System
The central repository would be
responsible for the receipt,
consolidation, and retention of all the
data required to be submitted by the
exchanges and FINRA, and their
members. The proposed Rule also
would require that the central repository
collect and retain on a current and
continuous basis the NBBO for each
NMS security, transaction reports
reported pursuant to an effective
transaction reporting plan, and last sale
reports reported pursuant to the OPRA
Plan. The central repository would be
363 See
364 This
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
monitor the enhanced surveillance systems and
carry out surveillance functions. In addition,
Commission staff estimates that each member
would expend approximately $1.5 million on
system hardware, software, connectivity and other
technology per year on an on-going basis for this
purpose. These estimates are based on discussions
with a market participant.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32600
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
required to maintain the NBBO and
transaction data in a format compatible
with the order and event information
collected pursuant to the proposed Rule.
Further, the central repository would be
required to retain the information
collected pursuant to paragraphs (c)(7)
and (e)(5) of the proposed Rule in a
convenient and usable standard
electronic data format that is directly
available and searchable electronically
without any manual intervention for a
period of not less than five years. The
information shall be available
immediately, or if immediate
availability cannot reasonably and
practically be achieved, any search
query must begin operating on the data
not later than one hour after the search
query is made.366
The central repository thus would
need its own system(s) to receive,
consolidate, and retain the electronic
data received from the plan sponsors
and their members, as well as to collect
and retain the NBBO and last sale data.
The system would be required to be
accessible and searchable by the
sponsors and the Commission for
regulatory purposes,367 with validation
parameters allowing the central
repository to automatically check the
accuracy and the completeness of the
data submitted, and reject data not
conforming to these parameters. It is
anticipated that the costs of
development and operation of the
central repository would be shared
among the plan sponsors. The
Commission preliminarily estimates a
one-time initial cost to create the central
repository, its systems and structure, of
approximately $120 million for an
average cost of approximately $8
million per plan sponsor.368
366 See
proposed Rule 613(e)(6).
proposed Rule would require that the
central processor create and maintain a method of
access to the consolidated data. See proposed Rule
613(e)(3). The Rule requires that this method of
access would be designed to include search and
reporting functions to optimize the use of the
consolidated data. The cost of creating a method of
access to the consolidated audit trail data is
included within the overall systems cost estimate.
368 Commission staff estimates that each exchange
and association would expend (3,000 Attorney
hours × $305 per hour) + (4,000 Compliance
Manager hours × $258 per hour) + (7,500
Programmer Analyst hours × $193 per hour) +
(3,000 Business Analyst hours × $194 per hour) =
$3,976,500 to create the central repository. In
addition, the Commission estimates that the cost
per exchange or association for system hardware,
software, and other materials would be
approximately $4 million. See supra Section
V.D.1.d. and note 309.
This estimate includes the estimated costs that
each exchange and association would incur for
software and hardware costs related to systems
development. This cost estimate also would
encompass (1) costs related to engaging in an
analysis and formal bidding process to choose the
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
367 The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Does this estimate accurately reflect
SRO staff time needed to create the
central repository as well as the costs for
any hardware, software and other
materials required? Are there other cost
components to creating the central
repository the Commission should
consider? Is the creation of a central
repository as described in the proposed
Rule for collection and consolidation of
data the most cost effective way to
achieve the objective of creation of a
consolidated audit trail? Are there other
alternatives the Commission should
consider? Please describe the costs
associated with any alternatives
described.
Once the plan sponsors have
established the systems necessary for
the central repository to receive,
consolidate, and retain the required
information, the Commission estimates
that ongoing annual costs to operate the
central repository would be
approximately $100 million,369 which
would be approximately $6.6 million
per year per plan sponsor. The
Commission also estimates that each
plan sponsor would incur, on average,
ongoing costs of $48,384 per year for
actions taken to review the operation
and administration of the central
repository.370 In addition, the
Commission estimates that the central
repository would incur an ongoing cost
of $1,370 per year to purchase the
NBBO and last sale data feeds from the
SIPs.371
plan processor, and (2) any search undertaken to
hire a CCO. See proposed Rule 613(a)(3)(i) (the plan
sponsors would be required to select a person to act
as a plan processor for the central repository no
later than two months after the effectiveness of the
NMS plan) and 613(b)(5) (the plan sponsors would
be required to appoint a CCO to regularly review
the operation of the central repository to assure its
continued effectiveness in light of market and
technological developments, and make any
appropriate recommendations for enhancements to
the nature of the information collected and the
manner in which the information is processed).
369 See supra Section V.D.1.d. This cost estimate
includes ongoing costs for operating the central
repository, including the cost of systems and
connectivity upgrades or changes necessary to
receive, consolidate, and retain and store the
reported order information from SROs and their
members; the cost, including storage costs, of
collecting and maintaining the NBBO and
transaction data in a format compatible with the
order and event information collected pursuant to
the proposed Rule; the cost of monitoring the
required validation parameters; the cost of
compensating the plan processor; and an ongoing
annual cost of $703,800 to compensate the CCO.
See supra note 312.
370 Commission staff estimates that annually each
exchange and association would expend (64
Attorney hours × $305 per hour) + (64 Compliance
Manager hours × $258 per hour) + (64 Programmer
Analyst hours × $193 per hour) = $48,384 to ensure
and review the operation and administration of the
central repository. See supra note 343 and
accompanying text.
371 See supra Section V.D.1.e.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The Commission request comment on
these estimated costs. Does this estimate
accurately reflect the cost of storing data
in a convenient and usable standard
electronic data format that is directly
available and searchable, without any
manual intervention, for a period of not
less than 5 years? Would these costs
estimates change if the scope of the
consolidated audit trail were expanded
to include equity securities that are not
NMS securities; corporate bonds,
municipal bonds, and asset-backed
securities and other debt instruments;
credit default swaps, equity swaps, and
other security-based swaps? What
systems or other changes would be
necessary to accommodate these other
products? How would those changes
impact costs?
6. SRO Rule Filings
The exchanges and FINRA also would
be required to file proposed rule
changes to implement the provisions of
the NMS plan with respect to their
members.372 The Commission notes that
the exchanges and FINRA would be able
to use the NMS plan as a roadmap to
draft the content of their required
proposed rule changes. The Commission
also notes that the rule filing format and
process is not new to the exchanges or
to FINRA.373 The Commission estimates
that the aggregate cost of each SRO
filing a proposed rule change to
implement the NMS plan to be
approximately $590,175.374
7. Expansion of the Proposed
Consolidated Audit Trail
The proposed Rule would require the
plan sponsors to jointly provide to the
Commission a report outlining how the
sponsors would incorporate into the
consolidated audit trail information
with respect to: (1) Equity securities that
372 See
proposed Rule 613(g)(1).
Commission notes that, for its 2009 fiscal
year (October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009), the
then existing twelve exchanges and FINRA filed
approximately 1,308 proposed rule changes in the
aggregate pursuant to Section 19(b) and Rule 19b–
4 thereunder.
374 This figure was calculated as follows: (129
Attorney hours × $305) = $39,345 × 15 SROs =
$590,175. Commission staff estimates that each
exchange and association would expend
approximately 129 hours of legal time × $305 to
prepare and file a complex rule change. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50486 (October
4, 2004), 69 FR 60287 (October 8, 2004) (File No.
S7–18–04). The $305 per-hour figure for an attorney
is from SIFMA’s Management & Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry 2008, modified
by Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour
work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59748 (April 10, 2009), 74 FR 18042, 18093 (April
20, 2009) (S7–08–09) (noting the Commission’s
modification to the $305 per hour figure for an
attorney).
373 The
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
are not NMS securities; (2) debt
securities; and (3) primary market
transactions in equity securities that are
not NMS securities, in NMS stocks, and
in debt securities. The sponsors would
be required to address, among other
things, details for each order and
reportable events that they would
recommend requiring to be provided;
which market participants would be
required to provide the data; an
implementation schedule; and a cost
estimate. Thus, the exchanges and
FINRA would need to, among other
things, undertake an analysis of
technological and computer system
acquisitions and upgrades that would be
required to incorporate such an
expansion. The Commission
preliminarily estimates that the onetime cost to the exchanges and FINRA
to create and file with the Commission
a report for expanding the scope of the
consolidated audit trail would be
approximately $1,751,550 for a one-time
cost of $116,770 per SRO.375
Does this estimate accurately reflect
the expenses, including SRO staff time
and systems analyses, which SROs
would incur in preparing the required
report? Are there other costs
components that should be considered
in determining costs associated with
preparing the required report? Please
provide details on any additional costs
that should be considered.
8. Other Costs
Proposed Rule 613 would specifically
require, for the receipt or origination of
each order, information to be reported to
the central repository with respect to the
ultimate customer that generates the
order. Specifically, members would be
required to report to the central
repository information about the
beneficial owner of the account
originating the order and the person
exercising investment discretion for the
account originating the order, if
different from the beneficial owner, and
each customer would be identified by a
unique customer identifier. Thus,
information about ‘‘live’’ orders, as well
as overall order and execution
information for a particular customer,
would be available in the central
repository. In recognition of the
sensitivity of this data, the proposed
Rule requires the NMS Plan to include
375 Commission staff estimates that each member
would expend (200 Attorney hours × $305 per hour)
+ (50 Compliance Manager hours × $258 per hour)
+ (110 Programmer Analyst hours × $193 per hour)
+ (60 Business Analyst hours × $194 per hour) +
(25 Outsourced Legal Counsel hours × $400 per
hour) = $116,770 to create and file with the
Commission a report for expanding the scope of the
consolidated audit trail. See supra Section V.D.1.b
and note 302.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
policies and procedures, including
standards, to be used by the plan
processor to ensure the security and
confidentiality of all information
submitted to, and maintained by, the
central repository.
However, a potential cost could be
incurred if the security and
confidentiality of the information
submitted to the central repository is
breached, either by malfeasance or
accident. In either case, if identifying
information about customers and their
trading is made public—contrary to the
expectations and intentions of the
customers—the Commission
preliminarily believes that this may
have a negative effect on the securities
markets. Specifically, investors may be
less willing to allocate their capital to
the securities markets if their
expectation that their personal
identifying and trading information will
be adequately protected by the central
repository is not met. Under these
circumstances, there could be a
reduction in the capital invested in the
markets for NMS securities by investors,
to the detriment of the U.S. securities
markets overall.
Proposed Rule 613 also would require
that the NMS plan include policies and
procedures, including standards, for the
plan processor to use to ensure the
integrity of the information submitted to
the central repository. Specifically, the
proposed Rule requires that the policies
and procedures be designed to ensure
the timeliness, accuracy, and
completeness of the data provided to the
central repository by the exchanges,
FINRA and their members, and to
require the rejection of data provided if
the data does not meet validation
parameters, and the re-transmission of
such data. The Commission notes that,
despite such safeguards for ensuring the
integrity of the audit trail data, the
information submitted by the
exchanges, FINRA and their members
could be inaccurate, either due to
system or human error. If the reliability
of the data is compromised, this could
reduce the usefulness of the
consolidated audit trail data for
regulatory purposes.
Are there any other non-tangible costs
associated with potential breaches of the
integrity or confidentiality of the data
required to be submitted to the central
repository that the Commission should
consider?
9. Total Costs
Based on the assumptions and
resulting estimated costs discussed
above, the Commission preliminarily
estimates the initial aggregate cost the
exchanges and FINRA would incur to
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32601
comply with the proposed Rule, other
than costs related to creating and
operating the central repository, would
be approximately $231 million,376 and
ongoing aggregate annual costs would
be approximately $77.7 million.377 In
addition, the exchanges and FINRA
would incur an initial aggregate cost of
approximately $120 million to set up
the central repository,378 with ongoing
annual costs to operate the central
repository of approximately $101
million.379 For SRO members that
would make changes to their own order
management and trading systems to
comply with the proposed Rule,380 we
estimate the initial aggregate one-time
cost for implementation of the proposed
Rule would be approximately $3.4
billion 381 and aggregate ongoing annual
costs would be approximately $1.7
billion.382 For SRO members that are
376 This aggregate cost estimate includes the
aggregate one-time cost of preparing and filing the
NMS plan ($3,503,100); the aggregate average onetime cost for each exchange and FINRA to
synchronize clocks consistent with the proposed
requirements ($144,750); the aggregate average onetime cost for each exchange and FINRA to identify,
collect and transmit the consolidated audit trail
information to the central repository ($75 million);
the aggregate average one-time cost for each
exchange and FINRA to develop and implement
surveillance systems, or enhance existing
surveillance systems ($150 million); the aggregate
one-time cost for each exchange and FINRA to file
proposed rule changes to implement the provisions
of the NMS plan with respect to their members
($590,175); and the aggregate one-time cost to the
exchanges and FINRA of jointly providing to the
Commission a report outlining how the exchanges
and FINRA would expand the scope of the
consolidated audit trail ($1,751,550).
