[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28735-28743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13514]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 1


Recordkeeping

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Final rules.

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

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is adopting 
amendments to the recordkeeping obligations established in Regulation 
1.31. Specifically, the amendments will allow recordkeepers to store 
most categories of required records on either micrographic or 
electronic storage media for the full five-year maintenance period, 
thereby harmonizing procedures for those firms regulated by both the 
Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Recordkeepers 
will have the flexibility necessary to maximize the cost reduction and 
time savings available from improved storage technology while 
continuing to provide Commission auditors and investigators with timely 
access to a reliable system of records.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edson G. Case, Counsel, or Lurie 
Plessala Duperier, Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 
21st. Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. Telephone (202) 418-5430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    On June 5, 1998, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
(``Commission'' or ``CFTC'') published a Federal Register Notice 
proposing several amendments to the recordkeeping requirements of 
Commission Regulation 1.31 (the ``Proposal'')\1\ In light of the 
significant number of Commission registrants that are subject to the 
recordkeeping requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``SEC''), the Proposal included many provisions similar to those 
adopted by the SEC in 1997.\2\ The Proposal's overall design reflected 
the Commission's dual goals of ``maximiz[ing] the cost-reduction and 
time-savings arising from technological developments in the area of 
electronic storage media'' and maintaining the type of safeguards that 
``ensure the reliability of the recordkeeping process.'' \3\ The 
comment period on the Proposal originally was due to expire on August 
4, 1998. Upon request from the Futures Industry Association (``FIA''), 
the Commission extended the deadline to August 18, 1998, to encourage 
comment by interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 63 FR 30668 (June 5, 1998).
    \2\ 62 FR 6469 (Feb. 12, 1997). The SEC's rulemaking involved 
reporting requirements for brokers or dealers under the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934. The Commission has relied on these rules in 
addressing recordkeeping issues on prior occasions. See, e.g., 62 FR 
39104 (July 22, 1997) (interpreting Commission requirements 
affecting the use of electronic media by commodity pool operators 
(``CPOs'') and commodity trading advisors (``CTAs'') and amending 
Part 4 of the Commission's Rules in light of the interpretation); 62 
FR 31507 (June 10, 1997) (issuing guidance regarding a futures 
commission merchant's (``FCM's'') electronic delivery of 
confirmation, purchase-and-sale, and monthly statements to customers 
and the related recordkeeping requirements); 62 FR 7675 (February 
20, 1997) (permitting the use of electronic records of customer 
orders generated by an electronic order-routing system).
    \3\ 63 FR at 30668.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commission is publishing final rules that respond to comments 
expressed by industry participants and that track closely the SEC's 
recordkeeping requirements. While the final rules are similar to the 
Proposal in most respects, the Commission intends to modify certain 
staff practices in light of the comments received. The final rules and 
modifications to staff practices will provide recordkeepers with 
opportunities to reduce costs and improve both the efficiency and 
security of their recordkeeping systems by initiating a transition to 
electronic storage of Commission-required records.

[[Page 28736]]

    The Commission recognizes the important role improved technology 
can play in the continued development of the futures industry. 
Minimizing unnecessary regulatory obstacles to the adopted of improved 
technology is a goal of the industry members, customers, and the 
Commission. Indeed, the pace of technological changes will require the 
Commission continually to review the standards articulated in this rule 
to ensure that the recordkeeping requirements reflect to the extent 
possible the reality of established technological innovation. The 
Commission therefore welcomes consultation with industry participants 
and specific proposals regarding how the regulations might be amended 
in the future to permit the futures industry to use available 
technology and to respond to the Commission's legitimate need to have 
access to complete and accurate records when necessary.

II. Nature of the Proposal

A. Current Rule 1.31

    Commission Regulation 1.31 sets forth certain recordkeeping 
requirements imposed by the CEA and Commission regulations. Subsection 
(a) describes the general rule. It mandates that all records required 
to be kept by the Act or Commission regulations (``required records'') 
be maintained for five years and be kept ``readily accessible'' during 
the first two years. It also defines the inspection and production 
rights of representatives of the Commission and the Department of 
Justice.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, Regulation 1.31(a) provides that all required 
records shall be open to inspection by such representatives. It also 
requires recordkeepers to provide copies of originals of any 
required record ``promptly,'' upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsections (b) and (c) establish alternative requirements for 
required records that are stored as reproductions. Recordkeepers that 
fulfill the conditions for alternative treatment may dispose of 
original required records. Eligibility for alternative treatment is 
limited to particular classes of records that are reproduced on 
microfilm, microfiche, or optical disk. Computer and machine generated 
records are immediately eligible for reproduction and storage on one of 
the alternative media. Most other required records become eligible 
after two years of storage. Trading cards and written customer orders 
are ineligible; originals must be maintained for the full five-year 
period. Subsection (c) describes the special inspection and production 
conditions applicable to recordkeepers that choose to store 
reproductions rather than original required records.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, persons maintaining reproductions must maintain 
indexes of the records and have facilities that permit 
representatives of the Commission and the Department of Justice to 
review and obtain hard copies of the records immediately. For 
records stored on optical disk, Regulation 1.31(c)(1)(iii) also 
mandates that a copy of each record be immediately provided ``on 
Commission compatible machine-readable media as defined in 
[Commission Regulation] 15.00(1) * * *.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Rules

