[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20212-20354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05767]



[[Page 20211]]

Vol. 88

Wednesday,

No. 65

April 5, 2023

Part II





Securities and Exchange Commission





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





17 CFR Parts 232, 240, 242, et al.





Cybersecurity Risk Management Rule for Broker-Dealers, Clearing 
Agencies, Major Security-Based Swap Participants, the Municipal 
Securities Rulemaking Board, National Securities Associations, National 
Securities Exchanges, Security-Based Swap Data Repositories, Security-
Based Swap Dealers, and Transfer Agents; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 20212]]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 232, 240, 242 and 249

[Release No. 34-97142; File No. S7-06-23]
RIN 3235-AN15


Cybersecurity Risk Management Rule for Broker-Dealers, Clearing 
Agencies, Major Security-Based Swap Participants, the Municipal 
Securities Rulemaking Board, National Securities Associations, National 
Securities Exchanges, Security-Based Swap Data Repositories, Security-
Based Swap Dealers, and Transfer Agents

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is 
proposing a new rule and form and amendments to existing recordkeeping 
rules to require broker-dealers, clearing agencies, major security-
based swap participants, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 
national securities associations, national securities exchanges, 
security-based swap data repositories, security-based swap dealers, and 
transfer agents to address cybersecurity risks through policies and 
procedures, immediate notification to the Commission of the occurrence 
of a significant cybersecurity incident and, as applicable, reporting 
detailed information to the Commission about a significant 
cybersecurity incident, and public disclosures that would improve 
transparency with respect to cybersecurity risks and significant 
cybersecurity incidents. In addition, the Commission is proposing 
amendments to existing clearing agency exemption orders to require the 
retention of records that would need to be made under the proposed 
cybersecurity requirements. Finally, the Commission is proposing 
amendments to address the potential availability to security-based swap 
dealers and major security-based swap participants of substituted 
compliance in connection with those requirements.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before June 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/submitcomments.htm); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include 
File Number S7-06-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-06-23. The file number 
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the 
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please 
use only one method of submission. The Commission will post all 
comments on the Commission's website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments are also available for website viewing and 
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 
a.m. and 3 p.m. Operating conditions may limit access to the 
Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be 
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal 
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only 
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the 
Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A 
notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials 
will be made available on the Commission's website. To ensure direct 
electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the ``Stay 
Connected'' option at www.sec.gov to receive notifications by email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall W. Roy, Deputy Associate 
Director and Nina Kostyukovsky, Special Counsel, Office of Broker-
Dealer Finances (with respect to the proposed cybersecurity rule and 
form and the aspects of the proposal unique to broker-dealers); Matthew 
Lee, Assistant Director and Stephanie Park, Senior Special Counsel, 
Office of Clearance and Settlement (with respect to aspects of the 
proposal unique to clearing agencies and security-based swap data 
repositories); John Guidroz, Assistant Director and Russell Mancuso, 
Special Counsel, Office of Derivatives Policy (with respect to aspects 
of the proposal unique to major security-based swap participants and 
security-based swap dealers); Michael E. Coe, Assistant Director and 
Leah Mesfin, Special Counsel, Office of Market Supervision (with 
respect to aspects of the proposal unique to national securities 
associations and national securities exchanges); Moshe Rothman, 
Assistant Director, Office of Clearance and Settlement (with respect to 
aspects of the proposal unique to transfer agents) at (202) 551-5500, 
Division of Trading and Markets; and Dave Sanchez, Director, Adam 
Wendell, Deputy Director, and Adam Allogramento, Special Counsel, 
Office of Municipal Securities (with respect to aspects of the proposal 
unique to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board) at (202) 551-5680, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is proposing to add the 
following new rule and form under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(``Exchange Act''): (1) 17 CFR 242.10 (``Rule 10''); and (2) 17 CFR 
249.642 (``Form SCIR''). The Commission also is proposing related 
amendments to the following rules: (1) 17 CFR 232.101; (2) 17 CFR 
240.3a71-6; (3) 17 CFR 240.17a-4; (4) 17 CFR 240.17Ad-7; (5) 17 CFR 
240.18a-6; and (6) 17 CFR 240.18a-10. Further, the Commission is 
proposing to amend certain orders that exempt clearing agencies from 
registration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Commission reference                CFR citation  (17 CFR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation S-T............................  Sec.   232.101
Rule 3a71-6...............................  Sec.   240.3a71-6
Rule 17a-4................................  Sec.   240.17a-4
Rule 17Ad-7...............................  Sec.   240.17Ad-7
Rule 18a-6................................  Sec.   240.18a-6
Rule 18a-10...............................  Sec.   240.18a-10
Rule 10...................................  Sec.   242.10
Form SCIR.................................  Sec.   249.624
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Cybersecurity Risk Poses a Threat the U.S. Securities Markets
    1. In General
    2. Critical Operations of Market Entities Are Exposed to 
Cybersecurity Risk
    B. Overview of the Proposed Cybersecurity Requirements
II. Discussion of Proposed Cybersecurity Rule
    A. Definitions
    1. ``Covered Entity''
    2. ``Cybersecurity Incident''
    3. ``Significant Cybersecurity Incident''
    4. ``Cybersecurity Threat''
    5. ``Cybersecurity Vulnerability''
    6. ``Cybersecurity Risk''
    7. ``Information''
    8. ``Information Systems''
    9. ``Personal Information''
    10. Request for Comment
    B. Proposed Requirements for Covered Entities
    1. Cybersecurity Risk Management Policies and Procedures
    2. Notification and Reporting of Significant Cybersecurity 
Incidents
    3. Disclosure of Cybersecurity Risks and Incidents
    4. Filing Parts I and II of Proposed Form SCIR in EDGAR Using a 
Structured Data Language

[[Page 20213]]

    5. Recordkeeping
    C. Proposed Requirements for Non-Covered Broker-Dealers
    1. Cybersecurity Policies and Procedures, Annual Review, 
Notification, and Recordkeeping
    2. Request for Comment
    D. Cross-Border Application of the Proposed Cybersecurity 
Requirements to SBS Entities
    1. Background on the Cross-Border Application of Title VII 
Requirements
    2. Proposed Entity-Level Treatment
    3. Availability of Substituted Compliance
    E. Amendments to Rule 18a-10
    1. Proposal
    2. Request for Comment
    F. Market Entities Subject to Regulation SCI, Regulation S-P, 
Regulation ATS, and Regulation S-ID
    1. Discussion
    2. Request for Comment
    G. Cybersecurity Risk Related to Crypto Assets
III. General Request for Comment
IV. Economic Analysis
    A. Introduction
    B. Broad Economic Considerations
    C. Baseline
    1. Cybersecurity Risks and Current Relevant Regulations
    2. Market Structure
    D. Benefits and Costs of Proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and Rule 
Amendments
    1. Benefits and Costs of the Proposals to the U.S. Securities 
Markets
    2. Policies and Procedures and Annual Review Requirements for 
Covered Entities
    3. Regulatory Reporting of Cybersecurity Incidents by Covered 
Entities
    4. Public Disclosure of Cybersecurity Risks and Significant 
Cybersecurity Incidents
    5. Record Preservation and Maintenance by Covered Entities
    6. Policies and Procedures, Annual Review, Immediate 
Notification of Significant Cybersecurity Incidents, and Record 
Preservation Requirements for Non-Covered Broker-Dealers
    7. Substituted Compliance for Non-U.S. SBS Entities
    E. Effects on Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation
    F. Reasonable Alternatives
    1. Alternatives to the Policies and Procedures Requirements of 
Proposed Rule 10
    2. Alternatives to the Requirements of Proposed Form SCIR and 
Related Notification and Disclosure Requirements of Proposed Rule 10
    3. General Request for Comment
V. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
    A. Summary of Collections of Information
    1. Proposed Rule 10
    2. Form SCIR
    3. Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, 18a-6 and Clearing Agency Exemption 
Orders
    4. Substituted Compliance (Rule 3a71-6)
    B. Proposed Use of Information
    C. Respondents
    1. Broker-Dealers
    2. Clearing Agencies
    3. The MSRB
    4. National Securities Exchanges and National Securities 
Associations
    5. SBS Entities
    6. SBSDRs
    7. Transfer Agents
    D. Total Initial and Annual Reporting Burdens
    1. Proposed Rule 10
    2. Form SCIR
    3. Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, 18a-6, and Clearing Agency Exemption 
Orders (and Existing Rules 13n-7 and 17a-1)
    4. Substituted Compliance (Rule 3a71-6)
    E. Collection of Information is Mandatory
    F. Confidentiality of Responses to Collection of Information
    G. Retention Period for Recordkeeping Requirements
    H. Request for Comment
VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
    A. Reasons for, and Objectives of, Proposed Action
    1. Proposed Rule 10 and Parts I and II of Proposed Form SCIR
    2. Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, 18a-6 and Clearing Agency Exemption 
Orders
    B. Legal Basis
    C. Small Entities Subject to Proposed Rule, Form SCIR, and 
Recordkeeping Rule Amendments
    1. Broker-Dealers
    2. Clearing Agencies
    3. The MSRB
    4. National Securities Exchanges and National Securities 
Associations
    5. SBS Entities
    6. SBSDRs
    7. Transfer Agents
    D. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
    1. Proposed Rule 10 and Parts I and II of Proposed Form SCIR
    2. Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, and 18a-6
    E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
    1. Proposed Rule 10 and Parts I and II of Proposed Form SCIR
    2. Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, 18a-6 and Clearing Agency Exemption 
Orders
    F. Significant Alternatives
    1. Broker-Dealers
    2. Clearing Agencies
    3. The MSRB
    4. National Securities Exchanges and National Securities 
Associations
    5. SBS Entities
    6. SBSDRs
    7. Transfer Agents
    G. Request for Comment
VII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
VIII. Statutory Authority

I. Introduction

A. Cybersecurity Risk Poses a Threat the U.S. Securities Markets

1. In General
    Cybersecurity risk has been described as ``an effect of uncertainty 
on or within information and technology.'' \1\ This risk can lead to 
``the loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability of 
information, data, or information (or control) systems and [thereby to] 
potential adverse impacts to organizational operations (i.e., mission, 
functions, image, or reputation) and assets, individuals, other 
organizations, and the Nation.'' \2\ The U.S. Financial Stability 
Oversight Counsel (``FSOC'') in its 2021 annual report stated that a 
destabilizing cybersecurity incident could potentially threaten the 
stability of the U.S. financial system through at least three channels:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(``NIST''), U.S. Department of Commerce, Computer Security Resource 
Center Glossary, available at https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary (``NIST 
Glossary'') (definition of ``cybersecurity risk''). The NIST 
Glossary consists of terms and definitions extracted verbatim from 
NIST's cybersecurity and privacy-related publications (i.e., Federal 
Information Processing Standards (FIPS), NIST Special Publications 
(SPs), and NIST Internal/Interagency Reports (IRs)) and from the 
Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS) Instruction CNSSI-
4009. The NIST Glossary may be expanded to include relevant terms in 
external or supplemental sources, such as applicable laws and 
regulations. The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (``CEA'') 
updated the role of NIST to include identifying and developing 
cybersecurity risk frameworks for voluntary use by critical 
infrastructure owners and operators. The CEA required NIST to 
identify ``a prioritized, flexible, repeatable, performance based, 
and cost-effective approach, including information security measures 
and controls that may be voluntarily adopted by owners and operators 
of critical infrastructure to help them identify, assess, and manage 
cyber risks.'' See 15 U.S.C. 272(e)(1)(A)(iii). In response, NIST 
has published the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure 
Cybersecurity (``NIST Framework''). See also NIST, Integrating 
Cybersecurity and Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) (Oct. 2020), 
available at https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2020/NIST.IR.8286.pdf (``All types of organizations, from corporations to 
federal agencies, face a broad array of risks. For federal agencies, 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 defines risk 
as `the effect of uncertainty on objectives'. The effect of 
uncertainty on enterprise mission and business objectives may then 
be considered an `enterprise risk' that must be similarly managed . 
. . Cybersecurity risk is an important type of risk for any 
enterprise.'') (footnotes omitted).
    \2\ See NIST Glossary (definition of ``cybersecurity risk''). 
See also The Board of the International Organization of Securities 
Commissions (``IOSCO''), Cyber Security in Securities Markets--An 
International Perspective (Apr. 2016), available at https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD528.pdf (``IOSCO 
Cybersecurity Report'') (``In essence, cyber risk refers to the 
potential negative outcomes associated with cyber attacks. In turn, 
cyber attacks can be defined as attempts to compromise the 
confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data or 
systems.'') (footnote omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     First, the incident could disrupt a key financial service 
or utility for which there is little or no substitute. This could 
include attacks on central banks; exchanges; sovereign and subsovereign 
creditors, including U.S. state and local governments; custodian banks; 
payment clearing and settlement systems; or other firms or services 
that lack substitutes or are sole service providers.
     Second, the incident could compromise the integrity of 
critical

[[Page 20214]]

data. Accurate and usable information is critical to the stable 
functioning of financial firms and the system; if such data is 
corrupted on a sufficiently large scale, it could disrupt the 
functioning of the system. The loss of such data also has privacy 
implications for consumers and could lead to identity theft and fraud, 
which in turn could result in a loss of confidence.
     Third, a cybersecurity incident that causes a loss of 
confidence among a broad set of customers or market participants could 
cause customers or participants to question the safety or liquidity of 
their assets or transactions, and lead to significant withdrawal of 
assets or activity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FSOC, Annual Report (2021), at 168, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/261/FSOC2021AnnualReport.pdf (``FSOC 
2021 Annual Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. securities markets are part of the Financial Services 
Sector, one of the sixteen critical infrastructure sectors ``whose 
assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are 
considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or 
destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national 
economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination 
thereof.'' \4\ These markets are over $100 trillion in total size, and 
more than a trillion dollars' worth of transactions flow through them 
each day. For example, the market capitalization of the U.S. equities 
market was valued at $49 trillion as of the first quarter of 2022,\5\ 
and as of May 2022, the average daily trading dollar volume in the U.S. 
equities market was $659 billion.\6\ The market capitalization of the 
U.S. fixed income market was valued at $52.9 trillion as of the fourth 
quarter of 2021,\7\ and as of May 2022, the average daily trading 
dollar volume in the U.S. fixed income market was $897.8 billion.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (``CISA''), 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Critical Infrastructure 
Sectors, available at https://www.cisa.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors. See also Presidential Policy Directive--Critical 
Infrastructure Security and Resilience, Presidential Policy 
Directive, PPD-21 (Feb. 12 2013).
    \5\ See Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association 
(``SIFMA''), Research Quarterly: Equities (Apr. 27, 2022), available 
at https://www.sifma.org/resources/research/research-quarterly-equities/.
    \6\ See SIFMA, US Equity and Related Statistics (June 1, 2022), 
available at https://www.sifma.org/resources/research/us-equity-and-related-securities-statistics/.
    \7\ See SIFMA, Research Quarterly: Fixed Income--Outstanding 
(Mar. 14, 2022), available at https://www.sifma.org/resources/research/research-quarterly-fixed-income-outstanding/.
    \8\ See SIFMA, US Fixed Income Securities Statistics (June 9, 
2022), available at https://www.sifma.org/resources/research/us-fixed-income-securities-statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sizes of these markets are indicative of the central role they 
play in the U.S. economy in terms of the flow of capital, including the 
savings of individual investors who are increasingly relying on them 
to, for example, build wealth to fund their retirement, purchase a 
home, or pay for college for themselves or their family. Therefore, it 
is critically important to the U.S. economy, investors, and capital 
formation that the U.S. securities markets function in a fair, orderly, 
and efficient manner.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission's tripartite mission is to: (1) protect 
investors; (2) maintain, fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and 
(3) facilitate capital formation. See, e.g., Commission, Our Goals, 
available at https://www.sec.gov/our-goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fair, orderly, and efficient operation of the U.S. securities 
markets depends on different types of entities performing various 
functions to support, among other things, disseminating market 
information, underwriting securities issuances, making markets in 
securities, trading securities, providing liquidity to the securities 
markets, executing securities transactions, clearing and settling 
securities transactions, financing securities transactions, recording 
and transferring securities ownership, maintaining custody of 
securities, paying dividends and interest on securities, repaying 
principal on securities investments, supervising regulated market 
participants, and monitoring market activities. Collectively, these 
functions are performed by entities regulated by the Commission: 
broker-dealers, broker-dealers that operate an alternative trading 
system (``ATS''), clearing agencies, major security-based swap 
participants (``MSBSPs''), the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board 
(``MSRB''), national securities associations, national securities 
exchanges, security-based swap data repositories (``SBSDRs''), 
security-based swap dealers (``SBSDs'' or collectively with MSBSPs, 
``SBS Entities''), and transfer agents (collectively, ``Market 
Entities'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Currently, there are no MSBSPs registered with the 
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To perform their functions, Market Entities rely on an array of 
electronic information, communication, and computer systems (or similar 
systems) (``information systems'') and networks of interconnected 
information systems. While Market Entities have long relied on 
information systems to perform their various functions, the 
acceleration of technical innovation in recent years has exponentially 
expanded the role these systems play in the U.S. securities 
markets.\11\ This expansion has been driven by the greater efficiencies 
and lower costs that can be achieved through the use of information 
systems.\12\ It also has been driven by newer entrants (financial 
technology (Fintech) firms) that have developed business models that 
rely heavily on information systems (e.g., applications on mobile 
devices) to provide services to investors and other participants in the 
securities markets and more established Market Entities adopting the 
use of similar technologies.\13\ The COVID-19 pandemic also has 
contributed to the greater reliance on information systems.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Bank of International Settlements, Erik Feyen, 
Jon Frost, Leonardo Gambacorta, Harish Natarajan, and Mathew Saal, 
Fintech and the digital transformation of financial services: 
implications for market structure and public policy, BIS Papers No. 
117 (July 2021), available at https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap117.pdf (``BIS Papers 117'') (``Significant technology 
advances have taken place in two key areas that have contributed to 
the current wave of technology-based finance:'' Increased 
connectivity . . . [and] Low-cost computing and data storage . . 
.'').
    \12\ Id. (``Technology has reduced the costs of, and need for, 
much of the traditional physical infrastructure that drove fixed 
costs for the direct financial services provider . . . Financial 
intermediaries can reduce marginal costs through technology-enabled 
automation and `straight through' processing, which are accelerating 
with the expanded use of data and [artificial intelligence]-based 
processes. Digital innovation can also help to overcome spatial 
(geographical) barriers, and even to bridge differences across legal 
jurisdictions . . .''). See also United Nations, Office for Disaster 
Risk Reduction, Constantine Toregas and Joost Santos, Cybersecurity 
and its cascading effect on societal systems (2019), available at 
https://www.undrr.org/publication/cybersecurity-and-its-cascading-effect-societal-systems (``Cybersecurity and its Cascading Effect on 
Societal Systems'') (``Modern society has benefited from the 
additional efficiency achieved by improving the coordination across 
interdependent systems using information technology (IT) solutions. 
IT systems have significantly contributed to enhancing the speed of 
communication and reducing geographic barriers across consumers and 
producers, leading to a more efficient and cost-effective exchange 
of products and services across an economy.'').
    \13\ BIS Papers 117 (``Internet and mobile technology have 
rapidly increased the ability to transfer information and interact 
remotely, both between businesses and directly to the consumer. 
Through mobile and smartphones, which are near-ubiquitous, 
technology has increased access to, and the efficiency of, direct 
delivery channels and promises lower-cost, tailored financial 
services . . . Incumbents large and small are embracing digital 
transformation across the value chain to compete with fintechs and 
big techs. Competitive pressure on traditional financial 
institutions may force even those that are lagging to transform or 
risk erosion of their customer base, income, and margins.'').
    \14\ Id. (``The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the digital 
transformation. In particular, the need for digital connectivity to 
replace physical interactions between consumers and providers, and 
in the processes that produce financial services, will be even more 
important as economies, financial services providers, businesses and 
individuals navigate the pandemic and the eventual post-COVID-19 
world.''). See also McKinsey & Company, How Covid-19 has pushed 
companies over the technology tipping point--and transformed 
business forever (Oct. 5, 2020), available at https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-covid-19-has-pushed-companies-over-the-technology-tipping-point-and-transformed-business-forever#/ (noting that due to 
the COVID-19 pandemic, ``companies have accelerated the digitization 
of their customer and supply-chain interactions and of their 
internal operations by three to four years [and] the share of 
digital or digitally enhanced products in their portfolios has 
accelerated by a shocking seven years'').

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

[[Page 20215]]

    This increased reliance on information systems by Market Entities 
has caused a corresponding increase in their cybersecurity risk.\15\ 
This risk can be caused by the actions of external threat actors, 
including organized or individual threat actors seeking financial gain, 
nation states conducting espionage operations, or individuals engaging 
in protest, acting on grudges or personal offenses, or seeking 
thrills.\16\ Internal threat actors (e.g., disgruntled employees or 
employees seeking financial gain) also can be sources of cybersecurity 
risk.\17\ Threat actors may target Market Entities because they handle 
financial assets or proprietary information about financial assets and 
transactions.\18\ In addition to threat actors, errors of employees, 
service providers, or business partners can create cybersecurity risk 
(e.g., mistakenly exposing confidential or personal information by, for 
example, sending it through an unencrypted email to unintended 
recipients).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Financial Services Information Sharing and 
Analysis Center (``FS-ISAC''), Navigating Cyber 2022 (Mar. 2022), 
available at: www.fsisac.com/navigatingcyber2022-report (detailing 
cyber threats that emerged in 2021 and predictions for 2022); Danny 
Brando, Antonis Kotidis, Anna Kovner, Michael Lee, and Stacey L. 
Schreft, Implications of Cyber Risk for Financial Stability, FEDS 
Notes, Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
(May 12, 2022), available at https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.3077 
(``Implications of Cyber Risk for Financial Stability'') (``Cyber 
risk in the financial system has grown over time as the system has 
become more digitized, as evidenced by the increase in cyber 
incidents. That growth has brought to light unique features of cyber 
risk and the potentially greater scope for cyber events to affect 
financial stability.''); United States Government Accountability 
Office (``GAO''), Critical Infrastructure Protection: Treasury Needs 
to Improve Tracking of Financial Sector Cybersecurity Risk 
Mitigation Efforts, GAO-20-631 (Sept. 2020), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-631.pdf (``GAO Cybersecurity Report'') 
(``The federal government has long identified the financial services 
sector as a critical component of the nation's infrastructure. The 
sector includes commercial banks, securities brokers and dealers, 
and providers of the key financial systems and services that support 
these functions. Altogether, the sector holds about $108 trillion in 
assets and faces a variety of cybersecurity-related risks. Key risks 
include (1) an increase in access to financial data through 
information technology service providers and supply chain partners; 
(2) a growth in sophistication of malware--software meant to do 
harm--and (3) an increase in interconnectivity via networks, the 
cloud, and mobile applications.''); Cybersecurity and its Cascading 
Effect on Societal Systems (``Nonetheless, IT dependence has also 
exposed critical infrastructure and industry systems to a myriad of 
cyber security risks, ranging from accidental causes, technological 
glitches, to malevolent willful attacks.'').
    \16\ See, e.g., Verizon, Data Breach Investigations Report 
(2022) available at https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/Tba/reports/dbir/2022-data-breach-investigations-report-dbir.pdf 
(``Verizon DBIR'') (finding that 73% of the data breaches analyzed 
in the report were caused by external actors). The Verizon DBIR is 
an annual report that analyzes cyber security incidents (defined as 
a security event that compromises the integrity, confidentiality or 
availability of an information asset) and breaches (defined as an 
incident that results in the confirmed disclosure--not just 
potential exposure--of data to an unauthorized party). To perform 
the analysis, data about the cybersecurity incidents included in the 
report are catalogued using the Vocabulary for Event Recording and 
Incident Sharing (VERIS). VERIS is a set of metrics designed to 
provide a common language for describing security incidents in a 
structured and repeatable manner. More information about VERIS is 
available at: http://veriscommunity.net/index.html. See also 
Microsoft, Microsoft Digital Defense Report (Oct. 2021), available 
at https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RWMFIi 
(``Microsoft Report'') (``The last year has been marked by 
significant historic geopolitical events and unforeseen challenges 
that have changed the way organizations approach daily operations. 
During this time, nation state actors have largely maintained their 
operations at a consistent pace while creating new tactics and 
techniques to evade detection and increase the scale of their 
attacks'').
    \17\ See, e.g., Verizon DBIR (finding that 18% of the data 
breaches analyzed in the report were caused by internal actors). But 
see id. (``Internal sources accounted for the fewest number of 
incidents (18 percent), trailing those of external origin by a ratio 
of four to one. The relative infrequency of data breaches attributed 
to insiders may be surprising to some. It is widely believed and 
commonly reported that insider incidents outnumber those caused by 
other sources. While certainly true for the broad range of security 
incidents, our caseload showed otherwise for incidents resulting in 
data compromise. This finding, of course, should be considered in 
light of the fact that insiders are adept at keeping their 
activities secret.'').
    \18\ See, e.g., GAO Cybersecurity Report (``The financial 
services sector faces significant risks due to its reliance on 
sophisticated technologies and information systems, as well as the 
potential monetary gain and economic disruption that can occur by 
attacking the sector''); IOSCO Cybersecurity Report (``[T]he 
financial sector is one of the prime targets of cyber attacks. It is 
easy to understand why: the sector is `where the money is' and it 
can represent a nation or be a symbol of capitalism for some 
politically motivated activists.'').
    \19\ See Verizon DBIR (finding that error (defined as anything 
done (or left undone) incorrectly or inadvertently) as one of action 
types leading to cybersecurity incidents and breaches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another factor increasing the cybersecurity risk to Market Entities 
is the growing sophistication of the tactics, techniques, and 
procedures employed by threat actors.\20\ This trend is further 
exacerbated by the ability of threat actors to purchase tools to engage 
in cyber-crime.\21\ Threat actors employ a number of tactics to cause 
harmful cybersecurity incidents.\22\ One tactic is the use of malicious 
software (``malware'') that is uploaded into a computer system and used 
by threat actors to compromise the confidentiality of information 
stored or operations performed (e.g., monitoring key strokes) on the 
system or the integrity or availability of the system (e.g., command 
and control attacks where a threat actor is able to infiltrate a system 
to install malware to enable it to remotely send commands to infected 
devices).\23\ There are a number of different forms of malware, 
including adware, botnets, rootkit, spyware, Trojans, viruses, and 
worms.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., Bank of England, CBEST Intelligence-Led Testing: 
Understanding Cyber Threat Intelligence Operations (Version 2.0), 
available at https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/financial-stability/financial-sector-continuity/understanding-cyber-threat-intelligence-operations.pdf (``Bank of England CBEST 
Report'') (``The threat actor community, once dominated by amateur 
hackers, has expanded to include a broad range of professional 
threat actors, all of whom are strongly motivated, organised and 
funded. They include: state-sponsored organisations stealing 
military, government and commercial intellectual property; organised 
criminal gangs committing theft, fraud and money laundering which 
they perceive as low risk and high return; non-profit hacktivists 
and for-profit mercenary organisations attempting to disrupt or 
destroy their own or their client's perceived enemies.''); Microsoft 
Report (``Sophisticated cybercriminals are also still working for 
governments conducting espionage and training in the new 
battlefield'').
    \21\ See, e.g., Microsoft Report (``Through our investigations 
of online organized crime networks, frontline investigations of 
customer attacks, security and attack research, nation state threat 
tracking, and security tool development, we continue to see the 
cybercrime supply chain consolidate and mature. It used to be that 
cybercriminals had to develop all the technology for their attacks. 
Today they rely on a mature supply chain, where specialists create 
cybercrime kits and services that other actors buy and incorporate 
into their campaigns. With the increased demand for these services, 
an economy of specialized services has surfaced, and threat actors 
are increasing automation to drive down their costs and increase 
scale.'').
    \22\ See, e.g., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority 
(``FINRA''), Common Cybersecurity Threats, available at: 
www.finra.org/rules-guidance/guidance/common-cybersecurity-threats 
(``FINRA Common Cybersecurity Threats'') (summarizing common 
cybersecurity threats faced by broker-dealers to include phishing, 
imposter websites, malware, ransomware, distributed denial-of-
service attacks, and vendor breaches, among others).
    \23\ See CISA, Malware Tip Card, available at https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Malware_1.pdf (``CISA 
Malware Tip Card'') (``Malware, short for ``malicious software,'' 
includes any software (such as a virus, Trojan, or spyware) that is 
installed on your computer or mobile device. The software is then 
used, usually covertly, to compromise the integrity of your device. 
Most commonly, malware is designed to give attackers access to your 
infected computer. That access may allow others to monitor and 
control your online activity or steal your personal information or 
other sensitive data.'').
    \24\ See, e.g., CISA Malware Tip Card (``Adware [is] a type of 
software that downloads or displays unwanted ads when a user is 
online or redirects search requests to certain advertising websites. 
Botnets [are] networks of computers infected by malware and 
controlled remotely by cybercriminals, usually for financial gain or 
to launch attacks on websites or networks. Many botnets are designed 
to harvest data, such as passwords, Social Security numbers, credit 
card numbers, and other personal information . . . Rootkit [is] a 
type of malware that opens a permanent ``back door'' into a computer 
system. Once installed, a rootkit will allow additional viruses to 
infect a computer as various hackers find the vulnerable computer 
exposed and compromise it. Spyware [is] a type of malware that 
quietly gathers a user's sensitive information (including browsing 
and computing habits) and reports it to unauthorized third parties. 
Trojan [is] a type of malware that disguises itself as a normal file 
to trick a user into downloading it in order to gain unauthorized 
access to a computer. Virus [is] a program that spreads by first 
infecting files or the system areas of a computer or network 
router's hard drive and then making copies of itself. Some viruses 
are harmless, others may damage data files, and some may destroy 
files entirely. Worm [is] a type of malware that replicates itself 
over and over within a computer.'').

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

[[Page 20216]]

    A second tactic is a variation of malware known as ``ransomware.'' 
\25\ In this scheme, the threat actor encrypts the victim's data making 
it unusable and then demands payment to decrypt it.\26\ Ransomware 
schemes have become more prevalent with the widespread adoption and use 
of crypto assets.\27\ It is a common tactic used against the financial 
sector.\28\ Commission staff has observed that this tactic has 
increasingly been employed against certain Market Entities.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See CISA, Ransomware 101, available at https://www.cisa.gov/stopransomware/ransomware-101 (``Ransomware is an ever-
evolving form of malware designed to encrypt files on a device, 
rendering any files and the systems that rely on them unusable. 
Malicious actors then demand ransom in exchange for decryption. 
Ransomware actors often target and threaten to sell or leak 
exfiltrated data or authentication information if the ransom is not 
paid. In recent years, ransomware incidents have become increasingly 
prevalent among the Nation's state, local, tribal, and territorial 
(SLTT) government entities and critical infrastructure 
organizations.'').
    \26\ See, e.g., Federal Bureau of Investigation (``FBI''), 
internet Crime Report (2021), available at https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2021_IC3Report.pdf (``FBI internet Crime 
Report'') (``Ransomware is a type of malicious software, or malware, 
that encrypts data on a computer, making it unusable. A malicious 
cyber criminal holds the data hostage until the ransom is paid. If 
the ransom is not paid, the victim's data remains unavailable. Cyber 
criminals may also pressure victims to pay the ransom by threatening 
to destroy the victim's data or to release it to the public.'').
    \27\ See, e.g., Institute for Security and Technology, Combating 
Ransomware: A Comprehensive Framework For Action: Key 
Recommendations from the Ransomware Task Force (Apr. 2021), 
available at https://securityandtechnology.org/ransomwaretaskforce/report (``The explosion of ransomware as a lucrative criminal 
enterprise has been closely tied to the rise of Bitcoin and other 
cryptocurrencies, which use distributed ledgers, such as blockchain, 
to track transactions.'').
    \28\ See, e.g., FBI internet Crime Report (stating that it 
received 649 complaints that indicated organizations in the sixteen 
U.S. critical infrastructure sectors were victims of a ransomware 
attack, with the financial sector being the source of the second 
largest number of complaints).
    \29\ See, Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations 
(now the Division of Examinations (``EXAMS'')), Commission, Risk 
Alert, Cybersecurity: Ransomware Alert (July 10, 2020), available at 
https://www.sec.gov/files/Risk%20Alert%20-%20Ransomware.pdf (``EXAMS 
Ransomware Risk Alert'') (observing an apparent increase in 
sophistication of ransomware attacks on Commission registrants, 
including broker-dealers). Any staff statements represent the views 
of the staff. They are not a rule, regulation, or statement of the 
Commission. Furthermore, the Commission has neither approved nor 
disapproved their content. These staff statements, like all staff 
statements, have no legal force or effect: they do not alter or 
amend applicable law; and they create no new or additional 
obligations for any person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another group of tactics are various social engineering schemes. In 
a social engineering attack, the threat actor uses social skills to 
convince an individual to provide access or information that can be 
used to access an information system.\30\ ``Phishing'' is a variation 
of a social engineering attack in which an email is used to convince an 
individual to provide information (e.g., personal or account 
information or log-in credentials) that can be used to gain 
unauthorized access to an information system.\31\ Threat actors also 
use websites to perform phishing attacks.\32\ ``Spear phishing'' is a 
variation of phishing that targets a specific individual or group.\33\ 
``Vishing'' and ``smishing'' are variations of social engineering that 
use phone communications or text messages, respectively, for this 
purpose.\34\ These social engineering tactics also are used to deceive 
the recipient of an electronic communication (e.g., an email or text 
message) to open a link or attachment in the communication that uploads 
malware on to the recipient's information systems.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, e.g., CISA, Security Tip (ST04-014)--Avoiding Social 
Engineering and Phishing Attacks, available at https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ncas/tips/ST04-014 (``CISA Security Tip (ST04-014)'').
    \31\ See, e.g., CISA Security Tip (ST04-014); Microsoft Report 
(``Phishing is the most common type of malicious email observed in 
our threat signals. These emails are designed to trick an individual 
into sharing sensitive information, such as usernames and passwords, 
with an attacker. To do this, attackers will craft emails using a 
variety of themes, such as productivity tools, password resets, or 
other notifications with a sense of urgency to lure a user to click 
on a link.'').
    \32\ See, e.g., Microsoft Report (``The phishing web pages used 
in these attacks may utilize malicious domains, such as those 
purchased and operated by the attacker, or compromised domains, 
where the attacker abuses a vulnerability in a legitimate website to 
host malicious content. The phishing sites frequently copy well-
known, legitimate login pages, such as Office 365 or Google, to 
trick users into inputting their credentials. Once the user inputs 
their credentials, they will often be redirected to a legitimate 
final site--such as the real Office 365 login page--leaving the user 
unaware that actors have obtained their credentials. Meanwhile, the 
entered credentials are stored or sent to the attacker for later 
abuse or sale.'').
    \33\ See, e.g., U.S. Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence, Spear Phishing and Common Cyber Attacks, available at 
https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/campaign/Counterintelligence_Tips_Spearphishing.pdf (``ODNI Spear Phishing 
Alert'') (``A spear phishing attack is an attempt to acquire 
sensitive information or access to a computer system by sending 
counterfeit messages that appear to be legitimate. `Spear phishing' 
is a type of phishing campaign that targets a specific person or 
group and often will include information known to be of interest to 
the target, such as current events or financial documents. Like 
other social engineering attacks, spear phishing takes advantage of 
our most basic human traits, such as a desire to be helpful, provide 
a positive response to those in authority, a desire to respond 
positively to someone who shares similar tastes or views, or simple 
curiosity about contemporary news and events.'').
    \34\ See, e.g., CISA Security Tip (ST04-014).
    \35\ See, e.g., ODNI Spear Phishing Alert (``The goal of spear 
phishing is to acquire sensitive information such as usernames, 
passwords, and other personal information. When a link in a phishing 
email is opened, it may open a malicious site, which could download 
unwanted information onto a user's computer. When the user opens an 
attachment, malicious software may run which could compromise the 
security posture of the host. Once a connection is established, the 
attacker is able to initiate actions that could compromise the 
integrity of your computer, the network it resides on, and data.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to malware and social engineering, threat actors may 
try to circumvent or thwart the information system's logical security 
mechanisms (i.e., to ``hack'' the system).\36\ There are many 
variations of hacking.\37\ One tactic is a ``brute force'' attack in 
which the threat actor attempts to determine an unknown value (e.g., 
log-in credentials) using an automated process that tries a large 
number of possible values.\38\ The Commission staff has observed that a 
variation of this tactic has increasingly been employed by threat 
actors against certain Market Entities to access their customers' 
accounts.\39\ The ability of

[[Page 20217]]

threat actors to hack into information systems can be facilitated by 
vulnerabilities in information systems, including for example the 
software run on the systems.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Verizon DBIR (definition of ``hacking''); see also NIST 
Glossary (defining a ``hacker'' as an ``unauthorized user who 
attempts to or gains access to an information system'').
    \37\ See, e.g., Web Application Security Consortium, WASC Threat 
Classification: Version 2.00 (1/1/2010), available at https://projects.webappsec.org/f/WASC-TC-v2_0.pdf (``WASC Classification 
Report'').
    \38\ See, e.g., WASC Classification Report (``The most common 
type of a brute force attack in web applications is an attack 
against log-in credentials. Since users need to remember passwords, 
they often select easy to memorize words or phrases as passwords, 
making a brute force attack using a dictionary useful. Such an 
attack attempting to log-in to a system using a large list of words 
and phrases as potential passwords is often called a `word list 
attack' or a `dictionary attack.' '').
    \39\ See EXAMS, Commission, Risk Alert, Cybersecurity: 
Safeguarding Client Accounts against Credential Compromise (Sept. 
15, 2020), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/Risk%20Alert%20-%20Credential%20Compromise.pdf (``EXAMS Safeguarding Client Accounts 
Risk Alert'') (``The Office of Compliance Inspections and 
Examinations (`OCIE') has observed in recent examinations an 
increase in the number of cyber-attacks against SEC-registered 
investment advisers (`advisers') and brokers and dealers (`broker-
dealers,' and together with advisers, `registrants' or `firms') 
using credential stuffing. Credential stuffing is an automated 
attack on web-based user accounts as well as direct network login 
account credentials. Cyber attackers obtain lists of usernames, 
email addresses, and corresponding passwords from the dark web and 
then use automated scripts to try the compromised user names and 
passwords on other websites, such as a registrant's website, in an 
attempt to log in and gain unauthorized access to customer 
accounts.'').
    \40\ See, e.g., CISA, Alert (AA22-117A): 2021 Top Routinely 
Exploited Vulnerabilities, available at https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ncas/alerts/aa22-117a (``CISA 2021 Vulnerability Report'') 
(``Globally, in 2021, malicious cyber actors targeted internet-
facing systems, such as email servers and virtual private network 
(VPN) servers, with exploits of newly disclosed vulnerabilities. For 
most of the top exploited vulnerabilities, researchers or other 
actors released proof of concept (POC) code within two weeks of the 
vulnerability's disclosure, likely facilitating exploitation by a 
broader range of malicious actors. To a lesser extent, malicious 
cyber actors continued to exploit publicly known, dated software 
vulnerabilities--some of which were also routinely exploited in 2020 
or earlier. The exploitation of older vulnerabilities demonstrates 
the continued risk to organizations that fail to patch software in a 
timely manner or are using software that is no longer supported by a 
vendor.''). To address this risk, CISA maintains a Known Exploited 
Vulnerability (KEV) catalogue that identifies known vulnerabilities. 
See, e.g., CISA, Reducing The Significant Risk of Known Exploited 
Vulnerabilities, available at https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities (``CISA strongly recommends all organizations review 
and monitor the KEV catalog and prioritize remediation of the listed 
vulnerabilities to reduce the likelihood of compromise by known 
threat actors.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Threat actors also cause harmful cybersecurity incidents through 
denial-of-service (``DoS'') attacks.\41\ This type of attack may 
involve botnets or compromised servers sending ``junk'' data or 
messages to an information system that a Market Entity uses to provide 
services to investors, market participants, or other Market Entities 
causing the system to fail or be unable to process operations in a 
timely manner. DoS attacks are a commonly used tactic.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See CISA, Security Tip (ST04-015)--Understanding Denial-of-
Service Attacks, available at https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ncas/tips/ST04-015 (``A denial-of-service (DoS) attack occurs when legitimate 
users are unable to access information systems, devices, or other 
network resources due to the actions of a malicious threat actor. 
Services affected may include email, websites, online accounts 
(e.g., banking), or other services that rely on the affected 
computer or network. A denial-of-service condition is accomplished 
by flooding the targeted host or network with traffic until the 
target cannot respond or simply crashes, preventing access for 
legitimate users. DoS attacks can cost an organization both time and 
money while their resources and services are inaccessible.'').
    \42\ See Verizon DBIR (finding that DoS attacks represented 46% 
of the total cybersecurity incidents analyzed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The tactics, techniques, and procedures employed by threat actors 
can impact the information systems a Market Entity operates directly 
(e.g., a web application or email system).\43\ They also can adversely 
impact the Market Entity and its information systems through its 
connection to information systems operated by third-parties such as 
service providers (e.g., cloud service providers), business partners, 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users.\44\ Further, 
the tactics, techniques, and procedures employed by threat actors can 
adversely impact the Market Entity and its information systems through 
its connection to information systems operated by utilities or central 
platforms to which the Market Entity is connected (e.g., a securities 
exchange, securities trading platform, securities clearing agency, or a 
payment processor).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See, e.g., Verizon DBIR (finding that the top assets 
breached in cyber security incidents are servers hosting web 
applications and emails, and stating that because they are 
``internet-facing'' they ``provide a useful venue for attackers to 
slip through the organization's `perimeter' '').
    \44\ See, e.g., Ponemon Institute LLC, The Cost of Third-Party 
Cybersecurity Risk Management (Mar. 2019), available at https://info.cybergrx.com/ponemon-report (``Third-party breaches remain a 
dominant security challenge for organizations, with over 63% of 
breaches linked to a third party.'').
    \45\ See, e.g., Financial Markets Authority, New Zealand, Market 
Operator Obligations Targeted Review--NZX (January 2021), available 
at https://www.fma.govt.nz/assets/Reports/Market-Operator-Obligations-Targeted-Review-NZX.pdf (``New Zealand FMA Report'') 
(describing an August 2020 cybersecurity incident at New Zealand's 
only regulated financial product market that caused a trading halt 
of approximately four days).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If cybersecurity risk materializes into a significant cybersecurity 
incident, a Market Entity may lose its ability to perform a key 
function causing harm to the Market Entity, investors, or other market 
participants. Moreover, given the interconnectedness of Market 
Entities' information systems, a significant cybersecurity incident at 
one Market Entity has the potential to spread to other Market Entities 
in a cascading process that could cause widespread disruptions 
threatening the fair, orderly, and efficient operation of the U.S. 
securities markets.\46\ Further, the disruption of a Market Entity that 
provides critical services to other Market Entities through connected 
information systems could cause cascading disruptions to those other 
Market Entities to the extent they cannot obtain those critical 
services from another source.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See, e.g., Implications of Cyber Risk for Financial 
Stability (``Cyber shocks can lead to losses hitting many firms at 
the same time because of correlated risk exposures (sometimes called 
the popcorn effect), such as when firms load the same malware-
infected third-party software update.''); The Bank for International 
Settlements, Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures 
(``CPMI'') and IOSCO, Guidance on cyber resilience for financial 
market infrastructures (June 2016), available at https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d146.pdf (``[T]here is a broad range of entry 
points through which a [financial market intermediary (``FMI'')] 
could be compromised. As a result of their interconnectedness, cyber 
attacks could come through an FMI's participants, linked FMIs, 
service providers, vendors and vendor products . . . . Because an 
FMI's systems and processes are often interconnected with the 
systems and processes of other entities within its ecosystem, in the 
event of a large-scale cyber incident it is possible for an FMI to 
pose contagion risk (i.e., propagation of malware or corrupted data) 
to, or be exposed to contagion risk from, its ecosystem.'').
    \47\ See, e.g., Implications of Cyber Risk for Financial 
Stability (``And the interconnectedness of the financial system 
means that an event at one or more firms may spread to others (the 
domino effect). For example, a cyber event at a single bank can 
disrupt the bank's ability to send payments and have cascading 
effects on other banks' liquidity and operations.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A significant cybersecurity incident also can result in 
unauthorized access to and use of personal, confidential, or 
proprietary information.\48\ In the case of personal information, this 
can cause harm to investors and others whose personal information was 
accessed or used (e.g., identity theft).\49\ This could lead to theft 
of investor assets. In the case of confidential or proprietary 
information, this can cause harm to the business of the person whose 
proprietary information was accessed or used (e.g., public exposure of 
trading positions or business strategies) or provide the unauthorized 
user with an unfair advantage over other market participants (e.g., 
trading based on confidential business information). Unauthorized 
access to proprietary information also can lead to theft of a Market 
Entity's valuable intellectual property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See, e.g., Bank of England CBEST Report (``One class of 
targeted attack is Computer Network Exploitation (CNE) where the 
goal is to steal (or exfiltrate) confidential information from the 
target. This is effectively espionage in cyberspace or, in 
information security terms, compromising confidentiality.'').
    \49\ The NIST Glossary defines ``identity fraud or theft'' as 
``all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses 
another person's personal data in some way that involves fraud or 
deception, typically for economic gain.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cybersecurity incidents affecting Market Entities can cause 
substantial harm to other market participants, including investors. For 
example, significant cybersecurity incidents caused by malware can 
cause the loss of the Market Entity's data, or the data of other market 
participants.\50\ These

[[Page 20218]]

incidents also can lead to business disruptions that are not just 
costly to the Market Entity but also the other market participants that 
rely on the Market Entity's services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ CISA, Cyber Essentials Starter Kit--The Basics for Building 
a Culture of Cyber Readiness (Spring 2021), available at https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Cyber%20Essentials%20Starter%20Kit_03.12.2021_508_0.pdf (``CISA 
Cyber Essentials Starter Kit'') (``Malware is designed to spread 
quickly. A lack of defense against it can completely corrupt, 
destroy or render your data inaccessible.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Market Entity also may incur substantial remediation costs due to 
a significant cybersecurity incident.\51\ For example, the incident may 
result in reimbursement to other market participants for cybersecurity-
related losses and payment for their use of identity protection 
services. A Market Entity's failure to protect itself adequately 
against a significant cybersecurity incident also may increase its 
insurance premiums. In addition, a significant cybersecurity incident 
may expose a Market Entity to litigation costs (e.g., to defend 
lawsuits brought by individuals whose personal information was stolen), 
regulatory scrutiny, reputational damage, and, if a result of a 
compliance failure, penalties. Finally, a sufficiently severe 
significant cybersecurity incident could cause the failure of a Market 
Entity. Given the interconnectedness of Market Entities, a significant 
cybersecurity incident that degrades or disrupts the critical functions 
of one Market Entity could cause harm to other Market Entities (e.g., 
by cutting off their access to a critical service such as securities 
clearance or by exposing them to the same malware that degraded or 
disrupted the critical functions of the first Market Entity). This 
could lead to market-wide outages that compromise the fair, orderly, 
and efficient functioning of the U.S. securities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See, e.g., IBM Security, Cost of Data Breach Report 2022, 
available at https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach (noting the 
average cost of a data breach in the financial industry is $5.97 
million); FBI internet Crime Report (noting that cybercrime victims 
lost approximately $6.9 billion in 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission is proposing new rule 
requirements that are designed to protect the U.S. securities markets 
and investors in these markets from the threat posed by cybersecurity 
risks.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The Commission has pending proposals to address 
cybersecurity risk with respect to investment advisers, investment 
companies, and public companies. See Cybersecurity Risk Management 
for Investment Advisers, Registered Investment Companies, and 
Business Development Companies, Release Nos. 33-11028, 34-94917, IA-
5956, IC-34497 (Feb. 9, 2022) [87 FR 13524, (Mar. 9, 2022)] 
(``Investment Management Cybersecurity Release''); Cybersecurity 
Risk Management, Strategy, Governance, and Incident Disclosure, 
Release Nos. 33-11038, 34-94382, IC-34529 (Mar. 9, 2022) [87 FR 
16590 (Mar. 23, 2022)]. In addition, as discussed in more detail 
below in section II.F. of this release, the Commission is proposing 
to amend Regulation SCI (17 CFR 242.1000 through 1007) and 
Regulation S-P (17 CFR 248.1 through 248.30) concurrent with this 
release. See Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity, Release 
No. 34-97143 (Mar. 15, 2023) (File No. S7-07-23) (``Regulation SCI 
2023 Proposing Release''); Regulation S-P: Privacy of Consumer 
Financial Information and Safeguarding Customer Information, Release 
Nos. 34-97141, IA-6262, IC-34854 (Mar. 15, 2023) (File No. S7-05-23) 
(``Regulation S-P 2023 Proposing Release''). The Commission 
encourages commenters to review the proposals with respect to 
Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P to determine whether they might 
affect their comments on this proposing release. See also section 
II.F. of this release (seeking specific comment on how the proposals 
in this release would interact with Regulation SCI and Regulation S-
P as they currently exist and would be amended). Further, the 
Commission has reopened the comment period for the Investment 
Management Cybersecurity Release to allow interested persons 
additional time to analyze the issues and prepare their comments in 
light of other regulatory developments, including the proposed rules 
and amendments regarding this proposal, the Regulation SCI 2023 
Proposing Release and the Regulation S-P 2023 Proposing Release that 
the Commission should consider in connection with the Investment 
Management Cybersecurity Release. See Cybersecurity Risk Management 
for Investment Advisers, Registered Investment Companies, and 
Business Development Companies; Reopening of Comment Period, Release 
Nos. 33-11167, 34-97144, IA-6263, IC-34855 (Mar. 15, 2023), [88 FR 
16921 (Mar. 31, 2023)]. The Commission encourages commenters to 
review the Investment Management Cybersecurity Release and the 
comments on that proposal to determine whether they might affect 
their comments on this proposing release. The comments on the 
Investment Management Cybersecurity Release are available at: 
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-04-22/s70422.htm. Lastly, the 
Commission also proposed rules and amendments regarding an 
investment adviser's obligations with respect to outsourcing certain 
categories of ``covered functions,'' including cybersecurity. See 
Outsourcing by Investment Advisers, Release No. IA-6176 (Oct. 26, 
2022), [87 FR 68816 (Nov. 16, 2022)]. The Commission encourages 
commenters to review that proposal to determine whether it might 
affect comments on this proposing release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Critical Operations of Market Entities Are Exposed to Cybersecurity 
Risk
    The fair, orderly, and efficient operation of the U.S. securities 
markets depends on Market Entities performing various functions without 
disruption. Market Entities rely on information systems and networks of 
interconnected information systems to perform their functions. This 
exposes them to the harms that can be caused by threat actors using the 
tactics, techniques, and procedures discussed above (among others) and 
by errors of employees or third-party service providers (among others). 
The GAO has stated that the primary cybersecurity risks identified by 
financial sector firms are: (1) internal actors; \53\ (2) malware; \54\ 
(3) social engineering; \55\ and (4) interconnectivity.\56\ As 
discussed below, a significant cybersecurity incident can cause serious 
harm to Market Entities and others who use their services or are 
connected to them through information systems and, if severe enough, 
negatively impact the fair, orderly, and efficient operations of the 
U.S. securities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See GAO Cybersecurity Report (``Risks due to insider 
threats involve careless, poorly trained, or disgruntled employees 
or contractors hired by an organization who may intentionally or 
inadvertently introduce vulnerabilities or malware into information 
systems. Insiders may not need a great deal of knowledge about 
computer intrusions because their knowledge of a target system often 
allows them to gain unrestricted access to cause damage to the 
system or to steal system data. Results of insider threats can 
include data destruction and account compromise.'').
    \54\ Id. (``The risk of malware exploits impacting the 
[financial] sector has increased as malware exploits have grown in 
sophistication'').
    \55\ Id. (``The financial services sector is at risk due to 
social engineering attacks, which include a broad range of malicious 
activities accomplished through human interaction that enable 
attackers to gain access to sensitive data by convincing a 
legitimate, authorized user to give them their credentials and/or 
other personal information'').
    \56\ Id. (``Interconnectivity involves interdependencies 
throughout the financial services sector and the sharing of data and 
information via networks, the cloud, and mobile applications. 
Organizations in the financial services sector utilize data 
aggregation hubs and cloud service providers, and new financial 
technologies such as algorithms based on consumers' data and risk 
preferences to provide digital services for investment and financial 
advice.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Common Uses of Information Systems by Market Entities
    Market Entities need accurate and accessible books and records, 
among other things, to manage and conduct their operations, manage and 
mitigate their risks, monitor the progress of their business, track 
their financial condition, prepare financial statements, prepare 
regulatory filings, and prepare tax returns. Increasingly, these 
records are made and preserved on information systems.\57\ These 
recordkeeping information systems also store personal, confidential, 
and proprietary business information about the Market Entity and its 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Some Market Entities may store certain or all of their 
records in paper format. This discussion pertains to recordkeeping 
systems that store records electronically on information systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The complexity and scope of these books and records systems ranges 
from ones used by large Market Entities that comprise networks of 
systems that track thousands of different types of daily transactions 
(e.g., securities trades and movements of assets) to ones used by small 
Market Entities comprising off-

[[Page 20219]]

the-shelf accounting software and computer files on a desktop computer. 
In either case, the impact on the confidentiality, integrity, or 
availability of the information system being compromised as a 
consequence of a significant cybersecurity incident can be devastating 
to the Market Entity and its customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants or users. For example, it could cause the Market Entity to 
cease operations or allow threat actors to use personal information 
about the customers of the Market Entity to steal their identities.
    Market Entities also use information systems so that their 
employees can communicate with each other and with external persons. 
These include email, text messaging, and virtual meeting applications. 
The failure of these information systems as a result of a significant 
cybersecurity incident can seriously disrupt the Market Entity's 
ability to carry out its functions. Moreover, these outward facing 
information systems are vectors that threat actors use to cause harmful 
cybersecurity incidents by, for example, tricking an employee through 
social engineering into downloading malware in an attachment to an 
email.
b. Broker-Dealers
    Broker-dealers perform a number of functions in the U.S. securities 
markets, including underwriting the issuance of securities for publicly 
and privately held companies, making markets in securities, brokering 
securities transactions, dealing securities, operating an ATS, 
executing securities transactions, clearing and settling securities 
transactions, and maintaining custody of securities for investors. Some 
broker-dealers may perform multiple functions; whereas others may 
perform a single function. Increasingly, these functions are performed 
through the use of information systems. For example, broker-dealers use 
information systems to connect to securities exchanges, ATSs, and other 
securities markets in order to transmit purchase and sell orders. 
Broker-dealers also use information systems to connect to clearing 
agencies or clearing broker-dealers to transmit securities settlement 
instructions and transfer funds. They use information systems to 
communicate and transact with other broker-dealers. In addition, they 
use information systems to provide securities services to investors, 
including information systems that investors use to access their 
securities accounts and transmit orders to purchase or sell securities.
    Depending on the functions undertaken by a broker-dealer, a 
significant cybersecurity incident could affect customers, including 
retail investors. For example, a significant cybersecurity incident 
could result in the broker-dealer experiencing a systems outage, which 
in turn could leave customers unable to purchase or sell securities 
held in their account and the broker-dealer unable to trade for itself. 
In addition, broker-dealers maintain records and information related to 
their customers that include personal information, such as names, 
addresses, phone numbers, employer information, tax identification 
information, bank information, and other detailed and individualized 
information related to broker-dealer obligations under applicable 
statutory and regulatory provisions.\58\ If personal information held 
by a broker-dealer is accessed or stolen by unauthorized users, it 
could result in harm (e.g., identity theft or conversion of financial 
assets) to many individuals, including retail investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See, e.g., 17 CFR 240.17a-3(a)(17) (requiring broker-
dealers to make account records of the customer's or owner's name, 
tax identification number, address, telephone number, date of birth, 
employment status, annual income, net worth, and the account's 
investment objectives). Broker-dealers also must comply with 
relevant anti-money laundering (AML) laws, rules, orders, and 
guidance. See, e.g., Commission, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Source 
Tool for Broker-Dealers, (May 16, 2022), available at https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/amlsourcetool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, a significant cybersecurity incident at a broker-dealer 
could provide a gateway for threat actors to attack the self-regulatory 
organizations (``SROs'')--such as national securities exchanges and 
registered clearing agencies--ATSs, and other broker-dealers to which 
the firm is connected through information systems and networks of 
interconnected information systems.\59\ This could cause a cascading 
effect where a significant cybersecurity incident initially impacting 
one broker-dealer spreads to other Market Entities. Moreover, the 
information systems that link a broker-dealer to other Market Entities, 
its customers, and other service providers are vectors that expose the 
broker-dealer to cybersecurity risk arising from threats that originate 
in information systems outside the broker-dealer's control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Section 3(a)(26) of the Exchange Act defines a self-
regulatory organization as any national securities exchange, 
registered securities association, registered clearing agency, or 
(with limitations) the MSRB. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, some broker-dealers operate ATSs. An ATS is a trading 
system for securities that meets the definition of ``exchange'' under 
federal securities laws but is not required to register with the 
Commission as a national securities exchange if it complies with the 
conditions to an exemption provided under Regulation ATS, which 
includes registering as a broker-dealer.\60\ Registering as a broker-
dealer requires becoming a member of an SRO, such as FINRA, and 
membership in FINRA subjects an ATS to FINRA's rules and oversight. 
Since Regulation ATS was adopted in 1998, ATSs' operations have 
increasingly relied on complex automated systems to bring together 
buyers and sellers for various securities, which include--for example--
electronic limit order books and auction mechanisms. These developments 
have made ATSs significant sources of orders and trading interest for 
securities. ATSs employ information systems to accept, store, and match 
orders pursuant to pre-programmed methods and to communicate the 
execution of these orders for trade reporting purposes and for 
clearance and settlement of the transactions. ATSs, in particular ATSs 
that are ``NMS Stock ATSs,'' \61\ use information systems to connect to 
various trading centers in order to receive market data that ATSs use 
to price and execute orders that are entered on the ATS. A significant 
cyber security incident could disrupt the ATS's critical infrastructure 
and significantly impede the ability of the ATS to (among other 
things): (1) receive market data; (2) accept, price, and match orders; 
or (3) report transactions. This, in turn, could negatively impact the 
ability of ATS subscribers to trade and execute the orders of their 
investors or purchase certain securities at favorable or predictable 
prices or in a timely manner to the extent the ATS provides

[[Page 20220]]

liquidity to the market for those securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 17 CFR 242.300 through 242.304. Exchange Act Rule 3a1-
1(a)(2) exempts from the definition of ``exchange'' under Section 
3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act an organization, association, or group 
of persons that complies with Regulation ATS. See 17 CFR 240.3a1-
1(a)(2). Regulation ATS requires an ATS to, among other things, 
register as a broker-dealer, file a Form ATS with the Commission to 
notice its operations, and establish written safeguards and 
procedures to protect subscribers' confidential trading information. 
See 17 CFR 242.301(b)(1), (2), and (10), respectively. The broker-
dealer operator of the ATS controls all aspects of the ATS's 
operations and is legally responsible for its operations and for 
ensuring that the ATS complies with applicable federal securities 
laws and the rules and regulations thereunder, including Regulation 
ATS. See Regulation of NMS Stock Alternative Trading Systems, 
Exchange Act Release No. 83663 (July 18, 2018) [83 FR 38768, 38819-
20 (Aug. 7, 2018)] (``Regulation of NMS Stock Alternative Trading 
Systems Release'').
    \61\ See 17 CFR 242.300(k) (defining the term ``NMS Stock 
ATS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Clearing Agencies
    Clearing agencies are broadly defined in the Exchange Act and 
undertake a variety of functions.\62\ An entity that meets the 
definition of a ``clearing agency'' is required to register with the 
Commission or obtain from the Commission an exemption from registration 
prior to performing the functions of a clearing agency.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(23)(A).
    \63\ See 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b); 17 CFR 240.17Ab2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two common functions of registered clearing agencies are operating 
as a central counterparty (``CCP'') or a central securities depository 
(``CSD''). Registered clearing agencies that provide these services are 
``covered clearing agencies'' under Commission regulations.\64\ A CCP 
acts as the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer, 
providing a trade guaranty with respect to transactions submitted for 
clearing by the clearing agency's participants.\65\ A CSD acts as a 
depository for handling securities, whereby all securities of a 
particular class or series of any issuer deposited within the system 
are treated as fungible. Market Entities may use a CSD to transfer, 
loan, or pledge securities by bookkeeping entry without the physical 
delivery of certificates. A CSD also may permit or facilitate the 
settlement of securities transactions more generally.\66\ Currently, 
all clearing agencies registered with the Commission that are actively 
providing clearance and settlement services are covered clearing 
agencies.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. See also Standards for Covered 
Clearing Agencies, Exchange Act Release No. 78961 (Sept. 28, 2016) 
[81 FR 70786, 70793 (Oct. 13, 2016)] (``CCA Standards Adopting 
Release''). As discussed below, some clearing agencies operate 
pursuant to Commission exemptions from registration.
    \65\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22 (``Rule 17Ad-22''); Definition of 
``Covered Clearing Agency'', Exchange Act Release No. 88616 (Apr. 9, 
2020) [85 FR 28853, 28855-56 (May 14, 2020)] (``CCA Definition 
Adopting Release'').
    \66\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(23)(A); 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22; CCA 
Definition Adopting Release, 81 FR at 28856.
    \67\ The active covered clearing agencies are: (1) The 
Depository Trust Company (``DTC''); (2) Fixed Income Clearing 
Corporation (``FICC''); (3) National Securities Clearing Corporation 
(``NSCC''); (4) Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (``ICE'') Clear 
Credit LLC (``ICC''); (5) ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICEEU''); (6) 
The Options Clearing Corporation (``Options Clearing Corp.''); and 
(7) LCH SA. Certain clearing agencies are registered with the 
Commission but are not covered clearing agencies. See CCA Standards 
Adopting Release, 81 FR at 70793. In particular, although subject to 
paragraph (d) of Rule 17Ad-22, the Boston Stock Exchange Clearing 
Corporation (``BSECC'') and Stock Clearing Corporation of 
Philadelphia (``SCCP'') are currently registered with the Commission 
as clearing agencies but conduct no clearance or settlement 
operations. See Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Boston Stock 
Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness 
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Articles of Organization and 
By-Laws, Exchange Act Release No. 63629 (Jan. 3, 2011) [76 FR 1473, 
1474 (Jan. 10, 2011)] (``BSECC Notice''); Self-Regulatory 
Organizations; Stock Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia; Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating 
to the Suspension of Certain Provisions Due to Inactivity, Exchange 
Act Release No. 63268 (Nov. 8, 2010) [75 FR 69730, 69731 (Nov. 15, 
2010)] (``SCCP Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Registered clearing agencies also are SROs under section 19 of the 
Exchange Act, and their proposed rules are subject to Commission review 
and published for notice and comment. While certain types of proposed 
rules are effective upon filing, others are subject to Commission 
approval before they can go into effect.
    Additionally, section 17A(b)(1) of the Exchange Act provides the 
Commission with authority to exempt a clearing agency or any class of 
clearing agencies (``exempt clearing agencies'') from any provision of 
section 17A or the rules or regulations thereunder.\68\ An exemption 
may be effected by rule or order, upon the Commission's own motion or 
upon application, and conditionally or unconditionally.\69\ The 
Commission has provided exemptions from registration as a clearing 
agency for clearing agencies that provide matching services.\70\ 
Matching services centrally match trade information between a broker-
dealer and its institutional customer. The Commission also has provided 
exemptions for non-U.S. clearing agencies to perform the functions of a 
clearing agency with respect to transactions of U.S. participants 
involving U.S. government and agency securities.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(1). See also 15 U.S.C. 78mm (providing 
the Commission with general exemptive authority).
    \69\ See 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(1). The Commission's exercise of 
authority to grant exemptive relief must be consistent with the 
public interest, the protection of investors, and the purposes of 
Section 17A of the Exchange Act, including the prompt and accurate 
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and the 
safeguarding of securities and funds.
    \70\ See Global Joint Venture Matching Services--US, LLC; Order 
Granting Exemption from Registration as a Clearing Agency, Exchange 
Act Release No. 44188 (Apr. 17, 2001) [66 FR 20494 (Apr. 23, 2001)] 
(granting an exemption to provide matching services to Global Joint 
Venture Matching Services US LLC, now known as DTCC ITP Matching 
U.S. LLC) (``DTCC ITP Matching Order''); Bloomberg STP LLC; SS&C 
Technologies, Inc.; Order of the Commission Approving Applications 
for an Exemption From Registration as a Clearing Agency, Exchange 
Act Release No. 76514 (Nov. 25, 2015) [80 FR 75388 (Dec. 1, 2015)] 
(granting an exemption to provide matching services to each of 
Bloomberg STP LLC and SS&C Technologies, Inc.) (``BSTP SS&C 
Order''). In addition, on July 1, 2011, the Commission published a 
conditional, temporary exemption from clearing agency registration 
for entities that perform certain post-trade processing services for 
security-based swap transactions. See Order Pursuant to Section 36 
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Granting Temporary Exemptions 
From Clearing Agency Registration Requirements Under Section 17A(b) 
of the Exchange Act for Entities Providing Certain Clearing Services 
for Security-Based Swaps, Exchange Act Release No. 34-64796 (July 1, 
2011) [76 FR 39963 (July 7, 2011)]. The order facilitated the 
Commission's identification of entities that operate in that area 
and that accordingly may fall within the clearing agency definition. 
Recently, the Commission indicated that the 2011 Temporary Exemption 
may no longer be necessary. See Rules Relating to Security-Based 
Swap Execution and Registration and Regulation of Security-Based 
Swap Execution Facilities, Release No. 34-94615 (Apr. 6, 2022) [87 
FR 28872, 28934 (May 11, 2022)] (stating that the ``Commission 
preliminarily believes that, if it adopts a framework for the 
registration of [security-based swap execution facilities 
(``SBSEFs'')], the 2011 Temporary Exemption would no longer be 
necessary because entities carrying out the functions of SBSEFs 
would be able to register with the Commission as such, thereby 
falling within the exemption from the definition of `clearing 
agency' in existing Rule 17Ad-24.'').
    \71\ See Euroclear Bank SA/NV; Order of the Commission Approving 
an Application To Modify an Existing Exemption From Clearing Agency 
Registration, Exchange Act Release No. 79577 (Dec. 16, 2016) [81 FR 
93994 (Dec. 22, 2016)] (providing an exemption to Euroclear Bank SA/
NV (successor in name to Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of NY)) 
(``Euroclear Bank Order''); Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cedel 
Bank; Order Approving Application for Exemption From Registration as 
a Clearing Agency, Exchange Act Release No. Release No. 38328 (Feb. 
24, 1997) [62 FR 9225 (Feb. 28, 1997)] (providing an exemption to 
Clearstream Banking, S.A. (successor in name to Cedel Bank, societe 
anonyme, Luxembourg)) (``Clearstream Banking Order''). Furthermore, 
pursuant to the Commission's statement on CCPs in the European Union 
(``EU'') authorized under the European Markets Infrastructure 
Regulation (``EMIR''), an EU CCP may request an exemption from the 
Commission where it has determined that the application of 
Commission requirements would impose unnecessary, duplicative, or 
inconsistent requirements in light of EMIR requirements to which it 
is subject. See Statement on Central Counterparties Authorized under 
the European Markets Infrastructure Regulation Seeking to Register 
as a Clearing Agency or to Request Exemptions from Certain 
Requirements Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act 
Release No. 34-90492 (Nov. 23, 2020) [85 FR 76635, 76639 (Nov. 30, 
2020)], https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-11-30/pdf/FR-2020-11-30.pdf (stating that in seeking an exemption, an EU CCP 
could provide ``a self-assessment . . . [to] explain how the EU 
CCP's compliance with EMIR corresponds to the requirements in the 
Exchange Act and applicable SEC rules thereunder, such as Rule 17Ad-
22 and Regulation SCI.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Registered and exempt clearing agencies rely on information systems 
to perform the functions described above. Given their central role, the 
information systems operated by clearing agencies are critical to the 
operations of the U.S. securities markets. For registered clearing 
agencies, in particular, these information systems include those that 
set and calculate margin obligations and other charges, perform netting 
and calculate payment obligations, facilitate the movement of funds and 
securities, or effectuate end-of-day settlement.

[[Page 20221]]

Certain exempt clearing agencies (e.g., Euroclear and Clearstream) may 
provide CSD functions like covered clearing agencies while other exempt 
clearing agencies (e.g., DTCC ITP) may not provide such functions. 
Nonetheless, any entity that falls within the definition of a clearing 
agency centralizes technology functions in a manner that increases its 
potential to become a single point of failure in the case of a 
significant cybersecurity incident.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See generally Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System (``Federal Reserve Board''), Commission, Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission (``CFTC''), Risk Management of Designated 
Clearing Entities (July 2011), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/other-reports/files/risk-management-supervision-report-201107.pdf (report to the Senate 
Committees on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committees on Financial 
Services and Agriculture stating that a designated clearing entity 
(``DCE'') ``faces two types of non-financial risks--operational and 
legal--that may disrupt the functioning of the DCE. . . . DCEs face 
operational risk from both internal and external sources, including 
human error, system failures, security breaches, and natural or man-
made disasters.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The technology behind clearing agency information systems is 
subject to growing innovation and interconnectedness, with multiple 
clearing agencies sharing links among their systems and with the 
systems of other Market Entities. This growing interconnectivity means 
that a significant cybersecurity incident at a registered clearing 
agency could, for example, prevent it from acting timely to carry out 
its functions, which, in turn, could negatively impact other Market 
Entities that utilize the clearing agency's services.\73\ Further, a 
significant cybersecurity incident at a registered or exempt clearing 
agency could provide a gateway for threat actors to attack the members 
of the clearing agency and other financial institutions that connect to 
it through information systems. Moreover, the information systems that 
link the clearing agency to its members are vectors that expose the 
clearing agency to cybersecurity risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See also EXAMS, Commission, Staff Report on the Regulation 
of Clearing Agencies (Oct. 1, 2020), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/regulation-clearing-agencies-100120.pdf (staff 
stating that ``consolidation among providers of clearance and 
settlement services concentrates clearing activity in fewer 
providers and has increased the potential for providers to become 
single points of failure.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The records stored by clearing agencies on their information 
systems include proprietary information about their members, including 
confidential business information (e.g., information about the 
financial condition of the members used by the clearing agency to 
manage credit risk). Each clearing agency also is required to keep all 
records made or received by it in the course of its business and in the 
conduct of its self-regulatory activity. A significant cybersecurity 
incident at a clearing agency could lead to the improper use of this 
information to harm the members (e.g., public exposure of confidential 
financial information) or provide the unauthorized user with an unfair 
advantage over other market participants (e.g., trading based on 
confidential business information). Moreover, a disruption to a 
registered clearing agency's operations as a result of a significant 
cybersecurity incident could interfere with its ability to perform its 
responsibilities as an SRO (e.g., interrupting its oversight of 
clearing member activities for compliance with its rules and the 
federal securities laws), and, therefore, materially impact the fair, 
orderly, and efficient functioning of the U.S. securities markets.
d. The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
    The MSRB is an SRO that serves as a regulator of the U.S. municipal 
securities market with a mandate to protect municipal securities 
investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public 
interest.\74\ Pursuant to the Exchange Act, the MSRB shall propose and 
adopt rules with respect to transactions in municipal securities 
effected by broker-dealers and municipal securities dealers and with 
respect to advice provided to or on behalf of municipal entities or 
obligated persons by broker-dealers, municipal securities dealers, and 
municipal advisors with respect to municipal financial products, the 
issuance of municipal securities, and solicitations of municipal 
entities or obligated persons undertaken by broker-dealers, municipal 
securities dealers, and municipal advisors.\75\ Pursuant to the 
Exchange Act, the MSRB's rules shall be designed to prevent fraudulent 
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable 
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with 
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing, 
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal 
securities and municipal financial products, to remove impediments to 
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal 
securities and municipal products, and in general, to protect 
investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public 
interest.\76\ As an SRO, the MSRB's proposed rules are subject to 
Commission review and published for notice and comment. While certain 
types of proposed rules are effective upon filing, others are subject 
to Commission approval before they can go into effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4. Information about the MSRB and its 
functions is available at: www.msrb.org.
    \75\ See 15.U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2).
    \76\ See 15.U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB relies on information systems to carry out its mission 
regulating broker-dealers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal 
advisors. For example, the MSRB operates the Electronic Municipal 
Market Access website (``EMMA''). EMMA provides transparency to the 
U.S. municipal bond market by disclosing free information on virtually 
all municipal bond offerings, including real-time trade prices, bond 
disclosure documents, and certain market statistics.\77\ The MSRB also 
provides data to the Commission, broker-dealer examining authorities, 
and banking supervisors to assist in their examination and enforcement 
efforts involving participants in the municipal securities markets. The 
MSRB also maintains other data on the U.S. municipal securities 
markets. This data can be used by the public and others to understand 
better these markets. The MSRB is also required to keep all records 
made or received by it in the course of its business and in the conduct 
of its self-regulatory activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Broker-dealers, and municipal securities dealers that trade 
municipal securities are subject to transaction reporting 
obligations under MSRB Rule G-14. EMMA, established by the MSRB in 
2009, is currently designated by the Commission as the official 
repository of municipal securities disclosure providing the public 
with free access to relevant municipal securities data, and is the 
central database for information about municipal securities 
offerings, issuers, and obligors. Additionally, the MSRB's Real-Time 
Transaction Reporting System (``RTRS''), with limited exceptions, 
requires broker-dealers and municipal securities dealers to submit 
transaction data to the MSRB within 15 minutes of trade execution, 
and such near real-time post-trade transaction data can be accessed 
through the MSRB's EMMA website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A significant cybersecurity incident could disrupt the operation of 
EMMA and could negatively impact the fair, orderly, and efficient 
operation of the U.S. municipal securities market. For example, the 
loss or corruption of transparent price information could cause 
investors to stop purchasing or selling municipal securities or 
negatively impact the ability of investors to liquidate or purchase 
municipal securities at favorable or predictable prices or in a timely 
manner. In addition, the unauthorized access or use of personal or 
proprietary

[[Page 20222]]

information of the persons who are registered with the MSRB could cause 
them harm through identity theft or the disclosure of confidential 
business information.
    Further, a significant cybersecurity incident impacting the MSRB 
could provide a gateway for threat actors to attack registrants that 
connect to the MRSB through information systems and networks of 
interconnected information systems. Moreover, the information systems 
that link the MSRB to its registrants are vectors that expose the MSRB 
to cybersecurity risk.
e. National Securities Associations
    A national securities association is an SRO created to regulate 
broker-dealers and the off-exchange broker-dealer market.\78\ 
Currently, FINRA is the only national securities association registered 
under section 15A of the Exchange Act. As a national securities 
association, FINRA must have rules for its members that, among other 
things, are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and 
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster 
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, 
clearing, settling, or processing information with respect to (and 
facilitating transactions in) securities, to remove impediments to and 
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market 
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public 
interest.\79\ FINRA's rules also must provide for discipline of its 
members for violations of any provision of the Exchange Act, Exchange 
Act rules, the rules of the MSRB, or its own rules.\80\ A national 
securities association is an SRO under section 19 of the Exchange Act, 
and its proposed rules are subject to Commission review and are 
published for notice and comment. While certain types of proposed FINRA 
rules are effective upon filing, others are subject to Commission 
approval before they can go into effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(a); Exemption for Certain Exchange 
Members, Exchange Act Release No. 95388 (July 29, 2022) [87 FR 49930 
(Aug. 12, 2022)] (proposing amendments to national securities 
association membership exemption for certain exchange members).
    \79\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \80\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also performs other functions of vital importance to the U.S. 
securities markets. It developed and operates the Trade Reporting and 
Compliance Engine (``TRACE''), which facilitates the mandatory 
reporting of over-the-counter transactions in eligible fixed-income 
securities.\81\ In addition, FINRA operates the Trade Reporting 
Facility (``TRF''). FINRA members report over-the-counter transactions 
in national market system (``NMS'') stocks to the TRF, which are then 
included in publicly disseminated consolidated equity market data 
pursuant to an NMS plan.\82\ Further, pursuant to plans declared 
effective by the Commission under Exchange Act Rule 17d-2 (``Rule 17d-
2''),\83\ FINRA frequently acts as the sole SRO with regulatory 
responsibility with respect to certain applicable laws, rules, and 
regulations for its members that are also members of other SROs (e.g., 
national securities exchanges).\84\ Some of these Rule 17d-2 plans 
facilitate the conduct of market-wide surveillance, including for 
insider trading.\85\ The disruption of these FINRA activities by a 
significant cybersecurity incident could interfere with its ability to 
carry out its regulatory responsibilities (e.g., disclosing 
confidential information pertaining to its surveillance of trading 
activity), and, therefore, materially impact the fair, orderly, and 
efficient functioning of the U.S. securities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ FINRA members are subject to transaction reporting 
obligations under FINRA Rule 6730. This rule requires FINRA members 
to report transactions in TRACE-Eligible Securities, which the rule 
defines to include a range of fixed-income securities.
    \82\ In addition, FINRA operates the Alternative Display 
Facility (``ADF''), which allows members to display quotations and 
report trades in NMS stocks. Although there are currently no users 
of the ADF, FINRA has issued a pre-quotation notice advising that a 
new participant intends to begin using the ADF, subject to 
regulatory approval. See Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial 
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed 
Rule Change Relating to Alternative Display Facility New Entrant, 
Exchange Act Release No. 96550 (Dec. 20, 2022) [87 FR 79401 (Dec. 
27, 2022)].
    \83\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2. Pursuant to a plan declared effective by 
the Commission under Rule 17d-2, the Commission relieves an SRO of 
those regulatory responsibilities allocated by the plan to another 
SRO.
    \84\ See, e.g., Program for Allocation of Regulatory 
Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Notice of Filing and Order 
Approving and Declaring Effective an Amended Plan for the Allocation 
of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Financial Industry 
Regulatory Authority, Inc. and MEMX LLC, Exchange Act Release No. 
96101 (Oct. 18, 2022) [87 FR 64280 (Oct. 24, 2022)].
    \85\ See, e.g., Program for Allocation of Regulatory 
Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Notice of Filing and Order 
Approving and Declaring Effective an Amendment to the Plan for the 
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Among Cboe BZX Exchange, 
Inc., Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., Cboe EDGA 
Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry 
Regulatory Authority, Inc., MEMX LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, Nasdaq BX, 
Inc., Nasdaq PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, NYSE National, 
Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, 
Inc., Investors' Exchange LLC, and Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc. 
Relating to the Surveillance, Investigation, and Enforcement of 
Insider Trading Rules, Exchange Act Release No. 89972 (Sept. 23, 
2020) [85 FR 61062 (Sept. 29, 2020)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA uses other information systems to perform its 
responsibilities as an SRO. For example, it operates a number of 
information systems that its members use to make regulatory 
filings.\86\ These systems include the FINRA's eFOCUS system through 
which its broker-dealer members file periodic (monthly or quarterly) 
confidential financial and operational reports.\87\ FINRA Gateway is 
another information system that it uses as a compliance portal for its 
members to file and access information. A disruption of FINRA's 
business operations caused by a significant cybersecurity incident 
could disrupt its ability to carry out its responsibilities as an SRO 
(e.g., by disrupting its oversight of broker-dealer activities for 
compliance with its rules and the federal securities laws or its review 
of broker-dealers' financial condition), and could therefore materially 
impact the fair, orderly, and efficient functioning of the U.S. 
securities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Further information about these filing systems is available 
at: https://www.finra.org/filing-reporting/regulatory-filing-systems.
    \87\ The eFOCUS system provides firms with the capability to 
electronically submit their Financial and Operational Combined 
Uniform Single (FOCUS) Reports to FINRA. FINRA member broker-dealers 
are required to prepare and submit FOCUS reports pursuant to 
Exchange Rule 17a-5 (17 CFR 240.17a-5) (``Rule 17a-5'') and FINRA's 
FOCUS Report filing plan. See, e.g., Self-Regulatory Organizations; 
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed 
Rule Change by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. 
Relating to the Association's FOCUS Filing Plan, Exchange Act 
Release No. 36780, (Jan. 26, 1996) [61 FR 3743 (Feb. 1, 1996)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, a significant cybersecurity incident at FINRA could 
provide a gateway for threat actors to attack members that connect to 
it through information systems and networks of interconnected 
information systems. Moreover, the information systems that link FINRA 
to its members are vectors that expose FINRA to cybersecurity risk.
    Additionally, the records stored by FINRA on its information 
systems include proprietary information about its members, including 
confidential business information (e.g., information about the 
operational and financial condition of its broker-dealer members) and 
confidential personal information about registered persons affiliated 
with member firms. FINRA also is required to keep all records made or 
received by it in the course of its business and in the conduct of its 
self-regulatory activity. A significant cybersecurity incident at FINRA 
could lead to the improper use of this information to harm the members

[[Page 20223]]

(e.g., public exposure of confidential financial information) or their 
registered persons (e.g., public exposure of personal information). 
Further, it could provide the unauthorized user with an unfair 
advantage over other market participants (e.g., trading based on 
confidential financial information about its members).
f. National Securities Exchanges
    Under the Exchange Act, an ``exchange'' is any organization, 
association, or group of persons, whether incorporated or 
unincorporated, that constitutes, maintains, or provides a market place 
or facilities for bringing together purchasers and sellers of 
securities or for otherwise performing with respect to securities the 
functions commonly performed by a stock exchange (as that term is 
generally understood), and includes the market place and the market 
facilities maintained by that exchange.\88\ Section 5 of the Exchange 
Act \89\ requires an organization, association, or group of persons 
that meets the definition of ``exchange'' under section 3(a)(1) of the 
Exchange Act, unless otherwise exempt, to register with the Commission 
as a national securities exchange pursuant to section 6 of the Exchange 
Act. Registered national securities exchanges also are SROs, and must 
comply with regulatory requirements applicable to both national 
securities exchanges and SROs.\90\ Section 6 of the Exchange Act 
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities 
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and 
practices; to promote just and equitable principles of trade; to foster 
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating 
transactions in securities; to remove impediments to, and perfect the 
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system; and, 
in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and that the 
rules of a national securities exchange not be designed to permit 
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or 
dealers.\91\ As SROs under section 19 of the Exchange Act, the proposed 
rules of national securities exchanges are subject to Commission review 
and are published for notice and comment.\92\ While certain types of 
proposed exchange rules are effective upon filing, others are subject 
to Commission approval before they can go into effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(1). Exchange Act Rule 3b-16 (``Rule 
3b-16'') defines terms used in the statutory definition of 
``exchange'' under section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act. Under 
paragraph (a) of Rule 3b-16, an organization, association, or group 
of persons is considered to constitute, maintain, or provide such a 
marketplace or facilities if they ``[b]ring[ ] together the orders 
for securities of multiple buyers and sellers'' and use 
``established non-discretionary methods (whether by providing a 
trading facility or by setting rules) under which such orders 
interact with each other, and the buyers and sellers entering such 
orders agree to the terms of a trade.'' See 17 CFR 240.3b-16(a). In 
January 2022, the Commission: (1) proposed amendments to Rule 3b-16 
to include systems that offer the use of non-firm trading interest 
and provide communication protocols to bring together buyers and 
sellers of securities; (2) re-proposed amendments to Regulation ATS 
for ATSs that trade government securities or repurchase and reverse 
repurchase agreements on government securities; (3) re-proposed 
amendments to Regulation SCI to apply to ATSs that meet certain 
volume thresholds in U.S. Treasury securities or in a debt security 
issued or guaranteed by a U.S. executive agency or government-
sponsored enterprise; and (4) proposed amendments to, among other 
things, Form ATS-N, Form ATS-R, Form ATS, and the fair access rule 
under Regulation ATS. See Amendments Regarding the Definition of 
``Exchange'' and Alternative Trading Systems (ATSs) That Trade U.S. 
Treasury and Agency Securities, National Market System (NMS) Stocks, 
and Other Securities, Exchange Act Release No. 94062 (Jan. 26, 2022) 
[87 FR 15496 (Mar. 18, 2022)] (``Amendments Regarding the Definition 
of `Exchange' and ATSs Release''). The Commission encourages 
commenters to review that proposal with respect to ATSs and the 
comments on that proposal to determine whether they might affect 
comments on this proposing release.
    \89\ 15 U.S.C. 78e.
    \90\ See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78f and 78s.
    \91\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \92\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National securities exchanges use information systems to operate 
their marketplaces and facilities for bringing together purchasers and 
sellers of securities. In particular, national securities exchanges 
rely on automated, complex, and interconnected information systems for 
trading, routing, market data, regulatory, and surveillance purposes. 
They also use information systems to connect to members, other national 
securities exchanges, plan processors, and clearing agencies to 
facilitate order routing, trading, trade reporting, and the clearing of 
securities transactions. They also provide quotation, trade reporting, 
and regulatory information to the securities information processors to 
ensure that current market data information is available to market 
participants.\93\ A significant cyber security incident at a national 
securities exchange could disrupt or disable its ability to provide 
these market functions, causing broader disruptions to the securities 
markets.\94\ For example, a significant cyber security incident could 
severely impede the ability to trade securities, or could disrupt the 
public dissemination of consolidated market data, impacting investors 
and the maintenance of fair, orderly, and efficient markets. In 
addition, the information systems that link national securities 
exchanges to their members are vectors that expose the exchange to 
cybersecurity risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ The national securities exchanges will provide quotation, 
trade reporting, and regulatory information to competing 
consolidators and self-aggregators after the market data 
infrastructure rules have been implemented. See Market Data 
Infrastructure, Exchange Act Release No. 90610 (Dec. 9, 2020) [86 FR 
18596 (Apr. 9, 2021)] (``MDI Adopting Release''). In July 2012, the 
Commission adopted Rule 613 of Regulation NMS, which required 
national securities exchanges and national securities associations 
(the ``Participants'') to jointly develop and submit to the 
Commission a national market system plan to create, implement, and 
maintain a consolidated audit trail (the ``CAT''). See Consolidated 
Audit Trail, Exchange Act Release No. 67457 (July 18, 2012) [77 FR 
45722 (Aug. 1, 2012)]; 17 CFR 242.613. In November 2016, the 
Commission approved the national market system plan required by Rule 
613 (the ``CAT NMS Plan''). See Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving 
the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit 
Trail, Exchange Act Release No. 78318 (Nov. 15, 2016) [81 FR 84696 
(Nov. 23, 2016)] (the ``CAT NMS Plan Approval Order''). The 
Participants conduct the activities related to the CAT in a Delaware 
limited liability company, Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC (the 
``Company''). The Participants jointly own on an equal basis the 
Company. As such, the CAT's Central Repository is a facility of each 
of the Participants. See CAT NMS Plan Approval Order, 81 FR at 
84758. It would also qualify as an ``information system'' of each 
national securities exchange and each national securities 
association under proposed Rule 10. FINRA CAT, LLC--a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of FINRA--has entered into an agreement with the Company 
to act as the plan processor for the CAT. However, because the CAT 
System is operated by FINRA CAT, LLC on behalf of the national 
securities exchanges and FINRA, the Participants remain ultimately 
responsible for the performance of the CAT and its compliance with 
any statutes, rules, and regulations. The goal of the CAT NMS Plan 
is to create a modernized audit trail system that provides 
regulators with more timely access to a more comprehensive set of 
trading data, thus enabling regulators to more efficiently and 
effectively analyze and reconstruct broad-based market events, 
conduct market analysis in support of regulatory decisions, and to 
conduct market surveillance, investigations, and other enforcement 
activities. The CAT accepts data that are submitted by the 
Participants and broker-dealers, as well as data from certain market 
data feeds like SIP and OPRA.
    \94\ See, e.g., New Zealand FMA Report (describing an August 
2020 cybersecurity incident at New Zealand's only regulated 
financial product market that caused a trading halt of approximately 
four days).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, proprietary market data systems of exchanges are widely 
used and relied upon by a wide swath of market participants for 
detailed information about quoting and trading activity on an exchange. 
A significant cybersecurity incident that disrupts the availability or 
integrity of these feeds could have a significant impact on the trading 
of securities because market participants may withdraw from trading 
without access to current quotation and trade information. This could 
interfere with the maintenance of fair, orderly, and efficient markets.
    National securities exchanges also use information systems to 
perform their

[[Page 20224]]

responsibilities as SROs. In particular, exchanges employ market-
regulation systems to assist with obligations such as enforcing their 
rules and the federal securities laws with respect to their members. A 
disruption of a national securities exchange's business operations 
caused by a significant cybersecurity incident could disrupt its 
ability to carry out its regulatory responsibilities as an SRO and, 
therefore, materially impact the fair, orderly, and efficient 
functioning of the U.S. securities markets.
    Each exchange also is required to keep all records made or received 
by it in the course of its business and in the conduct of its self-
regulatory activity. The records stored by national securities 
exchanges on their information systems include proprietary information 
about their members, including confidential business information (e.g., 
information about the financial condition of their members). The 
records also include information relating to trading, routing, market 
data, and market surveillance, among other areas.\95\ A significant 
cybersecurity incident at a national securities exchange could lead to 
the improper use of this information to harm exchange members (e.g., 
public exposure of confidential financial information) or provide the 
unauthorized user with an unfair advantage over other market 
participants (e.g., trading based on confidential business 
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ For example, as discussed above, the national securities 
exchanges and FINRA jointly operate the CAT System, which collects 
and stores information relating market participants, and their order 
and trading activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Security-Based Swap Data Repositories
    Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act (``Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act''), enacted in 2010, 
provided for a comprehensive, new regulatory framework for swaps and 
security-based swaps, including regulatory reporting and public 
dissemination of transactions in security-based swaps.\96\ In 2015, the 
Commission established a regulatory framework for SBSDRs to provide 
improved transparency to regulators and help facilitate price discovery 
and efficiency in the SBS market.\97\ Under this framework, SBSDRs are 
registered securities information processors and disseminators of 
market data in the security-based swap market,\98\ thereby supporting 
the Dodd-Frank Act's goal of public dissemination for all security-
based swaps to enhance price discovery to market participants.\99\ The 
collection and dissemination of security-based swap data by SBSDRs 
provide transparency in the security-based swap market for regulators 
and market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), section 761(a) 
(adding Exchange Act section 3(a)(75) (defining SBSDR)) and section 
763(i) (adding Exchange Act section 13(n) (establishing a regulatory 
regime for SBSDRs)).
    \97\ See Security-Based Swap Data Repository Registration, 
Duties, and Core Principles, Exchange Act Release No. 74246 (Feb. 
11, 2015) [80 FR 14438 (Mar. 19, 2015)] (``SBSDR Adopting 
Release''); Regulation SBSR--Reporting and Dissemination of 
Security-Based Swap Information, Exchange Act Release No. 74244 
(Feb. 11, 2015) [80 FR 14563 (Mar. 19, 2015)] (``SBSR Adopting 
Release'').
    \98\ See 17 CFR 242.909 (``A registered security-based swap data 
repository shall also register with the Commission as a securities 
information processor on Form SDR''); see also Form SDR (``With 
respect to an applicant for registration as a security-based swap 
data repository, Form SDR also constitutes an application for 
registration as a securities information processor.'').
    \99\ See, e.g., SBSDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as centralized repositories for security-based swap 
transaction data that is used by regulators, SBSDRs provide an 
important infrastructure assisting relevant authorities in performing 
their market oversight.\100\ Data maintained by SBSDRs can assist 
regulators in addressing market abuses, performing supervision, and 
resolving issues and positions if an institution fails.\101\ SBSDRs are 
required to collect and maintain accurate security-based swap 
transaction data so that relevant authorities can access and analyze 
the data from secure, central locations, thereby putting the regulators 
in a better position to monitor for potential market abuse and risks to 
financial stability.\102\ SBSDRs also have the potential to reduce 
operational risk and enhance operational efficiency, such as by 
maintaining transaction records that would help counterparties to 
ensure that their records reconcile on all of the key economic details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See Security-Based Swap Data Repository Registration, 
Duties, and Core Principles, Exchange Act Release No. 63347 (Nov. 
19, 2010) [75 FR 77306, 77307 (Dec. 10, 2010)], corrected at 75 FR 
79320 (Dec. 20, 2010) and 76 FR 2287 (Jan. 13, 2011) (``SBSDR 
Proposing Release'') (``The data maintained by an [SBSDR] may also 
assist regulators in (i) preventing market manipulation, fraud, and 
other market abuses; (ii) performing market surveillance, prudential 
supervision, and macroprudential (systemic risk) supervision; and 
(iii) resolving issues and positions after an institution fails.'').
    \101\ See SBSDR Proposing Release at 77307.
    \102\ See SBSDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14440 (stating that 
``[SBSDRs] are required to collect and maintain accurate [security-
based swap] transaction data so that relevant authorities can access 
and analyze the data from secure, central locations, thereby putting 
them in a better position to monitor for potential market abuse and 
risks to financial stability.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SBSDRs use information systems to perform these functions, 
including to disseminate market data and provide price transparency in 
the security-based swap market. They also use information systems to 
operate centralized repositories for security-based swap data for use 
by regulators. These information systems provide an important market 
infrastructure that assists relevant authorities in performing their 
market oversight.\103\ As discussed above, data maintained by SBSDRs 
may, for example, assist regulators in addressing market abuses, 
performing supervision, and resolving issues and positions if an 
institution fails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See Committee on Payments and Settlement Systems 
(``CPSS''), Technical Committee of IOSCO, Principles for financial 
markets intermediaries (Apr. 2012), available at https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d101a.pdf (``FMI Principles'') (Principle for 
financial markets intermediaries (``PFMI'') 1.14 stating that ``[b]y 
centralising the collection, storage, and dissemination of data, a 
well-designed [trade repository (``TR'')] that operates with 
effective risk controls can serve an important role in enhancing the 
transparency of transaction information to relevant authorities and 
the public, promoting financial stability, and supporting the 
detection and prevention of market abuse.''). In 2014, the CPSS 
became the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures 
(``CPMI'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SBSDRs are subject to certain cybersecurity risks that if realized 
could impede their ability to meet the goals set out in Title VII of 
the Dodd-Frank Act and the Commission's rules.\104\ For example, SBSDRs 
process and disseminate trade data using information systems. If these 
information systems suffer from a significant cybersecurity incident, 
public access to timely and reliable trade data for the derivatives 
markets could potentially be compromised.\105\ Also, if the data stored 
at an SBSDR is corrupted by a threat actor through a cybersecurity 
attack, the SBSDR would not be able to provide accurate data to 
relevant regulatory authorities, which could hinder the oversight of 
the derivatives markets. Moreover, SBSDRs

[[Page 20225]]

use information systems to receive and maintain personal, confidential, 
and proprietary information and data. The unauthorized use or access of 
this information could be used to create unfair business or trading 
advantages and, in the case of personal information, to steal 
identities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See SBSDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14450 (``[SBSDRs] 
themselves are subject to certain operational risks that may impede 
the ability of [SBSDRs] to meet these goals, and the Title VII 
regulatory framework is intended to address these risks.'').
    \105\ See FMI Principles (PFMI 1.14, Box 1 stating that ``[t]he 
primary public policy benefits of a TR, which stem from the 
centralisation and quality of the data that a TR maintains, are 
improved market transparency and the provision of this data to 
relevant authorities and the public in line with their respective 
information needs. Timely and reliable access to data stored in a TR 
has the potential to improve significantly the ability of relevant 
authorities and the public to identify and evaluate the potential 
risks posed to the broader financial system.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, a significant cybersecurity incident at an SBSDR could 
provide a gateway for threat actors to attack Market Entities and 
others that connect to it through information systems. Moreover, the 
links established between an SBSDR and other entities, including 
unaffiliated clearing agencies and other SBSDRs, are vectors that 
expose the SBSDR to cybersecurity risk arising from threats that 
originate in information systems outside the SBSDR's control.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See FMI Principles (PFMI at 3.20.20 stating that ``[a] TR 
should carefully assess the additional operational risks related to 
its links to ensure the scalability and reliability of IT and 
related resources. A TR can establish links with another TR or with 
another type of FMI. Such links may expose the linked [financial 
market infrastructures (``FMIs'')] to additional risks if not 
properly designed. Besides legal risks, a link to either another TR 
or to another type of FMI may involve the potential spillover of 
operational risk. The mitigation of operational risk is particularly 
important because the information maintained by a TR can support 
bilateral netting and be used to provide services directly to market 
participants, service providers (for example, portfolio compression 
service providers), and other linked FMIs.''). The CPMI and IOSCO 
issued guidance for cyber resilience for FMIs, including CSDs, 
securities settlement systems (``SSSs''), CCPs, and trade 
repositories. See CPMI-IOSCO, Guidance on cyber resilience for 
financial market infrastructures (June 2016), available at https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD535.pdf; see also CPMI-
IOSCO, Implementation monitoring of the PFMI: Level 3 assessment on 
Financial Market Infrastructures' Cyber Resilience (Nov. 2022), 
available at https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD723.pdf (presenting the results of an assessment of the state 
of cyber resilience (as of February 2021) of FMIs from 29 
jurisdictions that participated in the exercise in 2020 to 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. SBS Entities
    The SBS Entities covered by the proposed rulemaking are SBSDs and 
MSBSPs. An SBSD generally refers to any person who: (1) holds itself 
out as a dealer in security-based swaps; (2) makes a market in 
security-based swaps; (3) regularly enters into security-based swaps 
with counterparties as an ordinary course of business for its own 
account; or (4) engages in any activity causing it to be commonly known 
in the trade as a dealer or market maker in security-based swaps.\107\ 
An SBSD does not, however, include a person that enters into security-
based swaps for such person's own account, either individually or in a 
fiduciary capacity, but not as a part of regular business.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71); 17 CFR 240.3a71-1 et seq.
    \108\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71)(C); 17 CFR 240.3a71-1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An MSBSP generally includes any person that is not a security-based 
swap dealer and that satisfies one of the following three alternative 
statutory tests: (1) it maintains a ``substantial position'' in 
security-based swaps, excluding positions held for hedging or 
mitigating commercial risk and positions maintained by any employee 
benefit plan (or any contract held by such a plan) for the primary 
purpose of hedging or mitigating any risk directly associated with the 
operation of the plan, for any of the major security-based swap 
categories determined by the Commission; (2) its outstanding security-
based swaps create substantial counterparty exposure that could have 
serious adverse effects on the financial stability of the U.S. banking 
system or financial markets; or (3) it is a ``financial entity'' that 
is ``highly leveraged'' relative to the amount of capital it holds (and 
that is not subject to capital requirements by an appropriate federal 
banking agency) and maintains a ``substantial position'' in outstanding 
security-based swaps in any major category as determined by the 
Commission.\109\ Currently, there are no MSBSPs registered with the 
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67); 17 CFR 240.3a67-1 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SBS Entities play (or, in the case of MSBSPs, could play) a 
critical role in the U.S. security-based swap market.\110\ SBS Entities 
rely on information systems to transact in security-based swaps with 
other market participants, to receive and deliver collateral, to create 
and maintain books and records, and to obtain market information to 
update books and records, and manage risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Currently, this role is fulfilled by SBSDs, given there 
are no MSBSPs registered with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A disruption to an SBS Entity's operations caused by a significant 
cybersecurity incident could have a large negative impact on the U.S. 
security-based swap market given the concentration of dealers in this 
market. Further, a disruption in the security-based swap market could 
negatively impact the broader securities markets by, for example, 
causing participants to liquidate positions related to, or referenced 
by, the impacted security-based swaps to mitigate losses to 
participants' positions or portfolios or due to loss of trading 
confidence. A disruption in the security-based swap market also could 
negatively impact the broader securities markets by causing 
participants to liquidate the collateral margining the security-based 
swaps for similar reasons or to cover margin calls. The consequences of 
a business disruption to an SBS Entity's functions--such as those that 
may be caused by a significant cybersecurity incident--may be amplified 
because, unlike many other securities transactions, securities-based 
swap transactions give rise to an ongoing obligation between 
transaction counterparties during the life of the transaction.\111\ 
This means that each counterparty bears the risk of its counterparty's 
ability to perform under the terms of a security-based swap until the 
transaction is terminated. A disruption of an SBS Entity's normal 
business activities because of a significant cybersecurity incident 
could produce spillover or contagion by negatively affecting the 
willingness or the ability of market participants to extend credit to 
each other, and could substantially reduce liquidity and valuations for 
particular types of financial instruments.\112\ The security-based swap 
market is large \113\ and thus a disruption of an SBS Entity's 
operations due to a significant cybersecurity incident could negatively 
impact sectors of the U.S. economy.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See Further Definition of ``Swap Dealer,'' ``Security-
Based Swap Dealer,'' ``Major Swap Participant,'' ``Major Security-
Based Swap Participant'' and ``Eligible Contract Participant'', 
Exchange Act Release No. 66868 (Apr. 27, 2012) [77 FR 30596, 30616-
17 (May 23, 2012)] (``Further Definition Release'') (noting that 
``[i]n contrast to a secondary market transaction involving equity 
or debt securities, in which the completion of a purchase or sale 
transaction can be expected to terminate the mutual obligations of 
the parties to the transaction, the parties to a security-based swap 
often will have an ongoing obligation to exchange cash flows over 
the life of the agreement'').
    \112\ See Cross-Border Security-Based Swap Activities; Re-
Proposal of Regulation SBSR and Certain Rules and Forms Relating to 
the Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-
Based Swap Participants, Exchange Act Release No. 69490 (May 1, 
2013) [78 FR 30967, 30980-81 (May 23, 2013)] (``Cross-Border 
Proposing Release'').
    \113\ See, e.g., Commission, Report on Security-Based Swaps 
Pursuant to Section 13(m)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(July 15, 2022) available at https://www.sec.gov/files/report-on-security-based-swaps-071522.pdf.
    \114\ See Cross-Border Proposing Release, 78 FR at 30972 (``The 
Dodd-Frank Act was enacted, among other reasons, to promote the 
financial stability of the United States by improving accountability 
and transparency in the financial system. The 2008 financial crisis 
highlighted significant issues in the over-the-counter (`OTC') 
derivatives markets, which . . . are capable of affecting 
significant sectors of the U.S. economy.'') (footnotes omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, a significant cybersecurity incident at an SBS Entity 
could provide a gateway for threat actors to attack the exchanges, 
SBSDRs, clearing agencies, counterparties, and other SBS Entities to

[[Page 20226]]

which the firm is connected through information systems and networks of 
interconnected information systems. Moreover, the information systems 
that link SBS Entities to other Market Entities are vectors that expose 
the SBS Entity to cybersecurity risk arising from threats that 
originate in information systems outside the SBS Entity's control. SBS 
Entities also store proprietary and confidential information about 
their counterparties on their information systems, including financial 
information they use to perform credit analysis. A significant 
cybersecurity incident at an SBS Entity could lead to the improper use 
of this information to harm the counterparties (e.g., public exposure 
of confidential financial information) or provide the unauthorized user 
with an unfair advantage over other market participants (e.g., trading 
based on confidential business information).
i. Transfer Agents
    A transfer agent is any person who engages on behalf of an issuer 
of securities or on behalf of itself as an issuer of securities in 
(among other functions): (1) tracking, recording, and maintaining the 
official record of ownership of each issuer's securities; (2) canceling 
old certificates, issuing new ones, and performing other processing and 
recordkeeping functions that facilitate the issuance, cancellation, and 
transfer of those securities; (3) facilitating communications between 
issuers and registered securityholders; and (4) making dividend, 
principal, interest, and other distributions to securityholders.\115\ 
To perform these functions, transfer agents maintain records and 
information related to securityholders that may include names, 
addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, employers, employment 
history, bank and specific account information, credit card 
information, transaction histories, securities holdings, and other 
detailed and individualized information related to the transfer agents' 
recordkeeping and transaction processing on behalf of issuers. With 
advances in technology and the expansion of book-entry ownership of 
securities, transfer agents today increasingly rely on technology and 
automation to perform the core recordkeeping, processing, and transfer 
services described above, including the use of computer systems to 
store, access, and process the information related to securityholders 
they maintain on behalf of issuers. A significant cybersecurity 
incident that impacts these systems could cause harm to investors by, 
for example, preventing the transfer agent from transferring ownership 
of securities or preventing investors from receiving dividend, 
interest, or principal payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See Transfer Agent Regulations, Exchange Act Release No. 
76743 (Dec. 22, 2015) [80 FR 81948, 81949 (Dec. 31, 2015)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, a significant cybersecurity incident at a transfer agent 
could provide a gateway for threat actors to attack other Market 
Entities that connect to it through information systems and networks of 
interconnected information systems. Moreover, the information systems 
that link transfer agents to other Market Entities expose the transfer 
agent to cybersecurity risk arising from threats that originate in 
information systems outside the transfer agent's control. The records 
stored by transfer agents on their information systems include 
proprietary information about securities ownership and corporate 
actions. A significant cybersecurity incident at a transfer agent could 
lead to the improper use of this information to harm securities holders 
(e.g., public exposure of their confidential financial information or 
the use of that information to steal their identities) or provide the 
unauthorized user with an unfair advantage over other market 
participants (e.g., trading based on confidential business 
information).

