Automated Trading NPRM

Vol. 80

Thursday,

No. 242

December 17, 2015

Part II

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

17 CFR Parts 1, 38, 40, et al.
Regulation Automated Trading; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78824

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
17 CFR Parts 1, 38, 40, and 170
RIN 3038–AD52

Regulation Automated Trading
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:

The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or
‘‘Commission’’) is proposing a series of
risk controls, transparency measures,
and other safeguards to enhance the
regulatory regime for automated trading
on U.S. designated contract markets
(‘‘DCMs’’) (collectively, ‘‘Regulation
AT’’). The Commission’s proposals
build on efforts by numerous entities in
recent years to promote best practices
and regulatory standards for automated
trading, including standards and best
practices for algorithmic trading systems
(‘‘ATSs’’), electronic trade matching
engines, and new connectivity methods
that characterize modern financial
markets. In 2012 the Commission
adopted rules requiring futures
commission merchants (‘‘FCMs’’), swap
dealers (‘‘SDs’’), and major swap
participants (‘‘MSPs’’) to use automated
means to screen orders for compliance
with certain risk-based limits. It also
adopted rules requiring certain financial
risk control requirements for DCMs
offering direct market access to their
customers. In 2013 the Commission
published an extensive Concept Release
on Risk Controls and System Safeguards
for Automated Trading Environments
(‘‘Concept Release’’), compiling in one
document a comprehensive discussion
of industry practices, Commission
regulations, and evolving concerns in
automated trading.1 Now, through this
notice of proposed rulemaking
(‘‘NPRM’’) for Regulation AT, the
Commission seeks to update
Commission rules in response to the
evolution from pit trading to electronic
trading. In particular, the Commission is
proposing to adopt a comprehensive
approach to reducing risk and
increasing transparency in automated
trading. Proposed Regulation AT is
designed to consolidate previous work
by industry participants, the
Commission, and fellow regulators into
a unified body of law addressing
automation in order placement and
execution in U.S. derivatives markets.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

SUMMARY:

1 Concept Release on Risk Controls and System
Safeguards for Automated Trading Environments,
78 FR 56542 (Sept. 12, 2013).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

The Commission welcomes all public
comments.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 16, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 3038–AD52, by any of
the following methods:
• CFTC Web site: http://
comments.cftc.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
through the Comments Online process
on the Web site.
• Mail: Send to Christopher
Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the
Commission, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20581.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as
Mail, above.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Please submit comments by only one
method. All comments should be
submitted in English or accompanied by
an English translation. Comments will
be posted as received to http://
www.cftc.gov. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. If you wish the
Commission to consider information
that may be exempt from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act
(‘‘FOIA’’), a petition for confidential
treatment of the exempt information
may be submitted according to the
procedures established in 17 CFR 145.9.
The Commission reserves the right, but
shall have no obligation, to review,
prescreen, filter, redact, refuse, or
remove any or all of your submission
from http://www.cftc.gov that it may
deem to be inappropriate for
publication, such as obscene language.
All submissions that have been so
treated that contain comments on the
merits of the rulemaking will be
retained in the public comment file and
will be considered as required under the
Administrative Procedure Act and other
applicable laws, and may be accessible
under FOIA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sebastian Pujol Schott, Associate
Director, Division of Market Oversight,
sps@cftc.gov or 202–418–5641; Marilee
Dahlman, Special Counsel, Division of
Market Oversight, mdahlman@cftc.gov
or 202–418–5264; Mark Schlegel,
Special Counsel, Division of Market
Oversight, mschlegel@cftc.gov or 202–
418–5055; Michael Penick, Economist,
Office of the Chief Economist,
mpenick@cftc.gov or 202–418–5279;
Richard Haynes, Economist, Office of
the Chief Economist, rhaynes@cftc.gov
or 202–418–5063; Andrew Ridenour,

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Senior Trial Attorney, Division of
Enforcement, aridenour@cftc.gov or
202–418–5438; or John Dunfee,
Assistant General Counsel, Office of
General Counsel, jdunfee@cftc.gov or
202–418–5396.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Overview—Development of Automated
Trading Environment
B. Risks and Potential Benefits Associated
With Automated Trading
C. The Proposed Regulations
1. Overview of NPRM
2. The Proposed Regulations Under Parts 1,
38, 40, and 170
II. Background on Regulatory Responses to
Automated Trading
A. The Commission’s Regulatory Response
to Date
B. The Commission’s 2013 Concept Release
C. Other Recent Regulatory Responses
1. SEC Regulatory Initiatives
2. FINRA Initiatives
3. European and Other Regulatory
Initiatives
D. Industry and Regulatory Best Practices
and Recommendations
1. NFA Compliance Rule 2–9: Supervision
2. FIA Reports on Automated Trading
3. IOSCO Reports on Electronic Trading
4. CFTC TAC Subcommittee
5. FIX Risk Management Working Group
6. Senior Supervisors Group (SSG) Briefing
Note
7. Treasury Market Practices Group Best
Practices
III. Recent Disruptive Events in Automated
Trading Environments
IV. Overview of Regulation AT
A. Concept Release/Regulation AT
Terminology
B. Commenter Preference for PrinciplesBased Regulations
C. Multi-Layered Approach to Pre-Trade
Risk Controls and Other Measures
D. Codification of Defined Terms Used
Throughout Regulation AT
1. ‘‘Algorithmic Trading’’—§ 1.3(zzzz)
2. ‘‘Algorithmic Trading Compliance
Issue’’—§ 1.3(tttt)
3. ‘‘Algorithmic Trading Disruption’’—
§ 1.3(uuuu)
4. ‘‘Algorithmic Trading Event’’—
§ 1.3(vvvv)
5. ‘‘AT Order Message’’—§ 1.3(wwww)
6. ‘‘AT Person’’—§ 1.3(xxxx)
7. ‘‘Direct Electronic Access’’—§ 1.3(yyyy)
E. Registration of Certain Persons Not
Otherwise Registered With
Commission—§ 1.3(x)
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
F. RFA Standards for Automated Trading
and Algorithmic Trading Systems—
§ 170.19
1. Policy Discussion
2. Description of Regulation
3. Request for Comments
G. AT Persons Must Become Members of
an RFA—§ 170.18

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
1. Policy Discussion
2. Description of Regulation
3. Request for Comments
H. Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls for
AT Persons—§ 1.80
1. Concept Release Comments on Pre-Trade
and Other Risk Controls
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
I. Standards for Development, Testing,
Monitoring, and Compliance of
Algorithmic Trading Systems—§ 1.81
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
J. Risk Management by Clearing Member
FCMs—§ 1.82
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Discussion of Persons Subject to
Proposed §§ 1.80 and 1.82
5. Request for Comments
K. Compliance Reports Submitted by AT
Persons and Clearing FCMs to DCMs;
Related Recordkeeping Requirements—
§ 1.83
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
L. Risk Controls for Trading: Direct
Electronic Access Provided by DCMs—
§ 38.255(b) and (c)
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
M. Disclosure and Transparency in DCM
Trade Matching Systems—§ 38.401(a)
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
N. Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls at
DCMs—§ 40.20
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
O. DCM Test Environments for AT
Persons—§ 40.21
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Request for Comments
P. DCM Review of Compliance Reports by
AT Persons and Clearing FCMs; DCM
Rules Requiring Certain Books and
Records; and DCM Review of Such
Books and Records as Necessary—
§ 40.22
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Description of Regulation
3. Policy Discussion
4. Request for Comments
Q. Self-Trade Prevention Tools—§ 40.23
1. Concept Release Comments
2. Commission Analysis of Amount of SelfTrading in the Marketplace
3. Description of Regulation
4. Policy Discussion
5. Request for Comments
R. DCM Market Maker and Trading
Incentive Programs—§§ 40.25–40.28

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

1. Policy Discussion
2. Description of Regulations
3. Request for Comments
V. Related Matters
A. Calculation of Number of Persons
Subject to Regulations
1. Request for Comments
B. Calculation of Hourly Wage Rates Used
in Related Matters
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. FCMs and DCMs
2. AT Persons
3. Request for Comments
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. Information Provided by Reporting
Entities/Persons
a. § 1.3(x)(3)—Submissions by newly
registered floor traders
b. § 1.83(a)—Compliance reports submitted
by AT Persons to DCMs
c. § 1.83(b)—Compliance reports submitted
by clearing member FCMs to DCMs
d. § 1.83(c)—AT Person retention and
production of books and records
e. § 1.83(d)—Clearing member FCM
retention and production of books and
records
f. § 38.401(a) and (c)—Public dissemination
of information by DCMs pertaining to
electronic matching platforms
g. § 40.23—Information publicly
disseminated by DCMs regarding selftrade prevention
h. § 40.25—Information in public rule
filings provided by DCMs regarding
Market Maker and Trading Incentive
Programs
i. § 40.26—Information provided by DCMs
to the Division of Market Oversight upon
request regarding Market Maker and
Trading Incentive Programs
2. Information Collection Comments
E. Cost Benefit Considerations
1. The Statutory Requirement for the
Commission to Consider the Costs and
Benefits of its Actions
2. Concept Release Comments Regarding
Costs and Benefits
3. The Commission’s Cost-Benefit
Consideration of Regulation AT—
Baseline Point
4. The Commission’s Cost-Benefit
Consideration of Regulation AT—CrossBorder Effects
5. General Request for Comment
6. The Commission’s Cost-Benefit
Consideration of Regulation AT—
Proposed Definitions
7. Pre-Trade Risk Controls, Testing and
Supervision of Automated Systems,
Requirement to Submit Compliance
Reports, and Other Related Algorithmic
Trading Requirements
8. Requirements for Certain Entities to
Register as Floor Traders
9. Transparency in Exchange Trade
Matching Systems
10. Self-Trade Prevention
11. Market-Maker and Trading Incentive
Programs
VI. Aggregate Estimated Cost of Regulation
AT
VII. List of All Questions in the NPRM

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78825

I. Introduction
A. Overview—Development of
Automated Trading Environment
U.S. derivatives markets have
historically relied on manual processes
for the origination of orders,
transmission of information, and
execution of trades. Trading decisions
were typically initiated by natural
persons, and transmitted through
intermediaries via comparatively simple
communications networks. Execution
occurred in open-outcry trading pits
operated by DCMs. Access to these pits
was limited to brokers and traders
granted trading privileges by the
exchange. A range of other processing
and risk management services were
equally reliant on manual processes,
and the complete trading system could
move only as fast as its human decisionmakers. Trading information was often
recorded on paper order tickets and
trading cards, and time-stamps were
recorded only to the nearest minute.
The physical element of trading was
reflected in exchange or Commission
rules governing diverse matters such as
the types of trading permitted from the
top step of a futures pit,2 as well as
requirements that certain orders for
execution in a trading pit be recorded in
‘‘non-erasable ink.’’ This basic structure
remained constant for decades, and
produced a parallel regulatory
framework also premised on natural
persons and human decision-making
speeds.
Today, derivatives markets have
transitioned from the manual processes
described above to highly automated
trading and trade matching systems.
Modern DCMs and DCM market
participants, in particular, are
characterized by a wide array of
algorithmic and electronic systems for
the generation, transmission,
management, and execution of orders,
as well as systems used to confirm
transactions, communicate market data,
and link markets and market
participants through high-speed
networks. Collectively, such DCM and
market participant trading systems
constitute the ‘‘automated trading
2 For example, press reports surrounding the
initiation of CME’s ‘‘top step’’ rule in the S&P 500
stock-index pit in 1987 indicated that brokers
preferred the top step to ‘‘get a panoramic view of
the trading activity and quickly grab customer order
sheets being relayed by nearby clerks.’’ They
described a trading pit where ‘‘[s]ome 400 traders
are jammed shoulder-to-shoulder in the
amphitheater-like pit, which accounts for threefourths of the nation’s stock-index futures trading.’’
See Jouzaitis, Carol, ‘‘Merc Launches ‘Top-step’
Reform,’’ Chicago Tribune (June 22, 1987) available
at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-06-22/
business/8702160155_1_dual-trading-stock-indexfutures-market-chicago-mercantile-exchange.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78826

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

environment’’ at the center of
Regulation AT. Automated trading
environments often make use of
automated systems for either the
generation or the execution of orders (in
many cases, both). Such automated
systems are based on sets of rules or
instructions (commonly referred to as
algorithms) and related computer
systems used to automate the execution
of a trading strategy.3 In futures markets,
orders generated by automated trading
systems are ultimately transmitted to
DCMs that accept, manage and match
orders by automated means.
While technologies have evolved, the
underlying functions of derivatives
markets remain the same, as do the
Commission’s responsibilities under the
Commodity Exchange Act (the ‘‘CEA’’ or
‘‘Act’’). Such markets, typically
operated by DCMs, provide valuable
risk mitigation and price discovery
services for numerous financial and
physical commodities businesses,
including producers and consumers of
energy, foodstuff, metals, and other raw
materials, as well as natural person
investors. The Commission is
committed to the safety and integrity of
U.S. markets as they continue their
rapid technological change. Through
proposed Regulation AT, the
Commission is taking its next steps in
ensuring that its regulatory standards
and industry practices properly address
current and foreseeable risks arising
from automated trading, and promote
responsible innovation and fair
competition among markets and market
participants.4
Within U.S. derivatives markets,
DCMs represent a significant catalyst in
the transition to automated trading.
From its beginnings with CME Globex
in 1992, DCM on-exchange trading now
occurs almost exclusively on electronic
matching platforms, using internal
algorithms to rapidly match incoming
orders from an array of market
participants.5 Data available to
3 See IOSCO Report on Regulatory Issues Raised
by Technological Changes, infra note 103 at 10.
4 See CEA Section 3, ‘‘Findings and Purposes,’’
noting in Section 3(a) that transactions subject to
the CEA are ‘‘affected with a national public
interest’’ and in Section 3(b) that ‘‘[t]o foster these
public interests, it is further the purpose of this Act
to deter . . . any other disruptions to market
integrity; to ensure the financial integrity of all
transactions subject to the Act and the avoidance
of systemic risk; . . . and to promote responsible
innovation and fair competition among boards of
trade . . . and market participants.’’
5 Trading on CME Globex was initially limited to
‘‘after-hours’’ periods when the Exchange’s openoutcry pits were closed. The first products offered
on Globex in 1992 included German mark and
Japanese yen futures and options on futures
contracts, followed by other FX and currency
products. In 1997, CME launched the E-mini S&P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

Commission staff indicates that in an
approximately two-year period through
October 2014, over 95 percent of all onexchange futures trading occurred on
DCMs’ electronic trade matching
platforms.6 In this regard, the
Commission notes that CME Group, the
largest U.S. exchange operator,
announced in February 2015 its
intention to close all but one of its openoutcry trading floors for futures.7
IntercontinentalExchange, the second
largest DCM operator, ended all futures
open-outcry trading in March 2008, and
ended all options open-outcry trading in
October 2012. On-exchange trading on
DCMs other than the CME Group
exchanges and
IntercontinentalExchange now occurs
exclusively on electronic matching
platforms. Concurrent with their
transition to electronic trade matching
platforms, DCMs have taken steps to
increase the speed of trading in their
markets. These include offering colocation and proximity hosting services
to reduce latencies between the DCM
and market participants, as well as
measures taken by DCMs to reduce
processing times within their electronic
trade matching platform. The two
largest DCMs, for example, have for
several years indicated in their public
materials average or median order entry
round trip times of less than one
millisecond.8
500 futures contract, the first CME product
available exclusively on Globex, including during
regular (open-outcry) trading hours in other CME
products. Globex monthly volume exceeded
100,000 contracts for the first time in 1997. In 1999,
CME for the first time began offering ‘‘side-by-side’’
trading, allowing its Eurodollar contract to be
traded both on Globex and in open-outcry during
regular trading hours. Side-by-side trading was
expanded in the ensuing years, including for
example to FX products in 2001. Globex average
daily volume exceeded 1,000,000 contracts for the
first time in 2002. By 2004, Globex trading volume
began exceeding open-outcry volume for the first
time. Through agreements or mergers, CME began
listing NYMEX products (2006) and CBOT products
(2007) on Globex as well. See Aldinger, Lori, and
Labuszewski, John W., ‘‘ELECTRONIC TRADING
Twenty Years of CME Globex’’ (2012), available at
http://www.cmegroup.com/education/files/globexretrospective-2012-06-12.pdf.
6 Haynes, Richard & Roberts, John S., ‘‘Automated
Trading in Futures Markets,’’ CFTC Office of Chief
Economist (Mar. 13, 2015), available at http://
www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@economic
analysis/documents/file/oce_automatedtrading.pdf.
7 See CME Press Release, ‘‘CME Group to Close
Most Open Outcry Futures Trading in Chicago and
New York by July; Most Options Markets to Remain
Open,’’ (Feb. 4, 2014) available at http://
cmegroup.mediaroom.com/2015-02-04-CME-Groupto-Close-Most-Open-Outcry-Futures-Trading-inChicago-and-New-York-by-July-Most-OptionsMarkets-to-Remain-Open?pagetemplate=article.
8 See CME Group, ‘‘The World’s Leading
Electronic Platform: CME Globex,’’ (2014) at 3,
available at http://www.cmegroup.com/globex/files/
globexbrochure.pdf; IntercontinentalExchange,
2010 Annual Report, (2011) at 26, available at

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

The largely complete transition of
DCMs to electronic trade matching
platforms has occurred alongside an
equally important shift in the
technologies used by market
participants to place and manage orders.
Market participants have applied a
range of sophisticated technological
tools to their trading. For example,
market participants are increasingly
using ATSs, often coupled with highspeed communication networks. Market
participants are also increasingly relying
on electronic market and other data
feeds to inform trading decisions, and
on multiple computer algorithms to
generate, manage, or route orders to
DCMs. Market participants may also
make use of direct electronic access
and/or co-location services to minimize
latencies between an ATS, market data
systems, and a DCM’s electronic trading
matching platform.
Data available to the Commission
highlights the importance of ATS
trading on DCMs today. The
Commission’s analysis of data covering
the same approximately two-year period
addressed above (through October 2014)
indicates that ATSs were present on at
least one side in almost 80 percent of
foreign exchange futures volume, 67
percent of interest rate futures volume,
and 62 percent of equity futures volume
analyzed. They were also present on at
least one side in approximately 47
percent of metals and energy product
volumes. Even in agricultural products,
a category not typically associated with
automation in recent years, ATSs were
present in at least 38 percent of futures
volume analyzed. Finally, in the
aggregate, ATSs were present in over 60
percent of all futures volume traded
across all products in the nearly twoyear period that the Commission
examined. In highly liquid product
categories, ATSs represented both sides
of the transaction over 50 percent of the
time.9
Market participants using ATSs may
transact on DCMs through registered
intermediaries, including their clearing
members. Such intermediaries
themselves often rely on extensive
automation, using ATSs for functions
ranging from simple order routing to the
generation of independent trading
decisions. These registered
intermediaries include FCMs,
commodity pool operators (‘‘CPOs’’),
commodity trading advisors (‘‘CTAs’’),
introducing brokers (‘‘IBs’’), and floor
brokers (‘‘FBs’’). In addition,
Commission-registered SDs and MSPs
http://ir.theice.com/∼/media/Files/I/Ice-IR/annualreports/2010/ice-2010ar.pdf.
9 See Haynes & Roberts, supra note 6 at 4.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
may use ATSs to conduct trading on
DCMs. As discussed in more detail
below, each of these categories of
Commission registrants may be subject
to Regulation AT in the event that they
conduct algorithmic trading on a DCM.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

B. Risks and Potential Benefits
Associated With Automated Trading
Regulation AT proposes a series of
pre-trade risk controls and other
measures intended to address the risks
related to automated trading on DCMs.
The proposed rules primarily address
operational risk issues, as well as
related issues such as self-trading and
market maker and trading incentive
programs.
The potential risks of automated
trading were recently described in a
report discussing the events of October
15, 2014, when the market for U.S.
Treasury securities, futures, and other
closely related financial markets
experienced an unusually high level of
volatility and a very rapid round-trip in
prices. On July 13, 2015, five regulatory
agencies issued a joint staff report on
the unusual market events of October
15, 2014 (the ‘‘October 15 Joint Staff
Report’’).10 In addition to discussing the
events of October 15, the report includes
an Appendix C that summarizes many
of the risks of automated trading. These
risks include the following: Operational
risks (ranging from malfunctioning and
incorrectly deployed algorithms to
algorithms reacting to inaccurate or
unexpected data); market liquidity risks
(arising from abrupt changes in trading
strategies even when a firm executes its
strategy perfectly); market integrity risks
(automated trading can provide new
10 See Joint Staff Report: The U.S. Treasury
Market on October 15, 2014 (July 13, 2015)
[hereinafter ‘‘October 15 Joint Staff Report’’],
prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury, Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, and U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, available at http://
cftc.wss/OCE/conceptrelease/documentlibrary/
Regulation%20AT/Reg%20AT%20--%20DRAFT
%20PREAMBLE/October%2015%20report/
treasury-market-volatility-10-14-2014-jointreport.pdf. The report discusses the preliminary
findings regarding the conditions that may have
contributed to the October 15 volatility, particularly
in the ‘‘event window’’ that began at 9:33 a.m. ET.
Among other potential causes of this volatility, the
October 15 Joint Staff Report states that several
large transactions occurred between the release of
certain U.S. retail sales data and the start of the
event window; that there was a significant
reduction in market depth following the retail sales
data release, which appears to have resulted from
a high volume of transactions and bank-dealers and
principal trading firms changing their participation
in the cash and futures order books; that latency
associated with a significant increase in message
traffic due to order cancellations increased just
before the event window; and there was a higher
incidence of ‘‘self-trading’’ during the event
window. Id. at 4–6.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

tools to engage in unlawful conduct);
transmission risks (shocks based on
erroneous orders impacting multiple
markets); clearing and settlement risks
(as more firms gain access to trading
platforms, trades may not be subject to
sufficient settlement risk mitigation
techniques); and risks to effective risk
management (the speed of trade
execution may make critical risk
mitigation devices less effective).
Notwithstanding the risks described
above, several commentators have
argued that algorithmic trading results
in a more efficient marketplace. A
recent study of the equities market
concluded that algorithmic trading
narrows spreads, reduces adverse
selection, and reduces trade-related
price discovery.11 The study also
suggested that algorithmic trading
improves liquidity and enhances the
information provided in quotes.
Another recent study of low latency
activity in the equities market (typically
associated with high frequency trading)
concluded that ‘‘an increase in lowlatency activity reduces quoted spreads
and the total price impact of trades,
increases depth in the limit order book,
and lowers short-term volatility.’’ 12
C. The Proposed Regulations
1. Overview of NPRM
The Commission is pursuing a
number of goals in proposed Regulation
AT. As an overarching goal, the
Commission seeks to update
Commission rules in response to the
evolution from pit trading to electronic
trading. The risk controls and other
rules proposed in this NPRM are
focused on algorithmic order origination
or routing by market participants, and
electronic order execution by DCMs. In
addition to mitigating risks arising from
algorithmic trading activity, the
proposed rules are intended to increase
transparency around DCM electronic
trade matching platforms and the use of
self-trade prevention tools on DCMs.13
Furthermore, the proposed rules are
intended to foster transparency with
respect to DCM programs and activities,
including market maker and trading
incentive programs, that have become
11 See, e.g., Hendershott, Jones and Menkveld,
‘‘Does Algorithmic Trading Improve Liquidity?,’’
The Journal of Finance, Vol. LXVI, No. 1 (Feb.
2011), available at http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/
hender/algo.pdf.
12 See Hasbrouck and Saar, ‘‘Low-latency
trading,’’ Journal of Financial Markets 16 (2013) at
646–679, available at http://people.stern.nyu.edu/
jhasbrou/Research/LowLatencyTradingJFM.pdf.
13 See section IV(Q) below for a discussion of the
term ‘‘self-trade’’ and proposed regulations with
respect to self-trade prevention.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78827

more prominent as automated trading
becomes the dominant market model.
The Commission notes that
Regulation AT generally does not
address trading activity on swap
execution facilities (‘‘SEFs’’). The
Commission believes that neither
execution nor order entry on SEF
markets are sufficiently automated at
this time to require the degree of
automated safeguards proposed
herein.14 In addition, Regulation AT is
not proposing a number of measures
discussed in the Concept Release, such
as the following: Proposals to
implement various post-trade reports
(post-order drop copies, post-trade drop
copies, and post-clearing drop copies),
‘‘reasonability checks’’ on incoming
market data used by firms operating
automated systems, policies and
procedures for identifying ‘‘related’’
contracts, and proposals to standardize
and simplify order types, each of which
was discussed in the Concept Release.15
Market participants using automated
trading include an important population
of proprietary traders that, while
responsible for significant trading
volumes and liquidity in key futures
products, are not registered with the
Commission. These unregistered
proprietary traders include a number of
traders engaged in high-frequency
trading (‘‘HFT’’). The Commission
notes, however, that the risk control
requirements under proposed
Regulation AT do not vary in response
to a market participant’s algorithmic
trading strategies; the same risk controls
would be required in connection with
high-frequency and low-frequency
algorithmic trading. In particular, HFT
is not specifically identified under the
proposed regulations, and is not
regulated in a different fashion from
other types of algorithmic trading under
proposed Regulation AT. Instead, the
proposed regulations focus on
automation of order origination,
transmission and execution, and the
risks that may arise from such activity.
As discussed above, nearly universal
electronic order matching at DCMs is
14 The requirements on DCMs arising out of
Regulation AT may ultimately be imposed on SEFs.
However, an important consideration for the
Commission is that SEFs and SEF markets are much
newer and less liquid than the more established and
liquid DCMs and DCM markets. While SEFs and
SEF markets are still in this nascent stage, the
Commission does not want to impose additional
requirements that may have the effect of decreasing
the number of SEFs or decreasing liquidity. For
these reasons, and in light of the lesser degree of
automation in SEF markets, the policy
considerations underlying Regulation AT are not as
critical, at least at this time, in the SEF context.
15 See Concept Release, 78 FR at 56569–73 for a
summary of measures discussed in the Concept
Release.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78828

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

increasingly complemented by
algorithmic order origination among
market participants. Against this
backdrop, the Commission believes that
appropriate pre-trade and other risk
controls are necessary at the level of
market participants, clearing FCMs, and
DCMs, in order to ensure the integrity
of Commission-regulated markets and
provide market participants with greater
confidence that intentional, bona fide
transactions are being executed.
Principal elements of Regulation AT
for market participants and clearing
FCMs include: (i) Codification of
defined terms used throughout
Regulation AT; (ii) registration of certain
entities not otherwise registered with
the Commission; (iii) new algorithmic
trading procedures for trading firms and
clearing firms, including pre-trade and
other risk controls; (iv) testing,
monitoring, and supervision
requirements for ATSs; and (v)
requirements that certain persons
submit compliance reports to DCMs
regarding their ATSs. Principal
elements for DCMs include: (i) New risk
controls for Direct Electronic Access
(‘‘DEA’’) provided by DCMs; (ii)
transparency in DCM electronic trade
matching platforms; and (iii) new risk
control procedures, including pre-trade
risk controls, compliance report review
standards, self-trade prevention tool
requirements, and market-maker and
trading incentive program disclosure
and related requirements.
As mentioned above, Regulation AT is
not intended to discriminate across
registration categories, connectivity
methods, or even ‘‘high-frequency’’ or
slower trading strategies. Rather,
Regulation AT is focused on reducing
risk, increasing transparency and
disclosure, and related DCM
procedures.16 In developing Regulation
AT, the Commission built on the
Concept Release and relevant comments
received, which are discussed further in
section II(B) below. However, interested
parties will observe that the
Commission has chosen not to pursue
certain measures discussed in the
Concept Release (as discussed above),
while also proposing a small number of
new measures not addressed in the
Concept Release. In addition, Regulation
AT in certain cases seeks only to clarify
the scope of existing Commission
16 See, e.g., the compliance reports required to be
submitted by AT Persons and clearing member
firms of AT Persons under § 1.83, the statistics
required to be reported by DCMs regarding selftrading that they have both authorized and
prevented on their platforms under § 40.23, and the
disclosure required of DCMs with respect to market
maker and trading incentive programs under
§ 40.25.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

regulations that may be impacted by the
growth of automated trading
environments.
In preparing this NPRM, the
Commission has reviewed relevant
industry practices, measures taken by
other U.S. and foreign regulators, and
best practices or guidance set forth by
other informed parties. In these sources
and comments received in response to
the Concept Release, the Commission
has identified an emerging consensus
around pre-trade risk controls for
automated trading and supervision
standards for ATSs. The Commission
also notes comments received in
response to the Concept Release that are
supportive of risk controls placed in
multiple stages across the life-cycle of
order generation, transmission,
management and execution (i.e., similar
risk controls placed at the levels of
market participants, clearing member
FCMs, and DCMs). Proposed Regulation
AT attempts to balance flexibility in a
rapidly changing technological
landscape with the need for a regulatory
baseline that provides a robust and
sufficiently clear standard for pre-trade
risk controls, supervision standards, and
other safeguards for automated trading
environments. The specific regulations
and amendments proposed by
Regulation AT are discussed in greater
detail below.
2. The Proposed Regulations Under
Parts 1, 38, 40, and 170
Regulation AT proposes new
regulations or amendments to existing
regulations in parts 1, 38, 40, and 170
of the Commission’s regulations. It
proposes to amend part 1 by inserting
the following defined terms: § 1.3(tttt)—
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue;
§ 1.3(uuuu)—Algorithmic Trading
Disruption; § 1.3(vvvv)—Algorithmic
Trading Event; § 1.3(wwww)—AT Order
Message; § 1.3(xxxx)—AT Person;
§ 1.3(yyyy)—Direct Electronic Access;
and § 1.3(zzzz)—Algorithmic Trading.
Regulation AT also proposes to amend
existing § 1.3(x), which defines Floor
Trader.
In addition, Regulation AT would
create a new subpart A in part 1 that
includes the following new regulations
applicable to AT Persons and their
clearing FCMs: § 1.80—requiring AT
Persons to implement pre-trade risk
controls and other related measures;
§ 1.81—requiring AT Persons to
implement standards for the
development, testing, monitoring, and
compliance of their ATSs; § 1.82—
requiring clearing member FCMs to
implement pre-trade risk controls and
other related measures for orders from
their AT Person customers; and § 1.83—

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

requiring AT Persons and their clearing
member FCMs to provide to DCMs
annual compliance reports, and to keep
and provide upon request to DCMs
certain related books and records.
Regulation AT also proposes to
amend part 38 of the Commission’s
regulations. Specifically, it would
amend existing § 38.255—Risk controls
for trading, to require DCMs to have in
place systems reasonably designed to
facilitate the FCM’s management of the
risks that may arise from their
customers’ Algorithmic Trading using
Direct Electronic Access. Regulation AT
would also make corresponding changes
to the discussion of risk controls in
Appendix B—Guidance on, and
Acceptable Practices in, Compliance
with Core Principles (Subsection
(b)(5)—Acceptable Practices for Risk
controls for trading). Finally in part 38,
Regulation AT would amend existing
§ 38.401(a) to require DCMs to provide
additional public disclosure regarding
their electronic matching platforms.
Regulation AT would also amend part
40 of the Commission’s regulations. It
would create the following new
regulations: § 40.20—requiring DCMs to
implement pre-trade risk controls and
other related measures; § 40.21—
requiring DCMs to provide a test
environment to AT Persons; § 40.22—
requiring DCMs to implement a review
program for compliance reports
regarding Algorithmic Trading
submitted by AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs, require that certain
books and records be maintained by
such persons, and review such books
and records as necessary; § 40.23—
requiring DCMs to implement self-trade
prevention tools, mandate their use, and
publish statistics concerning selftrading; and §§ 40.25–40.28—requiring
DCMs to provide disclosure and
implement other controls regarding
their market maker and trading
incentive programs. Finally, Regulation
AT would make changes to the
definition of Rule in § 40.1(i) in
response to certain of the changes
proposed above.
Finally, Regulation AT proposes to
amend part 170 of the Commission’s
regulations. It would require in new
§ 170.18 that all AT Persons become
members of at least one registered
futures association (‘‘RFA’’). Regulation
AT would create a new subpart D in
part 170, and require in proposed
§ 170.19 that RFAs adopt membership
rules, as deemed appropriate by the
RFA, requiring pre-trade risk controls
and other measures for ATSs; standards
for the development, testing,
monitoring, and compliance of ATSs;
designation and training of algorithmic

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
trading staff; and clearing FCM risk
management standards.
II. Background on Regulatory
Responses to Automated Trading
A. The Commission’s Regulatory
Response to Date

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

The Commission has responded to the
development of automated trading
environments through a number of
regulatory measures that address risk
controls within both new and existing
categories of registrants, including
DCMs, SEFs, FCMs, SDs, MSPs and
others.17 While focused to a degree on
financial and related risks, these
provisions reflect the Commission’s
ongoing commitment to maintaining the
safety and soundness of automated
trading in modern derivatives markets.
The Commission has adopted
regulations with respect to DCMs and
SEFs that require exchanges to establish
risk control mechanisms to prevent
market disruptions, including
mechanisms that pause or halt trading.18
The guidance and acceptable practices
to the SEF and DCM rules in part 37 and
38, respectively, provide examples of
acceptable risk controls.19 In addition,
in the DCM final rules, the Commission
adopted new risk control requirements
for exchanges that provide DEA to
clients. Regulation 38.607 requires
DCMs that permit DEA to have effective
systems and controls reasonably
designed to facilitate an FCM’s
management of financial risk.20
The Commission also adopted
relevant regulations for FCMs, SDs, and
MSPs. Such firms that are clearing
members must establish risk-based
limits based on position size, order size,
margin requirements, or similar factors
for all proprietary accounts and
customer accounts.21 The regulations,
codified in §§ 1.73 and 23.609, also
require these entities to ‘‘use automated
means to screen orders for compliance
with the [risk] limits’’ when such orders
are subject to automated execution.22 In
addition, § 1.11 requires FCMs to have
‘‘automated financial risk management
controls reasonably designed to prevent
the placing of erroneous orders’’ and
17 These measures are discussed in more detail in
the Concept Release. See Concept Release, 78 FR at
56548.
18 See Core Principles and Other Requirements for
Designated Contract Markets, 77 FR 36612, 36703
(June 19, 2012) [hereinafter ‘‘DCM Final Rules’’];
Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap
Execution Facilities, 78 FR 33476, 33590 (June 4,
2013) [hereinafter ‘‘SEF Final Rules’’].
19 See DCM Final Rules, 77 FR at 36718; SEF
Final Rules, 78 FR at 33601.
20 See 17 CFR 38.607.
21 17 CFR 1.73(a)(1) and 23.609(a)(1).
22 17 CFR 1.73(a)(2)(i) and 23.609(a)(2)(i).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

‘‘policies and procedures governing the
use, supervision, maintenance, testing,
and inspection’’ of automated trading
programs.23 The Commission also
adopted regulations requiring SDs and
MSPs that are clearing members to
ensure that their ‘‘use of trading
programs is subject to policies and
procedures governing the use,
supervision, maintenance, testing, and
inspection of the program.’’ 24
Finally, the Commission adopted final
rules implementing new authority
under the CEA to, among other things,
broadly prohibit manipulative and
deceptive devices and price
manipulation.25 The Commission also
provided guidance on the scope and
application of CEA Section 4c(a)(5),
which makes it unlawful for any person
to engage in any trading, practice, or
conduct on or subject to the rules of a
registered entity that violates bids or
offers, demonstrates intentional or
reckless disregard for the orderly
execution of transactions during the
closing period, or is, is of the character
of, or is commonly known to the trade
as, ‘‘spoofing.’’ 26
B. The Commission’s 2013 Concept
Release
Overview of Concept Release. As
noted above, in 2013 the Commission
issued a ‘‘Concept Release on Risk
Controls and System Safeguards for
Automated Trading Environments,’’
which provided an overview of the
automated trading environment and
discussed a series of pre-trade risk
controls, post-trade reports and other
measures, system safeguards, and
additional protections that could be
23 17 CFR 1.11(e)(3)(ii). The Commission notes
that the requirements of § 1.11(e)(3)(ii) fall within
an FCM’s broader obligation in § 1.11 to establish
and maintain a formal ‘‘Risk Management
Program.’’ Such program must include a risk
management unit independent of the business unit;
quarterly risk exposure reports to senior
management and the governing body of the FCM,
with copies to the Commission; and other
substantive requirements. Proposed Regulation AT
would not require FCMs to subsume applicable
requirements into their § 1.11 Risk Management
Programs. However, the Commission is seeking
public comment in the questions below regarding
whether, in any final rules arising from this NPRM,
FCMs should in fact be required to incorporate
elements of Regulation AT proposed in §§ 1.80,
1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c) into their § 1.11 Risk
Management Programs. Such incorporation could
help improve the interaction between an FCM’s
operational risk efforts pursuant to § 1.11(e)(3)(ii)
and its pre-trade risk controls and development,
monitoring, and compliance efforts pursuant to
§§ 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c). It could also help
ensure that an FCM’s §§ 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and
1.83(c) processes benefit from the same internal
rigor and independence required by § 1.11.
24 17 CFR 23.600(d)(9).
25 See 17 CFR 180.1 and 180.2.
26 See Antidisruptive Practices Authority, 78 FR
31890 (May 28, 2013).

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78829

implemented by Commission registrants
or other market participants. The
Concept Release reflects the
Commission’s ongoing commitment to
the safety and soundness of U.S.
derivatives markets in times of
technological change, including the
growth of automated trading.
The Concept Release was published
in the Federal Register on September
12, 2013.27 The initial 90-day comment
period closed on December 11, 2013,
but was reopened from January 21
through February 14, 2014, in
conjunction with a meeting of the
CFTC’s Technology Advisory
Committee (‘‘TAC’’). The Concept
Release requested public comment on
124 separate questions regarding the
necessity and operation of potential pretrade risk controls, post-trade reports
and other measures, system safeguards
and additional protections (such as
proposals to identify ‘‘related’’ contracts
on trading platforms, and proposals to
standardize and simplify order types).
The Concept Release served as a vehicle
to catalogue existing industry practices,
determine their efficacy and
implementation to date, and evaluate
the need for additional measures. The
Concept Release was not a proposed
rule, but rather a prior step designed to
facilitate a public dialogue and educate
the Commission so that it may make an
informed determination as to whether
rulemaking is necessary and, if so, the
substantive requirements of such a
rulemaking.
Topics Discussed in Concept Release.
The Concept Release highlighted data
on the increased importance of
electronic and algorithmic trading
across a number of U.S. markets
(including equities, futures and fixed
income markets). The Concept Release
also noted that the infrastructure of
automated trading environments has
progressively decreased the time
necessary to process orders and execute
trades, reducing the communication
times between market participants and
trading venues.28 One exchange group
now indicates that its ‘‘median inbound
latency for order entry’’ on its trading
platform is fifty-two (52) microseconds
within its ‘‘four walls.’’ 29 As discussed
in the Concept Release, advances in
trading speeds are partly due to the
development of dedicated fiber-optic
and microwave communications
networks that have dramatically
reduced transmission times across large
27 Concept

Release, 78 FR 56542.
id. at 56546–47.
29 See CME Group, ‘‘The World’s Leading
Electronic Platform. CME Globex,’’ (2014) at 3,
available at http://www.cmegroup.com/globex/files/
globexbrochure.pdf.
28 See

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78830

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

distances.30 On a smaller scale, colocation and proximity hosting are two
common methods for reducing the
distance, and thus latency, between
market participants and the exchanges.
Co-location services are now provided
by most large electronic trading
platforms within the United States.
Another important latency-reducing
advance in connectivity discussed in
the Concept Release is Direct Market
Access (‘‘DMA’’). For purposes of the
Concept Release, the Commission
defined DMA as a connection method
that enables a market participant to
transmit orders to a trading platform
without reentry or prior review by
systems belonging to the market
participant’s clearing firm.31 DMA can
be provided directly by an exchange or
through the infrastructure of a thirdparty provider, but in all cases, DMA
implies that an order is not routed
through a clearing firm prior to reaching
the trading platform.32 For purposes of
Regulation AT, as discussed in section
IV(D)(7) below, the Commission
proposes to define a slightly modified
term: ‘‘Direct Electronic Access’’
(‘‘DEA’’), as opposed to Direct Market
Access. Despite the slightly modified
name, the Commission intends that the
term ‘‘Direct Electronic Access’’ has a
meaning similar to ‘‘Direct Market
Access,’’ as such term was used in the
Concept Release.33
The Concept Release discussed a set
of risk controls that would be intended
to operate at the same rapid speed at
which trading occurs in the automated
trading environment. As the industry
reduces latency through improvements
in technologies for the generation,
transmission and execution of orders or
management of other data, there is
concern that the drive for ever lower
latencies may lead to a competitive race
toward progressively less stringent risk
controls.34 A separate, but related,
30 See

Concept Release, 78 FR at 56546.
id.
32 See id.
33 The Commission notes that the term ‘‘direct
electronic access’’ is also used in existing
Commission regulation 38.607. Regulation AT does
not modify § 38.607, and the term ‘‘direct electronic
access’’ in § 38.607 will continue to have the
meaning specified in that section.
34 As noted by the Futures Industry Association’s
Market Access Working Group, for example: ‘‘[p]retrade risk controls have become a point of
negotiation between trading firms and clearing
members because they can add latency to a trade.’’
See FIA Market Access Risk Management
Recommendations, infra note 97 at 8. Similarly, the
TAC’s Pre-Trade Functionality Subcommittee noted
that latency is a key area where trading firms and
brokers are competing to gain an advantage. See
TAC Pre-Trade Functionality Subcommittee,
‘‘Recommendations on Pre-Trade Practices for
Trading Firms, Clearing Firms, and Exchanges
Involved in Direct Market Access’’ (Mar. 1, 2011)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

31 See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

concern is that market participants may
simply engage in trading at speeds
beyond the abilities of their risk
management systems, or those tasked
with monitoring their activity. Risk
management systems operating at these
misaligned speeds could allow an active
algorithm to breach its prescribed risk
controls and disrupt one or more
markets.
In light of the potential for disruptive
trading events related to such highspeed algorithmic trading, the Concept
Release addressed 23 potential risk
controls and other measures broadly
grouped into four categories. The first
includes ‘‘pre-trade risk controls,’’ such
as controls designed to prevent potential
errors or disruptions from reaching
trading platforms, or to minimize their
impact once they have. A second
category of safeguards includes ‘‘posttrade reports’’ and ‘‘other post-trade
measures.’’ Examples in this category
include reports that promote the flow of
order, trade and position information;
uniform trade adjustment or
cancellation policies; and standardized
error trade reporting obligations. The
third category of risk controls discussed
in the Concept Release is termed
‘‘system safeguards,’’ including
safeguards for the design, testing and
supervision of ATSs, as well as
measures such as ‘‘kill switches’’ that
facilitate emergency intervention in the
case of malfunctioning ATSs.35 Finally,
the Concept Release presented a fourth
category of measures focusing on
various options for improving market
functioning or structure.
Comments Received on Concept
Release and Commission Response. The
Commission received a total of 43
public comments on the Concept
Release, including comments from
DCMs, an array of trading firms, trade
associations, public interest groups,
members of academia, and consulting,
technology and information service
providers in the financial industry. All
comments are available on
www.cftc.gov. Many of the comments
received are detailed and thorough, and
at 2 [hereinafter ‘‘CFTC TAC Recommendations’’],
available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/
public/@swaps/documents/dfsubmission/
tacpresentation030111_ptfs2.pdf.
35 As explained in section IV(A) below, the
Concept Release used the term ‘‘ATS’’ or
‘‘automated trading system’’ to refer to the
algorithms used to automate the generation and
execution of a trading strategy. For purposes of this
NPRM, the Commission has determined to use the
term ‘‘Algorithmic Trading’’ or ‘‘algorithmic trading
system’’ (abbreviated as ATS), as opposed to the
term ‘‘automated trading system.’’ For purposes of
discussing comments to the Concept Release, the
Commission may use the terms ATS and automated
trading system as such terms were used in the
Concept Release.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

the Futures Industry Association
(‘‘FIA’’) conducted surveys to gauge
existing risk-management practices.
Other commenters provided academic
papers in support of their points of
view.
Staff reviewed all comments received
and made recommendations to the
Commission. This NPRM reflects the
Commission’s decision to propose
regulations in certain areas addressed by
the Concept Release, including:
Registration of certain entities not
otherwise registered with the
Commission; enhanced identification of
orders placed on exchanges; pre-trade
risk controls at exchanges, trading firms
and clearing firms; standards for
development, testing and supervision of
algorithmic systems; trading firm and
clearing member FCM compliance
reports regarding algorithmic trading;
and self-trade prevention tools.
Regulation AT also addresses several
areas not covered in the Concept
Release, including transparency in
exchange trade matching systems and
market-maker protections, and in
certain cases seeks to clarify the scope
of existing Commission regulations that
may be impacted by the growth of
automated trading environments.
C. Other Recent Regulatory Responses
1. SEC Regulatory Initiatives
The SEC has recently taken regulatory
steps related to automated trading,
aimed at preventing instability in the
equities markets. Most significantly, the
SEC adopted the Market Access Rule
and Regulation SCI.
The Securities Exchange Act Rule
15c3–5—Risk Management Controls for
Brokers or Dealers with Market Access
(the ‘‘Market Access Rule’’), adopted in
November 2010, requires brokers and
dealers to have risk controls in place
before providing their customers with
access to the market.36 Specifically, the
Market Access Rule requires risk
controls that prevent entry of (i) orders
exceeding appropriate pre-set credit or
capital thresholds in the aggregate for
each customer and the broker-dealer;
and (ii) erroneous orders, by rejecting
orders that exceed appropriate price or
size parameters, on an order-by-order
basis or over a short period of time, or
those that indicate duplicative orders.37
36 See Market Access Rule, 75 FR 69792 (Nov. 15,
2010); see also SEC Press Release No. 2010–210,
‘‘SEC Adopts New Rule Preventing Unfiltered
Market Access’’ (Nov. 3, 2010), available at http://
www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-210.htm.
37 See Market Access Rule, supra note 36 at
69825–26; see also SEC, Responses to Frequently
Asked Questions Concerning Risk Management
Controls for Brokers or Dealers with Market Access
(Apr. 15, 2014), available at https://www.sec.gov/

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

These risk controls must be under the
direct and exclusive control of the
broker-dealer (subject to certain
exceptions) and regularly reviewed for
effectiveness.38 In October 2013, the
SEC brought its first enforcement action
under the Market Access Rule, securing
a $12 million settlement with Knight
Capital in connection with the firm’s
August 2012 trading incident that
disrupted the markets.39
On November 19, 2014, the SEC
adopted Regulation Systems
Compliance and Integrity (‘‘Reg SCI’’).40
Reg SCI applies to alternative trading
systems, certain self-regulatory
organizations (including registered
clearing agencies), plan processors, and
exempt clearing agencies (collectively,
‘‘SCI entities’’). Under Reg SCI, SCI
entities are required to have
comprehensive policies and procedures
in place for their technological systems.
The SCI entities must, among other
things, take appropriate corrective
action when systems issues occur;
provide notifications and reports to the
SEC regarding systems problems and
systems changes; inform members and
participants about systems issues;
conduct business continuity testing;
implement standards that result in SCI
systems being designed, developed,
tested, maintained, operated, and
surveilled in a manner that facilitates
the successful collection, processing,
and dissemination of market data; and
conduct annual reviews of their
automated systems, which must be
summarized in a report that is provided
to the SEC.41
The SEC has also taken action in the
area of enhancing oversight of
proprietary trading firms. In March
2015, the SEC proposed a rule that
would narrow an exemption that
currently exempts certain broker-dealers
from membership in a national
securities association.42 The exemption
divisions/marketreg/faq-15c-5-risk-managementcontrols-bd.htm.
38 See Market Access Rule, supra note 36 at
69826.
39 See SEC Press Release No. 2013–222, ‘‘SEC
Charges Knight Capital With Violations of Market
Access Rule’’ (Oct. 16, 2013), available at http://
www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/
PressRelease/1370539879795 [hereinafter ‘‘SEC
Knight Capital Release’’].
40 See Reg SCI, 79 FR 72252 (Dec. 5, 2014); see
also SEC Press Release No. 2014–260, ‘‘SEC Adopts
Rules to Improve Systems Compliance and
Integrity’’ (Nov. 19, 2014), available at http://
www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/
PressRelease/1370543496356#.VKQS2qxOlaQ.
41 See Reg SCI, supra note 40 at 72437–39.
42 See SEC, Press Release No. 2015–48, ‘‘SEC
Proposes Rule to Require Broker-Dealers Active in
Off-Exchange Market to Become Members of
National Securities Association’’ (Mar. 25, 2015)
[hereinafter ‘‘SEC Press Release on Broker-Dealer

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

was originally designed to accommodate
exchange specialists and other floor
members that might need to conduct
limited hedging or other off-exchange
activities ancillary to their business.43
Over time, proprietary trading firms
were able to take advantage of this
exemption.44 The SEC’s proposed rules
would amend the exemption to target
those broker-dealers for which it was
originally designed, and require brokerdealers trading in off-exchange venues
to become members of a national
securities association. In the securities
markets, this association is the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority
(‘‘FINRA’’).45
The SEC’s Chair explained that the
proposed rule ‘‘embodies a simple but
powerful principle of the federal
securities laws—the protection of
investors and the stability of our
markets require that trading is overseen
by both the Commission and a strong
self-regulatory organization.’’ 46 In its
preamble to the proposed rule, the SEC
explained that, in the event that a
broker-dealer trades electronically
across a range of exchange and offexchange venues, an individual
exchange of which the broker-dealer is
a member may be unable to effectively
regulate the off-exchange activity of the
broker-dealer, because the exchange
may lack the resources or expertise to
oversee such off-exchange activity.47
The SEC viewed FINRA, the selfregulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’) to
which off-exchange trades are reported,
as being in the best position to regulate
cross-market activity by brokerdealers.48
The SEC has taken additional
regulatory initiatives in this area. On
July 11, 2012, the SEC adopted Rule 613
under Regulation NMS, requiring SROs
to submit a plan to the SEC to create,
implement, and maintain a consolidated
audit trail (‘‘CAT’’). This audit trail is
intended to increase the data available
to regulators investigating illegal
Registration’’], available at http://www.sec.gov/
news/pressrelease/2015-48.html#.VSbd9KwpBaQ;
Exemption for Certain Exchange Members, 80 FR
18036, 18042–43 (Apr. 2, 2015) [hereinafter ‘‘SEC
Proposed Rule on Exemption for Certain Exchange
Members’’].
43 See SEC Press Release on Broker-Dealer
Registration, supra note 42.
44 See id. The SEC estimates that there are
approximately 125 firms exempt from association
membership, which includes some of the most
active cross-market proprietary trading firms. See
SEC Proposed Rule on Exemption for Certain
Exchange Members, 80 FR at 18042.
45 See SEC Press Release on Broker-Dealer
Registration, supra note 42.
46 See id.
47 SEC Proposed Rule on Exemption for Certain
Exchange Members, 80 FR at 18042–43.
48 See id. at 18041–45.

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78831

activities such as insider trading and
market manipulation, and improve the
ability to reconstruct broad-based
market events in an accurate and timely
manner.49 The SROs submitted the plan
on September 30, 2014.50 In addition, in
response to policy recommendations
resulting from the Flash Crash events of
May 6, 2010, the SEC and the securities
industry implemented market-wide
circuit breakers as well as a ‘‘limit uplimit down’’ mechanism in order to
moderate price volatility in individual
securities.51 The SEC is also working to
update its regulatory regime to improve
firms’ risk management of trading
algorithms and to enhance regulatory
oversight over their use.52 The SEC is
also developing an anti-disruptive
trading rule to address the use of
aggressive, potentially destabilizing
trading strategies during vulnerable
market periods.53
Finally, while not directly relevant to
Commission-regulated markets, the SEC
is working with equities exchanges and
FINRA to minimize latency between
different market feeds. Specifically,
exchanges must not transmit data
directly to customers any sooner than
they transmit data to a securities
information processor (‘‘SIP’’), the
system that consolidates market feeds
from all platforms and publishes the
public price ticker. In addition, the
technology used for transmitting data to
the SIP must be on a par with what is
used for transmitting data to direct
feeds.54 Finally, the SEC is working to
address concerns associated with the
fragmentation of trading venues, dark
trading venues, and broker conflicts.55
2. FINRA Initiatives
In addition to the SEC, FINRA is
developing rules focused on automated
trading and transparency in the equities
markets. In March 2015, FINRA
published a Request for Comment
proposing to require registration (as a
‘‘Limited Representative—Equity
Trader’’) persons that are (1) primarily
responsible for the design, development
49 See SEC Press Release No. 2012–134, ‘‘SEC
Approves New Rule Requiring Consolidated Audit
Trail to Monitor and Analyze Trading Activity’’
(July 11, 2012), available at http://www.sec.gov/
News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1365
171483188#.VKQkAqxOlaQ.
50 See SEC, ‘‘Rule 613 (Consolidated Audit
Trail),’’ available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/
marketreg/rule613-info.htm.
51 See Mary Jo White, Chairman, Securities and
Exchange Commission, Enhancing Our Equity
Market Structure (June 5, 2014), available at http://
www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542
004312#.VKP_o6xOlaS.
52 See id.
53 See id.
54 See id.
55 See id.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78832

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

or significant modification of an
algorithmic strategy; or (2) responsible
for supervising such functions.56 FINRA
explained that given today’s highly
automated environment (according to
FINRA, where firms trade using
automated systems that initiate preprogrammed trading instructions based
on specified variables, referred to as
algorithmic trading strategies), it is
concerned that persons involved in
preparing or supervising algorithmic
trading may lack adequate knowledge of
securities rules and regulations, which
could result in algorithms that do not
comply with applicable rules.57
Accordingly, FINRA believes such
persons should meet the same minimum
competency standards for knowledge of
securities regulations that apply to
individual traders.58
In March 2015, FINRA published a
regulatory notice (15–09) providing
guidance on supervision and control
practices for algorithmic trading
strategies in the equities markets.59 The
notice offered guidance on practices in
five general areas: General risk
assessment and response; software/code
development and implementation;
software testing and system validation;
trading systems; and compliance.
Among other practices, the notice
recommended that firms should
consider: Implementing a development
and change management process that
tracks the development of new trading
code or material changes to existing
code; implementing a basic summary
description of algorithmic trading
strategies that enables supervisory and
compliance staff to understand the
intended function of an algorithm;
conducting testing to confirm that core
code components operate as intended
and do not produce unintended
consequences; implementing controls,
monitors, alerts and reconciliation
processes that enable the firm to quickly
identify whether an algorithmic is
experiencing unexpected results; and
providing for adequate communication
between supervisory and compliance
staff related to the function and control
of algorithms such that the firm meets
its regulatory obligations.60

a. ESMA
The European Securities and Markets
Authority (‘‘ESMA’’) is an independent
EU Authority established in January
2011. ESMA published guidelines on
automated trading in February 2012,
which became effective across the
European Union on May 1, 2012.61 The
ESMA guidelines addressed the
operation of an electronic trading
system by a regulated market or a
multilateral trading facility; the use of
an electronic trading system, including
a trading algorithm, by an investment
firm for dealing on its own account or
for the execution of orders on behalf of
clients; and the provision of direct
market access or sponsored access by an
investment firm as part of the service of
the execution of orders on behalf of
clients.62
Among other elements, the ESMA
guidelines recommended that trading
platforms should have: Arrangements to
prevent the excessive flooding of the
order book; arrangements (such as
throttling) to prevent capacity limits on
messaging from being breached; and
arrangements (for example, volatility
interruptions or automatic rejection of
orders which are outside of certain set
volume and price thresholds) to
constrain trading or to halt trading in
individual or multiple financial
instruments when necessary.63 The
ESMA guidelines also recommended
that trading platforms should have
procedures in place to identify potential
market abuse in an automated trading
environment, such as ping orders, quote
stuffing, momentum ignition, and
layering and spoofing.64
In addition, the ESMA guidelines
recommended that investment firms
should make use of clearly delineated
development and testing methodologies
prior to deploying an electronic trading
system or a trading algorithm, and
should monitor their electronic trading
systems, including trading algorithms,
in real-time.65 ESMA also recommended
that investment firms implement price
and size parameters, systems that
control messaging traffic to individual

56 See

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

FINRA, Regulatory Notice 15–06,
‘‘Registration of Associated Persons Who Develop
Algorithmic Trading Strategies’’ (Mar. 2015),
available at http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/
notice_doc_file_ref/Notice_Regulatory_15-06.pdf.
57 See id. at 3.
58 See id.
59 See FINRA, Regulatory Notice 15–09, ‘‘Equity
Trading Initiatives: Supervision and Control
Practices for Algorithmic Trading Strategies’’ (Mar.
2015) [hereinafter ‘‘FINRA Notice 15–09’’],
available at https://www.finra.org/industry/notices/
15-09.
60 See id.

3. European and Other Regulatory
Initiatives

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

trading platforms, financial risk
controls, and controls that block a
trader’s orders if they are for a financial
instrument that the trader does not have
permission to trade.66 As to orders
submitted via direct market access and
sponsored access, ESMA recommended,
among other things, that such orders be
submitted to the same pre-trade risk
controls that it recommends for
investment firms (including, for
example, price and size parameters).67
On March 18, 2015, ESMA released a
report finding that all 30 participating
European Economic Area members have
incorporated the Guidelines into their
legal framework, and all except three
have incorporated it into their
supervisory framework.68 The report
went on to identify challenges to further
enhancing compliance including:
Market complexity, IT-knowledge,
additional on-site inspections of
markets, testing of trading halts, and
setting up ring-defense against cyberattacks.69
As discussed below, ESMA has
performed additional work in the area of
automated trading, such as developing
technical standards for the requirements
of MiFID II.
b. MiFID II
The European Commission published
a new Directive on markets in financial
instruments (‘‘MiFID II’’) on June 12,
2014.70 The Directive contains a
definition of both ‘algorithmic trading’
and ‘high-frequency algorithmic trading
technique,’ which is defined as a
specific type of algorithmic trading.
Among other requirements, the
Directive requires that an investment
firm engaged in algorithmic trading
must have effective systems and risk
controls to ensure that its trading
systems are resilient and have sufficient
capacity, are subject to appropriate
trading thresholds and limits, and
prevent the sending of erroneous orders
or other system activity that may create
or contribute to a disorderly market.71
Such a firm must also have effective
business continuity arrangements to
deal with any failure of its trading
66 See

id. at 14–15.
id. at 21–23.
68 ESMA, Automated Trading Guidelines: ESMA
Peer Review Among National Competent
Authorities (Mar. 18, 2015), available at http://
www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/esma-2015-592automated_trading_peer_review_report_
publication.final_.pdf.
69 See id. at 9–10.
70 See European Commission, ‘‘Updated rules for
markets in financial instruments: MiFID 2’’ (June
12, 2014) [hereinafter ‘‘MiFID II’’], available at
http://ec.europa.eu/finance/securities/isd/mifid2/
index_en.htm.
71 See id. at Article 17(1).
67 See

61 See ESMA, ‘‘Systems and controls in an
automated trading environment for trading
platforms, investment firms and competent
authorities’’ (Feb. 24, 2012) [hereinafter ‘‘ESMA
Guidelines’’], available at http://
www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/esma_2012_122_
en.pdf and accompanying public statement,
available at http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/
files/2012-128.pdf.
62 See id. at 3.
63 See id. at 13.
64 See id. at 16–17.
65 See id. at 10.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
systems and must ensure its systems are
fully tested and properly monitored.72
Furthermore, an investment firm that
engages in a high-frequency algorithmic
trading technique must store in an
approved form accurate and time
sequenced records of all its placed
orders, including cancellations of
orders, executed orders and quotations
on trading venues and make them
available to the competent authority
upon request.73
The MiFID II Directive also requires a
regulated market to be able to
temporarily halt or constrain trading if
there is a significant price movement in
a financial instrument on that market or
a related market during a short period.
In exceptional cases, a regulated market
must be able to cancel, vary or correct
any transaction.74 In addition, the
Directive requires a regulated market to
have in place effective systems,
procedures and arrangements, including
requiring members or participants to
carry out appropriate testing of
algorithms. A regulated market must
also provide environments to facilitate
such testing, to ensure that algorithmic
trading systems cannot create or
contribute to disorderly trading
conditions on the market. The Directive
requires a regulated market to
implement systems to limit the ratio of
unexecuted orders to transactions that
may be entered into the system by a
member or participant, to be able to
slow down the flow of orders if there is
a risk of its system capacity being
reached, and to limit and enforce the
minimum tick size that may be executed
on the market.75
The European Commission requested
that ESMA develop technical and
implementing standards for MiFID II.
On May 22, 2014, ESMA published a
consultation paper seeking comments
on certain topics in connection with
MiFID II, including ‘‘micro-structural
issues’’ such as testing and risk control
requirements for investment firms
engaged in algorithmic trading and
trading venues.76 ESMA published
another consultation paper on December
19, 2014, seeking further comments on
technical and implementing standards
in connection with the implementation
of MiFID II and summarizing comments
received in response to ESMA’s May
72 See

id.
id. at Article 17(2).
74 See id. at Article 48(5).
75 See id. at Article 48(6).
76 ESMA, ‘‘Consultation Paper,’’ (May 22, 2014),
available at http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/
files/2014-549_-_consultation_paper_mifid_ii_-_
mifir.pdf.
73 See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

2014 paper.77 The comment period for
the December 19, 2014 consultation
paper closed in March 2015. In late
2014, ESMA released a final report
covering technical advice in certain
areas, including the definition of
algorithmic trading, HFT, and direct
electronic access.78 In July 2015, ESMA
released final technical advice relating
to investor protection topics, including
procedures for financial services firms
to apply for authorized status,
information required of firms applying
to passport into other jurisdictions, and
co-operation between regulatory
authorities.79 On September 28, 2015,
ESMA released a final report on draft
regulatory and implementing technical
standards for MiFID II (‘‘2015 Final
Draft Regulatory Standards’’).80 This
report provides regulatory standards for
investment firms engaged in algorithmic
trading as well as for trading venues that
allow algorithmic trading. Details
regarding ESMA’s standards are
discussed below as relevant to the
Commission’s proposed regulations
relating to risk controls and other
measures that AT Persons, clearing
member FCMs and DCMs must
implement.
c. Other European Regulatory Initiatives
In May 2013, Germany enacted the
Act on the Prevention of Risks and
Abuse in High-frequency Trading (the
77 ESMA, ‘‘Consultation Paper,’’ (Dec. 19, 2014)
and accompanying Annexes A and B, available at
http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2014-1570
_cp_mifid_ii.pdf.
78 ESMA, ‘‘ESMA’s Technical Advice to the
Commission on MiFID II and MiFIR,’’ (Dec. 19,
2014) [hereinafter ‘‘ESMA Technical Advice Final
Report’’], available at http://www.esma.europa.eu/
system/files/2014-1569_final_report_-_esmas_
technical_advice_to_the_commission_on_mifid_ii_
and_mifir.pdf.
79 ESMA, Final Report: MiFID II/MiFIR draft
Technical Standards on authorization, passporting,
registration of third country firms and cooperation
between competent authorities, Art. 6(g) (June 29,
2015), available at http://www.esma.europa.eu/
system/files/2015-esma-1006_-_mifid_ii_final_
report_on_mifid_ip_technical_standards.pdf.
80 ESMA, Final Report: Draft Regulatory and
Implementing Technical Standards MiFID II/MiFIR
(Sept. 28, 2015) [hereinafter, the ‘‘ESMA September
2015 Final Draft Standards Report’’], available at
https://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2015esma-1464_-_final_report_-_draft_rts_and_its_on_
mifid_ii_and_mifir.pdf; ESMA, Regulatory technical
and implementing standards—Annex 1 (Sept. 28,
2015) [hereinafter, the ‘‘ESMA September 2015
Final Draft Standards Report Annex 1’’], available
at https://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2015esma-1464_annex_i_-_draft_rts_and_its_on_mifid_ii
_and_mifir.pdf; ESMA, Cost-Benefit Analysis—
Annex II, Draft Regulatory and Implementing
Technical Standards MiFID II/MiFIR (Sept. 28,
2015), [hereinafter, the ‘‘ESMA September 2015
Cost-Benefit Annex II’’], available at https://
www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2015-esma-1464
_annex_ii_-_cba_-_draft_rts_and_its_on_mifid_ii_
and_mifir.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78833

‘‘High-frequency Trading Act’’). 81 The
High-frequency Trading Act requires
that firms engaged in high-frequency
trading must be licensed.82 In summary,
high-frequency trading is defined to
include each of the following four
elements: (i) Trading for one’s own
account, or by proprietary trading firms;
(ii) trading algorithmically without
human intervention; (iii) trading using
low-latency infrastructures; and (iv)
trading that generates a high intraday
message rate.83 In addition, exchanges
must impose, on a product-by-product
basis, an excessive system usage fee and
an order-to-trade ratio limit intended to
prevent unnecessary messaging.84
Finally, the High-frequency Trading Act
requires identification of algorithmically
generated orders and trading algorithms,
which is intended to enhance
monitoring of manipulative activity.85
In May 2015, the Bank of England’s
Prudential Regulation Authority
(‘‘PRA’’), the United Kingdom’s
prudential supervisor of major trading
firms, announced that it would assess
the adequacy of existing risk
measurement and management practices
with respect to trading algorithms,
including whether controls around
algorithmic trading are ‘‘fit for
purpose.’’ 86 The PRA discussed the
growth of automated trading in financial
markets, which has included incidents
of extreme volatility. For example,
volatility seen in the Swiss Franc
exchange rate on January 15, 2015,
following the Swiss central bank’s
decision to remove a floor to the
exchange rate, may have been
exacerbated by high-frequency
trading.87
Finally, in July 2015, the United
Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority
issued a consultation paper addressing
strengthening accountability in
81 See online summaries of High-frequency
Trading Act (2013), available at http://
www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veranstaltungen/EN/
WA11_20130430_hft_workshop_en.html.
82 See id.; see also Morgan, Megan, Tabb Forum,
‘‘Decoding the German HFT Act: A Guide to
Regulating Electronic Markets’’ (Oct. 17, 2014),
available at http://tabbforum.com/opinions/
decoding-the-german-hft-act-how-to-regulateelectronic-markets.
83 See id.
84 See id.
85 See id.
86 See Bailey, Andrew, Bank of England,
‘‘Financial Markets: Identifying risks and
appropriate responses,’’ at 9 (May 15, 2015),
available at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/
publications/Documents/speeches/2015/
speech814.pdf.
87 See id. at 5–6; Binham, Caroline, ‘‘Highfrequency trading faces tougher Bank of England
scrutiny,’’ Financial Times (May 15, 2015),
available at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/
f7d4e438-fb20-11e4-9aed00144feab7de.html#axzz3aUzgwb2N.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78834

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

banking.88 The proposed rule
specifically set out to capture
individuals responsible for the
deployment of trading algorithms in its
Certification Regime.89 Pursuant to the
proposal, individuals responsible for:
(1) Approving the deployment of a
trading algorithm or a material part of
one; (2) approving the deployment of a
material amendment to a trading
algorithm or a material part of one, or
the combination of trading algorithms;
and (3) monitoring or deciding whether
or not the use or deployment of a
trading algorithm is or remains
compliant with the firm’s obligations
would be captured and subject to the
Certification Regime.90
d. The October 15 Joint Staff Report
As discussed above in section I(B), on
July 13, 2015, five regulatory agencies
issued the October 15 Joint Staff Report
on the unusually high level of volatility
and rapid round-trip in prices that
occurred on October 15, 2014 in the
market for U.S. Treasury securities,
futures and other closely related
financial markets.91 In addition to
discussing the events of October 15, the
report includes an Appendix C that
summarizes many of the risks of
automated trading. These risks include
the following: Operational risks (ranging
from malfunctioning and incorrectly
deployed algorithms to algorithms
reacting to inaccurate or unexpected
data); market liquidity risks (arising
from abrupt changes in trading
strategies even when a firm executes its
strategy perfectly); market integrity risks
(automated trading can provide new
tools to engage in unlawful conduct);
transmission risks (shocks based on
erroneous orders impacting multiple
markets); clearing and settlement risks
(as more firms gain access to trading
platforms, trades may not be subject to
sufficient settlement risk mitigation
techniques); and risks to effective risk
management (the speed of trade
execution may make critical risk
mitigation devices less effective).

