[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22916-22921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11333]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 241

[Release No. 34-44238]


Commission Guidance to Broker-Dealers on the Use of Electronic 
Storage Media Under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National 
Commerce Act of 2000 With Respect to Rule 17a-4(f)

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Interpretation.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is publishing guidance on the operation of its 
rule permitting electronic storage of broker-dealer records in light of 
the recently enacted Electronic Signatures in Global and National 
Commerce Act of 2000. In particular, we are publishing guidance on how 
the electronic storage requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) under the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 meet, and are consistent with, the 
requirements of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National 
Commerce Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The guidance is effective on May 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate 
Director, 202/942-0131; Thomas K. McGowan, Assistant Director, 202/942-
4886; Randall W. Roy, Special Counsel, 202/942-0798, or Mathew 
Comstock, Attorney, 202/942-0156, Division of Market Regulation, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20549-1001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') is publishing guidance on how Rule 17a-4(f) (17 CFR 
240.17a-4(f)) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange 
Act'') is consistent with the Electronic Signatures in Global and 
National Commerce Act of 2000.

I. Introduction

    The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 
2000 (the ``Electronic Signatures Act'') \1\ seeks to promote 
electronic commerce by providing greater legal certainty to 
transactions effected by electronic means. To this end, the Electronic 
Signatures Act provides that the legal validity of a signature or 
contract cannot be denied solely because it is in electronic form.\2\ 
It also encourages electronic record storage by providing that any 
statute, regulation, or other rule of law that requires the retention 
of contracts or other records relating to transactions in or affecting 
interstate or foreign commerce may, with certain exceptions, be 
complied with by storing the documents electronically.\3\ However, the 
Electronic Signatures Act requires that the electronically stored 
documents must accurately reflect the information in the contracts or 
transactional records and be accessible to all persons entitled to 
review them under statute, regulation, or rule of law in a form that is 
capable of being accurately reproduced for later reference.\4\ The 
Electronic Signatures Act does not define how these requirements are to 
be met. Instead, it preserves the ability of regulatory agencies to 
interpret them with respect to statutes under which such agencies have 
rulemaking authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pub. L. 106-229, 114 Stat. 464 (2000).
    \2\ Electronic Signatures Act Section 101(a).
    \3\ Electronic Signatures Act Section 101(d)(1).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Electronic Signatures Act Section 104(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 1, 2001, the Electronic Signatures Act became effective 
with respect to any existing state or federal regulatory requirement 
that a contract or transactional record be retained.\6\ This effective 
date is delayed, however, if an agency has announced, proposed or 
initiated, but not completed, a rulemaking proceeding under the 
authority preserved in the Electronic Signatures Act.\7\ On February 
28, 2001, the Commission announced that it would act shortly to provide 
interpretive guidance and, where appropriate, propose or adopt rules 
consistent with the Electronic Signatures Act, thereby delaying the 
effective date with respect to Commission recordkeeping rules to June 
1, 2001.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Electronic Signatures Act Section 107(b)(1).
    \7\ Electronic Signatures Act Section 107(b)(1)(B).
    \8\ Exchange Act Release No. 44014 (Feb. 28, 2001), 66 FR 13273 
(March 5, 2001), http://www.sec.gov/news/digest.shtml>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 1939, the Commission has required broker-dealers, through 
rules authorized under the Exchange Act, to make and maintain certain 
records deemed necessary to ensure compliance with federal securities 
laws and regulations.\9\ In 1997, after requests by industry 
representatives, the Commission amended its record retention rule to 
allow broker-dealers to store these records using any electronic 
storage medium, subject to certain requirements set forth in the 
rule.\10\ These requirements are safeguards designed to ensure the 
accuracy, accessibility, and accurate reproduction of the 
electronically stored records. The rule's evolution from a strictly 
paper requirement to its present electronic storage provisions reflects 
the Commission's approach of promoting the use of available 
technologies to the benefit of broker-dealers and investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Exchange Act Release No. 2304 (Nov. 13, 1939), 4 FR 4578 
(Jan. 2, 1940).
    \10\ Exchange Act Release No. 38245 (Feb. 5, 1997), 62 FR 6469 
(Feb. 12, 1997) (``Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In anticipation of the June 1, 2001 effective date for the 
electronic storage provisions of the Electronic Signatures Act, we are 
publishing this release to explain how the electronic storage 
requirements of the broker-dealer record retention rule meet, and are 
consistent with, the requirements of the Electronic Signatures Act.