    The Proposal would eliminate the current requirement that the 
original of most required records be maintained for two years.\6\ 
Immediate storage of reproductions maintained on micrographic or 
electronic storage media will enable recordkeepers to lower storage 
costs significantly by discarding original records following the 
successful storage of a reproduction. Moreover, the Proposal gave 
recordkeepers increased flexibility in selecting the advanced 
technology best suited to their business requirements by substituting 
the less restrictive category ``electronic storage media'' for 
``optical disk'' in describing the storage media recordkeepers could 
employ.\7\ As a result, recordkeepers may now take advantage of 
electronic storage technologies such as digital tape.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Proposal retained the current regulation's requirement 
that original trading cards and written customers orders be retained 
for the full five-year period. Proposal at 30669-70. It also sought 
to clarify the type of records ineligible for micrographic or 
electronic storage by referring to ``written orders'' rather than 
``written customer orders'' and to ``documents on which trade 
information is originally recorded in writing'' rather than 
``trading cards.'' The documents included in the Proposal's revised 
category are among the ``original source documents'' that Commission 
Regulation 1.35(a) requires to be retained and produced. Proposal at 
30671.
    \7\ The current rule's definition of acceptable optical storage 
systems, for example, requires that the system write files in ASCII 
or EBCDIC format and use removable disks. The Proposal, however, 
permitted recordkeepers to employ any digital storage medium or 
system that meets four generic requirements: (1) preserves records 
exclusively in a non-rewritable, non-erasable format; (2) verifies 
automatically the quality and accuracy of the recording process; (3) 
serializes the units of storage media and creates a time-date 
whenever information is placed on the storage media; and (4) permits 
the immediate downloading of indexes and records maintained on the 
storage media to any of the media permitted by the regulation 
(paper, micrographic media or electronic media).
    \8\ The Proposal did not require Commission approval of plans to 
convert to a system that maintains records on electronic storage 
media. Recordkeepers, however, must submit a representation to the 
Commission that the selected electronic storage system meets the 
four generic requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, consistent with both the SEC's approach and current 
Commission requirements, the Proposal set forth several conditions on 
recordkeepers who choose to meet their obligations by retaining 
reproductions rather than original records--including safeguards to 
endure timely access to the reproductions and the Commission's ability 
to maintain its access to required records despite catastrophic 
events.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Recordkeepers were required to: (1) maintain facilities that 
allow immediate production of both an easily readable image of the 
stored records and an easily readable hard-copy; (2) maintain an 
index of stored documents that permits immediate location of a 
particular document; and (3) waive any privilege, claim of 
confidentiality or other objection to disclosure of non-Commission-
required documents stored on the same individual medium as 
Commission-required documents. In regard to catastrophic events, the 
Proposal noted that the Commission had lost access to required 
records due to a fire at a Chicago storage warehouse in 1996. 
Proposal at 30669 n.12. To avoid this problem in the future, the 
Proposal required recordkeepers to maintain a duplicate of both 
stored records and required indexes at a separate location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposal articulated additional conditions on recordkeepers 
that choose to meet their obligations by retaining reproductions on 
electronic storage media rather than micrographic storage media. First, 
to ensure that there was an effective check on the reliability of the 
transfer process, the Proposal required electronic recordkeepers to 
maintain written operational procedures and controls that would provide 
accountability over both the initial entry of required records to the 
electronic storage media and the entry of each change made to any such 
records.\10\ Second, due to practical limitations on the Commission's 
ability to process data stored in the full range of available formats 
and coding structures on the full range of storage media available to 
recordkeepers, the Proposal required recordkeepers to provide copies of 
requested records on ``Commission compatible machine-readable media'' 
with the format and coding structure specified in the request.\11\ 
Third, like the SEC's rules, the Proposal required recordkeepers using 
electronic storage media to keep available for inspection ``all 
information necessary to access records and indexes maintained on 
electronic storage media * * *'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Proposal indicated that the written operational 
procedures and controls should provide for the systematic collection 
of data that includes the identities of individuals inputting 
records and making changes as well as the identity of any new 
document created and record changed.
    \11\ Proposal at 30699. The Proposal noted that ``compatible 
machine-readable media'' would be defined in accordance with 
Commission Regulation 15.00(1).
    \12\ Proposal at 30674. This condition anticipated situations in 
which electronic recorkeepers had stored required records but were 
unable or unwilling to provide Commission representatives with an 
appropriate means to view and copy specified documents. The Proposal 
did recognize that the required information might not be freely 
available to recordkeepers that obtained their storage technology 
from third-party vendors. As a result, the Proposal permitted 
recordkeepers to employ escrow agreements to protect the third-party 
vendor's proprietary rights.

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

[[Page 28737]]

    The Proposal contained a final, additional condition on 
recordkeepers who stored all required records or all of a particular 
class of required records solely on electronic storage media. To 
address those situations in which such a recordkeeper was unable or 
unwilling to provide Commission representatives with an appropriate 
means to view and copy specified records and failed to maintain or 
permit inspection of the information necessary to access requested 
records, the Proposal required such recordkeepers to enter into an 
arrangement with a third-party Technical Consultant.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Such recordkeepers must provide the Technical Consultant 
with access to the storage media containing their required records, 
and the Technical Consultant must (1) have the ability to download 
information from the recordkeeper's storage media to any medium 
acceptable under Regulation 1.31 and (2) undertake to provide 
Commission representatives with access to the records stored on the 
recordkeeper's storage media including, as appropriate, arrangement 
for downloading the records in the format designated by Commission 
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Rules

    The Commission received nine comments on the Proposal. Commenters 
included the National Futures Association (``NFA''), four designated 
futures exchanges, two commodity industry associations, and First 
Options of Chicago, Inc. (``FOC''), a registered futures commission 
merchant (``FCM''), which submitted two comments.\14\ Most commenters 
praised the Commission for proposing revisions to its recordkeeping 
requirements. One commodity exchange praised the Proposal for giving 
recordkeepers ``flexibility to use technological advances in the 
electronic storage media to reduce the costs associated with record 
retention.'' \15\ A commodity industry association commended the 
Commission for moving toward a more generic, performance-based approach 
to the definition of permissible record storage technology. Another 
commodity exchange agreed that aspects of the Proposal could lead to 
improvement in both the security and availability of required records. 
NFA characterized the Proposal as ``a significant step in the right 
direction * * *.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ One of FOC's submissions was a petition to amend Regulation 
1.31, which was received shortly before the Commission published its 
Proposal. To avoid undue delay, the Commission decided to publish 
the Proposal and to treat this submission as a general comment on 
the issues raised. FOC later filed a written submission responding 
more specifically to the issues raised in the Proposal.
    \15\ Chicago Board of Trade Comment at 1.
    \16\ NFA Comment at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the significant number of firms subject to regulation 
under both the federal commodity and securities laws, the final 
regulations recognize the value of maintaining consistency, where 
possible, between the Commission's approach to recordkeeping and that 
of the SEC. The regulations do not reflect strict conformity with the 
regulations the SEC adopted in 1997, however, because the Commission 
concluded that there were significant differences between the 
commodities and securities industry that justified retaining certain of 
its current rules.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In addition to the mandate that original written trading 
cards and order tickets be maintained for five years, these include 
requirements that recordkeepers: (1) maintain indexes of 
electronically stored records that are available for immediate 
examination and permit the location of any particular record to be 
immediately ascertained; (2) keep the information necessary to 
access electronically stored records and indexes available for 
immediate examination; and (3) provide copies of specified records 
on Commission-compatible machine-readable media with the format and 
coding structure specified in the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments focused primarily on five areas, each of which is 
discussed below.