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

D. Industry and Regulatory Best
Practices and Recommendations
Widely recognized organizations and
governmental entities or agencies have
issued ‘‘best practices’’ for automated
88 Financial Conduct Authority (‘‘FCA’’), CP15/22
Strengthening accountability in banking: Final rules
(including feedback on CP14/31 and CP15/5) and
consultation on extending the Certification Regime
to wholesale market activities, at 46 (July 2015),
available at https://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/
documents/consultation-papers/cp15-22.
89 Id.
90 Id.
91 See October 15 Joint Staff Report, supra note
10.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

trading, including the National Futures
Association (‘‘NFA’’), the FIA, ESMA,
and the International Organization of
Securities Commissions (‘‘IOSCO’’),
among others.
1. NFA Compliance Rule 2–9:
Supervision
NFA, a registered futures association
under Section 17 of the Act, has
provided guidance regarding ATSs to
industry participants since 2002.
Specifically, NFA Interpretive Notice
9046 addresses the ‘‘Supervision of the
Use of Automated Order-Routing
Systems’’ in the context of NFA’s
overarching supervision requirements in
Compliance Rule 2–9 (Supervision).92
The Commission believes that
Compliance Rule 2–9 and Interpretive
Notice 9046 are especially relevant
because of their wide applicability as
NFA membership rules, binding on
FCMs, IBs, CPOs, CTAs, and other NFA
members. In addition, these provisions
and interpretations have been in place
since at least 2006, such that NFA
members—and by extension many AT
Persons—will have been subject to
regulatory requirements concerning
algorithmic trading for many years.
Compliance Rule 2–9 requires each
NFA member to ‘‘diligently supervise its
employees and agents in the conduct of
their commodity futures activities for or
on behalf of the Member.’’ Interpretive
Notice 9046, first issued in 2002 and
revised in 2006, states that NFA’s board
of directors ‘‘firmly believes that
supervisory standards do not change
with the medium used. How those
standards are applied, however, may be
affected by technology.’’ To fulfill their
supervisory responsibilities, NFA
members ‘‘must adopt and enforce
written procedures to examine the
security, capacity, and credit and riskmanagement controls provided by the
firm’s automated order-routing systems
(AORSs).’’ Interpretive Notice 9046
applies to systems ‘‘that are within a
Member’s control, including AORSs that
are provided to the Member by an
application service provider or an
independent software vendor.’’ NFA
acknowledges that NFA members will
not control an AORS chosen by an NFA
customer, such as direct access systems
provided by exchanges. In such
circumstances, the NFA member must
nevertheless adopt procedures
‘‘reasonably expected to address the
trading, clearing, and other risks
92 NFA, ‘‘9046—Compliance Rule 2–9:
Supervision of the Use of Automated Order-Routing
Systems,’’ (Dec. 12, 2006), available at https://
www.nfa.futures.org/nfamanual/
NFAManual.aspx?RuleID=9046&Section=9.

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

attendant to [their] customer
relationship[s].’’
Among other requirements,
Interpretive Notice 9046 addresses the
following standards for automated
systems:
• Pre-Execution Controls (including
both credit and ‘‘fat-finger’’ protections):
‘‘An AORS should allow the Member to
set limits for each customer based on
commodity, quantity, and type of order
or based on margin requirements. It
should allow the Member to impose
limits pre-execution and to
automatically block any orders that
exceed those limits.’’ 93
• Post-Execution Controls: ‘‘For
customers subject to post-execution
controls, the Member should have the
ability to monitor trading promptly. The
AORS should generate alerts when
limits are exceeded through that system.
The system should also allow the
Member to block subsequent orders,
either in their entirety or by kind (e.g.,
to block orders that create a new
position or increase an existing position
but not orders that liquidate some or all
of an existing position).’’ 94
• Direct Access Systems: ‘‘When
authorizing [customer] use of a direct
access system that does not allow the
Member to monitor trading promptly,
the Member should utilize preexecution controls, if available, to set
pre-execution limits for each customer,
regardless of the nature of the
customer.’’
• Review: ‘‘Members should use
AORSs in conjunction with their creditreview/risk-management systems and
should evaluate the controls imposed on
each customer as part of their regular
credit and risk-control procedures.’’
A number of the controls summarized
above are in keeping with the
Commission’s proposed requirements
for AT Persons, including proposed
§ 1.80, which requires pre-trade risk
controls and other measures reasonably
designed to prevent an Algorithmic
Trading Event, including but not limited
to maximum order message and
execution frequencies per unit time;
order price parameters and maximum
order sizes; and certain order
cancellation capabilities. The
Commission notes once again its intent
in much of Regulation AT to build on
93 Interpretive Notice 9046 does not require NFA
members to ‘‘impose pre-execution controls on all
customers, however. The Member should review
the customer’s sophistication, credit-worthiness,
objectives, and trading practices and strategies
when determining whether to impose controls preexecution or post-execution and deciding what
levels to use when setting limits.’’
94 The Interpretive Notice adds that ‘‘[t]his ability
can be provided by the AORS or through other riskmanagement systems.’’

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
existing regulatory requirements and
industry practices so that its proposed
regulations facilitate an ongoing
transition to effective risk controls in
algorithmic trading. The Commission
believes that the existence of related
regulatory standards enforced by NFA
since 2002 and updated in 2006 would
help minimize any potential disruptions
or burdens that would otherwise be
associated with a number of the
Commission’s proposed rules for AT
Persons. The Commission also believes
that NFA’s prior experience in this area
will assist in complying with the
requirements of proposed § 170.19,
discussed in detail in section IV(F)
below.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

2. FIA Reports on Automated Trading
On March 23, 2015, FIA released the
‘‘FIA Guide to the Development and
Operation of Automated Trading
Systems’’ (the ‘‘FIA Guide’’), which
provides recommendations concerning
appropriate risk controls at the trader,
broker and exchange levels.95 Risk
controls recommended by FIA include
maximum order size limits, maximum
intraday position limits, market data
reasonability checks, price tolerance
limits, repeated automated execution
limits, exchange dynamic price collars,
exchange market pauses, exchange
message programs, message throttles,
self-trade prevention tools, kill
switches, cancel-on-disconnect service
and exchange-provided order
management tools. FIA also
recommended audit trail procedures
that identify automated trading system
operators; certain post-trade measures to
monitor for potential credit events or
unintended trading; measures related to
co-location services; and disaster
recovery and business continuity
procedures. Finally, FIA recommended
measures related to automated trading
system development and support,
including general principles related to
testing; policies and procedures related
to security; systems monitoring
procedures; and documentation
procedures. Consistent with the
approach the Commission intends to
pursue in Regulation AT, the FIA Guide
states that, ‘‘[c]are should be taken to
avoid implementing overly prescriptive
standards or rules that impose a onesize-fits-all approach to all entities.’’ 96
95 FIA, ‘‘FIA Guide to the Development and
Operation of Automated Trade Systems’’ (Mar. 23,
2015) [hereinafter ‘‘FIA Guide’’], available at
https://fia.org/sites/default/files/FIA%20
Guide%20to%20the%20Development%20and%20
Operation%20of%20Automated%20Trading%20
Systems.pdf.
96 Id. at 6.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

The Commission encourages industry
participants to consider FIA’s
recommendations. In the event that the
FIA Guide recommends best practices
that are not proposed in Regulation AT,
the Commission encourages industry
participants to consider implementing
the FIA best practices if they are
appropriate to their business and are
reasonably designed to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event. FIA’s
recommendations may also serve as a
useful starting point for an RFA
considering potential measures in
response to proposed § 170.19,
discussed in section IV(F) below.
FIA has issued several additional
reports related to the appropriate best
practices that should be implemented
with respect to automated trading. In
April 2010, FIA issued a report
addressing the risks of direct market
access and providing recommendations
for risk controls to be implemented by
exchanges and applied across all trading
firms.97 In November 2010, FIA’s
Principal Traders Group (‘‘FIA PTG’’)
released a report setting out
recommended risk controls for trading
firms that have direct access to
exchange matching engines,98 as well as
a global survey of futures exchanges to
determine what controls were in place
to manage the risks in providing trading
firms with direct market access.99 In
March 2012, FIA PTG and FIA European
Principal Traders Association issued
recommendations to assist trading firms
in establishing internal procedures,
processes and controls for the
development, testing and deployment of
trading software.100 Finally, in
September 2013, FIA released
recommendations for increasing the
usefulness of drop copy systems in
exchange-traded markets.101
3. IOSCO Reports on Electronic Trading
IOSCO is an international body of
securities regulators. IOSCO develops,
implements and promotes adherence to
internationally recognized standards for
97 FIA, ‘‘Market Access Risk Management
Recommendations,’’ (Apr. 2010), available at
http://www.futuresindustry.org/downloads/Market_
Access-6.pdf.
98 FIA PTG, ‘‘Recommendations for Risk Controls
for Trading Firms,’’ (Nov. 2010), available at
http://www.futuresindustry.org/downloads/Trading
_Best_Pratices.pdf.
99 Sutphen, Leslie, ‘‘Exchange Survey Finds Wide
Range of Risk Controls in Place,’’ (Jan. 2011),
available at http://www.futuresindustry.org/
downloads/RC-survey.pdf.
100 FIA PTG & EPTA, ‘‘Software Development and
Change Management Recommendations,’’ (Mar. 14,
2012), available at http://www.futuresindustry.org/
downloads/Software_Change_Management.pdf.
101 FIA, ‘‘Drop Copy Recommendations,’’ (Sept.
2013), available at http://www.futuresindustry.org/
downloads/FIA-Drop_Copy(FINAL).pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78835

securities regulation. Its membership
regulates more than 95% of the world’s
securities markets in more than 115
jurisdictions.102 In October 2011, IOSCO
released recommendations to promote
the integrity and efficiency of markets in
order to mitigate risks posed by the
latest technological developments.103
Among other things, IOSCO
recommended that regulators ensure
that trading venues have in place
suitable trading control mechanisms
such as trading halts, volatility
interruptions, and limit-up/limit-down
controls to deal with volatile market
conditions, as well as trading systems
that have the ability to adjust to changes
in message traffic (including sudden
increases).104 In addition, IOSCO
recommended that all order flow of
trading participants, regardless of
whether they access the market directly,
be subject to appropriate controls,
including automated pre-trade controls.
IOSCO also recommended that
regulators should identify any risks
arising from currently unregulated
direct participants of trading venues and
take steps to address them.105
More recently, in April 2015, IOSCO
released a consultation report entitled
‘‘Mechanisms for Trading Venues to
Effectively Manage Electronic Trading
Risks and Plans for Business
Continuity.’’ 106 The report compiles the
results of a survey that IOSCO sent to
trading venues across more than 30
different jurisdictions. Based on the
information compiled, the report
proposes best practices that should be
considered by trading venues when
developing and implementing risk
mitigation mechanisms. These practices
are intended to promote the integrity,
resiliency and reliability of trading
systems and business continuity plans.
With respect to managing risks
originating from market participant
technology, the report explains that
most trading venues have policies,
procedures and tools to detect and
address the operational risks associated
with electronic trading. These tools
102 See IOSCO’s public Web site, available at
https://www.iosco.org/about/?subsection=about_
iosco.
103 Technical Committee of the IOSCO,
‘‘Regulatory Issues Raised by the Impact of
Technological Changes on Market Integrity and
Efficiency: Final Report,’’ (Oct. 2011), available at
http://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/
IOSCOPD361.pdf.
104 See id.
105 See id.
106 IOSCO, ‘‘Mechanisms for Trading Venues to
Effectively Manage Electronic Trading Risks and
Plans for Business Continuity: Consultation
Report,’’ (Apr. 2015) [hereinafter ‘‘IOSCO 2015
Consultation Report’’], available at http://
www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/
IOSCOPD483.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78836

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

include, among others, pre-trade risk
controls (such as price and volume
controls or filters and order entry
controls), the ability to block, suspend
or disconnect a user (e.g., a kill switch),
measures to halt trading in the event of
sudden price movements, and throttles
that constrain the number or frequency
of messages from any given
participant.107 IOSCO also explained
that many trading venue participants
use pre-trade risk controls such as order
volume, price per security, credit,
notional value of order, order value,
capital, position checks, price deviation
thresholds, and regulatory integrity
checks.108 Finally, IOSCO addressed
direct market access by referring to a
previous report it issued in 2010, called
‘‘Principles for Direct Electronic Access
to Markets.’’ In that report, IOSCO
recommended that intermediaries
(including clearing firms) have adequate
operational and technical capability to
appropriately manage the risks posed by
DEA.109

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

4. CFTC TAC Subcommittee
In 2011, the Pre-Trade Functionality
Subcommittee (‘‘TAC Subcommittee’’)
of the CFTC’s TAC issued
recommendations for pre-trade controls
for trading firms, clearing firms and
exchanges which use, or provide, direct
market access.110 The TAC
Subcommittee recommended the
following risk controls for trading firms:
Quantity limits on individual orders;
price collars; execution throttles;
message throttles; and a kill switch that
would cancel all existing orders and
prevent the firm from placing new
orders. The TAC Subcommittee further
recommended that clearing firms
trading on their own behalf should
comply with those risk controls. In
addition, clearing firms should confirm
that their client firms are implementing
such controls, approve the parameters
used by the trading firm, and have
access to the kill switch. Exchanges
should implement, and require trading
firms to use, pre-trade quantity limits on
individual orders; intra-day position
limits; price collars; and message
throttles. The TAC Subcommittee also
recommended that exchanges
implement clear and consistent error
trade policies, order cancellation
107 See

id. at 20–21.
id.
109 See id. at 22–23. IOSCO uses the term DEA or
‘‘direct electronic access’’ to mean an arrangement
where a client of an intermediary obtains access to
the market through the intermediary’s infrastructure
or access without using the intermediary’s systems.
See id. at 20 n.56.
110 See CFTC TAC Recommendations, supra note
34.
108 See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

policies that allow for automatic
cancellation of orders on disconnect,
and the ability for clearing firms to view
their firm’s orders and to cancel
working orders.
5. FIX Risk Management Working Group
Additional organizations have
released best practices documents,
including FIX Protocol Ltd.’s (‘‘FIX’’)
Americas Risk Management Working
Group. FIX is a non-profit, industry
standards association that owns,
maintains and continuously develops
the Financial Information eXchange
(FIX) Protocol in response to market
requirements. In 2012, FIX released risk
control guidelines for algorithmic
trading orders and direct market access
orders.111 FIX identified typical order
scenarios that brokers attempt to detect,
which include the following: An order
for an exceedingly large quantity; an
order that will adversely impact the
market for a given security; an order
with incomplete or conflicting
instructions; an order that is potentially
duplicative or unintentionally
repeating; an order where adverse or
favorable price moves impact the order
while it is working; and an order that
may be stale or may have been replaced
by the client or a system.112 FIX
explained that the absence of
appropriate risk controls can result in
market dislocation, failure to settle/
deliver, conflict between the client’s
intent and order execution, and trading
the wrong product.113 FIX provides a
recommended matrix of risk controls,
which includes maximum order
quantity, average daily volume checks,
price limit checks, favorable/adverse
price move checks, position limits,
credit checks, and stale, runaway, and
duplicate order checks.114
6. Senior Supervisors Group (SSG)
Briefing Note
In April 2015, the Senior Supervisors
Group (‘‘SSG’’), composed of the staff of
banking and other financial regulatory
agencies from ten countries and the
European Union, issued an
‘‘Algorithmic Trading Briefing Note.’’ 115
111 See FPL Americas Risk Management Working
Group, ‘‘Recommended Risk Control Guidelines,’’
(2012), available at http://
www.fixtradingcommunity.org/mod/file/
view.php?file_guid=32127.
112 See id. at 5. Other scenarios include an order
where the symbology cannot be resolved to a single
security and large accrued long or short positions
that may result in settlement and/or delivery risk
if the client cannot settle the trade.
113 See id.
114 See id. at 22.
115 See Senior Supervisors Group, ‘‘Algorithmic
Trading Briefing Note,’’ (Apr. 2015) [hereinafter
‘‘SSG 2015 Note’’], available at http://

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

The Note focused on how large financial
institutions currently monitor and
control for the risks associated with
algorithmic trading during the trading
day. The Note identified several risks
that SSG believes are common to
algorithmic trading across jurisdiction
and asset class: (i) Systemic risk may be
amplified; (ii) algorithmic trading desks
may face a significant amount of risk
intraday without transparency and
robust controls; (iii) internal controls
may not have kept pace with speed and
market complexity; and (iv) without
adequate controls, losses can
accumulate and spread rapidly.116 The
Note provided a list of principles for
supervisors to consider when evaluating
controls over algorithmic trading at
banks: (a) Controls must keep pace with
technological complexity and trading
speeds; (b) governance and management
oversight can limit exposure to losses
and improve transparency; (c) testing
needs to be conducted during all phases
of a trading product’s lifespan, namely
during development, rollout to
production, and ongoing maintenance;
and (d) when assessing control depth
and suitability, management should
ensure sufficient involvement of control
functions (including compliance,
technology, legal, and controllers), as
well as business-unit management.117
7. Treasury Market Practices Group Best
Practices
In June 2015, the Treasury Market
Practices Group, a group sponsored by
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
and comprised of legal, compliance and
business representatives from
institutions related to U.S. Treasury
market primary and secondary trading,
released a white paper on Automated
Trading 118 and an updated Best
Practices document for trading in U.S.
cash Treasury securities markets.119 The
www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/banking/
2015/SSG-algorithmic-trading-2015.pdf. The SSG
includes staff from the following organizations:
Canadian Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions, the European Central Bank Banking
Supervision, the French Prudential Control and
Resolution Authority, the German Federal Financial
Supervisory Authority, the Bank of Italy, the
Japanese Financial Services Agency, the
Netherlands Bank, the Bank of Spain, the Swiss
Financial Market Supervisory Authority, the United
Kingdom’s Prudential Regulatory Authority, and, in
the United States, the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and the Federal Reserve.
116 See id. at 2–3.
117 See id. at 3–4.
118 See Treasury Market Practices Group,
‘‘Automatic Trading in Treasury Markets,’’ (June
2015), available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/
tmpg/TPMG_June%202015_automated%20trading_
white%20paper.pdf.
119 See Treasury Market Practices Group, ‘‘Best
Practices for Treasury, Agency Debt, and Agency

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Best Practice updates, among other
things, expanded the scope of
recommended risk controls that address
the risks of automated trading
(automated trading, for purposes of the
Best Practices document, means the
subset of electronic trading that relies
on computer algorithms for decisionmaking and execution of order
submissions), including the
documentation of internal policies and
procedures, additional transparency in
exchange or trading platform market
data, error trade rules and exchange
provided services, expanded design and
testing environments at firms and
exchanges, and updated risk controls
that align with the speed of trading
technology. The white paper notes that
these updates were issued in a period
when cash Treasury securities markets,
like many other asset classes, have
experienced a strong increase in
automated trading on electronic
platforms.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

III. Recent Disruptive Events in
Automated Trading Environments
The Concept Release discussed
malfunctions in automated trading
systems, in both derivatives and
securities markets, that illustrate the
technological and operational
vulnerabilities inherent to automated
trading environments.120 As an
example, the Flash Crash of May 2010
involved an automated trading system
with a design flaw that impacted both
the derivatives and securities markets.
According to the CFTC/SEC joint report
on the Flash Crash, an automated
execution algorithm did not take price
or time variables into account. Given the
parameters of the program, the
algorithm continued to send orders even
as prices moved far beyond traditional
daily ranges.121 In another example, in
2012 a securities trading firm, Knight
Capital Group, made a coding error in
an automated equity router, and then
incorrectly deployed new code in the
same router.122 Because of these coding
errors, the firm’s automated trading
system inadvertently built up
unintended positions in the equity
market, eventually resulting in losses of
more than $460 million for the firm.123
Mortgage-Backed Securities Markets,’’ (June 2015),
available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/tmpg/
TPMG_June%202015_Best%20Practices.pdf.
120 See Concept Release, 78 FR at 56548–49.
121 See U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, ‘‘Findings Regarding the Market
Events of May 6, 2010,’’ (September 30, 2010)
[hereinafter, the ‘‘Flash Crash Report’’], available at
http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@otherif/
documents/ifdocs/staff-findings050610.pdf.
122 See SEC Knight Capital Release, supra note 39.
123 See id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

The malfunction impacted the broader
market, creating swings in the share
prices of almost 150 companies; these
price swings were high enough to trigger
pauses in the trading of five stocks.124
Foreign markets have also
experienced disruptive events in recent
years. For example, in May 2012 in
Mexico, a ‘‘fat finger’’ error by a market
participant resulted in the execution of
1.13 million shares (representing U.S.
$3.78 billion).125 In February 2015,
there was a five minute delay in
opening futures and options on the
Eurex exchange in Germany because a
market participant’s system was
transmitting duplicate orders.126 In
February 2014, trading in three-year
Korean treasury bonds was halted for
almost two hours at the Korea Exchange
due to a system malfunction resulting
from an improper order from a
brokerage house.127 On October 26,
2011, the Bombay Stock Exchange had
to cancel all derivatives trading due to
unusually high volumes and price
volatility as a result of a flawed
algorithm used by a member firm.128
Goldman Sachs was recently fined $7
million by the SEC for violating its
Market Access Rule and causing a
disruptive trading event.129 On August
20, 2013, a configuration error in one of
Goldman’s options order routers
erroneously sent thousands of limit
orders to the options exchanges prior to
the start of regular market trading.130 By
the time the creation of additional
orders was disabled, and efforts to
cancel unintended orders were taken,
approximately 1.5 million unintended
orders (representing 150 million
underlying shares) had been executed
124 See Strasburg, Jenny and Bunge, Jacob, ‘‘Loss
Swamps Trading Firm,’’ Wall St. J. (Aug. 2, 2012),
available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000
0872396390443866404577564772083961412.html
and Valetkevitch, Caroline and Mikolajczak, Chuck,
‘‘Error by Knight Rips Through Stock Market,’’
Reuters (Aug. 1, 2012), available at http://
www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-nysetradinghalts-idUSBRE8701BN20120801.
125 See IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra
note 106 at 1 n.6.
126 See id. and ‘‘Technical Failure Delays Eurex
Trading in Futures, Options,’’ Bloomberg (Feb. 17,
2015), available at http://www.bloomberg.com/
news/articles/2015-02-17/eurex-futures-optionsopening-delayed-after-technical-problem.
127 See ‘‘Treasuries trading system disrupted,’’
Korea Times (Feb. 14, 2014), available at https://
www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2014/09/488_
151619.html.
128 See ‘‘Sebi probes Muhurat trading mishap on
BSE,’’ Business Standard (Nov. 12, 2011), available
at http://www.business-standard.com/article/
markets/sebi-probes-muhurat-trading-mishap-onbse-111111200083_1.html.
129 See In re Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 3–16665
(SEC June 30, 2014) (order instituting
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings).
130 Id. at 2.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78837

on the market.131 The existing risk
management controls and supervisory
procedures in place at Goldman failed
to stop the erroneous orders, and human
error and failure to follow best practices
exacerbated the errors.132 While some
erroneous orders were able to be
cancelled, Goldman’s loss ultimately
totaled $38 million.133
Disruptive events illustrate the
importance of effective risk controls.
The risk controls contemplated in
Regulation AT are intended to limit the
extent of market disruption caused by
ATSs or trading platform malfunctions.
For example, a pre-trade risk control
such as a message throttle will prevent
submission of orders that exceed a
predetermined frequency per unit time.
Such a control could be operated by the
market participant generating orders,
the clearing firm guaranteeing its trades,
or the trading platform on which orders
would be executed, and would limit the
impact of an algorithmic trading system
not operating as intended. As another
example, monitoring and supervision
standards for algorithmic trading may
help ensure that human supervisors
intervene quickly when automated
systems experience unexpected or
degraded performance, and that
supervision staff have the both the
authority and knowledge to take
appropriate steps in this scenario.
IV. Overview of Regulation AT
A. Concept Release/Regulation AT
Terminology
The Concept Release used the term
‘‘automated trading system’’
(abbreviated ‘‘ATS’’) to refer to the
algorithms used to automate the
generation and execution of a trading
strategy.134 In discussing comments to
the Concept Release, the Commission
will continue to use the term automated
trading system. However, for greater
precision, the proposed rules and
preamble for Regulation AT instead
refer to ‘‘algorithmic trading system’’
(also abbreviated ‘‘ATS’’). This change
is intended only as a change in in
nomenclature. ATSs as described herein
should not be confused with alternative
trading systems in equities markets.
B. Commenter Preference for PrinciplesBased Regulations
As an initial matter, the Commission
notes a preference expressed in
comments to the Concept Release for
principles-based, as opposed to
prescriptive, regulations. Fifteen
131 Id.
132 Id.

at 3.
at 2.
134 Concept Release, 78 FR 56542, 56544.
133 Id.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78838

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

commenters advocated a limited or
‘‘principles-based’’ approach to any
regulation arising from the Concept
Release.135 Commenters indicated that
prescriptive requirements will become
obsolete, stifle innovation, discourage
self-reporting of technological failures,
may not account for the unique
characteristics of market participants,
and would result in participants
designing around such measures.136
More specifically, FIA 137 and CME
Group, Inc. (‘‘CME’’) suggested that the
best way to achieve standardization of
risk controls is through implementing
‘‘best practices’’ developed through
working groups of DCMs, FCMs, and
other market participants.138 Similarly,
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (‘‘ICE’’)
indicated that ‘‘exchanges are able to
better implement and update risk
controls on a market-by-market basis
than through a Commission
rulemaking,’’ and should be allowed
flexibility in designing exchange risk
controls.139 Susquehanna International
Group (‘‘SIG’’) stated that the
Commission should ‘‘allow the
exchanges to work with firms on
tailoring the rules for implementation in
ways that best consider the technical
intricacies between firms and
exchanges.’’ 140 Virtu Financial LLC
(‘‘VFL’’) suggested that ‘‘mandating risk
controls and supervisory systems that
are ‘reasonably designed’ or ‘provide
reasonable assurance’ of protection
would allow participants to tailor these
135 The Futures Industry Association (‘‘FIA’’)
Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 2, 12; CME
Group (‘‘CME’’) Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at
3, 41–42; Gelber Group, LLC (‘‘Gelber’’) Comment
Letter (Dec. 9, 2013) at 1–2; KCG Holdings, Inc.
(‘‘KCG’’) Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 3; The
Alternative Investment Management Association
(‘‘AIMA’’) Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 1; The
Minneapolis Grain Exchange (‘‘MGEX’’) Comment
Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 1; CBOE Futures Exchange,
LLC (‘‘CFE’’) Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 2;
Managed Funds Association (‘‘MFA’’) Comment
Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 2; Holly Bell (Bell’’)
Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 3; Virtu Financial
LLC (‘‘VFL’’) Comment Letter (Jan. 10, 2014) at 2–
3; Chris Barnard Comment Letter (Jan. 29, 2014) at
2; Susquehanna International Group (‘‘SIG’’)
Comment Letter at 2; IntercontinentalExchange
Group, Inc. (‘‘ICE’’) Comment Letter (Feb. 14, 2014)
at 1–2; 3Red Trading LLC (‘‘3Red’’) Comment Letter
(Feb. 14, 2014) at 2; OneChicago, LLC
(‘‘OneChicago’’) Comment Letter (Feb. 14, 2015) at
5.
136 FIA at 2, 12; CME at 3–4, 7; Gelber at 1–2;
Tellefsen and Company, L.L.C. (‘‘TCL’’) Comment
Letter (Oct. 31, 2013) at 5, 18; AIMA at 1, 2; CFE
at 2; VFL at 3; Bell at 3.
137 The Commission notes that six entities
submitted letters in support of FIA’s comment
letter: RGM Advisors, LLC, Allston Trading LLC,
Geneva Trading USA, LLC, Tibra Trading America
LLC, DRW Trading Group and IMC Financial
Markets.
138 FIA at 63; CME at 41.
139 ICE at 1–2.
140 SIG at 2.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

controls to the specific risks associated
with their business.’’ 141
In addition, five commenters
indicated that the Commission already
has robust regulations in place to
address the risks of automated
trading.142 Such comments cited the
DCM and SEF Core Principles; 143
Commission regulations 1.73, 23.609,
38.255, and 38.607; 144 and CEA and
Commission market manipulation and
disruptive trading practices rules.145
In contrast to a limited or principlesbased approach to regulation, several
commenters supported a more
prescriptive approach to a rulemaking
addressing the risks of automated
trading.146 These commenters include
the Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy (‘‘IATP’’), Better Markets, and
Americans for Financial Reform
(‘‘AFR’’). For example, IATP stated that
unless the Commission receives
documentation that the risk controls of
firms and exchanges are consistent and
effective, the Commission should
assume that regulatory standardization
will be beneficial for each risk control
and at each phase of the trade
lifecycle.147 In addition, several
academic commenters discussed
concerns with automated, high speed
trading and advocated specific changes
to the trade matching or order
submission process to increase market
liquidity and efficiency.148
As discussed below, consistent with
comments received, the Commission
has taken a balanced approach to the
regulations it believes are necessary to
manage the risks of algorithmic trading.
For example, the Commission proposes
a principles-based approach to its risk
controls requirements, in that it would
require particular controls but allow the
relevant entity—a trading firm, clearing
member FCM, or DCM—discretion in
the design of such control and the
parameters that would be used.
141 VFL

at 3.
at 3; FIA at 5; MFA at 6; Gelber at 2, 5,
20; Bell at 2, 4.
143 Gelber at 21; CFE at 1; MFA at 6.
144 MFA at 4; CFE at 1.
145 Gelber at 2, 5, 20; CFE at 3; CME at 3; MFA
at 6; Bell at 2.
146 The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
(‘‘IATP’’) Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 4;
Better Markets Inc. (‘‘Better Markets’’) Comment
Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 1; Americans for Financial
Reform (‘‘AFR’’) Comment Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at
6.
147 IATP at 4.
148 Eric Budish et al. Comment Letter (Feb. 14,
2014) at 1; Brian F. Mannix Comment Letter
(Dec.10, 2013) at 2; Elaine Wah et al. Comment
Letter (Dec. 11, 2013) at 2.
142 CME

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

C. Multi-Layered Approach to Pre-Trade
Risk Controls and Other Measures
In response to the Commission’s
questions in the Concept Release about
the appropriate location for risk controls
and other measures, commenters
generally supported a multi-layered
approach to risk controls, with each
level—trading firm, clearing firm, and
exchange—implementing risk controls
that are adjusted depending on
circumstance.149
For example, FIA commented that
‘‘[i]ntroducing redundant risk controls
at more than one focal point in the
trading lifecycle may increase the
integrity of the marketplace when
careful consideration is given to their
differences in roles, implementations
and configurations.’’ 150 However, FIA
also stated that ‘‘we caution against a
mandated proliferation of redundant
risk controls because the existence of
similar but not identically implemented
risk controls may do more harm than
good. Each new implementation of a
control will increase complexity and
may cause misunderstanding between
traders and risk managers as a
consequence of conflicting risk
limits.’’ 151 As an example of a control
that may be appropriately implemented
at multiple levels, FIA stated that
maximum order size limits may be
implemented at both market participant
and FCM levels without redundancy
because they reflect the different
responsibilities of each participant.152
FIA further explained that if an FCM
has implemented customer-specific
controls within its infrastructure, it
would be redundant to use the same
controls at the DCM level, though as an
additional protection, it is permissible
to set higher limits at the DCM that
apply across all customers.153
CME cited the TAC Subcommittee’s
‘‘Recommendations on Pre-Trade
Practices for Trading Firms, Clearing
Firms and Exchanges involved in Direct
Market Access,’’ and commented that
‘‘each level of the ‘electronic trading
‘supply chain’ (trading firms, clearing
firms, and exchanges) must share in the
effort to preserve market integrity
through the implementation of effective
risk controls, no matter if that
participant has direct market access or
is routing to the exchange via its
clearing member firm’’.154 Specifically
149 CME at 8–9; FIA at 61; Federal Reserve Bank
of Chicago (‘‘Chicago Fed’’) Comment Letter (Dec.
11, 2013) at 2; AIMA at 7; KCG at 2; VFL at 2.
150 FIA at 61.
151 See id.
152 FIA at 62.
153 See id.
154 CME at 7–8.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
with respect to kill switch functionality,
CME indicated that kill switch
functionality deployed at multiple
levels should not be considered
redundant.155 CME further suggested
that while multi-layered kill switch
functionality is not necessary for
effective risk control, it is nevertheless
beneficial as it adds additional measures
of protection.156 CME made a general
point that registrants should establish
controls appropriate to the nature of
their business that are reasonably
designed to control access, effectively
monitor trading, and prevent errors as
well as other inappropriate activity.157
CME indicated that, regardless of
whether orders are entered manually
through an electronic system or entered
through an automated trading system,
such principles are equally important,
because the method of order entry does
not lessen the impact of a particular
order on the market.158
Other commenters supported a multilayered approach to risk controls. AIMA
indicated that risk controls should be
‘‘broadly similar’’ and applied at the
trading firm, clearing firm, and
exchange levels.159 KCG stated that
‘‘risk management is most effective
when it is multi-layered and
overlapping.’’ 160 VFL stated that a
‘‘multilayered system of risk controls is
a key ingredient to protect the market
from disruptive events.’’ 161
The Commission agrees with the
comments above that it should adopt a
multi-layered approach to regulations
intended to mitigate the risks of
automated trading. As explained below,
the Commission proposes to impose
requirements at multiple stages of the
lifecycle of an order. The Commission
acknowledges FIA’s comment that the
different role of entities at various stages
in the trade lifecycle must be carefully
evaluated. While Regulation AT
requires the same types of pre-trade and
other risk controls to be implemented by
different entities, the Commission notes
that the proposed regulations allow for
discretion in the appropriate design and
parameters of each risk control.
Accordingly, a trading firm, clearing
member FCM, and DCM may each
choose to design and calibrate the same
control in different ways, depending on
how the control is used by each entity
to manage risks.
155 CME

at 22.
id.
157 CME at 43–44.
158 See id.
159 AIMA at 7.
160 KCG at 2.
161 VFL at 2.
156 See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

The Commission notes that ESMA’s
2015 Final Draft Regulatory Standards
require pre-trade risk controls at both
investment firms and trading venues.162
ESMA acknowledged commenter
disagreement with such redundancy
and stated, ‘‘ESMA believes that at least
two lines of defence are appropriate in
this complex business and thus
continues to require the pre-trade risk
controls conducted by both investment
firms and trading venues.’’ 163 ESMA’s
regulatory standards further provide
that where a client is granted market
access either through an intermediary’s
systems, or directly without using the
intermediary’s systems, the direct
electronic access provider must apply
the required pre-trade risk controls.164
Regulation AT requires pre-trade and
other risk controls at both the AT Person
and clearing member FCM level (as well
as the DCM level) based on its
understanding that the risks—and the
resulting calibration levels of the
controls—may be different given those
entities’ distinct priorities and
understanding of the risks to themselves
and their customers.
Below is a summary of each element
of Regulation AT. For each element, the
Commission addresses relevant Concept
Release comments, summarizes the
proposed regulation, and asks questions
concerning the proposed regulation.
D. Codification of Defined Terms Used
Throughout Regulation AT
1. ‘‘Algorithmic Trading’’—§ 1.3(zzzz)
a. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release requested
comment concerning whether the
Commission should define ATS or
algorithm for purposes of any ATS
identification system. Commenters
disagreed on whether the Commission
should adopt a definition of ‘‘ATS.’’ FIA
and CME opposed a regulatory
definition, arguing that industry already
has a definition of automated trading
system.165 FIA and CME indicated that
162 ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards
Report, supra note 80 at 201.
163 See id.
164 ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards
Report Annex 1, supra note 80 at 218.
165 FIA at 41–42; CME at 29. CME defines ‘‘ATS’’
as ‘‘a trading method in which a computer makes
decisions and enters orders without a person
entering those orders. This is a programmatic way
of representing the trader.’’ See CME Glossary,
available at http://www.cmegroup.com/education/
glossary.html. ICE defines ‘‘ATS’’ as ‘‘any system
that automates the generation and submission of
orders to ICE.’’ See ICE Notice, Revision to
Authorized Trader Requirements (Jan. 4, 2011) at 3,
available at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/otc/
advisory_notices/ICE%20Advisory%20Notice%20
for%20Authorized%20Trader%20
Registration%20010411.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78839

the definition of ATS is self-evident and
has been in use for a long time, and that
ATS, or automated orders, are orders
that are generated and/or routed without
human intervention. This includes
orders generated by a computer system
as well as orders that are routed using
functionality that manages order
submission by automated means (i.e.,
execution algorithms).166 Another
commenter, Gelber Group, LLC
(‘‘Gelber’’), stated that the Commission
should adopt a ‘‘strong but
appropriately flexible definition’’ of
ATS aligned with existing exchange
definitions.167
The Commission’s evaluation of this
issue is also informed by the work of the
TAC Subcommittee. In particular, the
TAC Subcommittee described
‘‘automated trading’’ as follows:
‘‘[Automated trading] covers systems
employed in the decision-making,
routing and/or execution of an
investment or trading decision, which
utilizes a range of technologies
including software, hardware, and
network components to facilitate
efficient access to the financial markets
via electronic trading platforms.’’ 168
b. Description of Regulation
While the Commission does not
define the term ‘‘ATS’’ in this NPRM,
the Commission does propose a new
§ 1.3(zzzz) that defines the related
activity of ‘‘Algorithmic Trading.’’ This
proposed term means trading in any
commodity interest as defined in
Regulation 1.3(yy) 169 on or subject to
the rules of a DCM, where: (1) One or
more computer algorithms or systems
determines whether to initiate, modify,
or cancel an order, or otherwise makes
determinations with respect to an order,
including but not limited to: the product
to be traded; the venue where the order
will be placed; the type of order to be
placed; the timing of the order; whether
to place the order; the sequencing of the
order in relation to other orders; the
price of the order; the quantity of the
166 FIA

at 41; CME at 29.
at 2–3.
168 CFTC Technology Advisory Committee
Subcommittee on Automated and High-Frequency
Trading, Presentation to the TAC (Oct. 12, 2012),
available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/
public/@newsroom/documents/file/tac103012_
wg1.pdf.
169 Regulation 1.3(yy) provides that the term
‘‘commodity interest’’ means (1) any contract for the
purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery;
(2) any contract, agreement or transaction subject to
a Commission regulation under section 4c or 19 of
the Act; and (3) Any contract, agreement or
transaction subject to Commission jurisdiction
under section 2(c)(2) of the Act; and (4) Any swap
as defined in the Act, by the Commission, or jointly
by the Commission and the Securities and
Exchange Commission. See 17 CFR 1.3(yy).
167 Gelber

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

78840

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

order; the partition of the order into
smaller components for submission; the
number of orders to be placed; or how
to manage the order after submission;
and (2) such order, modification or
order cancellation is electronically
submitted for processing on or subject to
the rules of a DCM; provided, however,
that Algorithmic Trading does not
include an order, modification, or order
cancellation whose every parameter or
attribute is manually entered into a
front-end system 170 by a natural person,
with no further discretion by any
computer system or algorithm, prior to
its electronic submission for processing
on or subject to the rules of a DCM.171
The term ‘‘Algorithmic Trading’’ is a
critical underpinning of other elements
of this NPRM. Specifically, the
Commission proposes a number of
requirements related to Algorithmic
Trading, including that trading firms
(i.e., AT Persons, as defined in section
IV(D) below), clearing member FCMs,
and DCMs implement certain pre-trade
risk controls for Algorithmic Trading;
that trading firms implement certain
standards for the development, testing,
monitoring, and compliance of ATSs;
and that trading firms and clearing
members FCMs submit compliance
reports describing the new pre-trade risk
controls. In addition, the term
‘‘Algorithmic Trading’’ is employed in
the proposed definition of ‘‘AT Person,’’
a term that identifies those persons or
entities subject to the Commission’s
proposed new pre-trade risk control
requirements, among other
requirements.
The Commission notes that its
definition of Algorithmic Trading is
similar to the definition of algorithmic
trading adopted by the European
Commission under MiFID II.172

However, the definition of algorithmic
trading under MiFID II does not include
systems that only make decisions as to
the routing of orders to one or more
trading venues.173 Similarly, for
purposes of a proposal relating to
registration of persons who develop
algorithmic trading strategies, FINRA’s
definition of ‘‘algorithmic trading
strategy’’ does not include an order
router alone.174 In contrast to MiFID II
and FINRA, the Commission intends
that the definition of Algorithmic
Trading includes systems that make
determinations regarding any aspect of
the routing of an order, i.e., systems that
only make decisions as to the routing of
orders to one or more trading venues.
The Commission believes that
automated order routers have the
potential to disrupt the market to a
similar extent as other types of
automated systems, and therefore
should not be treated differently under
the proposed regulations. For example,
the SEC determined that Knight Capital
made errors related to the coding and
testing of an automated equity router,
which caused the firm to acquire several
billion dollars in unwanted positions
and sustain a loss of more than $460
million, in addition to causing
substantial market disruption.175
The Commission has taken this
approach to automated order routers
after considering existing industry
definitions of ‘‘automated trading
systems.’’ For example, CME defines
‘‘ATS’’ as ‘‘a trading method in which
a computer makes decisions and enters
orders without a person entering those
orders. This is a programmatic way of
representing the trader.’’ 176 Similarly,
ICE defines ‘‘ATS’’ as ‘‘any system that
automates the generation and
submission of orders to ICE.’’ 177 The

170 The reference to a ‘‘front-end system’’ may
include a system provided by an independent
software vendor (‘‘ISV’’), a broker or an exchange,
or developed internally.
171 The Commission notes that if a customer
submits an order to its clearing FCM, which then
submits the order to a DCM, such order would still
be considered ‘‘electronically submitted for
processing on or subject to the rules of a designated
contract market,’’ notwithstanding the fact that the
order is routed through the intervening clearing
FCM.
172 See ESMA Technical Advice Final Report,
supra note 78 at 318. Article 4(1)(39) of MiFID II
defines algorithmic trading as ‘‘trading in financial
instruments where a computer algorithm
automatically determines individual parameters of
orders such as whether to initiate the order, the
timing, price or quantity of the order or how to
manage the order after its submission, with limited
or no human intervention, and does not include any
system that is only used for the purpose of routing
orders to one or more trading venues or for the
processing of orders involving no determination of
any trading parameters or for the confirmation of
orders or the post-trade processing of executed
transactions.’’ See MiFID II, supra note 70. The

ESMA Technical Advice Final Report states at 323,
‘‘There is limited or no human intervention (and
therefore algorithmic trading) when the system at
least makes independent decisions at any stage of
order-execution processes, either on initiating,
routing or executing orders. It is noted that the
reference to ‘orders’ encompasses ‘quotes’ as well.’’
173 See ESMA Technical Advice Final Report,
supra note 78 at 324.
174 See FINRA, Regulation Notice 15–06,
‘‘Registration of Associated Persons Who Develop
Algorithmic Trading Strategies,’’ (Mar. 2015),
available at http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/
notice_doc_file_ref/Notice_Regulatory_15-06.pdf. In
the Notice, FINRA defines an ‘‘algorithmic trading
strategy’’ as ‘‘any program that generates and routes
(or sends for routing) orders (and order-related
messages, such as cancellations) in securities on an
automated basis.’’ Id. at 3.
175 See SEC Knight Capital Release, supra note 39.
176 See CME Glossary, available at http://
www.cmegroup.com/education/glossary.html.
177 See ICE Notice, Revision to Authorized Trader
Requirements (Jan. 4, 2011) at 3, available at
https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/otc/advisory_
notices/ICE%20Advisory%20Notice%20for%20

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Commission anticipates that entities
using automated order routers will be
using similar or related automated
technology to determine other
parameters of an order. In addition to
the consideration that order routing
systems have the potential to disrupt the
market, the Commission believes that,
given the interconnectedness of trading
firm systems, carving out a particular
subset of automated systems from the
definition of Algorithmic Trading, e.g.,
order routing systems, would introduce
unnecessary complexity and reduce the
effectiveness of the safeguards provided
in its proposed regulations.178
The Commission notes that even if a
computer algorithm or system makes
one or more determinations with respect
to an order (such as product, timing,
price or quantity), the submission of the
order would not constitute Algorithmic
Trading if every parameter or attribute
of the order is manually entered into a
front-end system by a natural person,
with no further discretion by any
computer system or algorithm, prior to
its electronic submission for processing
on or subject to the rules of a DCM.
However, if a natural person does not
manually enter an order as described in
the preceding sentence, but nonetheless
intervenes in the order in some other
and more limited manner, the
submission of the order would still
represent Algorithmic Trading if the
other elements of the definition are met.
The Commission believes that the risks
of Algorithmic Trading continue to exist
in trading where there is some limited
natural person intervention at particular
stages of order submission or execution,
and Regulation AT requirements should
apply to such trading to the same extent
that it does to trading that is entirely
automated. In sum, the only
circumstance in which natural person
intervention by definition would cause
trading to not represent Algorithmic
Trading is if the proviso in clause (2) of
the definition of Algorithmic Trading
were met.
Finally, the Commission clarifies that
there are certain automated functions
that do not fall within the proposed
definition of Algorithmic Trading. For
example, the use of automated programs
that incorporate electronic indicators or
Authorized%20Trader%20Registration%20
010411.pdf.
178 The Commission notes that Forex Capital
Markets, LLC (‘‘FXCM’’) commented in response to
the Concept Release that automatic order routing
systems be excluded from any definition of ‘‘highfrequency trading,’’ arguing that such systems are
already subject to extensive regulatory oversight
and control. See FXCM 1–2. For the reasons stated
above, the Commission determined to include such
systems within the definition of Algorithmic
Trading.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

other technical analysis features to
notify a trader regarding specified
market activity (e.g., a product reaches
a particular price) would not in itself
represent Algorithmic Trading, unless
the same program makes the
determinations described in clause (1)
of the definition, and clause (2) is also
met. Similarly, if an entity (such as an
introducing broker) uses certain
electronic systems as part of its business
practices, but does not submit orders to
a trading platform, that entity’s use of
electronic systems would not of itself be
considered Algorithmic Trading.
Finally, the application of risk filters to
an order that is otherwise entered
through entirely manual means (i.e., an
order whose every parameter or
attribute is manually entered into a
front-end system by a natural person,
with no further discretion by any
computer system or algorithm) 179
would not be considered Algorithmic
Trading solely due to the use of risk
filters. For example, existing §§ 1.11 and
1.73 require FCMs and clearing member
FCMs, respectively, to establish certain
automated financial or risk-based
controls, including limits based on
position size, order size and margin
requirements or capital, credit or
volume thresholds. The application of
such automated controls would not, on
their own, cause an order to fall within
the definition of Algorithmic Trading.
The Commission notes that ESMA’s
2015 Final Draft Regulatory Standards
address the distinction between
‘‘investment decision algorithms’’
(which make automated trading
decisions by determining which assets
to purchase or sell) and ‘‘order
execution algorithms’’ (which optimize
order execution processes by automatic
generation and submission of orders or
quotes to one or several trading venues
once the investment decision is made).
ESMA’s standards provide that pure
investment decision algorithms which
generate orders that are only to be
executed by non-automated means and
with human intervention are excluded
from ESMA testing requirements.180
c. Request for Comments
1. Is the Commission’s definition of
‘‘Algorithmic Trading’’ generally
consistent with what algorithmic
trading is understood to mean in the
industry? If not, please explain how it
is inconsistent and how the definition
should be modified. In your answer,
please explain whether the definition
179 See the discussion of front-end systems supra
note 170.
180 See ESMA September 2015 Final Draft
Standards Report Annex 1, supra note 80 at 201–
02.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

inappropriately includes or excludes a
particular type or aspect of trading.
2. Should the Commission adopt a
definition of ‘‘Algorithmic Trading’’ that
is more closely aligned with any
definition used by another regulatory
organization?
3. For purposes of the Commission’s
definition of Algorithmic Trading, is it
necessary for the Commission to define
‘‘computer algorithms or systems’’? If
so, please explain what should be
included in such a definition.
4. Should the Commission’s
definition of ‘‘Algorithmic Trading’’
include systems that only make
determinations as to the routing of
orders to different venues (which is
contemplated in the proposed
definition)? With respect to the
definition of ‘‘Algorithmic Trading,’’
should the Commission differentiate
between different types of algorithms,
such as alpha-generating algorithms and
order routing algorithms?
5. Is the Commission’s understanding
correct that most entities using
automated order routers will be using
similar or related automated technology
to determine other parameters of an
order?
6. The Commission posits a scenario
in which an AT Person submits orders
through Algorithmic Trading, and a
non-clearing FCM or other entity acts
only as a conduit for these AT Person
orders. If the non-clearing FCM or other
entity does not make any
determinations with respect to such
orders, the conduit entity would not be
engaged in Algorithmic Trading, as that
definition is currently proposed. Should
the definition of Algorithmic Trading be
modified to capture a conduit entity
such as a non-clearing FCM in this
scenario, thereby making the entity an
AT Person subject to Regulation AT? In
other words, should non-clearing FCMs
be required to manage the risks of AT
Person customers? How would nonclearing FCMs do so if the non-clearing
FCMs do not have risk controls
comparable to the risk controls specified
in proposed § 1.82?
7. The Commission, recognizing that
natural person traders who manually
enter orders also have the potential to
cause market disruptions, is considering
expanding the definition of Algorithmic
Trading to encompass orders that are
generated using algorithmic methods
(e.g., an algorithm generates a buy or
sell signal at a particular time), but are
then manually entered into a front-end
system by a natural person, who
determines all aspects of the routing of
the orders. Such order entry would not
represent Algorithmic Trading under
the currently proposed definition. The

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78841

Commission requests comment on this
proposed expansion of the definition of
Algorithmic Trading, which the
Commission may implement in the final
rulemaking for Regulation AT. The
Commission requests comment on the
costs and benefits of this proposal, in
addition to any other comments
regarding the effectiveness of this
proposal in terms of risk reduction.
2. ‘‘Algorithmic Trading Compliance
Issue’’—§ 1.3(tttt)
a. Description of Regulation
The Commission proposes to define
three new, related terms: ‘‘Algorithmic
Trading Compliance Issue,’’
‘‘Algorithmic Trading Disruption,’’ and
‘‘Algorithmic Trading Event’’ (which
encompasses Algorithmic Trading
Compliance Issues or Algorithmic
Trading Disruptions). As a general
matter, the proposed regulations
contained in Regulation AT are
intended to address the risks of
automated trading. Malfunctioning or
incorrectly deployed algorithms
deploying erroneous messages to trading
venues can significantly impact markets
and market participants. The speed at
which trading occurs can magnify the
harm caused by a malfunctioning
system, for example, in driving
unwarranted price changes. The
proposed definitions work in
conjunction with proposed regulations
requiring certain risk controls and other
measures and are intended to describe
the types of market disruptions,
regulatory violations, or other events
that Regulation AT is designed to
prevent or mitigate.
The three proposed terms Algorithmic
Trading Compliance Issue, Algorithmic
Trading Disruption, and Algorithmic
Trading Event have analogues under
Reg SCI’s definitions of ‘‘Systems
compliance issue,’’ ‘‘Systems
disruption,’’ and ‘‘SCI event.’’ 181 The
term ‘‘SCI event,’’ under Reg SCI,
encompasses systems compliance issues
and systems disruptions. Similar to
Regulation AT, Reg SCI requires that an
SCI entity’s policies and procedures
must include monitoring of systems to
identify potential SCI events, and that
SCI entities must establish escalation
procedures to quickly inform
responsible SCI personnel of potential
SCI events.182
The term ‘‘Algorithmic Trading
Compliance Issue’’ is defined in
proposed § 1.3(tttt), and means ‘‘an
event at an AT Person that has caused
any Algorithmic Trading of such entity
to operate in a manner that does not
181 See
182 Id.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

Reg SCI, supra note 40 at 72437.
at 72437.

17DEP2

78842

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

comply with the CEA or the rules and
regulations thereunder, the rules of any
designated contract market to which
such AT Person submits orders through
Algorithmic Trading, the rules of any
registered futures association of which
such AT Person is a member, the AT
Person’s own internal requirements, or
the requirements of the AT Person’s
clearing member, in each case as
applicable.’’
The term is relevant to Regulation
AT’s pre-trade risk and other control
requirements for AT Persons as
provided in proposed § 1.80, which
requires the specified controls and
measures to be reasonably designed to
prevent or mitigate an ‘‘Algorithmic
Trading Event.’’ The term Algorithmic
Trading Event, as discussed below,
means either an Algorithmic Trading
Compliance Issue or an Algorithmic
Trading Disruption. The defined term
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue
is also relevant to Regulation AT’s
proposed testing requirements on AT
Persons. Specifically, proposed § 1.81(c)
requires each AT Person to establish
procedures requiring its staff to review
Algorithmic Trading systems in order to
detect potential Algorithmic Trading
Compliance Issues. Regulation § 1.81(c)
also would require a plan of internal
coordination and communication
between compliance staff of the AT
Person and staff of the AT Person
responsible for Algorithmic Trading
designed to detect and prevent
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issues.
Finally, proposed § 40.20 requires a
DCM to establish and maintain pre-trade
and other risk controls reasonably
designed to prevent the occurrence of an
Algorithmic Trading Disruption (or
similar disruption) or an Algorithmic
Trading Compliance Issue. The
proposed definition of Algorithmic
Trading Compliance Issue was not
discussed in the Concept Release.
b. Request for Comments

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

8. Should the definition of
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue
be modified to include other potential
compliance failures involving an AT
Person that may have a significant
detrimental impact on such AT Person,
the relevant DCM, or other market
participants?
3. ‘‘Algorithmic Trading Disruption’’—
§ 1.3(uuuu)
a. Description of Regulation
Regulation AT proposes a defined
term ‘‘Algorithmic Trading Disruption.’’
The term is defined in new § 1.3(uuuu),
and means ‘‘an event originating with
an AT Person that disrupts, or

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

materially degrades, (1) the Algorithmic
Trading of such AT Person, (2) the
operation of the designated contract
market on which such AT Person is
trading or (3) the ability of other market
participants to trade on the designated
contract market on which such AT
Person is trading.’’ 183 The Commission
notes that it interprets clause (3) of the
definition broadly (‘‘an event originating
with an AT Person that disrupts, or
materially degrades . . . the ability of
other market participants to trade on the
designated contract market on which
such AT Person is trading.’’) Among
other events that would meet the
Commission’s understanding of
‘‘disrupts, or materially degrades,’’ the
Commission interprets clause (3) as
including an event originating with an
AT Person that prohibits other market
participants from trading on the
designated contract market on which
such AT Person is trading.
The term Algorithmic Trading
Disruption is relevant to Regulation
AT’s pre-trade risk and other control
requirements for AT Persons and FCMs
that are clearing members for a DCO, as
provided in proposed §§ 1.80 and
1.82(a), respectively. The controls and
measures required by proposed § 1.80
must be reasonably designed to prevent
or mitigate an ‘‘Algorithmic Trading
Event,’’ The term ‘‘Algorithmic Trading
Event,’’ as discussed below, means
either an ‘‘Algorithmic Trading
Compliance Issue’’ or an ‘‘Algorithmic
Trading Disruption.’’ The controls and
measures required of clearing member
FCMs in proposed § 1.82(a), in contrast
to those required of AT Persons in
proposed § 1.80, must be reasonably
designed to prevent or mitigate only the
narrower Algorithmic Trading
Disruption. Finally, proposed § 40.20
requires a designated contract market to
establish and maintain pre-trade and
other risk controls reasonably designed
to prevent an Algorithmic Trading
Disruption. The proposed definition of
Algorithmic Trading Disruption was not
discussed in the Concept Release.
b. Request for Comments
9. Should the definition of
Algorithmic Trading Disruption be
modified to include other types of
disruptive events that may originate
with an AT Person?
10. Should the definition be expanded
to include other types of disruptive
downstream consequences that may
result from an Algorithmic Trading
183 The Commission notes that, under this
definition, an Algorithmic Trading Disruption may
be the result of intentional or unintentional acts by
an AT Person.

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Disruption originating with an AT
Person, and which may negatively
impact the relevant designated contract
market, other market participants, or
other persons? Alternatively, should the
scope of the definition be reduced, and
if so, why?
11. In addition, should the reference
to ‘‘materially degrades’’ in the
definition of Algorithmic Trading
Disruption be expanded or otherwise
modified to encompass other types of
disruptions that may impact the
relevant designated contract market,
other market participants, or other
persons? Please provide examples of
real-world events originating with AT
Persons (as defined under Regulation
AT) that resulted in disruptions that
may not be captured by the reference to
‘‘materially degrades’’ in the definition.
4. ‘‘Algorithmic Trading Event’’—
§ 1.3(vvvv)
Regulation AT proposes a new
definition in § 1.3(vvvv) (Algorithmic
Trading Event) that means either an
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue
or an Algorithmic Trading Disruption.
As noted above, the term Algorithmic
Trading Event is used in proposed
§ 1.80 requiring AT Persons to
implement risk controls that are
reasonably designed to prevent or
mitigate an ‘‘Algorithmic Trading
Event.’’ The proposed definition is also
used in rules under proposed § 1.81(a)
that require AT Persons to conduct
regular back-testing of Algorithmic
Trading using historical transaction,
order, and message data to identify
circumstances that may contribute to
future Algorithmic Trading Events. The
definition is also used in rules under
proposed § 1.81(b) that require AT
Persons to conduct continuous real-time
monitoring of Algorithmic Trading to
identify potential Algorithmic Trading
Events, and in rules under proposed
§ 1.81(d) that require AT Persons to
establish training procedures for
communicating and escalating instances
of Algorithmic Trading Events to the
appropriate personnel. The proposed
definition was not discussed in the
Concept Release.
5. ‘‘AT Order Message’’—§ 1.3(wwww)
a. Description of Regulation
The Commission is proposing to
define an ‘‘AT Order Message’’ (new
§ 1.3(wwww)) as each new order or
quote submitted through Algorithmic
Trading to a DCM by an AT Person and
each change or deletion submitted
through Algorithmic Trading by an AT

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Person 184 with respect to such an order
or quote. This term is used in the
proposed regulations requiring AT
Persons, clearing member FCMs and
DCMs to implement pre-trade risk
controls and other measures with
respect to AT Order Messages. The
proposed controls include a maximum
AT Order Message frequency per unit
time, which is also known as a message
throttle requirement.185 The
Commission notes that its definition of
AT Order Message is consistent with
ESMA’s definition of message in its HFT
analysis.186 The proposed language does
not impose specific requirements
concerning the design of the AT Order
Message throttle or the particular
thresholds that must be used.
The Commission believes that
defining AT Order Message is necessary
in proposed §§ 1.80, 1.82, 38.255(b) and
(c), and 40.20(a)(1) to specify the type of
messages that should be subject to
frequency controls. The Commission
intends that required maximum message
frequency controls would apply to new
orders, order cancellations, and changes
to important order terms that have the
potential to impact the market.187
Notwithstanding the foregoing, while
the definition of AT Order Message
would only apply to order-related
messages, the Commission recognizes
that certain message types outside of the
definition of AT Order Message may
cause market disruptions by affecting
the operation of a DCM’s electronic
matching platform. A DCM has the
discretion to implement controls
throttling excessive heartbeat 188 or
administrative-type messages if it
believes that such controls are necessary
to prevent fraud or manipulation or
otherwise ensure the proper functioning
of its electronic matching platform and
market.
As discussed below, the Commission
believes that requiring maximum order
message frequencies at the trading firm,
184 The definition of AT Person is discussed in
section IV.D.6.
185 The regulation are proposed §§ 1.80 (for AT
Persons), 1.82 (for FCMs), 38.255(b) and (c) (for
DCMs permitting direct electronic access), and
40.20 (for DCMs).
186 Specifically, ESMA considered one message to
mean ‘‘each content that needs independent
processing,’’ and further explained that ‘‘messages
to be counted for these purposes are each new order
or quote, each successful change to an order or
quote and each successful deletion of an order or
quote.’’ See ESMA Technical Advice Final Report,
supra note 78 at 320.
187 Order terms that have the potential to impact
the market might include, but are not limited to,
changes to price, quantity, and order type.
188 By ‘‘heartbeat’’ messages, the Commission
means signals sent at regular intervals to ensure that
the connection between the trading firm and the
DCM’s electronic matching platform is in a normal
state.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

clearing member FCM and DCM levels
serves important policy goals. Order
entry frequencies that are much larger
than intended could result in an
accumulation or reduction of positions
at speeds that outpace or overload
associated risk management systems.
Large quantities of unintended orders
could also impact the market by
increasing engine matching times or
order submission latencies.
b. Request for Comments
12. Please comment on the proposed
scope of the Commission’s definition of
AT Order Message. Is the proposed
definition too expansive, in that it
would limit the submission of messages
that do not have the potential to disrupt
the market? Alternatively, is the scope
of the AT Order Message too limited, in
that it could allow messages not related
to orders (i.e., heartbeat messages or
requests for mass quotes) to
intentionally or unintentionally flood
the DCM’s systems and slow down the
matching engine? Please explain how
this definition would be more
appropriately limited or expanded.
6. ‘‘AT Person’’—§ 1.3(xxxx)
a. Description of Regulation
The Concept Release did not
specifically address whether regulations
in the area of algorithmic trading should
include a defined term ‘‘AT Person.’’
However, the Commission determined
that such a defined term is necessary in
order to identify which entities are
subject to the proposed regulations
addressing trading firms’ management
of the risks of algorithmic trading. These
regulations include, for example, pretrade and other risk controls on the
orders initiated by the trading firm;
development, testing and supervision
standards; and the requirement to
submit compliance reports regarding the
new risk controls.
The proposed definition under new
§ 1.3(xxxx) lists those particular persons
or entities that may be considered an AT
Person: Persons registered or required to
be registered as FCMs, floor brokers,
SDs, MSPs, CPOs, CTAs, or IBs that
engage in Algorithmic Trading on or
subject to the rules of a DCM, or persons
registered or required to be registered as
floor traders as defined in § 1.3(x)(3).189
Regulation § 1.3(x)(3) is a proposed
revision to the Commission’s existing
definition of floor trader, and is
discussed in detail below (see section
189 As a result, any person who is required to be
registered as one of these registration categories and
who is engaged in Algorithmic Trading will be
subject to all requirements of an AT Person under
this regulation, regardless of whether such person
has actually registered with the Commission.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78843

IV(E) below on Registration of Certain
Persons Not Otherwise Registered with
the Commission). Such persons or
entities would be AT Persons if they
engage in Algorithmic Trading on or
subject to the rules of a DCM. See
section IV(H) below for a more detailed
discussion of which persons would be
designated as AT Persons for purposes
of proposed § 1.80 and other
regulations, and which persons would
not be AT Persons, but would
nonetheless be subject to proposed
§ 1.82.
b. Request for Comments
13. The Commission notes that the
FIA Guide recommends certain pretrade risk controls and contemplates
three levels at which these controls can
be placed: Automated trader, broker,
and exchange. FIA defines ‘‘automated
trader’’ as any trading entity that uses an
automated system, including hedge
funds, buy-side firms, trading firms, and
brokers who deploy automated
algorithms, and defines ‘‘broker’’ as
FCMs, other clearing firms, executing
brokers and other financial
intermediaries that provide access to an
exchange.
a. Should the Commission’s definition
of ‘‘AT Person’’ explicitly include or
exclude any of the classes of parties
included in FIA’s term ‘‘automated
trader’’? Please explain. Are there any
types of entities not present in this list
that should be included in the ‘‘AT
Person’’ definition?
b. Should Regulation AT use the term
‘‘broker,’’ as understood by FIA? If so,
please explain. Is there another term
that would be more appropriate in
defining the scope of AT Persons?
14. Algorithmic Trading carries
technological and personnel costs, and
the Commission expects that such
trading will be performed by entities,
not natural persons. Is this a reasonable
assumption? For purposes of
quantifying the number of AT Persons
that will be subject to the regulations,
do you believe that any AT Person (a
definition that encompasses the
following persons if engaged in
Algorithmic Trading: FCMs, floor
brokers, swap dealers, major swap
participants, commodity pool operators,
commodity trading advisors,
introducing brokers, and newly
registered floor traders using Direct
Electronic Access) will be a natural
person or a sole proprietorship with no
employees other than the sole
proprietor?
15. The Commission recognizes that a
CPO could use Algorithmic Trading to
enter orders on behalf of a commodity
pool which it operates. In these

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78844

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

circumstances, should the Commission
consider the CPO that operates the
commodity pool or the underlying
commodity pool itself as ‘‘engaged in
Algorithmic Trading’’ pursuant to the
definition of AT Person? 190
16. The Commission notes that
pursuant to § 1.57(b) of the
Commission’s regulations IBs may not
carry proprietary accounts. However,
certain customer relationships may
cause an IB to fall under the definition
of AT Person. The Commission requests
comment on the types of IB customer
relationships that could cause IBs to fall
under the definition of AT Persons.
What activities are currently being
conducted by IBs that could cause an IB
to be considered engaging in
Algorithmic Trading on or subject to the
rules of a DCM and would therefore
cause the IB to be considered an AT
Person?
17. Should the definition of AT
Person be limited to persons using DEA?
In other words, should the definition
capture persons registered or required to
be registered as FCMs, floor brokers,
SDs, MSPs, CPOs, CTAs, or IBs that
engage in Algorithmic Trading on or
subject to the rules of a DCM, or persons
registered or required to be registered as
floor traders as defined in § 1.3(x)(3), in
each case if such persons are using
DEA? The Commission requests
comment on the costs and benefits of
this approach, including comments on
whether this more limited definition of
AT Persons would adequately mitigate
the risks associated with algorithmic
trading.
7. ‘‘Direct Electronic Access’’—
§ 1.3(yyyy)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

a. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release asked whether
there are specific risk controls that
should apply in the context of direct
market access, and whether the
implementation of risk controls should
be modified in the context of direct
market access.191
Several commenters agreed that any
potential risk controls should also apply
to those with direct access to the
market.192 For example, FIA described
market participants’ access to markets as
consisting of two broad categories:
‘‘Direct ATS Participants,’’
characterized by use of an ATS directly
connected to a DCM without using an
190 The

Commission notes that CPOs are separate
legal entities from the underlying commodity pools
which they operate.
191 See section II(B) above for a discussion of
direct market access in the Concept Release.
192 FIA at 12, 15; KCG at 2; CME at 7–8; VFL at
2; AIMA at 1.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

FCM’s infrastructure to route orders,
and ‘‘Indirect ATS Participants,’’
characterized by use of an ATS that
routes orders through an FCM’s
infrastructure.193 FIA stated that all
types of market access create risks;
therefore, the same principles should
apply to all types of market access.194
FIA also explained that since market
participants may now access a DCM
directly without passing through an
FCM’s infrastructure, ‘‘the only
consistent opportunity for risk control is
at the DCM and the market
participant.’’ 195
Additional commenters made similar
points. CME stated that all entities—
whether they have direct market access
or not—must ‘‘share in the effort to
preserve market integrity.’’ 196 ICE
explained that it treats every order and
trade equally regardless of connection
method or participant type.197 KCG
Holdings, Inc. (‘‘KCG’’) commented that
‘‘any pre-trade risk control requirements
[must] be applied so as to not permit
market participants to avoid their
application based on the manner in
which the participant accesses the
market.’’ 198 VFL commented that ‘‘the
privilege of direct exchange access
should bring with it the obligation to
deploy a system designed to protect the
integrity of the marketplace.’’ 199 VFL
explained that all exchange members
should be required to employ pre- and
post-trade risk controls, and all nonmembers should be required to access
exchanges only through a member’s risk
control layer.200
b. Description of Regulation
Consistent with the comments
discussed above, the Commission
proposes a new § 1.3(yyyy) that defines
‘‘Direct Electronic Access’’ (‘‘DEA’’)
and, through other proposed rules,
requires that AT Order Messages
originating with an AT Person and
submitted by AT Persons through such
DEA be subjected to the same types of
pre-trade and other risk controls that
such orders would pass through if they
flowed through the infrastructure of an
FCM before entering the market.
The Commission notes that the
Concept Release used the term ‘‘direct
market access,’’ or ‘‘DMA,’’ and such
term is commonly used in industry. The
Commission intends that ‘‘Direct
Electronic Access’’ be consistent with
193 FIA

at 8–9.
at 12, 15.
195 FIA at 8–9; 61–62.
196 CME at 7–8.
197 ICE at 2.
198 KCG at 2.
199 VFL at 2.
200 See id.
194 FIA

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

the term ‘‘direct market access’’ as it is
used in Commission-regulated markets.
The Commission determined to employ
the term Direct Electronic Access, as
opposed to direct market access, in the
interest of regulatory consistency. The
term ‘‘Direct Electronic Access’’ by FCM
customers is used in existing Regulation
38.607, where it is described as
‘‘allowing customers of futures
commission merchants to enter orders
directly into a designated contract
market’s trade matching system for
execution.’’ 201
The Commission proposes that the
term ‘‘Direct Electronic Access’’ means
an arrangement where a person
electronically transmits an order to a
DCM, without the order first being
routed through a separate person who is
a member of a DCO to which the DCM
submits transactions for clearing. By
‘‘routed,’’ the Commission means the
process by which an order physically
goes from a customer to a designated
contract market.202 As indicated below,
the Commission requests comment on
its definition of DEA and whether there
are particular scenarios where it would
be unclear whether a customer is
trading through DEA.
DEA is relevant to several of the
proposed regulations. As explained
below, DEA is used as a filter to help
define a new category of market
participants required to register as floor
traders and be subject to the
requirements of Regulation AT (see
proposed § 1.3(x)(3), discussed below).
In addition, the term DEA is relevant to
revised § 38.255, which would require
DCMs to have in place systems and
controls reasonably designed to
facilitate FCM’s management of the risks
that may arise from Algorithmic
Trading, and proposed § 1.82, which
requires FCMs to implement such DCMprovided controls for DEA orders. This
approach recognizes that when DEA is
used, clearing FCMs do not have the
ability to apply market risk controls to
orders they receive for clearing before
these orders reach the DCM. This
approach of enabling clearing FCMs to
implement DCM-based controls is
201 In addition, in the context of foreign boards of
trade, Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the CEA defines ‘‘direct
access’’ as ‘‘an explicit grant of authority by a
foreign board of trade to an identified member or
other participant located in the United States to
enter trades directly into the trade matching system
of the foreign board of trade.’’
202 The Commission notes that the operative
element of DEA is submission of an order to a DCM
without the order first being routed through a
separate person who is a member of a DCO to which
the DCM submits transactions for clearing. Other
factors, such as co-location, or use of FCM-provided
software, are not on their own determinative of
whether a customer is submitting orders through
DEA.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

similar to how the Commission
addresses financial risk management by
FCMs, as reflected in existing DCM
regulation § 38.607.
The Commission’s proposed
definition of DEA differs from SEC,
ESMA and IOSCO terminology. The
SEC characterizes ‘‘direct market
access’’ as an arrangement whereby a
broker-dealer permits customers to enter
orders into a trading center but such
orders flow through the broker-dealer’s
trading systems prior to reaching the
trading center.203 ‘‘Sponsored access’’
generally refers to an arrangement
whereby a broker-dealer permits
customers to enter orders into a trading
center that bypass the broker-dealer’s
trading system and are routed directly to
a trading center, in some cases
supported by a service bureau or other
third-party technology provider.204
‘‘Unfiltered’’ or ‘‘naked’’ access is a
subset of sponsored access, where pretrade filters or controls are not applied
to orders before such orders are
submitted to an exchange or ATS.205
Similarly, ESMA and IOSCO refer to
‘‘direct electronic access’’ as including
direct market access and sponsored
access; ‘‘direct market access,’’ as an
arrangement where a member of a
trading venue provides a connecting
system to a person to transmit orders;
and ‘‘sponsored access’’ as an
arrangement where such an
infrastructure is not used by a person.206
While the Commission’s proposed
terminology differs from that used by
other regulatory organizations, the
Commission believes that its defined
term DEA is consistent with existing
Commission regulations. References to
‘‘DEA’’ and ‘‘Direct Electronic Access’’
throughout this preamble shall refer to
the term proposed in § 1.3(yyyy).
c. Request for Comments
18. Please explain whether the
Commission’s proposed definition of
DEA will encompass all types of access
commonly understood in Commissionregulated markets as ‘‘direct market
access.’’ In light of the proposed
regulations concerning pre-trade and
other risk controls and standards for the
development, testing and supervision of
algorithmic trading systems, do you
believe that the proposed definition of
Direct Electronic Access is too limited
(or, alternatively, too expansive)? If so,
203 See Risk Management Controls for Brokers or
Dealers With Market Access, 75 FR 69792, 69793
(Nov. 15, 2010).
204 See id.
205 See id.
206 ESMA Technical Advice Final Report supra
note 78 at 340; IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report,
supra note 106 at 20 n.56.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

please explain why and how the
definition should be revised.
19. Should the Commission define
‘‘routed’’ in its definition of DEA? If so,
how? Are there specific examples of
trading or routing arrangements where it
would be unclear whether trading was
performed through DEA?
20. Should the Commission use the
term ‘‘direct market access’’ instead of
DEA, and if so why?
21. Should the Commission define
sub-categories of DEA, such as
sponsored market access?
22. The Commission’s proposed
definition of DEA in § 1.3(yyyy) differs
from definitions of direct electronic
access in § 38.607 and direct access for
FBOTs in § 48.2(c). The Commission
believes that the more technical
definition in proposed 1.3(yyyy) is
appropriate for Regulation AT. The
Commission solicits comment regarding
proposed 1.3(yyyy), whether all
definitions of ‘‘direct’’ access should be
harmonized across the Commission’s
rules, and if so how. Do you believe that
two definitions would create confusion
with respect to Commission
requirements as to direct electronic
access? With respect to §§ 1.80, 1.82 and
38.255(b) and (c) provisions imposing
risk control requirements on AT
Persons, FCM and DCMs, should the
Commission use the existing definition
of direct electronic access provided in
§ 38.607?
E. Registration of Certain Persons Not
Otherwise Registered With
Commission—§ 1.3(x)
The Commission proposes to amend
the definition of ‘‘Floor trader’’ in
Commission regulation 1.3(x), in order
to facilitate the registration of
proprietary traders using DEA for
Algorithmic Trading on a DCM. Such
persons would be required to register as
Floor traders pursuant to proposed
§ 1.3(x)(3), assuming that they were not
already registered or required to register
with the Commission in another
capacity. The remainder of this section
presents Concept Release comments on
this topic, a description of the proposed
regulation, a discussion of the policy
justification for the proposal, and a
request for comments on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release requested
comment on whether all firms operating
ATSs to trade solely for their own
account should be required to register
with the Commission. As discussed in
greater detail below, a registration
requirement for firms operating ATSs
and not otherwise registered with the
Commission would enhance the

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78845

Commission’s oversight capabilities and
allow for wider implementation of some
or all of the pre-trade controls and risk
management tools discussed in this
NPRM and currently used in the market
today. In particular, registration will
help ensure that all market participants
that actively trade on Commissionregulated markets implement
appropriate controls, including those
trading firms that access the market
directly and use algorithmic trading
systems that could malfunction and
create systemic risk to all market
participants.
In the Concept Release, the
Commission requested specific
comment on whether firms operating
ATSs to trade solely for their own
account would meet the definition of
‘‘floor trader’’ in Section 1a(23) of the
Act, and whether registering such firms
as floor traders would effectuate the
purposes of the Act. The ‘‘floor trader’’
definition in CEA 1a(23) states that, in
general, the term ‘‘floor trader’’ means
any person who, in or surrounding any
pit, ring, post or other place provided by
a contract market for the meeting of
persons similarly engaged, purchases, or
sells solely for such person’s own
account.207 Given the evolution of
futures trading over recent years,
electronic trading platforms have now
become a primary ‘‘other place’’ in
which proprietary market making and
trading generally, takes place.
Seven commenters (including FIA,
CME, MFA and the Chicago Fed)
opposed registration for reasons
including: DCMs already use Operator
IDs; the DCM audit trail already satisfies
the goals of registration; implementing
the Commission’s final rule on
ownership and control reporting
(‘‘OCR’’) will provide additional
information on trading identities; and
the Commission already has access to
trade data (i.e., Regulation 1.40 and part
38’s mandate that DCMs require market
participants to submit to a DCM’s
207 CEA Section 1a(23)(A) provides that the term
‘‘floor trader,’’ in general, means any person (i)
who, in or surrounding any pit, ring, post, or other
place provided by a contract market for the meeting
of persons similarly engaged, purchases, or sells
solely for such person’s own account (I) any
commodity for future delivery, security futures
product, or swap; or (II) any commodity option
authorized under section 4c; or (ii) who is
registered with the Commission as a floor trader. A
further definition of the term ‘‘floor trader’’ is
provided for by Section 1a(23)(B), which states that
the Commission, by rule or regulation, may include
within, or exclude from, the term ‘‘floor trader’’ any
person in or surrounding any pit, ring, post, or
other place provided by a contract market for the
meeting of persons similarly engaged who trades
solely for such person’s own account if the
Commission determines that the rule or regulation
will effectuate the purposes of the Act. 7 U.S.C.
1a(23).