II. Background

A. Broker-Dealer Books and Records Rules

    Section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission to 
issue rules requiring broker-dealers to make and keep for prescribed 
periods, and furnish copies thereof, such records as necessary or 
appropriate in the public

[[Page 22917]]

interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in furtherance 
of the purposes of the Exchange Act.\11\ In 1939, the Commission 
adopted Rules 17a-3 (17 CFR 240.17a-3) and 17a-4 (17 CFR 240.17a-4), 
pursuant to this authority.\12\ Rule 17a-3 requires broker-dealers to 
make certain records, including trade blotters, asset and liability 
ledgers, income ledgers, customer account ledgers, securities records, 
order tickets, trade confirmations, trial balances, and various 
employment related documents.\13\ Rule 17a-4 specifies the manner and 
length of time that the records created in accordance with Rule 17a-3, 
and certain other records produced by broker-dealers, must be 
maintained.\14\ In combination, Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 require broker-
dealers to create, and preserve in an accessible manner, a 
comprehensive record of each securities transaction they effect and of 
their securities business in general. These rules impose minimum 
recordkeeping requirements that are based on standards a prudent 
broker-dealer should follow in the normal course of business. The 
requirements are an integral part of the investor protection function 
of the Commission, and other securities regulators, in that the 
preserved records are the primary means of monitoring compliance with 
applicable securities laws, including antifraud provisions and 
financial responsibility standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(a)(1).
    \12\ Exchange Act Release No. 2304 (Nov. 13, 1939), 4 FR 4578 
(Jan. 2, 1940).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17a-3.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Originally, Rule 17a-4 had a paper-only requirement for the initial 
retention of records; now, the rule allows broker-dealers to choose 
between storing records in paper form, on microfilm or microfiche 
(``micrographic media'') or using electronic storage media. This 
progression from paper to electronic media is indicative of how the 
Commission encourages the use of technological innovation when both 
broker-dealers and investors will benefit.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Commission continues to be interested in exploring ways 
in which technology can be used to create efficiencies without 
sacrificing the Commission's regulatory objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned, Rule 17a-4, when adopted in 1939, required broker-
dealers to maintain records in paper form for the first two years of 
the specified retention period, and on microfilm thereafter.\16\ In 
1970, the Commission amended the rule to allow the records to be stored 
immediately on microfilm.\17\ This amendment recognized that broker-
dealers were increasingly using automated systems in their back office 
operations, and that the records generated on such systems could be 
transferred to microfilm more quickly than to paper, and at 
substantially less expense. As the Commission noted at the time, ``the 
retention of reels of microfilm as against bulky hard copy records 
should enable an organization to effect substantial savings in storage 
space and man hours.'' \18\ The rule specifies certain requirements on 
the use of microfilm intended to ``preserve the basic safeguards 
designed by [Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4] for the protection of public 
investors.'' \19\ Broker-dealers who use micrographic media must: (1) 
Maintain facilities to protect the records and reproduce them in an 
easily readable format; (2) arrange the records and their indexes in a 
manner that permits the immediate location of a particular record; and 
(3) store a second copy of the records in a separate location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Exchange Act Release No. 2304 (Nov. 13, 1939), 4 FR 4578 
(Jan. 2, 1940).
    \17\ Exchange Act Release No. 8875 (Apr. 30, 1970), 35 FR 7644 
(May 16, 1970).
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1991, the Securities Industry Association (``SIA''), on behalf 