B. Overview of the Proposed Cybersecurity Requirements

    As discussed above, the U.S. securities markets are part of the 
critical infrastructure of the United States.\116\ In this regard, they 
play a central role in the U.S. economy in terms of facilitating the 
flow of capital, including the savings of individual investors. The 
fair, orderly, and efficient operation of the U.S. securities markets 
depends on Market Entities being able to perform their critical 
functions, and Market Entities are increasingly relying on information 
systems and interconnected networks of information systems to perform 
these functions. These information systems are targets of threat 
actors. Moreover, Market Entities--as financial institutions--are 
choice targets for threat actors seeking financial gain or to inflict 
economic harm. Further, threat actors are using increasingly 
sophisticated and constantly evolving tactics, techniques, and 
procedures to attack information systems. In addition to threat actors, 
cybersecurity risk also can be caused by the errors of employees, 
service providers, or business partners. The interconnectedness of 
Market Entities increases the risk that a significant cybersecurity 
incident can simultaneously impact multiple Market Entities causing 
harm to the U.S. securities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See section I.A. of this release (discussing cybersecurity 
risk and how critical operations of Market Entities are exposed to 
cybersecurity risk).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, it is critically important that Market Entities 
take steps to protect their information systems and the information 
residing on those systems from cybersecurity risk. A Market Entity that 
fails to do so is more vulnerable to succumbing to a significant 
cybersecurity incident. As discussed above, a significant cybersecurity 
incident can cause serious harm not only to the Market Entity but also 
to its customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users, or to 
any other market participants (including other Market Entities) that 
interact with the Market Entity. Therefore, it is vital to the U.S. 
securities markets and the participants in those markets that all 
Market Entities address cybersecurity risk, which, as discussed above, 
is increasingly threatening the financial sector.
    Consequently, the Commission is proposing new Rule 10 and new Form 
SCIR to require that Market Entities address cybersecurity risks, to 
improve the Commission's ability to obtain information about 
significant cybersecurity incidents impacting Market Entities, and to 
improve transparency about the cybersecurity risks that can cause 
adverse impacts to the U.S. securities markets.\117\ Under proposed 
Rule 10, certain broker-dealers, the MSRB, and all clearing agencies, 
national securities associations, national securities exchanges, 
SBSDRs, SBS Entities, and transfer agents would be defined as a 
``covered entity'' (collectively, ``Covered Entities'').\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ In designing the requirements of proposed Rule 10, the 
Commission considered several cybersecurity sources (which are cited 
in the relevant sections below), including the NIST Framework, the 
NIST Glossary, and CISA's Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (information 
about CISA's Cyber Essentials Starter Kit is available at: https://www.cisa.gov/publication/cisa-cyber-essentials). The Commission also 
considered definitions in relevant federal statutes including the 
Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, Public Law 
113-283 (Dec. 18, 2014); 44 U.S.C. 3551 et seq. (``FISMA'') and the 
Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022, 
H.R. 2471, 117th Cong. (2021-2022); 6 U.S.C. 681 et seq. 
(``CIRCIA'').
    \118\ The following broker-dealers would be Covered Entities: 
(1) broker-dealers that maintain custody of securities and cash for 
customers or other broker-dealers (``carrying broker-dealers''); (2) 
broker-dealers that introduce their customer accounts to a carrying 
broker-dealer on a fully disclosed basis (``introducing broker-
dealers''); (3) broker-dealers with regulatory capital equal to or 
exceeding $50 million; (4) broker-dealers with total assets equal to 
or exceeding $1 billion; (5) broker-dealers that operate as market 
makers; and (6) broker-dealers that operate an ATS (sometimes 
collectively referred to as ``Covered Broker-Dealers''). Broker-
dealers that do not fall into one of these six categories (sometimes 
collectively referred to as ``Non-Covered Entities'' or ``Non-
Covered Broker-Dealers'') would not be Covered Entities for the 
purposes of proposed Rule 10. See also section II.A.1.b. of this 
release (discussing the categories of broker-dealers that would be 
``Covered Entities'' in greater detail).

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

[[Page 20227]]

    Proposed Rule 10 would require all Market Entities (Covered 
Entities and Non-Covered Entities) to establish, maintain, and enforce 
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address 
their cybersecurity risks.\119\ All Market Entities also, at least 
annually, would be required to review and assess the design and 
effectiveness of their cybersecurity policies and procedures, including 
whether the policies and procedures reflect changes in cybersecurity 
risk over the time period covered by the review.\120\ They also would 
be required to prepare a report (in the case of Covered Entities) and a 
record (in the case of Non-Covered Entities) with respect to the annual 
review. CISA states that organizations should ``approach cyber as 
business risk.'' \121\ Like other business risks (e.g., market, credit, 
or liquidity risk), cybersecurity risk can be addressed through 
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to manage the 
risk. Finally, all Market Entities would need to give the Commission 
immediate written electronic notice of a significant cybersecurity 
incident upon having a reasonable basis to conclude that the 
significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is occurring.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See paragraphs (b) through (d) of proposed Rule 10 
(setting forth the requirements for Market Entities that meet the 
definition of ``covered entity''); paragraph (e)(1) of proposed Rule 
10 (setting forth the requirements for Market Entities that are not 
Covered Entities (i.e., Non-Covered Broker-Dealers)). See also 
sections II.B.1. and II.C. of this release (discussing these 
proposed requirements in more detail). As discussed in sections 
II.F. and IV.C.1.b. of this release, certain categories of Market 
Entities are subject to existing requirements to address aspects of 
cybersecurity risk or that may relate to cybersecurity. These other 
requirements, however, do not address cybersecurity risk as 
directly, broadly, or comprehensively as the requirements of 
proposed Rule 10.
    \120\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph (e)(1) 
of proposed Rule 10. See also sections II.B.1.f. and II.C. of this 
release (discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
    \121\ See CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (``Ask yourself what 
type of impact would be catastrophic to your operations? What 
information if compromised or breached would cause damage to 
employees, customers, or business partners? What is your level of 
risk appetite and risk tolerance? Raising the level of awareness 
helps reinforce the culture of making informed decisions and 
understanding the level of risk to the organization.'').
    \122\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph (e)(2) 
of proposed Rule 10. See also sections II.B.2.a. and II.C. of this 
release (discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market Entities that meet the definition of ``covered entity'' 
would be subject to certain additional requirements under proposed Rule 
10.\123\ First, as discussed in more detail below, the written policies 
and procedures that Covered Entities would need to establish, maintain, 
and enforce would need to include the following elements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Compare paragraphs (b) through (d) of proposed Rule 10 
(setting forth the requirements for Covered Entities), with 
paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10 (setting forth the requirements 
for Non-Covered Entities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Periodic assessments of cybersecurity risks associated 
with the Covered Entity's information systems and written documentation 
of the risk assessments;
     Controls designed to minimize user-related risks and 
prevent unauthorized access to the Covered Entity's information 
systems;
     Measures designed to monitor the Covered Entity's 
information systems and protect the Covered Entity's information from 
unauthorized access or use, and oversee service providers that receive, 
maintain, or process information, or are otherwise permitted to access 
the Covered Entity's information systems;
     Measures to detect, mitigate, and remediate any 
cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities with respect to the Covered 
Entity's information systems; and
     Measures to detect, respond to, and recover from a 
cybersecurity incident and written documentation of any cybersecurity 
incident and the response to and recovery from the incident.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See sections II.B.1.a. through II.B.1.e. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail). In the case 
of Non-Covered Entities, as discussed in more detail below in 
section II.C. of this release, the design of the cybersecurity risk 
management policies and procedures would need to take into account 
the size, business, and operations of the broker-dealer. See 
paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Covered Entities--in addition to providing the Commission 
with immediate written electronic notice of a significant cybersecurity 
incident--would need to report and update information about the 
significant cybersecurity incident by filing Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR with the Commission.\125\ The form would elicit information about 
the significant cybersecurity incident and the Covered Entity's efforts 
to respond to, and recover from, the incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ See sections II.B.2. and II.B.4. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Covered Entities would need to disclose publicly summary 
descriptions of their cybersecurity risks and the significant 
cybersecurity incidents they experienced during the current or previous 
calendar year on Part II of proposed Form SCIR.\126\ The form would 
need to be filed with the Commission and posted on the Covered Entity's 
business internet website. Covered Entities that are carrying or 
introducing broker-dealers also would need to provide the form to 
customers at account opening, when information on the form is updated, 
and annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ See sections II.B.3. and II.B.4.of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Covered Entities and Non-Covered Entities would need to preserve 
certain records relating to the requirements of proposed Rule 10 in 
accordance with amended or existing recordkeeping requirements 
applicable to them or, in the case of exempt clearing agencies, 
pursuant to conditions in relevant exemption orders.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See sections II.B.5. and II.C. of this release (discussing 
these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission is proposing amendments to address the 
potential availability of substituted compliance to non-U.S. SBS 
Entities with respect to the proposed cybersecurity requirements.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See sections II.D. of this release (discussing these 
proposed amendments in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the proposed requirements summarized above with 
regard to SBSDRs and SBS Entities, the Commission consulted and 
coordinated with the CFTC and the prudential regulators in accordance 
with section 712(a)(2) of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. In 
accordance with section 752 of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, the 
Commission has consulted and coordinated with foreign regulatory 
authorities through Commission staff participation in numerous 
bilateral and multilateral discussions with foreign regulatory 
authorities addressing the regulation of OTC derivatives markets.

II. Discussion of Proposed Cybersecurity Rule

A. Definitions

    Proposed Rule 10 would define a number of terms for the purposes of 
its requirements.\129\ These definitions also would be used for the 
purposes of Parts

[[Page 20228]]

I and II of proposed Form SCIR.\130\ The defined terms are intended to 
tailor the risk management, notification, reporting, and disclosure 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 to the distinctive aspects of 
cybersecurity risk as compared with other risks Market Entities face 
(e.g., market, credit, or liquidity risk).\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 10.
    \130\ See sections II.B.2. and II.B.3. of this release 
(discussing Parts I and II of proposed Form SCIR in more detail).
    \131\ See paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of proposed Rule 10 
(defining, respectively, the terms ``cybersecurity incident,'' 
``cybersecurity risk,'' ``cybersecurity threat,'' ``cybersecurity 
vulnerability,'' ``information,'' ``information systems,'' 
``personal information,'' and ``significant cybersecurity 
incident'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. ``Covered Entity''
a. Market Entities That Meet the Definition of ``Covered Entity'' Would 
Be Subject to Additional Requirements
    Proposed Rule 10 would define the term ``covered entity'' to 
identify the types of Market Entities that would be subject to certain 
additional requirements under the rule.\132\ As discussed above, 
proposed Rule 10 would require all Market Entities to establish, 
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are 
reasonably designed to address their cybersecurity risks.\133\ All 
Market Entities also, at least annually, would be required to review 
and assess the design and effectiveness of their cybersecurity risk 
management policies and procedures, including whether the policies and 
procedures reflect changes in cybersecurity risk over the time period 
covered by the review.\134\ They also would be required to prepare a 
report (in the case of Covered Entities) or a record (in the case of 
Non-Covered Entities) with respect to the annual review. Further, all 
Market Entities would need to give the Commission immediate written 
electronic notice of a significant cybersecurity incident upon having a 
reasonable basis to conclude that the significant cybersecurity 
incident has occurred or is occurring.\135\ As discussed above, Market 
Entities use information systems that expose them to cybersecurity risk 
and that risk is increasing due to the interconnectedness of the 
information systems and the sophistication of the tactics used by 
threat actors. Therefore, regardless of their function, 
interconnectedness, or size, all Market Entities would be subject to 
these requirements designed to address cybersecurity risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ See paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (ix) of proposed Rule 10 
(defining these Market Entities as ``covered entities''). A Market 
Entity that falls within the definition of ``covered entity'' for 
purposes of proposed Rule 10 may not necessarily meet the definition 
of a ``covered entity'' for purposes of certain federal statutes, 
such as, but not limited to, CIRCIA and any regulations promulgated 
thereunder. CIRCIA, among other things, requires the Director of 
CISA to issue and implement regulations defining the term ``covered 
entity'' and requiring covered entities to report covered cyber 
incidents and ransom payments as the result of ransomware attacks to 
CISA in certain instances.
    \133\ See paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 10 (setting forth 
the requirement for Market Entities that meet the definition of 
``covered entity''); paragraph (e)(1) of proposed Rule 10 (setting 
forth the requirement for Market Entities that do not meet the 
definition of ``covered entity,'' which, as discussed above, would 
be certain smaller broker-dealers).
    \134\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph (e)(1) 
of proposed Rule 10.
    \135\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10 (setting forth 
the requirement for Market Entities that meet the definition of 
``covered entity''); paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 10 (setting 
forth the requirement for Market Entities that do not meet the 
definition of ``covered entity'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market Entities that are Covered Entities would be subject to 
certain additional requirements under proposed Rule 10.\136\ In 
particular, they would be required to: (1) include certain elements in 
their cybersecurity risk management policies and procedures; \137\ (2) 
file Part I of proposed Form SCIR with the Commission and, for some 
Covered Entities, other regulators to report information about a 
significant cybersecurity incident; \138\ and (3) make public 
disclosures on Part II of proposed Form SCIR about their cybersecurity 
risks and the significant cybersecurity incidents they experienced 
during the current or previous calendar year.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See paragraphs (b) through (d) of proposed Rule 10 
(setting forth the requirements for Covered Entities); paragraph (e) 
of proposed Rule 10 (setting forth the requirements for Non-Covered 
Entities). As discussed above, Covered Entities would need to 
prepare a report with respect to their review and assessment of the 
policies and procedures. See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10. 
Non-Covered Entities would need to make a record with the respect to 
the annual review and assessment of their policies and procedures. 
See paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10.
    \137\ See paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of proposed Rule 10.
    \138\ See paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
paragraph (a)(10) of proposed Rule 10 (defining the term 
``significant cybersecurity risk'').
    \139\ See paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining which Market Entities would be Covered Entities 
subject to the additional requirements, the Commission considered: (1) 
how the type of Market Entity supports the fair, orderly, and efficient 
operation of the U.S. securities markets and the consequences if that 
type of Market Entity's critical functions were disrupted or degraded 
by a significant cybersecurity incident; (2) the harm that could befall 
investors, including retail investors, if that type of Market Entity's 
functions were disrupted or degraded by a significant cybersecurity 
incident; (3) the extent to which that type of Market Entity poses 
cybersecurity risk to other Market Entities through information system 
connections, including the number of connections; (4) the extent to 
which the that type of Market Entity would be an attractive target for 
threat actors; and (5) the personal, confidential, and proprietary 
business information about the type of Market Entity and other persons 
(e.g., investors) stored on the Market Entity's information systems and 
the harm that could be caused if that information was accessed or used 
by threat actors.
b. Broker-Dealers
    The following broker-dealers registered with the Commission would 
be Covered Entities: (1) broker-dealers that maintain custody of 
securities and cash for customers or other broker-dealers (i.e., 
carrying broker-dealers); (2) broker-dealers that introduce their 
customers' accounts to a carrying broker-dealer on a fully disclosed 
basis (i.e., introducing broker-dealers); \140\ (3) broker-dealers with 
regulatory capital equal to or exceeding $50 million; (4) broker-
dealers with total assets equal to or exceeding $1 billion; (5) broker-
dealers that operate as market makers; and (6) broker-dealers that 
operate an ATS. Thus, under proposed Rule 10, these six categories of 
broker-dealers would be subject to the additional requirements.\141\ 
All other types of

[[Page 20229]]

broker-dealers would not meet the definition of Covered Entity.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ When a broker-dealer introduces a customer to a carrying 
broker-dealer on a fully disclosed basis, the carrying broker-dealer 
knows the identity of the customer and holds cash and securities in 
an account for the customer that identifies the customer as the 
accountholder. This is distinguishable from a broker-dealer that 
introduces its customers to another carrying broker-dealer on an 
omnibus basis. In this scenario, the carrying broker-dealer does not 
know the identities of the customers and holds their cash and 
securities in an account that identifies the broker-dealer 
introducing the customers on an omnibus basis as the accountholder. 
A broker-dealer that introduces customers to another broker-dealer 
on an omnibus basis is, itself, a carrying broker-dealer for 
purposes of the Commission's financial responsibility rules, 
including, the broker-dealer net capital and customer protection 
rules. See, e.g., 17 CFR 240.15c3-1 and 17 CFR 240.15c3-3. This 
category of broker-dealer would be a carrying broker-dealer for 
purposes of proposed Rule 10 and therefore subject to the rule's 
requirements for Covered Entities.
    \141\ See paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) through (F) of proposed Rule 
10. Certain of the definitions in proposed Rule 10 would be used for 
the purposes of the requirements in the rule for broker-dealers that 
are not Covered Entities. Specifically, paragraph (e)(1) of proposed 
Rule 10 would require broker-dealers that are not Covered Entities 
to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures 
that are reasonably designed to address the cybersecurity risks of 
the broker-dealer taking into account the size, business, and 
operations of the broker-dealer. The term ``cybersecurity risk'' is 
defined in paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Rule 10 and that definition 
incorporates the terms ``cybersecurity incident,'' ``cybersecurity 
threat,'' and ``cybersecurity vulnerability,'' which are defined, 
respectively, in paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(5) of proposed 
Rule 10. In addition, paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 10 would 
require broker-dealers that are not Covered Entities to provide 
immediate written electronic notice to the Commission and their 
examining authority if they experience a ``significant cybersecurity 
incident'' as that term is defined in the rule. Therefore, paragraph 
(a)(8) of proposed Rule 10 would define the term ``market entity'' 
to mean a Covered Entity and a broker-dealer registered with the 
Commission that is not a Covered Entity. Further, the definitions in 
proposed Rule 10 would refer to ``market entities'' (rather than 
``covered entities'') in order to not limit the application of these 
definitions to paragraphs (b) through (d) of proposed Rule 10, which 
set forth the requirements for Covered Entities (but not for Non-
Covered Entities).
    \142\ As discussed below in section IV.C.2. of this release, of 
the 3,510 broker-dealers registered with the Commission as of the 
third quarter of 2022, 1,541 would meet the definition of ``covered 
entity'' under proposed Rule 10, leaving 1,969 broker-dealers as 
Non-Covered Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first category of broker-dealers included as Covered Entities 
would be carrying broker-dealers. Specifically, proposed Rule 10 would 
define ``covered entity'' to include any broker-dealer that maintains 
custody of cash and securities for customers or other broker-dealers 
and is not exempt from the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 15c3-3 
(i.e., a carrying broker-dealer).\143\ Some carrying broker-dealers are 
large in terms of their assets and dealing activities or the number of 
their accountholders. For example, they may engage in a variety of 
order handling, trading, and/or clearing activities, and thereby play a 
significant role in U.S. securities markets, often through multiple 
business lines and/or in multiple asset classes. Consequently, if their 
critical functions were disrupted or degraded by a significant 
cybersecurity incident it could have a potential negative impact on the 
U.S. securities markets by, for example, reducing liquidity in the 
markets or sectors of the markets due to the firm's inability to 
continue dealing and trading activities. A broker-dealer in this 
situation could lose its ability to provide liquidity to other market 
participants for an indeterminate length of time, which could lead to 
unfavorable market conditions for investors, such as higher buy prices 
and lower sell prices or even the inability to execute a trade within a 
reasonable amount of time. Further, some carrying broker-dealers hold 
millions of accounts for investors. If a significant cybersecurity 
incident prevented this investor-base from accessing the securities 
markets, it could impact liquidity as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
17 CFR 240.15c3-3 (``Rule 15c3-3''). Rule 15c3-3 sets forth 
requirements for broker-dealers that maintain custody of customer 
securities and cash that are designed to protect those assets and 
ensure their prompt return to the customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the dealing activities of carrying broker-dealers may make 
them attractive targets for threat actors seeking to access proprietary 
and confidential information about the broker-dealer's trading 
positions and strategies to use for financial advantage. In addition, 
the size and financial resources of carrying broker-dealers may make 
them attractive targets for threat actors employing ransomware schemes.
    Because carrying broker-dealers hold cash and securities for 
customers and other broker-dealers, a significant cybersecurity 
incident could put these assets in peril or make them unavailable. For 
example, a significant cybersecurity incident could cause harm to the 
investors that own these assets--including retail investors--if it 
causes the investors to lose access to their securities accounts (and, 
therefore, the ability to purchase or sell securities), causes the 
failure of the carrying broker-dealer (which could tie up the assets in 
a liquidation proceeding under the Securities Investor Protection Act), 
or, in the worst case, results in the assets being stolen. The fact 
that carrying broker-dealers hold cash and securities for investors 
also may make them attractive targets for threat actors seeking to 
steal those assets through hacking the accounts or using stolen 
credentials and log-in information. In addition, carrying broker-
dealers with large numbers of customers might be attractive targets for 
threat actors because of the volume of personal information they 
maintain. Threat actors may seek to access and download this 
information in order to sell it to other threat actors. If this 
information is accessed or stolen by threat actors, it could result in 
harm (e.g., identity theft or conversion of financial assets) to many 
individuals, including retail investors. Carrying broker-dealers 
typically are connected to a number of different Market Entities 
through information systems, including national securities exchanges, 
clearing agencies, and other broker-dealers (including introducing 
broker-dealers).
    The second category of broker-dealers included as Covered Entities 
would be introducing broker-dealers.\144\ These broker-dealers 
introduce customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis to a carrying 
broker-dealer. In this arrangement, the carrying broker-dealer knows 
the identities of the fully disclosed customers and maintains custody 
of their securities and cash. The introducing broker-dealer typically 
interacts directly with the customers by, for example, making 
securities recommendations and accepting their orders to purchase or 
sell securities. An introducing broker-dealer must enter into an 
agreement with a carrying broker-dealer to which it introduces customer 
accounts on a fully disclosed basis.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) of proposed Rule 10.
    \145\ See FINRA Rule 4311. Pursuant to FINRA requirements, the 
carrying agreement must specify the responsibilities of the carrying 
broker-dealer and the introducing broker-dealer, including, at a 
minimum, the responsibilities for: (1) opening and approving 
accounts; (2) accepting of orders; (3) transmitting of orders for 
execution; (4) executing of orders; (5) extending credit; (6) 
receiving and delivering of funds and securities; (7) preparing and 
transmitting confirmations; (8) maintaining books and records; and 
(9) monitoring of accounts. See FINRA Rule 4311(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These broker-dealers would be included as Covered Entities because 
they are a conduit to their customers' accounts at the carrying broker-
dealer and have access to information and trading systems of the 
carrying broker-dealer. Consequently, a significant cybersecurity 
incident could harm their customers to the extent it causes the 
customers to lose access to their securities accounts at the carrying 
broker-dealer. Further, a significant cybersecurity incident at an 
introducing broker-dealer could spread to the carrying broker-dealer 
given the information systems that connect the two firms. These 
connections also may make introducing broker-dealers attractive targets 
for threat actors seeking to access the information systems of the 
carrying broker-dealer to which the introducing broker-dealer is 
connected.
    In addition, introducing broker-dealers may store personal 
information about their customers on their information systems or be 
able to access this information on the carrying broker-dealer's 
information systems. The fact that they store this information also may 
make them attractive targets for threat actors seeking to use the 
information to steal identities or assets, or to sell the personal 
information to other bad actors who will seek to use it for these 
purposes.
    The third category of broker-dealers included as Covered Entities 
would be broker-dealers that have regulatory capital equal to or 
exceeding $50 million.\146\ Regulatory capital is the total capital of 
the broker-dealer plus allowable subordinated liabilities of the 
broker-dealer and is reported on the FOCUS reports broker-dealers file

[[Page 20230]]

pursuant to Rule 17a-5.\147\ The fourth category would be a broker-
dealer with total assets equal to or exceeding $1 billion.\148\ The $50 
million and $1 billion thresholds are modeled on the thresholds that 
trigger enhanced recordkeeping and reporting requirements for certain 
broker-dealers pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) of proposed Rule 10.
    \147\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-5; Form X-17A-5, Line Item 3550.
    \148\ See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(D) of proposed Rule 10.
    \149\ See 17 CFR 240.17h-1T and 17h-1T. See also Order Under 
Section 17(h)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Granting 
Exemption from Rule 17h-1T and Rule 17h-2T for Certain Broker-
Dealers Maintaining Capital, Including Subordinated Debt of Greater 
Than $20 Million But Less Than $50 Million, Exchange Act Release No. 
89184 (June 29, 2020) [85 FR 40356 (July 6, 2020)] (``17h Release'') 
(setting forth the $50 million and $1 billion thresholds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These thresholds are designed to include as Covered Entities 
broker-dealers that are large in terms of their assets and dealing 
activities (and that would not otherwise be Covered Broker-Dealers 
under the definitions in proposed Rule 10).\150\ For example, larger 
broker-dealers that exceed these thresholds often engage in proprietary 
trading (including high frequency trading) and are sources of liquidity 
in certain securities. Consequently, if their critical functions were 
disrupted or degraded by a significant cybersecurity incident it could 
have a potential negative impact on those securities markets if it 
reduces liquidity in the markets through the inability to continue 
dealing and trading activities. For example, a broker-dealer in this 
situation could lose its ability to provide liquidity to other market 
participants for an indeterminate length of time, which could lead to 
unfavorable market conditions for investors, such as higher buy prices 
and lower sell prices or even the ability to execute a trade within a 
reasonable amount of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Size has been recognized as a proxy for substantial market 
activity relative to other registrants of the same type and 
therefore a firm's relative risk to the financial markets. See 17h 
Release (noting that broker-dealers that have less than $50 million 
in regulatory capital and less than $1 billion in total assets are 
``relatively small in size,'' and ``because of their relative size'' 
and to the extent they are not carrying firms, these entities 
``present less risk to the financial markets,'' while stating that 
with respect to broker-dealers with at least $50 million in 
regulatory capital or at least $1 billion in total assets ``the 
Commission believes . . . those broker-dealers . . . pose greater 
risk to the financial markets, investors, and other market 
participants'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the size and dealing activities of these broker-
dealers could make them attractive targets for threat actors seeking to 
access proprietary and confidential information about the broker-
dealer's trading positions and strategies to use for financial 
advantage. This also may make them attractive targets for threat actors 
employing ransomware schemes. Further, given their size and trading 
activities, these broker-dealers may be connected to a number of 
different Market Entities through information systems, including 
national securities exchanges, clearing agencies, other broker-dealers, 
and ATSs.
    The fifth category of broker-dealers included as Covered Entities 
would be broker-dealers that operate as market makers. Specifically, 
proposed Rule 10 would define ``covered entity'' to include a broker-
dealer that operates as a market maker under the Exchange Act or the 
rules thereunder (which includes a broker-dealer that operates pursuant 
to Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1(a)(6)) or is a market maker under the rules 
of an SRO of which the broker-dealer is a member.\151\ The proposed 
rule's definition of ``market maker'' is tied to securities laws that 
confer benefits or impose requirements on market makers and, 
consequently, covers broker-dealers that take advantage of those 
benefits or are subject to those requirements. The objective is to rely 
on these other securities laws to define a market maker rather than set 
forth a new definition of ``market maker'' in proposed Rule 10, which 
could conflict with these other laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(E) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
17 CFR 240.15c3-1 (``Rule 15c3-1''). Paragraph (a)(6) of Rule 15c3-1 
permits a market maker to avoid taking capital charges for its 
proprietary positions provided, among other things, its carrying 
firm takes the capital charges instead. See also, e.g., Rule 103 of 
the New York Stock Exchange (setting forth requirements for 
Designated Market Makers and Designated Market Maker Units).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market makers would be included as Covered Entities because 
disruptions to their operations caused by a significant cybersecurity 
incident could have a material impact on the fair, orderly, and 
efficient functioning of the U.S. securities markets. For example, a 
significant cybersecurity incident could imperil a market maker's 
operations and ability to facilitate transactions in particular 
securities between buyers and sellers. In addition, market makers 
typically are connected to a number of different Market Entities 
through information systems, including national securities exchanges 
and other broker-dealers.
    The sixth category of broker-dealers included as Covered Entities 
would be broker-dealers that operate an ATS.\152\ Since Regulation ATS 
was adopted in 1998, ATSs have become increasingly important venues for 
trading securities in a fast and automated manner. ATSs perform 
exchange-like functions such as offering limit order books and other 
order types. These developments have made ATSs significant sources of 
orders and trading interest for securities. ATSs use data feeds, 
algorithms, and connectivity to perform these functions. ATSs rely 
heavily on information systems to perform these functions, including to 
connect to other Market Entities such as broker-dealers and principal 
trading firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(F) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A significant cybersecurity incident that disrupts an ATS could 
negatively impact the ability of investors to liquidate or purchase 
certain securities at favorable or predictable prices or in a timely 
manner to the extent it provides liquidity to the market for those 
securities. Further, a significant cybersecurity incident at an ATS 
could provide a gateway for threat actors to attack other Market 
Entities that connect to it through information systems and networks of 
interconnected information systems. In addition, ATSs are connected to 
a number of different Market Entities through information systems, 
including national securities exchanges and other broker-dealers. 
Finally, the records stored by ATSs on their information systems 
include proprietary information about the Market Entities that use 
their services, including confidential business information (e.g., 
information about their trading activities).
    For the foregoing reasons, the categories of broker-dealers 
discussed above would be Covered Entities under proposed Rule 10. All 
other categories of broker-dealers would be Non-Covered Entities.
    Generally, the types of broker-dealers that would be Non-Covered 
Entities under proposed Rule 10 are smaller firms whose functions do 
not play as significant a role in promoting the fair, orderly, and 
efficient operation of the U.S. securities markets, as compared to 
broker-dealers that would be Covered Entities.\153\ For example, they 
tend to offer a more focused and limited set of services such as 
facilitating private placements of securities, selling mutual funds and 
variable contracts, underwriting securities, and participating in 
direct investment

[[Page 20231]]

offerings.\154\ Further, they do not act as custodians for customer 
securities and cash or serve as a conduit (i.e., an introducing broker-
dealer) for customers to access their accounts at a carrying broker-
dealer that does maintain custody of securities and cash. Therefore, 
they do not pose the risk that a significant cybersecurity incident 
could lead to investors losing access to their securities or cash or 
having those assets stolen. In addition, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers 
likely are less connected to other Market Participants through 
information systems than Covered Broker-Dealers. For these reasons, the 
additional policies and procedures, reporting, and disclosure 
requirements would not apply to Non-Covered Broker-Dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ For example, as discussed below in section IV.C.2. of this 
release, the 1,541 broker-dealers that would be Covered Entities had 
average total assets of $3.5 billion and average regulatory equity 
of $325 million; whereas the 1,969 that would be Non-Covered 
Entities had average total assets of $4.7 million and average 
regulatory equity of $3 million. This means that Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers under proposed Rule 10 accounted for about 0.2% of the total 
assets of all broker-dealers and 0.1% of total capital for all 
broker-dealers.
    \154\ See section IV.C.2. of this release (discussing the 
activities of broker-dealers that would not meet the definition of 
``covered entity'' in proposed Rule 10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers are part of the 
financial sector and exposed to cybersecurity risk. Further, certain 
Non-Covered Broker-Dealers maintain personal information about their 
customers that if accessed by threat actors or mistakenly exposed to 
unauthorized users could result in harm to the customers. For these 
reasons, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers--among other things--would be 
required under proposed Rule 10 to: (1) establish, maintain, and 
enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to 
address their cybersecurity risks taking into account their size, 
business, and operations; (2) review and assess the design and 
effectiveness of their cybersecurity policies and procedures annually, 
including whether the policies and procedures reflect changes in 
cybersecurity risk over the time period covered by the review; (3) make 
a written record that documents the steps taken in performing the 
annual review and the conclusions of the annual review; and (4) give 
the Commission and their examining authority immediate written 
electronic notice of a significant cybersecurity incident upon having a 
reasonable basis to conclude that the significant cybersecurity 
incident has occurred or is occurring.\155\ The Commission's objective 
in proposing Rule 10 is to address the cybersecurity risks faced by all 
Market Entities but apply a more limited set of requirements to Non-
Covered Broker-Dealers commensurate with the level of risk they pose to 
investors, the U.S. securities markets, and the U.S. financial sector 
more generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See section II.C. of this release (discussing the 
requirements for these broker-dealers in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Market Entities Other Than Broker-Dealers
    The MSRB and all clearing agencies, national securities 
associations, national securities exchanges, SBSDRs, SBS Entities,\156\ 
and transfer agents would be Covered Entities and, therefore, subject 
to the additional requirements regarding the minimum elements that must 
be included in their cybersecurity risk management policies and 
procedures, reporting, and public disclosure.\157\ In particular, 
proposed Rule 10 would define Covered Entity to include: (1) a clearing 
agency (registered or exempt) under section 3(a)(23)(A) of the Exchange 
Act; \158\ (2) an MSBSP that is registered pursuant to section 15F(b) 
of the Exchange Act; \159\ (3) the Municipal Securities Rulemaking 
Board; \160\ (4) a national securities association under section 15A of 
the Exchange Act; \161\ (5) a national securities exchange under 
section 6 of the Exchange Act; \162\ (6) a security-based swap data 
repository under section 3(a)(75) of the Exchange Act; \163\ (7) a 
security-based swap dealer that is registered pursuant to section 
15F(b) of the Exchange Act; \164\ and (8) a transfer agent as defined 
in section 3(a)(25) of the Exchange Act that is registered or required 
to be registered with an appropriate regulatory agency (``ARA'') as 
defined in section 3(a)(34)(B) of the Exchange Act.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ In addition to the requirements proposed in Rule 10 
itself, the scope of certain existing regulations applicable to SBS 
Entities would include proposed Rule 10 if adopted; see, e.g., 17 
CFR 240.15Fk-1(b)(2)(i) (which establishes the scope of specified 
chief compliance officer duties by reference to Section 15F of the 
Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-10) and the rules and regulations 
thereunder); 17 CFR 240.15Fh-3(h)(2)(iii)(I) (which establishes the 
scope of specified supervisory requirements by reference to Section 
15F(j) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(j)).
    \157\ See paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) through (ix) of proposed Rule 10 
(defining these Market Entities as ``covered entities'').
    \158\ See paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10. See also 15 
U.S.C. 78c(a)(23)(A) (defining the term ``clearing agency'').
    \159\ See paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of proposed Rule 10. See also 15 
U.S.C. 78o-10(b). Registered MSBSPs include both MSBSPs that are 
conditionally registered pursuant to paragraph (d) of Exchange Act 
Rule 15Fb2-1 (``Rule 15Fb2-1'') (17 CFR 240.15Fb2-1) and MSBSPs that 
have been granted ongoing registration pursuant to paragraph (e) of 
Rule 15Fb2-1.
    \160\ See paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of proposed Rule 10.
    \161\ See paragraph (a)(1)(v) of proposed Rule 10. See also 15 
U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \162\ See paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of proposed Rule 10. See also 15 
U.S.C. 78f.
    \163\ See paragraph (a)(1)(vii) of proposed Rule 10.
    \164\ See paragraph (a)(1)(viii) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b). Registered SBSDs include both SBSDs that are 
conditionally registered pursuant to paragraph (d) of Rule 15Fb2-1 
and SBSDs that have been granted ongoing registration pursuant to 
paragraph (e) of Rule 15Fb2-1.
    \165\ See paragraph (a)(1)(ix) of proposed Rule 10. See also 15 
U.S.C. 78q-1(c)(1) (registration requirements for transfer agents); 
15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(25) (definition of transfer agent) and (a)(34)(B) 
(definition of appropriate regulatory agency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SROs play a critical role in setting and enforcing rules for their 
members or registrants that govern trading, fair access, transparency, 
operations, and business conduct, among other things. SROs and SBSDRs 
also play a critical role in ensuring fairness in the securities 
markets through the transparency they provide about securities 
transactions and pricing, and the information about securities 
transactions they can provide to regulators. National securities 
exchanges play a critical role in ensuring the orderly and efficient 
operation of the U.S. securities markets through the marketplaces they 
operate. Clearing agencies are critical to the orderly and efficient 
operation of the U.S. securities markets through the centralized 
clearing and settlement services they provide as well as their role as 
securities depositories, with exempt clearing agencies serving an 
important role as part of this process. Market liquidity is critical to 
the orderly and efficient operation of the U.S. securities markets. In 
this regard, SBS Entities play a critical role in providing liquidity 
to the security-based swap market.
    The disruption or degradation of the functions of an SRO (including 
functions that support securities marketplaces and the oversight of 
market participants) could cause harm to investors to the extent it 
negatively impacted the fair, orderly, and efficient operations of the 
U.S. securities markets. For example, it could prevent investors from 
purchasing or selling securities or doing so at fair or reasonable 
prices. Investors also would face harm if a transfer agent's functions 
were disrupted or degraded by a significant cybersecurity incident. 
Transfer agents provide services such as stockholder recordkeeping, 
processing of securities transactions and corporate actions, and paying 
agent activities. Their core recordkeeping systems provide a direct 
conduit to their issuer clients' master records that document and, in 
many instances provide the legal underpinning for, registered 
securityholders' ownership of the issuer's securities. If these 
functions were disrupted, investors might not be able to transfer 
ownership of their securities or receive dividends and

[[Page 20232]]

interest due on their securities positions.
    SROs, exempt clearing agencies, and SBSDRs connect to multiple 
members, registrants, users, or others though networks of information 
systems. The interconnectedness of these Market Entities with other 
Market Entities through information systems creates the potential that 
a significant cybersecurity incident at one Market Entity (e.g., one 
caused by malware) could spread to other Market Entities in a cascading 
process that could cause widespread disruptions threatening the fair, 
orderly, and efficient operation of the U.S. securities markets.\166\ 
Additionally, the disruption of a Market Entity that provides critical 
services to other Market Entities through information system 
connections could disrupt the activities of these other Market Entities 
if they cannot obtain the services from another source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ See, e.g., Implications of Cyber Risk for Financial 
Stability (``[T]he interconnectedness of the financial system means 
that an event at one or more firms may spread to others (the domino 
effect).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SROs, exempt clearing agencies, SBSDRs, SBS Entities, and transfer 
agents could be prime targets of threat actors because of the central 
roles they play in the securities markets. For example, threat actors 
could seek to disrupt their functions for geopolitical purposes. Threat 
actors also could seek to gain unauthorized access to their information 
systems to conduct espionage operations on their internal non-public 
activities. Moreover, because they hold financial assets (e.g., 
clearing deposits in the case of clearing agencies) and/or store 
substantial confidential and proprietary information about other Market 
Entities or financial transactions, they may be choice targets for 
threat actors seeking to steal the assets or use the financial 
information to their advantage.
    SROs, exempt clearing agencies, and SBSDRs store confidential and 
proprietary information about their members, registrants, and users, 
including confidential business information, and personal information. 
A significant cybersecurity incident at any of these types of Market 
Entities could lead to the improper use of this information to harm the 
members, registrants, and users or provide the unauthorized user with 
an unfair advantage over other market participants and, in the case of 
personal information, to steal identities. Moreover, given the volume 
of information stored by these Market Entities about different persons, 
the harm caused by a cybersecurity incident could be widespread, 
negatively impacting many victims.
    SBS Entities also store proprietary and confidential information 
about their counterparties on their information systems, including 
financial information they use to perform credit analysis. A 
significant cybersecurity incident at an SBS Entity could lead to the 
improper use of this information to harm the counterparties or provide 
the unauthorized user with an unfair advantage over other market 
participants. Transfer agents store proprietary information about 
securities ownership and corporate actions. A significant cybersecurity 
incident at a transfer agent could lead to the improper use of this 
information to harm securities holders. Transfer agents also may store 
personal information including names, addresses, phone numbers, email 
addresses, employers, employment history, bank and specific account 
information, credit card information, transaction histories, securities 
holdings, and other detailed and individualized information related to 
the transfer agents' recordkeeping and transaction processing on behalf 
of issuers. Threat actors breaching the transfer agent's information 
systems could use this information to steal identities or financial 
assets of the persons to whom this information pertains. They also 
could sell it to other threat actors.
    In light of these considerations, the MSRB and all clearing 
agencies, national securities associations, national securities 
exchanges, SBSDRs, SBS Entities, and transfer agents would be Covered 
Entities under proposed Rule 10 and, therefore, subject to the 
additional requirements regarding the minimum elements that must be 
included in their cybersecurity risk management policies and 
procedures, reporting, and public disclosure.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) through (ix) of proposed Rule 10 
(defining these Market Entities as ``covered entities'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. ``Cybersecurity Incident''
    Proposed Rule 10 would define the term ``cybersecurity incident'' 
to mean an unauthorized occurrence on or conducted through a Market 
Entity's information systems that jeopardizes the confidentiality, 
integrity, or availability of the information systems or any 
information residing on those systems.\168\ The objective is to use a 
term that is broad enough to encompass within the definition of 
``cybersecurity incident'' the various categories of unauthorized 
occurrences that can impact an information system (e.g., unauthorized 
access, use, disclosure, downloading, disruption, modification, or 
destruction). As discussed earlier, the sources of cybersecurity risk 
are myriad as are the tactics, techniques, and procedures employed by 
threat actors.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ See paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 10. See generally, 
NIST Glossary (defining ``cybersecurity risk'' as ``an effect of 
uncertainty on or within information and technology'' and defining 
``incident'' as ``an occurrence that actually or potentially 
jeopardizes the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an 
information system or the information the system processes, stores, 
or transmits or that constitutes a violation or imminent threat of 
violation of security policies, security procedures, or acceptable 
use policies''); FISMA (defining ``incident'' as an ``occurrence'' 
that: (1) actually or imminently jeopardizes, without lawful 
authority, the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of 
information or an information system; or (2) constitutes a violation 
or imminent threat of violation of law, security policies, security 
procedures, or acceptable use policies. 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(2).
    \169\ See section I.A.1. of this release (discussing the sources 
of the cybersecurity risk).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definition of ``cybersecurity incident'' in proposed Rule 10 is 
designed to include any unauthorized incident impacting an information 
system or the information residing on the system. An information system 
can experience an unauthorized occurrence without a threat actor itself 
directly obtaining unauthorized access to the system. For example, a 
social engineering tactic could cause an employee to upload ransomware 
unintentionally that encrypts the information residing on the system or 
a DoS attack could cause the information system to shut down. In either 
case, the threat actor did not need to access the information system to 
cause harm.
    While the definition is intended to be broad, the occurrence must 
be one that jeopardizes (i.e., places at risk) the confidentiality, 
integrity, or availability of the information systems or any 
information residing on those systems. Confidentiality would be 
jeopardized if the unauthorized occurrence resulted in or could result 
in persons accessing an information system or the information residing 
on the system who are not permitted or entitled to do so or resulted in 
or could result in the disclosure of the information residing on the 
information system to the public or to any person not permitted or 
entitled to view it.\170\ Integrity would be jeopardized if the 
unauthorized occurrence resulted in or could result in: (1) an 
unpermitted or unintended modification or destruction of the

[[Page 20233]]

information system or the information residing on the system; or (2) 
otherwise resulted in or could result in a compromise of the 
authenticity of the information system (including its operations and 
output) and the information residing on the system.\171\ Availability 
would be jeopardized if the unauthorized occurrence resulted in or 
could result in the Market Entity or other authorized users being 
unable to access or use the information system or information residing 
on the system or being unable access or use the information system or 
information residing on the system in a timely or reliable manner.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ See generally NIST Glossary (defining ``confidentiality'' 
as ``preserving authorized restrictions on information access and 
disclosure, including means for protecting personal privacy and 
proprietary information'').
    \171\ See generally NIST Glossary (defining ``integrity'' as 
``guarding against improper information modification or destruction, 
and includes ensuring information non-repudiation and 
authenticity'').
    \172\ See generally NIST Glossary (defining ``availability'' as 
``ensuring timely and reliable access to and use of information'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. ``Significant Cybersecurity Incident''
    Proposed Rule 10 would have a two-pronged definition of 
``significant cybersecurity incident.'' \173\ The first prong of the 
definition would be a cybersecurity incident, or a group of related 
cybersecurity incidents, that significantly disrupts or degrades the 
ability of the Market Entity to maintain critical operations.\174\ As 
discussed earlier, significant cybersecurity incidents can negatively 
impact information systems and the information residing on information 
systems in two fundamental ways. First, they can disrupt or degrade the 
information system or the information residing on the information 
system in a manner that prevents the Market Entity from performing 
functions that rely on the system operating as designed (e.g., an order 
routing system of an national securities exchange or a margin 
calculation and collection system of a clearing agency) or that rely on 
the Market Entity being able to process or access information on the 
system (e.g., a general ledger of a broker-dealer or SBS Entity that 
tracks and records securities transactions).\175\ This type of harm can 
be caused by, for example, a ransomware attack that encrypts the 
information stored on the system, a DoS attack that overwhelms the 
information system, or hackers taking control of a the system or 
shutting it down. Generally, critical operations would be activities, 
processes, and services that if disrupted could prevent the Market 
Entity from continuing to operate or prevent it from performing a 
service that supports the fair, orderly, and efficient functioning of 
the U.S. securities markets.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ See paragraphs (a)(10)(i) and (ii) of proposed Rule 10.
    \174\ See paragraph (a)(10)(i) of proposed Rule 10.
    \175\ See sections I.A.1. and I.A.2. of this release (discussing 
the consequences of these types of information system degradations 
and disruptions). This type of impact would compromise the integrity 
or availability of the information system. See generally NIST 
Glossary (defining ``integrity'' as ``guarding against improper 
information modification or destruction, and includes ensuring 
information non-repudiation and authenticity'' and ``availability'' 
as ``ensuring timely and reliable access to and use of 
information'').
    \176\ See, e.g., Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, 
Principles for Operational Resilience (Mar. 2021) (``The term 
critical operations is based on the Joint Forum's 2006 high-level 
principles for business continuity. It encompasses critical 
functions as defined by the FSB and is expanded to include 
activities, processes, services and their relevant supporting assets 
the disruption of which would be material to the continued operation 
of the bank or its role in the financial system.'') (footnotes 
omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second fundamental way that a significant cybersecurity 
incident can negatively impact an information system or the information 
residing on the information system is when unauthorized persons are 
able to access and use the information stored on the information system 
(e.g., proprietary business information or personal information).\177\ 
Therefore, the second prong of the definition would be a cybersecurity 
incident, or a group of related cybersecurity incidents, that leads to 
the unauthorized access or use of the information or information 
systems of the Market Entity, where the unauthorized access or use of 
such information or information systems results in or is reasonably 
likely to result in: (1) substantial harm to the Market Entity; or (2) 
substantial harm to a customer, counterparty, member, registrant, or 
user of the Market Entity, or to any other person that interacts with 
the Market Entity.\178\ As discussed earlier, this kind of significant 
cybersecurity incident could lead to the improper use of this 
information to harm persons to whom it pertains (e.g., public exposure 
of their confidential financial information or the use of that 
information to steal their identities) or provide the unauthorized user 
with an unfair advantage over other market participants (e.g., trading 
based on confidential business information).\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ See sections I.A.1. and I.A.2. of this release (discussing 
the consequences of this type of compromise of an information 
system). This type of impact would compromise the confidentiality of 
the information system. See generally NIST Glossary (defining 
``confidentiality'' as ``preserving authorized restrictions on 
information access and disclosure, including means for protecting 
personal privacy and proprietary information'').
    \178\ See paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of proposed Rule 10. There could 
be instances where a significant cybersecurity incident meets both 
prongs. For example, an unauthorized user that is able to access the 
Market Entity's internal computer systems could shut down critical 
operations of the Market Entity and use information on the systems 
to steal assets of the Market Entity or assets or identities of the 
Market Entity's customers.
    \179\ See sections I.A.1. and I.A.2. of this release (discussing 
the consequences of this type of compromise of an information 
system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. ``Cybersecurity Threat''
    Proposed Rule 10 would define the term ``cybersecurity threat'' to 
mean any potential occurrence that may result in an unauthorized effort 
to affect adversely the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of 
a Market Entity's information systems or any information residing on 
those systems.\180\ As discussed earlier, threat actors use a number of 
different tactics, techniques, and procedures (e.g., malware, social 
engineering, hacking, DoS attacks) to commit cyber-related crime.\181\ 
These threat actors may be nation states, individuals (acting alone or 
as part of organized syndicates) seeking financial gain, or individuals 
seeking to cause harm for a variety of reasons. Further, the threat 
actors may be external or internal actors. Also, as discussed earlier, 
errors can pose a cybersecurity threat (e.g., accidentally providing 
access to confidential information to individuals that are not 
authorized to view or use it). The definition of ``cybersecurity 
threat'' in proposed Rule 10 is designed to include the potential 
actions of threat actors (e.g., seeking to install malware on or hack 
into an information system or engaging in social engineering tactics) 
and potential errors (e.g., an employee failing to secure confidential, 
proprietary, and personal information) that may result in an 
unauthorized effort to affect adversely the confidentiality, integrity, 
or availability of a Market Entity's information systems or any 
information residing on those systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ See paragraph (a)(4) of proposed Rule 10. See generally 
NIST Glossary (defining ``threat'' as any circumstance or event with 
the potential to adversely impact organizational operations 
(including mission, functions, image, or reputation), organizational 
assets, or individuals through an information system via 
unauthorized access, destruction, disclosure, modification of 
information, and/or denial of service and also the potential for a 
threat-source to successfully exploit a particular information 
system vulnerability).
    \181\ See section I.A.1. of this release (discussing the various 
tactics, techniques, and procedures used by threat actors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. ``Cybersecurity Vulnerability''
    Proposed Rule 10 would define the term ``cybersecurity 
vulnerability'' to mean a vulnerability in a Market Entity's 
information systems, information system security procedures, or 
internal controls, including, for example, vulnerabilities in their 
design,

[[Page 20234]]

configuration, maintenance, or implementation that, if exploited, could 
result in a cybersecurity incident.\182\ Cybersecurity vulnerabilities 
are weaknesses in the Covered Entity's information systems that threat 
actors could exploit, for example, to hack into the system or install 
malware.\183\ One example would be an information system that uses 
outdated software that is no longer updated to address known flaws that 
could be exploited by threat actors to access the system. Cybersecurity 
vulnerabilities also are weaknesses in the procedures and controls the 
Market Entity uses to protect its information systems and the 
information residing on them such as procedures and controls that do 
not require outdated software to be replaced or that do not adequately 
restrict access to the system. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities can also 
include lack of training opportunities for employees to increase their 
cybersecurity awareness, such as how to properly secure sensitive data 
and recognize harmful files. The definition of ``cybersecurity 
vulnerability'' in proposed Rule 10 is designed to include weaknesses 
in the information systems themselves and weaknesses in the measures 
the Covered Entity takes to protect the systems and the information 
residing on the systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ See paragraph (a)(5) of proposed Rule 10. See generally 
NIST Glossary (defining ``vulnerability'' as a weakness in an 
information system, system security procedures, internal controls, 
or implementation that could be exploited or triggered by a threat 
source'').
    \183\ See section I.A.1. of this release (discussing information 
system vulnerabilities). See generally CISA 2021 Vulnerability 
Report (``Globally, in 2021, malicious cyber actors targeted 
internet-facing systems, such as email servers and virtual private 
network (VPN) servers, with exploits of newly disclosed 
vulnerabilities.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. ``Cybersecurity Risk''
    Proposed Rule 10 would define the term ``cybersecurity risk'' to 
mean financial, operational, legal, reputational, and other adverse 
consequences that could stem from cybersecurity incidents, 
cybersecurity threats, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities.\184\ As 
discussed earlier, cybersecurity incidents have the potential to cause 
harm to Market Entities and others who use their services or are 
connected to them through information systems and, if severe enough, 
negatively impact the fair, orderly, and efficient operations of the 
U.S. securities markets.\185\ The definition of ``cybersecurity risk'' 
in proposed Rule 10 is designed to encompass the types of harm and 
damage that can befall a Market Entity that experiences a cybersecurity 
incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ See paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of proposed Rule 10 (defining, 
respectively, ``cybersecurity threat'' to mean ``any potential 
occurrence that may result in an unauthorized effort to affect 
adversely the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a 
Market Entity's information systems or any information residing on 
those systems'' and ``cybersecurity vulnerability'' to mean ``a 
vulnerability in a Market Entity's information systems, information 
system security procedures, or internal controls, including, for 
example, vulnerabilities in their design, configuration, 
maintenance, or implementation that, if exploited, could result in a 
cybersecurity incident'').
    \185\ See sections I.A.1. and I.A.2. of this release 
(discussing, respectively, the harms that can be caused by 
significant cybersecurity incidents generally and with respect to 
each category of Market Entity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. ``Information''
    As discussed in more detail below, a Market Entity would be 
required under proposed Rule 10 to establish, maintain, and enforce 
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address 
the Market Entity's cybersecurity risks.\186\ Cybersecurity risks--as 
discussed above--would be financial, operational, legal, reputational, 
and other adverse consequences that could result from cybersecurity 
incidents, cybersecurity threats, and cybersecurity 
vulnerabilities.\187\ Cybersecurity incidents would be unauthorized 
occurrences on or conducted through a market entity's information 
systems that jeopardize the confidentiality, integrity, or availability 
of the information systems or any information residing on those 
systems.\188\ Cybersecurity threats would be any potential occurrences 
that may result in an unauthorized effort to affect adversely the 
confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a market entity's 
information systems or any information residing on those systems.\189\ 
Finally, cybersecurity vulnerabilities would be a vulnerability in a 
Market Entity's information systems, information system security 
procedures, or internal controls, including, for example, 
vulnerabilities in their design, configuration, maintenance, or 
implementation that, if exploited, could result in a cybersecurity 
incident.\190\ Consequently, the policies and procedures required under 
proposed Rule 10 would need to cover all of the Market Entity's 
information systems and information residing on those systems in order 
to address the Market Entity's cybersecurity risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ See paragraphs (b)(1) and (e) of proposed Rule 10 
(requiring Covered Entities and Non-Covered Entities, respectively, 
to have policies and procedures to address their cybersecurity 
risks); sections II.B.1. and II.C. of this release (discussing the 
requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (e) of proposed Rule 10, 
respectively, in more detail).
    \187\ See paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Rule 10 (defining 
``cybersecurity risk'').
    \188\ See paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 10 (defining 
``cybersecurity incident'').
    \189\ See paragraph (a)(4) of proposed Rule 10 (defining 
``cybersecurity threat'').
    \190\ See paragraph (a)(5) of proposed Rule 10 (defining 
``cybersecurity vulnerability'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 10 would define the term ``information'' to mean any 
records or data related to the Market Entity's business residing on the 
Market Entity's information systems, including, for example, personal 
information received, maintained, created, or processed by the Market 
Entity.\191\ The definition is designed to cover the full range of 
information stored by Market Entities on their information systems 
regardless of the digital format in which the information is 
stored.\192\ As discussed earlier, Market Entities create and maintain 
a wide range of information on their information systems.\193\ This 
includes information used to manage and conduct their operations, 
manage and mitigate their risks, monitor the progress of their 
business, track their financial condition, prepare financial 
statements, prepare regulatory filings, and prepare tax returns. They 
also store personal, confidential, and proprietary business information 
about their customers, counterparties, members, registrants or users. 
This includes information maintained by clearing agencies, the MSRB, 
the national securities exchanges, and SBSDRs about market activity and 
about their members, registrants, and users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ See paragraph (a)(6) of proposed Rule 10.
    \192\ See generally NIST Glossary (defining ``information'' as 
any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts, 
data, or opinions in any medium or form, including textual, 
numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual. Id. 
(defining ``data'' (among other things) as: (1) pieces of 
information from which ``understandable information'' is derived; 
(2) distinct pieces of digital information that have been formatted 
in a specific way; and (3) a subset of information in an electronic 
format that allows it to be retrieved or transmitted. Id. (defining 
``records'' (among other things) as units of related data fields 
(i.e., groups of data fields that can be accessed by a program and 
that contain the complete set of information on particular items).
    \193\ See section I.A.2. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information maintained by Market Entities on their information 
systems is an attractive target for threat actors, particularly 
confidential, proprietary, and personal information.\194\ Also, it also 
can be

[[Page 20235]]

critical to performing their various functions, and the inability to 
access and use their information could disrupt or degrade their ability 
to operate in support of the fair, orderly, and efficient operation of 
the U.S. securities markets.\195\ Consequently, protecting the 
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information residing on 
a Market Entity's information systems is critical to avoiding the harms 
that can be caused by cybersecurity risk. The definition of 
``information'' in proposed Rule 10 is designed to encompass this 
information and, therefore, to extend the proposed protections of the 
rule to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ See sections I.A.1. and I.A.2 of this release (discussing 
how threat actors seek unauthorized access to and use of 
confidential, proprietary, and personal information to, among other 
reasons, conduct espionage operations, steal identities, use it for 
business advantage, hold it hostage (in effect) through a ransomware 
attack, or sell it to other threat actors).
    \195\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. ``Information Systems''
    The policies and procedures required under proposed Rule 10 also 
would need to cover the Market Entity's information systems in order to 
address the Market Entity's cybersecurity risks. Proposed Rule 10 would 
define the term ``information systems'' to mean the information 
resources owned or used by the Market Entity, including, for example, 
physical or virtual infrastructure controlled by the information 
resources, or components thereof, organized for the collection, 
processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of 
the Market Entity's information to maintain or support the Market 
Entity's operations.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ See paragraph (a)(7) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier, Market Entities use information systems to 
perform a wide range of functions.\197\ For example, they use 
information systems to maintain books and records to manage and conduct 
their operations, manage and mitigate their risks, monitor the progress 
of their business, track their financial condition, prepare financial 
statements, prepare regulatory filings, and prepare tax returns. Market 
Entities also use information systems so that their employees can 
communicate with each other and with external persons. These include 
email, text messaging, and virtual meeting applications. They also use 
internet websites to communicate information to their customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users. They use information 
systems to perform the functions associated with their status and 
obligations as a broker-dealer, registered or exempt clearing agency, 
national securities association, national securities exchange, SBSDR, 
SBS Entity, SRO, or transfer agent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ See section I.A.2. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information systems are targets that threat actors attack to access 
and use information maintained by Market Entities related to their 
business (particularly confidential, proprietary, and personal 
information).\198\ In addition, the interconnectedness of Market 
Entities through information systems creates channels through which 
malware, viruses, and other destructive cybersecurity threats can 
spread throughout the financial system. Moreover, the disruption or 
degradation of a Market Entity's information systems could negatively 
impact the entity's ability to operate in support of the U.S. 
securities markets.\199\ Consequently, protecting the confidentiality, 
integrity, and availability of a Market Entity's information systems is 
critical to avoiding the harms that can be caused by cybersecurity 
risk. The definition of the term ``information systems'' in proposed 
Rule 10 is designed to be broad enough to encompass all the electronic 
information resources owned or used by a Market Entity to carry out its 
various operations. Accordingly, the definition of ``information 
systems'' would require a Market Entity's policies and procedures to 
address cybersecurity risks to cover all of its information systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See sections I.A.1. and I.A.2. of this release.
    \199\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. ``Personal Information''
    Proposed Rule 10 would define the term ``personal information'' to 
mean any information that can be used, alone or in conjunction with any 
other information, to identify a person, including, but not limited to, 
name, date of birth, place of birth, telephone number, street address, 
mother's maiden name, Social Security number, government passport 
number, driver's license number, electronic mail address, account 
number, account password, biometric records, or other non-public 
authentication information.\200\ The definition of ``personal 
information'' was guided by a number of established sources and aims to 
capture a broad array of information that can reside on a Market 
Entity's information systems that may be used alone, or with other 
information, to identify an individual. The definition is designed to 
encompass information that if compromised could cause harm to the 
individuals to whom the information pertains (e.g., identity theft or 
theft of assets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ See paragraph (a)(9) of proposed Rule 10. See generally 
NIST Glossary (defining ``personal information'' as information that 
can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, either 
alone or when combined with other information that is linked or 
linkable to a specific individual and defining ``personally 
identifying information'' (among other things) as information that 
can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity--such 
as name, social security number, biometric data records--either 
alone or when combined with other personal or identifying 
information that is linked or linkable to a specific individual 
(e.g., date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, etc.)); 17 CFR 
248.201(b)(8) ((defining ``identifying information'' as any name or 
number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other 
information, to identify a specific person, including any: (1) name, 
Social Security number, date of birth, official State or government 
issued driver's license or identification number, alien registration 
number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer 
identification number; (2) unique biometric data, such as 
fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique 
physical representation; (3) unique electronic identification 
number, address, or routing code; or (4) telecommunication 
identifying information or access device (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 
1029(e))).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Personal information is an attractive target for threat actors 
because they can use it to steal a person's identity and then use the 
stolen identity to appropriate the person's assets through unauthorized 
transactions or to make unlawful purchases on credit or to effect other 
unlawful transactions in the name of the person.\201\ They also can 
sell personal information they obtain through unauthorized access to an 
information system to criminals who will seek to use the information 
for these purposes. Moreover, the victims of identity theft can be the 
more vulnerable members of society (e.g., individuals on fixed-incomes, 
including retirees). Consequently, proposed Rule 10 would have a 
provision that specifically addresses protecting personal 
information.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ See sections I.A.1. and I.A.2. of this release.
    \202\ See paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of proposed Rule 10. See 
also proposed Form SCIR, which would elicit information about 
whether personal information was compromised in a significant 
cybersecurity incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed 
definitions. In addition, the Commission is requesting comment on the 
following specific aspects of the proposals:
    1. In designing the definitions of proposed Rule 10, the Commission 
considered a number of sources cited in the sections above, including, 
in particular, the NIST Glossary and certain Federal statutes and 
regulations. Are these appropriate sources to consider? If so, explain 
why. If not, explain why not. Are there other sources the Commission 
should use? If so, identify them and explain why they should be 
considered and how they

[[Page 20236]]

could inform potential modifications to the definitions.
    2. In determining which categories of Market Entities would be 
Covered Entities subject to the additional requirements of proposed 
Rule 10, the Commission considered: (1) how the category of Market 
Entity supports the fair, orderly, and efficient operation of the U.S. 
securities markets and the consequences if that type of broker-dealer's 
critical functions were disrupted or degraded by a significant 
cybersecurity incident; (2) the harm that could befall investors, 
including retail investors, if that category of Market Entity's 
functions were disrupted or degraded by a significant cybersecurity 
incident; (3) the extent to which the category of Market Entity poses 
cybersecurity risk to other Market Entities though information system 
connections, including the number of connections; (4) the extent to 
which the category of Market Entity would be an attractive target for 
threat actors; and (5) the personal, confidential, and proprietary 
business information about the category of Market Entity and other 
persons (e.g., investors) stored on the Market Entity's information 
systems and the harm that could be caused if that information was 
accessed or used by threat actors through a cybersecurity breach. Are 
these appropriate factors to consider? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. Are there other factors the Commission should take 
into account? If so, identify them and explain why they should be 
considered.
    3. Should proposed Rule 10 be modified to include other categories 
of broker-dealers as Covered Entities? If so, identify the category of 
broker-dealers and explain how to define broker-dealers within that 
category and why it would be appropriate to apply the additional 
policies and procedures, reporting, and disclosure requirements of the 
proposed rule to that category of broker-dealers. For example, should 
the $50 million regulatory capital threshold be lowered (e.g., to $25 
million or some other amount) or should the $1 billion total assets 
threshold be lowered (e.g., to $500 million or some other amount) to 
include more broker-dealers as Covered Entities? If so, identify the 
threshold and explain why it would be appropriate to apply the 
additional requirements to broker-dealers that fall within that 
threshold.
    4. Should proposed Rule 10 be modified to include as a Covered 
Entity any broker-dealer that is an SCI entity for the purposes of 
Regulation SCI? Currently, under Regulation SCI, an ATS that trades 
certain stocks exceeding specific volume thresholds is an SCI entity? 
\203\ As discussed above, a broker-dealer that operates an ATS would be 
a Covered Entity under proposed Rule 10 and, therefore, subject to the 
additional policies and procedures, reporting, and disclosure 
requirements of the proposed rule. However, the Commission is proposing 
to amend Regulation SCI to broaden the definition of ``SCI entity'' to 
include, among other Commission registrants, a broker-dealer that 
exceeds an asset-based size threshold or a volume-based trading 
threshold in NMS stocks, exchange-listed options, agency securities, or 
U.S. treasury securities.\204\ A broker-dealer that exceeds the asset-
based size threshold under the proposed amendments to Regulation SCI 
(which would be several hundred billion dollars) would be subject to 
the requirements of proposed Rule 10 applicable to Covered Entities, as 
it would exceed the $1 billion total assets threshold in the broker-
dealer definition of ``covered entity.'' \205\ Further, a broker-dealer 
that exceeds one or more of the volume-based trading thresholds under 
the proposed amendments to Regulation SCI likely would meet one of the 
broker-dealer definitions of ``covered entity'' in proposed Rule 10 
given its size and activities. For example, it may be carrying broker-
dealer, have regulatory capital equal to or exceeding $50 million, have 
total assets equal to or exceeding $1 billion, or operate as a market 
maker.\206\ Nonetheless, should the definition of ``covered entity'' in 
proposed Rule 10 be modified to include any broker-dealer that is an 
SCI entity under Regulation SCI? If so, explain why. If not, explain 
why not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ See 17 CFR 242.1000 (defining the term ``SCI alternative 
trading system'' and including that defined term in the definition 
of ``SCI Entity'').
    \204\ Regulation SCI 2023 Proposing Release.
    \205\ See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(D) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
section II.F.1.c. of this release (discussing why this type of 
broker-dealer would be a Covered Entity).
    \206\ See paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A), (C), (D), and (E) of proposed 
Rule 10 (defining these categories of broker-dealers as ``covered 
entities''). See also section II.F.1.c. of this release (discussing 
why this type of broker-dealer likely would be a Covered Entity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Should proposed Rule 10 be modified to narrow the categories of 
broker-dealers that would be Covered Entities? If so, explain how the 
category should be narrowed and why it would be appropriate not to 
apply the additional requirements to broker-dealers that would no 
longer be included as Covered Entities. For example, are there certain 
types of carrying broker-dealers, introducing broker-dealers, market 
makers, or ATSs that should not be included as Covered Entities? If so, 
identify the type of broker-dealer and explain why it would be 
appropriate not to impose the additional policies and procedures, 
reporting, and disclosure requirements of the proposed rule on that 
type of broker-dealer. Similarly, should the proposed $50 million 
regulatory capital threshold be increased (e.g., to $100 million or 
some other amount) or should the $1 billion total assets threshold be 
increased (e.g., to $5 billion or some other amount) to exclude more 
broker-dealers from the definition of ``covered entity''? If so, 
identify the threshold and explain why it would be appropriate not to 
apply the additional requirements on the broker-dealers that would not 
be Covered Entities under the narrower definition.
    6. Should proposed Rule 10 be modified to divide other categories 
of Market Entities into Covered Entities and Non-Covered Entities? If 
so, identify the category of Market Entity and explain how to define 
Covered Entity and Non-Covered Entity within that category and explain 
why it would be appropriate not to impose the additional policies and 
procedures, reporting, and disclosure requirements on the Market 
Entities that would be Non-Covered Entities. For example, are there 
types of clearing agencies (registered or exempt), MSBSPs, national 
securities exchanges, SBSDRs, SBSDs, or transfer agents that pose a 
level of cybersecurity risk to the U.S. securities markets and the 
participants in those markets that is no greater than the cybersecurity 
risk posed by the categories of broker-dealers that would be Non-
Covered Entities? If so, explain why it would be appropriate not to 
apply the additional requirements of proposed Rule 10 to these types of 
Market Entities.
    7. Should proposed Rule 10 be modified so that it applies to other 
participants in the U.S. securities markets that are registered with 
the Commission? If so, identify the registrant type and explain why it 
should be subject to the requirements of proposed Rule 10. For example, 
should competing consolidators or plan processors be subject to the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10? \207\ If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. If competing consolidators or plan processors should 
be subject to proposed Rule 10, should they be treated as Covered 
Entities or Non-Covered Entities? If Covered Entities,

[[Page 20237]]

explain why. If Non-Covered Entities, explain why. Should certain 
competing consolidators or plan processors be treated as Covered 
Entities and others be treated as Non-Covered Entities? If so, explain 
how to define Covered Entity and Non-Covered Entity within that 
category and explain why it would be appropriate not to apply the 
additional policies and procedures, reporting, and disclosure 
requirements of the proposed rule to the competing consolidators or 
plan processors in that category that would not be Covered Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ See 17 CFR 242.600(16) and (67) (defining the terms 
``competing consolidator'' and ``plan processor,'' respectively). 
See also 17 CFR 242.1000 (defining ``SCI competing consolidator'' 
and defining ``SCI entity'' to include SCI competing consolidator).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Should proposed Rule 10 be modified to revise the broker-dealer 
definitions of ``covered entity''? For example, in order to include 
carrying broker-dealers as Covered Entities, paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) of 
proposed Rule 10 would define the term ``covered entity'' to include a 
broker-dealer that maintains custody of cash and securities for 
customers or other brokers-dealers and is not exempt from the 
requirements of Rule 15c3-3. In addition, in order to include 
introducing broker-dealers as Covered Entities, paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) 
of proposed Rule 10 would define the term ``covered entity'' to include 
a broker-dealer that introduces customer accounts on a fully disclosed 
basis to another broker-dealer that is a carrying broker-dealer under 
paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) of the proposed rule. Would these broker-dealer 
definitions of ``covered entity'' work as designed? If not, explain why 
and suggest modifications to improve their design.
    9. In order to include market makers as Covered Entities, paragraph 
(a)(1)(i)(E) of proposed Rule 10 would define the term ``covered 
entity'' to include a broker-dealer that is a market maker under the 
Exchange Act or the rules thereunder (which includes a broker-dealer 
that operates pursuant to paragraph (a)(6) of Rule 15c3-1) or is a 
market maker under the rules of an SRO of which the broker-dealer is a 
member. Would the definition work as designed? If not, explain why and 
suggest modifications to improve its design. For example, should the 
definition be based on a list of the functions and activities of a 
market maker as distinct from the functions and activities of other 
categories of broker-dealers? If so, identify the relevant functions 
and activities and explain how they could be incorporated into a 
definition.
    10. Should paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the definition of ``cybersecurity incident''? For example, as 
discussed above, the definition is designed to include any unauthorized 
occurrence that impacts an information system or the information 
residing on the system. Would the definition work as designed? If not, 
explain why and suggest modifications to improve its design. Is this 
design objective appropriate? If not, explain why and suggest an 
alternative design objective for the definition. Is the definition of 
``cybersecurity incident'' overly broad in that it refers to an 
incident that jeopardizes the confidentiality, integrity, or 
availability of the information systems or any information residing on 
those systems? If so, explain why and suggest modifications to 
appropriately narrow its scope without undermining the objective of the 
rule to address cybersecurity risks facing Market Entities. Is the 
definition of ``cybersecurity incident'' too narrow? If so, how should 
it be broadened?
    11. Should paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise definition of ``cybersecurity risk''? For example, the NIST 
definition of ``cybersecurity risk'' focuses on how this risk can cause 
harm: it can adversely impact organizational operations (i.e., mission, 
functions, image, or reputation) and assets, individuals, other 
organizations, and the Nation. The definition of ``cybersecurity risk'' 
in proposed Rule 10 was guided by this aspect of cybersecurity risk. 
Does the definition appropriately incorporate this aspect of 
cybersecurity risk? If not, explain why and suggest modifications to 
improve its design. Is this design objective appropriate? If not, 
explain why and suggest an alternative design objective for the 
definition.
    12. Should paragraph (a)(4) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the definition of ``cybersecurity threat''? For example, as 
discussed above, the definition is designed to include the potential 
actions of threat actors and errors that may result in an unauthorized 
effort to affect adversely the confidentiality, integrity, or 
availability of a Market Entity's information systems or any 
information residing on those systems. Would the definition work as 
designed? If not, explain why and suggest modifications to improve its 
design. Is the definition of ``cybersecurity threat'' overly broad in 
that it includes any ``potential occurrence''? If so, explain why and 
suggest modifications to appropriately narrow its scope without 
undermining the objective of the rule to address cybersecurity risks 
facing Market Entities. Is the definition of ``cybersecurity threat'' 
too narrow? If so, how should it be broadened?
    13. Should paragraph (a)(5) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the definition of ``cybersecurity vulnerability''? For example, 
as discussed above, the definition is designed to include weaknesses in 
the information systems themselves and weaknesses in the measures the 
Covered Entity takes to protect the systems and the information 
residing on the systems. Would the definition work as designed? If not, 
explain why and suggest modifications to improve its design. Is this 
design objective appropriate? If not, explain why and suggest an 
alternative design objective for the definition. Is the definition of 
``cybersecurity vulnerability'' overly broad? If so, explain why and 
suggest modifications to appropriately narrow its scope without 
undermining the objective of the rule to address cybersecurity risks 
facing Market Entities. Is the definition of ``cybersecurity 
vulnerability'' too narrow? If so, how should it be broadened?
    14. Should paragraph (a)(6) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the definition of ``information''? For example, as discussed 
above, the definition is designed to be broad enough to encompass the 
wide range of information that resides on the information systems of 
Market Entities. Would the definition work as designed? If not, explain 
why and suggest modifications to improve its design. Is this design 
objective appropriate? If not, explain why and suggest an alternative 
design objective for the definition. For example, should the definition 
focus on information that, if compromised, could cause harm to the 
Market Entity or others and exclude information that, if compromised, 
would not cause harm? If so, explain why and suggest rule text to 
implement this modification.
    15. Should paragraph (a)(7) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the definition of ``information systems''? For example, as 
discussed above, the definition is designed to be broad enough to 
encompass all the electronic information resources owned or used by a 
Market Entity to carry out its various operations. Would the definition 
work as designed? If not, explain why and suggest modifications to 
improve its design. Is this design objective appropriate? If not, 
explain why and suggest an alternative design objective for the 
definition. Is the definition of ``information systems'' overly broad 
in that it includes any information resource ``used by'' the Market 
Entity, which may include information resources developed and 
maintained by a third party (other than a service provider that that 
receives, maintains, or processes information, or is otherwise 
permitted to access the Market Entity's information systems and any of 
the

[[Page 20238]]

Market Entity's information residing on those systems)? If so, explain 
why and suggest modifications to improve its design. Is this design 
objective appropriate? If not, explain why and suggest an alternative 
design objective for the definition. Is the definition of ``information 
system'' overly narrow? If so, how should it be broadened?
    16. Should paragraph (a)(9) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the definition of ``personal information''? For example, as 
discussed above, the definition is designed to encompass information 
that if compromised could cause harm to the individuals to whom the 
information pertains (e.g., identity theft or theft of assets). Would 
the definition work as designed? If not, explain why and suggest 
modifications to improve its design. Is this design objective 
appropriate? If not, explain why and suggest an alternative design 
objective for the definition.
    17. Should paragraph (a)(10) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the definition of ``significant cybersecurity incident''? For 
example, as discussed above, the definition would have two prongs: the 
first relating to incidents that significantly disrupt or degrade the 
ability of the Market Entity to maintain critical operations and the 
second relating to the unauthorized access or use of the information or 
information systems of the Market Entity. Are these the fundamental 
ways that significant cybersecurity incidents can negatively impact 
information systems and the information residing on information 
systems? If not, explain why and identify other fundamental ways that 
information and information systems can be negatively impacted by 
significant cybersecurity incidents that should be incorporated into 
the definition of ``significant cybersecurity incident.'' Should the 
term ``significant'' be defined separately? If so, explain why and 
suggest potential definitions for this term. Instead, of 
``significant'' should the definition use the word ``material.'' If so, 
explain why and how that would change the meaning of the definition.
    18. Should paragraph (a)(10)(i) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the first prong of the definition of ``significant cybersecurity 
incident''? For example, as explained above, the first prong is 
designed to address how a ``significant cybersecurity incident'' can 
disrupt or degrade the information system or the information residing 
on the system in a manner that prevents the Market Entity from 
performing functions that rely on the system operating as designed or 
that rely on the Market Entity being able to process or access 
information on the system. Would the first prong of the definition work 
as designed? If not, explain why and suggest modifications to improve 
its design. Is this design objective appropriate? If not, explain why 
and suggest an alternative design objective for the first prong of the 
definition. For example, should the first prong of the definition be 
limited to cybersecurity incidents that ``disrupt'' the ability of the 
Market Entity to maintain critical operations (i.e., not include 
incidents that ``degrade'' that ability)? If so, explain why and also 
explain how to distinguish between an incident that degrades the 
ability of the Market Entity to maintain critical operations and an 
incident that disrupts that ability. Also, explain why reporting to the 
Commission and other regulators (as applicable) and publicly disclosing 
incidents that degrade the ability of the Market Entity to maintain 
critical operations would not be necessary because they would no longer 
be significant cybersecurity incidents.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ See paragraphs (c) and (d) of proposed Rule 10 (requiring, 
respectively, immediate notification and subsequent reporting of 
significant cybersecurity incidents and public disclosure of 
significant cybersecurity incidents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Should paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of proposed Rule 10 be modified be 
to revise the second prong of the definition of ``significant 
cybersecurity incident''? For example, as explained above, the second 
prong is designed to address how a ``significant cybersecurity 
incident'' can cause harm if unauthorized persons are able to access 
and use the information system or the information residing on the 
system. Would the definition work as designed? If not, explain why and 
suggest modifications to improve its design. Is this design objective 
appropriate? If not, explain why and suggest an alternative design 
objective for the second prong of the definition. For example, should 
the second prong of the definition be limited to cybersecurity 
incidents that ``result'' in substantial harm to the Market Entity or 
substantial harm to a customer, counterparty, member, registrant, or 
user of the Market entity, or to any other person that interacts with 
the Market Entity (i.e., not include incidents that are ``reasonably 
likely'' to result in these consequences)? If so, explain why and also 
explain why reporting to the Commission and other regulators (as 
applicable) and publicly disclosing incidents that are reasonably 
likely to result in these consequences would not be necessary because 
they would no longer be significant cybersecurity incidents.\209\ 
Alternatively, should the second prong of the definition be limited to 
an incident of unauthorized access or use that leads to ``substantial 
harm'' to a customer, counterparty, member, registrant or user of the 
Covered Entity, or should ``inconvenience'' to a customer, 
counterparty, member, registrant or user be enough? If yes, explain 
why. Should the second prong of the definition be modified so that it 
is limited to cybersecurity incidents that result in or are reasonably 
likely to result in substantial harm to more than one customer, 
counterparty, member, registrant, or user of the Market Entity, or to 
any other market participant that interacts with the Market Entity? If 
so, explain why.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ See paragraphs (c) and (d) of proposed Rule 10 (requiring, 
respectively, immediate notification and subsequent reporting of 
significant cybersecurity incidents and public disclosure of 
significant cybersecurity incidents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Should proposed Rule 10 be modified to define additional terms 
for the purposes of the rule and Parts I and II of proposed Form SCIR? 
If so, identify the term, suggest a definition, and explain why 
including the definition would be appropriate. For example, would 
including additional defined terms improve the clarity of the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 and Parts I and II of proposed Form 
SCIR? If so, explain why. Should proposed Rule 10 be modified to define 
the terms ``confidentiality,'' ``integrity'', and ``availability''? If 
so, explain why and suggest definitions.

B. Proposed Requirements for Covered Entities

1. Cybersecurity Risk Management Policies and Procedures
    Risk management is the ongoing process of identifying, assessing, 
and responding to risk.\210\ To manage risk generally, Market Entities 
should understand the likelihood that an event will occur and the 
potential resulting impacts.\211\ Cybersecurity risk--like other 
business risks (e.g., market, credit, or liquidity risk)--can be 
addressed through policies and procedures that are reasonably designed 
to manage the risk.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ See generally NIST Framework.
    \211\ Id.
    \212\ See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (stating 
that organizations should ``approach cyber as business risk'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, proposed Rule 10 would require Covered Entities to 
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that 
are reasonably designed to address the Covered Entity's

[[Page 20239]]

cybersecurity risks.\213\ Further, proposed Rule 10 would set forth 
minimum elements that would need to be included in the policies and 
procedures.\214\ In particular, the policies and procedures would need 
to address: (1) risk assessment; (2) user security and access; (3) 
information protection; (4) cybersecurity threat and vulnerability 
management; and (5) cybersecurity incident response and recovery. As 
discussed in more detail below, the inclusion of these elements is 
designed to enumerate the core areas that Covered Entities would need 
to address when designing, implementing, and assessing their policies 
and procedures. Proposed Rule 10 also would require Covered Entities to 
review annually and assess their policies and procedures and prepare a 
written report describing the review and other related matters. Taken 
together, these requirements are designed to position Covered Entities 
to be better prepared to protect themselves against cybersecurity 
risks, to mitigate cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities, and to 
recover from cybersecurity incidents. They are also designed to help 
ensure that Covered Entities focus their efforts and resources on the 
cybersecurity risks associated with their operations and business 
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ See paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 10.
    \214\ See paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of proposed Rule 10. 
Covered Entities may wish to consult a number of resources in 
connection with these elements. See generally NIST Framework; CISA 
Cyber Essentials Starter Kit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The policies and procedures that would be required by proposed Rule 
10--because they would need to address the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity risks--generally should be tailored to the nature and 
scope of the Covered Entity's business and address the Covered Entity's 
specific cybersecurity risks. Thus, proposed Rule 10 is not intended to 
impose a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing cybersecurity risks. 
In addition, cybersecurity threats are constantly evolving and measures 
to address those threats continue to evolve. Therefore, proposed Rule 
10 is designed to provide Covered Entities with the flexibility to 
update and modify their policies and procedures as needed so that that 
they continue to be reasonably designed to address the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity risks over time.
a. Risk Assessment
    Proposed Rule 10 would specify that the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity risk management policies and procedures must include 
policies and procedures that require periodic assessments of 
cybersecurity risks associated with the Covered Entity's information 
systems and information residing on those systems.\215\ Further, with 
respect to the periodic assessments, the policies and procedures would 
need to include two components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of proposed Rule 10. See 
generally NIST Framework (providing that the first core element of 
the framework is ``identify''--meaning develop an organizational 
understanding to manage cybersecurity risk to systems, people, 
assets, data, and capabilities); IOSCO Cybersecurity Report (``A key 
component of the risk management program is the identification of 
critical assets, information and systems, including order routing 
systems, risk management systems, execution systems, data 
dissemination systems, and surveillance systems. Practices 
supporting the identification function include the establishment and 
maintenance of an inventory of all hardware and software. This risk 
management program should also typically include third-party and 
technology providers' security assessments. Finally, accessing 
information about the evolving threat landscape is important in 
identifying the changing nature of cyber risk.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the policies and procedures would need to provide that the 
Covered Entity will categorize and prioritize cybersecurity risks based 
on an inventory of the components of the Covered Entity's information 
systems and information residing on those systems and the potential 
effect of a cybersecurity incident on the Covered Entity.\216\ As 
discussed earlier, proposed Rule 10 would define the term 
``cybersecurity risk'' to mean financial, operational, legal, 
reputational, and other adverse consequences that could result from 
cybersecurity incidents, cybersecurity threats, and cybersecurity 
vulnerabilities.\217\ For example, Covered Entities may be subject to 
different cybersecurity risks as a result of, among other things: (1) 
the functions they perform and the extent to which they use information 
systems to perform those functions; (2) the criticality of the 
functions they perform that rely on information systems; (3) the 
interconnectedness of their information systems with third-party 
information systems; (4) the software that operates on their 
information systems, including whether it is proprietary or vender-
supplied software; (5) the nature and volume of the information they 
store on information systems (e.g., personal, confidential, and/or 
proprietary information); (6) the complexity and scale of their 
information systems (i.e., the size of their IT footprint); (7) the 
location of their information systems; (8) the number of users 
authorized to access their information systems; (9) the types of 
devices permitted to access their information systems (e.g., company-
owned or personal desktop computers, laptop computers, or smart 
phones); (10) the extent to which they conduct international operations 
and allow access to their information systems from international 
locations; and (11) the extent to which employees access their 
information systems from remote locations, including international 
locations. In categorizing and prioritizing cybersecurity risks, the 
Covered Entity generally should consider consulting with, among others, 
personnel familiar with the Covered Entity's operations, its business 
partners, and third-party cybersecurity experts.\218\ In addition, a 
Covered Entity could consider an escalation protocol in its risk 
assessment plan to ensure that its senior officers, including 
appropriate legal and compliance personnel, receive necessary 
information regarding cybersecurity risks on a timely basis.\219\ Only 
after assessing, categorizing, and prioritizing its cybersecurity risks 
can a Covered Entity establish, maintain, and enforce reasonably 
designed cybersecurity policies and procedures under proposed Rule 10 
to address those risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A)(1) of proposed Rule 10. See 
generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (``Consider how much 
your organization relies on information technology to conduct 
business and make it a part of your culture to plan for 
contingencies in the event of a cyber incident. Identify and 
prioritize your organization's critical assets and the associated 
impacts to operations if an incident were to occur. Ask the 
questions that are necessary to understanding your security 
planning, operations, and security-related goals. Develop an 
understanding of how long it would take to restore normal 
operations. Resist the ``it can't happen here'' pattern of thinking. 
Instead, focus cyber risk discussions on ``what-if'' scenarios and 
develop an incident response plan to prepare for various cyber 
events and scenarios.'').
    \217\ See paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Rule 10; see also 
paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(5) of proposed Rule 10 (defining, 
respectively, the terms ``cybersecurity incident,'' cybersecurity 
threat,'' and ``cybersecurity vulnerability,'' which are used in the 
definition of ``cybersecurity risk'').
    \218\ See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (``[H]ave 
conversations with your staff, business partners, vendors, managed 
service providers, and others within your supply chain. . . . 
Maintain situational awareness of cybersecurity threats and explore 
available communities of interest. These may include sector-specific 
Information Sharing and Analysis Centers, government agencies, law 
enforcement, associations, vendors, etc.'').
    \219\ See generally id. (stating that organizational leaders 
drive cybersecurity strategy, investment, and culture, and that 
leaders should, among other things: (1) use risk assessments to 
identify and prioritize allocation of resources and cyber 
investments; (2) perform a review of all current cybersecurity and 
risk policies and identify gaps or weaknesses; and (3) develop a 
policy roadmap, prioritize policy creation and updates based on the 
risk to the organization as determined by business leaders and 
technical staff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Covered Entity also would need to reassess and re-prioritize its 
cybersecurity risks periodically. The Covered Entity would need to 
determine the frequency of these assessments and the types of 
developments in

[[Page 20240]]

cybersecurity risk that would trigger an assessment based on its 
particular circumstances. Consequently, the Covered Entity generally 
should consider whether to reassess its cybersecurity risks to reflect 
internal changes as they arise, such as changes to its business, online 
presence, or customer website access, or external changes, such as 
changes in the evolving technology and cybersecurity threat 
landscape.\220\ The Covered Entity generally should also consider 
raising any material changes in its risk assessment plan to senior 
officers, as appropriate. In assessing ongoing and emerging 
cybersecurity threats, a Covered Entity could monitor and consider 
updates and guidance from private sector and governmental resources, 
such as the FS-ISAC and CISA.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ See generally id. (``Maintain awareness of current events 
related to cybersecurity. Be proactive; alert staff to hazards that 
the organization may encounter. Maintain vigilance by asking 
yourself: what types of cyber attack[s] are hitting my peers or 
others in my industry? What tactics were successful in helping my 
peers limit damage? What does my staff need to know to help protect 
the organization and each other? On a national-level, are there any 
urgent cyber threats my staff need to know about?'').
    \221\ The FS-ISAC is a global private industry cyber 
intelligence sharing community solely focused on financial services. 
Additional information about FS-ISAC is available at https://www.fsisac.com. Often, private industry groups maintain 
relationships and information sharing agreements with government 
cybersecurity organizations, such as CISA. Private sector companies, 
such as information technology and cybersecurity consulting 
companies, may have insights on cybersecurity (given the access 
their contractual status gives them to customer networks) that the 
government initially does not. See, e.g., Verizon DBIR; Microsoft 
Report. For example, private-sector cybersecurity firms may often be 
in the position to spot new malicious cybersecurity trends before 
they become more widespread and common.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the policies and procedures would need to require the 
Covered Entity to identify its service providers that receive, 
maintain, or process information, or are otherwise permitted to access 
its information systems and the information residing on those systems, 
and assess the cybersecurity risks associated with its use of these 
service providers.\222\ Covered Entities are exposed to cybersecurity 
risks through the technology of their service providers.\223\ Having 
identified the relevant service providers, the Covered Entity would 
need to assess how they expose it to cybersecurity risks. In 
identifying these cybersecurity risks, the service provider's 
cybersecurity practices would be relevant, including: (1) how the 
service provider protects itself against cybersecurity risk; and (2) 
its ability to respond to and recover from cybersecurity incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A)(2) of proposed Rule 10; 
paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) of proposed Rule 10 (defining, 
respectively, the terms ``information'' and ``information 
systems''). Oversight of third-party service provider or vendor risk 
is a component of many cybersecurity frameworks. See, e.g., NIST 
Framework (discussing supply chain risks associated with products 
and services an organization uses).
    \223\ See GAO Cyber Security Report (``Increased connectivity 
with third-party providers and the potential for increased cyber 
risk is a concern in the financial industry as core systems and 
critical data are moved offsite to third parties.''). For purposes 
of proposed Rule 10, the Covered Entity's assessment of service 
providers should not be limited to only certain service providers, 
such as those that provide core functions or services for the 
Covered Entity. Rather, the cybersecurity risk of any service 
provider that receives, maintains, or processes information, or is 
otherwise permitted to access the information systems of the Covered 
Entity and the information residing on those systems should be 
evaluated. Furthermore, it is possible that a service provider for a 
Covered Entity may itself be a Covered Entity under proposed Rule 
10. For example, a carrying broker-dealer may be a service provider 
for a number of introducing broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Covered Entity generally should take into account whether a 
cybersecurity incident at a service provider could lead to process 
failures or the unauthorized access to or use of information or 
information systems. For example, a Covered Entity may use a cloud 
service provider to maintain required books and records. If all of the 
Covered Entity's books and records were concentrated at this cloud 
service provider and a cybersecurity incident disrupts or degrades the 
cloud service provider's information systems, there could potentially 
be detrimental data loss affecting the ability of the Covered Entity to 
provide services and comply with regulatory obligations. Accordingly, 
as part of identifying the cybersecurity risks associated with using a 
cloud service provider, a Covered Entity should consider how the 
service provider will secure and maintain data and whether the service 
provider has response and recovery procedures in place such that any 
compromised or lost data in the event of a cybersecurity incident can 
be recovered and restored.
    Finally, the Covered Entity's risk assessment policies and 
procedures would need to require written documentation of these risk 
assessments.\224\ This documentation would be relevant to the reviews 
performed by the Covered Entity to analyze whether the policies and 
procedures need to be updated, to inform the Covered Entity of risks 
specific to it, and to support responses to cybersecurity risks by 
identifying cybersecurity threats to information systems that, if 
compromised, could result in significant cybersecurity incidents.\225\ 
It also could be used by Commission and SRO staff and possibly internal 
auditors of the Covered Entity to examine for adherence to the risk 
assessment policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of proposed Rule 10.
    \225\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10 (which would 
require a Covered Entity to review and assess the design and 
effectiveness of the cybersecurity policies and procedures, 
including whether the policies and procedures reflect changes in 
cybersecurity risk over the time period covered by the review). See 
also section II.B.1.f. of this release (discussing the review 
proposal in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. User Security and Access
    Proposed Rule 10 would specify that the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity risk management policies and procedures must include 
controls designed to minimize user-related risks and prevent 
unauthorized access to the Covered Entity's information systems and the 
information residing on those systems.\226\ Further, the rule would 
require that these policies and procedures include controls addressing 
five specific aspects relating to user security and access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ See paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10; paragraphs 
(a)(6) and (7) of proposed Rule 10 (defining, respectively, the 
terms ``information'' and ``information systems''). See generally 
NIST Framework (providing that the second core element of the 
framework is ``protect''--meaning develop and implement appropriate 
safeguards to ensure delivery of critical services); CISA Cyber 
Essentials Starter Kit (stating with respect to user security and 
access that (among other things): (1) the authority and access 
granted employees, managers, and customers into an organization's 
digital environment needs limits; (2) setting approved access 
privileges requires knowing who operates on an organization's 
systems and with what level of authorization and accountability; and 
(3) organizations should ensure only those who belong on their 
``digital workplace have access''); IOSCO Cybersecurity Report 
(stating that network access controls are one of the types of 
controls trading venues use as the protection function).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, there would need to be controls requiring standards of 
behavior for individuals authorized to access the Covered Entity's 
information systems and the information residing on those systems, such 
as an acceptable use policy.\227\ Second, there would need to be 
controls for identifying and authenticating individual users, including 
but not limited to implementing authentication measures that require 
users to present a combination of two or more credentials for access 
verification.\228\ Third, there would need to be controls for 
establishing procedures for the timely distribution, replacement, and 
revocation of passwords or methods of

[[Page 20241]]

authentication.\229\ Fourth, there would need to be controls for 
restricting access to specific information systems of the Covered 
Entity or components thereof and the information residing on those 
systems solely to individuals requiring access to the systems and 
information as is necessary for them to perform their responsibilities 
and functions on behalf of the Covered Entity.\230\ Fifth, there would 
need to be controls for securing remote access technologies.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ See paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of proposed Rule 10.
    \228\ See paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of proposed Rule 10.
    \229\ See paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of proposed Rule 10.
    \230\ See paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(D) of proposed Rule 10.
    \231\ See paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(E) of proposed Rule 10; 
paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) of proposed Rule 10 (defining, 
respectively, the terms ``information'' and ``information 
systems'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The objective of these policies, procedures, and controls would be 
to protect the Covered Entity's information systems from unauthorized 
access and improper use. There are a variety of controls that a Covered 
Entity, based on its particular circumstances, could include in these 
policies and procedures to make them reasonably designed to achieve 
this objective. For example, access to information systems could be 
controlled through the issuance of user credentials, digital rights 
management with respect to proprietary hardware and copyrighted 
software, authentication and authorization methods (e.g., multi-factor 
authentication and geolocation), and tiered access to personal, 
confidential, and proprietary information and data and network 
resources.\232\ Covered Entities may wish to consider multi-factor 
authentication methods that are not based solely on SMS-delivery (e.g., 
text message delivery) of authentication codes, because SMS-delivery 
methods may provide less security than other non-SMS based multi-factor 
authentication methods. Furthermore, Covered Entities could require 
employees to attend cybersecurity training on how to secure sensitive 
data and recognize harmful files prior to obtaining access to certain 
information systems. The training generally could address best 
practices in creating new passwords, filtering through suspicious 
emails, or browsing the internet.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (stating 
that organizations should (among other things): (1) learn who is on 
their networks and maintain inventories of network connections 
(e.g., user accounts, vendors, and business partners); (2) leverage 
multi-factor authentication for all users, starting with privileged, 
administrative and remote access users; (3) grant access and 
administrative permissions based on need-to-know basis; (4) leverage 
unique passwords for all user accounts; and (5) develop IT policies 
and procedures addressing changes in user status (e.g., transfers 
and terminations).
    \233\ See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (stating 
that organizations should (among other things) leverage basic 
cybersecurity training to improve exposure to cybersecurity 
concepts, terminology, and activates associated with implementing 
cybersecurity best practices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, a Covered Entity could use controls to monitor user access 
regularly in order to remove users that are no longer authorized. These 
controls generally should address the Covered Entity's employees (e.g., 
removing access for employees that leave the firm) and external users 
of the Covered Entity's information systems (e.g., customers that no 
longer use the firm's services or external service providers that no 
longer are under contract with the firm to provide it with any 
services). In addition, controls to monitor for unauthorized login 
attempts and account lockouts, and the handling of customer requests, 
including for user name and password changes, could be a part of 
reasonably designed policies and procedures. Similarly, controls to 
assess the need to authenticate or investigate any unusual customer, 
member, or user requests (e.g., wire transfer or withdrawal requests) 
could be a part of reasonably designed policies and procedures.
    A Covered Entity also generally should take into account the types 
of technology through which its users access the Covered Entity's 
information systems. For example, mobile devices (whether firm-issued 
or personal devices) that allow employees to access information systems 
and personal, confidential, or proprietary information residing on 
these systems may create additional and unique vulnerabilities, 
including when such devices are used internationally. Consequently, 
controls limiting mobile or other devices approved for remote access to 
those issued by the firm or enrolled through a mobile device manager 
could be part of reasonably designed policies and procedures.
    In addition, a Covered Entity could consider controls with respect 
to its network perimeter such as securing remote network access used by 
teleworking and traveling employees. This could include controls to 
identify threats on a network's endpoints. For example, Covered 
Entities could consider using software that monitors and inspects all 
files on an endpoint, such as a mobile phone or remote laptop, and 
identifies and blocks incoming unauthorized communications. Covered 
Entities generally would need to consider potential user-related and 
access risks relating to the remote access technologies used at their 
remote work and telework locations to include controls designed to 
secure such technologies. For example, a Covered Entity's personnel 
working remotely from home or a co-working space may create unique 
cybersecurity risks--such as unsecured or less secure Wi-Fi--that 
threat actors could exploit to access the Covered Entity's information 
systems and the information residing on those systems. Accordingly, a 
Covered Entity could consider whether its user security and access 
policies, procedures, and controls should have controls requiring 
approval of mobile or other devices for remote access, and whether 
training on device policies would be appropriate. The training for 
remote workers in particular could focus on phishing, social 
engineering, compromised passwords, and the consequences of weak 
network security.
c. Information Protection
    Information protection is a key aspect of managing cybersecurity 
risk.\234\ Therefore, proposed Rule 10 would specify that the Covered 
Entity's cybersecurity risk management policies and procedures would 
need to address information protection in two ways.\235\ First, the 
policies and procedures would need to include measures designed to 
protect the Covered Entity's information systems and protect the 
information residing on those systems from unauthorized access or use, 
based on a periodic assessment of the Covered

[[Page 20242]]

Entity's information systems and the information that resides on the 
systems.\236\ The periodic assessment would need to take into account: 
(1) the sensitivity level and importance of the information to the 
Covered Entity's business operations; (2) whether any of the 
information is personal information; \237\ (3) where and how the 
information is accessed, stored and transmitted, including the 
monitoring of information in transmission; (4) the information systems' 
access controls and malware protection; \238\ and (5) the potential 
effect a cybersecurity incident involving the information could have on 
the Covered Entity and its customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users, including the potential to cause a significant 
cybersecurity incident.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ See generally NIST Framework (``The Protect Function 
supports the ability to limit or contain the impact of a potential 
cybersecurity event. Examples of outcome Categories within this 
Function include: Identity Management and Access Control; Awareness 
and Training; Data Security; Information Protection Processes and 
Procedures; Maintenance; and Protective Technology.''); IOSCO 
Cybersecurity Report (``There are numerous controls and protection 
measures that regulated entities may wish to consider in enhancing 
their cyber security. Such measures can be organizational (like the 
establishment of security operations centers) or technical (like 
anti-virus and intrusion prevention systems). Risk assessments help 
determine the minimum level of controls to be implemented within a 
project, an application or a database. In addition, employee 
training and awareness initiatives are critical parts of any cyber 
security program, including induction programs for newcomers, 
general training, as well as more specific training (for instance, 
social engineering awareness). Proficiency tests could be conducted 
to demonstrate staff understanding and third party training could 
also be organized. Other initiatives which contribute to raising 
employees' awareness of cyber security threats include monthly 
security bulletins emailed to all employees, regular communications 
regarding new issues and discovered vulnerabilities, use of posters 
and screen savers, and regular reminders sent to employees. Mock 
tests can also be conducted to assess employees' preparedness. 
Employees are also often encouraged to report possible attacks.'').
    \235\ See paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of proposed Rule 10.
    \236\ See paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed Rule 10; 
paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) of proposed Rule 10 (defining, 
respectively, the terms ``information'' and ``information 
systems''). See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (``Learn 
what information resides on your network. Inventory critical or 
sensitive information. An inventory of information assets provides 
an understanding of what you are protecting, where that information 
resides, and who has access. The inventory can be tracked in a 
spreadsheet, updated quickly and frequently'').
    \237\ See paragraph (a)(9) of proposed Rule 10 (defining the 
term ``personal information'').
    \238\ See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit 
(``Leverage malware protection capabilities. Malware is designed to 
spread quickly. A lack of defense against it can completely corrupt, 
destroy or render your data inaccessible.'').
    \239\ See paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A)(1) through (5) of proposed 
Rule 10. See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (``Learn 
how your data is protected. Data should be handled based on its 
importance to maintaining critical operations in order to understand 
what your business needs to operate at a basic level. For example, 
proprietary research, financial information, or development data 
need protection from exposure in order to maintain operations. 
Understand the means by which your data is currently protected; 
focus on where the protection might be insufficient. Guidance from 
the Cyber Essentials Toolkits, including authentication, encryption, 
and data protection help identify methods and resources for how to 
best secure your business information and devices.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By performing these assessments, a Covered Entity should be able to 
determine the measures it would need to implement to prevent the 
unauthorized access or use of information residing on its information 
systems. Measures that could be used for this purpose include 
encryption, network segmentation, and access controls to ensure that 
only authorized users have access to personal, confidential, and 
proprietary information and data or critical systems. Measures to 
identify suspicious behavior also could be used for this purpose. These 
measures could include consistent monitoring of systems and personnel, 
such as the generation and review of activity logs, identification of 
potential anomalous activity, and escalation of issues to senior 
officers, as appropriate. Further data loss prevention measures could 
include processes to identify personal, confidential, or proprietary 
information and data (e.g., account numbers, Social Security numbers, 
trade information, and source code) and block its transmission to 
external parties. Additional measures could include testing of systems, 
including penetration tests. A Covered Entity also could consider 
measures to track the actions taken in response to findings from 
testing and monitoring, material changes to business operations or 
technology, or any other significant events. Appropriate measures for 
preventing the unauthorized use of information may differ depending on 
the circumstances of a Covered Entity, such as the systems used by the 
Covered Entity, the Covered Entity's relationship with service 
providers, or the level of access granted by the Covered Entity to 
employees or contractors. Appropriate measures generally should evolve 
with changes in technology and the increased sophistication of 
cybersecurity attacks.
    Second, the policies and procedures for protecting information 
would need to require oversight of service providers that receive, 
maintain, or process the Covered Entity's information, or are otherwise 
permitted to access the Covered Entity's information systems and the 
information residing on those systems, pursuant to a written contract 
between the covered entity and the service provider.\240\ Further, 
pursuant to that written contract, the service provider would be 
required to implement and maintain appropriate measures, including the 
practices described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of proposed 
Rule 10, that are designed to protect the Covered Entity's information 
systems and information residing on those systems. These policies and 
procedures could include measures to perform due diligence on a service 
provider's cybersecurity risk management prior to using the service 
provider and periodically thereafter during the relationship with the 
service provider. Covered Entities also could consider including 
periodic contract review processes that allow them to assess whether, 
and help to ensure that, their agreements with service providers 
contain provisions that require service providers to implement and 
maintain appropriate measures designed to protect the Covered Entity's 
information systems and information residing on those systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ See paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed Rule 10; 
paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) of proposed Rule 10 (defining, 
respectively, the terms ``information'' and ``information 
systems'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Cybersecurity Threat and Vulnerability Management
    Rule 10 would specify that the Covered Entity's cybersecurity risk 
management policies and procedures must include measures designed to 
detect, mitigate, and remediate any cybersecurity threats and 
vulnerabilities with respect to the Covered Entity's information 
systems and information residing on those systems.\241\ Because Covered 
Entities depend on information systems to process, store, and transmit 
personal, confidential, and proprietary information and data and to 
conduct critical business functions, it is essential that they manage 
cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities effectively.\242\ Moreover, 
detecting, mitigating, and remediating threats and vulnerabilities is 
essential to preventing significant cybersecurity incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ See paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of proposed Rule 10; paragraphs 
(a)(4) through (7) of proposed Rule 10 (defining, respectively, the 
terms ``cybersecurity threat,'' ``cybersecurity vulnerability,'' 
``information,'' and ``information systems''). See generally NIST 
Framework (providing that the third core element of the framework is 
``detect''--meaning develop and implement appropriate activities to 
identify the occurrence of a cybersecurity event); CISA Cyber 
Essentials Starter Kit (stating regarding detection that 
organizations should (among other things): (1) learn what is 
happening on their networks; (2) manage network and perimeter 
components, host and device components, data at rest and in transit, 
and user behavior and activities: and (3) actively maintain 
information as it will provide a baseline for security testing, 
continuous monitoring, and making security-based decisions); IOSCO 
Cybersecurity Report (``External and internal monitoring of traffic 
and logs generally should be used to detect abnormal patterns of 
access (e.g., abnormal user activity, odd connection durations, and 
unexpected connection sources) and other anomalies. Such detection 
is crucial as attackers can use the period of presence in the 
target's systems to expand their footprint and their access gaining 
elevated privileges and control over critical systems. Many 
regulated entities have dedicated cyber threat teams and engage in 
file servers integrity and database activity monitoring to prevent 
unauthorized modification of critical servers within their 
organization's enterprise network. Different alarm categories and 
severity may be defined.'').
    \242\ See section I.A.2. of this release (discussing how Covered 
Entities use information systems).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Measures to detect cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities could 
include ongoing monitoring (e.g., comprehensive examinations and risk 
management processes), including, for example, conducting network, 
system, and application vulnerability assessments. This could include 
scans or reviews of internal systems, externally facing systems, new 
systems, and systems used by service providers. Further, measures could 
include monitoring industry and government

