![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Securities and Exchange Commission17 CFR Parts 232, 240, and 249[Release No. 34-49505; File No. S7-18-04]RIN 3235-AJ20Proposed Rule Changes of Self-Regulatory OrganizationsAGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") is proposing to amend certain requirements relating to rule changes proposed by self-regulatory organizations ("SROs"). Specifically, SRO proposed rule changes would be required to be filed electronically with the Commission, rather than in paper form. In addition, the Commission is proposing to require SROs to post all proposed rule changes, as well as current and complete sets of their rules, on their websites. The Commission is also proposing to make certain technical amendments to the requirements for SRO rule changes under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Act"). Together, the proposed amendments are designed to modernize the SRO rule filing process by making it more efficient and cost effective. The proposed amendments also should improve the transparency of the rule filing process and assure that all SRO members and other interested persons have ready access to an accurate, up-to-date version of SRO rules. DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before June 4, 2004. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically or by paper. Electronic comments may be submitted by: (1) electronic form on the SEC website (http://www.sec.gov) or (2) e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Mail paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. All submissions should refer to file number S7-18-04; 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 website (http://www.sec.gov). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549. 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: Florence Harmon, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 942-0773; Elizabeth Badawy, Accountant, at (202) 942-0740; Joseph Morra, Special Counsel, at (202) 942-0781; Sonia Trocchio, Special Counsel, at (202) 942-0753; Cyndi N. Rodriguez, Special Counsel, at (202) 942-4163; Michael L. Milone, Special Counsel, at 202-942-0179 (clearance and settlement SROs), Timothy Fox, Attorney, at (202) 942-0146, Division of Market Regulation, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-1001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. IntroductionUnder Section 19(b) of the Act, SROs generally must file proposed rule changes with the Commission for notice, public comment, and Commission approval, prior to implementation.1 This requirement helps assure, through Commission review and the public comment process, that SROs' rules are consistent with the purposes of the Act. The Commission is proposing changes to the rule filing process that should make it more efficient and transparent and reduce costs for the SROs and the public. First, the Commission would require SROs to file their proposed rule changes with the Commission electronically, rather than in paper format. By amending Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 to require electronic filing, the rule filing process would be initiated more quickly and economically, to the benefit of both the Commission and the SROs, as well as SRO members, investors, and other interested persons. In addition, the proposed amendments should permit the Commission to monitor and process proposed SRO rule changes more efficiently and effectively. Second, the Commission would mandate that SROs promptly post on their websites a copy of all proposed rule changes filed with the Commission. Website posting of SRO proposed rule changes should facilitate the ability of interested persons to comment on the proposals and save resources currently used to monitor the Commission's Public Reference Room for proposed rule changes. The Commission is also proposing that SROs maintain a current and complete version of their rules on their websites. Current practices in this area vary considerably among SROs, often resulting in confusion by SRO members, others seeking to comply with SRO rules, and other interested parties. Finally, the Commission is proposing to make certain technical amendments to clarify Rule 19b-4 and to reflect practice. II. BackgroundSection 19(b)(1) of the Act2 requires each SRO to file with the Commission its proposed rule changes,3 accompanied by a concise general statement of the basis for, and purpose of, the proposed rule change.4 Once an SRO files a proposed rule change, the Commission must publish notice of it and provide an opportunity for public comment. The proposed rule change may not take effect unless the Commission approves it, or it is otherwise permitted to become effective under Section 19(b)(3)(A) or Section 19(b)(7) of the Act.5 The SRO rule filing process under the Act serves several important policy goals. First, the notice and comment requirement helps assure that interested persons have an opportunity to provide input into SRO actions that could have a significant impact on the market, market participants both professionals and individual investors and others.6 Second, the rule filing process allows the Commission to review proposed rule changes to determine whether they are consistent with the Act, including the national market system goals of fair competition, price transparency, best execution, and investor protection. Finally, the rule filing process helps assure that SRO members, among others, are treated fairly in accordance with the Act, such that there is fair representation of members in the selection of the SRO's directors and the administration of its affairs, the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges, and the appropriate and fair discipline of members. III. Proposed AmendmentsA. Electronic FilingThe Commission proposes to modernize the rule filing process by requiring SROs to file proposed rule changes electronically with the Commission through a web-based system.7 To implement electronic web-based filing of proposed SRO rule changes, the Commission would amend Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 to require that all Forms 19b-4, and any amendments thereto, be submitted electronically to the Commission in accordance with the procedures, and in the format, specified therein. Each SRO would have access to a secure website that would enable authorized individuals at the SRO to file with the Commission an electronic Form 19b-4 on behalf of the SRO.8 The current requirement in Form 19b-4 that SROs submit multiple, paper copies of proposed rule changes would be eliminated. Under the proposed amendments, a proposed rule