A. Maintaining Original Written Trading Cards and Order Tickets

    The Proposal permitted recordkeepers to transfer most categories of 
records to micrographic or electronic storage media immediately, 
eliminating the need to keep original records for two years. However, 
original trading cards and customer order tickets were required to be 
maintained for the full five-year period. A majority of commenters 
cited cost, efficiency and security concerns in questioning why the 
Commission declined to permit written trading cards and customer orders 
to be stored electronically. Both commodity industry associations 
emphasized that firms incur significant costs organizing, indexing, and 
storing order tickets and trading cards. FOC noted that firms also 
incur significant costs to retrieve such records, and one exchange 
estimated that it expended $100,000 each year to retrieve records 
requested under Commission Regulation 1.31. Commenters also questioned 
why retention of original trading cards and order tickets is an 
important element of an effective audit trail for futures transactions, 
particularly since the SEC permits electronic storage of written 
trading cards and order tickets. One commodity industry association 
urged the Commission to ``consider whether the high cost and burden of 
maintaining original written orders and trading cards is 
disproportionate to the limited use of these documents in enforcement 
cases.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ FIA Comment at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes that electronic storage of written 
trading cards and order tickets could reduce storage costs, increase 
the efficiency of the retrieval process, and help eliminate certain 
security problems attendant to the storage of paper records. 
Nevertheless, given the importance these original records continue to 
play in the futures industry, the Commission believes that it would be 
imprudent to rely solely on electronic versions of these records at 
this time. Although the SEC permitted electronic storage of these 
documents, it recognized the need for caution in this area and rested 
its decision to eliminate the requirement that recordkeepers maintain 
originals largely on the diminished role such written records play due 
to the prevalence of electronic order routing in the securities 
industry.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 62 FR 6471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review of written trading records for differences in the instrument 
used to record apparently contemporaneous information remains a regular 
feature of investigations focusing on potential trade practice or 
allocation violations.\20\ FOC contended that current technology can 
produce superb reproductions that make differences in hand writing and 
time stamps clearly visible. Even if we assume this to be true,\21\ 
this argument does not address the full range of material information 
Commission auditors and investigators may gather by examining original 
written trading records. For example, the Commission's Division of 
Enforcement often examines these records in the context of a variety of 
alleged violations.\22\ If only electronically stored records were 
available, errors in the scanning process, such as failing to process 
information on

[[Page 28738]]

both sides of a written order ticket, would deprive investigators of 
material information. Moreover, even properly scanned records could 
deprive investigators of currently available information. For example, 
it is unlikely that investigators could distinguish ink colors on 
scanned documents or detect either erasure or the use of products such 
as white out. This type of discrepancy may be important in establishing 
that a participant in the transaction inserted some information on a 
trading card or order ticket after the bulk of the information had 
already been recorded.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Indeed, Commission precedent indicates that such 
differences--usually detected by noting differences in the color of 
the ink on the document--can play an important evidentiary role in 
cases raising trade practice allegations. See In re Russo, [Current 
Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) 27,133 at 45,303 n. 9 
(CFTC Aug. 20, 1997).
    \21\ FOC submitted reproductions of two order tickets in support 
of its contention. The limited nature of FOC's sample raises 
significant questions about the validity of the broad inference it 
draws. Moreover, the information recorded on the order tickets is 
displayed in black and white. Aside from these limitations, FOC's 
comment does not address even straight-forward implementation 
problems such as ensuring that all material information is scanned 
and stored--including time stamps and written information on the 
back of order tickets.
    \22\ Such violations include wash trading, accommodation 
trading, direct or indirect trading ahead of or against customer 
orders, offsetting or matching customer orders, unauthorized 
trading, and inappropriate trade allocation.
    \23\ For example, if information about the price, quantity and 
contract is recorded on a written order ticket in one color ink, and 
the number designating the identity of the customer is written in a 
different color ink, an investigator might suspect that the trade 
was allocated to a customer after it was executed and search for 
additional indications that orders were being improperly allocated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters offered support for a compromise position suggested 
by the FIA. Under this proposal, original written trading records would 
be retained for one year. During this period, the written trading 
records would be stored on ``high-quality micrographic or electronic 
storage media that are reasonably able to detect alterations.'' \24\ 
After the initial year, recordkeepers would be free to destroy original 
written trading records and to fulfill their obligations under 
Regulation 1.31 by producing reproductions of the stored records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ FIA Comment at 5. FIA indicates that the Commission could 
maintain a check on the quality of available reproductions by 
publishing a list of acceptable media or permitting recordkeepers to 
seek Commission approval of a particular record storage medium or 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FIA proposal rests on an assumption that is not necessarily 
correct. According to FIA, the experience of futures exchanges 
indicates that auditors or compliance investigators generally request 
access to written trading documents within one year of their creation. 
FIA's implicit assumption is that there is no practical need to retain 
original written trading documents for more than a year because the 
experience of Commission auditors and investigators is fully consistent 
with their exchange counterparts.
    The Commission's experience with audits and investigations 
indicates that there is no reliable basis for predicting the period of 
time that any particular original written trading record will be 
needed. For example, investigations of trade practice allegations are 
frequently lengthy due to both the complexity of the underlying 
transactions and efforts by many participants to disguise their intent 
in entering the transactions. Information may not come to the 
Commission's attention within a year of the wrongdoing, and the 
suspicious activity often spans more than a one-year period. Moreover, 
review of written trading records from a multi-year period may reveal 
the type of pattern of suspicious trading that facilitates prosecution 
of trade practice violations.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Participants in a suspicious transaction often seek to 
undermine the significance of suspicious circumstances by claiming 
that they are the product of peculiar market forces at the time of 
the challenged transactions. Proof that the participants have been 
involved in a pattern of suspicious transactions undertaken under 
varying market conditions over a period of months or years is often 
the most effective rebuttal to such a claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the legitimate needs of its auditors and investigators, the 
Commission cannot endorse the one-year retention period proposed by 
FIA. Nevertheless, the Commission is modifying staff audit and 
investigative practices in order to permit recordkeepers to take 
advantage of some of the benefits of electronic storage technology, yet 
protect the Commission's interest in maintaining access to original 
trading records. Under the revised practice, if a recordkeeper chooses 
to transfer trading cards and customer order tickets to electronic 
media, a recordkeeper initially may respond to a request for written 
trading cards and order tickets by producing reproductions maintained 
on electronic storage media unless the staff request specifically 
provides to the contrary. Staff generally will review these 
reproductions prior to requesting production of original written 
trading cards or order tickets.\26\ If this review confirms that 
further investigation or examination of original trading records is 
unwarranted, the recordkeeper's original trading cards and order 
tickets may remain in storage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ If staff is at a point in its review that indicates a 
request for original written trading records is inevitable, it need 
not waste either its own or the recordkeeper's resources by 
initially requesting reproductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While recordkeepers transferring original written trading documents 
to electronic storage media will incur some additional costs, they also 
may obtain substantial benefits from this change in policy. For 
example, recordkeepers should be able to reduce retrieval costs, to 
locate requested records more expeditiously, and to improve the 
security of their stored original records.\27\ Commission auditors and 
investigators should also benefit by obtaining more expeditious and 
complete responses to their requests. Of course, the success of this 
process will depend on the ability of recordkeepers not only to select 
electronic storage systems that will produce high quality 
reproductions, but also to manage the implementation challenges likely 
to arise in transitioning from a paper-based system properly. In 
addition, Commission experience with recordkeepers who choose to make 
records available on electronic storage media pursuant to this policy 
should provide a basis for reassessing the continued need for retention 
of original trading cards and order tickets.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For example, if access to stored original records is rarely 
necessary, it will be less likely that records will be lost or 
misplaced in the process of locating requested records.
    \28\ Implementation of this policy change does not require any 
revision to the rules. By holding out the prospect of reduced 
retrieval costs, the policy encourages recordkeepers to begin the 
transition to electronic storage systems that promise greater 
efficiency and security. Nevertheless, recordkeepers will still be 
obliged to maintain the original version of trading cards, documents 
on which trade information is originally recorded in writing, and 
written orders required to be kept pursuant to Commission Regulation 
1.35(a), (a-1)(1), (a-1)(2) and (d) for five years and to produce 
those records in response to a request by an appropriate Commission 
representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Timeliness of Responses to Production Requests