[[Page 20243]]

sources for new threat and vulnerability information that may assist in 
detecting cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities.\243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ See generally CISA, National Cyber Awareness System--
Alerts, available at https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/alerts (providing 
information about current security issues, vulnerabilities, and 
exploits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Measures to mitigate and remediate an identified threat or 
vulnerability are more effective if they minimize the window of 
opportunity for attackers to exploit vulnerable hardware and software. 
These measures could include, for example, implementing a patch 
management program to ensure timely patching of hardware and software 
vulnerabilities and maintaining a process to track and address reports 
of vulnerabilities.\244\ Covered Entities also generally should 
consider the vulnerabilities associated with ``end of life systems'' 
(i.e., systems in which software is no longer supported by the 
particular vendor and for which security patches are no longer issued). 
These measures also could establish accountability for handling 
vulnerability reports by, for example, establishing processes for their 
intake, assignment, escalation, remediation, and remediation testing. 
For example, a Covered Entity could use a vulnerability tracking system 
that includes severity ratings, and metrics for measuring the time it 
takes to identify, analyze, and remediate vulnerabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (stating 
that organizations should: (1) enable automatic updates whenever 
possible; (2) replace unsupported operating systems, applications 
and hardware; and (3) test and deploy patches quickly).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Covered Entities also could consider role-specific cybersecurity 
threat and vulnerability response training.\245\ For example, training 
could include secure system administration courses for IT 
professionals, vulnerability awareness and prevention training for web 
application developers, and social engineering awareness training for 
employees and executives. Covered Entities that do not proactively 
address threats and discovered vulnerabilities face an increased 
likelihood of having their information systems--including the Covered 
Entity's information residing on those systems--accessed or disrupted 
by threat actors or otherwise compromised. The requirement for Covered 
Entities to include cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities measures 
in their cybersecurity policies and procedures is designed to address 
this risk and help ensure threats and vulnerabilities are adequately 
and proactively addressed by Covered Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit 
(``Leverage basic cybersecurity training. Your staff needs a basic 
understanding of the threats they encounter online in order to 
effectively protect your organization. Regular training helps 
employees understand their role in cybersecurity, regardless of 
technical expertise, and the actions they take help keep your 
organization and customers secure. Training should focus on threats 
employees encounter, like phishing emails, suspicious events to 
watch for, and simple best practices individual employees can adopt 
to reduce risk. Each aware employee strengthens your network against 
attack, and is another `sensor' to identify an attack.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Cybersecurity Incident Response and Recovery
    Proposed Rule 10 would specify that the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity risk management policies and procedures must include 
measures designed to detect, respond to, and recover from a 
cybersecurity incident.\246\ Further, the rule would require that these 
measures include policies and procedures that are reasonably designed 
to ensure: (1) the continued operations of the Covered Entity; (2) the 
protection of the Covered Entity's information systems and the 
information residing on those systems; \247\ (3) external and internal 
cybersecurity incident information sharing and communications; and (4) 
the reporting of significant cybersecurity incidents pursuant to the 
requirements of paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 10 discussed below.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ See paragraph (b)(1)(v) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph 
(c)(2) of proposed Rule 10 (defining the term ``cybersecurity 
incident''). See generally NIST Framework (providing that the fourth 
core element of the framework is ``respond''--meaning develop and 
implement appropriate activities to take action regarding a detected 
cybersecurity incident; and providing that the fifth core element of 
the framework is ``recover''--meaning develop and implement 
appropriate activities to maintain plans for resilience and to 
restore any capabilities or services that were impaired due to a 
cybersecurity incident).
    \247\ See paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) of proposed Rule 10 
(defining, respectively, the terms ``information'' and ``information 
systems'').
    \248\ See section II.B.2. of this release (discussing the 
requirements to report significant cybersecurity incidents); 
paragraph (a)(10) of proposed Rule 10 (defining the term 
``significant cybersecurity incident''). See generally CISA Cyber 
Essentials Starter Kit (stating regarding response and recovery that 
the objective is to limit damage and accelerate restoration of 
normal operations and, to this end, organizations (among other 
things) can: (1) leverage business impact assessments to prioritize 
resources and identify which systems must be recovered first; (2) 
``learn who to call for help (e.g., outside partners, vendors, 
government/industry responders, technical advisors and law 
enforcement);'' (3) develop an internal reporting structure to 
detect, communicate and contain attacks; and (4) develop in-house 
containment measures to limit the impact of cyber incidents when 
they occur); IOSCO Cybersecurity Report (``Regulated entities 
generally should consider developing response plans for those types 
of incidents to which the organization is most likely to be subject. 
Elements associated with response plans may include: preparing 
communication/notification plans to inform relevant stakeholders; 
conducting forensic analysis to understand the anatomy of a breach 
or an attack; maintaining a database recording cyber attacks; and 
conducting cyber drills, firm specific simulation exercises as well 
as industry-wide scenario exercises.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cybersecurity incidents can lead to significant business 
disruptions, including losing the ability to send internal or external 
communications, transmit information, or connect to internal or 
external systems necessary to carry out the Covered Entity's critical 
functions and provide services to customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users.\249\ They also can lead to the inability to 
access accounts holding cash or other financial assets of the Covered 
Entity or its customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or 
users.\250\ Therefore, the proposed incident response and recovery 
policies and procedures are designed to place the Covered Entity in a 
position to respond to a cybersecurity incident, which should help to 
reduce business disruptions and other harms the incident may cause the 
Covered Entity or its customers, counterparties, members, registrants, 
or users. A cybersecurity program with a clear incident response plan 
designed to ensure continued operational capability, and the protection 
of, and access to, personal, confidential, or proprietary information 
and data, even if a Covered Entity loses access to its systems, would 
assist in mitigating the effects of a cybersecurity incident.\251\ A 
Covered Entity, therefore, may wish to consider maintaining physical 
copies of its incident response plan--and other cybersecurity policies 
and procedures--to help ensure they can be accessed and implemented 
during a cybersecurity incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ See sections I.A.1. and I.A.2. of this release (discussing 
these consequences).
    \250\ Id.
    \251\ See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (``Plan, 
prepare, and conduct drills for cyber-attacks and incidents as you 
would a fire or robbery. Make your reaction to cyber incidents or 
system outages an extension of your other business contingency 
plans. This involves having incident response plans and procedures, 
trained staff, assigned roles and responsibilities, and incident 
communications plans.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Covered Entities generally should focus on operational capability 
in creating reasonably designed policies and procedures to ensure their 
continued operations in the event of a cybersecurity incident (e.g., 
the ability to withstand a DoS attack). The objective is to place 
Covered Entities in a position to be able to continue providing 
services to other Market Entities and other participants in the U.S. 
securities markets (including investors) and, thereby, continue to 
support the fair, orderly, and efficient

[[Page 20244]]

operation of the U.S. securities markets. For example, this requirement 
is designed to place Covered Entities in a position to be able to 
continue to perform market and member surveillance and oversight in the 
case of SROs, clearance and settlement in the case of clearing 
agencies, and brokerage or dealing activities in the case of broker-
dealers and SBSDs.
    The ability of Covered Entities to recover from a cybersecurity 
incident in a timeframe that minimizes disruptions to their business or 
regulatory activities is critically important to the fair, orderly, and 
efficient operations of the U.S. securities markets and, therefore, to 
the U.S. economy, investors, and capital formation. A Covered Entity 
generally should consider implementing safeguards, such as backing up 
data, which can help facilitate a prompt recovery that allows the 
Covered Entity to resume operations following a cybersecurity 
incident.\252\ A Covered Entity also generally should consider whether 
to designate personnel to perform specific roles in the case of a 
cybersecurity incident. This could entail identifying and/or hiring 
personnel or third parties who have the requisite cybersecurity and 
recovery expertise (or are able to coordinate effectively with outside 
experts) as well as identifying personnel who should be kept informed 
throughout the response and recovery process. In addition, a Covered 
Entity could consider an escalation protocol in its incident response 
plan to ensure that its senior officers, including appropriate legal 
and compliance personnel, receive necessary information regarding 
cybersecurity incidents on a timely basis.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit 
(``Leverage protections for backups, including physical security, 
encryption and offline copies. Ensure the backed-up data is stored 
securely offsite or in the cloud and allows for at least seven days 
of incremental rollback. Backups should be stored in a secure 
location, especially if you are prone to natural disasters. 
Periodically test your ability to recover data from backups. Online 
and cloud storage backup services can help protect against data loss 
and provide encryption as an added level of security. Identify key 
files you need access to if online backups are unavailable to access 
your files when you do not have an internet connection.'').
    \253\ See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (stating 
that: (1) organizations should develop an internal reporting 
structure to detect, communicate, and contain attacks and that 
effective communication plans focus on issues unique to security 
breaches; (2) a standard reporting procedure will reduce confusion 
and conflicting information between leadership, the workforce, and 
stakeholders; and (3) communication should be continuous, since most 
data breaches occur over a long period of time and not instantly and 
that it should come from top leadership to show commitment to action 
and knowledge of the situation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as discussed in further detail below, under proposed Rule 
10, a Covered Entity would need to give the Commission immediate 
written electronic notice of a significant cybersecurity incident after 
having a reasonable basis to conclude that the incident has occurred or 
is occurring.\254\ Further, the Covered Entity would need to report 
information about the significant cybersecurity incident promptly, but 
no later than 48 hours, after having a reasonable basis to conclude 
that the incident has occurred or is occurring by filing Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR with the Commission.\255\ Thereafter, the Covered 
Entity would need to file an amended Part I of proposed Form SCIR with 
the Commission under certain circumstances.\256\ Accordingly, proposed 
Rule 10 would require the Covered Entity to include in its incident 
response and recovery policies and procedures measures designed to 
ensure compliance with these notification and reporting 
requirements.\257\ The Covered Entity also may wish to implement a 
process to determine promptly whether and how to contact local and 
Federal law enforcement authorities, such as the FBI, about an 
incident.\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10. See also section 
II.B.2. of this release (discussing this proposed notification 
requirement in more detail).
    \255\ See paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10. See also section 
II.B.2. of this release (discussing this proposed reporting 
requirement in more detail).
    \256\ The circumstances under which an amended Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR would need to be filed are discussed below in 
section II.B.2. of this release.
    \257\ See paragraph (b)(1)(v)(A)(4) of proposed Rule 10.
    \258\ For example, the FBI has instructed individuals and 
organizations to contact their nearest FBI field office to report 
cybersecurity incidents or to report them online at https://www.ic3.gov/Home/FileComplaint. See FBI, What We Investigate, Cyber 
Crime, available at https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber. See also 
CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (``As part of your incident 
response, disaster recovery, and business continuity planning 
efforts, identify and document partners you will call on to help. 
Consider building these relationships in advance and understand what 
is required to obtain support. CISA and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) provide dedicated hubs for helping respond to 
cyber and critical infrastructure attacks. Both have resources and 
guidelines on when, how, and to whom an incident is to be reported 
in order to receive assistance. You should also file a report with 
local law enforcement, so they have an official record of the 
incident.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Covered Entity also could consider including periodic testing 
requirements in its incident response and recovery policies and 
procedures.\259\ These tests could assess the efficacy of the policies 
and procedures to determine whether any changes are necessary, for 
example, through tabletop or full-scale exercises. Relatedly, proposed 
Rule 10 would require that the incident response and recovery policies 
and procedures include written documentation of a cybersecurity 
incident, including the Covered Entity's response to and recovery from 
the incident.\260\ This record could be used by the Covered Entity to 
assess the efficacy of, and adherence to, its incident response and 
recovery policies and procedures. It further could be used as a 
``lessons-learned'' document to help the Covered Entity respond more 
effectively the next time it experiences a cybersecurity incident. The 
Commission staff and SRO staff also would use the records to review 
compliance with this aspect of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \259\ See generally CISA Cyber Essentials Starter Kit (``Lead 
development of an incident response and disaster recovery plan 
outlining roles and responsibilities. Test it often. Incident 
response plans and disaster recovery plans are crucial to 
information security, but they are separate plans. Incident response 
mainly focuses on information asset protection, while disaster 
recovery plans focus on business continuity. Once you develop a 
plan, test the plan using realistic simulations (known as ``war-
gaming''), where roles and responsibilities are assigned to the 
people who manage cyber incident responses. This ensures that your 
plan is effective and that you have the appropriate people involved 
in the plan. Disaster recovery plans minimize recovery time by 
efficiently recovering critical systems.'').
    \260\ See paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Annual Review and Required Written Reports
    In addition to requiring a Covered Entity to establish, maintain, 
and enforce written policies and procedures to address cybersecurity 
risk, proposed Rule 10 would require the Covered Entity, at least 
annually, to: (1) review and assess the design and effectiveness of the 
cybersecurity policies and procedures, including whether the policies 
and procedures reflect changes in cybersecurity risk over the time 
period covered by the review; and (2) prepare a written report that 
describes the review, the assessment, and any control tests performed, 
explains their results, documents any cybersecurity incident that 
occurred since the date of the last report, and discusses any material 
changes to the policies and procedures since the date of the last 
report.\261\ The annual review requirement is designed to require the 
Covered Entity to evaluate whether its cybersecurity policies and 
procedures continue to work as designed. In making this assessment, 
Covered Entities generally should consider whether changes are needed 
to ensure their continued effectiveness, including oversight of any 
delegated responsibilities. As discussed earlier, the sophistication of 
the tactics,

[[Page 20245]]

techniques, and procedures employed by threat actors is 
increasing.\262\ The review requirement is designed to impose a 
discipline on Covered Entities to be vigilant in assessing whether 
their cybersecurity risk management policies and procedures continue to 
be reasonably designed to address this risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \261\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10.
    \262\ See section I.A.1. of this release (discussing, for 
example, how cybersecurity threats are evolving); see also Bank of 
England CBEST Report (stating that ``[t]he threat actor community, 
once dominated by amateur hackers, has expanded to include a broad 
range of professional threat actors, all of whom are strongly 
motivated, organised and funded'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The review would need to be conducted no less frequently than 
annually. As discussed above, one of the required elements that would 
need to be included in the policies and procedures is the requirement 
to perform periodic assessments of cybersecurity risks associated with 
the covered entity's information systems and information residing on 
those systems.\263\ Based on the findings of those risk assessments, a 
Covered Entity could consider whether to perform a review prior to the 
one-year anniversary of the last review. In addition, the occurrence of 
a cybersecurity incident or significant cybersecurity incident 
impacting the Covered Entity or other entities could cause the Covered 
Entity to consider performing a review before the next annual review is 
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \263\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
section II.B.1.a. of this release (discussing the assessment 
proposal in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Covered Entity would need to document the review in a written 
report.\264\ The required written report generally should be prepared 
or overseen by the persons who administer the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity program. This report requirement is designed to assist 
the Covered Entity in evaluating the efficacy of organization's 
cybersecurity risk management policies and procedures. Additionally, 
the requirement to review and assess the design and effectiveness of 
the cybersecurity policies and procedures includes whether they reflect 
changes in cybersecurity risk over the time period covered by the 
review. Therefore, the Covered Entity generally would need to take into 
account the periodic assessments of cybersecurity risks performed 
pursuant to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and 
(b)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed Rule. This could provide Covered Entities 
with valuable insights into potential enhancements to the policies and 
procedures to keep them up-to-date (i.e., reasonably designed to 
address emerging cybersecurity threats). For example, incorporating the 
cybersecurity risk assessments into the required written report could 
provide senior officers who review the report with information on the 
specific risks identified in the assessments. This could lead them to 
ask questions and seek relevant information regarding the effectiveness 
of the Covered Entity's cybersecurity risk management policies and 
procedures and its implementation in light of those risks. This could 
include questions as to whether the Covered Entity has adequate 
resources with respect to cybersecurity matters, including access to 
cybersecurity expertise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \264\ See paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the requirements 
that Covered Entities establish, maintain, and enforce written policies 
and procedures to address their cybersecurity risks, the elements that 
would need to be included in the cybersecurity risk management policies 
and procedures, and the required (at least) annual review of the 
cybersecurity risk management policies and procedure under paragraph 
(b) of proposed Rule 10. In addition, the Commission is requesting 
comment on the following specific aspects of the proposals:
    21. In designing the cybersecurity risk management policies and 
procedures requirements of proposed Rule 10, the Commission considered 
a number of sources cited in the sections above, including, in 
particular, the NIST Framework and the CISA Cyber Essentials Starter 
Kit. Are there other sources the Commission should use? If so, identify 
them and explain why they should be considered and how they could 
inform potential modifications to the cybersecurity risk management 
policies and procedures requirements.
    22. Should the policies and procedures requirements of paragraph 
(b)(1) of proposed Rule 10 be modified? For example, are there other 
elements that should be included in cybersecurity risk management 
policies and procedures? If so, identify them and explain why they 
should be included. Should any of the minimum required elements be 
eliminated? If so, identify them and explain why it would be 
appropriate to eliminate them from the rule.
    23. Should the policies and procedures requirements of paragraph 
(b)(1) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to provide more flexibility in 
how a Covered Entity implements them? If so, identify the requirements 
that are too prescriptive and explain why and suggest ways to make them 
more flexible without undermining the objective of having Covered 
Entities adequately address cybersecurity risks.
    24. Should the policies and procedures requirements of paragraph 
(b)(1) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to provide less flexibility in 
how a Covered Entity had to implement them? If so, identify the 
requirements that should be more prescriptive and explain why and 
suggest ways to make them more prescriptive without undermining the 
objective of having Covered Entities implement cybersecurity risk 
management policies and procedures that address their particular 
circumstances.
    25. Should the policies and procedures requirements of paragraph 
(b)(1) of proposed Rule 10 be deemed to be reasonably designed if they 
are consistent with industry standards comprised of cybersecurity risk 
management practices that are widely available to cybersecurity 
professionals in the financial sector and issued by an authoritative 
body that is a U.S. governmental entity or agency, association of U.S. 
governmental entities or agencies, or widely recognized organization? 
If so, identify the standard or standards and explain why it would be 
appropriate to deem the policies and procedures requirements of 
paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 10 reasonably designed if they are 
consistent with the standard or standards.
    26. The policies and procedures requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of 
proposed Rule 10 would require Covered Entities to cover 
``information'' and ``information systems'' as defined, respectively, 
in paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) of proposed Rule 10 without limitation. 
Should the proposed policies and procedures requirements of paragraph 
(b)(1) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to address a narrower set of 
information and information systems? If so, describe how the narrower 
set of information and information systems should be defined and why it 
would be appropriate to limit the policies and procedures requirements 
to this set of information and information systems. For example, should 
the policies and procedures requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of 
proposed Rule 10 be limited to information and information systems 
that, if compromised, would result in, or would be reasonably likely to 
result in, harm to the Covered Entity or others? If so, explain why. If 
not, explain why not. Is there another way to limit the application of 
the policies and procedures requirements to certain information and 
information systems that would not undermine the objective

[[Page 20246]]

that Covered Entities implement policies and procedures that adequately 
address their cybersecurity risks? If so, explain how.
    27. Should the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 
10 relating to periodic assessments of the cybersecurity risks 
associated with the Covered Entity's information systems and 
information residing on those systems be modified? If so, explain why. 
If not, explain why not.
    28. Should the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A)(1) of 
proposed Rule 10 relating to categorizing and prioritizing 
cybersecurity risks based on an inventory of the components of the 
Covered Entity's information systems and information residing on those 
systems and the potential effect of a cybersecurity incident on the 
Covered Entity be modified? If so, explain why. If not, explain why 
not.
    29. Should the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A)(2) of 
proposed Rule 10 relating to identifying the Covered Entity's service 
providers that receive, maintain, or process information, or are 
otherwise permitted to access the Covered Entity's information systems 
and any of the Covered Entity's information residing on those systems, 
and assess the cybersecurity risks associated with the Covered Entity's 
use of these service providers be modified? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. Certain Covered Entities may use data feeds from 
third-party providers that do not receive, maintain, or process 
information for the Covered Entity but that could nonetheless cause 
significant disruption for the Covered Entity if they were the subject 
of a cybersecurity incident. For example, broker-dealers may subscribe 
to third-party data feeds to satisfy their obligations for best 
execution under the federal securities laws. If a third-party provider 
of data feeds experienced a cybersecurity breach, it could lead to 
faulty market information being shared with the broker-dealer, which 
could in turn impact the broker-dealer's ability to operate and execute 
trades for its customers. Likewise, SBS Entities might rely on data 
from counterparties. Should the Commission require the risk assessment 
to include service providers that provide data feeds to Covered 
Entities but do not otherwise have access to the Covered Entities' 
information systems? If so, should the risk assessment be limited to 
only those third parties who provide data critical to the Covered 
Entity's business operations? Are there other cybersecurity risks 
associated with utilizing a third party who provides data feeds that 
should be addressed? If so, identify the risks and explain how they 
could be addressed.
    30. Should the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of proposed 
Rule 10 relating to requiring written documentation of the risk 
assessments required by paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of proposed Rule 10 be 
modified? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    31. Should the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of proposed 
Rule 10 relating to controls designed to minimize user-related risks 
and prevent unauthorized access to the Covered Entity's information 
systems and the information residing on those systems? If so, explain 
why. If not, explain why not. Should requirements of paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to revise the requirement to 
include the following identified controls: (1) controls requiring 
standards of behavior for individuals authorized to access the Covered 
Entity's information systems and the information residing on those 
systems, such as an acceptable use policy; (2) controls identifying and 
authenticating individual users, including but not limited to 
implementing authentication measures that require users to present a 
combination of two or more credentials for access verification; (3) 
controls establishing procedures for the timely distribution, 
replacement, and revocation of passwords or methods of authentication; 
(4) controls restricting access to specific information systems of the 
Covered Entity or components thereof and the information residing on 
those systems solely to individuals requiring access to the systems and 
information as is necessary for them to perform their responsibilities 
and functions on behalf of the Covered Entity; and (5) securing remote 
access technologies? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For 
example, should this paragraph of the proposed rule be modified to 
include any additional type of controls? If so, identify the controls 
and explain why they should be included. Should the text of the 
proposed controls be modified? For example, should the control 
pertaining to the timely distribution, replacement, and revocation of 
passwords or methods of authentication use a word other than 
``distribution''? If so, explain why and suggest an alternative word 
that would be more appropriate. Would ``establishment'' or ``setting 
up'' be more appropriate in this context? Should this paragraph of the 
proposed rule be modified to eliminate any of the identified controls? 
If so, identify the control and explain why it should be eliminated. 
For example, could the control pertaining to implementing 
authentication measures requiring users to present a combination of two 
or more credentials for access verification potentially become 
obsolete? If so, explain why and suggest an alternative control that 
could incorporate this requirement as well as other authentication 
controls that may develop in the future.
    32. CISA has developed a catalog of cyber ``bad practices'' that 
are exceptionally risky and can increase risk to an organization's 
critical infrastructure.\265\ These bad practices include the use of 
unsupported (or end-of-life) software, use of known or default 
passwords and credentials, and the use of single-factor authentication. 
In addition, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council 
(``FFIEC'') has issued guidance on authentication and access to 
financial institution services and systems, and suggests that the use 
of single-factor authentication as a control mechanism has shown to be 
inadequate against certain cyber threats and adverse impacts from 
ransomware, customer account fraud, and identity theft.\266\ Instead, 
the FFIEC guidance suggests the use of multi-factor authentication and 
other measures, such as specific authentication solutions, password 
controls, and access and transaction controls. Should paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to specifically require 
controls that users provide multi-factor authentication before they can 
access an information system of the Covered Entity? If so, explain why. 
If not, explain why not. Would it be appropriate to require multi-
factor authentication for all of the Covered Entity's information 
systems or for a more limited set of information systems? For example, 
should multi-factor authentication be required for public-facing 
information systems such as applications that provide users access to 
their accounts at the Covered Entity and not required for internal 
information systems used by the Covered Entity's employees? If so, 
explain why. If not, explain why not.

[[Page 20247]]

Should multi-factor authentication be required regardless of whether 
the information system is public facing if personal, confidential, or 
proprietary information resides on the information system? If so, 
explain why. If not, explain why not. Should the rule require phishing-
resistant multi-factor authentication? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ See CISA, Bad Practices, available at https://www.cisa.gov/BadPractices.
    \266\ See FFIEC, Authentication and Access to Financial 
Institution Services and Systems (Aug. 2021), available at https://www.ffiec.gov/guidance/Authentication-and-Access-to-Financial-Institution-Services-and-Systems.pdf. See also FDIC and the Office 
of the Comptroller of the Currency (``OCC''), Joint Statement on 
Heightened Cybersecurity Risk (Jan. 16, 2020), available at https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2020/bulletin-2020-5a.pdf 
(noting that identity and access management controls include 
multifactor authentication to segment and safeguard access to 
critical systems and data on an organization's network).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Should the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed 
Rule 10 relating to measures designed to monitor the Covered Entity's 
information systems and protect the information residing on those 
systems from unauthorized access or use be modified? For example, 
should the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed Rule 10 
specifically require encryption of certain information residing on the 
Covered Entity's information systems? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not.
    34. The measures discussed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed 
Rule 10 designed to monitor the Covered Entity's information systems 
and protect the information residing on those systems from unauthorized 
access or use would need to be based on a periodic assessment of the 
Covered Entity's information systems and the information that resides 
on the systems that takes into account: (1) the sensitivity level and 
importance of the information to Covered Entity's business operations; 
(2) whether any of the information is personal information; (3) where 
and how the information is accessed, stored and transmitted, including 
the monitoring of information in transmission; (4) the information 
systems' access controls and malware protection; and (5) the potential 
effect a cybersecurity incident involving the information could have on 
the Covered Entity and its customers, counterparties, members, or 
users, including the potential to cause a significant cybersecurity 
incident. Should this paragraph of the proposed rule be modified to 
include any additional factors that would need to be taken into 
account? If so, identify the factors and explain why they should be 
taken into account. Should this paragraph of the proposed rule be 
modified to eliminate any of the identified factors that should be 
taken into account? If so, identify the factors and explain why they 
should be eliminated.
    35. Should the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed 
Rule 10 relating periodic assessments of the Covered Entity's 
information systems and information residing of the systems be modified 
to specifically require periodic (e.g., semi-annual or annual) 
penetration tests? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. If 
proposed Rule 10 should be modified to require periodic penetration 
tests, should the rule specify the information systems and information 
to be tested? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, 
should the penetration tests be performed on all information systems 
and information of the Covered Entity? Alternatively, should the 
penetration tests be performed: (1) on a random selection of 
information systems and information; (2) on a prioritized selection of 
the information systems and information residing on them that are most 
critical to the Covered Entity's functions or that maintain information 
that if accessed by or disclosed to persons not authorized to view it 
could cause the most harm to the Covered Entity or others; and/or (3) 
on information systems for which the Covered Entity has identified 
vulnerabilities pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of 
proposed Rule 10? Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of 
each potential approach to requiring penetration tests.
    36. Should the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed 
Rule 10 relating to the oversight of service providers that receive, 
maintain, or process the Covered Entity's information, or are otherwise 
permitted to access the Covered Entity's information systems and the 
information residing on those systems, pursuant to a written contract 
between the covered entity and the service provider, through which the 
service providers are required to implement and maintain appropriate 
measures, including the practices described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 
through (v) of proposed Rule 10, that are designed to protect the 
Covered Entity's information systems and information residing on those 
systems be modified? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For 
example, would there be practical difficulties with implementing the 
requirement to oversee the service providers through a written 
contract? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Are there 
alternative approaches to addressing the cybersecurity risk that arises 
when Covered Entities use service providers? If so, describe them and 
explain why they would be appropriate in terms of addressing this risk. 
For example, rather than addressing this risk through written contract, 
could it be addressed through policies and procedures to obtain written 
assurances or certifications from service providers that the service 
provider manages cybersecurity risk in a manner that would be 
consistent with how the Covered Entity would need to manage this risk 
under paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 10? If so, explain why and 
describe the type of assurances or certifications Covered Entities 
could reasonably obtain to ensure that their service providers are 
taking appropriate measures to manage cybersecurity risk? In 
responding, please explain how assurances or certifications would be an 
appropriate alternative to written contracts in terms of addressing the 
cybersecurity risk caused by the use of service providers.
    37. Should the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of proposed 
Rule 10 relating to measures designed to detect, mitigate, and 
remediate any cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities with respect to 
the Covered Entity's information systems and the information residing 
on those systems be modified? If so, explain why. If not, explain why 
not.
    38. Should the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(v)(A) of proposed 
Rule 10 relating to measures designed to detect, respond to, and 
recover from a cybersecurity incident be modified? If so, explain why. 
If not, explain why not. For example, these measures would need to 
include policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure: 
(1) the continued operations of the covered entity; (2) the protection 
of the Covered Entity's information systems and the information 
residing on those systems; (3) external and internal cybersecurity 
incident information sharing and communications; and (4) the reporting 
of significant cybersecurity incidents pursuant to paragraph (c) of 
proposed Rule 10. Would these four specific design objectives required 
of the policies and procedures place the Covered Entity in a position 
to effectively detect, respond to, and recover from a cybersecurity 
incident? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Should this 
paragraph of the proposed rule be modified to include any additional 
design objectives for these policies and procedures? If so, identify 
the design objectives and explain why they should be included. For 
example, should the rule require policies and procedures that are 
designed to recover from a cybersecurity incident within a specific 
timeframe such as 24, 48, or 72 hours or some other period? If so, 
identify the recovery period and explain why it would be appropriate. 
Should this paragraph of the proposed rule be modified to eliminate any 
of the specified design objectives? If so, identify the design 
objectives and explain why they should be eliminated.

[[Page 20248]]

    39. Should the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B) of proposed 
Rule 10 relating to written documentation of any cybersecurity 
incidents be modified? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For 
example, should the written documentation requirements apply to a 
narrower set of incidents than those that would meet the definition of 
``cybersecurity incident'' under proposed Rule 10? If so, describe the 
narrower set of incidents and explain why it would be appropriate to 
limit the written documentation requirements to them.
    40. Should the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10 
relating to the review and assessment of the policies and procedures 
and a written report of the review by modified? If so, explain why. If 
not, explain why not. For example, this paragraph would require: (1) a 
review and assessment of the design and effectiveness of the 
cybersecurity risk management policies and procedures, including 
whether the policies and procedures reflect changes in cybersecurity 
risk over the time period covered by the review; and (2) the 
preparation of a written report that describes the review, the 
assessment, and any control tests performed, explains their results, 
documents any cybersecurity incident that occurred since the date of 
the last report, and discusses any material changes to the policies and 
procedures since the date of the last report. Should the review 
requirement be modified to provide greater flexibility based on the 
Covered Entity's assessment of what it believes would be most effective 
in light of its cybersecurity risks? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. Should the review, assessment, and report be required 
on a more frequent basis such as quarterly? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. Should the review, assessment, and report requirement 
be triggered after certain events regardless of when the previous 
review was conducted? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For 
example, should the requirement be triggered if the Covered Entity 
experiences a significant cybersecurity incident or undergoes a 
significant business event such as a merger, acquisition, or the 
commencement of a new business line that relies on information systems? 
If so, explain why and suggest how a ``significant business event'' 
should be defined for the purposes of the review and assessment 
requirement. If not, explain why not. Should the rule require that 
persons with a minimum level of cybersecurity expertise or experience 
must perform the review and assessment or that the review and 
assessment must be performed by a senior officer of the Covered Entity? 
If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Should the rule require 
that the review and assessment be performed by personnel who are not 
involved in designing and implementing the cybersecurity policies and 
procedures? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Should the 
rule require that the annual report be subject to periodic third-party 
audits or reviews? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Should 
the Commission provide guidance to clarify how the review and report 
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) proposed Rule 10 interact with the 
requirements that SBS Entities perform assessments under 17 CFR 
240.15Fk-1 or reviews under 17 CFR 250.15c3-4(c)(3)? If so, explain 
why. If not, explain why not.
2. Notification and Reporting of Significant Cybersecurity Incidents
a. Timing and Manner of Notification and Reporting
    FSOC observed that ``[s]haring timely and actionable cybersecurity 
information can reduce the risk that cybersecurity incidents occur and 
can mitigate the impacts of those that do occur.'' \267\ The Commission 
is proposing to require that Covered Entities provide immediate notice 
and subsequent reports about significant cybersecurity incidents to the 
Commission and, in the case of certain Covered Entities, other 
regulators. The objective is to improve the Commission's ability to 
monitor and evaluate the effects of a significant cybersecurity 
incident on Covered Entities and their customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, or users, as well as assess the potential risks 
affecting financial markets more broadly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \267\ FSOC 2021 Annual Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, proposed Rule 10 would require a Covered Entity 
to provide immediate written electronic notice to the Commission of a 
significant cybersecurity incident upon having a reasonable basis to 
conclude that the incident has occurred or is occurring.\268\ The 
Commission would keep the notices nonpublic to the extent permitted by 
law. The notice would need to identify the Covered Entity, state that 
the notice is being given to alert the Commission of a significant 
cybersecurity incident impacting the Covered Entity, and provide the 
name and contact information of an employee of the Covered Entity who 
can provide further details about the nature and scope of the 
significant cybersecurity incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
paragraph (a)(10) of proposed Rule 10 (defining the term 
``significant cybersecurity incident''). As discussed below in 
section II.C. of this release, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers would be 
subject to an identical immediate written electronic notice 
requirement. See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 10. If proposed 
Rule 10 is adopted, it is anticipated that a dedicated email address 
would be set up to receive the notices from Covered Entities and 
Non-Covered Broker-Dealers. See, e.g., Staff Guidance for Filing 
Broker-Dealer Notices, Statements and Reports, available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/bdnotices; Staff Statement on 
Submitting Notices, Statements, Applications, and Reports for 
Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap 
Participants Pursuant to the Financial Responsibility Rules 
(Exchange Act Rules 18a-1 through 18a-10), available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-statement-on-submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The immediate notice would need to be submitted by the Covered 
Entity electronically in written form (as opposed to permitting the 
notice to made telephonically).\269\ The Commission is proposing a 
written notification requirement because of the number of Market 
Entities that would be subject to the requirement and because of the 
different types of Market Entities.\270\ A written notification would 
also facilitate the Commission in identifying patterns and trends 
across Market Entities experiencing significant cybersecurity 
incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10. But see 17 CFR 
242.1002(b)(1) (requiring an SCI entity to provide the Commission 
with immediate notice after having a reasonable basis to conclude 
that an SCI event has occurred without specifying that the notice be 
written); OCC, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, Computer-Security 
Incident Notification Requirements for Banking Organizations and 
Their Bank Service Providers, 86 FR 66424 (Nov. 23, 2021) (requiring 
a banking organization to provide notice to a designated point of 
contact of a computer-security incident through telephone, email, or 
similar methods).
    \270\ Non-Covered Broker-Dealers also would be subject to an 
immediate written electronic notice requirement under paragraph 
(e)(2) of proposed Rule 10 and, therefore, the Commission 
potentially could receive notices from all types of Market Entities. 
As discussed in section V.C. of this release, it is estimated that 
1,989 Market Entities would be Covered Entities and 1,969 broker-
dealers would be Non-Covered Entities resulting in a 3,958 total 
Market Entities. This is a far larger number of entities than the 47 
entities that currently are SCI entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The notice requirement would be triggered when the Covered Entity 
has a reasonable basis to conclude that a significant cybersecurity 
incident has occurred or is occurring.\271\ This does not mean that the 
Covered Entity can wait until it definitively concludes that

[[Page 20249]]

a significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is occurring. In 
the early stages of discovering the existence of a cybersecurity 
incident, it may not be possible for the Covered Entity to conclude 
definitively that it is a significant cybersecurity incident. For 
example, the Covered Entity may need to assess which information 
systems have been subject to the cybersecurity incident and the impact 
that the incident has had on those systems before definitively 
concluding that it is a significant cybersecurity incident.\272\ The 
objective of the notification requirement is to alert the Commission 
staff as soon as the Covered Entity detects the existence of a 
cybersecurity incident that it has a reasonable basis to conclude is a 
significant cybersecurity incident and not to wait until the Covered 
Entity definitively concludes it is a significant cybersecurity 
incident. This would provide the Commission staff with the ability to 
begin to assess the situation at an earlier stage of the cybersecurity 
incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ The notice requirement for Non-Covered Broker-Dealers also 
would be triggered when the broker-dealer has a reasonable basis to 
conclude that a significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or 
is occurring. See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 10.
    \272\ See paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 10 (defining 
``cybersecurity incident'' to mean an unauthorized occurrence on or 
conducted through a Market Entity's information systems that 
jeopardizes the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the 
information systems or any information residing on those systems).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed immediate written notification requirement is 
modelled on other notification requirements that apply to broker-
dealers and SBSDs pursuant to other Exchange Act rules. Under these 
existing requirements, broker-dealers and certain SBSDs must provide 
the Commission with same-day written notification if they undergo 
certain adverse events, including falling below their minimum net 
capital requirements or failing to make and keep current required books 
and records.\273\ The objective of these requirements is to provide the 
Commission staff with the opportunity to respond when a broker-dealer 
or SBSD is in financial or operational difficulty.\274\ Similarly, the 
written notification requirements of proposed Rule 10 are designed to 
provide the Commission staff with the opportunity to begin assessing 
the situation promptly when a Covered Entity is experiencing a 
significant cybersecurity incident by, for example, assessing the 
Covered Entity's operating status and engaging in discussions with the 
Covered Entity to understand better what steps it is taking to protect 
its customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users. In 
addition, a Covered Entity that is a broker-dealer would need to 
provide the written notice to its examining authority, and a transfer 
agent would need to provide the written notice to its ARA.\275\ The 
objective is to notify other supervisory authorities to allow them the 
opportunity to respond to the significant cybersecurity incident 
impacting the Covered Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-11 (notification rule for broker-
dealers); 17 CFR 240.18a-8 (notification rule for SBS Entities).
    \274\ See Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Security-
Based Swap Dealers, Major Security-Based Swap Participants, and 
Broker-Dealers; Capital Rule for Certain Security-Based Swap 
Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 71958 (Apr. 17, 2014) [79 FR 
25194, 25247 (May 2, 2014)] (``SBS Entity Recordkeeping and 
Reporting Proposing Release'').
    \275\ See paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of proposed Rule 10. 
Non-Covered Broker-Dealers also would be required to provide the 
written notice to their examining authority. See paragraph (e)(2) of 
proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the immediate written electronic notice is 
designed to alert the Commission on a confidential basis to the 
existence of a significant cybersecurity incident impacting a Covered 
Entity so the Commission staff can begin to assess the event. It is not 
intended as a means to report written information about the significant 
cybersecurity incident. Therefore, in addition to the immediate written 
electronic notice, a Covered Entity would be required to report 
detailed information about the significant cybersecurity incident by 
filing, on a confidential basis, Part I of proposed Form SCIR with the 
Commission through the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and 
Retrieval System (``EDGAR'' or ``EDGAR system'').\276\ Because of the 
sensitive nature of the information and the fact that threat actors 
could potentially use it to cause more harm, the Commission would not 
make the filings available to the public to the extent permitted by 
law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ See paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10. As discussed 
below, Part II of proposed Form SCIR would be used by Covered 
Entities to make public disclosures about the cybersecurity risks 
they face and the significant cybersecurity incidents they 
experienced during the current or previous calendar year. See 
sections II.B.2. and II.B.4. of this release (discussing these 
proposed requirements). Non-Covered Broker-Dealers would not be 
subject to the requirements to file Part I and Part II of proposed 
Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the notice, the requirement to file Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR would be triggered when the Covered Entity has a reasonable basis 
to conclude that a significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or 
is occurring. Therefore, the notification and reporting requirements 
would be triggered at the same time. However, in order to provide the 
Covered Entity time to gather the information that would be elicited by 
Part I of proposed Form SCIR, the Covered Entity would need to file the 
form promptly, but no later than 48 hours, upon having a reasonable 
basis to conclude that a significant cybersecurity incident has 
occurred or is occurring.
    Proposed Rule 10 also would require the Covered Entity to file an 
amended Part I of proposed Form SCIR with updated information about the 
significant cybersecurity incident in four circumstances.\277\ In each 
case, the amended Part I of proposed Form SCIR would need to be filed 
promptly, but no later than 48 hours, after the update requirement is 
triggered. First, the Covered Entity would need to file an amended Part 
I of proposed Form SCIR if any information previously reported to the 
Commission on the form pertaining to the significant cybersecurity 
incident becomes materially inaccurate.\278\ Second, the Covered Entity 
would need to file an amended Part I of proposed Form SCIR if any new 
material information pertaining to the significant cybersecurity 
incident previously reported to the Commission on the form is 
discovered.\279\ The Commission staff generally would use the 
information reported on Part I of proposed Form SCIR to assess the 
operating status of the Covered Entity and assess the impact that the 
significant cybersecurity incident could have on other participants in 
the U.S. securities markets. The requirement to file an amended Part I 
of proposed Form SCIR under the first and second circumstances is 
designed to ensure the Commission and Commission staff have reasonably 
accurate and complete information when undertaking these activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ See paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A) through (D) of proposed Rule 
10.
    \278\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of proposed Rule 10.
    \279\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Covered Entity would need to file an amended Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR after the significant cybersecurity incident is 
resolved.\280\ A significant cybersecurity incident impacting a Covered 
Entity would be resolved when the situation no longer meets the 
definition of ``significant cybersecurity incident.'' \281\ The 
resolution of a significant cybersecurity incident would be a material 
development in the situation and, therefore, would be a reporting 
trigger under proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \280\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C) of proposed Rule 10.
    \281\ See paragraph (a)(10) of proposed Rule 10 (defining the 
term ``significant cybersecurity incident'').

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

[[Page 20250]]

    Finally, if the Covered Entity conducted an internal investigation 
pertaining to the significant cybersecurity incident, it would need to 
file an amended Part I of proposed Form SCIR after the investigation is 
closed.\282\ This would be an investigation of the significant 
cybersecurity incident that seeks to determine the cause of the 
incident or to examine whether there was a failure to adhere to the 
Covered Entity's policies and procedures to address cybersecurity risk 
or whether those policies and procedures are effective. An internal 
investigation could be conducted by the Covered Entity's own personnel 
(e.g., internal auditors) or by external consultants hired by the 
Covered Entity. The closure of an internal investigation would be a 
reporting trigger under proposed Rule 10 because it could yield 
material new information about the incident that had not been reported 
in a previously filed Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(D) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the immediate written electronic notice, a Covered Broker-
Dealer would need to promptly transmit a copy of each Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR it files with the Commission to its examining 
authority, and a transfer agent would need to promptly transmit a copy 
of each Part I of proposed Form SCIR it files with the Commission to 
its ARA.\283\ The objective is to provide these other supervisory 
authorities with the same information about the significant 
cybersecurity incident that the Commission receives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \283\ See paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard, the reporting requirements under proposed Rule 10 
would provide the Commission and its staff with information to 
understand better the nature and extent of a particular significant 
cybersecurity incident and the efficacy of the Covered Entity's 
response to mitigate the disruption and harm caused by the incident. 
The Commission staff could use the reports to focus on the Covered 
Entity's operating status and to facilitate their outreach to, and 
discussions with, personnel at the Covered Entity who are addressing 
the significant cybersecurity incident. For example, certain 
information provided in a report may be sufficient to address any 
questions the staff has about the incident; and in other instances 
staff may want to ask follow-up questions to get a better understanding 
of the matter. In addition, the reporting would provide the staff with 
a view into the Covered Entity's understanding of the scope and impact 
of the significant cybersecurity incident. All of this information 
would be used by the Commission and its staff in assessing the impact 
of the significant cybersecurity incident on the Covered Entity.
    The information provided to the Commission under the proposed 
reporting requirements also would be used to assess the potential 
cybersecurity risks affecting U.S. securities markets more broadly. 
This information could be useful in assessing other and future 
significant cybersecurity incidents. For example, these reports could 
assist the Commission in identifying patterns and trends across Covered 
Entities, including widespread cybersecurity incidents affecting 
multiple Covered Entities at the same time. Further, the reports could 
be used to evaluate the effectiveness of various approaches to respond 
to and recover from a significant cybersecurity incident.
b. Part I of Proposed Form SCIR
    Proposed Rule 10 would require a Covered Entity to report 
information about a significant cybersecurity incident confidentially 
on Part I of proposed Form SCIR.\284\ The form would elicit certain 
information about the significant cybersecurity incident through check 
boxes, date fields, and narrative fields. Covered Entities would file 
Part I of proposed Form SCIR electronically with the Commission using 
the EDGAR system in accordance with the EDGAR Filer Manual, as defined 
in Rule 11 of Regulation S-T,\285\ and in accordance with the 
requirements of Regulation S-T.\286\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ See paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10.
    \285\ See 17 CFR 232.11.
    \286\ See paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of proposed Rule 10. As 
discussed below in section II.B.4. of this release, the Covered 
Entity would need to file Part I of proposed Form SCIR using a 
structured data language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Covered Entity would need to indicate on Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR whether the form is being filed with respect to a significant 
cybersecurity incident as an initial report, amended report, or final 
amended report by checking the appropriate box. As discussed above, 
proposed Rule 10 would require a Covered Entity to file Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR upon having a reasonable basis to conclude that a 
significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is occurring.\287\ 
This would be the initial Part I of proposed Form SCIR with respect to 
the significant cybersecurity incident.\288\ Thereafter, a Covered 
Entity would be required to file an amended Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR with respect to the significant cybersecurity incident after: (1) 
any information previously reported to the Commission on Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR pertaining to the significant cybersecurity incident 
becomes materially inaccurate; (2) any new material information 
pertaining to the significant cybersecurity incident previously 
reported to the Commission on Part I of proposed Form SCIR is 
discovered; (3) the significant cybersecurity incident is resolved; or 
(4) an internal investigation pertaining to a significant cybersecurity 
incident is closed.\289\ If a Covered Entity checks the box indicating 
that the filing is a final Part I of proposed Form SCIR, the firm also 
would need to check the appropriate box to indicate why a final form 
was being filed: either the significant cybersecurity incident was 
resolved or an internal investigation pertaining to the incident was 
closed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \287\ See paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
section II.B.2.a. of this release (discussing the proposed filing 
requirements in more detail).
    \288\ See Instruction B.1. of proposed Form SCIR.
    \289\ See paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A) through (D) of proposed Rule 
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Part I of proposed Form SCIR would elicit information about the 
Covered Entity that would be used to identify the filer.\290\ In 
particular, the Covered Entity would need to provide its full legal 
name and business name (if different from its legal name), tax 
identification number, unique identification code (``UIC'') (if the 
filer has a UIC), central index key (``CIK number''),\291\ and main 
address.\292\ The instructions to proposed Form SCIR (which would be 
applicable to Parts I and II) would provide that a UIC is an 
identification number that has been issued by an internationally 
recognized standards-setting system (``IRSS'') that has been recognized 
by the Commission pursuant to Rule 903(a) of Regulation SBSR.\293\ 
Currently, the Commission has recognized only the Global Legal Entity 
Identifier Foundation (``GLEIF'')--which is responsible for overseeing 
the Global Legal Entity Identifier System (``GLEIS'')--as an IRSS.\294\ 
Part I of

[[Page 20251]]

proposed Form SCIR also would elicit the name, phone number, and email 
address of the contact employee of the Covered Entity.\295\ The contact 
employee would need to be an individual authorized by the Covered 
Entity to provide the Commission with information about the significant 
cybersecurity incident (i.e., information the individual can provide 
directly) and make information about the incident available to the 
Commission (e.g., information the individual can provide by, for 
example, making other employees of the Covered Entity available to 
answer questions of the Commission staff).\296\ The Covered Entity also 
would need to indicate the type of Market Entity it is by checking the 
appropriate box or boxes.\297\ For example, if the Covered Entity is 
dually registered as a broker-dealer and SBSD, it would need to check 
the box for each of those entity types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ See Line Items 1.A. through 1.E. of Part I of proposed 
Form SCIR.
    \291\ A CIK number is used on the Commission's computer systems 
to identify persons who have filed disclosures with the Commission.
    \292\ See Line Items 1.A. through 1.C. of Part I of proposed 
Form SCIR.
    \293\ See Instruction A.5.g. of proposed Form SCIR. See also, 
e.g., Form SBSE available at https://www.sec.gov/files/form-sbse.pdf 
(providing a similar definition of UIC).
    \294\ See Regulation SBSR--Reporting and Dissemination of 
Security-Based Swap Information, Exchange Act Release No. 74244 
(Feb. 11, 2015), 80 FR 14563, 14632 (Mar. 19, 2015) (``Regulation 
SBSR Release''). LEIs are unique alphanumeric codes that identify 
legal entities in financial transactions in international markets. 
See Financial Stability Board (``FSB''), Options to Improve Adoption 
of the LEI, in Particular for Use in Cross-Border Payments (July 7, 
2022). Information associated with the LEI, which is a globally-
recognized digital identifier that is not specific to the 
Commission, includes the ``official name of the legal entity as 
recorded in the official registers[,]'' the entity's address, 
country of incorporation, and the ``legal form of the entity.'' Id. 
Accordingly, in proposing to require each Covered Entity to provide 
its UIC if it has a UIC, the Commission is proposing to require each 
Covered Entity identify itself with an LEI if it has an LEI.
    \295\ See Line Item 1.D. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
    \296\ See Instruction B.4. of proposed Form SCIR.
    \297\ See Line Item 1.E. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR 
(setting forth check boxes to indicate whether the Covered Entity is 
a broker-dealer, clearing agency, MSBSP, the MRSB, a national 
securities association, a national securities exchange, SBSD, SBSDR, 
or transfer agent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Page 1 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR also would contain fields 
for the individual executing the form to sign and date the form. By 
signing the form, the individual would: (1) certify that the form was 
executed on behalf of, and with the authority of, the Covered Entity; 
(2) represent individually, and on behalf of the Covered Entity, that 
the information and statements contained in the form are current, true 
and complete; and (3) represent individually, and on behalf of the 
Covered Entity, that to the extent any information previously submitted 
is not amended such information is current, true, and complete. The 
form of the certification is designed to ensure that the Covered 
Entity, through the individual executing the form, provides information 
that the Commission and Commission staff can rely on to evaluate the 
operating status of the Covered Entity, assess the impact the 
significant cybersecurity incident may have on other participants in 
the U.S. securities markets, and formulate an appropriate response to 
the incident.
    Line Items 2 through 14 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would 
elicit information about the significant cybersecurity incident and the 
Covered Entity's response to the incident. After discovering the 
existence of a significant cybersecurity incident, a Covered Entity may 
need time to determine the scope and impact of the incident in order to 
provide meaningful responses to these questions. For example, the 
Covered Entity may be working diligently to investigate and resolve the 
significant cybersecurity incident at the same time it would be 
required to complete and file Part I of proposed Form SCIR. The Covered 
Entity's priorities in the early stages after detecting the significant 
cybersecurity incident may be to devote its staff resources to 
mitigating the harms caused by the incident or that could be caused by 
the incident if necessary corrective actions are not promptly 
implemented. Moreover, during this period, the Covered Entity may not 
have a complete understanding of the cause of the significant 
cybersecurity incident, all the information systems impacted by the 
incident, the harm caused by the incident, or how to best resolve and 
recover from the incident (among other relevant information).
    Therefore, the first form filed with respect to a given significant 
cybersecurity incident should include information that is known to the 
Covered Entity at the time of filing and not include speculative 
information. If information is unknown at the time of filing, the 
Covered Entity should indicate that on the form. Understanding the 
aspects of the significant cybersecurity incident that are not yet 
known would inform the Commission's assessment. The process of filing 
an amended Part I of proposed Form SCIR is designed to update earlier 
filings as information becomes known to the Covered Entity. In 
particular, proposed Rule 10 would require the Covered Entity to file 
an amended Part I of proposed Form SCIR if information reported on a 
previously filed form pertaining to the significant cybersecurity 
incident becomes materially incomplete because new information is 
discovered.\298\ Therefore, as the Covered Entity reasonably concludes 
that additional information about the significant cybersecurity 
incident is necessary to make its filing not materially inaccurate, it 
would need to file amended forms. In this way, the reporting 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 are designed to provide the Commission 
and Commission staff with current known information and provide a means 
for the Covered Entity to report information as it becomes known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \298\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This does not mean that the Covered Entity can refrain from 
providing known information in Part I of proposed Form SCIR. As 
discussed above, the Covered Entity must certify through the individual 
executing the form that the information and statements in the form are 
current, true, and complete, among other things. A failure to provide 
current, true, and complete information that is known to the Covered 
Entity would be inconsistent with this required certification. In 
addition, failing to investigate the significant cybersecurity incident 
would be inconsistent with the policies and procedures required by 
proposed Rule 10. As discussed above, the cybersecurity incident 
response and recovery policies and procedures that would be required by 
proposed Rule 10 would need to include policies and procedures that are 
reasonably designed to ensure the reporting of significant 
cybersecurity incidents as required by the rule.\299\ The failure to 
diligently investigate the significant cybersecurity incident could 
indicate that the Covered Entity's incident response and recovery 
policies and procedures are not reasonably designed or are not being 
enforced by the Covered Entity as required by proposed Rule 10.\300\ 
Moreover, reasonably designed policies and procedures to detect, 
respond to, and recover from a cybersecurity incident, as required by 
proposed Rule 10 generally should require diligent investigation of the 
significant cybersecurity incident.\301\ Further, diligently 
investigating the significant cybersecurity incident would be in the 
interest of the Covered Entity as it could lead to a quicker resolution 
of the incident by revealing--for example--its cause and impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \299\ See paragraph (b)(1)(v)(A)(4) of proposed Rule 10. See 
also section II.B.1.e. of this release (discussing these proposed 
required policies and procedures in more detail).
    \300\ See paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 10 (requiring that 
the Covered Entity establish, maintain, and enforce written policies 
and procedures that are reasonably designed to address the covered 
entity's cybersecurity risks).
    \301\ See paragraph (b)(1)(v)(A) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
section II.B.1.e. of this release (discussing these proposed 
required policies and procedures in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of the information about the significant cybersecurity 
incident elicited in Part I of proposed Form SCIR, the Covered Entity 
first would be required to provide the approximate

[[Page 20252]]

date that it discovered the significant cybersecurity incident.\302\ As 
discussed above, a Covered Entity would be required to provide the 
Commission with immediate written electronic notice of a significant 
cybersecurity incident upon having a reasonable basis to conclude that 
the incident has occurred or is occurring.\303\ This can be based on, 
for example, the Covered Entity reviewing or receiving a record, alert, 
log, or notice about the incident. In addition, reaching this 
conclusion would trigger the requirement to file promptly (but within 
48 hours) an initial Part I of proposed Form SCIR with the Commission 
to first report the significant cybersecurity incident using the 
form.\304\ The date that would need to be reported on proposed Part I 
of Form SCIR is the date the Covered Entity has a reasonable basis to 
conclude that the incident has occurred or is occurring.\305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \302\ See Line Item 2 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
    \303\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10. See also section 
II.B.2.a. of this release (discussing the proposed notification 
requirement in more detail).
    \304\ See paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
section II.B.2.a. of this release (discussing the proposed reporting 
trigger in more detail).
    \305\ See Instruction B.5.a. of proposed Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 3 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would elicit 
information about the approximate duration of the significant 
cybersecurity incident.\306\ First, the Covered Entity would need to 
indicate whether the significant cybersecurity incident is 
ongoing.\307\ The form would provide the option of answering yes, no, 
or unknown. Second, the Covered Entity would need to provide the 
approximate start date of the cybersecurity incident or indicate that 
it does not know the start date.\308\ The start date may be well before 
the date the Covered Entity discovered the significant cybersecurity 
incident. Therefore, the start date of the incident reported on Line 
Item 3 may be different than the discovery date reported on Line Item 
2. Third, the Covered Entity would need to provide the approximate date 
the significant cybersecurity incident is resolved.\309\ This would be 
the date the Covered Entity was no longer undergoing a significant 
cybersecurity incident.\310\ As discussed above, the resolution of the 
significant cybersecurity incident triggers the requirement to file an 
amended Part I of proposed Form SCIR under proposed Rule 10.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \306\ See Line Items 3.A. through 3.C. of Part I of proposed 
Form SCIR.
    \307\ See Line Item 3.A. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
    \308\ See Line Item 3.B. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
    \309\ See Line Item 3.C. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
    \310\ See Instruction B.5.b. of proposed Form SCIR. See also 
paragraph (a)(10) of proposed Rule 10 (defining the term 
``significant cybersecurity incident'').
    \311\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C) of proposed Rule 10. See 
section II.B.2.a. of this release (discussing the notification 
requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 4 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would require the 
Covered Entity to indicate whether an internal investigation pertaining 
to the significant cybersecurity incident was being conducted. An 
``internal investigation'' would be defined as a formal investigation 
of the significant cybersecurity incident by internal personnel of the 
Covered Entity or external personnel hired by the Covered Entity that 
seeks to determine any of the following: the cause of the significant 
cybersecurity incident; whether there was a failure to adhere to the 
Covered Entity's policies and procedures to address cybersecurity risk; 
or whether the Covered Entity's policies and procedures to address 
cybersecurity are effective.\312\ If an internal investigation is 
conducted, the Covered Entity also would need to provide the date the 
investigation was closed. As discussed above, the closure of an 
internal investigation pertaining to the significant cybersecurity 
incident triggers the requirement to file an amended Part I of Form 
SCIR under proposed Rule 10.\313\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \312\ See Instruction A.5.d. of proposed Form SCIR.
    \313\ See paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(D) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
section II.B.2.a. of this release (discussing the notification 
requirement in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 5 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would require the 
Covered Entity to indicate whether a law enforcement or government 
agency (other than the Commission) had been notified of the significant 
cybersecurity incident.\314\ If so, the Covered Entity would need to 
identify each law enforcement or government agency. The Commission and 
Commission staff could use this information to coordinate with other 
law enforcement and government agencies if needed both to assess the 
incident and to share information as appropriate to understand the 
impact of the incident better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \314\ See Line Item 5 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 6 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would require the 
Covered Entity to describe the nature and scope of the significant 
cybersecurity incident, including the information systems affected by 
the incident and any effect on the Covered Entity's critical 
operations.\315\ This item would enable the Commission to obtain 
information about the incident to understand better how it is impacting 
the Covered Entity's operating status and whether the Covered Entity 
can continue to provide services to its customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, or users. This would include understanding which 
services and systems have been impacted and whether the incident was 
the result of a cybersecurity incident that occurred at a service 
provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \315\ See Line Item 6 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 7 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would require the 
Covered Entity to indicate whether the threat actor(s) causing the 
significant cybersecurity incident has been identified.\316\ If so, the 
Covered Entity would be required to identify the threat actor(s). In 
addition, the Covered Entity would need to indicate in Line Item 7 
whether there has been communication(s) from or with the threat 
actor(s) that caused or claims to have caused the significant cyber 
security incident.\317\ The Covered Entity would need to answer the 
question even if the threat actor(s) has not been identified. If there 
had been communications, the Covered Entity would need to describe 
them. This information would help the Commission staff to assess 
whether the same threat actor(s) had sought to access information 
systems of other Commission registrants and to warn other registrants 
(as appropriate) about the threat posed by the actor(s). It also could 
help in developing measures to protect against the risk to Commission 
registrants posed by the threat actor. In addition, the information 
would help the Commission assess the impact on the Covered Entity 
experiencing the significant cybersecurity incident to the extent other 
Commission registrants has been attacked by the same threat actor(s) 
using similar tactics, techniques, and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \316\ See Line Item 7.A. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
    \317\ See Line Item 7.B. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 8 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would require the 
Covered Entity to describe the actions taken or planned to respond to 
and recover from the significant cybersecurity incident.\318\ The 
objective is to obtain information to assess the Covered Entity's 
operating status, including its critical operations. This information 
also could assist the Commission and Commission staff in considering if 
the response measures are effective or ineffective in addressing the 
Covered Entity's significant cybersecurity incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \318\ See Line Item 8 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 9 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would require the 
Covered Entity

[[Page 20253]]

to indicate whether any data was stolen, altered, or accessed or used 
for any other unauthorized purpose.\319\ The Covered Entity would have 
the option of checking yes, no, or unknown. If yes, the Covered Entity 
would need to describe the nature and scope of the data. This 
information would help the Commission and its staff understand the 
potential harm to the Covered Entity and its customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, or users that could result from the compromise of 
the data. It also would provide insight into how the significant 
cybersecurity incident could impact other Market Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \319\ See Line Item 9 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 10 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would require the 
Covered Entity to indicate whether any personal information was lost, 
stolen, modified, deleted, destroyed, or accessed without authorization 
as a result of the significant cybersecurity incident.\320\ The Covered 
Entity would have the option of checking yes, no, or unknown. If yes, 
the Covered Entity would need to describe the nature and scope of the 
information. Additionally, if the Covered Entity answered yes, it would 
need to indicate whether notification has been provided to persons 
whose personal information was lost, stolen, damaged, or accessed 
without authorization.\321\ If the answer is no, the Covered Entity 
would need to indicate whether this notification is planned.\322\ For 
the purposes of proposed Form SCIR, the term ``personal information'' 
would have the same meaning as that term is defined in proposed Rule 
10.\323\ The compromise of personal information can have severe 
consequences on the persons to whom the information relates. For 
example, it potentially can be used to steal their identities or access 
their accounts at financial institutions to steal assets held in those 
accounts. Consequently, this information would help the Commission 
assess the extent to which the significant cybersecurity incident has 
created this risk and the potential harm that could result from the 
compromise of personal data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \320\ See Line Item 10.A. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
    \321\ See Line Item 10.B.i. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
    \322\ See Line Item 10.B.ii. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
    \323\ See Instruction A.5.e. of proposed Form SCIR. See also 
paragraph (a)(9) of proposed Rule 10 (defining ``personal 
information'' to mean any information that can be used, alone or in 
conjunction with any other information, to identify a person, such 
as name, date of birth, place of birth, telephone number, street 
address, mother's maiden name, government passport number, Social 
Security number, driver's license number, electronic mail address, 
account number, account password, biometric records, or other non-
public authentication information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 11 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would require the 
Covered Entity to indicate whether any of its assets were lost or 
stolen as a result of the significant cybersecurity incident.\324\ The 
Covered Entity would have the option of checking yes, no, or unknown. 
If yes, the Covered Entity would need to describe the types of assets 
that were lost or stolen and include an approximate estimate of their 
value, if known. This question is not limited to particular types of 
assets and, therefore, the Covered Entity would need to respond 
affirmatively if, among other types of assets, financial assets such as 
cash and securities were lost or stolen or intellectual property was 
lost or stolen. The loss or theft of the Covered Entity's assets could 
potentially cause the entity to fail financially or put a strain on its 
liquidity. Further, to the extent counterparties become aware of the 
loss or theft, it could cause them to withdraw assets from the entity 
or stop transacting with the entity further straining its financial 
condition. Consequently, the objective is to understand whether the 
significant cybersecurity incident has created this risk and whether 
there may be other spillover effects or consequences to the U.S. 
securities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \324\ See Line Item 11 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 12 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would require the 
Covered Entity to indicate whether any assets of the Covered Entity's 
customers, counterparties, clients, members, registrants, or users were 
lost or stolen as a result of the significant cybersecurity 
incident.\325\ The Covered Entity would have the option of checking 
yes, no, or unknown. If yes, the Covered Entity would need to describe 
the types of assets that were lost or stolen and include an approximate 
estimate of their value, if known. Additionally, if the Covered Entity 
answered yes, it would need to indicate whether notification has been 
provided to persons whose assets were lost or stolen.\326\ If the 
answer is no, the Covered Entity would need to indicate whether this 
notification is planned.\327\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \325\ See Line Item 12.A. Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
    \326\ See Line Item 11.B.i. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
    \327\ See Line Item 12.B.ii. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain types of Covered Entities hold assets belonging to other 
persons or maintain ownership records of the assets of other 
persons.\328\ For example, certain broker-dealers maintain custody of 
securities and cash for other persons and clearing agencies hold 
clearing deposits of their members. A significant cybersecurity 
incident impacting a Covered Entity that results in the loss or theft 
of assets can cause severe financial hardship to the owners of those 
assets. It also can impact the financial condition of the Covered 
Entity if it is liable for the loss or theft. Consequently, the 
objective is to understand whether the significant cybersecurity 
incident has created this risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \328\ See Section I.A.2. of this release (discussing the 
functions of Market Entities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in more detail below, proposed Rule 10 would require a 
Covered Entity to make a public disclosure that generally describes 
each significant cybersecurity incident that has occurred during the 
current or previous calendar year and promptly update this disclosure 
after the occurrence of a new significant cybersecurity incident or 
when information about a previously disclosed significant cybersecurity 
incident materially changes.\329\ The Covered Entity would be required 
to make the disclosure on the Covered Entity's business internet 
website and by filing Part II of proposed Form SCIR through the EDGAR 
system.\330\ In addition, if the Covered Entity is a carrying or 
introducing broker-dealer, it would need to make the disclosure to its 
customers using the same means that a customer elects to receive 
account statements.\331\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \329\ See paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
sections II.B.3. and II.B.4. of this release (discussing these 
proposed disclosure requirements in more detail).
    \330\ See paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of proposed Rule 10.
    \331\ See paragraph (d)(3) of proposed Rule 10. See section 
II.B.3.b. of this release (discussing the broker-dealer disclosure 
requirement in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 13 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would require the 
Covered Entity to indicate whether the significant cybersecurity 
incident has been disclosed pursuant to the requirements of proposed 
Rule 10.\332\ The Covered Entity also would need to indicate whether it 
made the required disclosures of Part II of proposed Form SCIR on its 
website and through EDGAR and, if it had made the disclosure, it would 
need to indicate the date of the disclosure.\333\ A Covered Entity that 
is a carrying or introducing broker-dealer would need to indicate 
separately

[[Page 20254]]

whether it made the required disclosure of Part II of proposed Form 
SCIR to its customers.\334\ The Covered Entity would not need to 
indicate a date for the customer disclosure because it could be made in 
a number of ways (e.g., by email or mail) and that process could span a 
number of days. If the Covered Entity has not disclosed the significant 
cybersecurity incident as required by proposed Rule 10, it would need 
to explain why. The requirement to report this information is designed 
to promote compliance with the disclosure requirements of proposed Rule 
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \332\ See Line Items 13.A. through C. of proposed Form SCIR.
    \333\ See Line Items 13.A. through B. of proposed Part I of Form 
SCIR.
    \334\ See Line Item 13.C. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 14 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would elicit 
information about any insurance coverage the Covered Entity may have 
with respect to the significant cybersecurity incident.\335\ First, the 
Covered Entity would need to indicate whether the significant 
cybersecurity incident is covered by an insurance policy of the Covered 
Entity.\336\ The Covered Entity would have the option of checking yes, 
no, or unknown. If yes, the Covered Entity would need to indicate 
whether the insurance company has been contacted. The existence of 
insurance coverage to cover losses could be relevant to Commission 
staff in assessing the potential magnitude of harm to the Covered 
Entity's customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users and 
to the Covered Entity's financial condition. For example, the existence 
of insurance coverage, to the extent the significant cybersecurity 
incident is covered by the policy, could indicate a greater possibility 
that the Covered Entity and/or any of its customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, or users affected by the incident are made whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \335\ See Line Items 14.A. and B. of Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR.
    \336\ See Line Item 14.A. of Part I of proposed Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Line Item 15 of Part I of proposed Form SCIR would permit 
the Covered Entity to include in the form any additional information 
the entity would want the Commission and Commission staff to know as 
well as provide any comments about the information included in the 
report.\337\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \337\ See Line Item 15 of proposed Part I of Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed 
requirements to report significant cybersecurity incidents on Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR. In addition, the Commission is requesting comment 
on the following specific aspects of the proposals:
    41. Should paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the immediate notification requirement? For example, should the 
requirement permit the notice to be made by telephone or email? If so, 
explain why. If not, explain why not. If telephone or email notice is 
permitted, should the rule specify the Commission staff, Division, or 
Office to phone or email?
    42. Should paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the requirement to provide immediate written electronic notice 
to specify how the notice must be transmitted to the Commission? For 
example, should the rule specify an email address or other type of 
electronic portal to be used to transmit the notice? If so, explain 
why. If not, explain why not. Should the rule be modified to require 
that the notice be transmitted to the Commission through the EDGAR 
system? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Should the rule be 
modified to require that the notice be transmitted to the Commission 
through the EDGAR system using a structured data language other than 
custom XML format?
    43. Should paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the requirement to provide immediate written electronic notice 
to require the notice to be provided within a specific timeframe such 
as on the same day the requirement was triggered or within 24 hours? If 
so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    44. Should paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the trigger for the immediate notification and reporting 
requirements? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, 
should the trigger be when the Covered Entity ``detects'' a significant 
cybersecurity incident (rather than when it has a reasonable basis to 
conclude that the significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is 
occurring)? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, 
would a detection standard be a less subjective standard? If so, 
explain why. If not, explain why not. Is there another trigger standard 
that would be more appropriate? If so, identify it and explain why it 
would be more appropriate.
    45. If the immediate notification requirement of paragraph (c)(1) 
is adopted as proposed, it is anticipated that a dedicated email 
address would be established to receive these notices. Are there other 
methods the Commission should use for receiving these notices? If so, 
identity them and explain why they would be more appropriate than 
email. For example, should the notices be received through the EDGAR 
system? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    46. Should paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the reporting requirements to incorporate the cybersecurity 
reporting program that CISA will implement under recently adopted 
legislation (``CISA Reporting Program'') to the extent it will be 
applicable to Covered Entities? \338\ If so, explain why and suggest 
modifications to the proposed reporting requirements for Covered 
Entities to incorporate the CISA Reporting Program. For example, if a 
Covered Entity would be required to file a report under the CISA 
Reporting Program, should that report satisfy the obligations to report 
to the Commission a significant cybersecurity incident under paragraph 
(c) of proposed Rule 10? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \338\ See CIRCIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. Should paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the timeframe for filing an initial Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, should 
the reporting requirements be revised to permit Covered Entities more 
than 48 hours to file an initial Part I of proposed Form SCIR with the 
Commission? If yes, explain how long they should have to file the 
initial Part I of proposed Form SCIR and why that timeframe would be 
appropriate. For example, should Covered Entities have 72 or 96 hours 
to file the initial Part I of proposed Form SCIR? If so, explain why. 
If not, explain why not. Would providing more time to file the initial 
Part I of proposed Form SCIR make the filing more useful insomuch as 
the Covered Entity would have more time to investigate the significant 
cybersecurity incident? If so, explain why and how to balance that 
benefit against the delay in providing this information to the 
Commission within 48 hours. Would the immediate notification 
requirement of paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 10 make it appropriate to 
lengthen the timeframe for when the Covered Entity would need to file 
the initial Part I of proposed Form SCIR? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. For example, could the immediate notification 
requirement and the ability of the Commission staff to follow-up with 
the contact person identified on the notification serve as an 
appropriate alternative to receiving the initial Part I of proposed 
Form SCIR within 48 hours. If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 
Conversely,

[[Page 20255]]

should the timeframe for filing an initial Part I of proposed Form SCIR 
be shortened to 24 hours or some other period of time that is less than 
48 hours? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    48. Should paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the timeframe for filing an initial or amended Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR so the timeframes are expressed in business days or 
calendar days instead of hours? If so, explain why. If not, explain why 
not. For example, should Covered Entities have two, five, or some other 
number business or calendar days to file an initial or amended Part I 
of proposed Form SCIR? Would business or calendar days be more 
appropriate given that Part I of proposed Form SCIR would be filed 
through the EDGAR system? \339\ If so, explain why. If not, explain why 
not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \339\ The Commission accepts electronic submissions through the 
EDGAR system Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, from 
6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time. See Chapter 2 of the EDGAR 
Filer Manual (Volume I), version 41 (Dec. 2022). Further, filings 
submitted by direct transmission commencing on or before 5:30 p.m. 
Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Saving Time, whichever is 
currently in effect, shall be deemed filed on the same business day, 
and all filings submitted by direct transmission commencing after 
5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Saving Time, 
whichever is currently in effect, shall be deemed filed as of the 
next business day. 17 CFR 232.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. Should paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the timeframe for filing an initial or amended Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR so that it must be filed promptly after the filing 
requirement is triggered without specifying the 48 hour limit? If so, 
explain why and describe how ``promptly'' should be interpreted for 
purposes of the reporting requirements of paragraph (c) of proposed 
Rule 10. If not, explain why not.
    50. Should paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the reporting requirements to include the filing of an initial 
Part I of proposed Form SCIR and a final Part I of proposed Form SCIR 
but not require the filing of interim amended forms? If so, explain 
why. If not, explain why not. For example, could informal 
communications between the Commission staff and the Covered Entity 
facilitated by the contact employee identified in the immediate notice 
that would be required under paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10 be an 
appropriate alternative to requiring the filing of interim amended 
forms? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    51. Should paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the reporting requirements to include the filing of interim 
amended forms on a pre-set schedule? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. For example, should Covered Entities be required to 
file an initial Part I of proposed Form SCIR and a final Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (c) of 
proposed Rule 10 but file interim amended forms on a pre-set schedule? 
If so, explain why this would be appropriate, including why a pre-set 
reporting requirement would not undermine the objectives of the 
proposed reporting requirements, and how often the interim reporting 
should be required (e.g., weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly). Would 
a pre-set reporting cadence (e.g., weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, 
quarterly) undermine the objectives of the proposed reporting 
requirements by inappropriately delaying the Commission's receipt of 
important information about a significant cybersecurity incident? If 
so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Would the immediate 
notification requirement and the ability of the Commission staff to 
follow-up with the contact person identified on the notification 
mitigate this potential consequence? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not.
    52. Should paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(D) of proposed Rule 10 and Part I 
of proposed Form SCIR be modified to revise the reporting requirements 
relating to internal investigations? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. For example, would these reporting requirements create 
a disincentive for Covered Entities to perform internal investigations 
in response to significant cybersecurity incidents? If so, explain why. 
If not, explain why not.
    53. Should Part I of proposed Form SCIR be modified? If so, explain 
why. If not, explain why not. For example, does the form strike an 
appropriate balance of providing enough detail to the Commission to be 
helpful while also not being unduly burdensome to Covered Entities? If 
so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Is certain information that 
would be elicited in Part I of Form SCIR unnecessary? If so, identify 
the information and explain why it would be unnecessary. Is there 
additional information that should be required to be included in Part I 
of proposed Form SCIR? If so, identify the information and explain why 
it would be appropriate to require a Covered Entity to report it in the 
form.
    54. Should Part I of proposed Form SCIR be modified to require that 
Covered Entities provide a UIC--such as an LEI \340\ (which would 
require each Covered Entity without a UIC (such as an LEI) to obtain 
one to comply with the rule)? If so, explain why. If not, explain why 
not. For example, would a requirement to provide a UIC allow the 
Commission staff to better evaluate cyber-threats to Covered Entities? 
If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Should the form be 
modified to require Covered Entities to provide another type of 
standard identifier other than a CIK number and UIC (if they have a 
UIC)? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \340\ The Commission approved a UIC (namely, the LEI) in a 
previous rulemaking. See section II.B.2.b. of this release; see also 
Regulation SBSR Release, 80 FR at 14632. The Commission is aware 
that additional identifiers could be recognized as UICs in the 
future, but for the purposes of this release, the Commission is 
equating the UIC with the LEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Disclosure of Cybersecurity Risks and Incidents
a. Cybersecurity Risks and Incidents Disclosure
    Proposed Rule 10 would require a Covered Entity to make two types 
of public disclosures relating to cybersecurity on Part II of proposed 
Form SCIR.\341\ First, the Covered Entity would need to, in plain 
English, provide a summary description of the cybersecurity risks that 
could materially affect its business and operations and how the Covered 
Entity assesses, prioritizes, and addresses those cybersecurity 
risks.\342\ A cybersecurity risk would be material to a Covered Entity 
if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would 
consider the information important based on the total mix of facts and 
information.\343\ The facts and circumstances relevant to determining 
materiality in this context may include, among other things, the 
likelihood and extent to which the cybersecurity risk or resulting 
incident: (1) could disrupt or degrade the Covered Entity's ability to 
maintain critical operations; (2) could adversely affect the 
confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information residing on 
the Covered Entity's information systems, including whether the 
information is personal, confidential, or proprietary information; and/
or (3) could harm the Covered Entity or its customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, users, or other persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \341\ See paragraph (d)(1) of proposed Rule 10.
    \342\ See paragraph (d)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 10; Line Item 2 
of Part II proposed of Form SCIR.
    \343\ See, e.g., SEC. v. Steadman, 967 F.2d 636, 643 (D.C. Cir. 
1992); cf. Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 231-232 (1988); TSC 
Industries v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 445, 449 (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second element of the disclosure would be a summary description 
of each

[[Page 20256]]

significant cybersecurity incident that occurred during the current or 
previous calendar year, if applicable.\344\ The look-back period of the 
current and previous calendar years is designed to make the disclosure 
period consistent across all Covered Entities. The look-back period 
also is designed to provide a short history of significant 
cybersecurity incidents affecting the Covered Entity while not 
overburdening the firm with a longer disclosure period. The summary 
description of each significant cybersecurity incident would need to 
include: (1) the person or persons affected; \345\ (2) the date the 
incident was discovered and whether it is ongoing; (3) whether any data 
was stolen, altered, or accessed or used for any other unauthorized 
purpose; (4) the effect of the incident on the Covered Entity's 
operations; and (5) whether the Covered Entity, or service provider, 
has remediated or is currently remediating the incident.\346\ This 
disclosure--because it addresses actual significant cybersecurity 
incidents--would serve as another way for market participants to 
evaluate the Covered Entity's cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities 
apart from the general disclosure of its cybersecurity risk. For 
example, a Covered Entity's disclosure of multiple significant 
cybersecurity incidents during the current or previous calendar year 
(particularly, if they did not impact other Covered Entities) would be 
useful in assessing whether the Covered Entity is adequately addressing 
cybersecurity risk or is more vulnerable to that risk as compared with 
other Covered Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \344\ See paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10; Line Item 3 
of Part II proposed of Form SCIR. See also paragraph (a)(10) of 
proposed Rule 10 (defining the term ``significant cybersecurity 
incident'').
    \345\ This element of the disclosure would not need to include 
the identities of the persons affected or personal information about 
those persons. Instead, the disclosure could use generic terms to 
identify the person or persons affected. For example, the disclosure 
could state that ``customers of the broker-dealer,'' 
``counterparties of the SBSD,'' or ``members of the SRO'' are 
affected (as applicable).
    \346\ See paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) of proposed Rule 
10; Line Item 3 of Part II proposed of Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The objective of these disclosures is to provide greater 
transparency to customers, counterparties, registrants, or members of 
the Covered Entity, or to users of its services, about the Covered 
Entity's exposure to material harm as a result of a cybersecurity 
incident, which, in turn, could cause harm to customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users. This information could 
be used by these persons to manage their own cybersecurity risk and, to 
the extent they have choice, select a Covered Entity with which to 
transact or otherwise conduct business. Information about prior attacks 
and their degree of success is immensely valuable in mounting effective 
countermeasures.\347\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \347\ See Peter W. Singer and Allan Friedman. Cybersecurity and 
Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press 222 
(2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the intent of the disclosure on Part II of proposed Form 
SCIR is to avoid overly detailed disclosures that could increase 
cybersecurity risk for the Covered Entity and other persons. Revealing 
too much information could assist future attackers as well as lead to 
loss of customers, reputational harm, litigation, or regulatory 
scrutiny, which would be a cost associated with public disclosure.\348\ 
Therefore, under proposed Rule 10, the Covered Entity would be required 
to provide only a summary description of its cybersecurity risk and 
significant cybersecurity incidents.\349\ The requirement that the 
disclosures contain summary descriptions only is designed to produce 
meaningful disclosures but not disclosures that would reveal 
information (e.g., proprietary or confidential methods of addressing 
cybersecurity risk or known cybersecurity vulnerabilities) that could 
be used by threat actors to cause harm to the Covered Entity or its 
customers, counterparties, members, users, or other persons. This 
requirement is also designed to produce high-level disclosures about 
the Covered Entity's cybersecurity risks and significant cybersecurity 
incidents that can be easily reviewed by interested parties in order to 
give them a general understanding of the Covered Entity's risk profile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \348\ See, e.g., Federal Trade Commission v. Equifax, Inc., FTC 
Matter/File Number: 172 3203, Civil Action Number: 1:19-cv-03297-TWT 
(2019), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/172-3203/equifax-inc (``FTC Equifax Civil Action'').
    \349\ See paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Disclosure Methods and Updates
    Proposed Rule 10 would require a Covered Entity to make the public 
disclosures discussed above (i.e., the information about cybersecurity 
risks and significant cybersecurity incidents) on Part II of proposed 
Form SCIR.\350\ Part II of proposed Form SCIR would elicit information 
about the Covered Entity that would be used to identify the filer.\351\ 
In particular, the Covered Entity would need to provide its full legal 
name and business name (if different from its legal name), UIC (if the 
filer has a UIC),\352\ CIK number, and main address.\353\ The Covered 
Entity also would need to indicate the type of Market Entity it is by 
checking the appropriate box or boxes.\354\ For example, if the Covered 
Entity is dually registered as a broker-dealer and SBSD, it would need 
to check the box for each of those entity types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \350\ See paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 10.
    \351\ See Line Items 1.A. through 1.D. of Part II of proposed 
Form SCIR.
    \352\ As mentioned previously, the Commission approved a UIC--
namely, the LEI--in a prior rulemaking. See section II.B.2.b. of 
this release. Therefore, for the purposes of this release, the 
Commission is proposing to require those Covered Entities that 
already have LEIs to identify themselves with LEIs on Part II of 
Form SCIR.
    \353\ See Line Items 1.A. through 1.C. of Part I of proposed 
Form SCIR. See also section II.B.2.b. of this release (discussing 
UIC and CIK numbers in more detail with respect to Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR).
    \354\ See Line Item 1.D. of Part II of proposed Form SCIR 
(setting forth check boxes to indicate whether the Covered Entity is 
a broker-dealer, clearing agency, MSBSP, the MRSB, a national 
securities association, a national securities exchange, SBSD, SBSDR, 
or transfer agent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Page 1 of Part II of proposed Form SCIR also would contain fields 
for the individual executing the form to sign and date the form. By 
signing the form, the individual would: (1) certify that the form was 
executed on behalf of, and with the authority of, the Covered Entity; 
and (2) represent individually, and on behalf of the Covered Entity, 
that the information and statements contained in the form are current, 
true and complete. The form of the certification is designed to ensure 
that the Covered Entity, through the individual executing the form, 
discloses information that can be used by the Covered Entity's 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users, or by other 
interested persons to assess the Covered Entity's cybersecurity risk 
profile and compare it with the risk profiles of other Covered 
Entities.
    As discussed above, proposed Rule 10 would require the Covered 
Entity to publicly disclose a summary description of the cybersecurity 
risks that could materially affect the Covered Entity's business and 
operations and how the Covered Entity assesses, prioritizes, and 
addresses those cybersecurity risks.\355\ Line Item 2 of Part II of 
proposed Form SCIR would contain a narrative field in which the Covered 
Entity would provide this summary description.\356\ In order to provide 
context to the meaning of the disclosure, the beginning of Line Item 2 
would set forth the definition of ``cybersecurity risk'' in proposed 
Rule 10 as well as the definitions of ``cybersecurity incident,'' 
``cybersecurity

[[Page 20257]]

threat,'' and ``cybersecurity vulnerability'' because these three terms 
are used in the definition of ``cybersecurity risk.'' \357\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \355\ See paragraph (d)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 10.
    \356\ See Line Item 2 of Part II of proposed Form SCIR.
    \357\ Id. See also paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of proposed 
Rule 10 (defining, respectively, ``cybersecurity incident,'' 
``cybersecurity risk,'' ``cybersecurity threat,'' and 
``cybersecurity vulnerability'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Line Item 3 of Part II of proposed Form SCIR would be used to make 
the disclosure about each significant cybersecurity incident that 
occurred during the current and previous calendar year.\358\ The 
definition of ``significant cybersecurity incident'' would be set forth 
at beginning of Line Item 3 in order to provide context to the meaning 
of the disclosure. To complete the line item, the Covered Entity first 
would need to indicate by checking ``yes'' or ``no'' whether it had 
experienced one or more significant cybersecurity incidents during the 
current or previous calendar year. If the answer is yes, the Covered 
Entity would need to provide in a narrative field on Line Item 3 the 
summary description of each significant cybersecurity incident.\359\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \358\ See Line Item 3 of Part II of proposed Form SCIR.
    \359\ See paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed next, there would be two methods of making the 
disclosure, which would be required of all Covered Entities under 
proposed Rule 10, and an additional third method that would be required 
of Covered Entities that are carrying or introducing broker-dealers. 
First, Covered Entities would be required to file Part II of Form SCIR 
with the Commission electronically through the EDGAR system in 
accordance with the EDGAR Filer Manual, as defined in Rule 11 of 
Regulation S-T,\360\ and in accordance with the requirements of 
Regulation S-T.\361\ The Commission would make these filings available 
to the public. The objective of requiring centralized EDGAR-filing of 
Part II of proposed Form SCIR is to facilitate the ability to compare 
disclosures across different Covered Entities or categories of Covered 
Entities in the same manner that EDGAR filing facilitates comparison of 
financial statements, annual reports, and other disclosures across 
Commission registrants. By creating a single location for all of the 
disclosures, Commission staff, investors, market participants, and 
analysts as well as Covered Entities' customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, or users would be able to run search queries to 
compare the disclosures of multiple Covered Entities. Centralized EDGAR 
filing could make it easier for Commission staff and others to assess 
the cybersecurity risk profiles of different types of Covered Entities 
and could facilitate trend analysis of significant cybersecurity 
incidents. Thus, by providing a central location for the cybersecurity 
disclosures, filing Part II of proposed Form SCIR through EDGAR could 
lead to greater transparency of the cybersecurity risks in the U.S. 
securities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \360\ See 17 CFR 232.11.
    \361\ See paragraph (d)(2)(i) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, proposed Rule 10 would require the Covered Entity to post a 
copy of the Part II of proposed Form SCIR most recently filed on EDGAR 
on an easily accessible portion of its business internet website that 
can be viewed by the public without the need of entering a password or 
making any type of payment or providing any other consideration.\362\ 
Consequently, the disclosures could not be located behind a ``paywall'' 
or otherwise require a person to pay a registration fee or provide any 
other consideration to access them. The purpose of requiring the form 
to be posted on the Covered Entity's business internet website is that 
individuals naturally may visit a company's business internet website 
when seeking timely and updated information about the company, 
particularly if the company is experiencing an incident that disrupts 
or degrades the services it provides. Therefore, requiring the form to 
be posted on the website is designed to make it available through this 
commonly used method of obtaining information. Additionally, 
individuals may naturally visit a company's business internet website 
as part of their due diligence process in determining whether to use 
its services. Therefore, posting the form on the Covered Entity's 
business internet website could provide individuals with information 
about the Covered Entity's cybersecurity risks before they elect to 
enter into an arrangement with the firm. It could serve a similar 
purpose for individuals considering whether to maintain an ongoing 
business relationship with the Covered Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \362\ See paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of proposed Rule 10. In addition 
to the disclosure to be made available to security-based swap 
counterparties as required by paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of proposed Rule 
10, current Commission rules require that SBS Entities' trading 
relationship documentation between certain counterparties address 
cybersecurity. Specifically, an SBS Entity's trading relationship 
documentation must include valuation methodologies for purposes of 
complying with specified risk management requirements, which would 
include the risk management requirements of proposed Rule 10 (if it 
is adopted). See 17 CFR 250.15Fi-5(b)(4). This documentation would 
include a dispute resolution process or alternative methods for 
determining value in the event of a relevant cybersecurity incident. 
See also section IV.C.1.b.iii. of this release (discussing 
disclosure requirements of Rule 15Fh-3(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to those two disclosure methods, a Covered Entity that 
is either a carrying or introducing broker-dealer would be required to 
provide a copy of the Part II of proposed Form SCIR most recently filed 
on EDGAR to a customer as part of the account opening process.\363\ 
Thereafter, the Covered Entity would need to provide the customer with 
the most recently posted form annually and when it is updated. The 
broker-dealer would need to deliver the form using the same means that 
the customer elects to receive account statements (e.g., by email or 
through the postal service).\364\ This additional method of disclosure 
is designed to make the information readily available to the broker-
dealer's customers (many of whom may be retail investors) through the 
same processes that other important information (i.e., information 
about their securities accounts) is communicated to them. Requiring a 
broker-dealer to deliver copies of the form is designed to enhance 
investor protection by enabling customers to take protective or 
remedial measures to the extent appropriate. It would also assist 
customers in determining whether their engagement of that particular 
broker-dealer remains appropriate and consistent with their investment 
objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \363\ See paragraph (d)(3) of proposed Rule 10.
    \364\ If the disclosure requirements of proposed Rule 10 are 
adopted, the Commission would establish a compliance date by which a 
Covered Entity would need to make its first public disclosure on 
Part II of proposed Form SCIR. At a minimum, the initial disclosure 
would need to include a summary description of the cybersecurity 
risks that could materially affect the Covered Entity's business and 
operations and how the Covered Entity assesses, prioritizes, and 
addresses those cybersecurity risks. In setting an initial 
compliance date, the Commission could take a bifurcated approach in 
which each method of disclosure has a different compliance date. For 
example, the compliance date for making the website disclosure could 
come before the compliance date for making the EDGAR disclosure and 
the additional disclosure required of carrying and introducing 
broker-dealers. The Commission seeks comment below on a potential 
compliance date or compliance dates for the disclosure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, a Covered Entity would be required to file on EDGAR an 
updated Part II of proposed Form SCIR promptly if the information 
required to be disclosed about cybersecurity risks or significant 
cybersecurity incidents materially changes, including, in the case of 
the disclosure about significant cybersecurity incidents, after the 
occurrence of a new significant cybersecurity incident or when

[[Page 20258]]

information about a previously disclosed significant cybersecurity 
incident materially changes.\365\ The Covered Entity also would need to 
post a copy of the updated Part II of proposed Form SCIR promptly on 
its business internet website and, if it is a carrying broker-dealer or 
introducing broker-dealer, deliver copies of the form to its customers. 
Given the potential effect that significant cybersecurity incidents 
could have on a Covered Entity's customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users--such as exposing their personal or other 
confidential information or resulting in a loss of cash or securities 
from their accounts--time is of the essence, and requiring a Covered 
Entity to update the disclosures promptly would enhance investor 
protection by enabling customers, counterparties, members, registrants, 
or users to take proactive or remedial measures to the extent 
appropriate. Accordingly, the timing of the filing of an updated 
disclosure should take into account the exigent nature of significant 
cybersecurity incidents which would generally militate toward swiftly 
filing the update. Furthermore, requiring Covered Entities to update 
their disclosures following the occurrence of a new significant 
cybersecurity incident would assist market participants in determining 
whether their business relationship with that particular Covered Entity 
remains appropriate and consistent with their goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \365\ See paragraph (d)(4) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
Instruction C.2. of proposed Form SCIR. As discussed earlier, a 
Covered Entity would be required to file Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR with the Commission promptly, but no later than 48 hours, upon 
having a reasonable basis to conclude that a significant 
cybersecurity incident has occurred or is occurring. See paragraph 
(c)(2)(i) of proposed Rule 10; see also section II.B.2.a. of this 
release (discussing this requirement in more detail). Therefore, the 
Covered Entity would need to file a Part I and an updated Part II of 
proposed Form SCIR with the Commission relatively contemporaneously. 
Depending on the facts and circumstances, the Part I and updated 
Part II could be filed at the same time or one could proceed the 
other if the Covered Entity, for example, has the information to 
complete Part II first but needs more time to gather the information 
to complete Part I (which elicits substantially more information 
than Part II). However, as discussed above, Part I must be filed no 
later than 48 hours after the Covered Entity has a reasonable basis 
to conclude that a significant cybersecurity incident has occurred 
or is occurring and the Covered Entity must include in the initial 
filing the information that is known at that time and file an 
updated Part I as more information becomes known to the Covered 
Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Covered Entity also would need to file an updated Part II of 
proposed Form SCIR if the information in the summary description of a 
significant cybersecurity incident included on the form is no longer 
within the look-back period (i.e., the current or previous calendar 
year). For example, the information that would need to be included in 
the summary description includes whether the significant cybersecurity 
incident is ongoing and whether the Covered Entity had remediated it. 
The Covered Entity would need to file an updated Part II of proposed 
Form SCIR if the significant cybersecurity incident was remediated and 
ended on a date that was beyond the look-back period. The updated Part 
II of proposed Form SCIR would no longer include a summary description 
of that specific significant cybersecurity incident. The objective is 
to focus the most recently filed disclosure on events within the 
relative near term. The history of the Covered Entity's significant 
cybersecurity incidents would be available in previous filings.
c. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed 
disclosure requirements. In addition, the Commission is requesting 
comment on the following specific aspects of the proposals:
    55. Should paragraph (d)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the requirements that Covered Entities publicly disclose the 
cybersecurity risks that could materially affect their business and 
operations and to publicly disclose a description of how the Covered 
Entity assesses, prioritizes, and addresses those cybersecurity risks? 
If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, would the 
public disclosures required by paragraph (d)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 10 
be useful or provide meaningful information to a Covered Entity's 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users? If so, 
explain why. If not, explain why not. Could the proposed disclosure 
requirement be modified to make it more useful? If so, explain how. 
Could the public disclosures required by paragraph (d)(1)(i) of 
proposed Rule 10 assist threat actors in engaging in cyber crime? If 
so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Could the proposed disclosure 
requirements be modified to eliminate this risk without negatively 
impacting the usefulness of the disclosures? If so, explain how.
    56. Should paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the requirements that Covered Entities publicly disclose 
information about each significant cybersecurity incident that has 
occurred during the current or previous calendar year? If so, explain 
why. If not, explain why not. For example, would the public disclosures 
required by paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10 be useful or 
provide meaningful information to a Covered Entity's customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users? If so, explain why. If 
not, explain why not. Could the proposed disclosure requirement be 
modified to make it more useful? If so, explain how. Could the public 
disclosures required by paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10 assist 
threat actors in engaging in cyber crime? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. Could the proposed disclosure requirements be modified 
to eliminate this risk without negatively impacting the usefulness of 
the disclosures? If so, explain how.
    57. Should paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the required current and previous year look-back period for the 
disclosure of significant cybersecurity incidents? If so, explain why. 
If not, explain why not. For example, should the look-back period be a 
shorter period of time (e.g., only the current calendar year)? If so, 
explain why. If not, explain why not. Alternatively, should the look-
back period be longer (e.g., the current calendar year and previous two 
calendar years)? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Should 
the look-back period be expressed in months rather than calendar years? 
For example, should the look-back period be 12, 18, 24, 30, or 36 
months? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    58. Should paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
provide that the requirement to include a summary description of each 
significant cybersecurity incident that occurred during the current or 
previous calendar year in Part II of proposed Form SCIR be prospective 
and, therefore, limited to significant cybersecurity incidents that 
occur on or after the compliance date of the disclosure requirement? If 
so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    59. Should the public disclosure requirements of paragraphs 
(d)(1)(i) and (ii) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to require the 
disclosure of additional or different information? If so, identify the 
additional or different information and explain why it would be 
appropriate to require its public disclosure by Covered Entities.
    60. Should 17 CFR 240.15Fh-3(b) be amended to specify that required 
counterparty disclosure includes the information that would be required 
by paragraph (d)(1) of proposed Rule 10 and publicly disclosed on Part 
II of proposed Form SCIR? If so, explain why. If not explain why not.
    61. Should paragraph (d)(2) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise

[[Page 20259]]

the methods of making the public disclosures? If so, explain why. If 
not, explain why not. For example, should Covered Entities be required 
to file Part II of proposed Form SCIR on EDGAR but not be required to 
post a copy of the form on their business internet websites? If so, 
explain why. If not, explain why not. Would requiring the public 
cybersecurity disclosures to be filed in a centralized electronic 
system, such as EDGAR, make it easier for investors, analysts, and 
others to access and gather information from the cybersecurity 
disclosures than if those disclosures were only posted on Covered 
Entity websites? Alternatively, should Covered Entities be required to 
post an executed copy of Part II of proposed Form SCIR on their 
business internet websites but not be required to file the form on 
EDGAR? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Why or why not?
    62. Should paragraph (d)(2) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the requirement to post a copy of Part II of proposed Form SCIR 
on business internet website of the Covered Entity to permit the 
Covered Entity to post a link to the EDGAR filing? If so, explain why. 
If not, explain why not.
    63. Should paragraph (d)(3) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the additional methods of making the public disclosures required 
of carrying and introducing broker-dealers? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. For example, would filing Part II of proposed Form 
SCIR on EDGAR and posting a copy of the form on the Covered Entity's 
business internet website be sufficient to meet the objectives of the 
disclosure requirements discussed above and, therefore, obviate the 
need for a carrying broker-dealer or introducing broker-dealer to 
additionally send copies of the form to customers? If so, explain why. 
If not, explain why not. Rather than requiring the broker-dealer or 
introducing broker-dealer to send a copy of the Part II of proposed 
Form SCIR most recently filed on EDGAR to each customer, would it be 
sufficient that the most recently filed form as of the end of each 
quarter or the calendar year be sent to the customers? If so, explain 
why. If not, explain why not.
    64. Should paragraph (d)(3) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
permit the Covered Entity to send a website link to the EDGAR filing to 
customers instead of a copy of the EDGAR filing? If so, explain why. If 
not, explain why not.
    65. Should paragraph (d)(3) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
require other types of Covered Entities to send a copy of the most 
recently filed Part II of proposed Form SCIR to their customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users? If so, explain why. If 
not, explain why not. For example, should transfer agents be required 
to send the most recently filed Part II of proposed Form SCIR to their 
securityholders? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    66. Should paragraph (d)(4) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the requirement that a Covered Entity must ``promptly'' provide 
an updated disclosure on Part II of proposed Form SCIR if the 
information on the previous disclosure materially changes to provide 
that the Commission shall allow registrants to delay publicly 
disclosing a significant cybersecurity incident where the Attorney 
General requests such a delay from the Commission based on the Attorney 
General's written determination that the delay is in the interest of 
national security?
    67. Should paragraph (d)(4) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the requirement that a Covered Entity must ``promptly'' provide 
an updated disclosure on Part II of proposed Form SCIR if the 
information on the previous disclosure materially changes to specify a 
timeframe within which the updated filing must be promptly made? If so, 
explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, should the rule be 
modified to require that the updated disclosure must be made within 24, 
36, 48, or 60 hours of the information on the previous disclosure 
materially changing? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 
Should the timeframe for making the updated disclosure be expressed in 
business days? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For 
example, should the updated disclosure be required to be made within 
two, three, four, or five business days (or some other number of days) 
of the information on the previous disclosure materially changing? If 
so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    68. Should paragraph (d)(4) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the requirement that a Covered Entity must ``promptly'' provide 
an updated disclosure on Part II of proposed Form SCIR if the 
information on the previous disclosure materially changes to require 
the update to be made within 30 days (similar to the requirement for 
updating Form CRS)? \366\ If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. 
For example, would this approach appropriately balance the objective of 
requiring timely disclosure with the objective of providing accurate 
and complete disclosure? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \366\ See Form CRS Instructions, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/formcrs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. Should paragraph (d)(4) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the requirements that trigger when an updated Part II of 
proposed Form SCIR must be filed on EDGAR, posted on the Covered 
Entity's business internet website, and, if applicable, sent to 
customers? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, 
should the rule require that an updated form must be publically 
disclosed through these methods on a quarterly, semi-annual, or annual 
basis if the information on the previously filed form has materially 
changed? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    70. Should Part II of proposed Form SCIR be modified to require 
that Covered Entities provide a UIC--such as an LEI (which would 
require Covered Entities without a UIC (such as an LEI) to obtain one 
to comply with the rule)? \367\ If so, explain why. If not, explain why 
not. For example, would requiring Covered Entities to provide a UIC 
better allow investors, analysts, and third-party data aggregators to 
evaluate the cyber security risk profiles of Covered Entities? If so, 
explain why. If not, explain why not. Should the form be modified to 
require Covered Entities to provide another type of standard identifier 
other than a CIK number and UIC (if they have a UIC)? If so, explain 
why. If not, explain why not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \367\ As mentioned previously in section II.B.2.b. of this 
release, the Commission approved a UIC (namely, the LEI) in a 
previous rulemaking. The Commission is aware that additional 
identifiers could be recognized as UICs in the future, but for the 
purposes of this release, the Commission is equating the UIC with 
the LEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. If the disclosure requirements of proposed Rule 10 are adopted, 
what would be an appropriate compliance date for the disclosure 
requirements? For example, should the compliance date be three, six, 
nine, or twelve months after the effective date of the rule (or some 
other period of months)? Please suggest a compliance period and explain 
why it would be appropriate. Should the compliance date for the website 
disclosure be sooner than the compliance date for the EDGAR disclosure 
or vice versa? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Should the 
compliance date for the additional disclosure methods that would be 
required of carrying and introducing broker-dealers be different than 
the compliance dates for the website disclosure and the EDGAR 
disclosure? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. If the 
requirement to provide a summary description of each significant 
cybersecurity incident that occurred

[[Page 20260]]

during the current and previous calendar year is prospective (i.e., 
does not apply to incidents that occurred before the compliance date), 
should the compliance period be shorter than if the requirement was 
retrospective, given that the initial disclosure, in most cases, would 
limited to a summary description of the cybersecurity risks that could 
materially affect the Covered Entity's business and operations and how 
the Covered Entity assesses, prioritizes, and addresses those 
cybersecurity risks? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
4. Filing Parts I and II of Proposed Form SCIR in EDGAR Using a 
Structured Data Language
a. Discussion
    Proposed Rule 10 would require Covered Entities would file Parts I 
and II of proposed Form SCIR electronically with the Commission using 
the EDGAR system in accordance with the EDGAR Filer Manual, as defined 
in Rule 11 of Regulation S-T,\368\ and in accordance with the 
requirements of Regulation S-T.\369\ In addition, under the proposed 
requirements, Covered Entities would file Parts I and II of Form SCIR 
in a structured (i.e., machine-readable) data language.\370\ 
Specifically, Covered Entities would file Parts I and II of proposed 
Form SCIR in an eXtensible Markup Language (``XML'')-based data 
language specific to the form (``custom XML,'' and in this release 
``SCIR-specific XML''). While the majority of filings through the EDGAR 
system are submitted in unstructured HTML or ASCII formats, certain 
EDGAR-system filings are submitted using custom XML languages that are 
each specific to the particular form being submitted.\371\ For such 
filings, filers are typically provided the option to either submit the 
filing directly to the EDGAR system in the relevant custom XML data 
language, or to manually input the information into a fillable web-
based form developed by the Commission that converts the completed form 
into a custom XML document.\372\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \368\ See 17 CFR 232.11.
    \369\ See paragraphs (c) and (d) of proposed Rule 10.
    \370\ Requirements related to custom-XML filings are generally 
covered in the EDGAR Filer Manual, which is incorporated in 
Commission regulations by reference via Regulation S-T. See 17 CFR 
232.11; 17 CFR 232.101.
    \371\ See Commission, Current EDGAR Technical Specifications 
(Dec. 5, 2022), available at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/filer-information/current-edgar-technical-specifications.
    \372\ See Chapters 8 and 9 of the EDGAR Filer Manual (Volume 
II), version 64 (Dec. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requiring Covered Entities to file Parts I and II of proposed Form 
SCIR through the EDGAR system would allow the Commission to download 
Form SCIR information directly from a central location, thus 
facilitating efficient access, organization, and evaluation of the 
information contained in the forms. Use of the EDGAR system also would 
enable technical validation of the information reported on Form SCIR, 
which could potentially reduce the incidence of non-discretionary 
errors (e.g., leaving required fields blank). Thus, the proposed 
requirement to file Parts I and II of proposed Form SCIR through the 
EDGAR system would allow the Commission and, in the case of Part II, 
the public to more effectively examine and analyze the reported 
information. In this regard, the proposed requirement to file Parts I 
and II of proposed Form SCIR through the EDGAR system using SCIR-
specific XML, a machine-readable data language, is designed to 
facilitate more thorough review and analysis of the reported 
information.
b. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed 
requirements to file Parts I and II of Form SCIR in EDGAR using a 
structured data language. In addition, the Commission is requesting 
comment on the following specific aspects of the proposals:
    72. Should the Commission modify the structured data language 
requirement for both Parts I and II of Form SCIR in accordance with the 
alternatives discussed in Section IV.F. below? \373\ Should Covered 
Entities be required to file the cybersecurity risk and incident 
disclosures on Part II of Form SCIR in the EDGAR system in a structured 
data language? Why or why not? Would custom XML or Inline eXtensible 
Business Reporting Language (``iXBRL'') be the most suitable data 
language for this information? Or would another data language be more 
appropriate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \373\ See section IV.F. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Recordkeeping
a. Amendments to Covered Entity Recordkeeping Rules
    As discussed above, proposed Rule 10 would require a Covered Entity 
to: (1) establish, maintain, and enforce reasonably designed policies 
and procedures to address cybersecurity risks; \374\ (2) create written 
documentation of risk assessments; \375\ (3) create written 
documentation of any cybersecurity incident, including its response to 
and recovery from the incident; \376\ (4) prepare a written report each 
year describing its annual review of its policies and procedures to 
address cybersecurity risks; \377\ (5) provide immediate electronic 
written notice to the Commission of a significant cybersecurity 
incident upon having a reasonable basis to conclude that the 
significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is occurring; \378\ 
(6) report, not later than 48 hours, upon having a reasonable basis to 
conclude that a significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is 
occurring on Part I of proposed Form SCIR; \379\ and (7) provide a 
written summary disclosure about its cybersecurity risks that could 
materially affect its business and operations, and how the Covered 
Entity assesses, prioritizes, and addresses those risks, and 
significant cybersecurity incidents that occurred during the current or 
previous calendar year on Part II of proposed Form SCIR.\380\ 
Consequently, proposed Rule 10 would require a Covered Entity to make 
several different types of records (collectively, the ``Rule 10 
Records''). The proposed cybersecurity rule would not include 
requirements specifying how long these records would need to be 
preserved and the manner in which they would need to be maintained. 
Instead, as discussed below, preservation and maintenance requirements 
applicable to Rule 10 Records would be imposed through amendments, as 
necessary, to the existing record preservation and maintenance rules 
applicable to the Covered Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \374\ See paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
sections II.B.1.a. through II.B.1.e. of this release (discussing 
this proposed requirement in more detail).
    \375\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
section II.B.1.a. of this release (discussing this proposed 
requirement in more detail).
    \376\ See paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
section II.B.1.e. of this release (discussing this proposed 
requirement in more detail).
    \377\ See paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
section II.B.1.f. of this release (discussing this proposed 
requirement in more detail).
    \378\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10. See also section 
II.B.2.a. of this release (discussing this proposed requirement in 
more detail).
    \379\ See paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10. See also Section 
II.B.2.b. of this release (discussing this proposed requirement in 
more detail).
    \380\ See paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 10. See also Section 
II.B.3. of this release (discussing this proposed requirement in 
more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, broker-dealers, transfer agents, and SBS Entities 
are subject to existing requirements that specify how long the records 
they are required to make must be preserved (e.g., three or six years) 
and how the records must be maintained (e.g., maintenance

[[Page 20261]]

requirements for electronic records).\381\ The Commission is proposing 
to amend these record preservation and maintenance requirements to 
identify Rule 10 Records specifically as records that would need to be 
preserved and maintained pursuant to these existing requirements. In 
particular, the Commission is proposing to amend the record 
preservation and maintenance rules for: (1) broker-dealers; \382\ (2) 
transfer agents; \383\ and (3) SBS entities.\384\ The proposed 
amendments would specify that the Rule 10 Records must be retained for 
three years. In the case of the written policies and procedures to 
address cybersecurity risks, the record would need to be maintained 
until three years after the termination of the use of the policies and 
procedures. These amendments would subject the Rule 10 Records to the 
record maintenance requirements of Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, and 18a-6, 
including the requirements governing electronic records.\385\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \381\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-4 (``Rule 17a-4'') (setting forth 
record preservation and maintenance requirements for broker-
dealers); 17 CFR 240.17Ad-7 (``Rule 17ad-7'') (setting forth record 
preservation and maintenance requirements for transfer agents); 17 
CFR 240.18a-6 (``Rule 18a-6'') (setting forth record preservation 
and maintenance requirements for SBS Entities). The Commission's 
proposal includes an amendment to a CFR designation in order to 
ensure regulatory text conforms more consistently with section 2.13 
of the Document Drafting Handbook. See Office of the Federal 
Register, Document Drafting Handbook (Aug. 2018 Edition, Revision 
1.4, dated January 7, 2022), available at https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf. In particular, the 
proposal is to amend the CFR section designation for Rule 17Ad-7 (17 
CFR 240.17Ad-7) to replace the uppercase letter with the 
corresponding lowercase letter, such that the rule would be 
redesignated as Rule 17ad-7 (17 CFR 240.17ad-7).
    \382\ This amendment would add a new paragraph (e)(13) to Rule 
17a-4.
    \383\ This amendment would add a new paragraph (j) to Rule 17ad-
7.
    \384\ This amendment would add a new paragraph (d)(6) to Rule 
18a-6 .
    \385\ See paragraphs (f) of Rule 17a-4, (f) of Rule 17ad-7, and 
(e) of Rule 18a-6 (setting forth requirements for electronic records 
applicable to broker-dealers, transfer agents, and SBS Entities, 
respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Act Rule 17a-1 (``Rule 17a-1'')--the record maintenance 
and preservation rule applicable to registered clearing agencies, the 
MSRB, national securities associations, and national securities 
exchanges--as it exists today would require the preservation of the 
Rule 10 Records.\386\ In particular, Rule 17a-1 requires these types of 
Covered Entities to keep and preserve at least one copy of all 
documents, including all correspondence, memoranda, papers, books, 
notices, accounts, and other such records as shall be made or received 
by the Covered Entity in the course of its business as such and in the 
conduct of its self-regulatory activity.\387\ Furthermore, Rule 17a-1 
provides that the Covered Entity must keep the documents for a period 
of not less than five years, the first two years in an easily 
accessible place, subject to the destruction and disposition provisions 
of Exchange Act Rule 17a-6.\388\ Consequently, under the existing 
provisions of Rule 17a-1, registered clearing agencies, the MSRB, 
national securities associations, and national securities exchanges 
would be required to preserve at least one copy of the Rule 10 Records 
for at least five years, the first two years in an easily accessible 
place. In the case of the written policies and procedures to address 
cybersecurity risks, pursuant to Rule 17a-1 the record would need to be 
maintained until five years after the termination of the use of the 
policies and procedures.\389\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \386\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-1.
    \387\ See paragraph (a) of Rule 17a-1.
    \388\ See paragraph (b) of Rule 17a-1; 17 CFR 240.17a-6 (``Rule 
17a-6''). Rule 17a-6 of the Exchange Act provides that an SRO may 
destroy such records at the end of the five year period or at an 
earlier date as is specified in a plan for the destruction or 
disposition of any such documents if such plan has been filed with 
the Commission by SRO and has been declared effective by the 
Commission.
    \389\ See, e.g., Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating 
Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 72936 (Aug. 27, 2014) [79 FR 
55078, 55099-100 (Sept. 15, 2014)] (explaining why preservation 
periods for written policies and procedures are based on when a 
version of the policies and procedures is updated or replaced).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Exchange Act Rule 13n-7 (``Rule 13n-7'')--the record 
maintenance and preservation rule applicable to SBSDRs--as it exists 
today would require the preservation of the Rule 10 Records.\390\ In 
particular, Rule 13n-7 requires SBSDRs to, among other things, keep and 
preserve at least one copy of all documents, including all documents 
and policies and procedures required by the Exchange Act and the rules 
and regulations thereunder, correspondence, memoranda, papers, books, 
notices, accounts, and other such records as shall be made or received 
by it in the course of its business as such.\391\ Furthermore, Rule 
13n-7 provides that the SBSDR must keep the documents for a period of 
not less than five years, the first two years in a place that is 
immediately available to representatives of the Commission for 
inspection and examination.\392\ Consequently, under the existing 
provisions of Rule 13n-7, SBSDRs would be required to preserve at least 
one copy of the Rule 10 Records for at least five years, the first two 
years in a place that is immediately available to representatives of 
the Commission for inspection and examination. In the case of the 
written policies and procedures to address cybersecurity risks, the 
Commission interprets this provision of Rule 13n-7 to require that the 
record would need to be maintained until five years after the 
termination of the use of the policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \390\ See 17 CFR 240.13n-7.
    \391\ See paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 13n-7.
    \392\ See paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 13n-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing agencies that are exempt from registration would be 
Covered Entities under proposed Rule 10.\393\ Exempt clearing agencies 
are not subject to Rule 17a-1. However, while exempt clearing 
agencies--as entities that have limited their clearing agency 
functions--might not be subject to the full range of clearing agency 
regulation, the Commission has stated that, for example, an entity 
seeking an exemption from clearing agency registration for matching 
services would be required to, among other things, allow the Commission 
to inspect its facilities and records.\394\ In this regard, exempt 
clearing agencies are subject to conditions that mirror certain of the 
recordkeeping requirements in Rule 17a-1,\395\ as set forth in the 
respective Commission orders exempting each exempt clearing agency from 
the requirement to register as a clearing agency (the ``clearing agency 
exemption orders'').\396\ Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the 
clearing agency exemption orders, the Commission may modify by order 
the terms, scope, or conditions if the Commission determines that such 
modification is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for 
the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the

[[Page 20262]]

purposes of the Exchange Act.\397\ In support of the public interest 
and the protection of investors, the Commission is proposing to amend 
the clearing agency exemption orders to add a condition that each 
exempt clearing agency must retain the Rule 10 Records for a period of 
at least five years after the record is made or, in the case of the 
written policies and procedures to address cybersecurity risks, for at 
least five years after the termination of the use of the policies and 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \393\ See paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10 (defining as 
a ``covered entity'' a clearing agency (registered or exempt) under 
section 3(a)(23)(A) of the Exchange Act). See also section I.A.2.c. 
of this release (discussing the clearing agency exemptions provided 
by the Commission).
    \394\ See Confirmation and Affirmation of Securities Trades; 
Matching, Exchange Act Release No. 39829 (Apr. 6, 1998) [63 FR 17943 
(Apr. 13, 1998)] (providing interpretive guidance and requesting 
comment on the confirmation and affirmation of securities trades and 
matching).
    \395\ See, e.g., BSTP SS&C Order, 80 FR at 75411 (conditioning 
BSTP's exemption by requiring BSTP to, among other things, preserve 
a copy or record of all trade details, allocation instructions, 
central trade matching results, reports and notices sent to 
customers, service agreements, reports regarding affirmation rates 
that are sent to the Commission or its designee, and any complaint 
received from a customer, all of which pertain to the operation of 
its matching service and ETC service. BSTP shall retain these 
records for a period of not less than five years, the first two 
years in an easily accessible place.).
    \396\ See DTCC ITP Matching Order, 66 FR 20494; BSTP SS&C Order, 
80 FR 75388; Euroclear Bank Order, 81 FR 93994.
    \397\ See Clearstream Banking Order, 62 FR 9225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed 
recordkeeping requirements. In addition, the Commission is requesting 
comment on the following specific aspects of the proposals:
    73. Should the proposed amendments to Rules 17a-4, 18a-6, and/or 
17ad-7 be modified? If so, describe how they should be modified and 
explain why the modification would be appropriate. For example, should 
the retention periods for the records be five years (consistent with 
Rule 17a-1) or some other period of years as opposed to three years? If 
so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    74. As discussed above, the Commission is proposing to amend the 
clearing agency exemption orders to specifically require the exempt 
clearing agencies to retain the Rule 10 Records. Should the ordering 
language be consistent with the proposed amendments to Rules 17a-4, 
17ad-7, and18a-6? For example, should the ordering language provide 
that the exempt clearing agency must maintain and preserve: (1) the 
written policies and procedures required to be adopted and implemented 
pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 10 until five years after 
the termination of the use of the policies and procedures; (2) the 
written documentation of any risk assessment pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(1)(i)(B) of proposed Rule 10 for five years; (3) the written 
documentation of the occurrence of a cybersecurity incident pursuant to 
paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B) of proposed Rule 10, including any documentation 
related to any response and recovery from such an incident, for five 
years; (4) the written report of the annual review required to be 
prepared pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of proposed Rule 10 for five 
years; (5) a copy of any notice transmitted to the Commission pursuant 
to paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10 or any Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR filed with the Commission pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of proposed 
Rule 10 for five years; and (6) a copy of any Part II of proposed Form 
SCIR filed with the Commission pursuant to paragraph (d) of proposed 
Rule 10 for five years? Additionally, should the ordering language 
provide that the exempt clearing agency must allow the Commission to 
inspect its facilities and records? If so, explain why. If not, explain 
why not.