377 This aggregate cost estimate includes the
aggregate average ongoing annual cost to ensure that
the plan is up to date and remains in compliance
with the proposed Rule ($725,760); the aggregate
average ongoing annual cost to synchronize clocks
consistent with industry standards ($173,700); the
aggregate average ongoing annual cost to evaluate
the synchronization standards ($92,880); the
aggregate average ongoing annual cost to ensure that
each exchange and FINRA is providing information
in compliance with the proposed Rule ($37.5
million); and the aggregate average ongoing annual
cost associated with enhanced surveillance
($39,159,000).
378 See supra note 368.
379 See supra notes 369 to 371 and accompanying
text.
380 We preliminarily estimate there are 1,114 of
these broker-dealers, including all clearing firms
and alternative trading systems. See supra note 320.
381 This aggregate cost estimate includes the
aggregate average one-time cost for such members
to identify, collect and transmit the consolidated
audit trail information to the central repository
($3,342,000,000); and the aggregate average initial
cost for such members to synchronize clocks
consistent with the proposed requirements
($10,750,100).
382 This aggregate cost estimate includes the
aggregate average ongoing annual cost for such
members to identify, collect and transmit the
consolidated audit trail information to the central
repository ($1,671,000,000); and the aggregate
average ongoing annual cost for such members to
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
Continued
08JNP2
32602
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
likely to rely on a third party to comply
with the proposed Rule (such as their
clearing broker),383 we estimate the
initial aggregate one-time cost for
implementation of the proposed Rule
would be approximately $287
million 384 and ongoing annual costs
would be approximately $253
million.385 Therefore, for all SROs and
members, we estimate that the total onetime aggregate cost to implement the
proposed Rule would be approximately
$4 billion and the total ongoing
aggregate annual costs would be
approximately $2.1 billion.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. Request for Comment
The Commission requests general
comment on the costs and benefits of
proposed Rule 613 of Regulation NMS
discussed above, as well as any costs
and benefits not already described
which could result from the proposed
Rule. The Commission also requests
data to quantify any potential costs or
benefits.
The Commission requests comment
on what, if any, would be the impact of
the proposed Rule on competition
among the exchanges and other nonexchange market centers? If commenters
believe there would be an impact on
competition, please explain and
quantify the costs or benefits of such
impact. If commenters believe that there
would be a cost, what steps could the
Commission take to mitigate such costs?
The Commission also requests
comment on whether the requirements
of the proposed Rule, such as the
requirement to provide detailed
information to the central repository on
a real time basis, would have an impact
on any form of legal trading activity
engaged in by market participants, or
the speed with which trading occurs.
For example, would requiring
additional information to be attached to
an order when the order is routed from
annually evaluate the synchronization time
standards and perform any necessary
synchronization adjustments ($19,798,008).
383 We preliminarily estimate there are 3,006 of
these broker-dealers, mainly including non-clearing
broker-dealers. See supra note 327.
384 This aggregate cost estimate includes the
aggregate average initial cost for such members to
identify, collect and transmit the consolidated audit
trail information to the central repository
($258,125,220); and the aggregate average initial
cost for such members to synchronize clocks
consistent with the proposed requirements
($29,007,900).
385 This aggregate cost estimate includes the
aggregate average ongoing annual cost for such
members to identify, collect and transmit the
consolidated audit trail information to the central
repository ($199,935,072); and the aggregate average
ongoing annual cost for such members to annually
evaluate the synchronization time standards and
perform any necessary synchronization adjustments
($53,422,632).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
one member or exchange to another—
such as the unique order identifier—
impact the speed with which routing
and trading occurs? If not, why not? If
so, why? If there would be an impact,
do commenters believe that the impact
would be negative? Why or why not?
Also, would the requirement to provide
customer and order information to the
central repository in real time impact
market participant trading activity? If
so, how so? If commenters believe the
impact would provide a benefit, please
explain and quantify. If commenters
believe that the impact would impose a
cost, please explain and quantify. For
example, would market participants be
hesitant to engage in certain legal
trading activity because of a concern
about providing customer and order
information in real time? Would market
participants shift their trading activity
to products or markets that do not
require the capture of customer
information to avoid compliance with
this requirement of the proposed Rule?
If so, how should the Commission
address those concerns? Please be
specific in your responses. The
Commission requests comment on any
other changes to behavior that
commenters believe may result from
application of the proposed Rule. For
example, do commenters believe that
the proposal would cause illegal trading
activity to shift to products or markets
not covered by the proposed Rule? If so,
should that impact the scope of the
proposed Rule? If so, how so? If not,
why not?
VII. Consideration of Burden on
Competition and Promotion of
Efficiency, Competition, and Capital
Formation
Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act
requires the Commission, whenever it
engages in rulemaking and is required to
consider or determine whether an action
is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, to consider, in addition to the
protection of investors, whether the
action would promote efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.386
In addition, Section 23(a)(2) of the
Exchange Act requires the Commission,
when making rules under the Exchange
Act, to consider the impact such rules
would have on competition.387
Exchange Act Section 23(a)(2) prohibits
the Commission from adopting any rule
that would impose a burden on
competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Exchange Act. As
discussed below, the Commission’s
386 15
387 15
PO 00000
U.S.C. 78c(f).
U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
preliminary view is that the proposed
Rule should promote efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.
Section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange
Act provides in part that the
Commission may, by rule, require SROs
to act jointly with respect to matters as
to which they share authority under the
Exchange Act in regulating a national
market system for securities.388
Proposed Rule 613 would require all
national securities exchanges and
national securities associations to
jointly submit to the Commission an
NMS plan to create, implement, and
maintain a consolidated audit trail for
NMS securities. Under the proposal,
pursuant to the NMS plan, and SRO
rules adopted thereunder to implement
the plan, national securities exchanges
and national securities associations, as
well as their members, would be
required to provide detailed order and
execution data to a central repository to
populate a consolidated audit trail.389
A. Competition
The Commission considered the
impact of proposed Rule 613 on the
national securities exchanges, national
securities associations, and their
members that trade NMS securities. The
Commission begins its consideration of
potential competitive impacts with
observations of the current structure of
the markets for trading NMS securities.
The industry for the trading of NMS
securities is a competitive one, with
reasonably low barriers to entry and
significant competition for order flow.
The intensity of competition across
trading platforms that trade NMS
securities has increased dramatically in
the past decade as a result of
technological advances and regulatory
changes. This increase in competition
has resulted in decreases in market
concentration, more competition among
market centers, a proliferation of trading
platforms competing for order flow, and
decreases in trading fees.
In addition, the Commission, within
the past five years, has approved
applications by BATS,390 Direct
388 See Section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. 78k–1(a)(3)(B).
389 See supra Section III.D. for a detailed
description of the required data.
390 See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
58375 (August 18, 2008), 73 FR 49498 (August 21,
2008) (order approving BATS Exchange’s
application for registration as a national securities
exchange).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Edge,391 Nasdaq,392 and C2 393 to
become registered as national securities
exchanges for trading equities, approved
proposed rule changes by two existing
exchanges—the ISE 394 and CBOE 395—
to add cash equity trading facilities to
their existing options business; and
approved proposed rule changes by two
existing exchanges—Nasdaq and
BATS—to add options trading facilities
to their existing cash equities
business.396
The Commission believes that
competition among trading venues for
NMS stocks has been facilitated by
several Commission rules: Rule 611 (the
Order Protection Rule), which
encourages quote-based competition
between market centers; Rule 605,
which empowers investors and brokers
to compare execution quality statistics
across trading venues; and Rule 606,
which enables customers to monitor the
order routing practices. Similarly, there
is rigorous competition among the
options exchanges that has been
facilitated by regulatory efforts. These
include the move to multiple listing,397
the extension of the Commission’s
Quote Rule to options,398 the
prohibition against trading outside of
the national best bid and offer,399 the
adoption of market structures on the
floor-based exchanges that permit
individual market maker quotations to
391 See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61698 (March 12, 2010), 75 FR 13151 (March 18,
2010) (order approving EDGA Exchange and EDGX
Exchange’s applications for registration as national
securities exchanges).
392 See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23,
2006) (File No. 10–131) (order approving Nasdaq’s
application for registration as a national securities
exchange).
393 See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61152 (December 10, 2009), 74 FR 66699 (December
16, 2009) (order approving C2 Options Exchange’s
application for registration as a national securities
exchange).
394 See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54528 (September 28, 2006), 71 FR 58650 (October
4, 2006) (order approving rules to govern trading
equities).
395 See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
55389 (March 2, 2007), 72 FR 10575 (March 8, 2007
(order approving CBOE Stock Exchange LLC as a
facility of CBOE).
396 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
57478 (March 12, 2008), 73 FR 14321 (March 18,
2008) (order approving rules governing the trading
of options on the Nasdaq Options Market, LLC); and
61419 (January 26, 2010), 75 FR 5157 (February 1,
2010) (order approving rules governing the trading
of options on BATS Options Exchange, Inc.).
397 See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
26870 (May 26, 1989), 54 FR 23963 (June 5, 1989)
(S7–25–87).
398 See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
43591 (November 17, 2000), 65 FR 75439
(December 1, 2000).
399 See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
60405 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39362 (August 6, 2009)
(approved of Options Order Protection and Locked/
Crossed Market Plan).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
be reflected in the exchange’s
quotation,400 and the Minimum Quoting
Increment Pilot Program.401
The broker-dealer industry also is a
highly competitive industry with low
barriers to entry. Most trading activity is
concentrated among several dozen large
participants, with thousands of small
participants competing for niche or
regional segments of the market. The
reasonably low barriers to entry for
broker-dealers are evidenced, for
example, by the fact that the average
number of new broker-dealers entering
the market each year between 2001 and
2008 was 389.402
There are approximately 5,178
registered broker-dealers, of which
approximately 890 are small brokerdealers.403 To limit costs and make
business more viable, the small
participants often contract with bigger
participants to handle certain functions,
such as clearing and execution, or to
update their technology. Larger brokerdealers often enjoy economies of scale
over smaller broker-dealers and compete
with each other to service the smaller
broker-dealers, who are both their
competitors and customers.
In the Commission’s preliminary
judgment, the costs of proposed Rule
613 would not impose any burden on
400 See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
47959 (May 30, 2003), 68 FR 34441, 34442 (June 9,
2003) (SR–CBOE–2002–05) (adopting, among other
things, amendments to incorporate firm quote
requirements in CBOE’s rules).
401 On January 26, 2007, the then-existing six
options exchanges implemented a pilot program to
quote certain options series in thirteen classes in
one-cent increments (‘‘Minimum Quoting Increment
Pilot Program’’). Nasdaq became a participant in the
Minimum Quoting Increment Pilot Program on
March 31, 2008, when it commenced trading on its
options platform, and BATS become a participant
in the Pilot Program on February 26, 2010, when
it commenced trading on BATS Options. Since
2007, the Minimum Quoting Increment Pilot
Program has been extended and expanded several
times. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 56276 (August 17, 2007), 72 FR 47096 (August
22, 2007) (SR–CBOE–2007–98); 56567 (September
27, 2007), 72 FR 56396 (October 3, 2007) (SR–
Amex–2007–96); 57579 (March 28, 2008), 73 FR
18587 (April 4, 2008) (SR–Nasdaq–2008–026);
60711 (September 23, 2009), 74 FR 49419
(September 28, 2009) (SR–NYSEArca–2009–44);
and 61061 (November 24, 2009), 74 FR 62857
(December 1, 2009) (SR–NYSEArca–2004–44).
402 This number is based on a Commission staff
review of FOCUS Report filings reflecting registered
broker-dealers from 2001 through 2008. The
number does not include broker-dealers that are
delinquent on FOCUS Report filings. New
registered broker-dealers for each year during the
period from 2001 through 2008 were identified by
comparing the unique registration number of each
broker-dealer filed for the relevant year to the
registration numbers filed for each year between
1995 and the relevant year.
403 These numbers are based on a review of 2007
and 2008 FOCUS Report filings reflecting registered
broker-dealers, and discussions with SRO staff. The
number does not include broker-dealers that are
delinquent on FOCUS Report filings.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32603
competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Exchange Act. In
industries characterized by easy entry
and intense competition, the viability of
some of the competitors may be
sensitive to regulatory costs.
Nonetheless, the Commission
preliminarily believes that the overall
marketplace for NMS securities would
remain highly competitive, despite the
costs associated with implementing
proposed new Rule 613, even if those
costs influence the entry or exit
decisions of some individual brokerdealer firms.
As discussed above in Sections V and
VI, the Commission acknowledges that
the proposal would entail significant
costs of implementation. In particular,
requiring national securities exchanges,
national securities associations, and
their members to capture the required
information and provide it to the central
repository in a uniform format, in
particular information that is not
currently captured under the existing
audit trail or other regulatory
requirements, would likely require
significant one-time initial expenses to
enhance or modify existing order
handling, trading, and other systems. In
addition, national securities exchanges
and national securities associations
would need to enhance or create new
surveillance procedures to use the
consolidated audit trail information.
Preliminarily, the Commission does not
believe that these implementation
expenses would impose an undue
burden on competition among SROs or
among other market participants. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
the requirements associated with the
proposed Rule are necessary and
appropriate, and would apply uniformly
to all national securities exchanges,
national securities associations and
their members, and thus would not
result in an undue burden on
competition.
