26534 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 307

Extension of Time for Comments

Concerning Regulations Implementing

the Comprehensive Smokeless

Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of reopening and

extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) has

extended the date by which comments

must be submitted concerning the

review of its regulations (‘‘smokeless

tobacco regulations’’ or ‘‘the

regulations’’) implementing the

Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco

Health Education Act of 1986

(‘‘Smokeless Tobacco Act’’). This

document informs prospective

commenters of the change and sets a

new date of July 21, 2000 for the end of

the comment period.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 21, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be identified as ‘‘16 CFR Part 307’’ and

sent to the Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, Room H–159, 600

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20580. The

Commission requests that the original

comment be filed with five copies, if

feasible. The Commission also requests,

if possible, that the comments be

submitted in electronic form on a

computer disc. (Programs based on DOS

or Windows are preferred. Files from

other operating systems should be

submitted in ASCII text format.) The

disc label should identify the

commenter’s name and the name and

version of the word processing program

used to create the document.

Alternatively, the Commission will

accept comments submitted to the

following E-Mail address:

‘‘SMOKELESS@ftc.gov’’.

All comments will be placed on the

public record and will be available for

public inspection in accordance with

the Freedom of Information Act, 5

U.S.C. 552, and the Commission’s Rules

of Practice, 16 CFR 4.11, during normal

business days from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00

p.m., at the Public Reference Room,

Room H–130, Federal Trade

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W., Washington D.C. 20580. In

addition, comments will be placed on

the Internet at the FTC web site: http:/

/www.ftc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rosemary Rosso (202) 326–3076,

Division of Advertising Practices,

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal

Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.

20580, E-Mail (for questions or

information only): rrosso@ftc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

7, 2000, the Commission published in

the Federal Register a Request for

Comment on its regulations (‘‘smokeless

tobacco regulations’’ or ‘‘the

regulations’’) implementing the

Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco

Health Education Act of 1986

(‘‘Smokeless Tobacco Act’’), 16 CFR part

307, as part of its regulatory review

program. 65 FR 11944. The regulations

set forth the manner in which smokeless

tobacco manufacturers, importers, and

packagers must display and rotate the

three health warnings mandated by the

Smokeless Tobacco Act. The Federal

Register Notice (‘‘notice’’) posed twelve

questions in all; some were general

regulatory review questions, while

others asked about material issues that

are specific to the smokeless tobacco

regulations. The notice requested

commenters to provide answers where

possible, and specifically asked for

consumer research, studies or other data

to support comments submitted to the

Commission. Pursuant to the Federal

Register Notice, the comment period

ended on April 24, 2000.

Staff has received a request for an

extension of the comment period from

the Massachusetts Department of Public

Health. The Department indicates that it

is currently investigating issues that

relate to smokeless tobacco warnings

and requests additional time to compile

relevant information for the

Commission’s consideration.

The Commission is mindful of the

need to deal with this matter as

expeditiously as possible. However, the

Commission is also aware that some of

the issues raised by the Federal Register

Notice may be complex and it welcomes

as much substantive input as possible to

facilitate its decisionmaking process.

Accordingly, in order to provide

sufficient time for these and other

interested parties to prepare useful

comments, the Commission has decided

to extend the deadline for comments

until July 21, 2000.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 307

Health warnings, Smokeless tobacco,

Trade practices.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1401–1410.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11455 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 240

[Release No. 34–42741; File No. S7–12–00]

RIN 3235–AH69

Electronic Submission of Securities

Trading Data by Exchange Members,

Brokers and Dealers

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange

Commission is proposing for comment

Rule 17a–25 under Section 17 of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Proposed Rule 17a–25 would require

brokers and dealers to submit

electronically to the Commission, upon

request, information on customer and

firm securities trading. The Commission

designed the proposal to improve its

capacity to analyze electronic

submissions of trading data and thereby

facilitate Commission enforcement

investigations and other trading

reconstructions.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 7, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in triplicate to Jonathan G.

Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549–0609.

Comments may also be submitted

electronically at the following e-mail

address: rule-comments@sec.gov. All

comment letters should refer to File No.

S7–12–00; this file number should be

included in the subject line if e-mail is

used. All comment letters received will

be available for public inspection and

copying at the Commission’s Public

Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Electronically

submitted comment letters will be

posted on the Commission’s Internet

web site (http://www.sec.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alton Harvey, Office Chief, at (202)

942–4167; or Anitra Cassas, Attorney, at

(202) 942–0089, Division of Market

Regulation, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549–1001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction and Executive Summary

In the course of its enforcement and

market regulatory activities, the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) regularly requests

securities trading records from brokerdealers. For many decades, the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 26535

1The surveillance and enforcement staffs of othe

SROs also routinely use the EBS system to obtain

trading data from member firms for investigations

into trading abuses such as insider trading or

market manipulation.

2 17 CFR 240.17a–25.

3Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act

of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’) requires registered

broker-dealers to make, keep, furnish, and

disseminate records and reports prescribed by

Commission rule ‘‘as necessary or appropriate in

the public interest, for the protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of’’ the

Exchange Act. 15 U.S.C. 78q(a)(1).

4See Part II.B.2, infra.

5 If an SRO’s surveillance or enforcement staff

issues the data request, SIAC routes the EBS data

from the broker-dealer to the appropriate SRO.

Commission requested this data by

mailing questionnaire forms (known as

‘‘blue sheets’’ because of the color on

which the forms were printed) to

broker-dealers to be manually

completed and mailed back to the

Commission. In the late 1980s, as the

volume of trading and securities

transactions dramatically increased, the

Commission and the securities selfregulatory organization (‘‘SROs’’)

worked together to develop and

implement a system with a universal

electronic format to replace the less

efficient manual process. This system is

commonly known as the ‘‘electronic

blue sheet’’ or ‘‘EBS’’ system.

In general, the Commission uses the

EBS system to obtain securities

transaction information for one of two

purposes: (1) to assist in the

investigation of possible federal

securities law violations, primarily

involving insider trading or market

manipulation; and (2) to conduct market

reconstructions, primarily following

significant market volatility.1

Since its inception, the EBS system

has been an effective tool for most

investigations, which usually require

analyses of trading in only one or two

stocks over a limited time period. When

used for large scale investigations or

market reconstructions involving

numerous stocks during peak trading

volume periods, however, data provided

by the EBS system has not met certain

of the Commission’s needs. Specifically,

the current EBS system format does not

provide information that is needed by

the Commission to effectively aggregate

trading by market participants who

trade through multiple accounts with

more than one broker-dealer.