C. Proposed Requirements for Non-Covered Broker-Dealers

1. Cybersecurity Policies and Procedures, Annual Review, Notification, 
and Recordkeeping
    As discussed earlier, not all broker-dealers would be Covered 
Entities under proposed Rule 10.\398\ Consequently, these Non-Covered 
Broker-Dealers would not be subject to the requirements of proposed 
Rule 10 to: (1) include certain elements in their cybersecurity risk 
management policies and procedures; \399\ (2) file confidential reports 
that provide information about the significant cybersecurity incident 
with the Commission and, for some Covered Entities, other regulators; 
\400\ and (3) make public disclosures about their cybersecurity risks 
and the significant cybersecurity incidents they experienced during the 
current or previous calendar year.\401\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \398\ See section II.A.1. of this release (discussing the 
definition of ``covered entity'' and why certain broker-dealers 
would not be included within the definition).
    \399\ See paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of proposed Rule 10.
    \400\ See paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
paragraph (a)(10) of proposed Rule 10 (defining the term 
``significant cybersecurity risk'').
    \401\ See paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of their limited business activities, Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers would not be subject to the same requirements as would Covered 
Entities. Instead, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers would be required to 
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that 
are reasonably designed to address their cybersecurity risks taking 
into account the size, business, and operations of the firm.\402\ They 
also would be required to review and assess the design and 
effectiveness of their cybersecurity policies and procedures, including 
whether the policies and procedures reflect changes in cybersecurity 
risk over the time period covered by the review. They also would be 
required to make a record with respect to the annual review. In 
addition, they would be required to provide the Commission and their 
examining authority with immediate written electronic notice of a 
significant cybersecurity incident affecting them.\403\ Finally, they 
would be required to maintain and preserve versions of their policies 
and procedures and the record of the annual review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \402\ See paragraph (e)(1) of proposed Rule 10.
    \403\ See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Non-Covered Broker-Dealer could be a firm that limits its 
business to selling mutual funds on a subscription-way basis or a 
broker-dealer that limits its business to engaging in private 
placements for clients. Alternatively, it could be a broker-dealer that 
limits its business to effecting securities transactions in order to 
facilitate mergers, acquisitions, business sales, and business 
combinations or a broker-dealer that limits its business to engaging in 
underwritings for issuers. Moreover, a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer--
because it does not meet the definition of ``covered entity''--would 
not a be a broker-dealer that: maintains custody of customer securities 
and cash; \404\ connects to a broker-dealer that maintains custody of 
customer securities through an introducing relationship; \405\ is a 
large proprietary trading firm; \406\ operates as a market maker; \407\ 
or operates an ATS.\408\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \404\ See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) of proposed Rule 10 (defining 
``covered entity'' to include a broker-dealer that maintains custody 
of cash and securities for customers or other broker-dealers and is 
not exempt from the requirements of Rule 15c3-3).
    \405\ See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) of proposed Rule 10 (defining 
``covered entity'' to include a broker-dealer that introduces 
customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis to another broker-
dealer that maintains custody of cash and securities for customers 
or other broker-dealers and is not exempt from the requirements of 
Rule 15c3-3).
    \406\ See paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(C) and (D) of proposed Rule 10 
(defining ``covered entity'' to include a broker-dealer with 
regulatory capital equal to or exceeding $50 million or total assets 
equal to or exceeding $1 billion).
    \407\ See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(E) of proposed Rule 10 (defining 
``covered entity'' to include a broker-dealer that is a market maker 
under the Exchange Act or the rules thereunder (which includes a 
broker-dealer that operates pursuant to Rule 15c3-1(a)(6)) or is a 
market maker under the rules of an SRO of which the broker-dealer is 
a member).
    \408\ See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(F) of proposed Rule 10 (defining 
``covered entity'' to include a broker-dealer that is an ATS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A broker-dealer that limits its business to one of the activities 
described above and that does not engage in functions that would make 
it a Covered Entity under proposed Rule 10 generally does not use 
information systems to carry out its operations to the same degree as a 
broker-dealer that is a Covered Entity. For example, the information 
systems used by a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer could be limited to smart 
phones and personal computers with internet and email access. Moreover, 
this type of firm may have a small staff of employees using these 
information systems. Therefore, the

[[Page 20263]]

overall footprint of the information systems used by a Non-Covered 
Broker-Dealer may be materially smaller in scale and complexity than 
the footprint of the information systems used by a broker-dealer that 
is a Covered Entity. In addition, the amount of data stored on these 
information systems relating to the Non-Covered Broker-Dealer's 
business may be substantially less than the amount of data stored on a 
Covered Entity's information systems. This means the information system 
perimeter of these firms that needs to be protected from cybersecurity 
threats and vulnerabilities is significantly smaller than that of a 
Covered Broker-Dealer. For these reasons, proposed Rule 10 would 
provide that the written policies and procedures required of a Non-
Covered Broker-Dealer must be reasonably designed to address the 
cybersecurity risks of the firm taking into account the size, business, 
and operations of the firm.
    Therefore, unlike the requirements for a Covered Entity, proposed 
Rule 10 does not specify minimum elements that would need to be 
included in a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer's policies and procedures.\409\ 
Nonetheless, a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer may want to consider whether 
any of those required elements would be appropriate components of it 
policies and procedures for addressing cybersecurity risk.\410\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \409\ See paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 10 (setting forth 
the elements that would need to be included in a Covered Entity's 
policies and procedures).
    \410\ As discussed earlier, the elements are consistent with 
industry standards for addressing cybersecurity risk. See section 
II.B.1. of this release (discussing the policies and procedures 
requirements for Covered Entities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 10 also would require that the Non-Covered Broker-
Dealer annually review and assess the design and effectiveness of its 
cybersecurity policies and procedures, including whether the policies 
and procedures reflect changes in cybersecurity risk over the time 
period covered by the review.\411\ The annual review and assessment 
requirement is designed to require Non-Covered Broker-Dealers to 
evaluate whether their cybersecurity policies and procedures continue 
to work as designed. Non-Covered Broker-Dealers could consider using 
this information to determine whether changes are needed to assure 
their continued effectiveness (i.e., to make sure their policies and 
procedures continue to be reasonably designed to address their 
cybersecurity risks as required by the rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \411\ See paragraph (e)(1) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule also would require the Non-Covered Broker-Dealer to make a 
written record that documents the steps taken in performing the annual 
review and the conclusions of the annual review. Therefore, Non-Covered 
Broker-Dealers would need to make a record of the review rather than 
documenting the review in a written report, as would be required of 
Covered Entities.\412\ A report is a means to communicate information 
within an organization. The personnel that prepare the report for the 
Covered Entity would be able to use it to communicate their assessment 
of the firm's policies and procedures to others within the organization 
such as senior managers. For purposes of proposed Rule 10, a record, 
among other things, is a means to document that an activity took place, 
for example, to demonstrate compliance with a requirement. As discussed 
above, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers generally would be smaller and less 
complex organizations than Covered Entities. A record of the annual 
review could be used by Commission examination staff to review the Non-
Covered Broker-Dealer's compliance with the annual review requirement 
without imposing the additional process involved in creating an 
internal report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \412\ See section II.B.1.f. of this release (discussing in more 
detail the annual report that would be required of Covered 
Entities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier, Covered Entities would be subject to a 
requirement to give the Commission immediate written electronic notice 
of a significant cybersecurity incident upon having a reasonable basis 
to conclude that the significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or 
is occurring.\413\ Non-Covered Broker-Dealers would be subject to the 
same immediate written electronic notice requirement. In particular, 
they would be required to give immediate written electronic notice to 
the Commission of a significant cybersecurity incident upon having a 
reasonable basis to conclude that the incident has occurred or is 
occurring.\414\ The Commission would keep the notices nonpublic to the 
extent permitted by law. The notice would need to identify the Non-
Covered Broker-Dealer, state that the notice is being given to alert 
the Commission of a significant cybersecurity incident impacting the 
Non-Covered Broker-Dealer, and provide the name and contact information 
of an employee of the Non-Covered Broker-Dealer who can provide further 
details about the nature and scope of the significant cybersecurity 
incident. In addition, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers--like Covered Broker-
Dealers--would need to give the notice to their examining 
authority.\415\ The immediate written electronic notice is designed to 
alert the Commission on a confidential basis to the existence of a 
significant cybersecurity incident impacting a Non-Covered Broker-
Dealer so the Commission staff can quickly begin to assess the event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \413\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10. See also section 
II.B.2.a. of this release (discussing the immediate notification 
requirement for Covered Entities in more detail).
    \414\ See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
paragraph (a)(10) of proposed Rule 10 (defining the term 
``significant cybersecurity incident'').
    \415\ See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
paragraph (c)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 10 (requiring Covered Broker-
Dealers to provide the notice to their examining authority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as discussed above, proposed Rule 10 would require the 
Non-Covered Broker-Dealer to: (1) establish, maintain, and enforce 
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address 
the cybersecurity risks of the firm; (2) make a written record that 
documents its annual review; and (3) provide immediate electronic 
written notice to the Commission of a significant cybersecurity 
incident upon having a reasonable basis to conclude that the 
significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is occurring.\416\ 
The Commission is proposing to amend the broker-dealer record 
preservation and maintenance rule to identify these records 
specifically as being subject to the rule's requirements.\417\ Under 
the amendments, the written policies and procedures would need to be 
maintained until three years after the termination of the use of the 
policies and procedures and all other records would need to be 
maintained for three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \416\ See paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10.
    \417\ This amendment would add a new paragraph (e)(13) to Rule 
17a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed 
requirements for non-covered broker-dealers. In addition, the 
Commission is requesting comment on the following specific aspects of 
the proposals:
    75. Should paragraph (e)(1) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
specify certain minimum elements that would need to be included in the 
policies and procedures of Non-Covered Broker-Dealers? If so, identify 
the elements and explain why they should be included. For example, 
should paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10 specify that the policies and 
procedures must include policies and procedures to address any

[[Page 20264]]

or all of the following: (1) risk assessment; (2) user security and 
access; (3) information protection; (4) cybersecurity threat and 
vulnerability management; and (5) cybersecurity incident response and 
recovery? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    76. Should paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
require the notice to be given within a specific timeframe such as on 
the same day the requirement was triggered or within 24 hours? If so, 
explain why. If not, explain why not.
    77. Should paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
revise the trigger for the immediate notification requirement? If so, 
explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, should the trigger 
be when the Non-Covered Broker-Dealer ``detects'' a significant 
cybersecurity incident (rather than when it has a reasonable basis to 
conclude that the significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is 
occurring)? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, 
would a detection standard be a less subjective standard? If so, 
explain why. If not, explain why not. Is there another trigger standard 
that would be more appropriate? If so, identify it and explain why it 
would be more appropriate.
    78. Should paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
eliminate the requirement that a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer give the 
Commission immediate written electronic notice of a significant 
cybersecurity incident upon having a reasonable basis to conclude that 
the significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is occurring? If 
so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, would this 
requirement be unduly burdensome on Non-Covered Broker-Dealers? Please 
explain.
    79. If the immediate notification requirement of paragraph (e)(2) 
is adopted as proposed, it is anticipated that a dedicated email 
address would be established to receive these notices. Are there other 
methods the Commission should use for receiving these notices? If so, 
identity them and explain why they would be more appropriate than 
email. For example, should the notices be received through the EDGAR 
system? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    80. Should paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to include 
any other requirements that would be applicable to Covered Entities 
under proposed Rule 10 that also should be required of Non-Covered 
Broker-Dealers? If so, identify them and explain why they should apply 
to Non-Covered Broker-Dealers. For example, should the paragraph be 
modified to require Non-Covered Broker-Dealers to report information 
about a significant cybersecurity incident confidentially on Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. Should 
the timeframe for filing Part I of Proposed Form SCIR be longer for 
Non-Covered Broker-Dealers? For example, should the reporting timeframe 
be within 72 or 96 hours instead of 48 hours? Please explain. If Non-
Covered Broker-Dealers were required to file Part I of Form SCIR, 
should they be permitted to provide more limited information about the 
significant cybersecurity incident than Covered Entities? If so, 
identify the more limited set of information and explain why it would 
be appropriate to permit Non-Covered Broker-Dealers omit the additional 
information that Covered Entities would need to report.
    81. Should Non-Covered Broker-Dealers be required to make and 
preserve for three years in accordance with Rule 17a-4 a record of any 
significant cybersecurity incident that impacts them containing some or 
all of the information that would be reported by Covered Entities on 
Part I of proposed Form SCIR? If so, explain why. If not, explain why 
not.
    82. Should paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10 be modified to require 
a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer to prepare a written report of the annual 
review (rather than a record, as proposed)? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not.

D. Cross-Border Application of the Proposed Cybersecurity Requirements 
to SBS Entities

1. Background on the Cross-Border Application of Title VII Requirements
    Security-based swap transactions take place across national 
borders, with agreements negotiated and executed between counterparties 
in different jurisdictions (which might then be booked and risk-managed 
in still other jurisdictions).\418\ Mindful that this global market 
developed prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act and the fact 
that the application of Title VII \419\ to cross-border activities 
raises issues of potential conflict or overlap with foreign regulatory 
regimes,\420\ the Commission has adopted a taxonomy to classify 
requirements under section 15F of the Exchange Act as applying at 
either the transaction-level or at the entity-level.\421\ Transaction-
level requirements under section 15F of the Exchange Act are those that 
primarily focus on protecting counterparties to security-based swap 
transactions by requiring SBSDs to, among other things, provide certain 
disclosures to counterparties, adhere to certain standards of business 
conduct, and segregate customer funds, securities, and other 
assets.\422\ In contrast to transaction-level requirements, entity-
level requirements under section 15F of the Exchange Act are those that 
are expected to play a role in ensuring the safety and soundness of the 
SBS Entity and thus relate to the entity as a whole.\423\ Entity-level 
requirements include capital and margin requirements, as well as other 
requirements relating to a firm's identification and management of its 
risk exposure, including the risk management procedures required under 
section 15F(j) of the Exchange Act, a statutory basis for rules 
applicable to SBS Entities that the Commission is proposing in this 
release.\424\ Because these requirements relate to the entire entity, 
they apply to SBS Entities on a firm-wide basis, without 
exception.\425\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \418\ See Cross-Border Proposing Release, 78 FR at 30976, n. 48.
    \419\ Unless otherwise indicated, references to ``Title VII'' in 
this section of this release are to Subtitle B of Title VII of the 
Dodd-Frank Act.
    \420\ See Cross-Border Proposing Release, 78 FR at 30975.
    \421\ See id. at 31008-25. See also Business Conduct Standards 
for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap 
Participants, Exchange Act Release No. 77617 (Apr. 14, 2016) [81 FR 
29959, 30061-69 (May 13, 2016)] (``Business Conduct Standards 
Adopting Release'').
    \422\ Cross-Border Proposing Release, 78 FR at 31010.
    \423\ See id. at 31011, 31035.
    \424\ See id. at 31011-16 (addressing the classification of 
capital and margin requirements, as well as of the risk management 
requirements of section 15F(j) of the Exchange Act and other entity-
level requirements applicable to SBSDs).
    \425\ See id. at 31011, 31024-25. See also id. at 31035 
(applying the analysis to MSBSPs). In reaching this conclusion, the 
Commission explained that it ``preliminarily believes that entity-
level requirements are core requirements of the Commission's 
responsibility to ensure the safety and soundness of registered 
security based swap dealers,'' and that ``it would not be consistent 
with this mandate to provide a blanket exclusion to foreign 
security-based swap dealers from entity-level requirements 
applicable to such entities.'' Id. at 31024 (footnotes omitted). The 
Commission further expressed the preliminary view that concerns 
regarding the application of entity-level requirements to foreign 
SBSDs would largely be addressed through the proposed approach to 
substituted compliance. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission applied this taxonomy in 2016 when it adopted rules 
to implement business conduct standards for SBS Entities. At that time, 
the Commission also stated that the rules and regulations prescribed 
under section 15F(j) should be treated as entity-level 
requirements.\426\ The

[[Page 20265]]

Commission has not, however, expressly addressed the entity-level 
treatment of the cybersecurity requirements under proposed Rule 10, 
except with regard to recordkeeping and reporting.\427\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \426\ See Business Conduct Standards Adopting Release, 81 FR at 
30064-65.
    \427\ The Commission has previously stated that recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are entity-level requirements. See 
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Security-Based Swap 
Dealers, Major Security-Based Swap Participants, and Broker-Dealers, 
Exchange Act Release No. 87005 (Sept. 19, 2019), 84 FR 68550, 68596-
97 (Dec. 16, 2019) (``SBS Entity Recordkeeping and Reporting 
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposed Entity-Level Treatment
a. Proposal
    Consistent with its approach to the obligations described in 
Section 15F(j) and to capital,\428\ margin,\429\ risk mitigation,\430\ 
and recordkeeping,\431\ the Commission is proposing to apply the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 to an SBS Entity's entire security-
based swap business without exception, including in connection with any 
security-based swap business it conducts with foreign 
counterparties.\432\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \428\ See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for 
Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap 
Participants and Capital and Segregation Requirements for Broker-
Dealers. Exchange Act Release No. 86175 (Jun. 21, 2019), 84 FR 
43872, 43879 (Aug, 22, 2019) (``Capital, Margin, and Segregation 
Requirements Adopting Release'').
    \429\ Id.
    \430\ See Risk Mitigation Techniques for Uncleared Security-
Based Swaps, Exchange Act Release No. 87782 (Dec. 18, 2019) [85 FR 
6359, 6378 (Feb. 4, 2020)] (``SBS Entity Risk Mitigation Adopting 
Release'').
    \431\ See SBS Entity Recordkeeping and Reporting Adopting 
Release, 84 FR at 68596-97.
    \432\ As entity-level requirements, transaction-level exceptions 
such as in 17 CFR 3a71-3(c) and 17 CFR 3a67-10(d), would not be 
available for the proposed cybersecurity requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cybersecurity policies and procedures and the related requirements 
of proposed Rule 10 serve as an important mechanism for allowing SBS 
Entities and their counterparties to manage risks associated with their 
operations, including risks related to the entity's safety and 
soundness.\433\ An alternative approach that does not require an SBS 
Entity to take steps to manage cybersecurity risk throughout the firm's 
entire business could contribute to operational risk affecting the 
entity's security-based swap business as a whole, and not merely 
specific security-based swap transactions. Moreover, to the extent that 
these risks affect the safety and soundness of the SBS Entity, they 
also may affect the firm's counterparties and the functioning of the 
broader security-based swap market. Accordingly, the Commission 
proposes to apply the requirements to the entirety of an SBS Entity's 
business.\434\ However, as described below, the Commission is proposing 
that foreign SBS Entities have the potential to avail themselves of 
substituted compliance to satisfy the cybersecurity requirements under 
proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \433\ See sections I.A. and II.B.1. of this release (discussing, 
respectively, cybersecurity risks and how those risks can be managed 
by certain policies, procedures, and controls). See also sections 
II.B.2-5 of this release.
    \434\ The Commission has expressed the view that an entity that 
has registered with the Commission subjects itself to the entire 
regulatory system governing such registered entities. Cross-Border 
Proposing Release, 78 FR at 30986. See also Business Conduct 
Standards Adopting Release, 81 FR at n.1306 (determining that the 
requirements described in section 15F(j) of the Exchange Act should 
be treated as entity-level requirements, and stating that such 
treatment would not be tantamount to applying Title VII to persons 
that are ``transact[ing] a business in security-based swaps without 
the jurisdiction of the United States,'' within the meaning of 
section 30(c) of the Exchange Act). That treatment of section 15F(j) 
of the Exchange Act was also deemed necessary or appropriate as a 
prophylactic measure to help prevent the evasion of the provisions 
of the Exchange Act that were added by the Dodd-Frank Act, and thus 
help prevent the relevant purposes of the Dodd-Frank Act from being 
undermined. Id. (citing Application of ``Security-Based Swap 
Dealer'' and ``Major Security-Based Swap Participant'' Definitions 
to Cross-Border Security-Based Swap Activities; Republication, 
Exchange Act Release No. 72472 (June 25, 2014) [79 FR 47277, 47291-
92 (Aug. 12, 2014)] (``SBS Entity Definitions Adopting Release'') 
(interpreting anti-evasion provisions of the Exchange Act, section 
30(c)). A different approach in connection with proposed Rule 10 
would not be consistent with the purposes of Title VII of the Dodd-
Frank Act and could allow SBS Entities to avoid compliance with 
these proposed rules for portions of their business in a manner that 
could increase the risk to the registered entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Request for Comment
    The Commission generally requests comments on the proposed entity-
level application of proposed Rule 10. In addition, the Commission 
requests comments on the following specific issues:
    83. Does the proposed approach appropriately treat the proposed 
requirements as entity-level requirements applicable to the entire 
business conducted by foreign SBS Entities? If not, please identify any 
particular aspects of proposed Rule 10 that should not be applied to a 
foreign SBS Entity, or applied only to specific transactions, and 
explain how such an approach would be consistent with the goals of 
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act.
    84. Should the Commission apply the same cross-border approach to 
the application of proposed Rule 10 for both SBSDs and MSBSPs? If not, 
please describe how the cross-border approach for SBSDs should differ 
from the cross-border approach for MSBSPs, and explain the reason(s) 
for any potential differences in approach.
    85. What types of conflicts might a foreign SBS Entity face if it 
had to comply with proposed Rule 10 in more than one jurisdiction? In 
what situations would compliance with more than one of these 
requirements be difficult or impossible? For Market Entities that are 
U.S. persons, could compliance with the proposed rules create 
compliance challenges with requirements in a foreign jurisdiction?
    86. As an alternative to treating the proposed requirements as 
entity-level requirements, should the Commission instead treat the 
proposed requirements as transaction-level requirements? If so, to 
which cross-border security-based swap transactions should these 
requirements apply and why? Please describe how these requirements 
would apply differently if classified as transaction-level requirements 
instead of as entity-level requirements.
3. Availability of Substituted Compliance
a. Existing Substituted Compliance Rule
    In 2016,\435\ the Commission adopted Exchange Act Rule 3a71-6 
(``Rule 3a71-6'') \436\ to provide that the Commission may, by order, 
make a determination that compliance with specified requirements under 
a foreign financial regulatory system by non-U.S. SBS Entities \437\ 
may satisfy certain business conduct requirements under Exchange Act 
section 15F, subject to certain conditions. The rule in part provides 
that the Commission shall not make a determination providing for 
substituted compliance unless the Commission determines, among other 
things, that the foreign regulatory requirements are

[[Page 20266]]

comparable to otherwise applicable requirements.\438\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \435\ See Business Conduct Standards Adopting Release, 81 FR at 
30070-81. Separately, in 2015, the Commission adopted a rule making 
substituted compliance potentially available in connection with 
certain regulatory reporting and public dissemination requirements 
related to security-based swaps. See Regulation SBSR-Reporting and 
Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, Exchange Act 
Release No. 74244 (Feb. 11, 2015) [80 FR 14563 (Mar. 19, 2015)] 
(adopting 17 CFR 242.908 (``Rule 908'')). Paragraph (c) of Rule 908 
does not contemplate substituted compliance for the rules being 
proposing today.
    \436\ See 17 CFR 240.3a71-6.
    \437\ If the Commission makes a substituted compliance 
determination under paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 3a71-6, SBS Entities 
that are not U.S. persons (as defined in 17 CFR 240.3a71-3(a)(4) 
(``Rule 3a71-3(a)(4)'')), but not SBS Entities that are U.S. 
persons, may satisfy specified requirements by complying with 
comparable foreign requirements and any conditions set forth in the 
substituted compliance determination made by the Commission. See 
paragraphs (b) and (d) of Rule 3a71-6.
    \438\ See paragraph (a)(2) of 3a71-6. See also Business Conduct 
Standards Adopting Release, 81 FR at 30074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Commission adopted this substituted compliance rule that 
addressed the specified business conduct requirements, the Commission 
also noted that Exchange Act section 15F(j)(7) authorizes the 
Commission to prescribe rules governing the duties of SBS 
Entities.\439\ The Commission stated that it was not excluding that 
provision from the potential availability of substituted compliance, 
and that it expected to separately consider whether substituted 
compliance may be available in connection with any future rules 
promulgated pursuant to that provision.\440\ Further, the Commission 
stated that it expected to assess the potential availability of 
substituted compliance in connection with other requirements when the 
Commission considers final rules to implement those requirements.\441\ 
Consistent with these statements, the Commission subsequently amended 
Rule 3a71-6 to provide SBS Entities that are non U.S. persons with the 
potential to avail themselves of substituted compliance with respect to 
the following Title VII requirements: (1) trade acknowledgment and 
verification,\442\ (2) capital and margin requirements,\443\ (3) 
recordkeeping and reporting,\444\ and (4) portfolio reconciliation, 
portfolio compression, and trading relationship documentation.\445\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \439\ Business Conduct Standards Adopting Release, 81 FR at n. 
1438.
    \440\ Id.
    \441\ See Business Conduct Standards Adopting Release, 81 FR at 
30074.
    \442\ See Trade Acknowledgment and Verification of Security-
Based Swap Transactions, Exchange Act Release No. 78011 (Jun. 8, 
2016) [81 FR 39807, 39827-28 (Jun. 17, 2016)] (``SBS Entity Trade 
Acknowledgment and Verification Adopting Release'').
    \443\ See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements Adopting 
Release, 84 FR at 43948-50.
    \444\ See SBS Entity Recordkeeping and Reporting Adopting 
Release, 84 FR at 68597-99.
    \445\ See SBS Entity Risk Mitigation Adopting Release, 85 FR at 
6379-80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Proposed Amendment to Rule 3a71-6
    The Commission is proposing to further amend Rule 3a71-6 to provide 
SBS Entities that are not U.S. persons (as defined in Rule 3a71-3(a)(4) 
of the Exchange Act) with the potential to avail themselves of 
substituted compliance to satisfy the cybersecurity requirements of 
proposed Rule 10 and Form SCIR as applicable to SBS Entities.\446\ In 
proposing to amend the rule, the Commission preliminarily believes that 
the principles associated with substituted compliance, as previously 
adopted in connection with both the business conduct requirements and 
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements, in large part should 
similarly apply to the cyber security risk management requirements 
being proposing today. The discussions in the Business Conduct 
Standards Adopting Release, including for example those regarding 
consideration of supervisory and enforcement practices,\447\ certain 
multi-jurisdictional issues,\448\ and application procedures \449\ are 
applicable to the proposed cybersecurity requirements. Accordingly, the 
proposed substituted compliance rule would apply to the cybersecurity 
risk management requirements in the same manner as it already applies 
to existing business conduct requirements and the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \446\ Substituted compliance would only be available to eligible 
SBS Entities. For example, substituted compliance would not be 
available to a Market Entity registered as both an SBS Entity and a 
broker-dealer with respect to the broker-dealer's obligations under 
the proposed rules.
    \447\ Business Conduct Standards Adopting Release, 81 FR at 
30079.
    \448\ Business Conduct Standards Adopting Release, 81 FR at 
30079-80.
    \449\ Business Conduct Standards Adopting Release, 81 FR at 
30080-81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Making substituted compliance available for the cybersecurity risk 
management requirements would be consistent with the approach the 
Commission has taken with other rules applicable to SBS Entities. This 
approach takes into consideration the global nature of the security-
based swap market and the prevalence of cross-border transactions 
within that market.\450\ The application of the cybersecurity risk 
management requirements may lead to requirements that are duplicative 
of, or in conflict with, applicable foreign requirements, even when the 
two sets of requirements implement similar goals and lead to similar 
results. Those results have the potential to disrupt existing business 
relationships and, more generally, to reduce competition and market 
efficiency. To address those effects, under certain circumstances it 
may be appropriate to allow the possibility of substituted compliance, 
whereby non-U.S. market participants may satisfy the cybersecurity risk 
management requirements by complying with comparable foreign 
requirements. Allowing for the possibility of substituted compliance in 
this manner would help achieve the benefits of those particular 
requirements in a way that helps avoid regulatory conflict and 
minimizes duplication, thereby promoting market efficiency, enhancing 
competition, and contributing to the overall functioning of the global 
security-based swap market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \450\ See generally Business Conduct Standards Adopting Release, 
81 FR at 30073-74 (addressing the basis for making substituted 
compliance available in the context of the business conduct 
requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (d)(1) 
of Rule 3a71-6 to make substituted compliance available for proposed 
Rule 10 and Form SCIR if the Commission determines with respect to a 
foreign financial regulatory system that compliance with specified 
requirements under such foreign financial regulatory system by a 
registered SBS Entity, or class thereof, satisfies the corresponding 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 and Form SCIR.\451\ However, the 
proposal would not amend Rule 3a71-6 in connection with the proposed 
amendments to Rule 18a-6 regarding records to be preserved by certain 
SBS Entities. Rule 3a71-6 currently permits eligible applicants to seek 
a substituted compliance determination from the Commission with regard 
to the requirements of Rule 18a-6.\452\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \451\ Paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 3a71-6 provides that the 
Commission may, conditionally or unconditionally, by order, make a 
determination with respect to a foreign financial regulatory system 
that compliance with specified requirements under the foreign 
financial system by an SBS Entity, or class thereof, may satisfy the 
corresponding requirements identified in paragraph (d) of the rule 
that would otherwise apply. See section II.D.3.c. of this release.
    \452\ See paragraph (d)(6) of Rule 3a71-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Comparability Criteria, and Consideration of Related Requirements
    If adopted, the proposed amendment to paragraph (d)(1) of Rule 
3a71-6 would provide that eligible applicants may request that the 
Commission make a substituted compliance determination with respect to 
one or more of the requirements Rule 10 and Form SCIR.\453\ Further, 
existing paragraph (d)(6) of Rule 3a71-6 would permit eligible 
applicants to request that the Commission make a substituted compliance 
determination with respect to one or more of the requirements of the 
proposed amendments to Rule 18a-6, if adopted. A positive substituted 
compliance determination with respect to requirements existing before 
adoption of the proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the related record 
preservation requirements would not automatically result in a positive 
substituted compliance determination with respect

[[Page 20267]]

to proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR or the proposed amendments to Rule 18a-
6. Before making a substituted compliance determination, the substance 
of each foreign regulatory system to which substituted compliance would 
apply should be evaluated for comparability to such newly adopted 
requirements. As such, if the Commission adopts the proposed amendment 
to Rule 3a71-6, eligible applicants \454\ seeking a Commission 
determination permitting SBS Entities that are not U.S. persons to 
satisfy the requirements of proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, or the 
proposed amendments to Rule 18a-6 by complying with comparable foreign 
requirements would be required to file an application, pursuant to the 
procedures set forth in 17 CFR 240.0-13, requesting that the Commission 
make a such a determination pursuant to 17 CFR 3a71-6(a)(1).\455\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \453\ See paragraph (c) of Rule 3a71-6.
    \454\ See 17 CFR 3a71-6(c).
    \455\ Existing Commission substituted compliance determinations 
do not address the requirements of the proposed new rules or the 
proposed amendments. If the Commission adopts the requirements in 
the proposed new or amended rules, SBS Entities (or the relevant 
foreign financial regulatory authority or authorities) seeking a 
substituted compliance determination with respect to those 
requirements would be required to file an application requesting 
that the Commission make the determination. Applicants may not 
request that the Commission make a substituted compliance 
determination related to the new requirements by amending a 
previously filed application that requested a substituted compliance 
determination related to other Commission requirements. However, new 
applications may incorporate relevant information from the 
applicant's previously filed requests for substituted compliance 
determinations if the information remains accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has taken a holistic approach in determining the 
comparability of foreign requirements for substituted compliance 
purposes, focusing on regulatory outcomes as a whole, rather than on a 
requirement-by-requirement comparison.\456\ The Commission 
preliminarily believes that such a holistic approach would be 
appropriate for determining comparability for substituted compliance 
purposes in connection with the requirements of proposed Rule 10, Form 
SCIR, and the proposed amendments to Rule 18a-6. Under the proposed 
amendment to Rule 3a71-6, the Commission's comparability assessments 
associated with the proposed cybersecurity risk management requirements 
accordingly would consider whether, in the Commission's view, the 
foreign regulatory system achieves regulatory outcomes that are 
comparable to the regulatory outcomes associated with those 
requirements. Rule 3a71-6 provides that the Commission's substituted 
compliance determination will take into account factors that the 
Commission determines appropriate, such as, for example, the scope and 
objectives of the relevant foreign regulatory requirements (taking into 
account the applicable criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of the 
rule), as well as the effectiveness of the supervisory compliance 
program administered, and the enforcement authority exercised, by a 
foreign financial regulatory authority or authorities in such foreign 
financial regulatory system to support its oversight of the SBS Entity 
(or class thereof) or of the activities of such SBS Entity (or class 
thereof).\457\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \456\ See Business Conduct Standards Adopting Release, 81 FR at 
30078-79. See also SBS Entity Trade Acknowledgment and Verification 
Adopting Release, 81 FR at 39828; SBS Entity Recordkeeping and 
Reporting Adopting Release, 84 FR at 68598-99.
    \457\ See 17 CFR 240.3a71-6(a)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission may determine to conduct its comparability analyses 
regarding Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the related record preservation 
requirements in conjunction with comparability analyses regarding other 
Exchange Act requirements that, like the requirements being proposed 
today, relate to risk management, recordkeeping, reporting, and 
notification requirements of SBS Entities. If the Commission adopts the 
proposed amendment to Rule 3a71-6, substituted compliance requests 
related to Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the related record preservation 
requirements may be filed by (i) applicants filing a request for a 
substituted compliance determination solely in connection with Rule 10, 
Form SCIR, and the related record preservation requirements,\458\ and 
(ii) applicants filing a request for a substituted compliance 
determination in connection with Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the related 
record preservation requirements combined with a request for a 
substituted compliance determination related to other eligible 
requirements. In either event, depending on the applicable facts and 
circumstances, the Commission's comparability assessment associated 
with the Rule 10, Form SCIR, or the related record preservation 
requirements may constitute part of a broader assessment of Exchange 
Act risk management, recordkeeping, reporting, and notification 
requirements for SBS Entities, and the applicable comparability 
decisions may be made at the level of those risk management, 
recordkeeping, reporting, and notification requirements for SBS 
Entities as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \458\ This category of applicants would include those who 
previously filed requests for the Commission to make substituted 
compliance determinations related to other requirements eligible for 
substituted compliance determinations under Rule 3a71-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Request for Comment
    The Commission generally requests comments on all aspects of the 
proposed amendment to Rule 3a71-6 and proposed availability of 
substituted compliance. In addition, the Commission requests comments 
on the following specific issues:
    87. Should the Commission make substituted compliance available 
with respect to proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the related record 
preservation requirements? Why or why not? If you believe that 
substituted compliance should not be available with respect to these 
requirements, how would you distinguish this policy decision from the 
Commission's previous determination to make substituted compliance 
potentially available with respect to other Title VII requirements 
(i.e., the business conduct, trade acknowledgment and verification, 
capital and margin, recordkeeping and reporting, and portfolio 
reconciliation, portfolio compression, and trading relationship 
documentation rules)?
    88. Are there other aspects of the scope of the substituted 
compliance rule for which the Commission should amend or provide 
additional guidance in light of proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the 
proposed amendment to Rule 18a-6? If so, what other amendments or 
additional guidance would be appropriate and why?
    89. Are the items identified in Rule 3a71-6 as factors the 
Commission will consider prior to making a substituted compliance 
determination in connection with proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the 
related record preservation requirements appropriate? If so, explain 
why. If not, explain why not. Should any of those items be modified or 
deleted? Should additional considerations be added? If so, please 
explain.

E. Amendments to Rule 18a-10

1. Proposal
    Exchange Act Rule 18a-10 (``Rule 18a-10'') permits an SBSD that is 
registered as a swap dealer and predominantly engages in a swaps 
business to elect to comply with the capital, margin, segregation, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act 
and the CFTC's rules in lieu of complying with the capital, margin, 
segregation, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of Exchange Act 
Rules 18a-1, 18a-3, 18a-4, 18a-5, 18a-

[[Page 20268]]

6, 18a-7, 18a-8, and 18a-9.\459\ An SBSD may elect to operate pursuant 
to Rule 18a-10 if it meets certain conditions.\460\ First, the firm 
must be registered with the Commission as a stand-alone SBSD (i.e., not 
also registered as a broker-dealer or an OTC derivatives dealer) and 
registered with the CFTC as a swap dealer. Second, the firm must be 
exempt from the segregation requirements of Rule 18a-4. Third, the 
aggregate gross notional amount of the firm's outstanding security-
based swap positions must not exceed the lesser of two thresholds as of 
the most recently ended quarter of the firm's fiscal year.\461\ The 
thresholds are: (1) a maximum fixed-dollar gross notional amount of 
open security-based swaps of $250 billion; \462\ and (2) 10% of the 
combined aggregate gross notional amount of the firm's open security-
based swap and swap positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \459\ See 17 CFR 240.18a-10.
    \460\ See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements Adopting 
Release, 84 at 43944-46 (discussing the conditions and the reasons 
for them). See also SBS Entity Recordkeeping and Reporting Adopting 
Release, 84 FR at 68549.
    \461\ The gross notional amount is based on the notional amounts 
of the firm's security-based swaps and swaps that are outstanding as 
of the quarter end. It is not based on transaction volume during the 
quarter.
    \462\ The maximum fixed-dollar threshold of $250 billion is set 
for a transition period of 3 years from the compliance date of the 
rule. Three years after that date it will drop to $50 billion 
(unless the Commission issues an order retaining the $250 billion 
threshold or lesser amount that is greater than $50 billion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, Rule 18a-6 is proposed to be amended to require 
SBSDs to maintain and preserve the records required to be made pursuant 
to proposed Rule 10.\463\ However, because Rule 18a-6 is within the 
scope of Rule 18a-10, an SBSD operating pursuant to Rule 18a-10 would 
not be subject to the maintenance and preservation requirements of Rule 
18a-6 with respect to the records required to be made pursuant to 
proposed Rule 10. Therefore, while an SBSD would be subject to proposed 
Rule 10 and need to make these records, the firm would not need to 
maintain or preserve them in accordance with Rule 18a-6. For these 
reasons, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 18a-10 to exclude 
from its scope the record maintenance and preservation requirements of 
Rule 18a-6 as they pertain to the records required to be made pursuant 
to proposed Rule 10.\464\ Therefore, the records required to be made 
pursuant to proposed Rule 10 would need to be preserved and maintained 
in accordance with Rule 18a-6, as it is proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \463\ See section II.B.5. of this release (discussing these 
proposals in more detail).
    \464\ See proposed paragraph (g) of Rule 18a-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed 
amendments relating to Rule 18a-10. In addition, the Commission is 
requesting comment on the following specific aspects of the proposals:
    90. Should the proposed amendments to Rule 18a-10 be modified? If 
so, describe how and explain why the modification would be appropriate. 
For example, would the records required to be made pursuant to proposed 
Rule 10 be subject to CFTC record preservation and maintenance rules? 
If so, identify the rules and explain the preservation and maintenance 
requirements they would impose on the records required to be made 
pursuant to proposed Rule 10. In addition, explain whether it would be 
appropriate to permit an SBSD operating pursuant to Rule 18a-10 to 
comply with these CFTC rules in terms of preserving and maintaining the 
records required to be made pursuant to proposed Rule 10 in lieu of the 
complying with the preservation and maintenance requirements that would 
apply to the records under the proposed amendments to Rule 18a-6.

F. Market Entities Subject to Regulation SCI, Regulation S-P, 
Regulation ATS, and Regulation S-ID

1. Discussion
a. Introduction
    As discussed in more detail below, certain types of Market Entities 
are subject to Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P.\465\ The Commission 
separately is proposing to amend Regulation SCI and Regulation S-
P.\466\ Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P (currently and as they would 
be amended) have or would have provisions requiring policies and 
procedures that address certain types of cybersecurity risks.\467\ 
Regulation SCI (currently and as it would be amended) also requires 
immediate written or telephonic notice and subsequent reporting to the 
Commission on Form SCI of certain types of incidents.\468\ These 
notification and subsequent reporting requirements of Regulation SCI 
could be triggered by a ``significant cybersecurity incident'' as that 
term would be defined in proposed Rule 10.\469\ Finally, Regulation SCI 
and Regulation S-P (currently and as they would be amended) have or 
would have provisions requiring disclosures to persons affected by 
certain incidents.\470\ These current or proposed disclosure 
requirements of Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P could be triggered by 
a cybersecurity-related event that also would be a ``significant 
cybersecurity incident'' as that term would be defined in proposed Rule 
10.\471\ Consequently, if proposed Rule 10 is adopted (as proposed), 
Market Entities could be subject to requirements in that rule and in 
Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P that pertain to cybersecurity. While 
the Commission preliminarily believes that these requirements are 
nonetheless appropriate, it is seeking comment on the proposed 
amendments, given the following: (1) each proposal has a different 
scope and purpose; (2) the policies and procedures related to 
cybersecurity that would be required under each of the proposed rules 
would be consistent; (3) the public disclosures or notifications 
required by the proposed rules would require different types of 
information to be disclosed, largely to different audiences at 
different times; and (4) it should be appropriate for entities to 
comply with the proposed requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \465\ See 17 CFR 242.1000 through 1007 (Regulation SCI); 17 CFR 
248.1 through 248.30 (Regulation S-P). See also section II.F.1.b. of 
this release (discussing the types of Market Entities that are or 
would be subject to Regulation SCI and/or Regulation S-P).
    \466\ See Regulation SCI 2023 Proposing Release; Regulation S-P 
2023 Proposing Release.
    \467\ See section II.F.1.c. of this release (discussing the 
existing and proposed requirements of Regulation SCI and Regulation 
S-P to have policies and procedures that address certain 
cybersecurity risks).
    \468\ See section II.F.1.d. of this release (discussing the 
existing and proposed immediate notification and subsequent 
reporting requirements of Regulation SCI).
    \469\ See paragraph (a)(10) of proposed Rule 10 (defining the 
term ``significant cybersecurity incident'').
    \470\ See section II.F.1.e. of this release (discussing the 
existing and proposed disclosure requirements of Regulation SCI and 
Regulation S-P).
    \471\ See paragraph (a)(10) of proposed Rule 10 (defining the 
term ``significant cybersecurity incident'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission encourages interested persons to provide comments on 
the discussion below, as well as on the potential related application 
of proposed Rule 10, Regulation SCI, and Regulation S-P. More 
specifically, the Commission encourages commenters: (1) to identify any 
areas where they believe the requirements of proposed Rule 10 and the 
existing or proposed requirements of Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P 
would be particularly costly or create practical implementation 
difficulties; (2) to provide details on what in particular about 
implementation would be difficult; and (3) to make

[[Page 20269]]

recommendations on how to minimize these potential impacts. To assist 
this effort, the Commission is seeking specific comment below on these 
topics.\472\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \472\ See section II.F.2. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Market Entities That Are or Would Be Subject to Regulation SCI and 
Regulation S-P
    Certain Market Entities that would be subject to the requirements 
of proposed Rule 10 applicable to Covered Entities are subject to the 
existing requirements of Regulation SCI. In particular, SCI entities 
include the following Covered Entities that also would be subject to 
the requirements of proposed Rule 10: (1) ATSs that trade certain 
stocks exceeding specific volume thresholds; (2) registered clearing 
agencies; (3) certain exempt clearing agencies; (4) the MSRB; (5) 
FINRA; and (6) national securities exchanges.\473\ Therefore, if 
proposed Rule 10 is adopted (as proposed), these Covered Entities would 
be subject to its requirements and the requirements of Regulation SCI 
(currently and as it would be amended). The Commission is separately 
proposing to revise Regulation SCI to expand the definition of ``SCI 
entity'' to include the following Covered Entities that also would be 
subject to the requirements of proposed Rule 10: (1) broker-dealers 
that exceed an asset-based size threshold or a volume-based trading 
threshold in NMS stocks, exchange-listed options, agency securities, or 
U.S. treasury securities; (2) all exempt clearing agencies; and (3) 
SBSDRs.\474\ Therefore, if these amendments to Regulation SCI are 
adopted and proposed Rule 10 is adopted (as proposed), these additional 
Covered Entities would be subject to the requirements of proposed Rule 
10 and also to the requirements of Regulation SCI. Additionally, 
broker-dealers and transfer agents that would be subject to proposed 
Rule 10 also would be subject to some or all of the existing or 
proposed requirements of Regulation S-P.\475\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \473\ See 17 CFR 242.1000 (defining the terms ``SCI alternative 
trading system,'' ``SCI self-regulatory system,'' and ``Exempt 
clearing agency subject to ARP,'' and including all of those defined 
terms in the definition of ``SCI Entity''). The definition of ``SCI 
entities'' includes additional Commission registrants that would not 
be subject to the requirements of proposed Rule 10: plan processors 
and SCI competing consolidators. However, the Commission is seeking 
comment on whether these registrants should be subject to the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10.
    \474\ All exempt clearing agencies and SBSDRs would be subject 
to the requirements of proposed Rule 10 applicable to Covered 
Entities. See paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (vii) of proposed Rule 10 
(defining these registrants as ``covered entities''). Broker-dealers 
that exceed the asset-based size threshold under the proposed 
amendments to Regulation SCI (which would be several hundred billion 
dollars) also would be subject to the requirements of proposed Rule 
10 applicable to Covered Entities, as they would exceed the $1 
billion total assets threshold in the broker-dealer definition of 
``covered entity.'' See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(D) of proposed Rule 10. 
A broker-dealer that exceeds one or more of the volume-based trading 
thresholds under the proposed amendments to Regulation SCI likely 
would meet one of the broker-dealer definitions of ``covered 
entity'' in proposed Rule 10 given their size and activities. For 
example, it would either be a carrying broker-dealer, have 
regulatory capital equal to or exceeding $50 million, have total 
assets equal to or exceeding $1 billion, or operate as a market 
maker. See paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A), (C), (D), and (E) of proposed 
Rule 10. The Commission is seeking comment above on whether a 
broker-dealer that is an SCI entity should be defined specifically 
as a ``covered entity'' under proposed Rule 10.
    \475\ Broadly, Regulation S-P's requirements apply to all 
broker-dealers, except for ``notice-registered broker-dealers'' (as 
defined in 17 CFR 248.30), who in most cases will be deemed to be in 
compliance with Regulation S-P if they instead comply with the 
financial privacy rules of the CFTC, and are otherwise explicitly 
excluded from certain of Regulation S-P's obligations. See 17 CFR 
248.2(c). For the purposes of this section II.F. of this release, 
the term ``broker-dealer'' when used to refer to broker-dealers that 
are subject to Regulation S-P (currently and as it would be amended) 
excludes notice-registered broker-dealers. Currently, transfer 
agents registered with the Commission (``SEC-registered transfer 
agents'') (but not transfer agents registered with another 
appropriate regulatory agency) are subject to Regulation S-P's 
``disposal rule'' (``Regulation S-P Disposal Rule''). See 17 CFR 
248.30(b). However, no transfer agent is currently subject to any 
other portion of Regulation S-P, including the ``safeguards rule'' 
under Regulation S-P (``Regulation S-P Safeguards Rule''). See 17 
CFR 248.30(a). Under the proposed amendments to Regulation S-P, SEC-
registered transfer agents and transfer agents registered with 
another appropriate regulatory agency (as defined in 15 U.S.C. 
78c(34)(B)) would be subject to the Regulation S-P Safeguards Rule 
and the Regulation S-P Disposal Rule. Regulation S-P also applies to 
additional financial institutions that would not be subject to 
proposed Rule 10. See 17 CFR 248.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Policies and Procedures to Address Cybersecurity Risks
i. Different Scope and Purpose of the Policies and Procedures 
Requirements
    Each of the policies and procedures requirements has a different 
scope and purpose. Regulation SCI (currently and as it would be 
amended) limits the scope of its requirements to certain systems of the 
SCI Entity that support securities market related functions. 
Specifically, it does and would require an SCI Entity to have 
reasonably designed policies and procedures applicable to its SCI 
systems and, for purposes of security standards, its indirect SCI 
systems.\476\ While certain aspects of the policies and procedures 
required by Regulation SCI (as it exists today and as proposed to be 
amended) are designed to address certain cybersecurity risks (among 
other things),\477\ the policies and procedures required by Regulation 
SCI focus on the SCI entities' operational capability and the 
maintenance of fair and orderly markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \476\ See 17 CFR 242.1001(a)(1). ``SCI systems'' are defined as 
electronic or similar systems of, or operated by or on behalf of, an 
SCI entity that directly support at least one of six market 
functions: (1) trading; (2) clearance and settlement; (3) order 
routing; (4) market data; (5) market regulation; or (6) market 
surveillance. 17 CFR 242.1000. ``Indirect SCI systems'' are defined 
as those of, or operated by or on behalf of, an SCI entity that, if 
breached, would be reasonably likely to pose a security threat to 
SCI systems. 17 CFR 242.1000. The distinction between SCI systems 
and indirect SCI systems seeks to encourage SCI Entities that their 
SCI systems, which are core market-facing systems, should be 
physically or logically separated from systems that perform other 
functions (e.g., corporate email and general office systems for 
member regulation and recordkeeping). See Regulation Systems 
Compliance and Integrity, Release No. 34-73639 79 FR 72251 (Dec. 5, 
2014), at 79 FR at 72279-81 (``Regulation SCI 2014 Adopting 
Release''). Indirect SCI systems are subject to Regulation SCI's 
requirements with respect to security standards. Further, ``critical 
SCI systems'' (a subset of SCI systems) are defined as those that 
directly support functionality relating to: (1) clearance and 
settlement systems of clearing agencies; (2) openings, reopenings, 
and closings on the primary listing market; (3) trading halts; (4) 
initial public offerings; (5) the provision of market data by a plan 
processor; or (6) exclusively-listed securities; and as a catchall, 
systems that provide functionality to the securities markets for 
which the availability of alternatives is significantly limited or 
nonexistent and without which there would be a material impact on 
fair and orderly markets. 17 CFR 242.1000.
    \477\ See 17 CFR 242.1000 (defining ``indirect SCI systems''). 
The distinction between SCI systems and indirect SCI systems seeks 
to encourage SCI Entities that their SCI systems, which are core 
market-facing systems, should be physically or logically separated 
from systems that perform other functions (e.g., corporate email and 
general office systems for member regulation and recordkeeping). See 
Regulation SCI 2014 Adopting Release, 79 FR at 72279-81. Indirect 
SCI systems are subject to Regulation SCI's requirements with 
respect to security standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Regulation S-P (currently and as it would be amended) 
also has a distinct focus. The policies and procedures required under 
Regulation S-P, both currently and as proposed to be amended, are 
limited to protecting a certain type of information--customer records 
or information and consumer report information \478\--and they apply to 
such information even when stored outside of SCI systems or indirect 
SCI systems. Furthermore, these policies and procedures need not 
address other types of information stored on the systems of the broker-
dealer or transfer agent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \478\ Or as proposed herein, ``customer information'' and 
``consumer information.'' See proposed rules 248.30(e)(5) and 
(e)(1), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 10 would have a broader scope than Regulation SCI and 
Regulation S-P (currently and as they would be amended) because it 
would require Market Entities to establish, maintain, and enforce 
written policies

[[Page 20270]]

and procedures that are reasonably designed to address their 
cybersecurity risks.\479\ Unlike Regulation SCI, these requirements 
would therefore cover SCI systems, indirect SCI systems, and 
information systems that are not SCI systems or indirect SCI systems. 
And, unlike Regulation S-P, the proposed requirements would also 
encompass information beyond customer information and consumer 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \479\ See paragraphs (b) and (e) of proposed Rule 10 (setting 
forth the requirements of Covered Entities and Non-Covered Entities, 
respectively, to have policies and procedures to address their 
cybersecurity risks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate, a Market Entity could use one comprehensive set of 
policies and procedures to satisfy the requirements of proposed Rule 10 
and the existing and proposed cybersecurity-related requirements of 
Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P, so long as: (1) the cybersecurity-
related policies and procedures required under Regulation S-P and 
Regulation SCI fit within and are consistent with the scope of the 
policies and procedures required under proposed Rule 10; and (2) and 
the policies and procedures requirements of proposed Rule 10 also 
address the more narrowly-focused existing and proposed cybersecurity-
related policies and procedures requirements under Regulation SCI and 
Regulation S-P.
ii. Consistency of the Policies and Procedures Requirements
Covered Entities
    As discussed above, the Market Entities that would be SCI Entities 
under the existing and proposed requirements of Regulation SCI would be 
subject the policies and procedures requirements of proposed Rule 10 
applicable to Covered Entities. In addition, broker-dealers and 
transfer agents are subject to the requirements of Regulation S-P 
(currently and as it would be amended).\480\ Transfer agents would be 
Covered Entities under proposed Rule 10 and, therefore, subject to the 
policies and procedures requirements of that rule applicable to Covered 
Entities.\481\ Further, the two categories of broker-dealers that 
likely would have the largest volume of customer information and 
consumer information subject to the existing or proposed requirements 
of Regulation S-P would be Covered Entities under proposed Rule 10: 
carrying broker-dealers and introducing broker-dealers.\482\ For these 
reasons, the Commission first analyzes the potential overlap between 
proposed Rule 10 and the current and proposed requirements of 
Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P by taking into account the policies 
and procedures requirements of proposed Rule 10 that would apply to 
Covered Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \480\ As discussed above, SEC-registered transfer agents are 
subject to the Regulation S-P Disposal Rule but not to the 
Regulation S-P Safeguards Rule. The proposed amendments to 
Regulation S-P would apply the Regulation S-P Safeguards Rule and 
the Regulation S-P Disposal Rule to all transfer agents.
    \481\ See paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 10 (setting forth 
the policies and procedures requirements for Covered Entities).
    \482\ See paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of proposed Rule 10 
(defining, respectively, carrying broker-dealers and introducing 
broker-dealers as Covered Entities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P General Policies and Procedures 
Requirements
    Regulation SCI, Regulation S-P, and proposed Rule 10 all include 
requirements that address certain cybersecurity-related risks. 
Regulation SCI requires an SCI Entity to have reasonably designed 
policies and procedures to ensure that its SCI systems and, for 
purposes of security standards, indirect SCI systems, have levels of 
capacity, integrity, resiliency, availability, and security, adequate 
to maintain the SCI entity's operational capability and promote the 
maintenance of fair and orderly markets.\483\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \483\ See 17 CFR 242.1001(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Regulation S-P Safeguards Rule requires broker-dealers (but not 
transfer agents) to adopt written policies and procedures that address 
administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for the protection 
of customer records and information.\484\ The Regulation S-P Safeguards 
Rule further provides that these policies and procedures must: (1) 
insure the security and confidentiality of customer records and 
information; (2) protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to 
the security or integrity of customer records and information; and (3) 
protect against unauthorized access to or use of customer records or 
information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to 
any customer.\485\ Additionally, the Regulation S-P Disposal Rule 
requires broker-dealers and SEC-registered transfer agents that 
maintain or otherwise possess consumer report information for a 
business purpose to properly dispose of the information by taking 
reasonable measures to protect against unauthorized access to or use of 
the information in connection with its disposal.\486\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \484\ See 17 CFR 248.30(a).
    \485\ See 17 CFR 248.30(a)(1) through (3).
    \486\ See 17 CFR 248.30(b)(2). Regulation S-P currently defines 
the term ``disposal'' to mean: (1) the discarding or abandonment of 
consumer report information; or (2) the sale, donation, or transfer 
of any medium, including computer equipment, on which consumer 
report information is stored. See 17 CFR 248.30(b)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 10 would require a Covered Entity to establish, 
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are 
reasonably designed to address the Covered Entity's cybersecurity 
risks. In addition, Covered Entities would be required to include the 
following elements in their policies and procedures: (1) periodic 
assessments of cybersecurity risks associated with the Covered Entity's 
information systems and written documentation of the risk assessments; 
(2) controls designed to minimize user-related risks and prevent 
unauthorized access to the Covered Entity's information systems; (3) 
measures designed to monitor the Covered Entity's information systems 
and protect the Covered Entity's information from unauthorized access 
or use, and oversight of service providers that receive, maintain, or 
process information, or are otherwise permitted to access the Covered 
Entity's information systems; (4) measures to detect, mitigate, and 
remediate any cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities with respect to 
the Covered Entity's information systems; and (5) measures to detect, 
respond to, and recover from a cybersecurity incident and written 
documentation of any cybersecurity incident and the response to and 
recovery from the incident.\487\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \487\ See sections II.B.1.a. through II.B.1.e. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier, the inclusion of these elements in proposed 
Rule 10 is designed to enumerate the core areas that Covered Entities 
would need to address when designing, implementing, and assessing their 
policies and procedures.\488\ Taken together, these requirements are 
designed to position Covered Entities to be better prepared to protect 
themselves against cybersecurity risks, to mitigate cybersecurity 
threats and vulnerabilities, and to recover from cybersecurity 
incidents. They are also designed to help ensure that Covered Entities 
focus their efforts and resources on the cybersecurity risks associated 
with their operations and business practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \488\ See section II.B.1. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Covered Entity that implements reasonably designed policies and 
procedures in compliance with the requirements of proposed Rule 10 
described above that cover its SCI systems and indirect SCI systems 
should generally satisfy the existing general policies and procedures

[[Page 20271]]

requirements of Regulation SCI that pertain to cybersecurity.\489\ 
Similarly, policies and procedures implemented by a Covered Broker-
Dealer that are reasonably designed in compliance with the requirements 
of proposed Rule 10 should generally satisfy the existing general 
policies and procedures requirements of the Regulation S-P Safeguards 
Rule discussed above that pertain to cybersecurity, to the extent that 
such information is stored electronically and, therefore, falls within 
the scope of proposed Rule 10. In addition, reasonably designed 
policies and procedures implemented by a Covered Broker-Dealer or SEC-
registered transfer agent in compliance with the requirements of 
proposed Rule 10 should generally satisfy the existing requirements of 
the Regulation S-P Disposal Rule discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \489\ As noted above, the CAT System is a facility of each of 
the Participants and an SCI system. See also CAT NMS Plan Approval 
Order, 81 FR at 84758. It would also qualify as an ``information 
system'' of each national securities exchange and each national 
securities association under proposed Rule 10. The CAT NMS Plan 
requires the CAT's Plan Processor to follow certain security 
protocols and industry standards, including the NIST Cyber Security 
Framework, subject to Participant oversight. See, e.g., CAT NMS Plan 
at appendix D, section 4.2. For the reasons discussed above and 
below with respect to SCI systems, the policies and procedures 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 are not intended to be inconsistent 
with the security protocols set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. Moreover, 
to the extent the CAT NMS Plan requires security protocols beyond 
those that would be required under proposed Rule 10, those 
additional security protocols should generally fit within and be 
consistent with the policies and procedures required under proposed 
Rule 10 to address all cybersecurity risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P Requirements to Oversee Service 
Providers. Under the amendments to Regulation SCI, the policies and 
procedures required of SCI entities would need to include a program to 
manage and oversee third party providers that provide functionality, 
support or service, directly or indirectly, for SCI systems and 
indirect SCI systems.\490\ In addition, proposed amendments to the 
Regulation S-P Safeguards Rule would require broker-dealers and 
transfer agents to include written policies and procedures within their 
response programs that require their service providers, pursuant to a 
written contract, to take appropriate measures that are designed to 
protect against unauthorized access to or use of customer information, 
including notification to the broker-dealer or transfer agent as soon 
as possible, but no later than 48 hours after becoming aware of a 
breach, in the event of any breach in security resulting in 
unauthorized access to customer information maintained by the service 
provider to enable the broker-dealer or transfer agent to implement its 
response program expeditiously.\491\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \490\ See Regulation SCI 2023 Proposing Release. These policies 
and procedures would need to include initial and periodic review of 
contracts with such vendors for consistency with the SCI entity's 
obligations under Regulation SCI; and a risk-based assessment of 
each third party provider's criticality to the SCI entity, including 
analyses of third party provider concentration, of key dependencies 
if the third party provider's functionality, support, or service 
were to become unavailable or materially impaired, and of any 
potential security, including cybersecurity, risks posed. Id.
    \491\ See Regulation S-P 2023 Proposing Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 10 would have several policies and procedures 
requirements that are designed to address similar cybersecurity risks 
as these proposed amendments to Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P. 
First, a Covered Entity's policies and procedures under proposed Rule 
10 would need to require periodic assessments of cybersecurity risks 
associated with the Covered Entity's information systems and 
information residing on those systems.\492\ This element of the 
policies and procedures would need to include requirements that the 
Covered Entity identify its service providers that receive, maintain, 
or process information, or are otherwise permitted to access its 
information systems and any of its information residing on those 
systems, and assess the cybersecurity risks associated with its use of 
these service providers.\493\ Second, under proposed Rule 10, a Covered 
Entity's policies and procedures would need to require oversight of 
service providers that receive, maintain, or process its information, 
or are otherwise permitted to access its information systems and the 
information residing on those systems, pursuant to a written contract 
between the Covered Entity and the service provider, through which the 
service providers would need to be required to implement and maintain 
appropriate measures that are designed to protect the Covered Entity's 
information systems and information residing on those systems.\494\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \492\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of proposed Rule 10; see also 
section II.B.1.a. of this release (discussing this requirement in 
more detail).
    \493\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A)(2) of proposed Rule 10.
    \494\ See paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed Rule 10; see 
also section II.B.1.c. of this release (discussing this requirement 
in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Covered Entity that implements these requirements of proposed 
Rule 10 with respect to its SCI systems and indirect SCI systems 
generally should satisfy the proposed requirements of Regulation SCI 
that the SCI entity's policies and procedures include a program to 
manage and oversee third party providers that provide functionality, 
support or service, directly or indirectly, for SCI systems and 
indirect SCI systems. Similarly, a broker-dealer or transfer agent that 
implements these requirements of proposed Rule 10 generally would 
comply with the proposed requirements of the Regulation S-P Safeguards 
Rule relating to the oversight of service providers.
    Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P Unauthorized Access Requirements. 
Under the proposed amendments to Regulation SCI, SCI entities would be 
required to have a program to prevent the unauthorized access to their 
SCI systems and indirect SCI systems, and information residing 
therein.\495\ The proposed amendments to the Regulation S-P Disposal 
Rule would require broker-dealers and transfer agents that maintain or 
otherwise possess consumer information or customer information for a 
business purpose to properly dispose of this information by taking 
reasonable measures to protect against unauthorized access to or use of 
the information in connection with its disposal.\496\ The broker-dealer 
or transfer agent would be required to adopt and implement written 
policies and procedures that address the proper disposal of consumer 
information and customer information in accordance with this 
standard.\497\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \495\ See Regulation SCI 2023 Proposing Release.
    \496\ See Regulation S-P 2023 Proposing Release. As discussed 
above, the general policies and procedures requirements of the 
Regulation S-P Safeguards Rule require the policies and procedures--
among other things--to protect against unauthorized access to or use 
of customer records or information that could result in substantial 
harm or inconvenience to any customer. See 17 CFR 248.30(a)(3).
    \497\ See Regulation S-P 2023 Proposing Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 10 would have several policies and procedures 
requirements that are designed to address similar cybersecurity-related 
risks as these proposed requirements of Regulation SCI and the 
Regulation S-P Disposal Rule. First, a Covered Entity's policies and 
procedures under proposed Rule 10 would need to require controls: (1) 
requiring standards of behavior for individuals authorized to access 
the Covered Entity's information systems and the information residing 
on those systems, such as an acceptable use policy; (2) identifying and 
authenticating individual users, including but not limited to 
implementing authentication measures that require users to present a 
combination of two or more credentials for access verification; (3) 
establishing procedures for the timely distribution,

[[Page 20272]]

replacement, and revocation of passwords or methods of authentication; 
(4) restricting access to specific information systems of the Covered 
Entity or components thereof and the information residing on those 
systems solely to individuals requiring access to the systems and 
information as is necessary for them to perform their responsibilities 
and functions on behalf of the Covered Entity; and (5) securing remote 
access technologies.\498\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \498\ See paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) of proposed Rule 
10; see also section II.B.1.b. of this release (discussing these 
requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, under proposed Rule 10, a Covered Entity's policies and 
procedures would need to include measures designed to protect the 
Covered Entity's information systems and protect the information 
residing on those systems from unauthorized access or use, based on a 
periodic assessment of the Covered Entity's information systems and the 
information that resides on the systems.\499\ The periodic assessment 
would need to take into account: (1) the sensitivity level and 
importance of the information to the Covered Entity's business 
operations; (2) whether any of the information is personal information; 
(3) where and how the information is accessed, stored and transmitted, 
including the monitoring of information in transmission; (4) the 
information systems' access controls and malware protection; and (5) 
the potential effect a cybersecurity incident involving the information 
could have on the Covered Entity and its customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, or users, including the potential to cause a 
significant cybersecurity incident.\500\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \499\ See paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed Rule 10; see also 
section II.B.1.c. of this release (discussing these requirements in 
more detail).
    \500\ See paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A)(1) through (5) of proposed 
Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Covered Entity that implements these requirements of proposed 
Rule 10 with respect to its SCI systems and indirect SCI systems 
generally should satisfy the proposed requirements of Regulation SCI 
that the SCI entity's policies and procedures include a program to 
prevent the unauthorized access to their SCI systems and indirect SCI 
systems, and information residing therein. Similarly, a broker-dealer 
or transfer agent that implements these requirements of proposed Rule 
10 should generally satisfy the proposed requirements of the Regulation 
S-P Disposal Rule to adopt and implement written policies and 
procedures that address the proper disposal of consumer information and 
customer information.
    Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P Response Programs. Regulation SCI 
requires SCI entities to have policies and procedures to monitor its 
SCI systems and indirect SCI systems for SCI events, which include 
systems intrusions for unauthorized access, and also requires them to 
have policies and procedures that include escalation procedures to 
quickly inform responsible SCI personnel of potential SCI events.\501\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \501\ See 17 CFR 242.1001(a)(2)(vii) and (c)(1), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to Regulation S-P's safeguards provisions would 
require the policies and procedures to include a response program for 
unauthorized access to or use of customer information. Further, the 
response program would need to be reasonably designed to detect, 
respond to, and recover from unauthorized access to or use of customer 
information, including procedures, among others: (1) to assess the 
nature and scope of any incident involving unauthorized access to or 
use of customer information and identify the customer information 
systems and types of customer information that may have been accessed 
or used without authorization; \502\ and (2) to take appropriate steps 
to contain and control the incident to prevent further unauthorized 
access to or use of customer information.\503\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \502\ Regulation SCI's obligation to take corrective action may 
include a variety of actions, such as determining the scope of the 
SCI event and its causes, among others. See Regulation SCI 2014 
Adopting Release, 79 FR at 72251, 72317. See also 17 CFR 
242.1002(a).
    \503\ See Regulation S-P 2023 Proposing Release. The response 
program also would need to have procedures to notify each affected 
individual whose sensitive customer information was, or is 
reasonably likely to have been, accessed or used without 
authorization unless the covered institution determines, after a 
reasonable investigation of the facts and circumstances of the 
incident of unauthorized access to or use of sensitive customer 
information, the sensitive customer information has not been, and is 
not reasonably likely to be, used in a manner that would result in 
substantial harm or inconvenience. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to the Regulation S-P Safeguards Rule would require 
the policies and procedures to include a response program for 
unauthorized access to or use of customer information. Further, the 
response program would need to be reasonably designed to detect, 
respond to, and recover from unauthorized access to or use of customer 
information, including procedures, among others: (1) to assess the 
nature and scope of any incident involving unauthorized access to or 
use of customer information and identify the customer information 
systems and types of customer information that may have been accessed 
or used without authorization; and (2) to take appropriate steps to 
contain and control the incident to prevent further unauthorized access 
to or use of customer information.\504\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \504\ See Regulation S-P 2023 Proposing Release. As discussed 
below, the response program also would need to have procedures to 
notify each affected individual whose sensitive customer information 
was, or is reasonably likely to have been, accessed or used without 
authorization unless the covered institution determines, after a 
reasonable investigation of the facts and circumstances of the 
incident of unauthorized access to or use of sensitive customer 
information, the sensitive customer information has not been, and is 
not reasonably likely to be, used in a manner that would result in 
substantial harm or inconvenience. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 10 would have several policies and procedures 
requirements that are designed to address similar cybersecurity-related 
risks as these proposed requirements of the Regulation S-P Safeguards 
Rule. First, under proposed Rule 10, a Covered Entity's policies and 
procedures would need to require measures designed to detect, mitigate, 
and remediate any cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities with 
respect to the Covered Entity's information systems and the information 
residing on those systems.\505\ Second, under proposed Rule 10, a 
Covered Entity's policies and procedures would need to have measures 
designed to detect, respond to, and recover from a cybersecurity 
incident, including policies and procedures that are reasonably 
designed to ensure (among other things): (1) the continued operations 
of the Covered Entity; (2) the protection of the Covered Entity's 
information systems and the information residing on those systems; and 
(3) external and internal cybersecurity incident information sharing 
and communications.\506\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \505\ See paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of proposed Rule 10; see also 
section II.B.1.d. of this release (discussing this requirement in 
more detail).
    \506\ See paragraph (b)(1)(v) of proposed Rule 10; see also 
section II.B.1.e. of this release (discussing this requirement in 
more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Covered Entity that implements reasonably designed policies and 
procedures in compliance with these requirements of proposed Rule 10 
generally should satisfy the proposed requirements of the Regulation 
SCI and Regulation S-P Safeguards Rule to have a response program 
relating to response programs for unauthorized access.
    Regulation SCI Review Requirements. Regulation SCI currently 
prescribes certain elements that must be included in each SCI entity's 
policies and procedures.\507\ These required elements include policies 
and procedures that must provide for regular reviews and

[[Page 20273]]

testing of SCI systems and indirect SCI systems, including backup 
systems, to identify vulnerabilities from internal and external 
threats.\508\ In addition, Regulation SCI requires SCI entities to 
conduct penetration tests as part of a review of their compliance with 
Regulation SCI.\509\ While these reviews must be conducted not less 
than once each calendar year, the penetration tests currently need to 
be conducted not less than once every three years.\510\ The amendments 
to Regulation SCI would increase the required frequency of the 
penetration tests to not less than once each calendar year.\511\ The 
amendments to Regulation SCI also would require that the penetration 
tests include tests of any vulnerabilities of the SCI entity's SCI 
systems and indirect SCI systems identified under the existing 
requirement to perform regular reviews and testing of SCI systems and 
indirect SCI systems, including backup systems, to identify 
vulnerabilities from internal and external threats.\512\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \507\ See 17 CFR 242.1001(a)(2).
    \508\ 17 CFR 242.1001(a)(2)(iv).
    \509\ See 17 CFR 242.1003(b)(1)(i).
    \510\ Id.
    \511\ See Regulation SCI 2023 Proposing Release.
    \512\ See Regulation SCI 2023 Proposing Release; 17 CFR 
242.1001(a)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 10 would have several policies and procedures 
requirements that are designed to address similar cybersecurity-related 
risks as these existing and proposed requirements of Regulation SCI. 
First, a Covered Entity's policies and procedures under proposed Rule 
10 would need to require periodic assessments of cybersecurity risks 
associated with the Covered Entity's information systems and 
information residing on those systems.\513\ Moreover, this element of 
the policies and procedures would need to include requirements that the 
Covered Entity categorize and prioritize cybersecurity risks based on 
an inventory of the components of the Covered Entity's information 
systems and information residing on those systems and the potential 
effect of a cybersecurity incident on the Covered Entity.\514\ Second, 
under proposed Rule 10, a Covered Entity's policies and procedures 
would need to require measures designed to detect, mitigate, and 
remediate any cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities with respect to 
the Covered Entity's information systems and the information residing 
on those systems.\515\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \513\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of proposed Rule 10; see also 
section II.B.1.a. of this release (discussing this requirement in 
more detail).
    \514\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A)(1) of proposed Rule 10.
    \515\ See paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of proposed Rule 10; see also 
section II.B.1.d. of this release (discussing this requirement in 
more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Covered Entity that implements these requirements of proposed 
Rule 10 with respect to its SCI systems and indirect SCI systems 
generally should satisfy the current requirements of Regulation SCI 
that the SCI entity's policies and procedures require regular reviews 
and testing of SCI systems and indirect SCI systems, including backup 
systems, to identify vulnerabilities from internal and external 
threats.
    Further, while proposed Rule 10 does not require penetration 
testing, the proposed rule--as discussed above--requires measures 
designed to protect the Covered Entity's information systems and 
protect the information residing on those systems from unauthorized 
access or use, based on a periodic assessment of the Covered Entity's 
information systems and the information that resides on the 
systems.\516\ As discussed earlier, penetration testing could be part 
of these measures.\517\ Therefore, the existing and proposed 
requirements of Regulation SCI requiring penetration testing could be 
incorporated into and should fit within a Covered Entity's policies and 
procedures to address cybersecurity risks under proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \516\ See paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of proposed Rule 10.
    \517\ See also section II.B.1.c. of this release. The Commission 
also is requesting comment above on whether proposed Rule 10 should 
be modified to specifically require penetration testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Covered Broker-Dealers
    Non-Covered Broker-Dealers--which would be subject to Regulation S-
P but not Regulation SCI--are smaller firms whose functions do not play 
as significant a role in the U.S. securities markets, as compared to 
Covered Broker-Dealers.\518\ For example, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers 
tend to offer a more focused and limited set of services such as 
facilitating private placements of securities, selling mutual funds and 
variable contracts, underwriting securities, and participating in 
direct investment offerings.\519\ Further, they do not hold customer 
securities and cash or serve as a conduit (i.e., an introducing broker-
dealer) for customers to access their accounts at a carrying broker-
dealer that holds the customers' securities and cash. If these Non-
Covered Broker-Dealers do not possess or maintain any customer 
information or consumer information for a business purpose in 
connection with the services they provide, they would not be subject to 
either the current or proposed requirements of Regulation S-P, 
including those that pertain to cybersecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \518\ See section IV.C.2. of this release (discussing the 
activities of broker-dealers that would not meet the definition of 
``covered entity'' in proposed Rule 10). As discussed below in 
section IV.C.2. of this release, the 1,541 broker-dealers that would 
meet the definition of ``covered entity'' in proposed Rule 10 had 
average total assets of $3.5 billion and average regulatory equity 
of $325 million; whereas the 1,969 that would not meet the 
definition of ``covered entity'' had average total assets of $4.7 
million and regulatory equity of $3 million. This means that broker-
dealers that would not meet the definition of ``covered entity'' in 
proposed Rule 10 accounted for about 0.2% of the total assets of all 
broker-dealers and 0.1% of total capital for all broker-dealers.
    \519\ See section IV.C.2. of this release (discussing the 
activities of broker-dealers that would not meet the definition of 
``covered entity'' in proposed Rule 10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers under proposed Rule 10 that do 
possess or maintain customer information or consumer information for a 
business purpose would be subject to the current and proposed 
requirements of Regulation S-P. Given their smaller size, some of these 
Non-Covered Broker-Dealers may store and dispose of the information in 
paper form and, therefore, under the existing and proposed requirements 
of Regulation S-P would need to address the physical security aspects 
of storing and disposing of this information. These paper records would 
not be subject to proposed Rule 10.
    Some Non-Covered Broker-Dealers likely would store customer 
information and consumer information for a business purpose 
electronically on an information system. Under the existing and 
proposed requirements of Regulation S-P, these Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers would need to address the cybersecurity risks of storing this 
information on an information system. These Non-Covered Broker-Dealers 
would be subject the requirements of proposed Rule 10 to establish, 
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are 
reasonably designed to address their cybersecurity risks taking into 
account the size, business, and operations of the firm.\520\ Under 
proposed Rule 10, they also would be required to review and assess the 
design and effectiveness of their cybersecurity policies and 
procedures, including whether the policies and procedures reflect 
changes in cybersecurity risk over the time period covered by the

[[Page 20274]]

review. This means the Non-Covered Broker-Dealer would need to 
comprehensively address all of its cybersecurity risks. The policies 
and procedures to address cybersecurity risks required under proposed 
Rule 10 would need to address cybersecurity risks involving information 
systems on which customer information and consumer information is 
stored. Therefore, complying with this requirement of proposed Rule 10 
would be consistent with complying with the existing and proposed 
requirements of Regulation S-P that relate to cybersecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \520\ See paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10 (setting forth the 
policies and procedures requirements for Market Entities that are 
not broker-dealers). See also section II.C. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, Regulation S-P (currently and as it would be 
amended) sets forth certain specific requirements that pertain to 
cybersecurity risk; whereas the requirements of proposed Rule 10 
applicable to Non-Covered Broker-Dealers more generally require the 
firm to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and 
procedures that are reasonably designed to address its cybersecurity 
risks taking into account the size, business, and operations of the 
firm. As explained above, those more specific existing and proposed 
requirements of Regulation S-P are consistent with certain of the 
elements--which are based on industry standards for addressing 
cybersecurity risk--that Covered Entities would be required to include 
in their policies and procedures under proposed Rule 10.\521\ Further, 
proposed Rule 10 would require a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer to take into 
account its size, business, and operations when designing its policies 
and procedures to address its cybersecurity risks. Storing customer 
information and consumer information on an information system is the 
type of operation a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer would need to take into 
account. Consequently, the specific existing and proposed requirements 
of Regulation S-P should fit within and be consistent with a Non-
Covered Broker-Dealer's reasonably designed policies and procedures to 
address its cybersecurity risks under proposed Rule 10, including the 
risks associated with storing customer information and consumer 
information on an information system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \521\ See section II.B.1. of this release (discussing the 
policies and procedures requirements for Covered Entities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Regulation ATS and Regulation S-ID
    Certain broker-dealers that operate an ATS are subject to 
Regulation ATS and certain broker-dealers that offer and maintain 
certain types of accounts for customers are subject to requirements of 
Regulation S-ID to establish an identity theft program.\522\ 
Additionally, SBS Entities and transfer agents could be subject to 
Regulation S-ID if they are ``financial institutions'' or 
``creditors.'' \523\ As discussed below, Regulation ATS and Regulation 
S-ID are more narrowly focused on certain cybersecurity risks as 
compared to proposed Rule 10, which focuses on all cybersecurity risks 
of a Market Entity. In addition, the current requirements of Regulation 
ATS and Regulation S-ID should fit within and be consistent with the 
broader policies and procedures required under proposed Rule 10 to 
address all cybersecurity risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \522\ See 17 CFR 242.301 through 304 (conditions to the 
Regulation ATS exemption); 17 CFR 248.201 and 202 (Regulation S-ID 
identity theft program requirements).
    \523\ See 17 CFR 248.201 and 202. The scope of Regulation S-ID 
includes any financial institution or creditor, as defined in the 
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681) that is required to be 
``registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.'' See 17 CFR 
248.201(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulation ATS requires certain broker-dealers that operate an ATS 
to review the vulnerability of its systems and data center computer 
operations to internal and external threats, physical hazards, and 
natural disasters if during at least four of the preceding six calendar 
months, such ATS had: (1) with respect to municipal securities, 20 
percent or more of the average daily volume traded in the United 
States; or (2) with respect to corporate debt securities, 20 percent or 
more of the average daily volume traded in the United States.\524\ 
Therefore, in addition to other potential systems issues, the broker-
dealer would need to address cybersecurity risk of relating to its ATS 
system. Further, this requirement applies to systems that support order 
entry, order handling, execution, order routing, transaction reporting, 
and trade comparison in the particular security.\525\ Therefore, it has 
a narrower focus than proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \524\ See 17 CFR 242.301(b)(6). Currently, no ATS has crossed 
the either of the volume-based thresholds and, therefore, no ATS is 
subject to the requirements pertaining, in part, to cybersecurity. 
See also Amendments Regarding the Definition of ``Exchange'' and 
ATSs Release, 87 FR 15496.
    \525\ See Regulation of Exchanges and Alternative Trading 
Systems, Exchange Act Release No. 40760 (Dec. 8, 1998) [63 FR 70844, 
70876 (Dec. 22, 1998)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulation ATS also requires all broker-dealers that operate an ATS 
to establish adequate written safeguards and written procedures to 
protect subscribers' confidential trading information.\526\ The written 
safeguards and procedures must include, among other things, limiting 
access to the confidential trading information of subscribers to those 
employees of the alternative trading system who are operating the 
system or responsible for its compliance with these or any other 
applicable rules.\527\ These requirements apply to all broker-dealers 
that operate an ATS and, as indicated, apply to a narrow set of 
information stored on their information systems: the confidential 
trading information of the subscribers to the ATS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \526\ See 17 CFR 242.301(b)(10).
    \527\ See 17 CFR 242.301(b)(10)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, Covered Entities under proposed Rule 10--which 
would include broker-dealers that operate as an ATS--would be required 
to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures 
that are reasonably designed to address the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity risks. In addition, Covered Entities would be required to 
include the following elements in their policies and procedures: (1) 
periodic assessments of cybersecurity risks associated with the Covered 
Entity's information systems and written documentation of the risk 
assessments; (2) controls designed to minimize user-related risks and 
prevent unauthorized access to the Covered Entity's information 
systems; (3) measures designed to monitor the Covered Entity's 
information systems and protect the Covered Entity's information from 
unauthorized access or use, and oversight of service providers that 
receive, maintain, or process information, or are otherwise permitted 
to access the Covered Entity's information systems; (4) measures to 
detect, mitigate, and remediate any cybersecurity threats and 
vulnerabilities with respect to the Covered Entity's information 
systems; and (5) measures to detect, respond to, and recover from a 
cybersecurity incident and written documentation. Consequently, a 
broker-dealer operates an ATS and that implements reasonably designed 
policies and procedures in compliance with the requirements of proposed 
Rule 10 should generally satisfy the current requirements of Regulation 
ATS to review the vulnerability of its systems and data center computer 
operations to internal and external threats and to protect subscribers' 
confidential trading information to the extent these requirements 
pertain to cybersecurity.
    Regulation S-ID requires--among other things--a financial 
institution or creditor within the scope of the regulation that offers 
or maintains one or more covered accounts to develop and implement a 
written identity theft prevention program that is designed to detect, 
prevent, and mitigate identity theft in connection with the opening of 
a covered account or any existing

[[Page 20275]]

covered account.\528\ Regulation S-ID defines the term ``covered 
account''--in pertinent part--as an account that the financial 
institution or creditor maintains, primarily for personal, family, or 
household purposes, that involves or is designed to permit multiple 
payments or transactions, such as a brokerage account with a broker-
dealer, and any other account that the financial institution or 
creditor offers or maintains for which there is a reasonably 
foreseeable risk to customers or to the safety and soundness of the 
financial institution or creditor from identity theft, including 
financial, operational, compliance, reputation, or litigation 
risks.\529\ Therefore, Regulation S-ID is narrowly focused on one 
cybersecurity risk--identity theft. Identity theft--as discussed 
earlier--is one of the tactics threat actors use to cause harm after 
obtaining unauthorized access to personal information.\530\ As a 
cybersecurity risk, Market Entities would need to address it as part of 
their policies and procedures under proposed Rule 10. Consequently, the 
requirement of Regulation S-ID should fit within and be consistent with 
a Market Entity's reasonably designed policies and procedures to 
address its cybersecurity risks under proposed Rule 10, including the 
risks associated with identity theft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \528\ See 17 CFR 248.201(d)(1).
    \529\ See 17 CFR 248.201(b)(3).
    \530\ See section I.A. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Notification and Reporting to the Commission
    Regulation SCI (currently and as it would be amended) provides the 
framework for notifying the Commission of SCI events including, among 
other things, to: immediately notify the Commission of the event; 
provide a written notification on Form SCI within 24 hours that 
includes a description of the SCI event and the system(s) affected, 
with other information required to the extent available at the time; 
provide regular updates regarding the SCI event until the event is 
resolved; and submit a final detailed written report regarding the SCI 
event.\531\ If proposed Rule 10 is adopted as proposed, it would 
require Market Entities that are Covered Entities to provide the 
Commission (and other regulators, if applicable) with immediate written 
electronic notice of a significant cybersecurity incident affecting the 
Covered Entity and, thereafter, report and update information about the 
significant cybersecurity incident by filing Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR with the Commission (and other regulators, if applicable).\532\ 
Part I of proposed of Form SCIR would elicit information about the 
significant cybersecurity incident and the Covered Entity's efforts to 
respond to, and recover from, the incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \531\ See 17 CFR 242.1002(b). An ``SCI event'' is an event at an 
SCI entity that is: (1) a ``systems disruption,'' which is an event 
in an SCI entity's SCI systems that disrupts, or significantly 
degrades, the normal operation of an SCI system; (2) a ``systems 
intrusion,'' which is any unauthorized entry into the SCI systems or 
indirect SCI systems of an SCI entity; or (3) a ``systems compliance 
issue,'' which is an event at an SCI entity that has caused any SCI 
system of such entity to operate in a manner that does not comply 
with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder or 
the entity's rules or governing documents, as applicable. See 17 CFR 
242.1000 (defining the terms ``systems disruption,'' ``system 
intrusion,'' and ``system compliance issue'' and including those 
terms in the definition of ``SCI event''). The amendments to 
Regulation SCI would broaden the definition of ``system intrusion'' 
to include a cybersecurity event that disrupts, or significantly 
degrades, the normal operation of an SCI system, as well as a 
material attempted unauthorized entry into the SCI systems or 
indirect SCI systems of an SCI entity. Regulation SCI 2023 Proposing 
Release.
    \532\ See paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of proposed Rule 10 
(requiring Covered Entities to provide immediate written notice and 
subsequent reporting on Part I of proposed Form SCIR of significant 
cybersecurity incidents); sections II.B.2. and II.B.4. of this 
release (discussing the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of 
proposed Rule 10 and Part I of Form SCIR in more detail). Non-
Covered Broker-Dealers also would be subject to an immediate written 
electronic notice requirement under paragraph (e)(2) of proposed 
Rule 10. However, as discussed above, a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer 
likely would not be an SCI Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, a Covered Entity that is also an SCI entity that 
experiences a significant cybersecurity incident under proposed Rule 10 
that also is an SCI event would be required to make two filings for the 
single incident: one on Part I of proposed Form SCIR and the other on 
Form SCI. The Covered Entity also would be required to make additional 
filings on Forms SCIR and SCI pertaining to the significant 
cybersecurity incident (i.e., to provide updates and final reports). 
The approach of having two separate notification and reporting 
programs--one under proposed Rule 10 and the other under Regulation 
SCI--would be appropriate for the following reasons.
    As discussed earlier, certain broker-dealers and all transfer 
agents would not be SCI entities under the current and proposed 
requirements of Regulation SCI.\533\ Certain of the broker-dealers that 
are not SCI entities (currently and as it would be amended) would be 
Covered Entities and all transfer agents would be Covered 
Entities.\534\ In addition, the current and proposed reporting 
requirements of Regulation SCI are or would be triggered by events 
impacting SCI systems and indirect SCI systems. The Covered Entities 
that are or would be SCI entities use and rely on information systems 
that are not SCI systems or indirect SCI systems under the current and 
proposed amendments to Regulation SCI. For these reasons, Covered 
Entities could be impacted by significant cybersecurity incidents that 
do not trigger the current and proposed notification requirements of 
Regulation SCI either because they do not meet the current or proposed 
definitions of ``SCI entity'' or the significant cybersecurity incident 
does not meet the current or proposed definitions of ``SCI event.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \533\ See section II.F.1.b. of this release. Currently, broker-
dealers that operate as ATSs and trade certain stocks exceeding 
specific volume thresholds are SCI entities. The proposed amendments 
to Regulation SCI would expand the definition of ``SCI entity'' to 
include broker-dealers that exceed an asset-based size threshold or 
a volume-based trading threshold in NMS stocks, exchange-listed 
options, agency securities, or U.S. treasury securities. See 
Regulation SCI 2023 Proposing Release.
    \534\ See paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) and (F) proposed Rule 10 
(defining the categories of broker-dealers that would be Covered 
Entities); paragraph (a)(1)(ix) proposed Rule 10 (defining transfer 
agents as ``covered entities'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier, the objective of the notification and 
reporting requirements of proposed Rule 10 is to improve the 
Commission's ability to monitor and evaluate the effects of a 
significant cybersecurity incident on Covered Entities and their 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users, as well as 
assess the potential risks affecting financial markets more 
broadly.\535\ For this reason, Part I of proposed Form SCIR is tailored 
to elicit information relating specifically to cybersecurity, such as 
information relating to the threat actor, and the impact of the 
incident on any data or personal information that may have been 
accessed.\536\ The Commission and its staff could use the information 
reported on Part I of Form SCIR to monitor the U.S. securities markets 
and the Covered Entities that support those markets broadly from a 
cybersecurity perspective, including identifying cybersecurity threats 
and trends from a market-wide view. By requiring all Covered Entities 
to report information about a significant cybersecurity incident on a 
common form, the information obtained from these filings over time 
would create a comprehensive set of data of all significant 
cybersecurity incidents impacting Covered Entities that is based on 
these entities responding to the same check boxes and questions on the 
form. This would facilitate analysis of the data, including analysis 
across different Covered Entities and significant cybersecurity 
incidents. Eventually, this

[[Page 20276]]

set of data and the ability to analyze it by searching and sorting how 
different Covered Entities responded to the same questions on the form 
could be used to spot common trending risks and vulnerabilities as well 
as best practices employed by Covered Entities to respond to and 
recover from significant cybersecurity incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \535\ See section II.B.2.a. of this release.
    \536\ See section II.B.2.b. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current and proposed definitions of ``SCI event'' include 
events that are not related to significant cybersecurity 
incidents.\537\ For example, under the current and proposed 
requirements of Regulation SCI, the definition of ``SCI event'' 
includes an event in an SCI entity's SCI systems that disrupts, or 
significantly degrades, the normal operation of an SCI system.\538\ 
Therefore, the definitions are not limited to events in an SCI entity's 
SCI systems that disrupt, or significantly degrade, the normal 
operation of an SCI system caused by a significant cybersecurity 
incident. The information elicited in Form SCI reflects the broader 
scope of the reporting requirements of Regulation SCI (as compared to 
the narrower focus of proposed Rule 10 on reporting about significant 
cybersecurity incidents). For example, the form requires the SCI entity 
to identify the type of SCI event: systems compliance issue, systems 
disruption, and/or systems intrusion. In addition, Form SCI is tailored 
to elicit information specifically about SCI systems. For example, the 
form requires the SCI entity to indicate whether the type of SCI system 
impacted by the SCI event directly supports: (1) trading; (2) clearance 
and settlement; (3) order routing; (4) market data; (5) market 
regulation; and/or (6) market surveillance. If the impacted system is a 
critical SCI system, the SCI entity must indicate whether it directly 
supports functionality relating to: (1) clearance and settlement 
systems of clearing agencies; (2) openings, reopenings, and closings on 
the primary listing market; (3) trading halts; (4) initial public 
offerings; (5) the provision of consolidated market data; and/or (6) 
exclusively-listed securities. The form also requires the SCI entity to 
indicate if the systems that provide functionality to the securities 
markets for which the availability of alternatives is significantly 
limited or nonexistent and without which there would be a material 
impact on fair and orderly markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \537\ See 17 CFR 242.1000 (defining the term ``SCI event''); 
Regulation SCI 2023 Proposing Release.
    \538\ See 17 CFR 242.1000 (defining the term ``system 
disruption'' and including that term in the definition of ``SCI 
event''); Regulation SCI 2023 Proposing Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Disclosure
    Proposed Rule 10 and the existing and proposed requirements of 
Regulation SCI and the proposed requirements of Regulation S-P also 
have similar, but distinct, requirements related to notification about 
certain cybersecurity incidents. Regulation SCI requires that SCI 
entities disseminate information to their members, participants, or 
customers (as applicable) regarding SCI events.\539\ The proposed 
amendments to Regulation S-P would require broker-dealers and transfer 
agents to notify affected individuals whose sensitive customer 
information was, or is reasonably likely to have been, accessed or used 
without authorization.\540\ Proposed Rule 10 would require a Covered 
Entity to make two types of public disclosures relating to 
cybersecurity on Part II of proposed Form SCIR.\541\ Covered Entities 
would be required to make the disclosures by filing Part II of proposed 
Form SCIR on EDGAR and posting a copy of the filing on their business 
internet websites.\542\ In addition, a Covered Entity that is either a 
carrying or introducing broker-dealer would be required to provide a 
copy of the most recently filed Part II of Form SCIR to a customer as 
part of the account opening process. Thereafter, the carrying or 
introducing broker-dealer would need to provide the customer with the 
most recently filed form annually. The copies of the form would need to 
be provided to the customer using the same means that the customer 
elects to receive account statements (e.g., by email or through the 
postal service). Finally, a Covered Entity would be required to 
promptly make updated disclosures through each of the methods described 
above (as applicable) if the information required to be disclosed about 
cybersecurity risk or significant cybersecurity incidents materially 
changes, including, in the case of the disclosure about significant 
cybersecurity incidents, after the occurrence of a new significant 
cybersecurity incident or when information about a previously disclosed 
significant cybersecurity incident materially changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \539\ See 17 CFR 242.1002(c).
    \540\ See Regulation S-P 2023 Proposing Release. The proposed 
amendments to Regulation S-P would define ``sensitive customer 
information'' to mean any component of customer information alone or 
in conjunction with any other information, the compromise of which 
could create a reasonably likely risk of substantial harm or 
inconvenience to an individual identified with the information. Id. 
The proposed amendments would provide example of sensitive customer 
information. Id.
    \541\ See paragraph (d)(1) of proposed Rule 10.
    \542\ See section II.B.3.b. of this release (discussing these 
proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, a Covered Entity would--if it experiences a 
``significant cybersecurity incident''--be required to make updated 
disclosures under proposed Rule 10 by filing Part II of proposed Form 
SCIR on EDGAR, posting a copy of the form on its business internet 
website, and, in the case of a carrying or introducing broker-dealer, 
by sending the disclosure to its customers using the same means that 
the customer elects to receive account statements. Moreover, if Covered 
Entity is an SCI entity and the significant cybersecurity incident is 
or would be an SCI event under the current or proposed requirements of 
Regulation SCI, the Covered Entity also could be required to 
disseminate certain information about the SCI event to certain of its 
members, participants, or customers (as applicable). Further, if the 
Covered Entity is a broker-dealer or transfer agent and, therefore, 
subject to Regulation S-P (as it is proposed to be amended), the 
broker-dealer or transfer agent also could be required to notify 
individuals whose sensitive customer information was, or is reasonably 
likely to have been, accessed or used without authorization.
    However, despite these similarities, there are distinct 
differences. First, proposed Rule 10, Regulation SCI, and Regulation S-
P (as proposed to be amended) require different types of information to 
be disclosed. Second, the disclosures, for the most part, would be made 
to different persons: (1) the public at large in the case of proposed 
Rule 10; \543\ (2) affected members, participants, or customers (as 
applicable) of the SCI entity in the case of Regulation SCI; \544\ and 
(3) affected individuals whose sensitive customer information was, or 
is reasonably likely to have been, accessed or used without 
authorization or, in some cases, all individuals whose information 
resides in the customer information system that was accessed or used 
without authorization in the case of Regulation S-P (as proposed to be 
amended).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \543\ A carrying broker-dealer would be required to make the 
disclosures to its customers as well through the means by which they 
receive account statements.
    \544\ Information regarding major SCI events is and would be 
required to be disseminated by an SCI entity to all of its members, 
participants, or customers (as applicable) under the existing and 
proposed requirements of Regulation SCI. See Regulation SCI 2023 
Proposing Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the disclosure or notification provided about certain 
cybersecurity incidents is different

[[Page 20277]]

under proposed Rule 10 and the existing and/or proposed requirements of 
Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P, given their distinct goals. For 
example, the requirement to disclose summary descriptions of certain 
cybersecurity incidents from the current or previous calendar year 
publicly on EDGAR, among other methods, under proposed Rule 10 serves a 
different purpose than: (1) the member, participant, or customer (as 
applicable) dissemination of information regarding SCI events under 
Regulation SCI; and (2) the customer notification obligation under the 
proposed amendments to Regulation S-P, which would provide more 
specific information to individuals affected by a security compromise 
involving their sensitive customer information, so that those 
individuals may take remedial actions if they so choose.
2. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on the potential duplication or 
overlap between the requirements of proposed Rule 10, Regulation SCI 
(as it currently exists and as it is proposed to be amended), and 
Regulation S-P (as it currently exists and as it is proposed to be 
amended). In addition, the Commission is requesting comment on the 
following matters:
    91. Should the policies and procedures requirements of proposed 
Rule 10 be modified to address Market Entities that also would be 
subject to the existing and proposed requirements of Regulation SCI 
and/or Regulation S-P? For example, would it be particularly costly or 
create practical implementation difficulties to apply the requirements 
of proposed Rule 10 (if it is adopted) to have policies and procedures 
to address cybersecurity risks to Market Entities even if they also 
would be subject to requirements to have policies and procedures under 
Regulation SCI and/or Regulation S P that address certain cybersecurity 
risks (currently and as they would be amended)? If so, explain why. If 
not, explain why not. Are there ways the policies and procedures 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 could be modified to minimize these 
potential impacts while achieving the separate goals of this proposal 
to protect participants in the U.S. securities markets and the markets 
themselves from cybersecurity risks? If so, explain how and suggest 
specific modifications.
    92. Would it be appropriate to modify proposed Rule 10 to exempt 
SCI systems or indirect SCI systems from its policies and procedures 
requirements and instead rely on the policies and procedures 
requirements of Regulation SCI to address cybersecurity risks to these 
information systems of Covered Entities? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. What would be the costs and benefits of this approach? 
For example, if one set of policies and procedures generally would 
satisfy the requirements of both rules, would this approach result in 
incremental costs or benefits? Please explain. Would this approach 
achieve the objectives of this rulemaking to address cybersecurity 
risks to Covered Entities, given that Rule 10 is specifically designed 
to address cybersecurity risks and Regulation SCI is designed to 
address a broader range of risks to certain information systems? Please 
explain. Would this approach create practical implementation and 
compliance complexities insomuch as one set of the Covered Entity's 
systems would be subject to Regulation SCI (i.e., SCI systems and 
indirect SCI systems) and the other set would be subject to Rule 10? 
Please explain. If it would create practical implementation and 
compliance difficulties, would Covered Entities nonetheless apply 
separate policies and procedures requirements to their information 
systems based on whether they are or are not SCI systems and indirect 
SCI Systems or would they develop a single set of policies and 
procedures that comprehensively addresses the requirements of 
Regulation SCI and Rule 10? Please explain. Would a comprehensive set 
of policies and procedures result in stronger measures to protect SCI 
systems and indirect SCI systems from cybersecurity risks? Please 
explain. If so, would this be appropriate given the nature of SCI 
systems and indirect SCI systems and the roles these systems play in 
the U.S. securities markets? Please explain.
    93. Should the policies and procedures requirements of proposed 
Rule 10 be modified to address Market Entities that also would be 
subject to the requirements of Regulation ATS? If so, explain why. If 
not, explain why not.
    94. Should the immediate notification and reporting requirements of 
proposed Rule 10 be modified to address Covered Entities that also 
would be subject to the existing and proposed requirements of 
Regulation SCI? For example, would it be particularly costly or create 
practical implementation difficulties to apply the immediate 
notification and subsequent reporting requirements of proposed Rule 10 
and Part I of proposed Form SCIR (if they are adopted) to Covered 
Entities even if they also would be subject to immediate notification 
and subsequent reporting requirements under Regulation SCI (as it 
currently exists and would be amended)? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. Are there ways the notification and reporting 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 and Part I of proposed Form SCIR could 
be modified to minimize these potential impacts while achieving the 
separate goals of this proposal to protect participants in the U.S. 
securities markets and the markets themselves from cybersecurity risks? 
If so, explain how and suggest specific modifications. For example, 
should Part I of proposed Form SCIR be modified to include a section 
that incorporates the check boxes and questions of Form SCI so that a 
single form could be filed to meet the reporting requirements of 
proposed Rule 10 and Regulation SCI? If so, explain why. If not, 
explain why not. Are there other ways Part I of proposed Form SCIR 
could be modified to combine the elements of Form SCI? If so, explain 
how. Should Rule 10 be modified to require that the initial Part I of 
Form SCIR must be filed within 24 hours (instead of promptly but not 
later than 48 hours) to align the filing timeframe with Regulation SCI? 
If so, explain why. If not, explain why not.
    95. Should the public disclosure requirements of proposed Rule 10 
be modified to address Covered Entities that also would be subject to 
the existing and proposed requirements of Regulation SCI and/or 
Regulation S-P? For example, would it be particularly costly or create 
practical implementation difficulties to apply the public disclosure 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 and Part II of proposed form SCIR (if 
they are adopted) to Covered Entities even if they also would be 
subject to the current and proposed disclosure requirements of 
Regulation SCI and Regulation S-P? If so, explain why. If not, explain 
why not. Are there ways the public disclosure requirements of proposed 
Rule 10 could be modified to minimize these potential impacts while 
achieving the separate goals of this proposal to protect participants 
in the U.S. securities markets and the markets themselves from 
cybersecurity risks? If so, explain how and suggest specific 
modifications. For example, should proposed Rule 10 be modified to 
permit the customer notification that would be required under the 
amendments to Regulation S-P to satisfy the requirement of proposed 
Rule 10 that a Covered Entity that is a carrying broker-dealer or 
introducing broker-dealer send a copy of an updated Part II of proposed 
Form SCIR to its customers? If so, explain why. If not, explain why 
not. Would sending the notification required by proposed Rule 10 and 
the

[[Page 20278]]

notification required by the proposed amendments to Regulation S-P to 
the same customer be confusing to the customer? If so, explain why. If 
not, explain why not.