As discussed above in Section II, the
approach of proposed new Rule 613
would advance the purposes of the
Exchange Act in a number of significant
ways. The Commission preliminarily
believes that proposed Rule 613 should
aid each of the exchanges and FINRA in
carrying out its statutory obligation to be
organized and have the capacity to
comply, and enforce compliance by its
members, with its rules, and with the
federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations. Likewise, the Commission
believes that proposed Rule 613 should
aid the Commission in fulfilling its
statutory obligation to oversee the
exchanges and associations, and to
enforce compliance by the members of
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32604
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
exchanges and associations with the
respective exchange’s or association’s
rules, and the federal securities laws
and regulations. The proposed
consolidated audit trail also would aid
the Commission in its efforts to limit the
manipulation of security prices, and to
limit the use of manipulative or
deceptive devices in the purchase or
sale of a security. By potentially
decreasing the opportunities for illegal
activity and market manipulation, the
proposed Rule should promote fair
competition among market participants
on the basis of effective regulation.
Further, by imposing uniform audit trail
requirements on all SROs and their
members, and thus removing any
incentive to compete based on
regulation (or lack thereof), the
Commission preliminarily believes that
the proposed Rule would allow SROs
and their members to more effectively
compete on other terms such as the
services provided, price, and available
liquidity.
Based on the analysis above, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
the proposal would not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Exchange Act. However,
we seek comment on the impact of the
proposed Rule on competition. The
Commission requests comment on what,
if any, would be the impact of the
proposed Rule on competition among
the exchanges and other non-exchange
market centers. If commenters believe
there would be an impact on
competition, please explain and
quantify the costs or benefits of such
impact. For example, as noted above,
exchanges would have access through
the central repository to trading
information about their competitors’
customers. Do commenters believe that
access to this information would have
an impact on competition among
exchanges? If so, please explain what
the potential impact could be, and
whether you believe that such impact
would be an adverse. If so, please
further address what, if any, steps the
Commission should take in the
proposed Rule to address such
concerns.
B. Capital Formation
As discussed above in Section II,
proposed Rule 613 is intended to
enhance the ability of the SROs and the
Commission to more efficiently and in
a more timely manner monitor trading
in NMS securities across all markets and
market participants, which should
further the ability of the SROs and the
Commission staff to effectively enforce
SRO rules and federal securities laws,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
rules and regulations. For example, the
proposed consolidated audit trail would
ensure that all orders are tracked from
origination to execution or cancellation.
Further, the consolidated audit trail
would provide information on any
modifications or routing decisions made
with regard to an order. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
the proposed audit trail information
would greatly enhance the ability of its
staff to effectively monitor and surveil
the securities markets. This enhanced
ability of the SROs and Commission
staff to enforce the federal securities
laws, rules, and regulations should help
ensure that market participants that
engage in fraudulent or manipulative
activities are identified more swiftly,
which should deter future attempts to
do the same. In general, the faster
fraudulent or manipulative activity is
identified and action is taken, the more
likely ill-gotten gains will remain
available to pay penalties or compensate
victims.
The Commission preliminarily
believes that by enhancing the SROs’
and the Commission’s ability to enforce
the federal securities laws, rules and
regulations, proposed Rule 613 could
help maintain or increase investor
confidence in the fairness of the
securities markets. Investor confidence
may increase as the potential for the
detection of illegal activity is increased
and the risk of investment loss due to
undetected illegal activity decreases.
Bolstering investor confidence in the
fairness of the securities markets may
increase the level of investment, which
could promote capital formation to the
extent that the increase is allocated
efficiently. This would promote capital
formation because as capital is better
allocated, issuers with the most
productive capital needs may be better
able to raise capital.
C. Efficiency
Proposed Rule 613 would require the
creation and maintenance of a
consolidated audit trail, which the
Commission preliminarily believes
would greatly enhance the ability of
SRO staff to effectively monitor and
surveil the securities markets, and thus
detect illegal activity in a more timely
manner, whether on one market or
across markets. With an audit trail
designed to help the SROs reconstruct
and analyze time-sequenced order and
trading data, the SROs could more
quickly investigate the nature and
causes of unusual market movements or
trading activity and initiate
investigations and take regulatory
actions where warranted. An increase in
detected and prosecuted violations of
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the securities laws, rules, and
regulations would likely act as deterrent
to future violations. Likewise, the ability
of the Commission to better understand
unusual market activity, such as during
a period of intense volatility, could lead
to better oversight, or more focused
regulation where warranted, of the
causes of such activity. For example, the
possibility of more prompt detection of
illegal activity would likely deter future
abusive or manipulative trading activity
from being used to manipulate market
prices to artificial levels or by
accelerating a declining market in one
or several securities. Thus, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
proposed Rule 613 would help to ensure
that markets function efficiently. As a
result, the Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposed consolidated
audit trail would help promote the
efficient functioning of markets, which
should help enhance the protection of
investors and further the public interest.
Further, the Commission
preliminarily believes that the proposed
Rule, by creating one central repository
to which each national securities
exchange, national securities
association, and their members would
be required to provide the same data in
the same format, could reduce or
eliminate the need for each individual
SRO to have it own disparate
requirements. Elimination of often
inconsistent regulation on members
would promote efficiency because
members would no longer be required to
submit disparate data to multiple
regulators pursuant to multiple, and
sometimes inconsistent, SRO and
Commission rules.
The Commission requests comment
on all aspects of this analysis and, in
particular, on whether the proposed
consolidated audit trail would place a
burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Exchange Act, as well
as the effect of the proposal on
efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. The Commission also
requests comment on the impact, if any,
of the proposed Rule on investors’
trading activities. Would the proposed
Rule impact investors’ incentives to
engage in certain types of legal trading
in NMS securities, or other products, on
the exchanges or OTC markets that
would be subject to the proposed Rule?
If so, why, and what impact would that
have on the competitiveness of the U.S.
markets? Would the proposed Rule
impact market participants’ incentives
to engage in certain types of illegal
trading activity in products other than
NMS securities or in other markets? If
so, how so, and what if any steps should
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the Commission take to address the
expected changes in behavior?
Commenters are requested to provide
empirical data and other factual support
for their views.
VIII. Consideration of Impact on the
Economy
For purposes of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, or ‘‘SBREFA,’’ 404 the Commission
must advise the Office of Management
and Budget as to whether the proposed
regulation constitutes a ‘‘major’’ rule.
Under SBREFA, a rule is considered
‘‘major’’ where, if adopted, it results or
is likely to result in: (1) An annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more
(either in the form of an increase or a
decrease); (2) a major increase in costs
or prices for consumers or individual
industries; or (3) significant adverse
effect on competition, investment or
innovation.
The Commission requests comment
on the potential impact of proposed
Rule 613 on the economy on an annual
basis, on the costs or prices for
consumers or individual industries, and
on competition, investment or
innovation. Commenters are requested
to provide empirical data and other
factual support for their view to the
extent possible.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
IX. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(‘‘RFA’’) 405 requires Federal agencies, in
promulgating rules, to consider the
impact of those rules on small entities.
Section 603(a) 406 of the Administrative
Procedure Act,407 as amended by the
RFA, generally requires the Commission
to undertake a regulatory flexibility
analysis of all proposed rules, or
proposed rule amendments, to
determine the impact of such
rulemaking on ‘‘small entities.’’ 408
Proposed Rule 613 of Regulation NMS
would require the national securities
exchanges and national securities
associations to jointly develop and file
with the Commission a NMS plan to
implement and maintain a consolidated
audit trail. Pursuant to such NMS plan,
404 Pub. L. 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996)
(codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C.
and as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601).
405 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
406 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
407 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
408 The Commission has adopted definitions for
the term small entity for the purposes of
Commission rulemaking in accordance with the
RFA. Those definitions, as relevant to this proposed
rulemaking, are set forth in Rule 0–10, 17 CFR
240.0–10. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
18451 (January 28, 1982), 47 FR 5215 (February 4,
1982) (File No. AS–305).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
and rules that would be adopted by the
SROs to implement the plan, national
securities exchanges and national
securities associations, as well as their
members, would be required to provide
data to a central repository to populate
a consolidated audit trail.409
A. Reasons for the Proposed Rule
The Commission preliminarily
believes that with today’s electronic,
interconnected markets, there is a
heightened need for regulators to have
efficient access to a more robust and
effective cross-market order and
execution tracking system. As discussed
above, currently many of the national
securities exchanges and FINRA have
audit trail rules and systems to track
information relating to orders received
and executed, or otherwise handled, in
their respective markets. While the
information gathered from these audit
trail systems aids the SRO and
Commission staff in their regulatory
responsibility to surveil for compliance
with SRO rules and the federal
securities laws and regulations, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
existing audit trails are limited in their
scope and effectiveness in varying
ways.410 In addition, while the SRO and
Commission staff also currently receives
information about orders and/or trades
through the EBS system, Rule 17a–
25,411 and from equity cleared reports,
the information is limited, to varying
degrees, in detail and scope.412
The creation and implementation of a
consolidated audit trail, as proposed,
would enable regulators to better fulfill
their regulatory responsibilities to
monitor for and investigate potentially
illegal activity in the NMS for securities
in a more timely fashion, whether on
one market or across markets. A
consolidated audit trail also would
enhance the ability of the Commission
in investigating and preparing market
reconstructions, and in understanding
the causes of unusual market activity.
Further, timely pursuit of potential
violations can be important in seeking
to freeze and recover any profits
received from illegal activity.
B. Objectives and Legal Basis
Each national securities exchange and
national securities association must be
organized and have the capacity to
comply, and enforce compliance by its
members, with its rules, and with the
409 See proposed Rule 613(c) and supra Sections
III.B. and III.D.
410 See supra Section II.A.
411 17 CFR 240.17a–25.
412 See supra Sections I.A and I.B. for a
description of the EBS system, Rule 17a–25, and
equity cleared reports.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32605
federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations.413 Likewise, the
Commission oversees the exchanges and
associations,414 and enforces
compliance by the members of
exchanges and associations with the
respective exchange’s or association’s
rules, and the federal securities laws
and regulations.415 The Commission
preliminarily believes that the
exchanges, FINRA and the Commission
itself could more effectively and
efficiently fulfill these statutory
obligations to oversee and regulate the
NMS if the SROs and the Commission
had direct access to more robust, and
timely, order and execution information
across all markets.
The Commission is proposing Rule
613 under the authority set forth in
Exchange Act Sections 2, 3(b), 5, 6, 11,
11A, 15, 15A, 17(a) and (b), 19, 23(a),
and 36 thereof, 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78c(b),
78e, 78f, 78k-1, 78o, 78o–3, 78q(a) and
(b), 78s, 78w(a), and 78mm.
C. Small Entities Subject to the
Proposed Rule
1. National Securities Exchanges and
National Securities Associations
The proposed Rule would apply to
national securities exchanges registered
with the Commission under Section 6 of
the Exchange Act and national
securities associations registered with
the Commission under Section 15A of
the Exchange Act. None of the national
securities exchanges registered under
Section 6 of the Exchange Act or
national securities associations
registered with the Commission under
Section 15A of the Exchange Act that
would be subject to the proposed Rule
are ‘‘small entities’’ for purposes of the
RFA.416
2. Broker-Dealers
Proposed Rule 613(g) would apply to
all broker-dealers that are members of a
national securities exchange or national
securities association. Commission rules
413 See, e.g., Sections 6(b)(1), 19(g)(1) and
15A(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(1),
78s(g)(1), and 78o–3(b)(2).
414 See, e.g., Sections 2, 6(b), 15A(b), and 19(h)(1)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78(b), 15 U.S.C.
78(f)(6), 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b), and 15 U.S.C. 78(h)(1).
415 See, e.g., 19(h)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. 78(h)(1).
416 See 17 CFR 240.0–10(e). Paragraph (e) of Rule
0–10 states that the term ‘‘small business,’’ when
referring to an exchange, means any exchange that
has been exempted from the reporting requirements
of Rule 601 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.601,
and is not affiliated with any person (other than a
natural person) that is not a small business or small
organization as defined in Rule 0–10. Under this
standard, none of the exchanges subject to the
proposed Rule is a ‘‘small entity’’ for the purposes
of the RFA. FINRA is not a small entity as defined
by 13 CFR 121.201.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32606
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
generally define a broker-dealer as a
small entity for purposes of the
Exchange Act and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act if the broker-dealer had
a total capital of less than $500,000 on
the date in the prior fiscal year as of
which its audited financial statements
were prepared, and it is not affiliated
with any person (other than a natural
person that is not a small entity).417
The Commission estimates that as of
December 31, 2008, there were
approximately 890 Commissionregistered broker-dealers that would be
considered small entities for purposes of
the statute. Each of these broker-dealers,
assuming that they are all members of
one or more national securities
exchange or FINRA, would be required
to comply with the proposed Rule.