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78846

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

jurisdiction).208 In response to the
Concept Release question seeking
information concerning whether firms
operating ATSs would meet the
definition of ‘‘floor trader’’ under the
CEA, CME and Gelber stated that the
term floor trader is an anachronism that
is irrelevant to automated trading
environments.209
In contrast, Better Markets, AFR, and
TCL supported ATS registration.210 AFR
stated that ‘‘[t]he enhancement of
investigative authority is extraordinarily
important given that the Commission
staff would often need to involve itself
in the workings of the ATSs to
anticipate problems and to detect and
investigate problems that have occurred.
HFT firms should have the highest
priority.’’ 211
Finally, AIMA and VFL supported
registration for participants with direct
market access.212 VFL commented that
if an exchange provides a participant
the ability to connect directly, then that
participant enjoys all of the rights of a
member and should be regulated at the
federal and exchange level.213 Finally,
while Chicago Fed opposed a
requirement that ATSs register with the
Commission, it suggested that
participants with direct market access
must register with the exchange.214

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

2. Description of Regulation
The Commission proposes to require
the registration of proprietary traders
using DEA for Algorithmic Trading on
a DCM. As discussed in greater detail in
section 3 below, registration of entities
with DEA as floor traders would mean
that such firms must implement the pretrade controls and risk management
tools that Regulation AT requires of AT
Persons. If the Commission were to only
require those firms that are already
registered with the Commission to
implement such controls, some market
participants conducting Algorithmic
Trading on Commission-regulated
markets would not be subject to the
Commission’s risk control requirements.
In order to achieve registration of
proprietary traders using DEA for
Algorithmic Trading on a DCM, the
Commission proposes amending the
definition of ‘‘Floor trader’’ in
Commission regulation 1.3(x). The
amended definition would expressly
include any person who purchases or
208 FIA

at 43–46; CME at 32–34; Gelber at 22–24;
KCG at 18; MFA at 3; AIMA at 2, 24; Chicago Fed
at 3.
209 CME at 34; Gelber at 22–24.
210 Better Markets at 13; AFR at 8–9; TCL at 17.
211 AFR at 8–9.
212 AIMA at 24; VFL at 3.
213 VFL at 3.
214 Chicago Fed at 4.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

sells futures or swaps solely for such
person’s own account in a place
provided by a contract market for the
meeting of persons similarly engaged,
where such place is accessed by such
person in whole or in part through DEA
(as defined in proposed § 1.3(yyyy)) for
Algorithmic Trading, and such person is
not otherwise registered with the
Commission as a futures commission
merchant, swap dealer, floor broker,
major swap participant, commodity
pool operator, commodity trading
advisor, or introducing broker. The
Commission notes, however, that
persons otherwise registered or required
to register with the Commission in
another capacity (e.g., as a swap dealer)
would not be exempt from such
registration simply by registering as a
Floor trader pursuant to proposed
§ 1.3(x)(3).
CEA 1a(23) states that the term ‘‘floor
trader’’ means any person who, in or
surrounding any pit, ring, post or other
place provided by a contract market for
the meeting of persons similarly
engaged, purchases, or sells solely for
such person’s own account.215 The term
was added to the Act in the Futures
Trading Practice Act of 1992 (the ‘‘1992
Act’’).216 The 1992 Act also amended
Section 4e of the Act to require
registration of floor traders, and tasked
the Commission with issuing rules to
implement the requirement within 180
days of the date of enactment.
In 1993, pursuant to the 1992 Act, the
Commission finalized rules regarding
registration of floor traders.217 The
Commission established a definition for
the term ‘‘floor trader’’ in Regulation
1.3(x). The Commission noted in the
preamble to that final rule that ‘‘certain
persons trading through electronic
systems come within the [floor trader]
definition.’’ 218 Given the prevalence of
pit trading in 1992 and the short time
frame to implement floor trader
registration, the Commission
determined to require registration for
floor traders operating ‘‘on the trading
floor of an exchange’’ and ‘‘to defer
consideration of the application of floor
trader registration requirements to
persons using electronic trading systems
and to reconsider the subject at a later
date.’’ 219 The Commission expressly
stated that, ‘‘[i]n order to preserve
215 See

supra note 207.
Trading Practices Act of 1992, Pub. L.
102–546, 106 Stat. 3590, 3625–28 (1992).
217 Registration of Floor Traders; Mandatory
Ethics Training for Registrants; Suspension of
Registrants Charged with Felonies, 58 FR 19575
(1993) (hereinafter ‘‘Registration of Floor Traders
Rule’’).
218 Id. at 19576.
219 Id.

flexibility in this area, the definition of
floor trader in Rule 1.3(x) states that it
shall include any person required to
register as [a floor trader] by rule or
regulation of the Commission pertaining
to the operation of an electronic trading
system.’’ 220
On July 21, 2010, President Obama
signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’).221 Title VII of the
Dodd-Frank Act amended the CEA
definition of ‘‘floor trader.’’ 222 This
amendment maintained the language
from the 1992 Act defining a floor trader
as a person ‘‘who, in or surrounding any
pit, ring, post, or other place provided
by a contract market . . . for the
meeting of persons similarly engaged,
purchases, or sells solely for such
person’s own account’’ any commodity
for future delivery. However, the
amended definition also applied to
trading in swaps, and provided that the
definition includes ‘‘anyone who is
registered with the Commission as a
floor trader.’’ Finally, the amendment
allows for the Commission by regulation
to include within the definition or
exclude from the definition anyone who
meets the statutory definition.
Subsequently, the Commission
amended the definition of floor trader in
Rule 1.3(x) to precisely mirror the
language contained in section 1a(23)(A)
of the Act.223
3. Policy Discussion
In order to enhance the Commission’s
oversight capabilities as they relate to
entities with DEA and allow for wider
implementation of some or all of the
pre-trade controls and risk management
tools discussed in this NPRM and
currently used in the market today, the
Commission proposes amending
Regulation 1.3(x) to expressly include
such firms within the definition of
‘‘floor trader.’’ The Commission
emphasizes that the ‘‘floor trader’’
definition is not being expanded to
capture all proprietary traders engaged
in Algorithmic Trading; rather, the
revised floor trader definition is limited
to firms using DEA to engage in
Algorithmic Trading. Historically,
pursuant to the Commission’s preamble
discussion in the Registration of Floor
Traders Rule and the original
formulation of Regulation 1.3(x)
discussed above, the Commission has

216 Futures

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

220 Id.
221 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376
(2010).
222 See supra note 207.
223 See Final Rule, Adaptation of Regulations to
Incorporate Swaps, 77 FR 66288, 66317 (Nov. 2,
2012).

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

only required registration of floor
traders conducting business on the
physical trading floor of an exchange.
However, the Act contemplates floor
traders in ‘‘other places’’ besides the
trading floor, and the Commission has
previously noted that the Act’s
definition applies to persons using
electronic trading systems.224
Registration of entities with DEA as
floor traders would enhance the pretrade controls and risk management
tools discussed elsewhere in this NPRM
by making such entities subject to the
various regulations governing AT
Persons under the NPRM. For example,
the pre-trade risk controls listed in
proposed § 1.80—maximum AT Order
Message frequencies per unit time,
maximum execution frequencies per
unit time, order price parameters and
maximum order size limits—must be
established and used by all AT Persons.
If the Commission were to only require
those firms that are already registered
with the Commission to implement
such controls, it would be ignoring a
significant number of market
participants that actively trade on
Commission-regulated markets, each of
which has ATSs that could malfunction
and create systemic risk to all market
participants. Registration as floor traders
would also require entities using DEA,
as AT Persons, to maintain certain
books and records, thus enhancing the
Commission’s ability to gather
information.
The Commission estimates that there
are approximately one hundred
proprietary trading firms engaged in
Algorithmic Trading in Commissionregulated markets. Some of these firms
may already be registered with the
Commission in some capacity. In the
event that one of these firms engaged in
Algorithmic Trading is already
registered with the Commission, the
224 Registration of Floor Traders Rule, 58 FR at
19576. Further, the Commission notes that it is not
the first to observe the degree to which the tangible
technological infrastructure provided by DCMs for
trading, including for example electronic trade
matching platforms or co-location or proximity
hosting facilities, can constitute a ‘‘place.’’ Futures
Industry magazine, a publication of FIA, noted the
following in a 2007 article describing co-location
and proximity hosting: ‘‘[t]he pit is back. Just a few
years since the concept of a commodity exchange
as a tangible ‘place’ had begun to seem hopelessly
old-fashioned, many traders now want to be at the
heart of the action once more. At Eurex, customers
that until recently were scattered all over the globe
are moving closer to the exchange, ‘forming a
physical community like a pit again,’ says Matthias
Kluber, head of networks and infrastructure
operations at Deutsche Bo¨rse Systems, which builds
and operates the Eurex trading and clearing
systems.’’ See Bennet Voyles, Co-Location Catches
On, Futures Industry (July/Aug. 2007) at 28,
available at: https://secure.fia.org/downloads/JulAug_Colocatiion.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

firm would be considered an AT Person
under clause (1) of the proposed
definition of AT Person, and would not
be required to also register as a floor
trader. The proposed requirement under
revised § 1.3(x) is intended to require
firms not otherwise registered to become
registered with the Commission. Given
that a technological malfunction in a
single trading firm’s systems can
significantly impact other markets and
market participants, the proposed
registration requirement is critical to
ensuring that all such firms are subject
to appropriate risk control, testing, and
other requirements of Regulation AT.
4. Request for Comments
23. Should firms operating
Algorithmic Trading systems in CFTCregulated markets, but not otherwise
registered with the Commission, be
required to register with the CFTC? If
not, what alternatives are available to
fully effectuate the purpose and design
of Regulation AT?
24. Should all firms deploying
Algorithmic Trading systems be
required to register with the
Commission? Are there additional
characteristics of AT Persons that
should be taken into consideration for
registration purposes? For example,
should the Commission limit
registration to trading firms meeting
certain trading volume, order or
message levels? In other words, should
there be a minimum volume, order or
message test in order to meet the
definition of ‘‘floor trader,’’ or otherwise
to meet the definition of AT Person? If
so, what should be measured and what
specific thresholds should be used?
25. In the alternative, should the
Commission broaden the registration
requirements in proposed § 1.3(x)(3)(ii)
so that all persons trading on a contract
market through DEA are required to
register, instead of only those who are
engaged in Algorithmic Trading?
26. Please supply any information or
data that would help the Commission in
deciding whether firms may or may not
meet the definition of ‘‘floor trader’’ in
Section 1a(23) of the Act.
27. Do you believe that the
registration of such firms as ‘‘floor
traders’’ would help effectuate the
purposes of the CEA to deter and detect
price manipulation or any other
disruptions to market integrity? If you
believe that registration of such firms
will not help effectuate the purposes of
the CEA, or that the same purposes can
be achieved by other means, please
explain.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78847

F. RFA Standards for Automated
Trading and Algorithmic Trading
Systems—§ 170.19
To fully effectuate the design and
intent of Regulation AT, the
Commission is proposing a new
§ 170.19 requiring RFAs to adopt certain
membership rules—as deemed
appropriate by the RFA—relevant to
algorithmic trading for each category of
member in the RFA. RFAs would have
discretion as to the rules they issue and
the categories of members to which their
rules apply. Further, to ensure that all
AT Persons are subject to rules of an
RFA regarding algorithmic trading, the
Commission is also proposing a new
§ 170.18 requiring AT Persons to
become members of at least one RFA.
Proposed § 170.18 is discussed in detail
in section G below. Taken together,
§§ 170.18 and 170.19 would allow RFAs
to supplement elements of Regulation
AT as markets and trading technologies
evolve over time, and allow frontline
regulators to drive future incremental
enhancements to the Commission’s
basic regulatory structure for
algorithmic trading by AT Persons.
1. Policy Discussion
In developing Regulation AT, the
Commission sought to balance
meaningful regulatory baselines against
the need for standards sufficiently
flexible to keep pace with changing
industry practices and technologies. The
Commission’s determination to balance
both interests is particularly reflected in
its treatment of AT Persons and in
proposed §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82, which
address: (1) Pre-trade risk controls and
other measures for ATSs; (2) standards
for the development, testing,
monitoring, and compliance of ATSs;
(3) designation and training of
algorithmic trading staff; and (4)
clearing FCM risk management. A
number of the proposed sections and
subsections in these rules include wellestablished risk control and other
practices among market participants.
The proposed pre-trade risk controls in
§ 1.80(a), for example, are generally
limited to risk controls identified as best
practices by FIA in 2015, and the text
of the rules is intentionally flexible so
that AT Persons may determine for
themselves how required pre-trade risk
controls and other measures should be
designed and calibrated. Other proposed
rules addressing AT Persons offer
flexibility in that they require AT
Persons to implement specific programs,
but provide latitude regarding how such
programs are to be designed. Thus,
proposed § 1.81(a)(1)(vi) requires AT
Persons to maintain a source code

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

78848

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

repository to manage source code
access, persistence, copies of production
code, and changes to production code,
but does not impose a prescriptive
standard for how the source code
repository must be structured or
maintained. Similarly, proposed
§§ 1.81(a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) require
regular back testing of Algorithmic
Trading and stress testing of ATSs, but
impose no specific testing protocols and
do not specify a minimum testing
frequency. The Commission also notes
the existence of numerous other pre and
post-trade risk controls and measures
available to AT Persons but not
incorporated as requirements in
Regulation AT. Some, such as dropcopy reporting, were raised in the
Concept Release, and others were
addressed in responsive public
comments.
The Commission has determined to
focus in Regulation AT on areas where
the safety and soundness of derivatives
markets would benefit from a core set of
pre-trade risk controls and other
measures applicable to all AT Persons.
As noted above, the Commission
believes that effective rules for AT
Persons are best structured as clear
regulatory requirements combined with
embedded flexibility to adapt to
changing markets and technologies.
Accordingly, the Commission’s
proposed rules in §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82
address only a subset of potentially
responsive risk controls and other
measures. Each AT Person shall also
determine what additional safeguards
would be reasonably designed to
prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event
given its trading strategies, technologies,
or the markets in which it participates.
The proposed rules also provide a
degree of flexibility regarding the
design, implementation, or calibration
of those pre-trade risk control or other
measures that are specifically required
in §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82, again
allowing each AT Person to adapt the
rules to its own trading and technology.
Given the structure of proposed
§§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82 as regulatory
baselines with a degree of embedded
flexibility, the Commission has
determined to provide RFAs with a
discretionary role in augmenting the
requirements of Regulation AT for AT
Persons.225 RFAs serve a vital regulatory
function as frontline regulators of their
members, which would include all AT
Persons pursuant to proposed § 170.18.
RFAs promulgate binding membership
225 The Commission notes an exception in
proposed § 1.83, which requires the submission of
annual reports from AT Persons and their clearing
FCMs to DCMs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

rules and can supplement Commission
rules as appropriate. RFAs can also
operate examination programs to
monitor members’ compliance with
association rules, and can sanction
members for non-compliance. The
Commission believes that RFAs are
well-positioned to address rules in areas
experiencing rapid evolution in market
practices and technologies, including
particularly §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82.
Proposed § 170.19 is described below.
2. Description of Regulation
Proposed § 170.19 would require
RFAs to (1) establish and maintain a
program (2) for the prevention of
fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, the protection of the public
interest, and perfecting the mechanisms
of trading on DCMs (3) by adopting
rules for each category of member, as
deemed appropriate by the RFA,
requiring: (i) Pre-trade risk controls and
other measures for ATSs (§ 170.19(a)(1));
(ii) standards for the development,
testing, monitoring, and compliance of
ATSs (§ 170.19(a)(2)); (iii) designation
and training of algorithmic trading staff
(§ 170.19(a)(3)); and (iv) operational risk
management standards for clearing
member FCMs with respect to customer
orders originating with ATSs
(§ 170.19(a)(4)). With respect to rules
(prong 3 above), the areas RFAs must
address pursuant to proposed § 170.19
are similar to those that AT Persons and
clearing FCMs must address in
proposed §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82. RFAs,
however, would be required in § 170.19
to consider whether additional rules or
granularity are appropriate as baseline
SRO requirements and binding
membership rules for one or more
categories of RFA members.226 The
Commission notes that § 170.19 would
require that RFAs consider the need for
additional rules, and issue such rules
where appropriate. However, § 170.19
would not require RFAs to issue any
rules pursuant to § 170.19 where the
RFA believes they are unnecessary.
Rather, the proposed regulation leaves
discretion to the RFAs to determine
what rules would prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices,
protect the public interest, and perfect
the mechanisms of trading on DCMs.
When evaluating potential
membership rules regarding algorithmic
226 In this regard, the Commission distinguishes
an RFA’s obligation to establish memberships
rules—i.e., mandatory requirements for all persons
in the relevant membership category—from steps
that a single AT Person or clearing member FCM
may voluntary take to augment its pre-trade risk
controls or other measures based on its unique
trading or technology and its obligations pursuant
to proposed §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82.

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

trading, proposed § 170.19 would also
require RFAs to consider how such
rules could help prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts, protect the public
interest, and perfect the mechanisms of
trading on DCMs (prong 2 above). The
Commission believes that these are
important elements in the requirements
proposed to be codified in § 170.19.
RFAs should be cognizant, for example,
of the overarching requirement in
proposed § 1.80 that AT Persons take
steps reasonably designed to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event, defined in
proposed § 1.3(vvvv) to include both
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issues
and Algorithmic Trading Disruptions.
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issues
include events at an AT Person that
cause its algorithmic trading to operate
in a manner that does not comply with
the CEA, Commission regulations, or the
rules of a DCM. Algorithmic Trading
Disruptions include events originating
with an AT Person that disrupt or
materially degrade the operation of a
DCM or the ability of other market
participants to trade on the DCM. In
short, an AT Person’s algorithmic
trading should neither disrupt the
market nor violate law. RFAs should
consider these factors when determining
whether and what further rules they
may promulgate over time pursuant to
§ 170.19.
Proposed § 170.19 would require an
RFA to ‘‘establish and maintain a
program’’ (prong 1 above) for the
prevention of fraud and manipulation,
protection of the public interest, and
perfecting the mechanisms of trading on
DCMs. The Commission anticipates that
an RFA would include in its routine
examinations of members pursuant to
such program a verification that such
members are complying with any rules
that the RFA may determine to issue
pursuant to proposed § 170.19. The
Commission intends for proposed
§ 170.19 to provide RFAs with a wide
measure of latitude in both the rules
they may elect to adopt and in the
members to whom they apply such
rules. It is the Commission’s further
intent that RFAs consider the need for
rules pursuant to proposed § 170.19,
and that they adopt such rules where
the RFA considers it necessary.
However, the determination as to both
the necessity of rules and their
application to specific categories of
members remains with the RFA.
Finally, the Commission notes that
while proposed § 170.19 would require
RFAs to issue rules as they deem
appropriate, RFAs would remain free to
take other steps when potential rules
regarding algorithmic trading are not yet
ripe. As both membership and self-

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

regulatory organizations, RFAs are
uniquely positioned to gain insights
from members through examination
programs and coordination with other
self-regulatory or standard-setting
bodies. In addition to rulemaking when
necessary, RFAs could leverage these
resources to issue guidance or best
practices, hold periodic discussions
with relevant stakeholders, and
otherwise provide leadership as risks,
risk control technologies, market
practices evolve over time. The
Commission also affirms that proposed
§ 170.19 is not intended to create
conflicting obligations between an
RFA’s role in establishing algorithmic
trading standards for its members and a
DCM’s role as a self-regulatory
organization. Accordingly, the
requirements of proposed § 170.19
specifically address pre-trade risk
controls for ATSs, standards for the
designing, testing, monitoring, and
supervision of ATSs, and the
designation and training of algorithmic
trading staff. The Commission believes
that these areas are appropriate for
potential future standards issued by an
RFA in an evolving technological and
market environment, and that such
standards will be best implemented as
uniform requirements of an RFA for its
relevant members as opposed to
potentially varying approaches by
individual DCMs.
3. Request for Comments
28. The Commission requests
comment on the scope of
responsibilities assigned to RFAs under
proposed § 170.19. Should RFAs be
responsible for fewer or additional areas
regarding AT Persons, ATSs, and
algorithmic trading than specified in
proposed § 170.19, prongs (1), (2), (3),
and (4) (§ 170.19(a)(1)–(a)(4))?
Regulation 170.19 requires RFAs to
consider the need for rules in the areas
listed in prongs (1)–(4) (§ 170.19(a)(1)–
(a)(4)). Should RFAs be responsible for
considering whether to adopt rules in
fewer or additional areas?
29. The Commission requests
comment on the latitude afforded to
RFAs in proposed § 170.19. Should
RFAs have more or less latitude to issue
rules than specified in proposed
§ 170.19?
30. The Commission requests
comment on RFAs’ obligation in
proposed § 170.19 to establish and
maintain a program for the prevention
of fraud and manipulation, protection of
the public interest, and perfecting the
mechanisms of trading, including
through rules it may determine to adopt
pursuant to § 170.19. The proposed
rules anticipate that an RFA’s program

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

will include examination and
enforcement components. Is this the
appropriate approach?
31. The Commission requests
comment on whether proposed § 170.19
may result in duplicative obligations on
AT Persons or any other market
participant. In particular, please
comment on potential duplication, if
any, between algorithmic trading
requirements that an RFA may impose
upon its members pursuant to § 170.19,
and similar requirements that may be
imposed by a DCM in its role as a selfregulatory organization. What
amendments would be appropriate in
any final rules arising from this NPRM
to clarify that unintended overlap
between the role of an RFA and a DCM
in this context?
G. AT Persons Must Become Members of
an RFA—§ 170.18
1. Policy Discussion
An RFA is an association of persons
registered with the Commission as such
pursuant to section 17 of the CEA.227
Subject to Commission oversight, RFAs
serve a vital self-regulatory role by
functioning as frontline regulators of
their members, including in large
measure most Commission registrants
who will qualify as AT Persons
pursuant to proposed § 1.3(xxxx).228
Entities that are not members of an RFA,
however, are not bound by the rules of
the RFA.229 As such, the Commission
previously adopted §§ 170.15 and
170.16 to require each registered FCM,
and each registered SD and MSP,
respectively, to be an RFA member,
subject to an exception for certain notice
registered securities brokers or
dealers.230 The Commission also
recently adopted § 170.17 to require that
all registered IBs and CPOs, and most
registered CTAs, to become RFA
members.231
Together §§ 170.15, 170.16, and
170.17 require many, but not all,
Commission registrants who may be
considered AT Persons pursuant to
proposed § 1.3(xxxx) to become RFA
227 7

U.S.C. 21.
members also remain subject to oversight
by the Commission.
229 Those Commission registrants that are not
RFA members are nevertheless subject to the rules
and regulations of the Commission. See 7 U.S.C
21(e), which specifies that any person registered
under the CEA, who is not an RFA member, ‘‘in
addition to the other requirements and obligations
of [the CEA] and the regulations thereunder shall
be subject to such other rules and regulations as the
Commission may find necessary to protect the
public interest and promote just and equitable
principles of trade.’’
230 17 CFR 170.15 and 170.16.
231 See Membership in a Registered Futures
Association, 80 FR 55022 (Sept. 14, 2015).
228 RFA

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78849

members. In particular, floor brokers
and floor traders, who have historically
been overseen by the DCMs on which
they operate, are not required by
§§ 170.15, 170.16, or 170.17 to become
members of an RFA. In order to ensure
that all AT Persons will be subject to
any rules promulgated by an RFA
pursuant to proposed § 170.19,
including floor brokers and floor
traders, the Commission is proposing a
new § 170.18. This provision would
require that all AT Persons that are not
otherwise required to be a member of a
RFA pursuant to §§ 170.15, 170.16, or
170.17 be a member of an RFA.
2. Description of Regulation
The Commission is proposing a new
§ 170.18 to require all Commission
registrants that are AT Persons to be
members of an RFA. The membership
requirements proposed by § 170.18 will
ensure that all AT Persons would be
subject to membership rules
promulgated by an RFA, including those
membership rules promulgated
pursuant to proposed § 170.19 to
address algorithmic trading.
Specifically, proposed § 170.18 requires
that each registrant that is an AT Person
that is not otherwise required to be a
member of an RFA pursuant to
§§ 170.15, 170.16, or 170.17 must
become and remain a member of at least
one RFA that provides for the
membership of such registrant, unless
no such futures association is so
registered.
3. Request for Comments
32. The Commission requests
comment on whether the regulatory
framework established by Regulation
AT would require all AT Persons to be
members of an RFA in order to be
effective. Alternatively, could the goals
of Regulation AT be realized without
requiring all AT Persons to be members
of an RFA?
H. Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls
for AT Persons—§ 1.80
The Commission proposes as a
fundamental element of Regulation AT
a new § 1.80 of its regulations, requiring
AT Persons to implement pre-trade risk
controls, order cancellation systems,
and other measures reasonably designed
to prevent an Algorithmic Trading
Event. Such controls include, but are
not limited to, maximum AT Order
Message frequency and maximum
execution frequency per unit time; order
price parameters and maximum order
size limits; order cancellation and
Algorithmic Trading disconnect
systems; and connectivity monitoring
systems for AT Persons with DEA. In

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78850

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

addition, proposed § 1.80 requires AT
Persons to: Notify applicable clearing
member FCMs and DCMs that the AT
Person will engage in Algorithmic
Trading; and calibrate or otherwise
implement DCM-provided self-trade
prevention tools.232 It would also
require AT Persons to periodically
review the sufficiency and effectiveness
of their compliance with § 1.80. The
remainder of this section presents
Concept Release comments on this
topic, a description of the proposed
regulation, a discussion of the policy
justification for the proposal, and a
request for comments on the proposal.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

1. Concept Release Comments on PreTrade and Other Risk Controls
The Concept Release requested
comment on various pre-trade and other
types of risk controls, including message
and execution throttles, maximum order
sizes, price collars, and order
management controls, such as
connectivity monitoring services,
automatic cancellation of orders on
disconnect and kill switches. The
Concept Release contemplated that such
controls would apply at the trading
firm, clearing member and trading
platform levels. As discussed below, the
Commission has determined to require
that AT Persons, FCMs, and DCMs 233
implement such pre-trade and other risk
controls. Relevant comments to the
Concept Release are discussed below.
a. Message and Execution Throttles
The Concept Release described
message throttles as establishing
maximum message rates per unit in time
and execution throttles as establishing
limits on the maximum number of
orders that an ATS can execute in a
given direction per unit in time. The
Concept Release also sought comment
on a particular form of execution
throttle, the repeated automated
execution throttle, which would disable
a trading system after a configurable
number of repeated executions until a
human re-enables the system.234 The
Concept Release stated that the throttles
would be calibrated to address the
potential for unintended message flow
or executions from a malfunctioning
ATS.235
Commenters indicated that message
and execution throttles are widely used
in the industry. FIA PTG surveyed its
232 See section IV(Q) below for a discussion of the
term ‘‘self-trade’’ and proposed regulations with
respect to self-trade prevention.
233 The pre-trade and other risk controls for DCMs
in proposed § 40.20 are discussed below in a
separate section.
234 Concept Release, 78 FR at 56571.
235 Concept Release, 78 FR at 56569.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

members and found that almost all firms
that responded used message and
execution throttles.236 Commenters
noted certain benefits to messaging and
execution throttles, including that they
may mitigate the risk and impact of
disruptive events, alert market
participants to potential problems with
their automated order entry systems,
and help ensure a level playing field for
all market participants.237 Commenters
also noted that message or execution
limits have potential negative effects
because they can block risk-reducing
orders.238
Commenters addressing this topic did
not support regulations mandating
throttle thresholds because appropriate
limits will vary per market participant,
depending on each participant’s unique
systems and trading strategy.239 MFA
strongly advised against required use of
the repeated automated execution
throttle, stating that it is best for market
participants to determine which
controls are most appropriate for their
ATSs.240 IATP commented on the
difficulty in setting standardized
throttle thresholds, and alternatively
suggested standardizing a graduated
levy on order cancellations.241 Finally,
Chicago Fed commented that regulators
should assess the methodology that
trading firms use to set throttle limits,
the reasonableness of those limits, and
the procedures followed when they are
breached.242
As to the appropriate design of
throttles, CME and AIMA commented
that throttles implemented by market
participants should be based on the
specific attributes of an entity or
account, including the nature of a firm’s
trading strategies, the market it trades
in, and the speed of its systems.243
AIMA indicated that applying throttles
on a per-algorithm basis would distort
the output of the ATS because an
algorithm interacts with many other
algorithms within the same ATS.244 In
contrast, AFR indicated that in order to
detect a malfunctioning algorithm, the
threshold should be based on the
algorithm’s trading strategy.245
236 FIA

at 59–60.
at 12, 15–17, 65; CME at 8–9; Gelber 7;
AFR at 6–7; KCG at 3–5; Better Markets at 6–7.
238 KCG at 3–5; MFA at 7, 13. See also Bell at 3–
4.
239 FIA at 12; CME at 8–9; MFA at 7, 13; Gelber
at 5–7; AIMA at 8; KCG at 3–4.
240 MFA at 7, 13.
241 IATP at 3–5.
242 Chicago Fed at 2.
243 CME at 8–9; AIMA at 8.
244 AIMA at 9.
245 AFR at 6–7.
237 FIA

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

b. Maximum Order Sizes
Commenters indicated that maximum
order size controls are already used in
the industry. According to FIA PTG’s
survey, all responding trading firms use
maximum order size limits.246 AIMA
indicated that many market participants
use maximum order sizes limits,247 and
Gelber, a trading firm, stated that it uses
this risk control.248 KCG, Gelber and
3Red commented that market
participants should use exchangeprovided maximum order size
controls.249
With respect to implementing
maximum order size limits, FIA and
CME indicated that this control should
be applied per product or contract.250
KCG suggested that exchange-provided
maximum order size controls should
provide flexibility to the market
participant in setting different levels for
users within a firm, for example, based
on trader ID or customer.251
Alternatively, the market participant
should rely on tighter internal
controls.252 CME and KCG opposed
standardization of maximum order size
protections, stating that implementation
of this control depends on individual
customers and the market,253 while FIX
and IATP supported uniformity with
respect to these controls.254
c. Price Collars
The Concept Release requested
comment on price collars, a control in
which trading platforms would assign a
range of acceptable order and execution
prices for each product and all market
participants would establish similar
limits to ensure that orders outside of a
particular price range are not
transmitted to the trading platform.
While most comments addressing this
topic focused on price collars
implemented by exchanges, FIA
indicated that its FIA PTG survey
reflected that almost all responding
trading firms used either price collars or
trading pauses.255
d. Connectivity Indications and Cancel
on Disconnect
The Concept Release requested
comment regarding ‘‘system heartbeats’’
that would indicate proper connectivity
between a trading firm’s automated
246 FIA

at 59–60.
at 13.
248 Gelber at 10.
249 KCG at 8; Gelber at 10; 3Red at 2.
250 FIA at 18–19; CME at 15.
251 KCG at 8.
252 See id.
253 CME at 15–16; KCG at 8.
254 FIX at 3; IATP at 5.
255 FIA at 60.
247 AIMA

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

trading system and the trading platform,
and ‘‘auto-cancel on disconnect,’’ an
exchange tool allowing trading firms to
determine whether their orders will be
left in the market upon disconnection.
Two exchanges stated that they provide
an optional cancel-on-disconnect
functionality.256 FIA characterized
cancel-on-disconnect as a ‘‘widely
adopted DCM-hosted pre-trade risk
control’’ and indicated that it is
increasingly common for FCMs to
employ cancel-on-disconnect for their
connections to the DCM.257 Several
commenters indicated that they support
exchanges offering system heartbeats
and/or cancel-on-disconnect to their
market participants.258
e. Order Cancellation Systems
The Concept Release also addressed
selective working order cancellation, a
tool that enables an exchange to
immediately cancel one, multiple, or all
resting orders from a market participant
as necessary in an emergency situation.
Such a tool will mitigate impact to the
market of a malfunctioning Algorithmic
Trading system because it will limit
additional erroneous orders from being
submitted to a trading platform and
executed. The Concept Release also
considered order cancellation
mechanisms that would immediately
cancel all working orders and prevent
submission (by the market participant),
transmittal (by the clearing member), or
acceptance (by the trading platform) of
any new orders from a market
participant or a particular trader or ATS
of such market participant.
In response to the Concept Release,
numerous commenters addressed kill
switches, discussing industry use;
opposition to prescriptive requirements;
the importance of flexibility in design;
potential triggers; and content of kill
switch procedures. For purposes of this
discussion, the term ‘‘kill switch’’
means generally any order cancellation
tools that cancels or prevents
submission of orders. Commenters
generally indicated that kill switches
could be beneficial, but also stressed the
complexity involved in their design and
use.
Several commenters described order
cancellation mechanisms currently
employed in the industry. One exchange
commented that it has two kill switch
tools: A kill switch used by the
exchange, clearing firm, or trading firm
to remove an entity from the market
completely; and an order management
256 CME

at Appendix A–4; CFE at 9–10.
257 FIA at 14.
258 FIA at 14; KCG at 12; MFA at 12; Chicago Fed
at 2.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

tool that enables clearing firms and endusers to cancel orders at a more granular
level.259 Another exchange explained
that it can cancel orders and quotes in
an emergency and it also provides a kill
switch to clearing members that cancels
all orders and quotes from a market
participant.260 While commenters noted
the importance of placing kill switches
at the DCM level,261 several commenters
stated that kill switches should be
implemented by market participants
and clearing firms in addition to
exchanges.262
Commenters stressed the importance
of flexibility in the design of kill
switches 263 and generally opposed
prescriptive requirements regarding
their design and implementation.264
Reasons included challenges concerning
setting the correct level of granularity
(i.e., whether the control should apply
to one participant and not others at the
same firm); the possibility that kill
switches may prevent a firm from being
able to enter risk-reducing orders;
prescriptive requirements will become
outdated; that time is of the essence,
and therefore exchanges and firms need
to be free from time-consuming
processes concerning the use of the kill
switch; the standardization of kill
switches, if poorly calibrated or too
widely applied, could result in
increased costs and disruption of
legitimate trading operations; and a
concern over adding more layers of
complexity into an already complex
market.265
A critical concern raised by
commenters was how order cancellation
mechanisms should address riskreducing activity.266 Gelber and KCG
suggested that kill switches enable a
firm to mitigate risk through manual
order entry, and that allowing the
market participant to set trigger
thresholds will help ensure that orders
entered for the purpose of reducing risk
are not cancelled.267 In contrast, CME
stated that a kill switch should exist
solely to completely remove an entity
from the market, and that other tools
can be used to enter risk reducing
259 CME

at 23–24.
at 11.
261 FIA at 29–33; Citadel LLC (‘‘Citadel’’)
Comment Letter (December 11, 2013) at 3; AIMA at
3, 18; MFA at 12–13; KCG at 13.
262 FIA at 30; Citadel at 3; CME at 22; Chicago Fed
at 2; MFA at 12–13; Gelber at 14.
263 FIA at 29–33; TCL at 8; AIMA at 18; MFA at
12; KCG at 13–14.
264 FIA at 29–33; CME at 23; Gelber at 14–15;
AIMA at 19.
265 FIA at 29–33; CME at 23; Gelber at 14–15;
AIMA at 19; TCL at 8.
266 FIA at 29–33; TCL at 8; Gelber at 14–15; CME
at 24; KCG at 13; SIG at 8.
267 Gelber at 14–15; KCG at 13.
260 CFE

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78851

orders. CME argued that allowing entry
of risk reducing orders as an exception
to the kill switch process introduces too
much uncertainty and complexity.268
Finally, commenters discussed
procedures concerning activation of a
kill switch. For example, FIA and
Gelber suggested that a kill switch have
both automated and manual triggers.269
KCG suggested that if the total risk of a
portfolio exceeds certain thresholds,
firm systems should automatically send
only risk reducing orders and
supervisors should be able to stop
trading entirely.270 TCL commented that
an exchange or ATS operator will not
implement a system that abdicates
control to an automated kill switch. TCL
suggested that monitoring systems
identify irregular market activity and
alert staff that have access to a kill
switch.271 Similarly, Chicago Fed
recommended that a human decide
whether to use a kill switch based on
internal and market conditions.272
Additional Concept Release
comments, including comments on kill
switch functionality, are discussed
below with respect to Regulation AT
pre-trade risk and other control
requirements on FCMs and DCMs.
2. Description of Regulation
The Commission proposes a new
§ 1.80 of its regulations to require that
AT Persons implement pre-trade risk
controls and other measures for all AT
Order Messages that are reasonably
designed to prevent an Algorithmic
Trading Event. Relevant controls and
measures required by § 1.80 include, but
are not limited to: Maximum AT Order
Message frequency and maximum
execution frequency per unit time; order
price parameters and maximum order
size limits; order cancellation and ATS
disconnect systems; and connectivity
monitoring systems. They also include
several other specific requirements,
such as notification by AT Persons to
applicable DCMs and clearing member
FCMs that they will engage in
Algorithmic Trading; calibrating or
otherwise implementing DCM-provided
self-trade prevention tools; and periodic
consideration of the sufficiency and
effectiveness of the controls that an AT
Person has implemented. Consistent
with comments received in response to
the Concept Release, proposed § 1.80
provides market participants latitude in
the design and implementation of
required controls, and in fact requires
268 CME

at 24.
at 29–33; Gelber at 14–15.
270 KCG at 14.
271 TCL at 8.
272 Chicago Fed at 2.
269 FIA

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78852

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

only a small number of specific controls
that the Commission understands are
already widely implemented by likely
AT Persons (e.g., proposed §§ 1.80(a),
1.80(b) and 1.80(c)). In this regard,
proposed § 1.80 provides each AT
Person with the flexibility to identify
and implement any additional controls
that such AT Person believes are
appropriate for its Algorithmic Trading.
The Commission is cognizant that
prescriptive regulations in this area may
fail to take into account the unique
characteristics of market participants
and trading strategies, or may become
obsolete as technology evolves. The
Commission has attempted to provide
appropriate flexibility to accommodate
such variety and evolution, while also
establishing a regulatory floor that
reflects its evaluation of basic
requirements for all AT Persons.273
3. Policy Discussion
Proposed § 1.80 requires AT Persons
to implement pre-trade risk controls and
other measures reasonably designed to
prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event.
This requirement is central to the
purposes of § 1.80. As discussed below,
the Commission believes that proposed
§ 1.80 would reduce the potential for
market disruptions arising from system
malfunctions, other errors, or
intentional disruptive conduct. The
Commission notes that the risks of such
disruptions are heightened by the
increased use of high-speed algorithmic
trading, which makes the
implementation of pre-trade risk
controls and other measures even more
necessary. Without effective risk
controls, erroneous orders can
significantly impact many market
participants in a short amount of time.
The prevention of Algorithmic Trading
Events pursuant to § 1.80 would help
ensure the integrity of Commissionregulated markets and provide market
participants with greater confidence that
intentional, bona fide transactions are
being executed.
The pre-trade risk controls and other
measures required by proposed § 1.80
include, but are not limited to, those
described in clauses (a)–(e) of § 1.80.
The Commission believes that each of
these enumerated controls and other
measures will promote the goals of
§ 1.80, as described above. Proposed
§ 1.80(f) also promotes the goals of
§ 1.80, by requiring each AT Person to
periodically review its compliance with
273 See section IV(H) below for a more detailed
discussion of which persons will be designated as
AT Persons for purposes of proposed § 1.80 and
other regulations, and which persons will not be AT
Persons, but will nonetheless be subject to proposed
§ 1.82.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

§ 1.80 to determine whether it has
effectively implemented sufficient
measures reasonably designed to
prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event.
Each AT Person must take prompt
action to remedy any deficiencies it
identifies.
a. Maximum AT Order Message and
Execution Frequencies
Proposed § 1.80(a)(1)(i) requires AT
Persons to set pre-trade risk controls
that establish maximum AT Order
Message and execution frequencies per
unit time. These controls are commonly
referred to in industry as message and
execution throttles. These controls are
designed to prevent excessive messaging
or trading which could disrupt, slow
down, or impede normal market
activity. The Commission’s proposed
regulation on maximum order message
and execution frequencies is aimed at
preventing market disruptions caused
by either inadvertent or intentional
submission of AT Order Messages. This
proposed regulation should not prevent
DCMs from maintaining any and all
additional safeguards intended to
prevent intentional activity such as
quote stuffing, or to apply such
safeguards to message or data flows that
are broader than the proposed definition
of AT Order Messages. As indicated
above, commenters to the Concept
Release indicated that message and
execution throttles are already widely
used in the industry.274 Commenters
indicated that the benefits of these risk
controls include mitigating the risk and
impact of disruptive events, alerting
market participants to potential
problems with their automated trading
systems, helping to ensure a level
playing field for all market participants,
and deterring predatory and disruptive
activities.275 In light of these benefits,
and the already extensive use of this
risk control, the Commission includes
maximum AT Order Message and
execution frequencies in its proposed
rule.
The Commission notes that ESMA’s
2015 Final Draft Regulatory Standards
require investment firms to establish a
maximum messages limit and repeated
automated execution throttle.276 The
execution throttle should limit the
number of times a strategy is applied
only where appropriate to the specific
274 See

FIA at 59–60 (FIA’s surveys of member
firms and FCMs) and comment indicating that
exchanges already use throttles (CME at 8–9; CFE
at 5–6; TCL at 6; KCG at 4; MFA at 7; and AIMA
at 8).
275 See FIA at 12, 15–17, 65; MFA at 7; CME at
8; Gelber at 5–7; AFR at 6–7.
276 ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards
Report Annex 1, supra note 80 at 214–15.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

trading venue, strategy or product.277
ESMA requires that the controls be
calibrated as appropriate for the
investment firm’s capital base, clearing
arrangements, trading strategy, risk
tolerance and experience.278 ESMA
further requires that firms take into
account variables such as length of time
since engaged in algorithmic trading
and reliance on third-party vendors, and
firms must re-calibrate in order to
account for the changing impact of the
orders on the relevant market due to
different price and liquidity levels.279 In
addition, the calculations supporting
each control should take into account
all orders sent to a trading venue.280 FIA
has recently recommended that
automated traders implement message
throttles and repeated automated
execution limits.281
As to the appropriate thresholds of
these controls, the Commission agrees
with Concept Release comments
indicating that regulations should not
mandate specific thresholds because,
among other things, flexibility is
necessary to respond to the dynamics of
the market, and appropriate limits will
vary by participant.282 For example,
commenters suggested that message and
execution throttles should be based on
the specific attributes of the trading firm
or account, including the nature of the
firm’s trading strategies, the market it
trades in, and the speed of its
systems.283 Therefore, the proposed
rules do not prescribe particular limits
or thresholds, aside from the
overarching requirement that the
controls be reasonably designed to
prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event,
and § 1.80(a)(2)’s requirement that the
controls be set at the level of each AT
Person, or such other more granular
level as the AT Person may determine,
including but not limited to, by product,
account number or designation, or one
or more identifiers of natural persons
associated with an AT Order Message.
While several commenters supported
greater Commission involvement in
setting risk control parameters, the
Commission believes that it is not in the
best position to determine the
appropriate message or execution rate
for each trading firm, trading strategy,
product, and every other potentially
relevant factor that should be taken into
account when establishing thresholds.
277 See id.; ESMA September 2015 Final Draft
Standards Report, supra note 80 at 200.
278 See id.
279 See id.
280 See id.
281 FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 10, 12.
282 See FIA at 12; CME at 9; Gelber at 5–7; AIMA
at 8; KCG at 3–4; OneChicago at 5.
283 CME at 8–9; AIMA at 8.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

As discussed below, DCMs would
receive information as to the specific
quantitative settings used by each AT
Person as part of Commission-required
compliance reports pursuant to
proposed § 1.83. Pursuant to this
reporting process, DCMs would be able
to identify AT Persons that have
message or execution throttle thresholds
that appear insufficient.
The Commission notes that several
commenters cited potential negative
effects of controls establishing message
or execution limits (e.g., they can block
risk-reducing orders and decrease
liquidity). The Commission believes
that the overall benefits to maximum
order message and execution
frequencies, as noted above, outweigh
potential negative effects. In addition,
allowing market participants discretion
in the design and implementation of
message and execution throttles, as well
as in establishing appropriate
thresholds, would enable market
participants to address and limit the
potential negative effects of this risk
control.
Finally, as noted above, proposed
§ 1.80(a)(2) requires the controls to be
implemented at the AT Person-level.
Consistent with § 1.80’s overarching
requirement that an AT Person shall
implement pre-trade risk controls and
other measures reasonably designed to
prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event,
each AT Person must evaluate whether
the controls should be set at a more
granular level—for example, by product,
account number or designation, or one
or more identifiers of natural persons
associated with an AT Order Message.
Where deemed appropriate by the AT
Person, the controls should be set at
such more granular levels. In addition,
proposed § 1.80(a)(3) requires that
natural person monitors at the AT
Person be promptly alerted when the
controls are breached. The purpose of
this requirement is to ensure that the AT
Person would take any further action
that is necessary to prevent or mitigate
an Algorithmic Trading Event.
b. Order Price Parameters and
Maximum Order Size Limits
Proposed § 1.80(a)(1)(ii) requires pretrade risk controls that limit the prices
and quantities associated with
individual order messages. By requiring
‘‘order price parameters,’’ the
Commission means that AT Persons
must establish price limits intended to
prevent orders with prices far from the
prevailing market from entering the
market. At the trading firm or clearing
member level, such controls may be
called ‘‘price tolerance limits’’ that
define a maximum amount that an order

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

price may deviate from a predetermined price, such as the last trade
price, or the market open price.284 By
requiring ‘‘maximum order size limits,’’
the Commission means the risk control
generally understood in industry as ‘‘fatfinger’’ limits. Commenters to the
Concept Release indicated that
maximum order size controls are
already widely used by trading firms
and that this control is effective at
reducing the likelihood that an
exchange would need to make use of its
error trade policy.285
The Commission notes that ESMA’s
2015 Final Draft Regulatory Standards
require investment firms to establish
price collars, maximum order value
limits and maximum order volume
limits, appropriately calibrated for their
capital base, clearing arrangements,
trading strategy, risk tolerance and
experience.286 IOSCO has also indicated
that many market participants already
employ order price and volume
limits.287 In addition, FIA has recently
recommended that automated traders
employ maximum order size and price
tolerance limits.288 Finally, the
Commission also notes that the SEC’s
Market Access Rule requires controls
that prevent entry of erroneous orders,
by rejecting orders that exceed
appropriate price or size parameters, on
an order-by-order basis or over a short
period of time, or that indicate
duplicative orders.289
Given the usefulness of price and
order size parameters in preventing the
execution of erroneous trades, the
Commission determined to require that
AT Persons establish such controls on
all orders submitted through
Algorithmic Trading. The proposed
regulations are intended to be
sufficiently flexible so that as required
controls improve or new types controls
emerge, they may be incorporated into
an AT Person’s pre-trade risk control
program and satisfy the requirements of
proposed § 1.80(a). Similarly, this
regulation is intended to be sufficiently
flexible that exchanges, AT Persons, and
clearing member FCMs may set the
specific thresholds that will be most
effective in preventing an Algorithmic
Trading Event.
284 See

FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 10.
at 18–19, 23; CME at 15; Gelber at 10; KCG
at 8; 3Red at 2.
286 See ESMA September 2015 Final Draft
Standards Report Annex 1, supra note 80 at 214–
15.
287 See IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra
note 106 at 21.
288 See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 8, 10.
289 See SEC, Responses to Frequently Asked
Questions Concerning Risk Management Controls
for Brokers or Dealers with Market Access, supra
note 37.
285 FIA

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78853

Accordingly, the Commission
proposes to require that each order pass
through price parameter and maximum
order size limit checks in order to
protect the natural price discovery
process from disruptive behavior such
as unintentionally large orders.
Consistent with the Commission’s
approach to the other pre-trade risk
controls, the Commission will not
impose thresholds, but will leave design
of the control and specific thresholds to
the discretion of market participants.
Finally, the Commission notes that
market participants could comply with
the pre-trade and other risk controls
required by Regulation AT in multiple
ways: By internally developing such
controls from scratch, upgrading
existing systems, or purchasing a risk
management solution from an outside
vendor. The Commission understands
that market participants may also be
able to purchase some risk management
solutions from DCMs. The Commission
notes that implementation of exchangeprovided controls, such as a maximum
order size limit, would comply with
Regulation AT’s requirement that AT
Persons use that control. However, an
AT Person’s use of a DCM-provided
maximum order size limit would not
constitute DCM compliance with
proposed regulations requiring that
DCMs implement maximum order sizes
limits at the exchange level.
c. Order Management Controls
Proposed § 1.80(b) requires that AT
Persons implement certain order
management controls. The required
controls must have the ability to: (i)
Immediately disengage Algorithmic
Trading; (ii) cancel selected or up to all
resting orders when system or market
conditions require it; and (iii) prevent
submission of any new AT Order
Messages (i.e., a ‘‘kill switch’’). The
parameters for the order cancellation
systems must be reasonably designed to
prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event.
In addition, proposed § 1.80(c) requires
that AT Persons with Direct Electronic
Access (as defined in proposed
§ 1.3(yyyy)) must implement systems to
indicate on an ongoing basis whether
they have proper connectivity with the
trading platform and any systems used
by a DCM to provide the AT Person
with market data. Proposed § 1.80(b)(2)
requires that prior to an AT Person’s
initial use of Algorithmic Trading to
submit a message or order to a DCM’s
trading platform, such AT Person must
notify the applicable DCM whether all
of its resting orders should be cancelled
or suspended in the event of disconnect
with the trading platform.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

78854

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

The order cancellation systems
requirements provided in proposed
§ 1.80(b) and (c) are intended to protect
against erroneous trading activity
caused by an algorithmic trading system
malfunction. As to connectivity
monitoring and cancel-on-disconnect,
several commenters supported
exchanges offering such functionality to
trading firms.290 Given the possibility of
a technology failure that causes a market
participant’s orders to be left in the
market upon disconnect, leaving the
trader or trading firm unable to manage
the orders, the Commission believes that
systems indicating proper connectivity
and cancel-on-disconnect are important
risk management tools that should be
required. The Commission notes that
commenters to the Concept Release
indicated cancel-on-disconnect
functionality should be a flexible tool,
allowing market participants to
determine whether orders should be left
in the market upon disconnection.291
FIA has explained that automated
traders must decide whether
cancellation upon disconnect mitigates
or increases risk.292 Accordingly, the
Commission does not require
cancellation or suspension of orders
upon disconnect. Rather, it requires AT
Persons, prior to engaging in
Algorithmic Trading, to notify the DCM
as to what action it should take in the
event of disconnect, which may depend
on the facts and circumstances.
As to ‘‘kill switch’’ functionality,
comments to the Concept Release
indicated that exchanges already
provide kill switch functionality for use
by market participants or clearing
members, and additional commenters
suggested that such functionality should
be implemented by market participants
and clearing firms in addition to
exchanges.293 The Commission notes
the challenges identified by commenters
around setting the correct level of
granularity of an order cancellation tool,
and of the potential need for trading
firms to submit risk-reducing orders.
The Commission believes that requiring
that order cancellation tools allow for
submission of risk-reducing orders may
introduce too much uncertainty or
complexity into the market, or may be
technically infeasible at this time. In
light of such considerations, the
Commission’s proposed regulations do
not mandate specific elements of kill
switch design, such as the parameters or
290 FIA

at 14; KCG at 12; MFA at 12; Chicago Fed

procedures concerning when the control
must be triggered, or require that the
functionality must allow for submission
of risk-reducing orders. Rather,
§ 1.80(b)(1) would require that AT
Persons have the ability and authority to
disengage Algorithmic Trading, cancel
selected resting orders, and prevent
submission of new AT Order Messages,
but does not specify when such
functionality should be triggered. The
Commission allows flexibility for AT
Persons to design and implement
appropriate parameters and procedures
that are appropriate for their trading
strategy or markets.
The Commission’s approach to order
cancellation systems is consistent with
current recommendations in the
European regulatory context. ESMA’s
2015 Final Draft Regulatory Standards
require that investment firms know
which algorithm and which trader,
trading desk or, where applicable, client
is responsible for each order, and have
the ability, as an emergency measure, to
cancel unexecuted orders submitted to
individual trading venues originated by
individual traders, trading desks, or
where applicable, clients. Investment
firms must also have the ability, as an
emergency measure, to immediately
cancel all the firm’s outstanding orders
at all trading venues to which it is
connected.294 The Commission also
notes that FIA recently recommended
that automated traders build their own
kill switch functionality into their
trading systems where it is possible to
implement it on a sufficiently granular
level to identify individual trading
systems.295 FIA also recommended that
where an exchange provides a kill
switch, there should be a registration
process and entitlement system that
requires automated traders or brokers to
specify which staff are authorized to use
the functionality.296 The Commission
believes that FIA (in its recent Guide to
the Development and Operation of
Automated Trading Systems), other
industry organizations, and commenters
to the Concept Release provided
reasonable recommendations as to the
design and implementation of order
cancellation systems. The Commission
urges AT Persons and other market
participants to consider such
recommendations in the
implementation of order cancellation
and connectivity systems.

at 2.
291 CME

at Appendix A–4; CFE at 9–10; MFA at

12.
292 FIA

Guide, supra note 95 at 15.
at 30; Citadel at 3; CME at 22–24; Chicago
Fed at 2; MFA at 12–13; Gelber at 14; CFE at 11.
293 FIA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

294 See ESMA September 2015 Final Draft
Standards Report Annex 1, supra note 80 at 211–
12.
295 See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 14.
296 See id. at 14.