G. Cybersecurity Risk Related to Crypto Assets

    The creation, distribution, custody, and transfer of crypto assets 
depends almost exclusively on the operations of information 
systems.\545\ Crypto assets, therefore, are exposed to cybersecurity 
risks.\546\ Further, crypto assets are attractive targets for threat 
actors.\547\ Therefore, information systems that involve crypto assets 
may be subject to heightened cybersecurity risks. If Market Entities 
engage in business activities involving crypto assets, they could be 
exposed to these heighted cybersecurity risks.\548\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \545\ The term ``digital asset'' or ``crypto asset'' refers to 
an asset that is issued and/or transferred using distributed ledger 
or blockchain technology (``distributed ledger technology''), 
including, but not limited to, so-called ``virtual currencies,'' 
``coins,'' and ``tokens.'' See Custody of Digital Asset Securities 
by Special Purpose Broker-Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 90788 
(Dec. 23, 2020) [86 FR 11627, 11627, n.1 (Feb. 26, 2021)]. To the 
extent digital assets rely on cryptographic protocols, these types 
of assets are commonly referred to as ``crypto assets.'' A crypto 
asset may or may not meet the definition of a ``security'' under the 
federal securities laws. See, e.g., Report of Investigation Pursuant 
to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO, 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81207 (July 25, 2017), available 
at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf. See 
also SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). ``Digital asset 
securities'' can be referred to as ``crypto asset securities'' and 
for purposes of this release, the Commission does not distinguish 
between the terms ``digital asset securities'' and ``crypto asset 
securities.''
    \546\ See KPMG, Assessing crypto and digital asset risks (May 
2022), available at https://advisory.kpmg.us/content/dam/advisory/en/pdfs/2022/assessing-crypto-and-digital-asset-risks.pdf 
(``Properly securing digital assets[] is typically viewed as the 
biggest risk that companies must address.'').
    \547\ See U.S. Department of Treasury, Crypto-Assets: 
Implications for Consumers, Investors, and Businesses (Sept. 2022), 
available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/CryptoAsset_EO5.pdf (``Treasury Crypto Report'') (``Moreover, the 
crypto-asset ecosystem has unique features that make it an 
increasingly attractive target for unlawful activity, including the 
ongoing evolution of the underlying technology, pseudonymity, 
irreversibility of transactions, and the current asymmetry of 
information between issuers of crypto-assets and consumers and 
investors.'').
    \548\ Moreover, if the Market Entity's activities involving 
crypto asset securities involve its information systems, the 
requirements being proposed in this release would be implicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Crypto assets are an attractive target for unlawful activity due, 
in large part, to the unique nature of distributed ledger technology. 
Possession or control of crypto assets on a distributed ledger is based 
on ownership or knowledge of public and private cryptographic key 
pairings. These key pairings are somewhat analogous to user names and 
passwords and consist of strings of letters and numbers used to sign 
transactions on a distributed ledger and to prove ownership of a 
blockchain address, which is commonly known as a ``digital wallet.'' 
\549\ Digital wallets, in turn, generally require the use of internet-
connected hardware and software to receive and transmit information 
about crypto asset holdings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \549\ See, e.g., NIST Glossary (defining ``private key'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A digital wallet can be obtained by anyone, including a potential 
threat actor. If a victim's digital wallet is connected to the 
internet, and a threat actor obtains access to the victim's private 
key, the threat actor can transfer the contents of the wallet to 
another blockchain address (such as the threat actor's own digital 
wallet) without authorization from the true owner. It may be difficult 
to subsequently track down the identity of the threat actor because the 
owner of a digital wallet can remain anonymous (absent additional 
attribution information) and because intermediaries involved in the 
transfer of crypto assets, such as trading platforms, may not comply 
with or may actively claim not to be subject to applicable ``know your 
customer'' or related diligence requirements.\550\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \550\ See, e.g., Treasury Crypto Report (``Compared to 
registered financial market intermediaries--which are subject to 
rules and laws that promote market integrity and govern risks and 
business conduct, including identifying, disclosing, and mitigating 
conflicts of interest and adhering to AML/CFT requirements--many 
crypto-asset platforms may either not yet be in compliance with, or 
may actively claim not to be subject to, existing applicable U.S. 
laws and regulations, including registration requirements. . . . 
When the onboarding process used by platforms is limited or opaque, 
the risk that the platform may be used for illegal activities 
increases.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current state of distributed ledger technology may present 
other challenges to defending against cybercriminal activity. First, 
there is no centralized information technology (``IT'') infrastructure 
that can dynamically detect and prevent cyberattacks on wallets or 
prevent the transfer of illegitimately obtained crypto assets by threat 
actors.\551\ This is unlike traditional infrastructures, such as those 
used by banks and broker-dealers, where behavioral and historic 
transaction patterns can be used to detect and prevent account 
takeovers in real-time. Furthermore, distributed ledger technology 
often makes it difficult or impossible to reverse erroneous or 
fraudulent crypto asset transactions, whereas processes and protocols 
exist to reverse erroneous or fraudulent transactions when trading more 
traditional assets.\552\ In addition, certain code that governs the 
operation of a blockchain and that governs so-called ``smart 
contracts'' are often transparent to the public. This provides threat 
actors with visibility into potential vulnerabilities associated with 
the code, though developers may have limited ability to patch those 
vulnerabilities.\553\ These characteristics of distributed ledger 
technology, and others, present cybersecurity vulnerabilities that, if 
taken advantage of by a threat actor, could lead to financial harm 
without meaningful recourse to reverse fraudulent transactions, recover 
or replace lost crypto assets, or correct errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \551\ See CipherTrace, Cryptocurrency crime and anti-money 
laundering report (June 2022), available at https://4345106.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/4345106/CAML%20Reports/CipherTrace%20Cryptocurrency%20Crime%20and%20Anti-Money%20Laundering%20Report%2c%20June%202022.pdf?_hstc=56248308.2ea6daf13b00f00afe4d9acf0886eddf.1667865330143.1667865330143.1667917991763.2&_hssc=56248308.1.1667917991763&_hsfp=247897319 (``CipherTrace 
2022 Report'').
    \552\ For example, this is the case with Bitcoin and Ether, the 
two crypto assets with the largest market values. See CoinMarketCap, 
Today's Cryptocurrency Prices by Market Cap, available at https://coinmarketcap.com/ (``Crypto Asset Market Value Chart''). See also, 
e.g., Kaili Wang, Qinchen Wang, and Dan Boneh, ERC-20R and ERC-721R: 
Reversible Transactions on Ethereum (Oct. 11, 2022), available at 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.00543.pdf#page=16&zoom=100,96,233 
(Stanford University proposal discussing the immutability of 
Ethereum-based tokens, and proposing that reversible Ethereum 
transactions may facilitate more wide-spread adoption of these 
crypto assets). With respect to securities, the clearance and 
settlement of securities that are not crypto assets are 
characterized by infrastructure whereby intermediaries such as 
clearing agencies and securities depositories serve as key 
participants in the process. The clearance and settlement of crypto 
asset securities, on the other hand, may rely on fewer, if any, 
intermediaries and remain evolving areas of practices and 
procedures.
    \553\ See Treasury Crypto Report (``Smart contracts, which are 
widely used by many permissionless blockchains, also present risks 
as they combine the features of generally being immutable and 
publicly viewable. Taken together, these attributes pose several 
vulnerabilities that may be exploited by illicit actors to steal 
customer funds: once an attacker finds a bug in a smart contract and 
exploits it, immutable smart contract protocols limit developers' 
ability to patch the exploited vulnerability, giving attackers more 
time to exploit the vulnerability and steal assets.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amount of crypto assets stolen by threat actors annually 
continues to increase.\554\ Threat actors looking to

[[Page 20279]]

exploit the vulnerabilities associated with crypto assets often employ 
social engineering techniques, such as phishing to acquire a user's 
cryptographic key pairing information. Phishing tactics that have been 
employed to reach and trick crypto asset users into disclosing their 
private keys include: (1) monitoring social media for users reaching 
out to wallet software support, intervening with direct messages, and 
impersonating legitimate support staff who need the user's private key 
to fix the problem; (2) distributing new crypto assets at no cost to a 
set of wallets in an ``airdrop,'' and then failing transactions on 
those assets with an error message to redirect the owner to a phishing 
website or a website that installs plug-in software and steals the 
user's credentials from a local device; and (3) impersonating a wallet 
software provider and stealing private keys directly from the 
user.\555\ To the extent that the activities of Market Entities involve 
crypto assets, these types of phishing tactics could be used against 
their employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \554\ See Treasury Crypto Report (noting that of the total 
amount of crypto asset based crime in 2021, theft rose by over 500% 
year-over-year to $3.2 billion in total); Chainalysis, The 2022 
Crypto Crime Report (Feb. 2022), available at https://go.chainalysis.com/2022-Crypto-Crime-Report.html (``Chainalysis 2022 
Report'') (predicting that illicit transaction activity will reach 
an all-time high in terms of value in 2022, and noting that crypto 
asset based crime hit a new all-time high in 2021, with illicit 
addresses receiving $14 billion over the course of the year, up from 
$7.8 billion in 2020).
    \555\ See Microsoft 365 Defender Research Team, `Ice Phishing' 
on the Blockchain (Feb. 16, 2022), available at https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2022/02/16/ice-phishing-on-the-blockchain/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another related variation of a social engineering attack that is 
similar to phishing, but does not involve stealing private keys 
directly, is called ``ice phishing.'' In this scheme, the threat actor 
tricks the user into signing a digital transaction that delegates 
approval and control of the user's wallet to the attacker, allowing the 
threat actor to become the so-called ``spender'' of the wallet. Once 
the threat actor obtains control over the user's wallet, the threat 
actor can transfer all of the crypto assets to a new wallet controlled 
by the threat actor.\556\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \556\ See CipherTrace June 2022 Report. Delegating authority to 
another user reportedly is a common transaction on decentralized 
finance (``DeFi'') platforms, as the user may need to provide the 
DeFi platform with approval to conduct transactions with the user's 
tokens. In an ``ice phishing'' attack, the attacker modifies the 
spender address to the attacker's address. Once the approval 
transaction has been signed, submitted, and mined, the spender can 
access the funds. The attacker can accumulate approvals over a 
period of time and then drain the victim's wallets quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Threat actors also target private keys and crypto assets through 
other means, such as installing key logging software,\557\ exploiting 
vulnerabilities in code used in connection with crypto assets (such as 
smart contracts), and deploying flash loan attacks.\558\ Installing key 
logging software, in particular, is an example of malware that threat 
actors looking to exploit the vulnerabilities associated with crypto 
assets often employ. Other common types of crypto asset-focused malware 
techniques include info stealers, clippers, and cryptojackers.\559\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \557\ Key logging can involve a threat actor deploying a 
software program designed to record which keys are pressed on a 
computer keyboard to obtain passwords or other encryption keys, 
therefore bypassing certain security measures. See NIST Glossary 
(defining ``key logger''). Key logging software can be installed, 
for example, when the victim clicks a link or downloads an 
attachment in a phishing email, downloads a Trojan virus that is 
disguised as a legitimate file or application, or is directed to a 
phony website.
    \558\ See Treasury Crypto Report (``In an innovation unique to 
DeFi lending, some protocols may support `flash loans,' which enable 
users to borrow, use, and repay crypto assets in a single 
transaction that is recorded on the blockchain in the same data 
block. Because there is no default risk associated with flash loans, 
users can borrow without posting collateral and without risk of 
being liquidated. A `flash loan attack' can occur when the temporary 
surge of funds obtained in a flash loan is used to manipulate prices 
of crypto-assets, often through the interaction of multiple DeFi 
services, enabling attackers to take over the governance of a 
protocol, change the code, and drain the treasury.''). In 2021, code 
exploits and flash loan attacks accounted for 49.8% of all crypto 
asset value stolen across all crypto asset services. See Chainalysis 
2022 Report.
    \559\ Specifically, ``info stealers'' collect saved credentials, 
files, autocomplete history, and crypto asset wallets from 
compromised computers. ``Clippers'' can insert new text into the 
victim's clipboard, replacing text the user has copied. Hackers can 
use clippers to replace crypto asset addresses copied into the 
clipboard with their own, allowing them to reroute planned 
transactions to their own wallets. ``Cryptojackers'' make 
unauthorized use of the computing power of a victim's device to mine 
crypto assets. See Chainalysis 2022 Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The size and growth of the crypto asset markets, along with the 
fact that many participants in these markets (such as issuers, 
intermediaries, trading platforms, and service providers) may be acting 
in noncompliance with applicable law, continue to make them an 
attractive target for threat actors looking for quick financial gain. 
The crypto asset ecosystem has exhibited rapid growth in the past few 
years. For example, industry reports have suggested that the total 
crypto asset market value increased from approximately $135 billion on 
January 1, 2019 to just under $2.1 trillion on March 31, 2022.\560\ 
According to these reports, the crypto asset market value peaked at 
almost $3 trillion in November 2021.\561\ Various sources also report 
that the market value remains over $1 trillion today.\562\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \560\ See CipherTrace June 2022 Report. The amount of total 
activity in the crypto asset markets has increased as well. 
According to the CipherTrace June 2022 Report, while the total 
activity in 2020 was around $4.3 trillion, there was approximately 
$16 trillion of total activity in the first half of 2021 alone. See 
id.
    \561\ See id.
    \562\ See Crypto Asset Market Value Chart; see also Treasury 
Crypto Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Request for Comment

    In addition to the specific requests for comment above, the 
Commission is requesting comments from all members of the public on all 
aspects of the proposed rule and amendments. Commenters are requested 
to provide empirical data in support of any arguments or analyses. With 
respect to any comments, the Commission notes that they are of the 
greatest assistance to this rulemaking initiative if accompanied by 
supporting data and analysis of the issues addressed in those comments 
and by alternatives to the Commission's proposals where appropriate.

IV. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction

    The Commission is mindful of the economic effects, including the 
costs and benefits, of: (1) proposed Rule 10; (2) Parts I and II of 
proposed Form SCIR; (3) the proposed amendments to Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, 
and 18a-6; (4) the proposed amendments to existing orders that exempt 
certain clearing agencies from registering with the Commission; and (5) 
the proposed amendments to paragraph (d)(1) of Rule 3a71-6 to add 
proposed Rule 10 and Form SCIR to the list of Commission requirements 
eligible for a substituted compliance determination. Section 3(f) of 
the Exchange Act provides that when engaging in rulemaking that 
requires the Commission to consider or determine whether an action is 
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to also consider, in 
addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will 
promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.\563\ Section 
23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act also requires the Commission to consider 
the effect that the rules and rule amendments would have on 
competition, and it prohibits the Commission from adopting any rule 
that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate 
in furtherance of the Exchange Act.\564\ The analysis below addresses 
the likely economic effects of the proposed rule and form, the proposed 
rule amendments, and the proposed amendments to the exemptive orders, 
including the anticipated and estimated benefits and costs of these 
proposals and their likely effects on efficiency, competition, and 
capital formation. The Commission also discusses the potential economic 
effects of certain alternatives

[[Page 20280]]

to the approaches taken with respect to these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \563\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \564\ See 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, Market Entities rely on information systems to 
perform functions that support the fair, orderly, and efficient 
operation of the U.S. securities markets.\565\ This exposes them and 
the U.S. securities markets to cybersecurity risk. According to the 
Bank for International Settlements, the financial sector has the 
second-largest share of COVID-19-related cybersecurity events between 
the end of February and June 2020.\566\ As is the case with other risks 
(e.g., market, credit, or liquidity risk), cybersecurity risk can be 
addressed through policies and procedures that are reasonably designed 
to manage the risk. A second means to address cybersecurity risk to the 
U.S. securities markets is through the Commission gathering and sharing 
information about significant cybersecurity incidents. This risk also 
can be addressed through greater transparency.\567\ For these reasons 
(and the reasons discussed throughout the release), the Commission is 
proposing Rule 10 and Form SCIR to require that Market Entities address 
cybersecurity risks, to improve the Commission's ability to obtain 
information about significant cybersecurity incidents impacting Covered 
Entities and to require Covered Entities to disclose publicly summary 
descriptions of their cybersecurity risks and significant cybersecurity 
incidents (if applicable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \565\ See section I.A. of this release (discussing cybersecurity 
risks and the use of information systems by Market Entities).
    \566\ Id. The health sector is ranked first in term of the 
cyberattacks.
    \567\ ``The Council recommends that regulators and market 
participants continue to work together to improve the coverage, 
quality, and accessibility of financial data, as well as improve 
data sharing among relevant agencies.'' FSOC 2021 Annual Report, at 
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that the Market Entities serve different 
functions in the U.S. securities markets and are subject to different 
regulatory regimes. As a result, Market Entities today have varying 
approaches to cybersecurity protections and would have different costs 
and benefits associated with complying with proposed Rule 10 and for 
Covered Entities to file Parts I and II of proposed Form SCIR. In 
addition, Market Entities may have different costs and benefits 
depending on the size and complexity of their businesses. For example, 
because Non-Covered Broker-Dealers likely are materially smaller in 
size than Covered Entities, use fewer and less complex information 
systems, and have less data stored on information systems, the 
obligations of Non-Covered Broker-Dealers under proposed Rule 10 are 
more limited, and likely would have lower compliance costs. This could 
be the case even though Non-Covered Broker-Dealers may still need to 
invest in hardware and software, employ legal and compliance personnel, 
or contract with a third party. Furthermore, in addition to the direct 
benefits and costs realized by Market Entities, other market 
participants, such as investors and third-party service providers would 
realize indirect benefits and costs from the adoption of the proposed 
rule. The direct and indirect benefits and costs realized by each type 
of Market Entity and market participants are discussed below.\568\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \568\ See section IV.D. of this release (discussing these 
benefits and costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the benefits and costs discussed below are difficult to 
quantify. For example, the effectiveness of cybersecurity strengthening 
measures taken as a result of proposed Rule 10 depends on the extent to 
which they reduce the likelihood of a cybersecurity incident and on the 
expected cost of such an incident, including remediation costs in the 
event that a cybersecurity incident causes harm. As a result, the 
effectiveness of cybersecurity strengthening is subject to numerous 
assumptions and unknowns, and thus is difficult to quantify. 
Effectively, because cybersecurity infrastructure as well as policies 
and procedures help to prevent successful cybersecurity intrusions, the 
benefit of cybersecurity protection can be measured as the expected 
loss from a cybersecurity incident. In 2020, the average loss in the 
financial services industry was $18.3 million, per company per 
incident. The average cost of a financial services data breach was 
$5.85 million.\569\ Thus, those values would represent the benefit of 
avoiding a cybersecurity incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \569\ Jennifer Rose Hale, The Soaring Risks of Financial 
Services Cybercrime: By the Numbers, Diligent (Apr. 9, 2021), 
available at https://www.diligent.com/insights/financial-services/cybersecurity/#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has limited information on cybersecurity incidents 
impacting Market Entities. For example, as discussed above, certain 
Market Entities are SCI entities subject to the requirements of 
Regulation SCI. \570\ SCI entities must report SCI events to the 
Commission on Form SCI, which could include cybersecurity 
incidents.\571\ However, only certain Market Entities are SCI entities 
and the reporting requirements of Regulation SCI are limited to SCI 
systems and indirect SCI systems, which are a subset of the information 
systems used by SCI entities. To the extent that a cybersecurity 
incident at a Market Entity that is also a SCI entity is an SCI event, 
the Market Entity would be required to file Form SCI. However, only 
certain SCI events are also considered to be cybersecurity incidents. 
Consequently, the Commission currently has only partial knowledge of 
the cybersecurity incidents that occur at Market Entities. The 
Commission believes using the benefit and cost values related to SCI 
Entities as a basis to estimate the benefits and costs of the proposed 
rule for Covered Entities would be instructive but may be under 
inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \570\ See section II.F.1.b. of this release (discussing the 
Covered Entities that are subject to Regulation SCI).
    \571\ See section II.F.1.d. of this release (discussing the 
reporting requirements of Regulation SCI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Commission has access to information contained in 
confidential anti-money laundering (AML) suspicious activity reports 
(``SARs'') that broker-dealers file with the Department of the 
Treasury's Financial Crime Enforcement Network (``FinCEN''), which 
includes known or suspected cybersecurity incidents.\572\ However, the 
SARs filed by broker-dealers with FinCEN do not necessarily include all 
of the details associated with an incident, such as whether the 
incident was confirmed, the extent of the impact, and how the breach 
was remediated. Furthermore, the SAR filing may not be timely, as a 
broker-dealer has up to 30 days to file the SAR if a suspect is 
identified, or up to 60 days if a suspect is not identified. Issues 
that require immediate attention--such as terrorist financing or 
ongoing money laundering schemes--must be reported to law 
enforcement.\573\ If reporting is not otherwise required by the 
Commission or an SRO, a broker-dealer ``may also, but is not required 
to'' contact the Commission.\574\ Broker-dealers must make the 
supporting documentation available to the Commission and registered 
SROs (as well as to FinCEN, law enforcement agencies, and Federal 
regulatory authorities that examine for Bank Secrecy Act compliance) 
upon request.\575\ The benefits and costs of filing SARs with FinCEN 
can serve as a basis to approximate the cost of filing Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR. However, the proposed rule would require a

[[Page 20281]]

quicker reporting timeline, more information to be provided, and 
multiple updates with regard to a given significant cybersecurity 
event. Thus, the costs related to complying with SAR filings serves as 
a floor for Covered Entities complying with the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \572\ See, e.g., Fergus Shiel and Ben Hallman, International 
Consortium of Investigative Journalists, Suspicious Activity 
Reports, Explained (Sept. 20, 2020), available at https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/suspicious-activity-reports-explained/ (stating that approximately 85% of SARs are filed 
by a few large banks to report money laundering).
    \573\ See 31 CFR 1023.320(b)(3).
    \574\ See 31 CFR 1023.320(a)(1), (b)(3).
    \575\ See 31 CFR 1023.320(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Commission has attempted to quantify economic effects 
where possible, some of the discussion of economic effects is 
qualitative in nature. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of 
the economic analysis, especially any data or information that would 
enable the Commission to quantify the proposal's economic effects more 
accurately.

B. Broad Economic Considerations

    Market Entities generally have financial incentives to maintain 
some level of cybersecurity protection because failure to safeguard 
their operations from attacks on their information systems and protect 
information about their customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users as well as their funds and assets could lead to 
losses of funds, assets, and customer information, as well as damage 
the Market Entity's reputation. As a result, Market Entities generally 
have an incentive to invest some amount of money to address 
cybersecurity risk.
    Market Entities' reputational motives generally should encourage 
them to invest in measures to protect their information systems from 
cybersecurity risk.\576\ Moreover, the damage caused by a significant 
cybersecurity incident, including the associated remediation costs, may 
exceed that of implementing cybersecurity policies and procedures that 
may have prevented the incident and its harmful impacts. As a result, 
significant losses arising from a potential significant cybersecurity 
incident can encourage Market Entities to invest in cybersecurity 
protections today. However, such investments in cybersecurity 
protections may not be sufficient. The Investment Company Institute 
notes that the remediation costs of $252 million associated with the 
2013 data breach experienced by Target Brands, Inc. (``Target'') far 
exceeded the cost of the cybersecurity insurance the company purchased 
($90 million), resulting in an out-of-pocket loss for Target of $162 
million.\577\ PCH Technologies states that in 2020, small companies (1-
49 employees) lost an average of $24,000 per cybersecurity incident. 
That loss increased to $50,000 per incident for medium-sized companies 
(50-249 employees). Large companies (250-999 employees) and enterprise-
level firms (1,000 employees or more) lost an average of $133,000 and 
$504,000 per cybersecurity incident, respectively.\578\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \576\ See Marc Dupuis and Karen Renaud, Scoping the Ethical 
Principles of Cybersecurity Fear Appeals, 23 Ethics and Info. Tech. 
265 (2021), available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09560-0.
    \577\ See National Law Review, Target Data Breach Price Tag: 
$252 Million and Counting (Feb. 26, 2015), available at https://www.natlawreview.com/article/target-data-breach-price-tag-252-million-and-counting.
    \578\ Timothy Guim, Cost of Cyber Attacks vs. Cost of Cyber 
Security in 2021, PCH Technologies (July 7, 2021), available at 
https://pchtechnologies.com/cost-of-cyber-attacks-vs-cost-of-cyber-
security-in-2021/
#:~:text=1%20Large%20businesses%3A%20Between%20%242%20million%20and%2
0%245,%24500%2C000%20or%20less%20spent%20on%20cybersecurity%20per%20y
ear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having an annual penetration testing requirement can help Market 
Entities reduce the likelihood of costly data breaches. For instance, 
according to one industry source, RSI Security, a penetration test 
``can measure [the entity's] system's strengths and weaknesses in a 
controlled environment before [the entity has] to pay the cost of an 
extremely damaging data breach.'' \579\ For example, RSI Security 
explains that penetration testing ``can cost anywhere from $4,000-
$100,000,'' and ``[o]n average, a high quality, professional 
[penetration testing] can cost from $10,000-$30,000.'' \580\ RSI 
Security, however, was clear that the magnitudes of these costs can 
vary with size, complexity, scope, methodology, types, experience, and 
remediation measures.\581\ On the other hand, the same article cited 
IBM's 2019 Cost of a Data Breach Study, which reported that the average 
cost of a data breach is $3.92 million with an average loss of 25,575 
records,\582\ which would more than justify ``the average $10,000-
$30,000 bill from a professional, rigorous [penetration testing].'' 
\583\ Another source estimates a ``high-quality, professional 
[penetration testing to cost] between $15,000-$30,000,'' while 
emphasizing that ``cost varies quite a bit based on a set of 
variables.'' \584\ This is in line with a third source, which states 
that ``[a] true penetration test will likely cost a minimum of 
$25,000.'' \585\ It is the Commission's understanding that multi-cloud 
architecture could introduce more complexity and accordingly, 
cybersecurity risks into Market Entities back-up systems, to the extent 
they have them.\586\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \579\ RSI Security, What is the Average Cost of Penetration 
Testing?, RSI Security Blog (posted Mar. 5,2020), available at 
https://blog.rsisecurity.com/what-is-the-average-cost-of-
penetration-testing/
#:~:text=Penetration%20testing%20can%20cost%20anywhere,that%20of%20a%
20large%20company.
    \580\ See RSI Security, What is the Average Cost of Penetration 
Testing?, RSI Security Blog (posted Mar. 5, 2020), available at 
https://blog.rsisecurity.com/what-is-the-average-cost-of-
penetration-testing/
#:~:text=Penetration%20testing%20can%20cost%20anywhere,that%20of%20a%
20large%20company.
    \581\ See id.
    \582\ See IBM, Cost of a Data Breach Report (2019), available at 
https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/RDEQK07R (``2019 Cost of Data 
Breach Report'').
    \583\ See RSI Security, What is the Average Cost of Penetration 
Testing?, RSI Security Blog (posted Mar. 5, 2020), available at 
https://blog.rsisecurity.com/what-is-the-average-cost-of-
penetration-testing/
#:~:text=Penetration%20testing%20can%20cost%20anywhere,that%20of%20a%
20large%20company.
    \584\ Gary Glover, How Much Does a Pentest Cost?, 
Securitymetrics Blog (Nov. 15, 2022, 8:36 a.m.), available at 
https://www.securitymetrics.com/blog/how-much-does-pentest-cost.
    \585\ Mitnick Security, What Should You Budget for a Penetration 
Test? The True Cost, Mitnick Security Blog, (posted Jan. 29, 2021, 
5:13 a.m.), available at https://www.mitnicksecurity.com/blog/what-should-you-budget-for-a-penetration-test-the-true-cost.
    \586\ For example, security breach possibilities could increase 
because of the interconnection of Market Entities through their 
multi cloud providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Large Market Entities that have economies of scale are able to 
implement cybersecurity policies and procedures in a more cost-
effective manner. Smaller Market Entities, on the other hand, generally 
do not enjoy the same economies of scale or scope. The marginal cost 
for smaller Market Entities when implementing cybersecurity policies 
and procedures that are just as robust as those that would be needed by 
large Market Entities likely would be relatively high for smaller 
Market Entities. As a result, investment costs in cybersecurity 
protection at small broker-dealers, for example, (most of which would 
be Non-Covered Broker-Dealers under proposed Rule 10) likely will 
account for a larger proportion of their revenue than at relatively 
large broker-dealers (which likely would be Covered Entities that 
realize economies of scale).
    Having policies and procedures in place to address cybersecurity 
risk would benefit the customers, counterparties, members, registrants, 
or users with whom Market Entities interact. However, a cybersecurity 
budget likely is tempered, in part, such that the total sum spent to 
address cybersecurity risk provides some, but possibly not complete, 
protection against cyberattacks.\587\ Ultimately,

[[Page 20282]]

those costs to address cybersecurity risks will be passed on, to the 
extent possible, to the persons with whom the Market Entities do 
business.\588\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \587\ See Martijn Wessels, Puck van den Brink, Thijmen Verburgh, 
Beatrice Cadet, and Theo van Ruijven, Understanding Incentives for 
Cybersecurity Investments: Development and Application of a 
Typology, 1 Digit. Bus. 1-7 (Oct. 2021), available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2021.100014; Scott Dynes, Eric Goetz, and 
Michael Freeman, Cyber Security: Are Economic Incentives Adequate? 
(Intern. Conf. on Critical Infrastructure Protection, Conference 
Paper, 2007), available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75462-8_2; Brent R. Rowe and Michael P. Gallaher, Private Sector Cyber 
Security Investment Strategies: An Empirical Analysis, The Fifth 
Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (Mar. 2006), 
available at http://www.infosecon.net/workshop/downloads/2006/pdf/18.pdf (``Private Sector Cyber Security Investment Strategies 
Analysis''); Nicole van der Meulen, RAND Europe, Investing in 
Cybersecurity (Aug. 2015), available at https://repository.wodc.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12832/2173/2551-full-text_tcm28-73946.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y.
    \588\ See Derek Mohammed, Cybersecurity Compliance in the 
Financial Sector, J. Internet Banking and Com. (2015), available at 
https://www.icommercecentral.com/open-access/cybersecurity-compliance-in-the-financial-sector.php?aid=50498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The level of cybersecurity protection instituted by Market Entities 
may be inadequate from the perspective of overall economic 
efficiency.\589\ In other words, the chosen level of cybersecurity 
protection may, in fact, represent an underinvestment relative to the 
optimal level of cybersecurity protection that should be maintained by 
Market Entities from an overall economic perspective. Levels of 
cybersecurity protection that are not optimal may exacerbate the 
occurrence of harmful cybersecurity incidents. Cybersecurity events 
have grown in both number and sophistication.\590\ These developments 
in the market have significantly increased the negative externalities 
that may flow from systems failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \589\ Low levels of investment in cybersecurity protection, 
which are different from underinvestment in cybersecurity 
protection, can be a function of a number of issues, such as firm 
budget, available solutions, knowledge of the threat actors' 
capabilities, and the performance of in-house or contracted 
information technology teams.
    \590\ See, e.g., Chuck Brooks, Alarming Cyber Statistics For 
Mid-Year 2022 That You Need To Know (June 3, 2022), available at 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckbrooks/2022/06/03/alarming-cyber-statistics-for-mid-year-2022-that-you-need-to-know/?sh=2429c57e7864.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Underinvestment in cybersecurity may occur because a Market Entity 
is aware that it would not bear the full cost of a cybersecurity 
incident (i.e., some negative externalities may be borne by its 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users). As a 
result, the Market Entity does not have to internalize the complete 
cost of cybersecurity protection when deciding upon its level of 
investment. This underinvestment by the Market Entity is considered to 
be a moral hazard problem, because other market participants are harmed 
by a significant cybersecurity incident and are forced to bear those 
costs that spill over to them. At the same time, even though Market 
Entities may not bear the full cost of a cybersecurity failure (e.g., 
loss of the personal information or the assets of their customers, 
members, registrants, or users), they likely would incur some costs 
themselves and therefore have incentives to avoid cybersecurity 
failures. These incentives could cause them to implement policies and 
procedures to address cybersecurity risk, which would likely result in 
benefits that accrue in large part to their customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, or users. Market Entities could do this in order 
to avoid the harms that could be caused by a significant cybersecurity 
incident (e.g., loss of funds, assets, or personal, confidential, or 
proprietary information; damage to or the holding hostage of their 
information systems; or reputational damage). As a result, Market 
Entities have a potential incentive to rely overly on reactive 
solutions to cybersecurity threats and attacks instead of proactive 
ones.\591\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \591\ See Private Sector Cyber Security Investment Strategies 
Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. In the context of cybersecurity, negative externalities arising 
from the moral hazard problem can have significant negative 
repercussions on the financial system more broadly, particularly due to 
the interconnectedness of Market Entities.\592\ Borg notes that the 
level of interconnectedness and complexity can have an influence on the 
degree of damage that cybersecurity incidents impose on Market Entities 
as well as their customers, counterparties, members, registrants, and 
users.\593\ As for the availability of substitutes the negative effect 
of a cybersecurity incident could be lessened to the extent that there 
is one or more competing firms that can complete the task, such as 
another broker-dealer or national securities exchange. On the flip 
side, significant cybersecurity incidents may be the most damaging when 
there are no substitutes available to execute the required task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \592\ See Anil K. Kashyap and Anne Wetherilt, Some Principles 
for Regulating Cyber Risk, 109 Amer. Econ. Assoc. Papers and Proc. 
482 (May 2019).
    \593\ See Scott Borg, Economically Complex Cyberattacks, IEEE 
Computer Society (2005), available at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1556539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to other firms being negatively affected by a 
cybersecurity incident, investors can be negatively affected. For 
example, a significant cybersecurity incident at a national securities 
exchange could affect its ability to execute trades, causing orders to 
go unfilled. Depending on how long it takes the national securities 
exchange to resolve the issue, the prices of securities traded on the 
exchange may be different from when the orders were originally 
placed.\594\ A loss of confidence in an exchange due to a cybersecurity 
incident could result in a longer-term reallocation of trading volume 
to competing exchanges or other trading venues.\595\ A significant 
cybersecurity incident could produce negative effects that spill over 
and affect market participants outside of the national securities 
exchange itself. It also may adversely affect market confidence, and 
curtail economic activity through a reduction in securities trading 
among market participants.\596\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \594\ National securities exchanges currently are subject to 
certain obligations under Regulation SCI.
    \595\ National securities exchanges may be required to meet 
certain regulatory obligations in such circumstances.
    \596\ See Electra Ferriello, Prof. Robert Shiller's U.S. Crash 
Confidence Index, Yale School of Management, Intern. Ctr. for Fin. 
(Nov. 3, 2020), available at https://som.yale.edu/blog/prof-robert-shillers-us-crash-confidence-index; Gregg E. Berman, Senior Advisor 
to the Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, Speech 
by SEC Staff: Market Participants and the May 6 Flash Crash (Oct. 
2010), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2010/spch101310geb.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the negative externalities that arise from the moral hazard 
problem are usually depicted as being absorbed by other market 
participants, the losses to other parties may be potentially covered in 
part or in full by insurance policies.\597\ An even stronger incentive 
to underinvest is the possibility that an outside party can make whole 
or at least mitigate some of the losses incurred by the various market 
participants. Market Entities may underinvest in their cybersecurity 
measures due to the moral hazard that results from expectations of 
government support.\598\ Most threat

[[Page 20283]]

actors primarily have a monetary incentive, and there is a large 
monetary incentive to breach cybersecurity protections in the financial 
sector. As a result, Covered Entities--such as clearing agencies, large 
national securities exchanges, and large carrying broker-dealers--may 
be attractive targets to sophisticated threat actors aiming to 
compromise or disrupt the U.S. financial system because of the services 
they perform to support the functioning of the U.S. securities markets; 
the protection of confidential, proprietary, or personal information 
they store; or the financial assets they hold. Protection against 
``advanced persistent threats'' \599\ from sophisticated threat actors, 
whatever their motives, is costly.\600\ The belief--no matter how 
misplaced--that a widespread and crippling cybersecurity attack would 
be met with government support, such as direct payments for recovery 
and immediate cybersecurity investments, could lead to moral hazard 
where certain Covered Entities underinvest in defenses aimed at 
countering that threat.\601\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \597\ See Marsh, Underinvestment in Cyber Insurance Can Leave 
Organizations Vulnerable (2022), available at https://www.marsh.com/pr/en/services/cyber-risk/insights/underinvestment-in-cyber-insurance.html.
    \598\ It has long been noted that it is difficult for 
governments to commit credibly to not providing support to entities 
that are seen as critical to the functioning of the financial 
system, resulting in problems of moral hazard. See, e.g., Walter 
Bagehot, Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market (Henry S. 
King & Co., 1873). Historically, banking entities seen as ``too big 
to fail'' or ``too interconnected to fail'' have been the principal 
recipients of such government support. Since the financial crisis of 
2007-2009, non-bank financial institutions (such as investment 
banks), money market funds, and insurance companies, as well as 
specific markets such as the repurchase market have also benefited. 
See, e.g., Gary B. Gorton, Slapped by the Invisible Hand: The Panic 
of 2007, Oxford Univ. Press (2010); see also Viral V. Acharya, Deniz 
Anginer, and A. Joseph Warburton, The End of Market Discipline? 
Investor Expectations of Implicit Government Guarantees, SSRN 
Scholarly Paper, Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network (May 
1, 2016).
    \599\ ``Advanced persistent threat'' refers to sophisticated 
cyberattacks by hostile organizations with the goal of: gaining 
access to defense, financial, and other targeted information from 
governments, corporations and individuals; maintaining a foothold in 
these environments to enable future use and control; and modifying 
data to disrupt performance in their targets. See Michael K. Daly, 
The Advanced Persistent Threat (or Informationized Force 
Operations), Raytheon (Nov. 4, 2009), available at https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/lisa09/tech/slides/daly.pdf.
    \600\ See Nikos Virvilis and Dimitris Gritzalis, The Big Four--
What We Did Wrong in Advanced Persistent Threat Detection?, 2013 
Int'l Conf. on Availability, Reliability and Security 248 (2013).
    \601\ See Lawrence A. Gordon, Martin P. Loeb, and William 
Lucyshyn, Cybersecurity Investments in the Private Sector: The Role 
of Governments, 15 Geo. J. Int'l Aff. 79 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Suboptimal spending on cybersecurity also can be the result of 
asymmetric information among Market Entities and market participants. A 
Market Entity may not know what its optimal cybersecurity expenditures 
should be because the nature and scope of future attacks are unknown. 
In addition, a Market Entity may not know what its competitors do in 
terms of cybersecurity planning, whether they have been subject to 
unsuccessful cyberattacks, or have been a victim of one or more 
significant cybersecurity incidents. Market Entities also may not be 
able to signal credibly to their customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users that they are better at addressing cybersecurity 
risks than their peers, thus reducing their incentive to bear such 
cybersecurity investment costs.\602\ Lastly, Market Entities' 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users typically do 
not have information about the Market Entities' cybersecurity spending, 
the efficacy of the cybersecurity investments made, or their policies 
and procedures. Therefore, those market participants cannot make 
judgments about Market Entities' cybersecurity preparedness. Because of 
this information asymmetry, Market Entities may not have as strong of 
an incentive to have robust cybersecurity measures compared to a 
scenario in which customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or 
users had perfect information about the Market Entities' cybersecurity 
practices and the risks that they face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \602\ See Sanford J. Grossman, The Informational Role of 
Warranties and Private Disclosure about Product Quality, 24 J. L. 
Econ. 461 (Dec. 1981); see also Michael Spence, Competitive and 
Optimal Responses to Signals: An Analysis of Efficiency and 
Distribution, 7 J. Econ. Theory 296 (Mar. 1, 1974); George. A. 
Akerlof, The Market for ``Lemons'': Quality Uncertainty and the 
Market Mechanism, 84 Q. J. Econ. 488 (Aug. 1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Underinvestment in cybersecurity also may stem from the principal-
agent problem of divergent goals in economic theory. The relationship 
between a Market Entity (i.e., the agent) and the principals (i.e., its 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users) can be 
affected if the principal relies on the agent to perform services on 
the principal's behalf.\603\ Because principals and their agents may 
not have perfectly aligned preferences and goals, agents may take 
actions that increase their well-being at the expense of principals, 
thereby imposing ``agency costs'' on the principals.\604\ Although 
private contracts between principals and agents may aim to minimize 
such costs, they are limited in their ability to do so in that agents 
can decide not enter into such agreements and ultimately not provide 
the particular services to the principals. Furthermore, agents can 
charge much higher fees that the principals choose not to bear. These 
limitations provides one rationale for regulatory intervention.\605\ 
Market-based incentives alone are unlikely to result in optimal 
provision of cybersecurity protection. In this context, having plans 
and procedures in place to prepare for and respond to cybersecurity 
incidents,\606\ and the rule would help ensure that the infrastructure 
of the U.S. securities markets remains robust, resilient, and secure. A 
well-functioning financial system is a public good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \603\ See Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling, Theory of 
the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, 
3 J. Fin. Econ. 305 (1976).
    \604\ Id.
    \605\ Such limitations can arise from un-observability or un-
verifiability of actions, transactions costs associated with 
including numerous contingencies in contracts, or bounded 
rationality in the design of contracts. See, e.g., Jean Tirole, 
Cognition and Incomplete Contracts, 99 a.m. Econ. Rev. 265 (Mar. 
2009) (discussing a relatively modern treatment of these issues).
    \606\ For example, according to an IBM report, in the context of 
system issues arising from cybersecurity events, having an incident 
response plan and ``testing that plan regularly can help [each firm] 
proactively identify weaknesses in [its] cybersecurity and shore up 
[its] defenses'' and ``save millions in data breach costs.'' See 
2019 Cost of Data Breach Report; see also Alex Asen et al., Are You 
Spending Enough on Cybersecurity (Feb. 19, 2020), available at 
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/are-you-spending-enough-cybersecurity (noting ``[a]s the world becomes ever more reliant on 
technology, and as cybercriminals refine and intensify their 
attacks, organizations will need to spend more on cybersecurity'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beyond reputational damage to the affected agent (Market Entity), 
the principals (the Market Entity's customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users) can be negatively affected by a cybersecurity 
breach as a result of loss in personal information and/or funds and 
assets. Thus the principals and the agents may have different reasons 
for needing cybersecurity protocols. Furthermore, the negative effects 
of a cybersecurity incident also can spread among Market Entities due 
to their interconnectedness.\607\ Those other Market Entities prefer 
that the principals employ strong cybersecurity practices that reduce 
the chances of a successful breach and its negative cascading effects 
throughout the financial sector. All of the preceding negative 
externalities are arguments for proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \607\ See sections I.A.1. and I.A.2. of this release (discussing 
how the interconnectedness of Market Entities creates cybersecurity 
risk).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the production of cybersecurity defenses and controls, the main 
input is information. In particular, information about prior attacks 
and their degree of success, as well as prior human errors and their 
degree of harm, is valuable in mounting effective countermeasures and 
controls.\608\ However, Market Entities may be naturally reluctant to 
share such information, as doing so could assist future attackers as 
well as lead to loss of customers, reputational harm, litigation, or 
regulatory scrutiny, which would be costs associated with public 
disclosure.\609\ On the other hand, disclosure of such information 
creates a positive information externality--the benefits of which 
accrue to society at large and are not fully captured by the Market 
Entity making the disclosure.

[[Page 20284]]

This situation can occur because the disclosure informs the Market 
Entity's customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users--as 
well as the Market Entity's competitors--about the cybersecurity 
incidents experienced by the Market Entity. As a result, information 
disclosures intended to close the information asymmetry gap can have 
both positive and negative consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \608\ See Peter W. Singer and Allan Friedman, Cybersecurity: 
What Everyone Needs to Know 222 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).
    \609\ See, e.g., FTC Equifax Civil Action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier, sources of market failure in cybersecurity 
come from information asymmetries at two different levels: (1) between 
Market Entities and their customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users; and (2) between Market Entities and threat 
actors. These two failures, in turn, create distinct consequences for 
each of these stakeholders.
    At the first level, a Market Entity's customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, or users have incomplete information about their 
own cybersecurity risks due to incomplete information about the Market 
Entity's actual cybersecurity policies and procedures. To exacerbate 
the first level of information asymmetry, Market Entities typically 
interact with other market participants. For example, investors do 
business with broker-dealers, introducing broker-dealers work with 
carrying broker-dealers, FINRA supervises broker-dealers, broker-
dealers interact with national securities exchanges, and national 
securities exchanges work with clearing agencies.
    When utilizing the services of a Market Entity, other market 
participants may not have full information regarding the Market 
Entity's exposure to material harm as a result of a cybersecurity 
incident. A cybersecurity incident that harms a Market Entity can harm 
its customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users. 
Disclosure of information regarding significant cybersecurity incidents 
by Market Entities could be used by their customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, or users to manage their own cybersecurity risk 
by investing in additional cybersecurity protection, and, to the extent 
they have a choice, selecting a different Market Entity with 
satisfactory cybersecurity protection with whom to transact or 
otherwise conduct business.\610\ That is, a Market Entity with strong 
cybersecurity policies and procedures and a clean record in terms of 
past significant cybersecurity incidents may be perceived by these 
market participants as more desirable to interact with, or obtain 
services from, than Market Entities of the same type that do not fit 
that profile. Even general details about the cybersecurity incidents, 
as well as the number of significant cybersecurity incidents during the 
current or previous calendar year, could allow customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, and users to compare Market 
Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \610\ As discussed earlier, the public disclosure requirements 
of proposed Rule 10 would apply to Market Entities that meet the 
proposed rule's definition of ``covered entity.'' See paragraph (d) 
of proposed Rule 10; section II.B.3. of this release (discussing the 
public disclosure requirements of proposed Rule 10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, information from the disclosure may permit customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, and users to gauge the riskiness 
of doing business with a certain Market Entity when they would not have 
been able to without that knowledge, and the disclosures may encourage 
those market participants to move their business to competing Market 
Entities that would have to disclose information under proposed Rule 10 
and are perceived to be more prepared for cybersecurity attacks.\611\ 
The information disclosed by competitors also can incentivize Market 
Entities to increase their investment in cybersecurity protections and 
allow them to adjust their defenses when they would not have done so 
otherwise, thus increasing overall market stability by further limiting 
harmful cybersecurity incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \611\ The firms making the disclosure may be incentivized to 
invest more in cybersecurity protection, potentially to the point of 
overinvestment in order not to lose customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, and users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the second level, there are differences in the capabilities of 
threat actors that are external to Market Entities and the assumed 
level of cybersecurity preparations needed by Market Entities to 
protect against significant cybersecurity incidents. Specifically, 
Market Entities cannot fully anticipate the type, method, and 
complexity of all types of cyberattacks that may materialize. Moreover, 
cyberattacks evolve over time, becoming more complex and using new 
avenues to circumvent Market Entities' cybersecurity protections.\612\ 
Furthermore, Market Entities cannot predict the timing or the target of 
a given cyberattack. Though this information asymmetry is impossible to 
eradicate fully given the inherent secretive nature of threat actors, 
regulation may help to prevent an expansion of information asymmetry by 
requiring Market Entities to gather and assess information about 
cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities more often. Doing so would not 
only help to contain the negative effects of successful cybersecurity 
attacks on any one Market Entity going forward, but it also would aid 
in minimizing the growth in negative externalities as the effects of 
successful cyberattacks spillover to other Market Entities as well as 
to their customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \612\ See, e.g., Verizon DBIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cybersecurity defenses must constantly evolve in order to keep up 
with the threat actors who are exogenous to the Market Entity, and its 
ability to anticipate specific attacks on itself is difficult at best. 
Within the reasonable scenario of an interconnected market with 
multiple points of entry for a potential threat actor, it may be more 
costly for Market Entities that are the victims of cascading 
cybersecurity breaches than for the initial target itself, as the other 
Market Entities within the network ultimately would need to prepare for 
a multitude of attacks originating from many different initial 
targets.\613\ A strong cybersecurity program can also help Market 
Entities to protect themselves from cybersecurity attacks that could 
possibly come from one of multiple entry points. Having comprehensive 
cybersecurity policies and procedures will aid Market Entities 
identifying the source of a breach, which can result in lower detection 
costs and the identification of the threat actor in a more expeditious 
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \613\ See Cybersecurity and its Cascading Effect on Societal 
Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Baseline

    Each type of Market Entity that would be subject to proposed Rule 
10 has a distinct business model and role in the U.S. financial 
markets. As a result, the risks and practices, regulation, and market 
structure for each Market Entity will form the baseline for the 
economic analysis.
1. Cybersecurity Risks and Current Relevant Regulations
a. Cybersecurity Risks
    With the widespread adoption of internet-based products and 
services over the last two decades, all businesses have had to address 
cybersecurity issues.\614\ For financial services firms, the stakes are 
particularly high because they transact, hold custody of, and maintain 
ownership records of wealth in the form of cash, securities, or other 
liquid assets that cyber threat actors might strive to obtain 
illegally. Such entities also represent attack vectors for threat 
actors. In addition, Market Entities have linkages with each other as

[[Page 20285]]

a result of the business they conduct together. A breach at one Market 
Entity may be exploited and serve as a means of compromising other 
Market Entities. Cybersecurity threat intelligence surveys consistently 
find the financial sector to be one of the most--if not the most--
attacked industries,\615\ and remediation costs for an incident can be 
substantial.\616\ As a result, firms in the financial sector need to 
invest in cybersecurity to protect their business operations along with 
the accompanying assets and data stored on information systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \614\ See section I.A.1. of this release (discussing 
cybersecurity risks to the U.S. securities markets).
    \615\ See, e.g., IBM, X-Force Threat Intelligence Index 2022 
(2022), available at https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach/threat-intelligence.
    \616\ See, e.g., 2019 Cost of Data Breach Report (noting the 
average cost of a data breach in the financial industry in the 
United States is $5.97 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, as discussed earlier, the custody and transfer of crypto 
assets depends almost exclusively on the operations of information 
systems.\617\ Crypto assets, therefore, are exposed to cybersecurity 
risks and they are attractive targets for threat actors. Information 
systems that involve crypto assets may be subject to heightened 
cybersecurity risks. To the extent that Market Entities engage in 
business activities involving crypto assets, they could be exposed to 
these heighted cybersecurity risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \617\ See section II.G. of this release (discussing 
cybersecurity risks related to crypto assets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ubiquity and rising costs of cybercrime,\618\ along with 
financial services firms' increasingly costly efforts to prevent 
it,\619\ have been the motivation behind the growth in the 
cybersecurity industry.\620\ Many Market Entities cite the NIST 
Framework as the main standard for implementing strong cybersecurity 
measures.\621\ The focus that has been placed on cybersecurity also has 
led to the development of numerous technologies and standards by 
private sector firms aimed at mitigating cybersecurity threats. Many of 
these developments, such as multi-factor authentication, secure 
hypertext transfer protocol,\622\ and user-access control, are now 
commonplace. Practitioners--chief technology officers (``CTOs''), chief 
compliance officers (``CCOs''), chief information officers (``CIOs''), 
chief information security officers (``CISOs''), and their staffs--
frequently utilize industry standard frameworks \623\ and similar 
offerings from cybersecurity consultants and product vendors to assess 
and address institutional cybersecurity preparedness. Such frameworks 
include information technology asset management, controls, change 
management, vulnerability management, incident management, continuity 
of operations, risk management, dependencies on third parties, 
training, and information sharing. In recent years, companies' boards 
of directors and executive management teams have focused on these 
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \618\ See FBI internet Crime Report (noting that cybercrime 
victims lost approximately $6.9 billion in 2021).
    \619\ See Office of Financial Research, Annual Report to 
Congress 2021, available at https://www.financialresearch.gov/annual-reports/files/OFR-Annual-Report-2021.pdf.
    \620\ Sage Lazzaro, The Cybersecurity Industry Is Burning--But 
VCs Don't Care, VentureBeat (Sept. 2, 2021), available at https://venturebeat.com/2021/09/02/the-cybersecurity-industry-is-burning-and-vcs-dont-care/ (``VentureBeat'').
    \621\ FCI, Top 5 Ways the Financial Services Industry Can 
Leverage NIST for Cybersecurity Compliance, available at https://fcicyber.com/top-5-ways-the-financial-services-industry-can-leverage-nist-for-cybersecurity-compliance/.
    \622\ Hypertext transfer protocol, HTTP, is the primary set of 
rules that allow a web browser to communicate with (i.e., send data 
to) a website.
    \623\ CISA, Cyber Resilience Review (CRR): Method Description 
and Self-Assessment User Guide (Apr. 2020), available at https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2_CRR%204.0_Self-Assessment_User_Guide_April_2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unaddressed cybersecurity risks, particularly at Market Entities, 
impose negative externalities on the broader financial system. Actions 
taken to implement, maintain, and upgrade cybersecurity protections 
likely reduce overall risk in the economy. In addition, due to the 
potential for large-scale losses with respect to funds, securities, and 
customer information, Market Entities have a vested interest in 
installing, maintaining, and upgrading cybersecurity-related software 
and hardware. Based on staff discussions with market participants, 
cybersecurity-related activities can be performed in-house or 
contracted out to third parties with expertise in those areas. 
Financial services firms may employ a mix of in-house and outsourced 
staff and resources to meet their cybersecurity needs and goals.
b. Current Relevant Regulations
i. Broker-Dealers
    Broker-dealers are subject to Regulation S-P \624\ and Regulation 
S-ID.\625\ In addition, ATSs that trade certain stocks exceeding 
specific volume thresholds are subject to Regulation SCI.\626\ Further, 
an ATS is subject to Regulation ATS.\627\ As discussed earlier, 
Regulation SCI, Regulation S-P, Regulation ATS, and Regulation S-ID 
have provisions requiring policies and procedures to address certain 
types of cybersecurity risks.\628\ Regulation SCI also requires 
immediate written or telephonic notice and subsequent reporting to the 
Commission on Form SCI of certain types of incidents.\629\ Finally, 
Regulation SCI has provisions requiring disclosures to persons affected 
by certain incidents.\630\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \624\ See 17 CFR 248.1 through 248.30.
    \625\ See 17 CFR 248.201 and 202.
    \626\ See 17 CFR 242.1000 through 1007.
    \627\ See 17 CFR 242.301 through 304.
    \628\ See section II.F.1.c. of this release (discussing in more 
detail the existing requirements of Regulation SCI, Regulation S-P, 
Regulation ATS, and Regulation S-ID to have policies and procedures 
to address certain cybersecurity risks).
    \629\ See section II.F.1.d. of this release (discussing in more 
detail the existing immediate notification and subsequent reporting 
requirements of Regulation SCI).
    \630\ See section II.F.1.e. of this release (discussing in more 
detail the existing disclosure requirements of Regulation SCI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Broker-dealers are also subject to the Commission's financial 
responsibility rules. Rule 15c3-1 requires broker-dealers to maintain 
minimum amounts of net capital, ensuring that the broker-dealer at all 
times has enough liquid assets to promptly satisfy all creditor claims 
if the broker-dealer were to go out of business.\631\ Rule 15c3-3 under 
the Exchange Act imposes requirements relating to safeguarding customer 
funds and securities.\632\ These rules provide protections for broker-
dealer counterparties and customers and can help to mitigate the risks 
to, and impact on, customers and other market participants by 
protecting them from the consequences of financial failure that may 
occur because of a systems issue at a broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \631\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
    \632\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Exchange Act Rule 15c3-4, OTC derivatives dealers must 
establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management 
controls to assist it in managing the risks associated with its 
business activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity, 
legal, and operational risks.\633\ The required risk management system 
must include, among other things: a risk control unit that reports 
directly to senior management, periodic reviews which may be performed 
by internal audit staff, and annual reviews which must be conducted by 
independent certified public accountants.\634\ Management must 
periodically review the entity's business activities for consistency 
with risk management guidelines, including that the data necessary to 
conduct the risk monitoring and risk management function as well as the 
valuation process

[[Page 20286]]

over the entity's portfolio of products is accessible on a timely basis 
and information systems are available to capture, monitor, analyze, and 
report relevant data.\635\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \633\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(a).
    \634\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-4(c).
    \635\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Act Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 require broker-dealers to make 
and keep current records detailing, among other things, securities 
transactions, money balances, and securities positions.\636\ Further, a 
broker-dealer that fails to make and keep current the records required 
by Rule 17a-3 must give notice to the Commission of this fact on the 
same day and, thereafter, within 48 hours transmit a report to the 
Commission stating what the broker-dealer has done or is doing to 
correct the situation.\637\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \636\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-3; 17 CFR 240.17a-4.
    \637\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, with certain exceptions, broker-dealers must file 
confidential SARs with FinCEN to report any suspicious transaction 
relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation.\638\ The SARs 
include information regarding who is conducting the suspicious 
activity, what instruments or mechanisms are being used, when and where 
the suspicious activity took place, and why the filer thinks the 
activity is suspicious. Broker-dealers must make the records available 
to FinCEN as well as to other appropriate law enforcement agencies, 
federal or state securities regulators, and SROs registered with the 
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \638\ See 31 CFR 1023.320; section IV.A. of this release 
(discussing the requirements to file SARs in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Broker-dealers are generally required to register with the 
Commission and join a national securities association or national 
securities exchange.\639\ As SROs, national securities associations and 
national securities exchanges are required to enforce their members' 
compliance with the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, 
and the SRO's own rules. The vast majority of brokers and dealers join 
FINRA. Broker-dealers that are members of FINRA are subject FINRA Rules 
3110, 3120, and 4530(b) (among other FINRA rules).\640\ FINRA Rule 3110 
requires broker-dealer members to have in place a system to supervise 
its activities so that they are in compliance with applicable rules and 
regulations. FINRA Rule 3120 requires broker-dealer members to test and 
verify that the supervisory procedures are reasonably designed with 
respect to the activities of the member and its associated persons, as 
well as to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and 
regulations and with applicable FINRA rules. In addition, broker-dealer 
members must create additional or amended supervisory procedures where 
a need is identified by such testing and verification. The designated 
individual(s) must submit to the broker-dealer member's senior 
management no less than annually a report detailing each member's 
system of supervisory controls, the summary of the test results and 
significant identified exceptions, and any additional or amended 
supervisory procedures created in response to the test results. FINRA 
Rule 4530(b) states that each broker-dealer member shall promptly 
report to FINRA, but not later than 30 calendar days after the member 
has concluded or reasonably should have concluded, that an associated 
person of the member or the member itself has violated any securities-, 
insurance-, commodities-, financial- or investment-related laws, rules, 
regulations, or standards of conduct of any domestic regulatory body, 
foreign regulatory body, or SRO. Furthermore, Commission staff has 
issued statements \641\ and FINRA has issued guidance \642\ in the area 
of cybersecurity.\643\ The statements and FINRA guidance with respect 
to these rules identify common elements of reasonably designed 
cybersecurity policies and procedures including risk assessment, user 
security and access, information protection, incident response,\644\ 
and training.\645\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \639\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o(a)(1) and 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(8).
    \640\ Broker-dealers that are members of national securities 
exchanges are also subject to the rules of the national securities 
exchanges regarding membership, registration, operation, and 
business conduct, among other exchange regulations.
    \641\ See, e.g. EXAMS, Risk Alert, Safeguarding Client Accounts; 
EXAMS, Risk Alert, Select COVID-19 Compliance Risks and 
Considerations for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers (Aug. 12, 
2020), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/Risk%20Alert%20-%20COVID-19%20Compliance.pdf; EXAMS,Risk Alert, Ransomeware; EXAMS, 
Report on OCIE Cybersecurity and Resiliency Observations (Jan. 27, 
2020), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/OCIE%20Cybersecurity%20and%20Resiliency%20Observations.pdf (``EXAMS 
Cybersecurity and Resiliency Observations''); EXAMS, Safeguarding 
Customer Records and Information in Network Storage--Use of Third 
Party Security Features (May 23, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/OCIE%20Risk%20Alert%20-%20Network%20Storage.pdf; 
EXAMS, Investment Adviser and Broker-Dealer Compliance Issues 
Related to Regulation S-P--Privacy Notices and Safeguard Policies 
(Apr. 16, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/OCIE%20Risk%20Alert%20-%20Regulation%20S-P.pdf; EXAMS, Observations 
from Cybersecurity Examinations (Aug. 7, 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/observations-from-cybersecurity-examinations.pdf 
(``EXAMS Observations from Cybersecurity Examinations''); EXAMS, 
Cybersecurity: Ransomware Alert (May 17, 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/risk-alert-cybersecurity-ransomware-alert.pdf; 
EXAMS, OCIE's 2015 Cybersecurity Examination Initiative (Sept. 15, 
2015), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/ocie-2015-cybersecurity-examination-initiative.pdf; EXAMS, Cybersecurity 
Examination Sweep Summary (Feb. 3, 2015), available at https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/cybersecurity-examination-sweep-summary.pdf (``Cybersecurity Examination Sweep Summary''); EXAMS, 
OCIE's 2014 Cybersecurity Initiative (Apr. 15, 2014), available at 
https://www.sec.gov/ocie/announcement/Cybersecurity-Risk-Alert-Appendix-4.15.14.pdf.
    \642\ See FINRA, Core Cybersecurity Threats and Effective 
Controls for Small Firms (May 2022), available at https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/Core_Cybersecurity_Threats_and_Effective_Controls-Small_Firms.pdf; 
FINRA, Cloud Computing in the Securities Industry (Aug. 16, 2021), 
available at https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/2021-cloud-computing-in-the-securities-industry.pdf; FINRA, 2021 Report 
on FINRA's Examination and Risk Monitoring Program (Feb. 1, 2021), 
available at https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/2021-report-finras-examination-risk-monitoring-program.pdf (``FINRA 2021 
Report on Examination and Risk Monitoring Program''); FINRA, 2019 
Report on FINRA Examination Findings and Observations (Oct. 16, 
2019), available at https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/2019-exam-findings-and-observations.pdf; FINRA Common 
Cybersecurity Threats; FINRA, Report on Selected Cybersecurity 
Practices--2018 (Dec. 1, 2018), available at https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/Cybersecurity_Report_2018.pdf (``FINRA Report on 
Selected Cybersecurity Practices''); FINRA, Report on FINRA 
Examination Findings (Dec. 6, 2017), available at https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2017-Report-FINRA-Examination-Findings.pdf; FINRA, Small Firm Cybersecurity Checklist (May 23, 
2016), available at https://www.finra.org/compliance-tools/small-firm-cybersecurity-checklist.
    \643\ Cybersecurity has also been a regular theme of FINRA's 
Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter since 2008 often with 
reference to Regulation S-P. Similarly, while risks related to data 
compromises were highlighted in the Commission staff's exam 
priorities, an official focus on ``cyber'' began in 2014 after the 
SEC sponsored a Cybersecurity Roundtable and the Division of 
Examination conducted cybersecurity initiative I and II to assess 
industry practices and legal and compliance issues associated with 
broker-dealer and investment adviser cybersecurity preparedness. 
Cybersecurity initiatives I and II were each separate series of 
examinations of cybersecurity practices conducted by EXAMS, 
concluding in 2014 and 2017. The examinations covered broker-
dealers, investment advisers, and funds. EXAMS released a summary 
report for each initiative.
    \644\ See FINRA 2021 Report on Examination and Risk Monitoring 
Program (noting that FINRA recommended among effective practices 
with respect to incident response: (1) establishing and regularly 
testing--often using tabletop exercises--a written formal incident 
response plan that outlines procedures for responding to 
cybersecurity and information security incidents; and (2) developing 
frameworks to identify, classify, prioritize, track and close 
cybersecurity-related incidents).
    \645\ These categories vary somewhat in terms of nomenclature 
and the specific categories themselves across different Commission 
and FINRA publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with these rules, nearly all broker-dealers that 
participated in two Commission exam sweeps in 2015 and 2017 reported 
\646\ maintaining some

[[Page 20287]]

cybersecurity policies and procedures; conducting some periodic risk 
assessments to identify threats and vulnerabilities,\647\ conducting 
firm-wide systems inventorying or cataloguing, ensuring regular system 
maintenance including the installation of software patches to address 
security vulnerabilities, performing some penetration testing.\648\ A 
separate staff statement observed that at least some firms implemented 
capabilities that are able to control, monitor, and inspect all 
incoming and outgoing network traffic to prevent unauthorized or 
harmful traffic and implemented capabilities that are able to detect 
threats on endpoints.\649\ In the two Commission exam sweeps, many 
firms indicated that policies and procedures were vetted and approved 
by senior management and that firms provided annual cybersecurity 
reports to the board while some also provided ad hoc reports in the 
event of major cybersecurity events.\650\ Broadly, many broker-dealers 
reported relying on industry standards with respect to cybersecurity 
\651\ typically by adhering to a specific industry standard or 
combination of industry standards or by using industry standards as 
guidance in designing policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \646\ See Cybersecurity Examination Sweep Summary (noting that 
of 57 examined broker-dealers, the vast majority adopted written 
information security policies, conducted periodic audits to 
determine compliance with these information security policies and 
procedures, conducted risk assessments and reported considering such 
risk assessments in establishing their cybersecurity policies and 
procedures, and that with respect to vendors, the majority of the 
broker-dealers required cybersecurity risk assessments of vendors 
with access to their firms' networks and had at least some specific 
policies and procedures relating to vendors). See also EXAMS 
Observations from Cybersecurity Examinations (noting that nearly all 
firms surveyed had incident response plans).
    \647\ See FINRA Report on Selected Cybersecurity Practices. This 
report noted that FINRA has conducted a voluntary Risk Control 
Assessment (``RCA'') Survey with all active member firms for a 
number of years. According to the 2018 RCA, 94% of higher revenue 
firms and 70% of mid-level revenue firms use a risk assessment as 
part of their cybersecurity program.
    \648\ Id. According to FINRA's 2018 RCA, 100% of higher revenue 
firms include penetration testing as a component in their overall 
cybersecurity program.
    \649\ See EXAMS Cybersecurity and Resiliency Observations.
    \650\ See FINRA, Report on Cybersecurity Practices (Feb. 2015), 
available at https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/2015-report-on-cybersecurity-practices.pdf (``FINRA Report on 
Cybersecurity Practices'').
    \651\ Id. Among the firms that were part of the sweep, nearly 
90% used one or more of the NIST, International Organization for 
Standardization (``ISO'') or Information Systems Audit and Control 
Association (``ISACA'') frameworks or standards. More specifically, 
65% of the respondents reported that they use the ISO 27001/27002 
standard while 25% use the Control Objectives for Information and 
Related Technologies (``COBIT'') framework created by ISACA. Some 
firms use combinations of these standards for various parts of their 
cybersecurity programs. While the report focused on firm utilization 
of cybersecurity frameworks specifically, in many cases, the 
referenced frameworks were broader IT frameworks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to broker-dealer reporting to their boards regarding 
cybersecurity policies and procedures and cybersecurity incidents, the 
board reporting frequency ranged from quarterly to ad-hoc among the 
firms FINRA reviewed.\652\ Approximately two-thirds of the broker-
dealers (68%) examined in a 2015 survey had an individual explicitly 
assigned as the firm's CISO which might suggest extensive executive 
leadership engagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \652\ See FINRA Report on Cybersecurity Practices. At a number 
of firms, the board received annual cybersecurity-related reporting 
while other firms report on a quarterly basis. A number of firms 
also provide ad hoc reporting to the board in the event of major 
cybersecurity events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are no current Commission or FINRA requirements for broker-
dealers to disseminate notifications of breaches to members or clients 
although many firms do so \653\ pursuant to various state data breach 
laws.\654\ Broker-dealers are subject to state laws known as ``Blue Sky 
Laws,'' which generally are regulations established as safeguards for 
investors against securities fraud.\655\ All 50 states have enacted 
laws in recent years requiring firms to notify individuals of data 
breaches. These laws differ by state, with some states imposing 
heightened notification requirements relative to other states.\656\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \653\ See Cybersecurity Examination Sweep Summary. Based on a 
small sample of firms, the vast majority of broker-dealers 
maintained plans for data breach incidents and most had plans for 
notifying customers of material events.
    \654\ See Digital Guardian, The Definitive Guide to U.S. State 
Data Breach Laws (Nov. 15, 2022), available at https://info.digitalguardian.com/rs/768-OQW-145/images/the-definitive-guide-to-us-state-data-breach-laws.pdf.
    \655\ See, e.g., Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, 
Commission, Blue Sky Laws, available at https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/blue-sky-laws.
    \656\ For example, some states may require a firm to notify 
individuals when a data breach includes biometric information, while 
others do not. Compare Cal. Civil Code Sec.  1798.29 (stating that 
notice to California residents of a data breach is generally 
required when a resident's personal information was or is reasonably 
believed to have been acquired by an unauthorized person and that 
``personal information'' is defined to mean an individual's first or 
last name in combination with one of a list of specified elements, 
which includes certain unique biometric data), with Ala. Stat. 
Sec. Sec.  8-38-2, 8-38-4, 8-38-5 (stating that notice of a data 
breach to Alabama residents is generally required when sensitive 
personally identifying information has been acquired by an 
unauthorized person and is reasonably likely to cause substantial 
harm to the resident to whom the information relates and that 
``sensitive personally identifying information'' is defined as the 
resident's first or last name in combination with one of a list of 
specified elements, which does not include biometric information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. SROs
    National securities exchanges, registered clearing agencies, FINRA, 
and the MSRB are all SROs and are all considered to be SCI Entities, 
which requires them to comply with Regulation SCI.\657\ As discussed 
earlier, Regulation SCI has provisions requiring policies and 
procedures to address certain types of cybersecurity risks.\658\ 
Regulation SCI also requires immediate written or telephonic notice and 
subsequent reporting to the Commission on Form SCI of certain types of 
incidents.\659\ Finally, Regulation SCI has provisions requiring 
disclosures to persons affected by certain incidents.\660\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \657\ See 17 CFR 242.1000 through 1007.
    \658\ See section II.F.1.c. of this release (discussing in more 
detail the existing requirements of Regulation SCI to have policies 
and procedures to address certain cybersecurity risks).
    \659\ See section II.F.1.d. of this release (discussing in more 
detail the existing immediate notification and subsequent reporting 
requirements of Regulation SCI).
    \660\ See section II.F.1.e. of this release (discussing in more 
detail the existing disclosure requirements of Regulation SCI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as described above, Rule 613 of Regulation NMS 
requires the Participants to jointly develop and submit to the 
Commission a CAT NMS Plan.\661\ The Participants conduct the activities 
of the CAT through a jointly owned limited liability company, 
Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC. The CAT is intended to function as a 
modernized audit trail system that provides regulators with more timely 
access to a comprehensive set of trading data, thus enabling regulators 
to more efficiently and effectively reconstruct market events, monitor 
market behavior, and investigate misconduct. The CAT System accepts 
data that are submitted by the Participants and broker-dealers, as well 
as data from certain market data feeds like SIP and OPRA.\662\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \661\ See 17 CFR 242.613; see also section II.F.1.c. of this 
release (discussing the CAT NMS Plan in general and describing the 
roles of the Participants and Plan Processor).
    \662\ CAT data is not public, although some information in the 
CAT may be available through public sources (e.g., market data feeds 
like the SIP or proprietary exchange feeds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA CAT, LLC--a wholly-owned subsidiary of FINRA--has entered 
into an agreement with the Company to act as the Plan Processor and, as 
such, is responsible for building, operating and maintaining the CAT. 
However, because the CAT System is owned and operated by FINRA CAT, LLC 
on behalf of the national securities exchanges and FINRA, the 
Participants remain ultimately responsible for the performance of the 
CAT and its compliance with statutes, rules, and regulations.

[[Page 20288]]

    Under the Commission approved CAT NMS Plan, the Plan Processor must 
develop various policies and procedures related to data security, 
including a comprehensive information security program that includes, 
among other things, requirements related to: (1) connectivity and data 
transfer, (2) data encryption, (3) data storage, (4) data access, (5) 
breach management, including requirements related to the development of 
a cyber incident response plan and documentation of all information 
relevant to breaches, and (6) personally identifiable information data 
management.\663\ As part of this requirement, the Plan Processor is 
required to create and enforce policies, procedures, and control 
structures to monitor and address CAT data security, including reviews 
of industry standards \664\ and periodic penetration testing.\665\ 
Under the CAT NMS Plan the comprehensive information security program 
must be updated by the Plan Processor at least annually.\666\ 
Furthermore, both the Participants and the Plan Processor must also 
implement various data confidentiality measures that include safeguards 
to secure access and use of the CAT.\667\ The Plan Processor must also 
review Participant information security policies and procedures related 
to the CAT to ensure that such policies and procedures are comparable 
to those of the CAT System.\668\ In addition to these policies and 
procedures requirements,\669\ the CAT NMS Plan requires several forms 
of periodic review of CAT, including an annual written assessment,\670\ 
regular reports,\671\ and an annual audit.\672\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \663\ See CAT NMS Plan, appendix D, sections 4 and 6.12.
    \664\ The Company is subject to certain industry standards with 
respect to its comprehensive information security program, including 
but not limited to: NIST 800-23 (Guidelines to Federal Organizations 
on Security Assurance and Acquisition/Use of Test/Evaluated 
Products), NIST 800-53 (Security and Privacy Controls for Federal 
Information Systems and Organizations), NIST 800-115 (Technical 
Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment), and, to the 
extent not otherwise specified, all other provisions of the NIST 
cyber security framework. See CAT NMS Plan, Appendix D, section 4.2.
    \665\ Id. at section 6.2(b)(v); Appendix D, sections 4 and 6.12.
    \666\ See CAT NMS Plan at Appendix D, section 4.1.
    \667\ Specifically, the measures implemented by the Plan 
Processor must include, among other things: (1) restrictions on the 
acceptable uses of CAT Data; (2) role-based access controls; (3) 
authentication of individual users; (4) MFA and password controls; 
(5) implementation of information barriers to prevent unauthorized 
staff from accessing CAT Data; (6) separate storage of sensitive 
personal information and controls on transmission of data; (7) 
security-driven monitoring and logging; (8) escalation of non-
compliance events or security monitoring; and (9) remote access 
controls. Id. at Appendix D, sections 4.1, 5.3, 8.1.1, and 8.2.2; 
section 6.2(a)(v)(J)-(L); section 6.2(b)(vii); section 6.5(c)(i); 
section 6.5(f).
    \668\ CAT NMS Plan at section 6.2(b)(vii).
    \669\ In August 2020, the Commission proposed certain amendments 
to the CAT NMS Plan that are designed to enhance the security of the 
CAT. See https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2020/34-89632.pdf.
    \670\ The Participants are required to provide the Commission 
with an annual written assessment of the Plan Processor's 
performance, which must include, among other things, an evaluation 
of potential technology upgrades and an evaluation of the CAT 
information security program. Id. at section 6.6(b); section 
6.2(a)(v)(G).
    \671\ The Plan Processor is required to provide the operating 
committee with regular reports on various topics, including data 
security issues and the Plan Processor. Id. at section 6.1(o); 
section 6.2(b)(vi); section 6.2(a)(v)(E); and section 4.12(b)(i).
    \672\ The Plan Processor is required to create and implement an 
annual audit plan that includes a review of all Plan Processor 
policies, procedures, control structures, and tools that monitor and 
address data security, in addition to other types of auditing 
practices. Id. at section 6.2(a)(v)(B)-(C); Appendix D, section 
4.1.3; Appendix D, section 5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. SBS Entities
    Section 15F(j)(2) of the Exchange Act, among other things, requires 
each SBS Entity to establish robust and professional risk management 
systems adequate for managing its day-to-day business.\673\ 
Additionally, certain SBS Entities must comply with specified 
provisions of Rule 15c3-4 and, therefore, establish, document, and 
maintain a system of internal risk management controls to assist in 
managing the risks associated with their business activities.\674\ 
Further, SBS Entities could be subject to Regulation S-ID if they are 
``financial institutions'' or ``creditors.'' \675\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \673\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(j). The Commission also requires that 
specified SBS Entity trading relationship documentation include the 
process for determining the value of each security-based swap for 
purposes of complying with, among other things, the risk management 
requirements of section 15F(j) of the Exchange Act and paragraph 
(h)(2)(iii)(I) of Rule 15Fh-3, and any subsequent regulations 
promulgated pursuant to section 15F(j). See 17 CFR 140.15Fi-5(b)(4). 
The documentation must include either: (1) alternative methods for 
determining the value of the security-based swap in the event of the 
unavailability or other failure of any input required to value the 
security-based swap for such purposes; or (2) a valuation dispute 
resolution process by which the value of the security-based swap 
shall be determined for the purposes of complying with the rule. See 
17 CFR 140.15Fi-5(b)(4)(ii). Further, SBS Entities must engage in 
portfolio reconciliation to resolve discrepancies, among other 
things. See 17 CFR 240.15Fi-3(a) and (b). Such discrepancies include 
those resulting from a cybersecurity incident.
    \674\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(iii) (applies to broker-
dealers authorized to use models, including broker-dealers dually 
registered as an SBSD); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(10)(ii) (applies to 
broker-dealers not authorized to use models that are dually 
registered as an SBSD); 17 CFR 240.18a-1(f) (applies to SBSDs that 
are not registered as a broker-dealer, other than an OTC derivatives 
dealer, and that do not have a prudential regulator); 17 CFR 
240.18a-2(c) (applies to MSBSPs); see also 17 CFR 240.15c3-4; see 
section IV.C.1.b.i. of this section (discussing requirements of Rule 
15c3-4).
    \675\ See 17 CFR 248.201 and 202. The scope of Regulation S-ID 
includes any financial institution or creditor, as defined in the 
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15. U.S.C. 1681) that is required to be 
``registered under the Securities Act of 1934.'' See 17 CFR 
248.201(a). Because SBS Entities are required to be so registered, 
an SBS Entity that is a ``financial institution'' or ``creditor'' as 
defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act is within the scope of 
Regulation S-ID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SBS Entities are subject to additional Commission rules to have 
risk management policies and procedures, to review policies and 
procedures, to report information about compliance to the Commission, 
and to disclose certain risks to their counterparties. For example, 
paragraph (h) of Rule 15Fh-3 requires, among other things, that an SBSD 
or MSBSP establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and 
procedures regarding the supervision of the types of security-based 
swap business in which it is engaged and the activities of its 
associated persons that are reasonably designed to prevent violations 
of applicable federal securities laws and the rules and regulations 
thereunder.\676\ The policies and procedures must include, among other 
things: (1) procedures for a periodic review, at least annually, of the 
security-based swap business in which the SBS Entity engages and (2) 
procedures reasonably designed to comply with duties set forth in 
section 15F(j) of the Exchange Act, such as risk management duties set 
forth in section 15F(j)(2).\677\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \676\ See 17 CFR 240.15Fh-3(h). An SBS Entity must amend its 
written supervisory procedures, as appropriate, when material 
changes occur in its business or supervisory system. Material 
amendments to the SBS Entity's supervisory procedures must be 
communicated to all associated persons to whom such amendments are 
relevant based on their activities and responsibilities. See 17 CFR 
240.15Fh-3(h)(4).
    \677\ See 17 CFR 240.15Fh-3(h)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) of Rule 15Fk-1 requires each SBS Entity's CCO to, 
among other things, report directly to the board of directors or to the 
senior officer of the SBS Entity and to take reasonable steps to ensure 
that the SBS Entity establishes, maintains, and reviews written 
policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with 
the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder relating to 
its business as an SBS Entity by: (1) reviewing its compliance with 
respect to the requirements described in section 15F of the Act and the 
rules and regulations thereunder, where the review involves preparing 
the an annual assessment of its written policies and procedures 
reasonably designed to achieve compliance with section 15F of

[[Page 20289]]

the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder; (2) taking reasonable 
steps to ensure that the SBS Entity establishes, maintains, and reviews 
policies and procedures reasonably designed to remediate non-compliance 
issues identified by the chief compliance officer through any means; 
and (3) taking reasonable steps to ensure that the SBS Entity 
establishes and follows procedures reasonably designed for the 
handling, management response, remediation, retesting, and resolution 
of non-compliance issues.\678\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \678\ See 17 CFR 240.15Fk-1(b)(2). The CCO also must administer 
each policy and procedure that is required to be established 
pursuant to section 15F of the Exchange Act and the rules and 
regulations thereunder. See 17 CFR 240.15Fk-1(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c) of Rule 15Fk-1 requires an SBS Entity to submit an 
annual compliance report containing, among other things, a description 
of: (1) its assessment of the effectiveness of its policies and 
procedures relating to its business as an SBS Entity; (2) any material 
changes to the SBS Entity's policies and procedures since the date of 
the preceding compliance report; (3) any areas for improvement, and 
recommended potential or prospective changes or improvements to its 
compliance program and resources devoted to compliance; (4) any 
material non-compliance matters identified; and (5) the financial, 
managerial, operational, and staffing resources set aside for 
compliance with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations 
thereunder relating to its business as a SBSD or MSBSP, including any 
material deficiencies in such resources.\679\ The compliance report 
must be submitted to the Commission within 30 days following the 
deadline for filing the SBS Entity's annual financial report.\680\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \679\ See 17 CFR 240.15Fk-1(c)(2).
    \680\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SBS Entities' operations also are governed, in part, by paragraph 
(b) of Rule 15Fh-3 in that they must, at a reasonably sufficient time 
prior to entering into a security-based swap, disclose to a 
counterparty (other than a SBSD, MSBSP, swap dealer, or major swap 
participant) material information concerning the security-based swap in 
a manner reasonably designed to allow the counterparty to assess 
material risks and characteristics as well as material incentives or 
conflicts of interest.\681\ Relevant risks may include market, credit, 
liquidity, foreign currency, legal, operational, and any other 
applicable risks.\682\ Further, SBSDs must establish, maintain, and 
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to obtain 
and retain a record of the essential facts concerning each counterparty 
whose identity is known to the SBSD that are necessary for conducting 
business with such counterparty.\683\ Among other things, the essential 
facts regarding the counterparty are facts required to implement the 
SBSD's operational risk management policies in connection with 
transactions entered into with such counterparty.\684\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \681\ See 17 CFR 240.15Fh-3(b).
    \682\ See 17 CFR 240.15Fh-3(b)(1).
    \683\ See 17 CFR 240.15Fh-3(e).
    \684\ See 17 CFR 240.15Fh-3(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. SBSDRs
    Section 13(n) of the Exchange Act specifies the requirements and 
core principles with which SBSDRs are required to comply. The 
Commission adopted rules that cover the receiving and maintenance of 
security-based swap data, how entities can access such information, and 
the maintaining the continued privacy of confidential information. 
Security-based swap data repositories must have written policies and 
procedures reasonably designed to review any prohibition or limitation 
of any person with respect to access to services offered, directly or 
indirectly, or data maintained by the SBSDR.\685\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \685\ 17 CFR 240.13n-4(c)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SBSDRs must enforce written policies and procedures reasonably 
designed to protect the privacy of security-based swap transaction 
information.\686\ As a result, they must establish and maintain 
safeguards, policies, and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the 
misappropriation or misuse, directly or indirectly, of confidential 
information, including, but not limited to, trade data; position data; 
and any nonpublic personal information about a market participant or 
any of its customers, material, nonpublic information, and/or 
intellectual property, such as trading strategies or portfolio 
positions, by the SBSDR or any person associated with the SBSDR for 
personal benefit or for the benefit of others. Such safeguards, 
policies, and procedures must address, without limitation: (1) limiting 
access to such confidential information, material, nonpublic 
information, and intellectual property; (2) standards pertaining to 
trading by persons associated with the SBSDR for their personal benefit 
or for the benefit of others; and (3) adequate oversight to ensure 
compliance with these safeguards. These rules cover potential 
unauthorized access from within or outside of the SBSDR, which could 
include a cybersecurity breach.\687\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \686\ 17 CFR 240.13n-9(b)(1).
    \687\ 17 CFR 240.13n-9(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, a SBSDR must furnish to a market participant, prior 
to accepting its securities-based swap data, a disclosure document that 
contains information from which the market participant can identify and 
evaluate accurately the risks and costs associated with using the 
services of the SBSDR.\688\ Key points include, among other things, the 
criteria for providing others with access to services offered and data 
maintained by the SBSDR; criteria for those seeking to connect to or 
link with the SBSDR; policies and procedures regarding the SBDR's 
safeguarding of data and operational reliability, as described in Rule 
13n-6; policies and procedures reasonably designed to protect the 
privacy of any and all security-based swap transaction information that 
the SBSDR receives from a SBSD, counterparty, or any registered entity, 
as described in Rule 13n-9(b)(1); policies and procedures regarding its 
non-commercial and/or commercial use of the security-based swap 
transaction information that it receives from a market participant, any 
registered entity, or any other person; dispute resolution procedures 
involving market participants, as described in Rule 13n-5(b)(6); and 
governance arrangements of the swap-based security data 
repository.\689\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \688\ See 17 CFR 240.13n-10.
    \689\ See 17 CFR 240.13n-10(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Transfer Agents
    Transfer agents registered with the Commission (but not transfer 
agents registered with another appropriate regulatory agency) are 
subject to the Regulation S-P Disposal Rule.\690\ Transfer agents also 
may be subject to Regulation S-ID if they are ``financial 
institutions'' or ``creditors.'' \691\ As discussed earlier, the 
Regulation S-P Disposal Rule and Regulation S-ID have provisions 
requiring policies and procedures to address certain types of 
cybersecurity risks.\692\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \690\ See 17 CFR 248.30(b)(2).
    \691\ See 17 CFR 248.201 and 202. The scope of Regulation S-ID 
includes any financial institution or creditor, as defined in the 
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681) that is required to be 
``registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.'' See 17 CFR 
248.201(a).
    \692\ See section II.F.1.c. of this release (discussing in more 
detail the existing requirements of the Regulation S-P Disposal Rule 
and Regulation S-ID to have policies and procedures to address 
certain cybersecurity risks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-12 requires transfer agents to ensure that all securities 
are held in safekeeping and are handled, in light of all facts and 
circumstances, in a manner that is reasonably free from risk of theft, 
loss, or destruction. In addition, the transfer agent must ensure that 
funds

[[Page 20290]]

are protected, in light of all facts and circumstances, against misuse. 
In evaluating which particular safeguards and procedures must be 
employed, the cost of the various safeguards and procedures as well as 
the nature and degree of potential financial exposure are two relevant 
factors.\693\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \693\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-12(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transfer agents are subject indirectly to state corporation law 
when acting as agents of corporate issuers, and they are directly 
subject to state commercial law, principal-agent law, and other laws, 
many of which are focused on corporate governance and the rights and 
obligations of issuers and securityholders.\694\ The transfer of 
investment securities is primarily governed by UCC Article 8, which has 
been adopted by the legislatures of all 50 states,\695\ the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Transfer agents may also 
be subject to the laws of the states of incorporation for both issuers 
and their securityholders that apply to specific services provided by 
the transfer agent, such as data privacy.\696\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \694\ See, e.g., Del. Code Ann. tit. 8 (Delaware General 
Corporation Law), Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, art. 8 (Investment 
Securities), Restatement (Third) of Agency (2006).
    \695\ Louisiana has enacted the provisions of Article 8 into the 
body of its law, among others, but has not adopted the UCC as a 
whole.
    \696\ For example, California's privacy statute which became 
effective in 2003, was the first significant effort by a state to 
assert substantive regulation of privacy of customer data. See Cal. 
Civ. Code Sec. Sec.  [thinsp]1798.80-1798.84. While state 
regulations vary across jurisdictions, other states have followed 
suit with similar regulatory initiatives. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. 
Sec.  [thinsp]325E.61, Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. Sec.  [thinsp]87-801-
807.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Market Entities Subject to CFTC Regulations
    Certain types of Market Entities are dually registered with the 
Commission and the CFTC. For example, some clearing agencies are 
registered with the CFTC as derivative clearing organizations 
(``DCOs'') and some SBSDRs are registered with the CFTC as swap data 
repositories (``SDRs''). In addition, some broker-dealers are 
registered with the CFTC as futures commission merchants (``FCMs'') or 
swap dealers. Most currently registered SBSDs are also registered with 
the CFTC as swap dealers. As CFTC registrants, these Market Entities 
are subject to requirements that pertain to cybersecurity or are 
otherwise relevant to the proposals in this release.
i. Requirements for DCOs
    DCOs are subject to a CFTC systems safeguards rule.\697\ This rule 
requires them--among other things--to establish and maintain: (1) a 
program of risk analysis and oversight with respect to their operations 
and automated systems to identify and minimize sources of operational 
risk; and (2) a business continuity and disaster recovery plan, 
emergency procedures, and physical, technological, and personnel 
resources sufficient to enable the timely recovery and resumption of 
operations and the fulfillment of each obligation and responsibility of 
the DCO, including, but not limited to, the daily processing, clearing, 
and settlement of transactions, following any disruption of its 
operations.\698\ The safeguards rule also requires vulnerability and 
penetration testing (among other things).\699\ Further, it requires 
notice to the CFTC staff if the DCO experiences certain exceptional 
events.\700\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \697\ See 17 CFR 39.18.
    \698\ See 17 CFR 39.18(b) and (c). The program of risk analysis 
and oversight must include--among other elements--information 
security, including, but not limited to, controls relating to: 
access to systems and data (including, least privilege, separation 
of duties, account monitoring and control); user and device 
identification and authentication; security awareness training; 
audit log maintenance, monitoring, and analysis; media protection; 
personnel security and screening; automated system and 
communications protection (including, network port control, boundary 
defenses, encryption); system and information integrity (including, 
malware defenses, software integrity monitoring); vulnerability 
management; penetration testing; security incident response and 
management; and any other elements of information security included 
in generally accepted best practices. See 17 CFR 39.18(b)(2)(i).
    \699\ See 17 CFR 39.18(e).
    \700\ See 17 CFR 39.18(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Requirements for SDRs
    SDRs are subject to a CFTC systems safeguards rule.\701\ This rule 
requires them--among other things--to: (1) establish and maintain a 
program of risk analysis and oversight to identify and minimize sources 
of operational risk through the development of appropriate controls and 
procedures and the development of automated systems that are reliable, 
secure, and have adequate scalable capacity; (2) establish and maintain 
emergency procedures, backup facilities, and a business continuity-
disaster recovery plan that allow for the timely recovery and 
resumption of operations and the fulfillment of their duties and 
obligations as an SDR; and (3) periodically conduct tests to verify 
that backup resources are sufficient to ensure continued fulfillment of 
all their duties under the Commodity Exchange Act and the CFTC's 
regulations.\702\ The program of risk analysis and oversight required 
by the SDR safeguards rule--among other things--must address: (1) 
information security; and (2) business continuity-disaster recovery 
planning and resources.\703\ The safeguards rule also requires the SDR 
to notify the CFTC promptly of--among other events--all cyber security 
incidents or targeted threats that actually or potentially jeopardize 
automated systems operation, reliability, security, or capacity.\704\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \701\ See 17 CFR 49.24.
    \702\ See 17 CFR 49.24(a).
    \703\ See 17 CFR 49.24(b)(2) and (3). For the purposes of the 
SDR safeguards rule, information security includes, but is not 
limited to, controls relating to: access to systems and data 
(including least privilege, separation of duties, account monitoring 
and control); user and device identification and authentication; 
security awareness training; audit log maintenance, monitoring, and 
analysis; media protection; personnel security and screening; 
automated system and communications protection (including network 
port control, boundary defenses, encryption); system and information 
integrity (including malware defenses, software integrity 
monitoring); vulnerability management; penetration testing; security 
incident response and management; and any other elements of 
information security included in generally accepted best practices. 
See 17 CFR 49.24(b)(2).
    \704\ See 17 CFR 49.24(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Requirements for FCMs and Swap Dealers
    The CFTC does not have a cybersecurity regime for FCMs and swap 
dealers comparable to that being proposed in this release.\705\ 
However, FCMs and swap dealers are currently subject to information 
security requirements by virtue of their membership with the National 
Futures Association (NFA).\706\ Specifically, NFA

[[Page 20291]]

examines swap dealers and FCMs for compliance with NFA Interpretive 
Notice 9070, which establishes general requirements for NFA members 
relating to their information systems security programs (ISSPs).\707\ 
The notice requires members to adopt and enforce a written ISSP 
reasonably designed to provide safeguards to protect against security 
threats or hazards to their technology systems. The safeguards must be 
appropriate to the member's size, complexity of operations, type of 
customers and counterparties, the sensitivity of the data accessible 
within its systems, and its electronic interconnectivity with other 
entities. The notice further provides guidance on how to meet this 
requirement, including that members should document and describe the 
safeguards in the ISSP, identify significant internal and external 
threats and vulnerabilities, create an incident response plan, and 
monitor and regularly review their ISSPs for effectiveness, among other 
things. Members should also have procedures to promptly notify NFA in 
the form and manner required of a cybersecurity incident related to the 
member's commodity interest business and that results in: (1) any loss 
of customer or counterparty funds; (2) any loss of a member's own 
capital; or (3) in the member providing notice to customers or 
counterparties under state or federal law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \705\ Current CFTC requirements relating to information security 
for FCMs and swap dealers are more general in nature or limited in 
application. See, e.g., 17 CFR 23.600(c)(4)(vi) (providing that swap 
dealer's risk management program policies and procedures shall take 
into account, among other things, secure and reliable operating and 
information systems with adequate, scalable capacity, and 
independence from the business trading unit; safeguards to detect, 
identify, and promptly correct deficiencies in operating and 
information systems; and reconciliation of all data and information 
in operating and information systems); 162.21, 160.30 (requiring 
FCMs and swap dealers to adopt written policies and procedures 
addressing administrative, technical, and physical safeguards with 
respect to the information of consumers). The current CFTC Chairman 
has, however, announced support for developing cybersecurity 
requirements for FCMs and swap dealers. See CFTC, Address of 
Chairman Rostin Behnam at the ABA Business Law Section Derivatives & 
Futures Law Committee Winter Meeting (Feb. 3, 2023), available at 
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opabehnam31.
    \706\ See NFA, Interpretive Notice 9070--NFA Compliance Rules 2-
9, 2-36 and 2-49: Information Systems Security Programs (Sept. 30, 
2019), available at https://www.nfa.futures.org/rulebooksql/rules.aspx?RuleID=9070&Section=9. NFA has also issued guidance 
relating to the oversight of third-party service providers. See NFA, 
Interpretive Notice 9079--NFA Compliance Rules 2-9 and 2-36: 
Members' Use of Third-Party Service Providers (Sept. 30, 2021), 
available at https://www.nfa.futures.org/rulebooksql/rules.aspx?Section=9&RuleID=9079.
    \707\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFTC does require swap dealers to establish and maintain a 
business continuity and disaster recovery plan that outlines the 
procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency or other 
disruption of their normal business activities.\708\ The business 
continuity and disaster recovery plan must be designed to enable the 
swap dealer to continue or to resume any operations by the next 
business day with minimal disturbance to its counterparties and the 
market, and to recover all documentation and data required to be 
maintained by applicable law and regulation.\709\ The business 
continuity and disaster recovery plan must--among other requirements--
be tested annually by qualified, independent internal personnel or a 
qualified third party service.\710\ The date the testing was performed 
must be documented, together with the nature and scope of the testing, 
any deficiencies found, any corrective action taken, and the date that 
corrective action was taken.\711\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \708\ See 17 CFR 23.603. The business continuity and disaster 
recovery plan must include: (1) the identification of the documents, 
data, facilities, infrastructure, personnel and competencies 
essential to the continued operations of the swap dealer and to 
fulfill its obligations; (2) the identification of the supervisory 
personnel responsible for implementing each aspect of the business 
continuity and disaster recovery plan and the emergency contacts 
required to be provided; (3) a plan to communicate with specific 
persons the in the event of an emergency or other disruption, to the 
extent applicable to the operations of the swap dealer; (4) 
procedures for, and the maintenance of, back-up facilities, systems, 
infrastructure, alternative staffing and other resources to achieve 
the timely recovery of data and documentation and to resume 
operations as soon as reasonably possible and generally within the 
next business day; (5) maintenance of back-up facilities, systems, 
infrastructure and alternative staffing arrangements in one or more 
areas that are geographically separate from the swap dealer's 
primary facilities, systems, infrastructure and personnel (which may 
include contractual arrangements for the use of facilities, systems 
and infrastructure provided by third parties); (6) back-up or 
copying, with sufficient frequency, of documents and data essential 
to the operations of the swap dealer or to fulfill the regulatory 
obligations of the swap dealer and storing the information off-site 
in either hard-copy or electronic format; and (7) the identification 
of potential business interruptions encountered by third parties 
that are necessary to the continued operations of the swap dealer 
and a plan to minimize the impact of such disruptions. See 17 CFR 
23.603(b).
    \709\ See 17 CFR 23.603(a).
    \710\ See 17 CFR 23.603(g).
    \711\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Market Entities Subject to Federal Banking Regulations
    Broker-dealers affiliated with a banking organization \712\ and 
some SBS Entities and transfer agents that are banking organizations 
are subject to the requirements of prudential regulators such as the 
FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and the OCC. These prudential regulators 
have rules requiring banking organizations to notify them no later than 
36 hours after learning of a ``computer-security incident,'' which is 
defined ``as an occurrence that results in actual harm to the 
confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system or 
the information that the system processes, stores, or transmits.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \712\ In the simplification of the Volcker Rule, effective Jan. 
21, 2020, Commission staff estimated that there were 202 broker-
dealers that were affiliated with banking organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule also requires a bank service provider to notify at least 
one bank-designated point of contact at each affected customer bank as 
soon as possible when it determines it has experienced a computer-
security incident that has materially disrupted or degraded, or is 
reasonably likely to disrupt or degrade, covered services provided to 
the bank for four or more hours. If the bank has not previously 
provided a designated point of contact, the notification must be made 
to the bank's chief executive officer (``CEO'') and CIO or to two 
individuals of comparable responsibilities.'' \713\ Prudential 
regulators have also published guidance for banking organizations 
relating to cybersecurity.\714\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \713\ See 12 CFR 53.1 through 53.4 (OCC); 12 CFR 225.300 through 
225.303 (Federal Reserve Board); 12 CFR 304.21 through 24 (FDIC).
    \714\ See, e.g., SR 21-14: Authentication and Access to 
Financial Institution Services and Systems (Aug. 11, 2021), 
available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr2114.htm; SR 15-9: FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool 
for Chief Executive Officers and Boards of Directors (July 2, 2015), 
available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr1509.htm; SR 05-23/CA 05-10: Interagency Guidance on 
Response Programs for Unauthorized Access to Customer Information 
and Customer Notice (Dec. 1, 2005), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/srletters/2005/SR0523.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Information Sharing
    Information sharing is an important part of cybersecurity. Alerts 
that are issued by the Commission or by the securities industry make 
Market Entities aware of trends in cybersecurity incidents and 
potential threats. This advanced warning can help Market Entities to 
prepare for future cybersecurity attacks by testing and upgrading their 
cybersecurity infrastructure.
    The value of such information sharing has long been recognized. In 
1998, Presidential Decision Directive 63 established industry-based 
information sharing and analysis centers (``ISACs'') to promote the 
disclosure and sharing of cybersecurity information among firms.\715\ 
The FS-ISAC provides financial firms with such a forum.\716\ However, 
observers have questioned the efficacy of these information-sharing 
partnerships.\717\ Although the Commission does not have data on the 
extent of Market Entities' use of such forums or their efficacy, 
surveys of securities firms conducted by FINRA suggest that there is 
considerable variation in firms' willingness to share

[[Page 20292]]

information about cybersecurity threats on a voluntary basis, with 
larger firms being more likely to do so.\718\ Similarly, a recent 
survey of financial firms found that while recognition of the value of 
information-sharing arrangements is widespread, the majority of firms 
report hesitance to participate due to regulatory restrictions or 
privacy concerns.\719\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \715\ See President Decision Directive/NSC-63, Critical 
Infrastructure Protection (May 22, 1998); Presidential Decision 
Directive 63, Critical Infrastructure Protection: Sector 
Coordinators, 98 FR 41804 (Aug. 5, 1998) (notice and request for 
expressions of interest); see also National Council of ISACs, 
available at https://www.nationalisacs.org.
    \716\ Information about FS-ISAC is available at https://www.fsisac.com.
    \717\ See James A. Lewis and Denise E. Zheng, Cyber Threat 
Information Sharing, 2015 Cre. for Strategic and Int'l Stud. 62 
(Mar. 2015) (stating that the ``benefits of information sharing, 
when done correctly, are numerous'' but that [p]rogrammatic, 
technical, and legal challenges, as well as lack of buy-in from the 
stakeholder community, are the key impediments'' to effective 
information-sharing partnerships).
    \718\ See FINRA Report on Cybersecurity Practices. Survey 
respondents included large investment banks, clearing firms, online 
brokerages, high-frequency traders, and independent dealers.
    \719\ See Julie Bernard, Mark Nicholson, and Deborah Golden, 
Reshaping the Cybersecurity Landscape, Deloitte (Jul. 24, 2020), 
available at https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/financial-services/cybersecurity-maturity-financial-institutions-cyber-risk.html (``Reshaping the Cybersecurity Landscape''). Survey 
respondents consisted of CISOs (or equivalent) of 53 members of the 
FS-ISAC. Of the respondents, 24 reported being in the retail/
corporate banking sector, 20 reported being in the consumer/
financial services (non-banking) sector, and 17 reported being in 
the insurance sector. Other respondents included IT service 
providers, financial utilities, trade associations, and credit 
unions. Some respondents reported being in multiple sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market surveillance and regulatory activities--such as enforcement 
by SROs--can result in information sharing with--and referrals to--the 
Commission and other federal agencies, particularly if the issues being 
investigated are cybersecurity related.
f. Adequacy of Current Cybersecurity Policies and Procedures
    While spending on cybersecurity measures in the financial services 
industry is considerable, and the growing risk of cybersecurity events 
has led many corporate executives to significantly increase their 
cybersecurity budget,\720\ the budget levels themselves are not the 
most important facet of a cybersecurity program.\721\ In a recent 
survey of 20 consumer/financial (non-banking) services firms, 
respondents ranked cybersecurity budget levels lower than other facets 
of cybersecurity maintenance.\722\ For example, financial companies' 
boards and management teams indicated that overall cybersecurity 
strategy, the identification threats and cybersecurity risks, the 
firm's susceptibility to breaches when other financial institutions are 
successfully attacked, and the results of cybersecurity testing all 
ranked higher than security budgets themselves.\723\ Surveys of 
financial services firms indicate that 10.5% of their information 
technology budgets are spent on cybersecurity, and the per-employee 
expenditure is approximately $2,348 annually as of 2020.\724\ This per-
employee value can be used to estimate the cybersecurity expenditures 
at each of the Market Entities that would be affected by the proposed 
rule.\725\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \720\ For example, according to one source, as of 2020, ``55% of 
enterprise executives [were planning] to increase their 
cybersecurity budgets in 2021 and 51% are adding full-time cyber 
staff in 2021.'' Louis Columbus, The Best Cybersecurity Predictions 
for 2021 Roundup, Forbes.com (Dec. 15, 2020), available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2020/12/15/the-best-cybersecurity-predictions-for-2021-roundup/?sh=6d6db8b65e8c.
    \721\ See Reshaping the Cybersecurity Landscape.
    \722\ Id.
    \723\ Id.
    \724\ Id.
    \725\ The per-employee expenditure can be multiplied by the 
Market Entity's employee head count on a full-time equivalent basis 
to estimate its spending on cybersecurity protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Market Structure
a. Broker-Dealers
    The operations and functions of broker-dealers are discussed 
earlier in this release.\726\ The following broker-dealers would be 
Covered Entities: (1) broker-dealers that maintain custody of 
securities and cash for customers or other broker-dealers (i.e., 
carrying broker-dealers); (2) broker-dealers that introduce their 
customer accounts to a carrying broker-dealer on a fully disclosed 
basis (i.e., introducing broker-dealers); (3) broker-dealers with 
regulatory capital equal to or exceeding $50 million; (4) broker-
dealers with total assets equal to or exceeding $1 billion; (5) broker-
dealers that operate as market makers; and (6) broker-dealers that 
operate an ATS.\727\ Broker-dealers that do not fall into one of those 
six categories would not be Covered Entities (i.e., they would be Non-
Covered Broker-Dealers). As discussed above, broker-dealers that are 
Covered Entities would be subject to additional policies and 
procedures, reporting, and disclosure requirements under proposed Rule 
10.\728\ These additional requirements would not apply to broker-
dealers that are not Covered Entities.\729\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \726\ See section I.A.2.b. of this release.
    \727\ See paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) through (F) of proposed Rule 
10.
    \728\ See paragraph (b) through (d) of proposed Rule 10 (setting 
forth the requirements for Market Entities that meet the definition 
of ``covered entity'').
    \729\ See paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10 (setting forth the 
requirements for Market Entities that do not meet the definition of 
``covered entity'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 presents a breakdown of all broker-dealers registered with 
the Commission as of the third quarter of 2022. Based on 2022 FOCUS 
Part II/IIA data, there were 3,510 registered broker-dealers with 
average total assets of $1.5 billion and average regulatory capital of 
$144 million. Of those broker-dealers, 1,541 would be classified as 
Covered Entities with average total assets of $3.5 billion and average 
regulatory capital of $325 million. Meanwhile, the 1,969 brokers that 
would be classified as Non-Covered Broker-Dealers were generally much 
smaller than broker-dealers that would be classified as Covered 
Entities, having an average total asset level of $4.7 million and 
regulatory capital of $3 million. In other words, Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers accounted for only about 0.2 percent of total asset value and 
only 0.1 percent of total regulatory capital in the third quarter of 
2022.
    The majority of small broker-dealers, as defined by Rule 0-10 \730\ 
were classified as Non-Covered Broker-Dealers (74%) compared to a 
minority of small broker-dealers that were classified as Covered 
Entities (26%), which means that most small broker-dealers would be 
subject to the less stringent regulatory requirements under the 
proposed Rule 10 for Non-Covered Broker-Dealers. The small broker-
dealers that qualified as Covered Entities and would be subject to 
additional requirements of proposed Rule 10 generally were broker-
dealers that introduce their customer accounts to carrying broker-
dealers on a fully disclosed basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \730\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10 (``Rule 0-10'') for definition of 
small entities including small broker-dealers under the Exchange Act 
for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''). This 
definition is for the economic analysis only. See also section VI of 
this release (setting forth the Commission's RFA analysis).