of its broker-dealer members, requested that the Division of Market 
Regulation (``Division'') amend Rule 17a-4 to permit broker-dealers to 
store records electronically.\20\ The following year, the SIA requested 
that the Division not recommend enforcement action if broker-dealers 
stored records using an electronic storage technology known as optical 
disk.\21\ In its no-action request, the SIA set forth a list of 
safeguards that it believed were appropriate. These safeguards included 
that the storage system: be non-rewriteable and non-erasable (or write 
once, read many ``WORM''); automatically verify the accuracy of stored 
information; serialize and time-date the records; and create indexes of 
the records. The SIA estimated that the savings realized by switching 
from microfilm to optical disk would range from $250,000 a year for a 
medium-sized firm to $1.6 million a year for a large firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Letter from Edward I. O'Brien, President, SIA, to William 
Heyman, Deputy Director, Division, (May 1, 1991).
    \21\ Letter from Michael D. Udoff, Chairman, Ad Hoc Record 
Retention Committee, SIA, to Michael Macchiaroli, Assistant 
Director, Division, (May 19, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1993, the Division issued a no-action letter in response to the 
SIA's 1992 request. The no-action letter permitted broker-dealers to 
meet the record retention requirements of Rule 17a-4 using optical disk 
storage technology.\22\ This allowed broker-dealers to take advantage 
of the savings and of the increased productivity and quicker access to 
archived records provided by optical disk. At the same time, the 
Division recognized that the use of an electronic storage system raised 
audit and examination concerns. Consequently, the Division established 
certain conditions for using optical disk to help ensure that records 
stored in this manner would be accurate and accessible for examination 
purposes. These conditions were consistent with the safeguards proposed 
by the SIA in its 1992 no-action request. For example, the optical disk 
technology stores digital information by employing a laser heat source 
to burn a pattern on the disk, which makes the records non-rewriteable 
and non-erasable. The letter also required: (1) Broker-dealers to file 
an undertaking signed by a third-party in which the third-party 
represents that it will access the records at the request of the 
Commission; (2) the optical disk system to automatically verify the 
quality and accuracy of the recording process; (3) the optical disk 
system to serialize the original and any duplicate units of the storage 
medium and time-date information stored on the medium; and (4) the 
optical disk system to have the capacity to download indices and 
records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Letter from Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate Director, 
Division, to Michael D. Udoff, Chairman, Ad Hoc Record Retention 
Committee, SIA (June 18, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1997, the Commission, in many respects, codified the Division's 
no-action letter by amending paragraph (f) of Rule 17a-4 to allow 
broker-dealers to store records electronically.\23\ However, one 
significant difference was that the final rule did not limit broker-
dealers to using optical disk. Instead, it allowed them to employ any 
electronic storage medium, subject to certain requirements. For the 
most part, these requirements are the same safeguards proposed by the 
SIA in its 1992 no-action request and later required by the Division in 
its 1993 no-action letter. It is these requirements of Rule 17a-4 that 
we now find meet, and are consistent with, the Electronic Signatures 
Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Adopting Release 34-38245, 62 FR 6469 (Feb. 12, 1997).
    \24\ The requirements for using electronic storage media for 
broker-dealer records are set forth in subsections (2)(i), 
(2)(ii)(A)-(D), and (3)(i)-(vii) of paragraph (f) of Rule 17a-4. 
These subsections are the requirements that are generally referred 
to throughout this release as, among other terms, ``the electronic 
storage requirements of Rule 17a-4(f).''