D. Reporting, Record Keeping, and
Other Compliance Requirements
Proposed Rule 613(g)(2) would
impose new reporting and record
keeping requirements on small brokerdealers. While certain elements of order
and execution information that such
small broker-dealers would be required
to collect and submit to the central
repository are already required to be
maintained by broker-dealers pursuant
to Rules 17a–3 and 17a–25 under the
Exchange Act or the SRO audit trail
rules, the proposed Rule would require
the collection of additional information
that is not required to be collected
under these rules. Further, small brokerdealers would be responsible for
complying with the proposed Rule’s
requirements for reporting to the central
repository the required order and
transaction data.
The proposed Rule would require that
most of the information collected be
reported on a real time basis, rather than
on an ‘‘as requested’’ basis, and that all
required information be submitted in a
uniform format. Accordingly, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
even those small broker-dealers that
already have systems in place for
submitting order and transaction
information to regulators upon request,
or to comply with existing SRO audit
trail rules, would need to make
modifications to their existing order
handling and trading systems to comply
with the proposed Rule, or rely on
outside vendors to provide a
functionality that would provide
information to the central repository.
E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or
Conflicting Federal Rules
As stated above, broker-dealers are
subject to record keeping and reporting
417 See
17 CFR 240.0–10(c).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
requirements under Rules 17a–3 and
17a–25 under the Exchange Act. Rule
17a–3 requires that broker-dealers
maintain records that would capture
some of the same information required
to be collected and submitted pursuant
to the proposed Rule.418 Also, as part of
the Commission’s existing EBS system,
pursuant to Rule 17a–25 under the
Exchange Act, the Commission requires
registered broker-dealers to keep records
of some of the information that would
be captured by proposed Rule 613.419
However, data collected pursuant to
Rules 17a–3 and 17a–25 is limited in
scope and is provided to the
Commission only upon request. The
proposed Rule would require the
collection of significantly more
information 420 and would require that
most of the information about orders
and executions be provided to the
central repository on a real time basis,
not merely be stored and provided upon
request. Thus, the Commission
preliminarily believes that while these
Federal rules overlap with certain
requirements of the proposed Rule, the
scope and purpose of the proposed Rule
is more expansive than what is
currently required and will more
efficiently provide regulators with the
418 See 17 CFR 240.17a–3. Pursuant to Rule
17a–3, broker-dealers are, for example, required to
maintain the following information that would be
captured by the proposed rule: Customer name and
address; time an order was received; and price of
execution.
419 See 17 CFR 240.17a–25. Pursuant to Rule
17a–25, broker-dealers are, for example, required to
maintain the following information with respect to
customer orders that would be captured by the
proposed Rule, and provide it to the Commission
upon request: Date on which the transaction was
executed; account number; identifying symbol
assigned to the security; transaction price; the
number of shares or option contracts traded and
whether such transaction was a purchase, sale, or
short sale, and if an option transaction, whether
such was a call or put option; the clearing house
number of such broker or dealer and the clearing
house numbers of the brokers or dealers on the
opposite side of the transaction; prime broker
identifier; the customer’s name and address; the
customer’s tax identification number; and other
related account information.
420 Such additional information would include: A
unique customer identifier for each customer; a
unique identifier that would attach to the order at
the time the order is received or originated by the
member and remain with the order through the
process of routing, modification, cancellation, and
execution (in whole or in part); a unique identifier
of the broker-dealer receiving or originating the
order; the unique identifier of the branch office and
registered representative receiving or originating the
order; the date on which the order is routed; time
at which the order is routed (in milliseconds); and
if the order is executed, in whole or in part, the
account number for any subaccounts to which the
execution is allocated; the unique order identifier
of any contra-side order(s); and the amount of a
commission, if any, paid by the customer, and the
unique identifier of the broker-dealer(s) to whom
the commission is paid.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
information needed to effectively
surveil trading activity across markets.
F. Significant Alternatives
Pursuant to 3(a) of the RFA, the
Commission must consider the
following types of alternatives: (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables
that take into account the resources
available to small entities; (2)
clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the Rule
for small entities; (3) the use of
performance rather than design
standards; and (4) and exemption from
coverage of the proposed Rule, or any
part thereof, for small entities.
The Commission has considered
whether it would more be more cost
effective to enhance existing systems to
achieve the proposed Rule’s objective,
rather than create a central repository.
For example, the Commission
considered expanding the scope of the
information collected by existing audit
trails, the EBS system, and/or Rule
17a–25, but determined that this
approach would not result in the
creation of a comprehensive
consolidated audit trail. Under such an
approach, SROs would still need to
check multiple repositories of data to
gather information about trading activity
occurring across markets. Further, the
goal of capturing data in a uniform
format would be complicated if data
were collected by multiple repositories.
In addition, this approach would not
resolve concerns over how long it takes
to obtain data when it is not available
in real time, but only required to be
provided upon request. Without the
centralization of data in a uniform
electronic format, the Commission
preliminarily believes that the goals of
the proposed Rule could not be
achieved.
The Commission preliminarily
believes that proposing a new uniform
audit trail rule that would apply equally
across all SROs and their members
would be more efficient and effective
than requiring each SRO to separately
amend and enhance its existing order
audit trail or EBS rules and systems, and
amending Rule 17a–25. The scope of the
proposed audit trail—requiring each
member and SRO to report the same
information for each order, for each
reportable event, in a uniform format, in
real time, across all markets—is
fundamentally different than what is
collected under existing order audit
trails, the EBS system, and Rule 17a–25.
The Commission also has considered
allowing certain small broker-dealers to
submit certain trading data in a manual,
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
rather than an electronic, format.421
However, the Commission preliminarily
does not believe that the intent and
objectives of proposed Rule 613 could
be achieved if small broker-dealers are
subject to differing compliance or
reporting requirements, such as manual
reporting of data, or timetables. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
to be effective the consolidated audit
trail should contain order and execution
information from all broker-dealers,
including small broker-dealers, in a
uniform electronic format. Without this
information, the SROs and the
Commission would not have a complete
and timely cross-market audit trail to
utilize in their regulatory oversight of
small broker-dealers, their customers,
and the securities markets. Further, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
the timetable contained in the proposed
Rule, which would give brokers-dealers
two years after effectiveness of the NMS
plan to implement the proposed
requirements to collect and report the
required information to the central
repository, would allow small brokerdealers sufficient time to modify
existing systems, or procure third party
functionality, to comply with the
proposed Rule.422
Further, the Commission
preliminarily believes that it has drafted
the proposed Rule to be as
straightforward as possible to achieve its
objectives. Any simplification,
consolidation or clarification of the Rule
should occur for all entities, not just
small broker-dealers. The Commission
does not propose to dictate for entities
of any size any particular design
standards (e.g., technology) that must be
employed to achieve the objectives of
the proposed Rule. However, in order to
provide consistent, comparable data to
the central repository, the nature of the
information collected is a design
standard.
The Commission would be able to
rely on its exemptive authority under
Section 36 of the Exchange Act to grant
relief, when necessary, to small brokerdealers from the requirements of the
proposed Rule. The Commission
preliminarily believes that a wholesale
exemption from the proposed Rule for
small broker-dealers, however, would
make it harder for the Commission and
SROs to recognize the anticipated
benefits of the consolidated audit trail.
421 See 17a–25 Adopting Release, supra note 20,
at 35839–35840.
422 See supra notes 326–330 and accompanying
text and notes 356–358 and accompanying text.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
G. Solicitation of Comments
The Commission invites commenters
to address whether the proposed Rule
would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and, if so, what would be the
nature of any impact on small entities.
The Commission requests that
commenters provide empirical data to
support the extent of such impact.
X. Statutory Authority
Pursuant to the Exchange Act and
particularly, Sections 2, 3(b), 5, 6, 11A,
15, 15A, 17(a) and (b), 19, and 23(a)
thereof, 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78c(b), 78e, 78f,
78k–1, 78o, 78o–3, 78q(a) and (b), 78s
and 78w(a), the Commission proposes
Rule 613 of Regulation NMS, as set forth
below.
Text of Proposed Rule
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 242
Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.
In accordance with the foregoing,
Title 17, Chapter II, of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows.
PART 242—REGULATIONS M, SHO,
ATS, AC, AND NMS AND CUSTOMER
MARGIN REQUIREMENTS FOR
SECURITY FUTURES
1. The authority citation for part 242
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77g, 77q(a), 77s(a),
78b, 78c, 78g(c)(2), 78i(a), 78j, 78k–1(c), 78l,
78m, 78n, 78o(b), 78o(c), 78o(g), 78q(a),
78q(b), 78q(h), 78w(a), 78dd–1, 78mm, 80a–
23, 80a–29, and 80a–37.
2. Add § 242.613 to read as follows:
§ 242.613
Consolidated Audit Trail.
(a) Creation of a National Market
System Plan Governing a Consolidated
Audit Trail.
(1) Each national securities exchange
and national securities association shall
jointly file on or before [90 days from
approval of this rule] a national market
system plan to govern the creation,
implementation, and maintenance of a
consolidated audit trail and central
repository as required by this section.
(2) The national market system plan,
or any amendment thereto, filed
pursuant to this section shall be filed
with the Commission pursuant to
§ 242.608.
(3) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
require each national securities
exchange and national securities
association to:
(i) By two months after effectiveness
of the national market system plan
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32607
jointly (or under the governance
structure described in the plan) select a
person to be the plan processor;
(ii) By four months after effectiveness
of the national market system plan
synchronize their business clocks and
by four months after effectiveness of the
national market system plan require
members of each such exchange and
association to synchronize their
business clocks in accordance with
paragraph (d) of this section;
(iii) By one year after effectiveness of
the national market system plan provide
to the central repository the data
specified in paragraph (c) of this
section;
(iv) By fourteen months after
effectiveness of the national market
system plan implement a new or
enhanced surveillance system(s) as
required by paragraph (f) of this section;
and
(v) By two years after effectiveness of
the national market system plan require
members of each such exchange and
association to provide to the central
repository the data specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) Each national securities exchange
and national securities association shall
be a sponsor of the national market
system plan submitted pursuant to this
section and approved by the
Commission.
(5) No national market system plan
filed pursuant to this section, or any
amendment thereto, shall become
effective unless approved by the
Commission or otherwise permitted in
accordance with the procedures set
forth in § 242.608.
(b) Operation and Administration of
the National Market System Plan.
(1) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
include a governance structure to ensure
fair representation of the plan sponsors,
and administration of the central
repository, including the selection of the
plan processor.
(2) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
include a provision addressing the
requirements for the admission of new
sponsors of the plan and the withdrawal
of existing sponsors from the plan.
(3) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
include a provision addressing the
percentage of votes required by the plan
sponsors to effectuate amendments to
the plan.
(4) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
include a provision addressing the
manner in which the costs of operating
the central repository will be allocated
among the national securities exchanges
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
32608
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
and national securities associations that
are sponsors of the plan, including a
provision addressing the manner in
which costs will be allocated to new
sponsors to the plan.
(5) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
require the appointment of a Chief
Compliance Officer to regularly review
the operation of the central repository to
assure its continued effectiveness in
light of market and technological
developments, and make any
appropriate recommendations for
enhancements to the nature of the
information collected and the manner in
which it is processed.
(c) Data Collection. (1) The national
market system plan submitted pursuant
to this section shall provide for an
accurate, time-sequenced record of
orders beginning with the receipt or
origination of an order by a member of
a national securities exchange or
national securities association, and
further documenting the life of the order
through the process of routing,
modification, cancellation, and
execution (in whole or in part) of the
order.
(2) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
require each national securities
exchange, national securities
association, and member to collect and
provide to the central repository the
information required by paragraph (c)(7)
of this section in a uniform electronic
format.
(3) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
require each national securities
exchange, national securities
association, and member to collect and
provide to the central repository the
information required by paragraphs
(c)(7)(i) through (v) of this section on a
real time basis.
(4) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
require each national securities
exchange, national securities
association, and member to collect and
provide to the central repository the
information required by paragraphs
(c)(7)(vi) and (vii) of this section
promptly after the national securities
exchange, national securities
association, or member receives the
information, but in no instance later
than midnight of the day that the
reportable event occurred or the
national securities exchange, national
securities association, or member
receives such information.
(5) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
require each national securities
exchange and its members to collect and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
provide to the central repository the
information required by paragraph (c)(7)
of this section for each NMS security
registered or listed for trading on such
exchange or admitted to unlisted trading
privileges on such exchange.
(6) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
require each national securities
association and its members to collect
and provide to the central repository the
information required by paragraph (c)(7)
of this section for each NMS security for
which transaction reports are required
to be submitted to the association.
(7) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
require each national securities
exchange, national securities
association, and any member of such
exchange or association to collect and
electronically provide to a central
repository details for each order and
each reportable event, including, but not
limited to, the following information:
(i) For the original receipt or
origination of the order:
(A) Information of sufficient detail to
identify the customer;
(B) A unique customer identifier for
each customer;
(C) Customer account information;
(D) A unique identifier that will
attach to the order at the time the order
is received or originated by the member
and remain with the order through the
process of routing, modification,
cancellation, and execution (in whole or
in part);
(E) The unique identifier of the
broker-dealer receiving or originating
the order;
(F) The unique identifier of the
branch office and registered
representative receiving or originating
the order;
(G) Date of order receipt or
origination;
(H) Time of order receipt or
origination (in milliseconds); and
(I) Material terms of the order.