                        Table 1--Broker-Dealers as Covered Entities as of September 2022
                           [Average broker-dealer total assets and regulatory equity]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Average
                                   Total number      Number of       Number of     Average total    regulatory
    Categories of covered BDs         of BDs         small BDs      retail BDs        assets          equity
                                                     included                       (millions)      (millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrying........................             162               0             145       $28,250.9        $2,528.7
Introducing.....................            1219             195            1106           103.0            44.3
Market making...................              19               0               1           179.2            17.4

[[Page 20293]]

 
ATS.............................              36               0              21             4.1             3.1
>$50 Million Regulatory Equity               105               0              44         6,891.6           351.5
 and/or >$1 billion total assets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Covered.........................            1541             195            1317         3,523.3           325.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Covered.....................            1969             569            1115             4.7             3.0
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................            3510             764            2432         1,549.9           144.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Covered Broker-Dealers provide a broad spectrum of services to 
their clients, including, for example: trade execution, clearing, 
market making, margin and securities lending, sale of investment 
company shares, research services, underwriting and selling, retail 
sales of corporate securities, private placements, and government and 
Series K securities sales and trading. In contrast, Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers tend to offer a more focused and limited set of services.
    In terms of specific services offered, as presented in Table 2 
below, while the majority of broker-dealers that are Covered Entities 
have lines of business devoted to broker and dealer services across a 
broad spectrum of financial instruments, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers as 
a whole focus on private placements. In addition, a significant 
minority of Non-Covered Broker-Dealers also engages in mutual fund 
sales and underwriting, variable contract sales, corporate securities 
underwriting, and direct investment offerings.

   Table 2--Lines of Business at Broker-Dealers as of September 2022 *
  [Percent of covered entity and non-covered broker-dealers engaged in
                         each line of business]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Percent of    Percent of non-
                                          covered broker- covered broker-
            Line of business                  dealers         dealers
                                             (percent)       (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retailing Corporate Equity Securities               76.4             8.1
 Over The Counter.......................
Corporate Debt Securities...............            69.6             7.9
Mutual Funds............................            62.2            19.5
Private Placements......................            58.1            72.1
Options.................................            58.1             3.7
US Government Securities Broker.........            56.2             3.9
Municipal Debt/Bonds--Broker............            53.1             6.4
Other Securities Business...............            52.0            65.1
Underwriter--Corporate Securities.......            45.0            11.5
Trading Via Floor Broker................            43.4             5.7
Variable Contracts......................            42.4            16.3
Proprietary Trading.....................            40.4             3.8
Investment Advisory Services............            25.8             4.6
Municipal Debt/Bonds--Dealer............            25.4             1.5
Direct investments--Primary.............            21.2            13.2
US Government Securities Dealer.........            20.7             0.9
Other Non-Securities Business...........            18.1            11.2
Time Deposits...........................            16.5             1.2
Commodities.............................            12.5             1.1
Market Making...........................            12.3             0.6
Mortgage or Asset Backed Securities.....            11.9             1.3
Bank Networking/Kiosk Relationship......            11.0             0.4
Internet/Online Trading Accounts........            10.8             0.5
Exchange Non-Floor Activities...........            10.6             0.9
Direct investments--Secondary...........             8.2             2.0
Oil and Gas Interests...................             7.9             3.1
Underwriter--Mutual Funds...............             6.4             7.8
Exchange Floor Activities...............             5.9             1.2
Executing Broker........................             5.5             0.6
Day Trading Accounts....................             4.8             0.3
Insurance Networking/Kiosk Relationship.             4.7             0.6
Non Profit Securities...................             4.2             0.4
Real Estate Syndication.................             2.8             2.8
Prime Broker............................             1.6             0.0
Issuer Affiliated Broker................             1.2             1.1
Clearing Broker in a Prime Broker                    1.2             0.0
 Arrangement............................
Crowdfunding FINRA Rule 4518 (a)........             0.7             1.1
Funding Portal..........................             0.2             0.3
Crowdfunding FINRA Rule 4518 (b)........             0.1             0.3

[[Page 20294]]

 
Capital Acquisition Broker..............             0.1             1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This information is derived from Form BD, Question 12.

    As of November 2022, there were 33 NMS Stock ATSs with an effective 
Form ATS-N on file with the Commission \731\ and 68 non-NMS Stock ATSs 
with a Form ATS on file with the Commission.\732\ Most broker-dealer 
ATS operators operate a single ATS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \731\ See Form ATS-N Filings and Information, available at 
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/form-ats-n-filings.htm.
    \732\ See the current list of registered ATSs on the 
Commission's website, available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Clearing Agencies
    The operations and functions of clearing agencies are discussed 
earlier in this release.\733\ A clearing agency (whether registered 
with the Commission or exempt) would be considered a Covered Entity 
under proposed Rule 10.\734\ There are a total of 16 clearing agencies 
that would meet the definition of a Covered Entity under proposed Rule 
10. There are seven registered and active clearing agencies: DTC, FICC, 
NSCC, ICC, ICEEU, the Options Clearing Corp., and LCH SA. Two clearing 
agencies are registered with the Commission but are inactive and 
currently do not provide clearing and settlement activities. Those 
clearing agencies are the BSECC and SCCP.\735\ In addition, there are 
five clearing agencies that are exempt from registering with the 
Commission. Those exempt clearing agencies are DTCC ITP Matching U.S. 
LLC, Bloomberg STP LLC, and SS&C Technologies, Inc., which provide 
matching services; and Clearstream Banking, S.A. and Euroclear Bank SA/
NV, which provide clearing agency services with respect to transactions 
involving U.S. government and agency securities for U.S. 
participants.\736\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \733\ See section I.A.2.c. of this release.
    \734\ See paragraph (a)(1)(iii). of proposed Rule 10.
    \735\ BSECC and SCCP have not provided clearing services in over 
a decade. See BSECC Notice (stating that BSECC ``returned all 
clearing funds to its members by September 30, 2010, and [ ] no 
longer maintains clearing members or has any other clearing 
operations as of that date . . . . BSECC [ ] maintain[s] its 
registration as a clearing agency with the Commission for possible 
active operations in the future''); SCCP Notice (noting that SCCP 
``returned all clearing fund deposits by September 30, 2009; [and] 
as of that date SCCP no longer maintains clearing members or has any 
other clearing operations . . . . SCCP [] maintain[s] its 
registration as a clearing agency for possible active operations in 
the future.''). BSECC and SCCP are included in the economic baseline 
and must be considered in the benefits and costs analysis due to 
their registration with the Commission. They also are included in 
the PRA for purposes of the PRA estimate. See section V of this 
release (setting forth the Commission's PRA analysis).
    \736\ In addition to the 14 clearing agencies discussed above, 
the Commission's expects that two entities may apply to register or 
to seek an exemption from registration as a clearing agency in the 
next three years. As a result, they were included in the PRA in 
section V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the seven operating registered clearing agencies, six provide 
CCP clearing services and one provides CSD services. In addition, NSCC, 
FICC, and DTC are all registered clearing agencies that are 
subsidiaries of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation. 
Together, this subset of registered clearing agencies offer clearing 
and settlement services for equities, corporate, and municipal bonds, 
government and mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, money market 
instruments, syndicated loans, mutual funds, and alternative investment 
products in the United States. ICC and ICEEU are both registered 
clearing agencies for credit default swaps (``CDS'') and are both 
subsidiaries of ICE. LCH SA, a France-based subsidiary of LCH Group 
Holdings Ltd, is a registered clearing agency that also offers clearing 
for CDS. The seventh registered clearing agency, the Options Clearing 
Corp., offers clearing services for exchange-traded U.S. equity 
options.
c. The MSRB
    The operations and functions of the MSRB are discussed earlier in 
this release.\737\ The MSRB would be considered a Covered Entity under 
proposed Rule 10.\738\ As an SRO registered with the Commission, the 
MSRB protects municipal securities investors, municipal entities, 
obligated persons, and the public interest. While the MSRB used to only 
regulate the activities of broker-dealers and banks that buy, sell, and 
underwrite municipal securities, it regulates certain activities of 
municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \737\ See section I.A.2.d. of this release.
    \738\ See paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. National Securities Associations
    The operations and functions of national securities association are 
discussed earlier in this release.\739\ A national securities 
association would be considered a Covered Entity under proposed Rule 
10.\740\ FINRA currently is the only national securities association 
registered with the Commission and is a not-for-profit organization 
with 3,700 employees that oversees broker-dealers, including their 
branch offices, and registered representatives through examinations, 
enforcement, and surveillance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \739\ See section I.A.2.e. of this release.
    \740\ See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(v) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA, among other things, provides a forum for securities 
arbitration and mediation; conducts market regulation, including by 
contract for a majority of the national securities exchanges; regulates 
its broker-dealer members; administers testing and licensing of 
registered persons; collects and stores regulatory filings; \741\ and 
operates industry utilities such as Trade Reporting Facilities.\742\ 
Through the collection of regulatory filings submitted by broker-
dealers as well as stock options and fixed-income quote, order, and 
trade data, FINRA maintains certain confidential information--not only 
its own but of other SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \741\ Some of the filings collected include FOCUS reports; Form 
OBS; Form SSOI; Form Custody; firm clearing arrangements filings; 
Blue Sheets; customer margin balance reporting; short interest 
reporting; Form PF; Form 211; public offering and private placement 
related filings; FINRA Rules 4311 and 4530 reporting; subordination 
agreements; and Regulations M, T, and NMS.
    \742\ These include Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine 
(TRACE), OTC ATS and Non-ATS data, Over-the-Counter Reporting 
Facility (ORF), Trade Reporting Facility (TRF), Alternative Display 
Facility (ADF), and Order Audit Trail System (OATS) (phased out as 
of 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. National Securities Exchanges
    The operations and functions of the national securities exchanges 
are discussed earlier in this release.\743\ A national securities 
exchange would be considered a Covered Entity under proposed Rule 
10.\744\ There are 24

[[Page 20295]]

national securities exchanges \745\ currently registered with the 
Commission that would meet the definition of a Covered Entity under 
proposed Rule 10(a)(1): BOX Exchange LLC; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe 
BZX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; 
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Investors Exchange LLC; 
Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.; MEMX, LLC; Miami International 
Securities Exchange; MIAX Emerald, LLC; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Nasdaq BX, 
Inc.; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Nasdaq PHLX 
LLC; The Nasdaq Stock Market; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Arca, 
Inc.; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; NYSE American, LLC; and NYSE National, 
Inc.\746\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \743\ See section I.A.2.f. of this release.
    \744\ See paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of proposed Rule 10.
    \745\ Exempt securities exchanges governed by section 5 of the 
Act are not considered to be national securities exchanges.
    \746\ Two exchanges, The Island Futures Exchange, LLC, and NQLX 
LLC, were formerly registered with the Commission as national 
securities exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. SBS Entities and SBSDRs
    Operations and functions of SBS Entities and SBSDRs are discussed 
earlier in this release.\747\ An SBS Entity and an SBSDR would be 
considered a Covered Entity under proposed Rule 10.\748\ As of January 
4, 2023, there were 50 registered SBSDs that would meet the definition 
of a Covered Entity under proposed Rule 10(a)(1).\749\ There were no 
MSBSPs as of January 4, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \747\ See sections I.A.2.g. and I.A.2.h. of this release.
    \748\ See paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (vii), and (viii) of proposed 
Rule 10 (defining, respectively, MSBSPs, SBSDRs, and SBSDs as 
``covered entities'').
    \749\ See List of Registered Security-Based Swap Dealers and 
Major Security-Based Swap Participants (Jan. 4, 2023), available at 
https://www.sec.gov/tm/List-of-SBS-Dealers-and-Major-SBS-Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are three SBSDRs that would meet the definition of a Covered 
Entity under proposed Rule 10(a)(1). The Commission has two registered 
security-based swap data repositories (ICE Trade Vault, LLC and DTCC 
Data Repository (U.S.), LLC). GTR North America provides transaction 
reporting services for derivatives in the United States through the 
legal entity DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC. DTCC Data Repository 
(U.S.), LLC enables firms to meet their reporting obligations under the 
Dodd-Frank Act and accepts trade submissions directly from reporting 
firms as well as through third-party service providers.\750\ In 
addition to the two registered SBSDRs, the Commission expects that an 
additional entity may apply to be a registered SBSDR in the next three 
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \750\ See DTCC, GTR North America, available at https://www.dtcc.com/repository-and-derivatives-services/repository-services/gtr-north-america.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Transfer Agents
    The operations and functions of transfer agents are discussed 
earlier in this release.\751\ Transfer agents would be Covered Entities 
under proposed Rule 10.\752\ Transfer agents generally work for issuers 
of securities. Among other functions, they may: (1) track, record, and 
maintain on behalf of issuers the official record of ownership of each 
issuer's securities; (2) cancel old certificates, issue new ones, and 
perform other processing and recordkeeping functions that facilitate 
the issuance, cancellation, and transfer of securities; (3) facilitate 
communications between issuers and registered securityholders; and (4) 
make dividend, principal, interest, and other distributions to 
securityholders.\753\ Transfer agents are required to be registered 
with the Commission, or if the transfer agent is a bank, then with a 
bank regulatory agency. As of December 31, 2022, there were 353 
registered transfer agents.\754\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \751\ See section I.A.2.i. of this release.
    \752\ See paragraph (a)(1)(ix) of proposed Rule 10.
    \753\ See Transfer Agent Regulations, Exchange Act Release No. 
76743 (Dec. 22, 2015), 80 FR 81948, 81949 (Dec. 31, 2015).
    \754\ See Commission, Transfer Agent Data Sets (Dec. 31, 2022), 
available at https://www.sec.gov/dera/data/transfer-agent-data-sets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. Service Providers
    Many Market Entities utilize service providers to perform some or 
all of their cybersecurity functions. Market Entities that are large--
relative to other Market Entities--in terms of their total assets, 
number of clients or members, or daily transactions processed are 
likely to have significant information technology, their own 
information technology departments and dedicated staff such that some 
functions are performed in-house. Other services may be contracted out 
to service providers that cater to Market Entities. Smaller Market 
Entities that do not have large technology budgets may rely more 
heavily (or completely) on third parties for their cybersecurity needs. 
According to a voluntary survey, financial services firms spend 
approximately 0.3 percent of revenue or 10% of their information 
technology budgets on cybersecurity, highlighting the fact that 
identifying vulnerabilities and having cybersecurity policies and 
procedures in place are more important than the actual cybersecurity 
budget itself, particularly with respect to expensive hardware and 
software.\755\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \755\ See Reshaping the Cybersecurity Landscape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In performing their contracted duties, specialized service 
providers may receive, maintain, or process confidential information 
from Market Entities, or are otherwise permitted to access Market 
Entities' information systems and the information residing on those 
systems. Market Entities work with service providers that provide 
certain critical functions, such as process payment providers, 
regulatory services consultants, data providers, custodians, and 
valuation services. However, Market Entities also employ general 
service providers, such as email providers, relationship management 
systems, cloud applications, and other technology vendors.
    Regardless of their size, Market Entities typically enter into 
contracts with service providers to perform a specific function for a 
given time frame at a set price. At the conclusion of a contract, it 
may be renewed if both parties are satisfied. Because prices typically 
increase over time, there may be some need to negotiate a new fee for 
continued service. Negotiations also occur if additional services are 
requested from a given third-party provider. In the instance where 
additional services are required mid-contract, for example, due to 
increased regulatory requirements, the service provider may be able to 
bill for the extra work that it must incur separately to provide the 
additional service, particularly if that party is in a highly 
concentrated market for that service and can wield market power. This 
may be the case because that condition is specified in the contract 
with the Market Entity.
    Service providers that cater to the securities industry with 
specialized services are likely to have economies of scale that allow 
them to more easily handle requests from Market Entities for additional 
services.\756\ Some service providers, however, may not have the 
technical expertise to provide a requested additional service or may 
refuse to do so for other reasons. In this case, the Market Entity 
would need to find another service provider. The costs associated with 
service provider contracts, including those of renegotiating them or 
tacking on of supplemental fees, are passed on to the Market Entity's 
customers, counterparties, members, participants,

[[Page 20296]]

or users to the extent that the Market Entities are able to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \756\ See Bharath Aiyer et al., New Survey Reveals $2 Trillion 
Market Opportunity for Cybersecurity Technology and Service 
Providers (2022), available at https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/risk-and-resilience/our-insights/cybersecurity/new-survey-reveals-2-trillion-dollar-market-opportunity-for-cybersecurity-technology-and-service-providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Benefits and Costs of Proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and Rule 
Amendments

    In this section, the Commission considers the benefits and costs of 
the rule, form, and amendments being proposed in this release.\757\ As 
discussed earlier, proposed Rule 10 would require all Market Entities 
(Covered Entities and non-Covered Entities) to establish, maintain, and 
enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to 
address their cybersecurity risks.\758\ All Market Entities also, at 
least annually, would be required to review and assess the design and 
effectiveness of their cybersecurity policies and procedures, including 
whether the policies and procedures reflect changes in cybersecurity 
risk over the time period covered by the review.\759\ They also would 
be required to prepare a report (in the case of Covered Entities) or a 
record (in the case of non-Covered Entities) with respect to the annual 
review.\760\ Finally, all Market Entities would need to give the 
Commission immediate written electronic notice of a significant 
cybersecurity incident upon having a reasonable basis to conclude that 
the significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is 
occurring.\761\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \757\ Throughout the following, the Commission also considers 
benefits and costs related to potential effects on economic 
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. The Commission 
summarizes these effects in section IV.E. of this release.
    \758\ See paragraphs (b) through (d) of proposed Rule 10 
(setting forth the requirements for Market Entities that meet the 
definition of ``covered entity''); paragraph (e)(1) of proposed Rule 
10; see also sections II.B.1. and II.C. of this release (discussing 
these proposed requirements in more detail).
    \759\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph (e)(1) 
of proposed Rule 10; see also sections II.B.1.f. and II.C. of this 
release (discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
    \760\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph (e)(1) 
of proposed Rule 10; see also sections II.B.1.f. and II.C. of this 
release (discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
    \761\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph (e)(2) 
of proposed Rule 10; see also sections II.B.2.a. and II.C. of this 
release (discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market Entities that meet the definition of ``covered entity'' 
would be subject to certain additional requirements under proposed Rule 
10.\762\ First, their cybersecurity risk management policies and 
procedures would need to include the following elements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \762\ See paragraph (b) through (d) of proposed Rule 10 (setting 
forth the requirements for Market Entities that meet the definition 
of ``covered entity''); paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10 (setting 
forth the requirements for Market Entities that do not meet the 
definition of ``covered entity'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Periodic assessments of cybersecurity risks associated 
with the Covered Entity's information systems and written documentation 
of the risk assessments;
     Controls designed to minimize user-related risks and 
prevent unauthorized access to the Covered Entity's information 
systems;
     Measures designed to monitor the Covered Entity's 
information systems and protect the Covered Entity's information from 
unauthorized access or use, and oversight of service providers that 
receive, maintain, or process information, or are otherwise permitted 
to access the Covered Entity's information systems;
     Measures to detect, mitigate, and remediate any 
cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities with respect to the Covered 
Entity's information systems; and
     Measures to detect, respond to, and recover from a 
cybersecurity incident and written documentation of any cybersecurity 
incident and the response to and recovery from the incident.\763\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \763\ See sections II.B.1.a. through II.B.1.e. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail). In the case 
of non-Covered Entities, as discussed in more detail below in 
Section II.C. of this release, the design of the cybersecurity risk 
management policies and procedures would need to take into account 
the size, business, and operations of the broker-dealer. See 
paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Covered Entities would need to make certain records 
pursuant to the policies and procedures required under proposed Rule 
10. In particular, Covered Entities would be required to document in 
writing periodic assessments of cybersecurity risks associated with the 
Covered Entity's information systems and information residing on those 
systems.\764\ Additionally, Covered Entities would be required to 
document in writing any cybersecurity incident, including the Covered 
Entity's response to and recovery from the cybersecurity incident.\765\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \764\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of proposed Rule 10; see also 
section II.B.1.a. of this release (discussing this documentation 
requirement in more detail).
    \765\ See paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B) of proposed Rule 10; see also 
section II.B.1.e. of this release (discussing this documentation 
requirement in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Covered Entities--in addition to providing the Commission 
with immediate written electronic notice upon having a reasonable basis 
to conclude that the significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or 
is occurring--would need to report and update information about the 
significant cybersecurity incident by filing Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR with the Commission by filing it with the Commission through the 
EDGAR system.\766\ The form would elicit information about the 
significant cybersecurity incident and the Covered Entity's efforts to 
respond to, and recover from, the incident. Covered Entities would be 
required to file updated versions of proposed Form SCIR when material 
information becomes available or previously reported information is 
deemed inaccurate. Lastly, a final proposed Form SCIR would need to be 
submitted after a significant cybersecurity incident is resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \766\ See sections II.B.2. and II.B.4. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, Covered Entities would need to disclose publicly summary 
descriptions of their cybersecurity risks and the significant 
cybersecurity incidents they experienced during the current or previous 
calendar year on Part II of proposed Form SCIR.\767\ The form would 
need to be filed with the Commission through the EDGAR system and 
posted on the Covered Entity's public-facing business internet website 
and, in the case of Covered Entities that are carrying or introducing 
broker-dealers, provided to customers at account opening and annually 
thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \767\ See sections II.B.3. and II.B.4. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, and 18a-6--which apply to broker-dealers, 
transfer agents, and SBS Entities respectively--would be amended to 
establish preservation and maintenance requirements for the written 
policies and procedures, annual reports, Parts I and II of proposed 
Form SCIR, and records required to be made pursuant to proposed Rule 10 
(i.e., the Rule 10 Records).\768\ The proposed amendments would specify 
that the Rule 10 Records must be retained for three years. In the case 
of the written policies and procedures to address cybersecurity risks, 
the record would need to be maintained until three years after the 
termination of the use of the policies and procedures.\769\ In 
addition, orders exempting certain clearing agencies from registering 
with the Commission are proposed to be amended to establish 
preservation and maintenance

[[Page 20297]]

requirements for the Rule 10 Records that would apply to the exempt 
clearing agencies subject to those orders.\770\ The amendments would 
provide that the records need to be retained for five years (consistent 
with Rules 13n-7 and 17a-1).\771\ In the case of the written policies 
and procedures to address cybersecurity risks, the record would need to 
be maintained until three years after the termination of the use of the 
policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \768\ See sections II.B.5. and II.C. of this release (discussing 
these proposed amendments in more detail). Rule 17a-4 sets forth 
record preservation and maintenance requirements for broker-dealers, 
Rule 17ad-7 sets forth record preservation and maintenance 
requirements for transfer agents, and Rule 18a-6 sets forth record 
preservation and maintenance requirements for SBS Entities.
    \769\ See proposed rule 17a-4(e).
    \770\ See section II.B.5. of this release (discussing these 
proposed amendments in more detail).
    \771\ As discussed in section II.B.5.a. of this release, the 
existing requirements of Rule 13n-7 (which applies to SBSDRs) and 
Rule 17a-1 (which applies to registered clearing agencies, the MSRB, 
national securities associations, and national securities exchanges) 
will require these Market Entities to retain the Rule 10 Records for 
five years and, in the case of the written policies and procedures, 
for five years after the termination of the use of the policies and 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Costs of the Proposal to the U.S. Securities Markets
    The Commission is proposing rules to require all Market Entities, 
based on the reasons discussed throughout, to take steps to protect 
their information systems and the information residing on those systems 
from cybersecurity risk.\772\ For example, as discussed above, Market 
Entities may not take the steps necessary to address adequately their 
cybersecurity risks.\773\ A Market Entity that fails to do so is more 
vulnerable to succumbing to a significant cybersecurity incident. As 
discussed earlier, a significant cybersecurity incident can cause 
serious harm not only to the Market Entity but also to its customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users, as well as to any other 
market participants (including other Market Entities) that interact 
with the impacted Market Entity.\774\ Therefore, it is vital to the 
U.S. securities markets and the participants in those markets that all 
Market Entities address cybersecurity risk, which, as discussed above, 
is increasingly threatening the financial sector.\775\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \772\ See section I.A.1. of this release (discussing the 
attractiveness of the U.S. securities market to threat actors).
    \773\ See section IV.B. of this release (discussing broad 
economic considerations).
    \774\ See section I.A.2. of this release (discussing how 
critical operations of Market Entities are exposed to cybersecurity 
risk).
    \775\ See section I.A.1. of this release (discussing threats to 
the U.S. financial sector).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Benefits
    The Commission anticipates that an important economic benefit of 
the proposal would be to protect the fair, orderly, and efficient 
operations of the U.S. securities markets and the soundness of Market 
Entities better by requiring all Market Entities to establish, 
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures cybersecurity 
policies and procedures. As noted earlier, the average loss in the 
financial services industry was $18.3 million, per company per 
cybersecurity incident. Adopting and enforcing cybersecurity policies 
and procedures could assist Market Entities from incurring such losses. 
Furthermore, the requirement to implement cybersecurity policies and 
procedures could protect potential negative downstream effects that 
could be incurred by other participants in the U.S. securities markets, 
such as the Market Entity's customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, and users, in the event of a cybersecurity attack. By 
requiring each Market Entity to implement policies and procedures to 
address cybersecurity risk, the proposed rule would reduce the 
likelihood that one Market Entity's cybersecurity incident can 
adversely affect other Market Entities and market participants, as well 
as the U.S. securities markets at large.
    In addition, FSOC has stated that ``[m]aintaining and improving 
cybersecurity resilience of the financial sector requires continuous 
assessment of cyber vulnerabilities and close cooperation across firms 
and governments within the U.S. and internationally.'' \776\ The 
information provided to the Commission under the proposed reporting 
requirements could help in assessing potential cybersecurity risks that 
affect the U.S. securities markets. The reporting of significant 
cybersecurity incidents also could be used to address future 
cyberattacks. For example, these reports could assist the Commission in 
identifying patterns and trends across Covered Entities, including 
widespread cybersecurity incidents affecting multiple Covered Entities 
at the same time. Further, the reports could be used to evaluate the 
effectiveness of various approaches that are used to respond to and 
recover from significant cybersecurity incidents. Therefore, requiring 
Covered Entities to report significant cybersecurity incidents to the 
Commission could help assist the Commission in carrying out its mission 
of maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient operations of the U.S. 
securities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \776\ FSOC, Annual Report (2022), at 70, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/261/FSOC2022AnnualReport.pdf (``FSOC 
2022 Annual Report'') (``By exchanging cyber threat information 
within a sharing community, organizations can leverage the 
collective knowledge, experience, and capabilities of that sharing 
community to gain a more complete understanding of the threats the 
organization may face.'') See also NIST, Special Pub. 800-150, Guide 
to Cyber Threat Information Sharing iii (2016), available at https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-150.pdf. 
The NIST Special Publication also notes that the use of structured 
data can facilitate information sharing. Id. at 7 (``Structured data 
that is expressed using open, machine-readable, standard formats can 
generally be more readily accessed, searched, and analyzed by a 
wider range of tools. Thus, the format of the information plays a 
significant role in determining the ease and efficiency of 
information use, analysis, and exchange.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, requiring Covered Entities to publicly disclose summary 
descriptions of their cybersecurity risks and significant cybersecurity 
incidents would provide enhanced transparency about cybersecurity 
threats that could impact the U.S. securities markets. Participants in 
these markets could use this additional information to enhance the 
management of their own cybersecurity risks, which also could serve to 
strengthen the resilience of the U.S. securities markets to future 
cybersecurity threats.
b. Costs
    In general, the costs associated with the proposals include the 
costs of developing, implementing, documenting, and reviewing 
cybersecurity policies and procedures. For example, a Market Entity 
that has only the minimal cybersecurity protection needed to meet the 
current regulatory requirements may incur substantial costs when 
implementing the policies and procedures required by proposed Rule 10. 
These costs could be significantly lower for a Market Entity that 
currently has a well-developed and documented cybersecurity program. A 
Market Entity that incurs costs under the proposal may attempt to pass 
them on to other market participants and even other Market Entities to 
the extent that they are able to do that. This could increase costs for 
the Market Entity's customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or 
users participate in the U.S. securities markets.
    In general, compliance costs with proposed Rule 10 would vary 
across the various types of Market Entities. As discussed above, one 
factor determining costs would be the extent to which a Market Entity's 
existing measures to address cybersecurity risk would comply with the 
proposal. Other factors would be the Market Entity's particular 
business model, size, and unique cybersecurity risks. While the 
compliance costs for smaller entities, such as Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers, may be relatively smaller, those costs may not be 
inconsequential relative to their size. Further, Covered Entities may 
incur substantial compliance costs given their relatively large size.

[[Page 20298]]

2. Policies and Procedures and Annual Review Requirements for Covered 
Entities
    The definition of a ``covered entity'' includes a wide range of 
Commission registrants. The different Covered Entities that would be 
subject to proposed Rule 10 vary based on the types of businesses they 
are involved in, their relative sizes, and the number of competitors 
they face. As a result, the benefits and costs associated with the 
requirements to establish, maintain, and enforce written cybersecurity 
policies and procedures and to review them at least annually likely 
will vary among the different types of Covered Entities. Because the 
benefits and costs are heterogeneous across the different types of 
Covered Entities, the costs and benefits that are common to all Covered 
Entities are discussed first. Next, the benefits and costs associated 
with each type of Covered Entity are examined separately to account for 
the different operations and functions they perform and the differences 
in how existing or proposed regulations apply to them. The estimated 
cost of compliance for a given Covered Entity and for all Covered 
Entities combined is provided in the common costs discussion.
a. Common Benefits and Costs for Covered Entities
i. Benefits
    As discussed above, due to the interconnected nature of the U.S. 
securities market, strong policies and procedures to address 
cybersecurity risks are needed by Covered Entities to protect not only 
themselves, but also the Market Entities with whom they do business, as 
well as other market participants, such as the Covered Entity's 
customers, counterparties, members, or users. The Commission 
anticipates that an important economic benefit of the cybersecurity 
policies and procedures and annual review requirements of proposed Rule 
10 would be to reduce the cybersecurity vulnerabilities of each Market 
Entity and enhance the preparedness of each Market Entity against 
cybersecurity threats to its operations. This would reduce the 
likelihood that the Market Entity experiences the adverse consequences 
of a cybersecurity incident. With written cybersecurity policies and 
procedures that are maintained and enforced, as well as periodically 
reviewed and assessed, Market Entities can better protect themselves 
against cybersecurity threats; harden the security surrounding their 
information systems and the data, which includes the prevention of 
unauthorized access; minimize the damage from successful cyberattacks; 
and recover more quickly from significant cybersecurity incidents when 
they do occur. For example, the Covered Entity's risk assessment 
policies and procedures would need to require written documentation of 
these risk assessments.\777\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \777\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relatedly, proposed Rule 10 would require that the incident 
response and recovery policies and procedures include written 
documentation of a cybersecurity incident, including the Covered 
Entity's response to and recovery from the incident.\778\ These records 
could be used by the Covered Entity to assess the efficacy of, and 
adherence to, its incident response and recovery policies and 
procedures. The record of the cybersecurity incidents further could be 
used as a ``lessons-learned'' document to help the Covered Entity 
respond more effectively the next time it experiences a cybersecurity 
incident. The Commission staff also could use the records to review 
compliance with this aspect of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \778\ See paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The records discussed above generally could be used by the Covered 
Entity when it performs its review to analyze whether its current 
policies and procedures need to be updated, to inform the Covered 
Entity of the risks specific to it, and to support responses to 
cybersecurity risks by identifying cybersecurity threats to information 
systems that, if compromised, could result in significant cybersecurity 
incidents.\779\ The documentation also could be used by Commission 
staff and internal auditors of the Covered Entity to examine for 
adherence to the risk assessment policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \779\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10 (which would 
require a Covered Entity to review and assess the design and 
effectiveness of the cybersecurity policies and procedures, 
including whether the policies and procedures reflect changes in 
cybersecurity risk over the time period covered by the review). See 
also section II.B.1.f. of this release (discussing the proposed 
requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the annual review requirement is designed to require the 
Covered Entity to evaluate whether its cybersecurity policies and 
procedures continue to work as designed and whether changes are needed 
to ensure their continued effectiveness, including oversight of any 
delegated responsibilities. As discussed earlier, the sophistication of 
the tactics, techniques, and procedures employed by threat actors is 
increasing.\780\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \780\ See section I.A.1. of this release (discussing, for 
example, how cybersecurity threats are evolving); see also Bank of 
England CBEST Report (stating that ``[t]he threat actor community, 
once dominated by amateur hackers, has expanded to include a broad 
range of professional threat actors, all of whom are strongly 
motivated, organised and funded'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, it is unlikely that Covered Entities do not 
currently have some minimum level of cybersecurity policies and 
procedures in place due to their own business decisions and certain 
existing regulations and oversight. However, as discussed above, 
current Commission regulations regarding cybersecurity policies and 
procedures are narrower in scope. Proposed Rule 10 aims to be 
comprehensive in terms of mandating that Covered Entities have 
cybersecurity policies and procedures that address all cybersecurity 
incidents that may affect their information systems and the funds and 
securities as well as personal, confidential, and proprietary 
information that may be stored on those systems. The benefits of the 
proposed Rule 10 would be lessened to the extent that a Covered Entity 
already has implemented cybersecurity policies and procedures that are 
generally consistent with the written policies and procedures and 
annual review requirements under proposed Rule 10.
    If a Covered Entity has to supplement its existing cybersecurity 
policies and procedures, amend them, or institute annual reviews and 
document their assessments in a report, the benefit of proposed Rule 10 
for that Covered Entity would be greater. The proposal will help ensure 
the Covered Entity has robust procedures in place to prevent 
cybersecurity incidents, may enable Covered Entities to detect 
cybersecurity incidents earlier, and help ensure that Covered Entities 
have a plan in place to remediate cybersecurity incidents quickly. 
Lastly, as a second-order effect, it could reduce the Covered Entities' 
risk of exposure to other Covered Entities' cybersecurity incidents 
stemming--for example--from the interconnectedness of Covered Entities' 
information systems.
    The Commission currently does not have reliable data on the extent 
to which each Covered Entity's existing policies and procedures are 
consistent with the proposed Rule 10. Therefore, it is not possible to 
quantify the scale of the benefits arising from the proposed policies 
and procedures and annual review requirements. However, given the 
importance of the U.S. securities markets, the value of the funds and 
assets that are traded and held, and the current state of transactions 
where much of them are electronic, it seems likely that the Covered 
Entities that

[[Page 20299]]

transact business digitally have a strong incentive to implement 
cybersecurity policies and procedures in order to protect and maintain 
their operations. The proposed rule will require Covered Entities to 
implement stronger protections that go beyond what they do based on 
those market incentives.
    To the extent that Covered Entities engage in business activities 
involving crypto assets (which depend almost exclusively on the 
operations of information systems), developing strong cybersecurity 
policies and procedures would result in large benefits for them and 
potentially for their customers, counterparties, members, registrants 
or users. For example, robust cybersecurity policies and procedures 
would help to ensure that Covered Entities are better shielded from the 
theft of crypto assets by threat actors, which may be difficult or 
impossible to recover, given the nature of the distributed ledger 
technology.\781\ In addition, Covered Entities would avoid negative 
reputational damage associated with a successful cyberattack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \781\ See section II.G. of this release (noting that there is no 
centralized IT infrastructure that can dynamically detect and 
prevent cyberattacks on wallets or prevent the transfer of 
illegitimately obtained crypto assets by bad actors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Costs
    The costs associated with the policies and procedures and annual 
review requirements of proposed Rule 10 would primarily result from 
compliance costs borne by Covered Entities in the design, 
implementation, review, written assessment, and updates of the 
cybersecurity policies and procedures. The proposed requirement will 
likely change a Covered Entity's behavior toward cybersecurity risk and 
necessitates a certain amount of investment in cybersecurity 
protection.\782\ In addition to the aforementioned direct compliance 
costs faced by Covered Entities, those Covered Entities that utilize 
service providers would need to take steps to oversee them under 
proposed Rule 10.\783\ The costs of this oversight, including direct 
compliance costs, ultimately would likely be passed on to the Covered 
Entities' customers, counterparties, members, participants, or users to 
the extent Covered Entities are able to do so. As indicated above, the 
compliance costs generally may be lessened to the extent that Covered 
Entities' existing policies and procedures would be consistent with the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10. Therefore, the marginal increase in 
compliance costs that arise likely would be due to the extent to which 
a Covered Entity needs to make modifications to its existing 
cybersecurity policies and procedures, implement annual reviews of 
those policies and procedures, and/or write assessments reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \782\ While the existing policies and procedures of Covered 
Entities largely could be consistent with the requirements of 
proposed Rule 10, without a requirement to do so, they may not 
conduct annual reviews and draft assessment reports. The annual 
review and report costs are estimated be around $1,500 and $20,000 
based on the costs of obtaining a cybersecurity audit. See How Much 
Does a Security Audit Cost?, Cyber Security Advisor (Jan. 29, 2019), 
available at https://cybersecadvisor.org/blog/how-much-does-a-security-audit-cost (``Cost of Security Audit'').
    \783\ See paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A)(2), (b)(1)(iii)(B), and (b)(2) 
of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The compliance costs associated with developing, implementing, 
documenting, and reviewing the cybersecurity policies and procedures 
for Covered Entities' activities that involve crypto assets likely 
would be higher than those connected with traditional services and 
technologies offered and used, respectively, by Covered Entities. The 
cost difference primarily would be due to technological features of 
distributed ledger technologies as well as with the costs increasing as 
a Covered Entity engages in activities with additional crypto assets 
and blockchains.
iii. Service Providers
    As indicated above, Covered Entities may use service providers to 
supply them with some or all of their necessary cybersecurity 
protection. In general, the cost of contracted cybersecurity services 
depends on the size of the entity, where larger firms may offer a wider 
range of services and thus needing more cybersecurity protection. 
According to a data security provider blog, ``[a]mong mid-market 
organizations (250-999 employees), 46% spend under $250,000 on security 
each year and 43% spend $250,000 to $999,999. Among enterprise 
organizations (1,000-9,999 employees), 57% spend between $250,000 and 
$999,999, 23% spend less than $250,000, and 20% spend at least $1 
million. Half of large enterprises (more than 10,000 employees) spend 
$1 million or more on security each year and 43% spend between $250,000 
and $999,999.'' \784\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \784\ See Desdemona Bandini, New Security Report: The Security 
Bottom Line, How Much Security Is Enough?, (Nov. 19, 2019), 
available at https://duo.com/blog/new-security-report-the-security-bottom-line-how-much-security-is-enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, Covered Entities need to identify their service 
providers that receive, maintain, or process information, or are 
otherwise permitted to access its information systems and the 
information residing on those systems, and then assess the 
cybersecurity risks associated with their use by those service 
providers.\785\ The policies and procedures for protecting information 
would require oversight of the service providers that receive, 
maintain, or process the Covered Entities' information, or are 
otherwise permitted to access the Covered Entities' information systems 
and the data residing on those systems, through a written contractual 
agreement, as specified in paragraph (b)(iii)(B) of proposed Rule 
10.\786\ Service providers would be required to implement and maintain, 
pursuant to a written contract with the Covered Entities, appropriate 
measures, including the practices described in paragraph (b) of 
proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \785\ See paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A)(2) of proposed Rule 10.
    \786\ See paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed requirements will likely impose additional costs, at 
least initially, on service providers catering to Covered Entities, as 
they would be asked to provide services not included in existing 
contracts. The Commission believes that most service providers 
providing business-critical services would likely face pressure to 
enhance their cybersecurity practices to satisfy demand from Covered 
Entities due to new regulatory requirements placed on those Covered 
Entities.\787\ Service providers may be willing to bear additional 
costs in order to continue their business relationships with the 
Covered Entities, particularly if the parties are operating under an 
ongoing contract.\788\ Such situations are more likely to arise with 
services that are considered general information technology, such as 
email, relationship management, website hosting, cloud applications, 
and other common technologies, given that the service provider does not 
have market power because it has many competitors offering these 
services. In contrast, providers of more specialized services--such as 
payment service providers, regulatory service providers, data 
providers, custodians, and providers of valuation services--may have 
significant market power and may be able to charge a Covered Entity 
separately for the additional services that would be required under 
proposed Rule 10. Whether passed on to Covered Entities immediately or 
reflected in

[[Page 20300]]

subsequent contract renewals, the costs associated the additional 
services--including the associated negotiation process--would likely be 
passed on to the Covered Entities' customers, counterparties, members, 
participants, or users to the extent that they are able to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \787\ A service provider involved in any business-critical 
function would likely need to receive, maintain, or process 
information from the Covered Entities as well as the Covered 
Entities' customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users.
    \788\ See, e.g., Cost of Security Audit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of the cost of additional services received from service 
providers, those providers that offer a specialized service and have 
market power may not be willing to give any price concessions in the 
negotiation process. The same may be true for service providers where 
Covered Entities make up a small proportion of their overall business. 
Other service providers in a more competitive environment--such as 
those that offer general information technology services--may be more 
willing to provide a discount to keep the Covered Entity as a 
customer.\789\ Moreover, the compliance costs for service providers of 
common technologies may be generally larger than those realized by 
firms that offer specialized services because they cater to a wider 
variety of customers, which makes contracts with different parties more 
idiosyncratic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \789\ See Jon Brodkin, IT Shops Renegotiate Contracts to Get 
Savings Out of Vendors, Computer World (Nov. 6, 2008), available at 
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2781173/it-shops-renegotiate-contracts-to-get-savings-out-of-vendors.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some Covered Entities may find that one or several of their 
existing service providers may not be technically able to--or may not 
wish to make the investment to--support the Covered Entities' 
compliance with the proposed rule. Similarly, some Covered Entities may 
find that one or several of their existing service providers may not be 
able to--or wish to because of significant market power--enter into 
written contracts where the costs are not mutually agreeable. Also, 
some service providers may not want to amend their contracts and take 
on the particular obligations even if they already have the technical 
abilities. In those cases, the Covered Entities would need to change 
service providers and bear the associated switching costs, while the 
service providers would suffer loss of their customer base.\790\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \790\ For example, the Covered Entity has insufficient market 
power to affect changes in the service provider's business practices 
and the suite of cybersecurity technologies it currently offers to 
that Covered Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For service providers that do business with Covered Entities, the 
proposed rule may impose additional costs related to revising the 
service provider's cybersecurity practices to satisfy the requirements 
that would be imposed on the Covered Entities. Moreover, if a service 
provider is already providing services to a Covered Entity that are 
largely compliant with proposed Rule 10, then the resulting increase in 
compliance costs likely would be minor.
    Even if satisfying additional client requirements would not 
represent a significant expense for service providers, the processes 
and procedures that are necessary to implement an infrequently utilized 
service may prevent some service providers from continuing to work with 
the Covered Entity.\791\ That is, the provision of the service may be 
viewed as more burdensome than the revenue received from the Covered 
Entity. This consequence would serve as a disincentive to the service 
provider. In such cases, Covered Entities would bear costs related to 
finding alternative service providers while existing service providers 
would suffer lost revenue once the Covered Entities switch service 
providers.\792\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \791\ For example, the costs associated with legal review of 
alterations to standard contracts may not be worth bearing by the 
service provider if Covered Entities represent a small segment of 
the service provider's business.
    \792\ At the same time, these frictions would benefit service 
providers that cater to customers in regulated industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the costs associated with the proposed policies and 
procedures requirements and annual review requirements, the Commission 
considered the initial and ongoing compliance costs.\793\ The internal 
annual costs for these requirements (which include an initial burden 
estimate annualized over a three year period) are estimated to be 
$14,631.54 per Covered Entity, and $29,102,133.06 in total. These costs 
include a blended rate of $462 for a compliance attorney and assistant 
general counsel for a total of 31.67 hours. The annual external costs 
for adopting and implementing the policies and procedures, as well as 
the annual review of the policies and procedures are estimated to be 
$3,472 per Covered Entity, and $6,905,808 in total. This includes the 
cost of using outside legal counsel at a rate of $496 per hour for a 
total of seven hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \793\ See section V of this release (discussing these costs in 
more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Broker-Dealers
i. Benefits
    The benefits of the policies and procedures requirements of 
proposed Rule 10 for Covered Broker-Dealers likely will not be 
consistent across these entities, as their services vary. Covered 
Broker-Dealers that are larger, more interconnected with other market 
participants, and offer more services have a higher potential for 
greater losses for themselves and others in the event of a 
cybersecurity incident. Thus, the benefits arising from robust 
cybersecurity practices increases with the size and number of services 
offered by Covered Broker-Dealers. For example, a cybersecurity 
incident at a large Covered Broker-Dealer that facilitates trade 
executions and/or provides carrying and clearing services carries 
greater risk due to the larger number of services it provides as well 
as its interconnections with other Market Entities. For example, 
carrying broker-dealers may provide services to multiple introducing 
brokers-dealers and their customers. Commission staff determined that, 
as of September 2022, carrying broker-dealers have an average of 44 
introducing broker-dealers on behalf of which they carry funds and 
securities,\794\ with a median number of five broker-dealers. 
Furthermore, a carrying broker-dealer may intermediate the connection 
between one introducing broker-dealer and the final carrying broker-
dealer.\795\ As a result, there are potentially many avenues for 
infiltration, from the introducing broker-dealers to the carrying 
broker-dealers. Such Covered Broker-Dealers will not only hold 
customers' personally identifiable information and records, but also 
typically have control over customers' funds and assets. This makes 
them attractive targets for threat actors. In addition, even a brief 
disruption of the services offered by a carrying broker-dealer (e.g., 
from a ransomware attack) could have large, negative downstream 
repercussions on the broker-dealer's customers and other Covered 
Entities (e.g., inability to submit orders during volatile market 
conditions or to access funds and securities). The persons negatively 
impacted could include not only individuals but also institutional 
customers, such as introducing broker-dealers, hedge funds, and family 
offices. In this scenario, the Covered Broker-Dealer could incur major 
losses if it experienced a significant cybersecurity incident. Thus, 
compliance with written cybersecurity policies and procedures, along 
with annual reviews and a written assessment report, likely would have 
substantial benefits for those Covered Broker-Dealers that hold 
customer information, funds, and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \794\ Based on Form Custody, Item 4, as of 2021.
    \795\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Covered Broker-Dealers perform a number of functions in the 
U.S. securities markets and those functions are increasingly performed 
through the use of information systems,

[[Page 20301]]

it is important that those information systems be secure against 
cyberattacks. Covered Broker-Dealers use networks to connect their 
information systems to those of national securities exchanges, clearing 
agencies, and to communicate and transact with other Covered Broker-
Dealers. Written policies and procedures would strengthen a Covered 
Broker-Dealer's cybersecurity protocols so that it would be more 
difficult for threat actors to disrupt market-making activities in 
securities or otherwise compromise the liquidity of the securities 
markets, an occurrence that could negatively impact the ability of 
investors to liquidate or purchase certain securities at favorable or 
predictable prices or in a timely manner.
    ATSs are trading systems that meet the definition of ``exchange'' 
under federal securities laws but are not required to register as 
national securities exchanges if they comply with the conditions of the 
Regulation ATS exemption, which includes registering as a broker-
dealer. ATSs have become significant venues for orders and non-firm 
trading interest in securities.\796\ ATSs use data feeds, algorithms, 
and connectivity to perform their functions. ATSs rely heavily on 
information systems to perform these functions, including to connect to 
other Market Entities, such as other Covered Broker-Dealers and 
national securities exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \796\ Exchange Act Rule 3a1-1(a)(2) exempts an ATS from the 
definition of exchange under section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act on 
the condition that the ATS complies with Regulation ATS. See 
generally Regulation of NMS Stock Alternative Trading Systems 
Release, 83 FR 38768; Amendments Regarding the Definition of 
``Exchange'' and ATSs Release, 87 FR 15496.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A significant cybersecurity incident that disrupts an ATS could 
negatively impact the ability of investors to liquidate or purchase 
certain securities at favorable or predictable prices or in a timely 
manner to the extent it provides liquidity to the market for those 
securities. Furthermore, the records stored by ATSs on their 
information systems consist of proprietary information about Market 
Entities that use their services, including confidential business 
information (e.g., information about their trading activities). A 
significant cybersecurity incident at an ATS could lead to the improper 
use of this information to harm the Market Entities (e.g., public 
exposure of confidential trading information) or provide the 
unauthorized user with an unfair advantage over other market 
participants (e.g., trading based on confidential business 
information). Comprehensive cybersecurity policies and procedures, 
along with periodic assessments, would fortify broker-dealer ATS 
operations in their efforts to thwart cybersecurity attacks.
    On the other hand, a small Covered Broker-Dealer could experience a 
cybersecurity incident that has significant negative impacts on the 
entity and its customers, such as a disruption to its services or the 
theft of a customer's personal information. These types of incidents 
would have profound negative effects for the small Covered Broker-
Dealer and its customers, but the negative effects would likely be 
insignificant relative to the size of the entire U.S. securities 
markets. In this case, strong cybersecurity policies and procedures 
generally could provide substantial benefits to small Covered Broker-
Dealers themselves and their customers, but likely not to other market 
participants.
    As discussed in the baseline, Covered Broker-Dealers currently are 
subject to Regulations S-P, Regulation S-ID, FINRA rules, and SRO and 
Commission oversight, as well as Regulation ATS applying to broker-
dealer operated ATSs.\797\ In addition, Covered Broker-Dealers that 
operate an ATS and trade certain stocks exceeding specific volume 
thresholds are subject to Regulation SCI.\798\ As discussed above, 
Regulation S-P, Regulation ATS, and Regulation S-ID have requirements 
to establish policies and procedures that address certain cybersecurity 
risks.\799\ Therefore, Covered Broker-Dealers subject to these other 
regulations have existing cybersecurity policies and procedures that 
address certain cybersecurity risks. However, proposed Rule 10 would 
require all Covered Broker-Dealers to establish, maintain, and enforce 
a set of cybersecurity policies and procedures that is broader and more 
comprehensive than is required under the existing requirements of 
Regulation S-P, Regulation S-ID, and Regulation ATS that pertain to 
cybersecurity risk. This could substantially benefit these Covered 
Broker-Dealers and their customers and counterparties as well as other 
Market Entities that provide services to them or transact with them. In 
particular, the failure to protect a particular information system from 
cybersecurity risk can create a vulnerability that a threat actor could 
exploit to access other information systems of the Covered Broker-
Dealer. Therefore, proposed Rule 10--because it would require all 
information systems to be protected by policies and procedures--would 
result in benefits to Covered Broker-Dealers (i.e., enhanced 
cybersecurity resiliency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \797\ See section IV.C.1.b.i. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline the current relevant regulations applicable to 
broker-dealers); see also section II.F. of this release (discussing 
other relevant regulations applicable to Covered Broker-Dealers).
    \798\ Id.
    \799\ See section II.F.1.c. of this release (discussing in more 
detail the existing requirements of Regulation S-P, Regulation ATS, 
and Regulation S-ID to have policies and procedures to address 
certain cybersecurity risks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Covered Broker-Dealers that are registered as FCMs or swap dealers 
are subject to NFA requirements that relate to proposed Rule 10.\800\ 
These additional requirements may bring those dually-registered Covered 
Broker-Dealers more in line with the requirements of the proposed 
rule.\801\ As a result, the marginal benefit of compliance for them may 
be smaller than those that are only registered with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \800\ See section IV.C.1.d.iii. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline current CFTC-related requirements applicable to 
FCMs and swap dealers).
    \801\ See section I.B. of this release (discussing the proposed 
requirements for Covered Entities, including Covered Broker-Dealers, 
with respect to cybersecurity policies and procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Costs
    The compliance costs of the policies and procedures requirements of 
proposed Rule 10 for Covered Broker-Dealers may generally be lower, to 
the extent their current policies and procedures are designed to comply 
with Regulation SCI, Regulation S-P, Regulation ATS (if they operate an 
ATS), Regulation S-ID, and FINRA rules and are consistent with certain 
of the requirements of the proposed Rule 10.\802\ However, the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 are designed to address all of the 
Covered Broker-Dealer's cybersecurity risks; whereas the requirements 
of these other regulations that relate to cybersecurity are more 
narrowly focused. Consequently, the marginal costs associated with 
implementing the cybersecurity policies and procedures required under 
the proposed Rule 10 would depend on the extent to which broker-
dealers' existing cybersecurity protections address cybersecurity risks 
beyond those that are required to be addressed by these other 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \802\ See section II.F.1.c. of this release (discussing the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 and how they relate to Regulation 
S-P, Regulation ATS, and Regulation S-ID).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Covered Broker-Dealers that are dually registered with the CFTC as 
FCMs or swap dealers are subject to

[[Page 20302]]

NFA requirements, as noted above.\803\ These additional requirements 
may make compliance with the proposed rule less burdensome and thus 
less costly, as those NFA requirements are already in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \803\ See section IV.C.1.d.iii. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline current CFTC-related requirements applicable to 
FCMs and swap dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Clearing Agencies and National Securities Exchanges
i. Benefits
    Strong cybersecurity protocols at national securities exchanges 
would help maintain their critical function of matching orders of 
buyers and sellers. A cybersecurity incident could prevent an exchange 
from executing trades, therefore preventing members and their customers 
from buying or selling securities at the exchange. Interruptions in 
order flow and execution timing could lead to inefficiencies in order 
matching, possibly resulting in a less desirable execution price. 
Moreover, customer information could be stolen and trading strategies 
could be revealed. Lastly, a cybersecurity breach could be problematic 
for market surveillance staff that monitors the market for illegal 
trading activity. Thus, the policies and procedures requirements of 
proposed Rule 10 could offer significant benefits to national 
securities exchanges and market participants that depend on their 
processing of order flow and the ability of regulators to surveil the 
market.
    Clearing agencies serve an important role in the securities markets 
by ensuring that executed trades are cleared and that the funds and 
securities are transferred to and from the appropriate accounts. A 
cybersecurity incident at a clearing agency could result in delays in 
clearing as well as in the movement of funds and assets. Such an 
incident also could lead to the loss or misappropriation of customer 
information, funds, and assets. Threat actors could also gain access to 
and misappropriate the clearing agency's default fund by, for example, 
obtaining access to the clearing agency's account in which the fund is 
held. Strong cybersecurity policies and procedures would assist 
clearing agencies in protecting the funds and securities in their 
control. This would benefit the clearing agency, its members, and 
market participants that rely on the services of its members.
    As discussed in the baseline, national securities exchanges, 
registered clearing agencies, and certain exempt clearing agencies are 
subject to Regulation SCI.\804\ Regulation SCI has requirements for SCI 
entities to establish policies and procedures that address certain 
cybersecurity risks The proposed requirements of proposed Rule 10, in 
contrast, apply to all of the Covered Entity's information systems. The 
benefits of the policies and procedures requirements of proposed Rule 
10 would depend on the extent to which the national securities 
exchanges' and clearing agencies' current cybersecurity policies and 
procedures (which include those required by Regulation SCI) are 
consistent with those required under the proposed rule. Major changes 
in cybersecurity policies and procedures could yield large benefits. 
However, the marginal benefit of the proposed rule likely would decline 
the more closely a national securities exchange's or clearing agency's 
cybersecurity policies and procedures are consistent with the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \804\ See section IV.C.1.b.ii. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline the relevant regulations applicable to national 
securities exchanges and clearing agencies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing agencies that are registered as DCOs are subject to 
additional CFTC requirements that may be related to those of proposed 
Rule 10.\805\ As a result, the marginal benefit of proposed Rule 10 may 
be smaller than those that are only registered with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \805\ See section IV.C.1.d.i. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline the current relevant CFTC regulations 
applicable to DCOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Costs
    The incremental cost of compliance with the policies and procedures 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 for national exchanges and clearing 
agencies depends on how much their current cybersecurity policies and 
procedures go beyond what is required by Regulation SCI. This is 
because the requirements of proposed Rule 10 are designed to address 
all of the cybersecurity risks faced by a national securities exchange 
or clearing agency; in contrast, the requirements of Regulation SCI 
that relate to cybersecurity are more narrowly focused.\806\ Therefore, 
national securities exchanges and clearing agencies that have policies 
and procedures in place that only address the requirements of 
Regulation SCI will need to make potentially significant changes to 
their cybersecurity policies and procedures in order to comply with the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10. Alternatively, national securities 
exchanges and clearing agencies that currently have comprehensive 
cybersecurity policies and procedures may incur fewer costs to comply 
with proposed Rule 10. Nevertheless, assuming that they do not do so 
already, ensuring that those cybersecurity policies and procedures are 
documented and reviewed on an annual basis as required by the proposal, 
with an accompanying written assessment, would assist national 
securities exchanges and clearing agencies to withstand cybersecurity 
incidents and address them more effectively, thus minimizing the 
negative effects of such occurrences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \806\ See section II.F.1.c. of this release (discussing the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 and how they relate to the 
requirements of Regulation SCI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing agencies that are dually registered with the CFTC as DCOs 
are subject to that agency's systems safeguards rule, as noted 
above.\807\ Complying with the CFTC requirements may make compliance 
with the proposed rule less burdensome and thus less costly, to the 
extent that the registered DCO implements the CFTC requirements on the 
registered clearing agency side of its operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \807\ See section IV.C.1.c.i. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline the current relevant CFTC regulations 
applicable to DCOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, national securities exchanges and clearing agencies that 
are registered with the Commission but currently are not active would 
incur substantially higher costs relative to their active peers if they 
needed to come into compliance with proposed Rule 10. If they resume 
clearing activities and operations, they may incur significant costs to 
develop, document, implement, maintain, and enforce policies and 
procedures, including cybersecurity policies and procedures, as well as 
establish protocols for written annual reviews with necessary 
modifications and updates.
d. FINRA and the MSRB
i. Benefits
    FINRA is the only national securities association currently 
registered with the Commission. Similarly, the MSRB is the only entity 
(other than the Commission) established by Congress to, among other 
activities, propose and adopt rules with respect to transactions in 
municipal securities.
    FINRA issues cybersecurity-related statements to members that 
discuss best practices for achieving adequate cybersecurity 
protection.\808\ FINRA and MSRB members are also subject to internal 
oversight and external audits. Nevertheless, both FINRA and the

[[Page 20303]]

MSRB store proprietary information about their members, including 
confidential business information, on their respective information 
systems. FINRA stores information about broker-dealers and trades. Some 
information and systems under FINRA's control may belong to other 
organizations where FINRA is simply contracted to perform data 
processing duties. There also may be sensitive information related to 
FINRA's oversight practices that is not made public, such as regulatory 
assessments of various broker-dealers or internal analyses regarding 
its examinations and examination programs. Furthermore, FINRA may keep 
information on cyberattacks on itself and on broker-dealers that, if 
made public, could compromise existing cybersecurity systems. 
Therefore, FINRA and the MSRB themselves require their own 
cybersecurity policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \808\ See FINRA, Cybersecurity, available at https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/cybersecurity#overview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the baseline, FINRA and the MSRB are subject to 
Regulation SCI.\809\ Regulation SCI has requirements to establish 
policies and procedures that address certain cybersecurity risks.\810\ 
Therefore, the benefits of the policies and procedures requirements of 
proposed Rule 10 would depend on the extent to which the FINRA's and 
the MSRB's current cybersecurity policies and procedures (which include 
those required by Regulation SCI) are consistent with those required 
under the proposed rule. This means the marginal benefit of the 
proposed rule may be limited depending on how closely FINRA's and the 
MSRB's cybersecurity policies and procedures are consistent with 
proposed Rule 10. Nevertheless, ensuring that those cybersecurity 
policies and procedures are documented and reviewed on an annual basis, 
with an accompanying written assessment, could assist the two entities 
in avoiding cybersecurity incidents and addressing them more 
effectively, thus minimizing the negative effects of such occurrences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \809\ See section IV.C.1.b.ii. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline the current relevant regulations applicable to 
national securities associations and FINRA).
    \810\ See section II.F.1.c. of this release (discussing in more 
detail the requirements of Regulation SCI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Costs
    As with national securities exchanges and clearing agencies, the 
Commission does not expect that FINRA and the MSRB will incur 
significant costs as a result of complying with the policies and 
procedures requirements of proposed Rule 10 because they are already 
subject to Regulation SCI and, due to their importance in the oversight 
and oversight of their members or registrants, as well as the storage 
of trade information and data owned by other parties, there are strong 
incentives for FINRA and the MSRB to invest in comprehensive 
cybersecurity programs.
e. SBS Entities
i. Benefits
    As discussed in the baseline, SBS Entities must comply with section 
15F(j)(2) of the Exchange Act and various Commission rules. SBS 
Entities that are dually registered with the CFTC are subject to that 
agency's rules as well as the rules of the NFA.\811\ The benefits that 
would accrue to SBS Entities depend on the level of cybersecurity 
protection they currently have in place. Policies and procedures that 
are consistent with the policies and procedures requirements of 
proposed Rule 10 may only need moderate updating and adjustment. As a 
result the marginal benefits likely are small. There would be much 
greater benefits for SBS Entities that must significantly revise their 
current policies and procedures. Further, proposed Rule 10 would 
require that SBS Entities have policies and procedures to respond to 
and recover from cybersecurity incidents, which would assist the SBS 
Entities in minimizing the harm caused by the incident and enhancing 
their ability to recover from it. Annual reviews also would help them 
update their policies and procedures to address emerging threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \811\ See section IV.C.1.c.iii. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline current relevant regulations applicable to SBS 
Entities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SBS Entities that are registered as swap dealers are subject to 
additional requirements of the CFTC and NFA that may be related to 
those of proposed Rule 10.\812\ As a result, the marginal benefit of 
compliance for them may be smaller than those that are only registered 
with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \812\ See section IV.C.1.c.iii. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline the current relevant CFTC regulations 
applicable to swap dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Costs
    Complying with the policies and procedures requirements of proposed 
Rule 10 may not be costly for SBS Entities. SBS Entities must comply 
with section 15F(j)(2) of the Exchange Act and various Commission 
rules. The costs that arise from compliance with proposed Rule 10 
depend on how closely their current documented policies and procedures, 
as well as annual reviews and summary reports, are consistent with the 
proposed rule. SBS Entities that have very similar cybersecurity 
policies and procedures to those that would be required under proposed 
Rule 10 would have small associated costs to come into compliance with 
the rule. SBS Entities that need to make more substantial changes to 
their cybersecurity policies and procedures to comply with the proposed 
rule would incur higher attendant costs. Ultimately, the ability of SBS 
Entities to bear those additional costs depends on the competitive 
landscape of the security-based swap market.
    SBS Entities that are dually registered with the CFTC as swap 
dealers are subject to that agency's requirements, as noted above.\813\ 
These additional requirements may make compliance with the proposed 
rule less burdensome and thus less costly, as the CFTC requirements are 
already in effect and dually registered SBS Entities must comply with 
those regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \813\ See section IV.C.1.c.iii. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline the current relevant CFTC regulations 
applicable to swap dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. SBSDRs
i. Benefits
    SBSDRs collect and maintain security-based swap transaction data so 
that relevant authorities can access and analyze the data from secure, 
central locations, thereby allowing regulators to monitor for potential 
market abuse and risks to financial stability.\814\ SBSDRs also reduce 
operational risk and enhance operational efficiency in the security-
based swap market, such as by maintaining transaction records that help 
counterparties ensure that their records reconcile.\815\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \814\ See SBSDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14440 (``[SBSDRs] are 
required to collect and maintain accurate SBS transaction data so 
that relevant authorities can access and analyze the data from 
secure, central locations, thereby putting them in a better position 
to monitor for potential market abuse and risks to financial 
stability.'').
    \815\ See SBSDR Proposing Release at 77307 (stating that ``[t]he 
enhanced transparency provided by an [SBSDR is important to help 
regulators and others monitor the build-up and concentration of risk 
exposures in the [security-based swap] market . . . . In addition, 
[SBSDRs] have the potential to reduce operational risk and enhance 
operational efficiency in the [security-based swap] market'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission requires SBSDRs to have written documentation 
regarding how they keep such transaction information secure.\816\ If 
the policies and procedures requirements of proposed Rule 10 requires 
an SBSDR to do additional development, documentation, implementation, 
and review of its cybersecurity policies and procedures, then the 
benefits that accrue

[[Page 20304]]

from doing so will be large. In this circumstance, compliance with the 
policies and procedures requirements of proposed Rule 10 would bolster 
SBSDRs' cybersecurity resiliency. As a result, SBSDRs would be better 
prepared to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities and prevent 
significant cybersecurity incidents, thereby safeguarding the security-
based swap trade data that they receive and maintain. Further, proposed 
Rule 10 would require that SBSDRs have policies and procedures to 
respond to and recover from a significant cybersecurity incident, which 
would assist SBSDRs in minimizing the harm caused by the incident and 
enhancing their ability to recover from it. Annual reviews also would 
help them update their policies and procedures to address emerging 
threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \816\ See section IV.C.1.b.iv. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline the current relevant regulations applicable to 
SBSDRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SBSDRs that are dually registered with the CFTC as SDRs must comply 
with that agency's systems safeguards rule, applicable to information 
systems for data under the CFTC's jurisdiction.\817\ These additional 
requirements may bring those dually-registered SBSDRs more in line with 
the requirements of the proposed rule, to the extent that the 
registered entity applies the CFTC's systems safeguard requirements to 
the SBSDR operations. As a result, the marginal benefit of compliance 
for them may be smaller than those that are only registered with the 
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \817\ See section IV.C.1.d.ii. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline the current relevant CFTC regulations 
applicable to SDRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Costs
    The costs that arise from compliance with the policies and 
procedures requirements of proposed Rule 10 depend on how closely the 
current documented policies and procedures of SBSDRs are consistent 
with the proposed rule. SBSDRs that have very similar cybersecurity 
policies and procedures to those that would be required under proposed 
Rule 10 would face small costs to amend their cybersecurity policies 
and procedures. SBSDRs that need to make more substantial changes to 
their cybersecurity policies and procedures to comply with the proposed 
rule would realize greater marginal benefits from attaining compliance, 
while incurring higher attendant costs.
    SBSDRs that are dually registered with the CFTC as SDRs are subject 
to that agency's system safeguards rule, as noted above.\818\ These 
additional requirements may make compliance with the proposed rule less 
burdensome and thus less costly, to the extent the registered entity 
applies the CFTC's system safeguard requirements to its SBSDR 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \818\ See section IV.C.1.d.iii. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline the current relevant CFTC regulations 
applicable to swap dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Transfer Agents
i. Benefits
    The benefits of the policies and procedures requirements of 
proposed Rule 10 likely will differ across transfer agents, as their 
size and the level of their services may vary. Transfer agents, among 
other functions, may: (1) track, record, and maintain on behalf of 
issuers the official record of ownership of each issuer's securities; 
(2) cancel old certificates, issue new ones, and perform other 
processing and recordkeeping functions that facilitate the issuance, 
cancellation, and transfer of those securities; (3) facilitate 
communications between issuers and registered securityholders; and (4) 
make dividend, principal, interest, and other distributions to 
securityholders.\819\ A cybersecurity incident at a transfer agent 
would have varying negative impacts depending on the range of services 
offered by the transfer agent. Nonetheless, for the issuer who depends 
on the transfer agent to maintain the official record of ownership, or 
for securityholders who depend on the transfer agent for distributions, 
an incident at even a small transfer agent with limited services could 
have profound negative implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \819\ See section I.A.2.i. of this release (discussing critical 
operations and functions of transfer agents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, some transfer agents may maintain records and 
information related to securityholders that could include names, 
addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, employers, employment 
history, bank and specific account information, credit card 
information, transaction histories, securities holdings, and other 
detailed and individualized information related to the transfer agents' 
recordkeeping and transaction processing on behalf of issuers. This 
information may make a transfer agent particularly attractive to threat 
actors. Compliance with written cybersecurity policies and procedures 
under proposed Rule 10, along with annual reviews and a written 
assessment report, would likely produce a large benefit for clients and 
investors of transfer agents.
    Preventing successful cyberattacks would keep securities from being 
stolen by threat actors and would ensure that dividends are paid when 
promised. In addition, because transfer agents have information on the 
securityholders' personal information, policies and procedures to 
protect that information from unauthorized access or use would benefit 
the transfer agent and the securityholders. Moreover, if a significant 
cybersecurity incident materializes, transfer agents would have a plan 
to resolve the issue, thus potentially reducing the timeframe and 
damage associated with the incident.
    As discussed in the baseline, transfer agents registered with the 
Commission (but not transfer agents registered with another appropriate 
regulatory agency) are subject to the Regulation S-P Disposal Rule and 
may be subject to Regulation S-ID.\820\ The Regulation S-P Disposal 
Rule and Regulation S-ID require measures that implicate a certain 
cybersecurity risk.\821\ Nonetheless, the policies and procedures 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 would still provide substantial 
benefits to transfer agents. This is because, as discussed above, 
proposed Rule 10 would require all transfer agents to establish, 
maintain, and enforce policies and procedures to address cybersecurity 
risks that are broader and more comprehensive than those policies and 
procedures required by the existing requirements of Regulation S-P or 
Regulation S-ID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \820\ See section IV.C.1.b.v. of this release (discussing as 
part of the baseline the current relevant regulations applicable to 
transfer agents). Transfer agents that are subsidiaries of bank 
holding companies would incur minimal cost since they are already 
subject to federal banking cybersecurity regulations.
    \821\ See section II.F.1.c. of this release (discussing in more 
detail the existing requirements of the Regulation S-P Disposal Rule 
and Regulation S-ID).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Costs
    Transfer agents likely would incur moderate costs in complying with 
the policies and procedures requirements of proposed Rule 10 if their 
current policies and procedures--including those to comply with the 
Regulation S-P Disposal Rule and Regulation S-ID (if either or both 
apply)--would need to be augmented to meet the requirements of proposed 
Rule 10. Transfer agents also would have to do annual reviews and write 
assessment reports. Such costs likely would be passed on to the 
entities that use transfer agent's services. Transfer agents that have 
made the business decision to implement robust cybersecurity policies, 
procedures, and practices would incur lower marginal compliance costs, 
to the degree those policies, procedures, and practices are consistent 
with the requirements of proposed Rule 10.

[[Page 20305]]

h. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the foregoing 
analysis of the benefits and costs of the policies and procedures, 
review and assessment, and report requirements of proposed Rule 10. 
Commenters are requested to provide empirical data in support of any 
arguments or analyses. In addition, the Commission is requesting 
comment on the following matters:
    1. Please discuss which types of Covered Entities have some level 
of cybersecurity in place and which may not? If not, explain why. 
Please describe the level of cybersecurity policies and procedures that 
have been implemented by Covered Entities and compare them to the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10.
    2. Do the benefits and costs associated with Covered Entities 
having written cybersecurity policies and procedures, including 
provisions for written annual reviews and assessments, reports, and 
updates (if necessary) vary by the type of Covered Entity? If so, 
explain how. Are there benefits and costs of the proposals not 
described above? If so, please describe them.
    3. Are the estimated compliance costs (both initially and on an 
ongoing basis) for Covered Entities to adopt cybersecurity policies and 
procedures, along with reviewing them annually and drafting a summary 
report, reasonable? If not, explain why and provide estimates of the 
compliance costs.
    4. How costly would it be for a given type of Covered Entity to 
become compliant with proposed Rule 10? Please explain and provide 
estimates of the costs.
    5. Do Covered Entities typically document their cybersecurity 
policies and procedures? If not, how costly would it be for them to be 
documented?
    6. Please describe practices of Covered Entities with regard to the 
use of service providers in connection with their information systems 
and the information residing on those systems. How many Market Entities 
contract with service providers? What functions are contracted out 
versus completed in house? Are the cybersecurity policies and 
procedures implemented by these service providers comparable to the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10? Please explain. Would it be costly 
contractually to request that a service provider provide compliant 
services, including documented policies and procedures? What are the 
costs of finding a new service provider if one or more could not 
provide services that are compliant with the proposed rule?
    7. How costly would it be to review and update, if necessary, 
cybersecurity policies and procedures at least annually? Would it be 
preferable to conduct the reviews on either a more or less frequent 
basis? Explain why. Would it be less costly to have a third party 
conduct the review and update of a Covered Entities' cybersecurity 
policies and procedures? Please explain.
3. Regulatory Reporting of Cybersecurity Incidents by Covered Entities
    Under proposed Rule 10, Covered Entities would need to provide the 
Commission with immediate written electronic notice of a significant 
cybersecurity incident affecting the Covered Entity and, thereafter, 
report and update information about the significant cybersecurity 
incident by filing Part I of proposed Form SCIR with the Commission 
through the EDGAR system.\822\ The form would elicit information about 
the significant cybersecurity incident and the Covered Entity's efforts 
to respond to, and recover from, the incident. In the case of certain 
Covered Entities, the notice and subsequent reports would need to be 
provided to other regulators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \822\ See sections II.B.2. and II.B.4. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Benefits
    The requirements of proposed Rule 10 that Covered Entities provide 
immediate written electronic notice and subsequent reporting about 
significant cybersecurity incidents to the Commission and would improve 
the Commission's ability to assess these incidents. These requirements 
also would allow the Commission to understand better the causes and 
impacts of significant cybersecurity incidents and how Covered Entities 
respond to and recover from them. Thus, the notification and reporting 
requirements--through the information they would provide the 
Commission--could be used to understand better how significant 
cybersecurity incidents materialize and, therefore, how Covered 
Entities can better protect themselves from them and, when they occur, 
how Covered Entities can better mitigate their impacts and recover more 
quickly from them. Over time, this database of information could 
provide useful insights into how to minimize the harm more broadly that 
is caused by significant cybersecurity incidents, which have the 
potential to cause broader disruptions to the U.S. securities markets 
and undermine financial stability.
    A Covered Entity would be required to provide immediate written 
electronic notice to the Commission of a significant cybersecurity 
incident upon having a reasonable basis to conclude that the incident 
has occurred or is occurring.\823\ This timeframe allows for quick 
notification to the Commission and, in some cases, other regulators 
about the significant cybersecurity incident, which--in turn--would 
allow for more timely assessment of the incidents. These incidents, if 
not addressed quickly, could have harmful spillover impacts to other 
Market Entities and participants in the U.S. securities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \823\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The immediate written electronic notice would need to identify the 
Covered Entity, state that the notice is being given to alert the 
Commission of a significant cybersecurity incident impacting the 
Covered Entity, and provide the name and contact information of an 
employee of the Covered Entity who can provide further details about 
the significant cybersecurity incident.\824\ By not requiring detailed 
information about the significant cybersecurity incident, the Covered 
Entity would be able to provide the notice quickly while it continues 
to assess which information systems have been subject to the 
significant cybersecurity incident and the impact that the incident has 
had on those systems. This would facilitate the Covered Entity's 
ability to alert the Commission and other regulators (if applicable) at 
a very early stage after it has a reasonable basis to conclude that a 
significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is occurring. This, 
in turn, would allow the Commission and other regulators (if 
applicable) to begin taking steps to assess the significant 
cybersecurity incident at that early stage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \824\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed immediate written electronic notification requirement 
is modelled on other notification requirements that apply to broker-
dealers and SBSDs pursuant to other Exchange Act rules. Under these 
existing requirements, broker-dealers and certain SBSDs must provide 
the Commission with same-day written notification if they undergo 
certain adverse events, including falling below their minimum net 
capital requirements or failing to make and keep current required books 
and records.\825\ The objective of these requirements is to provide the 
Commission staff with the opportunity to respond when a broker-

[[Page 20306]]

dealer or SBSD is in financial or operational difficulty.\826\ 
Similarly, the immediate written electronic notification requirement of 
proposed Rule 10 would provide the Commission staff with the 
opportunity to promptly begin to assess the situation when a Covered 
Entity is experiencing a significant cybersecurity incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \825\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-11 (notification rule for broker-
dealers); 17 CFR 240.18a-8 (notification rule for SBS Entities).
    \826\ See SBS Entity Recordkeeping and Reporting Proposing 
Release, 79 FR at 25247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Promptly thereafter (but no later than 48 hours), a Covered Entity 
would be required to report separately more detailed information about 
the significant cybersecurity incident by filing initial, amended and 
final versions of Part I of proposed Form SCIR with the Commission 
through the EDGAR.\827\ The Covered Entity also would be required to 
file updated reports and a final report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \827\ See paragraphs (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10. As discussed 
below, Part II of proposed Form SCIR would be used by Covered 
Entities to make public disclosures about the cybersecurity risks 
they face and the significant cybersecurity incidents they 
experienced during the current or previous calendar year. See 
sections II.B.2. and II.B.4. of this release (discussing these 
proposed requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting requirements under proposed Rule 10 would provide the 
Commission and its staff with information to understand better the 
nature and extent of a particular significant cybersecurity incident 
and the efficacy of the Covered Entity's response to mitigate the 
disruption and harm caused by the incident.\828\ It also strengthens 
and expands the Commission's knowledge regarding cybersecurity 
incidents beyond what is already required by current Commission 
regulations. In addition, the reporting would provide the staff with a 
view into the Covered Entity's understanding of the scope and impact of 
the significant cybersecurity incident. All of this information would 
assist the Commission and its staff in assessing the significant 
cybersecurity incident impacting the Covered Entity. It also could 
benefit other Market Entities to the extent the confidential 
information provided by the impacted Covered Entity could be used to 
assist them (without divulging the identity of the impacted Covered 
Entity) in avoiding a similar significant cybersecurity incident or 
succumbing to an attack by the same threat actor that caused the 
significant cybersecurity incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \828\ See Line Items 2 through 14 of Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR (eliciting information about the significant cybersecurity 
incident and the Covered Entity's response to the incident).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information provided to the Commission under the proposed 
reporting requirements also would be used to assess the potential 
cybersecurity risks affecting U.S. securities markets more broadly. 
This information could be used to address future significant 
cybersecurity incidents or address cybersecurity vulnerabilities that 
may be present at other similar Covered Entities. For example, these 
reports could assist the Commission in identifying patterns and trends 
across Covered Entities, including widespread cybersecurity incidents 
affecting multiple Covered Entities at the same time. Further, the 
reports could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of various 
approaches to respond to and recover from a different types of 
significant cybersecurity incidents. This could benefit all Market 
Entities, other participants in the U.S. securities markets, and 
ultimately promote the fair, orderly, and efficient operation of the 
U.S. securities markets.
    Requiring Covered Entities to file Part I of proposed Form SCIR in 
EDGAR in a custom XML would allow for more efficient processing of 
information about significant cybersecurity incidents. It would create 
a comprehensive set of data of all significant cybersecurity incidents 
impacting Covered Entities that is based on these entities responding 
to the same check boxes and questions on the form. This would 
facilitate analysis of the data, including analysis across different 
Covered Entities and significant cybersecurity incidents. Eventually, 
this set of data and the analysis of it by searching and sorting based 
on how different Covered Entities responded to the same questions on 
the form could be used to spot common trending risks and 
vulnerabilities as well as best practices employed by Covered Entities 
to respond to and recover from significant cybersecurity incidents.
    As discussed above, Covered Entities have incentives to not 
disclose information about significant cybersecurity incidents. Such 
incentives constrain the information available about cybersecurity 
threats and thereby inhibit the efficacy of collective (i.e., an 
industry's or a society's) cybersecurity measures.\829\ At the same 
time, complete transparency in this area likely runs the risk of 
facilitating future attacks.\830\ As discussed above, the challenge of 
effective information sharing has long been recognized, and government 
efforts at encouraging such sharing on a voluntary basis have had only 
limited success.\831\ The Commission would not publicly disclose and 
would keep them confidential to the extent permitted by law Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR. This would limit the risks associated with public 
disclosure of vulnerabilities as a result of successful cybersecurity 
incidents. The Commission also may share information with relevant law 
enforcement or national security agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \829\ See section IV.B. of this release (discussing broad 
economic considerations); see, e.g., Lewis and Zheng, Cyber Threat 
Information Sharing (recommending that regulators encourage 
information sharing).
    \830\ Although ``security through obscurity'' as a cybersecurity 
philosophy has long been derided, ``obscurity,'' or more generally 
``deception,'' has been recognized as an important cyber resilience 
technique. See Ron Ross, Victoria Pillitteri, Richard Graubart, 
Deborah Bodeau, and Rosalie McQuaid, Developing Cyber Resilient 
Systems: A Systems Security Engineering Approach, 2 Nat. Inst. of 
Standards and Tech. (Dec. 2021), available at https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-160v2r1. See also Section IV.D.2.b (discussion 
of costs associated with disclosure).
    \831\ See section IV.C.1.e. of this release (discussing 
information sharing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The aforementioned benefits arise from improved information sharing 
between the affected Covered Entity and the Commission. Delays in 
incident reporting may hinder the utility of Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR because the Commission would not be able to assess the situation 
close to the time of its occurrence or discovery. Thus, the utility of 
such reports, at least initially, may be more limited if they are not 
filed as quickly as proposed.
    Requiring Covered Entities to identify themselves on Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR with a UIC \832\ if they already have a UIC would be 
beneficial because the LEI--which is a Commission-approved UIC--is a 
globally-recognized standard identifier \833\ with reference data that 
is

[[Page 20307]]

available free of charge.\834\ Unlike many identifiers that are 
specific to a particular regulatory authority or jurisdiction, the LEI 
is a permanent, unique global identifier that also contains ``Level 2'' 
parent and (direct/indirect) child entity information. Entity parent-
child relationships are particularly relevant to assessing the risks of 
entities operating in the securities markets, where financial entities' 
interconnectedness and complex group structures could otherwise make 
understanding the scope of potential widespread risks challenging.\835\ 
Additionally, unlike most company registries, all LEI data elements are 
validated annually and subject to a ``quality program [that] scans the 
full [data] repository daily and publishes the results monthly in 
quality reports[,]'' which helps to ensure the accuracy--and 
usefulness--of LEI data as compared to other types of entity 
identifiers that lack such features.\836\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \832\ As mentioned in section II.B.2.b. of this release, the 
instructions of proposed Form SCIR would define UIC to mean an 
identifier that has been issued by an IRSS that has been recognized 
by the Commission pursuant to Rule 903(a) of Regulation SBSR (17 CFR 
242.903(a)).
    \833\ ``The [LEI] is a reference code--like a bar code--used 
across markets and jurisdictions to uniquely identify a legally 
distinct entity[.]'' Office of Financial Research, U.S. Treasury 
Dep't, Legal Entity Identifier--Frequently Asked Questions, 
available at https://www.financialresearch.gov/data/legal-entity-identifier-faqs/. ``The financial crisis underscored the need for a 
global system to identify financial connections, so regulators and 
private sector firms could understand better the true nature of risk 
exposures across the financial system.'' Id. Using the LEI as a UIC 
to facilitate tracking financial entity cybersecurity incidents and 
risks is feasible because ``[t]he Global LEI System was established 
for a large range of potential uses.'' The Legal Entity Identifier 
Regulatory Oversight Committee (``LEIROC''), LEI Uses, available at 
https://www.leiroc.org/lei/uses.htm. The functionality of the LEI is 
such that it could be used to identify and track entities for 
various purposes. For example, the LEI is one of three identifiers 
that firms can use under a December 2022 U.S. Customs & Border 
Protection Pilot for automation program for enhanced tracing in 
international supply chains. See U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 
Announcement of the National Customs Automation Program Test 
Concerning the Submission Through the Automated Commercial 
Environment of Certain Unique Entity Identifiers for the Global 
Business Identifier Evaluative Proof of Concept, 87 FR 74157 (Dec. 
2, 2022), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/02/2022-26213/announcement-of-the-national-customs-automation-program-test-concerning-the-submission-through-the.
    \834\ Bank for Int'l Settlements, David Leung, et al., Corporate 
Digital Identity: No Silver Bullet, but a Silver Lining, BIS Paper 
No. 126, at 20 (June 2022), available at https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap126.pdf. (``BIS Papers 126'') (stating that ``LEI data 
[is] available free of charge to users in both the public and 
private sector''). The FSOC has stated the LEI ``enables unique and 
transparent identification of legal entities.'' FSOC, 2021 Annual 
Report, at 171 (stating that ``[b]roader adoption of the LEI by 
financial market participants continues to be a Council priority''). 
The FSOC also has stated that the LEI ``facilitate[s] many financial 
stability objectives, including improved risk management in firms 
[and] better assessment of microprudential and macroprudential 
risks[.]'' FSOC, 2022 Annual Report 99 (2022), available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/261/FSOC2022AnnualReport.pdf. The 
same principles that make the LEI well-suited for allowing 
regulators to track entity exposures to financial market risks 
across jurisdictions and entities should apply in other contexts, 
such as cross-border payments. See FSB, FSB Options to Improve 
Adoption of the LEI, in Particular for Use in Cross-border Payments 
(July 7, 2022), available at https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P070722.pdf.
    \835\ FSB Peer Review Report; see also European Systemic Risk 
Board, Francois Laurent, et al., The Benefits of the Legal Entity 
Identifier for Monitoring Systemic Risk, Occasional Paper Series No. 
18, (Sept. 2021) (``The fact that the LEI enables full reporting of 
the group structure in the LEI database is also crucial for risk 
analysis. Indeed, the risk usually stems from the group and not from 
individual entities, and conducting a relevant risk analysis implies 
aggregating exposures at the level of the group.''). For a 
discussion of the cybersecurity implications of the 
interconnectedness of Market Entities' information systems, see 
section I.A.1 of this release.
    \836\ See BIS Papers 126, at 16 (noting that ``[h]istorically, 
corporate identification has mainly come from company registries in 
individual jurisdictions[,]'' with the registries connected to the 
filing of certain documents and the paying of required fees 
necessary to create legal entities). Under company registry regimes, 
each company typically is identified by name and ``a company 
registration number'' that is not standardized across jurisdictions 
and is not part of a harmonized system of corporate identification. 
See id. (stating that ``[w]ith greater globalization of business and 
finance, [the existing company registry system] has become a source 
of inefficiency and risks from the standpoint of financial 
stability, market integrity, and investor protection''). Further, 
``company registries typically do not offer similar types of quality 
programs for the corporate data they provide'' and that such data 
generally is ``declarative--provided by the registrant'' without 
independent verification or validation. See id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Costs
    Covered Entities would incur costs complying with the requirements 
of proposed Rule 10 to provide immediate written electronic notice and 
subsequent reporting about significant cybersecurity incidents to the 
Commission and, in the case of certain Covered Entities, other 
regulators, on Part I of proposed Form SCIR. The immediate notification 
requirement would impose minimal costs given the limited nature of the 
information that would need to be included in the written notice and 
the fact that it would be filed electronically.
    The costs of complying with the requirements to file Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR to report a significant cybersecurity incident would 
be significantly greater than the initial notice, given the amount of 
information that would need to be included in the filing. In addition, 
because Part I of proposed Form SCIR is a regulatory filing, Covered 
Entities likely would incur costs associated with a legal and 
compliance review prior to the form being filed on EDGAR.
    In terms of the costs of filing Part I of Form SCIR on EDGAR, 
several categories of Covered Entities already file forms in EDGAR. 
Specifically, all transfer agents, SBSDs, MSBSPs, and SBSDRs must file 
registration or reporting forms in EDGAR,\837\ and some broker-dealers 
choose to file certain reports on EDGAR rather than filing them in 
paper form. The applicable EDGAR forms for these entities are filed, at 
least in part, in a custom XML. Covered Entities that do not currently 
file registration or reporting forms on EDGAR would have to file a 
notarized Form ID to receive a CIK number and access codes to file on 
EDGAR.\838\ Consequently, the requirement to file Part I of proposed 
Form SCIR in EDGAR using a form-specific XML may impose some compliance 
costs on certain Covered Entities. These Covered Entities would need to 
complete Form ID to obtain the EDGAR-system access codes that enable 
entities to file documents through the EDGAR system. They would have to 
pay a notary to notarize Form ID. The inclusion of a UIC on proposed 
Form SCIR would not impose any marginal costs because a Covered Entity 
would only be required to provide a UIC if they have already obtained 
one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \837\ SBSDRs received temporary relief from filing through 
EDGAR. See Cross-Border Application of Certain Security-Based Swap 
Requirements, Exchange Act Release No. 87780 (Dec. 18, 2019) [85 FR 
6270, 6348 (Feb. 2, 2020)].
    \838\ See section V of this release (discussing of the number of 
Covered Entities who do not currently file forms in EDGAR and the 
costs that would be associated with an EDGAR-filing requirement in 
more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the costs for Market Entities to research the validity 
of a suspected significant cybersecurity incident and to provide 
immediate written electronic notification to the Commission regarding 
the significant cybersecurity incident that are real or reasonably 
determined to be true, the Commission considered the initial and 
ongoing compliance costs.\839\ The internal annual costs for these 
requirements (which include an initial burden estimate annualized over 
a three year period) are estimated to be $1,648.51 per Market Entity, 
and $6,524,802.58 in total. These costs include a blended rate of $353 
for an assistant general counsel, compliance manager, and systems 
analyst for a total of 4.67 hours. The annual external costs for these 
requirements are estimated to be $1,488 per Market Entity, and 
$5,889,504 in total. This includes the cost of using outside legal 
counsel at a rate of $496 per hour for a total of three hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \839\ See section V of this release (discussing these costs in 
more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the costs for Covered Entities to fill out an initial 
Part I of proposed Form SCIR, and file an amended Part I of Form SCIR, 
the Commission considered the initial and ongoing compliance 
costs.\840\ The internal annual costs for these requirements (which 
include an initial burden estimate annualized over a three year period) 
are estimated to be $1,077.50 per Covered Entity, and $2,143,147.50 in 
total. These costs include a blended rate of $431 for an assistant 
general counsel and compliance manager for a total of 2.5 hours. The 
annual external costs for these requirements are estimated to be $992 
per Covered Entity, and $1,973,088 in total. This includes the cost of 
using outside legal counsel at a rate of $496 per hour for a total of 
two hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \840\ See section V of this release (discussing these costs in 
more detail).