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

[[Page 22918]]

B. The Electronic Storage Requirements of the Electronic Signatures Act

    Section 101(d)(1) of the Electronic Signatures Act permits persons 
who are legally required to retain contracts or records relating to 
transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce to do so 
using electronic means. However, Section 101(d)(1) also requires 
persons who opt to store such records in electronic form to proceed in 
a manner that ensures the records are accurate, accessible, and capable 
of accurate reproduction for later reference. As Section 101(d)(1) 
reads in full,

    If a statute, regulation, or other rule of law requires that a 
contract or other record relating to a transaction in or affecting 
interstate or foreign commerce be retained, that requirement is met 
by retaining an electronic record of the information in the contract 
or other record that--
    (A) accurately reflects the information set forth in the 
contract or other record; and
    (B) remains accessible to all persons who are entitled to access 
by statute, regulation, or rule of law, for the period required by 
such statute, regulation, or rule of law, in a form that is capable 
of being accurately reproduced for later reference, whether by 
transmission, printing, or otherwise.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Electronic Signatures Act Sec. 101(d)(1).

    The Electronic Signatures Act does not specify the conditions under 
which an electronic record would be deemed to have met these 
requirements. However, it does preserve the ability of regulatory 
agencies to interpret them with respect to statutes under which they 
have rulemaking authority.\26\ The exercise of this interpretive 
authority is subject to certain guidelines. First, the interpretation 
must be ``consistent'' with Section 101 of the Act.\27\ Second, the 
interpretation may not ``add to the requirements'' of Section 101.\28\ 
Third, the agency, in issuing the interpretation, must find that: (1) 
There is substantial justification for the interpretation; (2) the 
methods selected to carry out that purpose are substantially equivalent 
to the requirements imposed on records that are not electronic; (3) the 
methods selected to carry out that purpose will not impose unreasonable 
costs on the acceptance and use of electronic records; and (4) the 
methods selected to carry out that purpose do not require, or accord 
greater legal status or effect to, the implementation or application of 
a specific technology or technical specification.\29\ We believe the 
electronic storage requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) meet these guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Electronic Signatures Act Sec. 104(b).
    \27\ Electronic Signatures Act Sec. 104(b)(2)(A).
    \28\ Electronic Signatures Act Sec. 104(b)(2)(B).
    \29\ Electronic Signatures Act Sec. 104(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis

    The Electronic Signatures Act becomes effective on June 1, 2001 
with respect to Rule 17a-4.\30\ To the extent Rule 17a-4 requires the 
retention of the types of contracts and transactional records 
identified in the Electronic Signatures Act, broker-dealers will be 
able to retain them electronically under Section 101(d)(1), provided 
the electronic records are accurate, accessible, and capable of being 
accurately reproduced for later reference. Under paragraph (f) of Rule 
17a-4, broker-dealers are already permitted to retain all required 
records--not just these contracts and transactional records--using 
electronic means, subject to the requirements set forth in that 
paragraph. Pursuant to the Commission's interpretive authority 
preserved by the Electronic Signatures Act, we find that the electronic 
storage requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) meet, and are consistent with, 
the accuracy, accessibility, and accurate reproduction requirements of 
Section 101(d)(1) of the Electronic Signatures Act. Therefore, broker-
dealers must continue to comply with the electronic storage 
requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) after June 1, 2001.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 66 FR 13273 (March 5, 2001).
    \31\ We also note that, during the debate on the Electronic 
Signatures Act, a concern was raised as to whether the validity of a 
contract could be challenged because it was not retained in an 
accurate or accessible manner. 146 Cong. Rec. H4349 (daily ed. June 
14, 2000) (statement of Rep. Dreier). The electronic storage 
requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) are designed to ensure that electronic 
records are kept in an accurate and accessible manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Electronic Storage Requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) Are Consistent 
With Section 101(d) of the Electronic Signatures Act

    The electronic storage requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) are consistent 
with Section 101(d) of the Electronic Signatures Act. First, the 
Electronic Signatures Act provides that statutes or regulations 
requiring the retention of certain contractual or transactional records 
may be complied with by storing them electronically. Rule 17a-4(f) 
allows for the retention of documents in electronic form. In fact, the 
rule is broader than the Electronic Signatures Act because it does not 
limit its applicability to contracts or other records that relate to 
transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Rather, it 
permits broker-dealers to electronically store all records they are 
required to retain under Rule 17a-4. Moreover, Rule 17a-4(f) makes 
specific provision for the use of new technologies as they become 
available, which is consistent with the technology-neutral requirements 
in the Electronic Signatures Act.
    Second, the Electronic Signatures Act and the electronic storage 
requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) were each designed to allow affected 
parties to take advantage of the increased productivity and cost 
savings arising from the use of electronic storage systems. To quote 
Representative Sessions, ``the underlying legislation will allow all 
Americans to benefit from the efficiencies resulting from advances in 
technology.'' \32\ Similarly, the Commission, when adopting its 
electronic storage rule, stated that the amendments were ``a 
recognition of technological developments that will provide economic as 
well as time-saving advantages for broker-dealers by expanding the 
scope of recordkeeping options.* * *'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 146 Cong. Rec. H4347 (daily ed. June 14, 2000) (statement 
of Rep. Sessions).
    \33\ Adopting Release, 62 FR at 6469.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, there is explicit support in the legislative history for our 
finding that Rule 17a-4(f) is consistent with the Electronic Signatures 
Act. As noted by Representative Dingell, ``[t]he standards set forth in 
the SEC's existing electronic recordkeeping rule, Rule 17a-4(f), such 
as the requirement that an electronic recordkeeping system preserve 
records in a non-rewriteable and non-erasable manner, are essential to 
the SEC's investor protection mission and are consistent with the 
provisions of the conference report [on the Electronic Signatures 
Act].'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 146 Cong. Rec. H4358 (daily ed. June 14, 2000) (statement 
of Rep. Dingell) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Electronic Storage Requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) Do Not Add 
Requirements to Section 101(d) of the Electronic Signatures Act