    Under current requirements, original records must be produced 
``promptly'' and reproductions stored on micrographic media or optical 
disk must be produced ``immediately.'' Some commenters believed that 
``immediately'' is an unduly vague standard. Commenters also emphasized 
that this standard does not acknowledge the relevance of practical 
circumstances that can delay production by even cooperative 
recordkeepers. Thus, many commenters urged the Commission to require 
that both original records and reproductions stored on micrographic or 
electronic storage media be produced ``promptly.''
    There is no evidence that the current dual production standard has 
created any practical problems. While the rule grants Commission staff 
broad discretion in determining when specified records should be 
produced, none of the commenters has claimed that Commission staff have 
abused this discretion by establishing arbitrary deadlines that ignored 
relevant circumstances.\29\ Indeed, FIA's

[[Page 28739]]

comment stated that Commission staff ``typically exhibits flexibility 
when requesting documents to accommodate practical considerations.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The current standards do not describe a level of timeliness 
that staff auditors and investigators must invariably demand from 
recordkeepers. Indeed, Commission representatives frequently tailor 
the deadline applicable to a particular document request in light of 
the scope and nature of the request, as well as unusual or 
unforeseen circumstances affecting a recordkeeper's ability to 
respond quickly or completely. Nonetheless, because delay in the 
production of required records can sometimes represent an undue 
threat to the public interest, Regulation 1.31 grants Commission 
representatives the discretion to specify production deadlines 
sufficient to address such threats.
    \30\ FIA Comment at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``immediately'' standard provides recordkeepers with notice of 
the highest level of timeliness Commission representatives may demand 
in seeking production. As indicated in the Proposal, Regulation 1.31 
requires that reproductions stored on micrographic or electronic 
storage media be produced ``immediately'' rather than ``promptly'' 
because, in general, it is easier to locate and to produce such 
reproductions than to locate and to produce original records. The dual 
standards make it clear that Commission auditors and investigators are 
authorized to demand that reproductions be produced more quickly than 
original records. At the same time, they require auditors and 
investigators to weigh a recordkeeper's potentially more limited 
ability to locate and produce original records in establishing a 
deadline for their production.
    The Commission recognizes that applicable deadlines should reflect 
an evaluation of factors such as the volume of documents covered by a 
request, competing requests from other regulators, or unusual and 
unforeseeable circumstances that prevent the recordkeeper from 
accessing electronically controlled records. Staff discretion, however, 
plays a necessary role in an effective production process, and there is 
no indication that staff has failed to exercise their discretion 
sensibly.\31\ On the current record, there is no basis for imposing 
further limitations on the discretion exercised by Commission auditors 
and investigators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ One commenter indicated that the production process under 
Regulation 1.31 should be modeled on the discovery process in an 
adjudicatory proceeding. The Regulation 1.31 process, however, is 
specifically designed to avoid both the delay and diversion of 
resources common to such an adversarial process. As a result, 
Regulation 1.31 does not provide that a response can be delayed 
until a recordkeeper's counsel has had an opportunity to review 
requested records. Nor does it establish a process for settling 
objections over issues such as breadth or relevance. Moreover, 
recordkeepers are expected to manage their affairs in a manner that 
permits them to fulfill the duties described in Regulation 1.31. For 
example, recordkeepers using micrographic or electronic storage 
systems are expected to retain a sufficient number of expert 
personnel to meet their regulatory responsibilities. The absence of 
a single individual due to sickness or vacation should not make it 
impossible for the recordkeeper to make an immediate response to an 
auditor's or investigator's request in the infrequent circumstance 
when immediacy is a critical component of the request, e.g. in a 
financial crisis or where customer positions or other assets are at 
risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Retention of a Consultant