change would be deemed filed with the Commission on the business day that it is submitted electronically, so long as the Commission receives it on or before 5:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Savings Time, and it is filed in accordance with the requirements of Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4, as amended. Occasionally, an SRO may find it necessary to file documents that cannot be submitted in electronic format, such as pre-filing comment letters from SRO members or other exhibits. In addition, it may not be appropriate to require proprietary and other information subject to a request for confidential treatment to be filed electronically.9 Accordingly, the proposed amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 retain the flexibility to permit portions of a rule filing to be made in paper form under limited circumstances. As to signature requirements, Form 19b-4 currently requires that a "duly authorized officer" of an SRO manually sign all rule filings.10 The Commission proposes to amend Form 19b-4 so that SROs would be required to file their proposed rule changes with an electronic signature.11 Furthermore, each duly authorized signatory would be required to obtain a "digital ID" in order to provide both the Commission and the SRO with assurances that the Form 19b-4 has been transmitted without external interference.12 As with the EDGAR system, any required signatures with respect to an SRO proposed rule change would appear in typed form.13 In addition, each signatory would be required to manually sign the Form 19b-4, authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting his or her electronic signature that is attached to or logically associated with the filing.14 In accordance with Rule 17a-1 of the Act,15 the SRO would be required to retain that manual signature page of the rule filing, authenticating the signatory's electronic signature, for not less than five years after the Form 19b-4 is filed with the Commission16 and, upon request, furnish a copy of it to the Commission or its staff.17 In recent years, the Commission has been processing increasing volumes of SRO rule proposals, as both the number of SROs and SRO facilities,18 and their rulemaking activity, has increased.19 The Commission believes that requiring SROs to file proposed rule changes electronically would have several benefits. First, electronic filing of proposed rule changes should speed the initiation of the rule filing process. In today's highly competitive market environment, SROs are under pressure to complete the rule filing process quickly.20 Under the current system, SROs send paper copies of proposed rule changes to the Commission via messenger, overnight delivery, or U.S. mail. Once the Commission receives a proposed rule change, internal processing of paper filings may take several days before the staff person assigned to review it receives the rule filing. Electronic filing would substantially reduce the time it takes to process SRO rule filings by eliminating paper delivery, copying and distribution. Second, electronic rule filing should reduce costs for the SROs21 and should also result in a more efficient use of Commission resources. The SROs no longer would incur delivery costs for paper filings or the SRO staff time currently devoted to preparing filing packages. The Commission also would benefit from reducing the personnel time currently associated with manually processing paper filings. Finally, by integrating the electronic filing technology with SRTS, Commission staff could more easily monitor and process proposed SRO rule changes. Pertinent information regarding proposed rule changes, as well as amendments, would be captured automatically by SRTS.22 As a result, the Commission would be able to monitor electronically the progress of SRO rule filings from initial receipt through final disposition, and thereby enhance its management of the rule filing process. B. Posting of Proposed Rule Changes on SRO WebsitesThe Commission also is proposing to amend Rule 19b-4 to require each SRO to post all proposed rule changes, and any amendments thereto, on its public website no later than the next business day after filing with the Commission. The Commission has chosen the next business day to provide interested persons with quick access to the proposed rule change, while at the same time providing SROs with sufficient time to comply with this posting requirement. A copy of the complete proposed rule change would continue to be available in the Commission's Public Reference Room, but in electronic and paper format. The Commission believes that website accessibility of proposed SRO rule changes would facilitate the ability of interested persons to comment on the proposals and save SRO resources currently used to monitor the Commission's Public Reference Room for competitors' proposed rule changes. By providing ready access to proposed SRO rule changes, effective public comment should be facilitated, thus enhancing the transparency of the rule filing process. 23 Although practices vary, several SROs now post selected rule filings on their websites. Nearly all of the SROs have informally indicated to Commission staff that they favor such increased accessibility to proposed rule filings, as long as it is a uniform requirement. C. Posting of Current and Complete Rule Text on SRO WebsitesIn addition, the Commission proposes to amend Rule 19b-4 to require SROs to post and maintain a current and complete version of their rules on their websites. Under the proposal, each SRO would be required to update its public website to reflect rule changes no later than the next business day after it has been notified of Commission approval of the rule change or Commission notice of an effective-upon-filing SRO rule.24 The Commission has chosen the next business day to provide interested persons with prompt access to the SROs' rules, while at the same time providing SROs with sufficient time to comply with this posting requirement. If an approved rule change is not effective for a certain period after Commission approval, the SRO would be required to indicate clearly the implementation date in the relevant rule text. Notification to the SRO would either be done electronically through SRTS or by faxing the Commission's approval order or the Commission's notice of effective-upon-filing SRO rules to the SRO. Current practices with respect to website availability of rules vary considerably among SROs, often resulting in confusion by SRO members and others seeking to comply with SRO rules, as well as other interested persons. Members and other interested