    The electronic storage requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) do not add to 
the requirements of Section 101(d) of the Electronic Signatures Act. 
The Electronic Signatures Act requires electronic records to be stored 
in a manner that ensures they are accurate, accessible, and capable of 
being accurately reproduced for later reference. Rule 17a-4(f) permits 
broker-dealers to store electronic records in a manner consistent with 
the Electronic Signatures Act. For example, the WORM requirement is 
designed to ensure that electronic records are capable of being 
accurately reproduced for later reference by maintaining the records in 
an unalterable form. The automatic

[[Page 22919]]

verification requirement is designed to ensure the records are accurate 
by providing verification that a record has been accurately stored in 
the electronic system. Indexing is designed to ensure that the records 
are accessible by providing a means to search for specific records 
among the many that have been stored. The third-party download 
requirement is designed to ensure that records remain accessible by 
providing that a person with the appropriate knowledge and expertise 
will access the system at the Commission's request. The serialization 
provision is intended to ensure both the accuracy and accessibility of 
the records by indicating the order in which records are stored, 
thereby making specific records easier to locate and authenticating the 
storage process.

C. The Commission Makes the Findings Required by Section 104(b)(2)(C) 
of the Electronic Signatures Act

    In exercising its authority to interpret its statutes, as preserved 
in the Electronic Signatures Act, the Commission must make four 
findings: (1) That there is substantial justification for the 
interpretation; (2) that the methods selected to carry out that purpose 
are substantially equivalent to the requirements imposed on records 
that are not electronic; (3) that the methods selected to carry out 
that purpose will not impose unreasonable costs on the acceptance and 
use of electronic records; and (4) that the methods selected to carry 
out that purpose do not require, or accord greater legal status or 
effect to, the implementation or application of a specific technology 
or technical specification.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Electronic Signatures Act Sec. 104(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. There Is Substantial Justification for the Commission's 
Interpretation of Rule 17a-4(f)
    The electronic storage requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) are 
substantially justified by the need to protect investors and ensure the 
soundness of the securities markets. Over the last several years, there 
has been significant growth in the number of investors entering these 
markets. For example, we estimate that the number of securities 
accounts at U.S. broker-dealers has grown from approximately 35 million 
in 1990 to 82 million in 1999. In part, this growth has been driven by 
advances in information and trade processing technology, which make it 
easier for investors to purchase and hold securities. The increase in 
the number of investors has emphasized the need for a safe and sound 
market place.
    The Commission is responsible for interpreting and enforcing 
federal securities laws and regulations--such as anti-fraud, sales 
practice and financial responsibility requirements--aimed at ensuring 
safe and sound securities markets. Because broker-dealers play a 
critical role in these markets, the Commission has established rules 
requiring them to act in a manner that foremost is protective of the 
interests of their customers and other market participants. These 
rules, along with rules promulgated by the self-regulatory 
organizations (``SROs''), seek to ensure that broker-dealers operate in 
a financially sound manner, maintain adequate custody of customer 
assets, and refrain from deceptive and manipulative practices. To 
monitor compliance with these rules, the Commission requires broker-
dealers to make and maintain records that document their transactions 
with customers and overall securities operations. Commission and SRO 
examiners review these records to determine whether broker-dealers are 
acting within the requirements of the securities laws, regulations and 
SRO rules. Accordingly, if investors are to be adequately protected, 
regulators must be able to rely on these records as providing a true 
account of a broker-dealer's operations.
    Commission enforcement actions against unscrupulous broker-dealers 
that improperly altered or destroyed records demonstrate the need for 
measures aimed at maintaining the integrity of broker-dealer records. 
These cases have included situations in which broker-dealer employees 
have changed or destroyed order tickets and other transactional records 
in an effort to shift firm losses to their customers or to conceal 
fraudulent activities.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See e.g., In the Matter of Del Mar Financial Services, 
Inc., et al., Exchange Act Release No. 42421 (Feb. 14, 2000); In the 
Matter of A.S. Goldmen & Co., Inc., et al., Exchange Act Release No. 
41601 (July 7, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the complexity of the securities business makes accurate 
and comprehensive recordkeeping vital to the financial well being of 
broker-dealers and, as a result, investors and the securities markets. 
Many securities firms process large volumes of transactions on a daily 
basis across diverse markets, business groups and geographic areas. 
Each trade generates several separate records that must be retained. In 
addition, broker-dealers hold cash and a wide range of domestic and 
foreign securities on behalf of their customers. The amount of 
securities under a firm's control constantly changes as it effects 
transactions. Moreover, the securities for which a broker-dealer has 
custodial responsibility are frequently maintained in different 
locations throughout the world. This complexity of operations makes the 
accurate and comprehensive keeping of broker-dealer books and records 
crucial to the securities industry. A failure to maintain accurate, 
accessible, and true records may lead to situations where a firm cannot 
account for customer property or its own assets. For these reasons, the 
Commission's broker-dealer recordkeeping requirements are an important 
part of managing systemic risk in the industry.
2. The Electronic Storage Requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) Are 
Substantially Equivalent to the Requirements for Records That Are Not 
Electronic
    The electronic storage requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) are intended 
to ensure the prompt production of legible, true, and complete records, 
a requirement applicable to the storage of all broker-dealer records 
regardless of their form. Accordingly, the requirements for electronic 
storage are substantially equivalent to the requirements for the other 
methods of record storage.
    The examination process, which is fundamental to the regulation of 
broker-dealers, depends on the ability of examiners to quickly obtain 
records that are relevant to a particular examination and that reflect 
the information as originally entered into the record. This need is 
complicated by the record-intensive nature of the securities industry. 
Rule 17a-4 seeks to address the tension between the need for quick 
production of specific records and the volume of records generated on a 
daily basis, by requiring that more current records be retained in an 
easily accessible place. It also requires that every broker-dealer 
``shall furnish promptly * * * legible, true and complete copies of 
those records'' requested by representatives of the Commission.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These requirements apply regardless of whether the records are 
stored in paper form, on micrographic media, or using electronic media. 
However, given the differences in the methods of storage, the rule sets 
forth, with respect to micrographic and electronic media, certain 
requirements designed to ensure the prompt production of legible, true, 
and complete records. These requirements do not impose greater burdens 
on broker-dealers for using micrographic or electronic storage methods; 
rather, they address the unique characteristics of each storage