To ensure the continued effectiveness

of the Commission’s enforcement and

regulatory programs, the Commission is

therefore proposing to enhance certain

aspects of the EBS system to take into

account evolving trading strategies used

by institutional and professional traders.

Proposed Rule 17a–25 2 would codify

the requirement that brokers and dealers

electronically submit to the

Commission, upon request by the

Commission staff, information on

customer and proprietary securities

trading necessary for the Commission’s

enforcement or regulatory programs. 3

Specifically, proposed Rule 17a–25

would require firms to supply specific

information already covered by the

existing EBS system. For proprietary

transactions, firms would be required

upon request to report standard data

elements such as security symbol, date

executed, amount traded, type of

transaction, transaction price, account

number, location where the transaction

was executed, and identification

information for the parties on either side

of the transaction. For customer

transactions, standard data elements

would also include the customer name,

address, branch office number,

registered representative number, type

of order, date account opened, taxpayer

identification number, employer name,

and the role of the intermediary (agent

or principal) if any.

Proposed Rule 17a–25 would also

require firms, upon request, to supply

three additional data elements that

would assist the Commission in

aggregating transactions by entities

trading through multiple accounts. 4 In

addition, the rule would require brokerdealers, upon request, to provide and

keep current, information needed to

process data requests in a timely

manner (e.g., name, address, telephone

and fax number, and e-mail address for

each designated contact person

responsible for receiving and processing

EBS requests from the Commission).

Proposed Rule 17a–25 is intended to

accomplish three objectives. First, the

proposed rule would codify the

requirement for broker-dealers to

electronically submit securities trading

data when requested by the Commission

staff. Second, the rule is designed to

improve the effectiveness of the

Commission’s enforcement and

regulatory programs by providing the

additional information necessary to

aggregate the securities transactions of

institutional and professional traders

who maintain multiple accounts at more

than one broker-dealer. Finally, by

requiring broker-dealers to provide

current contact person information, the

proposed rule would significantly

improve the Commission’s ability to

process securities trading data requests

in a timely manner.

II. Discussion of Proposed Rule 17a–25

A. Background

The securities industry has witnessed

tremendous change in the past two

decades, both in the types of market

participants and in the variety of trading

strategies and products. In particular,

increasing numbers of institutional and

professional traders now conduct their

securities trading through multiple subaccounts maintained at different brokerdealers. These market participants

include institutional investors such as

pension funds, insurance companies,

foundations, endowments, mutual

funds, and hedge funds.

For over a decade, the Commission’s

primary tool for identifying buyers and

sellers of securities in enforcement or

other regulatory inquiries has been the

EBS system. When an inquiry is opened,

the Commission staff sends requests for

trading data to the most active clearing

firms in the relevant security. Firms are

requested to submit, within ten business

days, information concerning

transactions by all proprietary and

customer accounts that bought or sold a

security or securities during a specified

review period. For each account, firms

must identify, among other things: the

name and address of the account; the

account type (proprietary or customer);

the date of the trades; the types of trades

(buy, sell, or sell short); the amount

traded; and the transaction price. Firms

use software to scan their account

records and download the appropriate

information into the standard EBS

format. Firms then transmit that

electronic file to the Securities Industry

Automation Corporation (‘‘SIAC’’),

which in turn routes the file

electronically to the Commission’s

mainframe computer.5

The EBS system has performed

effectively as an enforcement tool for

analyzing trading in one or two

securities over a limited time period.

Given the increasing complexity of

trading strategies, however, the

Commission believes that enhancements

to the EBS system are necessary to

improve the Commission’s ability to

analyze trading in more complex

market-wide trading reconstructions, as

well as in investigations involving

activities in multiple securities during

heavy trading periods. Specifically, new

data elements would assist the

Commission in aggregating transactions

by entities trading through multiple

accounts.

The Commission believes that an

enhanced EBS system would also

provide a more efficient and costeffective way to conduct timely and

accurate reviews of the activities of large

traders for regulatory or enforcement

purposes, than would further efforts to

26536 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

6 15 U.S.C. 78m(h).

7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 29593

(August 22, 1991), 56 FR 42550 (August 28, 1991).

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33608

(February 9, 1994), 59 FR 7917 (February 17, 1994).

9When proposed Rule 13h–1 was published for

comment in 1991 and re-published in 1994, the

Commission received numerous comments from the

securities industry, potential large traders, and

market commentators that the large trader reporting

system would be unduly burdensome and costly.

Public comments also raised concerns that a large

trader registration system might cause large

international investors to conduct their U.S. equity

trading activities through foreign brokers and

markets. Commenters also believed that the

comprehensive system envisioned by Section 13(h)

could prove difficult to implement and maintain,

and most likely would not expedite trading

reconstructions to the extent contemplated in 1990.

10 15 U.S.C. 78q(a)(1).

11 17 CFR 240.17a–3 and 240.17a–4.

12 15 U.S.C. 78o.

13See, e.g., Rule 410A of the New York Stock

Exchange (NYSE); Rule 153A of the American Stock

Exchange (Amex); Rule 15.7 of the Chicago Board

Options Exchange (CBOE); Rule 8211 of the

National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

(NASD); and Rule 785 of the Philadelphia Stock

Exchange (Phlx).

14See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.

25859 (June 27, 1988), 53 FR 25029 (July 1, 1988)

(approving both the NYSE and Amex’s rules for the

electronic submission of trading data); 26235

(November 1, 1988), 53 FR 44688 (November 4,

1988) (approving the CBOE’s rule for the electronic

submission of trading data); 26539 (February 13,

1989), 54 FR 7318 (February 17, 1989) (approving

the NASD’s rule for the electronic submission of

trading data); and 27170 (August 23, 1989), 54 FR

37066 (approving the Phlx’s rule for the electronic

submission of trading data).

15 17 CFR 240.17a–3 and 240.17a–4.