(ii) For the routing of an order, the
following information:
(A) The unique order identifier;
(B) Date on which the order is routed;
(C) Time at which the order is routed
(in milliseconds);
(D) The unique identifier of the
broker-dealer or national securities
exchange routing the order;
(E) The unique identifier of the
broker-dealer or national securities
exchange receiving the order;
(F) If routed internally at the brokerdealer, the identity and nature of the
department or desk to which an order is
routed; and
(G) Material terms of the order.
(iii) For the receipt of an order, the
following information:
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(A) The unique order identifier;
(B) Date on which the order is
received;
(C) Time at which the order is
received (in milliseconds);
(D) The unique order identifier of the
broker-dealer or national securities
exchange receiving the order;
(E) The unique identifier of the
broker-dealer or national securities
exchange routing the order; and
(F) Material terms of the order.
(iv) If the order is modified or
cancelled, the following information:
(A) Date the modification or
cancellation is received or originated;
(B) Time the modification or
cancellation is received or originated (in
milliseconds);
(C) Price and remaining size of the
order, if modified;
(D) Other changes in material terms of
the order, if modified; and
(E) Identity of the person giving the
modification or cancellation instruction.
(v) If the order is executed, in whole
or in part, the following information:
(A) The unique order identifier;
(B) Date of execution;
(C) Time of execution (in
milliseconds);
(D) Execution capacity (principal,
agency, riskless principal);
(E) Execution price and size;
(F) The unique identifier of the
national securities exchange or brokerdealer executing the order; and
(G) Whether the execution was
reported pursuant to an effective
transaction reporting plan or the
Options Price Reporting Authority Plan.
(vi) If the order is executed, in whole
or in part:
(A) The account number for any
subaccounts to which the execution is
allocated (in whole or part);
(B) The unique identifier of the
clearing broker or prime broker, if
applicable;
(C) The unique order identifier of any
contra-side order(s);
(D) Special settlement terms, if
applicable;
(E) Short sale borrow information and
identifier; and
(F) The amount of a commission, if
any, paid by the customer, and the
unique identifier of the broker-dealer(s)
to whom the commission is paid.
(vii) If the execution is cancelled, a
cancelled trade indicator.
(8) All plan sponsors and their
members shall use the same unique
customer identifier and unique brokerdealer identifier for each customer and
broker-dealer.
(d) Clock Synchronization. The
national market system plan submitted
pursuant to this section shall require
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
each national securities exchange,
national securities association, and
member of such exchange or association
subject to this section to:
(1) Synchronize on its business clocks
that are used for the purposes of
recording the date and time of any
reportable event that must be reported
pursuant to this section to the time
maintained by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, consistent
with industry standards; and
(2) Evaluate annually the
synchronization standard to determine
whether it should be shortened,
consistent with changes in industry
standards.
(e) Central Repository.
(1) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
provide for the creation and
maintenance of a central repository.
Such central repository shall be
responsible for the receipt,
consolidation, and retention of all data
submitted pursuant to this section.
(2) Each national securities exchange,
national securities association, and the
Commission shall have access to the
central repository, including all systems
operated by the central repository, and
access to and use of the data reported to
and consolidated by the central
repository under paragraph (c) of this
section, for the purpose of performing
its respective regulatory and oversight
responsibilities pursuant to the federal
securities laws, rules, and regulations.
The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
provide that such access to and use of
such data by each national securities
exchange, national securities
association, and the Commission for the
purpose of performing its regulatory and
oversight responsibilities pursuant to
the federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations shall not be limited.
(3) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
include a provision requiring the
creation and maintenance by the central
repository of a method of access to the
consolidated data that includes search
and reporting functions.
(4) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
include policies and procedures,
including standards, to be used by the
plan processor to:
(i) Ensure the security and
confidentiality of all information
submitted to the central repository. All
plan sponsors and their employees, as
well as all employees of the central
repository, shall agree to use
appropriate safeguards to ensure the
confidentiality of such data and shall
agree not to use such data for any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
purpose other than surveillance and
regulatory purposes. Nothing in this
paragraph (i) shall be construed to
prevent a plan sponsor from using the
data that it submits to the central
repository for regulatory, surveillance,
commercial, or other purposes as
otherwise permitted by applicable law,
rule, or regulation;
(ii) Ensure the timeliness, accuracy,
and completeness of the data provided
to the central repository pursuant to
paragraph (c) of this section;
(iii) Require the rejection of data
provided to the central repository
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section
that does not meet these validation
parameters and the re-transmission of
corrected data; and
(iv) Ensure the accuracy of the
consolidation by the plan processor of
the data provided to the central
repository pursuant to paragraph (c) of
this section.
(5) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
require the central repository to collect
and retain on a current and continuing
basis and in a format compatible with
the information collected pursuant to
paragraph (c)(7) of this section;
(i) The national best bid and national
best offer for each NMS security;
(ii) Transaction reports reported
pursuant to an effective transaction
reporting plan filed with the
Commission pursuant to, and meeting
the requirements of, § 242.601; and
(iii) Last sale reports reported
pursuant to the Options Price Reporting
Authority Plan filed with the
Commission pursuant to, and meeting
the requirements of, § 242.608.
(6) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
require the central repository to retain
the information collected pursuant to
paragraphs (c)(7) and (e)(5) of this
section in a convenient and usable
standard electronic data format that is
directly available and searchable
electronically without any manual
intervention for a period of not less than
five years. The information shall be
available immediately, or if immediate
availability cannot reasonably and
practically be achieved, any search
query must begin operating on the data
not later than one hour after the search
query is made.
(f) Surveillance. Every national
securities exchange and national
securities association subject to this
section shall develop and implement a
surveillance system, or enhance existing
surveillance systems, reasonably
designed to make use of the
consolidated information contained in
the consolidated audit trail.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
32609
(g) Compliance by Members. (1) Each
national securities exchange and
national securities association shall file
with the Commission pursuant to
section 19(b)(2) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(2)) and § 240.19b–4 on or before
[120 days from approval of this rule] a
proposed rule change to require its
members to comply with the
requirements of this section and the
national market system plan submitted
pursuant to this section and approved
by the Commission of which the
national securities exchange or national
securities association is a sponsor.
(2) Each member of a national
securities exchange or national
securities association that is a sponsor
of the national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section and
approved by the Commission shall
collect and submit to the central
repository the information required by
paragraph (c) of this section and shall
comply with the synchronization
requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section.
(3) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
include a provision that by subscribing
to and submitting the plan to the
Commission, each national securities
exchange and national securities
association that is a sponsor to the plan
agrees to enforce compliance by its
members with the provisions of the
plan.
(4) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
include a mechanism to ensure
compliance with the requirements of the
plan by the members of a national
securities exchange or national
securities association that is a sponsor
of the national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section and
approved by the Commission.
(h) Compliance by National Securities
Exchanges and National Securities
Associations. (1) Each national
securities exchange and national
securities association shall comply with
the provisions of the national market
system plan submitted pursuant to this
section and approved by the
Commission of which it is a sponsor.
(2) Any failure by a national securities
exchange or national securities
association to comply with the
provisions of the national market system
plan submitted pursuant to this section
and approved by the Commission of
which it is as sponsor shall be
considered a violation of this section.
(3) The national market system plan
submitted pursuant to this section shall
include a mechanism to ensure
compliance by the sponsors of the plan
with the requirements of the plan.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
32610
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(i) Other Securities and Other Types
of Transactions. The national market
system plan submitted pursuant to this
section shall include a provision
requiring each national securities
exchange and national securities
association to jointly provide to the
Commission within two months after
effectiveness of the national market
system plan a document outlining how
such exchanges and associations would
propose to incorporate into the
consolidated audit trail information
with respect to equity securities that are
not NMS securities, debt securities,
primary market transactions in NMS
stocks, primary market transactions in
equity securities that are not NMS
securities, and primary market
transactions in debt securities,
including details for each order and
reportable event that would be required
to be provided, which market
participants would be required to
provide the data, an implementation
timeline, and a cost estimate.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jun 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
(j) Definitions.
(1) The term customer shall mean:
(i) The beneficial owner(s) of the
account originating the order; and
(ii) The person exercising investment
discretion for the account originating
the order, if different from the beneficial
owner(s);
(2) The term customer account
information shall include, but not be
limited to, account number, account
type, customer type, date account
opened, and large trader identifier (if
applicable).
(3) The term material terms of the
order shall include, but not be limited
to, the NMS security symbol, security
type, price (if applicable), size
(displayed and non-displayed), side
(buy/sell), order type; if a sell order,
whether the order is long, short, short
exempt; if a short sale, the locate
identifier, open/close indicator, time in
force (if applicable), whether the order
is solicited or unsolicited, whether the
account has a prior position in the
security; if the order is for a listed
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
option, option type (put/call), option
symbol or root symbol, underlying
symbol, strike price, expiration date,
and open/close, and any special
handling instructions.
(4) The term order shall mean:
(i) Any order received by a member of
a national securities exchange or
national securities association from any
person;
(ii) Any order originated by a member
of a national securities exchange or
national securities association; or
(iii) Any bid or offer.
(5) The term reportable event shall
include, but not be limited to, the
receipt, origination, modification,
cancellation, routing, and execution (in
whole or in part).
Dated: May 26, 2010.
By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–13129 Filed 6–4–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32556-32610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13129]
[[Page 32555]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Securities and Exchange Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17 CFR Part 242
Consolidated Audit Trail; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 32556]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 242
[Release No. 34-62174; File No. S7-11-10]
RIN 3235-AK51
Consolidated Audit Trail
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
proposing new Rule 613 under Section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') that would require national
securities exchanges and national securities associations (``self-
regulatory organizations'' or ``SROs'') to act jointly in developing a
national market system (``NMS'') plan to develop, implement, and
maintain a consolidated order tracking system, or consolidated audit
trail, with respect to the trading of NMS securities.
The Commission preliminarily believes that with today's electronic,
interconnected markets, there is a heightened need for regulators to
have efficient access to a more robust and effective cross-market order
and execution tracking system. Currently, many of the national
securities exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') have audit trail rules and systems to track
information relating to orders received and executed, or otherwise
handled, in their respective markets. While the information gathered
from these audit trail systems aids the SRO and Commission staff in
their regulatory responsibility to surveil for compliance with SRO
rules and the federal securities laws and regulations, the Commission
preliminarily believes that existing audit trails are limited in their
scope and effectiveness in varying ways. In addition, while the SRO and
Commission staff also currently receive information about orders or
trades through the electronic bluesheet (``EBS'') system, Rule 17a-25
under the Exchange Act,\1\ or from equity cleared reports, the
information is limited, to varying degrees, in detail and scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 17 CFR 240.17a-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated audit trail would significantly aid in SRO efforts
to detect and deter fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in
the marketplace, and generally to regulate their markets and members.
In addition, such an audit trail would benefit the Commission in its
market analysis efforts, such as investigating and preparing market
reconstructions and understanding causes of unusual market activity.
Further, timely pursuit of potential violations can be important in
seeking to freeze and recover any profits received from illegal
activity.
DATES: Comments should be received on or before August 9, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's Internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or
Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include
File No. S7-11-10 on the subject line; or
Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. S7-11-10. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments
are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.
All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebekah Liu, Special Counsel, at (202)
551-5665; Jennifer Colihan, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-5642, or
Leigh W. Duffy, Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 551-5928, Division of
Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Basis for Proposed Rule
III. Description of Proposed Rule
IV. Request for Comments
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
VI. Consideration of Costs and Benefits
VII. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of
Efficiency, Competition and Capital Formation
VIII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy
IX. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
X. Statutory Authority
I. Background
The U.S. securities markets have undergone a significant
transformation over the last few decades, and particularly in the last
few years. Regulatory changes and technological advances have
contributed to a tremendous growth in trading volume and the further
distribution of order flow across multiple trading centers. Today's
markets are widely dispersed, with securities often trading on multiple
markets, including over-the-counter (``OTC''). Additionally, products
that are closely related in nature and objective are also traded on
different markets. For example, various markets trade either options on
the S&P 500 index,\2\ futures on the S&P 500 index,\3\ exchange traded
funds (``ETFs'') based on the S&P 500 index,\4\ and options and futures
on those ETFs.\5\ This dispersion of significant trading volume has led
the Commission in the past to ask for comment on how best to enhance
the capability of SROs and the Commission to effectively and
efficiently conduct cross-market supervision of trading activity.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'')
lists options on the S&P 500 Index (SPX) and on the Mini-S&P 500
Index (XSP) (1/10th the value of the S&P 500 Index).
\3\ For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'')
offers S&P 500 futures and ``E-Mini'' futures on the S&P 500 Index
($50 x S&P 500 Index price).
\4\ For example, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') lists an ETF
based on the S&P 500 SPDR (SPY) and the iShares S&P 500 Index Fund
(IVV).
\5\ For example, OneChicago, LLC lists futures on the SPY, and
CBOE lists options on the iShares S&P 500 Value Index Fund.