parties often need prompt and accurate notification of SRO rule changes to be able to comply with such rules. The Commission believes that this proposal should help assure that current, accurate, and complete versions of the rules of each SRO are readily accessible to interested parties, thus enhancing compliance with SRO rules. D. Amendments to Rule 19b-4The Commission is proposing to make two amendments to clarify Rule 19b-4 and reflect current practice. First, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 19b-4(e), which addresses rule filing requirements applicable to "new derivative securities products," to clarify that that term does not include a single equity option or a security futures product.25 Second, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 19b-4(f)(2) to more clearly reflect the Commission's stated position that a proposed fee change applicable to non-members and non-participants must be filed under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act for full notice and comment, and not filed under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.26 E. Technical Amendments to Regulation S-TRegulation S-T27 currently states that all Exchange Act filings, except for Form 25,28 must be submitted in paper. Therefore, the Commission is proposing to make a technical amendment to Regulation S-T to reflect that the Form 19b-4 will be filed electronically. F. Form 19b-4 Amendments; Commission Policy1. Form 19b-4 AmendmentsForm 19b-4 would be amended to eliminate the required submission of nine paper copies and instead require electronic filing of Form 19b-4.29 To access the secure Internet site for web-based filing of the Form 19b-4, the SRO would submit to the Commission an External Application User Authentication Form ("EAUF")30 to register each individual at the SRO who will be submitting Forms 19b-4 on behalf of the SRO. Upon receipt and verification of the information in the EAUF process, the Commission would issue each such person a User ID and Password to permit access to the Commission's secure website. As Form 19b-4 will be electronic, initially the authorized user at an SRO would access a screen containing a filing template, referenced as Page 1, in which it could identify the SRO and the statutory section pursuant to which the rule filing would be submitted (i.e., Section 19(b)(2), Section 19(b)(3)(A), or Section 19(b)(3)(B)).31 Page 1 of Form 19b-4 will also require a brief description of the proposed rule change, as well as an indication whether a pilot is being proposed. The SRO would provide contact information and place the electronic signature of a duly authorized officer on this Page 1 initial screen.32 The second screen of the electronic Form 19b-4 would provide the SRO with a means to attach the proposed rule change and related exhibits in Microsoft Word format.33 SRO users would have electronic access to the general instructions for using the Form, as adapted for electronic filing.34 Finally, the SRO would use the electronic Form 19b-4 to amend or withdraw a rule filing pending with the Commission or to file an extension of the statutory period in Section 19 of the Act in which the Commission is required to act on the rule filing.35 In addition, the Commission notes that, generally, Form 19b-4 requires, and will continue to require, an SRO to: (1) submit a complete description of the terms of its proposal; (2) describe the impact of the proposed rule change on various segments of the market, including members, member constituencies, and non-members; and (3) describe how the filing relates to existing rules of the SRO.36 In addition, a proposed rule change must provide an accurate statement of the authority and statutory basis for, and purpose of, the proposed rule change, including its consistency with the Act and rules thereunder, and its impact on competition, if any, as well as a summary of any written comments received by the SRO. The proposed rule change must be consistent with the existing rules of the SRO, including any other proposed rule changes. Form 19b-4 also contains certain technical requirements so that information presented in the Form is comprehensible. Finally, as stated, the chief executive officer, general counsel, or other officer or director of the SRO that exercises similar authority must electronically sign the Form 19b-4. 2. Commission Policy: Accurate, Consistent, and Complete Forms 19b-4The Commission firmly believes that, to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment, a proposed rule change must be accurate, consistent, and complete. Form 19b-4 states that "[t]his form, including the exhibits, is intended to elicit information necessary for the public to provide meaningful comment on the proposed rule change and for the Commission to determine whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the self-regulatory organization. The SRO must provide all the information called for by the form, including the exhibits, and must present the information in a clear and comprehensible manner."37 The Commission, however, receives many SRO proposed rule changes that are not carefully prepared in accordance with Form 19b-4. Currently, Commission staff devotes significant time to processing proposed rule changes, reviewing them for accuracy and completeness, and preparing them for publication. The Commission encourages SRO staff to review carefully proposed rule changes to ensure, among other things, that the filings: (1) contain a properly completed Form 19b-4; (2) contain a clear and accurate statement of the authority for, and basis and purpose of, such rule change, including the impact on competition; (3) contain a summary of any written comments received by the SRO; and (4) state that the proposal is not inconsistent with the existing rules of the SRO, including any other rules proposed to be amended. As described in the current Form 19b-4, filings that do not comply with the foregoing are deemed not filed and returned to the SRO. Consistent with the requirements of Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4, electronically filed proposed rule changes that do not comply with the foregoing will continue to be returned to the SRO, but in electronic format, and, consistent with current practice, will be deemed not filed with the Commission until all required information has been provided. IV. Request for CommentThe Commission requests the views of commenters on all aspects of the proposed amendments, discussed above, to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 under the Act. In particular, the Commission requests comment on the following: 1. Are there positive or negative implications, in addition to those discussed above, of the Commission requiring SROs to file all proposed rule changes electronically? 