16 Id.

design and implement the large trader

reporting system authorized by the

Market Reform Act of 1990, and

incorporated into section 13(h) of the

Exchange Act.6 Although the

Commission proposed Rule 13h–1 for

comment in 1991 7 to implement the

large trader reporting system, and reproposed a revised version of the rule in

1994,8 the Commission has not

proceeded with further development of

this system in light of commenters’

concerns.9

One of the primary objectives of the

Market Reform Act of 1990 and

proposed Rule 13h–1 was the

enhancement of the Commission’s

ability to perform accurate and timely

reconstructions of trading by large

traders. The Commission believes that

proposed Rule 17a–25 would

accomplish this objective without

imposing significant new burdens on

broker-dealers or institutional investors.

Under the current proposal, no major

changes would be necessary for brokerdealer systems. The Commission

preliminarily believes that all of the

broker-dealers that are likely to handle

large trader accounts already have in

place systems to collect and transmit

electronic reports over the existing EBS

system. In addition, the Commission

believes that the additional data

elements contemplated by proposed

Rule 17a–25 are readily available in

broker-dealer systems and can be

captured and electronically reported

with only minor modifications to the

firms’ existing EBS software.

B. Description of Proposed

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements

Section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act

requires broker-dealers to make, keep,

furnish, and disseminate records and

reports prescribed by the Commission

‘‘as necessary or appropriate in the

public interest, for the protection of

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of

the purposes of ’’ the Exchange Act.10

Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4 under the

Exchange Act specify minimum

requirements with respect to the records

that must be maintained by brokerdealers, as well as the periods during

which such records and other

documents relating to a broker-dealer’s

business must be preserved.11

Proposed Rule 17a–25 would apply to

entities currently subject to Rules 17a–

3 and 17a–4. This includes any member

of a national securities exchange who

directly deals in a securities business

with non-members of a national

securities exchange. Proposed Rule 17a–

25 would also apply to any broker or

dealer who conducts a securities

business through any member of a

national securities exchange, or is

registered pursuant to Section 15 of the

Exchange Act.12

The proposed rule is largely patterned

after existing SRO rules that require

member firms to use the EBS system to

submit the customer and proprietary

trading data that the SROs request in

connection with their market

surveillance or enforcement inquiries.13

The SRO rules, which have been in

place for ten years,14 require the same

standard transaction information to be

submitted that would be required

pursuant to proposed Rule 17a–25(a).

The universal EBS format permits the

SROs and the Commission to conduct

timely and thorough surveillance and

enforcement inquiries with minimal

regulatory burdens on reporting brokerdealers.

1. Standard Transaction Information

Proposed Rule 17a–25 would not

impose additional recordkeeping

requirements for broker-dealers; brokerdealers already maintain all of the

information required for the proposed

electronic reports pursuant to Exchange

Act Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4. These

elements include: (1) clearing house

number or alpha symbol used by the

broker-dealer submitting the data; (2)

clearing house number(s) or alpha

symbol(s) of the broker-dealer(s) on the

opposite side to the trade; (3) the

security identifier; (4) execution date;

(5) quantity executed; (6) transaction

price; (7) account number; and (8)

identity of the exchange or market

where each transaction was executed.15

If transactions are for customer accounts

(as opposed to proprietary accounts),

the following additional elements are

included: (9) customer name, address,

and related account information; and

(10) if a transaction is effected for a

customer of another member, broker or

dealer, whether the other member,

broker or dealer was acting as principal

or agent on the transaction(s).16

2. Additional Transaction Information

Proposed Rule 17a–25 would also set

forth requirements for broker-dealers to

provide, upon request, additional data

elements that are needed to aggregate

trading by institutional and professional

traders that often use multiple accounts

maintained at different broker-dealers.

In preliminary discussions with the

securities industry, the Commission

staff has identified several additional

data elements, discussed below, which

would be useful in analyzing this type

of trading through multiple accounts.

These data elements should be readily

available in broker-dealer systems, and

only minor modifications to the firms’

existing EBS software should be

necessary to capture and report these

data elements. We also believe that,

because only a limited number of

broker-dealers are likely to handle

transactions for the types of entities that

use multiple accounts at different

broker-dealers (we estimate that less

than 100 firms are likely to fall into this

category), the potential costs to the

securities industry for necessary EBS

software modifications should be

limited.

(a) Prime Brokerage Identifiers

It is common for an institutional

investor to route its buy or sell orders

in securities through different brokerdealers, who will then forward the

transactions to a single broker-dealer

that is designated as the institution’s

‘‘prime broker.’’ The prime broker

maintains a master account for the

institution that simplifies recordkeeping

and oversight of the institution’s trading

activity.

When an institution uses a prime

brokerage arrangement, it is often

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 26537

17The Commission is specifically requesting

comment on prime brokerage identifiers; see

Section III, infra.

18The Commission is specifically requesting

comment on average price account identifiers; see

Section III, infra.

19The Commission is specifically requesting

comment on depository account identifiers; see

Section III, infra.

20The Commission has determined that the most

efficient means of obtaining EBS contact

information from the appropriate broker-dealers is

by request rather than imposing a general reporting

obligation on all broker-dealers. Thousands of

broker-dealers who clear their trades through other

firms never receive EBS data requests from the

Commission. In addition, firms who do not trade

with the public or are otherwise extremely inactive

traders are rarely asked to supply trading data.

Accordingly, the Commission believes it would be

most cost-effective to build its database of EBS

contacts based on the staff’s experience with the

types of broker-dealers that are likely to be

recipients of future data requests.

difficult for the Commission to identify

instances when the same transaction

may be reported twice in EBS

submissions—once in the report by the

executing broker-dealer and again in the

report by the broker-dealer acting as

prime broker. Broker-dealers employ

different means to identify prime

brokerage accounts in EBS submissions.

For example, some broker-dealers

identify the primer broker or an account

executive at the prime broker in the

account address field. Other brokerdealers do not indicate that an account’s

transactions involved a prime broker. As

a result, some trades may be

inadvertently double-counted when the

Commission performs trading analyses.