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

[[Page 20308]]

c. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the foregoing 
analysis of the benefits and costs of the requirements to provide 
immediate notification and subsequent reporting of significant 
cybersecurity incidents. Commenters are requested to provide empirical 
data in support of any arguments or analyses. In addition, the 
Commission is requesting comment on the following matters:
    8. Are the estimated compliance costs (both initially and on an 
ongoing basis) for Covered Entities to provide the notification and 
subsequent reports reasonable? If not, explain why and provide 
estimates of the compliance costs.
    9. Are there any other benefits and costs that the confidential 
reporting would provide the Commission? If so, please describe them. 
Please provide views on the costs of reporting significant 
cybersecurity incidents to the Commission relative to the Commission's 
cost estimates.
    10. What are the costs and benefits associated with requiring 
Covered Entities to file Part I of proposed Form SCIR using a 
structured data language? Should the Commission require Covered 
Entities to file Part I of proposed Form SCIR using a structured data 
language, such as a custom XML? Should the Commission require Covered 
Entities to file Part I of proposed Form SCIR using a different 
structured data language than a custom XML, such as Inline XBRL? Why or 
why not?
    11. Are there any Covered Entities that should be exempted from the 
proposed structured data requirements for filing Part I of proposed 
Form SCIR? If so, what particular exemption threshold should the 
Commission use for the structured data requirements and why?
    12. Should Covered Entities be required to file proposed Form SCIR 
with a CIK number? What are the costs and benefits associated with 
requiring Covered Entities to identify themselves on Part I of proposed 
Form SCIR with a CIK number?
    13. Should Covered Entities be required to file Part I of proposed 
Form SCIR with a UIC (i.e., such as an LEI), particularly when some 
Covered Entities do not have a UIC and would have to obtain one? What 
are the benefits associated with requiring Covered Entities with a UIC 
to identify themselves with that UIC?
    14. Would requiring a UIC on Part I of proposed Form SCIR allow the 
Commission to better evaluate cybersecurity threats to Covered Entities 
using data from other regulators and from law enforcement agencies? 
Please explain how.
    15. Are there any Covered Entities for which the proposed 
structured data requirements for Part I of proposed Form SCIR should be 
exempted? If so, what particular exemption threshold or thresholds 
should the Commission use for the structured data requirements under 
the proposed rule amendments, and why?
4. Public Disclosure of Cybersecurity Risks and Significant 
Cybersecurity Incidents
    Under proposed Rule 10, Covered Entities would need to publicly 
disclose summary descriptions of their cybersecurity risks and the 
significant cybersecurity incidents they experienced during the current 
or previous calendar year on Part II of proposed Form SCIR.\841\ The 
form would need to be filed with the Commission through the EDGAR 
system and posted on the Covered Entity's business internet website 
and, in the case of Covered Entities that are carrying or introducing 
broker-dealers, provided to customers at account opening and at least 
annually thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \841\ See sections II.B.3. and II.B.4. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Benefits
    As discussed above, there exists an information asymmetry between 
Covered Entities and their customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users.\842\ This information asymmetry, together with 
limitations to private contracting, inhibits the ability of customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, and users to screen and 
discipline the Covered Entities with whom they do business or obtain 
services from based on the effectiveness of the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity policies. The public disclosure requirements of proposed 
Rule 10 would help alleviate this information asymmetry, and in so 
doing would enable customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or 
users to better assess the effectiveness of Covered Entities' 
cybersecurity preparations and the cybersecurity risks of doing 
business with any one of them. For example, customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, or users could use the frequency or nature of 
significant cybersecurity incidents--as disclosed under the proposed 
public disclosure requirement--to infer a Covered Entity's effort 
toward preventing cybersecurity incidents. Likewise customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users could use the 
descriptions of cybersecurity risks to avoid certain Covered Entities 
with less well-developed cybersecurity procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \842\ See section IV.B. of this release (discussing broad 
economic considerations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public disclosures mitigate the information asymmetry. Customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users can use the information 
to understand better the risks of doing business with certain Covered 
Entities. A Covered Entity disclosing that it addresses cybersecurity 
risks in a robust manner and that it has not experienced a significant 
cybersecurity incident or few such incidents could signal to customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users that customer 
information, funds, and assets are safeguarded properly. In contrast, 
disclosures of sub-par cybersecurity practices or a history of 
significant cybersecurity incidents may convince customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users to not do business with 
that Covered Entity.
    In addition to mitigating information asymmetries with stakeholders 
in general, public disclosure would also mitigate a source of 
principal-agent problems in the customer-Covered Entity relationship. 
As discussed above, Covered Entities may have different incentives than 
customers in the area of cybersecurity prevention.\843\ Insofar as 
principals (customers) prefer a higher level of cybersecurity focus by 
agents (Covered Entities), public disclosure would act as an incentive 
for Covered Entities to increase their focus in this area and signal 
their commitment to protecting customers' funds and data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \843\ See section IV.B. of this release (discussing broad 
economic considerations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed requirement for Covered Entities to post the required 
disclosures on their websites would help inform, for example, retail 
customers about Covered Broker-Dealers because they are likely to look 
for information about their broker-dealers on the firm's websites. In 
addition, requiring the submission of Part II of proposed Form SCIR in 
a custom XML data language would likely facilitate more effective and 
thorough review, analysis, and comparison of cybersecurity risks and 
significant cybersecurity incidents by the Commission and by Covered 
Entities' existing and prospective customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users.\844\ The public disclosure

[[Page 20309]]

requirement of proposed Rule 10 expands Market Entities', other market 
participants', the public's, the Commission's, and other regulatory 
bodies' knowledge about the cybersecurity risks faced by Covered 
Entities as well as their past experiences regarding significant 
cybersecurity incidents that is beyond what is provided by current 
Commission regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \844\ While the Commission would separately receive the 
information significant cybersecurity incidents impacting Covered 
Entities thought the filings of Part I of proposed Form SCIR, those 
filings would not include the Covered Entity's summary description 
of the cybersecurity risks that could materially affect the Covered 
Entity's business and operations and how it assesses, prioritizes, 
and addresses those cybersecurity risks that would be disclosed on 
Part II of proposed Form SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requiring Covered Entities to file Part II of proposed Form SCIR 
through the EDGAR system would allow the Commission--as well as 
customers, counterparties, members, and users of Covered Entity 
services--to download the Part II disclosures directly from a central 
location, thus facilitating efficient access, organization, and 
evaluation of the reported disclosures about significant cybersecurity 
incidents. Likewise, because Part II of proposed Form SCIR would be 
structured in SCIR-specific XML, the public disclosures would be 
machine-readable and, therefore, more readily accessible to the public 
and the Commission for comparisons across Covered Entities and time 
periods. With centralized filing in EDGAR in a custom XML, Commission 
staff as well as Covered Entities' customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users (and the Covered Entities themselves) would be 
better able to assemble, analyze, review, and compare a large 
collection of data about reported cybersecurity risks and significant 
cybersecurity incidents, which could facilitate the efficient 
identification of trends in cybersecurity risks and significant 
cybersecurity incidents in the U.S. securities markets.
    Centralized filing of the summary descriptions of the Covered 
Entity's cybersecurity risks and significant cybersecurity incidents on 
Part II of proposed Form SCIR in a structured format on EDGAR would 
enable investors and others--such as other government agencies, 
standard-setting groups, analysts, market data aggregators, and 
financial firms--to more easily and efficiently compare how one Covered 
Entity compares with others in terms of cybersecurity risks and 
incidents. For example, banks assessing potential security-based swap 
counterparties could efficiently aggregate and compare disclosures of 
multiple security-based swap dealers. Similarly, public companies 
deciding which transfer agent to use could efficiently aggregate and 
compare the disclosures of many transfer agents.
    These market participants would also be able to discern broad 
trends in cybersecurity risks and incidents more efficiently due to the 
central filing location and machine-readability of the disclosures. The 
more efficient dissemination of information about trends regarding 
cybersecurity risks and significant cybersecurity incidents could, for 
example, enable Covered Entities to better and more efficiently 
determine if they need to modify, change, or upgrade their 
cybersecurity defense measures in light of those trends. Likewise, more 
efficient assimilation of information about trends in significant 
cybersecurity incidents could enable Covered Entities customers, 
counterparties, members, or users and their services to more 
efficiently understand and manage their cybersecurity risks. 
Accordingly, centralized EDGAR filing of public cybersecurity 
disclosures in a machine-readable data language could help reduce the 
number of Covered Entities or their customers, counterparties, members, 
or users that suffer harm from cybersecurity breaches, or reduce the 
extent of such harm in the market, thus helping prevent or mitigate 
cybersecurity-related disruptions to the orderly operations of the U.S. 
securities markets.
    Lastly, Covered Entities rely on electronic information, 
communication, and computer systems to perform their functions.\845\ 
Because many Covered Entities play critical global financial system, a 
cyberattack against Covered Entities without strong cybersecurity 
protocols could lead to more widespread breaches. Therefore, the 
centralized, public, structured filing of cybersecurity disclosures 
with Part II of proposed Form SCIR, which would be updated promptly 
upon the occurrence of a new significant cybersecurity incident, would 
increase the efficiency with which new cybersecurity information would 
be assimilated into the market, thereby also likely increasing the 
speed with which Covered Entities could react to potential contagion. 
This increased agility on the part of Covered Entities could reduce 
potential contagion in the U.S. securities markets. Additionally, 
Covered Entities would know that the centralized, public filing of 
information about significant cybersecurity incidents would make 
comparison with their competitors easier, and this could motivate 
Covered Entities to take cybersecurity preparedness and risk management 
more seriously than they might otherwise, either by devoting more 
resources to cybersecurity or by addressing cybersecurity risks in a 
more effective manner. Such an effect could help reduce the number and 
extent of cybersecurity incidents, particularly those that negatively 
impact the U.S. securities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \845\ See section I.A.2. of this release (discussing how Covered 
Entities use information systems).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with Part I of proposed Form SCIR, the Commission also is 
proposing to require Covered Entities to identify themselves on Part II 
of proposed Form SCIR with a UIC, such as an LEI, if they have obtained 
one, to help facilitate efficient collection and analysis of 
cybersecurity incidents in the financial markets. The addition of UICs 
could facilitate coordinated inter-governmental responses to 
cybersecurity incidents that affect U.S. firms.\846\ Existing 
identifiers that are not UICs are more limited in scope, such as CIK 
numbers, which are Commission-specific identifiers for companies and 
individuals that have filed reports with the Commission. This limits 
their utility in analyzing and comparing significant cybersecurity 
incidents among Covered Entities and non-Commission-regulated financial 
institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \846\ The Commission has recognized the benefits of LEIs in 
other contexts. See Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving the 
National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail, 
Release No. 34-79318; File No. 4-698 (Nov. 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696, 
84745 (Nov. 23, 2016) (``The Commission believes use of the LEI 
enhances the quality of identifying information for Customers by 
incorporating a global standard identifier increasingly used 
throughout the financial markets.''); Investment Company Reporting 
Modernization, Release Nos. 33-10231; 34-79095; IC-32314; File No. 
S7-08-15 (Oct. 13, 2016), 81 FR 81870, 81877 (Nov. 18, 2016) 
(``Uniform reporting of LEIs by funds [] will help provide a 
consistent means of identification that will facilitate the linkage 
of data reported on Form N-PORT with data from other filings and 
sources that is or will be reported elsewhere as LEIs become more 
widely used by regulators and the financial industry.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The markets for different Covered Entities present customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users with a complex, multi-
dimensional, choice problem. In choosing a Covered Entity to work with, 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users may consider 
cybersecurity risk exposure (i.e., financial, operational, legal, 
etc.), past significant cybersecurity incidents, reputation, etc. While 
the Commission is not aware of any studies that examine the role 
perceptions of cybersecurity play in this choice problem, the extant 
academic literature suggests that investors focus on salient, headline-
grabbing information, such as large losses of customer information, 
when

[[Page 20310]]

making such choices.\847\ Details regarding significant cybersecurity 
incidents may allow customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or 
users to assess the severity of one incident compared to that of 
another. However, the public disclosures will be generalized (i.e., 
summary descriptions) to a degree such that threat actors cannot take 
advantage of known vulnerabilities. Therefore, to the extent that 
cybersecurity disclosures from Covered Entities are ``boilerplate,'' 
they may be less informative.\848\ Thus, it may be difficult to choose 
among Covered Entities that have experienced similar significant 
cybersecurity incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \847\ See, e.g., Brad M. Barber, Terrance Odean, and Lu Zheng, 
Out of Sight, Out of Mind: The Effects of Expenses on Mutual Fund 
Flows, 78 J. Bus. 2095 (2005) (``Out of Sight, Out of Mind'').
    \848\ However, as discussed above, the process of adopting 
``boilerplate'' language by Covered Entities may itself affect 
improvements in policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significant cybersecurity incidents--especially those that involve 
loss of data or assets of customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users--are likely to garner attention. Thus, the 
Commission expects that the proposed requirement to disclose 
significant cybersecurity incidents would have a direct effect on the 
choices of customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users. 
In addition, third parties such as industry analysts--who may be more 
capable of extracting useful information across Covered Entities' 
disclosures--may incorporate it in assessment reports that are 
ultimately provided to customers, counterparties, members, registrants, 
or users. Whether directly or indirectly, Covered Entities with subpar 
cybersecurity policies and procedures--as revealed by a relatively 
large number of significant cybersecurity incidents--could face 
pressure to improve their policies procedures to reduce such 
incidents.\849\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \849\ This assumes that customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users evaluating the Covered Entities would favor 
those Covered Entities that include language that cites strong 
cybersecurity procedures in their disclosures. Further, the 
Commission assumes that customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, and users would prefer to do business with Covered 
Entities that have ``superior'' cybersecurity procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The disclosures of significant cybersecurity incidents also should 
benefit a Covered Entity's current customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users if the Covered Entity experiences a significant 
cybersecurity incident by providing notice that, for example, personal 
information, transaction data, securities, or funds may have been 
compromised. While the customers, counterparties, members, registrants, 
or users that are directly impacted may be individually notified of 
significant cybersecurity incidents based on individual state laws and 
Commission rules, thus initiating timely remedial actions, other 
parties may benefit from the disclosures. Specifically, customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users that are not affected by 
a significant cybersecurity incident may take the time to change and 
strengthen passwords, monitor account activity on a more consistent 
basis, and audit their financial statements for discrepancies.
b. Costs
    The requirements to have reasonably designed policies and 
procedures to address cybersecurity risk and to report significant 
cybersecurity incidents to the Commission by filing Part I of proposed 
Form SCIR on EDGAR would--in practice--require the collection of the 
information that also would be used in the proposed public disclosures 
required to be made on Part II of proposed Form SCIR. Therefore, the 
disclosure requirement itself would not impose significant compliance 
costs beyond those already discussed with respect to the requirements 
to have reasonably designed policies and procedures to address 
cybersecurity risk and to report significant cybersecurity incidents to 
the Commission by filing Part I of proposed Form SCIR on EDGAR.\850\ 
Generally, it is expected that a compliance analysis would be needed to 
summarize the cybersecurity risks faced by the Covered Entity and a 
summary of previous significant cybersecurity incidents. In addition, 
there may be internal legal review of the public disclosure and 
administrative costs would be incurred associated with posting the 
disclosure on the Covered Entity's website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \850\ See sections IV.D.2. and IV.D.3. of this release 
(discussing the costs of those requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, if the action of disclosing summary descriptions of a 
Covered Entity's cybersecurity risks and significant cybersecurity 
incidents encourages the Covered Entity and/or other Covered Entities 
to review their policies and procedures and potentially direct more 
resources to cybersecurity protection, that would be an additional 
cost. Moreover, the disclosures may impose costs due to market 
reactions and exploitable information they may reveal to adverse 
parties.
    Depending on the Covered Entity, reports of many significant 
cybersecurity incidents and, to a lesser extent, reports of greater 
cybersecurity risks and exposure to financial, operational, legal, 
reputational, or other consequences that could materially affect its 
business and operations as a result of a cybersecurity incident 
adversely impacting its information systems may bear costs arising from 
reactions in the marketplace. That is, a Covered Entity may lose 
business or suffer harm to its reputation and brand value.\851\ These 
costs would be borne by the affected Covered Entity even if it made 
reasonable efforts to prevent them. If customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, or users ``overreact'' \852\ to disclosures of 
significant cybersecurity incidents, Covered Entities may pursue a 
strategy of overinvesting in cybersecurity precautions (to avoid such 
overreactions), resulting in reduced efficiency. The extent of such 
costs likely depends on a number of factors, including the size of a 
Covered Entity relative to others in the same category (e.g., Covered 
Broker-Dealers, national securities exchanges, and clearing agencies), 
the severity and scope of the cybersecurity incident, and the 
availability of substitutes for a given Covered Entity.\853\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \851\ Customers, counterparties, members, registrants, and users 
would be more likely to act in response to realized significant 
cybersecurity incidents than in response to Covered Entities' 
descriptions of their cybersecurity risks and how they address those 
risks.
    \852\ Such overreactions can be the result of overconfidence 
about the precision of the signal. See, e.g., Kent Daniel, David 
Hirshleifer and Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, Investor Psychology and 
Security Market Under- and Overreactions, 53 J. Fin. 1839 (1998); 
see also Out of Sight, Out of Mind.
    \853\ One can differentiate between the smallest and largest 
Covered Broker-Dealer. A large broker-dealer may be more able to 
absorb more costs associated with a cybersecurity incident and 
continue to stay in business than a small broker-dealer. In 
addition, a large broker-dealer could have a more prestigious 
reputation that may persuade customers to continue using it despite 
the cybersecurity event. Or a large broker-dealer could have more 
news about it in the public domain that dilutes bad news about 
cybersecurity incidents, whereas a smaller firm's name may become 
inextricably associated with one significant cybersecurity incident. 
In addition, significant cybersecurity incidents that are crippling 
and affect all of a Covered Entity's customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, and users would be more costly its reputation 
than ones that are more localized. Lastly, the cost of lost business 
for a Covered Entity may be muted if there are fewer competitors to 
choose from. For example, there is only one national securities 
association (i.e., FINRA) relative to 353 transfer agents. It 
therefore could be costly in terms of lost business for a transfer 
agent as its customers can transfer their business to one of the 
many others that perform the same services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The national securities exchanges and clearing agencies that are 
currently registered with the Commission but are not active would not 
incur any costs related to the proposed public disclosure requirement 
if they remain inactive. However, if their operations restart, they 
likely would incur

[[Page 20311]]

moderate costs associated with the disclosure because they may need to 
restart their websites and provide summary descriptions of their 
cybersecurity risks. No significant cybersecurity incidents would need 
to be disclosed initially since they have been dormant for so long. In 
addition, many transfer agents do not have websites. Therefore, those 
transfer agents that do not have websites would incur the cost of 
obtaining a domain name as well as establishing and maintaining a 
website (either by themselves or using a third party) before being able 
to post their public disclosures. Small, independent broker-dealers 
also may not have websites. In a 2015 survey of 13 broker-dealers, 80% 
of respondents stated that they have a web policy or program; however, 
7.6% do not have a web policy or program and 13.3% of the respondents 
were not sure. Furthermore, 47% of respondents reported that less than 
half of their firm's advisors (i.e., registered representatives) 
currently have a website. Interestingly, the survey participants noted 
the value of having a website to establish credibility (80%), generate 
leads (53%), get referrals (40%), qualify and engage prospects (40%) 
and maintain existing client relationships (47%).\854\ The remaining 
Market Entities likely have websites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \854\ See Broker Dealers and Web Marketing: What You Should Know 
(Dec. 9, 2015), available at https://www.advisorwebsites.com/blog/
blog/general/broker-dealers-and-web-marketing-what-you-should-
know#:~:text=While%2080%25%20of%20Broker-
Dealers%20reps%20we%20polled%20say,to%20build%20and%20maintain%20a%20
strong%20web%20presence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Website costs can be broken into several categories: (1) obtaining 
a domain name ($12 to $15 per year); (2) web hosting ($100 per month 
for premium service); (3) website theme or template (one-time fee of 
$20 to $200 or more); and SSL certificate ($10 to $200 per year).\855\ 
Ongoing website costs could be as high as $1,215 per year to maintain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \855\ See Jennifer Simonson, website Hosting Cost Guide 2023, 
Forbes, available at https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/website-hosting-cost/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mandating the disclosure of significant cybersecurity incidents 
entails a tradeoff. While disclosure can inform customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, and users, disclosure can also 
inform cyber attackers that they have been detected. Also, disclosing 
too much (e.g., the types of systems that were affected and how they 
were compromised) could be used by threat actors to better attack their 
targets, imposing subsequent potential losses on Covered Entities. For 
example, announcing a significant cybersecurity incident naming a 
specific piece of malware and the degree of compromise can provide 
details about the structure of the target's computer systems, the 
security measures employed (or not employed), and potentially suggest 
promising attack vectors for future targets by other would-be 
attackers.
    Under proposed Rule 10, to mitigate these costs and to promote 
compliance with the disclosure requirements, each Covered Entity would 
be required to disclose summary descriptions of their cybersecurity 
risks and significant cybersecurity incidents on Part II of proposed 
Form SCIR.\856\ In the summary description of the significant 
cybersecurity incident, the Covered Entity would need to identify: (1) 
the person or persons affected; (2) the date the incident was 
discovered and whether it is still ongoing; (3) whether any data were 
stolen, altered, or accessed or used for any other unauthorized 
purpose; (4) the effect of the incident on the Covered Entity's 
operations; and (5) whether the Covered Entity, or service provider, 
has remediated or is currently remediating the incident.\857\ Thus, 
Covered Entities generally would not be required to disclose technical 
details about significant cybersecurity incidents that could compromise 
their cybersecurity protections going forward. As before, the costs 
associated with conveying this information to attackers is 
impracticable to estimate.\858\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \856\ See paragraph (d)(1) of proposed Rule 10.
    \857\ See paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 10.
    \858\ As noted in section IV.B. of this release, firms are 
generally hesitant to provide information about cyberattacks. 
Similarly, cybercriminals are not generally forthcoming with data on 
attacks, their success, or factors that made the attacks possible. 
Consequently, data from which plausible estimates could be made is 
not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While registering with the EDGAR system is free, the requirement to 
centrally file Part II of proposed Form SCIR in EDGAR would impose 
incremental costs on Covered Entities that have not previously filed 
documents in EDGAR. More specifically, Covered Entities that have never 
made a filing with the Commission via EDGAR would need to file a 
notarized Form ID, which is used to request the assignment of access 
codes to file on EDGAR. Thus, first-time EDGAR filers would incur 
modest costs associated with filing Form ID.\859\ That said, Covered 
Entities that already file documents in EDGAR would not incur the cost 
of having to register with EDGAR. As discussed earlier, the extent to 
which different categories of Covered Entities are already required to 
file documents in EDGAR varies. For example, SBSDs, MSBSPs, SBSDRs, and 
transfer agents are already required to file some forms in EDGAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \859\ Any Covered Entity that has made at least one filing with 
the Commission via EDGAR since 2002 has been entered into the EDGAR 
system by the Commission and will not need to file Form ID to file 
electronically on EDGAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, as mentioned earlier, the Commission approved a UIC--
namely, the LEI--in a previous rulemaking. The Commission could approve 
another standard identifier as a UIC in the future, but currently the 
LEI is the only approved UIC. Covered Entities that already have an LEI 
would not bear any cost to including it on proposed Form SCIR, as they 
would have already paid to obtain and maintain an LEI for some other 
purpose. Covered Entities that do not already have an LEI are not 
required to obtain an LEI in order to file proposed Form SCIR, thus, 
there is no additional cost to those Covered Entities that do not have 
an LEI.
    In addition, a Covered Broker-Dealer would be required to provide 
the written disclosure form to a customer as part of the account 
opening process. Thereafter, the Covered Broker-Dealer would need to 
provide the customer with the written disclosure form annually and when 
it is updated using the same means that the customer elects to receive 
account statements (e.g., by email or through some type of postal 
service). The Commission anticipates that the cost of initial and 
annual reporting will be negligible because the report text can be 
incorporated into other initial disclosures and periodic statements. 
The cost of furnishing updated reports in response to significant 
cybersecurity incidents depends on the degree to which such incidents 
occur and are detected, which cannot reliably be predicted. The 
Commission assumes that the delivery costs are the same regardless of 
the delivery method.
    To estimate the costs associated for a Covered Entity to file a 
Part II of proposed Form SCIR with the Commission through EDGAR, as 
well as post a copy of the form on its website, the Commission 
considered the initial and ongoing compliance costs.\860\ The internal 
annual costs for these requirements (which include an initial burden 
estimate annualized over a three year period) are estimated to be 
$1,377.46 per Covered Entity, and $2,739,767.94 in total. These costs 
include a blended rate of $375.33 for an

[[Page 20312]]

assistant general counsel, senior compliance examiner, and compliance 
manager for a total of 3.67 hours. The annual external costs for these 
requirements are estimated to be $1,488 per Covered Entity, and 
$2,959,632 in total. This includes the cost of using outside legal 
counsel at a rate of $496 per hour for a total of three hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \860\ See section V of this release (discussing these costs in 
more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the costs associated for a Covered Broker-Dealer to 
deliver its disclosures to new customers, as well as deliver 
disclosures to existing customers on an annual basis, the Commission 
considered the initial and ongoing compliance costs.\861\ The internal 
annual costs for these requirements (which include an initial burden 
estimate annualized over a three year period) are estimated to be 
$3,536.94 per Covered Broker-Dealer, and $5,450,424.54 in total. These 
costs include a rate of $69 per hour for a general clerk for a total of 
51.26 hours. It is estimated that there will be $0 annual external cost 
for this additional disclosure requirement for Covered Broker-Dealers. 
With respect to the additional disclosure fees for broker dealers, the 
cost covers the clerks employed by the broker-dealers for stuffing 
envelopes and mailing them out. The legal fees associated with drafting 
the disclosure is already tied to the burden of filing the disclosure 
in Part II of EDGAR and putting the disclosure on its website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \861\ See section V of this release (discussing these costs in 
more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the foregoing 
analysis of the benefits and costs of the requirements to provide 
immediate notification and subsequent reporting of significant 
cybersecurity incidents. Commenters are requested to provide empirical 
data in support of any arguments or analyses. In addition, the 
Commission is requesting comment on the following matters:
    16. Please provide views on the benefits and costs associated with 
posting the public disclosures on Covered Entities' websites and 
submitting them to the Commission through EDGAR. Will the general 
nature of the public disclosure be useful to Market Entities as well as 
customers, counterparties, members, participants, and users? Should the 
Commission require Covered Entities to both post cybersecurity risk and 
incident histories on Covered Entity websites and file that information 
on Part II of proposed Form SCIR in EDGAR? Should the Commission exempt 
some subset(s) of Covered Entities from the requirement to file Part II 
of proposed Form SCIR in EDGAR? If so, please explain. Should the 
Commission exempt some subset(s) of Covered Entities from the 
requirement to post cybersecurity risk and incident history information 
on their websites? Explain.
    17. Are the cost estimates associated with posting the public 
disclosure on the Covered Entities' websites, submitting Part II of 
proposed Form SCIR to the Commission through EDGAR, and providing 
disclosures to new and existing customers reasonable? If not, explain 
why? Are there any other benefits and costs of these proposed 
requirements? If so, please describe them.
    18. Are there any other costs and benefits associated with 
requiring Covered Entities to file Part II of proposed Form SCIR using 
a structured data language? If so, please describe them. Should the 
Commission require Covered Entities to file Part II of proposed Form 
SCIR using a structured data language, such as a custom XML? Should the 
Commission require Covered Entities to file Part II of proposed Form 
SCIR using a different structured data language than a custom XML, such 
as Inline XBRL? Why or why not?
    19. Are there any Covered Entities for whom the proposed structured 
data requirements of Part II of proposed Form SCIR should be exempted? 
If so, what particular exemption threshold or thresholds should the 
Commission use for the structured data requirements under the proposed 
rule amendments, and why?
    20. Please provide views on the benefits and costs associated with 
requiring Covered Entities to identify themselves on Part II of 
proposed Form SCIR with both a CIK number and a UIC (such as an LEI)? 
What would be the benefits and costs of requiring Covered Entities 
without a UIC to obtain one in order to file Part II of proposed Form 
SCIR? What, if any, standard identifiers should the Commission require 
Covered Entities to use to identify themselves on Part II of proposed 
Form SCIR?
    21. What would be the benefits and costs of requiring Covered 
Entities to place the required cybersecurity risk and incident history 
disclosures on individual Covered Entity websites and in EDGAR with 
Part II of proposed Form SCIR relative to the alternatives discussed 
below in section IV.F. of this release? Should the Commission instead 
adopt one of the alternatives for the requirements around where Covered 
Entities must place the public cybersecurity disclosures? Specifically, 
the Commission is proposing to require Covered Entities to publish the 
disclosures on their individual firm websites and to file the 
information in EDGAR using Part II of proposed Form SCIR. Should the 
Commission eliminate one, or both, of those requirements?
    22. Are there any Covered Entities for whom the proposed structured 
data requirements for Part II of proposed Form SCIR should be exempted? 
If so, what particular exemption threshold or thresholds should the 
Commission use for the structured data requirements under the proposed 
rule amendments, and why?
5. Record Preservation and Maintenance by Covered Entities
    As discussed above, proposed Rule 10 would require a Covered Entity 
to: (1) establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and 
procedures that are reasonably designed to address cybersecurity risks; 
(2) create written documentation of risk assessments; (3) create 
written documentation of any cybersecurity incident, including its 
response to and recovery from the incident; (4) prepare a written 
report each year describing its annual review of its policies and 
procedures to address cybersecurity risks; (5) provide immediate 
written notice of a significant cybersecurity incident; (6) report a 
significant cybersecurity incident on Part I of proposed Form SCIR; and 
(7) provide a written disclosure containing a summary description of 
its cybersecurity risk and significant cybersecurity incidents on Part 
II of proposed Form SCIR. Consequently, proposed Rule 10 would require 
a Covered Entity to create several different types of records, but it 
would not include its own record preservation and maintenance 
provisions. Instead, these requirements would be imposed through 
amendments, as necessary, to the existing record preservation and 
maintenance rules applicable to the Covered Entities. In particular, 
the Commission is proposing to amend the record preservation and 
maintenance rules for: (1) broker-dealers (i.e., Rule 17a-4); (2) SBS 
Entities (i.e., Rule 18a-6); and (3) transfer agents (i.e., Rule 17ad-
7). The proposed amendments would specify that the Rule 10 Records must 
be retained for three years. In the case of the written policies and 
procedures to address cybersecurity risks, the record would need to be 
maintained until three years after the termination of the use of the 
policies and procedures.
    The existing record maintenance and preservation rule applicable to 
registered clearing agencies, the MSRB, national securities 
associations, and

[[Page 20313]]

national securities exchanges (i.e., Rule 17a-1) requires these 
categories of Covered Entities keep and preserve at least one copy of 
all documents, including all correspondence, memoranda, papers, books, 
notices, accounts, and other such records as shall be made or received 
by the Covered Entity in the course of its business as such and in the 
conduct of its self-regulatory activity. Under the existing provisions 
of Rule 17a-1, registered clearing agencies, the MSRB, national 
securities associations, and national securities exchanges would be 
required to preserve at least one copy of the Rule 10 Records for at 
least five years, with the first two years in an easily accessible 
place. Similarly, the existing record maintenance and preservation rule 
applicable to SBSDRs (i.e., Rule 13n-7) requires these Market Entities 
to preserve records. And with respect to exempt clearing agencies, the 
Commission is proposing to amend the clearing agency exemption orders 
to add a condition that each exempt clearing agency must retain the 
Rule 10 Records for a period of at least five years after the record is 
made or, in the case of the written policies and procedures to address 
cybersecurity risks, for at least five years after the termination of 
the use of the policies and procedures.
a. Benefits
    There would be a number of benefits for Covered Entities to 
preserving and maintaining the Rule 10 records. With respect to 
cybersecurity policies and procedures and the written documentation 
concerning risk assessments and any cybersecurity incidents, the 
Covered Entity's records could be reviewed for compliance purposes as 
well as a reference in future self-conducted audits of the Covered 
Entity's cybersecurity system. In addition, the written report each 
year describing the Covered Entity's annual review of its policies and 
procedures could be used to determine if the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity risk management program is working as expected and to see 
if any changes should be made. Lastly, maintaining records of 
compliance would assist the Commission in its oversight role, 
particularly when conducting examinations of Covered Entities. With 
respect to the immediate written notice of a significant cybersecurity 
incident, as well as any submitted Part I of proposed Form SCIR, the 
records would facilitate examination of Covered Entities for compliance 
with proposed Rule 10.
    Finally, with respect to the public disclosures that Covered 
Entities would make on Part II of proposed Form SCIR, keeping records 
of these forms and submissions would be beneficial to Covered Entities 
for compliance purposes as well as use as a reference when updating the 
public disclosure. For example, a Covered Entity would need to file an 
updated Part II of proposed Form SCIR if the information in the summary 
description of a significant cybersecurity incident included on the 
form is no longer within the look-back period (i.e., the current or 
previous calendar year). However, the retention period for the records 
(e.g., three years in the case of broker-dealers, SBS Entities, and 
transfer agents, or five years in the case of registered clearing 
agencies, the MSRB, national securities associations, national 
securities exchanges, SBSDRs, and certain exempt clearing agencies) 
would require the Covered Entity to maintain a record of that 
particular public disclosure for a longer period of time.
    Benefits also arise due to the Commission's regulation and 
oversight of Covered Entities with respect to their books and 
records.\862\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \862\ The Commission also would retain copies of Parts I and II 
of proposed Form SCIR filed through EDGAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Costs
    The costs associated with preserving the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity policies and procedures and annual review are likely to 
be small. The cost would result from the requirement to preserve the 
Rule 10 Records for either three or five years. Given that the 
incremental volume of records that each Covered Entity would be 
required to retain would be relatively small, the costs should be 
minimal. Moreover, Covered Entities subject to other record retention 
requirements likely already have a system in place to maintain those 
records. Therefore, adding the records associated with proposed Rule 10 
likely would be a small burden.
    To estimate the costs associated for a Covered Entity to comply 
with its recordkeeping maintenance and preservation requirement, the 
Commission considered the initial and ongoing compliance costs.\863\ 
The internal annual cost for this requirement is estimated to be $441 
per Covered Entity, and $877,149 in total. These costs include a 
blended rate of $73.50 for a general clerk and compliance clerk for a 
total of 6 hours. It is estimated that there will be $0 annual external 
cost for the recordkeeping maintenance and preservation requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \863\ See section V of this release (discussing these costs in 
more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the foregoing 
analysis of the benefits and costs of the proposed record preservation 
and maintenance requirements. Commenters are requested to provide 
empirical data in support of any arguments or analyses. In addition, 
the Commission is requesting comment on the following matter:
    23. Are there any other benefits and cost associated with the 
requirements to preserve the Rule 10 Records? If so, please describe 
them.
6. Policies and Procedures, Annual Review, Immediate Notification of 
Significant Cybersecurity Incidents, and Record Preservation 
Requirements for Non-Covered Broker-Dealers
    As discussed earlier, proposed Rule 10 would require Non-Covered 
Broker-Dealers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and 
procedures that are reasonably designed to address their cybersecurity 
risks taking into account the size, business, and operations of the 
firm.\864\ The proposed rule also would require Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers to review the design and effectiveness of their cybersecurity 
policies and procedures annually, including whether the policies and 
procedures reflect changes in cybersecurity risk over the time period 
covered by the review. Furthermore, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers would be 
required to provide the Commission and their examining authority with 
immediate written electronic notice of the occurrence of a significant 
cybersecurity incident.\865\ The Commission also is proposing to amend 
the record preservation and maintenance rule for broker-dealers (Rule 
17a-4) to specifically require Non-Covered Broker-Dealers to preserve 
certain records in connection with Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \864\ See section II.C.1. of this release (discussing in more 
detail the proposed policies and procedures, annual review, and 
record preservation requirements for Non-Covered Broker-Dealers).
    \865\ The Commission is not proposing that Non-Covered Broker 
Dealers be subject to the requirements to file Parts I and II of 
proposed Form SCIR and post copies of the most recently filed Part 
II of proposed Form SCIR on their websites and provide copies of 
that filing to their customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Benefits
    The requirement under proposed Rule 10 for Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and 
procedures that are reasonably designed to address their cybersecurity 
risks would generally

[[Page 20314]]

improve cybersecurity preparedness of Non-Covered Broker-Dealers--and 
hence reduce their clients' exposure to cybersecurity incidents. This 
is because, in establishing and maintaining a set of cybersecurity 
policies and procedures in a written format, a Non-Covered Broker-
Dealer can evaluate whether its cybersecurity policies and procedures 
continue to work as designed and whether changes are needed to assure 
their continued effectiveness. In addition, by permitting Non-Covered 
Broker-Dealers to take into account their size, business, and 
operations of the firm when designing their written policies and 
procedures, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers can more efficiently utilize 
their resources. Moreover, by requiring Non-Covered Broker-Dealers to 
establish reasonably designed cybersecurity policies and procedures, 
the Commission would be better able to understand the protections that 
these broker-dealers put in place to address cybersecurity risk. During 
an examination, the Commission can assess the adequacy and completeness 
of a Non-Covered Broker-Dealers cybersecurity policies and procedures. 
Documenting a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer's cybersecurity policies and 
procedures in a written format also would aid the Commission in its 
review and oversight.
    Due to the varying sizes and operations of Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers, the benefits that accrue from the cybersecurity policies and 
procedures requirement likely differ across entities. Because Non-
Covered Broker-Dealers are generally smaller and have fewer assets and 
interconnections with other Market Entities than Covered Broker-
Dealers, there is less of a risk that a significant cybersecurity 
incident at a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer could provide the threat actor 
with access to other Market Entities. However, even though a Non-
Covered Broker-Dealer may not pose a significant overall risk to the 
U.S. securities markets, a significant cybersecurity event at a Non-
Covered Broker-Dealer could have profound negative effects if a threat 
actor is able to misappropriate customers' confidential financial 
information. Consequently, greater cybersecurity investment by a Non-
Covered Broker-Dealer likely would lead to significant benefits for 
itself and its customers.
    Non-Covered Broker-Dealers may already have implemented 
cybersecurity policies and procedures. The marginal benefits of the 
proposed rule would be mitigated to the extent that these existing 
policies and procedures are consistent with the proposed rule's 
requirements. However, existing policies and procedures that are 
already consistent with the proposed rule would facilitate Non-Covered 
Broker-Dealers in conducting annual reviews, assessing the design and 
effectiveness of their cybersecurity policies and procedures, and 
making necessary adjustments.
    The primary benefit of reviewing a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer's 
cybersecurity policies and procedures on an annual basis would help to 
ensure that they are working as designed, that they accurately reflect 
the firm's cybersecurity practices, and that they reflect changes and 
developments in the firm's cybersecurity risk over the time period 
covered by the review. The documented policies and procedures would 
serve as a benchmark when conducting the annual review. The Non-Covered 
Broker-Dealer would be required, for compliance purposes and future 
reference, to make a written record that documents the steps taken in 
performing the annual review and the conclusions of the annual review.
    Cybersecurity threats constantly evolve, and threat actors 
consistently identify new ways to infiltrate information systems. An 
annual review requirement would ensure that Non-Covered Broker-Dealers 
conduct a regular assessment and undertake updates to prevent policies 
and procedures from becoming stale or ineffective, in light of the 
dynamism of cybersecurity threats.
    The primary benefit of requiring Non-Covered Broker-Dealers to 
retain their written cybersecurity policies and procedures as well as a 
record of the annual reviews, is to assist the Commission in its 
oversight function. In reviewing their records, Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers may see trends in their own cybersecurity risks, which may 
serve as an impetus to make adjustments to their cybersecurity policies 
and procedures. Furthermore, Proposed Rule 10 would expand beyond 
current Commission regulations Non-Covered Broker-Dealers' 
cybersecurity policies and procedures that address all cybersecurity 
risks that may affect their information systems and the funds and 
securities as well as personal, confidential, and proprietary 
information that may be stored on those systems.
    As noted above, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers would be required to 
give the Commission immediate written electronic notice of a 
significant cybersecurity incident upon having a reasonable basis to 
conclude that the significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is 
occurring. Compared to the suite of proposed requirements for Covered 
Entities, including filing Parts I and II of proposed Form SCIR and 
publicly disclosing Part II (which would contain summary descriptions 
of the Covered Entity's cybersecurity risks and significant 
cybersecurity incidents that occurred in current and previous calendar 
years), the proposed requirement to provide immediate written 
electronic notice of significant cybersecurity incidents is relatively 
small but can yield significant benefits. Most notably, such immediate 
notifications would make Commission staff aware of significant 
cybersecurity incidents across all broker-dealers and not just at 
Covered Broker-Dealers, thus significantly increasing its oversight 
powers in the broker-dealer space with respect to cybersecurity 
incidents. Trends that impact Non-Covered Broker-Dealers, such as 
through malware or a particular type of software, may be detected by 
staff, which can then inform other Market Entities of emerging risks. 
This is particularly important due to the interconnected nature of the 
U.S. securities industry. Breaches that occur at Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers may spread to larger firms, such as Covered Entities, that 
could cause more widespread financial disruptions. Furthermore, we 
anticipate that the burden on Non-Covered broker dealers of furnishing 
immediate written notification of a significant cybersecurity incident 
will be minimal.\866\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \866\ See section IV.D.6.b. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Costs
    The costs associated with proposed Rule 10 for Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers with respect to the written cybersecurity policies and 
procedures requirements would primarily result from establishing 
written cybersecurity policies and procedures that are reasonably 
designed. Such costs may be passed on to the Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers' customers, either in part or in full.
    Many Non-Covered Broker-Dealers currently have cybersecurity 
policies and procedures in place; to the extent a Non-Covered Broker-
Dealer's existing policies and procedures are consistent with the 
requirements of the proposed rule, those Non-Covered Broker-Dealers 
would have limited need to update those policies and procedures, thus 
mitigating the costs of the proposal. Non-Covered Broker-Dealers may be 
subject to Regulation S-P, Regulation S-ID, and state regulations. In 
those particular instances, they may have already implemented policies 
and procedures that are consistent with the requirements of the 
proposed Rule 10,

[[Page 20315]]

which would mitigate some of the compliance costs associated with the 
proposed policies and procedures requirements.
    The cost of complying with the proposed annual review requirement 
along with the accompanying written review and conclusion would depend 
on the size, business, and operations of the Non-Covered Broker-Dealer. 
A Non-Covered Broker-Dealer with simpler operations likely would incur 
lower annual review and modification costs than firms with larger 
operations. Furthermore, a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer may choose to hire 
a third-party for assistance or consultation regarding the completion 
of a written annual review and conclusion. This cost, in those 
situations, would depend on the services requested and the fees that 
are charged by the third-parties and consultants. Such costs could be 
passed along to the Non-Covered Broker-Dealer's customers depending on 
the competitive nature of the Non-Covered Broker-Dealer's market and 
its business model.
    In either case, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers could tailor the 
policies and procedures to its cybersecurity risks taking into account 
its size, business, and operations. This offers Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers the flexibility to implement cybersecurity policies and 
procedures based on the sophistication and complexity of their 
information systems. Of course, the cost of cybersecurity systems and 
modifications to cybersecurity policies and procedures may be higher as 
the size, business, and operation of a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer 
increases and becomes more complex.
    The costs associated with giving the Commission immediate written 
electronic notice of a significant cybersecurity incident are likely to 
be relatively similar to, or possibly somewhat larger, than those 
incurred by Covered Broker-Dealers. As noted previously, the cost of 
immediate notification consists of notifying the Commission of a 
significant cybersecurity incident upon having a reasonable basis to 
conclude it has occurred or is occurring as well as researching the 
detailing of the incident in question. Non-Covered Broker-Dealers may 
be able to make the same determination and notify the Commission in the 
same amount of time as their Covered Broker-Dealer counterparts. 
However, smaller broker-dealers may not have the staffing or 
information technology expertise to make a reasonable decision about a 
suspected significant cybersecurity event as quickly as a Covered 
Broker-Dealer that may have in-house staff dedicated to this function, 
thus increasing the overall immediate notification cost. On the other 
hand, smaller broker-dealers could instead contract with third parties 
for cybersecurity functions that could identify plausible significant 
cybersecurity attacks in the same amount of time as Covered Broker-
Dealers. Unlike Covered Broker-Dealers, Non-Covered Broker-Dealers do 
not have to provide more detail beyond the immediate written 
notification requirement. Additional information regarding significant 
cybersecurity incidents do not have to be provided to the Commission on 
a confidential basis through the filing of Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR. Moreover, a summary of past incidents do not have to be publicly 
disclosed on their websites and with the Commission.
    To estimate the costs associated with the proposed policies and 
procedures requirements and annual review requirements, the Commission 
considered the initial and ongoing compliance costs.\867\ The internal 
annual costs for these requirements (which include an initial burden 
estimate annualized over a three year period) are estimated to be 
$9,702 per Non-Covered Broker-Dealer, and $19,103,238 in total. These 
costs include a blended rate of $462 for a compliance attorney and 
assistant general counsel for a total of 21 hours. The annual external 
costs for adopting and implementing the policies and procedures, as 
well as the annual review of the policies and procedures are estimated 
to be $2,480 per Non-Covered Broker-Dealer, and $4,883,120 in total. 
This includes the cost of using outside legal counsel at a rate of $496 
per hour for a total of five hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \867\ See section V of this release (discussing these costs in 
more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost associated Non-Covered Broker Dealer to research a 
suspected cybersecurity incident and provide immediate written 
notification to the Commission were combined earlier with those costs 
for Covered Entities.\868\ Broken out solely for Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers, the Commission considered the initial and ongoing compliance 
costs. The internal annual costs for these requirements (which include 
an initial burden estimate annualized over a three year period) are 
estimated to be $1,648.51 per Non-Covered Broker-Dealer, and $3,245,916 
in total. These costs include a blended rate of $353 for an assistant 
general counsel, compliance manager, and systems analyst for a total of 
4.67 hours. The annual external costs for these requirements are 
estimated to be $1,488 per Non-Covered Broker-Dealer, and $2,959,872 in 
total. This includes the cost of using outside legal counsel at a rate 
of $496 per hour for a total of three hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \868\ See section IV.D.3.b. of this release (discussing the cost 
of immediate notification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Rule 10, a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer would be 
required to: (1) establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and 
procedures that are reasonably designed to address the cybersecurity 
risks of the firm; (2) make a written record that documents its annual 
review; and (3) provide immediate electronic written notice to the 
Commission of a significant cybersecurity incident upon having a 
reasonable basis to conclude that the significant cybersecurity 
incident has occurred or is occurring. The additional cost of the 
proposed amendments to Rule 17a-4 of preserving and maintaining these 
documents for three years, whether in paper or digital form, is likely 
minimal.
    To estimate the costs associated for a Non-Covered Broker-Dealer to 
comply with its recordkeeping maintenance and preservation requirement, 
the Commission considered the initial and ongoing compliance 
costs.\869\ The internal annual cost for this requirement is estimated 
to be $220.50 per Non-Covered Broker-Dealer, and $434,164.50 in total. 
These costs include a blended rate of $73.50 for a general clerk and 
compliance clerk for a total of 2 hours. It is estimated that there 
will be $0 annual external cost for the recordkeeping maintenance and 
preservation requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \869\ See section V of this release (discussing these costs in 
more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the foregoing 
analysis of the benefits and costs of the proposed requirements for 
Non-Covered Broker-Dealers. Commenters are requested to provide 
empirical data in support of any arguments or analyses. In addition, 
the Commission is requesting comment on the following matters:
    24. What level of cybersecurity policies and procedures have Non-
Covered Broker-Dealers implemented? For example, would they meet the 
cybersecurity policies and procedures requirements of the proposed 
rule, thus making the compliance cost relatively low? Are those 
policies and procedures documented?
    25. Are there any other benefits and costs for a Non-Covered 
Broker-Dealer

[[Page 20316]]

in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing written policies and 
procedures under proposed Rule 10? If so, please describe them.
    26. Are the estimated costs of compliance for Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and 
procedures cybersecurity policies and procedures that comply with the 
proposed rule reasonable? If not, why not?
    27. Would Non-Covered Broker-Dealers consult with a third party or 
hire a consultant with cybersecurity expertise in order to establish 
the cybersecurity policies and procedures under proposed Rule 10?
    28. Are there quantifiable benefits to complying with the 
cybersecurity policies and procedures requirements of the proposed 
rule? If so, please describe them. Are there quantifiable costs for 
Non-Covered Broker-Dealers to review their cybersecurity policies 
annually that are different than those discussed above? If so, describe 
them.
    29. Are there any other benefits in reviewing and updating Non-
Covered Broker-Dealers' cybersecurity policies and procedures on an 
annual basis? If so, please describe them.
    30. Is the estimated cost to review Non-Covered Broker-Dealers 
cybersecurity policies and procedures reasonable? If not, explain why?
    31. Would it be more or less costly to outsource the responsibility 
of an annual review of cybersecurity policies and procedures to a third 
party?
7. Substituted Compliance for Non-U.S. SBS Entities
    Commission Rule 3a71-6 states that the Commission may, 
conditionally or unconditionally, by order, make a determination with 
respect to a foreign financial regulatory system that compliance with 
specified requirements under such foreign financial regulatory system 
by a registered SBS Entity or class thereof, may satisfy the certain 
requirements that would otherwise apply to such an SBS Entity (or class 
thereof). The Commission may make such substituted compliance 
determinations to permit SBS Entities that are not U.S. persons (as 
defined in 17 CFR 240.3a71-3(a)(4)), but not SBS Entities that are U.S. 
persons, to satisfy the eligible requirements by complying with 
comparable foreign requirements.\870\ The Commission is proposing to 
amend Rule 3a71-6 to permit eligible applicants \871\ to seek a 
Commission determination with respect to the cybersecurity requirements 
of proposed Rule 10 and Form SCIR as applicable to SBS Entities that 
are not U.S. persons.\872\ Additionally, Rule 3a71-6 currently permits 
eligible applicants to seek a substituted compliance determination from 
the Commission with regard to the requirements of Rule 18a-6, including 
the proposed amendments to Rule 18a-6 if adopted.\873\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \870\ See 17 CFR 240.3a71-6(d).
    \871\ See 17 CFR 240.3a71-6(c).
    \872\ See section II.D.3.
    \873\ See paragraph (d)(6) of Rule 3a71-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Benefits
    The Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 3a71-6 to make 
substituted compliance available to eligible SBS Entities that are not 
U.S. persons, if the Commission determines that compliance with 
specified requirements under a foreign financial regulatory system by a 
registered SBS Entity, or class thereof, satisfies the corresponding 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 and Form SCIR. Other regulatory 
regimes may achieve regulatory outcomes that are comparable to the 
Commission's proposed cybersecurity risk management requirements. 
Allowing for the possibility of substituted compliance may avoid 
regulatory duplication and conflict that may increase entities' 
compliance burdens without an analogous increase in benefits. The 
availability of substituted compliance could decrease the compliance 
burden for non-U.S. SBS Entities, in particular as it pertains to the 
establishment, maintenance, and enforcement of cybersecurity policies 
and procedures, notification and reporting to regulators, disclosure of 
cybersecurity risks and incidents, and record preservation. Allowing 
for the possibility of substituted compliance may help achieve the 
benefits of proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the proposed amendments to 
Rule 18a-6 in a manner that avoids the costs that SBS Entities that are 
not U.S. persons would have to bear due to regulatory duplication or 
conflict.
    Further, substituted compliance may have broader market 
implications, namely greater foreign SBSDs' activity in the U.S. 
market, expanded access by both U.S. and foreign SBS Entities to global 
liquidity, and reduced possibility of liquidity fragmentation along 
jurisdictional lines. The availability of substituted compliance for 
non-U.S. SBS Entities also could promote market efficiency, while 
enhancing competition in U.S. markets. Greater participation and access 
to liquidity is likely to improve efficiencies related to hedging and 
risk sharing while simultaneously increasing competition between 
domestic and foreign SBS Entities.
b. Costs
    The Commission believes that the availability of substituted 
compliance for proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the proposed amendments 
to Rule 18a-6 will not substantially alter the benefits intended by 
those requirements. In particular, it is expected that the availability 
of substituted compliance will not detract from the risk management 
benefits that stem from implementing proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and 
the proposed amendments to Rule 18a-6.
    To the extent that substituted compliance reduces duplicative 
compliance costs, non-U.S. SBS Entities may incur lower overall costs 
associated with cybersecurity preparedness than they would otherwise 
incur without the option of substituted compliance availability, either 
because a non-U.S. SBS Entity may have already implemented foreign 
regulatory requirements which have been deemed comparable by the 
Commission, or because security-based swap counterparties eligible for 
substituted compliance do not need to duplicate compliance with two 
sets of comparable requirements.
    A substituted compliance request can be made either by a foreign 
regulatory jurisdiction on behalf of its market participants, or by the 
registered market participant itself.\874\ The decision to request 
substituted compliance is voluntary, and therefore, to the extent that 
requests are made by individual market participants, such participants 
would request substituted compliance only if compliance with foreign 
regulatory requirements was less costly, in their own assessment, than 
compliance with both the foreign regulatory regime and the relevant 
Title VII requirements, including the requirements of proposed Rule 10, 
Form SCIR, and the proposed amendments to Rule 18a-6. Even after a 
substituted compliance determination is made, market participants would 
only choose substituted compliance if the benefits that they expect to 
receive exceed the costs that they expect to bear for doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \874\ See 17 CFR 240.3a71-6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Effects on Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation

    As discussed in the foregoing sections, market imperfections could 
lead to underinvestment in cybersecurity by Market Entities, and 
information asymmetry could contribute

[[Page 20317]]

to a market-wide inefficient provision of cybersecurity defenses. The 
proposed rule aims to mitigate the inefficiencies resulting from these 
imperfections by: (1) imposing mandates for cybersecurity policies and 
procedures that could reduce cybersecurity underinvestment; (2) 
creating a reporting framework that could improve information sharing 
and improved cybersecurity defense investment and protection; and (3) 
providing public disclosure to inform Covered Entities' customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users about the Covered 
Entities' cybersecurity efforts and experiences, thus potentially 
reducing information asymmetry.\875\ While the proposed rule has the 
potential to mitigate inefficiencies resulting from market 
imperfections, the scale of the overall effect would depend on numerous 
factors, including the state of existing of cybersecurity 
preparations,\876\ the degree to which the proposed provisions induce 
increases to these preparations, the effectiveness of additional 
preparations at reducing cybersecurity risks,\877\ the degree to which 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, and users value 
additional cybersecurity preparations,\878\ the degree of information 
asymmetry and bargaining power between customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, and users vis-[agrave]-vis Market Entities,\879\ 
the bargaining power of Market Entities vis-[agrave]-vis service 
providers,\880\ service providers' willingness to provide bespoke 
contractual provisions to affected Market Entities,\881\ the 
informational utility of the proposed disclosures, the scale of the 
negative externalities on the broader financial system,\882\ the 
effectiveness of existing information sharing arrangements, and the 
informational utility of the required regulatory reports (as well as 
the Commission's ability to make use of them).\883\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \875\ See sections IV.B. and IV.D. of this release (discussing 
the broad economic considerations and benefits and costs of the 
proposals, respectively.
    \876\ See section IV.C.1. of this release. Here, the Commission 
is concerned about the degree to which Market Entities' state of 
cybersecurity preparations diverge from socially optimal levels.
    \877\ Formally, the marginal product of the proposed policies 
and procedures in the production of cybersecurity defenses.
    \878\ Formally, customers', counterparties', members', 
registrants', and users' utility functions--specifically the 
marginal utilities of Covered Entities' and Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers' cybersecurity policies and procedures.
    \879\ In other words, the degree to which customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users can affect the 
policies of Market Entities. Generally, the Commission expects that 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users may be 
smaller than the affected Market Entity with which they conduct 
business and thus be subject to asymmetry and have limited ability 
to affect the policies of the Market Entity. However, that may not 
always be the case. For example, for customers of broker-dealers, 
the situation is likely to involve more heterogeneity, with some 
parties (e.g., small retail clients) wielding very little power over 
the broker-dealer's policies while others (e.g., large institutional 
investors) wielding considerable power.
    \880\ In certain cases, a Covered Entity may determine that a 
competing service provider can be used as a bargaining chip in the 
renegotiation of existing service agreements, potentially imposing 
substantial contracting costs on the parties, which would eventually 
be passed on to the Covered Entities' customers, counterparties, 
members, participants, or users.
    \881\ Id.
    \882\ See sections IV.D.2.a. and IV.D.2.b. of this release.
    \883\ See section IV.D.3. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, since the proposed cybersecurity policies and procedures 
and related annual assessment are intended to prevent cybersecurity 
incidents at Market Entities that would otherwise cause financial loss 
and operational failure, compliance with the proposed rule likely would 
result in a safer environment to engage in securities transactions that 
protects the efficiency with which markets operate. Specifically, the 
proposed requirements are intended to protect the efficiency of 
securities market through the prevention of cybersecurity incidents 
that can adversely impact Market Entities and that, in turn, can 
interrupt the normal operations of U.S. securities markets and disrupt 
the efficient flow of information and capital.
    The additional requirements applicable to Covered Entities (namely, 
the specific elements of the cybersecurity policies and procedures, the 
reporting to the Commission of any significant cybersecurity incident 
through Part I of proposed Form SCIR, and the disclosure of 
cybersecurity risks and significant cybersecurity incidents) would also 
allow for greater information sharing and would reduce the risk of 
underinvestment in cybersecurity across the securities industry. For 
example, confidential reporting to the Commission through Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR would provide regulators with the opportunity to 
promptly begin to assess the situation when a Covered Entity is 
experiencing a significant cybersecurity incident and begin to evaluate 
potential impacts on the market. In addition, public disclosures by 
Covered Entities through Part II of proposed Form SCIR and website 
postings would allow their customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, and users to manage risk and choose with whom to do 
business, potentially allocating their resources to Covered Entities 
with greater cybersecurity preparedness. In addition, the sharing of 
information through public disclosures could assist in the development 
and implementation of cybersecurity policies and procedures, 
particularly by smaller and less sophisticated Market Entities which 
likely have fewer resources to develop robust cybersecurity protocols. 
Such information may be useful to them in in choosing one option over 
another, potentially allowing those smaller and less sophisticated 
Market Entities to develop their cybersecurity protection in the most 
cost-effective way possible.
    Because the proposed rule would likely have differential effects on 
Market Entities along a number of dimensions, its overall effect on 
competition among Market Entities may be difficult to predict in 
certain instances. For example, smaller Market Entities, such as Non-
Covered Broker-Dealers and certain transfer agents are likely to face 
disproportionately higher costs relative to revenues resulting from the 
proposed rule.\884\ With respect to broker-dealers, the Commission has 
endeavored to provide Non-Covered Broker-Dealers with a more limited 
and flexible set of requirements that better suits their business 
models and would therefore be less onerous. Still, a number of small 
broker-dealers would be subject to the proposed rule as Covered 
Entities, which could tilt the competitive playing field in favor of 
their larger Covered Broker-Dealer counterparts.\885\ In addition, all 
transfer agents would be Covered Entities under the proposed rule, 
regardless of their size, so the same concern is present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \884\ See section IV.B. of this release.
    \885\ See section VI.C. of this release (noting that certain 
small broker-dealers would meet the definition of ``covered entity'' 
for purposes of the proposed rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, if customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users believe that the proposed rule effectively 
induces the appropriate level of cybersecurity effort among Market 
Entities, smaller Market Entities would likely benefit the most from 
these improved perceptions, as they would be thought to have sufficient 
cybersecurity policies and procedures in place compared to not having 
enough cybersecurity protections. Similar differential effects can 
occur within a particular group of Market Entities and service 
providers that are more (or less) focused on their cybersecurity.
    With respect to competition among Covered Entities' service 
providers, the overall effect of the proposed rule and amendments is 
similarly ambiguous. It is likely that requiring affected Covered

[[Page 20318]]

Entities to request oversight of service providers' cybersecurity 
practices pursuant to a written contract would lead some service 
providers to cease offering services to affected Covered Entities.\886\ 
The additional regulation could serve as a barrier to entry to new 
service providers and could disproportionally affect would-be Market 
Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \886\ See section I.A.1. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of capital formation, the proposed rule would have second-
order effects, namely through a safer financial marketplace. As noted 
above, FSOC states that a destabilizing cybersecurity incident could 
potentially threaten the stability of the U.S. financial system by 
causing, among other things, a loss of confidence among a broad set of 
market participants, which could cause participants to question the 
safety or liquidity of their assets or transactions, and lead to 
significant withdrawal of assets or activity.\887\ The Market Entities 
covered by this rule play important roles in capital formation through 
the various services they provide.\888\ Due to their interconnected 
systems, a significant cybersecurity incident affecting Market Entities 
could have a cascading effect across the U.S. financial system with a 
significant impact on investor confidence, resulting in withdrawal of 
assets and impairment of capital formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \887\ See FSOC 2021 Annual Report.
    \888\ See sections I.A.1. and II.A.1. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule provides the backbone for having sufficient 
cybersecurity measures in place to protect customer information, funds, 
and securities. Moreover, proposed provisions likely would lead to 
increased efficiency in the market, thus resulting in improved capital 
formation.\889\ With a more predictable investment environment due to 
improved cybersecurity implementation by Market Entities and service 
providers, capital formation through the demand for securities 
offerings will be less prone to interruptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \889\ The proposed provisions do not implicate channels 
typically associated with capital formation (e.g., taxation policy, 
financial innovation, capital controls, intellectual property, rule-
of-law, and diversification). Thus, the proposed rule are likely to 
have only indirect, second order effects on capital formation 
arising from any improvements to economic efficiency. Qualitatively, 
these effects are expected to be small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the analysis on competition, efficiency, and capital 
formation, the Commission requests comment from all parties, 
particularly the Market Entities that are affected by these proposed 
rule:
    a. Do firms within the Covered Entity and Non-Covered Broker-Dealer 
groups compare their cybersecurity safety measures among themselves or 
among firms of a particular type within a group (e.g., national 
securities exchanges only or transfer agents only)? Does one entity's 
level of cybersecurity protection incentivize competing entities to 
improve their cybersecurity policies and procedures? Is it possible 
that an entity with subpar cybersecurity protocols may be forced to 
exit the market, either because of business migrating to its 
competitors or because of the sheer number of cybersecurity incidents 
at that entity?
    b. Would better cybersecurity policies and procedures, especially 
those that are reviewed and updated, provide more stability in the 
securities markets that encourages additional investment?
    c. Would public disclosures of cybersecurity risks and significant 
cybersecurity incidents during the current or previous calendar year 
encourage investment in cybersecurity protections that later provide 
more stability in the market, thus encouraging capital formation?
    d. Does the Commission's knowledge of cybersecurity incidents as 
well as of the policy and procedures at Market Entities lead to a 
calming effect on the market though oversight and compliance with the 
proposed rule, which would then foster greater capital formation?

F. Reasonable Alternatives

1. Alternatives to the Policies and Procedures Requirements of Proposed 
Rule 10
a. Require Only Disclosure of Cybersecurity Policies and Procedures 
Without Prescribing Specific Elements
    Rather than requiring Covered Entities to adopt cybersecurity 
policies and procedures with specific enumerated elements, the 
Commission considered requiring Covered Entities to only provide 
explanations or summaries of their cybersecurity practices to their 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users. In this 
alternative scenario, each Covered Entity would provide a disclosure 
containing a general overview of its existing cybersecurity policies 
and procedures, rather than be required to establish cybersecurity 
policies and procedures pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (b) 
of proposed Rule 10. Under this alternative, the general disclosure 
about the Covered Entity's cybersecurity policies and procedures would 
be publicly available to its customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, and users, but it would not reveal specific details of the 
Covered Entity's policies and procedures. Further, under this 
alternative, detailed and comprehensive information about the Covered 
Entity's cybersecurity risks and protocols--including the policies and 
procedures themselves--would remain internal to the Covered Entity. The 
only other organizations that would be able to review or examine this 
more detailed information would be the Commission, FINRA, the MSRB (to 
the extent applicable), and other regulators with authority to examine 
this information in the course of their oversight activities.
    This alternative approach would create weaker incentives for 
Covered Entities to address potential underspending on cybersecurity 
measures, as it would rely, in part, on customers', counterparties', 
members', registrants', or users' (or third parties' providing analyses 
to those customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users) 
\890\ ability to assess the effectiveness of Covered Entities' 
cybersecurity practices from the Covered Entities' public disclosures. 
Further, any benefits to be gained by requiring public disclosure of a 
Covered Entity's cybersecurity policies and procedures can also be 
realized through the proposed rule's public disclosure requirement. In 
particular, proposed Rule 10 would require each Covered Entity to 
provide a summary description of the cybersecurity risks that could 
materially affect its business and operations and how the Covered 
Entity assesses, prioritizes, and addresses those cybersecurity risks. 
In addition, each Covered Entity would need to disclose a summary 
description of each significant cybersecurity incident that occurred 
during the current or previous calendar year, if applicable. This 
disclosure would serve as another way for market participants to 
evaluate the Covered Entity's cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities 
apart from the general disclosure of its cybersecurity risks. As 
mentioned above, this information could be useful to the Covered 
Entity's customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users to 
manage their own cybersecurity risks and, to the extent they have 
choice, select a Covered Entity with whom to transact or otherwise 
conduct business.\891\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \890\ See section IV.D.1.a. of this release.
    \891\ Furthermore, third-party financial service firms could 
conduct studies on cybersecurity preparedness at Market Entities, 
such as certain entities not being in line with industry practices 
or standards, which also could inform the choices of customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the cybersecurity risks of disclosing detailed explanations 
of

[[Page 20319]]

cybersecurity practices (which would necessarily be disclosed if the 
Covered Entity would be required to disclose its existing cybersecurity 
policies and procedures),\892\ it is likely that requiring such 
disclosure would result in the Covered Entity including only general 
language in its disclosure and providing few, if any, specific details 
that could be used by threat actors to take advantage of weak links in 
a Covered Entity's cybersecurity preparedness. Consequently, this 
alternative ``disclosure-only'' regime for cybersecurity policies and 
procedures would be unlikely to provide enough information and detail 
to differentiate between one Covered Entity's cybersecurity policies 
and procedures from another's policies and procedures, thus maintaining 
information asymmetry between the Covered Entity and other market 
participants. If information asymmetry was maintained, it is unlikely 
that meaningful change could be effected in the Covered Entities' 
cybersecurity practices through market pressure or Commission oversight 
over the Covered Entity's policies and procedures.\893\ Furthermore, 
not requiring specific enumerated elements in cybersecurity policies 
and procedures would likely result in less uniform cybersecurity 
preparedness across Covered Entities, leaving market participants with 
inconsistent information about the robustness of Covered Entities' 
cybersecurity practices. However, if Market Entities believed that 
providing more detailed information would give them a competitive 
advantage, they would do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \892\ See section IV.D.2.b. of this release (discussing 
tradeoffs of cybersecurity disclosure).
    \893\ Here, changes in cybersecurity practices would depend 
entirely on market discipline exerted by relatively uninformed 
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, the costs associated with this alternative 
likely would be minimal relative to those associated with the proposed 
requirements regarding written policies and procedures, as Covered 
Entities would be unlikely to face pressure to adjust their existing 
cybersecurity policies and procedures as long as they do not experience 
any significant cybersecurity incidents. However, if a Covered Entity 
does experience a significant cybersecurity incident, it may force the 
Covered Entity to revise its existing cybersecurity policies and 
procedures and consequently revise its disclosures to other market 
participants concerning its cybersecurity policies and procedures. It 
is also conceivable that being required to make public disclosures 
regarding its cybersecurity policies and procedures or undergoing 
third-party market analyses that aggregate these types of disclosures 
(and may focus on, for example, the Covered Entity's lack of conformity 
with industry practices and standards) may provide the impetus for a 
Covered Entity to make its cybersecurity policies and procedures more 
robust.
b. Limiting the Scope of the Proposed Cybersecurity Policies and 
Procedures With Respect to Third-Party Service Providers
    The Commission also considered limiting the scope of the proposed 
requirement that the Covered Entity's policies and procedures require 
oversight of service providers that receive, maintain, or process the 
Covered Entity's information, or are otherwise permitted to access the 
Covered Entity's information systems and the information residing on 
those systems, pursuant to a written contract between the Covered 
Entity and the service provider.\894\ Specifically, the Commission 
considered narrowing the scope of service providers in the enumerated 
categories discussed above \895\ and requiring a periodic review and 
assessment of the pared-down list of service providers' cybersecurity 
policies and procedures rather than apply the Service Provider 
Oversight requirement to each service prover that receives, maintains, 
or processes the Covered Entity's information, or is otherwise 
permitted to access the Covered Entity's information systems and the 
information residing on those systems. The types of service providers 
that would still be covered by the written contract requirement would 
be those that provide cybersecurity related-services as well as 
business-critical services that are necessary for a Covered Entity to 
operate its core functions. The Commission further considered requiring 
service providers that receive, maintain, or process the Covered 
Entity's information, or are otherwise permitted to access the Covered 
Entity's information systems and the information residing on those 
systems to provide security certifications in lieu of the written 
contract requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \894\ See paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) of proposed Rule 10 (setting 
forth the Service Provider Oversight Requirement).
    \895\ See section IV.C.2.h. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Narrowing the scope of the types of service providers affected by 
the proposal could lower costs for Covered Entities, especially smaller 
Covered Entities that rely on generic contracts with service providers 
(because they have less negotiating power with their service providers) 
and would have difficulty effecting changes in contractual terms with 
such service providers.\896\ However, in the current technological 
context in which businesses increasingly rely on third-party ``cloud 
services'' that effectively place business data out of the business' 
immediate control, the cybersecurity risk exposure of Covered Entities 
is unlikely to be limited to (or even concentrated in) certain named 
service providers. Narrowing the scope of service providers likely 
would lead to lower costs only insofar as it reduces effectiveness of 
the regulation. A related basis to reject this alternative is the 
signaling effect that it sends to threat actors. By excluding certain 
categories of service providers, the Commission could be providing 
information to threat actors about which service providers would be 
easiest to attack, as that universe of excluded vendors may have 
relatively inferior policies and procedures than vendors that are 
covered by the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \896\ See section IV.D.1.b. of this release (discussing service 
providers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatively, maintaining the proposed scope but only requiring a 
standard, recognized, certification in lieu of a written contract could 
also lead to cost savings for Covered Entities, particularly if the 
certification is completed in-house or if a particular entity has many 
service contracts with different third parties that specify they are in 
compliance with the certification.\897\ However, the Commission 
preliminary believes that it would be difficult to prescribe a set of 
characteristics for such a ``standard'' certification that would 
sufficiently address the varied types of Covered Entities and their 
respective service providers.\898\ Another difficulty may be that if a 
single third-party entity is used for the certification, that entity 
would have to be well-versed in all contracted services in order to 
accurately assess them for compliance. In contrast, individualized 
contracts with each

[[Page 20320]]

service provider likely would ensure better compliance with the intent 
of the proposed rule as those third-party providers specialize in the 
services that they offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \897\ Service providers may currently be providing 
certifications as part of a registrant's policies and procedures. 
See also section II.B.1.g. of this release (seeking comment on 
alternative approaches to the Service Provider Oversight 
Requirement, including whether this cybersecurity risk could be 
addressed through policies and procedures to obtain written 
assurances or certifications from service providers that the service 
provider manages cybersecurity risk in a manner that would be 
consistent with how the Covered Entity would need to manage this 
risk under paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 10).
    \898\ See section IV.C.3. of this release(discussing the variety 
of affected registrants); see also section IV.F.1. of this release 
(discussing the limitations of uniform prescriptive requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Require Specific Standardized Elements for Addressing Cybersecurity 
Risks of Covered Entities
    The Commission considered including more standardized elements in 
that would need to be included in a Covered Entity's cybersecurity 
policies and procedures. For example, Covered Entities could be 
required to implement particular controls (e.g., specific encryption 
protocols, network architecture, or authentication procedures) that are 
designed to address each general element of the required cybersecurity 
policies and procedures. Given the considerable diversity in the size, 
focus, and technical sophistication of affected Covered Entities,\899\ 
any specific requirements likely would result in some Covered Entities 
needing to substantially alter their cybersecurity policies and 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \899\ See section IV.C.3. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The potential benefit of such an approach would be to provide 
assurance that Covered Entities have implemented certain specific 
cybersecurity practices. But this approach would also entail 
considerably higher costs, as many Covered Entities would need to 
adjust their existing practices to something else that is more costly 
than potential alternatives that could provide the same outcome level 
of protection. In addition, considering the variety of Covered Entities 
registered with the Commission, it would be exceedingly difficult for 
the Commission to devise specific requirements that are appropriately 
suited for all Covered Entities: a uniform set of requirements would 
certainly be both over- and under-inclusive, while providing varied 
requirements based on the circumstances of each Covered Entity would be 
complex and impractical. For example, standardized requirements that 
ensure reasonably designed cybersecurity policies and procedures for 
the largest, most sophisticated and active Covered Entities would 
likely be overly burdensome for smaller and less sophisticated Covered 
Entities with more limited cybersecurity risk exposures. Conversely, if 
these standardized requirements were tailored to smaller Covered 
Entities with more limited operations or cybersecurity risks, such 
requirements likely would be inadequate in addressing larger Covered 
Entities' cybersecurity risks. As a result, instituting blanket 
requirements likely would not provide the most efficient and cost-
effective way of instituting appropriate cybersecurity policies and 
procedures.
    An important cost associated with this approach is the burden and 
complexity of prescribing detailed technical requirements tailored to 
the broad variety of Covered Entities that would be subject to proposed 
Rule 10. More broadly, imposing standardized requirements would 
effectively place the Commission in the role of dictating details 
related to the information technology practices of Covered Entities 
without the benefit of the Covered Entities' knowledge of their own 
particular circumstances. Moreover, given the complex and constantly 
evolving cybersecurity landscape, detailed regulatory requirements for 
cybersecurity practices would likely limit Covered Entities' ability to 
adapt quickly to changes in the cybersecurity landscape.\900\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \900\ If as in the previous example, the Commission were to 
require Covered Entities to adopt a specific encryption algorithm, 
future discovery of vulnerabilities in that algorithm would prevent 
registrants from fully mitigating the vulnerability (i.e., switching 
to improved algorithms) in the absence of Commission action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Require Audits of Internal Controls Regarding Cybersecurity
    Instead of requiring all Market Entities to establish, maintain, 
and enforce cybersecurity policies and procedures, the Commission 
considered requiring these entities to obtain audits of the 
effectiveness of their existing cybersecurity controls--for example, 
obtaining third-party audits with respect to their cybersecurity 
practices. This approach would not require Market Entities to 
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that 
are reasonably designed to address their cybersecurity risks as 
proposed, but instead would require Market Entities to engage an 
independent, qualified third party to assess their cybersecurity 
controls and prepare a report describing its assessment and any 
potential deficiencies.
    Under this alternative, an independent third party (e.g., an 
auditing firm) would certify to the effectiveness of the Market 
Entities' cybersecurity practices. If the firms providing such 
certifications have sufficient reputational motives to issue credible 
assessment,\901\ and if the scope of such certifications is not overly 
circumscribed,\902\ it is likely that Market Entities' cybersecurity 
practices would end up being more robust under this alternative than 
under the current proposal. By providing certification of a Market 
Entities' cybersecurity practices, a firm would--in effect--be lending 
its reputation to the Market Entity. Because ``lenders'' are naturally 
most sensitive to downside risks (here, loss of reputation, lawsuits, 
damages, and regulatory enforcement actions), one would expect them to 
avoid ``lending'' to Market Entities with cybersecurity practices whose 
effectiveness is questionable.\903\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \901\ This would be the case if there was sufficient market 
pressure or regulatory requirements to obtain certification from 
``reputable'' third-parties with business models premised on 
operating as a going-concern and maintaining a reputation for 
honesty.
    \902\ In this alternative, it is assumed that certification 
would not be limited to only evaluating whether a Market Entity's 
stated policies and procedures are reasonably designed, but rather 
also would include an assessment of whether the policies and 
procedures are actually implemented in an effective manner.
    \903\ Under the proposal it is the Market Entity itself that 
effectively ``certifies'' its own cybersecurity policies and 
procedures. Like the third-party auditor, the Market Entity faces 
down-side risks from ``certifying'' inadequate cybersecurity 
practices (i.e., Commission enforcement actions). However, unlike 
the auditor, the Market Entity also realizes the potential up-side: 
cost savings through reduced cybersecurity expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While certification by industry-approved third parties could lead 
to more robust cybersecurity practices, the costs of such an approach 
would likely be considerably higher. Because of the aforementioned 
sensitivity to downside risk, firms would likely be hesitant to provide 
cybersecurity certifications without a thorough understanding of a 
Market Entity's systems and practices. In many cases, developing such 
an understanding would involve considerable effort particularly for 
certain larger and more sophisticated Covered Entities.\904\ In 
addition, there may be a need for a consensus as to what protocols 
constitute industry standards in which certifying third parties would 
need to stay proficient. Finally, while such a scenario is somewhat 
similar to the Service Provider Oversight Requirement, this alternative 
does not allow for immediate repercussions or remediation if the third-
party finds deficiencies in the Covered Entity's cybersecurity policies 
and procedures. The Commission would need to have a copy of the report 
and audit the Market Entity to ensure that Market Entity subsequently 
resolved the problem(s). This leads to an inefficient method of 
implementing reasonably

[[Page 20321]]

designed cybersecurity policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \904\ It would be difficult for an auditor to provide a credible 
assessment of the effectiveness of the Market Entity's cybersecurity 
practices without first understanding the myriad of systems involved 
and how those practices are implemented. Presumably, a Market Entity 
would not bear these costs as it is likely to possess such an 
understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Bifurcate Non-Broker-Dealer Market Entities Into Covered Entities 
and Non-Covered Entities
    The Commission considered bifurcating other categories of Market 
Entities into Covered Entities and Non-Covered Entities (in addition to 
broker-dealers) based on certain characteristics of the firm such that 
the Non-Covered Entities would not be required to include certain 
elements in their cybersecurity risk management policies and 
procedures. For example, the Commission considered defining as Non-
Covered Entities Market Entities with assets below a certain threshold 
or with only a limited number of customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users. This approach also could be scaled based on a 
Covered Entity's size, business, or another criterion, similar to the 
proposed distinction between Covered Broker-Dealers and Non-Covered 
Broker-Dealers. However, as discussed above, cybersecurity risks are 
likely to be unique to each Covered Entity primarily because Covered 
Entities vary drastically based on their size, business, and the 
services they provide. It would be difficult come up with one 
characteristic that is common to all Covered Entities such that each of 
them can be both broken out into separate groups. For example, it would 
be difficult to differentiate between transfer agents the same way one 
could distinguish between large and small clearing agencies or even 
harder, national securities associations. The only effective way to 
differentiate firms with a given Covered Entity category is to choose a 
characteristic that is sensible for the type of Covered Entity.\905\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \905\ For additional detail on the importance of each of the 
proposed Covered Entity's role in the U.S. securities markets, see 
section I.A.2. of this release (discussing critical operations of 
each Market Entity). See also section II.A.1. of this release 
(discussing why it would not be appropriate to exclude small 
transfer agents and certain small broker-dealers from the definition 
of Covered Entity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as discussed earlier, in determining which Market Entities 
should be Covered Entities and which should be Non-Covered Entities, 
the Commission considered: (1) how the category of Market Entity 
supports the fair, orderly, and efficient operation of the U.S. 
securities markets and the consequences if that type of Market Entity's 
critical functions were disrupted or degraded by a significant 
cybersecurity incident; (2) the harm that could befall investors, 
including retail investors, if that category of Market Entity's 
functions were disrupted or degraded by a significant cybersecurity 
incident; (3) the extent to which the category of Market Entity poses 
cybersecurity risk to other Market Entities though information system 
connections, including the number of connections; (4) the extent to 
which the category of Market Entity would be an attractive target for 
threat actors; and (5) the personal, confidential, and proprietary 
business information about the category of Market Entity and other 
persons (e.g., investors) stored on the Market Entity's information 
systems and the harm that could be caused if that information were 
accessed or used by threat actors through a cybersecurity breach.\906\ 
However, the Commission seeks comment on this topic, particularly if 
certain proposed Covered Entities should be Non-Covered Entities with 
attendant reduced requirements.\907\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \906\ See section II.A.1. of this release.
    \907\ See section II.A.10. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Administration and Oversight of Cybersecurity Policies and 
Procedures of Covered Entities
    The Commission considered various alternative requirements with 
respect to administration and oversight of Covered Entities' 
cybersecurity policies and procedures, such as requiring them to 
designate a CISO (or another individual that serves in a similar 
capacity) or requiring the boards of directors (to the extent 
applicable), to oversee directly a Covered Entity's cybersecurity 
policies and procedures. There is a broad spectrum of potential 
approaches to this alternative, ranging from the largely nominal (e.g., 
requiring Covered Entities simply to designate someone to be a CISO) to 
the stringent (e.g., requiring a highly-qualified CISO to attest to the 
effectiveness of the Covered Entities' policies).
    Stringent requirements, such as requiring an attestation from a 
highly qualified CISO as to the effectiveness of a Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity practices in specific enumerated areas, could be quite 
effective. Expert practitioners in cybersecurity are in high demand and 
command high salaries.\908\ Thus, such an approach would impose 
substantial ongoing costs on Covered Entities who do not already have 
appropriately qualified individuals on staff. This burden would be 
disproportionately borne by smaller Covered Entities, such as small 
Covered Broker-Dealers or small transfer agents, for whom keeping a 
dedicated CISO on staff would be cost prohibitive. Allowing Covered 
Entities to employ part-time CISOs would mitigate this cost burden, but 
such requirements would likely create a de facto audit regime. Such an 
audit regime would certainly be more effective if explicitly designed 
to function as such.\909\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \908\ A recent survey reports CISO median total compensation of 
$668,903 for CISOs at companies with revenues of $5 billion or less. 
See Matt Aiello and Scott Thompson, 2020 North American Chief 
Information Security Officer (CISO) Compensation Survey (2020), 
available at https://www.heidrick.com/-/media/heidrickcom/publications-and-reports/2020-north-american-chief-information-security-officer-ciso-compensation-survey.pdf.
    \909\ In designing an effective audit regime, aligning 
incentives of auditors to provide credible assessments is a central 
concern. In the context of audit regimes, barriers to entry and the 
reputation motives of auditing firms helps align incentives. It 
would be considerably more difficult to obtain similar incentive 
alignment with itinerant part-time CISOs. See section IV.F.1.e. of 
this release (describing the audit regime alternative).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Alternatives to the Requirements of Proposed Form SCIR and Related 
Notification and Disclosure Requirements of Proposed Rule 10
a. Public Disclosure of Part I of Proposed Form SCIR
    The Commission considered requiring the public disclosure of Part I 
of proposed Form SCIR. Making Part I of proposed Form SCIR filings 
public would increase the knowledge of a Covered Entity's customer, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users about significant 
cybersecurity incidents impacting the Covered Entity and thus improve 
their ability to draw inferences about a Covered Entity's level of 
cybersecurity preparations. At the same time, doing so could assist 
would-be threat actors, who may gain additional insight into the 
vulnerabilities of a Covered Entity's system. As discussed above, 
releasing too much detail about a significant cybersecurity incident 
could further compromise cybersecurity of the victim, especially in the 
short term.\910\ Given these risks, requiring public disclosure of Part 
I of proposed Form SCIR filings would likely have the effect of 
incentivizing Covered Entities to significantly reduce the detail 
provided in these filings. As a result, the information set of 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, users, and would-be 
attackers would remain largely unchanged (vis-[agrave]-vis the 
proposal), while the ability of the Commission to facilitate 
information sharing and to coordinate responses aimed at reducing 
overall risks to the financial system would be diminished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \910\ See section IV.B. of this release.

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

[[Page 20322]]

b. Modify the Standard Identifier Requirements for Proposed Form SCIR
    In addition to proposing to require Covered Entities to identify 
themselves on Parts I and II of proposed Form SCIR with CIK numbers, 
the proposed rule requests that Covered Entities with a UIC--such as an 
LEI--include that identifier, if available, on both parts of proposed 
Form SCIR. Those Covered Entities that do not have a UIC may file 
either part of proposed Form SCIR without a UIC; they are not required 
to obtain a UIC prior to filing proposed Form SCIR.
    The Commission considered modifying the requirement that Covered 
Entities identify themselves on proposed Form SCIR with CIK numbers and 
UICs (if they have UICs). For example, the Commission could eliminate 
the requirement that Covered Entities identify themselves on the forms 
with a standard identifier, or the Commission could allow Covered 
Entities to select a different standard identifier (or identifiers) 
other than CIK numbers or UICs (if available). Alternatively, the 
Commission could require the use of only one proposed standard 
identifier--either CIK numbers, UICs (which would require Covered 
Entities to obtain a UIC--such as an LEI--if they do not have 
one),\911\ or some other standard identifier. While CIK numbers are 
necessary to file in EDGAR and, as discussed earlier, the Commission 
anticipates that significant benefits would flow from requiring Parts I 
and II of proposed Form SCIR to be filed centrally in EDGAR using a 
structured data language. Accordingly, the Commission's proposal would 
require Covered Entities to identify themselves on the forms with CIK 
numbers. One limitation of CIK numbers, however, is that they are a 
Commission-specific identifier, which limits their utility for 
aggregating, analyzing, and comparing financial market data involving 
market participants that are not Commission registrants and EDGAR 
filers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \911\ Further, the Commission recognizes that some Covered 
Entities may not have LEIs, which means that those Covered Entities 
would have to register with a Local Operating Unit (``LOU'') of the 
Global LEI System and pay fees initially and annually to obtain and 
renew the LEI. See LEIROC, How To Obtain an LEI, available at 
https://www.leiroc.org/lei/how.htm. A list of LOUs accredited by 
GLEIF can be found at https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/get-an-lei-find-lei-issuing-organizations. Currently, U.S. entities may obtain 
an LEI for a one-time fee of $65 and an annual renewal fee of $50. 
See Bloomberg Finance L.P., Fees, Payments & Taxes (2022), available 
at https://lei.bloomberg.com/docs/faq#what-fees-are-involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed rule does not require the inclusion of UICs on 
proposed Form SCIR for those Covered Entities that do not have a UIC, 
the Commission notes that the use of UICs would be beneficial because 
the LEI, as a Commission-approved UIC, is a low-cost, globally-utilized 
financial institution identifier that is available even to firms that 
are not EDGAR filers or Commission registrants. For that reason, the 
Commission considered proposing to require that every Covered Entity 
that would need to file Part I or II of proposed Form SCIR to identify 
themselves with a UIC. There is benefit to including a UIC identifier 
on proposed Form SCIR. Among the alternative entity identifier policy 
choices considered, requiring Covered Entities to identify themselves 
on Parts I and II of proposed Form SCIR with a UIC is superior to other 
alternatives, such as not requiring an entity identifier on proposed 
Form SCIR or requiring only CIK numbers. Specifically, the mandatory 
inclusion of a UIC on (Parts I and II of) proposed Form SCIR could 
allow for greater inter-governmental and international coordination of 
responses to cybersecurity incidents affecting financial institutions 
globally because the LEI is a globally-utilized digital identifier that 
is not specific to the Commission. Other regulatory entities and 
bodies, including the CFTC, Alberta Securities Commission (Canada), 
European Markets and Securities Authority, and Monetary Authority of 
Singapore, require the use of an LEI.\912\ Another benefit of the LEI 
is that the legal entity's identity is verified by a third party upon 
issuance of the LEI and upon annual renewal of the LEI. Additionally, 
LEIs contain ``Level 2'' information about the linkages between the 
entities being identified and their various parents and subsidiaries, 
which is particularly beneficial considering that some financial firms 
and Commission registrants have complex, interlocking relationships 
with affiliates and subsidiaries that can be different types of 
Commission-regulated firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \912\ In addition, the FSB has stated that ``[t]he use of the 
LEI in regulatory reporting can significantly improve the ability of 
the public sector to understand and identify the build-up of risk 
across multiple jurisdictions and across complex global financial 
processes.'' FSB Peer Review Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A UIC requirement for Parts I and II of proposed Form SCIR would 
not impose additional costs on those Covered Entities that already have 
an LEI. For those Covered Entities that do not have an LEI, they would 
need to obtain one before filing either part of proposed Form SCIR. An 
LEI can be obtained for a $65 initial cost and a $50 per year renewal 
cost.\913\ There also are administrative costs associated with filling 
out the paperwork to obtain the LEI as well as to process payments for 
the initial issuance of an LEI and its maintenance. The Commission 
expects that this cost would be small relative to the benefit that 
could be reaped if a significant cybersecurity incident were to occur 
that impacted financial institutions across multiple domestic and 
international jurisdictions.
    After considering the benefits and costs of requiring the LEI as an 
identifier for all Covered Entities via a UIC requirement, the 
Commission is proposing to require Covered Entities to identify 
themselves with a UIC on proposed Form SCIR only if they already have a 
UIC so as to minimize the burden on Covered Entities and because 
multiple other Commission disclosure forms also only require 
registrants to identify themselves with UICs if they already have 
UICs.\914\ In conclusion, requiring Covered Entities to identify 
themselves on both parts of proposed Form SCIR with a CIK and with a 
UIC (i.e., the LEI) if they already have a UIC is consistent with the 
existing regulatory framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \914\ Covered Entities that do not have an LEI may obtain one if 
they so choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although CIK numbers and UICs (such as in the form of LEIs) are the 
primary two entity standard identifiers used in Commission regulations, 
the Commission could instead propose to require Covered Entities to 
identify themselves with an alternative entity identifier other than 
CIK numbers and UICs for the proposed rule. For the reasons stated 
above, there are benefits from the use of CIK numbers (i.e., CIK 
numbers enable EDGAR filing, which facilitates aggregation and analysis 
of the information) and LEIs (i.e., the LEI is an affordable, 
international standard identifier that facilitates information 
sharing). Accordingly, the Commission decided against proposing to 
require the use of another standard entity identifier for the purposes 
of this proposal.
c. Require Only One Location for the Public Disclosures
    Rather than requiring Covered Entities to publicly disclose their 
cybersecurity risks and significant cybersecurity incidents during the 
current or previous calendar year both on their websites and also file 
that information centrally on Part II of proposed Form SCIR in EDGAR, 
the Commission considered requiring that Covered Entities provide the 
public disclosures on their websites only.
    Requiring Covered Entities to place the cybersecurity disclosures 
only on their websites could provide modest,

[[Page 20323]]

incremental reductions in the burdens associated with providing those 
disclosures both on Covered Entity websites and through filing Part II 
of proposed Form SCIR with the Commission. Additionally, the websites 
of Covered Entities might be the natural place for their customers, 
counterparties, members, registrants, or users to look for information 
about the Covered Entity. Alternatively, requiring Covered Entities to 
place their cybersecurity disclosures (Part II of Form SCIR) only in 
EDGAR in a structured data language also could provide modest, 
incremental reductions in the burdens associated with placing those 
disclosures on their websites.
    Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to require Covered 
Entities to provide the information both on their websites and in EDGAR 
on Part II of proposed Form SCIR.\915\ Publication on Covered Entity 
websites is advantageous because that is where many Covered Entities' 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users will look for 
information about their financial intermediaries. Centralized filing of 
structured public disclosures of cybersecurity risks and significant 
cybersecurity incidents during the current or previous calendar year in 
EDGAR by Covered Entities would enable customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, and users, as well as financial analysts--and 
even the Covered Entities themselves--to more efficiently discern broad 
trends in cybersecurity risks and incidents, which would enable Covered 
Entities and other market participants to more efficiently determine if 
they need to modify, change, or upgrade their cybersecurity defense 
measures in light of those trends. Accordingly, the Commission is 
proposing to require Covered Entities to publish the required 
cybersecurity disclosures on their websites and provide the information 
in Part II of proposed Form SCIR, which would be filed in EDGAR using a 
custom XML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \915\ The Commission is seeking comment on this topic. See 
section II.B.3.c. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Modify the Location of the EDGAR-Filed Public Cybersecurity 
Disclosures for Some Covered Entities
    Rather than requiring Covered Entities to provide the public 
cybersecurity disclosures in EDGAR using Part II of proposed Form SCIR, 
the Commission considered requiring Covered Entities that currently are 
required to file forms in EDGAR to provide the disclosures in 
structured attachments to existing EDGAR-filed forms. Currently, only 
SBS Entities and transfer agents are required to file EDGAR forms. 
SBSDs and MSBSPs must file in EDGAR registration applications on Form 
SBSE, SBSE-A, or SBSE-BD, amendments to those Forms if the information 
in them is or has become inaccurate, and certifications on Form SBSE-
C.\916\ As discussed above, Commission regulations require SBSDRs to 
file Form SDR in EDGAR but the Commission temporarily relieved SBSDRs 
of the EDGAR-filing requirement. Transfer agents file Forms TA-1, TA-2, 
and TA-W in EDGAR in a custom XML.\917\ The Commission considered 
permitting those types of Covered Entities that are not currently 
subject to an EDGAR-filing requirement to file the cybersecurity 
disclosures only on their individual firm websites (without needing to 
also file the disclosures in EDGAR). Therefore, rather than requiring 
all Covered Entities to file the cybersecurity disclosures using Part 
II of proposed Form SCIR, the Commission could require Covered Entities 
that are SBS Entities or transfer agents to provide the same 
information as structured attachments to Form SBSE (for SBS Entities) 
and Form TA-1 (for transfer agents). Likewise, the Commission could 
require SBSDRs to file the cybersecurity disclosures as attachments to 
Form SDR once the Commission temporary relief from the EDGAR-filing 
requirement expires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \916\ See Instruction A.2 to Form SBSE, Instruction A.2 to Form 
SBSE-A, Instruction A.3 to Form SBSE-BD, and Instruction A.2 to Form 
SBSE-C.
    \917\ See Commission, Electronic Filing of Transfer Agent Forms 
(Nov. 14, 2007), available at https://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/ednews/ta-filing.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requiring all Covered Entities to provide the disclosures on a 
single, uniform form would likely be simpler (because the information 
would be in one location)--and thereby more efficient--for the 
Commission, Covered Entities, and others who might seek the information 
in the cybersecurity disclosures (including Covered Entities' users, 
members, customers, or counterparties) than putting the cybersecurity 
disclosures in attachments on disparate forms and (for those firms not 
subject to EDGAR-filing requirements) on individual Covered Entity 
websites.
e. Modify the Structured Data Requirement for the Public Cybersecurity 
Disclosures
    Rather than requiring Covered Entities to file Part II of proposed 
Form SCIR in EDGAR using a custom XML, the Commission could either 
eliminate the structured data language requirement for some or all 
Covered Entities or require the use of a different structured data 
language, such as Inline XBRL.\918\ For example, the Commission could 
eliminate the requirement that Covered Entities file Part II of 
proposed Form SCIR in a custom XML or in any structured data language. 
By eliminating the structured data requirement, the Commission would 
allow Covered Entities to submit the new cybersecurity disclosures in 
unstructured HTML or ASCII, thereby avoiding the need to put the 
information for Part II of proposed Form SCIR into a fillable web form 
that EDGAR would use to generate the custom XML filing, or instead file 
Part II of proposed Form SCIR directly in custom XML using the XML 
schema for proposed Form SCIR, as published on the Commission's 
website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \918\ XBRL is a structured data language that is specifically 
designed to handle business-related information, including financial 
information, entity descriptions, corporate actions, ledgers and 
sub-ledgers, and other summary and ledger-level information. By 
comparison, Inline XBRL is a structured data language that embeds 
XBRL data directly into an HTML document, enabling a single document 
to provide both human-readable and structured machine-readable data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another option is that the Commission could remove the structured 
data filing requirement for some subset of Covered Entities. For 
example, the Commission could instead require only certain types of 
Covered Entities, such as national securities exchanges or SBS 
Entities, to file Part II of proposed Form SCIR in a custom XML. 
Alternatively, the Commission could require the use of a structured 
data language only for those Covered Entities that exceeded some 
threshold, be it assets or trading volumes, depending on the type of 
Covered Entity in question. Eliminating the requirement that Part II of 
proposed Form SCIR be filed in a structured data language, however, 
would reduce the benefits of the proposed rule because the use of a 
structured data language would make the information contained in Part 
II of proposed Form SCIR easier and more efficient for Commission 
staff--as well as the Covered Entity's customers, counterparties, 
members, registrants, or users--to assemble, review, and analyze. 
Financial analysts at third-party information providers also could use 
the public disclosures to produce analyses and reports that market 
participants may find useful.
    The Commission could require Covered Entities to file Part II of 
proposed Form SCIR in Inline XBRL rather than in custom XML on the 
grounds that Inline XBRL is an internationally-recognized freely 
available industry standard for reporting business-related information 
and a data

[[Page 20324]]

language that allows EDGAR filers to prepare single documents that are 
both human-readable and machine-readable, particularly in connection 
with forms containing publicly-available registrant financial 
statements. The Commission believes that the use of a form-specific XML 
would be appropriate here given the relative simplicity of Part II of 
proposed Form SCIR disclosures and the ability for EDGAR to provide 
fillable web forms for entities to comply with their custom XML 
requirements, leading to a lower burden of compliance for Covered 
Entities without Inline XBRL experience.
3. General Request for Comment
    The Commission requests comment on the benefits and costs 
associated the alternatives outlined above.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    Certain provisions of the proposed rule, form, and rule amendments 
in this release would contain a new ``collection of information'' 
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(``PRA'').\919\ The Commission is submitting the proposed rule 
amendments and proposed new rules to the Office of Management and 
Budget (``OMB'') for review and approval in accordance with the PRA and 
its implementing regulations.\920\ An agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control 
number.\921\ The titles for the collections of information are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \919\ See 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    \920\ See 44 U.S.C. 3507; 5 CFR 1320.11.
    \921\ See 5 CFR 1320.11(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Rule 10;
    (2) Form SCIR;
    (3) Rule 17a-4--Records to be preserved by certain exchange 
members, brokers and dealers (OMB control number 3235-0279);
    (4) Rule 17ad-7--Record retention (OMB control number 3235-0291);
    (5) Rule 18a-6--Records to be preserved by certain security-based 
swap dealers and major security-based swap participants (OMB control 
number 3235-0751); and
    (6) Rule 3a71-6--Substituted Compliance for Foreign Security-Based 
Swap Entities (OMB control number 3235-0715).
    The burden estimates contained in this section do not include any 
other possible costs or economic effects beyond the burdens required to 
be calculated for PRA purposes.

A. Summary of Collections of Information

1. Proposed Rule 10
    Proposed Rule 10 would require all Market Entities (Covered 
Entities and non-Covered Entities) to establish, maintain, and enforce 
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address 
their cybersecurity risks.\922\ All Market Entities also, at least 
annually, would be required to review and assess the design and 
effectiveness of their cybersecurity policies and procedures, including 
whether the policies and procedures reflect changes in cybersecurity 
risk over the time period covered by the review.\923\ They also would 
be required to prepare a report (in the case of Covered Entities) and a 
record (in the case of non-Covered Entities) with respect to the annual 
review.\924\ Finally, all Market Entities would need to give the 
Commission immediate written electronic notice of a significant 
cybersecurity incident upon having a reasonable basis to conclude that 
the significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is 
occurring.\925\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \922\ See paragraphs (b) through (d) of proposed Rule 10 
(setting forth the requirements for Market Entities that meet the 
definition of ``covered entity''); paragraph (e)(1) of proposed Rule 
10. See also Sections II.B.1 and II.C. of this release (discussing 
these proposed requirements in more detail).
    \923\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph (e)(1) 
of proposed Rule 10. See also Sections II.B.1.f. and II.C. of this 
release (discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
    \924\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph (e)(1) 
of proposed Rule 10. See also Sections II.B.1.f. and II.C. of this 
release (discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
    \925\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph (e)(2) 
of proposed Rule 10. See also sections II.B.2.a. and II.C. of this 
release (discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market Entities that meet the definition of ``covered entity'' 
would be subject to certain additional requirements under proposed Rule 
10.\926\ First, their cybersecurity risk management policies and 
procedures would need to include the following elements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \926\ See paragraph (b) through (d) of proposed Rule 10 (setting 
forth the requirements for Market Entities that meet the definition 
of ``covered entity''); paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10 (setting 
forth the requirements for Market Entities that do not meet the 
definition of ``covered entity'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Periodic assessments of cybersecurity risks associated 
with the Covered Entity's information systems and written documentation 
of the risk assessments;
     Controls designed to minimize user-related risks and 
prevent unauthorized access to the Covered Entity's information 
systems;
     Measures designed to monitor the Covered Entity's 
information systems and protect the Covered Entity's information from 
unauthorized access or use, and oversight of service providers that 
receive, maintain, or process information, or are otherwise permitted 
to access the Covered Entity's information systems;
     Measures to detect, mitigate, and remediate any 
cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities with respect to the Covered 
Entity's information systems; and
     Measures to detect, respond to, and recover from a 
cybersecurity incident and written documentation of any cybersecurity 
incident and the response to and recovery from the incident.\927\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \927\ See sections II.B.1.a. through II.B.1.e. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail). In the case 
of non-Covered Entities, as discussed in more detail below in 
Section II.C. of this release, the design of the cybersecurity risk 
management policies and procedures would need to take into account 
the size, business, and operations of the broker-dealer. See 
paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Covered Entities--in addition to providing the Commission 
with immediate written electronic notice of a significant cybersecurity 
incident--would need to report and update information about the 
significant cybersecurity incident by filing Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR with the Commission through the EDGAR system.\928\ The form would 
elicit information about the significant cybersecurity incident and the 
Covered Entity's efforts to respond to, and recover from, the incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \928\ See sections II.B.2. and II.B.4. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Covered Entities would need to publicly disclose summary 
descriptions of their cybersecurity risks and the significant 
cybersecurity incidents they experienced during the current or previous 
calendar year on Part II of proposed Form SCIR.\929\ The form would 
need to be filed with the Commission through the EDGAR system and 
posted on the Covered Entity's business internet website and, in the 
case of Covered Entities that are carrying or introducing broker-
dealers, provided to customers at account opening and annually 
thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \929\ See sections II.B.3. and II.B.4.of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Covered Entities and Non-Covered Entities would need to preserve 
certain records relating to the requirements of proposed Rule 10 in 
accordance with amended or existing recordkeeping requirements 
applicable to them or, in the case of exempt clearing agencies,

[[Page 20325]]

pursuant to conditions in relevant exemption orders.\930\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \930\ See sections II.B.5. and II.C. of this release (discussing 
these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Form SCIR
    Proposed Rule 10 would require Covered Entities to: (1) report and 
update information about a significant cybersecurity incident; \931\ 
and (2) publicly disclose summary descriptions of their cybersecurity 
risks and the significant cybersecurity incidents they experienced 
during the current or previous calendar year.\932\ Parts I and II of 
proposed Form SCIR would be used by Covered Entities, respectively, to 
report and update information about a significant cybersecurity 
incident and publicly disclose summary descriptions of their 
cybersecurity risks and the significant cybersecurity incidents they 
experienced during the current or previous calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \931\ See sections II.B.2. and II.B.4. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
    \932\ See sections II.B.3. and II.B.4.of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, 18a-6 and Clearing Agency Exemption Orders
    Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, and 18a-6--which apply to broker-dealers, 
transfer agents, and SBS Entities, respectively--would be amended to 
establish preservation and maintenance requirements for the written 
policies and procedures, annual reports, Parts I and II of proposed 
Form SCIR, and records required to be made pursuant to proposed Rule 10 
(i.e., the Rule 10 Records).\933\ The proposed amendments would specify 
that the Rule 10 Records must be retained for three years. In the case 
of the written policies and procedures to address cybersecurity risks, 
the record would need to be maintained until three years after the 
termination of the use of the policies and procedures. In addition, 
orders exempting certain clearing agencies from registering with the 
Commission would be amended to establish preservation and maintenance 
requirements for the Rule 10 Records that would apply to the exempt 
clearing agencies subject to those orders.\934\ The amendments to the 
orders would provide that the records need to be retained for five 
years (consistent with Rules 13n-7 and 17a-1).\935\ In the case of the 
written policies and procedures to address cybersecurity risks, the 
record would need to be maintained until five years after the 
termination of the use of the policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \933\ See sections II.B.5. and II.C. of this release (discussing 
these proposed amendments in more detail). Rule 17a-4 sets forth 
record preservation and maintenance requirements for broker-dealers, 
Rule 17ad-7 sets forth record preservation and maintenance 
requirements for transfer agents, and Rule 18a-6 sets forth record 
preservation and maintenance requirements for SBS Entities.
    \934\ See section II.B.5. of this release (discussing these 
proposed amendments in more detail).
    \935\ For the reasons discussed in section II.B.5.a. of this 
release, the proposal would not amend Rules 13n-7 or 17a-1. As 
explained in that section of the release, the existing requirements 
of Rule 13n-7 (which applies to SBSDRs) and Rule 17a-1 (which 
applies to registered clearing agencies, the MSRB, national 
securities associations, and national securities exchanges) will 
require these Market Entities to retain the Rule 10 Records for five 
years and, in the case of the written policies and procedures, for 
five years after the termination of the use of the policies and 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Substituted Compliance (Rule 3a71-6)
    Paragraph (d)(1) of Rule 3a71-6 would be amended to add proposed 
Rule 10 and Form SCIR to the list of Commission requirements eligible 
for a substituted compliance determination.\936\ If adopted, this 
amendment together with existing paragraph (d)(6) of Rule 3a71-6 would 
permit eligible SBS Entities to file an application requesting that the 
Commission make a determination that compliance with specified 
requirements under a foreign regulatory system may satisfy the 
requirements of proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the related record 
preservation requirements. As provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-13,\937\ 
which the Commission adopted in 2014,\938\ applications for substituted 
compliance determinations must be accompanied by supporting 
documentation necessary for the Commission to make the determination, 
including information regarding applicable requirements established by 
the foreign financial regulatory authority or authorities, as well as 
the methods used by the foreign financial regulatory authority or 
authorities to monitor and enforce compliance; applications should cite 
to and discuss applicable precedent.\939\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \936\ See section II.D. of this release (discussing these 
proposed amendments in more detail).
    \937\ 17 CFR 240.0-13.
    \938\ See SBS Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 79 FR at 
47357-59.
    \939\ See 17 CFR 240.0-13(e). In adopting Rule 0-13, the 
Commission noted that because Rule 0-13 was a procedural rule that 
did not provide any substituted compliance rights, ``collections of 
information arising from substituted compliance requests, including 
associated control numbers, [would] be addressed in connection with 
any applicable substantive rulemakings that provide for substituted 
compliance.'' See SBS Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 79 FR at 
47366 n.778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Use of Information

    The proposed requirements to have written policies and procedures 
to address cybersecurity risks, to document risk assessments and 
significant cybersecurity incidents, to create a report or record of 
the annual review of the policies and procedures, to provide immediate 
notification and subsequent reporting of significant cybersecurity 
incidents, to publicly disclose summary descriptions of cybersecurity 
risks and significant cybersecurity incidents, and to preserve the 
written policies and procedures, reports, and records would constitute 
collection of information requirements under the PRA. Collectively, 
these collections of information are designed to address cybersecurity 
risk and the threat it poses to Market Entities and the U.S. securities 
markets.
    Market Entities would use the written policies and procedures, the 
records required to be made pursuant to those policies and procedures, 
and the report or record of the annual review of the policies and 
procedures to address the specific cybersecurity risks to which they 
are exposed. The Commission could use the written policies and 
procedures, reports, and records to review Market Entities' compliance 
with proposed Rule 10.
    Market Entities would use the immediate written electronic 
notifications to notify the Commission (and, in some cases, other 
regulators) about significant cybersecurity incidents they experience 
pursuant to proposed Rule 10. The Commission could use the immediate 
written electronic notification to promptly begin to assess the 
situation by, for example, when warranted, assessing the Market 
Entity's operating status and engaging in discussions with the Market 
Entity to understand better what steps it is taking to protect its 
customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or users.
    Covered Entities would use Part I of proposed Form SCIR to report 
to the Commission (and, in some cases, other regulators) significant 
cybersecurity incidents they experienced pursuant to proposed Rule 10. 
The Commission could use the reports of significant cybersecurity 
incidents filed using Part I of proposed Form SCIR to understand better 
the nature and extent of a particular significant cybersecurity 
incident and the efficacy of the Covered Entity's response to mitigate 
the disruption and harm caused by the incident. The Commission staff 
could use the reports to focus on the Covered Entity's operating status 
and to facilitate their outreach to, and discussions with,

[[Page 20326]]

personnel at the Covered Entity who are addressing the significant 
cybersecurity incident. In addition, the reporting would provide the 
staff with a view into the Covered Entity's understanding of the scope 
and impact of the significant cybersecurity incident. All of this 
information would be used by the Commission and its staff in assessing 
the significant cybersecurity incident impacting the Covered Entity. 
Further, the Commission would be use the database of reports to assess 
the potential cybersecurity risks affecting U.S. securities markets 
more broadly. This information could be used to address future 
significant cybersecurity incidents. For example, these reports could 
assist the Commission in identifying patterns and trends across Covered 
Entities, including widespread cybersecurity incidents affecting 
multiple Covered Entities at the same time. Further, the reports could 
be used to evaluate the effectiveness of various approaches to respond 
to and recover from a significant cybersecurity incident.
    Covered Entities would use Part II of proposed Form SCIR to 
publicly disclose summary descriptions of their cybersecurity risks and 
the significant cybersecurity incidents they experienced during the 
current or previous calendar year pursuant to proposed Rule 10. These 
disclosures would be used to provide greater transparency to customers, 
counterparties, registrants, or members of the Covered Entity, or to 
users of its services, about the Covered Entity's cybersecurity risk 
profile. This information could be used by these persons to manage 
their own cybersecurity risk and, to the extent they have choice, 
select a Covered Entity with whom to transact or otherwise conduct 
business. In addition, because the reports would be filed through 
EDGAR, Covered Entities' customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users would be able to run search queries to compare 
the disclosures of multiple Covered Entities. This would make it easier 
for Commission staff and others to assess the cybersecurity risk 
profiles of different types of Covered Entities and could facilitate 
trend analysis by members of the public of significant cybersecurity 
incidents.
    Under the proposed amendment to Rule 3a71-6, the Commission would 
use the information collected to evaluate requests for substituted 
compliance with respect to proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the related 
record preservation requirements applicable to SBS Entities. Consistent 
with Exchange Act Rule 0-13(h),\940\ the Commission would publish in 
the Federal Register a notice that a complete application had been 
submitted, and provide the public the opportunity to submit to the 
Commission any information that relates to the Commission action 
requested in the application, subject to appropriate requests for 
confidential treatment being submitted pursuant to any applicable 
provisions governing confidentiality under the Exchange Act.\941\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \940\ 17 CFR 240.0-13(h).
    \941\ See section V.F of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Respondents

    The following table summarizes the estimated number of respondents 
that would be subject to the proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and 
recordkeeping burdens.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Type of registrant                         Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Covered Broker-Dealers..................................           1,541
Non-Covered Broker-Dealers..............................           1,969
Clearing agencies and exempt clearing agencies..........              16
MSRB....................................................               1
National securities exchanges...........................              24
National securities associations........................               1
SBS Entities............................................              50
SBSDRs..................................................               3
Transfer agents.........................................             353
                                                         ---------------
    Total Covered Entities..............................           1,989
    Total Non-Covered Broker-Dealers....................           1,969
    Total Respondents...................................           3,958
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The respondents subject to these collection of information 
requirements include the following:
1. Broker-Dealers
    Each broker-dealer registered with the Commission would be subject 
to proposed Rule 10 as either a Covered Entity or a Non-Covered Broker-
Dealer. As of September 30, 2022, there were 3,510 broker-dealers 
registered with the Commission.\942\ The Commission estimates that 
1,541 of these broker-dealers would be Covered Entities under the 
proposed rule because they fit within one or more of the following 
categories: carrying broker-dealer; broker-dealer that introduces 
customer accounts to a carrying broker-dealer on a fully disclosed 
basis; broker-dealer with regulatory capital equal to or exceeding $50 
million; broker-dealer with total assets equal to or exceeding $1 
billion; broker-dealer that operates as a market maker under the 
securities laws; or a broker-dealer that operates as an ATS.\943\ The 
Commission estimates that 1,969 broker-dealers (i.e., the remaining 
broker-dealers registered with/the Commission) would be Non-Covered 
Broker-Dealers for purposes of the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \942\ This estimate is derived from broker-dealer FOCUS filings 
and ATS Form ATS-R quarterly reports as of September 30, 2022.
    \943\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Clearing Agencies
    With regard to clearing agencies, respondents under these rules 
are: (1) nine registered clearing agencies; \944\ and (2) five exempt 
clearing agencies.\945\ The Commission estimates for purposes of the 
PRA that two additional entities may seek to register as a clearing 
agency in the next three years, and so for purposes of this proposal 
the Commission has assumed sixteen total

[[Page 20327]]

clearing agency and exempt clearing agency respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \944\ The registered and active clearing agencies are: (1) DTC; 
(2) FICC; (3) NSCC; (4) ICC; (5) ICEEU; (6) the Options Clearing 
Corp.; and (7) LCH SA. The clearing agencies that are registered 
with the Commission but conduct no clearance or settlement 
operations are: (1) BSECC; and (2) SCCP.
    \945\ The exempt clearing agencies that provide matching 
services are: (1) DTCC ITP Matching U.S. LLC; (2) Bloomberg STP LLC; 
(3) SS&C Technologies, Inc.; (4) Euroclear Bank SA/NV; and (5) 
Clearstream Banking, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The MSRB
    The sole respondent to the proposed collection of information for 
the MSRB is the MSRB itself.
4. National Securities Exchanges and National Securities Associations
    The respondents to the proposed collections of information for 
national securities exchanges and national securities associations 
would be the 24 national securities exchanges currently registered with 
the Commission under section 6 of the Exchange Act,\946\ and the one 
national securities association currently registered with the 
Commission under section 15A of the Exchange Act.\947\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \946\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f. The national securities exchanges 
registered with the Commission are: (1) BOX Options Exchange LLC; 
(2) Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; (3) Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; (4) Cboe 
C2 Exchange, Inc.; (5) Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; (6) Cboe EDGX, 
Inc.; (7) Cboe Exchange, Inc.; (8) Investors Exchange Inc.; (9) 
Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.; (10) MEMX, LLC; (11) Miami 
International Securities Exchange LLC; (12) MIAX PEARL, LLC; (13) 
MIAX Emerald, LLC; (14) NASDAQ BX, Inc.; (15) NASDAQ GEMX, LLC; (16) 
NASDAQ ISE, LLC; (17) NASDAQ MRX, LLC; (18) NASDAQ PHLX LLC; (19) 
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; (20) New York Stock Exchange LLC; (21) 
NYSE MKT LLC; (22) NYSE Arca, Inc.; (23) NYSE Chicago Stock 
Exchange, Inc.; and (24) NYSE National, Inc.
    \947\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3. The one national securities 
association registered with the Commission is FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. SBS Entities
    As of January 4, 2023, 50 SBSDs have registered with the 
Commission, while no MSBSPs have registered with the Commission.\948\ 
Of the 50 SBSDs that have registered with the Commission, 7 entities 
are also broker-dealers.\949\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \948\ See List of Registered Security-Based Swap Dealers and 
Major Security-Based Swap Participants, available at: https://www.sec.gov/tm/List-of-SBS-Dealers-and-Major-SBS-Participants.
    \949\ A Covered Entity that is both a broker-dealer and an SBS 
Entity (which includes all seven of these broker-dealers) will have 
burdens with respect to the proposed rule, Form SCIR, and 
recordkeeping amendments as they apply to both its broker-dealer 
business and its security-based swap business. Therefore, such 
``dual-hatted'' entities will be counted as both Covered Entities 
that are broker-dealers and as SBS Entities for purposes of the PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requests for a substituted compliance determination under Rule 
3a71-6 with respect to the proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the related 
record preservation requirements may be filed by foreign financial 
authorities, or by non-U.S. SBSDs or MSBSPs. The Commission had 
previously estimated that there may be approximately 22 non-U.S. 
entities that may potentially register as SBSDs, out of approximately 
50 total entities that may register as SBSDs.\950\ Potentially all non-
U.S. SBSDs, or some subset thereof, may seek to rely on a substituted 
compliance determination in connection with the proposed cybersecurity 
risk management requirements.\951\ However, the Commission had expected 
that the great majority of substituted compliance applications would be 
submitted by foreign authorities \952\ given their expertise in 
connection with the relevant substantive requirements, and in 
connection with their supervisory and enforcement oversight with regard 
to SBSDs and their activities.\953\ The Commission expected that very 
few substituted compliance requests would come from SBS Entities.\954\ 
For purposes of PRA assessments, the Commission estimated that three 
SBS Entities would submit such applications.\955\ Although, as of 
January 4, 2023, 30 entities had identified themselves as a nonresident 
SBSD in their application for registration with the Commission,\956\ 
the Commission has issued only one order in response to a request for 
substituted compliance from potential registrants.\957\ The Commission 
continues to believe that its estimate that three such entities will 
submit applications remains appropriate for purposes of this PRA 
assessment because applicants may file additional requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \950\ See Proposed Rule Amendments and Guidance Addressing 
Cross-Border Application of Certain Security-Based Swap 
Requirements, Exchange Act Release No. 85823 (May 10, 2019), 84 FR 
24206, 24253 (May 24, 2019). See also Security-Based Swap 
Transactions Connected With a Non-U.S. Person's Dealing Activity 
That Are Arranged, Negotiated, or Executed by Personnel Located in a 
U.S. Branch or Office or in a U.S. Branch or Office of an Agent; 
Security-Based Swap Dealer De Minimis Exception, Exchange Act 
Release No. 77104 (Feb. 10, 2016), 81 FR 8597, 8605 (Feb. 19, 2016) 
(``SBS Entity U.S. Activity Adopting Release''); Business Conduct 
Standards Adopting Release, 81 FR at 30090, 30105; SBS Entity 
Recordkeeping and Reporting Release, 84 FR at 68607-09; and Capital, 
Margin, and Segregation Requirements Adopting Release, 84 FR at 
43960-61.
    \951\ Consistent with prior estimates, the Commission further 
believes that there may up to five MSBSPs. See Registration Process 
for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap 
Participants, Exchange Act Release No. 75611 (Aug. 5, 2015), 80 FR 
48963, 48990 (Aug. 14, 2015) (``SBS Entity Registration Adopting 
Release''); see also SBS Entity Business Conduct Standards Adopting 
Release, 81 FR at 30089, 30099. It is possible that some subset of 
those entities will be non-U.S. MSBSPs that will seek to rely on 
substituted compliance in connection with proposed Rule 10, Form 
SCIR, and the related record preservation requirements.
    \952\ See SBS Entity Risk Mitigation Adopting Release, 85 FR at 
6389. See also SBS Entity Business Conduct Standards Adopting 
Release, 81 FR at 30097; SBS Entity Trade Acknowledgement and 
Verification Adopting Release, 81 FR at 39832.
    \953\ See SBS Entity Risk Mitigation Adopting Release, 85 FR at 
6384. See also SBS Entity Business Conduct Standards Adopting 
Release, 81 FR at 30090; SBS Entity Trade Acknowledgement and 
Verification Adopting Release, 81 FR at 39832.
    \954\ See SBS Entity Risk Mitigation Adopting Release, 85 FR at 
6389. See also SBS Entity Business Conduct Standards Adopting 
Release, 81 FR at 30097, n.1582 and accompanying text; SBS Entity 
Trade Acknowledgement and Verification Adopting Release, 81 FR at 
39832.
    \955\ Id. See also SBS Entity Recordkeeping and Reporting 
Adopting Release, 84 FR at 68609; Capital, Margin, and Segregation 
Requirements Adopting Release, 84 FR at 43967.
    \956\ No entity has registered as an MSBSP. See List of 
Registered Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap 
Participants, available at: https://www.sec.gov/tm/List-of-SBS-Dealers-and-Major-SBS-Participants (providing the list of registered 
SBSDs and MSBSPs that was updated as of January 4, 2023).
    \957\ See Order Granting Conditional Substituted Compliance in 
Connection With Certain Requirements Applicable to Non-U.S. 
Security-Based Swap Dealers Subject to Regulation in the Swiss 
Confederation, Exchange Act Release No. 93284 (Oct. 8, 2021), 86 FR 
57455 (Oct. 15, 2021) (File No. S7-07-21). The Commission's other 
substituted compliance orders have been in response to requests from 
foreign authorities; see https://www.sec.gov/tm/Jurisdiction-Specific-Apps-Orders-and-MOU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. SBSDRs
    Two SBSDRs are currently registered with the Commission.\958\ The 
Commission estimates for purposes of the PRA that one additional entity 
may seek to register as an SBSDR in the next three years, and so for 
purposes of this proposal the Commission has assumed three SBSDR 
respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \958\ The Commission approved the registration of two SBSDRs in 
2021. The two registered SBSDRs are: (1) DTCC Data Repository 
(U.S.), LLC; and (2) ICE Trade Vault, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Transfer Agents
    The proposed rule would apply to every transfer agent as defined in 
section 3(a)(25) of the Exchange Act that is registered or required to 
be registered with an appropriate regulatory agency as defined in 
section 3(a)(34)(B) of the Exchange Act. As of December 31, 2022, there 
were 353 transfer agents that were either registered with the 
Commission through Form TA-1 or registered with other appropriate 
regulatory agencies.