\6\ See infra Section I.G. (discussing past Commission requests
for comment on regulation of intermarket trading).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The individual SROs are responsible for regulating their markets
and their members.\7\ Further, the Commission has responsibilities to
oversee the SROs, the securities markets, and registered broker-
dealers, and routinely conducts examinations of or investigations into
trading activity as part of its oversight and enforcement programs.\8\
The SROs and the Commission need tools to
[[Page 32557]]
effectively carry out these responsibilities even when trading occurs
on multiple markets. For example, it is important that the SRO and
Commission staff have order and trade data sufficient to monitor cross-
market trading activity, assist with investigations of potential
violations of federal securities laws and exchange rules, and perform
market reconstructions or other analysis necessary to understand
trading activity.\9\ Such information also is important to the
Commission in carrying out its oversight responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Sections 6(b)(1), 15A(b)(2), and 19(g) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(2), and 15
U.S.C. 78s(g).
\8\ See, e.g., Sections 2, 6(b)(1), 10, 15(b)(4)(D) and (E), and
19(h) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78b, 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1), 15
U.S.C. 78j, 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(4)(D) and (E), and 15 U.S.C. 78s(h).
\9\ As discussed below in Sections II and III, the Commission
preliminarily believes that the proposal would improve the ability
of regulators to conduct timely and accurate trading analyses for
market reconstructions and complex investigations, as well as
inspections and examinations. Indeed, the Commission believes that
the proposed consolidated audit trail, if implemented, would have
significantly enhanced the Commission's ability to quickly
reconstruct and analyze the severe market disruption that occurred
on May 6, 2010. If approved and implemented, the proposal also would
enhance the Commission's ability to similarly respond to future
severe market events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SROs' staff currently uses both EBS \10\ and SRO audit trail
data to help fulfill their regulatory obligations.\11\ Commission staff
also uses this data to perform its regulatory oversight obligations.
The Commission and SROs have depended on the bluesheet system for
decades to request trading records from broker-dealers needed for
regulatory inquiries. Most SROs also maintain their own specific audit
trail requirements applicable to their members. As discussed more fully
below, for example, the National Association of Securities Dealers
(``NASD'') \12\ established the Order Audit Trail System (``OATS'')
\13\ in 1996, and the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') implemented
its Order Tracking System (``OTS'') \14\ in 1999. Beginning in 2000,
several of the current options exchanges implemented the Consolidated
Options Audit Trail System (``COATS'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Bluesheets are trading records requested by the Commission
and SROs from broker-dealers that are used in regulatory
investigations to identify buyers and sellers of specific
securities.
\11\ The Commission recently published for comment a proposal to
establish a large trader reporting system. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 61908 (April 14, 2010), 75 FR 21456 (April 23, 2010)
(``Large Trader Proposal''). Under that proposal, large traders
would be issued unique identifiers that they would be required to
provide to the broker-dealers that execute transactions on their
behalf, and the broker-dealers would be required to maintain, and
provide to the Commission upon request, transaction records for each
large trader customer. The large trader proposal is designed to
address in the near term the Commission's current need for access to
more information about large traders and their activities. As
discussed below, the Commission anticipates that the proposed
consolidated audit trail discussed in this release, which is much
broader in scope, would take a significant amount of time to fully
implement. This proposal would require that, if the Large Trader
proposal is adopted, the large trader identification number be
reported to the central repository as part of the identifying
customer information. See proposed Rule 613(j)(2).
\12\ In 2007, the NASD and the member-related functions of NYSE
Regulation, Inc., the regulatory subsidiary of the New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), were consolidated. As part of this
regulatory consolidation, the NASD changed its name to FINRA. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56146 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR
42190 (August 1, 2007). FINRA and the National Futures Association
(``NFA'') are currently the only national securities associations
registered with the Commission; however, the NFA has a limited
purpose registration with the Commission under Section 15A(k) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(k). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 44823 (September 20, 2001), 66 FR 49439 (September 27,
2001).
\13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39729 (March 6,
1998), 63 FR 12559 (March 13, 1998) (order approving proposed rules
comprising OATS) (``OATS Approval Order'').
\14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47689 (April 17,
2003), 68 FR 20200 (April 24, 2003) (order approving proposed rule
change by NYSE relating to order tracking) (``OTS Approval Order'').
\15\ See In the Matter of Certain Activities of Options
Exchanges, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-10282, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 43268 (September 11, 2000) (Order
Instituting Public Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section
19(h)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and
Imposing Remedial Sanctions) (``Options Settlement Order''). See
also, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50996 (January 7,
2005), 70 FR 2436 (order approving proposed rule change by CBOE
relating to Phase V of COATS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, there is significant disparity in the audit trail
requirements among the exchanges and FINRA, especially with respect to
the information captured by each.\16\ Further, the information for each
must be provided in different formats. The differences result in
inconsistent requirements imposed on exchange and FINRA members, and
also make it difficult to view trading activity across multiple
markets. The lack of uniformity in, and cross-market compatibility of,
SRO audit trails can make detection of illegal trading activity carried
out across multiple markets and multiple products more difficult. The
Commission has voiced concern about the lack of uniformity in, and
cross-market compatibility of, the audit trails in the past.\17\ The
Commission preliminarily believes that these differences may hinder the
ability of the SROs and the Commission to effectively view and regulate
trading activity across markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See infra Sections I.C, I.D, I.E, and I.F.
\17\ See infra Section I.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, risks imposed on the markets by violative conduct can be
substantially increased by automated trading, as market participants
have the ability to trade numerous products and enormous volume in mere
seconds. As trading venues have become more automated, and trading
systems have become computerized, trading volumes have increased
significantly,\18\ and trading has become more dispersed across more
trading centers and therefore more difficult to monitor and trace.\19\
The Commission is concerned that current audit trail requirements are
insufficient to capture in a timely manner all of the information
necessary to efficiently and effectively monitor trading activity in
today's highly automated and dispersed markets. The Commission also is
concerned that the current lack of cohesive, readily available order
and execution information impacts the ability of the SROs and the
Commission staff to effectively perform their respective regulatory and
oversight responsibilities with respect to trading activity by market
participants across markets and products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For example, consolidated average daily share volume and
trades in NYSE-listed stocks increased from just 2.1 billion shares
and 2.9 million trades in January 2005, to 5.9 billion shares (an
increase of 181%) and 22.1 million trades (an increase of 662%) in
September 2009. See Large Trader Proposal, supra note 11, at 21456.
\19\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358
(January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (January 21, 2010) (``Concept Release
on Equity Market Structure'') at 3594-3596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Electronic Bluesheets and Rule 17a-25
The Commission and the SROs frequently request bluesheets from
broker-dealers to aid in investigations of possible Federal securities
law violations and to create market reconstructions.\20\ Until the late
1980s, bluesheets consisted of questionnaire forms that Commission and
SRO regulatory staff mailed to firms to be manually completed and
returned.\21\ Obtaining bluesheets in this manner was particularly
onerous as there were substantial delays in the production and receipt
of the requested information. Additionally, the data was submitted in a
variety of formats, making analysis time-consuming, and requests could
result in vast amounts of information requiring lengthy manual
examination.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44494 (June 29,
2001), 66 FR 35836 (July 9, 2001) (File No. S7-12-00) (``Rule 17a-25
Adopting Release''), at 35836.
\21\ Id.
\22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25859 (June 27,
1988), 53 FR 25029 (July 1, 1988) (approving both the NYSE and the
American Stock Exchange's (``Amex'') rules for the electronic
submission of transaction information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the late 1980s, as the volume of trading and securities
transactions
[[Page 32558]]
dramatically increased, the manual bluesheet system was replaced by the
EBS system.\23\ The EBS system allows broker-dealers to electronically
submit the requested information in a specific format and transmit it
to the Securities Industry Automation Corporation (``SIAC'').\24\ SIAC
then routes the information to the Commission or to an SRO as
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Rule 17a-25 Adopting Release, supra note 20, at 3-4.
See also, e.g., id. and Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 26235
(November 1, 1988), 53 FR 44688 (November 4, 1988) (approving the
CBOE rule for the electronic submission of transaction information);
26539 (February 13, 1989), 54 FR 7318 (February 17, 1989) (approving
the NASD's rule for the electronic submission of transaction
information); and 27170 (August 23, 1989), 54 FR 37066 (September 6,
1989) (approving the Philadelphia Stock Exchange's rule for the
electronic submission of transaction information).
\24\ See Rule 17a-25 Adopting Release, supra note 20, at 35836.
SIAC is a subsidiary of NYSE Euronext and serves as the securities
information processor of the Consolidated Tape Plan (``CTA Plan''),
which governs the dissemination of trade information; the
Consolidated Quotation Plan (``CQ Plan''), which governs the
dissemination of quotation information; and the Options Price
Reporting Authority Plan (``OPRA Plan''), which governs the
dissemination of trade and quotation information for listed options.
In this capacity, it provides real time quotation and transaction
information to market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EBS system, supplemented by the requirements of Rule 17a-25
under the Exchange Act,\25\ currently is used by Commission and SRO
regulatory staff primarily to assist the staff in the investigation of
possible federal securities law violations primarily involving insider
trading and other market manipulations, and to conduct market
reconstructions, especially following periods of significant market
volatility.\26\ In its electronic format, the EBS system provides
detailed execution information upon request by the Commission and the
SROs' staff for specific securities during specified time frames.\27\
However, because the EBS system is designed for use in narrowly-focused
enforcement investigations that generally involve trading in particular
securities, it is less useful for large-scale market reconstructions
and analyses involving numerous stocks during peak trading volume
periods.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 17 CFR 240.17a-25.
\26\ See Rule 17a-25 Adopting Release, supra note 20, at 35836.
\27\ EBS data does not, however, include the time of execution,
and often does not include the identity of the beneficial owner. See
infra note 147.
\28\ A 1990 Senate Report acknowledged the immense value of the
EBS system, but noted that ``it is designed for use in more narrowly
focused enforcement investigations that generally relate to trading
in individual securities. It is not designed for use for multiple
inquiries that are essential for trading reconstruction purposes.''
See S. Rep. No. 300, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 2-5 (1990), at 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000, the Commission proposed Rule 17a-25 under the Exchange Act
to supplement the existing EBS system with data elements incorporating
institutional and professional trading strategies, to assist regulatory
staff in reviewing and analyzing EBS data.\29\ Adopted in June
2001,\30\ the rule codified the requirement that broker-dealers submit
to the Commission, upon request, information on their customer and
proprietary securities transactions in an electronic format.\31\ Rule
17a-25 requires submission of the same standard customer and
proprietary transaction information that SROs request through the EBS
system in connection with their market surveillance and enforcement
inquiries.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42741 (May 2,
2000), 65 FR 26534 (May 8, 2000) (``Rule 17a-25 Proposing
Release'').
\30\ See Rule 17a-25 Adopting Release, supra note 20.
\31\ Id. at 35836, and 17 CFR 240.17a-25.
\32\ See e.g. NYSE Rule 410A and FINRA Rule 8211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, for a proprietary transaction, Rule 17a-25 requires a
broker-dealer to provide the following information electronically upon
request: (1) Clearing house number or alpha symbol used by the broker-
dealer submitting the information; (2) clearing house number(s) or
alpha symbol(s) of the broker-dealer(s) on the opposite side to the
trade; (3) security identifier; (4) execution date; (5) quantity
executed; (6) transaction price; (7) account number; (8) identity of
the exchange or market where the transaction was executed; (9) prime
broker identifier; (10) average price account identifier; and (11) the
identifier assigned to the account by a depository institution.\33\ For
customer transactions, the broker-dealer also is required to include
the customer's name, customer's address, the customer's tax
identification number, and other related account information.\34\ The
new data elements added by Rule 17a-25--prime broker identifiers,
average price account identifiers, and depository institution account
identifiers--assist the Commission in aggregating, without double-
counting, securities transactions by entities trading through multiple
accounts at more than one broker-dealer.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Rule 17a-25(a)(1) and Rule 17a-25(b)(1)-(3), 17 CFR
240.17a-25(a)(1) and 17 CFR 240.17a-25(b)(1)-(3).
\34\ See Rule 17a-25(a)(2), 17 CFR 240.17a-25(a)(2). Rule 17a-25
also requires broker-dealers to submit, and keep current, contact
person information for requests under the rule. This provision was
designed to ensure that the Commission could effectively direct its
data requests to broker-dealers. See Rule 17a-25 Proposing Release,
supra note 29, at 26537.