Two new data elements in proposed

Rule 17a–25 are designed to provide

uniformity in identifying transactions

involving a prime brokerage

arrangement. First, if a broker-dealer

effected trades for an institutional

account but forwarded this account’s

transactions to a prime broker, this

would have to be reflected in one of the

new data fields in the enhanced EBS

reports. This requirement is set forth in

sub-paragraph (1)(i) under paragraph (b)

of proposed Rule 17a–25. Second, if a

broker-dealer acted as the prime broker

for an institutional account, this also

would have to be reflected in the new

EBS data field. This requirement is set

forth in sub-paragraph (1)(ii) under

paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 17a–25.

These new data elements would

permit the Commission staff to better

analyze this type of increasingly

frequent institutional activity and to

avoid inadvertently double-counting

such transactions.17

(b) Average Price Account Identifiers

Broker-dealers often use their

‘‘average price accounts’’ as a

mechanism to buy or sell large amounts

of a given security for their institutional

customers. Under this arrangement, a

broker-dealer’s average price account

may buy or sell a security in small

increments throughout a trading

session, and then transfer the

accumulated long or short position to

one or more institutional accounts for a

volume-weighted average price after the

market close.

As with transactions involving prime

brokerage arrangements, there currently

is no uniformity in how broker-dealers

identify these transactions in EBS

submissions. As a result, the

Commission’s trading analyses may

inadvertently double-count such

transactions—once in the EBS

submission for the firm’s average price

account, and again in the EBS

submission for the institutional account

receiving positions from the average

price account. Two additional data

elements in proposed Rule 17a–25 are

designed to provide uniformity in

identifying transactions involving

average price accounts.

First, if an institutional account’s

transactions involved transfers from the

broker-dealer’s average price accounts,

this would have to be reflected in one

of the new data fields in the enhanced

EBS format. This requirement is set

forth in sub-paragraph (2) (i) under

paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 17a–25.

Similarly, if the account covered by an

EBS submission were itself an average

price account, this also would have to

be reflected in a new field in the

enhanced EBS format. This requirement

is set forth in sub-paragraph (2) (ii)

under paragraph (b) of proposed Rule

17a–25.18

(c) Identifiers Used by Depository

Institutions

Many of the largest institutional

investors in U.S. equity securities

process their transactions through the

Depository Trust Company (‘‘DTC’’) or

similar organizations. Pursuant to

paragraph (b)(3) of proposed Rule 17a–

25, if a broker-dealer effected trades for

an institutional account and processed

these transactions through a depository

institution, the account’s depository

identifier would have to be reflected in

one of the new data fields in the

enhanced EBS reports. The inclusion of

a depository account identifier in EBS

reports would greatly expedite efforts by

the Commission staff to aggregate

institutional trading when conducting a

complex trading reconstruction

involving multiple securities over an

extended trading period.19

3. Information to Facilitate Data

Requests

A recurring problem with the EBS

system has been the time delay in

ensuring that data requests from the

Commission staff are directed to the

appropriate personnel at broker-dealers.

Currently, the Commission staff initiates

a data request by mailing a standard

letter to the compliance personnel at

any firm that was active in the selected

security during the designated review

period. Due to frequent staff turnover

and reorganizations at broker-dealers,

however, the correct compliance official

at the firm often does not receive the

request. Under certain circumstances,

such as when a compliance officer has

recently left the firm or is out of the

office, it may be several days before a

request reaches the appropriate staff

person, thereby unnecessarily delaying

the Commission’s inquiry.

The Commission believes that

requiring broker-dealers to supply the

Commission with up-to-date

information about personnel responsible

for processing EBS requests would

expedite the process. The Commission

currently stores EBS contact person

information in an electronic database.

This database, however, is often

incorrect because firms fail to notify the

Commission that contact persons have

changed. Accordingly, paragraph (c) of

the proposed rule would require brokerdealers to submit, upon request, certain

information about their contact persons

and to keep this information current

with the Commission. The Commission

contemplates initially making such

requests only to broker-dealers that have

recently received EBS requests from the

Commission.20

4. Other Information

The Commission is specifically

requesting comment on other types of

information that may be useful in

analyzing trading in more complex

market-wide trading reconstructions, as

well as in investigations involving

trading in multiple securities during

very active markets. For example,

execution times would be useful in

trading reconstructions, particularly

those that focus on trading during

critical time periods during sharp

market swings. To date, however,

execution times have not been included

in EBS reports because this information

generally has not been available through

broker-dealer account records systems

(‘‘back office’’ records) that are used to

prepare EBS reports (although execution

time information may be available in

other broker-dealer recordkeeping

systems). Some representatives of the

securities industry have indicated to the

26538 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

21Firms use these identifiers to trace orders

routed through automated systems. These

identifiers are also routinely captured by some

audit trail systems and other recordkeeping

systems, such as the NYSE’s daily program trading

reports from member firms.

22See SR–NYSE–99–51.

23 15 U.S.C. 78mm. Procedures for Filing

applications for orders for exemptive relief under

Section 36 are found in the Commission’s Rules of

General Application, 17 CFR 240.0–12. 24 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

25The estimate that less than 100 firms handle

transactions from entities that use multiple

accounts at broker-dealers is based on the

Commission staff’s use of the EBS system for

several trading reconstructions in the 1990s.

Commission staff that, at least for

transactions effected through automated

order-routing systems, ‘‘order sequence’’

identifiers 21 could be used for EBS

reports in lieu of actual execution times.

The inclusion of order sequence

identifiers in EBS reports would enable

the Commission staff to derive order

entry times for particular trades. Once

such trades are isolated, the

transactions’ order sequence numbers

could be matched with timed order

entry reports captured by either the

broker-dealer’s internal systems or with

timed audit trails and related SRO

reports. In view of the large number of

institutional and professional trades that

are routed and executed using

automated systems, particularly

program trading activity, the capture of

the appropriate order sequence

identifiers in EBS reports could greatly

expedite trading reconstructions in

which precise timing of particular

trading activity is critical. The

Commission is therefore soliciting

comments concerning the feasibility of,

and costs associated with, capturing

order sequence identifiers in EBS

reports.