[[Page 22920]]

method and seek to put them all on an equal footing. For example, the 
ability to promptly produce legible, true, and complete paper records 
requires keeping them in an accessible location and filed in a way that 
particular documents can be identified and retrieved. Conversely, it is 
not enough to simply keep microfilm tapes or optical disks easily 
accessible. There must also be facilities to locate the appropriate 
records, to read them, and to print them. Therefore, paragraph (f) of 
Rule 17a-4 specifies that broker-dealers using micrographic or 
electronic media must have such retrieval facilities available.\38\ 
Requiring such facilities for electronically stored records is similar 
to requiring that paper records be in an accessible place. Moreover, 
the indexing requirement for records stored using micrographic or 
electronic media allows for the retrieval of specific records in a 
manner equivalent to the way that particular paper records can be 
pulled from designated files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4(f)(3)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, paper and micrographic media both store exact images 
of the information as it was originally entered into the record. 
Electronic media, on the other hand, store the original information in 
digital or computerized form. The WORM provision is designed to ensure 
that the original information is preserved in an unalterable manner so 
that it can be accurately reproduced for later reference.
    Paper records are accessible if examiners can obtain and use them. 
In contrast, accessing electronic storage media systems requires 
varying degrees of technical expertise (depending on the medium used) 
and, very likely, knowledge of the proprietary characteristics (e.g., 
passwords and source codes) of a given system. Therefore, Rule 17a-4(f) 
requires an undertaking that a third party can provide access to these 
records. In the absence of such an undertaking, examiners could find it 
difficult, if not impossible, to obtain electronic records from a 
broker-dealer that had gone out of business or was refusing to 
cooperate. Consequently, attempting to retrieve records from an 
electronic storage medium without the requisite technological knowledge 
would be no different than attempting to obtain records from a broker-
dealer that stored paper records in an inaccessible place.
3. The Electronic Storage Requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) Do Not Impose 
Unreasonable Costs on the Acceptance and Use of Electronic Records
    The costs associated with the electronic storage requirements of 
Rule 17a-4(f) are reasonable, given their investor protection objective 
and goal of reducing storage expenses. Broker-dealers have had the 
option since 1993 of storing records electronically on optical disk, 
and since 1997 on any type of electronic media. The requirements for 
using electronic storage media (e.g., WORM, automatic verification, 
indexing, third-party undertaking) have been in place since the 
Division's 1993 no-action letter. Our interpretation today does not add 
to these requirements, and therefore, will not increase the costs of 
electronic storage, which have likely decreased since 1993 and should 
continue to drop as technological advances occur. Moreover, the costs 
of storing large volumes of records electronically are likely to be 
substantially lower than storing them on paper or on micrographic 
media.
    We believe the electronic storage requirements in Rule 17a-4(f) are 
necessary to ensure the accuracy, accessibility, and accurate 
reproduction of broker-dealer records stored electronically. 
Accordingly, we believe they are reasonable, particularly when measured 
against the problems that could arise if the ability of securities 
regulators to enforce compliance with securities laws and regulations 
was compromised due to inadequate and unreliable electronic 
recordkeeping. Moreover, as discussed in the next section, the 
requirements are technology-neutral and, therefore, allow for the use 
of new technologies as they become available. This flexibility is 
incorporated in the rule to keep record retention costs as low as 
possible.
4. The Electronic Storage Requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) Do Not Require, 
or Accord Greater Legal Status or Effect to, the Implementation or 
Application of a Specific Technology or Technical Specification
    The Commission first proposed amending Rule 17a-4 to allow 
electronic storage in 1993.\39\ The proposed amendments would have 
limited broker-dealers to using optical disk. However, the Commission 
ultimately adopted a rule that allows the use of any electronic storage 
medium that meets the general requirements of the rule.\40\ Moreover, 
in discussing the WORM provision of the rule, the Commission made clear 
that this did not mean only one type of storage methodology. As the 
Commission stated in the release,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Exchange Act Release No. 32609 (July 9, 1993), 58 FR 38092 
(July 15, 1993).
    \40\ Adopting Release, 62 FR 6469.