\35\ This information was deemed especially necessary for the
creation of massive market reconstructions performed by Commission
staff. See Rule 17a-25 Adopting Release, supra note 20, at 35836.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Equity Cleared Reports
In addition to the EBS system and Rule 17a-25, the Commission also
relies upon the National Securities Clearing Corporation's (``NSCC'')
\36\ equity cleared report for initial regulatory inquiries.\37\ This
report is generated on a daily basis by the SROs and is provided to the
NSCC, in a database accessible by the Commission, and shows the number
of trades and daily volume of all equity securities in which
transactions took place, sorted by clearing member. The information
provided is end of day data and is searchable by security name and
CUSIP number.\38\ Since the information made available on the report is
limited to the date, the clearing firm, and the number of transactions
cleared by each clearing firm on each SRO, it basically serves as a
starting point for an investigation, providing a tool the Commission
can use to narrow down which clearing firms to contact concerning a
transaction in a certain security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ NSCC is a subsidiary of the Deposit Trust and Clearing
Corporation and provides centralized clearing information and
settlement services to broker-dealers for trades involving equities,
corporate and municipal debt, American depository receipts, exchange
traded funds, and unit investment trusts.
\37\ The Commission also uses the Options Cleared Report, with
data supplied by the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC''), for
analysis of trading in listed options. OCC is an equity derivatives
clearing organization that is registered as a clearing agency under
Section 17A of the Exchange Act and operates under the jurisdiction
of both the Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC'').
\38\ A CUSIP number is a unique alphanumeric identifier assigned
to a security and is used to facilitate the clearance and settlement
of trades in the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. FINRA's Order Audit Trail System
In 1996, the Commission instituted public administrative
proceedings against the NASD, alleging that it failed to enforce and
investigate potential misconduct by its members.\39\ In settling the
Commission's enforcement action, the NASD was ordered to design and
implement an audit trail to enable it to reconstruct its markets
promptly and effectively surveil them.\40\ The Commission mandated that
the audit trail at a minimum: (1) Provide an accurate time-sequenced
record of orders and transactions, beginning with
[[Page 32559]]
the receipt of an order at the first point of contact between the
broker-dealer and the customer or counterparty, and further documenting
the life of the order through the process including execution,
modification and cancellation; and (2) provide for market-wide
synchronization of clocks used in connection with the new audit trail
system.\41\ In response to the order, the NASD created OATS.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See In the Matter of National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc., Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-9056, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 37538 (August 8, 1996) (Order Instituting
Public Proceedings Pursuant to Section 19(h)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial
Sanctions).
\40\ Id. at 11-12.
\41\ Id.
\42\ See FINRA Rules 7400 to 7470. See also OATS Approval Order,
supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, OATS is used to capture order information reported by
FINRA members in equity securities listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market,
Inc. (``Nasdaq'') and OTC equity securities.\43\ OATS requires
reporting members \44\ to record and report to FINRA \45\ detailed
information covering the receipt and origination of an order,\46\ order
terms, transmission, and modification, cancellation and execution.\47\
Specifically, for each of these stages in the life of an order, FINRA
Rule 7440 requires the recording and reporting of the following
information, as applicable, including but not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ FINRA defines an OTC equity security as any equity security
that (1) is not listed on a national securities exchange, or (2) is
listed on one or more regional stock exchanges and does not qualify
for dissemination of transaction reports via the facilities of the
Consolidated Tape. See FINRA Rule 7410(l).
\44\ A reporting member is a member that receives or originates
an order and has an obligation to record and report information
under FINRA Rules 7440 and 7450. A member shall not be considered a
reporting member in connection with an order if the following
conditions are met: (1) The member engages in a non-discretionary
order routing process, pursuant to which it immediately routes, by
electronic or other means, all of its orders to a single reporting
member; (2) the member does not direct and does not maintain control
over subsequent routing or execution by the receiving reporting
member; (3) the receiving reporting member records and reports all
information required under FINRA Rules 7440 and 7450 with respect to
the order; and (4) the member has a written agreement with the
receiving reporting member specifying the respective functions and
responsibilities of each party to effect full compliance with the
requirements of Rule 7440 and 7450. See FINRA Rule 7410(o).
\45\ Each reporting member must record each item of information
required by OATS in electronic form by the end of each business day.
See FINRA Rule 7440(a)(3). Reporting members must transmit to OATS a
report of order information whenever an order is originated,
received, transmitted to another department within the member or to
another member, modified, canceled, or executed. Each report shall
be transmitted on the day such event occurred if the information is
available that day. Order information reports may be aggregated into
one or more transmissions. See FINRA Rule 7450(b)(2).
\46\ OATS recording and reporting requirements apply to any
oral, written, or electronic instruction to effect a transaction in
an equity security listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market or an OTC
equity security that is received by a member from another person for
handling or execution, or that is originated by a department of a
member for execution by the same or another member, other than any
such instruction to effect a proprietary transaction originated by a
trading desk in the ordinary course of a member's market making
activities. See FINRA Rule 7410(j).
\47\ See FINRA Rules 7440 and 7450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the receipt or origination of the order,\48\ the date
and time the order was first originated or received by the reporting
member; a unique order identifier; the market participant symbol of the
receiving reporting member; and the material terms of the order;\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ FINRA Rule 7440 also requires reporting of the account
type; the identification of the department or terminal where an
order is received from a customer; the identification of the
department or terminal where an order is originated by a reporting
member; and the identification of a reporting agent if the agent has
agreed to take on the responsibilities of a reporting member under
Rule 7450. See FINRA Rule 7440(b).
\49\ The specific information required to be reported includes:
The number of shares; designation as a buy or sell or short sale;
designation of the order as market, limit, stop, or stop limit;
limit or stop price; date on which the order expires and if the time
in force is less than one day, the time when the order expires; the
time limit during which the order is in force; any request by a
customer that an order not be displayed, or that a block size be
displayed, pursuant to Rule 604(b) of Regulation NMS; any special
handling requests; and identification of the order as related to a
program trade or index arbitrage trade. See FINRA Rule 7440(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the internal or external routing of an order, the
unique order identifier; the market participant symbol of the member to
which the order was transmitted; the identification and nature of the
department to which the order was transmitted if transmitted
internally; the date and time the order was received by the market
participant or department to which the order was transmitted; the
material terms of the order as transmitted; \50\ the date and time the
order is transmitted; and the market participant symbol of the member
who transmitted the order;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ The specific information required includes the number of
shares to which the transmission applies, and whether the order is
an intermarket sweep order. See FINRA Rule 7440(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the modification or cancellation of an order, a new
unique order identifier; original unique order identifier; the date and
time a modification or cancellation was originated or received; and the
date and time the order was first received or originated; \51\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ For cancellations or modification, the following
information also is required: If the open balance of an order is
canceled after a partial execution, the number of shares canceled;
and whether the order was canceled on the instruction of a customer
or the reporting member. See FINRA Rule 7440(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the execution of an order, in whole or in part, the
unique order identifier; the designation of the order as fully or
partially executed; the number of shares to which a partial execution
applies and the number of unexecuted shares remaining; the date and
time of execution; the execution price; the capacity in which the
member executed the transaction; the identification of the market where
the trade was reported; and the date and time the order was originally
received.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ For executions, the reporting member also must report its
market participant symbol; its number assigned for purposes of
identifying transaction data; and the identification number of the
terminal where the order was executed. See FINRA Rule 7440(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA uses this information to recreate daily market activity for
FINRA's market surveillance activities.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See OATS Reporting Technical Specifications, January 5,
2010, available at https://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@comp/@regis/documents/appsupportdocs/p120686.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. NYSE's Order Tracking System
The Commission instituted public administrative proceedings against
the NYSE in 1999, alleging that the exchange had failed to detect
violations of federal securities laws and its own rules by its
independent floor broker members, failed to police for performance-
based compensation arrangements involving these members, and failed to
adequately surveil them.\54\ In settling the Commission's enforcement
action, the NYSE was ordered to continue its development of an
electronic floor system for the entry of order details prior to
representation on the exchange floor, as well as to design and
implement an audit trail to enable it to effectively surveil and
reconstruct its market promptly, and facilitate the NYSE's effective
enforcement of the federal securities laws and exchange rules.\55\ Like
OATS, this audit trail was required to provide an accurate, time-
sequenced record of orders, quotations and transactions, documenting
the life of an order from receipt through execution or cancellation.
The NYSE also was required to provide for synchronization of all clocks
used in connection with the audit trail.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange, Inc.,
Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-9925, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 41574 (June 29, 1999) (Order Instituting Public
Proceedings Pursuant to Section 19(h)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, Making Findings and Ordering Compliance with
Undertakings), at 4-5.
\55\ Id. at 28-29.
\56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Commission's order, the NYSE created OTS.\57\
OTS currently is used for the provision of audit trail data for orders
\58\ in NYSE
[[Page 32560]]
and NYSE Amex-listed cash equity securities by NYSE and NYSE Amex
members, including for orders in NYSE or NYSE Amex-listed cash equity
securities initiated by a NYSE or NYSE Amex member or routed by a NYSE
or NYSE Amex member to another market center for execution.\59\ OTS is
similar in scope to OATS, as detailed information is required to be
recorded for the stages of an order's life, from origination and
receipt and transmittal, through order modification, cancellation, and/
or execution.\60\ Specifically, for each of these stages in the life of
an order, OTS requires the recording of the following information, as
applicable, including but not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See NYSE Rule 132B, and OTS Approval Order, supra note 14.
\58\ OTS is applicable to all orders in NYSE-listed securities,
regardless of account type (firm or customer). See NYSE Rule
132B(a)(1).
\59\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59022 (November 26,
2008), 73 FR 73683 (December 3, 2008). NYSE Alternext adopted NYSE
Rules 1-1004 as the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules to govern all cash
equities trading on the NYSE Alternext Trading Systems and NYSE
Alternext Bonds. In March 2009, NYSE Alternext changed its name to
NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'') (the successor to Amex, see infra note
73). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59575 (March 13, 2009),
74 FR 11803 (March 19, 2009).
\60\ See NYSE Rule 132B and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 132B. Each
member or member organization shall, by the end of each business
day, record each item of information required to be recorded under
the rule in such electronic form as is prescribed by the NYSE (or
NYSE Amex) from time to time. See NYSE Rule 132B(a)(3) and NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 132B(a)(3). Members and member organizations shall be
required to transmit to the NYSE or NYSE Amex, in such format as the
applicable exchange may from time to time prescribe, such order
tracking information as the exchange may request. See NYSE Rule 132C
and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 132C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For order receipt or origination,\61\ the date and time
the order is originated or received by a member or member organization;
a unique order identifier; market participant symbol; and the material
terms of the order; \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Members are also required to report: The identification of
the department or terminal where an order is received directly from
a customer; and where the order is originated by a member or member
organization, the identification of the department (if appropriate)
of the member that originated the order. See NYSE Rule 132B(b) and
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 132B(b).
\62\ The specific information required to be reported includes:
Number of shares; designation of the order as a buy or sell;
designation of the order as a short sale; designation of the order
as a market order, limit order, auction market order, stop order,
auction stop order, or ISO; security symbol; limit or stop price;
type of account; the date on which the order expires, and, if the
time in force is less than one day, the time when the order expires;
the time limit during which the order is in force; any request by a
customer that an order not be displayed pursuant to Rule 604(c)
under the Exchange Act; and special handling requests. See NYSE Rule
132B(b) and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 132B(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the internal or external routing of an order, the
unique order identifier; the identification of the department to which
an order was transmitted if transmitted internally; the date and time
the order was received by the department receiving a transmitted order;
the market participant symbol assigned to the member or member
organization receiving the transmitted order or notation that the order
was transmitted to a non-member; \63\ the material terms of the order
as transmitted; \64\ and the date and time the order is transmitted;
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The information required to be reported also includes
whether the order was transmitted and received manually or
electronically; the date the order was first originated or received
by the transmitting member or member organization; and, for each
order to be included in a bunched order, the bunched order route
indicator assigned to the bunched order. See NYSE Rule 132B(c) and
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 132B(c).
\64\ The information required to be reported includes the number
of shares to which the transmission applies. See NYSE Rule 132B(c)
and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 132B(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the modification or cancellation of an order, a new
unique order identifier; the original unique order identifier; and the
date and time a modification or cancellation was originated or
received.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ For cancellations or modifications, the following
information also is required: The order identifier assigned to the
order prior to modification; if the open balance of an order is
canceled after a partial execution, the number of shares canceled;
and whether the order was canceled on the instruction of a customer
or the member or member organization. See NYSE Rule 132B(d) and NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 132B(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the NYSE and NYSE Amex require the recording of
detailed information concerning the receipt, cancellation or execution
of orders in NYSE and NYSE Amex-listed cash equity securities
originated on or transmitted to the exchange floor.\66\ Immediately
following receipt of an order on the floor, the member receiving the
order must record the following information: (1) The material terms of
the order; \67\ (2) a unique order identifier; (3) the clearing member
organization and the identification of the member or member
organization recording order details; \68\ and (4) modification of
terms of the order or cancellation of the order.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See NYSE Rule 123 and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123, each of
which require, among other things, a record of the cancellation of
an order, which must include the time the cancellation was entered,
and a record of the receipt of an execution report, which must
include the time of receipt of the report.
\67\ The specific information required includes the security
symbol; quantity; side of the market; whether the order is a market,
auction market, limit, stop, or auction limit order; any limit or
stop price, discretionary price range, discretionary volume range,
discretionary quote price, pegging ceiling price, pegging floor
price and/or whether discretionary instructions are active in
connection with interest displayed by other market centers; time in
force; designation as held or not held; and any special conditions.