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

d. Notification of Algorithmic Trading
Proposed § 1.80(d) requires that, prior
to an AT Person’s initial use of
Algorithmic Trading to submit a
message or order to a DCM, such AT
Person must notify its clearing member
FCM, as well as the DCM on which the
AT Person is trading, that it will engage
in Algorithmic Trading. The
Commission intends that this
requirement ensure that clearing
member FCMs and exchanges have
sufficient advance notice to implement
and calibrate pre-trade and other risk
controls to manage risks arising from the
AT Person’s trading.
e. Self-Trade Prevention Tools
Proposed § 1.80(e) requires that, to the
extent that implementation of a DCM’s
self-trade prevention tools requires
calibration or other action by an AT
Person, such AT Person must calibrate
or take such other action as is necessary
to apply such tools. This proposed
regulation is designed to operate in
conjunction with proposed § 40.23,
which requires DCMs to either apply, or
provide and require the use of, self-trade
prevention tools.297
f. Periodic Review for Sufficiency and
Effectiveness
Finally, proposed § 1.80(f) requires
that each AT Person shall periodically
review its compliance with § 1.80 to
determine whether it has effectively
implemented sufficient measures
reasonably designed to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event. Proposed
§ 1.80(f) would also require that an AT
Person take prompt action to remedy
any deficiencies it identifies. The
Commission recognizes through
proposed § 1.80(f) that trading practices,
technologies for algorithmic trading,
and best practices in risk controls will
necessarily evolve over time. It believes
that periodic review by AT Persons of
their own pre-trade risk controls and
other measures will help to ensure
compliance with proposed § 1.80 in an
engaged and proactive manner.
g. Certain Measures Not Adopted in
This NPRM
The Commission determined not to
address in this NPRM some measures
that were discussed in the Concept
Release and supported by Concept
Release commenters. For example,
various commenters favored
standardization around drop copies and
error trade policies. FIA commented
that drop copies should be available for
297 See section IV(Q) below for a discussion of
proposed § 40.23 and requests for comment in
connection with the proposed regulations.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

all trading venues and products
whenever technologically practicable
and that trade reports and other
information provided by drop copy
should be disseminated to the consumer
in real-time or as near real-time as
practicable.298 As to error trade policies,
FIA suggested that they be clear and
deterministic enough for all participants
to understand, promote a marketplace
where all trades stand as executed,
protect participants who are
counterparties to error trades, and not
be subject to discretion.299 KCG, MFA,
Citadel and SIG also made similar
comments.300 The Commission believes
that standardization of drop copy
reports and error trade policies, as well
as other measures addressed in the
Concept Release, merit further
consideration within the Commission as
well as in industry. However, the
Commission determined to include
particular risk controls in Regulation
AT, and not others, based on its
understanding of the critical importance
of controls required in proposed § 1.80
in preventing and mitigating market
disruptions, as well as their current
widespread industry use.
In addition, as noted above, the
Commission has taken a principlesbased approach to its requirements
relating to risk controls and other
measures. Proposed § 1.80 provides
market participants discretion in the
design and implementation of controls,
and requires only a small number of
specific controls that the Commission
understands are already widely
implemented. Proposed § 1.80 provides
AT Persons with flexibility to identify
and implement any additional controls
appropriate for their Algorithmic
Trading. The Commission is aware that
prescriptive regulations in this area may
not take into account the unique
characteristics of each market
participant, and may become obsolete.
The proposed regulation reflects the
Commission’s intent to accommodate
the diverse and evolving nature of
market participants’ businesses and
technology, while establishing basic
regulatory requirements of essential risk
controls and related measures that each
market participant engaged in
Algorithmic Trading should have.
4. Request for Comments
33. Are any pre-trade and other risk
controls required by § 1.80 ineffective,
not already widely used by AT Persons,
or likely to become obsolete?
298 FIA

at 13.
id.
300 KCG at 10–11; MFA at 2, 10–12; Citadel at 3,
4–5; SIG at 8–9.
299 See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

34. Are there additional pre-trade or
other risk controls that should be
specifically enumerated in proposed
§ 1.80?
35. Do you believe that the pre-trade
and other risk controls required in
§ 1.80 sufficiently address the
possibility of technological advances in
trading, and the development of new,
more effective controls that should be
implemented by AT Persons?
36. The Commission welcomes
comment on whether the regulation’s
requirements relating to the design of
controls and the levels at which the
controls should be set are appropriate
and sufficiently granular.
37. The Commission notes that
§ 1.80(d) requires that prior to initial use
of Algorithmic Trading, an AT Person
must notify its clearing member FCM
and the DCM that it will engage in
Algorithmic Trading. The Commission
welcomes comment on whether the
content of that notification requirement
is sufficient, or whether clearing
member FCMs and DCMs should also be
notified of additional information. For
example, should AT Persons be required
to notify their clearing member FCMs of
particular changes to their Algorithmic
Trading systems that would affect the
risk controls applied by the clearing
member FCM?
38. Is § 1.80(f)’s requirement that each
AT Person periodically review its
compliance with § 1.80 appropriate?
Should there be more prescriptive and
granular requirements to ensure that
each AT Person periodically reviews its
pre-trade and other risk controls and
takes appropriate steps to update or
recalibrate them in order to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event?
Alternatively, is § 1.80(f) necessary?
Does the Commission need to explicitly
require AT Persons to conduct a
periodic review of their compliance
with § 1.80?
39. AT Persons that are registered
FCMs are required by existing
Commission regulation 1.11 to have
formal ‘‘Risk Management Programs,’’
including, pursuant to § 1.11(e)(3)(ii),
‘‘automated financial risk management
controls reasonably designed to prevent
the placing of erroneous orders’’ and
‘‘policies and procedures governing the
use, supervision, maintenance, testing,
and inspection of automated trading
programs.’’ As described in § 1.11, an
FCM’s Risk Management Program must
include a risk management unit
independent of the business unit;
quarterly risk exposure reports to senior
management and the governing body of
the FCM, with copies to the
Commission; and other substantive
requirements. The Commission requests

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78855

public comment regarding whether one
or more of the proposed requirements
applicable to FCMs in §§ 1.80, 1.81,
1.83(a), and 1.83(c) (as described below)
should be incorporated within an FCM’s
Risk Management Program and be
subject to the requirements of such
program as described in § 1.11. In this
regard, any final rules arising from this
NPRM could place all requirements
applicable to FCMs in §§ 1.80, 1.81,
1.83(a), and 1.83(c) within the
operational risk measures required in
§ 1.11(e)(3)(ii). Such incorporation
could help improve the interaction
between an FCM’s operational risk
efforts and its pre-trade risk controls;
development, monitoring, and
compliance efforts; and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, pursuant
to §§ 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c). It
could also help ensure that an FCM’s
§§ 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c)
processes benefit from the same internal
rigor and independence required by the
Risk Management Program in § 1.11.
40. The Commission proposes to
adopt a multi-layered approach to
regulations intended to mitigate the
risks of automated trading, including
pre-trade risk controls and other
procedures applicable to AT Persons,
clearing member FCMs and DCMs.
Please comment on whether an
alternative approach, for example one
which does not impose requirements at
each of these three levels, would more
effectively mitigate the risks of
automated trading and promote the
other regulatory goals of Regulation AT.
I. Standards for Development, Testing,
Monitoring, and Compliance of
Algorithmic Trading Systems—§ 1.81
The Commission proposes regulations
under § 1.81 requiring AT Persons to
establish policies and procedures that
accomplish a number of objectives with
respect to the development, testing,
monitoring, and compliance of
Algorithmic Trading. The proposed
regulations are intended to standardize
a set of principles in order to reduce the
operational risk of such systems. The
remainder of this section presents
Concept Release comments on this
topic, a description of the proposed
regulation, a discussion of the policy
justification for the proposal, and a
request for comments on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release requested
comment on testing procedures for
ATSs. The Concept Release
contemplated, among other things, that
market participants operating ATSs
must test each ATS internally and on
each trading platform on which it will

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78856

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

operate, and trading platforms must
provide test environments that simulate
the production environment. In
particular, the Concept Release asked
for comment on when it is most
beneficial for firms to test an ATS after
it has been modified, and how the
Commission and market participants
should distinguish between major
modifications and minor modifications.
Commenters support ATS testing and
discussed current and best practices, but
disagreed as to whether regulatory
measures are appropriate to standardize
these practices. Most commenters
(including FIA, CME, CFE, and MFA)
oppose standardized ATS testing
procedures.301 FIA indicated that it is
impractical to implement prescriptive
standardized procedures for
development, testing and change
management given the diversity of
technologies and business operations at
DCMs. FIA pointed to the testing
recommendations outlined in its March
2012 ‘‘Software Development and
Change Management
Recommendations’’ as best practices for
trading firms, which could also apply to
all participants. FIA described different
types of testing and supports DCMs
providing robust test environments and
market participants using such
environments.302 CME cited the FIA
PTG’s ‘‘Recommendations for Risk
Controls for Trading Firms’’ as an
appropriate principles-based approach
to management, oversight, and testing of
electronic trading systems.303 CME
noted that exchange systems vary
widely, and each exchange should
develop and test in a manner that
comports with industry best
practices.304
SIG indicated that DCMs should
provide test environments and stated
that ATS testing procedures should be
standardized ‘‘where possible.’’ 305
Gelber stated that standardizing
development, testing and change
management might be helpful, but it is
more important that these procedures
are clear and comprehensive at each
exchange than that they are
standardized.306
Both FIA and CME noted the
difficulty of establishing objective
criteria to determine what constitutes a
‘‘major’’ or ‘‘minor’’ modification of an
ATS.307 CFE noted that DCMs are
301 FIA at 34–38; CME at 26; CFE at 2–3; AIMA
at 3, 20–21; TCL at 15; KCG at 15–16; MFA at 2,
12–13; OneChicago at 2–3.
302 FIA at 34–38.
303 CME at 25.
304 CME at 26.
305 SIG at 9.
306 Gelber at 15–16.
307 FIA at 34–38; CME at 25–26.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

already subject to DCM Core Principle
20 and Commission regulation
38.1051(h), which require DCMs to
conduct periodic, objective testing and
review of their automated systems to
ensure that they are reliable, secure, and
have adequate scalable capacity.308 In
addition, KCG argued that a ‘‘testing
process that creates too many frictions
can discourage making changes that
improve a system.’’ 309 Similarly, TCL
stated that the testing procedures
suggested in the Concept Release are
overly broad and could force ATS
operators to take a narrow view of what
constitutes a change.310
In contrast, several commenters
support regulatory involvement in this
area. Chicago Fed noted that many
industries have standards-setting
bodies, but because there is no corollary
for the development of ATSs within an
‘‘HFT environment,’’ market
participants and the TAC should work
together to formulate such standards
and guidelines that will help mitigate
the impact of operational risks.311 IATP
stated that out of all of the safeguards
addressed in the Concept Release, ATS
testing has the greatest potential to
reduce market disruptions. IATP
recommended that the Commission
review and select from current best
practices.312 MFA recommended that
industry engage in more robust testing,
and that trading platforms should offer
testing where a firm’s software interacts
with other types of software.313
AIMA opposes standardization, and
suggested alternatively that ‘‘CFTC
principles’’ create a legal requirement
for a certain standard of testing and
change management. AIMA cited as an
example the Department of Energy
Software Engineering Methodology.314
While MFA also opposes
standardization, it stated that ‘‘rules or
industry practice should encourage
more robust and more routine testing at
the trading platform level.’’ 315
Finally, as to current ATS testing
practices, MFA indicated that ‘‘many, if
not all, exchanges provide market
participants a test facility to test trading
software and algorithms, as well as offer
test symbols to trade.’’ 316 CME and CFE
308 CFE

at 2–3.
at 15–16.
310 TCL at 15.
311 Chicago Fed at 3.
312 IATP at 7.
313 MFA, Presentation Before the CFTC
Technology Advisory Committee Meeting on Risk
Controls and System Safeguards for Automated
Trading Environments (Feb. 10, 2014) at 13,
available at: http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/
@newsroom/documents/file/tac021014_mfa.pdf.
314 AIMA at 3, 20–21.
315 MFA at 13.
316 MFA at 13.
309 KCG

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

described their own testing practices.
CME indicated that market participants
routinely test in their own testing
environments using historical data to
test trading strategies against a range of
market conditions, and that exchanges
commonly make their own historical
data available for testing purposes. CME
explained that it requires all systems
interfacing with CME Globex to be
certified on the order entry and/or
market data interfaces prior to
deployment.317 CFE provides a user
testing environment that simulates the
production environment.318 TCL
described FIA industry-wide testing of
backup systems.319
FIX stated that it has a working group
that is developing best practices related
to testing and is working to increase the
availability of test financial
instruments.320 Similarly, IIT
commented that a working group named
AT 9000, which is affiliated with the
International Organization for
Standardization, is developing a quality
management system for automated
trading. The goals of AT 9000 are to
help automated trading industry
organizations satisfy their responsibility
for trading safety, to satisfy regulatory
requirements, and to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of
automated trading.321
The Concept Release also requested
comment on ATS development and
change development. Among other
things, the Concept Release
contemplated that trading platforms and
market participants operating ATSs
must maintain a development
environment that is adequately isolated
from the production trading
environment, and that market
participants must have policies and
procedures concerning approval and
verification of changes to their trading
systems. In particular, the Concept
Release asked for comment on what
challenges or benefits may result from
the implementation of standardized
development and change management
procedures.
FIA described the core components of
a change management as including
authorization (effective pre-deployment
review of the proposed change) and
auditability (procedures for
communicating requirements, changes
and functionality related to proprietary
software and technical infrastructure).
FIA indicated that prescriptive
317 CME

at 25–26.
at 12.
at 11–14.
320 FIX Trading Community (‘‘FIX’’) Comment
Letter (December 11, 2013) at 4–5.
321 Illinois Institute of Technology (‘‘IIT’’)
Comment Letter (February 11, 2014) at 1–2.
318 CFE

319 TCL

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

development and change management
standards are impractical given the
diversity of market participants, but
principles such as authorization and
auditability can serve as ‘‘building
blocks’’ that market participants can use
to tailor a change management process
to fit their needs.322
Similarly, TCL indicated that
exchanges and ATSs should have formal
processes for change management,
which include a production installation
authorization process in which no one
may change the production systems
after it has been submitted for
authorization, followed by a formal
signoff.323 KCG recommended that
policies for deploying new software
include staged deployment (deploying
new software in phases, with explicit
rollback procedures), and validation
(manual and automated evaluation of
whether a change is successful).324
In addition, the Concept Release
requested comment on ATS monitoring
and supervision. In particular, the
Concept Release requested comment on
the extent to which human monitors
have been trained in how to respond to
unexpected problems, and been given
the requisite authority to intervene at
these times. The Concept Release
suggested that market participants
operating ATSs must ensure that their
ATSs are subject to continuous real-time
monitoring and supervision by trained
and qualified staff at all times while
engaged in trading. Two commenters
addressed ATS monitoring and
supervision, but did not specifically
express support or opposition to
regulatory action. KCG recommended
that a monitoring process identify
‘‘smoke signals’’ (unusual or abnormal
behaviors), investigate the cause of the
smoke signals, and, if the smoke signal
is an error, the monitoring alerts should
be adjusted to take that information into
account.325 MFA commented that there
should be at least one designated
individual who is available and
authorized to suspend a firm’s trading
program. MFA also suggested that FCMs
should have ‘‘plan-of-action’’ protocols
that include scenarios where trading is
suspended based on specific types of
events.326
2. Description of Regulation
The Commission proposes regulations
requiring AT Persons to establish
policies and procedures that accomplish
a number of objectives with respect to
322 FIA

at 4, 36–37.
at 15.
324 KCG at 17.
325 KCG at 17–18.
326 MFA at 14.
323 TCL

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

the design, testing, and supervision of
Algorithmic Trading. The proposed
regulations are intended to standardize
a set of principles in order to reduce the
operational risk of such systems. The
proposed regulations require each AT
Person to: Implement written policies
and procedures for the development and
testing of ATSs (§ 1.81(a)); implement
written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that each
of its ATSs is subject to continuous realtime monitoring and supervision by
knowledgeable and qualified staff while
such ATS is engaged in trading
(§ 1.81(b)); implement written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that ATSs operate in a manner
that complies with the CEA and the
rules and regulations thereunder, and
ensure that staff are familiar with the
CEA and the rules and regulations
thereunder, the rules of any DCM to
which such AT Person submits orders
through Algorithmic Trading, the rules
of any RFA of which such AT Person is
a member, the AT Person’s own internal
requirements, and the requirements of
the AT Person’s clearing member FCM,
in each case as applicable (§ 1.81(c));
and implement written policies and
procedures to designate and train staff
responsible for Algorithmic Trading
(§ 1.81(d)). The proposed rules are
described in greater detail below.
As a complement to the proposed
design and testing requirements,
Regulation AT proposes a new
requirement that DCMs (under proposed
§ 40.21, discussed in section IV(O)
below) provide a test environment that
will enable market participants to
simulate production trading and
conduct exchange-based conformance
testing of their Algorithmic Trading
systems.
Development and Testing of
Algorithmic Trading Systems.
Regulation AT proposes a new
requirement (§ 1.81(a)(1)) that each AT
Person must implement written policies
and procedures for the development and
testing of its Algorithmic Trading
systems. Such policies and procedures
must at a minimum include the
following: (i) Maintaining a
development environment that is
adequately isolated from the production
trading environment (the development
environment may include computers,
networks, and databases, and should be
used by software engineers while
developing, modifying, and testing
source code); (ii) testing of all
Algorithmic Trading code and related
systems and any changes to such code
and systems prior to their
implementation, including testing to
identify circumstances that may

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78857

contribute to future Algorithmic Trading
Events (such testing must be conducted
both internally with the AT Person and
on each designated contract market on
which Algorithmic Trading will occur);
(iii) regular back-testing of Algorithmic
Trading using historical transaction,
order, and message data to identify
circumstances that may contribute to
future Algorithmic Trading Events; (iv)
regular stress tests of Algorithmic
Trading systems to verify their ability to
operate in the manner intended under a
variety of market conditions; (v)
procedures for documenting the strategy
and design of proprietary Algorithmic
Trading software used by an AT Person,
as well as any changes to such software
if such changes are implemented in a
production environment; and (vi)
maintaining a source code repository to
manage source code access, persistence,
copies of all code used in the
production environment, and changes to
such code (such source code repository
must include an audit trail of material
changes to source code that would allow
AT Persons to determine, for each such
material change: Who made it; when
they made it; and the coding purpose of
the change. The source code must also
be maintained in accordance with
Commission regulation § 1.31).
Monitoring of Algorithmic Trading
Systems. Regulation AT proposes a new
requirement (§ 1.81(b)) that each AT
Person must implement written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that each of its ATSs is subject
to continuous real-time monitoring by
knowledgeable and qualified staff while
such ATS is engaged in trading. Such
policies and procedures must at a
minimum include the following: (i)
Continuous real-time monitoring of
Algorithmic Trading to identify
potential Algorithmic Trading Events;
(ii) automated alerts when an ATS’s AT
Order Message behavior breaches design
parameters, upon loss of network
connectivity or data feeds, or when
market conditions approach the
boundaries within which an ATS is
intended to operate, to the extent
applicable; 327 (iii) monitoring staff of
the AT Person shall have the ability and
authority to disengage an Algorithmic
Trading system and to cancel resting
orders when system or market
conditions require it, including the
ability to contact staff of the applicable
designated contract market and clearing
firm, as applicable, to seek information
327 For example, if an ATS is designed to operate
within certain ranges of volatility, liquidity, or
order or trade prices, automated alerts may be
triggered when volatility or a moving average
approaches the pre-determined ranges.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78858

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

and cancel orders; and (iv) procedures
that will enable AT Persons to track
which monitoring staff is responsible for
an Algorithmic Trading system during
trading hours. The Commission believes
that staff persons who are responsible
for monitoring the trading of other AT
Person staff should typically not be
actively engaged in trading at the same
time, because it would be difficult to
adequately and consistently monitor
trading of other AT Person staff while
engaged in trading activities.328
Compliance of Algorithmic Trading
Systems. Regulation AT proposes a new
requirement (§ 1.81(c)) that each AT
Person shall implement written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that each of its Algorithmic
Trading systems operates in a manner
that complies with the CEA and the
rules and regulations thereunder. AT
Persons must also implement
procedures requiring staff of the AT
Person to review Algorithmic Trading
systems in order to detect potential
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issues.
Such staff must include staff of the AT
Person familiar with the CEA and the
rules and regulations thereunder, the
rules of any DCM to which such AT
Person submits orders through
Algorithmic Trading, the rules of any
RFA of which such AT Person is a
member, the AT Person’s own internal
requirements, and the requirements of
the AT Person’s clearing member FCM,
in each case as applicable. The
procedures should also include a plan
of internal coordination and
communication between compliance
staff of the AT Person and staff of the
AT Person responsible for Algorithmic
Trading regarding Algorithmic Trading
design, changes, testing, and controls,
which plan should be designed to detect
and prevent Algorithmic Trading
Compliance Issues.
Designation and Training of
Algorithmic Trading Staff. Regulation
AT proposes a new requirement
(§ 1.81(d)) that each AT Person must
implement written policies and
procedures to designate and train its
staff responsible for Algorithmic
Trading. Such policies and procedures
must at a minimum include the
328 The Commission notes that the supervision
requirement of proposed § 1.81(b) is analogous to
the supervision requirements for Commission
registrants under the customer protection rules of
Commission regulation 166.3. The Commission
further notes that ESMA’s draft regulatory standards
for MiFID II provide that real-time monitoring
should be performed by a risk function that is
independent from the trader, to ensure an
appropriate segregation between the trading desk
and supporting functions. See ESMA September
2015 Final Draft Standards Report, supra note 80
at 201.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

following: (i) Procedures for designating
and training all staff involved in
designing, testing and monitoring
Algorithmic Trading, and documenting
training events (training must, at a
minimum, cover design and testing
standards, Algorithmic Trading Event
communication procedures, and
requirements for notifying staff of the
applicable designated contract market
when Algorithmic Trading Events
occur); (ii) training policies reasonably
designed to ensure that natural person
monitors are adequately trained for each
Algorithmic Trading system or strategy
(or material change to such system or
strategy) for which such monitors are
responsible; and (iii) escalation
procedures to inform senior staff as soon
as Algorithmic Trading Events are
identified. The training described in
clause (ii) above must include, at a
minimum, the trading strategy for the
Algorithmic Trading system, as well as
the automated and non-automated risk
controls that are applicable to the
Algorithmic Trading system or strategy.
Adequate training should ensure that
monitors are effectively educated
regarding the typical behavior of each
Algorithmic Trading system or strategy
(or material change to such system or
strategy) that they are responsible for
overseeing in production. It should also
allow monitors to understand when risk
controls may be triggered, and how to
respond once they are. As result of the
training they receive, monitors should
be capable of making rapid, appropriate
decisions in real time to help contain or
mitigate ATS issues.
3. Policy Discussion
Consistent with the comments
received, the Commission is taking a
principles-based approach in this area,
which is intended to provide discretion
to AT Persons, particularly with respect
to the development and testing of
Algorithmic Trading systems. The
Commission acknowledges that
prescriptive regulations in this area may
fail to take into account the unique
characteristics of various market
participants’ trading strategies, and may
become obsolete as technology and
development standards evolve. For
example, the Commission recognizes
that software development practices
continue to evolve, and therefore is not
imposing very granular coding or testing
requirements. The Commission believes
that this principles-based approach is
consistent with other regulatory
initiatives and best practice guides
issued in this area, as further discussed
below.

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Guidelines, Best Practices and
Regulatory Standards on Testing and
Development
As noted above, the ESMA guidelines
recommended that investment firms
should make use of clearly delineated
development and testing methodologies
prior to deploying an electronic trading
system or a trading algorithm, and
should monitor their electronic trading
systems, including trading algorithms,
in real-time.329 The MiFID II Directive
requires a regulated market to have in
place effective systems, procedures and
arrangements, including requiring
members or participants to carry out
appropriate testing of algorithms and
providing environments to facilitate
such testing. The Directive seeks to
reduce the likelihood that algorithmic
trading systems may create or contribute
to disorderly trading conditions, and to
promote effective resolution of any
disorderly trading conditions that do
arise from algorithmic trading
systems.330 With respect to MiFID II,
ESMA’s 2015 Final Draft Regulatory
Standards include requirements relating
to the role of compliance and
monitoring staff, testing (including
conformance testing, stress testing, and
testing environments), annual review
and validation of systems, change
management procedures, and real-time
market monitoring procedures.331 These
standards include, among other things,
that a firm must have clear lines of
accountability for the development,
deployment and updates of algorithms,
and effective procedures for
communication of information;
compliance staff must have a general
understanding of how trading systems
and algorithms operate, and be in
continuous contact with persons with
detailed technical knowledge of trading
systems and algorithms; testing must
ensure that systems conform with the
rules and systems of the trading venue,
risk controls work as intended, and
systems will not contribute to disorderly
trading and can continue to work
effectively in stressed market
conditions; firms must run an annual
validation process, which includes
preparation of a validation report; firms
must keep records of material changes
made to software, including when a
change was made, who made it, who
approved it, and the nature of the
change; and monitoring systems must
have real-time alerts that assist staff in
identifying when an algorithm is not
behaving as expected, and firms must
329 See

ESMA Guidelines, supra note 61 at 10.
MiFID II, Article 48(6).
331 ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards
Report Annex 1, supra note 80 at 205–16.
330 See

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
have a process for remedial action when
alerts occur, including a process for an
orderly withdrawal from the market.332
With respect to the U.S. securities
markets, the SEC’s Reg SCI requires SCI
entities to implement a program to
review and keep current systems
development and testing methodology
for SCI systems, and to implement
standards that result in SCI systems
being designed, developed, tested,
maintained, operated, and surveilled in
a manner that facilitates the successful
collection, processing, and
dissemination of market data.333 In
addition, FINRA Notice 15–09,
published in March 2015, offered
guidance on effective supervision and
control practices for market participants
that use algorithmic trading strategies in
the equities market. The FINRA notice
provided guidance in five general areas:
General risk assessment and response;
software/code development and
implementation; software testing and
system validation; trading systems; and
compliance.334
The Commission further notes that
the FIA Guide provides an overview of
development and testing procedures,
including software development, source
code management and implementation,
exchange-based conformance testing,
and post-deployment verification, while
noting that ‘‘market participants and
exchanges should have the flexibility
necessary to establish procedures that
are appropriate and proportional to their
operations.’’ 335 The IOSCO 2015
Consultation Report notes that ‘‘many
regulatory authorities have introduced
specific requirements and guidelines
regarding the introduction of new
systems and changes to existing
systems,’’ and recommends that trading
venues should consider establishing
policies and procedures related to the
development, modification, testing and
implementation of critical systems, and
establishing a governance model for the
management of critical systems.336 The
IOSCO report also notes that most
trading venues have procedures and
tools designed to address the
operational risk associated with
electronic trading, including monitoring
of trading in real-time (or near realtime), and monitoring of the trading
venue’s system performance in realtime.337 Finally, the Senior Supervisors
Group Algorithmic Trading Briefing
332 See

id.
Reg SCI, supra note 40 at 72437.
334 See FINRA Notice 15–09, supra note 59 at 1.
335 See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 23–30.
336 See IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra
note 106 at 14, 19.
337 Id. at 21.
333 See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

Note, published in April 2015,
recommended that market participants
using algorithmic trading conduct
testing during all phases of a trading
product’s lifestyle, namely during
development, rollout to production, and
ongoing maintenance.338
The rules proposed under § 1.81 are
intended to be consistent with these
regulatory initiatives and best practices.
The Commission believes that most
market participants and DCMs have
implemented controls regarding the
design, testing, and supervision of
Algorithmic Trading systems, in light of
the numerous best practices and
regulatory requirements promulgated in
this area. The proposed regulations are
intended to standardize a set of
principles relating to the design, testing,
and supervision of Algorithmic Trading
systems in order to reduce the
operational risk of such systems. In their
response to the Concept Release, IATP
noted that, out of all the safeguards
discussing in the Release, they believed
ATS testing had the greatest potential to
reduce market disruptions.339 By
standardizing principles in this area,
Regulation AT is intended to reduce the
risk of disorderly trading, including the
risk that orders will be unintentionally
sent into the marketplace by a poorly
designed or insufficiently supervised
algorithm.
For example, the regulations proposed
under § 1.81 may reduce the risk of
market disruptions such as the 2012
incident involving Knight Capital. The
SEC later concluded that, among other
failures, Knight Capital did not have
adequate controls and procedures for
code deployment and testing for its
order router, did not have sufficient
controls and written procedures to
guide employees’ responses to
significant technological and
compliance incidents, and did not have
an adequate written description of its
risk management controls.340 As
discussed above, proposed § 1.81
requires written policies and procedures
relating to the following: Testing of all
Algorithmic Trading code and relates
systems and any changes to such code
and systems prior to their
implementation; regular stress tests of
Algorithmic Trading systems to verify
their ability to operate in the manner
intended under a variety of market
conditions; a plan of internal
coordination and communication
between compliance staff of the AT
Person and staff of the AT Person
responsible for Algorithmic Trading
338 See

SSG 2015 Note, supra note 115 at 3.
at 7.
340 See SEC Knight Capital Release, supra note 39.
339 IATP

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78859

regarding Algorithmic Trading design,
changes, testing, and controls; and
procedures for documenting the strategy
and design of proprietary Algorithmic
Trading software used by an AT Person,
among other controls. The
standardization of such written policies
and procedures may make disruptive
events like the Knight Capital incident
less likely in the future.
4. Request for Comments
41. The Commission understands that
the requirements for developing, testing,
and supervising algorithmic systems
proposed in § 1.81(a)–(d) are already
widely used throughout the industry.
Are any specific requirements proposed
in this section not widely used by
persons that would be designated as AT
Persons under Regulation AT, and if
not, why not? If any requirements
described in § 1.81(a)–(d) are not widely
used, please provide an estimate of the
cost that would be incurred by an AT
Person to implement such requirements.
42. Are there any aspects of § 1.81(a)–
(d) that are unnecessary for purposes of
reducing the risks from Algorithmic
Trading, and should not be mandated by
regulation? If so, please explain.
43. Are the procedures described
above for the development and testing
of Algorithmic Trading sufficient to
ensure that algorithmic systems are
thoroughly tested before being used in
production, and will operate in the
manner intended in the production
environment?
44. Are there any additional
procedures for the development and
testing of Algorithmic Trading that
should be required under Regulation
AT?
45. Are any of the required
procedures for the development and
testing of Algorithmic Trading likely to
become obsolete in the near future as
development and testing standards
evolve?
46. Are the procedures for designating
and training Algorithmic Trading staff
of AT Persons sufficient to ensure that
such staff will be knowledgeable in the
strategy and operation of Algorithmic
Trading, and capable of identifying
Algorithmic Trading Events and
promptly escalating them to appropriate
staff members?
47. Is it typical that persons
responsible for monitoring algorithmic
trading do not simultaneously engage in
trading activity?
48. Proposed §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.83
would impose certain requirements on
all AT Persons regardless of the size,
sophistication, or other attributes of
their business. The Commission
requests public comment regarding

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78860

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

whether these requirements should vary
in some manner depending on the AT
Person. If commenters believe proposed
§§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.83 should vary,
please describe how and according to
what criteria.
J. Risk Management by Clearing Member
FCMs—§ 1.82
The Commission proposes a new
§ 1.82 to require clearing member FCMs
to implement pre-trade risk and order
management controls with respect to AT
Order Messages originating with an AT
Person. Specifically, such clearing
member FCMs must make use of pretrade risk controls reasonably designed
to prevent or mitigate an Algorithmic
Trading Disruption, including at a
minimum, those pre-trade risk controls
described in § 1.80(a)(1). The remainder
of this section presents Concept Release
comments on this topic, a description of
the proposed regulation, a discussion of
the policy justification for the proposal,
and a request for comments on the
proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release inquired about
clearing members’ use of the same pretrade and other risk controls discussed
above in section IV(H) with respect to
AT Persons.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

a. Message and Execution Throttles
FIA indicated that message and
execution throttles are already widely
used by clearing members. FIA PTG
surveyed its members and found that all
responding FCMs used message and
execution throttles, either internally or
at the exchange level.341 FIA also
indicated that most DCMs provide tools
to allow FCMs to set pre-trade controls
for their customers, which are a
prerequisite for an FCM to provide
direct access to a market participant
without routing orders through the
FCM’s infrastructure.342 FIA explained
that FCMs encourage DCMs to provide
pre-trade risk controls that can be set at
various levels, whether at session level,
customer level or account level.343 CFE
commented that it provides an
execution throttle to clearing
members.344
FIA stated that DCM message rate
limits should be supplemented at the
market participant or FCM level.345 FIA
explained that where an FCM facilitates
market access, it has the ability to
impose the FCM’s own message rate
341 FIA

at 59–60.
at 13.
343 FIA at 13.
344 CFE at 7.
345 FIA at 12, 16.
342 FIA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

limits. These limits should be
documented and discussed with market
participants to ensure that they are
appropriate for the participants’ type of
activity.346 FIA further stated that FCMs
that choose to implement message rate
limits within their infrastructure should
be transparent to their customers
regarding the reason for the control and
the maximum message rate that can be
supported by the FCM.347 In the case of
direct access, FIA explained that the
FCM should rely on DCM-provided
message rate limits and any controls
implemented by the market participants
themselves.348
Additional commenters indicated that
FCMs should implement messaging or
execution limits.349 For example, Gelber
stated that ‘‘in many cases, FCMs
receive fills from the exchanges and
have no control over the amount of
messaging coming from a customer
controlled-and-run applications.
Therefore, FCMs need to have the
ability to coordinate throttle rates
through the account identifier at the
exchange.’’ 350 Gelber indicated that
such limits should take into account
financial risk and FCMs’ understanding
of their clients’ business.351 MFA stated
that clearing members, as the gateways
to the markets, should have financial
and regulatory risk management
controls to reduce risks associated with
market access.352 Similarly, CME
supported allowing clearing members to
provide direct market access to their
customers as long as the clearing
member has appropriately vetted the
client and implemented appropriate risk
management controls.353 CME stated
that clearing firms should decide the
exact nature of the throttles to impose
across their customer base, taking into
consideration financial risk to the extent
possible and their understanding of
their clients’ businesses.354 Finally, SIG
commented that clearing firms should
have the ability to throttle orders at the
exchange level in connection with
credit limits set by the clearing firm,
346 FIA

at 16.
at 12.
348 FIA at 16.
349 KCG at 3; Gelber at 6; MFA at 4–5; CME at
7–9; AIMA at 7; Chicago Fed at 2; SIG at 3. The
Commission notes that the same concern discussed
in the AT Person context that message or execution
limits have potential negative effects because they
can block risk-reducing orders would also apply to
message or execution limits applied by an FCM. To
that end, the Commission notes that FIA
commented that a FCM should never reject an order
cancellation request due to message rate limits. See
FIA at 16.
350 Gelber at 6.
351 Gelber at 5–7.
352 MFA at 4–5.
353 CME at 7.
354 CME at 9.
347 FIA

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

and that exchanges should make this
same protection available to executing
brokers executing for customers for
whom they do not clear.355
b. Maximum Order Sizes
Commenters indicated that clearing
members already use maximum order
sizes. FIA explained that FIA PTG
conducted a survey and all responding
FCMs used this control.356 CME
commented that it allows clearing
members to use its technology to set
maximum order sizes for specific
customers or accounts.357 CFE stated
that it allows clearing members to set
maximum order size limits by product,
and then set maximum order and quote
size limits by the ‘‘log-in’’ of trading
privilege holders.358 FIX indicated that
it is becoming increasingly common for
futures and equities exchanges to
provide tools that allow an FCM the
ability to set checks for each client that
accesses the exchange directly.359 AIMA
suggested that many market participants
already use maximum order sizes when
trading through their brokers, but may
have less access to this control in the
case of direct market access.360 MFA
commented that some FCMs already
offer their customers this control, which
can be set at the following levels: Each
direct market access order, each
individual algorithmic order, net sell
and buy order limits, and total contract
limits.361 MFA suggested that all FCMs
offer this maximum order size control at
the trader-level.362 Similarly, KCG
believes that exchange-provided
maximum order size controls should
allow the market participant flexibility
in setting different maximum order size
levels for different users within a firm,
such as based on trader ID or
customer.363 Chicago Fed supports a
requirement that clearing firms must use
this control at the account level.364
c. Price Collars
Most comments addressing this
control focused on price collars
implemented by exchanges. However,
the FIA FCM Survey reflected that
almost all responding FCMs used price
collars, administered either internally or
at the exchange level.365
355 See

id.
at 59–60.
357 CME at 15.
358 CFE at 7.
359 FIX at 3.
360 AIMA at 13.
361 MFA at 9.
362 See id.
363 KCG at 8.
364 Chicago Fed at 2.
365 FIA at 60.
356 FIA

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
d. Order Management Controls
As noted above, the Concept Release
requested comment regarding ‘‘system
heartbeats’’ and ‘‘auto-cancel on
disconnect,’’ and commenters that
addressed this topic indicated that
exchanges provide these tools. In
addition, FIA indicated that it is
increasingly common for FCMs to
employ cancel-on-disconnect for their
connections to the DCM.366
Some commenters addressed the
implementation of ‘‘kill switch’’
functionality by FCMs. Two exchanges
commented that their kill switch
functionality allows clearing firms to
cancel orders 367 and several
commenters stated that kill switches
should be implemented by market
participants and clearing firms in
addition to exchanges.368 Barclays
commented that if a kill switch is
located at the FCM level, then the
Commission should provide ‘‘clear
regulatory guidance’’ about when the
FCM should alter or cancel orders, given
that altering or cancelling orders could
expose the FCM to significant financial
or legal liability.369
FIA explained that if a DCM cannot
provide the appropriate level of
granularity in the function of its kill
switch, the focus of this functionality
should be at the FCM level.370 FIA
recommended that a kill switch
implemented by an FCM should be able
to be invoked ‘‘at the finest resolution
possible’’ and should include both
manual and automated methods for
triggering the kill switch.371 FIA
stressed that a kill switch should be
used as a ‘‘final measure’’ only when
other processes have not been
successful, and that policies and
procedures for when an FCM will
invoke a kill switch should be clearly
communicated to the market
participant.372
2. Description of Regulation
The Commission proposes a new
§ 1.82 to require clearing member FCMs
to implement pre-trade risk controls and
order management controls with respect
to AT Order Messages originating with
an AT Person. Specifically, such
366 FIA

at 14.
at 23–24; CFE at 11.
368 Citadel at 3; CME at 22; Chicago Fed at 2.
369 Barclays Capital Inc. (‘‘Barclays’’) Comment
Letter (December 10, 2013) at 1. Similarly, FIA
commented that where FCMs rely on DCMprovided controls, and such controls fail to operate
according to the instructions of the FCM, FCMs
should be deemed to have met their regulatory
obligations. FIA at 19–20.
370 FIA at 30.
371 Id. at 31.
372 Id.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

367 CME

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

clearing member FCMs must make use
of pre-trade risk controls reasonably
designed to prevent or mitigate an
Algorithmic Trading Disruption,
including at a minimum, those pre-trade
risk controls described in § 1.80(a)(1).
(Proposed § 1.80(a)(1) requires AT
Persons to implement, at a minimum,
maximum AT Order Message frequency
per unit time and maximum execution
frequency per unit time, order price
parameters and maximum order size
limits.) The Commission notes that
proposed § 1.82 requires clearing
member FCMs to address ‘‘Algorithmic
Trading Disruptions,’’ rather than the
broader ‘‘Algorithmic Trading Events’’
that AT Persons are required to address
under proposed § 1.80. As discussed in
section IV(D) above, an Algorithmic
Trading Disruption is defined in
proposed § 1.3(uuuu) as an event
originating with an AT Person that
disrupts, or materially degrades, (1) the
Algorithmic Trading of such AT Person,
(2) the operation of the DCM on which
such AT Person is trading or (3) the
ability of other market participants to
trade on the DCM on which such AT
Person is trading. In contrast to an
Algorithmic Trading Event (defined in
proposed § 1.3(vvvv)), an Algorithmic
Trading Disruption does not specifically
incorporate violations of the CEA or the
rules thereunder. The Commission
anticipates that some Algorithmic
Trading Disruptions may be the result of
violations of the CEA or Commission
regulations, and some Algorithmic
Trading Disruptions may not. Proposed
§ 1.82 requires clearing member FCMs
to make use of pre-trade risk controls
reasonably designed to prevent or
mitigate an Algorithmic Trading
Disruption, regardless of whether such
disruptions were the result of a
violation of the CEA or Commission
regulations. It otherwise does not
require clearing member FCMs to ensure
that their customers’ order flow does not
violate the CEA or Commission
regulations. However, nothing in
proposed § 1.82 relieves FCMs of their
obligations under all other applicable
Commission regulations.
Proposed § 1.82 also requires that pretrade risk controls must be set at the
level of each AT Person, or such other
more granular level as the clearing FCM
may determine, including but not
limited to: By product, account number
or designation, or one or more
identifiers of natural persons associated
with an AT Order Message. In addition,
§ 1.82 would require the clearing
member FCM to have policies and
procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that natural person monitors at

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78861

the FCM are promptly alerted when pretrade risk control parameters established
pursuant to this section are breached,
and make use of the order cancellation
systems described in § 1.80(b)(1). (The
order cancellation systems are the same
controls that proposed § 1.80(b)(1)
requires AT Persons to implement, i.e.,
systems that have the ability to
immediately disengage Algorithmic
Trading, cancel selected or up to all
resting orders when system or market
conditions require it, and prevent the
submission of new orders.)
Pursuant to proposed § 1.82(b) and
(c), the location of the pre-trade and
other risk controls calibrated by the
clearing member FCM varies, according
to whether an AT Person’s orders are
placed through DEA or intermediated by
its clearing FCM.
DEA Orders—Controls Reside at
DCM. Proposed § 1.82(b) addresses AT
Order Messages originating with an AT
Person and submitted through DEA. In
the case of DEA, pre-trade and other risk
controls would be established by and
located at the DCM, and be controlled
or calibrated by the clearing FCM. This
approach recognizes that clearing FCMs
do not have the ability to apply market
risk controls to customers’ DEA orders
before they reach a DCM. With respect
to financial risk, existing § 38.607
requires DCMs to establish controls
facilitating FCMs’ management of
financial risk, and existing § 1.73
provides requirements with respect to
clearing FCMs’ implementation of such
controls.373 Consistent with that
structure, proposed amendments to
§ 38.255 establish a similar structure in
which DCMs must establish pre-trade
and other risk controls addressing the
risks of Algorithmic Trading for use by
FCMs. Proposed § 1.82(b), accordingly,
requires FCMs to implement such
controls residing at the DCM.
Non-DEA Orders—FCM Implements
and Calibrates Controls. Proposed
§ 1.82(c) addresses the scenario in
which AT Order Messages originating
with an AT Person are not submitted to
a trading platform through DEA, but
instead are routed through a clearing
member FCM. In the case of such
intermediated orders, the controls
would not reside at the DCM. Instead,
the clearing member FCM itself would
have the obligation to implement and
373 The Commission notes that § 23.609 imposes
the same risk-based limit requirements on SDs and
MSPs as § 1.73 does on clearing FCMs. SDs and
MSPs do not carry customer accounts; accordingly,
any firm that has customer accounts must be a
registered FCM and implement the controls
required by new § 1.82. Furthermore, any SD or
MSP that engages in Algorithmic Trading for its
own account will have to comply with the AT
Person requirements of proposed § 1.80.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78862

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

calibrate pre-trade risk and other
controls with respect to such orders.
The Commission notes that while the
controls implemented by the FCM are
the same types of controls that would be
implemented by AT Persons pursuant to
§ 1.80 (and by DCMs pursuant to
§ 40.20, discussed below), each entity
would be responsible for ensuring the
appropriate calibration of the control.
Accordingly, an FCM’s setting of a
maximum order size limit, for example,
may be different from the setting used
by an AT Person, depending on each
entity’s assessment of the potential for
an Algorithmic Trading Event or an
Algorithmic Trading Disruption, as
applicable. The Commission will not
mandate exactly when intervention by
an FCM to modify or cancel orders is
necessary; rather, the Commission
believes that each FCM is best
positioned to determine appropriate
parameters that will prevent or mitigate
an Algorithmic Trading Disruption.
Furthermore, the Commission will not
specify a mandate which, if complied
with by an FCM, would absolve the
FCM of liability (as requested by
Barclays).374
3. Policy Discussion
The Commission agrees with
comments to the Concept Release that
suggested that all types of market access
create risks; therefore, the same
principles should apply to all types of
market access. When an order does not
pass through a clearing member FCM’s
infrastructure before entering the
market, it is critical that DCMs provide
clearing member FCMs with the ability
to subject such orders to controls that
prevent or mitigate the impact of
unintended or disruptive trading. In
addition, where orders pass through a
clearing member FCM’s infrastructure
before entering the market, that clearing
member FCMs should subject such
orders to similar controls. The
Commission believes that an order
should pass through the same pre-trade
risk controls regardless of trading
strategy or means of market access, and
that all market participants have a
responsibility to implement risk
controls appropriate to their role in the
lifecycle of an order.
As discussed above, commenters
indicated that the required controls (i.e.,
message and execution throttles and
price and size parameters) are already
widely used by clearing members, either
internally or as provided by the DCM.
The Commission also notes that IOSCO
and ESMA have stressed the importance
of adequate risk controls where a user
374 See

Barclays at 1.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

is granted access to the market via an
intermediary’s systems or directly,
without using the intermediary’s
systems. IOSCO has recommended that
intermediaries (including clearing firms)
have adequate operational and technical
capabilities to manage appropriately the
risks posed by such access.375 ESMA’s
2015 Final Draft Regulatory Standards
require that the intermediary providing
access apply pre-trade risk controls on
the order flow of their clients.376
ESMA’s regulatory standards provide
that the direct electronic access provider
may use its own proprietary controls,
controls purchased from a third-party,
or controls offered by a trading venue,
but in each of those circumstances the
provider remains responsible for the
effectiveness of those controls and is
solely entitled to set or modify any
parameters and limits.377
4. Discussion of Persons Subject to
Proposed §§ 1.80 and 1.82
The following discussion is intended
to provide detailed examples of which
persons will be subject to proposed
§§ 1.80 (applicable to all AT Persons
when acting as such) and 1.82
(applicable only to clearing FCMs).
Proposed § 1.80 would apply to AT
Persons—i.e., any FCM, floor broker,
SD, MSP, CPO, CTA, IB or floor trader
as defined in proposed § 1.3(x)(3) when
engaged in Algorithmic Trading on or
subject to the rules of a DCM. In
contrast, proposed § 1.82 would apply
to clearing FCMs when acting as
clearing members for their customers
with respect to an AT Order Message.
An entity could be subject to both
§ 1.80 and § 1.82 in certain
circumstances. For example, in the
event that a clearing FCM engages in
both Algorithmic Trading for its own
account and acts a clearing member
with respect to its customers’ AT Order
Messages, such clearing FCM would be
subject to both proposed § 1.80 (as an
AT Person with respect to its own
375 IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra note
106 at 22–23.
376 See ESMA September 2015 Final Draft
Standards Report Annex 1, supra note 80 at 218.
ESMA’s 2015 Final Draft Regulatory Standards
further require, among other things, that direct
electronic access providers have the ability to stop
order flow of their clients, carry out a review of the
internal risk controls systems of the client, and have
the ability to identify the different trading desks
and traders of its clients. The direct electronic
access provider must also perform due diligence on
its clients covering, among other things, the type of
strategies the client will use, the operational set-up,
systems and controls of the client, its historical
trading pattern and behavior, an assessment of the
level of expected trading and order volume, and the
ability of the client to meet its financial obligations.
See id. at 219–20.
377 See id.

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Algorithmic Trading) and to proposed
§ 1.82 (as a clearing member). The
Commission is providing further clarity
regarding who would be AT Persons for
purposes of § 1.80 and other regulations,
including some detailed order flow
scenarios that demonstrate the
application of §§ 1.80 and 1.82, below.
Question One: In the scenario in
which a non-clearing FCM trading for a
proprietary account submits orders to a
separate clearing FCM, could the
clearing FCM ever engage in
Algorithmic Trading and be an AT
Person?
If an FCM trading for a proprietary
account submits an order to a separate
clearing FCM, the separate clearing FCM
could be an AT Person if it uses
computer algorithms or systems to
determine any of the elements of the
definition of Algorithmic Trading (e.g.,
determinations regarding order routing).
If the clearing FCM is not making any
of these determinations, the clearing
FCM is not an AT Person.
If an FCM trading for a proprietary
account submits an order to a separate
non-clearing FCM who then submits it
to an additional separate clearing FCM,
the clearing FCM is not engaged in
Algorithmic Trading, provided that it is
not determining any of the elements of
the definition of Algorithmic Trading.
Question Two: Is it correct to say that
all FCMs using Algorithmic Trading to
engage in proprietary trading are AT
Persons?
Yes. A non-clearing or clearing FCM
that uses Algorithmic Trading to engage
in proprietary trading is an AT Person.
Question Three: Is it correct to say
that an FCM accepting orders from its
customer may be an AT Person, if its
computer algorithms or systems
determine any of the elements of the
definition of Algorithmic Trading?
Yes. A non-clearing or clearing FCM
that accepts customer orders, and that
uses computer algorithms or systems to
determine any of the elements of the
definition of Algorithmic Trading (e.g.,
determinations regarding order routing),
would be an AT Person with respect to
the customer’s orders.
Below are some detailed order flow
scenarios that demonstrate the
application of §§ 1.80 (which applies to
AT Persons) and 1.82.
Example 1: Order flow prior to execution
by DCM: (i) Customer to (ii) non-clearing
FCM to (iii) separate clearing FCM. Customer
is not registered with the Commission; uses
algorithms but not DEA. Neither the nonclearing FCM nor the clearing FCM make any
of the determinations regarding the order
described in the definition of Algorithmic
Trading.

Who is an AT Person?

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(i) The customer is not an AT Person,
because it is not registered and does not
use DEA.
(ii) The non-clearing FCM is not an
AT Person, because it doesn’t make any
determinations regarding the order and
therefore doesn’t engage in Algorithmic
Trading.
(iii) The clearing FCM is not an AT
Person, for the same reason as (ii). The
clearing member FCM is also not subject
to 1.82, because the customer in (i)
originating orders isn’t an AT Person.
Example 2: Order flow prior to execution
by DCM: (i) Customer to (ii) non-clearing
FCM to (iii) separate clearing FCM. Customer
is not registered with the Commission; uses
algorithms but not DEA. Non-clearing FCM’s
computer algorithms or systems make some
of the determinations regarding the order
described in the definition of Algorithmic
Trading.

Who is an AT Person?
(i) The customer is not an AT Person,
because it is not registered and does not
use DEA.
(ii) The non-clearing FCM is an AT
Person, because it engages in
Algorithmic Trading regarding the
customer’s order.
(iii) The clearing FCM is not an AT
Person, assuming it doesn’t make any
determinations regarding order and
therefore doesn’t engage in Algorithmic
Trading. The clearing FCM is also not
subject to 1.82, because the customer
originating orders isn’t an AT Person
(even though the non-clearing FCM in
the order flow is an AT Person).
Example 3: Order flow prior to execution
by DCM: (i) Customer to (ii) a clearing FCM.
Customer is not registered with the
Commission; uses algorithms but not DEA.
Clearing FCM just clears trades, and does not
make any of the determinations regarding the
order described in the definition of
Algorithmic Trading.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Who is an AT Person?
(i) The customer is not an AT Person,
because it is not registered and does not
use DEA.
(ii) The clearing FCM is not an AT
Person, because it doesn’t make any
determinations regarding the order and
therefore doesn’t engage in Algorithmic
Trading. The clearing FCM is also not
subject to 1.82, because the customer
originating orders isn’t an AT Person.
Example 4: Order flow prior to execution
by DCM: (i) FCM trading for its proprietary
account to (ii) a separate clearing FCM. The
FCM trading for a proprietary account uses
Algorithmic Trading; clearing member FCM
does not make any of the determinations
described in the definition of Algorithmic
Trading.

Who is an AT Person?
(i) The FCM trading for the
proprietary account is an AT Person,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

because it engages in Algorithmic
Trading.
(ii) The clearing FCM is not an AT
Person, because it doesn’t make any
determinations regarding the order and
therefore doesn’t engage in Algorithmic
Trading. But the clearing FCM is subject
to § 1.82, because the FCM originating
the orders is an AT Person.
5. Request for Comments
49. Are any pre-trade or other risk
controls required by § 1.82 ineffective,
not already widely used by clearing
member FCMs, or likely to become
obsolete?
50. Are there any aspects of proposed
§ 1.82 that pose an undue burden for
clearing member FCMs and are
unnecessary for purposes of reducing
the risks associated with Algorithmic
Trading? If so, please explain (1) the
burden; (2) why it is not necessary to
reduce the risks associated with
Algorithmic Trading, particularly in the
case of DEA. What alternatives are
available consistent with the purposes
of Regulation AT?
51. Please describe the technological
development that would be required by
clearing member FCMs to comply with
the requirement to implement and
calibrate the pre-trade and other risk
controls required by § 1.82(c) for nonDEA orders. To what extent have
clearing member FCMs already
developed the technology required by
this provision, for example in
connection with existing requirements
under § 1.11, and §§ 1.73 and 38.607 for
clearing FCMs to manage financial
risks?
52. Are there additional pre-trade or
other risk controls that should be
specifically required pursuant to
proposed § 1.82?
53. Do you believe that the pre-trade
and other risk controls required in
§ 1.82 sufficiently address the
possibility of technological advances in
trading and development of new, more
effective controls that should be
implemented by FCMs?
54. The Commission welcomes
comment on whether the requirements
of § 1.82 relating to the design of
controls and the levels at which the
controls should be set are appropriate
and sufficiently granular.
55. Proposed § 1.82 does not require
FCMs to have connectivity monitoring
such as ‘‘system heartbeats’’ or
automatic cancel-on-disconnect
functions. Do you believe that § 1.82
should require FCMs to have such
functionality?
56. Proposed § 1.82 requires clearing
FCMs to implement controls with
respect to AT Order Messages

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78863

originating with an AT Person. The
Commission is considering modifying
proposed § 1.82 to require clearing
FCMs to implement controls with
respect to all orders, including orders
that are manually submitted or are
entered through algorithmic methods
that nonetheless do not meet the
definition of Algorithmic Trading. Such
a requirement would correspond to the
requirement under proposed § 40.20(d)
that DCMs implement risk controls for
orders that do not originate from
Algorithmic Trading. If the Commission
were to incorporate such amendments
in any final rules arising from this
NPRM, its intent would be to further
reduce risk by ensuring that all orders,
regardless of source, are screened for
risk at both the clearing member FCM
and the DCM level. Risk controls at the
point of order origination would
continue to be limited to AT Persons.
The Commission requests comment on
this proposed amendment to § 1.82,
which the Commission may implement
in the final rulemaking for Regulation
AT. The Commission requests comment
on the costs and benefits to clearing
FCMs of this proposal, in addition to
any other comments regarding the
effectiveness of this proposal in terms of
risk reduction.
K. Compliance Reports Submitted by AT
Persons and Clearing FCMs to DCMs;
Related Recordkeeping Requirements—
§ 1.83
The Commission is proposing new
§ 1.83(a) and (b) of its regulations to
require that AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs provide the DCMs on
which they operate with information
regarding their compliance with
§§ 1.80(a) and 1.82(a)(1). Specifically,
the proposed rules would require AT
Persons prepare, certify, and submit
annual reports regarding their controls
for: (1) Maximum AT Order Message
frequency; (2) maximum execution
frequency; (3) order price parameters;
and (4) maximum order sizes. The
proposed rules would require each FCM
that is a clearing member for an AT
Person to prepare, certify, and submit
annual reports regarding its program for
establishing and maintaining those same
controls for its AT Persons (in the
aggregate). As described in section IV(H)
and (J) above, the use of such pre-trade
risk controls would be mandatory for
both AT Persons and clearing member
FCMs pursuant to §§ 1.80(a)(1) and
1.82(a)(1), respectively.
The reports proposed by § 1.83,
together with the DCM review program
proposed by § 40.22, will enable DCMs
to have a clearer understanding of the
pre-trade risk controls of all AT Persons

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78864

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

that are engaged in Algorithmic Trading
on such DCM. Furthermore, because AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs will
have great flexibility in how they
implement their pre-trade risk controls
pursuant to proposed §§ 1.80(a)(1) and
1.82(a)(1), the annual reporting
obligations in proposed § 1.83 and DCM
review provisions in § 40.22 will help
ensure that such controls are being
implemented and are reasonably
designed and calibrated.
As a complement to the compliance
report program described above,
proposed § 1.83(c) and (d) would
require AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs for AT Persons to keep
and provide upon request to DCMs
books and records regarding their
compliance with §§ 1.80 and 1.81 (for
AT Persons) and § 1.82 (for clearing
member FCMs).
The remainder of this section presents
Concept Release comments on this
topic, a description of the proposed
regulation, a discussion of the policy
justification for the proposal, and a
request for comments on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release requested
comment on whether it would be
appropriate to require periodic selfcertifications by all market participants
operating ATSs and by clearing firms
that provide clearing services to those
market participants.378 In the Concept
Release, the Commission set forth
potential areas that a self-certification
for market participants might cover. The
Commission stated that a certification
might attest that: ‘‘(1) The ATS contains
structural safeguards to provide
reasonable assurance that the trading
system will not be disruptive to fair and
equitable trading; (2) the market
participant’s ATSs have been designed
to avoid violations of the CEA,
Commission regulations, or exchange
rules related to fraud, disruptive trading
practices, manipulation and trade
practice violations; and (3) such systems
have been sufficiently tested and
documented in a manner that is
appropriate to the intended design and
use of that system.’’ 379 The Concept
Release also requested comment on a
number of different aspects of a selfcertification program. These included:
(1) Whether the chief executive officer
or chief compliance officer, or similar
ranking official of each market
participant should attest to the
certification; (2) how often should a
market participant make the selfcertification; (3) which entities should
378 Concept

Release, 78 FR 56559.

379 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

receive the certification; and (4) should
DCMs, SEFs, or clearing member FCMs
be required to audit the certifications of
market participants.380
Commenters were mixed in their
support of a certification requirement
for market participants operating ATSs
and for clearing firms that provide
clearing services to those market
participants. Some commenters, such as
AFR, supported certifications.381
Others, such as AIMA, FIA, and CME,
oppose a certification requirement set
by the Commission.382 AIMA argued
that a certification requirement ‘‘could
merely create extra administrative costs
for firms and the CFTC.’’ 383 FIA and
CME stated that it should be left to
individual DCMs to define certification
policies for their market participants.384
FIA commented that instead of formal
certification, market access should
depend on attestation that the highest
quality standards are maintained and
appropriate risk controls and escalation
procedures are in place.385 CME argued
that ‘‘[g]iven the breadth of risk profiles
across the spectrum of clients, it would
be unduly burdensome and costprohibitive for the exchanges or the
Commission to mandate specific risk
management parameters and the
continuous auditing or formal
certification thereof.’’ 386
With respect to what information
might be included in the certifications,
Gelber argued that ‘‘[a] market
participant should certify that each of
its ATS employs pre-trade risk controls,
post-trade reports and system
safeguards.’’ 387 FIA and CME also
commented that if the Commission were
to impose a certification requirement,
the standards for such requirement
should be principles-based.388
Most commenters support requiring
senior management to make the
certification. FIA argued that if a
certification requirement is imposed,
this certification should be the
responsibility of senior management at
the market participant, DCM or FCM.389
Gelber commented that the certification
should be from a chief technology
officer or equivalent, and attested to by
another c-level executive officer.390 AFR
commented that certifications ‘‘should
be made by the CEO, as well as both the
380 Id.
381 AFR

at 8.
at 21; FIA at 4; CME at 27.
383 AIMA at 21.
384 FIA at 4; CME at 27.
385 FIA at 40.
386 CME at 28.
387 Gelber at 17.
388 FIA at 4; CME at 27.
389 FIA at 39.
390 Gelber at 17.
382 AIMA

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

CCO and CRO to make certain that
responsibility for the underlying
systems and algorithms is taken by
those officers having direct
responsibility.’’ 391 CME commented
that any attestation should lie with the
supervisors with business line
responsibility for, and knowledge of, the
systems at issue. CME also stated that
the certifications ‘‘should be tendered to
each level of the supply chain with
supervisory authority.’’ 392
With respect to the frequency of the
certifications, Gelber commented that
market participants should certify twice
per year and whenever there has been
a material change to a program that they
employ.393 TCL stated that ATSs should
be required to make the certification
annually, or whenever a major
functional change to their business
environment is implemented.394 With
respect to the auditing of the
certifications, FIA argued that audit
responsibilities should only be
determined after standards are in
place.395 Alternatively, Gelber argued
that exchanges should require firms to
maintain certifications and produce
them upon request. Gelber stated that it
should be at the exchanges’ discretion
as to whether they audit such
certifications.396
2. Description of Regulation
Compliance Report Program.
Proposed § 1.83(a) and (b) would require
that AT Persons and clearing member
FCMs, respectively, provide the DCMs
on which they operate with information
regarding their compliance with
§§ 1.80(a) and 1.82(a)(1). Specifically,
the proposed rules would to require AT
Persons to prepare, certify, and submit
annual reports regarding their controls
for: (1) Maximum AT Order Message
frequency; (2) maximum execution
frequency; (3) order price parameters;
and (4) maximum order sizes. The
proposed rules would require each FCM
that is a clearing member for one or
more AT Persons to prepare, certify, and
submit annual reports regarding its
program for establishing and
maintaining those same controls for its
AT Persons in the aggregate. As
described in section IV(H) and (J) above,
the use of such pre-trade risk controls
would be mandatory for AT Persons
pursuant to § 1.80(a)(1), and mandatory
for clearing member FCMs pursuant to
§ 1.82(a)(1).
391 AFR

at 8.
at 28.
393 Gelber at 17.
394 TLC at 15.
395 FIA at 40.
396 Gelber at 17.
392 CME

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
The Commission is also proposing a
new § 40.22 (discussed in more detail
below) to require that each DCM that
receives a report described in § 1.83
establish a program for effective review
and evaluation of the reports. The
reports proposed by § 1.83 and the
review program proposed by § 40.22
would enable DCMs to have a clearer
understanding of the pre-trade risk
controls and compliance procedures of
all AT Persons that are engaged in
Algorithmic Trading on such DCM. The
proposed reports and review program
will also give DCMs a better
understanding of the program for
establishing and maintaining the pretrade risk controls used by any FCM of
an AT Person that is engaged in
Algorithmic Trading on such DCM.
The Commission notes that the SEC’s
Market Access Rule, as discussed in
greater detail above, has a similar
certification requirement for certain
broker-dealers.397 The Market Access
Rule requires that certain broker-dealers
maintain a system for regularly
reviewing the effectiveness of the risk
management controls and supervisory
procedures required by the Market
Access Rule. It also requires that the
Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent
officer) of a broker-dealer subject to the
Market Access Rule certify, on an
annual basis, that the risk management
controls and supervisory procedures
established by the broker-dealer comply
with the Market Access Rule, and that
the broker-dealer conducted the
required review of the risk management
controls and supervisory procedures.
The certification required by the Market
Access Rule must be preserved by the
broker-dealer as part of its books and
records.
The Commission also notes that
ESMA’s 2015 Final Draft Regulatory
Standards require an annual selfassessment and validation process in
which investment firms must review
their algorithmic trading systems and
trading algorithms, and overall
compliance with Article 17 of Directive
2014/65/EU (MiFID II’s requirements on
firms that engage in Algorithmic
Trading).398 ESMA sets out elements
that investment firms should consider
in its self-assessment, which include
elements relating to the nature of its
business (e.g., level of automation, types
of strategies it employs, latency
sensitivity), the scale of its business
(e.g., number of algorithms, number of
trading desks, messaging volume
capabilities), and the complexity of its
397 17

CFR 240.15c3–5(e).
September 2015 Final Draft Standards
Report Annex 1, supra note 80 at 210, 224–26.
398 ESMA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

business (e.g., diversity of trading
systems and connectivity methods, and
the speed of trading). The validation
report must be approved by the firm’s
senior management and the firm must
remedy any deficiencies identified.
While not identical to the certification
required of broker-dealers in the Market
Access Rule or ESMA’s annual selfassessment process for investment
firms, the compliance report program
proposed by § 1.83 and § 40.22 is
similarly designed to ensure that market
participants have effective risk controls
in place and that these risk controls are
regularly reviewed. Specifically,
proposed § 1.83(a) would require each
AT Person to annually prepare a report,
and submit such report by June 30 to
each DCM on which such AT Person
engaged in Algorithmic Trading, that
covers from May 1 of the previous year
to April 30 of the year such report is
submitted. Together with the annual
report, each AT Person would be
required to submit copies of the written
policies and procedures developed to
comply with § 1.81(a) and (c). The
report must include descriptions of the
AT Person’s pre-trade risk controls
required by proposed § 1.80(a)(1), and
the parameters and specific quantitative
settings used for the risk controls. The
report would also be required to include
a certification by the chief executive
officer or chief compliance officer of the
AT Person that, to the best of his or her
knowledge and reasonable belief, the
information contained in the report is
accurate and complete.
Proposed § 1.83(b) would require each
FCM that is a clearing member for an
AT Person to annually prepare a report,
and submit such report by June 30 to
each DCM on which such AT Person
engaged in Algorithmic Trading, that
covers from May 1 of the previous year
to April 30 of the year such report is
submitted. The report must include a
description of the FCM’s program for
establishing and maintaining the pretrade controls required by proposed
§ 1.82(a)(1) for its AT Persons (in the
aggregate) at the DCM. The requirements
of proposed § 1.83(b) apply to the pretrade risk controls implemented by the
FCM for AT Persons using DEA, as well
as for AT Persons that do not use DEA.
The report would also be required to
include a certification by the chief
executive officer or chief compliance
officer of the FCM that, to the best of his
or her knowledge and reasonable belief,
the information contained in the report
is accurate and complete. Related to
these reporting requirements in
proposed § 1.80(a) and (b), proposed

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78865

§ 40.22(c) 399 would require DCMs to
establish a program for effective
periodic review and evaluation of AT
Person and clearing member FCM
reports.
Recordkeeping Requirements. As a
complement to the compliance report
review program, proposed § 1.83(c) and
(d) would require AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs for AT Persons
to keep and provide upon request to
DCMs books and records regarding their
compliance with proposed §§ 1.80 and
1.81 (for AT Persons) and § 1.82 (for
clearing member FCMs). Related to
these provisions, the Commission is also
proposing a new § 40.22(d) (discussed
in more detail below) to require DCMs
to implement rules that require each AT
Person to keep and provide to the DCM
books and records regarding such AT
Person’s compliance with all
requirements pursuant to § 1.80 and
§ 1.81, and require each clearing
member FCM to keep and provide to the
DCM books and records regarding such
clearing member FCM’s compliance
with all requirements pursuant to § 1.82.
Finally, proposed § 40.22(e) would
require DCMs to review and evaluate, as
necessary, books and records
maintained by AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs regarding their
compliance with §§ 1.80 and 1.81 (for
AT Persons) and § 1.82 (for clearing
member FCMs).
3. Policy Discussion
The Commission is proposing § 1.83
because it believes that Regulation AT
must include a mechanism to ensure
that AT Persons and clearing member
FCMs are complying with the
requirement to implement certain pretrade risk controls. Moreover, an
assessment of such compliance requires
an adequate level of expertise and
knowledge of markets and market
participants’ technological systems and
trading strategies. In this regard, the
Commission notes that reports proposed
by § 1.83 will enable DCMs to have a
better understanding of the pre-trade
risk controls of all AT Persons engaged
in Algorithmic Trading. Furthermore,
because the Commission’s pre-trade risk
control requirements in proposed
§§ 1.80(a)(1) and 1.82(a)(1) offer
substantial flexibility, the annual
reporting obligations in proposed § 1.83
will help ensure that such controls are
reasonably designed and calibrated. The
Commission believes that a review
program requiring AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs to provide
information concerning compliance
399 See section IV(P) below for a discussion of
DCMs’ obligations under proposed § 40.22.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78866

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

with §§ 1.80(a) and 1.82(a)(1), and
requiring DCMs to review such
information, is the most effective
method to ensure that all market
participants are implementing measures
that are reasonably designed to prevent
an Algorithmic Trading Event or
Algorithmic Trading Disruption.
The recordkeeping requirements
proposed under § 1.83(c) and (d) and
§ 40.22(d) and (e) complement the
compliance report program. These
provisions will enable DCMs to review
the compliance of AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs with their
various obligations under §§ 1.80, 1.81,
and 1.82, by inspecting the books and
records of AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs as necessary. For
example, a DCM may find it necessary
to conduct such a review if: It becomes
aware if an AT Person’s kill switch is
frequently activated, or otherwise
performs in an unusual manner; if a
DCM becomes aware that an AT
Person’s algorithm frequently performs
in a manner inconsistent with its
design, which may raise questions about
the design or monitoring of the AT
Person’s algorithms; if a DCM identifies
frequent trade practice violations at an
AT Person, which are related to an
algorithm of the AT Person; or if an AT
Person represents significant volume in
a particular product, thereby requiring
heightened scrutiny, among other
reasons.
4. Request for Comments
57. The Commission welcomes
comment on the type of information that
should be included in the reports
required by proposed § 1.83. Should
different or additional descriptions be
included in the reports, which will be
evaluated by DCMs under proposed
§ 40.22?
58. How often should the reports
required by proposed § 1.83 be
submitted to the relevant DCMs? Should
the report be submitted more or less
frequently than annually?
59. When should the reports required
by proposed § 1.83 be submitted to the
relevant DCMs? Should the reports be
submitted on a date other than June 30
of each year?
60. Should a representative of the AT
Person or clearing member FCM other
than the chief executive officer or the
chief compliance officer be responsible
for certifying the reports required by
proposed § 1.83? Should only the chief
executive officer be permitted to certify
the report? Alternatively, should only
the chief compliance officer be
permitted to certify the report?
61. Are there any aspects of proposed
§ 1.83(b) that pose an undue burden for

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

clearing member FCMs and are
unnecessary for purposes of reducing
the risks associated with Algorithmic
Trading? If so, please explain (1) the
burden; (2) why it is not necessary to
reduce the risks associated with
Algorithmic Trading, particularly in the
case of DEA. What alternatives are
available consistent with the purposes
of Regulation AT, including in
particular Regulation AT’s intent that
§ 1.83 reports benefit from the thirdparty SRO review performed by DCMs
with respect to such reports?
62. Should the reports required by
proposed § 1.83 be sent to any entity
other than each DCM on which the AT
Person operates, such as the
Commission or an RFA? For example,
should the Commission require that AT
Persons that are members of a RFA send
compliance reports to RFA upon NFA’s
request?
63. Proposed § 1.83(c) includes
recordkeeping requirements imposed on
AT Persons, and proposed § 1.83(d)
includes recordkeeping requirements
imposed on clearing member FCMs.
Should the recordkeeping requirements
of § 1.83(c) be distributed throughout
the sections of the Commission’s
regulations that contain recordkeeping
requirements for various categories of
Commission registrants that will be
classified as AT Persons? Should
§ 1.83(d) be transferred to section 1.35 of
the Commission’s regulations, which
contains recordkeeping requirements for
clearing member FCMs?
L. Risk Controls for Trading: Direct
Electronic Access Provided by DCMs—
§ 38.255(b) and (c)
The Commission proposes to amend
§ 38.255 (Risk controls for trading) by
adding new § 38.255(b) requiring DCMs
to implement systems and controls
reasonably designed to facilitate a
clearing FCM’s management of
Algorithmic Trading risks arising from
its DEA customers. The Commission
also proposes to amend § 38.255 by
adding new paragraph (c), which would
require that DCMs who permit DEA also
mandate the use of § 38.255(b) risk
controls by all clearing member FCMs
with respect to the Algorithmic Trading
of their DEA customers. The
Commission notes that the risk controls
and requirements described in proposed
§ 38.255(b) and (c), while provided by
and residing at the DCM, are
fundamentally intended to facilitate a
clearing member FCM’s management of
the risks posed by the clearing member
FCM’s DEA customers. In this regard,
proposed § 38.255(b) and (c) should be
read in conjunction with proposed
§ 1.82(b), which would require clearing

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

member FCMs to make use of the
systems provided by DCMs pursuant to
§ 38.255(b). The remainder of this
section presents Concept Release
comments on this topic, a description of
the proposed regulation, a discussion of
the policy justification for the proposal,
and a request for comments on the
proposal.400
1. Concept Release Comments
As noted above in section IV(D)(7), in
the Commission’s discussion of its
proposed definition of Direct Electronic
Access, several commenters agreed that
any potential risk controls should also
apply to those with direct access to the
markets.401 FIA stated, for example, that
all types of market access create risks.402
Similarly, CME stated that all entities—
whether they have direct market access
or not—must ‘‘share in the effort to
preserve market integrity.’’ 403 In
addition, commenters indicated that
exchanges already provide certain pretrade risk controls for use by clearing
firms. Please see the discussion at
section IV(H)(1) above for a discussion
of Concept Release comments with
respect to clearing firms’ use of
exchange-provided pre-trade and other
risk controls.
2. Description of Regulation
The Commission proposes to amend
§ 38.255 (Risk controls for trading) to
require DCMs to have in place systems
and controls designed to facilitate a
clearing member FCM’s management of
the risks that may arise from
Algorithmic Trading by its AT Person
customers using DEA (as defined in
proposed § 1.3(yyyy)). The DCM
regulations already address financial
risk using a similar structure. Existing
§ 38.607 provides that, in the context of
direct electronic access, a DCM must
have in place systems and controls
designed to facilitate an FCM’s
management of ‘‘financial risk.’’ The
DCM must also require FCMs to use
such controls.
The pre-trade risk controls and order
cancellation systems that DCMs must
provide to clearing member FCMs are
the same as those that proposed
§ 1.80(a) requires AT Persons to
implement, i.e., maximum AT Order
Message frequency per unit time and
maximum execution frequency per unit
time, and order price parameters and
maximum order size limits. The order
400 The proposed amendments would also redesignate the existing requirements in § 38.255 as
§ 38.255(a).
401 FIA at 12, 15; KCG at 2; CME at 7–8; VFL at
2; AIMA at 1.
402 FIA at 12, 15.
403 CME at 7–8.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

cancellation systems that DCMs must
establish for implementation by the
clearing member FCM are the same
controls that proposed § 1.80(b)(1)
requires AT Persons to implement, i.e.,
systems that have the ability to
immediately disengage Algorithmic
Trading, cancel selected or up to all
resting orders when system or market
conditions require it, and prevent the
submission of new orders.
The proposed regulation text is
articulated broadly enough to allow
DCMs the flexibility to design controls
for use by clearing member FCMs that
are appropriate to their markets and
market participants. Proposed
§ 38.255(b)(1)(ii) provides that the pretrade risk controls established by the
DCMs must enable the clearing member
FCM to set the controls at the level of
each AT Person, product, account
number or designation, and one or more
identifiers of natural persons associated
with an AT Order Message. DCM rules
should permit clearing member FCMs to
choose the level at which they place the
control, as long as clearing member
FCMs use at least one of the levels.
Similarly, proposed § 38.255(b)(2)
provides that the DCM-provided order
cancellation systems should enable the
clearing member FCM to apply such
systems to orders from each AT Person,
product, account number or
designation, or one or more identifiers
of natural persons associated with an
AT Order Message. A DCM that permits
DEA must require FCMs to use the
§ 38.255(b) controls with respect to all
AT Order Messages originating with an
AT Person that are submitted through
DEA.
3. Policy Discussion
The Commission believes that its
proposed amendments to § 38.255, and
corresponding proposed § 1.82
applicable to clearing member FCMs, is
consistent with those comments to the
Concept Release that suggested that pretrade risk controls should apply to those
with direct market access.404 As FIA
explained, all types of market access
create risks; therefore, the same
principles should apply to all types of
market access.405 In addition, the
Commission’s approach to controls that
should exist in the context of DEA is
consistent with recommendations of or
steps taken by other regulatory
organizations. For example, IOSCO has
recommended that intermediaries
(including clearing firms) should have
adequate operational and technical
404 FIA at 12, 15; KCG at 2; CME at 7–8; VFL at
2; AIMA at 1.
405 FIA at 12, 15.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

capabilities to manage appropriately the
risks posed by direct electronic
access.406 In addition, as discussed
above, ESMA’s 2015 Final Draft
Regulatory Standards require direct
electronic access providers to apply pretrade controls on the order flow of their
clients consistent with the controls that
ESMA requires for investment firms.407
ESMA’s standards further provide,
among other things, that trading venues
must have public rules pursuant to
which direct electronic access providers
provide their service, and in the case of
sponsored access (where a client
transmits orders directly to a trading
platform without such orders passing
through an intermediary’s
infrastructure), the trading venue must
require such firms to implement the
same pre-trade risk controls as the
trading venue’s members.408 The
Commission believes that requiring
DCMs to establish pre-trade risk
controls and order management controls
for use by clearing member FCMs with
respect to their direct access customers
will ensure that all orders, regardless of
access method, are subjected to the
same tools that mitigate the risks posed
by Algorithmic Trading.
4. Request for Comments
64. Are there any pre-trade and other
risk controls required by § 38.255(b) and
(c) that will be ineffective, not already
widely provided by DCMs for use by
FCMs, or likely to become obsolete?
65. Are there additional pre-trade or
other risk controls that DCMs should be
specifically required to provide to FCMs
pursuant to proposed § 38.255(b) and
(c)?
66. Do you believe that the pre-trade
and other risk controls required
pursuant to § 38.255(b) sufficiently
address the possibility of technological
advances in trading? For example, do
they appropriately address the potential
for the future development of additional
effective controls that should be
provided by DCMs and implemented by
FCMs?
67. The Commission welcomes
comment on whether § 38.255(b)’s
requirements relating to the design of
controls and the levels at which the
controls should be set are appropriate
and sufficiently granular.
68. Proposed § 38.255(b) and (c) do
not require DCMs to provide to FCMs
connectivity monitoring systems such as
‘‘system heartbeats’’ or automatic
406 IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra note
106 at 22–23.
407 See ESMA September 2015 Final Draft
Standards Report Annex 1, supra note 80 at 218.
408 See id. at 269–70.

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78867

cancel-on-disconnect functions. Should
§ 38.255 require such functionality?
M. Disclosure and Transparency in DCM
Trade Matching Systems—§ 38.401(a)
Regulation AT proposes to amend
§ 38.401(a) of the Commission’s
regulations to enhance public
transparency regarding the design and
operation of a DCM’s electronic
matching platform. Currently,
§ 38.401(a) requires DCMs to have
procedures, arrangements, and
resources for disclosing to the
Commission, market participants, and
the public accurate information on the
rules and specifications of their
electronic matching platforms or trade
execution facilities. The proposed
amendments to § 38.401(a) would
clarify that such existing obligations
include disclosure of any attributes of
an electronic matching platform or trade
execution facility that materially impact
market participant orders, but which are
not readily apparent to a market
participant. The proposed amendments
recognize that the structure,
architecture, mechanics, characteristics,
attributes, or other elements of an
electronic matching platform or trade
execution facility—elements that are
under the design control of the DCM—
may affect how market participant
orders are received or executed. The
Commission believes that each market
participant should have ready access to
information that explains the existence
and operation of any attribute within an
electronic matching platform or trade
execution facility that will impact how
a market participant experiences the
market. The remainder of this section
presents Concept Release comments on
this topic, a description of the proposed
regulation, a discussion of the policy
justification for the proposal, and a
request for comments on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
As noted above, the proposed
amendments to § 38.401(a) focus in
large measure on attributes of an
electronic matching platform or trade
execution facility that impact the timing
and sequencing of specific events on the
exchange. While the Concept Release
did not directly address proposed
§ 38.401(a), it did ask for public
comment on latencies in the
transmission of various types of
messages between exchanges, firms and
vendors wherein differences in latency
could provide opportunities for
informational advantage.409 It pointed to
press reports that one exchange sent
confirmations to the traders involved in
409 Concept

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

Release, 78 FR 56546.