    As noted above, the Proposal, like the SEC rules, required 
recordkeepers who stored all required records or all of a particular 
class of required records solely on electronic storage media to enter 
into an arrangement with a third-party Technical Consultant.\32\ 
Commenters criticized this aspect of the Proposal for imposing a costly 
burden that will discourage transition to electronic storage systems. 
Commenters also argued that this safeguard will threaten the 
confidentiality of information maintained by recordkeepers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Such recordkeepers must provide the Technical Consultant 
with access to the storage media containing their required records, 
and the Technical Consultant must (1) have the ability to download 
information from the recordkeeper's storage media to any medium 
acceptable under Regulation 1.31 and (2) undertake to provide 
Commission representatives with access to the records stored on the 
recordkeeper's storage media including, as appropriate, arrangement 
for downloading the records in the format designated by Commission 
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has decided to adopt this aspect of the Proposal 
without change. The SEC has required this type of safeguard since 
1993.\33\ A significant number of Commission registrants are subject to 
the SEC's recordkeeping requirements, and none of the comments on the 
Proposal describes any problems with the implementation of this 
safeguard under the SEC's rules. Recordkeepers are only required to 
enter an arrangement with a Technical Consultant if they choose to 
store all required records or all of a particular class of required 
records solely on electronic storage media. As a result, recordkeepers 
may protect themselves from costs related to retaining a Technical 
Consultant by maintaining backup copies of electronically stored 
records in either a hard copy or micrographic version. As to 
confidentiality concerns relating to a Technical Consultant's access to 
required records, recordkeepers may protect themselves by entering into 
appropriate confidentiality agreements with their Technical 
Consultants. In short, the objections that have been raised by 
commenters do not establish that there are circumstances unique to the 
futures industry that warrant a deviation from the SEC policy.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ As noted above, the SEC adopted this safeguard as part of 
its 1997 rulemaking. In June 1993, however, the SEC's Division of 
Market Regulation issued a no-action letter allowing broker-dealers 
to utilize optical storage technology for recordkeeping under 
certain conditions. The availability of a third-party backup was one 
of the conditions to this relief. See Letter from Michael A. 
Macciaroli, Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation, SEC 
to Michael D. Udoff, Chairman, Ad Hoc Record Retention Committee, 
Securities Industry Association (June 18, 1993), 1993 WL 246230 
(SEC).
    \34\ The Commission does not intend that Commission 
investigators or auditors regularly seek required records from 
Technical Consultants. Indeed, staff will only seek performance of 
the Technical Consultant's undertaking with the Commission when the 
recordkeeper itself has shown that it is unable or unwilling to meet 
its regulatory obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Production on Commission Compatible Machine-Readable Media

    The Proposal required recordkeepers using electronic storage media 
to provide copies of requested records on Commission compatible 
machine-readable media (as defined by Commission Regulation 15.00(l)) 
\35\ with the format and coding structure specified in the request. Two 
commenters stated that neither the Proposal nor Regulation 15.00(l) 
provides adequate notice of either the range of media that the 
Commission will deem compatible or the range of formats and coding 
structures that may be required. In response to these comments, the 
Commission has decided to provide guidance about the intent underlying 
this provision and to direct staff to take steps to provide 
recordkeepers with ongoing notice of the applicable requirements.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Commission Regulation 15.00(l) provides that the term 
compatible data processing media means: [D]ata processing media 
approved by the Commission or its designee. The rule delegates the 
Commission's approval authority to the Executive Director and 
provides that the Executive Director may designate employees to 
exercise the approval authority on her behalf.
    \36\ When the Commission amended Regulation 15.00(l) in 1997, it 
deleted references to specific media in light of comments suggesting 
that a regulatory definition was impractical because electronic 
media are evolving at such a rapid pace. 62 FR 24026, 24028 (May 2, 
1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement that recordkeepers provide documents to the 
Commission in one of the many identified formats arises out of 
practical limitations on the Commission's ability to process data 
stored in the full range of available formats and coding structures on 
the full range of storage media available to recordkeepers. The 
Commission uses standard desktop tools including Microsoft Office 
Professional 97. Recordkeepers using storage systems with compatible 
format and coding structures should not experience significant problems 
providing Commission auditors and investigators with acceptable 
machine-readable media. Records that include data files and images will 
be acceptable if accompanied by appropriate

[[Page 28740]]

information.\37\ Where the records are from a relational data base 
management system, the Commission would prefer that the recordkeeper 
convert the records to an acceptable data file format. Under 
appropriate conditions, however, the Commission will also accept such 
records in another format.\38\ Where the records are from a different 
source, providers will need to coordinate with the Commission to 
determine acceptability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ For records that include data files, the required 
information includes:
    (1) how to identify individual records and record types;
    (2) how to identify individual fields within records;
    (3) how the individual fields and record types are defined; and
    (4) the format of each quantitative field and the meaning of 
each field value for other fields.
    For records that include images, the required information 
includes:
    (1) how any data files are linked to images;
    (2) how to identify individual images; and
    (3) the format of the images.
    The Commission uses ``Wang Imaging for Windows 95.'' The 
Commission will accept images in another format if:
    (1) software is provided with the records that makes it feasible 
to view and print the images;
    (2) this software will run under Windows NT or Windows 95/98;
    (3) this software can be freely provided to the Commission under 
the terms of the provider's licensing agreements with the concerned 
software vendor(s); and
    (4) information is provided on how individual images can be 
accessed.
    \38\ The applicable conditions include:
    (1) the records are accompanied by software that makes it 
feasible to access the records using standard office tools,
    (2) this software will run under Windows NT or Windows 95/98,
    (3) this software can be freely provided to the Commission under 
the terms of the provider's licensing agreements with the concerned 
software vendor(s),
    (4) information is provided on how the individual fields and 
record types are defined, and
    (5) information is provided on the format of each quantitative 
field and the meaning of each field value for other fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recordkeepers can provide information to the Commission on a number 
of different media. Clearly, a small file can be placed on a diskette 
or set of diskettes. CD-ROM, 4mm tape, 30 GB DLT tape, nine-track tape 
and IBM 3490 cartridge tapes are also acceptable. Absent security 
concerns, email attachments and FTP transmitted files are acceptable. 
Providers will need to coordinate with the Commission if different 
media are contemplated.
    Of course the Commission's capabilities in this regard will change 
over time. To provide affected recordkeepers with continuous notice of 
what is currently acceptable, the Commission is modifying current staff 
practice to require preparation of an updated list of formats and 
coding structures as changes are made. Notice of any changes to the 
list will be available both in writing and on the Commission's web 
page, and an updated list will be published in the Federal Register.