    In the Proposing Release, the Commission did not intend the 
definition of optical storage technology to include only ablative 
methodology of storage. The Commission recognizes that other methods 
of electronic storage technology exist, including optical tape and 
CD-ROM, which is available in a WORM, non-rewriteable version. The 
Commission is adopting a rule today, which, instead of specifying 
the type of storage technology that may be used, sets forth 
standards that the electronic storage media must satisfy to be 
considered an acceptable method of storage under Rule 17a-4. 
Specifically, because optical tape, CD-ROM, and certain other 
methods of electronic storage are available in WORM and can provide 
the same safeguards against data manipulation and erasure that 
optical disk provides, the final rule clarifies that broker-dealers 
may employ any electronic storage media that meets the conditions 
set forth in the final rule.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Adopting Release, 62 FR at 6470.

    The Commission also acknowledged that, with respect to the WORM 
provision, several storage methodologies, in addition to the ablative 
method mentioned above, were available.\42\ For these reasons, the 
electronic storage requirements of Rule 17a-4 do not require, or accord 
greater legal status to, the implementation or application of a 
specific technology or technical specification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Adopting Release, 62 FR at 6470 n.10 (The other 
methodologies identified in the release were alloying, bubble-
forming, moth-eye (Plasmon), phase-change, dye/polymer, and magneto-
optic).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. The Electronic Storage Requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) Would Be 
Permissible Performance Standards Under Section 104(b)(3) of the 
Electronic Signatures Act

    Even if the electronic storage requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) 
accorded greater legal status to the implementation or application of a 
specific technology or technical specification, the requirements would 
still be permissible under the Electronic Signatures Act. The 
Electronic Signatures Act contains an exception to the limitation 
against the implementation or application of a specific technology or 
technical specification.\43\ The exception permits an agency to specify 
performance standards to ensure the accuracy, accessibility, and 
integrity of records that are required to be retained, even if