D. Total Initial and Annual Reporting Burdens

    As stated above, each requirement to disclose information, offer to 
provide information, or adopt policies and procedures constitutes a 
collection of information requirement under the PRA. The Commission 
discusses below the collection of information burdens associated with 
the proposed rule and rule amendment.
1. Proposed Rule 10
    The Commission has made certain estimates of the burdens associated 
with

[[Page 20328]]

the policies and procedures and review and report of the review 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 applicable to Covered Entities solely 
for the purpose of this PRA analysis.\959\ Table 1 below summarizes the 
initial and ongoing annual burden and cost estimates associated with 
the policies and procedures and review and report of the review 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \959\ These requirements are discussed in section II.B.1. of 
this release.

       Table 1--Rule 10 PRA Estimates--Cybersecurity Policies and Procedures and Review and Report of the Review Requirements for Covered Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Internal     Internal annual
                                                   initial burden    burden hours              Wage rate \2\             Internal time   Annual external
                                                       hours             \1\                                                 costs         cost burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               PROPOSED RULE 10 ESTIMATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopting and implementing policies and                         50        \4\ 21.67  $462 (blended rate for compliance        $10,011.54       \5\ $1,488
 procedures \3\.                                                                     attorney and assistant general
                                                                                     counsel).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual review of policies and procedures and                    0           \6\ 10  $462 (blended rate for compliance             4,620        \7\ 1,984
 report of review.                                                                   attorney and assistant general
                                                                                     counsel).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total new annual burden per Covered Entity..  ...............            31.67  ..................................        14,631.54            3,472
Number of Covered Entities......................  ...............          x 1,989  ..................................          x 1,989          x 1,989
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total new annual aggregate burden...........  ...............        62,991.63  ..................................    29,102,133.06        6,905,808
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a 3-year period.
\2\ The Commission's estimates of the relevant wage rates are based on salary information for the securities industry compiled by Securities Industry
  and Financial Markets Association's Office Salaries in the Securities Industry 2013, as modified by Commission staff for 2022 (``SIFMA Wage Report'').
  The estimated figures are modified by firm size, employee benefits, overhead, and adjusted to account for the effects of inflation.
\3\ These estimates are based on an average. Some firms may have a lower burden in the case they will be evaluating exiting policies and procedures with
  respect to any cybersecurity risks and/or incidents, while other firms may be creating new cybersecurity policies and procedures altogether.
\4\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a three-year period, plus 5 ongoing annual burden hours. The estimate of 21.67 hours is based on
  the following calculation: ((50 initial hours/3) + 5 additional ongoing burden hours) = 21.67 hours.
\5\ This estimated burden is based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, for 3 hours, for outside legal services.
The Commission's estimates of the relevant wage rates for external time costs, such as outside legal services, take into account staff experience, a
  variety of sources including general information websites, and adjustments for inflation.
\6\ The Commission estimates 10 additional ongoing burden hours.
\7\ This estimated burden is based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, for 4 hours, for outside legal services. See note 5 (regarding wage rates
  with respect to external cost estimates).

    The Commission has made certain estimates of the burdens associated 
with the policies and procedures and review and record of the review 
requirements of proposed Rule 10 applicable to Non-Covered Broker-
Dealers solely for the purpose of this PRA analysis.\960\ Table 2 below 
summarizes the initial and ongoing annual burden and cost estimates 
associated with the proposed rule's policies and procedures and review 
and record of the review requirements for Non-Covered Broker-Dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \960\ These requirements are discussed in section II.C. of this 
release.

  Table 2--Rule 10 PRA Estimates--Cybersecurity Policies and Procedures and Review and Record of the Review Requirements for Non-Covered Broker-Dealers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Internal     Internal annual
                                                   initial burden    burden hours              Wage rate \2\             Internal time   Annual external
                                                       hours             \1\                                                 costs         cost burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               PROPOSED RULE 10 ESTIMATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopting and implementing policies and                         30           \4\ 15  $462 (blended rate for compliance            $6,930       \5\ $1,488
 procedures \3\.                                                                     attorney and assistant general
                                                                                     counsel).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual review of policies and procedures and                    0            \6\ 6  $462 (blended rate for compliance             2,772          \7\ 992
 report of review.                                                                   attorney and assistant general
                                                                                     counsel).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total new annual burden per Non-Covered       ...............               21  ..................................            9,702            2,480
     Broker-Dealer.
Number of Non-Covered Broker-Dealers............  ...............          x 1,969  ..................................          x 1,969          x 1,969
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total new annual aggregate burden...........  ...............           41,349  ..................................       19,103,238        4,883,120
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a 3-year period.
\2\ The Commission's estimates of the relevant wage rates are based on salary information for the securities industry compiled by Securities Industry
  and Financial Markets Association's Office Salaries in the Securities Industry 2013, as modified by Commission staff for 2022 (``SIFMA Wage Report'').
  The estimated figures are modified by firm size, employee benefits, overhead, and adjusted to account for the effects of inflation.
\3\ These estimates are based on an average. Some firms may have a lower burden in the case they will be evaluating exiting policies and procedures with
  respect to any cybersecurity risks and/or incidents, while other firms may be creating new cybersecurity policies and procedures altogether.
\4\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a three-year period, plus 5 ongoing annual burden hours. The estimate of 15 hours is based on the
  following calculation: ((30 initial hours/3) + 5 additional ongoing burden hours) = 15 hours.
\5\ This estimated burden is based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, for 3 hours, for outside legal services.
The Commission's estimates of the relevant wage rates for external time costs, such as outside legal services, take into account staff experience, a
  variety of sources including general information websites, and adjustments for inflation.
\6\ The Commission estimates 6 additional ongoing burden hours.
\7\ This estimated burden is based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, for 2 hours, for outside legal services. See note 5 (regarding wage rates
  with respect to external cost estimates).


[[Page 20329]]

    The Commission has made certain estimates of the burdens associated 
with the notification requirement of proposed Rule 10 applicable to 
Market Entities solely for the purpose of this PRA analysis.\961\ Table 
3 below summarizes the initial and ongoing annual burden and cost 
estimates associated with the proposed rule's notification requirements 
for Market Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \961\ This requirement is discussed in section II.B.2.a. of this 
release.

                                      Table 3--Rule 10 PRA Estimates--Notification Requirements for Market Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Internal
                                               initial burden  Internal annual                    Wage rate              Internal time   Annual external
                                                   hours         burden hours                                                costs         cost burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               PROPOSED RULE 10 ESTIMATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making a determination of significant                       5         \1\ 4.67     x   $353 (blended rate for                 $1,648.51       \2\ $1,488
 cybersecurity incident and immediate notice                                            assistant general counsel,
 to the Commission.                                                                     compliance manager and systems
                                                                                        analyst).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total new annual burden per Market        ...............             4.67         ...............................         1,648.51            1,488
     Entity.
Number of Market Entities...................  ...............          x 3,958         ...............................          x 3,958          x 3,958
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total new aggregate annual burden.......  ...............        18,483.86         ...............................     6,524,802.58        5,889,504
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a three-year period, plus 3 ongoing annual burden hours. The estimate of 4.67 hours is based on
  the following calculation: ((5 initial hours/3) + 3 additional ongoing burden hours) = 4.67 hours.
\2\ This estimated burden is based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, for 3 hours, for outside legal services.
The Commission's estimates of the relevant wage rates for external time costs, such as outside legal services, take into account staff experience, a
  variety of sources including general information websites, and adjustments for inflation.

    The Commission has made certain estimates of the burdens associated 
with the requirement of proposed Rule 10 that Covered Broker-Dealers 
provide the disclosures that would need to made on Part II of proposed 
Form SCIR requirements to their customers solely for the purpose of 
this PRA analysis.\962\ Table 4 below summarizes the initial and 
ongoing annual burden and cost estimates associated with the 
requirement of proposed Rule 10 that Covered Broker-Dealers provide the 
disclosures that would need to made on Part II of proposed Form SCIR 
requirements to their customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \962\ These requirements are discussed in section II.B.3.b. of 
this release.

                     Table 4--Rule 10 PRA Estimates--Additional Disclosure Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Covered Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Internal
                                               initial burden  Internal annual                    Wage rate              Internal time   Annual external
                                                   hours         burden hours                                                costs         cost burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               PROPOSED RULE 10 ESTIMATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivery of disclosures to new customers....         \1\ 6.68             6.68     x   $69 (general clerk)............          $460.92               $0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual delivery of disclosures to existing          \2\ 44.48            44.48         $69 (general clerk)............         3,076.02                0
 customers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total new annual burden per broker-       ...............            51.26         ...............................         3,536.94  ...............
     dealer Covered Entities.
Number of broker-dealer Covered Entities....  ...............          x 1,541         ...............................          x 1,541  ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total new aggregate annual burden.......  ...............        78,991.66         ...............................     5,450,424.54  ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ The Commission estimates that a broker-dealer that isa Covered Entity will require no more than 0.02 hours to send the broker-dealer'srequired
  disclosures to each new customer, or an annual burden of 6.68 hours perbroker-dealer. (0.02 hours per customer x 334 median number of new customers
  per broker-dealer based on FOCUS Schedule I data as of December 31, 2022 = approximately 6.68 hours per broker-dealer.) The Commission notes that the
  burden for preparing disclosures to customers is already incorporated into a separate burden estimate under other broker-dealer rules promulgated by
  the Commission (e.g., 17 CFR 240.17a-3) and FINRA rules. The Commission expects that broker-dealers subject to this new disclosure requirement will
  make their delivery of disclosures to new customers as part of an email or mailing they already send to new customers; therefore, the Commission
  estimates that the additional burden will be adding a few pages to the email attachment or mailing.
\2\ The Commission estimates that, with a bulk mailing or email, a broker-dealer that is a Covered Entity will require no more than 0.02 hours to send
  the broker-dealer's required disclosures to each existing customer, or an annual burden of 44.58 hours per broker-dealer. (0.02 hours per customer x
  2,229 median number of customers per broker-dealer based on FOCUS Schedule I data as of December 31, 2022 = approximately 44.58 hours per broker-
  dealer.) The Commission notes that the burden for preparing disclosures to customers is already incorporated into a separate burden estimate under
  other broker-dealer rules promulgated by the Commission (e.g., 17 CFR 240.17a-3) and FINRA rules. The Commission expects that broker-dealers subject
  to this new disclosure requirement will make their annual delivery to existing customers as part of an email or mailing of an account statement they
  already send to customers; therefore, the Commission estimates that the additional burden will be adding a few pages to the email attachment or
  mailing.

2. Form SCIR
    The Commission has made certain estimates of the burdens associated 
with filing the initial and amended Part I of Form SCIR under proposed 
Rule 10 applicable to Covered Entities solely for the purpose of this 
PRA analysis.\963\ Table 5 below summarizes the initial and ongoing 
annual burden and cost estimates associated with filing proposed Form 
SCIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \963\ These requirements are discussed in sections II.B.2. and 
II.B.4. of this release.

[[Page 20330]]



                                                       Table 5--Part I of Form SCIR PRA Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Internal
                                               initial burden  Internal annual                    Wage rate              Internal time   Annual external
                                                   hours         burden hours                                                costs         cost burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         PROPOSED PART I OF FORM SCIR ESTIMATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing out initial Part I of Form SCIR......                3          \1\ 1.5         $431 (blended rate for                   $646.50         \2\ $496
                                                                                        assistant general counsel,
                                                                                        compliance manager).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing an amended Part I of SCIR............                1                1         $431 (blended rate for                       431          \3\ 496
                                                                                        assistant general counsel,
                                                                                        compliance manager).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total new annual burden per Covered       ...............              2.5         ...............................          1077.50              992
     Entity.
Number of Covered Entity....................  ...............          x 1,989         ...............................          x 1,989          x 1,989
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total new aggregate annual burden.......  ...............          4,972.5         ...............................      2,143,147.5        1,973,088
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a three-year period, plus 0.5 ongoing annual burden hours. The estimate of 1.5 hours is based on
  the following calculation: ((3 initial hours/3) + 0.5 additional ongoing burden hours) = 1.5 hours.
\2\ This estimated burden is based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, for 1 hour, for outside legal services.
The Commission's estimates of the relevant wage rates for external time costs, such as outside legal services, takes into account staff experience, a
  variety of sources including general information websites, and adjustments for inflation.
\3\ This estimated burden is based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, for 1 hour, for outside legal services.

    The Commission has made certain estimates of the burdens associated 
with filing the Part II of Form SCIR under proposed Rule 10 applicable 
to Covered Entities solely for the purpose of this PRA analysis.\964\ 
Table 6 below summarizes the initial and ongoing annual burden and cost 
estimates associated with the proposed rule's disclosure requirements 
for Covered Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \964\ These requirements are discussed in sections II.B.3. and 
II.B.4. of this release.

                                                       Table 6--Part II of Form SCIR PRA Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Internal
                                               initial burden  Internal annual                    Wage rate              Internal time   Annual external
                                                   hours         burden hours                                                costs         cost burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         PROPOSED PART II OF FORM SCIR ESTIMATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure of significant cybersecurity                     5         \1\ 3.67     x   $375.33 per hour (blended rate         $1,377.46       \2\ $1,488
 incidents and cybersecurity risks on Part                                              for assistant general counsel,
 II of Form SCIR and posting form on website.                                           senior compliance examiner and
                                                                                        compliance manager) \3\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total new annual burden per Covered       ...............             3.67         ...............................         1,377.46            1,488
     Entity.
Number of Covered Entities..................  ...............          x 1,989         ...............................          x 1,989          x 1,989
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total new aggregate annual burden.......  ...............         7,299.63         ...............................     2,739,767.94        2,959,632
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a three-year period, plus 2 ongoing annual burden hours. The estimate of 3 hours is based on the
  following calculation: ((5 initial hours/3) + 2 additional ongoing burden hours) = 3.67 hours.
\2\ This estimated burden is based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, for 3 hours, for outside legal services.
The Commission's estimates of the relevant wage rates for external time costs, such as outside legal services, take into account staff experience, a
  variety of sources including general information websites, and adjustments for inflation.
\3\ The $375.33 wage rate reflects current estimates from the SIFMA Wage Report of the blended hourly rate for an assistant general counsel ($518),
  senior compliance examiner ($264) and a compliance manager ($344). ($518 + $264 + $344)/3 = $375.33.

    In addition, the requirement to file Form SCIR in EDGAR using a 
form-specific XML may impose some compliance costs. Covered Entities 
that are not otherwise required to file in EDGAR--for example, clearing 
agencies, the MSRB, national securities associations, and national 
securities exchanges, as well as any broker-dealer Covered Entities 
that choose not to file Form X-17A-5 Part III or Form 17-H through the 
EDGAR system, would need to complete Form ID to obtain the EDGAR-system 
access codes that enable entities to file documents through the EDGAR 
system.\965\ The Commission estimates that each filer that currently 
does not have access to EDGAR would incur an initial, one-time burden 
of 0.30 hours to complete and submit a Form ID.\966\ Therefore, the 
Commission believes the one-time industrywide reporting burden 
associated with the proposed requirements to file on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \965\ Form ID (OMB control number 3235-0328) must be completed 
and filed with the Commission by all individuals, companies, and 
other organizations who seek access to file electronically on EDGAR. 
Accordingly, a filer that does not already have access to EDGAR must 
submit a Form ID, along with the notarized signature of an 
authorized individual, to obtain an EDGAR identification number and 
access codes to file on EDGAR. The Commission currently estimates 
that Form ID would take 0.30 hours to prepare, resulting in an 
annual industry-wide burden of 17,199 hours. See Supporting 
Statement for the Paperwork Reduction Act Information Collection 
Submission for Form ID (Dec. 20 2021), available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202112-3235-003.
    \966\ The Commission does not estimate a burden for SBS Entities 
since these firms have already filed Form ID so they can file Form 
SBSE on EDGAR. Similarly, the Commission does not estimate a burden 
for transfer agents since these firms already file their annual 
report on Form TA-2 on EDGAR.

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

[[Page 20331]]

EDGAR is 4.8 hours for clearing agencies,\967\ 0.30 hours for the 
MSRB,\968\ 7.5 hours for national securities exchanges and 
associations; \969\ 0.9 hours for SBSDRs; \970\ and 242.4 hours for 
Covered Broker-Dealers not already filing their annual audits on 
EDGAR.\971\ In addition, the requirement to file Form SCIR using custom 
XML (with which a Covered Entity would be able to comply by inputting 
its disclosures into a fillable web form), the Commission estimates 
each Covered Entity would incur an internal burden of 0.5 hours per 
filing.\972\ Accordingly, the Commission estimates that Covered 
Entities will collectively have an ongoing burden of 994.5 hours \973\ 
with respect to filing Form SCIR in custom XML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \967\ 0.30 hours x 16 clearing agencies = 4.8 hours.
    \968\ 0.30 hours x 1 MSRB = 0.30 hours.
    \969\ 0.30 hours x (24 national securities exchanges and 1 
national securities association) = 7.5 hours.
    \970\ 0.30 hours x 3 SBSRs = 0.9 hours.
    \971\ 0.30 hours x 808 Covered Broker-Dealers not already filing 
on EDGAR = 242.4 hours.
    \972\ This estimate would mirror the Commission's internal 
burden hour estimate for a proposed custom XML requirement for 
Schedules 13D and 13G. See Modernization of Beneficial Ownership 
Reporting Release.
    \973\ 1,989 Covered Entities x .5 hours = 994.5 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, 18a-6, and Clearing Agency Exemption Orders 
(and Existing Rules 13n-7 and 17a-1)
    The Commission has made certain estimates of the burdens associated 
with the proposed record preservation requirements solely for the 
purpose of this PRA analysis.\974\ Table 7 below summarizes the initial 
and ongoing annual burden and cost estimates associated with the 
additional recordkeeping requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \974\ These requirements are discussed in sections II.B.5.a. and 
II.C. of this release.
    \975\ Given the general nature of the recordkeeping requirements 
for national securities exchanges, national securities associations, 
registered clearing agencies, and the MSRB under Rule 17a-1 (OMB 
control number 3235-0208, Recordkeeping Rule for National Securities 
Exchanges, National Securities Associations, Registered Clearing 
Agencies, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board) and for 
SBSDRs under Rule 13n-7 (OMB control number 3235-0719, Security-
Based Swap Data Repository Registration, Duties, and Core Principles 
and Form SDR), it is anticipated that the new recordkeeping 
requirements proposed in this release would result in a one-time 
nominal increase in burden per entity that would effectively be 
encompassed by the existing burden estimates associated with these 
existing rules as described in those collections of information. 
Below, the Commission solicits comment regarding all of the PRA 
estimates discussed in this release.

   Table 7--PRA Estimates--Proposed Amendments to Rules 17a-4, 18a-6, and 17ad-7 and Clearing Agency Exemption
                                Orders (and Existing Rules 17a-1 and 13n-7) \975\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Annual
                                   Internal annual              Wage rate        Internal time    external  cost
                                     hour burden                                     costs            burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  PROPOSED ESTIMATES FOR RECORDKEEPING BURDENS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retention of cybersecurity       1.................     x   $73.5............              $73.5              $0
 policies and procedures.                                   (blended rate for
                                                             general clerk
                                                             and compliance
                                                             clerk).
    Total burden per Covered     1.................                                         73.5               0
     Entity or Non-Covered
     Broker-Dealer.
    Total number of affected     x 3,918...........                                      x 3,918               0
     entities.
        Sub-total burden.......  3,918 hours.......                                      287,973               0
Retention of written report      1.................     x   73.5.............               73.5               0
 documenting annual review.                                 (blended rate for
                                                             general clerk
                                                             and compliance
                                                             clerk).
Total annual burden per Covered  1.................                                         73.5               0
 Entity or Non-Covered Broker-
 Dealer.
    Total number of affected     x 3,918...........                                      x 3,918               0
     entities.
        Sub-total burden.......  3,918 hours.......                                      287,973               0
Retention of copy of any Form    1.................     x   73.5.............               73.5               0
 SCIR or immediate notice to                                (blended rate for
 the Commission.                                             general clerk
                                                             and compliance
                                                             clerk).
    Total annual burden per      1.................                                         73.5               0
     Covered Entity or Non-
     Covered Broker-Dealer.
    Total number of affected     x 3,918...........                                      x 3,918               0
     entities.
        Sub-total burden.......  3,918 hours.......                                      287,973               0
Retention of records             1.................     x   73.5.............               73.5               0
 documenting a cybersecurity                                (blended rate for
 incident.                                                   general clerk
                                                             and compliance
                                                             clerk).
    Total annual burden per      1.................                                         73.5               0
     Covered Entity.
    Total number of affected     x 1,949...........                                      x 1,949               0
     Covered Entities.
        Sub-total burden.......  1,949 hours.......                                   143,251.50               0
Retention of records             1.................     x   73.5.............               73.5               0
 documenting a Covered Entity's                             (blended rate for
 cybersecurity risk assessment.                              general clerk
                                                             and compliance
                                                             clerk).
    Total annual burden per      1.................                                         73.5               0
     Covered Entity.
    Total number of affected     x 1,949...........                                      x 1,949               0
     Covered Entities.
        Sub-total burden.......  1,949 hours.......                                   143,251.50               0
Retention of copy of any public  1.................     x   73.5.............               73.5               0
 disclosures.                                               (blended rate for
                                                             general clerk
                                                             and compliance
                                                             clerk).
    Total annual burden per      1.................                                         73.5               0
     Covered Entity.
    Total number of affected     x 1,949...........                                      x 1,949               0
     Covered Entities.
        Sub-total burden.......  1,949 hours.......                                   143,251.50               0

[[Page 20332]]

 
        Total annual aggregate   17,601 hours......                                  1,293,673.5               0
         burden of
         recordkeeping
         obligations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Substituted Compliance--Rule 3a71-6
    Rule 3a71-6 would require submission of certain information to the 
Commission to the extent SBS Entities elect to request a substituted 
compliance determination with respect to proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, 
and the related record preservation requirements. Consistent with 
Exchange Act Rule 0-13, such applications must be accompanied by 
supporting documentation necessary for the Commission to make the 
determination, including information regarding applicable foreign 
requirements, and the methods used by foreign authorities to monitor 
and enforce compliance. If Rule 3a71-6 is amended as proposed, the 
Commission expects that the majority of such requests will be made 
during the first year following the effective date.
    The Commission expects that the great majority of substituted 
compliance applications will be submitted by foreign authorities, and 
that very few substituted compliance requests will come from SBS 
Entities. For purposes of this assessment, the Commission estimates 
that three such SBS Entities will submit such an application.\976\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \976\ See SBS Entity Risk Mitigation Adopting Release, 85 FR at 
6389. See also SBS Entity Business Conduct Standards Adopting 
Release, 81 FR at 30097, n.1582 and accompanying text; SBS Entity 
Trade Acknowledgement and Verification Adopting Release, 81 FR at 
39832; SBS Entity Recordkeeping and Reporting Adopting Release, 84 
FR at 68609; Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements Adopting 
Release, 84 FR at 43967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has previously estimated that the paperwork burden 
associated with filing a request for a substituted compliance 
determination related to existing business conduct, supervision, chief 
compliance officer, and trade acknowledgement and verification 
requirements described in Rule 3a71-6(d)(1)-(3) was approximately 80 
hours of in-house counsel time, plus $84,000 \977\ for the services of 
outside professionals, and the paperwork burden estimate associated 
with making a request for a substituted compliance determination 
related to the existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
described in Rule 3a71-6(d)(6) was approximately 80 hours of in-house 
counsel time, plus $84,000 \978\ for the services of outside 
professionals.\979\ To the extent that an SBS Entity files a request 
for a substituted compliance determination in connection with Rule 10, 
Form SCIR, the related record preservation requirements, and 
requirements currently identified in Rule 3a71-6(d) as eligible for 
substituted compliance determinations, the Commission believes that the 
paperwork burden associated with the request would be greater than that 
associated with a narrower request due to the need for more information 
regarding the comparability of the relevant rules and the adequacy of 
the associated supervision and enforcement practices. However, the 
Commission believes that its prior paperwork burden estimate is 
sufficient to cover a combined substituted compliance request that also 
seeks a determination in connection with Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the 
related record preservation requirements.\980\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \977\ Based on 200 hours of outside time x $420 per hour. This 
estimated burden also includes the burden associated with making a 
request for a substituted compliance determination related to the 
portfolio reconciliation, portfolio compression, and trading 
relationship documentation requirements described in Rule 3a71-
6(d)(7); see SBS Entity Risk Mitigation Adopting Release, 85 FR at 
6389.
    \978\ Based on 200 hours of outside time x $420 per hour.
    \979\ See Supporting Statement for the Paperwork Reduction Act 
Information Collection Submission for Exchange Act Rule 3a71-6 (June 
10, 2021), available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202106-3235-008.
    \980\ Although applicants may file requests for substituted 
compliance determinations related multiple eligible requirements, 
applicants may instead file requests for substituted compliance 
determinations related to individual eligible requirements. As such, 
the Commission's estimates reflect the total paperwork burden of 
requests filed by (i) applicants that would be seeking a substituted 
compliance determination related to Rule 10, Form SCIR, and the 
related record preservation requirements combined with a request for 
a substituted compliance determination related to other eligible 
requirements, and (ii) applicants that previously filed requests for 
substituted compliance determinations related to other eligible 
requirements and would be seeking an additional substituted 
compliance determination in connection with Rule 10, Form SCIR, and 
the related record preservation requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, the Commission is revising its estimate of the hourly 
rate for outside professionals to $496, consistent with the other 
paperwork burden estimates in this release. Therefore, the Commission 
estimates that the total paperwork burden incurred by entities 
associated with preparing and submitting a request for a substituted 
compliance determination in connection with the proposed cybersecurity 
risk management requirements applicable to SBS Entities would be 
reflected in the estimated burden of a request for a substituted 
compliance determination related to the business conduct, supervision, 
chief compliance officer, trade acknowledgement and verification, and 
the portfolio reconciliation, portfolio compression, and trading 
relationship documentation requirements described in Rule 3a71-6(d)(1)-
(3) and (7) of approximately 80 hours of in-house counsel time, plus 
$99,200 for the services of outside professionals,\981\ and the 
paperwork burden associated with making a request for a substituted 
compliance determination related to the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements described in Rule 3a71-6(d)(6) of approximately 80 hours 
of in-house counsel time, plus $99,200 for the services of outside 
professionals.\982\ This estimate results in an aggregate total one-
time paperwork burden associated with preparing and submitting requests 
for substituted compliance determinations relating to the requirements 
described in Rule 3a71-6(d)(1) through (3), (6) and (7), including the 
proposed cybersecurity risk management requirements, of approximately 
480 internal hours,\983\ plus $595,200 for the services of outside 
professionals \984\ for all three requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \981\ Based on 200 hours of outside time x $496 per hour.
    \982\ Based on 200 hours of outside time x $496 per hour.
    \983\ (80 hours related to Rule 3a71-6(d)(1) through (3), (7) 
plus 80 hours related to Rule 3a71-6(d)(6)) * 3 requests.
    \984\ ($99,200 related to Rule 3a71-6(d)(1) through (3), (7) 
plus $99,200 related to Rule 3a71-6(d)(6)) * 3 requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Collection of Information is Mandatory

    The collections of information pursuant to proposed Rule 10, Form 
SCIR, and the relevant recordkeeping

[[Page 20333]]

rules are mandatory, as applicable, for Market Entities. With respect 
to Rule 3a71-6, the application for substituted compliance is mandatory 
for all foreign financial regulatory authorities or SBS Entities that 
seek a substituted compliance determination.

F. Confidentiality of Responses to Collection of Information

    The Commission expects to receive confidential information in 
connection with the collections of information. A Market Entity can 
request confidential treatment of the information.\985\ If such 
confidential treatment request is made, the Commission anticipates that 
it will keep the information confidential subject to applicable 
law.\986\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \985\ See 17 CFR 200.83. Information regarding requests for 
confidential treatment of information submitted to the Commission is 
available on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/foia/howfo2.htm#privacy.
    \986\ See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 78x (governing 
the public availability of information obtained by the Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to Rule 3a71-6, the Commission generally will make 
requests for a substituted compliance determination public, including 
supporting documentation provided by the requesting party, subject to 
requests for confidential treatment being submitted pursuant to any 
applicable provisions governing confidentiality under the Exchange 
Act.\987\ If confidential treatment is granted, the Commission would 
keep such information confidential, subject to the provisions of 
applicable law.\988\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \987\ See, e.g., 17 CFR 200.83; 17 CFR 240.24b-2; see also SBS 
Entity Definitions Adopting Release, 79 FR at 47359.
    \988\ See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 78x (governing 
the public availability of information obtained by the Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Retention Period for Recordkeeping Requirements

    Rule 17a-4, as proposed to be amended, specifies the required 
retention periods for records required to be made and preserved by a 
broker-dealer, whether electronically or otherwise.\989\ Rule 17ad-7, 
as proposed to be amended, specifies the required retention periods for 
records required to be made and preserved by transfer agents, whether 
electronically or otherwise.\990\ Rule 18a-6, as proposed to be 
amended, specifies the required retention periods for records required 
to be made and preserved by SBSDs or MSBSPs, whether electronically or 
otherwise.\991\ All records required of certain of the Market Entities 
pursuant to the proposed rule amendments must be retained for three 
years.\992\ Existing Rule 17a-1 specifies the required retention 
periods for records required to be made and preserved by national 
securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered 
clearing agencies, and the MSRB, whether electronically or 
otherwise.\993\ Under the existing provisions of Rule 17a-1, registered 
clearing agencies, the MSRB, national securities associations, and 
national securities exchanges would be required to preserve at least 
one copy of the Rule 10 Records for at least five years, the first two 
years in an easily accessible place. Existing Rule 13n-7, which is not 
proposed to be amended, specifies the required retention periods for 
records required to be made and preserved by SBSDRs, whether 
electronically or otherwise.\994\ Rule 13n-7 provides that the SBSDR 
must keep the documents for a period of not less than five years, the 
first two years in a place that is immediately available to 
representatives of the Commission for inspection and examination.\995\ 
Finally, exempt clearing agencies are generally subject to conditions 
that mirror certain of the recordkeeping requirements in Rule 17a-
1.\996\ Nonetheless, the Commission is proposing to amend the clearing 
agency exemption orders to add a condition that each exempt clearing 
agency must retain the Rule 10 Records for a period of at least five 
years after the record is made or, in the case of the written policies 
and procedures to address cybersecurity risks, for at least five years 
after the termination of the use of the policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \989\ See Rule 17a-4, as proposed to be amended.
    \990\ See Rule 17ad-7, as proposed to be amended.
    \991\ See Rule 18a-6, as proposed to be amended.
    \992\ See Rules 17a-4, 17A-d, and 18a-6, as proposed to be 
amended.
    \993\ See Rule 17a-1.
    \994\ See Rule 13n-7.
    \995\ See paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 13n-7.
    \996\ See, e.g., BSTP SS&C Order, 80 FR at 75411 (conditioning 
BSTP's exemption by requiring BSTP to, among other things, preserve 
a copy or record of all trade details, allocation instructions, 
central trade matching results, reports and notices sent to 
customers, service agreements, reports regarding affirmation rates 
that are sent to the Commission or its designee, and any complaint 
received from a customer, all of which pertain to the operation of 
its matching service and ETC service. BSTP shall retain these 
records for a period of not less than five years, the first two 
years in an easily accessible place).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Request for Comment

    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits 
comment on the proposed collections of information in order to:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information 
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Commission, including whether the information would have practical 
utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the 
burden of the proposed collections of information;
     Determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
     Evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of 
the collection of information on those who respond, including through 
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    Persons submitting comments on the collection of information 
requirements should direct them to the Office of Management and Budget, 
Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and 
should also send a copy of their comments to Vanessa A. Countryman, 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File Number S7-06-23. 
Requests for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard 
to this collection of information should be in writing, with reference 
to File Number S7-06-23 and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA/PA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736. As OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
collections of information between 30 and 60 days after publication, a 
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it within 30 days of publication.

VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The RFA requires the Commission, in promulgating rules, to consider 
the impact of those rules on small entities.\997\ Section 603(a) of the 
Administrative Procedure Act,\998\ as amended by the RFA, generally 
requires the Commission to undertake a regulatory flexibility analysis 
of all proposed rules to determine the impact of such rulemaking on 
``small entities.'' \999\ Section 605(b) of the RFA states that this 
requirement shall not apply to any proposed rule which, if adopted, 
would not have a significant

[[Page 20334]]

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.\1000\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \997\ See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \998\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \999\ Section 601(b) of the RFA permits agencies to formulate 
their own definitions of ``small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 601(b). 
The Commission has adopted definitions for the term ``small entity'' 
for the purposes of rulemaking in accordance with the RFA. These 
definitions, as relevant to this proposed rulemaking, are set forth 
in Rule 0-10.
    \1000\ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has prepared the following Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') in accordance with section 3(a) of the 
RFA.\1001\ It relates to: (1) proposed Rule 10 under the Exchange Act; 
(2) proposed Form SCIR; and (3) proposed amendments to Rules 17a-4, 
17ad-7, and 18a-6 under the Exchange Act.\1002\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1001\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \1002\ The Commission is also certifying that that amendments to 
Rule 3a71-6 will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for purposes of the RFA. See 
section VI.C.5. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Reasons for, and Objectives of, Proposed Action

    The reasons for, and objectives of, the proposed rule and rule 
amendments are discussed above.\1003\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1003\ See sections I and II of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Proposed Rule 10 and Parts I and II of Proposed Form SCIR
    Proposed Rule 10 would require all Market Entities (Covered 
Entities and non-Covered Entities) to establish, maintain, and enforce 
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address 
their cybersecurity risks.\1004\ All Market Entities also, at least 
annually, would be required to review and assess the design and 
effectiveness of their cybersecurity policies and procedures, including 
whether the policies and procedures reflect changes in cybersecurity 
risk over the time period covered by the review.\1005\ They also would 
be required to prepare a report (in the case of Covered Entities) and a 
record (in the case of non-Covered Entities) with respect to the annual 
review.\1006\ Finally, all Market Entities would need to give the 
Commission immediate written electronic notice of a significant 
cybersecurity incident upon having a reasonable basis to conclude that 
the significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is 
occurring.\1007\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1004\ See paragraphs (b) through (d) of proposed Rule 10 
(setting forth the requirements for Market Entities that meet the 
definition of ``covered entity''); paragraph (e)(1) of proposed Rule 
10. See also sections II.B.1 and II.C. of this release (discussing 
these proposed requirements in more detail).
    \1005\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph 
(e)(1) of proposed Rule 10. See also sections II.B.1.f. and II.C. of 
this release (discussing these proposed requirements in more 
detail).
    \1006\ See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph 
(e)(1) of proposed Rule 10. See also sections II.B.1.f. and II.C. of 
this release (discussing these proposed requirements in more 
detail).
    \1007\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph 
(e)(2) of proposed Rule 10. See also sections II.B.2.a. and II.C. of 
this release (discussing these proposed requirements in more 
detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market Entities that meet the definition of ``covered entity'' 
would be subject to certain additional requirements under proposed Rule 
10.\1008\ First, their cybersecurity risk management policies and 
procedures would need to include the following elements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1008\ See paragraph (b) through (d) of proposed Rule 10 
(setting forth the requirements for Market Entities that meet the 
definition of ``covered entity''); paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10 
(setting forth the requirements for Market Entities that do not meet 
the definition of ``covered entity'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Periodic assessments of cybersecurity risks associated 
with the Covered Entity's information systems and written documentation 
of the risk assessments;
     Controls designed to minimize user-related risks and 
prevent unauthorized access to the Covered Entity's information 
systems;
     Measures designed to monitor the Covered Entity's 
information systems and protect the Covered Entity's information from 
unauthorized access or use, and oversight of service providers that 
receive, maintain, or process information, or are otherwise permitted 
to access the Covered Entity's information systems;
     Measures to detect, mitigate, and remediate any 
cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities with respect to the Covered 
Entity's information systems; and
     Measures to detect, respond to, and recover from a 
cybersecurity incident and written documentation of any cybersecurity 
incident and the response to and recovery from the incident.\1009\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1009\ See sections II.B.1.a. through II.B.1.e. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail). In the case 
of non-Covered Entities, as discussed in more detail below in 
section II.C. of this release, the design of the cybersecurity risk 
management policies and procedures would need to take into account 
the size, business, and operations of the broker-dealer. See 
paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Covered Entities--in addition to providing the Commission 
with immediate written electronic notice of a significant cybersecurity 
incident--would need to report and update information about the 
significant cybersecurity incident by filing Part I of proposed Form 
SCIR with the Commission through the EDGAR system.\1010\ The form would 
elicit information about the significant cybersecurity incident and the 
Covered Entity's efforts to respond to, and recover from, the incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1010\ See sections II.B.2. and II.B.4. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Covered Entities would need to publicly disclose summary 
descriptions of their cybersecurity risks and the significant 
cybersecurity incidents they experienced during the current or previous 
calendar year on Part II of proposed Form SCIR.\1011\ The form would 
need to be filed with the Commission through the EDGAR system and 
posted on the Covered Entity's business internet website and, in the 
case of Covered Entities that are carrying or introducing broker-
dealers, provided to customers at account opening and annually 
thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1011\ See sections II.B.3. and II.B.4.of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Covered Entities and Non-Covered Entities would need to preserve 
certain records relating to the requirements of proposed Rule 10 in 
accordance with amended or existing recordkeeping requirements 
applicable to them or, in the case of exempt clearing agencies, 
pursuant to conditions in relevant exemption orders.\1012\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1012\ See sections II.B.5. and II.C. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Collectively, these requirements are designed to address 
cybersecurity risk and the threat it poses to Market Entities and the 
U.S. securities markets. The written policies and procedures, the 
records required to be made pursuant to those policies and procedures, 
and the report or record of the annual review of the policies and 
procedures would address the specific cybersecurity risks to which 
Market Entities are exposed. The Commission could use these written 
policies and procedures, reports, and records to review Market 
Entities' compliance with proposed Rule 10.
    The Commission could use the immediate written electronic 
notification of significant cybersecurity incidents to promptly begin 
to assess the situation by, for example, when warranted, assessing the 
Market Entity's operating status and engaging in discussions with the 
Market Entity to understand better what steps it is taking to protect 
its customers, counterparties, members, registrants, or user. The 
Commission could use the subsequent reports about the significant 
cybersecurity incident filed by Covered Entities using Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR to understand better the nature and extent of a 
particular significant cybersecurity incident and the efficacy of the 
Covered Entity's response to mitigate the disruption and harm caused by 
the incident. The Commission staff could use the reports to focus on 
the Covered Entity's operating status and to facilitate their outreach 
to, and discussions with, personnel at the Covered Entity who are 
addressing the significant cybersecurity incident. In

[[Page 20335]]

addition, the reporting would provide the staff with a view into the 
Covered Entity's understanding of the scope and impact of the 
significant cybersecurity incident. All of this information could be 
used by the Commission and its staff in assessing the significant 
cybersecurity incident impacting the Covered Entity. Further, the 
Commission could be use the database of reports to assess the potential 
cybersecurity risks affecting U.S. securities markets more broadly. 
This information could be used to address future significant 
cybersecurity incidents. For example, these reports could assist the 
Commission in identifying patterns and trends across Covered Entities, 
including widespread cybersecurity incidents affecting multiple Covered 
Entities at the same time. Further, the reports could be used to 
evaluate the effectiveness of various approaches to respond to and 
recover from a significant cybersecurity incident.
    The disclosures by Covered Entities on Part II of proposed Form 
SCIR would be used to provide greater transparency to customers, 
counterparties, registrants, or members of the Covered Entity, or to 
users of its services, about the Covered Entity's cybersecurity risk 
profile. This information could be used by these persons to manage 
their own cybersecurity risk and, to the extent they have choice, 
select a Covered Entity with whom to transact or otherwise conduct 
business. In addition, because the reports would be filed through 
EDGAR, Covered Entities' customers, counterparties, members, 
registrants, or users would be able to run search queries to compare 
the disclosures of multiple Covered Entities. This would make it easier 
for Commission staff and others to assess the cybersecurity risk 
profiles of different types of Covered Entities and could facilitate 
trend analysis by members of the public of significant cybersecurity 
incidents.
2. Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, 18a-6 and Clearing Agency Exemption Orders
    Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, and 18a-6--which apply to broker-dealers, 
transfer agents, and SBS Entities, respectively--would be amended to 
establish preservation and maintenance requirements for the written 
policies and procedures, annual reports, Parts I and II of proposed 
form SCIR, and records required to be made pursuant to proposed Rule 10 
(i.e., the Rule 10 Records).\1013\ The proposed amendments would 
specify that the Rule 10 Records must be retained for three years. In 
the case of the written policies and procedures to address 
cybersecurity risks, the record would need to be maintained until three 
years after the termination of the use of the policies and 
procedures.\1014\ In addition, orders exempting certain clearing 
agencies from registering with the Commission would be amended to 
establish preservation and maintenance requirements for the Rule 10 
Records that would apply to the exempt clearing agencies subject to 
those orders.\1015\ The amendments would provide that the records need 
to be retained for five years (consistent with Rules 13n-7 and 17a-
1).\1016\ In the case of the written policies and procedures to address 
cybersecurity risks, the record would need to be maintained until five 
years after the termination of the use of the policies and procedures. 
The preservation of these records would make them available for 
examination by the Commission and other regulators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1013\ See sections II.B.5. and II.C. of this release 
(discussing these proposed amendments in more detail). Rule 17a-4 
sets forth record preservation and maintenance requirements for 
broker-dealers, Rule 17ad-7 sets forth record preservation and 
maintenance requirements for transfer agents, and Rule 18a-6 sets 
forth record preservation and maintenance requirements for SBS 
Entities.
    \1014\ See proposed amendments to Rule 17a-4.
    \1015\ See section II.B.5. of this release (discussing these 
proposed amendments in more detail).
    \1016\ For the reasons discussed in section II.B.5.a. of this 
release, the proposal would not amend Rules 13n-7 or 17a-1. As 
explained in that section of the release, the existing requirements 
of Rule 13n-7 (which applies to SBSDRs) and Rule 17a-1 (which 
applies to registered clearing agencies, the MSRB, national 
securities associations, and national securities exchanges) will 
require these Market Entities to retain the Rule 10 Records for five 
years and, in the case of the written policies and procedures, for 
five years after the termination of the use of the policies and 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Legal Basis

    The Commission is proposing Rule 10 and Form SCIR under the 
Exchange Act, as well as amendments to Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, and 18a-6 
under the Exchange Act, under the following authorities under the 
Exchange Act: (1) Sections 15, 17, and 23 for broker-dealers (15 U.S.C. 
78o, 78q, and 78w); (2) Sections 17, 17A, and 23 for clearing agencies 
(15 U.S.C. 78q, 17q-1, and 78w(a)(1)); (3) Sections 15B, 17, and 23 for 
the MSRB (15 U.S.C. 78o-4, 78q(a), and 78w); (4) Sections 6(b), 11A, 
15A, 17, and 23 for national securities exchanges and national 
securities associations (15 U.S.C. 78f, 78k-1, 78o-3, and 78w); (5) 
Sections 15F, 23, and 30(c) for SBS Entities (15 U.S.C. 78o-10, 78w, 
and 78dd(c)); (6) Sections 13 and 23 for SBSDRs (15 U.S.C. 78m and 
78w); and (7) Sections 17a, 17A, and 23 for transfer agents (78q, 17q-
1, and 78w).

C. Small Entities Subject to Proposed Rule, Form SCIR, and 
Recordkeeping Rule Amendments

    As discussed above, the Commission estimates that a total of 
approximately 1,989 Covered Entities (consisting of 1,541 broker-
dealers, 16 clearing agencies, the MSRB, 25 total national securities 
exchanges and national securities associations, 50 SBS Entities, 3 
SBSDRs, and 353 transfer agents) and 1,969 Non-Covered Broker-Dealers 
would be subject to the new cybersecurity requirements and related 
recordkeeping requirements as a result of: (1) proposed Rule 10 under 
the Exchange Act; (2) proposed Form SCIR; and (3) proposed amendments 
to Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, and 18a-6 under the Exchange Act. The number of 
these firms that may be considered ``small entities'' are discussed 
below.
1. Broker-Dealers
    For purposes of Commission rulemaking, a small entity includes, 
when used with reference to a broker-dealer, a broker-dealer that: (1) 
had total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less 
than $500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its 
audited financial statements were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) 
under the Exchange Act, or, if not required to file such statements, a 
broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus subordinated 
liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the last day of the preceding 
fiscal year (or in the time that it has been in business, if shorter); 
and (2) is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) 
that is not a small business or small organization.\1017\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1017\ See paragraph (c) of Rule 0-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on FOCUS Report data, the Commission estimates that as of 
September 30, 2022, approximately 764 broker-dealers total (195 broker-
dealers that are Covered Entities and 569 broker-dealers that are Non-
Covered Broker-Dealers) that might be deemed small entities for 
purposes of this analysis.
2. Clearing Agencies
    For the purposes of Commission rulemaking, a small entity includes, 
when used with reference to a clearing agency, a clearing agency that: 
(1) compared, cleared, and settled less than $500 million in securities 
transactions during the preceding fiscal year; (2) had less than $200 
million of funds and securities in its custody or control at all times 
during the preceding fiscal year (or at any time that it has been in 
business, if shorter); and (3) is not

[[Page 20336]]

affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) that is not a 
small business or small organization.\1018\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1018\ See paragraph (d) of Rule 0-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Commission's existing information about the clearing 
agencies currently registered with the Commission, the Commission 
preliminarily believes that such entities exceed the thresholds 
defining ``small entities'' set out above. While other clearing 
agencies may emerge and seek to register as clearing agencies, the 
Commission preliminarily does not believe that any such entities would 
be ``small entities'' as defined in Exchange Act Rule 0-10. 
Consequently, the Commission certifies that the proposed rule and form 
would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
3. The MSRB
    The Commission's rules do not define ``small business'' or ``small 
organization'' for purposes of entities like the MSRB. The MSRB does 
not fit into one of the categories listed under the Commission rule 
that provides guidelines for a defined group of entities to qualify as 
a small entity for purposes of Commission rulemaking under the 
RFA.\1019\ The RFA in turn, refers to the Small Business Administration 
(``SBA'') in providing that the term ``small business'' is defined as 
having the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under 
section 3 of the Small Business Act.\1020\ The SBA provides a 
comprehensive list of categories with accompanying size standards that 
outline how large a business concern can be and still qualify as a 
small business.\1021\ The industry categorization that appears to best 
fit the MSRB under the SBA table is Professional Organization. The SBA 
defines a Professional Organization as an entity having average annual 
receipts of less than $15 million. Within the MSRB's 2021 Annual Report 
the organization reported total revenue exceeding $35 million for 
fiscal year 2021.\1022\ The Report also stated that the organization's 
total revenue for fiscal year 2020 exceeded $47 million.\1023\ The 
Commission is using the SBA's definition of small business to define 
the MSRB for purposes of the RFA and has concluded that the MSRB is not 
a ``small entity.'' Consequently, the Commission certifies that the 
proposed rule and form would not, if adopted, have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1019\ See Rule 0-10.
    \1020\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
    \1021\ See 13 CFR 121.201. See also SBA, Table of Small Business 
Size Standards Marched to North American Industry Classification 
System Codes, available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf (outlining the list of small business 
size standards within 13 CFR 121.201).
    \1022\ See MSRB, 2021 Annual Report, 16, available at https://msrb.org/-/media/Files/Resources/MSRB-2021-Annual-Report.ashx.
    \1023\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. National Securities Exchanges and National Securities Associations
    For the purposes of Commission rulemaking, and with respect to the 
national securities exchanges, the Commission has defined a ``small 
entity'' as an exchange that has been exempt from the reporting 
requirements of Rule 601 of Regulation NMS and is not affiliated with 
any person (other than a natural person) that is not a small business 
or small organization.\1024\ None of the national securities exchanges 
registered under section 6 of the Exchange Act that would be subject to 
the proposed rule and form is a ``small entity'' for purposes of the 
RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1024\ See paragraph (e) of Rule 0-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is only one national securities association (FINRA), and the 
Commission has previously stated that it is not a small entity as 
defined by 13 CFR 121.201.\1025\ Consequently, the Commission certifies 
that the proposed rule and form would not, if adopted, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1025\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62174 (May 
26, 2010), 75 FR 32556, 32605 n.416 (June 8, 2010) (``FINRA is not a 
small entity as defined by 13 CFR 121.201.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. SBS Entities
    For purposes of Commission rulemaking, a small entity includes: (1) 
when used with reference to an ``issuer'' or a ``person,'' other than 
an investment company, an ``issuer'' or ``person'' that, on the last 
day of its most recent fiscal year, had total assets of $5 million or 
less; \1026\ or (2) a broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus 
subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the date in the 
prior fiscal year as of which its audited financial statements were 
prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) under the Exchange Act,\1027\ or, if 
not required to file such statements, a broker-dealer with total 
capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000 
on the last day of the preceding fiscal year (or in the time that it 
has been in business, if shorter); and is not affiliated with any 
person (other than a natural person) that is not a small business or 
small organization.\1028\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1026\ See paragraph (a) of Rule 0-10.
    \1027\ 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d).
    \1028\ See paragraph (c) of Rule 0-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to SBS Entities, based on feedback from market 
participants and our information about the security-based swap markets, 
and consistent with our position in prior rulemakings arising out of 
the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission continues to believe that: (1) the 
types of entities that will engage in more than a de minimis amount of 
dealing activity involving security-based swaps--which generally would 
be large financial institutions--would not be ``small entities'' for 
purposes of the RFA, and (2) the types of entities that may have 
security-based swap positions above the level required to be MSBSPs 
would not be ``small entities'' for purposes of the RFA.\1029\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1029\ See, e.g., SBS Entity Risk Mitigation Adopting Release, 
85 FR at 6411; SBS Entity Registration Adopting Release, 80 FR at 
49013; Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Security-Based 
Swap Dealers, Major Security-Based Swap Participants, and Broker-
Dealers; Capital Rule for Certain Security-Based Swap Dealers, 
Exchange Act Release No. 71958 (Apr. 17, 2014), 79 FR 25193, 25296-
97 and n.1441 (May 2, 2014); Further Definition Release, 77 FR at 
30743.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, the Commission certifies that with respect to SBS 
Entities the proposed rule and form (as well as the amendments to Rule 
3a71-6) would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
6. SBSDRs
    For purposes of Commission rulemaking regarding SBSDRs, a small 
entity includes: (1) when used with reference to an ``issuer'' or a 
``person,'' other than an investment company, an ``issuer'' or 
``person'' that, on the last day of its most recent fiscal year, had 
total assets of $5 million or less; \1030\ or (2) a broker-dealer with 
total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than 
$500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited 
financial statements were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) under the 
Exchange Act,\1031\ or, if not required to file such statements, a 
broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus subordinated 
liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the last day of the preceding 
fiscal year (or in the time that it has been in business, if shorter); 
and is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) 
that is not a small business or small organization.\1032\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1030\ See paragraph (a) of Rule 0-10.
    \1031\ 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d).
    \1032\ See paragraph (c) of Rule 0-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Commission's existing information about the SBSDRs 
currently registered with the Commission, and consistent with the 
Commission's prior

[[Page 20337]]

rulemakings,\1033\ the Commission preliminarily believes that such 
entities exceed the thresholds defining ``small entities'' set out 
above. While other SBSDRs may emerge and seek to register as SBSDRs, 
the Commission preliminarily does not believe that any such entities 
would be ``small entities'' as defined in Exchange Act Rule 0-10. 
Consequently, the Commission certifies that the proposed rule and form 
would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1033\ See, e.g., SBSDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14548-49 
(stating that ``[i]n the Proposing Release, the Commission stated 
that it did not believe that any persons that would register as 
SBSDRs would be considered small entities. The Commission stated 
that it believed that most, if not all, SBSDRs would be part of 
large business entities with assets in excess of $5 million and 
total capital in excess of $500,000. As a result, the Commission 
certified that the proposed rules would not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities and requested 
comments on this certification. The Commission did not receive any 
comments that specifically addressed whether Rules 13n-1 through 
13n-12 and Form SBSDR would have a significant economic impact on 
small entities. Therefore, the Commission continues to believe that 
Rules 13n-1 through 13n-12 and Form SBSDR will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, the Commission hereby certifies that, 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), Rules 13n-1 through 13n-12, Form SBSDR 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Transfer Agents
    For purposes of Commission rulemaking, Exchange Act Rule 0-10(h) 
provides that the term small business or small organization shall, when 
used with reference to a transfer agent, mean a transfer agent that: 
(1) received less than 500 items for transfer and less than 500 items 
for processing during the preceding six months (or in the time that it 
has been in business, if shorter); (2) transferred items only of 
issuers that would be deemed ``small businesses'' or ``small 
organizations'' as defined in this section; and (3) maintained master 
shareholder files that in the aggregate contained less than 1,000 
shareholder accounts or was the named transfer agent for less than 
1,000 shareholder accounts at all times during the preceding fiscal 
year (or in the time that it has been in business, if shorter); and (4) 
is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) that is 
not a small business or small organization under this section.\1034\ As 
of March 31, 2022, the Commission estimates there were 158 transfer 
agents that were considered small organizations. Our estimate is based 
on the number of transfer agents that reported a value of fewer than 
1,000 for items 4(a) and 5(a) on Form TA-2 for the 2021 annual 
reporting period (which was required to be filed by March 31, 
2022).\1035\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1034\ See paragraph (h) of Rule 0-10.
    \1035\ Item 4(a) on Form TA-2 requires each transfer agent to 
provide the number of items received for transfer during the 
reporting period. Item 5(a) on Form TA-2 requires each transfer 
agent to provide its total number of individual securityholder 
accounts, including accounts in the Direct Registration System 
(DRS), dividend reinvestment plans and/or direct purchase plans as 
of December 31.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

1. Proposed Rule 10 and Parts I and II of Proposed Form SCIR
    The proposed requirements under proposed Rule 10 and Parts I and II 
of proposed Form SCIR, including compliance and recordkeeping 
requirements, are summarized in this IRFA.\1036\ The burdens on 
respondents, including those that are small entities, are discussed 
above in the Commission's economic analysis and PRA analysis.\1037\ 
They also are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1036\ See section VI.A. of this release. See also section II of 
this release (discussing the requirements of proposed Rule 10 and 
Parts I and II of proposed Form SCIR in more detail).
    \1037\ See sections IV and V of this release (setting forth the 
Commission's economic analysis and PRA analysis, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, there are approximately 764 small entity 
broker-dealers. 195 of these broker-dealers would be Covered Entities 
and 569 of these broker-dealers would be Non-Covered Broker-Dealers 
under proposed Rule 10. In addition, there are approximately 158 small 
entity transfer agents, all of which would be Covered Entities 
(resulting in a total of 353 small entities that would be Covered 
Entities). The total number of small entity broker-dealers or transfer 
agents that would be subject to the requirements of proposed Rule 10 as 
either Covered Entities or Non-Covered Broker-Dealers is 922.
    The requirements under proposed Rule 10 to implement and review 
certain policies and procedures would result in costs to these small 
entities. For Covered Entities, this would create a new annual burden 
of approximately 31.67 hours per firm, or 11,179.51 hours in aggregate 
for small entities. The Commission therefore expects the annual 
monetized aggregate cost to small entities to be $5,164,933.62.\1038\ 
For Non-Covered Broker-Dealers, the requirements would create a new 
annual burden of approximately 21 hours per firm, or 11,949 hours in 
aggregate for small entities. The Commission therefore expects the 
annual monetized aggregate cost to small entities to be 
$5,520,438.\1039\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1038\ $29,102,133.06 total cost x (353 small entities/1,989 
total entities) = $5,164,933.62.
    \1039\ $19,103,238 total cost x (569 small entities/1,969 total 
entities) = $5,520,438.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, there are approximately 922 small entities that would 
be subject to the notification requirements of proposed Rule 10. The 
requirement to make a determination regarding a significant 
cybersecurity incident and immediate notice to the Commission would 
create a new annual burden of approximately 4.67 hours per Market 
Entity, or 4,305.74 hours in aggregate for small entities. The 
Commission therefore expects the annual monetized aggregate cost to 
small entities associated with the proposed notification requirement 
under Rule 10 to be $1,519,926.22.\1040\ The 353 small entities that 
would be Covered Entities would also be subject to the requirements to 
file Part I of proposed Form SCIR. This would create a new annual 
burden of approximately 2.5 hours per Covered Entity, or 882.5 hours in 
aggregate for small entities. The Commission therefore expects the 
annual monetized aggregate cost to small entities associated with Part 
I of proposed Form SCIR to be $380,357.50.\1041\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1040\ $6,524,802.58 total cost x (922 small entities/3,958 
total entities) = $1,519,926.22.
    \1041\ $2,143,147.5 total cost x (353 small entities/1,989 total 
entities) = $380,357.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the approximately 353 small entities that are Covered 
Entities would be subject to the disclosure requirements of proposed 
Rule 10. These 353 small entities would be required to make certain 
public disclosures on Part II of proposed Form SCIR. This would create 
a new annual burden of approximately 3.67 hours per Covered Entity, or 
1,295.51 hours in aggregate for small entities. The Commission 
therefore expects the annual monetized aggregate cost to small entities 
associated with Part II of proposed Form SCIR to be $486,243.38.\1042\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1042\ $2,739,767.94 total cost x (353 small entities/1,989 
total entities) = $486,243.38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the requirement to file Form SCIR using a form-
specific XML may impose some compliance costs for entities not already 
required to file in EDGAR. Because all transfer agents are already 
required to file in EDGAR their annual reports on Form TA-2, no small 
entity transfer agent will incur an additional burden for filing their 
public disclosures in EDGAR. Assuming all 195 small broker-dealers that 
are Covered Entities do not already file in EDGAR, the requirement to 
file the public disclosures in EDGAR would create an initial, one-time 
burden of

[[Page 20338]]

approximately 0.30 hours per Covered Entity, or 58.5 hours in aggregate 
for small entities, to complete and submit a Form ID. In addition, the 
requirement to file Form SCIR using custom XML (with which a Covered 
Entity would be able to comply by inputting its disclosures into a 
fillable web form) would create an ongoing burden of 0.5 hours per 
filing, or 176.5 hours for all small entities collectively.
    As discussed above, there are approximately 195 small entity 
broker-dealers that would be subject to the additional disclosure 
requirements under proposed Rule 10 for customers of Covered Broker-
Dealers. This would create a new annual burden of approximately 51.26 
hours per Covered Entity, or 9,995.7 hours in aggregate for small 
entities. The Commission therefore expects the annual monetized 
aggregate cost to small entities associated with the proposed 
disclosure requirements for Covered Broker-Dealers to be 
$689,703.30.\1043\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1043\ $5,450,424.54 total cost x (195 small entities/1,541 
total entities) = $689,703.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, and 18a-6
    The proposed amendments to Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, and 18a-6 would 
impose certain recordkeeping requirements, which--with respect to 17a-4 
and 17ad-7--includes requirements for those that are small 
entities.\1044\ The proposed amendments are discussed above in 
detail,\1045\ and the requirements and the burdens on respondents, 
including those that are small entities, are discussed above in the 
economic analysis and PRA, respectively.\1046\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1044\ See section VI.A.3. of this release.
    \1045\ See sections II.B.5. and II.C. of this release
    \1046\ See sections IV and V of the release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are approximately 353 small entities that would be subject to 
the proposed amendments to Rules 17a-4 and 17ad-7 as Covered Entities. 
As discussed above in the PRA analysis in section V, the proposed 
amendments to Rules 17a-4 and 17ad-7 would require Market Entities to 
retain certain copies of documents required under proposed Rule 10, and 
would create a new annual burden of approximately 6 hours per entity, 
or 2,118 hours in aggregate for small entities. The Commission 
therefore expects the annual monetized aggregate cost to small entities 
associated with the proposed amendments would be $155,673.\1047\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1047\ $877,149 total cost x (353 small entities/1,989 total 
entities) = $155,673.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, there are approximately 569 small entity 
broker-dealers that would be subject to the proposed amendments to Rule 
17a-4 as Non-Covered Broker-Dealers. As discussed above in the PRA 
analysis, in section V, the proposed amendments to Rule 17a-4 would 
require Market Entities to retain certain copies of documents required 
under proposed Rule 10, which would create a new annual burden of 
approximately 3 hours per entity, or 1,707 hours in aggregate for small 
entities. The Commission therefore expects the annual monetized 
aggregate cost to small entities associated with the proposed 
amendments would be $125,464.50.\1048\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1048\ $434,164.50 total cost x (569 small entities/1,969 total 
entities) = $125,464.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

1. Proposed Rule 10 and Parts I and II of Proposed Form SCIR
    As discussed above certain broker-dealers--including an operator of 
an ATS--and transfer agents would be small entities. Proposed Rule 10 
would require all Market Entities to establish, maintain, and enforce 
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address 
their cybersecurity risks, and, at least annually, review and assess 
the design and effectiveness of these policies and procedures.\1049\ As 
discussed earlier, broker-dealers are subject to Regulation S-P and 
Regulation S-ID.\1050\ In addition, ATSs that trade certain stocks 
exceeding specific volume thresholds are subject to Regulation SCI. 
Further, an ATS is subject to Regulation ATS. Transfer agents 
registered with the Commission (but not transfer agents registered with 
another appropriate regulatory agency) are subject to the Regulation S-
P Disposal Rule.\1051\ Transfer agents also may be subject to 
Regulation S-ID if they are ``financial institutions'' or 
``creditors.'' \1052\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1049\ See paragraphs (b)(1) and (e)(1) of proposed Rule 10 
(requiring Covered Entities and Non-Covered Broker-Dealers, 
respectively, to have policies and procedures to address their 
cybersecurity risks); sections II.B.1. and II.C.1. of this release 
(discussing the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (e)(1) of 
proposed Rule 10 in more detail).
    \1050\ See section IV.C.1.b.i. of this release (discussing 
current relevant regulations applicable to broker-dealers).
    \1051\ See section IV.C.1.b.v. of this release (discussing 
current relevant regulations applicable to transfer agents).
    \1052\ See 17 CFR 248.201 and 202. The scope of Regulation S-ID 
includes any financial institution or creditor, as defined in the 
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681) that is required to be 
``registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.'' See 17 CFR 
248.201(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier, these other regulations have provisions that 
require policies and procedures that address certain cybersecurity 
risks.\1053\ However, the policies and procedures requirements of 
proposed Rule 10 are intended to differ in scope and purpose from those 
other regulations, and because the policies and procedures required 
under proposed Rule 10 are consistent with the existing and proposed 
requirements of those other regulations that pertain to cybersecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1053\ See section II.F.1.c. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 10 would require all Market Entities to give the 
Commission immediate written electronic notice of a significant 
cybersecurity incident upon having a reasonable basis to conclude that 
the significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is 
occurring.\1054\ Covered Entities--in addition to providing the 
Commission with immediate written electronic notice of a significant 
cybersecurity incident--would need to report and update information 
about the significant cybersecurity incident by filing Part I of 
proposed Form SCIR with the Commission.\1055\ Recently, the OCC, 
Federal Reserve Board, and FDIC adopted a new rule that would require 
certain banking organizations to notify the appropriate banking 
regulator of any cybersecurity incidents within 36 hours of discovering 
an incident.\1056\ Certain transfer agents are banking organizations 
and, therefore, may be required to provide notification to the 
Commission and other regulators under proposed Rule 10 and to their 
banking regulator under this new rule if they experience a significant 
cybersecurity incident.\1057\ However, the burdens of providing these 
notices are minor and each requirement is designed to alert separate 
regulators who have oversight responsibilities with respect to transfer 
agents about cybersecurity incidents that could adversely impact the 
transfer agent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1054\ See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 10; paragraph 
(e)(2) of proposed Rule 10. See also sections II.B.2.a. and II.C. of 
this release (discussing these proposed requirements in more 
detail).
    \1055\ See sections II.B.2. and II.B.4. of this release 
(discussing these proposed requirements in more detail).
    \1056\ See section IV.C.1.d. of this release (discussing this 
requirement in more detail).
    \1057\ Similarly, to the extent that a Covered Entity is subject 
to NFA rules, there may be overlapping notification requirements. 
See NFA Interpretive Notice 9070--NFA Compliance Rules 2-9, 2-36 and 
2-49: Information Systems Security Programs (effective March 1, 
2016; April 1, 2019 and September 30, 2019) available at https://www.nfa.futures.org/rulebook/rules.aspx?RuleID=9070&Section=9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 10 would require a Covered Entity to make two types 
of public disclosures relating to cybersecurity on Part II of proposed

[[Page 20339]]

Form SCIR.\1058\ Covered Entities would be required to make the 
disclosures by filing Part II of proposed Form SCIR on EDGAR and 
posting a copy of the filing on their business internet websites.\1059\ 
In addition, a Covered Entity that is either a carrying or introducing 
broker-dealer would be required to provide a copy of the most recently 
filed Part II of Form SCIR to a customer as part of the account opening 
process. Thereafter, the carrying or introducing broker-dealer would 
need to provide the customer with the most recently filed form 
annually. Regulation SCI requires that SCI entities disseminate 
information to their members, participants, or customers (as 
applicable) regarding SCI events, including systems intrusions.\1060\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1058\ See paragraph (d)(1) of proposed Rule 10.
    \1059\ See section II.B.3.b. of this release (discussing these 
proposed requirements in more detail).
    \1060\ See 17 CFR 242.1002(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, a Covered Entity would, if it experiences a 
``significant cybersecurity incident,'' be required to make updated 
disclosures under proposed Rule 10 by filing Part II of proposed Form 
SCIR on EDGAR, posting a copy of the form on its business internet 
website, and, in the case of a carrying or introducing broker-dealer, 
by sending the disclosure to its customers using the same means that 
the customer elects to receive account statements. Moreover, if Covered 
Entity is an SCI entity and the significant cybersecurity incident is 
or would be an SCI event under the current or proposed requirements of 
Regulation SCI, the Covered Entity also could be required to 
disseminate certain information about the SCI event to certain of its 
members, participants, or customers (as applicable).
    As discussed above, proposed Rule 10 and Regulation SCI require 
different types of information to be disclosed. In addition, the 
disclosures, for the most part, would be made to different persons: (1) 
the public at large in the case of proposed Rule 10; \1061\ and (2) 
affected members, participants, or customers (as applicable) of the SCI 
entity in the case of Regulation SCI. For these reasons, the Commission 
proposes to apply the disclosure requirements of proposed Rule 10 to 
Covered Entities even if they would be subject to the disclosure 
requirements of Regulation SCI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1061\ A carrying broker-dealer would be required to make the 
disclosures to its customers as well through the means by which they 
receive account statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, 18a-6 and Clearing Agency Exemption Orders
    As part of proposed Rule 10, the Commission is proposing 
corresponding amendments to the books and records rules for Market 
Entities. There are no duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal 
rules with respect to the proposed amendments to Rules 17a-4, 17ad-7, 
18a-6 and clearing agency exemption orders.

F. Significant Alternatives

    The RFA directs the Commission to consider significant alternatives 
that would accomplish our stated objectives, while minimizing any 
significant adverse effect on small entities.
1. Broker-Dealers
    As discussed above, the proposal would apply to all registered 
broker-dealers. Under the proposal, the following broker-dealers would 
be Covered Entities: (1) broker-dealers that maintain custody of 
securities and cash for customers or other broker-dealers (i.e., 
carrying broker-dealers); (2) broker-dealers that introduce their 
customer accounts to a carrying broker-dealer on a fully disclosed 
basis (i.e., introducing broker-dealers); (3) broker-dealers with 
regulatory capital equal to or exceeding $50 million; (4) broker-
dealers with total assets equal to or exceeding $1 billion; (5) broker-
dealers that operate as market makers; and (6) broker-dealers that 
operate an ATS. Broker-dealers that do not fit into at least one of 
these categories would not be Covered Entities (i.e., they would be 
Non-Covered Broker-Dealers). As discussed earlier, Covered Entities 
would be subject to additional requirements under proposed Rule 
10.\1062\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1062\ See paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of proposed Rule 10 
(setting forth the requirements for Covered Entities); paragraph (e) 
of proposed Rule 10 (setting forth the requirements for Non-Covered 
Broker-Dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 1,541 broker-dealers that would be Covered Entities, 
approximately 195 are considered small entities. All but one of these 
small entities are broker-dealers that introduce their customer 
accounts to a carrying broker-dealer on a fully disclosed basis. The 
remaining small entity broker-dealer is an operator of an ATS. The 
Commission considered the following alternatives for small entities 
that are Covered Broker-Dealers in relation to the proposal: (1) 
differing compliance or reporting requirements that take into account 
the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting 
requirements under the proposed rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of design rather than performance standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the proposed rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.
    Regarding the first and fourth alternatives, the Commission decided 
not to include differing requirements or exemptions for introducing 
broker-dealers, regardless of size, and therefore, they would be 
Covered Entities under the proposed rule. This decision was based on a 
number of considerations.\1063\ For example, introducing broker-dealers 
are a conduit to their customers' accounts at the carrying broker-
dealer and have access to information and trading systems of the 
carrying broker-dealer. Consequently, a cybersecurity incident at an 
introducing firm could directly harm the introducing firm's customers 
to the extent it causes them to lose access to the systems allowing 
them to view and transact in their securities accounts at the carrying 
broker-dealer. Further, a significant cybersecurity incident at an 
introducing broker-dealer could spread to the carrying broker-dealer 
given the information systems that connect the two firms. These 
connections also may make introducing broker-dealers attractive targets 
for threat actors seeking to access the information systems of the 
carrying broker-dealer to which the introducing broker-dealer is 
connected. In addition, introducing broker-dealers may store personal 
information about their customers on their information systems or be 
able to access this information on the carrying broker-dealer's 
information systems. If this information is accessed or stolen by 
unauthorized users, it could result in harm (e.g., identity theft or 
conversion of financial assets) to many individuals, including retail 
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1063\ See section II.A.1.b. of this release (discussing why 
introducing broker-dealers would be Covered Entities in more 
detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission decided not to include differing requirements or 
exemptions for broker-dealers that operate an ATS, regardless of size, 
and therefore, they would be Covered Entities under the proposed rule. 
This decision was based on a number of considerations.\1064\ The 
Commission also decided to include all broker-dealers, regardless of 
size, that operate an ATS as Covered Entities in the proposed rule 
because ATSs have become increasingly important venues for trading 
securities in a fast and automated manner. ATSs perform

[[Page 20340]]

exchange functions to bring together buyers and sellers using limit 
order books and order types. These developments have made ATSs 
significant sources of orders and trading interest for securities. ATSs 
use data feeds, algorithms, and connectivity to perform their 
functions. In this regard, ATSs rely heavily on information systems, 
including to connect to other Market Entities such as other broker-
dealers and principal trading firms. A significant cyber security 
incident that disrupts a broker-dealer that operates as an ATS could 
negatively impact the ability of investors to liquidate or purchase 
certain securities at favorable or predictable prices or in a timely 
manner to the extent the ATS provides liquidity to the market for those 
securities. Further, a significant cybersecurity incident at an ATS 
could provide a gateway for threat actors to attack other Market 
Entities that connect to it through information systems and networks of 
interconnected information systems. This could cause a cascading effect 
where a significant cybersecurity incident initially impacting an ATS 
spreads to other Market Entities causing major disruptions to the U.S. 
securities markets. In addition, ATS are connected to a number of 
different Market Entities through information systems, including 
national securities exchanges and other broker-dealers. Therefore, they 
create and are exposed to cybersecurity risk through the channels of 
these information systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1064\ See section II.A.1.b. of this release (discussing why 
broker-dealers that operate an ATS would be Covered Entities in more 
detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the second alternative, the Commission believes the 
current proposal is clear and that further clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of the compliance requirements is not 
necessary for small entities that are introducing broker-dealers or 
broker-dealers that operate as ATSs. As discussed above, proposed Rule 
10 would require Covered Entities to establish, maintain, and enforce 
written cybersecurity policies and procedures that are reasonably 
designed to address their cybersecurity risks and that specifically 
address: (1) risk assessment; (2) user security and access; (3) 
information protection; (4) cybersecurity threat and vulnerability 
management; and (5) cybersecurity incident response and recovery.\1065\ 
It also would require Covered Entities to conduct an annual review and 
assessment of these policies and procedures and produce a report 
documenting the review and assessment. Further, the proposed rule would 
require them to provide immediate notification and subsequent reporting 
of significant cybersecurity incidents and to publicly disclose summary 
descriptions of their cybersecurity risks and, if applicable, summary 
descriptions of their significant cybersecurity incidents.\1066\ The 
proposed rule would provide clarity in the existing regulatory 
framework regarding cybersecurity and serve as an explicit requirement 
for firms to establish, maintain, and enforce comprehensive 
cybersecurity programs to their address cybersecurity risks, provide 
information to the Commission about the significant cybersecurity 
incidents they experience, and publicly disclose information about 
their cybersecurity risks and significant cybersecurity incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1065\ See paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 10. See also section 
II.B.1. of this release (discussing these requirements in more 
detail).
    \1066\ See paragraphs (c) and (d) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
sections II.B.2. through II.B.4. of this release (discussing these 
requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the third alternative, the Commission determined to use 
performance standards rather than design standards. Although the 
proposed rule requires Covered Entities to implement policies and 
procedures that are reasonably designed and that must include certain 
elements, the Commission does not place certain conditions or 
restrictions on how to establish, maintain, and enforce such policies 
and procedures. The general elements required to be included in the 
policies and procedures are designed to enumerate the core areas that 
firms would need to address when adopting, implementing, reassessing 
and updating their cybersecurity policies and procedures.
    The policies and procedures that would be required by proposed Rule 
10--because they would need to address the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity risks--generally should be tailored to the nature and 
scope of the Covered Entity's business and address the Covered Entity's 
specific cybersecurity risks. Thus, proposed Rule 10 is not intended to 
impose a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing cybersecurity risks. 
In addition, cybersecurity threats are constantly evolving and measures 
to address those threats continue to evolve. Therefore, proposed Rule 
10 is designed to provide Covered Entities with the flexibility to 
update and modify their policies and procedures as needed so that that 
they continue to be reasonably designed to address the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity risks over time.
    The remaining 569 small entity broker-dealers registered would not 
be Covered Entities. These firms are not conduits to their customer 
accounts at a carrying broker-dealer. These firms also do not perform 
exchange-like functions such as offering limit order books and other 
order types, like an ATS would. As such, these firms are subject to 
differing compliance, reporting, and disclosure requirements that take 
into account the resources available to the entities. For example, 
these firms are subject to simplified requirements concerning their 
cybersecurity policies and procedures and annual review.\1067\ In 
addition, these firms are exempted from the cybersecurity reporting and 
disclosure requirements that apply to Covered Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1067\ Non-Covered Broker-Dealers that are small entities are 
not, however, altogether exempted from the policies and procedures 
requirements because having appropriate cybersecurity policies and 
procedures in place would help address any cybersecurity risks and 
incidents that occur at the broker-dealer and help protect broker-
dealers and their customers from greater risk of harm. The 
Commission anticipates that these benefits should apply to customers 
of smaller firms as well as larger firms. Non-Covered Broker-Dealers 
are also not exempted from the requirement to provide the Commission 
with immediate written electronic notice of a significant 
cybersecurity incident affecting the entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Clearing Agencies
    For the reasons stated above, this requirement is not applicable to 
clearing agencies.
3. The MSRB
    For the reasons stated above, this requirement is not applicable to 
the MSRB.
4. National Securities Exchanges and National Securities Associations
    For the reasons stated above, this requirement is not applicable to 
national securities exchanges and national securities associations.
5. SBS Entities
    For the reasons stated above, this requirement is not applicable to 
SBS Entities.
6. SBSDRs
    For the reasons stated above, this requirement is not applicable to 
SBSDRs.
7. Transfer Agents
    The proposed rule would apply to every transfer agent as defined in 
section 3(a)(25) of the Exchange Act that is registered or required to 
be registered with an appropriate regulatory agency as defined in 
section 3(a)(34)(B) of the Exchange Act. As of December 31, 2022, there 
were 353 transfer agents that were either registered with the 
Commission through Form TA-1 or registered with

[[Page 20341]]

other appropriate regulatory agencies through Form TA-2. As of March 
31, 2022, the Commission estimates there were 158 transfer agents that 
were considered small organizations.
    The Commission considered the following alternatives for small 
organizations that are transfer agents in relation to the proposal: (1) 
differing compliance or reporting requirements that take into account 
the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting 
requirements under the proposed rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of design rather than performance standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the proposed rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.
    Regarding the first and fourth alternatives, the Commission decided 
not to include differing requirements or exemptions for transfer 
agents, regardless of size, and therefore, they would be Covered 
Entities under the proposed rule. This decision was based on a number 
of considerations.\1068\ A transfer agents engage on behalf of an 
issuer of securities or on behalf of itself as an issuer of securities 
in (among other functions): (1) tracking, recording, and maintaining 
the official record of ownership of each issuer's securities; (2) 
canceling old certificates, issuing new ones, and performing other 
processing and recordkeeping functions that facilitate the issuance, 
cancellation, and transfer of those securities; (3) facilitating 
communications between issuers and registered securityholders; and (4) 
making dividend, principal, interest, and other distributions to 
securityholders. Their core recordkeeping systems provide a direct 
conduit to their issuer clients' master records that document and, in 
many instances provide the legal underpinning for, registered 
securityholders' ownership of the issuer's securities. If these 
functions were disrupted, investors might not be able to transfer 
ownership of their securities or receive dividends and interest due on 
their securities positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1068\ See section II.A.1.c. of this release (discussing why 
transfer agents would be Covered Entities in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transfer agents store proprietary information about securities 
ownership and corporate actions. A significant cybersecurity incident 
at a transfer agent could lead to the improper use of this information 
to harm securities holders (e.g., public exposure of confidential 
financial information) or provide the unauthorized user with an unfair 
advantage over other market participants (e.g., trading based on 
confidential business information). Transfer agents also may store 
personal information including names, addresses, phone numbers, email 
addresses, employers, employment history, bank and specific account 
information, credit card information, transaction histories, securities 
holdings, and other detailed and individualized information related to 
the transfer agents' recordkeeping and transaction processing on behalf 
of issuers. Threat actors breaching the transfer agent's information 
systems could use this information to steal identities or financial 
assets of the persons to whom this information pertains. They also 
could sell it to other threat actors.
    Regarding the second alternative, the Commission is not proposing 
further clarification, consolidation, or simplification of the 
compliance requirements for small organizations that are transfer 
agents. As discussed above, proposed Rule 10 would require Covered 
Entities to establish, maintain, and enforce written cybersecurity 
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address their 
cybersecurity risks and that specifically address: (1) risk assessment; 
(2) user security and access; (3) information protection; (4) 
cybersecurity threat and vulnerability management; and (5) 
cybersecurity incident response and recovery.\1069\ It also would 
require Covered Entities to conduct an annual review and assessment of 
these policies and procedures and produce a report documenting the 
review and assessment. Further, the proposed rule would require them to 
provide immediate notification and subsequent reporting of significant 
cybersecurity incidents and to publicly disclose summary descriptions 
of their cybersecurity risks and, if applicable, summary descriptions 
of their significant cybersecurity incidents.\1070\ The proposed rule 
would provide clarity in the existing regulatory framework regarding 
cybersecurity and serve as an explicit requirement for firms to 
establish, maintain, and enforce comprehensive cybersecurity programs 
to their address cybersecurity risks, provide information to the 
Commission about the significant cybersecurity incidents they 
experience, and publicly disclose information about their cybersecurity 
risks and significant cybersecurity incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1069\ See paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 10. See also section 
II.B.1. of this release (discussing these requirements in more 
detail).
    \1070\ See paragraphs (c) and (d) of proposed Rule 10. See also 
sections II.B.2. through II.B.4. of this release (discussing these 
requirements in more detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the third alternative, the proposed rule requires Covered 
Entities to implement policies and procedures that are reasonably 
designed and that must include certain elements. However, the proposed 
rule does not place certain conditions or restrictions on how to 
establish, maintain, and enforce such policies and procedures. The 
general elements required to be included in the policies and procedures 
are designed to enumerate the core areas that firms would need to 
address when adopting, implementing, reassessing and updating their 
cybersecurity policies and procedures.
    The policies and procedures that would be required by proposed Rule 
10--because they would need to address the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity risks--generally should be tailored to the nature and 
scope of the Covered Entity's business and address the Covered Entity's 
specific cybersecurity risks. Thus, proposed Rule 10 is not intended to 
impose a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing cybersecurity risks. 
In addition, cybersecurity threats are constantly evolving and measures 
to address those threats continue to evolve. Therefore, proposed Rule 
10 is designed to provide Covered Entities with the flexibility to 
update and modify their policies and procedures as needed so that that 
they continue to be reasonably designed to address the Covered Entity's 
cybersecurity risks over time.

G. Request for Comment

    The Commission encourages written comments on the matters discussed 
in this IRFA. The Commission solicits comment on the number of small 
entities subject to the proposed Rule 10, Form SCIR, and proposed 
amendments to Rules 3a71-6, 17a-4, 18a-6, and 17ad-7. The Commission 
also solicits comment on the potential effects discussed in this 
analysis; and whether this proposal could have an effect on small 
entities that have not been considered. The Commission requests that 
commenters describe the nature of any effect on small entities and 
provide empirical data to support the extent of such effect. Such 
comments will be placed in the same public file as comments on the 
proposed rule and form and associated amendments. Persons wishing to 
submit written comments should refer to the instructions for submitting 
comments located at the front of this release.

[[Page 20342]]

VII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, or ``SBREFA,'' the Commission must advise OMB whether a 
proposed regulation constitutes a ``major'' rule. Under SBREFA, a rule 
is considered ``major'' where, if adopted, it results in or is likely 
to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or 
individual industries; or (3) significant adverse effects on 
competition, investment or innovation. The Commission requests comment 
on the potential effect of the proposed amendments on the U.S. economy 
on an annual basis; any potential increase in costs or prices for 
consumers or individual industries; and any potential effect on 
competition, investment or innovation. Commenters are requested to 
provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to the 
extent possible.

VIII. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is proposing new Rule 10 (17 CFR 242.10) and Form 
SCIR (17 CFR 249.624) and amending Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.101), 
Rule 3a71-6 (17 CFR 240.3a71-6), Rule 17a-4 (17 CFR 240.17a-4), Rule 
17ad-7 (17 CFR 240.17ad-7), Rule 18a-6 (17 CFR 18a-6), and Rule 18a-10 
(17 CFR 240.18a-10) under the Commission's rulemaking authority set 
forth in the following sections of the Exchange Act: (1) sections 15, 
17, and 23 for broker-dealers (15 U.S.C. 78o, 78q, and 78w); (2) 
sections 17, 17A, and 23 for clearing agencies (15 U.S.C. 78q, 17q-1, 
and 78w(a)(1)); (3) sections 15B, 17 and 23 for the MSRB (15 U.S.C. 
78o-4, 78q(a), and 78w); (4) sections 6(b), 11A, 15A, 17, and 23 for 
national securities exchanges and national securities associations (15 
U.S.C. 78f, 78k-1, 78o-3, and 78w); (5) sections 15F, 23, and 30(c) for 
SBS Entities (15 U.S.C. 78o-10, 78w, and 78dd(c)); (6) sections 13 and 
23 for SBSDRs (15 U.S.C. 78m and 78w); and (7) sections 17a, 17A, and 
23 for transfer agents (78q, 17q-1, and 78w).

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 232, 240, 242 and 249

    Brokers, Confidential business information, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Security-based swaps, Security-
based swap dealers, Major security-based swap participants.

Text of Proposed Rules and Rule Amendments

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission is 
proposing to amend title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 232--REGULATION S-T--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR 
ELECTRONIC FILINGS

0
1. The general authority citation for part 232 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77c, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 
77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78o-10, 78w(a), 78ll, 80a-
6(c), 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, 80b-4, 80b-10, 80b-11, 7201 et 
seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
2. Section Sec.  232.101 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(xxx) 
and adding paragraph (a)(1)(xxxi) to read as follows:


Sec.  232.101   Mandated electronic submissions and exceptions.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (xxx) Documents filed with the Commission pursuant to section 33 of 
the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-32); and
    (xxxi) Form SCIR (Sec.  249.624 of this chapter).
* * * * *

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 
1934

0
3. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read, in part, as 
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f, 
78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78o-4, 
78o-10, 78p, 78q, 78q-1, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20, 
80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, and 7201 et. seq., and 
8302; 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(E); 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3); 18 U.S.C. 1350; 
Pub. L. 111-203, 939A, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010); and Pub. L. 112-106, 
sec. 503 and 602, 126 Stat. 326 (2012), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 240.3a71-6 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  240.3a71-6   Substituted compliance for security-based swap 
dealers and major security-based swap participants.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Business conduct, supervision, and risk management. The 
business conduct and supervision requirements of sections 15F(h) and 
(j) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(h) and (j)) and Sec. Sec.  240.15Fh-3 
through 15Fh-6 (other than the antifraud provisions of section 
15F(h)(4)(A) of the Act and Sec.  240.15Fh-4(a), and other than the 
provisions of sections 15F(j)(3) and 15F(j)(4)(B) of the Act), and the 
requirements of Sec.  242.10 of this chapter and Form SCIR (Sec.  
249.624 of this chapter); provided, however, that prior to making such 
a substituted compliance determination the Commission intends to 
consider whether the information that is required to be provided to 
counterparties pursuant to the requirements of the foreign financial 
regulatory system, the counterparty protections under the requirements 
of the foreign financial regulatory system, the mandates for 
supervisory systems under the requirements of the foreign financial 
regulatory system, and the duties imposed by the foreign financial 
regulatory system, are comparable to those associated with the 
applicable provisions arising under the Act and its rules and 
regulations.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 240.17a-4 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(13) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  240.17a-4   Records to be preserved by certain exchange members, 
brokers and dealers.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (13)(i) The written policies and procedures required to be adopted 
and implemented pursuant to Sec.  242.10(b)(1) or Sec.  242.10(e)(1) of 
this chapter until three years after the termination of the use of the 
policies and procedures;
    (ii) The written documentation of any risk assessment pursuant to 
Sec.  242.10(b)(1)(i)(B) of this chapter for three years;
    (iii) The written documentation of the occurrence of a 
cybersecurity incident pursuant to Sec.  242.10(b)(1)(v)(B) of this 
chapter, including any documentation related to any response and 
recovery from such an incident, for three years;
    (iv) The written report of the annual review required to be 
prepared pursuant to Sec.  242.10(b)(2)(ii) of this chapter or the 
record of the annual review required pursuant to Sec.  240.10(e)(1) for 
three years;
    (v) A copy of any notice transmitted to the Commission pursuant to 
Sec.  242.10(c)(1) or Sec.  240.10(e)(2) of this chapter or any Part I 
of Form SCIR filed with the Commission pursuant to Sec.  242.10(c)(2) 
of this chapter for three years; and
    (vi) A copy of any Part II of Form SCIR filed with the Commission 
pursuant to Sec.  242.10(d) of this chapter for three years.
* * * * *
0
6. Redesignate Sec.  240.17Ad-7 as Sec.  240.17ad-7.

[[Page 20343]]

0
7. Newly redesignated Sec.  240.17ad-7 is amended by revising the 
section heading, and adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  240.17ad-7   (Rule 17Ad-7) Record retention.

* * * * *
    (j)(1) The written policies and procedures required to be adopted 
and implemented pursuant to Sec.  242.10(b)(1) of this chapter until 
three years after the termination of the use of the policies and 
procedures;
    (2) The written documentation of any risk assessment pursuant to 
Sec.  242.10(b)(1)(i)(B) of this chapter for three years;
    (3) The written documentation of the occurrence of a cybersecurity 
incident pursuant to Sec.  242.10(b)(1)(v)(B) of this chapter, 
including any documentation related to any response and recovery from 
such an incident, for three years;
    (4) The written report of the annual review required to be prepared 
pursuant to Sec.  242.10(b)(2)(ii) of this chapter for three years;
    (5) A copy of any notice transmitted to the Commission and any ARA 
pursuant to Sec.  242.10(c)(1) of this chapter or any Part I of Form 
SCIR filed with the Commission pursuant to Sec.  240.2.10(c)(2) for 
three years; and
    (6) A copy of any Part II of Form SCIR filed with the Commission 
pursuant to Sec.  240.2.10(d) for three years.

0
8. Section 240.18a-6 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(6) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  240.18a-6   Records to be preserved by certain security-based 
swap dealers and major security-based swap participants

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6)(i) The written policies and procedures required to be adopted 
and implemented pursuant to Sec.  242.10(b)(1) of this chapter until 
three years after the termination of the use of the policies and 
procedures;
    (ii) The written documentation of any risk assessment pursuant to 
Sec.  242.10(b)(1)(i)(B) of this chapter for three years;
    (iii) The written documentation of the occurrence of a 
cybersecurity incident pursuant to Sec.  242.10(b)(1)(v)(B) of this 
chapter, including any documentation related to any response and 
recovery from such an incident, for three years;
    (iv) The written report of the annual review required to be 
prepared pursuant to Sec.  242.10(b)(2)(ii) of this chapter for three 
years;
    (v) A copy of any notice transmitted to the Commission pursuant to 
Sec.  242.10(c)(1) of this chapter or any Part I of Form SCIR filed 
with the Commission pursuant to Sec.  242.10(c)(2) of this chapter for 
three years; and
    (vi) A copy of any Part II of Form SCIR filed with the Commission 
pursuant to Sec.  242.10(d) of this chapter for three years.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 240.18a-10 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  240.18a-10   Alternative compliance mechanism for security-based 
swap dealers that are registered as swap dealers and have limited 
security-based swap activities

* * * * *
    (g) The provisions of this section do not apply to the record 
maintenance and preservation requirements Sec.  240.18a-6(d)(6)(i) 
through (vi).

PART 242--REGULATIONS M, SHO, ATS, AC, NMS, AND SBSR AND CUSTOMER 
MARGIN REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURITY FUTURES

0
10. The general authority citation for part 242 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77g, 77q(a), 77s(a), 78b, 78c, 78g(c)(2), 
78i(a), 78j, 78k-1(c), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(b), 78o(c), 78o(g), 78o-
10, 78q(a), 78q(b), 78q(h), 78w(a), 78dd-1, 78mm, 80a-23, 80a-29, 
and 80a-37.

0
11. Section 242.10 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  242.10   Cybersecurity requirements.

    (a) Definitions: For purposes of this section:
    (1) Covered entity means:
    (i) A broker or dealer registered with the Commission that:
    (A) Maintains custody of cash and securities for customers or other 
brokers or dealers and is not exempt from the requirements of Sec.  
240.15c3-3 of this chapter;
    (B) Introduces customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis to 
another broker or dealer described in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) of this 
section;
    (C) Has regulatory capital equal to or exceeding $50 million;
    (D) Has total assets equal to or exceeding $1 billion;
    (E) Is a market maker under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 
U.S.C. 78a, et seq.) (``Act'') or the rules thereunder (which includes 
a broker or dealer that operates pursuant to Sec.  240.15c3-1(a)(6) of 
this chapter) or is a market maker under the rules of a self-regulatory 
organization of which the broker or dealer is a member; or
    (F) operates an alternative trading system as defined in Sec.  
242.300(a) or operates an NMS Stock ATS as defined in Sec.  242.300(k).
    (ii) A clearing agency (registered or exempt) under section 
3(a)(23)(A) of the Act.
    (iii) A major security-based swap participant registered pursuant 
to section 15F(b) of the Act.
    (iv) The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.
    (v) A national securities association registered under section 15A 
of the Act.
    (vi) A national securities exchange registered under section 6 of 
the Act.
    (vii) A security-based swap data repository under section 3(a)(75) 
of the Act.
    (viii) A security-based swap dealer registered pursuant to section 
15F(b) of the Act.
    (ix) A transfer agent as defined in section 3(a)(25) of the Act 
that is registered or required to be registered with an appropriate 
regulatory agency as defined in section 3(a)(34)(B) of the Act 
(hereinafter also ``ARA'').
    (2) Cybersecurity incident means an unauthorized occurrence on or 
conducted through a market entity's information systems that 
jeopardizes the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the 
information systems or any information residing on those systems.
    (3) Cybersecurity risk means financial, operational, legal, 
reputational, and other adverse consequences that could result from 
cybersecurity incidents, cybersecurity threats, and cybersecurity 
vulnerabilities.
    (4) Cybersecurity threat means any potential occurrence that may 
result in an unauthorized effort to affect adversely the 
confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a market entity's 
information systems or any information residing on those systems.
    (5) Cybersecurity vulnerability means a vulnerability in a market 
entity's information systems, information system security procedures, 
or internal controls, including, for example, vulnerabilities in their 
design, configuration, maintenance, or implementation that, if 
exploited, could result in a cybersecurity incident.
    (6) Information means any records or data related to the market 
entity's business residing on the market entity's information systems, 
including, for example, personal information received, maintained, 
created, or processed by the market entity.
    (7) Information systems means the information resources owned or 
used by the market entity, including, for example, physical or virtual 
infrastructure controlled by the information resources, or components 
thereof, organized for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, 
sharing, dissemination, or disposition of the

[[Page 20344]]

covered entity's information to maintain or support the covered 
entity's operations.
    (8) Market Entity means a ``covered entity'' as defined in this 
section and a broker or dealer registered with the Commission that is 
not a ``covered entity'' as defined in this section.
    (9) Personal information means any information that can be used, 
alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a 
person, including, but not limited to, name, date of birth, place of 
birth, telephone number, street address, mother's maiden name, Social 
Security number, government passport number, driver's license number, 
electronic mail address, account number, account password, biometric 
records, or other non-public authentication information.
    (10) Significant cybersecurity incident means a cybersecurity 
incident, or a group of related cybersecurity incidents, that:
    (i) Significantly disrupts or degrades the ability of the market 
entity to maintain critical operations; or
    (ii) Leads to the unauthorized access or use of the information or 
information systems of the market entity, where the unauthorized access 
or use of such information or information systems results in or is 
reasonably likely to result in:
    (A) Substantial harm to the market entity; or
    (B) Substantial harm to a customer, counterparty, member, 
registrant, or user of the market entity, or to any other person that 
interacts with the market entity.
    (b)(1) Cybersecurity policies and procedures. A covered entity must 
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that 
are reasonably designed to address the covered entity's cybersecurity 
risks, including policies and procedures that:
    (i)(A) Risk assessment. Require periodic assessments of 
cybersecurity risks associated with the covered entity's information 
systems and information residing on those systems, including requiring 
the covered entity to:
    (1) Categorize and prioritize cybersecurity risks based on an 
inventory of the components of the covered entity's information systems 
and information residing on those systems and the potential effect of a 
cybersecurity incident on the covered entity; and
    (2) Identify the covered entity's service providers that receive, 
maintain, or process information, or are otherwise permitted to access 
the covered entity's information systems and any of the covered 
entity's information residing on those systems, and assess the 
cybersecurity risks associated with the covered entity's use of these 
service providers.
    (B) Require written documentation of the risk assessments.
    (ii) User security and access. Require controls designed to 
minimize user-related risks and prevent unauthorized access to the 
covered entity's information systems and the information residing on 
those systems, including:
    (A) Requiring standards of behavior for individuals authorized to 
access the covered entity's information systems and the information 
residing on those systems, such as an acceptable use policy;
    (B) Identifying and authenticating individual users, including but 
not limited to implementing authentication measures that require users 
to present a combination of two or more credentials for access 
verification;
    (C) Establishing procedures for the timely distribution, 
replacement, and revocation of passwords or methods of authentication;
    (D) Restricting access to specific information systems of the 
covered entity or components thereof and the information residing on 
those systems solely to individuals requiring access to the systems and 
information as is necessary for them to perform their responsibilities 
and functions on behalf of the covered entity; and
    (E) Securing remote access technologies.
    (iii) Information protection. (A) Require measures designed to 
monitor the covered entity's information systems and protect the 
information residing on those systems from unauthorized access or use, 
based on a periodic assessment of the covered entity's information 
systems and the information that resides on the systems that takes into 
account:
    (1) The sensitivity level and importance of the information to the 
covered entity's business operations;
    (2) Whether any of the information is personal information;
    (3) Where and how the information is accessed, stored and 
transmitted, including the monitoring of information in transmission;
    (4) The information systems' access controls and malware 
protection; and
    (5) The potential effect a cybersecurity incident involving the 
information could have on the covered entity and its customers, 
counterparties, members, or users, including the potential to cause a 
significant cybersecurity incident.
    (B) Require oversight of service providers that receive, maintain, 
or process the covered entity's information, or are otherwise permitted 
to access the covered entity's information systems and the information 
residing on those systems, pursuant to a written contract between the 
covered entity and the service provider, through which the service 
providers are required to implement and maintain appropriate measures, 
including the practices described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) 
of this section, that are designed to protect the covered entity's 
information systems and information residing on those systems.
    (iv) Cybersecurity threat and vulnerability management. Require 
measures designed to detect, mitigate, and remediate any cybersecurity 
threats and vulnerabilities with respect to the covered entity's 
information systems and the information residing on those systems;
    (v) Cybersecurity incident response and recovery. (A) Require 
measures designed to detect, respond to, and recover from a 
cybersecurity incident, including policies and procedures that are 
reasonably designed to ensure:
    (1) The continued operations of the covered entity;
    (2) The protection of the covered entity's information systems and 
the information residing on those systems;
    (3) External and internal cybersecurity incident information 
sharing and communications; and
    (4) The reporting of significant cybersecurity incidents pursuant 
to paragraph (c) of this section.
    (B) Require written documentation of any cybersecurity incident, 
including the covered entity's response to and recovery from the 
cybersecurity incident.
    (2) Annual Review. A covered entity must, at least annually:
    (i) Review and assess the design and effectiveness of the 
cybersecurity policies and procedures required by paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section, including whether the policies and procedures reflect 
changes in cybersecurity risk over the time period covered by the 
review; and
    (ii) Prepare a written report that describes the review, the 
assessment, and any control tests performed, explains their results, 
documents any cybersecurity incident that occurred since the date of 
the last report, and discusses any material changes to the policies and 
procedures since the date of the last report.
    (c) Notification and reporting of significant cybersecurity 
incidents--(1) Immediate notice. A covered entity must give the 
Commission immediate

[[Page 20345]]

written electronic notice of a significant cybersecurity incident upon 
having a reasonable basis to conclude that the significant 
cybersecurity incident has occurred or is occurring. The notice must 
identify the covered entity, state that the notice is being given to 
alert the Commission of a significant cybersecurity incident impacting 
the covered entity, and provide the name and contact information of an 
employee of the covered entity who can provide further details about 
the significant cybersecurity incident. The notice also must be given 
to:
    (i) In the case of a broker or dealer, the examining authority of 
the broker or dealer; and
    (ii) In the case of a transfer agent, the ARA of the transfer 
agent.
    (2) Report. (i) A covered entity must report a significant 
cybersecurity incident, promptly, but no later than 48 hours, upon 
having a reasonable basis to conclude that the significant 
cybersecurity incident has occurred or is occurring by filing Part I of 
Form SCIR with the Commission electronically through the Electronic 
Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval System (``EDGAR system'') in 
accordance with the EDGAR Filer Manual, as defined in Rule 11 of 
Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.11), and Part I of Form SCIR must be filed 
in accordance with the requirements of Regulation S-T.
    (ii) A covered entity must file an amended Part I of Form SCIR with 
the Commission electronically through the EDGAR system in accordance 
with the EDGAR Filer Manual, as defined in Rule 11 of Regulation S-T 
(17 CFR 232.11), and Part I of Form SCIR must be filed in accordance 
with the requirements of Regulation S-T promptly, but no later than 48 
hours after each of the following circumstances:
    (A) Any information previously reported to the Commission on Part I 
of Form SCIR pertaining to a significant cybersecurity incident 
becoming materially inaccurate;
    (B) Any new material information pertaining to a significant 
cybersecurity incident previously reported to the Commission on Part I 
of Form SCIR being discovered;
    (C) A significant cybersecurity incident is resolved; or
    (D) An internal investigation pertaining to a significant 
cybersecurity incident is closed.
    (iii)(A) If the covered entity is a broker or dealer, it must 
promptly transmit a copy of each Part I of Form SCIR it files with the 
Commission to its examining authority; and
    (B) If the covered entity is a transfer agent, it must promptly 
transmit a copy of each Part I of Form SCIR it files with the 
Commission to its ARA.
    (d) Disclosure of cybersecurity risks and incidents--(1) Content of 
the disclosure--(i) Cybersecurity risks. A covered entity must provide 
a summary description of the cybersecurity risks that could materially 
affect the covered entity's business and operations and how the covered 
entity assesses, prioritizes, and addresses those cybersecurity risks.
    (ii) Significant cybersecurity incidents. A covered entity must 
provide a summary description of each significant cybersecurity 
incident that has occurred during the current or previous calendar 
year. The description of each significant cybersecurity incident must 
include the following information to the extent known:
    (A) The person or persons affected;
    (B) The date the incident was discovered and whether it is ongoing;
    (C) Whether any data was stolen, altered, or accessed or used for 
any other unauthorized purpose;
    (D) The effect of the incident on the covered entity's operations; 
and
    (E) Whether the covered entity, or service provider, has remediated 
or is currently remediating the incident.
    (2) Methods of disclosure. A covered entity must make the 
disclosures required pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section by:
    (i) Filing Part II of Form SCIR with the Commission electronically 
through the EDGAR system in accordance with the EDGAR Filer Manual, as 
defined in Rule 11 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.11), and in accordance 
with the requirements of Regulation S-T; and
    (ii) Posting a copy of the Part II of Form SCIR most recently filed 
pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section on an easily accessible 
portion of its business internet website that can be viewed by the 
public without the need of entering a password or making any type of 
payment or providing any other consideration.
    (3) Additional methods of disclosure required for certain brokers 
or dealers. In addition to the method of disclosure required by 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, a broker or dealer described in 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section must provide a copy of the 
Part II of Form SCIR most recently filed pursuant to paragraph 
(d)(2)(i) of this section to a customer as part of the account opening 
process and, thereafter, annually and as required by paragraph (d)(4) 
of this section using the same means that the customer elects to 
receive account statements.
    (4) Disclosure updates. The covered entity must promptly provide an 
updated disclosure through the methods required by paragraphs (d)(2) 
and (3) of this section if the information required to be disclosed 
pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section materially 
changes, including, in the case of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this 
section, after the occurrence of a new significant cybersecurity 
incident or when information about a previously disclosed significant 
cybersecurity incident materially changes.
    (e) Requirements for brokers or dealers that are not covered 
entities. (1) A broker or dealer that is not a ``covered entity'' as 
defined in this section must establish, maintain, and enforce written 
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address the 
cybersecurity risks of the broker or dealer taking into account the 
size, business, and operations of the broker or dealer. The broker or 
dealer must annually review and assess the design and effectiveness of 
the cybersecurity policies and procedures, including whether the 
policies and procedures reflect changes in cybersecurity risk over the 
time period covered by the review. The broker or dealer must make a 
written record that documents the steps taken in performing the annual 
review and the conclusions of the annual review.
    (2) A broker or dealer that is not a ``covered entity'' as defined 
in this section must give the Commission immediate written electronic 
notice of a significant cybersecurity incident upon having a reasonable 
basis to conclude that the significant cybersecurity incident has 
occurred or is occurring. The notice must identify the broker or 
dealer, state that the notice is being given to alert the Commission of 
a significant cybersecurity incident impacting the broker or dealer, 
and provide the name and contact information of an employee of the 
broker or dealer who can provide further details about the significant 
cybersecurity incident. The notice also must be given to the examining 
authority of the broker or dealer.
* * * * *

PART 249--FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

0
12. The authority citation for part 249 continues to read, in part, as 
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 78a, et seq., unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 249.624 is added to read as follows:

[[Page 20346]]

Sec.  249.624   Form SCIR.

    Form SCIR shall be filed by a covered entity to report a 
significant cybersecurity incident pursuant to the requirements of 17 
CFR 242.10.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: March 15, 2023.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP23.000


[[Page 20347]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP23.001


[[Page 20348]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP23.002


[[Page 20349]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP23.003


[[Page 20350]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP23.004


[[Page 20351]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP23.005


[[Page 20352]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP23.006


[[Page 20353]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP23.007


[[Page 20354]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP23.008

[FR Doc. 2023-05767 Filed 4-4-23; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-C