E. Waiver of Privilege

    Consistent with current Commission requirements, the Proposal 
provided that recordkeepers employing micrographic or electronic 
storage systems must agree to waive any privilege, claim of 
confidentiality or other objection to the disclosure of non-Commission-
required records stored on the same individual medium as Commission-
required documents. Some commenters characterized this approach as 
inflexible and urged the Commission to adopt an approach modeled on ABA 
Op. No. 92-368 (Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional 
Responsibility, Nov. 10, 1992).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ In that opinion, the American Bar Association Standing 
Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility addressed 
circumstances in which an attorney inadvertently sends another 
lawyer privileged or otherwise confidential materials belonging to 
an opposing party. The committee found that a lawyer receiving such 
confidential material has a professional obligation, when he or she 
recognizes opposing counsel's error, to avoid further review of the 
material. The committee also concluded that the affected lawyer 
should notify opposing counsel of the error and follow counsel's 
directions as to the disposition of the material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has decided that the waiver language should be 
deleted from Regulation 1.31. While courts are not in agreement about 
the proper application of the ``inadvertent waiver'' theory discussed 
in the ABA's Opinion, the Commission does not believe that a 
recordkeeper should be precluded by rule from raising a question about 
privilege if a privileged document has been inadvertently stored and/or 
produced on the same medium as Commission-required documents.\40\ In an 
effort to avoid this problem, the deleted waiver language will be 
replaced with the current Commission requirement that recordkeepers 
store Commission-required records on a separate individual medium from 
non-Commission-required records. Waiver, however, will no longer be a 
mandatory consequence of failing to fulfill this segregation 
requirement, at least by operation of regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ As is currently the case with all Commission-required 
records, recordkeepers may not deny authorized Commission 
representatives access to any individual storage medium that 
includes Commission-required records or delay production while the 
individual storage medium is reviewed for the presence of privileged 
material. The final rule merely eliminates the regulatory inference 
that the commingling of Commission-required records with non-
Commissioned-required records necessarily amounts to a waiver of any 
privilege otherwise covering the latter category of records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Other Issues

1. Generic standards
    Several commenters urged the Commission to adopt generic standards 
of accessibility, security, and reliability that do not distinguish 
between original records and eligible substitutes. One of the commodity 
industry associations argued that the adoption of generic performance 
standards would increase flexibility and decrease the likelihood that 
the applicable standards would become ``outdated'' due to continued 
technological developments. One exchange commenter claimed that such a 
unitary approach would ensure consistency and lessen confusion.
    A generic approach may have certain advantages in an area likely to 
be affected by rapid technological change. Some comments on the 
Proposal, however, illustrate the weaknesses of any approach that fails 
to provide sufficiently specific notice of the procedures the 
Commission considers necessary to a reliable system of records. These 
comments suggest that, absent specific guidance, many industry 
participants would interpret their recordkeeping duties in a manner the 
Commission views as incompatible with the public interest.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ FOC argued that any required record should be deemed 
accessible if produced within 10 days. One commodity industry 
association noted that Regulation 1.31 does not include any 
requirements for the security and integrity of paper records and 
argued that firms have no duty to supervise the security and 
reliability of hard copy records under the generic standard set 
forth in Commission Regulation 166.3. One exchange commenter 
indicated that it would be burdensome to require recordkeepers to 
maintain an accurate and complete index of records stored on 
micrographic or electronic storage media.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More importantly, none of the commentators that urged adoption of 
more generic standards offered the type of specific proposal that would 
permit the Commission to make a reasoned evaluation of the practical 
costs and benefits of a more generic approach. Indeed, none of the 
commenters cited to generic standards adopted by a state or federal 
regulatory body with responsibilities comparable to those the CEA 
entrusts to the Commission. The absence of any specific proposals may 
be a product of the futures industry's limited experience with the 
design or implementation of large-scale electronic storage systems.\42\ 
We emphasize that

[[Page 28741]]