17DEP2

78868

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

an executed transaction before the DCM
posted the transaction on its market data
feed to the marketplace as a whole.410
The Commission asked for comments
on: (a) Whether the extent of latency in
message transmission can have an
adverse impact on market quality or
fairness; and (b) whether exchanges,
vendors and firms should be required to
audit their systems and processes on a
periodic basis to identify and resolve
such latencies.411
The Concept Release also asked for
public comment on the advisability of
requiring each trading platform to
provide market quality indicators on a
periodic basis for each product traded
on its platform.412 The Concept Release
also asked for comments on what types
of market quality data would be helpful
to market participants and promote
market efficiency through transparency
and market competition.
Several commenters supported
increased transparency by the
exchanges in the operation of their
electronic matching platforms. AIMA,
for example, would welcome new
requirements for transparency by
exchanges on issues of latency, noting
that market participants without DMA
are currently not able to calculate many
measures of latency and market quality
that are available to those with DMA.413
Bell noted that the disclosure of
latencies in CME’s electronic matching
platform removed the informational
advantage held by those market
participants who knew of the latency
compared to those who did not.414
However, Bell also cautioned that the
threat of sanctions against an exchange
for the existence of a latency arbitrage
opportunity in an electronic matching
platform could discourage that exchange
from publicly disclosing such
information. FIA noted that real-time
access to additional information
regarding the order book creates a more
transparent marketplace, which
ultimately breeds confidence among
market participants.415
CME and FIA noted that latency is a
natural component of market structure
because of the time it takes computer
systems to process information as well
as the communications systems
involved in transmitting order message

information.416 Even if no latencies
existed within an exchange’s
infrastructure, market participants may
still face latencies in clearing and
executing firms’ systems.417
Several commenters addressed the
specific issue of whether participants in
a trade should receive confirmations of
that trade before, or at least not after, the
trade is reflected in market data sent to
all market participants (‘‘confirmationfirst latency’’).418 FIA commented that
the confirmation-first latency on one
exchange was not hidden, and that it
could be measured and understood by
anyone with the proper market
access.419 FIA stated that it is
imperative that the market data
broadcast to all market participants not
be sent before the participants to a trade
know that the trade was executed
(‘‘market data-first latency’’).420 FIA also
stated that market data-first latency
would cause liquidity providing
participants to be unaware of their
positions and therefore hamper their
ability to hedge risk effectively. The
commenter believed that this would
cause market makers to widen the
spreads they offer. OneChicago
suggested that confirmation-first latency
should not be considered an unfair
advantage.421 SIG suggested that
confirmation-first latency would
encourage liquidity by allowing an
executing trader to hedge a position
before quickly responding momentum
traders exhausted available liquidity in
the market.422
2. Description of Regulation
Current § 38.401(a) requires DCMs to
have procedures, arrangements, and
resources for disclosing to the
Commission, market participants, and
the public accurate information on, inter
alia, the rules and specifications
concerning the operation of the DCM’s
electronic matching platform or trade
execution facility. Current § 38.401(b)
requires DCMs to provide such
information that ‘‘it believes, to the best
of its knowledge, is accurate and
complete, and must not omit material
information.’’ Current § 38.401(c)
requires DCMs to make publicly
available on their Web sites any new
416 CME

at 6–7; FIA at 47–48.
at 48.
418 FIA at 47–48; SIG at 2; OneChicago at 1. The
Commission is using the term ‘‘confirmation-first
latency’’ for ease of reference; it was not used in the
comment letters.
419 FIA at 48.
420 Id. The Commission is using the term ‘‘market
data-first latency’’ for ease of reference; it was not
used in the comment letters.
421 OneChicago at 1.
422 SIG at 2.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

417 CME

410 Scott Patterson, Jenny Strasburg, & Liam
Pleven, ‘‘High-Speed Traders Exploit Loophole,’’
Wall St. J. (May 1, 2013), available at http://
www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127
887323798104578455032466082920.
411 Concept Release, 78 FR 56546.
412 Id. at 56561.
413 AIMA at 7.
414 Bell at 3.
415 FIA at 51.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

product listings, rules, rule
amendments, or other changes to
previously-disclosed information,
concurrent with filing such submissions
with the Commission. The proposed
amendments to § 38.401 build on these
disclosure, accuracy, and timing
requirements, and extend the disclosure
requirements to cover certain attributes
of the operation of electronic matching
platforms.
The Commission proposes to amend
§ 38.401(a)(1)(iii) to require DCMs to
disclose to the Commission, market
participants and the public accurate
information pertaining to rules or
specifications pertaining to the
operation of the electronic matching
platform or trade execution facility,
including but not limited to those
pertaining to the operation of its
electronic matching platform that
materially affect the time, priority,
price, or quantity of execution, or the
ability to cancel, modify, or limit
display of market participant orders.
The Commission also proposes to
amend § 38.401(a)(1) by adding a new
requirement (§ 38.401(a)(1)(iv)) that
DCMs must disclose to all market
participants any known attributes of the
electronic matching platform, other than
those already disclosed in rules or
specifications under section (a)(1)(iii),
that materially affect the time, priority,
price, or quantity of execution of market
participant orders, the ability to cancel,
modify, or limit display of market
participant orders, or the dissemination
of real-time market data to market
participants, including but not limited
to latencies or other variability in the
electronic matching platform and the
transmission of message
acknowledgements, order
confirmations, or trade confirmations, or
dissemination of market data. The
Commission notes, however, that
proposed § 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) are
not intended to require the disclosure of
trade secrets by any DCM.
Finally, the Commission also
proposes to amend § 38.401(c) by
adding a new requirement
(§ 38.401(c)(3)) that a DCM, in making
available on its Web site information
pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and
(iv) of § 38.401(c), must place such
information and submissions on its Web
site within a reasonable time, but no
later than 10 business days, following
the identification of or changes to such
attributes. Such information shall be
disclosed prominently and clearly in
plain English. The Commission
emphasizes that the disclosure of
information prominently and clearly by
a DCM precludes such DCM from
placing information required by this

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rule behind registration, log in, user
name, password or other walls on the
DCM’s Web site.
a. What Must Be Disclosed Under the
Proposed Regulations

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

The proposed § 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and
(iv) would apply to all known attributes
of an electronic matching platform that
materially affect the time, priority,
price, or quantity of execution of market
participant order messages, or the
ability to cancel, modify, or limit
display of, market participant order
messages. The Commission proposes a
‘‘materiality’’ threshold to such
obligations so that the disclosure
requirements would not capture aspects
of exchange systems that do not have a
discernible effect on how orders are
entered or executed.423
An ‘‘attribute’’ for purposes of
proposed § 38.401(a)(1)(iv) would mean
any aspect of the structure, architecture,
mechanics, characteristics, or other
elements of the design or operation of
an electronic matching platform that
materially affects how market
participant orders are received and
executed, and how information on such
orders and executed trades are
communicated to other market
participants. ‘‘Attributes’’ would
include, but are not limited to, aspects
of the platform that may provide an
advantage or disadvantage to a category
of market participants.424 ‘‘Attributes’’
would also include aspects of the
platform that affect orders from all
market participants regardless of access
method or membership status, such as
423 In evaluating what attributes of a platform
would be material, the Commission would look to
the substantial case law on the issue of materiality.
See, e.g., R&W Tech. Servs., Ltd. v. CFTC, 205 F.3d
165, 169 (5th Cir. 2000) (‘‘A statement or omitted
fact is ‘material’ if there is a substantial likelihood
that a reasonable investor would consider the
information important in making a decision to
invest.’’); see also CFTC v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., 310
F.3d 1321, 1332 (11th Cir. 2002) (finding
misrepresentations material where ‘‘an objectively
reasonable investor’s decision-making process
would be substantially affected’’ by them and the
misrepresentations would ‘‘as a matter of law, alter
the total mix of relevant information available to the
potential . . . investor.’’). Materiality in the context
of attributes of an electronic matching platform
would include those attributes whose existence or
degree a reasonable market participant would
consider when making a decision on whether, when
or how to place orders on an exchange’s platform.
424 For purposes of this discussion, ‘‘categories of
market participants’’ may be based on access
method, colocation, involvement in a market maker
incentive program, or membership status, among
other things. DCMs are currently required to submit
as rule changes under Part 40 any changes to these
programs. As discussed more fully below, the
proposed transparency requirement would only
require disclosure of attributes not already
disclosed through submissions under Part 40, 17
CFR 40.1, et seq. (2014).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

latencies within the matching engine
and any data feeds.425
The Commission’s proposals under
§ 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) apply to
‘‘electronic matching platforms,’’ which
comprise all systems under the control
or operation of the DCM that interact
with market participant order messages
and are involved in market data
dissemination. Such systems are not
limited to matching engines, but would
apply more broadly to the network
architecture that accepts and processes
order messages, and disseminates
market data and messages to market
participants. To the extent that they
impact order entry and execution, the
electronic matching platform would also
include pre-trade risk management
systems and controls such as self-trade
prevention tools.426
The Commission’s proposals under
§ 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) are intended
to apply to various aspects of how an
electronic platform operates, beyond the
technical process of how any order is
actually matched. The proposed
regulations explicitly require the
disclosure of information relating to
latencies in the matching of orders and
transmission of that information to
market participants. In addition, if they
have a material impact on market
participants, exchanges must disclose
information on exchange functions such
as self-trade prevention, implied spread
markets, and priority assignment of
orders in a central limit order book,
where applicable. Exchanges also must
disclose how available order types
would be executed (or not) under
different market conditions, where
applicable. The Commission is mindful
that DCMs should only be required to
describe attributes of their own systems.
However, such systems would include
425 As an illustration of attributes that should be
disclosed to market participants (and
acknowledging the more complex order types and
modes of execution in the equities market), the
Commission notes two recent SEC enforcement
actions against the operators of alternative trading
systems for selective disclosure or non-disclosure
regarding how certain order types operate under
different market conditions. See In the Matter of
UBS Securities LLC., No. 3–16338 (SEC, Jan. 15,
2015); In the Matter of EDGA Exchange, Inc., No.
3–16332 (SEC, Jan. 12, 2015).
426 The Commission notes that the proposed
disclosure requirements in large part would address
IOSCO’s recommendation relating to sound
practices on controls surrounding the development
of new or changes to critical systems at trading
venues. IOSCO, after reviewing current member
state regulations, recommended ‘‘[e]stablishing and
implementing communication protocols that govern
the sharing of information regarding the
introduction of new, or changes to, critical
systems[,]’’ including information on the timing of
such new systems or changes to provide market
participants sufficient lead time to make changes or
adjustments to their own systems. See IOSCO 2015
Consultation Report, supra note 106 at 13–20.

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78869

platform systems or components that are
monitored, leased from, or otherwise
operated by an affiliate or third party.427
The Commission has also proposed
under amended § 38.401(a)(2) that a
DCM must provide a description of
known attributes of its electronic trading
platform under paragraph (a)(1)(iv).
However, this may not relieve an
exchange of the obligation to disclose
information if the exchange should have
known of an attribute. The Commission
notes that DCMs must regularly test and
review their automated systems,428
monitor trading on their facilities, and
identify any market or system
anomalies.429 The Commission
cautions, however, that compliance
with Regulation AT’s disclosure
requirements may not absolve a DCM of
other statutory or regulatory obligations.
For instance, DCMs must promote fair
and equitable trading and protect
markets and market participants from
abusive practices.430
b. How Information Should Be
Disclosed
The Commission proposes under
§ 38.401(a)(1)(iv) that DCMs be required
to disclose any known attributes of their
electronic matching platform, other than
those already disclosed pursuant to
§ 38.401(a)(1)(iii). This description
should, at a minimum, identify what the
attribute is and how it may affect market
participant orders. To the extent such
information is necessary for market
participants to understand the
significance of an attribute, the
description may need to provide
statistics or examples. As with all
information provided to market
participants under current regulation
38.401, the description must include
information that the DCM believes, to
the best of its knowledge, to be accurate
and complete, and not omit material
427 The Commission is mindful that some DCMs
use electronic matching platforms leased from or
otherwise provided by other DCMs or non-DCM
entities. However, each DCM would be required
under this provision to provide information on any
electronic matching platform it uses, regardless of
whether that platform is owned or leased by the
DCM.
428 Both DCMs and SEFs are obligated to
‘‘conduct regular, periodic, objective testing and
review of their automated systems to ensure that
they are reliable, secure, and have adequate scalable
capacity.’’ Regulations §§ 37.1401(g) and
38.1051(h), 17 CFR 37.1401(g) and 38.1051(h)
(2014).
429 See regulation 37.203(e), 17 CFR 37.203(e)
(2014), for real-time market monitoring obligations
of SEFs. See regulation 38.157, 17 CFR 38.157
(2014), for real-time monitoring obligations of
DCMs.
430 DCM Core Principle 12, Section 5(d)(12) of the
Act, 7 U.S.C. 7(d)(12) (2012).

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78870

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

information.431 Cost estimates for the
Commission amendments to § 38.401
are provided in this NPRM’s cost-benefit
considerations below.
The Commission proposes under
§ 38.401(c)(3) that DCMs be required to
disclose information on the attributes of
their platforms ‘‘prominently and
clearly’’ on their Web sites. The
Commission also proposes under
§ 38.401(c)(3) that information regarding
attributes of the electronic matching
platforms be provided in ‘‘plain
English.’’ Because market participants
may have different degrees of technical
understanding, the Commission aims to
make information on the electronic
matching platforms accessible to market
participants regardless of their technical
proficiency or sophistication. Providing
highly complex information on the
platforms may allow more technicallyproficient market participants to
understand the operations of the
platform, but may be inaccessible to
other market participants.
c. When Information Should Be
Disclosed
The Commission’s proposals on DCM
transparency are intended to account for
two situations: (1) Where the DCM
makes a change to the platform,
resulting in an impact on the execution
of market participant orders, and (2)
where the DCM becomes aware of an
existing attribute within the platform
that affects the execution of such orders.
Under the first situation, as clarified in
the proposed amendment to the
definition of ‘‘rule’’ under § 40.1(i),
information submitted to the
Commission under §§ 40.5(a) or 40.6(a)
would be public information, except to
the extent that confidential treatment is
granted pursuant to § 40.8. Furthermore,
a DCM would be required to post the
relevant submission on its Web site
concurrent with the provision of such
submission to the Commission pursuant
to current § 38.401(c). Under the second
situation, the Commission’s proposals
would require the DCM to make the
relevant information available ‘‘within a
reasonable time, but no later than 10
days’’ following the identification or
change to the attribute. DCMs must also
ensure that information can be accessed
by visitors to the Web site without the
need to register, log in, provide a user
name, or obtain a password.
d. Changes in Definition of ‘‘Rule’’
The Commission also proposes
amending the definition of ‘‘rule’’ under
§ 40.1(i), which is relevant to
431 See regulation 38.401(b), 17 CFR 38.401(b)
(2014).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

regulations common to all registered
entities.432 The proposed change to the
definition of ‘‘rule’’ would track
language in the transparency
requirements under proposed
§ 38.401(a)(1)(iv) (which applies only to
DCMs). The proposed change to the
definition would make clear that
‘‘trading protocols’’ includes ‘‘any
operation of an electronic matching
platform that materially affects the time,
priority, price, or quantity of execution
of market participant orders, the ability
to cancel, modify, or limit display of
market participant orders, or the
dissemination of real-time market data
to market participants.’’ As with any
other rule change, changes to a
registered entity’s trading protocols
must be submitted to the Commission
pursuant to existing §§ 40.5 or 40.6.
The Commission notes that this
proposed amendment to the definition
of ‘‘rule’’ also adds a reference to market
maker and trading incentive programs.
This change clarifies and codifies the
Commission’s current interpretation of
the definition of ‘‘rule’’ under § 40.1(i),
in which registered entities are required
to submit new rules and rule
amendments to the Commission when
changes are made to, among other
things, matching algorithms, market
maker or trading incentive program
agreements, and available order types.
This proposed change to § 40.1(i), which
reflects the Commission’s
understanding of ‘‘rule’’, should be
distinguished from the proposed
regulations regarding market maker and
trading incentive programs under
§§ 40.25–40.28, which represent new
requirements that apply only to DCMs.
3. Policy Discussion
With the proposed transparency
requirements, the Commission aims to
increase the relevant information
432 Part 40 of the Regulations applies to all
registered entities, which include DCMs, SEFs,
derivative clearing organizations (‘‘DCOs’’), swap
data repositories (‘‘SDRs’’), and certain electronic
trading facilities and boards of trade registered
under Section 5c of the Act. As discussed below in
the cost benefit consideration section (sections
V(E)(9) and (11)), none of the proposed
amendments to § 40.1(i) should create new costs for
any registered entity, because the amendments
merely clarify and codify the Commission’s
interpretation of the definition of ‘‘rule.’’ See, e.g.,
the Final Rule for Provisions Common to Registered
Entities, published in the Federal Register in 2011,
in which the Commission stated with respect to
market maker and trading incentive programs, ‘‘The
Commission continues to view such programs as
‘agreements * * * corresponding’ to a ‘trading
protocol’ within the § 40.1 definition of ‘rule’ and,
as such, all market maker and trading incentive
programs must be submitted to the Commission in
accordance with procedures established in part 40.’’
Final Rule, Provisions Common to Registered
Entities, 76 FR 44776, 44778 (July 27, 2011).

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

available to market participants that
may influence their choice of trading
venue. The Commission believes that
such will foster competition among
exchanges by incentivizing them to
provide the most efficient and fairest
venue for trading. Should an exchange
intentionally or unintentionally
structure its trading systems to
potentially or actually advantage one
category of market participant over
others, the potentially disadvantaged
market participants may opt to trade on
another venue.
One Concept Release commenter
noted that market participants, if they
have direct market access, could
calculate market quality metrics
including latencies and therefore would
be aware of many of the attributes of a
platform that affect order execution. The
requirements proposed under
§ 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) give all
market participants an equal footing in
terms of understanding how the
platform operates independent of access
methods and services such as
colocation.
4. Request for Comments
69. The Commission has proposed
that certain components of an
exchange’s market architecture should
be considered part of the ‘‘electronic
matching platform’’ for purposes of the
DCM transparency provision. Are there
any additional systems that should fall
within the meaning of ‘‘electronic
matching platforms’’ for purposes of
proposed § 38.401(a)?
70. The Commission has specifically
identified, as ‘‘attributes’’ that must be
disclosed, latencies within a platform
and how a self-trade prevention tool
determines whether to cancel an order.
Are there any other attributes that
would materially affect the execution of
market participant orders and therefore
should be made known to all market
participants? Should the Commission
revise the final rule so that it only
applies to latencies within a platform
and how a self-trade prevention tool
determines whether to cancel an order?
71. What information should be
disclosed as part of the description of
relevant attributes of the platform? For
instance, with latencies within a
platform, should statistics on latencies
be required? If so, what statistics would
help market participants assess any
impact on their orders? Would a
narrative description of attributes be
preferable, including a description of
how the attributes might affect market
participant orders under different
market conditions, such as during times
of increased messaging activity?

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
72. The Commission notes that
proposed § 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) are
not intended to require the disclosure of
a DCM’s trade secrets. The Commission
requests comments on whether the
proposed rules might inadvertently
require such disclosure, and if so, how
they might be amended to address this
concern. Furthermore, the Commission
anticipates that the mechanisms and
standards for requesting confidential
treatment already codified in existing
§ 40.8 could be used by DCMs to
identify and request confidential
treatment for information otherwise
required to be disclosed pursuant to
proposed § 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv), for
example by incorporating § 40.8’s
mechanisms and standards into any
final rules arising from this NPRM. If
commenters believe that the
mechanisms and standards in § 40.8 are
inappropriate for this purpose, please
describe any other mechanism that
should be included in any final rules to
facilitate DCM requests for confidential
treatment of information otherwise
required to be disclosed pursuant to
proposed § 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv).
73. The Commission notes that DCMs
are required, as part of voluntary
submissions of new rules or rule
amendments under § 40.5(a) and selfcertification of rules and rule
amendment under § 40.6(a), to provide
inter alia an explanation and analysis of
the operation, purpose and effect of the
proposed rule or rule amendment.
Would the information required under
§§ 40.5(a) or 40.6(a) provide market
participants and the public with
sufficient information regarding
material attributes of an electronic
matching platform?
74. The Commission recognizes that
DCMs are required to have system
safeguards to ensure information
security, business continuity and
disaster recovery under DCM Core
Principle 20. The Commission
understands that some attributes of an
electronic matching platform designed
to implement those safeguards should
be maintained as confidential to prevent
cybersecurity or other threats. Does
existing § 40.8, 17 CFR 40.8 (2014)
provide sufficient basis for DCMs to
publicly disclose the relevant attributes
of their platforms while maintaining as
confidential information concerning
system safeguards?
75. With respect to material attributes
affecting market participant orders
caused by temporary or emergency
situations, such as network outages or
the temporary suspension of certain
market functionality, what is the best
way for DCMs to alert market

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

participants? How are DCMs currently
handling these situations?
76. The Commission proposes that
DCMs provide a description of the
relevant material attributes in a single
document ‘‘disclosed prominently and
clearly’’ on the exchange’s Web site. The
Commission also proposes that this
document be written in ‘‘plain English’’
to allow market participants, even those
not technically proficient, to understand
the attributes described. Would these
requirements be practical and help
market participants locate and
understand the information provided?
77. The Commission proposes
requiring DCMs to disclose information
on the relevant attributes: (a) When
filing a rule change submission with the
Commission for changes to the
electronic matching platform; or (b)
within a ‘‘reasonable time, but no later
than ten days’’ following the
identification of such attribute. Do the
proposed timeframes provide sufficient
time for DCMs to disclose the relevant
information? Do the proposed
timeframes offer sufficient notice of
changes or discovered attributes to
market participants to allow them to
adjust any systems or strategies,
including any algorithmic trading
systems?
78. The Commission proposes
requiring disclosure of newly identified
attributes within 10 days of discovery.
Does this provide DCMs sufficient time
to analyze the attribute and provide a
description? Should DCMs be required
to provide notice of the existence of the
attribute and supplement as further
analysis is performed?
N. Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls at
DCMs—§ 40.20
The Commission proposes a new
§ 40.20 to require DCMs to establish pretrade and other risk controls specifically
designed to address the risks that may
arise from Algorithmic Trading. The
Commission is also proposing to codify
in § 40.20 basic pre-trade risk control
requirements and order cancellation
capabilities for orders that do not
originate from Algorithmic Trading. In
this regard, the Commission recognizes
that natural person traders manually
entering orders also have the potential
to cause market disruptions. While the
majority of the pre-trade and other risk
controls in Regulation AT address
Algorithmic Trading, the Commission
believes it is also important to promote
a basic degree of risk control for all
trading regardless of source.
The pre-trade and other risk controls
required of DCMs pursuant to proposed
§ 40.20 reflect Regulation AT’s layered
approach to risk mitigation in

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78871

automated trading. In particular, the
measures required of DCMs in § 40.20
are similar to those required of AT
Persons in proposed § 1.80(a)(1) and
(b)(1), and also similar to those required
of clearing member FCMs in § 1.82(a).
The Commission intends to offer AT
Persons, clearing member FCMs and
DCMs the flexibility to design and
calibrate such controls according to
their own distinct priorities and
understanding of the risks to
themselves, their customers, and the
broader market. In this regard, while
certain proposed rules may appear
duplicative on their face, Regulation AT
is designed to address the diverse needs
of market participants trading across
multiple markets, by spreading the
requirement to impose risk controls
across AT Persons, clearing member
FCMs and DCMs and encouraging them
to each independently calibrate such
controls.
The remainder of this section presents
Concept Release comments on this
topic, a description of the proposed
regulation, a discussion of the policy
justification for the proposal, and a
request for comments on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release requested
comment on various pre-trade and other
types of risk controls, including message
and execution throttles, maximum order
sizes, price collars, and order
management controls, such as
connectivity monitoring services,
automatic cancellation of orders on
disconnect and kill switches. The
Concept Release contemplated that such
controls would apply at the trading
firm, clearing member and trading
platform levels. As explained above,
proposed § 1.80 requires AT Persons to
implement certain pre-trade risk
controls and order management
controls. By reference to the proposed
§ 1.80 regulations, proposed § 40.20 will
require DCMs to establish similar pretrade and other risk controls specifically
designed to address the risks that may
arise from Algorithmic Trading, and to
establish similar controls for orders
entered manually. Relevant comments
to the Concept Release addressing pretrade and other risk controls for DCMs
are discussed below.
a. Message and Execution Throttles
As discussed above, the Concept
Release described message throttles as
establishing maximum message rates
per unit of time and execution throttles
as establishing limits on the maximum
number of orders that an ATS can
execute in a given direction per unit in
time. The Concept Release also sought

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78872

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

comment on a particular form of
execution throttle, the repeated
automated execution throttle, which
would disable a trading system after a
configurable number of repeated
executions until a human re-enables the
system.433 The Concept Release stated
that the throttles would be calibrated to
address the potential for unintended
message flow or executions from a
malfunctioning ATS.434
Commenters indicated that DCMs are
already implementing messaging rate
limits. Two exchanges described their
own message rate limits 435 and four
commenters stated generally that many
exchanges have messaging rate limits in
place.436 Commenters generally
discussed throttles at the exchange as
being ‘‘messaging’’ limits. KCG
explained that many participants’
trading strategies include trading
activity on multiple markets, and thus
the responsibility for establishing limits
on executions must reside with the
market participant and its clearing
firm.437 Benefits of exchange-based
messaging limits noted by commenters
include identifying potentially
malfunctioning ATSs, preventing a
platform overload that would impact the
processing of messages across all market
participants, ensuring a level playing
field for all market participants,
mitigating risk to the DCO, and
deterring predatory and disruptive
activities that require high message
traffic.438 SIG cautioned that exchanges
should not impose ‘‘speed-bump’’
throttles on order messaging as a means
to ‘‘slow down trading for its own
sake.’’ 439 FIA suggested that a DCM
should never reject an order
cancellation request due to message rate
limits.440
Commenters indicated that exchanges
should have flexibility in setting
messaging limits because exchanges are
in the best position to respond to the
dynamics of the market, monitor the
activity of all participants, and
determine the impact of messaging.441
Commenters indicated that throttle
limits implemented by DCMs should be
based on the unique characteristics of
each product; the capacity and

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

433 Concept

Release, 78 FR 56571.
434 Concept Release, 78 FR 56569.
435 CME at 8–9; CME at Appendix A, 3–4, 6; CFE
at 5–6.
436 TCL at 6; KCG at 4; MFA at 7; AIMA at 8.
437 KCG at 5.
438 FIA at 12, 15–17, 65; MFA at 7; CME at 8;
Gelber at 5–7; AFR at 6–7; SIG at 3.
439 SIG at 3.
440 FIA at 16.
441 FIA at 12, 15–17; CME at 8–9; MFA at 13;
Gelber at 5–7; KCG at 3–4; AIMA at 8; OneChicago
at 5.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

performance of a DCM’s network and
matching engine and the matching
algorithm; and the market participant’s
role (i.e., liquidity providers may be
excluded from limits).442 FIA noted that
a DCM’s message rate limit should not
adjust to market conditions because
participants must always know what the
limit is.443 Chicago Fed commented that
regulators should assess the
methodology that trading venues use to
set throttle limits, the reasonableness of
those limits, and the procedures
followed when they are breached.444
Finally, IATP commented on the
difficulty in setting standardized
throttle thresholds, and alternatively
suggested standardizing a graduated
levy on order cancellations.445
b. Maximum Order Sizes
Commenters indicated that exchanges
already implement maximum order size
limits. Two exchanges, CME and CFE,
stated that they apply order size limits
on each of their products.446 AIMA also
stated that maximum order sizes are
normally applied per product at the
DCM or FCM level to all customers.447
Chicago Fed commented that exchanges
should implement maximum order size
limits.448 MFA also recommended that
maximum order size controls be
implemented at the FCM and/or
exchange level, and apply to both
manual and automated traders.449 FIA
commented that while it ‘‘has been a
proponent of standardization of pretrade risk controls across DCMs we
understand that each DCM needs to
have discretion on how these controls
are implemented.’’ 450
c. Price Collars
The Concept Release requested
comment on price collars, a control in
which trading platforms would assign a
range of acceptable order and execution
prices for each product and all market
participants would establish similar
limits to ensure that orders outside of a
particular price range are not
transmitted to the trading platform.
Commenters indicated that exchanges
already implement price collars. CME
442 FIA at 15; CME at 8–9; Gelber at 5–7; KCG at
4; AIMA at 8.
443 FIA at 12, 16.
444 Chicago Fed at 2.
445 IATP at 3–5.
446 CME at 15, Appendix A–1; CFE at 7.
447 AIMA at 13.
448 Chicago Fed at 2; MFA at 2, 9; Gelber at 10;
KCG at 8.
449 MFA at 9.
450 FIA at 18–19.

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

and CFE described their own price
collar mechanisms.451
FIA indicated that price collars are a
‘‘widely adopted’’ DCM-hosted risk
control and are effective at preventing
orders from disrupting the market and
affecting the price discovery process.452
FIA further explained that they have
been proven to minimize erroneous
trading by controlling the range of
execution prices and can ensure the
integrity of trades cleared through the
DCO by dramatically reducing the
chance that a trade may be deemed
erroneous and subsequently adjusted or
busted.453 FIA recommended that price
collars be used on all contracts, set by
the DCM based on estimates of volatility
and market conditions.454 FIA
cautioned that price collars should not
be mandated at the same levels across
all products.455
Other commenters made similar
points. KCG stated that ‘‘the futures
markets’ price collars work well,’’ and
reduce the potential for erroneous
trades.456 KCG supports requiring
exchanges to establish price collars on
all contracts, but believes that
exchanges should have discretion in
setting the price collars.457 Gelber stated
that exchanges should establish price
collars and that this control protects
DCOs and market participants from
volatile markets.458 MFA stated that
price collars in the futures markets have
been effective in maintaining fair and
orderly markets, and have fewer
unintended consequences than trading
pauses.459 SIG also stated that the
markets benefit from price collars.460
Finally, Chicago Fed and AFR
recommended that trading venues
implement price collars.461
In contrast to the above comments,
AIMA acknowledged that price collars
may be beneficial, but explained that
price collars have potentially negative
consequences in that they may impede
the efficient price discovery process.462
In particular, AIMA suggested that
market participants should be
encouraged to place bids and offers far
above or below the current market
price.463 Among other things, AIMA
451 CME at 13–14; 16–17, CME at Appendix A–
6; CFE at 6–8.
452 FIA at 18.
453 FIA at 18.
454 Id. at 13–14.
455 Id. at 18.
456 KCG at 7–8.
457 See id.
458 Gelber at 9.
459 MFA at 8–9.
460 SIG at 8–9.
461 Chicago Fed at 3; AFR at 7.
462 AIMA at 12–13.
463 See id.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
suggested that brief trading pauses were
preferable to price collars, and that if a
collar or pause is activated, market
participants should be notified as soon
as possible.464

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

d. Connectivity Indications and Cancel
on Disconnect
As noted above, the Concept Release
requested comment regarding ‘‘system
heartbeats’’ that would indicate proper
connectivity between a trading firm’s
automated trading system and the
trading platform, and ‘‘auto-cancel on
disconnect,’’ an exchange tool that
allows trading firms to determine
whether their orders will be left in the
market upon disconnection. Two
exchanges stated that they provide an
optional cancel-on-disconnect
functionality 465 and FIA characterized
cancel-on-disconnect as a ‘‘widely
adopted DCM-hosted pre-trade risk
control.’’ 466 Several commenters
indicated that they support exchanges
offering system heartbeats and/or
cancel-on-disconnect to their market
participants.467
e. Order Cancellation Systems
As discussed above, the Concept
Release addressed selective working
order cancellation, a tool in which an
exchange can immediately cancel one,
multiple, or all resting orders from a
market participant as necessary in an
emergency situation and well as order
cancellation mechanisms that would
immediately cancel all working orders
and prevent submission (by the market
participant), transmittal (by the clearing
member), or acceptance (by the trading
platform) of any new orders from a
market participant or a particular trader
or ATS of such market participant. The
Commission notes that comments to the
Concept Release generally discussing
the design and implementation of kill
switches are addressed above with
respect to order cancellation systems
requirements on AT Persons.
Specifically as to exchanges, the
Commission notes that one exchange
indicated that it has two kill switch
tools: A kill switch used by the
exchange, clearing firm, or trading firm
to remove an entity from the market
completely; and an order management
tool that enables clearing firms and endusers to cancel orders at a more granular
level.468 Another exchange explained
that it can cancel orders and quotes in
an emergency and also provides a kill
464 See

id.
at Appendix A–4; CFE at 9–10.
466 FIA at 14.
467 FIA at 14; KCG at 12; MFA at 12; Chicago Fed
at 2.
468 CME at 23–24.
465 CME

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

switch to clearing members that cancels
all orders and quotes from a market
participant.469
Some commenters noted the
importance of placing kill switches at
the DCM level.470 For example, Citadel
noted that ‘‘kill switches can operate at
a number of levels—at the market
participant, at the clearing firm, or at the
trading platform. While all are
advisable, their use at the trading
platform level is of paramount
importance. Trading platforms sit at the
center of trading and are therefore best
positioned to efficiently and
consistently monitor activity across a
wide variety of market participants.’’ 471
While commenters generally opposed
prescriptive kill switch requirements
and indicated the challenges of
standardization, several noted that there
could be some benefits to standardized
kill switch processes across
exchanges.472
Commenters also stressed the
importance of clear, transparent
procedures governing use of the kill
switch.473 FIA stated that ‘‘a failure to
communicate policies that govern the
use of kill switches, any potential
changes to such policies, or the
utilization of a kill switch in a live
trading environment without prior
notification can introduce significant
risk to a market participant’s trading
operation as well as the wider
marketplace.’’ 474 MFA commented that
trading platforms should have clear and
objective policies detailing the
circumstances that warrant use of a kill
switch.475 In contrast, CME stressed that
the kill switch tool must be free of
restrictive policies and procedures,
because time is of the essence in use of
the kill switch. However, CME stated
that if policies do govern an exchange’s
use of a kill switch, such policies
should define a hierarchy of authority
for who can send kill instructions.476
Regarding activation of the kill
switch, FIA cautioned that this tool
should only be used as a ‘‘final
safeguard’’ that should be a redundant
control as long as appropriate risk
controls are implemented at the FCM
and DCM levels.477 FIA suggested that
a kill switch have both automated and
manual triggers, but a DCM should
469 CFE

at 11.
at 29–33; Citadel at 3; AIMA at 3, 18; MFA
at 12–13; KCG at 13.
471 Citadel at 3.
472 FIA at 29–33; CME at 23; AIMA at 18; SIG at
8; Gelber at 14–15.
473 FIA at 29; MFA at 12; Citadel at 3.
474 FIA at 29.
475 MFA at 12.
476 CME at 23.
477 FIA at 29–33; Gelber at 14–15.
470 FIA

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78873

contact the market participant before
activating the kill switch.478 FIA also
suggested that a DCM be allowed to
terminate market access without
contacting the participant if necessary to
protect market integrity or the financial
integrity of participants.479 Citadel
commented that exchange systems
should employ robust and reliable
systems that automatically identify
potentially erroneous activity, and this
activity could trigger automatic
notifications to the participant; review
by exchange staff; automatic blocks of
further activity; and, under appropriate
circumstances, a confidential
notification to other trading platforms
that a firm’s trading is halted.480 KCG
stressed that market participants should
establish thresholds for kill switches,481
and Gelber cautioned that exchanges
should apply kill switches on an ATS,
not firm-wide, level.482 SIG suggested
that exchanges set kill switches at the
gateway level, firm level, or an account
level.483
An issue related to pre-trade and
other risk controls implemented by
DCMs is the testing of exchange
systems. The Concept Release did not
directly explore the testing of DCM
automated systems. Moreover,
commenters did not raise the issue.
Nevertheless, the Commission notes that
there have been incidents following
automated system changes that might
have been prevented or mitigated by
additional testing. For example, in early
2015, certain European futures
exchanges experienced outages in their
trading platforms following updates to
their automated systems.484 In
September 2010, 30,000 test orders were
accidentally submitted to the CME
Globex system (due to human error),
resulting in numerous executed
trades.485 In April 2014, the Globex
system halted, forcing traders to execute
futures trades on the trading floor.486
478 FIA

at 29–33.
at 29–33.
480 Citadel at 3–4.
481 KCG at 13.
482 Gelber at 14.
483 SIG at 8.
484 See ‘‘Euronext Derivatives Trading Resumes
Following One-Hour Halt,’’ Bloomberg (March 30,
2015), available at http://www.bloomberg.com/
news/articles/2015-03-30/euronext-derivativestrading-halted-because-of-technical-issue.
485 See ‘‘CME Test Orders Went Live,’’ Wall St.
J. (September 15, 2010), available at http://
www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703376
504575491971336921954.
486 See ‘‘Technical Glitch Hits CME Trading,’’
Wall St. J. (April 8, 2014), available at http://
www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405270230481
9004579489683245107384. The Commission notes
that moving to the floor will no longer be available
479 FIA

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

Continued

17DEP2

78874

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

The Commission further notes that
IOSCO published in April 2015 a
consultation report recommending that
exchanges consider ‘‘establishing
policies and procedures related to the
development, modification, testing and
implementation of new, or changes to,
critical systems.’’ 487 Existing
§ 38.1051(h) requires DCMs to ‘‘conduct
regular, periodic, and objective testing
of its automated systems to ensure that
they are reliable, secure, and have
adequate scalable capacity’’ and
§ 38.1051(a)(5) requires exchanges to
address risk analysis and oversight for
‘‘systems development and quality
assurance.’’ While the Commission is
not proposing any amendments to
§ 38.1051 in this NPRM, the
Commission requests comment on
whether the existing rule provides the
Commission with adequate authority to
require DCMs to adequately test
planned changes to their matching
engines and other automated systems.
2. Description of Regulation
Existing § 38.255 requires DCMs to
establish risk control mechanisms to
prevent and reduce the potential risk of
price distortions and market
disruptions, including market
restrictions that pause or halt trading.
The Commission proposes a new § 40.20
to require DCMs to establish pre-trade
and other risk controls specifically
designed to address the risks that may
arise from Algorithmic Trading, and to
establish similar controls for orders
entered manually.
The controls required by § 40.20 are
consistent with the controls that
Regulation AT would require AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs to
implement. By reference to the pre-trade
and other risk controls required of AT
Persons pursuant to § 1.80(a)(1),
proposed § 40.20 would require message
and execution throttles and controls
establishing price and size parameters.
Proposed § 40.20 would also require
DCMs to implement the above risk
controls for orders that do not originate
from Algorithmic Trading.
The proposed regulation, by reference
to § 1.80(b) and (c), would also require
DCMs to establish certain order
cancellation and connectivity
monitoring systems. The cancellation
systems must have the ability to: (i)
Immediately disengage Algorithmic
Trading; (ii) cancel selected or up to all
resting orders when system or market
conditions require it; (iii) prevent

acceptance or submission of any new
orders; and (iv) cancel or suspend all
resting orders from AT Persons in the
event of disconnect with the trading
platform. The connectivity monitoring
systems established by the DCM must
enable the systems of AT Persons with
DEA to indicate to the AT Persons on
an intermittent or continuous basis
whether they have proper connectivity
with the trading platform, including any
systems used by a DCM to provide the
AT Person with market data.
Finally, the Commission is amending
the Acceptable Practices for Core
Principle 4 in part 38 of the DCM
regulations. The existing Acceptable
Practices provide that the DCM may
choose from risk controls, including
pre-trade limits on order size, price
collars or bands around the current
price, message throttles and daily price
limits, to comply with Core Principle 4.
Such controls are now required.
Accordingly, the Acceptable Practices
will be revised to correspond to the new
requirements set forth in § 40.20.
3. Policy Discussion
Consistent with its multi-layered
approach to regulations intended to
mitigate the risks of automated trading,
the Commission proposes in § 40.20 to
require that DCMs establish and
implement certain pre-trade risk
controls and order management controls
that are broadly similar to those that
would be required of AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs. The
Commission’s determination to require
DCM-implemented controls is
consistent with several Concept Release
comments that indicated that pre-trade
risk and order management controls
should be placed at the exchange level,
with one commenter explaining that
exchanges sit at the center of trading,
and are therefore best positioned to
monitor activity across a wide variety of
participants.488 The Commission notes
that its approach is consistent with
ESMA’s 2015 Final Draft Regulatory
Standards, in that ESMA requires pretrade risk controls at both the
investment firm and trading venue
level.489 In addition, with respect to kill
switch functionality, ESMA’s 2015 Final
Draft Regulatory Standards set out two
different obligations: Trading venues
must have their own kill functionality,
and separately, investment firms must
have the ability to cancel unexecuted
orders.490
488 FIA

as a backup as the CME was planning to close most
futures trading pits in July 2015.
487 See IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra
note 106 at 19.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

at 29–33; Citadel at 3; AIMA at 3, 18; MFA
at 12–13; KCG at 13.
489 ESMA September 2015 Final Draft Standards
Report, supra note 80 at 201–02.
490 See id.

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

The Commission believes that the
controls required in proposed § 40.20
are in many cases largely consistent
with controls already used by DCMs. As
discussed above, commenters to the
Concept Release addressing this topic
generally indicated that exchanges
already use message rate limits,
maximum order size limits, and price
limits. Comments to the Concept
Release indicated that order
cancellation systems and connectivity
monitoring systems are already used by
DCMs as well. Although some
commenters did indicate that execution
throttles are more appropriate for
trading firms than for DCMs, the
Commission believes that pre-trade risk
controls and other measures serve
different functions and may be designed
or calibrated distinctly at each entity in
the life-cycle of an AT Order Message.
As noted above, proposed § 40.20 and
other elements of Regulation AT reflect
the proposed rules’ layered approach to
risk mitigation in automated trading. In
this regard, Regulation AT is designed
to address the diverse needs of market
participants trading across multiple
markets, by spreading the requirement
to impose risk controls across AT
Persons, clearing member FCMs and
DCMs and encouraging them to each
make independent use of such controls.
The Commission notes that IOSCO
has recently explained that most trading
venues have tools used to mitigate the
operational risks of electronic trading,
and such tools include price and
volume controls, messaging throttles,
and kill switches.491 In addition,
ESMA’s 2015 Final Draft Regulatory
Standards require that trading venues
have price collars that automatically
block or cancel orders that do not meet
set price parameters with respect to
different financial instruments, on an
order-by-order basis; and maximum
order value and maximum order volume
limits.492 ESMA’s regulatory standards
also require throttles limiting the
number of orders each member may
submit per second.493 Trading venues
must also determine a maximum ratio of
unexecuted orders to transactions at a
level they deem appropriate, consistent
with a calculation methodology
provided by ESMA.494 ESMA standards
further require a kill functionality to
cancel unexecuted orders upon request
of a market participant that is
technically unable to delete its own
491 IOSCO 2015 Consultation Report, supra note
106 at 21.
492 See ESMA September 2015 Final Draft
Standards Report Annex 1 at 269.
493 See id. at 266.
494 See id. at 285–88.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
orders, when the order book is
corrupted by erroneous duplicated
orders, or following a suspension
initiated by the market operator or the
competent authority.495
The Commission’s proposed rules do
not impose a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ standard
on DCMs for compliance. Rather, the
DCM’s pre-trade risk controls must be
set at the level of each AT Person, and
exchanges must evaluate whether the
controls should be set at a more granular
level, including by product or one or
more identifiers of natural persons
associated with an AT Order Message,
and then take appropriate action to set
the controls at that more granular level.
The Commission expects that it will
often be beneficial to set controls at a
more granular level. As noted above,
while some commenters to the Concept
Release indicated that Commission
involvement in setting thresholds for
these controls might be useful, the
Commission agrees with those
commenters indicating that exchanges
need discretion to determine how these
controls are implemented. The
Commission believes that it is not in the
best position to determine the
appropriate control parameters for each
trading strategy, product, capacity of
exchange matching engine, and every
other potentially relevant factor that
should be taken into account by a DCM
when establishing thresholds. The
proposed rules do not prescribe
particular limits or thresholds. Rather,
they require that the DCM set the
controls at levels intended to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event.
The Commission believes that
allowing DCMs discretion in the design
and implementation of risk controls is
particularly important in the area of
order cancellation functions. FIA has
stated that ‘‘[a]ctivation of a kill switch
is based on a decision that such action
protects market integrity or the financial
integrity of the counterparties
involved,’’ and should ‘‘only be invoked
based on a qualitative decision taken as
a last resort when other actions have
failed or may not be feasible.’’ 496
Furthermore, FIA has explained that the
conditions under which a kill switch
may be used by an exchange should be
clearly communicated to the
counterparties.497 Similarly, MFA
commented that trading platforms
should have clear and objective policies
detailing when a kill switch will be
used.498 CME indicated that restrictive
policies governing use of a kill switch
495 See

id. at 266–67.
FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 14.
497 See id.
498 MFA at 12.
496 See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

could be detrimental, given the speed
with which a kill switch may need to be
implemented.499 The Commission
believes that exchanges should have
clear and public policies governing use
of a kill switch, but understands that the
specifics of such policies may different
depending on the nature of an
exchange’s market and market
participants. Therefore, the Commission
has determined that its proposed rules
in this area should provide exchanges
with the discretion to design policies
and procedures appropriate to their
market. The Commission stresses that
exchanges should clearly communicate
such policies and procedures to market
participants.
The Commission notes that § 40.20(d)
would require a DCM to implement the
pre-trade and other risk control
mechanisms described in § 40.20(a) and
(b)(1)(i) (meaning, message and
execution throttles and order and price
parameters and order cancellation
systems) for orders that do not originate
from Algorithmic Trading, after making
any adjustments to such controls that
the DCM determines are appropriate for
such orders. The Commission
recognizes that certain activity that such
controls are designed to address can be
caused by manual order entry in
addition to Algorithmic Trading. For
example, fat-finger errors are a
commonly-cited example of an
unintentional error that can have a
significant disruptive effect, which can
be caused by, and may even be more
likely to occur in the context of, manual
order entry.
4. Request for Comments
79. The Commission proposes to
require DCMs to set pre-trade risk
controls at the level of the AT Person,
and allows discretion to set controls at
a more granular level. Should the
Commission eliminate this discretion,
and require that the controls be set at a
specific, more granular, level? If so,
please explain the more appropriate
level at which pre-trade risk controls
should be set by a DCM.
80. The Commission requests public
comment on the pre-trade and other risk
controls required of DCMs in proposed
§ 40.20. Are any of the risk controls
required in the proposed rules
unhelpful to operational or other risk
mitigation, or to market stability, when
implemented at the DCM level?
81. Are there additional pre-trade or
other risk controls that should be
specifically enumerated in proposed
§ 40.20?

82. The Commission proposes, with
respect to its kill switch requirements,
to allow DCMs the discretion to design
a kill switch that allows a market
participant to submit risk-reducing
orders. The Commission also does not
mandate particular procedures for alerts
or notifications concerning kill switch
triggers. Does the proposed rule allow
for sufficient flexibility in the design of
kill switch mechanisms and the policies
and procedures concerning their
implementation? Should the
Commission consider more prescriptive
rules in this area?
83. Does existing § 38.1051 provide
the Commission with adequate
authority to require DCMs to adequately
test planned changes to their matching
engines and other automated systems?
O. DCM Test Environments for AT
Persons—§ 40.21
The Commission proposes a new
§ 40.21 to require DCMs to provide a test
environment that will enable AT
Persons to simulate production trading.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release contemplated
that trading platforms must provide to
their market participants test
environments that simulate the
production environment. FIA supports
DCMs providing robust test
environments and market participants
using such environments.500 SIG also
indicated that DCMs should provide test
environments.501 MFA indicated that
many, if not all, exchanges currently
provide market participants a test
facility to test trading software and
algorithms.502
2. Description of Regulation
Regulation AT proposes a new
requirement that DCMs (under proposed
§ 40.21) provide a test environment that
will enable AT Persons to simulate
production trading. The required test
environment should provide access to
historical transaction, order and
message data. The test environment
should also enable AT Persons to
conduct conformance testing of their
Algorithmic Trading systems to verify
compliance with the requirements of
proposed § 1.80(a)–(c) (which address
pre-trade risk controls and other
measures), § 1.81(a)(1)(ii)–(iv) and
§ 1.81(c)(1) (which address the testing
and compliance of algorithmic trading
systems). The Commission anticipates
that AT Persons would use the DCM test
environment in connection with the
500 FIA

at 34–38.
at 9.
502 MFA at 13.
501 SIG

499 CME

PO 00000

at 23.

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78875

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78876

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

testing of their Algorithmic Trading
systems, to identify issues that may
arise in a production environment that
may not have been identified through
testing in the AT Person’s development
environment.
3. Request for Comments
84. Should the test environment
provided by DCMs under proposed
§ 40.21 offer any other functionality or
data inputs that will promote the
effective design and testing of
Algorithmic Trading by AT Persons?

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

P. DCM Review of Compliance Reports
by AT Persons and Clearing FCMs; DCM
Rules Requiring Certain Books and
Records; and DCM Review of Such
Books and Records as Necessary—
§ 40.22
The Commission proposes a new
§ 40.22 that complements the
requirement under § 1.83 for AT Persons
and clearing member FCMs to submit
compliance reports to DCMs. Sections
40.22(a) and (b) would require a DCM to
require each AT Person that trades on
the DCM, and each FCM that is a
clearing member for such AT Person, to
submit the reports described in § 1.83(a)
and (b) annually. Further, § 40.22(c)
would require each DCM to establish a
program for effective review of such
reports and remediation of any
deficiencies found. DCMs would have
considerable latitude, however, in the
design of their review programs.
Proposed § 40.22(d) would require
DCMs to implement rules that require
each AT Person to keep and provide to
the DCM books and records regarding
such AT Person’s compliance with all
requirements pursuant to § 1.80 and
§ 1.81, and require each clearing
member FCM to keep and provide to the
DCM books and records regarding such
clearing member FCM’s compliance
with all requirements pursuant to § 1.82.
Finally, proposed § 40.22(e) would
require DCMs to review and evaluate, as
necessary, books and records
maintained by AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs regarding their
compliance with §§ 1.80 and 1.81 (for
AT Persons) and § 1.82 (for clearing
member FCMs). This proposed
provision also provides DCMs with
considerable latitude in the
implementation of their review
function. The remainder of this section
presents Concept Release comments on
this topic, a description of the proposed
regulation, a discussion of the policy
justification for the proposal, and a
request for comments on the proposal.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

1. Concept Release Comments
As noted in the discussion of
proposed § 1.83 above, the Concept
Release requested comment on whether
it would be appropriate to require
periodic self-certifications by all market
participants operating ATSs and by
clearing firms that provide clearing
services to those market participants.503
Comments addressing this topic are
addressed in section IV(I)(1) above.
2. Description of Regulation
Proposed § 40.22 complements the
requirement under § 1.83 for AT Persons
and clearing member FCMs to submit
compliance reports to DCMs. Proposed
§ 40.22(a) requires a DCM to implement
rules that require each AT Person that
trades on the DCM, and each FCM that
is a clearing member of a DCO for such
AT Person, to submit the reports
described in § 1.83(a) and (b),
respectively. Under proposed § 40.22(b),
a DCM must require the submission of
such reports by June 30th of each year.
Proposed § 40.22(c) requires a DCM to
establish a program for effective
periodic review and evaluation of
reports described in paragraph (a) of
§ 40.22, and of the measures described
therein. An effective program must
include measures by the DCM
reasonably designed to identify and
remediate any insufficient mechanisms,
policies and procedures described in
such reports, including identification
and remediation of any inadequate
quantitative settings or calibrations of
pre-trade risk controls required of AT
Persons pursuant to § 1.80(a).
In addition, as an additional
complement to the compliance report
review program described above,
proposed § 40.22(d) requires DCMs to
implement rules requiring each AT
Person to keep and provide to the DCM
books and records regarding their
compliance with all requirements
pursuant to § 1.80 and § 1.81, and
requires each clearing member FCM to
keep and provide to the DCM market
books and records regarding their
compliance with all requirements
pursuant to § 1.82. Finally, proposed
§ 40.22(e) requires DCMs to review and
evaluate, as necessary, books and
records required to be kept pursuant to
proposed § 40.22(d), and the measures
described therein. A DCM could find it
necessary to conduct such a review if:
It becomes aware if an AT Person’s kill
switch is frequently activated, or
otherwise performs in an unusual
manner; if a DCM becomes aware that
an AT Person’s algorithm frequently
503 Concept

PO 00000

Release, 78 FR at 56559.

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

performs in a manner inconsistent with
its design, which may raise questions
about the design or monitoring of the
AT Person’s algorithms; if a DCM
identifies frequent trade practice
violations at an AT Person, which are
related to an algorithm of the AT
Person; or if an AT Person represents
significant volume in a particular
product, thereby requiring heightened
scrutiny, among other reasons. An
appropriate review pursuant to
§ 40.22(e) should include measures by
the DCM reasonably designed to
identify and remediate any insufficient
mechanisms, policies, and procedures
described in such books and records.
3. Policy Discussion
In proposing this regulation, the
Commission disagrees with comments
to the Concept Release opposing such a
review requirement and suggesting that
it would merely create extra
administrative costs.504 The
Commission acknowledges that the
review program required by § 40.22
would impose costs on DCMs, but
believes that Regulation AT must
include a mechanism to ensure that AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs are
complying with the requirement to
implement certain pre-trade and other
risk controls. Moreover, an assessment
of such compliance requires an
adequate level of expertise and
knowledge of markets and market
participants’ technological systems and
trading strategies. The Commission
believes that a review program requiring
AT Persons to describe the pre-trade
risk controls required by § 1.80(a) and
clearing member FCMs to describe their
program for establishing and
maintaining the pre-trade risk controls
required by 1.82(a)(1), and requiring
DCMs to review such information, is the
most effective method to ensure that all
market participants are implementing
measures that are reasonably designed
to prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event
or Algorithmic Trading Disruption. The
requirements of proposed § 40.22(d) and
(e) will enable DCMs to perform a more
intensive review, as necessary, of AT
Persons’ compliance with §§ 1.80 and
1.81, and clearing member FCMs’
compliance with § 1.82, by among other
factors, helping to ensure that necessary
books and records are maintained and
available to a DCM.
The Commission notes, in particular,
that DCMs are best positioned to assess
the measures taken by market
participants on their exchange, and
identify outliers that may not have
implemented adequate measures or
504 See,

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

e.g., AIMA at 21; FIA at 4; CME at 47.

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

particular parameters as compared to
other market participants. The
Commission believes that it is in the
interest of the DCM, as well as all
market participants trading on the DCM,
to ensure that no market participants are
conducting Algorithmic Trading
without adequate protections in place.
Some commenters indicated that any
certification requirements should be
principles-based.505 The Commission
agrees that a DCM should have
discretion in the design and
implementation of its review program.
Accordingly, proposed § 40.22 provides
a general framework for the DCM’s
review program: e.g., a DCM must
require the submission of reports by
June 30 of each year; and the DCM must
establish a program for effective
periodic review and evaluation of the
reports, including measures by the DCM
reasonably designed to identify and
remediate any insufficient mechanisms,
policies and procedures described in
such reports. Beyond the specific
requirements set forth in proposed
§ 40.22, however, each DCM may tailor
its review program in the manner it
believes will be most effective to
understand the measures its market
participants have taken to address the
risks of Algorithmic Trading, and
evaluate whether they are sufficient.
4. Request for Comments
85. In lieu of a DCM’s affirmative
obligation in proposed § 40.22 to review
AT Person and clearing member FCM
compliance reports, should DCMs
instead be permitted to rely on the CEO
or CCO representations required by
proposed § 1.83(a)(2)? If so, what events
in the Algorithmic Trading of an AT
Person should trigger review obligations
by the DCM?
86. Should § 40.22(c) provide more
specific requirements regarding a DCM’s
establishment of a program for effective
periodic review and evaluation of AT
Person and clearing member FCM
reports? For example, § 40.22(c) could
require review at specific intervals (e.g.,
once every two years). Alternatively,
§ 40.22(c) could provide greater
discretion to DCMs in establishing their
programs for the review of reports.
Please comment on the appropriateness
of these alternative approaches.
87. Should § 40.22(e) provide more
specific requirements regarding the
triggers for a DCM to review and
evaluate the books and records of AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs
required to be kept pursuant to
§ 40.22(d)? For example, § 40.22(e)
could require review at specific
505 See,

e.g., FIA at 4, CME at 27.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

intervals (e.g., once every two years), or
it could require review in response to
specific events related to the
Algorithmic Trading of AT Persons.
Please comment on the appropriateness
of these alternative approaches.
88. Does § 40.22 leave enough
discretion to the DCM in determining
how to design and implement an
effective compliance review program
regarding Algorithmic Trading?
Alternatively, is there any aspect of this
regulation that should be more specific
or prescriptive?
89. Should § 40.22 specifically
authorize a DCM to establish further
standards for the organization, method
of submission, or other attributes of the
reports described in § 40.22(a)?
Q. Self-Trade Prevention Tools—§ 40.23
The Commission understands that
self-trade activity has grown as trading
has migrated to an electronic trading
environment. The Commission has
determined to propose rules in this area,
which would address both intentional
and unintentional self-trading activity,
with the goal of benefiting market
participants and enhancing the price
discovery process. Specifically, the
Commission is proposing § 40.23(a) to
require DCMs to implement rules
reasonably designed to prevent selftrading, excluding certain ‘‘permitted
self-trades’’ described below. Proposed
§ 40.23(a) defines self-trading as the
matching of orders for accounts that
have common beneficial ownership 506
or are under common control. As
discussed below, a trade that results
from the matching of opposing orders
both generated by a firm or a single or
commonly owned account does not shift
risk between different market
participants. There is a possibility that
such trades may inaccurately signal the
level of liquidity in the market and may
result in a non-bona fide price. Risk
controls that identify and limit selftrading may result in more accurate
indications of the level of market
interest on both sides of the market and
help ensure arms-length transactions
that promote effective price discovery.
The Commission recognizes that there
could be legitimate reasons for self506 The Commission is requesting public
comment in the questions below regarding whether
it should define ‘‘common beneficial ownership’’ in
any final rules arising from this NPRM, and if so,
how the term should be defined. The Commission
notes in its request for public comment that its
aggregation rules in § 150.4 are a potential model
for defining common beneficial ownership in any
final rules. The Commission is also requesting
public comment regarding whether the definition of
common beneficial ownership for purposes of
§ 40.23 should be left to the individual discretion
of each DCM.

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78877

trades, and hence is proposing to
provide DCMs and market participants
the appropriate flexibility in
implementation of the self-trade
prevention tools. DCMs have begun
offering self-trade prevention tools to
market participants in recent years, and
a large fraction of market participants
have started using these tools. Analysis
of self-match use at DCMs has found
that the majority of orders in many
liquid contracts already make use of this
tool. While acknowledging the growing
use of such tools, the Commission is
interested in strengthening regulatory
standards to increase transparency and
ensure more effective limitation of
unintentional self-trades. By
standardizing self-trade prevention use
across firms, it should be easier for the
marketplace as a whole to differentiate
permitted self-trading. The
Commission’s proposed rules on selftrade prevention are also intended as a
complement to the prohibition under
the CEA regulations regarding wash
trades.507 Wash trading has been
defined as ‘‘entering into, or purporting
to enter into, transactions to give the
appearance that purchases and sales
have been made, without incurring
market risk or changing the trader’s
market position.’’ 508 Therefore,
intentional self-trades could constitute
wash trades.
The remainder of this section presents
Concept Release comments on this
topic, a Commission analysis of the
amount of self-trading in the
marketplace, a description of the
proposed regulation, a discussion of the
policy justification for the proposal, and
a request for comments on the proposal.
1. Concept Release Comments
The Concept Release requested
comment on self-trading controls. The
Concept Release considered whether
trading platforms should provide, and
market participants apply, technologies
to identify and limit the transmission of
orders from their systems to a trading
platform that would result in self-trades.
Numerous commenters addressed selftrading controls, including the extent of
their use by industry; the types of trades
that self-trade controls should prevent;
and the appropriate design of self-trade
controls. Commenters disagreed as to
whether there should be regulation in
this area, but most either oppose
regulation or express concern about how
it would be implemented, for reasons
similar to those stated by FIA: ‘‘To
507 See Section 4c(a) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C.
6c(a)(2)(A), and Commission regulation 1.38(a).
508 See CFTC Glossary, available at: http://
www.cftc.gov/ConsumerProtection/
EducationCenter/CFTCGlossary/index.htm#W.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78878

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

require the adoption of DCM-based selfmatch prevention as a ‘one-size-fits-all’
approach may result in unnecessary
financial exposure caused by the
inherent blocking of legitimate
transactions. . . . The options for this
type of functionality must be flexible
enough so that market participants can
choose the method that best suits their
business and preserves legitimate
trading.’’ 509
Commenters indicated that exchangeprovided self-trading controls are
widely used by market participants.510
The FIA PTG Survey reflected that 25 of
26 responding firms use such
controls.511 Both CME and ICE provide
self-trade prevention controls, a
capability which was introduced, and
refined, in recent years.512 CME’s selftrade control is optional rather than
required. It allows market participants
to prevent buy and sell orders for the
same account, or accounts with
common beneficial ownership, from
matching with each other. CME noted
that its self-trade control can be applied
by market participants at the executing
firm level or at more granular levels,
including at an individual user level.513
CME stated that more than 100 firms
have registered for this control since it
was launched in June 2013.514 ICE
noted that its self-trade prevention tool
is mandatory for proprietary traders
with DEA.515 Another exchange, CFE,
commented that it will be employing
self-trade prevention functionality in
the near future.516
While FIA believes that DCMs should
offer self-trading controls, FIA and four
other commenters (including CME)
oppose self-trading regulation at this
time.517 Reasons articulated by FIA and
other commenters included: The
technology supporting this risk control
is not sufficiently developed, although
industry is already working to improve
it and is in the best position to do so;
regulating self-trading controls would
lock in standards or technology that will
become obsolete; self-trade controls may
cause an accumulation of either resting
orders or new orders, depending on how
the controls are calibrated, which does
not advance the regulatory goal of
protecting the marketplace; and there
are ways to prevent self-trades without

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

509 FIA

at 27–28.
at 26; Gelber at 7–9.
511 FIA at 26, 59–60.
512 FIA at 25–27; MFA at 8; Gelber at 7–9; FAIMA
at 10; IATP at 5.
513 CME at 12.
514 Id. at 11–12.
515 ICE at 2.
516 CFE at 6.
517 FIA at 25–27; CME at 10–12; Gelber at 7–9;
MFA 5, 8; AIMA at 11–12.
510 FIA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

using a self-trade prevention tool (i.e.,
trading firms may choose to simply
modify their trading strategies).518
OneChicago commented that selftrading controls should be implemented
and calibrated at the clearing firm level,
not at the DCM level.519
In contrast, IATP and AFR support
the Commission requiring exchanges
and market participants to use selftrading controls.520 SIG believes that
exchanges should offer self-trade
prevention functionality, with
parameters set by firms.521
As to cost considerations, CME stated
that self-trade controls require
significant investments in technology
and resources by exchanges and trading
firms.522 MFA noted that it is more costeffective for exchanges, rather than
market participants, to develop selftrade controls.523
Finally, comments addressed the
specific functionality of self-trade
controls currently used by exchanges
and firms. For example, five comments
addressed the type of trades that such
controls should prevent.524 FIA
explained that self-trading controls
should only address trades submitted by
the same trading desk that are matched
despite best efforts to avoid self-trading.
This is different from wash trades,
which are intentional self-trades that
Commission and DCM rules already
effectively address, and bona fide selftrades, which are buy and sell orders for
accounts with common beneficial
ownership that are independently
initiated for legitimate business
purposes, but which coincidentally
cross.525 FIA and Gelber stated that
CME’s November 19, 2013 advisory
notice on wash trades 526 provides an
accurate description of when selfmatching is acceptable.527 SIG stated
that exchanges should focus on trades
that would create material, not
immaterial, market misperceptions.528
Finally, KCG stated that it does not
believe the CFTC needs to prohibit all
518 FIA at 25–27; CME at 11–12; AIMA at 11–12;
Gelber at 7.
519 OneChicago at 2.
520 IATP at 5; AFR at 7.
521 SIG at 9.
522 CME at 10.
523 MFA at 8.
524 FIA at 25; Gelber at 9; KCG at 7; AIMA at 11;
SIG at 9.
525 FIA at 25.
526 See the CME Group Advisory Notice RA 13085 (Nov. 19, 2013), available at http://
www.cmegroup.com/rulebook/files/cme-groupra1308–5.pdf. The FAQ in the Advisory Notice
discusses various types of acceptable self-matching
that would not violate CME Rule 534 (‘‘Wash
Trades Prohibited’’).
527 FIA at 25; Gelber at 9.
528 SIG at 9.

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

self-trading, but that ‘‘market
participants must be able to
demonstrate, through information
barriers or other effective policies and
procedures, that any self-trading is
between unrelated strategies and not
designed with a manipulative
intent.’’ 529
Commenters also addressed the
appropriate level at which self-trade
controls should be calibrated.530 Several
stressed that DCMs should allow market
participants to tailor this control to their
own needs.531 FIA commented that selftrade controls should be offered at
varying levels of granularity (i.e., firm
level, group level, trader ID level,
customer account level and strategy
level), and certain levels can be
combined.532 AIMA stated that selftrade controls set at the firm trader ID
level could be ‘‘gamed’’ by traders
creating a shell company under a
different ID.533 SIG suggested that the
controls be customizable at the
‘‘aggregation unit level’’ and ‘‘userdefined tag level.’’ 534
Six comments addressed whether
exchanges should require market
participants to use the exchanges’ selftrading controls.535 CME noted that it is
optional for market participants to use
its self-trade tools, and FIA supported
this approach.536 In contrast, AIMA
suggested mandatory confidential
flagging of self-trades to the market
participant, but only optional
cancellations of orders.537 Gelber and
KCG support mandatory use at the
‘‘trader ID’’ level.538 Gelber noted that
ICE’s controls are mandatory for some
market participants.539 Finally, IATP
suggested requiring exchanges to
provide self-trading controls and apply
them to all participants and all
products, arguing that requiring such
controls for some but not others creates
arbitrage opportunities.540
Comments also addressed order
cancellation options in order to prevent
self-trading, which can include cancel
resting, cancel new, cancel both, and
decrement order quantity (canceling the
smaller order and reducing the larger
529 KCG

at 7.
at 25–27; Gelber at 7–9; CME at 12; AIMA
at 10–12; SIG at 9.
531 FIA 25–27; Gelber at 7–9; CME at 12; SIG at
9.
532 FIA at 27.
533 AIMA at 10–12.
534 SIG at 9.
535 FIA at 25–27; CME at 13, Appendix A–4;
Gelber at 7–9; KCG at 7; AIMA at 2, 10–11; IATP
at 5.
536 CME at 13, Appendix A–4; FIA at 25–27.
537 AIMA at 2, 10–11.
538 Gelber at 7–9; KCG at 7.
539 Gelber at 7–9.
540 IATP at 5.
530 FIA

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
order by the size of the smaller
order).541 As described below, the
Commission’s proposed self-trade
prevention requirements do not
mandate a particular technological
approach, nor do they specify which
order or set of orders should be canceled
in order to prevent a self-trade.
2. Commission Analysis of Amount of
Self-Trading in the Marketplace

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

The pervasive growth of algorithmic
trading by firms deploying large
numbers of strategies has likely
increased the incidence of self-trading
activity. In order to estimate the
percentage of self-trading in the
marketplace, the Commission recently
reviewed twelve months of trade data
received from several large DCMs,
focusing primarily on the most active
products. Among other findings, the
Commission learned that intra-firm selftrades, including both proprietary and
customer trades, can comprise a
meaningful percentage of daily trading
activity in individual futures
contracts.542 For example, in February
2015 intra-firm self-trades in one
examined futures contract were almost
10 percent of all trades in that contract,
increasing to almost 15 percent on
individual days. Self-trade rates for a
few other contracts were around 5
percent of total activity. The
Commission found similar patterns at
individual firm levels, with cumulative
self-trade volumes at times in the
millions of contracts for some market
participants over the course of the 12month sample period. The average size
of a firm’s self-trades ranged from
approximately two contracts per trade to
over two thousand contracts per trade.
541 FIA at 26; CME at 11. FIA, Gelber and SIG
support the DCM offering cancellation options to
the market participant. FIA at 26; Gelber at 7–9; SIG
at 9. In its comment letter, CME stated that its selfmatch prevention system was, at the time of the
comment letter, structured to cancel the resting
order, retaining orders based on more current
market information. (CME has more recently
expanded the number of cancellation choices.) The
benefit of the opposite approach, canceling the
taking order, is that it favors the priority of orders
resting in the order book. CME at 11. Similarly,
MFA stated that it disagrees with the approach of
canceling the resting order, because it causes a
participant to lose its resting orders even if the
orders have been working in the queue. MFA noted
that other exchanges, such as NYSE Euronext, offer
options such as cancelling the taking order and
decrementing order quantity. MFA at 8. AFR
supports cancellation of the taking order, reasoning
that the taking order is more likely to be the
erroneous order. AFR at 7. Finally, AIMA favors
rejection of both the resting order and the taking
order. AIMA at 11.
542 Self-trading identified in the Commission’s
analysis could include trading between accounts
controlled by separate independent decision
makers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

3. Description of Regulation
The Commission is proposing new
requirements under § 40.23 that would
require DCMs to apply, or provide and
require the use of, tools reasonably
designed to prevent self-trading.
Proposed § 40.23 defines self-trading for
purposes of this regulation as the
matching of orders for accounts that
have common beneficial ownership or
are under common control. These
requirements are intended to prevent
self-trading, while still allowing what
FIA has characterized as ‘‘bona fide and
desirable self-match trades,’’ i.e. buy
and sell orders for accounts with
common beneficial ownership that are
independently initiated for legitimate
business purposes, but which
coincidentally cross.543 While the
proposed rules contain exceptions for
bona fide self-match trades (described in
§ 40.23(b)), they are intended to address
all unintentional self-trading, and do
not include a de minimis exception for
a certain percentage of unintentional
self-trading. In addition, the proposed
rules would provide for an important
new element of transparency around
bona fide self-match trades to furnish all
market participants with greater
information regarding the markets on
which they trade.
Description of § 40.23(a). Regulation
40.23(a) would require a DCM to
implement rules reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading by market
participants, except as specified in
paragraph (b). The regulation defines
‘‘self-trading,’’ for purposes of § 40.23,
as the matching of orders for accounts
that have common beneficial ownership
or are under common control.
Regulation 40.23(a) would require that a
DCM shall either apply, or provide and
require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools that are reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading and are applicable
to all orders on its electronic trade
matching platform. If a DCM does not
implement and apply self-trade
prevention tools, then it must provide
such tools to its market participants and
require all market participants to use the
tools. For purposes of complying with
the requirements of proposed § 40.23, a
DCM could either determine for itself
which accounts should be prohibited
from trading with each other, or require
market participants to identify to the
DCM which accounts should be
543 FIA at 25. See also FIA Guide, supra note 95
at 13, which describes bona fide and allowable selfmatch trades as ‘‘buy and sell orders for accounts
with common beneficial ownership that are
independently initiated for legitimate and separate
business purposes by independent decision makers
and which coincidentally cross with each other in
the competitive market.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78879

prohibited from trading with each other.
The proposed regulations allow DCMs
to exercise discretion in the design and
implementation of self-trade prevention
tools, in response to Concept Release
commenter concerns that the technology
supporting this control is still being
developed, and overly prescriptive
regulations in this area may lock in
standards or technology that will
become obsolete.
Description of § 40.23(b). The
requirements of proposed § 40.23(a) are
subject to the proviso in § 40.23(b) that
a DCM may, in its discretion, implement
rules that permit a self-trade resulting
from the matching of orders for accounts
with common beneficial ownership
where such orders are initiated by
independent decision makers. A DCM
could, through its rules, further define
for its market participants ‘‘independent
decision makers.’’ This exception is
closely based on FIA’s comment letter
description of how a bona fide self-trade
that should be permitted to occur.544
The Commission considered FIA’s
concept of permissible self-trading to be
a reasonable one, which would be easily
understood by exchanges and market
participants. In addition to the foregoing
exception relating to common beneficial
ownership, § 40.23(b) allows a DCM to
permit a self-trade resulting from the
matching of orders for accounts under
common control where such orders
comply with the DCM’s cross-trade,
minimum exposure requirements or
similar rules, and are for accounts that
are not under common beneficial
ownership.
Description of § 40.23(c). Under
proposed § 40.23(c), a DCM must
require market participants to receive
approval from the DCM to forego selftrade prevention tools with respect to
specific accounts under common
beneficial ownership or control, on the
basis that they meet the criteria of
paragraph (b). The DCM must require
that such approval request be provided
to it by a compliance officer or senior
officer of the market participant. The
Commission emphasizes that the
approval request to not apply self-trade
prevention tools to certain orders
should not be made by an individual
trader or other non-management or more
junior employee of the trading firm.
Market participants must withdraw or
amend an approval request if any
change occurs that would cause the
information provided in such approval
request to be no longer accurate or
complete. The Commission notes that
any approval request submitted to the
DCM would be subject to section 9(a)(4)
544 See

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

FIA at 25.