In addition, information captured by

the NASD’s Order Audit Trail System

(‘‘OATS’’) and the NYSE’s proposed

order tracking system 22 could be useful

to the Commission in its trading

analyses. For example, these systems

generally capture the date and time of

origination or receipt of the order and

information on when the order is

transmitted to another department

within the member firm, to another

member firm, or to a non-member. The

Commission is, therefore, soliciting

comments concerning the feasibility of,

and costs associated with, capturing this

type of information for Commission

enforcement and trading reconstruction

efforts.

C. Exemptions

The Commission recognizes that,

particularly for some small brokerdealers, it may sometimes be

appropriate to exempt a firm from some

of the reporting requirements of

proposed Rule 17a–25. The Commission

would rely on its general exemptive

authority under Section 36 of the

Exchange Act 23 to exempt particular

broker-dealers when the application of

the reporting requirements of proposed

Rule 17a–25 would not be necessary or

appropriate in the public interest, for

the protection of investors, or otherwise

in furtherance of the purposes of the

rule.

III. Request for Comments

The Commission invites interested

persons to submit written comments on

all aspects of proposed Rule 17a–25.

The Commission specifically requests

comments from broker-dealers on the

feasibility of capturing and reporting the

new data elements discussed above for

activity by entities that use multiple

accounts at broker-dealers. In particular,

the Commission requests comments on

whether prime brokerage and average

price account identifiers are likely to

prevent double counting, and whether

there are other methods to identify and

address this problem. The Commission

also is seeking comments on the

proposal to have EBS reports include,

upon request, an institutional account’s

depository identifier. Furthermore, the

Commission is soliciting comments

concerning the feasibility of, and costs

associated with, proposing additional

data elements in EBS reports that would

assist the Commission in determining

when particular orders to buy or sell

stocks have been entered. Finally, the

Commission is soliciting comments

from broker-dealers on the costs

associated with providing and updating

EBS contact person information.

Commenters should also discuss if there

are ways that any of the costs associated

with proposed Rule 17a–25 could be

reduced. Comments should be

submitted by June 7, 2000.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

Certain provisions of proposed Rule

17a–25 contain ‘‘collection of

information’’ requirements within the

meaning of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, 24 and the Commission has

submitted them to the Office of

Management and Budget for review in

accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and

5 CFR 1320.11. The title for the

collection of information is: Rule 17a–

25, Electronic Submission of Securities

Trading Data by Exchange Members,

Brokers and Dealers. 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

Information under Proposed Rule 17a–

25

Proposed Rule 17a–25 would set forth

the obligation of registered brokerdealers to electronically submit

securities trading data in a standardized

format when requested by the

Commission staff for enforcement and

other regulatory purposes. The proposed

rule would also require the electronic

submission of trading information to

include, upon request, new data

elements that will improve the

Commission’s ability to analyze

securities transactions by entities that

trade through multiple accounts

maintained at different broker-dealers.

The rule would also require brokerdealers to submit and, keep current,

contact person information for EBS

requests.

B. Proposed Use of Information

The Commission would use the

information collected pursuant to

proposed Rule 17a-25 for enforcement

inquiries or investigations and trading

reconstructions, as well as for

inspections and examinations.

C. Respondents

While proposed Rule 17a-25 would

apply to all of the approximately 7,700

broker-dealers that are currently

registered with the Commission, most

provisions would apply only to the

5,500 broker-dealers who do business

with the general public. Based on its

experience, the Commission believes

that the requirement for submission of

new data elements for trade data

concerning entities that use multiple

accounts at broker-dealers would affect

a significantly smaller number of

broker-dealers, estimated at less than

100 firms. 25

D. Total Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Burden

Proposed Rule 17a-25 should not

impose additional burdens on the vast

majority of the broker-dealers. Most of

the requirements of the proposed rule

involve collections of information that

broker-dealers already maintain in

compliance with existing regulations. In

addition, virtually all of these firms

already have systems in place that are

routinely used to submit data to the

Commission or SROs over the EBS

system. The Commission staff will work

with the few broker-dealers who might

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 26539

26 17 CFR 240.17a–4.

27Both the time burden and the costs were

derived from information supplied by several

broker-dealers.

not have EBS systems in place to

develop cost-effective means of

obtaining requested securities trading

data, whether using the EBS system or

other mechanisms. In addition, if

electronic reporting of securities

transaction data is not feasible or is

unreasonably expensive for a particular

small broker-dealer, the Commission

staff will consider using its general

exemptive authority under Section 36 of

the Exchange Act to issue an exemptive

order to the firm.

The Commission believes the

proposed rule will present new burdens

only to those broker-dealers who have

customers trading through multiple

accounts. These broker-dealers would

need to perform a one-time modification

of their EBS-related software to capture

and report the new data elements. The

cost to these firms is discussed below.

In addition, because SIAC serves as an

intermediary to route electronic files

both to the Commission and the SROs,

the analysis below discusses the costs

SIAC and the SROs will incur to make

their systems compatible with the

broker-dealers’ systems.

1. Burden-hours for broker-dealers

The annual hour burden of the

proposed rule for individual brokerdealers would vary widely because of

differences in the levels of activities of

the respondents and because of

differences in the current recordkeeping

systems of the respondents. However, it

is estimated that electronic response

firms would spend approximately 8

minutes and manual response firms

would spend 11⁄2 hours responding to

an average blue sheet request. Based on

its experience with the EBS system, the

Commission estimates that it sends

approximately 14,000 electronic blue

sheet requests per year, of which

approximately 350 are sent to manual

response firms. Accordingly, the annual

aggregate hour burden for electronic

response firms is estimated to be 1,820

hours (13,650 × 8 ÷ 60). The annual

aggregate hour burden for manual

response firms is estimated to be 525

hours (350 × 90 ÷ 60).

In addition, the Commission estimates

that it will request 1,400 broker-dealers

to supply the contact information

identified in proposed Rule 17a–25(f),

and the submission should take each

broker-dealer approximately 5 minutes

to prepare. To be conservative, the

Commission estimates that each of these

broker-dealers will revise the contact

information twice a year, and each

revision will also take approximately 5

minutes to prepare (10 minutes total).

Accordingly, the annual aggregate

burden for supplying the information

requested in proposed Rule 17a–25(f) is

350 hours (1400 × 15 ( 60). The annual

aggregate burden for all respondents to

the collection of information

requirements of proposed Rule 17a–25

is, therefore, estimated to be 2,695 hours

(1,820 + 525 + 350).