movement toward more generic standards may well be appropriate as 
industry experience and expertise develop. Indeed, as part of its 
ongoing evaluation of developments warranting additional amendments to 
its recordkeeping requirements, the Commission encourages the 
submission of specific proposals for generic standards that both 
provide recordkeepers with the flexibility necessary to maximize the 
cost reduction and time savings available from improved storage 
technology and ensure that Commission auditors and investigators 
maintain timely access to a reliable system of records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Even if the capabilities of electronic storage systems meet 
the high expectations of their proponents, the Commission expects 
that the transition process from paper-based systems to electronic-
based systems will involve implementation problems requiring 
significant adjustments. If the security, reliability, and 
accessibility of the recordkeeping process are to be protected 
during this period of learning and adjustment, it is important that 
recordkeepers have clear notice of their ongoing obligations under 
Regulation 1.31. It is equally important that recordkeepers keep the 
Commission informed of the experience gained during this period so 
that the Commission can develop a reliable basis for making 
necessary adjustments to its rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Format of Storage Media
    One exchange commenter noted that one of the Proposal's four 
characteristics for defining electronic storage media could be 
misconstrued as requiring that the storage system itself exclusively 
preserve records in a non-rewritable, non-erasable format. It suggests 
that such an interpretation could disqualify CD-ROM storage systems 
with rewritable CD-ROM capabilities. The Commission agrees that the 
medium, not the storage system itself, must exclusively preserve 
records in a non-rewritable, non-erasable format.
3. Escrow Agreements
    Two exchange commenters opposed the Proposal's requirement that 
recordkeepers using electronic storage media keep available for 
inspection all information necessary to access records and indexes 
maintained on electronic storage media or, in the alternative, place 
such information in escrow and, as necessary, update the information. 
These commenters raised the possibility that third-party vendors may be 
unwilling to enter into source code escrow agreements. As noted in the 
Proposal, however, such escrow agreements are a common feature of 
software licensing agreements. There is no indication that the similar 
safeguard in the SEC's rules has resulted in problems with third-party 
vendors. Given the speculative nature of the information provided by 
the commenters, modification of this safeguard is not warranted.
4. Written Procedures
    Several commenters objected to the Proposal's requirement that 
electronic recordkeepers maintain written operational procedures and 
controls that would provide accountability over both the initial entry 
of required records to the electronic storage media and the entry of 
each change made to any such records. As noted in the Proposal, the 
Commission believes that all recordkeepers must have and enforce 
procedures to keep their required records from being altered or 
destroyed.\43\ The Proposal's specific requirements for electronic 
storage systems reflect the special security/integrity concerns that 
attend the transition process from paper-based recordkeeping systems. 
While experience may prove these special precautions unnecessary, the 
arguments raised by the commenters do not warrant their deletion at 
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Proposal at 30672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Adjusting Requirements in Response to Technological Change
    Several commenters noted that some of the Proposal's requirements 
may quickly become outdated due to rapid developments in the technology 
underlying electronic storage media. These commenters observed that 
addressing the necessary adjustments through the rulemaking process may 
prove unduly slow, costly and inflexible.
    The rulemaking process can play an important role in identifying 
and removing such obstacles. While the notice and comment process that 
underlies rulemaking can result in limited delays, this process helps 
ensure that the Commission's deliberations are informed by the 
perspectives of a broad range of interested parties. Moreover, as in 
this instance, the rulemaking process can play an important rule in 
harmonizing the approach different regulators take to common areas of 
concern, thereby minimizing the regulatory burden imposed on firms 
subject to dual regulation.
    The Commission has adequate tools to address short-term 
inefficiencies in the regulatory process. On several occasions during 
the past two years, the Commission has provided interim relief from the 
current requirements of Rule 1.31 to Commission registrants using 
advanced technology.\44\ This relief has helped minimize obstacles to 
the adoption of new technology while the Commission addressed the need 
for final amendments to Rule 1.31. If circumstances warrant, similar 
relief can be made available in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The Commission has permitted these registrants to 
substitute compliance with the SEC's recordkeeping requirements for 
compliance with the current requirements of Rule 1.31. See note 2, 
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Related Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 
611, requires that, in adopting rules and regulations, all federal 
agencies consider their impact on small entities. In accordance with 
Section 601(3) of the RFA, the Commission published a ``Policy 
Statement of Definitions of Small Entities for Purposes of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act,'' 47 FR 18618 (Apr. 30, 1982). In that 
statement,\45\ the Commission indicated that some classes of persons 
were excluded from the definition of small entities. These include: 
futures commission merchants registered or required to be registered; 
floor brokers employed by registered futures commission merchants; 
commodity pool operators registered or required to be registered; and 
large traders in the futures market. The Commission considers other 
entities to be small under particular facts and circumstances. These 
include: futures commission merchants exempt from registration; 
commodity pool operators exempt from registration; introducing brokers; 
floor brokers not employed by futures commission merchants; floor 
traders; and commodity trading advisors. Because the rules discussed 
herein will affect the full spectrum of Commission registrants, it is 
likely that small entities within the meaning of the RFA will be 
affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The Commission subsequently clarified some of the 
definitions See 48 FR 35276 (Aug. 3, 1983); 55 FR 13550 (Apr. 11, 
1990); 58 FR 40347 (Jul. 28, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rules would generally expand the category of record 
storage systems permissible under the Commission's rules. The 
Commission anticipates that these rules will increase small entities' 
freedom to tailor their record storage systems to the overall needs of 
their businesses. The final rules will have no impact on a small entity 
chooses to maintain a paper-based record storage system. However, if a 
small entity chooses to use micrographic storage media, it may incur 
costs related to creation of the duplicate record and storage at a 
location separate from the micrographic record. Costs can be reduced by 
moving the hard copies of the records to a separate location.

[[Page 28742]]

    The final rules will permit small entities that choose to use 
electronic storage media for their storage record systems to select 
systems that may be less costly and simpler to manage. The final rules 
will impose limited additional burdens on these entities, including 
requirements that the recordkeeper: (1) provide a representation that 
the system meets pertinent regulatory requirements prior to converting 
to an electronic storage system; (2) create a duplicate of both 
required records and an index of those records and maintain the 
duplicate at a separate location; (3) create and maintain an audit 
system for transferring records to electronic storage media; (4) take 
steps to ensure Commission access to information necessary to download 
records from the electronic storage media; and (5) provide an 
independent source for the downloading of records that are maintained 
solely on electronic storage media. The Commission anticipates that 
small entities will not convert their recordkeeping systems to 
electronic storage media unless the accompanying burdens are outweighed 
by the financial savings and operational efficiency that would result 
from the change to electronic storage media.
    The Chairperson, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies, 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the action taken herein will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    When publishing final rules, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
\46\ (``PRA'') imposes certain requirements on federal agencies 
(including the Commission) in connection with their conducting or 
sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. In 
compliance with the PRA, these final rules and/or their associated 
information collection requirement inform the public of:

    \46\ Pub. L. 104-13 (May 13, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The reasons the information is planned to be and/or has been 
collected; (2) the way such information is planned to be and/or has 
been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the 
agency; (3) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average 
burden of the collection (together with a request that the public 
direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this 
burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); (4) 
whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, 
required to obtain or retain a benefit or mandatory; (5) the nature 
and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any; and (6) the 
fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a current valid OMB control number.

    The Commission previously submitted these rules in proposed form 
and their associated information collection requirement to the Office 
of Management and Budget. The Office of Management and Budget approved 
the collection of information associated with these rules on October 
24, 1998, and assigned OMB control number 3038-0022, Rules Pertaining 
to Contract Markets and Their Members, to these rules. The burden 
associated with this entire collection 3038-0022, including these final 
rule amendments, is as follows:
    Average burden hours per response: 3,609,89.
    Number of respondents: 15,893.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    The burden associated with the final rule amendments, is as 
follows:
    Average burden hours per response: 17.50
    Number of respondents: 3,412.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Persons wishing to comment on the information required by these 
final rules should contact the Desk Officer, CFTC, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10202, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7340. 
Copies of the information collection submission to OMB are available 
from the CFTC Clearance Officer, 1155 21st Street N.W., Washington, DC 
20581, (202) 418-5160.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 1

    Recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 17 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

PART 1--GENERAL REGULATIONS UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT

    1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 2a, 4, 4a, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 
6g, 6h, 6i, 6j, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 7, 7a, 7b, 8, 9, 12, 12a, 
12c, 13a, 13a-1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23, 24.