2. Is there a need for additional exceptions to the electronic rule filing requirement for SROs? For example, should express accommodation be made for paper filings in emergency situations when web-based, electronic filing may be temporarily unavailable? If so, what specific situations should be excepted, and what accommodations should be made? Should the existing Rule and Form requirements be available for use in such a situation? 3. Is the requirement that SROs post all proposed rule changes, and any amendments, on their websites no later than the next business day after filing with the Commission appropriate? Should this time period be longer or shorter? 4. If the SRO proposed rule change is incomplete because it does not comply with the requirements of Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 and deemed not properly filed and returned to the SRO, should the SRO inform the public of the status of the proposed rule change? Similarly, if the SRO withdraws a proposed rule change, should the SRO inform the public of the withdrawal? Should that information be required to be maintained on the SRO's website? The Commission believes such requirement may be necessary to provide needed information to those monitoring the proposed rule change. 5. Is the requirement that SROs update their websites to reflect rule changes no later than the next business day after notification of Commission approval appropriate? Should this time period be longer or shorter? Is the proposed process for Commission notification to the SRO of its approval order of a SRO proposed rule or the Commission's notice of an effective-upon-filing SRO rule, through SRTS or facsimile, adequate? If an SRO rule change is not effective until a certain period after Commission approval, should the website update be delayed until the effective date? 6. Are the SRO recordkeeping requirements for the page containing the manual signature of the Form 19b-4 appropriate? 7. There are currently seven national market system plans that have been approved by the Commission. Three of these plans are also transaction reporting plans. In the equity securities market, there are four plans. The Intermarket Trading System ("ITS") Plan governs trading of exchange-listed securities by exchanges and Nasdaq market makers. The ITS Operating Committee administers the ITS Plan. The Consolidated Tape Association ("CTA") administers two plans: the Consolidated Tape Plan38 and the Consolidated Quotation Plan. These plans address how trades in exchange-listed equity securities are reported and how quotations for these securities are made public. The OTC/UTP Plan39 addresses how both transaction and quotation information in Nasdaq-listed securities is consolidated and disseminated. In the options market, there are three plans. The Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information ("OPRA Plan") is the transaction reporting plan for options. The Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Options Intermarket Linkage ("Linkage Plan") governs inter-market trading of options. The Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed to Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized Options ("Options Listing Procedures Plan" or "OLPP") governs the listing of standardized options. The OPRA Plan is administered by the Options Price Reporting Authority ("OPRA"), the Linkage Plan is administered by the Options Linkage Authority ("OLA"), and the OLPP is administered by The Options Clearing Corporation and the options exchanges. Should the plan administrators for each of these plans post on their websites or on a separate plan website a current version of the plans as well as proposed amendments to these plans within the time periods proposed for SROs? V. Paperwork Reduction ActCertain provisions of the proposed rule and form contain "collection of information requirements" within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.40 The Commission has submitted the information to the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") for review in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507 and 5 CFR 1320.11. The Commission is proposing to submit the current collection of information titled "Rule 19b-4 Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934" (OMB Control Nos. 3235-0045, 3235-0504). The Commission is also proposing to submit the current collection of information titled "Form 19b-4 Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934" (OMB Control No. 3235-0045). 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 control number. A. Summary of Collection of InformationRule 19b-4 currently requires an SRO seeking Commission approval for a proposed rule change to provide the information stipulated in Form 19b-4. Form 19b-4 currently calls for a description of: the terms of a proposed rule change; the proposed rule change's impact on various market segments; and the relationship between the proposed rule change and the SRO's existing rules. Form 19b-4 also currently calls for an accurate statement of the authority and statutory basis for, and purpose of, the proposed rule change; the proposal's impact on competition; and a summary of any written comments received by the SRO from SRO members. The proposed amendments would not change the information currently required by Rule 19b-4 or Form 19b-4; the proposed amendments would only require that such information be submitted electronically. The proposed amendments, however, would require website posting of all proposed rule changes, and any amendments thereto. In addition, the proposed amendments would require SROs to post a current and complete set of their rules on their websites. Several SROs currently post some of this information on their websites. SROs are required by Sections 6(b)(1),41 15A(b)(2),42 17A,43 and 15B44 of the Act to enforce compliance with their rules. Presumably, each SRO maintains a current and complete set of its rules to facilitate compliance with this requirement. B. Proposed Use of InformationThe information provided via EAUF, as required by the proposed amendments to Form 19b-4, would be used by the Commission to verify the identity of the SRO individual and provide such individual access to a secure Commission website for filing of the Form 19b-4. The Commission proposes to require that SROs post their proposed rule changes on their websites so that these proposals could be viewed by the general public, SRO members, competing SROs, other market participants, and Commission staff. The information would enable interested parties to more easily access SRO rules and rule filings, which would facilitate public comment on proposed SRO rules. Additionally, SRO staff, members, industry participants, and Commission staff would utilize the accurate and current version of SRO rules that are posted on the SRO website to facilitate compliance with such rules. C. RespondentsThere are currently 27 SROs subject to the collection of information, though that number may vary owing to the consolidation of SROs or the introduction of new entities. In fiscal year 2003, these respondents filed 769 rule change proposals and 510 amendments to those proposed rule change proposals, for a total of 1279 filings that are subject to the current collection of information. Of these 769 proposed rule changes filed by SROs, 705 ultimately became effective because the SROs withdrew 64 proposed rule changes. D. Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping BurdenThe proposed amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 are designed to modernize the SRO rule filing process and to make the process more efficient by conserving both SRO and Commission resources. Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 would be amended to require SROs to electronically file their proposed rule changes. In addition, Form 19b-4 would be revised to accommodate electronic submission. The Commission expects that an electronic form would reduce by one hour the amount of SRO clerical time required to prepare the average filing. The proposed amendments would also require SROs to post all proposed rule changes, and any amendments, on their websites, as well as maintain a current and complete set of their rules on their websites. The Commission staff estimates that it would take an SRO 30 minutes to post a filing on its website, irrespective of whether this filing is an SRO rule change proposal, amendment, or final SRO rule. An SRO rule change proposal is generally filed with the Commission after an SRO's staff has obtained approval by its Board. The time required to complete a filing varies significantly and is difficult to separate from the time an SRO spends in developing internally the proposed rule change. However, several SROs have estimated at 35 hours the amount of time required to complete an average rule filing using present Form 19b-4. This figure includes an estimated 25 hours of in-house legal work and ten hours of clerical work. The amount of time required to prepare amendments varies because some amendments are comprehensive, while other amendments are submitted in the form of a one-page letter. The Commission staff estimates that, under current rules, four hours is the amount of time required to prepare an amendment to the rule proposal. This figure includes an estimated two hours of in-house legal work and two hours of clerical work. With the proposed electronic filing, the Commission staff estimates that 34 hours is the amount of time that would be required to complete an average rule filing and at three hours the amount of time required to complete an average amendment. These figures reflect the one hour in savings in clerical hours that would result from the use of an electronic form for both the rule filings and the amendments.45 The Commission staff estimates that the reporting burden for filing rule change proposals and amendments with the Commission under the proposed amendments would be 27,676 hours (769 rule change proposals x 34 hours + 510 amendments x 3 hours). The Commission staff estimates that 30 minutes is the amount of time that would be required to post a proposed rule on an SRO's website and that 30 minutes is the amount of time that would be required to post an amendment on an SRO's website. The Commission staff estimates that the reporting burden for posting rule change proposals and amendments on the SRO websites would be 640 hours (769 rule change proposals46 x 0.5 hours + 510 amendments x 0.5 hours). The Commission staff estimates that one hour would be the amount of time required to post an SRO's current rules on its website. Currently, 22 of the 27 SROs have posted their rules on their websites; five have not.47 The Commission staff estimates that the total reporting burden for posting current rules on the SROs' websites would be 27 hours (27 SROs x 1 hour) because each SRO should have a current version of its rules available for posting on its website. The Commission staff estimates that two hours is the amount of time that would be required to update the SRO's website when the SRO's proposed rule becomes effective. Therefore, each time the Commission approves an SRO rule change or does not abrogate an SRO effective-upon-filing rule change (total of 705 rules in fiscal year 2003), the Commission staff estimates that the reporting burden for updating the already website posted SRO rules on the SRO website would be 1410 hours (705 SRO Commission approved or non-abrogated rules x 2 hours). The Commission staff estimates that the total annual reporting burden under the proposed rule would be 29,753 hours (27,676 hours for filing proposed rule changes and amendments + 640 hours for posting proposed rule changes and amendments on the SROs' websites + 27 hours for initial posting of accurate SRO rule text on SRO websites + 1410 hours for updating SRO final rules on SRO websites). The Commission does not expect that the proposed amendments with regard to electronic filing would impose any material additional costs on SROs. Instead, the Commission believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4, on balance, would reduce paperwork costs related to the submission of SRO proposed rule changes. The technology for electronic filing would be web-based; therefore, the SROs should not have any technology expenditures for electronic filing because all SROs currently have access to the Internet. However, each SRO would be required to obtain a digital ID from a certificating authority. The Commission staff estimates the annual cost of the ID to be $15 for each SRO. The Commission staff estimates that SROs would purchase two such digital IDs for their staff. Thus, the annual cost of the ID for all SROs would be $810 (27 SROs x $15 x 2). As previously stated, the SROs could incur nominal costs on posting on their website their proposed rules, amendments thereto, no later than the next business day after filing with or approval by the Commission. With regard to posting of accurate and complete text of SRO final rules, the Commission notes that most of the SROs currently post some of this information, if