2. Capital Cost to Broker-Dealers and

SROs

As previously stated, the Commission

estimates approximately 100 brokerdealers will have to make modifications

to their existing EBS software to capture

the additional data elements. On

average, each of these broker-dealers

will incur capital or start-up costs of

$150,000. The Commission also

preliminarily believes that there will be

no additional costs associated with the

operation and maintenance of the

modified EBS systems. Accordingly, the

total start-up, operating and

maintenance cost burden for brokerdealers is estimated to be $15 million

(100 × $150,000).

Based on its discussions with the

SROs, the Commission estimates that

three SROs will each incur

approximately $29, 500 in capital costs

to make their systems compatible with

the broker-dealers. The Commission

preliminary believes that the SROs will

not incur additional costs in association

with the operation and maintenance of

the modified EBS systems.

E. General Information about the

Collection of Information

Any collection of information

pursuant to proposed Rule 17a–25

would be mandatory. The retention

periods for the collection of information

are already specified in Rule 17a–4 of

the Exchange Act. 26 Any collection of

information pursuant to proposed Rule

17a–25 would be kept confidential,

subject to the provisions of the Freedom

of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

F. Request for Comment

Pursuant 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 proposed performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility;

(2) evaluate the accuracy of the

Commission’s estimate of the burden of

the proposed collection of information;

(3) enhance the quality, utility, and

the clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(4) minimize the burden of collection

on those who are to respond, including

through the use of electronic 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, Washington,

D.C. 20503; and (2) Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549–0609, with

reference to File No. S7–12–00. The

Commission has submitted the

proposed collection of information to

OMB for approval. Members of the

public should direct any general

comments to both the Commission and

OMB within 30 days. OMB is required

to make a decision concerning the

collection of information between 30

and 60 days after publication in the

Federal Register, so a comment to OMB

is best assured of having its full effect

if OMB receives it within 30 days of

publication. Requests for materials

submitted to OMB by the Commission

with regard to this collection of

information should be in writing, refer

to File No. S7–12–00, and be submitted

to the Securities and Exchange

Commission, Records Management,

Office of Filings and Information

Services.

V. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed

Rule

The proposed rule will significantly

assist the Commission staff’s ability to

conduct timely and accurate trading

analyses for market reconstructions and

complex enforcement inquiries or

investigations, as well as inspections

and examinations. The current system

severely limits the Commission’s ability

to aggregate transactions effected by

entities that use multiple accounts at

broker-dealers and can produce trading

compilations that double count some

transactions effected through multiple

accounts. Augmented trading analyses

will improve the Commission’s ability

to monitor the securities markets and

increase levels of investor confidence in

the markets.

A. Broker-dealers 27

For purposes of the PRA, the

Commission has estimated that the

annual aggregate hour burden for all

respondents to the collection of

information requirements of proposed

26540 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

28The estimated cost is based upon discussions

with the SROs.

29For purposes of the regulatory flexibility

analysis, a broker-dealer is considered a small

entity if its total capital is less than $500,000, and

it is not affiliated with a broker-dealer that has

$500,000 or more in total capital. 17 CFR 240.0–10.

Rule 17a–25 to be 2,695 hours. The total

annualized cost burden for those brokerdealers that make modifications to their

existing EBS software is estimated to be

$15 million in capital or start-up costs.

The Commission also anticipates that

these broker-dealers will not incur

additional costs for the operation and

maintenance of the modified EBS

systems. The Commission specifically

requests comments on whether the

annual hour burden, the initial capital

or start-up costs, and the costs for the

operation and maintenance of brokerdealer EBS systems are reasonable

estimates based on reasonable

assumptions.

B. SROs

The estimate of total annualized cost

burden to the SROs is $88,500. 28 This

cost burden is computed by estimating

that approximately three SROs will

need to modify their systems to receive

the new data elements, at an

approximate cost of $29,500 per SRO.

The Commission specifically requests

comments on whether the annualized

cost burden is a reasonable estimate.

To assist the Commission in its

evaluation of the costs and benefits that

may result from the proposed rule,

commenters are requested to provide

analyses and data relating to the costs

and benefits associated with any of the

proposals.

VI. Consideration of Burden on

Competition, and Promotion of

Efficiency, Competition, and Capital

Formation

Section 23 of the Exchange Act

requires the Commission, in adopting

rules under the Exchange Act, to

consider the anti-competitive effects of

any rule that it adopts. The Commission

does not believe the proposed rule

would have any anti-competitive effects.

We request comment on the anticompetitive effects, if any, of proposed

Rule 17a–25. Furthermore, Section 3(f)

of the Exchange Act requires the

Commission, when engaging in

rulemaking that requires it 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. We request

comment on these matters in

conjunction with the proposed rule.

For purposes of the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, the Commission is also requesting

information regarding the potential

impact of the proposed amendment on

the economy on an annual basis. If

possible, commenters should provide

empirical data to support their views.

VII. Summary of Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Act Analysis

The Commission has prepared an

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(‘‘IRFA’’) in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

603 concerning proposed Rule 17a–25.

The following summarizes the IRFA.

As discussed in the IRFA, the purpose

of proposed Rule 17a–25 is to facilitate

the collection, analysis and evaluation

of relevant trading data for enforcement

and other regulatory reviews. In

particular, the proposed rule is intended

to provide an effective system for

reviewing securities transactions of

entities that trade through multiple

accounts at different broker-dealers. The

Commission believes that the proposed

rule will protect investors, as well as

preserve the fair and orderly operation

of the nation’s securities markets.

The IRFA also discusses the effect of

proposed rule 17a–25 on small brokerdealers.29 The Commission estimates

that approximately 12% of registered

broker-dealers, or approximately 1,000

broker-dealers, qualify as small brokerdealers.

The Commission’s experience with

the EBS system over the last ten years

indicates that entities that trade through

multiple accounts at different firms

generally do not effect their trades

through ‘‘small’’ broker-dealers.

Accordingly, the Commission does not

believe that any small broker-dealer

would be required to modify its EBSrelated software to capture and report

the new data elements that are needed

to analyze transactions by entities using

multiple accounts.