    2. Section 1.31 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 1.31  Books and records; keeping and inspection.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, immediate 
reproductions on either ``micrographic media'' (as defined in paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) of this section) or ``electronic storage media'' (as defined 
in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) this section) may be kept in that form for the 
required time period under the conditions set forth in this paragraph 
(b).
    (1) For purposes of this section:
    (i) The term ``micrographic media'' means microfilm or microfiche 
or any similar medium.
    (ii) The term ``electronic storage media'' means any digital 
storage medium or system that:
    (A) Preserves the records exclusively in a non-rewritable, non-
erasable format;
    (B) Verifies automatically the quality and accuracy of the storage 
media recording process;
    (C) Serializes the original and, if applicable, duplicate units of 
storage media and creates a time-date record for the required period of 
retention for the information placed on such electronic storage media; 
and
    (D) Permits the immediate downloading of indexes and records 
preserved on the electronic storage media onto paper, microfilm, 
microfiche or other medium acceptable under this paragraph upon the 
request of representatives of the Commission or the Department of 
Justice.
    (2) Persons who use either micrographic media or electronic storage 
media to maintain records in accordance with this section must:
    (i) Have available at all times, for examination by representatives 
of the Commission or the Department of Justice, facilities for 
immediate, easily readable projection or production of micrographic 
media or electronic storage media images;
    (ii) Be ready at all times to provide, and immediately provide at 
the expense of the person required to keep such records, any easily 
readable hard-copy image that representatives of the Commission or 
Department of Justice may request;
    (iii) Keep only Commission-require records on the individual medium 
employed (e.g., a disk or sheets of microfiche);
    (iv) Store a duplicate of the record, in any medium acceptable 
under this regulation, at a location separate from the original for the 
period of time required for maintenance of the original; and
    (v) Organize and maintain an accurate index of all information 
maintained on both the original and duplicate storage media such that:
    (A) The location of any particular record stored on the media may 
be immediately ascertained;
    (B) The index is available at all times for immediate examination 
by

[[Page 28743]]

representatives of the Commission or the Department of Justice;
    (C) A duplicate of the index is stored at a location separate from 
the original index; and
    (D) Both the original index and the duplicate index are preserved 
for the time period required for the records included in the index.
    (3) In addition to the foregoing conditions, persons using 
electronic storage media must:
    (i) Be ready at all times to provide, and immediately provide at 
the expense of the person required to keep such records, copies of such 
records on such approved machine-readable media as defined in 
Sec. 15.00(1) of this chapter which any representative of the 
Commission or the Department of Justice may request. Records must use a 
format and coding structure specified in the request.
    (ii) Develop and maintain written operational procedures and 
controls (an ``audit system'') designed to provide accountability over 
both the initial entry of required records to the electronic storage 
media and the entry of each change made to any original or duplicate 
record maintained on the electronic storage media such that:
    (A) The results of such audit system are available at all times for 
immediate examination by representatives of the Commission or the 
Department of Justice;
    (B) The results of such audit system are preserved for the time 
period required for the records maintained on the electronic storage 
media; and
    (C) The written operational procedures and controls are available 
at all times for immediate examination by representatives of the 
Commission or the Department of Justice.
    (iii) Either
    (A) Maintain, keep current, and make available at all times for 
immediate examination by representatives of the Commission or 
Department of Justice all information necessary to access records and 
indexes maintained on the electronic storage media; or
    (B) Place in escrow and keep current a copy of the physical and 
logical format of the electronic storage media, the file format of all 
different information types maintained on the electronic storage media 
and the source code, documentation, and information necessary to access 
the records and indexes maintained on the electronic storage media.
    (4) In addition to the foregoing conditions, any person who uses 
only electronic storage media to preserve some or all of its required 
records (``Electronic Recordkeeper'') shall, prior to the media's use, 
enter into an arrangement with at least one third party technical 
consultant (``Technical Consultant'') who has the technical and 
financial capability to perform the undertakings described in this 
paragraph (b)(4). The arrangement shall provide that the Technical 
Consultant will have access to, and the ability to download, 
information from the Electronic Recordkeeper's electronic storage media 
to any medium acceptable under this regulation.
    (i) The Technical Consultant must file with the Commission an 
undertaking in a form acceptable to the Commission, signed by the 
Technical Consultant or a person duly authorized by the Technical 
Consultant. An acceptable undertaking must include the following 
provision with respect to the Electronic Recordkeeper:

    With respect to any books and records maintained or preserved on 
behalf of the Electronic Recordkeeper, the undersigned hereby 
undertakes to furnish promptly to any representative of the United 
States Commodity Futures Trading Commission or the United States 
Department of Justice (the ``Representative''), upon reasonable 
request, such information as is deemed necessary by the 
Representative to download information kept on the Electronic 
Recordkeeper's electronic storage media to any medium acceptable 
under 17 CFR 1.31. The undersigned also undertakes to take 
reasonable steps to provide access to information contained on the 
Electronic Recordkeeper's electronic storage media, including, as 
appropriate, arrangements for the downloading of any record required 
to be maintained under the Commodity Exchange Act or the rules, 
regulations, or orders of the United States Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission, in a format acceptable to the Representative. In 
the event the Electronic Recordkeeper fails to download a record 
into a readable format and after reasonable notice to the Electronic 
Recordkeeper, upon being provided with the appropriate electronic 
storage medium, the undersigned will undertake to do so, at no 
charge to the United States, as the Representative may request.

    (ii) [Reserved]
    (c) Persons employing an electronic storage system shall provide a 
representation to the Commission prior to the initial use of the 
system. The representation shall be made by the person required to 
maintain the records, the storage system vendor, or another third party 
with appropriate expertise and shall state that the selected electronic 
storage system meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) 
of this section. Persons employing an electronic storage system using 
media other than optical disk or CD-ROM technology shall so state. The 
representation shall be accompanied by the type of oath or affirmation 
described in Sec. 1.10(d)(4).
    (d) Trading cards, documents on which trade information is 
originally recorded in writing, and written orders required to be kept 
pursuant to Sec. 1.35(a), (a-1)(1), (a-1)(2) and (d) must be retained 
in hard-copy for the required time period.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 21, 1999 by the Commission.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-13514 Filed 5-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M