not all of this information, on their websites. Some SROs currently rely on CCH, Incorporated ("CCH") to maintain a current version of their rules, and a cost may be involved in expediting prompt publication of rule changes with CCH. However, the Commission notes that SROs are required by Sections 6(b)(1),48 15A(b)(2),49 17A,50 and 15B51 of the Act to enforce compliance with their rules. Therefore, at all times, each SRO should maintain a current and complete set of its rules to facilitate compliance with this requirement. Accordingly, the Commission does not believe that SROs would incur material costs in simply posting this information on their websites. E. Retention Period of Recordkeeping RequirementsThe SROs would be required to retain records of the collection of information (the manually signed signature page of the Form 19b-4) for a period of not less than five years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, according to the current recordkeeping requirements set forth in Rule 17a-1 of the Act.52 The SROs would be required to retain proposed rule changes, and any amendments, on their websites until the proposal is either approved or disapproved. The SRO would be required at all times to maintain an accurate and up-to-date copy of all of its rules on its website. F. Collection of Information is MandatoryAny collection of information pursuant to the proposed amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 to require electronic filing with the Commission of SRO proposed rule changes would be a mandatory collection of information filed with the Commission as a means for the Commission to review, and, as required, take action with respect to SRO proposed rule changes. Any collection of information pursuant to the proposed amendments to require website posting by the SROs of their proposed and final rules would also be a mandatory collection of information; however, it would not be a collection of information filed with the Commission upon which the Commission would review and take action. G. Responses to Collection of Information Will Not Be Kept ConfidentialOther than information for which an SRO requests confidential treatment and which may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 522, and the posting of proposed and final rules on the SRO website, and thus not information filed with the Commission, the collection of information pursuant to the proposed amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 under the Act would not be confidential and would be publicly available.53 H. Request for CommentPursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits comments to: (1) Evaluate whether the 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 the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Persons wishing to submit comments on the collection of information requirements should direct them to the following persons: (1) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"), Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; and (2) Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609 with reference to File No. S7-18-04. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication, so a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. The Commission has submitted the proposed collection of information to OMB for approval. Requests for the materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard to this collection of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-18-04, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Records Management, Office of Filings and Information Services, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549. VI. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed RulemakingThe Commission is considering the costs and benefits of the proposed amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 discussed above. As noted above, the Commission staff estimates that the total annual paperwork reporting burden under the proposed rule would be 29,753 hours. The Commission staff, however, believes that there would be an overall reduction of costs based on the proposed amendments.54 The Commission encourages commenters to identify, discuss, analyze, and supply relevant data regarding any such costs or benefits. A. BenefitsThe proposed amendments are designed to modernize the filing, receipt, and processing of SRO proposed rule changes and to make the SRO rule filing process more efficient by conserving both SRO and Commission resources. The Commission believes that the proposed changes to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 would permit SROs to file proposed rule changes with the Commission more quickly and economically. For example, SROs are currently required to pay for delivery costs of multiple paper copies to the Commission as well as the costs associated with monitoring the Commission's Public Reference Room for competitors' rule filings. Requiring SROs to file electronically proposed rule changes should reduce expenses associated with clerical time, postage, and copying and should increase the speed, accuracy, and availability of information beneficial to investors, other SROs, and financial markets. Because Commission staff would no longer manually process the receipt and distribution of SRO rule filings, electronic filing would also expedite the Commission's receipt of SRO proposed rule changes and provide the SROs with the certainty that the Commission has received the proposed rule changes and has captured pertinent information about the rule changes in SRTS. The Commission believes that integrating the electronic filing technology with SRTS should also enhance the Commission's ability to monitor and process SRO proposed rule changes. Moreover, requiring SROs to post proposed rule changes on their websites no later than the next business day after filing with the Commission should increase availability of SRO proposed rules, and thereby facilitate the ability of interested parties to comment on proposed rule changes. For instance, the posting of proposed rule changes would provide the public with access to the filings on the SROs' websites and thereby reduce the burden on SRO and Commission staff of providing information about proposed rule changes to interested parties. The Commission believes that the posting of the proposed rule changes would also save SRO resources that are currently being used to monitor the Commission's Public Reference Room for competitors' proposed rule changes. Furthermore, requiring an SRO to post and maintain on its website a current and complete set of its rules could eliminate the confusion among