17DEP2

78880

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 13(a)(4) (2012),
which prohibits, inter alia, making false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statements to a
registered entity.
Description of § 40.23(d). Finally,
proposed § 40.23(d) would require that
for each product and expiration month
traded on a DCM in the previous
quarter, the DCM must prominently
display on its Web site the following
information: (i) The percentage of trades
in such product including all expiration
months that represent self-trading
approved (pursuant to paragraph (c) of
§ 40.23) by the DCM, expressed as a
percentage of all trades in such product
and expiration month; (ii) the
percentage of volume of trading in such
product including all expiration months
that represents self-trading approved
(pursuant to paragraph (c) of § 40.23) by
the DCM, expressed as a percentage of
all volume in such product and
expiration month; and (iii) the ratio of
orders in such product and expiration
month whose matching was prevented
by the self-trade prevention tools
described in paragraph (a) of § 40.23,
expressed as a ratio of all trades in such
product and expiration month. The
Commission emphasizes that the
‘‘prominent display’’ of information by
a DCM precludes such DCM from
placing information required by this
rule behind registration, log in, user
name, password or other walls on the
DCM’s Web site.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

4. Policy Discussion
The Commission understands that for
various reasons, firms might operate
multiple algorithms, each following a
different trading strategy, but
transacting in the same instrument/
futures contract. This can cause buy and
sell orders for the same instrument to be
generated at the same instant by
different algorithms, which in turn can
get matched with each other as selftrades. Certain firms might choose to
prevent these self-trades from occurring,
or limit the extent of self-trades. They
could choose to do this by building
tools that scan all orders being
generated from within the firm and stop
those that could potentially result in
self-trades. But there are challenges in
building efficient firm-level solutions,
especially in modern low latency
markets. In response, DCMs have
implemented self-trade prevention tools
to help firms manage and limit the
extent of self-trades that would
otherwise be generated by these
algorithms. These trading system-level
solutions appear to be more efficient in
helping firms manage their self-trade
activity.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

The Commission has included selftrade prevention requirements in
Regulation AT to ensure that there are
regulatory standards to more effectively
and fairly limit unintentional selftrading across Commission-regulated
markets, aiding in the risk management
and trading efficiency of individual
firms.
In addition, while existing
Commission regulations address market
manipulation and wash sales, these
types of violative behavior require some
level of intent. Therefore, the
Commission has determined to propose
regulations in the area of self-trading
that address both matching of orders for
accounts that have common beneficial
ownership or are under common
control, independent of intent.
The proposed regulations are
intended to take into account Concept
Release comments advising that the
Commission should not be overly
prescriptive in requiring specific types
of self-trade prevention tools, or specific
settings or controls in connection with
such tools, because such tools are still
technologically evolving. Furthermore,
the Commission agrees with comments
stating that exchanges are in the
position, from a technology standpoint,
to develop these types of controls.
Accordingly, the Commission proposes
to require the use of self-trade
prevention tools in proposed § 40.23,
but allow exchanges and market
participants the discretion to tailor the
design of such tools and how to most
effectively calibrate them in order to
prevent unintentional self-matching.
The Commission believes that the
requirements of proposed § 40.23 are
generally consistent with how
exchange-provided self-trade prevention
tools currently operate, as indicated by
comment letters.545 The proposed
regulations would also require DCMs to
publish statistics on their Web site
regarding self-trading that they have
both authorized and prevented on their
platform. The Commission is proposing
this Web site reporting requirement
because it understands that the design
of self-trade prevention tools may vary
among DCMs. These statistics will serve
a critical purpose in disclosing to
market participants the extent of selftrading that occurs in each product. The
Commission believes that such
transparency is a key element of the
proposed rules as it will help furnish all
market participants with better
information regarding the markets in
which they trade.
While some commenters to the
Concept Release were not supportive of
545 See,

PO 00000

e.g., CME at 11–12; ICE at 2.

Frm 00058

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Commission action in this area, the
commenters also indicated that selftrade prevention tools are already
widely implemented in industry.546
Moreover, FINRA Rules already address
self-trade prevention. In June 2014,
FINRA published a regulatory notice
stating that the SEC had approved new
supplementary material to FINRA Rule
5210 (Publications of Transactions and
Quotations) to address transactions in a
security resulting from the
unintentional interaction of orders
originating from the same firm that
involve no change in the beneficial
ownership of the security (selftrades).547 Effective August 25, 2014,
firms must have policies and procedures
in place that are reasonably designed to
review their trading activity for, and
prevent, a pattern or practice of selftrades resulting from orders originating
from a single algorithm or trading desk,
or related algorithms or trading desks.
In addition, the FIA Guide sets forth
guidelines for self-trade prevention, and
recommends that exchanges should
offer participants a selection of selftrade tools to allow market participants
to tailor self-trade prevention to their
individual needs by offering various
options (e.g., cancel resting, cancel new,
cancel both, and decrement order size)
and various levels of granularity (e.g.,
firm level, group level, trader ID level,
customer account level and strategy
level).548 The FIA Guide recommends
that the use of such self-trade tools by
market participants should remain
optional.549 The new Regulation AT
requirements, by contrast, would make
use of exchange-provided self-trade
prevention tools mandatory by market
participants.
5. Request for Comments
90. The Commission seeks to require
self-trade prevention tools that screen
out unintentional self-trading, while
permitting bona-fide self-matched trades
that are undertaken for legitimate
business purposes. Under the
regulations proposed above, DCMs shall
implement rules reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading (‘‘the matching of
orders for accounts that have common
beneficial ownership or are under
common control’’), but DCMs may in
their discretion implement rules that
permit ‘‘the matching of orders for
546 See, e.g., FIA at 26; Gelber at 7–9; CME at 11–
12; ICE at 2.
547 See FINRA, ‘‘Regulatory Notice 14–28: Self
Trades; SEC Approves FINRA Rule Concerning
Self-Trades ’’ (June 2014), available at http://
www.finra.org/sites/default/files/NoticeDocument/
p540972.pdf.
548 See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 13.
549 Id.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
accounts with common beneficial
ownership where such orders are
initiated by independent decision
makers.’’
a. Do these standards accomplish the
goal of preventing only unintentional
self-trading, or would other standards be
more effective in accomplishing this
goal? For example, should the
Commission consider adopting in any
final rules arising from this NPRM an
alternative requirement modeled on
FINRA Rule 5210 and require market
participants to implement policies and
procedures to review their trading
activity for, and a prevent a pattern of,
self-trades?
b. While the regulations contain
exceptions for bona fide self-match
trades (described in § 40.23(b)), the
regulations are intended to prevent all
unintentional self-trading, and do not
include a de minimis exception for a
certain percentage of unintentional selftrading. Should the regulations permit a
certain de minimis amount of
unintentional self-trading, and if so,
what amount should be permitted (e.g.,
as a percentage of monthly trading
volume)?
c. The following terms are used in
proposed § 40.23(a) and (b): (1) Selftrading, (2) common beneficial
ownership, (3) independent decision
makers, and (4) common control. Do any
of these terms require further definition?
If so, how should they be defined?
Should any alternatives be used and, if
so, how should such substitute terms be
defined?
d. With respect to ‘‘common
beneficial ownership,’’ the Commission
requests comment on the minimum
degree of ownership in an account that
should trigger a determination that such
account is under common beneficial
ownership. For example, should an
account be deemed to be under common
beneficial ownership between two
unrelated persons if each person
directly or indirectly has a 10% or more
ownership or equity interest in such
account? The Commission refers
commenters to the aggregation rules in
part 150 of its regulations, including
specifically § 150.4, and requests
comment on a potential Commission
definition of common beneficial
ownership that is modeled on § 150.4.
e. The Commission also requests
comment on whether ‘‘common
beneficial ownership’’ should be
defined in any final rules arising from
this NPRM, or whether such definition
should be left to each DCM with respect
to its program for implementing
proposed § 40.23.
91. Are there any other types of selftrading that should be permitted in

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

addition to the exceptions permitted in
§ 40.23(b)(1) and (2)? If so, please
describe such other types of acceptable
self-trading and explain why they
should be permitted.
92. Proposed § 40.23 provides that
DCMs may comply with the
requirement to apply, or provide and
require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools by requiring market participants to
identify to the DCM which accounts
should be prohibited from trading with
each other. With respect to this account
identification process, the Commission’s
principal goal is to prevent
unintentional self-trading; the
Commission does not have a specific
interest in regulating the manner by
which market participants identify to
DCMs the account that should be
prohibited from trading from each other,
so long as this goal is met. Should any
other identification methods be
permitted in § 40.23? For example,
please comment on whether the
opposite approach is preferable: market
participants would identify to DCMs the
accounts that should be permitted to
trade with each other (as opposed to
those accounts that should be prevented
from trading with each other).
93. The Commission believes that its
requirements concerning self-trade
prevention tools must strike the
appropriate balance between flexibility
(allowing market participants with
diverse trading operations and strategies
the discretion in implementation so as
effectively prevent only unintentional
self-trades) and simplicity (a variety of
design and implementation options may
render this control too complex to be
effective).550 Does the Commission
allow sufficient discretion to exchanges
and market participants in the design
and implementation of self-trade
prevention tools? Is there any area
where the Commission should be more
prescriptive? The Commission is
particularly interested in whether there
is a particular level at which it should
require implementation of self-trade
prevention tools, i.e., if the tools must
prevent matching of orders from the
same trading firm, the same trader, the
same trading algorithm, or some other
level.
94. Proposed § 40.23(a) would require
DCMs to either apply, or provide and
require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools. Please comment whether
§ 40.23(a) should, in addition, permit
market participants to use their own
self-trade prevention tools to meet the
requirements of proposed § 40.23(a),
550 See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 13 (discussing
balance between flexibility and complexity with
respect to self-trade prevention tools).

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78881

and if so, what additional regulations
would ensure that DCMs are able to:
Ensure that such tools are comparable to
DCM-provided tools; monitor the
performance of such tools; and
otherwise review such tools and ensure
that they are sufficiently rigorous to
meet the requirements of § 40.23.
95. Is it appropriate to require
implementation of self-trade prevention
tools with respect to all orders? Should
such controls be mandatory for only a
particular subset of orders, i.e., orders
from AT Persons or orders submitted
through DEA?
96. Please comment on the
requirement that DCMs disclose selftrade statistics. Is the data required to be
disclosed appropriate? Is there any other
category of self-trade data that DCMs
should be required to disclose?
97. Should DCMs be required to
disclose the amount of unintentional
self-trading that occurs each month,
alongside the self-trade statistics
required to be published under
proposed § 40.23(d)?
98. As noted above, the Commission
understands that there is some potential
for self-trade prevention tools to be used
for wrongful activity that may include
disruptive trading or other violations of
the Act or Commission regulations on
DCMs. Are there ways to design selftrade prevention tools so that they do
not facilitate disruptive trading (such as
spoofing) or other violations of the Act
or Commission regulations on DCMs?
Are additional regulations warranted to
ensure that such tools are not used to
facilitate such activities?
R. DCM Market Maker and Trading
Incentive Programs—§§ 40.25–40.28
Proposed §§ 40.25–40.28 would
require DCMs to provide additional
public information regarding their
market maker and trading incentive
programs, restrict certain types of
payments by DCMs in connection with
such programs, and require DCMs to
perform surveillance of such programs
to prevent abusive practices. The
remainder of this section presents a
description of the proposed regulation,
a discussion of the policy justification
for the proposal, and a request for
comments on the proposal.
1. Policy Discussion
Although not discussed in the
Concept Release, the Commission has
determined to address in Regulation AT
certain aspects of DCM market maker
and trading incentive programs that it
believes are particularly relevant in the

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78882

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

context of automated trading.551 Formal
market making and incentive programs
were not common in the days of pit
trading. In the modern trading
environment, DCM trading incentive
programs (which may also be called a
liquidity provider program) typically
compensate one or more market
participants with financial or nonfinancial incentives or benefits for
meeting certain volume thresholds or
providing liquidity. A market maker
program (which may also be called, for
example, a market specialist, designated
market maker, lead market maker, or
liquidity provider program) is a more
focused offering that involves a
contractual agreement between the DCM
and a market participant. It typically
compensates one or more market
participants with financial or nonfinancial incentives or benefits for
fulfilling certain affirmative obligations
in a particular product or products, such
as maintaining two way prices and
volumes or a pre-determined minimum
bid/ask spread for a specified period of
the trading day.
The number of such programs selfcertified to the Commission has risen
sharply in recent years, as has the
complexity of the programs and size of
the incentives. In 2010, 56 market maker
and incentive programs were selfcertified by DCMs; in 2013, DCMs had
self-certified 341 programs, an increase
by over 600 percent compared to the
number of programs self-certified by
DCMs in 2010. In 2012, nearly every
contract at one DCM was part of a
market maker or incentive program,
including highly liquid contracts.
The Commission understands that
DCMs have launched market making
and other incentive programs to
encourage liquidity provisioning and
order flow to their electronic trading
platforms. While the Commission does
not object to such goals, the
Commission’s proposed regulations in
§§ 40.25–40.28 reflect its concern that
market maker and trading incentive
programs could have the potential to
spur market participants to trade in
ways designed to collect program
benefits, independently of any
contribution they may be making to
liquidity or price discovery. Such
practices may potentially also lead to
abusive trading practices in violation of
551 The Commission notes that ESMA’s 2015
Final Draft Regulatory Standards address market
maker schemes. The standards address the
circumstances under which an investment firm
must enter into a market making agreement with a
trading venue, and the content that should be
included in such an agreement. See ESMA
September 2015 Final Draft Standards Report
Annex 1, supra note 80 at 279–80.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

DCM and Commission rules. Notably for
purposes of Regulation AT, market
participants using ATSs can magnify
these concerns in several respects. First,
the automation and speed of ATSs can
allow market participants to quickly
reach market-maker or trading incentive
program thresholds, depending on the
liquidity of a market and threshold
levels. Second, the trading strategies
pursued through ATSs can sometimes
result in a large number of trades
between the same ATS or between two
or more ATSs owned or controlled by
the same market participants. In this
regard, the Commission is also
proposing new § 40.23 to help prevent
self-trading on DCMs, and provide
market participants with greater
transparency around DCM depth and
liquidity when self-trading does
occur.552
Proposed §§ 40.25–40.28 will further
the Commission’s policy objectives in
three key areas: (1) Transparency; (2)
market integrity; and (3) effective selfregulation by all DCMs. The proposed
regulations would further transparency
through proposed §§ 40.25 and 40.26,
which would require greater disclosure
of information to the public and to the
Commission regarding market maker
and trading incentive programs.
Together with proposed amendments to
the definition of ‘‘rule’’ in § 40.1(i) to
explicitly include market maker and
trading incentive programs, the
proposed regulations would also help
eliminate any potential ambiguity that
may exist regarding the Commission’s
authority over such programs.553
552 See Section IV(Q) above for a discussion of
self-trading and proposed § 40.23.
553 In the Final Rule for Provisions Common to
Registered Entities, the Commission stated with
respect to market maker and trading incentive
programs, ‘‘The Commission continues to view
such programs as ‘‘agreements * * *
corresponding’’ to a ‘‘trading protocol’’ within the
§ 40.1 definition of ‘‘rule’’ and, as such, all market
maker and trading incentive programs must be
submitted to the Commission in accordance with
procedures established in part 40.’’ In this Final
Rule, the Commission also stated, specifically with
respect to DCMs, that ‘‘[a] DCM’s rules
implementing market maker and trading incentive
programs fall within the Commission’s oversight
authority. Indeed, a number of core principles
touch upon trading issues that may be implicated
by the design of such programs. Core Principle 9,
for example, establishes the Commission’s
framework for regulating the execution of
transactions, requiring DCMs . . . to provide a
competitive, open, and efficient market and
mechanism for execution. The newly-amended Core
Principle 12 also requires DCMs to establish and
enforce rules to protect markets and market
participants from abusive practices and to promote
fair and equitable trading on designated contract
markets. In addition, market maker and trading
incentive programs frequently touch upon Core
Principle 19, which requires that DCMs avoid
adopting any rules or taking any actions that result
in unreasonable restraints of trade.’’ Final Rule,

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Proposed § 40.25 will enhance the types
of information that DCMs should expect
to provide the Commission when
requesting approval or self-certifying
market-maker or trading incentive
programs, and will also require that
information regarding market-maker and
trading incentive programs be easily
located on a DCM’s Web site.
The Commission notes that in June
2012 it adopted core principles and
final rules modernizing the regulatory
regime applicable to all DCMs (‘‘DCM
Final Rules’’). The DCM Final Rules
emphasized DCMs’ obligations as the
front-line regulators of their markets,
including extensive trade practice and
market surveillance responsibilities. In
addition, the Commission codified new
requirements that a DCM offer its
‘‘members [and] persons with trading
privileges . . . with impartial access to
its markets and services,’’ including: (1)
‘‘Access criteria that are impartial,
transparent and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner’’ and (2)
‘‘comparable fee structures . . . for
equal access to, or services from’’ the
DCM. Taken together, proposed
§§ 40.25–40.28 will facilitate the
Commission’s oversight of DCMs’
market maker and trading incentive
programs, and will also help the
Commission ensure that market maker
and trading incentive programs are in
compliance with Commission rules
regarding trade practice and market
surveillance and impartial access
requirements.
Importantly, the proposed regulations
would promote market integrity by
requiring in proposed § 40.27(a) that
DCMs implement policies and
procedures reasonably designed to
prevent payment of market maker or
trading incentive program benefits for
self-trades. In this regard, the proposed
regulations are designed to ensure that
market maker or trading incentive
programs do not incentivize abusive,
manipulative, or disruptive trading
practices, and also do not encourage or
facilitate behavior that distorts markets
and give the appearance of false market
depth. Proposed § 40.28 clarifies DCMs’
surveillance obligations regarding
market maker or trading incentive
programs and their participants.
Separately, the Commission believes
that proposed §§ 40.25–40.28 will also
provide DCMs and market participants
with greater certainty as to what types
of trading incentive and market maker
programs are inappropriate. The
proposed regulations are described in
detail below. The proposed rules will
Provisions Common to Registered Entities, 76 FR
44776, 44777–8 (July 27, 2011).

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
work in conjunction with the proposed
amendments to the definition of ‘‘rule’’
in proposed § 40.1(i) to explicitly
include market maker and trading
incentive programs.
In sum, the Commission’s proposed
amendments to § 40.1(i) and new
§§ 40.25–40.28 will increase
transparency around DCM marketmaker and trading incentive programs,
underline existing regulatory
expectations, and introduce basic
safeguards in the conduct of such
programs. The proposed regulations
would make clear that market-maker
and trading incentive programs are
‘‘rules’’ for purposes of part 40, and
establish information and disclosure
requirements when DCMs request
Commission approval or self-certify new
rules pursuant to part 40. They would
also make clear that DCMs’ existing
surveillance responsibilities in part 38
apply equally to market-maker and
trading incentive programs. Finally, the
proposed regulations would codify the
Commission’s expectation that DCM
market-maker and trading incentive
programs should not provide payments
or incentives for market-maker or
trading activity between accounts under
common ownership.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

2. Description of Regulations
Proposed §§ 40.25–40.28 would
require DCMs to provide additional
public information regarding their
market maker and trading incentive
programs. Proposed § 40.25(a) would
require that, when submitting a rule
regarding a market maker or trading
incentive program pursuant to § 40.5 or
§ 40.6, a DCM must, in addition to
information required by such sections,
include specific additional information
in its public rule filing.554 Additional
information to be provided would
include: (1) The name of the market
maker program or trading incentive
program, the date on which it will
begin, and the date on which it will
terminate (if applicable); (2) an
explanation of the specific purpose for
the program; (3) a list of the product(s)
the trading of which is eligible for
benefits under the market maker or
trading incentive program, and list of
554 The Commission is cognizant that a DCM may
consider certain information required by proposed
§ 40.25(a) to be non-public. In this regard, the
Commission notes that § 40.8 of its existing
regulations provides a mechanism for registered
entities to request confidential treatment when
submitting rule filings pursuant to §§ 40.5 or 40.6.
Among other requirements, a registered entity must
file a ‘‘detailed written justification’’ for its
confidential treatment request. Regulation 40.8
remains available to DCMs for any § 40.25(a) filings
that may be required in the future. See 17 CFR 40.8;
see also 17 CFR 145.9.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

the potential service(s) rendered by a
market participant to which the market
maker or trading incentive program
applies (e.g., trading at certain hours;
trading originating from certain
geographic zones; trading originating
with certain types or categories or
market participants; or the bid/ask
spread to be maintained by a market
participant); (4) a description of any
eligibility criteria or categories of market
participants defining who may
participate in the program; (5) for any
market maker or trading incentive
program that is not open to all market
participants, an explanation of why the
program is limited to the chosen
eligibility criteria or categories of market
participants, and an explanation of how
such limitation complies with the
impartial access and comparable fee
structure requirements of § 38.151(b) for
DCMs; (6) an explanation of how
persons eligible for the market maker or
trading incentive program may apply to
participate, and how eligibility will be
evaluated by the DCM; (7) a description
of any payments, incentives, discounts,
considerations, inducements or other
benefits that program participants may
receive, including any non-financial
incentives (non-financial incentives
may include, for example, enhanced
trading priorities or preferential access
to market data, including order and
trade data); (8) a description of the
obligations, benchmarks, or other
measures that a participant in a market
maker or trading incentive program
must meet to receive the benefits
described in paragraph (a)(7) of this
section; and (9) a description of any
legal affiliation between the DCM and
any entity acting as a market maker or
participating in a market maker or
trading incentive program.555 Proposed
§ 40.25(b) would require that, in
addition to any public notice required
pursuant to part 40 (including without
limitation the requirements of
§ 40.5(a)(6) and § 40.6(a)(2)), a DCM
must ensure that the information
required by § 40.25(a)(1)–(8) is easily
located on its public Web site during the
lifetime of the market maker or trading
incentive program, that is, from the time
that the DCM begins accepting
participants in the program through the
time the program ceases operation.
555 Commission staff has historically required
enhanced DCM surveillance procedures when a
DCM market maker is operated by an affiliate of the
DCM. Proposed § 40.25(a)(9) will assist the
Commission in identifying potential conflicts of
interest between a DCM, its market makers, and
participants in market maker or trading incentive
programs, and also assist the Commission in
promoting appropriate surveillance in such
circumstances.

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78883

Proposed § 40.25(c) would require a
DCM to notify the Commission upon the
termination of a market maker or trading
incentive program when such program
terminates prior to the date previously
notified the Commission. Any extension
or renewal of a market maker or trading
incentive program beyond its original
termination date would require a new
rule filing pursuant to this part.
Proposed § 40.26 would require that,
upon request by the Commission or the
Director of the Division of Market
Oversight, a DCM must provide such
information and data as may be
requested regarding participation in
market maker or trading incentive
programs offered by the DCM, including
but not limited to, individual program
agreements, names of program
participants, benchmarks achieved by
program participants, and payments or
other benefits conferred upon program
participants.
Proposed § 40.27(a) would require a
DCM to implement policies and
procedures reasonably designed to
prevent payment of market maker or
trading incentive program benefits,
including but not limited to payments,
discounts, or other considerations, for
trades between accounts that are: (1)
Identified to the DCM as under common
beneficial ownership pursuant to the
approval process described in § 40.23(c);
or (2) otherwise known to the DCM as
under common ownership.556
Finally, proposed § 40.28 would
require that a DCM, consistent with its
obligations pursuant to subpart C of part
38, must review all benefits accorded to
participants in market maker and
trading incentive programs, including
but not limited to payments, discounts,
or other considerations, to ensure that
such benefits are not earned through
abusive practices. The Commission
notes that such determination is not
intended as a substitute for DCMs’ trade
practice surveillance, market
surveillance, and other surveillance
obligations with respect to all trading.
3. Request for Comments
99. To what extent do market
participants currently trade in ways
designed primarily to collect market
maker or trading incentive program
benefits, rather than for risk
management purposes?
556 The Commission notes that proposed
§ 40.27(a) prohibits payments for trades between
accounts (i) identified to the DCM as under
common beneficial ownership or (ii) known to the
DCM as under common ownership. This distinction
reflects that the Commission’s belief that DCMs may
not always have beneficial ownership information
unless it has been provided to them, pursuant for
example to proposed § 40.23.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

78884

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

100. To what extent do that market
maker and trading incentive programs
currently provide benefits for selftrades? To what extent do market
participants collect such benefits for
self-trades?
101. The Commission requests
comment regarding whether the
information proposed to be collected in
§ 40.25 would be sufficient for it to
determine whether a DCM’s marketmaker or trading incentive program
complies with the impartial access
requirements of § 38.151(b). If
additional or different information
would be helpful, please identify such
information.
102. The Commission requests
comment regarding whether DCMs
should be required to maintain on their
public Web sites the information
required by proposed § 40.25(a) and (b)
for an additional period beyond the end
of the market maker or trading incentive
program. The Commission may
determine to include in any final rules
arising from this NPRM a requirement
that such information remain publicly
available pursuant to proposed
§ 40.25(b) for an additional period up to
six months following the end of a
market maker or trading incentive
program.
103. The Commission requests
comment regarding whether the text of
proposed § 40.27(a) identifies with
sufficient particularity the types of
trades that are not eligible for payments
or benefits pursuant to a DCM marketmaker or trading incentive program.
What amendments, if any, are necessary
to clearly identify trades that are not
eligible?
104. Section 40.27(a) provides that
DCMs shall implement policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed
to prevent the payment of market-maker
or trading incentive program benefits for
trades between accounts under common
ownership. Are there any other types of
trades or circumstances under which
the Commission should also prohibit or
limit DCM market-maker or trading
incentive program benefits?
105. The Commission is proposing in
§ 40.27(a) certain requirements
regarding DCM payments associated
with market maker and trading
incentive programs. Please address
whether the proposed rules will
diminish DCMs’ ability to compete or
build liquidity by using market maker or
trading incentive programs. Does any
DCM consider it appropriate to provide
market maker or trading incentive
program benefits for trades between
accounts known to be under common
beneficial ownership?

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

106. In any final rules arising from
this NPRM, should the Commission also
prohibit DCMs from providing trading
incentive program benefits where such
benefits on a per-trade basis are greater
than the fees charged per trade by such
DCMs and its affiliated DCO (if
applicable)? The Commission also
specifically requests comment on the
extent, if any, to which one or more
DCMs engage in this practice.
107. Proposed § 40.25(b) imposes
certain transparency requirements with
respect to both market maker and
trading incentive programs. The
Commission requests public comment
regarding:
a. The most appropriate place or
manner for a DCM to disclose the
information required by proposed
§ 40.25(b);
b. The benefits or any harm that may
result from such transparency,
including any anti-competitive effect or
pro-competitive effect among DCMs or
market participants;
c. Whether transparency as proposed
in § 40.25(b) is equally appropriate for
both market maker programs and
trading incentive programs, or are the
proposed requirements more or less
appropriate for one type of program over
the other?
d. Whether any of the enumerated
items required to be posted on a DCM’s
public Web site pursuant to proposed
§ 40.25(b) could reasonably be
considered confidential information that
should not be available to the public,
and if so, what process should be
available for a DCM to request from the
Commission an exemption from the
requirements of proposed § 40.25(b) for
that specific enumerated item?
V. Related Matters
A. Calculation of Number of Persons
Subject to Regulations
AT Persons. The Related Matters
discussion below includes a number of
hourly burden estimates and cost
estimates for persons subject to new or
revised regulations under Regulation
AT. In order to estimate the number of
AT Persons, the Commission used a
sample of orders sent to DCMs. This
data includes new orders, modifications
to orders, and cancellations of the same.
Of those available to the Commission,
this data set is the one most closely
related to the requirements included in
the proposed rules. It includes the data
elements potentially generated by an
algorithm, often routed through a
clearing member, and accepted by the
matching engine for execution. The data
set includes identifiers for the firm that
generated and/or routed the order to the

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

exchange, and indicators of whether the
order is associated to an automated
system. Using this participant-identified
data, the Commission estimated the
number of unique firms actively sending
in algorithmic orders to the DCMs,
making them potentially subject to
requirements of AT Persons.
Some of the firms included in this
count, although they use automated
systems, may not fully satisfy the
requirements for an AT Person, possibly
making the current estimate higher than
the actual number of AT Persons. For
example, firms identified in the data set
as submitting algorithmic orders may
not be required to register with the
Commission under current or proposed
rules and thus would not be AT Persons
(e.g., registration triggers under
proposed § 1.3(x)(3)(ii) include a DEA
component in addition to an
Algorithmic Trading component).
However, because the Commission does
not historically receive the complete
order book audit trail, the estimate by
necessity only used a subset of all
orders sent into the DCMs. To generate
an accurate estimate of automated order
activity, the estimate included many of
the most active products on the DCMs,
where participant diversity would be
greatest. This analysis resulted in
approximately 350 potential AT
Persons. To further address AT Persons
that may not be identified in its data set,
the Commission increased its finding of
approximately 350 potential AT Persons
by 20 percent, yielding a total of 420
potential AT Persons subject to the rules
proposed herein. The Commission
understands and acknowledges that this
could lead to estimates which are
incomplete, and welcomes any
comments which might provide a more
complete and/or more accurate count of
AT Persons. This estimate of 420 AT
Persons is used for purposes of the
calculations in the Related Matters
discussion below.
Floor Traders (A Component of AT
Persons). As noted in section IV(E)
above, the Commission proposes to
require the registration of proprietary
traders using DEA for Algorithmic
Trading on a DCM. In order to achieve
registration, the Commission proposes
amending the definition of ‘‘Floor
trader’’ in Commission Regulation
1.3(x). Newly registered floor traders
would be included in the definition of
AT Persons. In order to estimate the
number of these firms, the Commission
made use of reference information for
the connection methods used by active
futures trading firms. These data files
include information about the
characteristics of the connection,
including the location where orders are

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

generated. In order to identify direct
connections, the Commission isolated
those connections associated with colocation or other services likely related
to DEA. These filters generated an
estimate of approximately 100 potential
firms that may need to register under
proposed § 1.3(x)(3). This calculation
did not exclude those firms which may
already be registered with the
Commission in some capacity. As a
result, the 100 estimate is potentially
higher than the actual number of floor
traders that would register under the
new provision.
Clearing member FCMs and DCMs.
Finally, the Commission estimated the
number of clearing member FCMs and
DCMs that would be subject to proposed
Regulation AT. The Commission arrived
at an estimate of 57 clearing member

FCMs, based on the financial data for
FCMs reported on the CFTC Web site.
This data states that there were 57 FCMs
in March 2015 that required
‘‘Customer’s Segregation of Funds.’’ 557
The Commission arrived at an estimate
of 15 DCMs, based on the list of
designated DCMs as of the date of this
NPRM, as reported on the CFTC Web
site.558 This number does not include
dormant or pending DCMs.
1. Request for Comments
108. The Commission requests
comment on its calculation of the
number of AT Persons, newly registered
floor traders, clearing member FCMs,
and DCMs that will be subject to
Regulation AT.

78885

B. Calculation of Hourly Wage Rates
Used in Related Matters
The Related Matters discussion below
estimates the cost of various regulations
proposed under Regulation AT. These
costs incorporate hourly wage rates
derived from salary information
compiled by the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association
(‘‘SIFMA’’). Specifically, the hourly
wage rates are based on salaries and
bonuses across different professions that
are listed in the SIFMA Report on
Management & Professional Earnings in
the Securities Industry 2013, modified
to account for an 1800-hour work-year
and multiplied by 1.3 to account for
overhead and other benefits.559 The
following professions and hourly wages
are referenced throughout the Related
Matters:
Total mean 2012
compensation with
bonus—2013
SIFMA report

Hourly wage rate
(rounded) 560

2013 SIFMA report profession and code

Description of role in related matters

Project Manager (1030) ..........................................
Business Analyst (Intermediate) (602) ...................
Business Analyst (Intermediate) (602) ...................
Programmer Analyst (Senior) (1607) .....................
Compliance Examiner (Senior) (409) .....................
Compliance Specialist (Senior) (406) .....................
Chief Compliance Officer (Mutual Funds/Investment Advisory Services) (413).
Compliance Attorney (1103) ...................................

Project Manager .....................................................
Business Analyst ....................................................
Tester .....................................................................
Developer ...............................................................
Senior Compliance Examiner ................................
Senior Compliance Specialist ................................
Chief Compliance Officer .......................................

564 103,851

567 192,367

$70
52
52
75
58
57
139

Compliance Attorney ..............................................

568 133,059

96

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. FCMs and DCMs

The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(‘‘RFA’’) requires that agencies consider
whether the rules they propose will
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
and, if so, provide a regulatory
flexibility analysis regarding the
impact.569 A regulatory flexibility
analysis or certification is typically
required for ‘‘any rule for which the
agency publishes a general notice of
proposed rulemaking’’ pursuant to the
notice-and-comment provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b).570

The Commission has previously
determined that FCMs and clearing
members are not small entities for
purposes of the RFA.571 The
Commission has also previously
determined that DCMs are not small
entities for purposes of the RFA.572
Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of
the Commission, hereby certifies
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the
rules proposed in Regulation AT
imposing requirements on FCMs and
DCMs would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The

557 See CFTC, Financial Data for FCMs, available
at http://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/Financial
DataforFCMs/index.htm.
558 See CFTC, DCM Industry Filings, available at
http://sirt.cftc.gov/SIRT/SIRT.aspx?Topic=Trading
Organizations&implicit=true&type=DCM&Custom
ColumnDisplay=TTTTTTTT.
559 The SIFMA Report on Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry
(2013) (‘‘2013 SIFMA Report’’), available at http://
www.sifma.org/research/item.aspx?id=8589940603.
560 The hourly wage rate represents the total mean
2012 compensation with bonus divided by 1800
hours and multiplied by 1.3 to account for overhead
and other benefits.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

561 See

2013 SIFMA Report, supra note 559 at

273.
562 See

id.at 136.

563 Id.
564 See

id.at 395.
id.at 113.
566 See id. at 104.
567 See id. at 119.
568 See id. at 279.
569 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
570 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603, 604 and 605.
571 See 47 FR 18618 (April 30, 1982) (FCMs); and
76 FR 71626 at 71680 (November 18, 2011) and 76
565 See

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

561 97,138
562 72,650
563 72,650
565 79,992
566 78,250

Commission invites public comment on
this determination.
2. AT Persons
Regulation AT would also impose
requirements on ‘‘AT Persons,’’ a
definition that includes: FCMs, floor
brokers, SDs, MSPs, CPOs, CTAs or IBs,
as well as ‘‘floor traders’’ as defined in
proposed § 1.3(x)(3), that engage in
Algorithmic Trading.
The Commission has previously
determined that FCMs, foreign brokers,
SDs, MSPs, CPOs, and natural persons
are not small entities for purposes of the
RFA.573 As indicated above, the
Commission believes that it is likely
that no natural persons will be AT
FR 43851 at 43860 (July 22, 2011) (clearing
members).
572 76 FR 44776, 44789 (July 27, 2011)
(‘‘Provisions Common to Registered Entities’’); see
66 FR 45064, 45609 (Aug. 29, 2001); 47 FR 18618,
18619 (Apr. 30, 1982).
573 See respectively and as indicated: 47 FR
18618, 18619 (April 30, 1982) (FCMs, CPOs); 72 FR
34417 at 34418 (June 22, 2007) (foreign brokers); 76
FR 71626 at 71680 (November 18, 2011) (SDs); 77
FR 2613, 2620 (Jan. 19, 2012) (SDs and MSPs). See
also 5 U.S.C. 601(6) (natural persons are not entities
for purposes of the RFA).

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78886

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Persons, given the technological and
personnel costs associated with
Algorithmic Trading. The Commission,
pursuant to question #106 below, asks
whether this assumption is correct.
The Commission has previously
decided to evaluate, within the context
of a particular rule proposal, whether all
or some floor brokers, floor traders,
CTAs, and IBs should be considered to
be small entities, and if so, to analyze
the economic impact on them of any
such rule.574 In 2012, the Commission
stated that it has not made a
determination regarding floor traders,
since all registered traders at the time
were individuals, and individuals are
not subject to the small entity analysis
under the RFA.575
Accordingly, the Commission must
address whether, in the context of
Regulation AT, floor brokers, floor
traders, CTAs, and IBs that engage in
Algorithmic Trading should be
considered small entities for purposes of
the RFA. As discussed below, the
Commission believes that the proposed
rules regarding pre-trade and other risk
controls, as well as standards relating to
the design, testing, and supervision of
Algorithmic Trading, are already being
widely implemented in industry.
Accordingly, while Regulation AT
would have a significant economic
impact on entities that are not currently
implementing such measures, based on
its best understanding, the Commission
believes that it would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
However, the Commission is not in a
position to determine how many of such
entities would be affected, or the extent
of such impact, given the varying sizes,
technological systems, and business
strategies of such entities. Therefore,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, the
Commission offers for public comment
this initial regulatory flexibility analysis
addressing the impact of Regulation AT
on small entities:
i. A Description of the Reasons Why
Action Is Being Considered
The Commission is taking action
because the increased use of algorithmic
trading and increasingly interconnected
nature of markets means that a
technological malfunction or error can
have widespread, significant impact on
many market participants. In this time
of technological change, the
Commission believes that it is necessary
574 See 47 FR 18618, 18620 (Apr. 30, 1982) (floor
brokers); and 58 FR 19575, 19588 (Apr. 15, 1993)
(floor traders); 47 FR at 18619 (CTAs); 48 FR 35248,
35276–77 (Aug. 3, 1983) (IBs).
575 See Commission, Final Rule: Registration of
Intermediaries, 77 FR 51898, 51901 (Aug. 28, 2012).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

to enact new and amended regulations
requiring risk controls, testing standards
and other measures that will safeguard
the integrity of markets.
ii. A Succinct Statement of the
Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposals
The objective of Regulation AT is to
address the risks of algorithmic trading
through a series of pre-trade risk
controls and other measures that AT
Persons, clearing member FCMs and
DCMs must implement. The legal
authority for the proposed rules is
Sections 4c(a)(6), 4s(b)(4) 1a(23), 3(b)
and 8a(5) of the CEA.576
iii. A Description of and, Where
Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of
Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Rules Will Apply
The small entities to which the
proposed amendments may apply are
those floor brokers, floor traders (as
defined in proposed § 1.3(x)(3)), CTAs
and IBs that engage in Algorithmic
Trading and fall within the definition of
a ‘‘small entity’’ under the RFA,
including size standards established by
the Small Business Administration.577
Each of the categories of persons
discussed below would fall within the
definition of ‘‘AT Persons.’’ As
discussed in section V(A) above, the
Commission estimates that
approximately 420 persons will be AT
Persons.
• Floor brokers. The Commission’s
best understanding is that at this time,
all floor brokers are natural persons.
Given the technological and personnel
costs associated with Algorithmic
Trading, the Commission’s expectation
is that only entities, not natural persons,
will meet the definition of ‘‘AT Person.’’
Accordingly, the Commission estimates
that no floor brokers will be ‘‘small
entities’’ for purposes of the RFA.
• Floor traders. The Commission
estimates that there is a maximum of
100 proprietary firms engaged in
Algorithmic Trading that will be
considered ‘‘floor traders’’ under
proposed § 1.3(x)(3) of Regulation AT.
See section V(A) above for a discussion
576 7 U.S.C. 6c(a)(6) (rulemaking authority with
respect to disruptive trading practices); 7 U.S.C.
6s(b)(4) (rulemaking authority with respect to swap
dealers and major swap participants); 7 U.S.C.
1a(23) (Definitions); 7 U.S.C. 5(b) (Findings and
purpose); 7 U.S.C. 12a(5) (Rules and Regulations).
577 15 U.S.C. 601(3) (defining ‘‘small business’’ to
have the same meaning as the term ‘‘small business
concern’’ in the Small Business Act); 15 U.S.C.
632(a)(1) (defining ‘‘small business concern’’ to
include an agricultural enterprise with annual
receipts not in excess of $750,000); 13 CFR 121.201
(establishing size standards for small business
concerns).

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

of how the Commission generated this
estimate.
• CTAs. Based on NFA’s registration
directory, the Commission estimates
that there are approximately 2,464
CTAs.578 The Commission notes that
some registered CTAs are individuals,
and not all CTAs will be engaged in
Algorithmic Trading. It is not feasible
for the Commission to estimate what
portion of the 420 AT Persons will be
CTAs.
• IBs. Based on NFA’s registration
directory, the Commission estimates
that there are approximately 1,375
IBs.579 The Commission notes that some
registered IBs are individuals, and not
all IBs will be engaged in Algorithmic
Trading. It is not feasible for the
Commission to estimate what portion of
the 420 AT Persons will be IBs.
Beyond the above estimates of the
maximum number of floor brokers, floor
traders (as defined in proposed
§ 1.3(x)(3)), CTAs and IBs, it is not
feasible for the Commission to provide
a more exact estimate of the number of
small entities to which Regulation AT
will apply. The Commission estimates
that no floor brokers will be ‘‘small
entities’’ for purposes of the RFA, and
that a maximum of 100 proprietary
firms engaged in Algorithmic Trading
will be considered ‘‘floor traders’’ under
§ 1.3(x)(3) of the proposed rulemaking.
The Commission estimates that the
information collection will apply to no
more than a total of 320 CTAs and IBs,
and likely significantly less than 320.
Based on the numbers described above,
the Commission does not believe that a
substantial number of small entities will
be impacted by the information
collection. Further, the definition of AT
Person is limited to entities that conduct
Algorithmic Trading and, the definition
of new floor traders under proposed
§ 1.3(x)(3) is further limited to those
entities with Direct Electronic Access.
The Commission believes that entities
with such capabilities are generally not
small entities. This NPRM asks specific
questions on the issue of how the
proposed regulations may affect small
entities, in particular, whether sole
proprietorships would be considered
AT Persons and whether Regulation AT
requirements should vary depending on
the size, sophistication or other
attributes of the AT Person.
578 See NFA Directories, available at: http://
www.nfa.futures.org/NFA-registration/NFAdirectories.HTML.
579 See id.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
iv. A Description of the Projected
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rules,
Including an Estimate of the Classes of
Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to
the Requirements and the Type of
Professional Skills Necessary for
Preparation of the Report or Record
The following section discusses the
projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements that will
be imposed upon AT Persons under the
proposed rules.

result in requiring the 100 new floor
traders that will be registered pursuant
§ 1.3(x)(3) to become members of an
RFA. The Commission estimates that
the floor trader registrants will incur
initial and annual RFA membership
dues of $5,625.581 Accordingly,
assuming (as discussed above) that there
are 100 new floor trader members, the
total initial cost of RFA membership
would be approximately $562,500 and
the annual cost would be approximately
$562,500.

• § 1.3(x)(3)—New Registration of Floor
Traders
Regulation AT would impose new
registration requirements on certain
entities with Direct Electronic Access as
a result of the proposed amendment to
the definition of ‘‘Floor trader’’ in
Commission Regulation 1.3(x). The
Commission provides detailed estimates
of the costs associated with registration
as a floor trader in section E below. As
discussed more fully below, the
Commission estimates that new
registrants will incur a one-time cost of
approximately $2,106 per registrant
($1,050 in application fees plus $1,056
in preparation costs). Accordingly,
assuming (as discussed above) that there
are 100 new registrants as Floor traders,
the total one-time cost of registration
would be approximately $210,600.580
• § 170.18—AT Persons Must Become
Members of an RFA
Regulation AT would require all
registrants that are AT Persons that are
not otherwise required to become
members of an RFA pursuant to
§§ 170.15, 170.16, or 170.17 to become
members of an RFA. Taken together,
§§ 170.15, 170.16, and 170.17 require
most registrants who may be considered
AT Persons to become RFA members.
The Commission estimates that the
requirements of proposed § 170.18 will

• § 1.80—Pre-Trade Risk Controls
Based on Concept Release comments,
best practices documents issued by
industry or regulatory organizations, as
well as existing regulations, the
Commission believes that a significant
number of trading firms already
implement the specifically-enumerated
pre-trade and other risk controls
required pursuant to proposed § 1.80.
For example, in its survey of member
firms, PTG found the following: (i) 25
out of 26 responding firms use message
and execution throttles; (ii) all 26
responding firms use maximum order
size limits, either using their own
technology, the exchange’s technology,
or some combination; 582 and (iii) 24 out
of 26 responding firms use either price
collars or trading pauses.583 As to order
management controls, two comments to
the Concept Release from exchanges
stated that they provide an optional
cancel-on-disconnect functionality.584
Those exchanges also indicated that
they provide kill switch functionality to
market participants.585 In addition, the
types of controls required by proposed
§ 1.80 have been included in best
practices documents for years, such
those best practices documents issued
by FIA PTG,586 ESMA,587 the CFTC
TAC 588 and the TMPG.589 Finally,
many trading firms that do securities
trading in addition to futures trading

580 Pursuant to part 3 of its regulations, the
Commission has delegated its registration functions
to the National Futures Association (NFA). Nonnatural person floor trader entities register with the
Commission and apply for membership in NFA via
CFTC Form 7–R. Principals of non-natural person
floor trader entities register via Form 8–R. Based on
a review of the principals associated with registered
FCMs, the Commission estimates that each nonnatural person floor trader entity will have
approximately 10 principals and therefore need to
file approximately 10 Forms 8–R. In the event that
a natural person meets the definition of Floor
Trader in proposed § 1.3(x)(3), and is therefore
required to register with the Commission and
become a member of NFA, such person would only
be required to complete Form 8–R and would face
substantially lower costs than those estimated here.
Because registration with the Commission and
membership in NFA make use of the same forms
and process, the Commission anticipates that the
costs associated with proposed § 1.3(x)(3) and
proposed § 170.18 will be one and the same.

581 The Commission notes that NFA is currently
the only entity registered as an RFA. The
Commission estimates for RFA membership dues
are based on its analysis of NFA dues.
582 AIMA indicated that many market participants
use maximum order size limits, and Gelber, a
trading firm, stated that it uses this risk control. See
AIMA at 13; Gelber at 10.
583 FIA at 59–60.
584 CME at Appendix A–4; CFE at 9–10. In
addition, FIA characterized cancel-on-disconnect as
a ‘‘widely adopted DCM-hosted pre-trade risk
control.’’ See FIA at 14.
585 CME at 23–24; CFE at 11.
586 FIA PTG, ‘‘Recommendations for Risk
Controls for Trading Firms,’’ (Nov. 2010) at 4–5.
587 ESMA Guidelines, supra note 61 at 14–15.
588 CFTC TAC Recommendations, supra note 34
at 2–3.
589 TMPG, ‘‘Best Practices for Treasury, Agency
Debt, and Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities
Markets’’ (June 2015).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78887

may already have these systems in place
in order to comply with the SEC’s
Market Access Rule, which requires
brokers and dealers to have risk controls
that prevent the entry of erroneous
orders, by rejecting orders that exceed
appropriate price or size parameters, on
an order-by-order basis or over a short
period of time, or that indicate
duplicative orders.590
Nevertheless, the Commission
recognizes that there may be some
trading firms within a given registration
category that do not yet implement the
risk controls required by Regulation AT,
or that may need to upgrade their
systems in order to comply with
Regulation AT. Accordingly, Regulation
AT would impose technology and
personnel costs on this subset of trading
firms; these costs would likely include
both initial risk control creation costs
and ongoing maintenance costs.
The Commission provides detailed
estimates of the implementation costs of
risk controls in section E below.591 The
Commission considered the possibility
that a trading firm already implements
the controls required by proposed
§ 1.80, but the controls may not comply
with every aspect of the regulation. In
such a case, as discussed in greater
detail below, the Commission estimates
that it will cost an AT Person
approximately $79,680 to upgrade its
controls (i.e., evaluate current systems,
modify or create new code, and test
systems) in order to comply with § 1.80.
Accordingly, assuming (as discussed
above) that there are 420 AT Persons,
the Commission estimates that the total
industry cost to implement § 1.80 would
be approximately $33,465,600.
• § 1.81—Standards for Development,
Testing and Monitoring of Algorithmic
Trading Systems
The Commission believes that most
market participants and DCMs have
implemented controls regarding the
design, testing, and supervision of
ATSs, in light of the numerous best
practices and regulatory requirements
promulgated in this area. These efforts
include the FIA PTG’s November 2010
‘‘Recommendations for Risk Controls for
Trading Firms,’’ FIA’s March 2012
‘‘Software Development and Change
Management Recommendations,’’
ESMA and MiFID II guidelines and
590 See SEC, Responses to Frequently Asked
Questions Concerning Risk Management Controls
for Brokers or Dealers with Market Access, supra
note 37.
591 The Commission notes that trading firms can
choose not to develop these controls internally, but
rather may purchase a solution from an outside
vendor (or DCM or clearing member) in order to
comply with § 1.80. The Commission has requested
comments providing estimates of such costs.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

78888

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

directives on the development and
testing of algorithmic systems, Reg SCI
requirements on the development,
testing, and monitoring of SCI systems,
FINRA’s March 2015 Notice 15–09 on
effective supervision and control
practices for market participants that
use algorithmic trading strategies in the
equities market, IOSCO’s April 2015
Consultation Report, summarizing best
practices that should be considered by
trading venues when developing and
implementing risk mitigation
mechanisms, and the Senior
Supervisors Group (SSG) April 2015
Algorithmic Trading Briefing Note,
which described how large financial
institutions currently monitor and
control for the risks associated with
algorithmic trading during the trading
day.
Notwithstanding the standards
described above, the Commission has
calculated a maximum cost to an AT
Person that has not implemented any of
the design, testing, and supervision
standards required by proposed § 1.81.
Development and Testing. The
Commission estimates that an AT
Person that has not implemented any of
the requirements of proposed § 1.81(a)
(development and testing of Algorithmic
Trading Systems) would incur a total
cost of $349,865 to implement these
requirements. This cost is broken down
as follows: 1 Project Manager, working
for 1,707 hours (1,707 × $70 =
$119,490); 2 Business Analysts, working
for 853 hours (853 × $52 = $44,356); 3
Testers, working for a combined 2,347
hours (2,347 × $52 = $122,044); and 2
Developers, working for a combined 853
hours (853 × $75 = $63,975).592
Monitoring. The Commission
estimates that an AT Person that has not
implemented any of the requirements of
§ 1.81(b) (monitoring of Algorithmic
Trading Systems) would incur a total
cost of $196,560 to implement these
requirements. This cost is broken down
as follows: 1 Senior Compliance
Specialist, working for 2,080 hours
(2,080 × $57 = $118,560); and 1
Business Analyst, working for 1,500
hours (1,500 × $52 = $78,000).
Compliance. The Commission
estimates that an AT Person that has not
implemented any of the requirements of
§ 1.81(c) (compliance of Algorithmic
Trading Systems) would incur a total
cost of $174,935 to implement these
requirements. This cost is broken down
as follows: 1 Project Manager, working
for 853 hours (853 × $70 = $59,710); 2
Business Analysts, working for a
combined 427 hours (427 × $52 =
592 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

$22,204); 3 Testers, working for a
combined 1,173 hours (1,173 × $52 =
$60,996); and 2 Developers, working for
a combined 427 hours (427 × $75 =
$32,025).
Designation and Training of Staff. The
Commission estimates that an AT
Person that has not implemented any of
the requirements of proposed § 1.81(d)
(designation and training of Algorithmic
Trading staff) would incur a total cost of
$101,600 to implement these
requirements. This cost is broken down
as follows: 1 Senior Compliance
Specialist, working for 500 hours (500 ×
$57 = $28,500); 1 Project Manager,
working for 500 hours (500 × $70 =
$35,000); 1 Developer, working for 300
hours (300 × $75 = $22,500); and 1
Business Analyst, working for 300 hours
(300 × $52 = $15,600).
Notwithstanding these estimates, the
Commission believes that proposed
§ 1.81 standardizes existing industry
practices in this area, but does not
impose additional requirements that are
not already followed by the majority of
market participants. As a result, the
Commission does not believe that § 1.81
would impose additional costs on AT
Persons.
• § 1.83(a)—Compliance Reports
Submitted by AT Persons
Proposed § 1.83 would require AT
Persons and FCMs that are clearing
members for AT Persons to annually
submit reports regarding their
compliance with § 1.80(a) and pursuant
to § 1.82(a)(1), respectively, to each
DCM on which they operate. The report
prepared by an AT Person pursuant to
§ 1.83(a) would include a description of
the AT Person’s pre-trade risk controls
and the parameters and specific
quantitative settings used for such pretrade risk controls. Together with the
annual report, each AT Person would be
required to submit copies of the written
policies and procedures developed to
comply with § 1.81(a) and (c). The
report would also be required to include
a certification by the chief executive
officer or chief compliance officer of the
AT Person that, to the best of his or her
knowledge and reasonable belief, the
information contained in the report is
accurate and complete.
AT Person Compliance Reports. AT
Persons will incur the cost of annually
preparing and submitting the reports to
their DCMs. The Commission estimates
that an AT Person will incur a total
annual cost of $4,240 to draft the report
required by proposed § 1.83(a). This cost
is broken down as follows: 1 Senior
Compliance Specialist, working for 50
hours (50 × $57 per hour = $2,850) and
1 Chief Compliance Officer, working for

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

10 hours (10 × $139 per hour = $1,390)
for a total cost of $4,240 per year. The
approximately 420 AT Persons to which
§ 1.83(a) would apply would therefore
incur a total annual cost of $1,780,800
(420 × $4,240) to prepare and submit the
report required by § 1.83(a).
• § 1.83(c)—AT Person Recordkeeping
Requirements
Proposed § 1.83(c) would require each
AT Person to keep, and provide upon
request to each DCM on which such AT
Person engages in Algorithmic Trading,
books and records regarding such AT
Person’s compliance with all
requirements pursuant to proposed
§§ 1.80 and 1.81.
The Commission estimates that, on an
initial basis, an AT Person will incur a
cost of $5,130 to draft and update
recordkeeping policies and procedures
and make technology improvements to
recordkeeping infrastructure. This cost
is broken down as follows: 1
Compliance Attorney, working for 30
hours (30 × $96 = $2,880); and 1
Developer, working for 30 hours (30 ×
$75 = $2,250). The 420 AT Persons
would therefore incur a total initial cost
of $2,154,600 (420 × $5,130).
The Commission estimates that, on an
annual basis, an AT Person will incur a
cost of $2,670 to ensure continued
compliance with DCM recordkeeping
rules relating to § 1.82 compliance,
including the updating of policies and
procedures and technology
infrastructure, and in respond to DCM
record requests. This cost is broken
down as follows: 1 Compliance
Attorney, working for 20 hours (20 ×
$96 = $1,920); and 1 Developer, working
for 10 hours (10 × $75 = $750). The 420
AT Persons would therefore incur a
total annual cost of $1,121,400 (420 ×
$2,670).
• § 40.23(c)—Approval Requests
Submitted by Market Participants re:
Self-Trading Controls
Market participants will incur costs in
the event that they prepare and submit
the self-trading approval requests
contemplated by proposed § 40.23(c).
This provision, which is discussed in
more detail in section IV(Q) above,
requires market participants to request
approval from the DCM that self-trade
prevention tools not be applied with
respect to specific accounts under
common beneficial ownership or
control. The Commission estimates that,
on an annual basis, a market participant
will incur a cost of $3,810 to prepare
and submit these approval requests.
This cost is broken down as follows: 1
Business Analyst, working for 30 hours
(30 × $52 per hour = $1,560); and 1

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Developer, working for 30 hours (30 ×
$75 per hour = $2,250).593
The Commission cannot predict how
many market participants would likely
submit the approval requests
contemplated by proposed § 40.23(c) on
an annual basis. The Commission
believes that not all market participants
trading on a DCM would submit such
requests. In the view of the Commission,
for example, a limited subset of market
participants will own two or more
accounts, but operate them through
‘‘independent decision makers,’’ as
contemplated by proposed § 40.23(b).
Similarly, a limited subset of market
participants will find it advantageous to
incur the costs associated with the selftrading described by § 40.23(b), such as
trading costs and clearing fees. In
addition, the Commission believes that
market participants submitting orders
through Algorithmic Trading are more
likely than traders submitting orders
manually to inadvertently self-trade
through independent decision-makers.
The Commission estimates that,
notwithstanding the fact that the DCM
rules described in § 40.23(c) are directed
to all market participants, the number of
market participants that will submit the
approval requests described therein are
equivalent to the number of AT Persons
calculated above (420).594 On this basis,
the Commission estimates that market
participants will incur a total annual
cost of $1,600,200 to submit the
approval requests contemplated by
§ 40.23(c) ($3,810 per market participant
× 420 market participants).
v. An Identification, to the Extent
Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or
Conflict With the Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

The Commission is unaware of any
Federal rules that could duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposal.

593 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
594 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of person subject to Regulation AT.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

vi. A description of any significant
alternatives to the proposed rule which
accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and which minimize
any significant impact of the proposed
rule on small entities. These may
include, for example, (1) the
establishment of differing compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables
that take into account the resources
available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule
for such small entities; (3) the use of
performance rather than design
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for such small entities.
A potential alternative to Regulation
AT that would minimize any significant
impact on small entities would be to
amend or propose new rules requiring
trading firms implement pre-trade and
other risk controls, but limit application
of such requirements to entities that
would not be considered ‘‘small
entities’’ for purposes of the RFA.
However, the Commission does not
believe that this is a viable alternative.
A principal basis for Regulation AT’s
risk control requirements is that a
technological malfunction or error can
have a significant, detrimental impact
on other market participants across
Commission-regulated markets.
Importantly, such a technological
malfunction or error can arise from any
size of firm, including a very small
proprietary trading firm with few
employees. In today’s interconnected
markets, where a small error can cause
a severe disruption in minutes, it is
equally important that small firms have
risk controls as large firms. The
Commission believes that the risk
controls required by Regulation AT will
help ensure that all entities—not just
large entities with the most
technological and financial resources—
will have effective risk controls. The
Commission is aware that smaller firms
may have different trading strategies
and technology than larger firms;
accordingly, the proposed regulations
allow all trading firms, including small
entities, the discretion to design
controls appropriate to their own
business and to implement them in the
most cost-effective manner.
The Commission is also considering
alternatives with respect to proposed
§ 1.83, which would require AT Persons
to submit compliance reports to DCMs
on an annual basis. Such reports would
need to be submitted and certified
annually by the chief executive officer
or the chief compliance officer of the AT

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78889

Person. Proposed § 40.22 would require
DCMs to establish a program for
effective periodic review and evaluation
of these reports. The Commission has
proposed these regulations, using the
deadlines described above, because it
believes they represent an appropriate
balancing of the transparency and risk
reduction provided by the reports
against the burden placed on AT
Persons and DCMs of providing and
reviewing the reports. The Commission
is considering the alternative of
requiring AT Persons to submit such
reports more or less frequently than
annually. The Commission is also
considering the alternatives of placing
the responsibility for certifying the
reports required by proposed § 1.83 only
on the chief executive officer, only on
the chief compliance officer, or
permitting certification from other
officers of the AT Person. The
Commission notes that it considered the
alternative of requiring additional
information to be included in the § 1.83
reports, such as descriptions of how AT
Persons comply with § 1.81
requirements and how clearing member
FCMs comply with all § 1.82
requirements. In the interest of
minimizing costs to AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs, the Commission
determined at this time to require,
pursuant to proposed § 1.83(c) and (d),
that AT Persons and clearing member
FCMs instead retain and provide to
DCMs books and records regarding their
compliance with §§ 1.80, 1.81 and 1.82
requirements. Proposed § 40.22(d)
includes a corresponding requirement
that DCMs implement rules requiring
AT Persons and clearing member FCMs
to keep and provide such books and
records.
Finally, the Commission is
considering alternatives with respect to
proposed § 40.23. This proposed
regulation provides that DCMs may
comply with the requirement to apply,
or provide and require the use of, selftrade prevention tools by requiring
market participants to identify to the
DCM which accounts should be
prohibited from trading with each other.
With respect to this account
identification process, the Commission’s
principal goal is to prevent
unintentional self-trading; the
Commission does not have a specific
interest in regulating the manner by
which market participants identify to
DCMs the account that should be
prohibited from trading from each other,
so long as this goal is met. The
Commission has considered whether
other identification methods should be
made available to market participants

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78890

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

when submitting the approval requests
described in § 40.23. For example, the
Commission has requested comment on
whether the opposite approach is
preferable: Market participants would
identify to DCMs the accounts that
should be permitted to trade with each
other (as opposed to those accounts that
should be prevented from trading with
each other).

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

3. Request for Comments
109. The Commission requests
comment on each element of its RFA
analysis. In particular, the Commission
specifically invites comment on the
accuracy of its estimates of potential
firms that could be considered ‘‘small
entities’’ for RFA purposes.
110. The Commission also requests
comment on whether any natural
persons will be designated as AT
Persons under the proposed definition
of that term.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act
(‘‘PRA’’) 595 imposes certain
requirements on Federal agencies in
connection with their conducting or
sponsoring any collection of
information as defined by the PRA. This
proposed rulemaking would result in
new collection of information
requirements within the meaning of the
PRA. The Commission therefore is
submitting this proposal to the Office of
Management (OMB) for review in
accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and
5 CFR 1320.11. The following
requirements of this rulemaking will
result in new collection of information
requirements within the meaning of the
PRA: § 1.83(a) would require AT
Persons to submit reports to DCMs
concerning compliance with § 1.80(a),
as well as copies of the written policies
and procedures developed to comply
with § 1.81(a) and (c); § 1.83(b) would
require clearing member FCMs to
submit reports to DCMs concerning
compliance with § 1.82(a)(1); § 1.83(c)
and (d) would require AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs, respectively, to
keep and provide upon request to DCMs
books and records regarding their
compliance with §§ 1.80 and 1.81 (for
AT Persons) and § 1.82 (for clearing
member FCMs); § 40.23(c) states that a
DCM must require market participants
to request approval from the DCM that
self-trade prevention tools not be
applied with respect to certain types of
accounts; § 40.23(d) would require that
DCMs display information about
percentage and ratio of self-trading. The
title for this collection of information is
595 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

Regulation Automated Trading. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control
number. The OMB has not yet assigned
this collection a control number. As
used below, ‘‘burden’’ means the total
time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, disclose or provide
information to or for a federal agency.
Additional Regulation AT
requirements will amend existing
collections of information. Proposed
§ 1.3(x)(3) (requiring certain persons
with DEA to prepare and submit forms
to register with the Commission) would
amend existing collection of
information ‘‘Registration Under the
Commodity Exchange Act,’’ OMB
Control Number 3038–0023. Proposed
§ 38.401(a) and (c) (requiring DCMs to
publicly post information regarding
certain aspects of their electronic
matching platforms) and § 40.26
(permitting the Commission or the
director of DMO to require certain
information from DCMs regarding their
market-maker or trading incentive
programs) would amend existing
collection of information ‘‘Core
Principles and Other Requirements for
DCMs,’’ OMB Control Number 3038–
0052. Finally, proposed § 40.25
(requiring DCMs to provide the
Commission with certain information
regarding their market-maker and
trading incentive programs when
submitting such programs as rules
pursuant to part 40) would amend
existing collection of information ‘‘Part
40, Provisions Common to Registered
Entities,’’ OMB Control Number 3038–
0093.
The collections of information under
these proposed regulations are
necessary to implement certain
provisions of the CEA, as amended by
the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 8a(5) of the
CEA provides the Commission with
authority to promulgate rules as
reasonably necessary to effectuate any of
the provisions or to accomplish any of
the purposes of the Act, and Section
4c(a)(6) of the CEA provides rulemaking
authority to prohibit disruptive trading
practices. As provided in Section 3(b) of
the CEA, it is the purpose of the CEA
to deter and prevent price manipulation
or any other disruptions to market
integrity; to ensure the financial
integrity of all transactions subject to
this chapter and the avoidance of
systemic risk; to protect all market
participants from fraudulent or other
abusive sales practices and misuses of
customer assets; and to promote
responsible innovation and fair

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

competition among boards of trade,
other markets and market
participants.596 Proposed regulations
requiring registration with the
Commission, submission of compliance
reports to DCMs, implementation of
self-trade prevention tools and
increased disclosure of certain aspects
of electronic matching platforms and
market maker and trading incentive
programs, will help prevent or mitigate
technological malfunctions that will
disrupt market integrity, protect market
participants from fraudulent or
disruptive practices, and promote fair
competition among boards of trade,
other markets and market participants.
If the proposed regulations are
adopted, responses to the collections of
information would be mandatory. The
Commission will protect proprietary
information according to the Freedom of
Information Act and 17 CFR part 145,
‘‘Commission Records and
Information.’’ In addition, Section
8(a)(1) of the CEA strictly prohibits the
Commission, unless specifically
authorized by the CEA, from making
public ‘‘data and information that
would separately disclose the business
transactions or market positions of any
person and trade secrets or names of
customers.’’ The Commission is also
required to protect certain information
contained in a government system of
records according to the Privacy Act of
1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
1. Information Provided by Reporting
Entities/Persons
The following is a brief description of
the PRA responsibilities of various
entities under Regulation AT. In
summary, § 1.3(x)(3) would require
certain floor traders with DEA to
prepare and submit forms to register
with the Commission; § 1.83(a) and (b)
would require AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs to submit reports to
DCMs concerning compliance with
§ 1.80(a) and § 1.82(a)(1), respectively;
§ 1.83(c) and (d) would require AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs,
respectively, to keep and provide upon
request to DCMs books and records
regarding their compliance with §§ 1.80
and 1.81 (for AT Persons) and § 1.82 (for
clearing member FCMs); § 38.401(a) and
(c) would require DCMs to publicly post
information regarding certain aspects of
their electronic matching platforms;
§ 40.23(c) states that a DCM must
require market participants to request
approval from the DCM that self-trade
prevention tools not be applied with
respect to certain types of accounts;
§ 40.23(d) would require that DCMs
596 7

U.S.C. 5.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

display information about percentage
and ratio of self-trading; § 40.25 would
require DCMs to provide the
Commission with certain information
regarding their market-maker and
trading incentive programs when
submitting such programs as rules
pursuant to part 40; and § 40.26 would
permit the Commission or the director
of DMO to require certain information
from DCMs regarding their marketmaker or trading incentive programs.
a. § 1.3(×)(3)—Submissions by Newly
Registered Floor Traders
The Commission estimates that the
proposed rules requiring certain floor
traders with Direct Electronic Access to
register will result in 11 hours of burden
per affected entity, and 1100 burden
hours in total. The Commission
estimates that each affected entity will
require 1 hour to prepare and submit
one Form 7–R (for the entity) and 10
hours to prepare and submit 10 Forms
8–R (one form for each principal of the
entity).597 The estimated burden was
calculated as follows:
Burden: Complete Form 7–R and 8–R
to register as a floor trader.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 100
new floor traders.
Estimated number of responses: 100.
Estimated total burden on each
respondent: 11 hours.
Frequency of collection: One-time
initial registration fee.
Burden statement-all respondents:
100 respondents × 1 hour = 100 Burden
Hours.
The Commission estimates that a new
registrant will incur a one-time cost of
$96 to complete one Form 7–R and a
one-time cost of $960 to complete 10
Forms 8–R. These costs represent the
work of 1 Compliance Attorney per
affected entity, working for 1 hour per
form (a total of 11 hours × $96 =
$1,056).598 The 100 entities that will be
subject to the registration requirement
597 CFTC Form 7–R is used to apply for
registration with the Commission as a non-natural
person floor trader, and is also used for such
entities to apply for membership in NFA. Form 8–
R is used to identify principals of non-natural
person floor trader entities. As noted previously,
the Commission estimates that each non-natural
person floor trader entity will have approximately
10 principals and therefore need to file
approximately 10 Forms 8–R. In the event that a
natural person meets the definition of Floor Trader
in proposed § 1.3(×)(3) and is therefore required to
register with the Commission and become a
member of NFA, such person would only be
required to complete Form 8–R and would face
substantially lower costs than those estimated here.
Because registration with the Commission and
membership in NFA make use of the same forms
and process, the Commission anticipates that the
costs associated with proposed § 1.3(×)(3) and
proposed § 170.18 will be one and the same.
598 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

under § 1.3(×)(3) would therefore incur
a total one-time cost of $105,600 (100 ×
$1,506).599
b. § 1.83(a)—Compliance Reports
Submitted by AT Persons to DCMs
The Commission estimates that the
proposed rules requiring AT Persons to
submit annual reports regarding their
pre-trade risk controls required
pursuant to proposed § 1.80(a) (as well
as copies of the written policies and
procedures developed to comply with
§ 1.81(a) and (c)) to each DCM on which
they operate will result (on an annual
basis) in 60 hours of burden per AT
Person, and 25,200 burden hours in
total. The estimated burden was
calculated as follows:
Burden: Compliance reports
submitted by AT Persons to DCMs.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 420
AT Persons.
Estimated number of responses: 420.
Estimated total burden on each
respondent: 60 hours.
Frequency of collection: Annual.
Burden statement-all respondents:
420 respondents × 60 hours = 25,200
Burden Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an
annual basis, an AT Person will incur a
cost of $4,240 to submit the compliance
reports required by proposed § 1.83(a).
This cost is broken down as follows: 1
Senior Compliance Specialist, working
for 50 hours (50 × $57 = $2,850); and 1
Chief Compliance Officer, working for
10 hours (10 × $139 = $1,390).600 The
420 AT Persons that will be subject to
§ 1.83(a) would therefore incur a total
annual cost of $1,780,800 (420
×$4,240).601
c. § 1.83(b)—Compliance Reports
Submitted by Clearing Member FCMs to
DCMs
The Commission estimates that the
proposed rules requiring clearing
member FCMs to submit annual reports
(describing the clearing member FCM’s
program for establishing and
maintaining the pre-trade risk controls
required by proposed § 1.82(a)(1) for its
AT Person customers in the aggregate)
to each DCM on which they operate will
result (on an annual basis) in 110 hours
of burden per clearing member, and
6,270 burden hours in total. The
estimated burden was calculated as
follows:
599 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of persons subject to Regulation AT.
600 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
601 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of persons subject to Regulation AT.