The IRFA further states that proposed

Rule 17a–25 would not impose any

additional recordkeeping requirements

for small broker-dealers. The elements

of trade information required for

electronic reports to the Commission are

already maintained by broker-dealers

pursuant to Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4 and

SRO rules. In addition, because EBS

requests are sent to large clearing firms

or those broker-dealers that self-clear,

these firms would also generally fall

outside the definition of a small brokerdealer.

Small broker-dealers would incur

some costs when they report transaction

data pursuant to requests by the

Commission staff for enforcement

purposes. The Commission believes,

however, that any new costs associated

with the current rule proposal would be

minimal. As discussed above, small

broker-dealers are already subject to

SRO rules that mandate transaction data

reports for surveillance or enforcement

inquiries. Accordingly, even small

broker-dealers are already required to

have in place adequate systems and

procedures to submit transaction reports

to the appropriate SRO; no new systems

would need to be developed pursuant to

proposed Rule 17a–25. Moreover, the

Commission staff has traditionally been

flexible when working with small

broker-dealers who need to supply

transaction reports. In cases in which a

small broker-dealer does not already

have the capacity to submit data over

the EBS system, the Commission staff

has accepted manual transmissions.

Proposed Rule 17a–25 is not intended to

change this flexible approach in

obtaining necessary transaction reports

from small broker-dealers.

Small broker-dealers would also incur

some costs when they are asked to

supply information, pursuant to

paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 17a–25,

about contact persons who would

handle transaction data requests from

the Commission. The Commission

believes, however, that any new costs

associated with this requirement would

be minimal. Small broker-dealers are

already required to have personnel and

procedures in place to respond to

enforcement or regulatory inquiries

from the Commission or the SROs. In

addition, because relatively few data

requests are submitted by the

Commission to small broker-dealers,

only a small number of firms in this

category would be requested to supply

contact person information. Moreover,

the costs associated with supplying this

type of information appear to be

minimal. Firms would simply be

required to submit a brief letter or email providing information concerning

the appropriate contact person or

persons, such as their names, telephone

numbers, fax numbers, and e-mail

addresses (if any), and to send a followup letter or e-mail when this

information is no longer accurate.

The IRFA also discusses the various

alternatives considered by the

Commission in connection with the

proposed rule that might minimize the

effect on small entities. These include,

among others, creating differing

compliance or reporting requirements or

timetables that take into account the

resources available to small entities, and

whether such entities could be

exempted from the proposed rule, or

any part thereof. The Commission has

drafted the proposal to be consistent

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 26541

with the concerns for small entities. For

example, as discussed above, the

Commission has often permitted small

broker-dealers to submit the trading data

in a manual, rather than an electronic,

format. The Commission will continue

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. A wholesale exemption

from the proposed rule for small brokerdealers, however, would prevent the

Commission from fully protecting

investors and maintaining the fair and

orderly operation of the nation’s

securities markets.

The Commission encourages the

submission of written comments

regarding any aspect of the IRFA. In

particular, the Commission requests

comments on: (1) The number of small

broker-dealers that would be affected by

the proposed rule, especially the

number of small broker-dealers which

maintain institutional accounts, and (2)

the nature and extent of new costs to

small broker-dealers as a result of the

proposed rule. Commentators are asked

to describe the nature of any impact and

provide empirical data supporting the

extent of the impact. Written comments

will be considered in preparation of the

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if

the proposed rule is adopted. Such

comments will be placed in the public

file designated for the proposed rule. A

copy of the IRFA may be obtained by

contacting Anitra Cassas, Division of

Market Regulation, Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549–1001,

(202) 942–0089.

VIII. Statutory Basis

Proposed Rule 17a–25 under the

Exchange Act is being proposed

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.,

particularly Sections 17(a) and 23(a) of

the Act, unless otherwise noted.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240

Broker-dealers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of the Proposed Rule

In accordance with the foregoing,

Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of

Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 240—GENERAL RULES AND

REGULATIONS, SECURITIES

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

1. 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, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt,

78c, 78d, 78f, 78i, 78j, 78j–1, 78k, 78k–1, 78l,

78m, 78n, 78o, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u-5, 78w,

78x, 78ll(d), 78mm, 79q, 79t, 80a–20, 80a–23,

80a–29, 80a–37, 80b–3, 80b–4 and 80b–11,

unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

2. Section 240.17a–25 is added to read

as follows:

§ 240.17a–25 Electronic submission of

securities trading data by exchange

members, brokers and dealers.

(a) Every member, broker or dealer

subject to § 240.17a–3 shall

electronically submit to the Commission

the data elements specified in this

section for transactions that are the

subject of a particular request for

information made by the Commission:

(1) If the transaction was a proprietary

transaction effected or caused to be

effected by the member, broker or dealer

for any account in which such member,

broker or dealer, or person associated

with the member, broker or dealer, is

directly or indirectly interested, such

member, broker or dealer shall submit

or cause to be submitted the following

information:

(i) Clearing house number, or alpha

symbol as used by the member, broker

or dealer submitting the data;

(ii) Clearing house number(s), or

alpha symbol(s) as may be used from

time to time, of the member(s), broker(s)

or dealer(s) on the opposite side of the

transaction;

(iii) Identifying symbol assigned to

the security;

(iv) Date transaction was executed;

(v) Number of shares, or quantity of

bonds or options contracts, for each

specific transaction; whether each

transaction was a purchase, sale, or

short sale; and, if an options contract,

whether open long or short or close long

or short;

(vi) Transaction price;

(vii) Account number; and

(viii) The identity of the exchange or

other market where the transaction was

executed.

(2) If the transaction was effected or

caused to be effected by the member,

broker or dealer for any customer

account, such member, broker or dealer

shall submit or cause to be submitted

the following information:

(i) Data elements contained in

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(viii) of

this section;

(ii) Customer name, address(es),

branch office number, identification

number for the associated person

handling the account, whether order

was solicited or unsolicited, date

account opened and employer name and

the tax identification number(s); and

(iii) If the transaction was effected for

a customer of another member, broker or

dealer, whether the other member,

broker or dealer was acting as principal

or agent on the transaction or

transactions that are the subject of the

Commission’s request.