[[Page 22921]]

those standards require implementation or application of a specific 
technology or technical specification. Under the Electronic Signatures 
Act, such performance standards must: (1) Serve an important 
governmental objective; and (2) be substantially related to the 
achievement of that objective.\44\ Even if the electronic storage 
requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) must be evaluated under Section 
104(b)(3)(A) of the Electronic Signatures Act, they serve an important 
governmental objective and are substantially related to achieving that 
objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Electronic Signatures Act Section 104(b)(3)(A).
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Electronic Storage Requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) Serve an 
Important Governmental Interest
    Section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission to 
issue rules requiring broker-dealers to make and keep for prescribed 
periods, and furnish copies thereof, such records as necessary or 
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors or 
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.\45\ This 
grant of authority recognizes the importance of broker-dealer 
recordkeeping to the Commission's regulatory function and investor 
protection objective. Rule 17a-4, adopted by the Commission pursuant to 
this authority, sets forth the requirements for keeping and furnishing 
broker-dealer records. In so doing, the rule serves the important 
governmental interest of assisting adequate supervision of broker-
dealers by the Commission and the SROs. During the debate on the 
Electronic Signatures Act, the importance of accurate recordkeeping in 
regulated industries was noted. To quote a statement by Senators 
Hollings, Wyden and Sarbanes, ``bank and other financial regulators 
need to require that records be retained in order that their examiners 
can insure the safety and soundness of the institutions and compliance 
with all relevant regulatory requirements.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(a)(1).
    \46\ 146 Cong. Rec. S5230 (daily ed. June 14, 2000) (statement 
of Sens. Hollings, Wyden, and Sarbanes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Investor protection depends on the examination process, which, in 
turn, relies on the records that broker-dealers are required to make 
and maintain. The electronic storage requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) are 
designed to ensure that broker-dealers will meet their obligation under 
Section 17(a)(1) and Rule 17a-4 to promptly furnish legible, true and 
complete copies of such records as are requested by the Commission or 
its representatives. This is crucial to the Commission's mandate to 
protect investors. Accordingly, the Commission's regulatory function is 
undermined to the extent that these records are inaccurate, retained in 
a non-accessible manner, or capable of alteration. The Commission's 
enforcement record against unscrupulous broker-dealers that have 
changed or destroyed records demonstrates how such conduct can harm 
investors and the public interest.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See e.g., In the Matter of Del Mar Financial Services, 
Inc., et al., Exchange Act Release No. 42421 (Feb. 14, 2000); In the 
Matter of A.S. Goldmen & Co., Inc., et al., Exchange Act Release No. 
41601 (July 7, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Electronic Storage Requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) Are 
Substantially Related to the Important Governmental Interest
    The electronic storage requirements are designed to ensure that the 
Commission can promptly obtain legible, true, and complete records. 
Because the Commission relies on this ability to fulfill its 
responsibilities, the requirements are substantially related to the 
Commission's regulatory function. The Commission, in the release 
adopting the electronic storage requirements of Rule 17a-4, noted the 
``importance for recordkeeping of ready access, reliability, and 
permanence of records.'' \48\ Therefore, the release made clear that 
the electronic storage requirements were intended as ``safeguards 
against data erasure'' and to ``facilitate full access to the records 
during examinations.'' \49\ As noted by Senator Leahy, the Electronic 
Signatures Act specifically authorizes agencies ``to set performance 
standards to assure the accuracy, integrity, and accessibility of 
records that are required to be retained.'' \50\ Statements of Senators 
Hollings, Wyden and Sarbanes, and of Representative Dingell indicate 
that the intent behind this section of the Electronic Signatures Act 
was to allow agencies to have standards designed to, among other 
things, prevent companies from retaining materials in an easily 
alterable form.\51\ The electronic storage requirements of Rule 17a-
4(f), such as WORM, are designed for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Adopting Release, 62 FR at 6470.
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ 146 Cong. Rec. S5221 (daily ed. June 15, 2000) (statement 
of Sen. Leahy).
    \51\ See 146 Cong. Rec. S5230 (daily ed. June 15, 2000) 
(statement of Sens. Hollings, Wyden and Sarbanes); 146 Cong. Rec. 
H4358 (daily ed. June 14, 2000) (statement of Rep. Dingell).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, we find that the electronic storage 
requirements of Rule 17a-4(f) meet, and are consistent with, the 
requirements of the Electronic Signatures Act.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 241

    Securities.

Amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission is 
amending title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as set 
forth below:

PART 241--INTERPRETATIVE RELEASES RELATING TO THE SECURITIES 
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER

    1. Part 241 is amended by adding Release No. 34-44238 and the 
release date of May 1, 2001 to the list of interpretive releases.

    Dated: May 1, 2001.
    By the Commission.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11333 Filed 5-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-U