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78891

Burden: Compliance reports
submitted by clearing member FCMs to
DCMs.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 57
clearing member FCMs.
Estimated number of responses: 57.
Estimated total burden on each
respondent: 110 hours.
Frequency of collection: Annual.
Burden statement-all respondents: 57
respondents × 110 hours = 6,270 Burden
Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an
annual basis, a clearing member FCM
will incur a cost of $7,090 to submit the
compliance reports required by
§ 1.83(b). This cost is broken down as
follows: 1 Senior Compliance Specialist,
working for 100 hours (100 × $57 =
$5,700); and 1 Chief Compliance
Officer, working for 10 hours (10 × $139
= $1,390).602 The 57 clearing member
FCMs that will be subject to § 1.83(b)
would therefore incur a total annual
cost of $404,130 (57 ×$7,090).603
d. § 1.83(c)—AT Person Retention and
Production of Books and Records
Initial Costs. The Commission
estimates that rules pursuant to
proposed § 1.83(c) requiring AT Persons
to keep and provide books and records
relating to §§ 1.80 and 1.81 compliance
will result in initial costs of 60 hours of
burden per AT Person, and 25,200
burden hours in total. The estimated
burden was calculated as follows:
Burden: Rule requiring AT Persons to
keep and produce records relating to
§§ 1.80 and 1.81 compliance.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 420
AT Persons.
Estimated total burden on each
respondent: 60 hours.
Burden statement&all respondents:
420 respondents × 60 hours = 25,200
Burden Hours initial year.
The Commission estimates that, on an
initial basis, an AT Person will incur a
cost of $5,130 to draft and update
recordkeeping policies and procedures
and make technology improvements to
recordkeeping infrastructure. This cost
is broken down as follows: 1
Compliance Attorney, working for 30
hours (30 × $96 = $2,880); and 1
Developer, working for 30 hours (30 ×
$75 = $2,250). The 420 AT Persons
would therefore incur a total initial cost
of $2,154,600 (420 × $5,130).
Annual Costs. The Commission
estimates that rules pursuant to
proposed § 1.83(c) requiring AT Persons
to keep and provide books and records
602 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
603 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of persons subject to Regulation AT.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78892

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

relating to §§ 1.80 and 1.81 compliance
will result in annual costs of 30 hours
of burden per AT Person, and 12,600
burden hours in total. The estimated
burden was calculated as follows:
Burden: Rules requiring AT Persons
to keep and produce records relating to
§§ 1.80 and 1.81 compliance.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 420
AT Persons.
Estimated number of responses: 420.
Estimated total burden on each
respondent: 30 hours.
Frequency of collection:
Intermittent.Burden statement-all
respondents: 420 respondents × 30
hours = 12,600 Burden Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an
annual basis, an AT Person will incur a
cost of $2,670 to ensure continued
compliance with the § 1.83(c)
recordkeeping rules relating to § 1.82
compliance, including the updating of
policies and procedures and technology
infrastructure, and to respond to DCM
record requests. This cost is broken
down as follows: 1 Compliance
Attorney, working for 20 hours (20 ×
$96 = $1,920); and 1 Developer, working
for 10 hours (10 × $75 = $750). The 420
AT Persons would therefore incur a
total annual cost of $1,121,400 (420 ×
$2,670).
e. § 1.83(d)—Clearing Member FCM
Retention and Production of Books and
Records
Initial Costs. The Commission
estimates that rules pursuant to
proposed § 1.83(d) requiring clearing
member FCMs to keep and provide
books and records relating to § 1.82
compliance will result in initial costs of
60 hours of burden per clearing member
FCM, and 3,420 burden hours in total.
The estimated burden was calculated as
follows:
Burden: Rules requiring clearing
member FCMs to keep and produce
records relating to § 1.82 compliance.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 57
clearing member FCMs.
Estimated total burden on each
respondent: 60 hours.
Burden statement-all respondents: 57
respondents × 60 hours = 3,420 Burden
Hours initial year.
The Commission estimates that, on an
initial basis, a clearing member FCM
will incur a cost of $5,130 to draft and
update recordkeeping policies and
procedures and make technology
improvements to recordkeeping
infrastructure. This cost is broken down
as follows: 1 Compliance Attorney,
working for 30 hours (30 × $96 =
$2,880); and 1 Developer, working for
30 hours (30 × $75 = $2,250). The 57
clearing member FCMs would therefore

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

incur a total initial cost of $292,410 (57
× $5,130).
Annual Costs. The Commission
estimates that that DCM rules pursuant
to proposed § 1.83(d) requiring clearing
member FCMs to keep and provide
books and records relating to § 1.82
compliance will result in annual costs
of 30 hours of burden per clearing
member FCM, and 1,710 burden hours
in total. The estimated burden was
calculated as follows:
Burden: Rules requiring clearing
member FCMs to keep and produce
records relating to § 1.82 compliance.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 57
clearing member FCMs.
Estimated number of responses: 57.
Estimated total burden on each
respondent: 30 hours.
Frequency of collection: Intermittent.
Burden statement-all respondents: 57
respondents × 30 hours = 1,710 Burden
Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an
annual basis, a clearing member FCM
will incur a cost of $2,670 to ensure
continued compliance with the § 1.83(d)
recordkeeping rules relating to § 1.82
compliance, including the updating of
policies and procedures and technology
infrastructure, and to respond to DCM
record requests. This cost is broken
down as follows: 1 Compliance
Attorney, working for 20 hours (20 ×
$96 = $1,920); and 1 Developer, working
for 10 hours (10 × $75 = $750). The 57
clearing member FCMs would therefore
incur a total annual cost of $152,190 (57
× $2,670).
f. § 38.401(a) and (c)—Public
Dissemination of Information by DCMs
Pertaining to Electronic Matching
Platforms
The proposed amendments to
regulations 38.401(a) and 38.401(c)
require DCMs to publicly post
information regarding certain aspects of
their electronic matching platforms.
DCMs should already be performing
tests on their electronic matching
platforms that would identify such
attributes; therefore the added burden
under the proposed amendments would
be limited to drafting the description of
such attributes and making the
description available on the DCM’s Web
site. The Commission estimates that the
proposed rules will result (on an annual
basis) in 200 hours of burden per DCM,
and 3,200 burden hours in total. This
estimate assumes that DCMs are already
compliant with the requirements to post
the specifications of their electronic
matching platform under current
regulation 38.401(a).

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Burden: Public Dissemination of
Information by DCMs—Electronic
Matching Platforms.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 15
DCMs.
Estimated total burden on each
respondent: 200 hours per year.
Frequency of collection: Intermittent.
Burden statement-all affected entities:
15 affected entities × 200 hours = 3,000
Burden Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an
annual basis, a DCM will incur a cost of
$19,200 to comply with amended
§ 38.401(a) and (c). This cost represents
the work of 1 Compliance Attorney,
working for 200 hours (200 × $96 =
$19,200).604 The 15 DCMs that will be
subject to amended §§ 38.401(a) and (c)
would therefore incur a total annual
cost of $288,000 (15 × $19,200).605 The
Commission anticipates that this figure
would decrease in subsequent years as
the descriptions provided would only
need to be amended to reflect changes
to the electronic matching platform or
the discovery of previously unknown
attributes.
g. § 40.23—Information Publicly
Disseminated by DCMs Regarding SelfTrade Prevention
Regulation AT proposes a new
requirement (§ 40.23) that a DCM shall
implement rules reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading by market
participants, except as specified in
paragraph (b) of § 40.23. Section
40.23(b) states that a DCM may, in its
discretion, implement rules that permit
the matching of orders for accounts with
common beneficial ownership where
such orders are initiated by independent
decision makers. A DCM may also
permit under § 40.23(b) the matching of
orders for accounts under common
control where such orders comply with
the DCM’s cross-trade, minimum
exposure requirements or similar rules,
and are for accounts that are not under
common beneficial ownership. Section
40.23(c) states that a DCM must require
market participants to request approval
from the DCM that self-trade prevention
tools not be applied with respect to
specific accounts under common
beneficial ownership or control, on the
basis that they meet the criteria of
paragraph (b).
Proposed § 40.23(d) would require
that for each product and expiration
month traded on a DCM in the previous
quarter, the DCM must prominently
display on its Web site the following
604 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
605 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of persons subject to Regulation AT.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
information: (1) The percentage of
trades in such product including all
expiration months that represent selftrading approved (pursuant to paragraph
(c)(2) of § 40.23) by the DCM, expressed
as a percentage of all trades in such
product and expiration month; (2) the
percentage of volume of trading in such
product including all expiration months
that represents self-trading approved
(pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of § 40.23)
by the DCM, expressed as a percentage
of all volume in such product and
expiration month; and (3) the ratio of
orders in such product and expiration
month whose matching was prevented
by the self-trade prevention tools
described in paragraph (a) of § 40.23,
expressed as a ratio of all trades in such
product and expiration month.
Market Participant Approval
Requests. Market participants will incur
costs in the event that they prepare and
submit the approval requests
contemplated by proposed § 40.23(c).
This provision requires market
participants to request approval from
the DCM that self-trade prevention tools
not be applied with respect to specific
accounts under common beneficial
ownership or control. The Commission
estimates that § 40.23(c) will result (on
an annual basis) in 60 hours of burden
per market participant, and 185,340
burden hours in total. The estimated
burden was calculated as follows:
Burden: Market Participant
Submission of Self-Trade Approval
Requests.
Respondents/Affected Entities:
420.606
Estimated number of responses: 1 per
respondent per year. Market
participants may choose to submit
approval requests more frequently, but
regardless of how frequently market
participants submit approval requests,
the Commission estimates a total burden
of 60 hours per market participant per
year.
Estimated total burden on each
respondent: 60 hours per year.
Burden statement—all respondents:
420 respondents × 60 hours per year =
25,200 Burden Hours per year.
The Commission estimates that, on an
annual basis, a market participant will
incur a cost of $3,810 to prepare and
submit the approval requests
contemplated by 40.23(c). This cost is
broken down as follows: 1 Business
Analyst, working for 30 hours (30 × $52
per hour = $1,560); and 1 Developer,
working for 30 hours (30 × $75 per hour
606 See section V(E)(8)(b) below for a discussion
of how this estimate of affected entities was
performed.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

= $2,250).607 The estimated 420 market
participants that will be subject to
§ 40.23(c) would therefore incur a total
annual cost of $1,600,200 (420 x
$3,810).608
DCM Publication of Statistics
Regarding Self-Trade Prevention. The
Commission estimates that the
requirement under proposed § 40.23(d)
that DCMs publish statistics regarding
self-trade prevention will result (on an
annual basis) in 100 hours of burden per
DCM, and 1,500 burden hours in total
for all 15 DCMs. The estimated burden
was calculated as follows:
Burden: DCM Publication of Statistics
Regarding Self-Trade Prevention.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 15
DCMs.
Estimated total burden on each
affected entity: 100 hours per year for
DCMs to generate and publish statistics.
Frequency of collection: 4 DCM Web
site updates per year (one per quarter).
Burden statement-all affected entities:
15 respondents × 100 hours of DCM
time per year = 1,500 Burden Hours per
year.
The Commission estimates that, on an
annual basis, a DCM will incur a cost of
$6,650 to publish the statistics required
by proposed § 40.23(d). This cost is
broken down as follows: 1 Senior
Compliance Examiner, working for 50
hours (50 × $58 per hour = $2,900); and
1 Developer, working for 50 hours (50
× $75 per hour =$3,750).609 The 15
DCMs that will be subject to § 40.23(d)
would therefore incur a total annual
cost of $99,750 (15 × $6,650).610
h. § 40.25—Information in Public Rule
Filings Provided by DCMs Regarding
Market Maker and Trading Incentive
Programs
Proposed § 40.25 would require DCMs
to provide the Commission with certain
information regarding their marketmaker and trading incentive programs
when submitting such programs as rules
pursuant to part 40. Among other
information, DCMs would be required to
provide a description of any categories
of market participants or eligibility
criteria limiting who may participate in
the program. They would also be
required to provide an explanation of
the specific purpose for a market-maker
or trading incentive program; a list of all
products or services to which the
program applies; a description of any
607 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
608 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of persons subject to Regulation AT.
609 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
610 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of persons subject to Regulation AT.

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78893

payments, incentives, discounts,
considerations, inducements or other
benefits that program participants may
receive; and other requirements. To
ensure public transparency in marketmaker and trading incentive programs,
proposed § 40.25 would require DCMs
to ensure that the information described
above is easily located on their public
Web sites.
While proposed § 40.25 may appear
on its face to require substantial new
information from DCMs regarding their
market-maker or trading incentive
programs, the proposed rule is largely
similar to existing rule filing
requirements in part 40. For example,
existing §§ 40.5 and 40.6 each require a
DCM requesting approval or selfcertifying rules to provide the
Commission with the rule text; the
proposed effective date or date of
intended implementation; and an
‘‘explanation and analysis of the
operation, purpose, and effect’’ of the
proposed rule. Existing §§ 40.5 and 40.6
also require each DCM to provide the
Commission with an assessment of the
rule’s ‘‘compliance with applicable
provisions of the Act, including core
principles, and the Commission’s
regulations thereunder;’’ and ‘‘a brief
explanation of any substantive opposing
views expressed to [the DCM] by
governing board or committee members,
members of the entity or market
participants that were not incorporated
into the rule . . . .’’ Further, these
existing provisions each require a DCM
to certify that the DCM posted on its
public Web site a notice of pending rule
or certification and to also post a copy
of the DCM’s submission to the
Commission on the DCM’s Web site.
The Commission believes proposed
§ 40.25 adds important clarity to
existing rule filing requirements in part
40 when such filings pertain to marketmaker or trading incentive programs.
However, the Commission also believes
that there is significant overlap between
proposed § 40.25 and existing
requirements for DCMs in §§ 40.5 and
40.6. Proposed § 40.25 does not create a
new category of rule filings, nor does it
or require more frequent filings. For
these reasons, the Commission believes
that any additional Paperwork
Reduction Act obligations in proposed
§ 40.25 will be minor per DCM.
Burden: Information regarding market
maker and trading incentive program
rule filings pursuant to part 40.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 15
DCMs.
Estimated total burden on each
affected entity: 156 hours of DCM time
per year.
Frequency of collection: Intermittent.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78894

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Burden statement-all affected entities:
15 respondents × 156 hours of DCM
time per year = 2,340 Burden Hours per
year.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

i. § 40.26—Information Provided by
DCMs to the Division of Market
Oversight Upon Request Regarding
Market Maker and Trading Incentive
Programs
Proposed § 40.26 would permit the
Commission or the director of DMO to
require certain information from DCMs
regarding their market-maker or trading
incentive programs. The Commission
believes that proposed § 40.26 will
impose no additional Paperwork
Reduction Act burdens on DCMs. The
proposed regulation permits the
Commission or the director of DMO to
require information from a DCM
regarding the DCM’s market-maker or
trading incentive programs. It is a more
targeted iteration of existing § 38.5,
which requires a DCM to file with the
Commission such ‘‘information related
to its business as a designated contract
market’’ as the Commission may
require. Section 38.5 also requires a
DCM upon request by the Commission
or the director of DMO to file ‘‘a written
demonstration’’ that the DCM ‘‘is in
compliance with one or more core
principles as specified in the request’’ or
‘‘satisfies its obligations under the Act,’’
including ‘‘supporting data, information
and documents.’’ Proposed § 40.26 does
not alter a DCM’s existing obligations
under § 38.5, but rather makes clear that
Commission and DMO information
requests may pertain specifically to
market-maker and trading incentive
programs. It imposes no new obligation
to provide information, and does not
increase the frequency which
information must be provided.
Burden: Information requests from the
Commission or the Director of the
Division of Market Oversight.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 15
DCMs.
Estimated total burden on each
affected entity: 0 hours of DCM time per
year.
Frequency of collection: Intermittent.
Burden statement-all affected entities:
15 respondents × 0 hours of DCM time
per year = 0 Burden Hours per year.
2. Information Collection Comments
The Commission invites the public to
comment on any aspect of the
paperwork burdens discussed herein.
Copies of the supporting statements for
the collections of information from the
Commission to OMB are available by
visiting RegInfo.gov. Pursuant to 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission
solicits comments in order to: (i)

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

Evaluate whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Commission, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (ii) evaluate the
accuracy of the Commission’s estimate
of the burden of the proposed
collections of information; (iii)
determine whether there are ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information proposed to be
collected; and (vi) minimize the burden
of the proposed collections of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Those desiring to submit comments
on the proposed information collection
requirements should submit them
directly to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by fax at (202)
395–6566, or by email at
OIRAsubmissions@omb.eop.gov. Please
provide the Commission with a copy of
submitted comments so that all
comments can be summarized and
addressed in the final rule preamble.
Refer to the ADDRESSES section of this
notice of proposed rulemaking for
comment submission instructions to the
Commission.
E. Cost Benefit Considerations
1. The Statutory Requirement for the
Commission To Consider the Costs and
Benefits of Its Actions
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the
Commission to ‘‘consider the costs and
benefits’’ of its actions before
promulgating a regulation under the
CEA or issuing certain orders.611
Section 15(a) further specifies that the
costs and benefits must be evaluated in
light of the following five broad areas of
market and public concern: (1)
Protection of market participants and
the public; (2) efficiency,
competitiveness, and financial integrity
of futures markets; (3) price discovery;
(4) sound risk management practices;
and (5) other public interest
considerations. The Commission
considers the costs and benefits
resulting from its discretionary
determinations with respect to the
section 15(a) factors below. As a general
matter, the Commission considers the
incremental costs and benefits of these
proposed rules, taking into account
what it believes is industry practice
given the Commission’s existing
regulations and industry best practices,
as described below. Where reasonably
611 7

PO 00000

U.S.C. 19(a).

Frm 00072

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

feasible, the Commission has
endeavored to estimate quantifiable
costs and benefits. The Commission also
identifies and describes costs and
benefits qualitatively.
2. Concept Release Comments Regarding
Costs and Benefits
In the Concept Release, the
Commission sought comments on most
of the measures now addressed by
Regulation AT. Six commenters made
general points on cost-benefit
considerations. Specifically, FIA and
CME noted that the cost of
implementing risk controls varies
widely.612 FIA stated that many of the
risk controls addressed in the Concept
Release are already used in the futures
industry and their benefit is clearly
understood.613 FIA further stated that
the implementation cost to individual
firms varies widely based on the
systems they have and the market and
products they trade.614 Similarly, CME
indicated that as to risk controls,
specific costs as to development,
implementation and ongoing
operational figures will vary widely
across the futures industry supply
chain.615 CME declined to provide
detailed analysis as to its own
expenditures.616
CFE commented that if the
Commission proposes risk control
requirements, it should perform a
careful cost-benefit analysis and allow
DCMs at least two years to implement
the controls.617 TCL stated that most
entities have the technology to address
the ‘‘spirit’’ of the controls described in
the Concept Release.618 AFR noted that
cost-benefit analysis should be based on
costs and benefits to the public as a
whole, not on private benefits to
individual actors.619 Finally, IATP
stated that the Concept Release asked
more frequently about costs of risk
controls as compared to benefits of
increased market stability, which can be
more difficult to quantify.620
3. The Commission’s Cost-Benefit
Consideration of Regulation AT—
Baseline Point
As a preliminary matter, the
Commission notes that certain aspects
of Regulation AT, as discussed below,
codify existing norms and best practices
of trading firms, clearing member FCMs
612 FIA

at 60; CME at 41.
at 60.
614 See id.
615 CME at 41.
616 See id.
617 CFE at 2.
618 TCL at 18.
619 AFR at 2.
620 IATP at 3.
613 FIA

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
and DCMs. In that regard, in 2013, FIA
surveyed FCMs and FIA PTG member
firms regarding their use of risk controls
and self-trade controls and found that
all or most respondents currently use
such controls.621 Comment letters to the
Concept Release indicated that
implementation of pre-trade and other
risk controls was already widespread.
Moreover, existing statutory schemes
(e.g., the SEC’s Market Access Rule and
the CFTC’s requirements relating to
financial risk) means that many entities
will already have systems in place
relevant to the controls proposed in
Regulation AT. Accordingly, as
discussed below, the existing norms or
best practices serve as the Commission’s
guide for determining the status quo
baseline against which to measure the
incremental costs and benefits of the
proposed regulations. The Commission
recognizes, however, that some
individual firms currently may not be
operating at industry best practice
levels; for such firms costs and benefits
attributable to the proposed regulations
will be incremental to a lower status
quo baseline. In many cases, the
Commission assumes that compliance
with regulations will require an upgrade
to existing systems, rather than building
risk control systems from scratch.
To assist the Commission and the
public in assessing and understanding
the economic costs and benefits of the
proposed rule, the Commission has
analyzed the costs of the proposed
regulations that impose additional
requirements on trading firms, clearing
member FCMs and DCMs above and
beyond the baseline. In many instances,
full quantification of the costs is not
reasonably feasible because costs
depend on the size, structure, and
practices of trading firms, clearing
member FCMs and DCMs. Within each
category of entity, the size, structure and
practices of such entities will vary
markedly. In addition, the
quantification may require information
or data that the Commission does not
have or was not provided in response to
the Concept Release or other requests.
The Commission notes that to the extent
that the regulations proposed in this
rulemaking results in additional costs,
those costs will be realized by trading
firms, clearing member FCMs and
exchanges in order to protect market
participants and the public. Finally, in
general, full quantification of the
benefits of the proposed rule is also not
reasonably feasible, due to the difficulty
in quantifying the benefits of a
reduction in market disruptions and
other significant market events due to
621 FIA

at 3, 59–60.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

the risk controls and other measures
proposed in Regulation AT.
4. The Commission’s Cost-Benefit
Consideration of Regulation AT—CrossBorder Effects
The Commission notes that the
consideration of costs and benefits
below is based on the understanding
that the markets function
internationally, with many transactions
involving U.S. firms taking place across
international boundaries; with some
Commission registrants being organized
outside of the United States; with
leading industry members typically
conducting operations both within and
outside the United States; and with
industry members commonly following
substantially similar business practices
wherever located. Where the
Commission does not specifically refer
to matters of location, the below
discussion of costs and benefits refers to
the effects of the proposed rules on all
activity subject to the proposed and
amended regulations, whether by virtue
of the activity’s physical location in the
United States or by virtue of the
activity’s connection with or effect on
U.S. commerce under CEA Section
2(i).622 In particular, the Commission
notes that some AT Persons are located
outside of the United States.
5. General Request for Comment
111. Beyond specific questions
interspersed throughout its discussion,
the Commission generally requests
comment on all aspects of its
consideration of costs and benefits,
including: (a) Identification,
quantification, and assessment of any
costs and benefits not discussed therein;
(b) whether any of the proposed
regulations may cause FCMs or DCMs to
raise their fees for their customers, or
otherwise result in increased costs for
market participants and, if so, to what
extent; (c) whether any category of
Commission registrants will be
disproportionately impacted by the
proposed regulations, and if so whether
the burden of any regulations should be
appropriately shifted to other
Commission registrants; (d) what, if any,
costs would likely arise from market
participants engaging in regulatory
arbitrage by restructuring their trading
activities to trade on platforms not
subject to the proposed regulations, or
taking other steps to avoid costs
associated with the proposed
regulations; (e) quantitative estimates of
the impact on transaction costs and
liquidity of the proposals contained
herein; (f) the potential costs and
622 7

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

U.S.C. 2(i).

Frm 00073

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78895

benefits of the alternatives that the
Commission discussed in this release,
and any other alternatives appropriate
under the CEA that commenters believe
would provide superior benefits relative
to costs; (g) data and any other
information to assist or otherwise
inform the Commission’s ability to
quantify or qualitatively describe the
benefits and costs of the proposed rules;
and (h) substantiating data, statistics,
and any other information to support
positions posited by commenters with
respect to the Commission’s
consideration of costs and benefits.
6. The Commission’s Cost-Benefit
Consideration of Regulation AT—
Proposed Definitions
The Commission notes that
Regulation AT proposes certain defined
terms, including ‘‘AT Person,’’
‘‘Algorithmic Trading,’’ and ‘‘Direct
Electronic Access’’ (as an element of the
revised definition of the term ‘‘Floor
Trader’’). While the defined terms
themselves do not impose costs, the
Commission recognizes that the scope of
such definitions will impact the
potential costs of other regulations. For
example, proposed § 1.80 imposes risk
control requirements on ‘‘AT Persons,’’
and the defined term ‘‘Algorithmic
Trading’’ is an element of the term AT
Person. The broader the definition of AT
Person and Algorithmic Trading, the
greater the number of firms that would
be required to meet the requirements of
§ 1.80.
The Commission believes its
definition of AT Person is appropriate
and its inclusion of ‘‘floor traders,’’
consistent with the proposed changes to
§ 1.3(x), will mean that certain currently
unregistered market participants who
actively trade on Commission-regulated
markets will be subject to risk control
requirements that will prevent or
mitigate the risks of malfunctioning
algorithmic trading systems. Similarly,
the proposed definition of Algorithmic
Trading captures such trading activity
that has the potential, when there is a
technological malfunction, to harm
market participants and disrupt markets
at a speed that is difficult to mitigate.
The Commission asks questions
concerning the scope of the definition of
Algorithmic Trading, for example
whether order routing systems should
be included within such definition. The
Commission acknowledges that any
change made to scope of AT Person and
Algorithmic Trading made in
accordance with any comments received
will impact the cost of regulations that
use those definitions.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78896

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

7. Pre-Trade Risk Controls, Testing and
Supervision of Automated Systems,
Requirement To Submit Compliance
Reports, and Other Related Algorithmic
Trading Requirements
a. Summary of Proposed Rules
This section addresses the following
proposed regulations: (i) The
requirement that AT Persons implement
pre-trade risk controls and other related
measures (§ 1.80); (ii) standards for the
development, testing, and monitoring of
Algorithmic Trading systems by AT
Persons (§ 1.81); (iii) registered futures
association (‘‘RFA’’) standards for
algorithmic trading systems (‘‘ATSs’’)
operated by their members and clearing
member FCMs with respect to customer
orders originating with ATSs (§ 170.19);
(iv) the requirement that AT Persons
must become a member of a futures
association (§ 170.18); (v) the
requirement that clearing member FCMs
implement pre-trade risk controls and
other related measures (§ 1.82); (vi) the
requirements of § 1.83, including that:
AT Persons submit compliance reports
to DCMs regarding their § 1.80(a)required risk controls, as well as copies
of the written policies and procedures
developed to comply with § 1.81(a) and
(c) (§ 1.83(a)); clearing member FCMs
submit compliance reports to DCMs
regarding their program for establishing
and maintaining the pre-trade risk
controls required by § 1.82(a)(1) for AT
Person customers (§ 1.83(b)); AT
Persons keep and provide upon request
to DCMs books and records regarding
their compliance with §§ 1.80 and 1.81
(§ 1.83(c)); and clearing member FCMs
keep and provide upon request to DCMs
books and records regarding their
compliance with § 1.82 (§ 1.83(d)); (vii)
the requirement that DCMs implement
pre-trade risk controls and other related
measures (§§ 38.255 and 40.20); (viii)
the requirement that DCMs provide test
environments where AT Persons may
test their ATSs (§ 40.21); and (ix) the
requirements of § 40.22, including that
DCMs: implement rules requiring AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs to
submit compliance reports each year
(§ 40.22(a) and (b)), establish a program
for effective periodic review and
evaluation of the reports (§ 40.22(c)),
implement rules that require each AT
Person to keep and provide to the DCM
books and records regarding their
compliance with all requirements
pursuant to § 1.80 and § 1.81, and
require each clearing member FCM to
keep and provide to the DCM market
books and records regarding their
compliance with all requirements
pursuant to § 1.82 (§ 40.22(d)), and
require DCMs to review and evaluate, as

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

necessary, books and records required to
be kept pursuant to § 40.22(d), and the
measures described therein (§ 40.22(e)).
The pre-trade risk controls and other
measures required by §§ 1.80, 1.82,
38.255, and 40.20 would require the
following enumerated pre-trade risk
controls: Maximum AT Order Message
and execution frequencies, price
parameters, and maximum order size
limits. The regulations would also
require certain order management
controls, including kill switch and
cancel-on-disconnect functionalities.
Proposed § 170.19 would require an
RFA to adopt certain membership
rules—as deemed appropriate by the
RFA—relevant to ATSs and algorithmic
trading for each category of member in
the RFA. Proposed § 170.18 would
require all AT Persons to be registered
as a member of an RFA.
Proposed § 1.81 would require AT
Persons to establish policies and
procedures that accomplish a number of
objectives relating to the design, testing,
and supervision of Algorithmic Trading.
More specifically, proposed § 1.81
would require each AT Person to:
Implement written policies and
procedures for the development and
testing of ATSs (§ 1.81(a)); implement
written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that each
of its ATSs is subject to continuous realtime monitoring and supervision by
knowledgeable and qualified staff while
such ATS is engaged in trading
(§ 1.81(b)); implement written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that ATSs operate in a manner
that complies with the CEA and the
rules and regulations thereunder, and
ensure that staff are familiar with the
CEA and the rules and regulations
thereunder, the rules of any DCM to
which such AT Person submits orders
through Algorithmic Trading, the rules
of any RFA of which such AT Person is
a member, the AT Person’s own internal
requirements, and the requirements of
the AT Person’s clearing member FCM,
in each case as applicable (§ 1.81(c));
and implement written policies and
procedures to designate and train staff
responsible for Algorithmic Trading
(§ 1.81(d)). As a complement to the
proposed design and testing
requirements, proposed § 40.21 would
require DCMs to provide a test
environment that will enable market
participants to simulate production
trading and conduct exchange-based
conformance testing of their
Algorithmic Trading systems.
Proposed § 1.83(a) would require AT
Persons to submit annual reports to each
DCM on which they operate regarding
their pre-trade risk controls as required

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

by § 1.80(a). Together with such annual
reports, each AT Person would also be
required to submit copies of the written
policies and procedures developed to
comply with § 1.81(a) and (c). Proposed
§ 1.83(b) would require clearing member
FCMs for AT Persons to submit reports
to DCMs describing their program for
establishing and maintaining the pretrade risk controls required by
§ 1.82(a)(1). The Commission is also
proposing a new § 40.22(c) to require
that each DCM that receives a report
described in § 1.83 establishes a
program for effective periodic review
and evaluation of the reports. In
addition, proposed § 1.83(c) and (d)
would require AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs for AT Persons to keep
and provide upon request to DCMs
books and records regarding their
compliance with §§ 1.80 and 1.81 (for
AT Persons) and § 1.82 (for clearing
member FCMs). The Commission is also
proposing a new § 40.22(d) and (e) to
require that DCMs implement rules
requiring AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs to keep and provide such
books and records, and to require DCMs
to review and evaluate such books and
records, and identify and remediate any
insufficient mechanisms, policies and
procedures therein.
b. Costs and Benefits
i. § 1.80 Costs—Pre-Trade and Other
Risk Controls (AT Persons)
Based on Concept Release comments,
best practices documents issued by
industry or regulatory organizations, as
well as existing regulations, the
Commission believes that a significant
number of AT Persons already
implement the specifically-enumerated
pre-trade and other risk controls
required pursuant to proposed § 1.80.
Specifically, in its survey of member
firms, PTG found the following: (i) 25
out of 26 responding firms use message
and execution throttles; (ii) all 26
responding firms use maximum order
size limits, either using their own
technology, the exchange’s technology,
or some combination; 623 and (iii) 24 out
of 26 responding firms use either price
collars or trading pauses.624 As to order
management controls, two comments to
the Concept Release from exchanges
stated that they provide an optional
cancel-on-disconnect functionality.625
623 AIMA indicated that many market participants
use maximum order size limits, and Gelber, a
trading firm, stated that it uses this risk control. See
AIMA at 13; Gelber at 10.
624 FIA at 59–60.
625 CME Appendix at A–4; CFE at 9–10. In
addition, FIA characterized cancel-on-disconnect as
a ‘‘widely adopted DCM-hosted pre-trade risk
control.’’ See FIA at 14.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Those exchanges also indicated that
they provide kill switch functionality to
market participants.626
The Commission notes that these
types of controls have been included in
industry best practices for years. For
example, FIA PTG recommended,
among other things, that trading firms
implement message limits, a repeated
automated execution throttle, fat-finger
limits and price collars, as well as
‘‘heartbeats’’ with the exchange, use of
exchange-provided cancel-ondisconnect functionality, and a kill
button that disables the system’s ability
to trade and cancels all resting
orders.627 In addition, ESMA guidelines
from 2012 recommended, among other
things, that investment firms implement
messaging traffic controls and price or
size parameters.628 The Commission
also notes that the SEC’s Market Access
Rule, adopted in November 2010,
requires brokers and dealers to have risk
controls that prevent entry of erroneous
orders, by rejecting orders that exceed
appropriate price or size parameters, on
an order-by-order basis or over a short
period of time, or that indicate
duplicative orders.629 Given that many
firms are registered both with the SEC
and the CFTC, it is likely that there is
overlap between the set of firms covered
under the SEC’s Market Access Rule and
this Proposed Rule. Finally, in 2011, the
CFTC TAC recommended, among other
things, that trading firms implement
message and execution throttles,
maximum quantity limits, price collars,
and a kill button.630
The Commission also notes that, as
discussed in detail above in section
II.E.1, NFA has provided guidance
regarding ATSs to industry participants
since 2002. Such guidance includes
NFA Interpretive Notice 9046, which
addresses the ‘‘Supervision of the Use of
Automated Order-Routing Systems’’ in
the context of NFA’s overarching
supervision requirements in
Compliance Rule 2–9 (Supervision).
This rule and interpretive notice are
widely applicable to almost all
registered futures market participants
and therefore apply to many AT
Persons. In particular, Compliance Rule
2–9 requires each NFA member to
‘‘diligently supervise its employees and
agents in the conduct of their
626 CME

at 23–24; CFE at 11.
PTG, ‘‘Recommendations for Risk
Controls for Trading Firms,’’ (Nov. 2010) at 4–5.
628 ESMA Guidelines, supra note 61 at 14–15.
629 See 17 CFR 240.15c3–5(e); SEC, Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Risk
Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with
Market Access (Apr. 15, 2014), supra note 37.
630 CFTC TAC Recommendations, supra note 34
at 2–3.
627 FIA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

commodity futures activities for or on
behalf of the Member.’’ Interpretive
Notice 9046, first issued in 2002 and
revised in 2006, provided, among other
things, that an AORS should allow the
Member to set limits for each customer
based on commodity, quantity, and type
of order or based on margin
requirements, and should allow the
Member to impose limits pre-execution
and to automatically block any orders
that exceed those limits. In addition, the
interpretive notice provided that when
authorizing use of a direct access
system, the Member should utilize preexecution controls, if available, to set
pre-execution limits for each customer,
regardless of the nature of the customer.
Although proposed § 1.80 is
consistent with accepted industry best
practices of long standing and existing
Commission and SEC regulations to
which many AT Persons now comply,
Regulation AT’s risk control
requirements will impose technology
and personnel costs on AT Persons.
These costs include initial risk control
creation costs and possibly ongoing
maintenance costs. Many AT Persons
already have the controls required by
Regulation AT in place, and will only
need to upgrade such controls to ensure
compliance. To the extent some AT
Persons may be outliers that do not
currently implement risk controls
consistent with industry best practice—
a number the Commission lacks data to
accurately identify and quantify—these
firms would incur costs greater than
‘‘upgrade’’ costs. The costs to any such
outlier firms would vary based on each
firm’s unique size, business model,
technology and existing risk controls.
The Commission recognizes that some
firms will already have entirely
compliant systems requiring no upgrade
and, at the other end of the spectrum,
some firms may not be currently
implementing the § 1.80 required risk
controls at all. Accordingly, the
Commission estimates the ‘‘upgrade’’
costs for AT Persons to comply with
Regulation AT risk control
requirements, and welcomes comment
on the accuracy of such estimates.
Aside from costs to individual AT
Persons in creating and maintaining the
controls required by Regulation AT, in
quantifying costs of § 1.80, the
Commission considered that this
regulation may impose general costs to
the marketplace as a whole. For
example, while the Commission expects
that most AT Persons will only need to
upgrade systems in order to comply
with Regulation AT, it is possible that
costs related to the implementation of
new risk controls could lead to adverse
effects. For example, compliance costs

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78897

may cause some AT Persons to reduce,
or cease, their activities in certain
markets. This may result in a decrease
in market liquidity, which may cause
the costs of trading to increase. In order
to mitigate these potential concerns, the
Commission has (as discussed further in
the consideration of alternatives)
limited the compliance requirements to
what it preliminarily believes is the
minimum level needed to protect
market participants and the public. In
addition, as discussed in section (ii)
below, the Commission believes that the
standardization of risk controls may
result in the provision of additional
liquidity.
Other potential costs related to risk
controls are similarly hard to quantify.
Kill switches aim to cease unintended
message behavior, and the potential
losses and disruption associated with
such behavior. However, the mandatory
triggering of a kill switch when not
appropriate to a particular firm could
also prevent the firm’s legitimate, riskreducing activity, and instead result in
increased costs for such firm. This
distinction emphasizes the need to
appropriately calibrate risk controls on
an individual basis, and the
Commission has proposed rules that
accommodate that need. While the
Commission attempts to quantify costs
to individual firms, the Commission is
also aware of the broader impact of the
proposed rules on markets once firms
apply the proposed risk controls,
including potential effects on liquidity.
The Commission welcomes comments
on these and other potential marketwide effects of the proposed regulations.
In addition to the potential costs to
the market as a whole discussed above,
individual AT Persons may incur costs
of risk control implementation, in
particular the cost of upgrading systems
in order to comply with the proposed
regulations. Specifically, if a particular
AT Person’s systems are not already
compliant with § 1.80, it will need to
comply with the pre-trade and other risk
controls in one of several ways: By
internally developing such controls
from scratch, upgrading existing
systems, or through purchasing a risk
management solution from an outside
vendor. Each approach potentially has
initial costs and annual ongoing costs.
Based on responses to the FIA survey,
industry best practice standards, and
existing regulations both in
Commission-regulated markets as well
as SEC-regulated markets, the
Commission believes that many AT
Persons will be able to substantially
satisfy the risk control requirements of
Regulation AT with their existing
systems and controls. For others, the

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78898

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

costs of upgrading and introducing the
required systems would vary
considerably based on current controls
and procedures, as well as particular
business models.631
Rather than develop or upgrade its
own systems, AT Persons may choose to
purchase a risk management solution
from a third-party vendor, a DCM, or a
clearing member FCM. These costs
could similarly vary, depending on the
AT Persons’ current systems and
controls in place, the types of trading
strategies it uses, the volume and speed
of its trading activity, and the pricing
model utilized by the software vendor.
As one example, the Commission notes
that CME provides a number of risk
management tools to its market
participants and clearing firms. These
tools include: Cancel-on-disconnect,
CME Globex credit controls, a Risk
Management Interface (RMI) (which
allows clearing members to manage
risk), drop copy, FirmSoft (the ability to
view and cancel orders), a kill switch (a
single step shutdown of trading activity)
and self-trade prevention.632 As another
example, NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.
offers risk management tools that
include fat finger price checks,
maximum order quantity checks, daily
accumulated quantity checks, maximum
order rate per second checks, disconnect
safeguards, email notifications when
limits or warning levels are breached,
and an administration interface that
allows emergency actions.633 Many of
these mirror, or complement, risk
controls included within this proposed
rule.
The Commission estimated the costs
for AT Persons to comply with proposed
§ 1.80. In making its estimates, the
Commission made several assumptions.
The Commission assumes that the effort
to adjust any one control (by ‘‘control,’’
in this context, the Commission means
the pre-trade risk controls, order
cancellation systems, and connectivity
systems required by § 1.80) would
require assessment and possible
modifications to all controls.634 The
631 For example, the needs of a particular AT
Person will vary based on its current systems and
controls in place, the comprehensiveness of its
controls and procedures, the types of trading
strategies it uses, and the volume and speed of its
trading activity.
632 CME Group, ‘‘Risk Management Tools
Introduction,’’ available at: http://
www.cmegroup.com/globex/trading-cme-groupproducts/risk-management-tools.html.
633 NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., ‘‘Pre-Trade Risk
Management—Genium INET,’’ available at: http://
www.nasdaqomx.com/nordicprm/geniuminet.
634 The Commission also assumes that the most
difficult control to implement will be message and
execution throttles because such throttles will need
to be coordinated among many complex algorithms
running simultaneously.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

required programming changes could be
applied using flexible and generalizable
methods and leveraged across all
algorithms. The Commission recognizes
that execution speed is considered to be
a significant factor in algorithmic
trading, and understands that controls
have the potential to impact execution
speed; however, the Commission
believes that requiring a base set of risk
controls will, rather than further
increasing speed disadvantages across
market participants, partially reduce
them by ensuring that no firm avoids
the use of a given control to gain an
advantage. Because each AT Person is
unique and technological systems across
AT Persons will vary, the following
estimates reflect staff’s best efforts, and
the Commission welcomes comments
on their accuracy.
Estimate—Upgrade of Controls. The
Commission considered the scenario
where an AT Person already
implements controls as required by
proposed § 1.80, but the controls may
not comply with every aspect of the
regulation. In such instance, an AT
Person will need to evaluate its current
risk control systems to determine
whether it is compliant with new
regulatory requirements; modify
existing code or creating new code to
address any gaps between current risk
control systems and new regulatory
requirements; and test current systems
and new code to verify correct operation
and compliance. The Commission
assumes that AT Persons will generally
already have some code in place for the
basic controls required by § 1.80, or for
something similar that can be added to
or modified, rather than need to build
entire pre-trade systems from scratch.
For example, an AT Person may have an
existing library of ‘‘code blocks,’’ with a
block being useful for multiple related
purposes.
Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that an AT Person would
incur a one-time cost of $79,680 to
upgrade its systems to comply with
proposed § 1.80. This cost is broken
down as follows: 1 Project Manager,
working for 320 hours (320 × $70 per
hour = $22,400); 1 Business Analyst,
working for 320 hours (320 × $52 per
hour = $16,640); 1 Tester, working for
320 hours (320 × $52 per hour =
$16,640); and 1 Developer, working for
320 hours (320 × $75 per hour =
$24,000). The Commission estimates
that if an AT Person already has at least
some of the controls required by § 1.80,
there will be no additional annual costs
to maintain the modifications required
to bring the systems into compliance
with § 1.80. Assuming (as discussed
above) that there are 420 AT Persons,

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

the Commission estimates that the total
one-time industry cost to implement
§ 1.80 would be approximately
$33,465,600.
The Commission notes that AT
Persons could choose not to develop
these controls internally, but rather may
purchase a solution from an outside
vendor (or DCM or clearing member
FCM) in order to comply with § 1.80.
The Commission welcomes comments
providing estimates concerning the cost
for an AT Person to use an outside
vendor to comply with this proposed
regulation.
SEC Estimates. The proposing release
for the SEC’s Market Access Rule, which
requires brokers and dealers to have risk
controls in place before providing their
customers with access to the market,
provided compliance costs estimates.635
The Commission’s upgrade estimates
are generally consistent with the cost
estimates provided by the SEC. For
example, the SEC estimated that it
would cost a broker-dealer
approximately $270,404 ($167,904 in
technology personnel costs and
$102,500 in hardware and software
costs) to build a risk control
management system from scratch and
that it would cost a broker-dealer
$39,401 ($27,984 for technology
personnel and $11,517 for hardware and
software) to substantially upgrade an
existing risk control system.636 The SEC
estimated that the total annual ongoing
cost to maintain an in-house risk control
management system would be $47,300
per broker-dealer ($26,800 for
technology personnel and $20,500 for
hardware and software).637 Finally, with
respect to outsourcing such controls, the
SEC estimated that a broker-dealer
would pay approximately $8,000 per
month ($96,000 annually) for a startup
contract.638 To be conservative, the SEC
estimated the same amount for an
annual ongoing cost.639
The Commission notes that in
addition to the general requirements of
proposed § 1.80 to implement pre-trade
risk controls, order cancellation systems
and connectivity systems, § 1.80
imposes additional requirements
relating to such controls. Regulation
§ 1.80(a)(2) provides requirements as to
the level at which pre-trade risk controls
should be set and § 1.80(a)(3) requires
that natural person monitors be
promptly alerted when such parameters
are breached. The Commission assumes
635 See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61379 (January 19, 2010), 75 FR 4007 (January 26,
2010) (File No. S7–03–10).
636 See id. at 4022.
637 See id.
638 See id.
639 See id.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
that such requirements impose no
additional costs or are part of the costs
described above. Establishing particular
parameters of controls is a necessary
part of establishing and implementing
any control. In addition, as discussed
below, the Commission assumes that it
is already industry practice to employ a
natural person to test and monitor a
firm’s algorithmic trading systems.
Accordingly, requiring that natural
person monitors at the AT Person be
alerted with pre-trade risk control
parameters are breached should not
impose additional costs on AT Persons.
Proposed § 1.80(d) requires each AT
Person, prior to its initial use of
Algorithmic Trading, to submit a
message or order to a DCM’s trading
platform, must notify its clearing
member FCM and the DCM on which it
will be trading that it will engage in
Algorithmic Trading. Subject to
consideration of relevant comments, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
this requirement of this initial
notification to clearing firms and DCMs
will impose minimal or no costs on AT
Persons. The Commission welcomes
comment on the costs, if any, of this
notification requirement.
Proposed § 1.80(e) requires AT
Persons to implement a DCM’s self-trade
prevention tools. The Commission’s
self-trade prevention requirements are
principally directed toward DCMs, in
that § 40.23 would require DCMs to
apply, or provide and require the use of,
self-trade prevention tools. The
Commission believes that DCMs would
incur the costs of developing or
upgrading such tools as necessary to
comply with § 40.23. To the extent that
AT Persons are not already complying
with DCM-provided self-trade
prevention tools already used in
industry, the Commission believes that
the cost to an AT Person in calibrating
or otherwise applying such a tool would
be a minimal, involving provision of the
relevant account or other necessary
information in the DCM in order to
apply the tool. The Commission
welcomes comment on the costs, if any,
to an AT Person in complying with
§ 1.80(e).
Finally, proposed § 1.80(f) requires
that each AT Person shall periodically
review its compliance with § 1.80 to
determine whether it has effectively
implemented sufficient measures
reasonably designed to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event. AT Persons
must take prompt action to document
and remedy deficiencies in such
policies and procedures. The
Commission believes that this periodic
review is necessary to comply with
§ 1.83(a), which, as discussed below,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

requires AT Persons to annually submit
reports regarding their pre-trade risk
controls required pursuant to proposed
§ 1.80(a) and copies of the written
policies and procedures developed to
comply with § 1.81(a) and (c) to each
DCM on which they operate.
Accordingly, the Commission believes
that articulating such requirement
explicitly in the final subsection of this
rule will not engender costs separate
from those previously discussed and
considered.
The Commission emphasizes that
costs for each AT Person will vary.
Finally, the Commission notes that, as
indicated above, these estimates may
overstate the actual costs to the
industry. Based on Concept Release
comments, best practices issued by
industry and regulatory organizations,
as well as existing regulations, the
Commission believes that all or most AT
Persons are already using the pre-trade
and other risk controls required by
proposed § 1.80. The Commission
welcomes public comment on the above
analysis and estimates.
ii. § 1.80 Benefits—Pre-Trade and
Other Risk Controls (AT Persons)
Proposed § 1.80 should benefit market
participants by mitigating credit,
market, and operational risks faced by
trading firms. Standardization of pretrade and other risk controls is
particularly critical in the context of
potential outlier trading firms that have
chosen not to implement appropriate
risk controls in the absence of
regulation. As noted above (for example,
with respect to the Knight Capital
incident), a technological malfunction at
such a single firm can have far-reaching
impact across markets and market
participants. Credit, market and
operational risks are mitigated through
ensuring that each order accurately
reflects the intentions of the participant
and does not otherwise violate the CEA
or Commission regulations. The pretrade and other risk controls required by
proposed § 1.80 should improve both
price efficiency and price transparency
in Commission-regulated markets by
reducing the chances of large,
unintended orders moving prices away
from appropriate market values. Absent
protections, unintended and erroneous
trades resulting from a malfunctioning
trading system could potentially expose
not just the original market participant,
but any participant exposed to the given
market, to unexpected financial burdens
as a result of price moves. These
burdens may include the financial
impact on market participants with
open positions impacted by price
moves, or market participants with

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78899

market orders in the order book. In
addition to these losses, and potentially
uncertain trading positions, sudden,
large unintentional market activity can
disrupt the efficiency, competitiveness
and financial integrity of the futures
markets. Because much of the impact of
such unintended trades is independent
of connection method, it is in the
individual trading firm’s interest, and
the interest of Commission-regulated
markets as a whole, to have all types of
algorithmic trading orders, regardless of
access method, be subjected to sound
risk controls.
As noted, the Commission believes
that proposed regulation § 1.80
standardizes existing industry practices
in this area, and does not impose
additional requirements beyond existing
best practices that most market
participants satisfy. Accordingly, the
Commission notes that many of the
benefits of § 1.80 are already being
realized. This proposed rule, however,
may serve to limit a ‘‘race to the
bottom’’ in which certain entities
sacrifice effective risk controls in order
to minimize costs or increase the speed
of trading. The proposed rules, by
standardizing the risk controls required
to be used by firms, would help ensure
that the benefits of these risk controls
are more evenly distributed across a
wide set of market participants, and
reduce the likelihood that an outlier
firm without sufficient risk controls
causes significant market disruption.
Incidents like the one involving
Knight Capital highlight the importance
of using pre-trade and other risk control
protections. Specifically, an SEC
investigation found that Knight Capital
did not have adequate safeguards in
place to limit the risks posed by its
access to the markets, and, as a result,
failed to prevent the entry of millions of
erroneous orders.640 Knight Capital also
failed to conduct adequate reviews of
control effectiveness.641 The SEC
charged Knight Capital with multiple
violations of the SEC’s Market Access
Rule, which included failure to have
adequate controls at a point
immediately prior to its submission of
orders to the market, such as a control
to compare orders leaving the router
with those entered.642 Knight also failed
to adequately review its business
activity in connection with its market
access to ensure the overall
effectiveness of its risk management
controls and supervisory procedures.643
640 See

SEC Knight Capital Release, supra note 39.
id.
642 See id.
643 See id.
641 See

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

78900

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

As a result of these failures, the SEC
found that Knight put not only
themselves, but the markets in general,
at risk. The Commission views
prevention of disruptive events like that
involving Knight Capital as an
important benefit of § 1.80 that impacts
all market participants and the public.
By requiring, and standardizing,
certain risk controls implemented by
traders and trading firms, the
Commission intends to foster a level
playing field across market participants,
and avoid a situation where firms with
stronger risk control systems face speed
disadvantages. The Commission also
recognizes that in the absence of a rule
requiring implementation of certain risk
controls, some market participants may
be compelled by competitive and
economic pressures to submit orders, or
allow the submission of orders, without
appropriate controls to safeguard against
the risks of a malfunctioning algorithm.
The race for speed may reduce the
incentive to add risk controls, and the
absence of risk controls can magnify the
effect, and cost, of errors in the high
speed trading environment. In addition,
the mitigation of significant system risks
should help ensure market integrity and
provide the investing public with
greater confidence that all transactions,
along with the resulting price
movements, are intentional and bona
fide. Regulation AT should promote
investor confidence as well as enhance
the fair and efficient operation of the
markets.
The Commission believes that market
participants, in particular those
currently using risk controls, may face
a number of disadvantages due to the
fact that risk controls for algorithmic
trading are not standardized, and that
these disadvantages may discourage
market participants from providing
liquidity. Market participants may be
concerned about their exposure to
potential losses due to Algorithmic
Trading events and various market
abuses in the absence of standardized
risk controls and other measures.
Market participants may also be
concerned whether market orders and
trades in fact reflect the intent of the
market participants submitting them.
The Commission thus expects, subject
to consideration of comments, that
standardization of risk control
requirements for all AT Persons via
Regulation AT will reduce such costs
and trading disincentives for market
participants arising from Algorithmic
Trading events and market abuses. The
Commission also expects, subject to
consideration of comments, that
standardization will reduce unexpected
costs that market participants currently

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

experience when unfavorable price
movements occur due to the behavior of
another market participant’s faulty
algorithm. As a result, the Commission,
subject to consideration of comments,
views the proposed standardized risk
controls as a tool likely to encourage AT
Persons and other market participants to
provide additional liquidity, mitigating
the potential negative impact on market
liquidity from certain costs associated
with Regulation AT, as previously
discussed in section (i) above.
iii. § 1.81 Costs—Development,
Testing and Supervision of Algorithmic
Systems (AT Persons)
The Commission believes that most
market participants and DCMs have
implemented controls regarding the
design, testing, and supervision of
Algorithmic Trading systems, in light of
the numerous best practices and
regulatory requirements promulgated in
this area. For this fully compliant
majority, the codification of such
standards in proposed § 1.81 should not
engender additional costs. For any
market participants that are not fully
compliant, some additional costs may
be expected. These efforts include the
FIA PTG’s November 2010
‘‘Recommendations for Risk Controls for
Trading Firms,’’ FIA’s March 2012
‘‘Software Development and Change
Management Recommendations,’’
ESMA and MiFID II guidelines and
directives on the development and
testing of algorithmic systems, SEC
Regulation SCI requirements on the
development, testing, and monitoring of
SCI systems, FINRA’s March 2015
Notice 15–09 on effective supervision
and control practices for market
participants that use algorithmic trading
strategies in the equities market,
IOSCO’s April 2015 Consultation
Report, summarizing best practices that
should be considered by trading venues
when developing and implementing risk
mitigation mechanisms, and the Senior
Supervisors Group (SSG) April 2015
Algorithmic Trading Briefing Note,
which described how large financial
institutions currently monitor and
control for the risks associated with
algorithmic trading during the trading
day.
The Commission has calculated an
estimated maximum cost to an AT
Person that has not implemented any of
the design, testing, and supervision
standards required by proposed § 1.81
as further described below. To the
extent an AT Person is already in partial
compliance with § 1.81, as the
Commission believes many are likely to
be, their costs should be less than the
maximum described.

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Development and Testing. The
Commission estimates that an AT
Person that has not implemented any of
the requirements of proposed § 1.81(a)
(development and testing of Algorithmic
Trading Systems) would incur a total
cost of $349,865 to implement these
requirements. This cost is broken down
as follows: 1 Project Manager, working
for 1,707 hours (1,707 × $70 =
$119,490); 2 Business Analysts, working
for a combined 853 hours (853 × $52 =
$44,356); 3 Testers, working for a
combined 2,347 hours (2,347 × $52 =
$122,044); and 2 Developers, working
for a combined 853 hours (853 × $75 =
$63,975).644
Monitoring. The Commission
estimates that an AT Person that has not
implemented any of the requirements of
proposed § 1.81(b) (monitoring of
Algorithmic Trading Systems) would
incur a total cost of $196,560 to
implement these requirements. This
cost is broken down as follows: 1 Senior
Compliance Specialist, working for
2,080 hours (2,080 × $57 = $118,560);
and 1 Business Analyst, working for
1,500 hours (1,500 × $52 = $78,000).645
Compliance. The Commission
estimates that an AT Person that has not
implemented any of the requirements of
proposed § 1.81(c) (compliance of
Algorithmic Trading Systems) would
incur a total cost of $174,935 to
implement these requirements. This
cost is broken down as follows: 1 Project
Manager, working for 853 hours (853 ×
$70 = $59,710); 2 Business Analysts,
working for a combined 427 hours (427
× $52 = $22,204); 3 Testers, working for
a combined 1,173 hours (1,173 × $52 =
$60,996); and 2 Developers, working for
a combined 427 hours (427 × $75 =
$32,025).
Designation and Training of Staff.
The Commission estimates that an AT
Person that has not implemented any of
the requirements of proposed § 1.81(d)
(designation and training of Algorithmic
Trading staff) would incur a total cost of
$101,600 to implement these
requirements. This cost is broken down
as follows: 1 Senior Compliance
Specialist, working for 500 hours (500 ×
$57 = $28,500); 1 Project Manager,
working for 500 hours (500 × $70 =
$35,000); 1 Developer, working for 300
hours (300 × $75 = $22,500); and 1
644 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
645 As discussed above, the Commission notes
that staff persons who are responsible for
monitoring the trading of other AT Person staff
should not simultaneously be actively engaged in
trading. The Commission believes that it would not
be possible to adequately and consistently monitor
trading of other AT Person staff while engaged in
trading activities.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Business Analyst, working for 300 hours
(300 × $52 = $15,600).
Notwithstanding these estimates, the
Commission believes that proposed
§ 1.81 standardizes existing industry
practices in this area, but does not
impose additional requirements that are
not already followed by the majority of
market participants. As a result, subject
to consideration of relevant comments,
the Commission preliminarily believes
that regulation § 1.81 would not impose
additional costs on the majority of AT
Persons and that the costs imposed on
AT Persons that are in partial
compliance with § 1.81 will be less than
the amounts described above.
iv. § 1.81 Benefits—Development,
Testing and Supervision of Algorithmic
Systems (AT Persons)
The rules proposed with respect to
the design, testing, and supervision of
Algorithmic Trading systems are
intended to further mitigate the risk of
Algorithmic Trading. In their response
to the Concept Release, IATP noted that,
out of all the safeguards discussing in
the Release, they believed ATS testing
had the greatest potential to reduce
market disruptions.646 By standardizing
principles in this area, Regulation AT is
intended to reduce the risk of disorderly
trading, including the risk that orders
will be unintentionally sent into the
marketplace by a poorly designed or
insufficiently supervised algorithm.
For example, the regulations proposed
under § 1.81 may reduce the risk of
market disruptions such as the 2012
incident involving Knight Capital. The
SEC later concluded that, among other
failures, Knight Capital did not have
adequate controls and procedures for
code deployment and testing for its
order router, did not have sufficient
controls and written procedures to
guide employees’ responses to
significant technological and
compliance incidents, and did not have
an adequate written description of its
risk management controls.647 Proposed
§ 1.81 requires written policies and
procedures relating to the following:
Testing of all Algorithmic Trading code
and relates systems and any changes to
such code and systems prior to their
implementation; regular stress tests of
ATSs to verify their ability to operate in
the manner intended under a variety of
market conditions; a plan of internal
coordination and communication
between compliance staff of the AT
Person and staff of the AT Person
responsible for Algorithmic Trading
regarding Algorithmic Trading design,
646 IATP
647 See

at 7.
SEC Knight Capital Release, supra note 39.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

changes, testing, and controls; and
procedures for documenting the strategy
and design of proprietary Algorithmic
Trading software used by an AT Person,
among other controls. The
standardization of such written policies
and procedures may make disruptive
events like the Knight Capital incident
less likely in the future.
As noted, the Commission believes
that proposed regulation § 1.81
standardizes existing industry practices
in this area, and does not impose
additional requirements that are not
already followed by the majority of
market participants. Accordingly, the
Commission notes that many of the
benefits of § 1.81 are already being
realized. The proposed rule would help
ensure that the benefits of the required
testing and supervision will be fully
realized and sustained into the future.
v. § 170.19 Costs—RFA Standards for
Automated Trading and Algorithmic
Trading Systems (RFAs)
Proposed § 170.19 requires an RFA to
establish and maintain a program for the
prevention of fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, the
protection of the public interest, and
perfecting the mechanisms of trading on
designated contract markets through
membership rules, as deemed
appropriate by the RFA, requiring: (1)
Pre-trade risk controls and other
measures for ATSs; (2) standards for the
development, testing, monitoring, and
compliance of ATSs; (3) designation and
training of algorithmic trading staff; and
(4) operational risk management
standards for clearing member FCMs
with respect to customer orders
originating with algorithmic trading
systems.
Proposed § 170.19 will impose costs
on an RFA to establish and maintain a
program as described in the rule.
However, RFAs would only be required
to adopt rules as they deem appropriate;
any rulemaking pursuant to proposed
§ 170.19 would be entirely at the
discretion of the RFA. The Commission
believes that the costs to an RFA of
proposed § 170.19 cannot reasonably be
quantified given RFAs’ complete
discretion to adopt many, several, or no
rules in the foreseeable future pursuant
to § 170.19. In addition, relevant
rulemaking by an RFA is likely to be
episodic, as circumstances warranting
rulemaking will typically not arise on
an annual basis. With those caveats,
however, for purposes of this analysis
and as a basis for comment, the
Commission is using its own experience
to quantify the potential costs of
proposed § 170.19 to an RFA on those
occasions when it determines to adopt

PO 00000

Frm 00079

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78901

rules. For purposes of this exercise, the
Commission anticipates that an RFA
could potentially seek to codify industry
best practices in order to establish a
baseline of regulatory standardization
around such practices.
The Commission believes that the
work of adopting these rules would fall
primarily to legal, information
technology, and compliance staff within
an RFA. It estimates 450 hours of
burden for an RFA to adopt rules. This
includes analysis of existing industry
best practices, consultation with market
participants, drafting rules, further
consultations, including potentially
with Commission staff, and adoption of
final rules. The Commission estimates a
total cost of $34,200 for these efforts.
This cost is broken down as follows: 2
Compliance Attorneys, working for a
combined 150 hours (150 hours × $96
per hour = $14,400); 2 Developers,
working for a combined 150 hours (150
hours × $75 per hour = $11,250); and 2
Senior Compliance Specialists, working
for a combined 150 hours (150 hours ×
$57 per hour = $8,550), for a total cost
of $34,200.648
The Commission notes that an RFA,
after familiarizing itself with relevant
best practices, may determine that
additional membership rules pursuant
to proposed § 170.19 are unnecessary.
Under those circumstances, elements of
the work described above would not be
required, and the total estimated cost of
$34,200 would not be incurred. The
Commission believes, for example, that
Compliance Attorneys, Developers, and
Senior Compliance Specialists could
analyze best practices and determine
that additional membership rules are
not required after a combined 150 hours
of work (50 hours of work for each
professional role). The Commission
estimates a total cost of $11,400 for
these efforts. This cost is broken down
as follows: 2 Compliance Attorneys,
working for a combined 50 hours (50
hours × $96 per hour = $4,800); 2
Developers, working for a combined 40
hours (50 hours × $75 per hour =
$3,750); and 2 Senior Compliance
Specialists, working for a combined 50
hours (50 hours × $57 per hour =
$2,850), for a total cost of $11,400.649

648 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
649 In this regard, the Commission estimates that
total costs for an RFA could range between $11,400
and $34,200 based on the amount of work invested
before the RFA determined not to pursue additional
membership rules pursuant to proposed § 170.19.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78902

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

vi. § 170.19 Benefits—RFA Standards
for Automated Trading and Algorithmic
Trading Systems (RFAs)
The Commission believes that
proposed § 170.19, by requiring RFAs to
establish and maintain a program
addressing the automated trading and
algorithmic trading systems of its
members, will help to advance the goals
described in § 170.19: Prevention of
fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, the protection of the public
interest, and perfecting the mechanisms
of trading on designated contract
markets.
RFAs serve a vital regulatory function
as frontline regulators of their members,
which would include all AT Persons
pursuant to proposed § 170.18. RFAs
promulgate binding membership rules
and can supplement Commission rules
as appropriate. RFAs can also operate
examination programs to monitor
members’ compliance with association
rules, and can sanction members for
non-compliance. The Commission
believes that because RFAs have these
and other tools at their disposal, RFAs
are well-positioned to address rules in
areas experiencing rapid evolution in
market practices and technologies,
including particularly §§ 1.80, 1.81, and
1.82.
The Commission believes that the
structure of proposed §§ 1.80, 1.81, and
1.82 makes it particularly appropriate to
give RFAs a discretionary role in
augmenting the requirements of
Regulation AT for AT Persons. Proposed
§§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82 address only a
subset of potentially responsive risk
controls and other measures. Each AT
Person remains free to adopt additional
safeguards reasonably designed to
prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event
given its trading strategies, technologies,
or the markets in which it participates.
The proposed rules also provide a
degree of flexibility regarding the
design, implementation, or calibration
of those pre-trade risk control or other
measures that are specifically required
in §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82, again
allowing each AT Person to adapt the
rules to its own trading and technology.
Given the degree of flexibility
embedded in these rules, RFAs will be
well positioned to work with their
member AT Persons to develop
standards that are appropriate to each
AT Person’s specific trading approach
and technology, and that best serve to
promote the goals described in § 170.19.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

vii. § 170.18 Costs—AT Person
Membership in a Registered Futures
Association (AT Persons)
Proposed § 170.18 requires each
registrant that is an AT Person that is
not otherwise required to be a member
of an RFA pursuant to §§ 170.15, 170.16,
or 170.17 to become and remain a
member of at least one RFA that
provides for the membership of such
registrant, unless no such futures
association is so registered. Proposed
§ 170.18 would only affect those entities
that are not required to become
members of an RFA pursuant to
§§ 170.15, 170.16, or 170.17. Floor
brokers and floor traders, who have
historically been overseen by the DCMs
on which they operate, are not required
by §§ 170.15, 170.16, or 170.17 to
become members of an RFA and would
likely be the entities impacted by
proposed regulation 170.18. The new
membership requirements would
require affected entities to pay initial
and annual NFA membership dues.
NFA charges each FCM registrant
$5,625 in initial membership dues and
$5,625 per year for continuing NFA
membership where NFA is the SRO.
The Commission estimates that
membership dues for AT Person floor
traders or floor brokers may also be
$5,625, but that actual dues may be
different than this. This is because
while NFA will generally have more
limited oversight responsibilities for AT
Person floor traders and floor brokers, it
may pass on the costs of proposed
§ 170.19 to AT Person members in the
form of higher dues.650 The Commission
estimates that there will be
approximately 100 entities that are AT
Persons and will register as floor traders
under the new registration requirements
of § 1.3(x)(3). It is likely that these 100
entities will be the only entities that
will be required to become members of
an RFA pursuant to proposed regulation
170.18. Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that entities affected by
proposed regulation 170.18 will incur a
total initial cost of about $562,500 for
NFA membership dues (about $5,625 in
annual membership dues per registrant,
paid each year by 100 registrants) and
a total annual cost of about $562,500.
The Commission also preliminarily
believes that the rule may impose
certain compliance costs on affected
entities. However, such costs should not
be substantially different from or
significantly exceed the costs associated
with current Commission regulations
and proposed Regulation AT generally.
650 Currently, while floor traders and floor brokers
register with the NFA, they do not become NFA
members, and, thus, do not pay membership dues.