(b) In addition to the trading data

elements in paragraph (a) of this section,

a member, broker or dealer shall, upon

request, submit or cause to be

electronically submitted to the

Commission the following information

for transactions involving entities that

trade using multiple accounts:

(1)(i) If part or all of an account’s

transactions at the reporting brokerdealer have been transferred or

otherwise forwarded to one or more

accounts at another broker-dealer, the

data submission to the Commission

shall include the clearing house

number, or alpha symbol used by the

broker-dealer receiving the transaction;

(ii) If part or all of an account’s

transactions at the reporting brokerdealer have been transferred or

otherwise received from one or more

other broker-dealers, the data

submission to the Commission shall

include the clearing house number(s), or

alpha symbol(s) used by the brokerdealer(s) transferring or otherwise

forwarding the transactions.

(2)(i) If part or all of an account’s

transactions at the reporting brokerdealer have been transferred or

otherwise received from another

account at the reporting broker-dealer,

the data submission to the Commission

shall include the identifier for this other

account;

(ii) If part or all of an account’s

transactions at the reporting brokerdealer have been transferred or

otherwise forwarded to one or more

other accounts at the reporting brokerdealer, the data submission to the

Commission shall include the

identifiers for these other accounts; and

(3) If an account’s transaction was

processed by a depository institution,

the data submission to the Commission

shall include the identifier assigned to

the account by the depository

institution.

(c) Every member, broker or dealer

subject to § 240.17a–3 shall submit upon

request to the Commission and keep

current information containing the full

name, title, address, telephone

number(s), facsimile number(s), and

electronic-mail address(es) for each

person designated by the member,

broker or dealer as responsible for

processing securities transaction data

requests from the Commission.

(d) Unless otherwise specified by

Commission rule or order, the member,

broker, or dealer should comply with

the format for the electronic submission

26542 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

of the trading data described in

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section as

specified by the self-regulatory

organization of which it is a member.

Dated: May 2, 2000.

By the Commission.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11405 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–116567–99]

RIN 1545–AX67

Definition of Hyperinflationary

Currency for Purposes of Section 988;

Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public

hearing on proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document provides

notice of cancellation of a public

hearing on proposed regulations relating

to hyperinflationary currency for

purposes of section 988.

DATES: The public hearing originally

scheduled for Wednesday, May 17,

2000, at 10 a.m., is canceled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy

Traynor of the Regulations Unit,

Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate),

(202) 622–7180 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice

of proposed rulemaking and notice of

public hearing that appeared in the

Federal Register on January 13, 2000,

(65 FR 2084), announced that a public

hearing was scheduled for May 17, 2000

at 10 a.m., in room 2615, Internal

Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The

subject of the public hearing is proposed

regulations under section 988, of the

Internal Revenue Code. The deadline for

requests to speak and outlines of oral

comments expired on April 20, 2000.

The notice of proposed rulemaking

and notice of public hearing, instructed

those interested in testifying at the

public hearing to submit a request to

speak and an outline of the topics to be

addressed. As of April 24, 2000, no one

has requested to speak. Therefore, the

public hearing scheduled for May 17,

2000, is canceled.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,

Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief

Counsel (Corporate).

[FR Doc. 00–11343 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

ADMINISTRATION

36 CFR Part 1253

RIN 3095–AA98

Location of NARA Facilities and Hours

of Use

AGENCY: National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The National Archives and

Records Administration proposes to

revise its regulation that lists NARA

facilities and hours when the public and

other Federal agency staff may use the

records in those facilities. This proposal

updates information on NARA facilities

throughout the United States, including

the addition of two new facilities and

the deletion of a closed NARA facility.

Additional revisions include corrections

to addresses, providing e-mail addresses

for the Presidential libraries, the

addition and correction of phone and

fax numbers, and, in some cases,

modifications to the hours that these

facilities are open for research. This

proposed rule will affect members of the

public who do research at NARA.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 7, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to

Regulation Comments Desk (NPLN),

Room 4100, National Archives and

Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi

Road, College Park, MD 20740–6001.

They may be faxed to 301–713–7270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Morton at telephone number

301–713–7360, ext. 253, or fax number

301–713–7270.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposed regulation includes

information on several facility changes

that have occurred since the last update

to 36 CFR part 1253. In 1997, the George

Bush Presidential Library was

dedicated. The listing for the Bush

Library is included in proposed

§ 1253.3, Presidential Libraries. In 1998,

the Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne,

New Jersey, site of the New York

Federal Records Center was closed and

the NARA—Central Plains Region (Lee’s

Summit, MO) records center was

opened. These changes are reflected in

proposed § 1253.6, Records Centers.

Listings of Presidential libraries,

records centers, and regional archives

are revised to include uniform facility

names, corrected addresses, telephone

numbers, research hours, and, for

Presidential libraries, e-mail addresses.

The core hours of research for the

libraries, records centers, and regional

archives are minimally affected by the

revisions found in this proposed rule.

This rule is being issued as a

proposed rule with a 30-day comment

period because we believe this rule will

have no substantive impact on the

public using records in NARA facilities.

This proposed rule is not a significant

regulatory action for purposes of

Executive Order 12866 of September 30,

1993, and has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget. As

required by the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, it is hereby certified that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This proposed rule does not

have federalism implications.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1253

Archives and records.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, NARA proposes to revise part

1253 of title 36, Code of Federal

Regulations, to read as follows:

PART 1253—LOCATION OF RECORDS

AND HOURS OF USE

Sec.

1253.1 National Archives Building.

1253.2 National Archives at College Park.

1253.3 Presidential libraries.

1253.4 Washington National Records

Center.

1253.5 National Personnel Records Center.

1253.6 Records centers.

1253.7 Regional archives.

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 2104(a).

§ 1253.1 National Archives Building.

(a) The National Archives Building is

located at 700 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20408. Business

hours are 8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays when the building is closed.

Hours for the Central Research Room

and Microfilm Research Room are as

follows, except Federal holidays:

(1) Monday and Wednesday, 8:45 a.m.

to 5 p.m.;

(2) Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday,

8:45 a.m. to 9 p.m.; and

(3) Saturday, 8:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.

(b) The phone number for the research

rooms is 800–234–8861.

(c) The location and business hours of

the Office of the Federal Register are

located in 1 CFR 2.3.