SROs, members of the industry, and the public regarding the accuracy of SRO rule text and facilitate immediate availability of an SRO's rule text. B. CostsAs noted, the Commission staff estimates that there would be paperwork reporting costs of 29,753 hours under the proposed rule. The Commission, however, does not expect that the proposed amendments would impose additional costs on SROs. Instead, the Commission believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4, on balance, would reduce costs related to the submission of SRO proposed rule changes. The technology for electronic filing would be web-based; therefore, the SRO should not have any technology expenditures for electronic filing because all SROs currently have access to the Internet. Most of the information that would be required to be submitted by the SROs electronically is currently submitted in multiple paper copies to the Commission. There are personnel and delivery costs associated with paper filings that would not be incurred with electronic filing. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4, by requiring the SROs to submit proposed rule changes in electronic format, would reduce their costs. If the proposed changes were adopted, the Commission believes that SROs could incur some costs associated with training their personnel about the procedures for submitting proposed rule changes in electronic format and submission of the information via EAUF. However, the Commission believes that such costs would be one-time costs and insubstantial since the SROs are already familiar with the information required in filing a proposed rule change with the Commission and would only be required to submit the same information electronically under this proposal. The Commission staff believes that the SROs could also incur some minimal costs (currently $15 per year) associated with purchasing digital IDs for each duly authorized officer electronic signatories.55 The Commission also believes that the SROs would have to make temporary adjustments to their recordkeeping procedures since, under the proposal, the SROs would be required to print out the Form 19b-4 signature block, manually sign proposed rule changes, and retain the manual signature for not less than five years. However, there should be no additional costs associated with such recordkeeping as SROs are currently required to retain the Form 19b-4 for not less than five years. The Commission requests comment on the anticipated costs, if any, on SROs to comply with the proposed requirement of retaining a manual signature of each proposed rule change submitted electronically. Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposed requirement that SROs post proposed rule changes, as well as a current and complete version of their rules, on their websites would impose some but not substantial costs on most SROs. The Commission notes that most of the SROs currently post some of this information, if not all of this information, on their websites. Some SROs currently rely on CCH to maintain a current version of their rules, and a cost could be involved in expediting prompt publication of rule changes with CCH or maintaining a current version of their rules at the SRO. However, the Commission notes that SROs are required by Sections 6(b)(1),56 15A(b)(2),57 17A,58 and 15B59 of the Act to enforce compliance with their rules. Therefore, at all times, each SRO should maintain a current and complete set of its rules to facilitate compliance with this requirement. Accordingly, the Commission does not believe that SROs would incur substantial costs in simply posting this information on their websites because if the SRO does not currently maintain a current and complete set of its rules, it should have done so and have provided for such administrative costs. C. Request for CommentThe Commission requests data to quantify the costs and the benefits above. The Commission seeks estimates of these costs and benefits, as well as any costs and benefits not already defined, which could result from the adoption of these proposed amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4. Specifically, the Commission requests commenters to address whether proposed amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 that would require electronic filing of SRO proposed rule changes, the posting of these proposed rule changes on the SROs' websites, as well as the posting and maintenance of current and complete sets of rules on the SROs' websites, would generate the anticipated benefits or impose any unanticipated costs on the SROs and the public. VII. Consideration of the Burden on Competition, Promotion of Efficiency, and Capital FormationSection 3(f) of the Act60 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 whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. In addition, Section 23(a)(2) of the Act61 requires the Commission, when promulgating rules under the Act, to consider the impact any such rules would have on competition. Section 23(a)(2) further provides that the Commission may not adopt a rule that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 are intended to modernize the receipt and review of SRO proposed rule changes and to make the SRO rule filing process more efficient by conserving both SRO and Commission resources. They also are intended to improve the transparency of the SRO rule filing process and facilitate access to current and complete sets of SRO rules. All of these changes should help to foster innovation, increase competition, efficiency, and capital formation and thereby benefit investors. The Commission generally requests comment on the competitive or anticompetitive effects of these amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 on any market participants if adopted as proposed. The Commission also requests comment on what impact the amendments, if adopted, would have on efficiency and capital formation. Commenters should provide analysis and empirical data to support their views on the costs and benefits associated with the proposal. VIII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisSection 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act62 requires the Commission to undertake an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the proposed rule on small entities unless the Commission certifies that the rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.63 Twenty-seven SROs64-- the 13 national securities exchanges, the 11 clearing agencies, and the two national securities associations and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board--would be required to provide the Commission with information pursuant to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4. Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 apply only to SROs and no SRO is a small entity. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the proposed amendments, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.65 IX. Statutory Basis and Text of Proposed AmendmentsThe amendments to Regulation S-T under the Securities Act of 1933, Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 under the Act are being proposed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., particularly sections 3(a)(26), 3(a)(27), 3(b), 6, 15A, 15B, 17A, 19(b), 23(a) and 36(a) of the Act. List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 232, 240, and 249Reporting 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 232--REGULATION S-T -- GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC FILINGS 1. The authority citation for Part 232 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll(d), 79t(a), 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30 and 80a-37. * * * * * 2. Section 232.101 is amended by: a. Removing the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a)(1)(vii); b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(1)(viii) and in its place adding "; and"; c. Adding paragraph (a)(1)((ix); and d. Revising paragraph (c)(9). The additions and revisions read as follows: §232.101. Mandated electronic submissions and exceptions. (a) * * * (1) * * * (ix) Form 19b-4 (§249.819 of this chapter). * * * * * (c) * * * (9) Exchange Act filings submitted to the Division of Market Regulation, except for Form 19b-4 (§249.819 of this chapter). * * * * * PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 3. The authority citation for Part 240 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 79q, 79t, 80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted. * * * * * 4. Section 240.19b-4 is amended: a. Adding a preliminary note; b. Revising paragraph (a), the introductory text of paragraph (e), paragraph (f)(2); and c. Adding paragraphs (j), (k), (l), and (m). The additions and revisions read as follows. §240.19b-4 Filings with respect to proposed rule changes by self-regulatory organizations. Preliminary Note: A self-regulatory organization must also refer to Form 19b-4 (17 CFR 249.819) for further requirements with respect to the filing of proposed rule changes. (a) Filings with respect to proposed rule changes by a self-regulatory organization, except filings with respect to proposed rules changes by self-regulatory organizations submitted pursuant to section 19(b)(7) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7), shall be made electronically on Form 19b-4 (17 CFR 249.819). * * * * * (e) For the purposes of this paragraph, new derivative securities product means any type of option, warrant, hybrid securities product or any other security, other than a single equity option or a security futures product, whose value is based, in whole or in part, upon the performance of, or interest in, an underlying instrument. * * * * * (f) * * * (2) Establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member; * * * * * (j) Filings with respect to proposed rule changes by a self-regulatory organization submitted on Form 19b-4 (17 CFR 249.819) electronically shall contain an electronic signature. For the purposes of this section, the term electronic signature means an electronic entry in the form of a magnetic impulse or other form of computer data compilation of any letter or series of letters or characters comprising a name, executed, adopted or authorized as a signature. Each signatory to an electronically submitted rule filing shall manually sign a signature page or other document, in the manner prescribed by Form 19b-4, authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting his or her signature that appears in typed form within the electronic filing. Such document shall be executed before or at the time the rule filing is electronically submitted and shall be retained by the filer in accordance with §240.17a-1. (k) If the conditions of this section and Form 19b-4 (17 CFR 249.819) are otherwise satisfied, all filings submitted electronically on or before 5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Saving Time, whichever is currently in effect, on a business day, shall be deemed filed on that business day, and all filings submitted after 5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Saving Time, whichever is currently in effect, shall be deemed filed on the next business day. (l) The self-regulatory organization shall post the proposed rule change, and any amendments thereto, on its website no later than the next business day after the filing of the proposed rule change, and any amendments thereto, with the Commission. (m) The self-regulatory organization shall post and maintain a current and complete version of its rules on its website. The self-regulatory organization shall update its website to reflect rule changes no later than the next business day after it has been notified of the Commission's approval of a proposed rule change filed pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78s(b)) or of the Commission's notice of a proposed rule change filed pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) or section 19(b)(7) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A) or 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7)). If a rule change is not effective for a certain period, the self-regulatory organization shall clearly indicate the effective date in the relevant rule text. PART 249 FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 5. The authority citation for Part 249 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78a, et seq. and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted. * * * * * 6. Section 249.819 and Form 19b-4 are revised to read as follows: [Note: Form 19b-4 is attached as Appendix A to this document.] §249.819 Form 19b-4, for electronic filing with respect to proposed rule changes by all self-regulatory organizations. This form shall be used by all self-regulatory organizations, as defined in section 3(a)(26) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(26)), to file electronically proposed rule changes with the Commission pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act and §240.19b-4 of this chapter. By the Commission. Margaret H. McFarland Date: March 30, 2004 [Note: APPENDIX A TO THE PREAMBLE WILL NOT APPEAR IN THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS.] APPENDIX A
|
Home | Previous Page | Modified: 03/30/2004 |