See NYSE Rule 123(e) and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123(e).
\68\ The required information also includes the system-generated
time of recording order details. See NYSE Rule 123(e) and NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 123(e).
\69\ See NYSE Rule 123(e) and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, once an order is executed, the following information must
be recorded: (1) The material terms of the execution; \70\ (2) the
unique order identifier; (3) the identity of the firms involved in the
execution; \71\ and (4) certain other information related to the
execution.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ The specific information required includes security symbol;
quantity; transaction price; and execution time. See NYSE Rule
123(f) and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123(f).
\71\ The specific information required includes the executing
broker badge number or alpha symbol; the contra side executing
broker badge number or alpha symbol; the clearing firm number or
alpha; and the contra side clearing firm number or alpha. See NYSE
Rule 123(f) and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123(f).
\72\ The required information includes whether the account for
which the order was executed was that of a member or member
organization or non-member or non-member organization; the
identification of member or member organization which recorded order
details; the date the order was entered into an exchange system; an
indication as to whether this is a modification to a previously
submitted report; settlement instructions; special trade indication
(if applicable); and the Online Comparison System control number.
See NYSE Rule 123(f) and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Consolidated Options Audit Trail System
In September 2000, the Commission instituted public administrative
proceedings against Amex,\73\ CBOE, the Pacific Exchange,\74\ and the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange \75\ for failing to uphold their
obligations to enforce compliance with exchange rules and the federal
securities laws, including those relating to reporting. Specifically,
the Commission alleged that they had either conducted no
[[Page 32561]]
automated surveillance, or inadequate automated surveillance, of trade
reporting and consequently failed to adequately detect noncompliance
with their rules.\76\ In settling the Commission's enforcement action,
the exchanges were required to jointly design and implement COATS to
enable them to reconstruct markets promptly, surveil them, and enforce
compliance with trade reporting, firm quote, order handling, and other
rules.\77\ The exchanges were required to complete this undertaking in
five phases.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Amex was acquired by NYSE Euronext on October 1, 2008.
Initially, the successor entity to Amex was established as NYSE
Alternext U.S. LLC, but the name was changed in 2009 to NYSE Amex.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59575 (March 13, 2009), 74
FR 11803 (March 19, 2009).
\74\ In 2001, the Archipelago Exchange LLC (``ArcaEx'') was
established as an electronic trading facility for Pacific Exchange's
subsidiary PCX Equities, Inc. (``PCX Equities''). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (October 25, 2001), 66 FR 55225
(November 1, 2001). In 2005, Archipelago Holdings, Inc., the parent
company of ArcaEx, acquired PCX Holdings, Inc., which included
subsidiaries Pacific Exchange (PCX) and PCX Equities. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 52497 (September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56949
(September 29, 2005). The NYSE merged with Archipelago Holdings in
2006. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53382 (February 27,
2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006). NYSE Arca is the successor to
PCX.
\75\ The Philadelphia Stock Exchange was acquired by The NASDAQ
OMX Group, Inc. in 2008, and is now called NASDAQ OMX Phlx
(``Phlx''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58179 (July 17,
2008), 73 FR 42874 (July 23, 2008).
\76\ See Options Settlement Order, supra note 15, at 12.
\77\ Id. at 22.
\78\ Id. at 22-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, each exchange was required to achieve the following
through its audit trail: (1) Synchronize trading and support system
clocks with all other options exchanges; (2) design and implement a
method to merge all options exchanges' reported and matched transaction
data on a daily basis in a common computer format; (3) incorporate its
quotations and the national best bid and offer as displayed in its
market with the merged transaction data so that it could be promptly
retrieved and merged in the common computer format with other options
exchanges' merged transactions and quotation data; (4) design and
implement an audit trail readily retrievable (in the common computer
format) providing an accurate, time-sequenced record of electronic
orders, quotations and transactions on such exchange, beginning with
the receipt of an electronic order, and further documenting the life of
the order through the process of execution, partial execution, or
cancellation; (5) incorporate into the audit trail all non-electronic
orders so that such orders were also subject to the audit trail
requirements for electronic orders; and (6) design effective
surveillance systems to use this newly available data to enforce the
Federal securities laws and the exchange's rules.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See Options Settlement Order, supra note 15, at 22-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exchanges subject to the Options Settlement Order fully
implemented the requirements in 2005. In addition, the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC
(``BOX''), the Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM''), and BATS Options
Exchange Market (``BATS Options'') also comply with the COATS
requirements.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61154 (December
11, 2009), 74 FR 67278 (December 18, 2009), at 67280 (stating ``ISE
and the other options exchanges are required to populate a
consolidated options audit trail (``COATS'') system in order to
surveil member activities across markets''); 61388 (January 20,
2010), 75 FR 4431 (January 27, 2010), at 4433 (Nasdaq OMX BX filing
amending BOX's fee schedule, with similar language as Release No.
61154); and 61419 (January 26, 2010), 75 FR 5157 (February 1, 2010)
(BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') represented that BATS Options would
comply with the specifications of COATS in submitting data to create
a consolidated audit trail, as well as receiving COATS data for its
own surveillance purposes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A majority of options exchanges require their members to provide
the following information with respect to orders entered onto their
exchange: (1) The material terms of the order; \81\ (2) order receipt
time; \82\ (3) account type; (4) the time a modification is received;
(5) the time a cancellation is received; (6) execution time; and (7)
the clearing member identifier of the parties to the transaction.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ The specific information required includes option symbol;
underlying security; expiration month; exercise price; contract
volume; call/put; buy/sell; opening/closing transaction; price or
price limit; and special instructions.
\82\ The required information also includes identification of
the terminal or individual completing the order ticket.
\83\ See e.g. BATS Rule 20.7; BOX Chapter V, Section 15; CBOE
Chapter VI, Rules 6.24 and 6.51; NOM Rule Chapter V, Section 7; NYSE
Amex Rules 153, Commentary .01, and 962; NYSE Arca Rules 6.67, 6.68,
and 6.69; and Phlx Rules 1063 and 1080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Other Audit Trail Requirements
SRO audit trail rules regarding information on orders for NMS
stocks to be recorded by their members, and in some cases provided to
the SRO, tend to be less uniform than SRO audit trail rules relating to
listed options.\84\ Some exchanges and FINRA have detailed audit trail
data submission requirements for their members covering order entry,
transmittal, and execution.\85\ For example, the rules of one exchange
require the recording of the following information for each order
originating with an exchange participant that is given to or received
from another participant for execution, transmitted by an exchange
participant to another market, or originating off the exchange and
transmitted to an exchange participant, and subsequent execution of any
such orders: \86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ For purposes of this release, the Commission does not
consider SRO EBS rules to be audit trail rules.
\85\ See Chicago Stock Exchange (``CHX'') Article 11, Rule 3(b);
FINRA Rules 7400 to 7470 (the OATS rules); Nasdaq Rules 6950 to 6958
(substantially similar to the OATS rules); BX Rules 6950 to 6958
(substantially similar to OATS rules); NYSE Rule 123 and 132B; and
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123 and 132B (OTS rules). See supra Sections
I.C. and I.D. for a discussion of FINRA's OATS rules and the NYSE
and NYSE Amex's OTS rules, respectively.
\86\ See CHX Article 11, Rule 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information relating to receipt or transmission of the
order, including the material terms of the order; \87\ a unique order
identifier; the identification of the clearing participant and the
participant recording the order details; the date and time of order
receipt or transmission (if applicable); the market or participant to
which the order was transmitted or from which the order was received
(if applicable);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Id. The specific information required includes the symbol;
number or shares or quantity of security; side of the market; order
type; limit and/or stop price; whether the order is agency or
proprietary; whether an order is a bona fide arbitrage order;
whether the order is short; time in force; designation as held or
not held; any special conditions or instructions (including any
customer display instructions and any all-or-none conditions); and
the date and time of any order expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information relating to modifications to or cancellation
of the order, including any modifications to the order, any
cancellation of all or part of the order; the date and time of receipt
and transmission of any modifications to the order or cancellations;
and the identification of the party canceling or modifying the order;
\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For executions of the order,\89\ in whole or in part, the
transaction price; the number of shares or quantity executed; the date
and time of execution; the contra party to the execution; and any
settlement instructions.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Id.
\90\ Id. The participant also must record the system-generated
times of recording this required information. This information must
be recorded immediately after the information is received or becomes
available. CHX Article 11, Rule 3(c). Additionally, before any such
orders are executed, exchange participants must record the name or
designation of the account for which the order is being executed.
CHX Article 11, Rule 3(d). This rule does not apply to orders sent
or received through the exchange's matching system or any other
electronic systems the exchange recognizes as providing the required
information in a format acceptable to the exchange. See CHX Article
11, Rule 3, Interpretations and Policies .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The audit trail rules of the other exchanges incorporate only
standard books and records requirements in accordance with Section 17
of the Exchange Act.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See e.g. National Stock Exchange (``NSX'') Chapter VI, Rule
4.1.; BATS Chapter IV, Rule 4.1; CBOE Rule 15.1 (applicable to
CBSX); ISE Stock Exchange Rule 1400; NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.24;
15 U.S.C. 78q et seq. For example, one exchange only requires its
members to make and keep books and records and other correspondence
in conformity with Section 17 of the Exchange Act and the rules
thereunder, with all other applicable laws and the rules,
regulations and statements of policy promulgated thereunder, and
with the exchange's rules. See NSX Chapter VI, Rule 4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Prior Commission Request for Comment
The Commission has previously requested comment regarding cross-
[[Page 32562]]
market regulation, including whether changes should be made to existing
audit trail rules, in two concept releases in 2003 and 2004.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 47849 (May 14,
2003), 68 FR 27722 (May 20, 2003) (File No. S7-11-03) (``Intermarket
Trading Concept Release'') and 50700 (November 18, 2004), 69 FR
71256 (December 8, 2004) (File No. S7-40-04) (``Concept Release
Concerning Self-Regulation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2003, the Commission sought public comment on a petition
submitted by Nasdaq that raised concerns about the impact of market
fragmentation on the trading in, and regulation of trading in, Nasdaq-
listed securities.\93\ Nasdaq, through OATS, collected data from its
members trading Nasdaq-listed securities, which the NASD then used to
surveil for potential rule violations.\94\ Nasdaq requested that the
Commission require all SROs trading Nasdaq-listed securities to
implement an electronic audit trail identical to OATS.\95\ Nasdaq also
noted that the available cross-market audit trail information provided
by the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'') \96\ was comprised of
audit trail information from each of the exchanges and provided two day
delayed data at the clearing firm level, with time data from non-
synchronized clocks.\97\ Nasdaq believed that the information provided
by ISG was insufficient to identify potentially violative activity.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See letter to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, from
Edward Knight, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Nasdaq,
dated April 11, 2003 (File No. 4-479) (``Nasdaq Petition''). In
particular, Nasdaq was concerned over what it deemed ``unequal and
inadequate regulation'' by other markets trading Nasdaq-listed
securities. Id. at 2. See also Intermarket Trading Concept Release,
supra note 92, at 27223.
\94\ See Nasdaq Petition, supra note 93, at 10, and Intermarket
Trading Concept Release, supra note 92, at 27224.
\95\ See Nasdaq Petition, supra note 93, at 11, and Intermarket
Trading Concept Release, supra note 92, at 27224.
\96\ The ISG was created in 1983 and its members include all of
the registered national securities exchanges and FINRA. ISG states
that its goals are to enhance intermarket surveillance, assure the
integrity of trading, and provide investor protection. To achieve
these goals, ISG members share data such as audit trail information
and short interest data among themselves. ISG provides surveillance
tools to supplement its participant members' existing surveillance
systems, such as the ISG Unusual Activity Report and the
Consolidated Equity Audit Trail. These reports are made available
from SIAC to members of ISG and are intended to provide a
consolidated view across all markets of trade, quote, and clearing
activity. See comment letter from Brian F. Colby, Chairman,
Intermarket Surveillance Group, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Commission, dated June 18, 2003 (``ISG 2003 Comment Letter'')
(commenting in response to the Intermarket Trading Concept Release).
\97\ See Nasdaq Petition, supra note 93, at 10, and Intermarket
Trading Concept Release, supra note 92, at 27224.
\98\ See Nasdaq Petition, supra note 93, at 10-11, and
Intermarket Trading Concept Release, supra note 92, at 27224.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Intermarket Trading Concept Release, the
Commission received a variety of comments on intermarket surveillance
and order audit trail issues.\99\ Of those commenters that addressed
the general concept of creating a uniform electronic audit trail, some
supported the concept while others did not.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See comment letters from Darla C. Stuckey, Corporate
Secretary, NYSE, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated
June 19, 2003 (``NYSE Comment Letter''); Jeffrey T. Brown, General
Counsel, Cincinnati Stock Exchange, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Commission, dated June 19, 2003 (``CSE Comment Letter''); Michael J.
Simon, Senior Vice President and Secretary, International Securities
Exchange, Inc., to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated
June 19, 2003 (``ISE Comment Letter''); William O'Brien, Chief
Operating Officer, Br