PO 00000

Frm 00080

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

As discussed above, proposed § 170.18
will likely only affect those floor traders
that were required to register with the
Commission pursuant to § 1.3(x)(3).
NFA, as the only currently registered
RFA, has not to date promulgated any
rules specific to floor traders or AT
Persons. As a result, the only current
NFA membership rules that these
entities would be required to follow are
those rules that are generally applicable
to all NFA members. Many of these
rules are general in nature and mirror
current Commission regulations or those
proposed in Regulation AT.
Accordingly, these entities would not
incur any additional general, ongoing
compliance costs as a result of NFA
membership.
viii. § 170.18 Benefits—AT Person
Membership in a Registered Futures
Association (AT Persons)
Because entities that are not members
of an RFA are not bound by the rules of
the RFA, the Commission is proposing
§ 170.18 to ensure that all AT Persons
(including newly registered floor
traders) would become members of an
RFA and would therefore be subject to
any membership rules promulgated by
such RFA. Regulation AT proposes to
establish a role for RFAs in setting the
framework in which AT Persons
operate. Proposed § 170.19, which is
described in greater detail above,
requires an RFA to adopt rules, as
deemed appropriate by the RFA,
requiring (i) pre-trade risk controls for
ATSs; (ii) standards for the
development, testing, monitoring and
compliance of ATSs; (iii) designation
and training of algorithmic trading staff;
and (iv) operational risk management
standards for clearing member FCMs
with respect to customer orders
originating with ATSs. The benefits of
these risk controls and other measures
are described in more detail throughout
this section.651
ix. § 1.82 Costs—Pre-Trade and Other
Risk Controls (FCMs)
Based on Concept Release comments,
best practices documents issued by
industry or regulatory organizations, as
well as existing regulations, the
Commission believes that clearing
member FCMs already implement the
specifically-enumerated pre-trade and
other risk controls required pursuant to
proposed § 1.82. Specifically, in its
survey of FCMs, FIA found that all
responding firms used message and
execution throttles, maximum order
sizes, price collars, and order
651 See, e.g., the discussion of benefits related to
proposed §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
cancellation capabilities, including a
kill switch, either administered
internally or at the exchange level.652
FIA also indicated that most DCMs
provide tools to allow the FCM to set
pre-trade controls for their customers,
which are a prerequisite for an FCM to
provide direct access to a market
participant without routing orders
through the FCM’s infrastructure.653
Two exchanges commented that their
kill switch functionality allows clearing
firms to cancel orders.654
The Commission notes that these
types of controls have been subject of
industry best practices for years. For
example, FIA’s Market Access Risk
Management Recommendations from
2010 recommended, among other
things, that a clearing firm providing
direct access to a market should
implement maximum quantity limits,
price banding or dynamic price limits
and exchange-provided order
cancellation capabilities.655 The ESMA
Guidelines from 2012 recommended
that firms providing direct market
access or sponsored access (as such
terms are defined by ESMA) 656 must,
among other things, implement controls
that limit messaging traffic and establish
price and size parameters.657
Nevertheless, the Commission
recognizes that there could be costs
associated with implementation of the
risk controls in § 1.82. Specifically, for
purposes of Direct Electronic Access
(DEA), defined in proposed § 1.3(yyyy),
if clearing members do not already use
DCM-provided systems, they will need
to implement additional DCM-provided
systems. For non-DEA orders, clearing
firms will need to internally develop
such controls from scratch, upgrade
existing systems, or purchase a risk
management solution from an outside
vendor. Each approach potentially has
initial costs and annual ongoing costs,
although the costs of upgrading and
implementing the required systems
would vary considerably based on
current controls and procedures, as well
as particular business models. For
652 FIA

at 60.
at 13. Two exchanges commented that
they provide technology allowing clearing members
to set maximum order size limits. See CME at 23–
24; CFE at 11.
654 CME at 23–24; CFE 11.
655 FIA Market Access Working Group, ‘‘Market
Access Risk Management Recommendations,’’
(April 2010) at 8–10.
656 ESMA defines direct market access as an
investment firm’s client transmitting orders to a
trading platform using the investment firm’s
infrastructure, and sponsored access as a client
transmitting orders directly to a trading platform
without such orders passing through the investment
firm’s infrastructure. See ESMA Guidelines, supra
note 61 at 4–5.
657 See id. at 14–15, 21–23.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

653 FIA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

78903

example, the needs of a clearing
member will vary based on its current
systems and controls in place, the
comprehensiveness of its controls and
procedures, the types of trading
strategies its customers use, and the
volume and speed of its customers’
trading activity.
Estimate-DEA Orders, Update to
Controls. The Commission also
estimated costs to a clearing member
that already uses DCM-provided
controls with respect to DEA orders and
only needs to assess and update its
implementation in order to ensure it
fully complies with § 1.82. The
Commission assumed that message
handling already exists and little is
needed to update the clearing member’s
systems in order to comply with § 1.82.
As noted above with respect to AT
Persons and compliance with § 1.80, the
Commission believes that upgrading
existing systems to comply with § 1.82
would involve evaluating current risk
control systems to determine
compliance with new regulatory
requirements; modifying existing code
or creating new code to address gaps
between current risk control systems
and new regulatory requirements; and
testing current systems and new code to
verify correct operation and compliance.
The Commission estimates that the cost
for a clearing member to assess and
update its implementation of controls
required by § 1.82 is $49,800. This cost
is broken down as follows: 1 Project
Manager, working for 200 hours (200 ×
$70 per hour = $14,000); 1 Business
Analyst, working for 200 hours (200 ×
$52 per hour = $10,400); 1 Tester,
working for 200 hours (200 × $52 per
hour = $10,400); and 1 Developer,
working for 200 hours (200 × $75 per
hour = $15,000). The 57 clearing
members that will be subject to § 1.82
would therefore incur a total one-time
cost of $2,838,600 (57 × $49,800) to
update their controls.658 The
Commission estimates that if a clearing
member already implements at least
some of the DCM-provided controls
required by § 1.82, there will be no
additional annual costs to maintain the
modifications required to bring the
clearing member’s systems into
compliance with § 1.82.
Estimate-Non-DEA Orders, Update to
Controls. The Commission also
estimated costs to clearing members to
comply with § 1.82’s requirements with
respect to non-DEA orders assuming
that the clearing member already has the
pre-trade and other risk controls in
place, and must only update the

controls to ensure that they comply with
the regulation. The Commission
estimates that the cost for a clearing
member to assess and update its
implementation of such controls is
$159,360. This cost is broken down as
follows: 1 Project Manager, working for
640 hours (640 × $70 per hour =
$44,800); 1 Business Analyst, working
for 640 hours (640 × $52 per hour =
$33,280); 1 Tester, working for 640
hours (640 × $52 per hour = $33,280);
and 1 Developer, working for 640 hours
(640 × $75 per hour = $48,000). The 57
clearing members that will be subject to
§ 1.82 would therefore incur a total onetime cost of $9,083,520 (57 × $159,360)
to update their controls.659 The
Commission estimates that if a clearing
member already implements at least
some of the DCM-provided controls
required by § 1.82, there will be no
additional annual costs to maintain the
modifications required to bring the
clearing member’s systems into
compliance with § 1.82.
The Commission emphasizes that
costs listed above are estimates, and it
welcomes comment on their accuracy.
The Commission further emphasizes
that the costs for each clearing member
will vary. Finally, the Commission notes
that, as indicated above, these estimates
may overstate the actual costs to the
industry. Based on Concept Release
comments, best practices issued by
industry and regulatory organizations,
as well as existing regulations, the
Commission believes that clearing
members are largely already using the
pre-trade and other risk controls
required by § 1.82.

658 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of persons subject to Regulation AT.

659 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of persons subject to Regulation AT.

PO 00000

Frm 00081

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

x. § 1.82 Benefits—Pre-Trade and
Other Risk Controls (FCMs)
The Commission notes that many of
the benefits discussed above with
respect to pre-trade and other risk
controls required of trading firms
pursuant to § 1.80 also apply with
respect to the benefits of controls that
FCMs must implement pursuant to
proposed § 1.82. Specifically, requiring
such controls contributes to orderly
markets by preventing orders that are
outside of pre-determined parameters
and ensuring a level-playing field
among clearing members. The benefits
also include allowing clearing members
to have control over the trading flow of
their customers, regardless of their
customers’ method of access—DEA or
non-DEA.
In addition, given that different
entities have differing information about
the trading activities of their customers/

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78904

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

users, identification of unintended
market behavior may be easier for
certain entity types, such as trading
firms. For example, with respect to
trading firms that mostly trade through
a single clearing member, but across a
disparate set of products, these metrics
may be more easily calculated at the
FCM than at the DCM. To protect
against the broadest set of errors, there
are benefits to implementing risk
controls at multiple points in the order
chain, including the FCM.
As noted, the Commission believes
that proposed § 1.82 standardizes
existing industry practices in this area,
and some of the requirements are
already followed by the majority of
clearing members. Accordingly, the
Commission notes that many of the
benefits of § 1.82 are already being
realized. This proposed rule may serve
to limit a ‘‘race to the bottom’’ in which
some entities sacrifice effective risk
controls in order to minimize costs or
increase the speed of trading. Thus, the
proposed rule would help ensure that
the benefits of the required risk controls
will be fully realized.
xi. § 1.83 Costs—AT Persons and FCM
Clearing Members Must Submit
Compliance Reports and Maintain
Certain Books and Records
Proposed § 1.83 would require AT
Persons and FCMs that are clearing
members for AT Persons to annually
submit reports regarding compliance
with § 1.80(a) and § 1.82(a)(1),
respectively, to each DCM on which
they operate. The reports prepared by
AT Persons would have descriptions of
the AT Person’s pre-trade risk controls
as required by proposed § 1.80(a). The
reports prepared by FCMs that are
clearing members for AT Persons would
have a description of the FCM’s program
for establishing and maintaining the
pre-trade risk controls required by
proposed § 1.82(a)(1) for its AT Persons
at the DCM. The reports would also be
required to include a certification by the
chief executive officer or chief
compliance officer of the AT Person or
clearing member FCM, as applicable,
that, to the best of his or her knowledge
and reasonable belief, the information
contained in the report is accurate and
complete.
In addition, proposed § 1.83(c) and (d)
would require AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs for AT Persons to keep
and provide upon request to DCMs
books and records regarding their
compliance with §§ 1.80 and 1.81 (for
AT Persons) and § 1.82 (for clearing
member FCMs). The Commission is also
proposing pursuant to § 40.22(d) that
DCMs must require each AT Person to

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

keep and provide to the DCM books and
records regarding the AT Person’s
compliance with all §§ 1.80 and 1.81
requirements, and each clearing member
FCM to keep and provide to the DCM
books and records regarding such
clearing member FCM’s compliance
with all § 1.82 requirements. The
proposed recordkeeping requirements
will cause AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs to incur costs, as
discussed below.
AT Person Compliance Reports. AT
Persons and FCMs that are clearing
members of AT Persons will incur the
cost of annually preparing and
submitting the reports to their DCMs, as
well as the written policies and
procedures developed to comply with
§ 1.81(a) and (c). The Commission
estimates that an AT Person will incur
a total annual cost of $4,240 to draft the
report and submit the policies and
procedures as required by § 1.83(a). This
cost is broken down as follows: 1 Senior
Compliance Specialist, working for 50
hours (50 × $57 per hour = $2,850) and
1 Chief Compliance Officer, working for
10 hours (10 × $139 per hour = $1,390)
for a total cost of $4,240 per year. The
approximately 420 AT Persons to which
§ 1.83(a) would apply would therefore
incur a total annual cost of $1,780,800
(420 × $4,240) to prepare and submit the
report and written policies and
procedures required by § 1.83(a).
Clearing Member FCM Compliance
Reports. The Commission further
estimates that an FCM will incur a total
cost annually of $7,090 to draft the
report required by § 1.83(b). This cost is
broken down as follows: 1 Senior
Compliance Specialist, working for 100
hours (100 × $57 per hour = $5,700) and
1 Chief Compliance Officer, working for
10 hours (10 × $139 per hour = $1,390),
for a total cost of $7,090 per year. The
57 FCMs to which § 1.83(b) would apply
would therefore incur a total annual
cost of $404,130 (57 × $7,090) to prepare
and submit the report required by
§ 1.83(b).
AT Person and Clearing Member FCM
Retention of Books and Records. As
discussed above, the Commission
believes that AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs already implement the
risk controls, testing standards and
other measures that would be required
pursuant to §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82.
Retention of records relating to such
measures is prudent business practice
and the Commission anticipates that
many AT Persons and clearing member
FCMs already maintain some form of
these records in the ordinary course of
their business. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that AT Persons
and clearing member FCMs will adapt

PO 00000

Frm 00082

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

their current infrastructure to
accommodate new DCM rules relating to
recordkeeping, and AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs will not have
substantial expenditures related to new
recordkeeping technology or reprogramming existing recordkeeping
technology. The Commission expects
that additional expenditure related to
§ 1.83(c) and (d) recordkeeping
requirements would be limited to the
drafting and maintenance of
recordkeeping policies and procedures
by in-house counsel and programmer
burden hours associated with
recordkeeping technology
improvements, as well as annual costs
in ensuring that recordkeeping policies
and procedures and related technology
comply with DCM rules. As noted
below, with respect to § 40.22(e), the
Commission estimates that a DCM
would find it necessary to review the
books and records of approximately
10% of AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs on an annual basis. The
production of such records would result
in additional burden hours by AT
Person and clearing member FCM inhouse counsel, a consideration which
the Commission included in its annual
cost estimates below.
AT Person Recordkeeping Costs. The
Commission estimates that, on an initial
basis, an AT Person will incur a cost of
$5,130 to draft and update
recordkeeping policies and procedures
and make technology improvements to
recordkeeping infrastructure. This cost
is broken down as follows: 1
Compliance Attorney, working for 30
hours (30 × $96 = $2,880); and 1
Developer, working for 30 hours (30 ×
$75 = $2,250). The 420 AT Persons
would therefore incur a total initial cost
of $2,154,600 (420 × $5,130).
The Commission estimates that, on an
annual basis, an AT Person will incur a
cost of $2,670 to ensure continued
compliance with DCM recordkeeping
rules relating to § 1.82 compliance,
including the updating of policies and
procedures and technology
infrastructure, and in respond to DCM
record requests. This cost is broken
down as follows: 1 Compliance
Attorney, working for 20 hours (20 ×
$96 = $1,920); and 1 Developer, working
for 10 hours (10 × $75 = $750). The 420
AT Persons would therefore incur a
total annual cost of $1,121,400 (420 ×
$2,670).
Clearing Member FCM Recordkeeping
Costs. The Commission estimates that,
on an initial basis, a clearing member
FCM will incur a cost of $5,130 to draft
and update recordkeeping policies and
procedures and make technology
improvements to recordkeeping

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

infrastructure. This cost is broken down
as follows: 1 Compliance Attorney,
working for 30 hours (30 × $96 =
$2,880); and 1 Developer, working for
30 hours (30 × $75 = $2,250). The 57
clearing member FCMs would therefore
incur a total initial cost of $292,410 (57
× $5,130).
The Commission estimates that that
DCM rules pursuant to proposed
§ 40.22(d) requiring clearing member
FCMs to keep and provide books and
records relating to § 1.82 compliance
will result in annual costs of 30 hours
of burden per clearing member FCM,
and 1,710 burden hours in total. The
estimated burden was calculated as
follows:
The Commission estimates that, on an
annual basis, a clearing member FCM
will incur a cost of $2,670 to ensure
continued compliance with DCM
recordkeeping rules relating to § 1.82
compliance, including the updating of
policies and procedures and technology
infrastructure, and in respond to DCM
record requests. This cost is broken
down as follows: 1 Compliance
Attorney, working for 20 hours (20 ×
$96 = $1,920); and 1 Developer, working
for 10 hours (10 × $75 = $750). The 57
clearing member FCMs would therefore
incur a total annual cost of $152,190 (57
× $2,670).
As discussed further in the
consideration of § 15(a) factors below,
the Commission also acknowledges that
the compliance requirements of
Regulation AT could have adverse
effects on small clearing firms. Any
compliance costs that go beyond
existing industry practice could
potentially cause some FCMs to scale
back operation. Thus the rule has some
potential to contribute to increased
concentration among clearing firms, i.e.,
fewer competing clearing firms.
The Commission emphasizes that
costs listed above are estimates, and it
welcomes comment on their accuracy.
The Commission further emphasizes
that the costs for each AT Person and
each FCM will vary.
xii. § 1.83 Benefits—AT Persons and
FCM Clearing Members Must Submit
Compliance Reports and Maintain
Certain Books and Records
Proposed § 1.83 would require AT
Persons and FCMs that are clearing
members for AT Persons to annually
submit reports regarding compliance
with § 1.80(a) and § 1.82(a)(1),
respectively, to each DCM on which
they operate. Proposed § 1.83(c) and (d)
would require AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs, respectively, to keep and
provide upon request to DCMs books
and records regarding their compliance

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

with §§ 1.80 and 1.81 (for AT Persons)
and § 1.82 (for clearing member FCMs).
The reports and recordkeeping proposed
by § 1.83, and the review program
proposed by § 40.22, will enable DCMs
to have a clearer understanding of the
pre-trade risk controls of all AT Persons
that are engaged in Algorithmic Trading
on such DCM. The proposed reports
will also enable DCMs to set up the
review program required by § 40.22. The
review program would improve the
standardization of market participants’
pre-trade risk controls. The
standardization of such systems and
procedures should further reduce the
risk that a market participant will
engage in disorderly trading due to
inadequate pre-trade risk controls.
xiii. § 38.255(b) and (c) Costs—DCMs
Must Provide Controls to FCMs
As noted above with respect to
proposed § 1.82, based on Concept
Release comments, best practices
documents issued by industry or
regulatory organizations, as well as
existing regulations, the Commission
believes that most DCMs already have
established the specifically-enumerated
pre-trade and other risk controls for use
by clearing members that would be
required pursuant to revised § 38.255.
The Commission also notes that existing
§ 38.607 requires that DCMs that permit
direct electronic access must have in
place effective systems and controls
reasonably designed to facilitate an
FCM’s management of financial risk,
such as automated pre-trade controls
that enable member FCMs to implement
appropriate financial risk limits.
Accordingly, even if DCMs do not
currently and voluntarily implement the
specific controls addressing the risks of
Algorithmic Trading proposed under
§ 38.255(b), they should already have in
place similar systems addressing FCMs’
management of financial risk pursuant
to existing § 38.607.
Estimate-Upgrade of Controls. With
respect to a DCM that already has the
controls required by § 38.255(b) in
place, and only needs to update them to
meet regulatory requirements (i.e.,
evaluate current systems, modify or
create new code, and test systems), the
Commission estimates that the cost to
the DCM would be $155,520. This cost
is broken down as follows: 1 Project
Manager, working for 480 hours (480 ×
$70 per hour = $33,600); 1 Business
Analyst, working for 480 hours (480 ×
$52 per hour = $24,960); 1 Tester,
working for 480 hours (480 × $52 per
hour = $24,960); and 2 Developers,
working for a combined 960 hours (960
× $75 per hour = $72,000). Commission
staff estimates that if a DCM already has

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78905

at least some of the controls required by
§ 38.255(b), there will be no additional
annual costs to maintain the
modifications required to bring the
systems into compliance with this
regulation.
Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that the 15 DCMs that will be
subject to § 38.255(b) would therefore
incur a total one-time cost of $2,332,800
(15 × $155,520) to update their controls.
The Commission believes that the
above estimates would change if a DCM
must upgrade its systems in order to
comply with § 40.20 (discussed below).
Under such circumstances, where the
DCM is already upgrading controls for
its own implementation pursuant to
§ 40.20, total cost to upgrade controls for
use by FCMs pursuant to § 38.255
should decrease. The controls required
by § 40.20 should include interfaces to
support external interactions and
expanding them to support FCMs
should not have additional costs.
The Commission emphasizes that
costs listed above are estimates, and it
welcomes comment on their accuracy.
The Commission further emphasizes
that the costs for each DCM will vary.
Finally, the Commission notes that, as
indicated above, these estimates may
overstate the actual costs to DCMs.
Based on Concept Release comments,
best practices issued by industry and
regulatory organizations, as well as
existing regulations, the Commission
believes that DCMs have largely already
established and are providing to FCMs
the pre-trade and other risk controls
required by § 38.255(b).
xiv. § 38.255(b) and (c) Benefits—DCMs
Must Provide Controls in DEA Context
An additional benefit to Regulation
AT is the reduction of system risk in the
context of Direct Electronic Access. As
noted above, the Commission believes
that Algorithmic Trading creates risks
regardless of the method of access.
Because of this, the Commission seeks
to ensure that all types of trading,
including through DEA, is subject to
pre-trade and other risk controls. The
requirements of proposed § 38.255(b)
specifically address the structure of
DEA, in which orders submitted by an
AT Person do not flow through the
clearing member FCM’s infrastructure
prior to submission to the DCM.
Currently, credit risk in the DEA context
is addressed through clearing member
FCM-implemented controls provided by
the DCM, as required pursuant to
existing regulations §§ 38.607 and 1.73.
Proposed § 38.255(b) and (c) follow a
similar approach that would allow
clearing members to have control over
the trading flow of their DEA customers

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78906

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

for purposes of addressing the
operational risks of Algorithmic
Trading. Accordingly, § 38.255(b) would
contribute to orderly markets by
preventing orders that are outside of
pre-determined parameters and
ensuring a level-playing field among
clearing members.
As noted, the Commission believes
that proposed regulations § 38.255(b)
and (c) standardize existing industry
practices in this area, and that many of
the requirements are already followed
by the majority of DCMs. Accordingly,
the Commission notes that many of the
benefits of § 38.255(b) and (c) are
already being realized. The proposed
rule would help ensure that the benefits
of the required risk controls will be fully
realized across all DEA active
participants and sustained in the future.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

xv. § 40.20 Costs—Pre-Trade and
Other Risk Controls (DCMs)
Based on Concept Release comments,
best practices documents issued by
industry or regulatory organizations, as
well as existing regulations, the
Commission believes that most DCMs
already implement the specificallyenumerated pre-trade and other risk
controls required pursuant to proposed
§ 40.20. In response to the Concept
Release, CME and CFE indicated that
they implement message rate limits,660
order size limits, and price collar
mechanisms.661 In addition, they
indicated that they provide an optional
cancel-on-disconnect functionality 662
and kill switch tools.663 The
Commission notes that these types of
controls have been subject of industry
best practices for years. For example,
ESMA guidelines from 2012
recommended that trading platforms
implement, among other things,
throttling limits and controls filtering
order price and quantity.664 In addition,
the CFTC TAC recommended in 2011
that exchanges implement, among other
things, message throttles, order quantity
limits, price collars, and order
cancellation policies that allow clearing
firms and clients to opt for automatic
cancellation of order upon disconnect
and provide clearing firms with a tool
that allows them to view and cancel
orders.665
660 In addition, four commenters stated generally
that many exchanges have messaging rate limits in
place. See TCL at 6; KCG at 4; MFA at 7; AIMA at
8.
661 CME at 8–9, 13–17; CME Appendix A–1, 3–
4, 6; CFE at 5–8.
662 CME at 23–24, Appendix A–4; CFE at 9–10.
663 CME at 23–24.
664 ESMA Guidelines, supra note 61 at 12–13.
665 CFTC TAC Recommendations, supra note 34
at 4–5.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

While the Commission believes that
most DCMs already implement the
controls required by § 40.20, it
acknowledges that there may be DCMs
that do not currently implement such
controls, and those DCMs would incur
some costs to comply with this
regulation. An initial investment would
be required to develop and implement
processes necessary for compliance, and
ongoing costs would be incurred to
maintain such controls. The costs for
each DCM will vary depending on the
degree to which its current practices are
or are not in compliance, as well as the
procedures it selects and implements in
order to comply. In addition, as noted
above with respect to § 38.255(b) and
(c), the Commission acknowledges that
Regulation AT could have adverse
effects on smaller DCMs. Any
compliance costs that go beyond
existing industry practice could
potentially cause some DCMs to cease or
scale back operation, and could
potentially impact the entry of new
DCMs.
Estimate—Upgrade of Controls. With
respect to a DCM that already has the
controls required by proposed § 40.20 in
place, and only needs to update them to
meet regulatory requirements (i.e.,
evaluate current systems, modify or
create new code, and test systems), the
Commission estimates that the cost to
the DCM would be $155,520. This cost
is broken down as follows: 1 Project
Manager, working for 480 hours (480 ×
$70 per hour = $33,600); 1 Business
Analyst, working for 480 hours (480 ×
$52 per hour = $24,960); 1 Tester,
working for 480 hours (480 × $52 per
hour = $24,960); and 2 Developers,
working for a combined 960 hours (960
× $75 per hour = $72,000). The
Commission estimates that if a DCM
already has at least some of the controls
required by § 40.20, there will be no
additional annual costs to maintain the
modifications required to bring the
systems into compliance with this
regulation.
Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that the 15 DCMs that will be
subject to § 40.20 would therefore incur
a total one-time cost of $2,332,800 (15
× $155,520) to update their controls.
The Commission notes that a DCM
can choose not to develop these controls
internally, but rather may purchase a
solution from an outside vendor (or
another DCM) in order to comply with
§ 40.20. The Commission welcomes
comments providing estimates
concerning the cost for a DCM to use
technology solution from an outside
party to comply with this proposed
regulation. In addition, as discussed
above, the Commission believes that the

PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

above estimates for § 40.20 would
change if a DCM is simultaneously
upgrading its systems in order to
comply with § 38.255. Where the DCM
is already upgrading controls for FCM
implementation pursuant to § 38.255,
the cost of upgrading controls for its
own implementation pursuant to § 40.20
should decrease.
The Commission emphasizes that
costs listed above are estimates, and it
welcomes comment on their accuracy.
The Commission further emphasizes
that the costs for each DCM will vary.
Finally, the Commission notes that, as
indicated above, these estimates may
overstate the actual costs to DCMs.
Based on Concept Release comments,
best practices issued by industry and
regulatory organizations, as well as
existing regulations, the Commission
believes that DCMs are largely already
using the pre-trade and other risk
controls required by § 40.20.
xvi. § 40.20 Benefits—Pre-Trade and
Other Risk Controls (DCMs)
The Commission believes that the pretrade risk and order management
control requirements that DCMs must
implement pursuant to proposed
§ 40.20, inasmuch as they are not
currently implemented, will contribute
to a system-wide reduction in
operational risk, and will help
standardize risk management practices
across exchanges. These enhanced risk
management practices should help
reduce unintended market volatility and
mitigate and prevent significant
disruptive activity caused by
algorithmic trading malfunctions.
In addition, given that FCMs may
have differing information about the
trading activities of their customers/
users, a DCM may be better able to
identify unintended market behavior.
For example, with respect to a trading
firm active in a single product and using
multiple clearing firms, identifying total
order frequencies or inventory levels
may be more easily done at the market
venue. To protect against the broadest
set of errors, there are benefits to
implementing risk controls at multiple
points in the order chain, including the
DCM.
As noted, the Commission believes
that proposed § 40.20 standardizes
existing industry practices in this area,
and that many of the requirements are
already followed by the majority of
DCMs. Accordingly, the Commission
notes that many of the benefits of
§ 40.20 are already being realized. The
proposed rule would help ensure that
the benefits of the required risk controls
will be fully realized and sustained in
the future.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
xvii. § 40.21 Costs—DCM Test
Environments for AT Persons (DCMs)
The Commission believes that the
majority of DCMs have implemented
test environments in which market
participants may test their algorithmic
systems. The Commission received
comments in response to the Concept
Release that ‘‘many, if not all, exchanges
provide market participants a test
facility to test trading software and
algorithms, as well as offer test symbols
to trade.’’ 666 The Commission believes
that most if not all DCM’s already
provide test environments that would
comply with proposed § 40.21. As a
result, subject to consideration of
relevant comments, the Commission
preliminarily believes that DCMs will
not incur any material additional costs
to comply with the proposed regulation.
The Commission is therefore not
estimating any costs for DCMs in
connection with the proposed
regulation in this discussion.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

xviii. § 40.21 Benefits—DCM Test
Environments for AT Persons (DCMs)
As noted, the Commission believes
that proposed § 40.21 standardizes
existing industry practices in this area,
and that the requirements are already
followed by the majority of DCMs.
Accordingly, the Commission notes that
many of the benefits of § 40.21 are
already being realized. The proposed
rule will help ensure that the benefits
are being realized at all DCMs and
sustained in the future. Proposed
§ 40.21 requires DCMs to provide test
environments in which market
participants may test their algorithmic
systems. This regulation is designed to
promote testing of algorithmic systems
using data and market conditions that
approximate as closely as possible those
of a live trading environment. Such
testing should enable market
participants to discover potential issues
in the design of their algorithmic
systems that were not discovered in
their own test environment, thereby
mitigating the risk that algorithmic
systems cause market disruptions by
failing to operate as intended in the
production environment. Comments
received in response to the Concept
Release indicate that DCMs recognize
the benefit of providing such test
environments to their market
participants. For example, CME
indicated that market participants
routinely test in their own testing
environments using historical data to
test trading strategies against a range of
market conditions, and that exchanges

commonly make their own historical
data available for testing purposes. CME
stated that it requires all systems
interfacing with CME Globex to be
certified on the order entry and/or
market data interfaces prior to
deployment.667 FIA also recommended
the use of DCM test environments,
noting in its comment letter, ‘‘We
encourage DCMs to develop more robust
test environments that more closely
simulate trading in the production
environment, and market participants to
thoroughly test new and modified
software in these DCM provided
simulators when necessary.’’ 668
xix. § 40.22 Costs—DCM Review of
Compliance Reports (DCMs)
Proposed § 40.22 complements the
requirement under § 1.83 for AT Persons
and clearing member FCMs to submit
compliance reports to DCMs. Proposed
40.22(a) requires a DCM to implement
rules that require each AT Person that
trades on the DCM, and each FCM that
is a clearing member of a DCO for such
AT Person, to submit the reports
described in § 1.83(a) and (b),
respectively. Under proposed § 40.22(b),
a DCM must require the submission of
such reports by June 30th of each year.
Proposed § 40.22(c) requires a DCM to
establish a program for effective
periodic review and evaluation of
reports described in paragraph (a) of
§ 40.22, and of the measures described
therein. An effective program must
include measures by the DCM
reasonably designed to identify and
remediate any insufficient mechanisms,
policies and procedures described in
such reports, including identification
and remediation of any inadequate
quantitative settings or calibrations of
pre-trade risk controls required of AT
Persons pursuant to § 1.80(a).
In addition, as a complement to the
compliance report review program
described above, proposed § 40.22(d)
requires each AT Person to keep and
provide to the DCM books and records
regarding their compliance with all
requirements pursuant to § 1.80 and
§ 1.81, and requires each clearing
member FCM to keep and provide to the
DCM market books and records
regarding their compliance with all
requirements pursuant to § 1.82. Finally,
proposed § 40.22(e) requires DCMs to
review and evaluate, as necessary, books
and records required to be kept
pursuant to § 40.22(d), and the measures
described therein. An appropriate
review pursuant to § 40.22(e) should
include measures by the DCM
667 CME

666 MFA

at 13.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

668 FIA

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

at 25–26.
at 35.

Frm 00085

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78907

reasonably designed to identify and
remediate any insufficient mechanisms,
policies, and procedures described in
such books and records.
DCM Establishment of Review
Program. The Commission estimates
that a DCM will incur a total one-time
cost of $37,000 to establish the review
program required by proposed § 40.22.
This cost is broken down as follows: 1
Tester, working for 200 hours (200 × $52
per hour = $10,400); 1 Developer,
working for 200 hours (200 × $75 per
hour = $15,000); and 1 Senior
Compliance Examiner, working for 200
hours (200 × $58 per hour = $11,600).669
The 15 DCMs to which § 40.22 would
apply would therefore incur a total onetime cost of $555,000 (15 × 37,000) to
establish the review program required
by § 40.22.670
DCM Review of Compliance Reports
(§ 40.22(c)). Proposed § 40.22(a) and (b)
would require DCMs to implement rules
that require AT Persons, and FCMs that
are clearing members for AT Persons, to
submit the reports required of AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs by
proposed § 1.83. Proposed § 40.22(c)
requires a DCM to establish a program
for effective periodic review and
evaluation of reports described in
paragraph (a) of § 40.22, and of the
measures described therein. As
discussed in section V(D)(e) above,
Commission staff estimates that each
DCM will review 120 reports per year
pursuant to § 40.22(c). The Commission
estimates that a DCM will incur a total
cost of $925 to review each report
required by § 40.22. This cost is broken
down as follows: 1 Tester, working for
5 hours (5 × $52 per hour = $260); 1
Developer, working for 5 hours (5 × $75
per hour = $375); and 1 Senior
Compliance Examiner, working for 5
hours (5 × $58 per hour = $290), for a
total review cost of $925 per report. If
a DCM reviews an average of 120 reports
per year, a DCM would require 1,800
hours per year to review the 120 reports
(15 hours × 120 reports), and would
incur a cost of $111,000 per year. The
15 DCMs to which § 40.22 would apply
would incur a total annual cost of
$1,665,000 (15 × $111,000) to conduct
such a review.
DCM Communication of Remediation
Instructions (§ 40.22(c)). Proposed
§ 40.22(c) states that an effective review
program must include measures by the
DCM reasonably designed to identify
and remediate any insufficient
mechanisms, policies and procedures
669 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
670 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of persons subject to Regulation AT.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

78908

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

described in such reports, including
identification and remediation of any
inadequate quantitative settings or
calibrations of pre-trade risk controls
required of AT Persons pursuant to
proposed § 1.80(a). The Commission
estimates that a DCM will communicate
remediation instructions in connection
with approximately 20% of the reports
reviewed on an annual basis (or 24
reports, which is 20% of 120 reports).
The Commission estimates that a DCM
will incur a total cost of $925 to
communicate remediation instructions
for a report required by § 40.22. This
cost is broken down as follows: 1 Tester,
working for 5 hours (5 × $52 per hour
= $260); 1 Developer, working for 5
hours (5 × $75 per hour = $375); and 1
Senior Compliance Examiner, working
for 5 hours (5 × $58 per hour = $290),
for a total review cost of $925 per report
giving rise to remediation instructions.
If a DCM provides remediation
instructions in connection with 24
reports per year, a DCM would require
360 hours per year to review the 24
reports (15 hours × 24 reports), and
would incur a cost of $22,200 per year.
The 15 DCMs to which § 40.22(c) would
apply would incur a total annual cost of
$333,000 (15 × $22,200) to conduct such
a review.
DCM Review of Books and Records
(§ 40.22(e)). Proposed § 40.22(d) requires
each AT Person to keep and provide to
the DCM books and records regarding
their compliance with all requirements
pursuant to §§ 1.80 and 1.81, and
requires each clearing member FCM to
keep and provide to the DCM market
books and records regarding their
compliance with all requirements
pursuant to § 1.82. The cost of these
obligations to AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs under § 40.22(d) is
discussed above in this section.
Proposed § 40.22(e) requires DCMs to
review and evaluate, as necessary, books
and records required to be kept
pursuant to § 40.22(d), and the measures
described therein. The Commission
notes that § 40.22(e) does not prescribe
how frequently DCMs should perform
this review, or how many AT Persons
and clearing member FCMs should be
evaluated on an annual basis. For
purposes of generating a cost estimate,
the Commission anticipates that a DCM
will find it necessary to review the
books and records of approximately
10% of AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs on an annual basis. For
example, a DCM may find it necessary
to conduct such a review if: it becomes
aware if an AT Person’s kill switch is
frequently activated, or otherwise
performs in an unusual manner; if a
DCM becomes aware that an AT

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

Person’s algorithm frequently performs
in a manner inconsistent with its
design, which may raise questions about
the design or monitoring of the AT
Person’s algorithms; if a DCM identifies
frequent trade practice violations at an
AT Person, which are related to an
algorithm of the AT Person; or if an AT
Person represents significant volume in
a particular product, thereby requiring
heightened scrutiny, among other
reasons. DCMs may find it appropriate
to review the books and records of AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs on
a more or less frequent basis, depending
on other relevant considerations.
The Commission estimates that AT
Persons will generally be active on half
of the 15 DCMs. If a DCM reviews the
books and records of 10% of AT Persons
and clearing member FCMs on an
annual basis, a DCM will review 24
entities on an annual basis (420 AT
Persons + 57 clearing member FCMs =
477. 477/2 = 239 entities. 239 × .1 = 24).
The Commission estimates that a DCM
will incur a total cost of $4,620 to
review the books and records of an
entity pursuant to § 40.22(e). This cost
is broken down as follows: 1 Senior
Compliance Examiner, working for 30
hours (30 × $58 per hour = $1,740); and
1 Compliance Attorney, working for 30
hours (5 × $96 per hour = $2,880), for
a total review cost of $4,620 per entity
reviewed by a DCM. If a DCM reviews
the books and records of 24 entities per
year, a DCM would require 1,440 hours
per year to review the 24 entities (60
hours × 24 entities), and would incur a
cost of $110,880 per year. The 15 DCMs
to which § 40.22(e) would apply would
incur a total annual cost of $1,663,200
(15 × $110,880) to review such books
and records.
Total Cost to DCMs for Proposed
§ 40.22 Requirements. A DCM will
therefore incur $133,200 ($111,000 +
$22,200) on an annual basis to review
all reports received at least once every
two years, communicate instructions to
persons whose controls the DCM has
determined are insufficient, and will
incur $110,880 on an annual basis to
review the books and records of 24 AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs.
The 15 DCMs to which § 40.22 would
apply would therefore incur a total
annual cost of $3,661,200 ($1,665,000 +
$333,000 + $1,663,200) to maintain the
review program required by § 40.22.
The Commission also acknowledges
that the compliance requirements on
DCMs in Regulation AT could have
adverse effects on smaller DCMs. Any
compliance costs that go beyond
existing industry practice could
potentially cause some DCMs to cease or

PO 00000

Frm 00086

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

scale back operation, and impact the
entry of new DCMs.
xx. § 40.22 Benefits—DCM Review of
Compliance Reports (DCMs)
Proposed § 40.22 is a complement to
proposed § 1.83, which would require
AT Persons, and FCMs that are clearing
members for AT Persons, to submit
reports regarding compliance with
§ 1.80(a) and pursuant to § 1.82(a)(1),
respectively, to each DCM on which
they operate, and to keep and provide
upon request to DCMs books and
records regarding their compliance with
all §§ 1.80 and 1.81 (for AT Persons) and
§ 1.82 (for clearing member FCMs)
requirements. New § 40.22 would
require each DCM that receives a report
described in § 1.83 to establish a
program for effective review and
evaluation of the reports. By requiring
DCMs to review the reports, identify
outliers, and communicate instructions
to outliers in order to remediate their
pre-trade risk controls, proposed § 40.22
will standardize market participants’
pre-trade risk controls required
pursuant to proposed § 1.80(a). Further,
DCM review of compliance reports is an
important safeguard to prevent trading
firms, the ‘‘outliers’’ described above,
from operating without sufficient
controls. Proposed § 40.22(e) will
complement the review of compliance
reports, by requiring DCMs to review
and evaluate, as necessary, the books
and records kept by AT Persons to
demonstrate their compliance with
§§ 1.80 and 1.81, and the books and
records kept by clearing member FCMs
to demonstrate their compliance with
§ 1.82. A single Algorithmic Trading
malfunction at a single market
participant can significantly impact
markets and market participants.
Accordingly, all DCMs and market
participants benefit from a review
program that ensures that market
participants conducting Algorithmic
Trading have adequate pre-trade risk
controls in place.
c. Section 15(a) Factors
This section discusses the CEA
section 15(a) factors for the following
proposed regulations: (i) The
requirement that AT Persons implement
pre-trade risk controls and other related
measures (§ 1.80); (ii) standards for the
development, testing, and monitoring of
Algorithmic Trading systems by AT
Persons (§ 1.81); (iii) RFA standards for
automated trading and algorithmic
trading systems of their members
(§ 170.19); (iv) the requirement that AT
Persons must become a member of a
futures association (§ 170.18); (v) the
requirement that clearing member FCMs

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

implement pre-trade risk controls and
other related measures (§ 1.82); (vi) the
requirement that AT Persons submit
compliance reports to DCMs regarding
their risk controls and Algorithmic
Trading procedures and clearing
member FCMs submit compliance
reports to DCMs regarding their risk
control program for AT Person
customers, and that AT Persons and
clearing member FCMs keep and
provide upon request to DCMs certain
related books and records (§ 1.83); (vii)
the requirement that DCMs implement
pre-trade risk controls and other related
measures (§§ 38.255 and 40.20); (viii)
the requirement that DCMs provide test
environments where AT Persons may
test their Algorithmic Trading systems
(§ 40.21); and (ix) the requirements of
§ 40.22, including that DCMs:
implement rules requiring AT Persons
and clearing member FCMs to submit
compliance reports each year (§ 40.22(a)
and (b)); establish a program for
effective periodic review and evaluation
of the reports (§ 40.22(c)); require each
AT Person to keep and provide to the
DCM books and records regarding their
compliance with all requirements
pursuant to §§ 1.80 and 1.81, and
require each clearing member FCM to
keep and provide to the DCM market
books and records regarding their
compliance with all requirements
pursuant to § 1.82 (§ 40.22(d)); and
require DCMs to review and evaluate, as
necessary, books and records required to
be kept pursuant to § 40.22(d), and the
measures described therein (§ 40.22(e)).
i. Protection of Market Participants and
the Public
The Commission preliminarily
believes that Regulation AT would
protect market participants and the
public by limiting a ‘‘race to the
bottom,’’ in which certain entities
sacrifice effective risk controls in order
to minimize costs or increase the speed
of trading. The proposed rules, by
standardizing the risk controls required
to be used by firms, would help ensure
that the benefits of these risk controls
are more evenly distributed across a
wide set of market participants, and
reduce the likelihood that an outlier
firm without sufficient risk controls
causes significant market disruption.
The requirements under proposed
§§ 170.18 and 170.19 that all AT
Persons be registered as a member of a
futures association, and subject to an
RFA program promulgating standards
for automated trading and algorithmic
trading systems, further promotes the
standardization of risk controls.
Moreover, the proposed rules, to the
extent that they increase the usage of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

effective risk and order management
controls, may reduce the likelihood that
market participants execute trades at
terms they do not intend. This is
particularly important as to price, as
market participants and members of the
public rely on the prices of trades
executed on DCMs, often for products
not directly traded on the DCM. The
requirements of proposed § 40.22,
which requires DCMs to review the
compliance reports and the books and
records of AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs, may promote protection
of market participants and the public by
helping to ensure that the risk control
rules are followed in a consistent
manner and may further reduce the
likelihood of Algorithmic Trading
Events and Algorithmic Trading
Disruptions. Applying Regulation AT to
all market levels—the trading firm, the
clearing member, and the exchange—
may further protect market participants
and the public by providing multiple
layers of protection against market
disruptions. In addition, including
automated order routers in the
Algorithmic Trading definition may
protect market participants and the
public by providing these protections to
a wider set of automated systems that
may have the potential to disrupt the
markets.
Finally, the absence of pre-trade risk
and order management controls at
automated firms increases the chances
for unintended trading behavior,
including algorithms acting beyond
their parameters or risk levels, resulting
in unexpected market volatility or
market disruptions (potentially across
multiple market venues), distorted
prices, and risks that could harm the
economy and the public.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and
Financial Integrity of Futures Markets
The Commission preliminarily
believes that by addressing pre-trade
risk controls, testing, and order
management controls at all market
levels—the trading firm, the clearing
member, and the exchange—Regulation
AT provides standards that can be
interpreted and enforced in a uniform
manner. Implementation of Regulation
AT would help mitigate instabilities in
the markets and ensure market
efficiency and integrity. Regulation AT
may serve to limit a ‘‘race to the
bottom,’’ in which certain entities
sacrifice effective risk controls in order
to minimize costs or increase the speed
of trading. The proposed rules, by
standardizing the risk controls required
to be used by firms, would help ensure
that the benefits of these risk controls
are more evenly distributed across a

PO 00000

Frm 00087

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78909

wide set of market participants, and
reduce the likelihood that an outlier
firm without sufficient risk controls
causes significant market disruption.
In particular, the implementation of
such controls and systems would help
prevent the occurrence of unintended
and erroneous trades, and therefore
contribute to market efficiency and
integrity. For example, Regulation AT
requires that trading firms, clearing
members and exchanges implement
maximum order size limits. That control
is intended to prevent unintentionally
large orders from entering the market
and causing unintended executions. The
Commission believes that a positive
trading intention behind an execution is
integral to the operations of an efficient
market and to market integrity. By
limiting the potential for erroneous
executions, Regulation AT should
enhance market efficiency and integrity
by minimizing the number of trades that
are subsequently broken and ensuring
that publicly reported transaction prices
are valid. Similarly, Regulation AT
requires message and execution
throttles, which mitigate the risks of
executing large numbers of unintended
orders, potentially harming market
efficiency and integrity. Ensuring that
only bona fide and intentional orders
are entered into the market may also
help promote market competitiveness
by helping to ensure that a single entity
does not inadvertently dominate the
market due to unintended excessive
orders.
The Commission acknowledges that
certain aspects of Regulation AT, such
as the compliance reports, could have
adverse effects on some trading firms
due to the cost of creating and
submitting the compliance reports, and
to the extent that firms do not already
do so, implementing and maintaining
the proposed regulation’s required pretrade risk and order management
controls. In order to mitigate costs to
trading firms, the Commission is
restricting the need for trading firm
level risk controls and the associated
compliance reports to those entities that
are registered with the Commission in
some capacity. For those who are not
required to register, pre-trade risk
controls will be executed by the entity’s
clearing firm and the contract market
the entity trades on and compliance
reports will be submitted by the clearing
FCM.
According to a study by the
Commission’s Division of Swap Dealer
and Intermediary Oversight that was
presented to the Commission’s
Agricultural Advisory Committee on

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

78910

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

September 22, 2015,671 the number of
active FCMs has declined in recent
years from 180 in 2005 to 76 in
December 2014. The decline over this
period in the number of FCMs holding
customer assets was not as large as the
overall decline in the number of FCMs:
from 85 to 60. The decline in the
number of FCMs can be attributed to a
number of factors, including low
interest rates (which can reduce FCM
profitability by lowering the rate of
return on the investment of customer
funds) and the changing regulatory
environment. The compliance and other
costs on clearing FCMs that go beyond
existing industry practice could, in
conjunction with existing factors that
are pressuring FCMs, potentially cause
some additional FCMs to scale back
operations, or make it less likely that
new FCMs will enter the market. The
Commission also notes the possibility
that if clearing FCMs are required to
establish and maintain pre-trade risk
controls and order cancellation systems
pursuant to § 1.82(c) with respect to AT
Order Messages originating with AT
Persons that do not use DEA and to
submit compliance reports regarding
their risk controls, they may refuse to
serve such firms in light of the
additional costs or may raise trading
fees to cover these costs. Such potential
increased costs may make it more
difficult for new trading firms to enter
the market and for certain existing
trading firms to remain in the market.
This could happen if FCMs determines
to cease serving firms that, in light of
the increased costs, are no longer
profitable for the FCM. However, it is
possible that the rule will create a
market opportunity for certain FCMs to
specialize in monitoring the operation
of Algorithmic Trading systems used by
trading firms that do not use DEA. This
may mitigate the impact of other FCMs
exiting the market or new FCMs
choosing not to enter the market and
may mitigate the impact on trading
firms.
The potential reduction in the number
of clearing FCMs and market
participants due to increased costs
could reduce liquidity and increase
transaction costs in futures markets. The
proposed rules also impose costs on
DCMs that, to the extent they go beyond
existing industry practice (including the
costs of reviewing submissions from AT
Persons and FCMs pursuant to proposed
§ 40.22), may significantly affect small
or start-up DCMs. However, the
Commission emphasizes the general
671 The presentation is available at http://
www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@aboutcftc/
documents/file/aac092215presentations_dsio.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

benefits that Regulation AT provides to
the market, such as the protection of
market integrity and efficiency, which
were impacted by previous disruptive
market events. As noted in section III
above, for example, the events at Knight
Capital significantly impacted the
equities market. Due to coding errors in
Knight’s systems, the firm’s automated
trading system inadvertently built up
unintended positions in the equity
market, eventually resulting in losses of
more than $460 million for the firm.672
In addition, the Flash Crash in 2010
impacted market efficiency in several
respects; for example, due to the
extreme price movement, the exchanges
and FINRA made a determination to
cancel a significant number of trades
that were executed during the crash.673
The Commission has preliminarily
determined that burdens placed on
market participants, FCMs, and DCMs
imposed by Regulation AT is justified
by the benefits in ensuring that all
orders submitted through Algorithmic
Trading pass through effective controls
and systems that mitigate the risks of
malfunctioning automated trading
systems. The Commission has
endeavored to minimize the compliance
burden in Regulation AT to the
minimum level necessary to protect
market participants and the public.
The proposed rules may promote the
financial integrity of futures markets by
reducing the likelihood of flash crashes
and other automated trading
disruptions. Such disruptions can place
financial strain on market participants,
intermediaries, and DCOs.
iii. Price Discovery
Requiring trading firms, clearing
members and exchanges to implement
pre-trade risk controls, testing, and
order management control requirements
in order to mitigate the risk of a
malfunctioning trading algorithm or
automated trading disruption promotes
the price discovery process by reducing
the likelihood of transactions at prices
that do not accurately reflect market
forces.
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
The Commission believes that the pretrade risk and order management
672 See

SEC Knight Capital Release, supra note 39.
noted in the Flash Crash Report, ‘‘during
the 20 minute period between 2:40 p.m. and 3:00
p.m., over 20,000 trades (many based on retailcustomer orders) across more than 300 separate
securities, including many ETFs, were executed at
prices 60% or more away from their 2:40 p.m.
prices. After the market closed, the exchanges and
FINRA met and jointly agreed to cancel (or break)
all such trades under their respective ‘clearly
erroneous’ trade rules.’’ See the Flash Crash Report,
supra note 121 at 6.
673 As

PO 00000

Frm 00088

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

control requirements contained in
Regulation AT will contribute to a
system-wide reduction in operational
risk, and will help standardize risk
management practices across similar
entities within the marketplace. The
reduction in operational risk may
simplify the tasks associated with sound
risk management practices. These
enhanced risk management practices
should help reduce unintended market
volatility, which will aid in efficient
market making, and reduce overall
transaction costs as they relate to price
movements, which should encourage
market participants to trade in
Commission-regulated markets. Market
participants and those who rely on
prices as determined within regulated
markets should benefit from markets
that behave in an orderly and expected
fashion.
v. Other Public Interest Considerations
The Commission has not identified
any effects that these proposed rules
would have on other public interest
considerations other than those
addressed above.
d. Consideration of Alternatives
i. Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls
In proposing these regulations, the
Commission considered alternatives
suggested by comments to the Concept
Release. The Commission notes that the
Concept Release raised numerous
potential measures and controls, not all
of which are proposed in Regulation
AT. Accordingly, comments supporting
or opposing regulation in the area of
automated trading were made without
the benefit of knowing specifically what
regulations would be proposed. Some
commenters indicated that there was
already sufficient regulation in the area
of risk controls. For example, FIA
suggested that ‘‘the best approach to
achieve standardization is to reflect
industry best practices through working
groups of DCMs, FCMs and market
participants.’’ 674 CFE stated that there is
already sufficient regulation of DCMs in
relation to risk controls and that
exchange risk control practices should
evolve as technology and markets
evolve.675 MFA indicated that current
CFTC regulations and existing best
practices require entities to have
sufficient and effective pre-trade risk
controls.676 ICE commented that
exchanges are better able to implement
and update risk controls on a market-bymarket basis than through a
674 FIA

at 63.
at 1–2.
676 MFA at 5.
675 CFE

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Commission rulemaking.677 OneChicago
indicated that ‘‘additional mandates’’ as
to exchange risk controls will increase
costs and complexity.678
As noted above, the Concept Release
addresses a number of potential
measures that are not proposed as part
of Regulation AT. With respect to the
pre-trade risk and other controls
proposed in this NPRM, the
Commission acknowledges that many
best practices as to risk controls have
been developed without a regulatory
mandate, and that trading firms,
clearing member FCMs, and DCMs are
in the best position to determine the
most effective design of their own
particular risk controls and innovate
new forms of controls. However, the
Commission believes that regulation in
this area will better foster
standardization of controls across all
entities, including smaller firms or
exchanges that may, without regulation,
implement some but not all of the
controls required by Regulation AT.
This rulemaking may serve to limit a
‘‘race to the bottom’’ in which some
entities sacrifice effective risk controls
in order to minimize costs or increase
the speed of trading. In the context of
automated trading, a technological
malfunction at a single firm can have a
significant impact across markets and
market participants.679 Given that
reality, it is insufficient that some, but
not all, industry participants have the
appropriate risk controls. Requiring the
implementation of certain risk controls
through regulation will help ensure that
all industry participants have the
appropriate risk controls, thus fostering
trade certainty and market integrity for
all market participants. In determining
which risk controls discussed in the
Concept Release should be proposed in
this NPRM, the Commission has
attempted to propose those core risk
controls that it believes are currently
implemented by the majority of market
participants, foregoing certain risk
controls that are implemented by
relatively few market participants and
may be of less value in mitigating risk.
In addition, some commenters to the
Concept Release explained the
appropriate implementation or design of
particular pre-trade risk controls, which
are discussed above as relevant to each
control. Also as discussed above, the
Commission determined that, while it
believes that these comments are
reasonable and merit further
consideration by market participants as
677 ICE

at 1.

678 OneChicago

at 4–5.
e.g., the discussion of Knight Capital in
section III above.
679 See,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

they implement risk controls, the
specific design and operation of risk
controls should not be mandated by
regulation. Rather, given the wide
variety of trading firms, technology,
trading strategies, markets, and
products, the relevant entities—trading
firms, clearing firms, and DCMs—
should have the discretion to determine
the appropriate design of the specific
controls required by Regulation AT.
The remainder of this discussion
focuses on various alternative measures
that the Commission considered in
proposing these regulations, some of
which were discussed in the Concept
Release, and some of which are
contained in other regulatory systems.
The Commission evaluated various
regulatory definitions of algorithmic
trading when considering how to draft
a definition for purposes of this NPRM.
The Commission has proposed that the
definition of Algorithmic Trading will
include systems that make
determinations regarding any aspect of
the routing of an order, i.e., systems that
only make decisions as to the routing of
orders to one or more trading venues.
The Commission notes analogous
definitions adopted by the European
Commission under MiFID II and by
FINRA do not include automated
systems that only route orders as
algorithmic trading. Excluding
automated order routers would reduce
the number of automated systems
captured by Regulation AT relative to
the Commission’s proposal and may
reduce the number of AT Persons
subject to the costs of the regulation.
Nevertheless, the Commission believes
that automated order routers have the
potential to disrupt the market to a
similar extent as other types of
automated systems, and that there are
significant benefits to including
automated order routers in the proposed
regulations.
The Commission is also considering
expanding the definition of Algorithmic
Trading to encompass orders that are
generated using algorithmic methods
(e.g., an algorithm generates a buy or
sell signal at a particular time), but are
then manually entered into a front-end
system by a natural person, who
determines all aspects of the routing of
the orders. Such an alternative would
increase the number of automated
systems captured by Regulation AT
relative to the Commission’s proposal
and may increase the number of AT
Persons subject to the costs of the
regulation. The Commission
preliminarily believes that such
manually entered orders present less
risk than fully automated orders and
that the benefits of including them in

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78911

the definition of Algorithmic Trading
would therefore be limited.
In the event that a non-clearing FCM
or other entity acts only as a conduit for
orders, and does not make any
determinations with respect to such
orders, the conduit entity would not be
engaged in Algorithmic Trading, as that
definition is currently proposed. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
expanding the definition to include
conduit entities would not sufficiently
enhance the benefits associated with
Regulation AT relative to the additional
costs.
The Commission determined not to
extend Regulation AT to SEFs, a
proposal that was supported by one
Concept Release commenter. CFE stated
that any risk control requirements
should apply to SEFs, in addition to
DCMs. CFE explained that there must be
a level playing field between both DCMs
and SEFs and that there be no regulatory
disparities that would make it more
advantageous to list a swap on a SEF as
opposed to a DCM.680 The Commission
believes in fostering a level playing field
in its markets, and as a result any
requirements on DCMs arising out of
Regulation AT may ultimately be
imposed on SEFs at a later date.
However, as noted in section (C)(1)
above, an important consideration for
the Commission is that SEFs and SEF
markets are much newer and less liquid
than the more established and liquid
DCMs and DCM markets. While SEFs
and SEF markets are still in this nascent
stage, the Commission does not want to
impose additional requirements that
may have the effect of decreasing the
number of SEFs or decreasing liquidity.
Moreover, the Commission, based on its
present knowledge, believes that
automated trading is not as prevalent in
SEF markets as compared to DCM
markets. Therefore, the policy
considerations underlying Regulation
AT are not as critical, at least at this
time, in the SEF context.
Proposed § 1.82 requires clearing
FCMs to implement controls with
respect to AT Order Messages
originating with an AT Person. The
Commission is considering modifying
proposed § 1.82 to require clearing
FCMs to implement controls with
respect to all orders, including orders
that are manually submitted. Such a
requirement would correspond to the
requirement under proposed § 40.20(d)
that DCMs implement risk controls for
orders that do not originate from
Algorithmic Trading. The Commission
is considering this modification because
it recognizes that manually entered
680 CFE

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

at 2.

17DEP2

78912

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

orders also have the potential to cause
significant market disruption. The
Commission requests comment on this
proposed alternative formulation of
§ 1.82, which the Commission may
implement in the final rulemaking for
Regulation AT. The Commission
acknowledges that this proposed
alternative formulation would impose
additional costs on clearing FCMs
relative to the currently proposed § 1.82.
The Commission requests comment on
the potential benefits of this proposal
relative to the increased costs to clearing
FCMs, in addition to any other
comments regarding the effectiveness of
this proposal in terms of risk reduction.
ii. Compliance Reports
Proposed § 1.83 would require AT
Persons and clearing FCMs to submit
compliance reports to DCMs on an
annual basis. Such reports would need
to be submitted and certified annually
by the chief executive officer or the
chief compliance officer of the AT
Person or FCM. Proposed § 40.22 would
require DCMs to establish a program for
effective periodic review and evaluation
of the reports. The Commission has
proposed these regulations, using the
deadlines described above, because it
believes they represent an appropriate
balancing of the transparency and risk
reduction provided by the reports
against the burden placed on AT
Persons, clearing FCMs, and DCMs of
providing and reviewing the reports.
The Commission is considering the
alternatives of requiring AT Persons and
clearing FCMs to submit such reports
more or less frequently than annually.
The Commission is also considering the
alternatives of placing the responsibility
for certifying the reports required by
proposed § 1.83 only on the chief
executive officer, only on the chief
compliance officer, or permitting
certification from other officers of the
AT Person or FCM. While proposed
§ 40.22 would require DCMs to establish
a program for effective periodic review
and evaluation of the reports, the
Commission is considering the
alternative of requiring DCMs to review
the reports at more specific intervals.
The Commission considered the
alternative of requiring additional
information in the reports by AT
Persons to DCMs under proposed § 1.83,
including (1) descriptions of order
cancellation systems; (2) policies and
procedures for the development, testing,
and monitoring of Algorithmic Trading
systems; and (3) policies and procedures
for the training of Algorithmic Trading
staff. The Commission determined not
to propose these additional
requirements in order to limit costs both

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

to AT Persons and to the DCMs that will
be required to review the reports under
proposed § 40.22, while retaining the
benefits of protecting market
participants and the public from
disruptions and other adverse events
associated with automated trading.
Requirements related to RFAs. The
Commission is considering making
adjustments to the scope of RFA
responsibility under proposed § 170.19.
For example, RFAs could be responsible
for fewer or additional areas regarding
AT Persons, ATSs, and algorithmic
trading than specified in proposed
§ 170.19 and could have more or less
latitude to issue rules than under the
proposal.
e. Request for Comments
Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls
112. How would an alternative
definition of Algorithmic Trading that
excludes automated order routers affect
the costs and benefits of the pre-trade
and other risk controls in comparison to
the costs and benefits of the proposed
definition that includes automated order
routers? Would such an alternative
definition reduce the number of AT
Persons captured by Regulation AT?
113. Would the benefits of Regulation
AT be enhanced significantly if the
definition of Algorithmic Trading were
modified to capture a conduit entity
such as a non-clearing FCM, thereby
making the entity an AT Person subject
to Regulation AT? How would such a
modification affect costs?
114. Would the benefits of Regulation
AT be enhanced significantly if the
definition of Algorithmic Trading were
expanded to encompass orders that are
generated using algorithmic methods
(e.g., an algorithm generates a buy or
sell signal at a particular time), but are
then manually entered into a front-end
system by a natural person? How would
such a modification affect costs? Please
comment on the costs and benefits of an
alternative whereby the Commission
would implement specific rules
regarding the appropriate design of the
specific controls required by Regulation
AT and compare them to the costs and
benefits of the Commission’s proposal
whereby the relevant entities—trading
firms, clearing firms, and DCMs—would
have the discretion to determine the
appropriate design of those controls.
115. Does one particular segment of
trading firms, clearing member FCMs or
DCMs (e.g., smaller entities) currently
implement fewer of the pre-trade and
other risk controls required by
Regulation AT than some other segment
of trading firms, clearing member FCMs
or DCMs? If so, please describe any

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

unique or additional costs that will be
imposed on such persons to develop the
technology and systems necessary to
implement the pre-trade and other risk
controls required by Regulation AT.
116. In question 14, the Commission
asks whether there are any AT Persons
who are natural persons. Would AT
Persons who are natural persons (or sole
proprietorships with no employees
other than the sole proprietor) be
required to hire staff to comply with the
risk control, testing and monitoring, or
compliance requirements of Regulation
AT?
117. Do you agree with the accuracy
of cost estimates provided by the
Commission as to how much it will cost
a trading firm, clearing member FCM or
DCM to internally develop the
technology and systems necessary to
implement the pre-trade and other risk
controls required by Regulation AT? If
you disagree with the Commission’s
analysis, please provide your own
quantitative estimates, as well as data or
other information in support. Please
specify in your answer the type of entity
and which specific pre-trade risk or
order management controls for which
you are providing estimates.
In addition, please differentiate
between the situations where an entity
(i) already has partially compliant
controls in place, and only needs to
upgrade such technology and systems to
bring it into compliance with the
regulations; and (ii) needs to build such
technology and systems from scratch.
Please include, as applicable, hardware
and software costs as well as the hourly
wage information of the employee(s)
necessary to develop such risk controls
(i.e., technology personnel such as
programmer analysts, senior
programmers and senior systems
analysts).
118. The Commission has assumed
that the effort to adjust any one risk
control (by ‘‘control,’’ in this context,
the Commission means the pre-trade
risk controls, order cancellation
systems, and connectivity systems
required by § 1.80) will require
assessment and possible modifications
to all controls. Is this assumption
correct, and if not, why not?
119. As indicated above, the
Commission lacks sufficient information
to provide full estimates of costs that a
trading firm, clearing member FCM or
DCM will incur if it chooses not to
internally develop such controls, and
instead purchases the solutions of an
outside vendor in order to comply with
Regulation AT’s pre-trade and other risk
controls requirements. Please provide
quantitative estimates of such costs,
including supporting data or other

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
information. In addition, please specify
in your answer the type of entity and
which specific pre-trade risk or order
management control for which you are
providing estimates.
In addition, please differentiate
between the situations where an entity
(i) already uses an outside vendor to at
least some extent to implement the
controls; and (ii) does not currently
implement the controls and must obtain
all applicable technology and systems
from an outside vendor necessary to
comply with Regulation AT. Please
include, if applicable, hardware and
software costs as well as the hourly
wage information of the employee(s)
necessary to effectuate the
implementation of such controls from
an outside vendor.
120. Do you agree with the
Commission’s estimates of how much it
will cost a trading firm, clearing
member FCM or DCM to annually
maintain the technology and systems for
the pre-trade and other risk controls
required by Regulation AT, if it uses
internally developed technology and
systems? If not please provide
quantitative estimates and supporting
data or other information with respect to
how much it will cost a trading firm,
clearing member FCM or DCM to
annually maintain the technology and
systems for pre-trade and other risk
controls required by Regulation AT, if it
uses an outside vendor’s technology and
systems.
121. Is it correct to assume that many
of the trading firms subject to § 1.80 are
also subject to the SEC’s Market Access
Rule, and, accordingly, already
implement many of the systems
required by Regulation AT for purposes
of their securities trading?
Please specify in your answer the type
of entity and which specific pre-trade
risk or order management control is
already required pursuant to the Market
Access Rule, and the extent of the
overlap.
122. Please comment on the costs and
benefits (including quantitative
estimates with supporting data or other
information) to clearing FCMs of an
alternative to proposed § 1.82 that
would require clearing FCMs to
implement controls with respect to all
orders, including orders that are
manually submitted or are entered
through algorithmic methods that
nonetheless do not meet the definition
of Algorithmic Trading and compare
those costs and benefits to those costs
and benefits of proposed § 1.82.
123. Please comment on the
additional costs (including quantitative
estimates with supporting data or other
information) to AT Persons of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

complying with each of the following
specific requirements of § 1.80:
a. § 1.80(a)(2) (pre-trade risk control
threshold requirements);
b. § 1.80(a)(3) (natural person
monitors must be alerted when
thresholds are breached)
c. § 1.80(d) (notification to DCM and
clearing member FCM that AT Person
will use Algorithmic Trading);
d. § 1.80(e) (self-trade prevention
tools); and
e. § 1.80(f) (periodic review of pretrade risk controls and other measures
for sufficiency and effectiveness).
124. The Commission welcomes
comment on the estimated costs of the
pre-trade risk controls proposed in
§ 1.80 as compared to the annual
industry expenditure on technology,
risk mitigation and/or technology
compliance systems.
125. Please comment on the costs to
AT Persons and clearing member FCMs
of complying with DCM rules requiring
retention and production of records
relating to §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82
compliance, pursuant to § 40.22(d),
including without limitation on the
extent to which AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs already have policies,
procedures, staffing and technological
infrastructure in place to retain such
records and produce them upon DCM
request.
126. The Commission anticipates that
Regulation AT may promote confidence
among market participants and reduce
market risk, consequently reducing
transaction costs, but has not estimated
this reduction in transaction costs. The
Commission welcomes comment on the
extent to which Regulation AT may
impact transaction costs and effects on
liquidity provision more generally.
AT Person Membership in RFA; RFA
Standards for Automated Trading and
Algorithmic Trading Systems
127. The Commission estimates that
the costs of membership in an RFA
associated with proposed § 170.18 will
encompass certain costs, such as those
associated with NFA membership dues.
Has the Commission correctly identified
the costs associated with membership in
an RFA?
128. The Commission expects that
entities that will be required to become
members of an RFA would not incur
any additional compliance costs as a
result of their membership in an RFA.
The Commission requests comment on
the accuracy of this expectation. What
additional compliance costs, if any,
would a registrant face as a result of
being required to become a member of
an RFA pursuant to proposed § 170.18?

PO 00000

Frm 00091

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78913

129. Has the Commission accurately
estimated that approximately 100
entities will be affected by the
membership requirements of § 170.18?
130. The Commission invites
estimates on the cost to an RFA to
establish and maintain the program
required by § 170.19, and the amount of
that cost that will be passed along to
individual categories of AT Person
members in the RFA.
Development, Testing, and Supervision
of Algorithmic Systems
131. Proposed § 1.81(a) establishes
principles-based standards for the
development and testing of Algorithmic
Trading systems and procedures,
including requirements for AT Persons
to test all Algorithmic Trading code and
related systems and any changes to such
code and systems prior to their
implementation. AT Persons would also
be required to maintain a source code
repository to manage source code
access, persistence, copies of all code
used in the production environment,
and changes to such code, among other
requirements. Are any of the
requirements of § 1.81(a) not already
followed by the majority of market
participants that would be subject to
§ 1.81(a) (or some particular segment of
market participants), and if so, how
much will it cost for a market
participant to comply with such
requirement(s)?
132. Proposed § 1.81(b) requires that
an AT Person’s Algorithmic Trading is
subject to continuous real-time
monitoring and supervision by
knowledgeable and qualified staff at all
times while Algorithmic Trading is
occurring. Proposed § 1.81(b) also
requires automated alerts when an
Algorithmic Trading system’s AT Order
Message behavior breaches design
parameters, upon loss of network
connectivity or data feeds, or when
market conditions approach the
boundaries within which the ATS is
intended to operate, to the extent
applicable, among other monitoring
requirements. Are any of the
requirements of § 1.81(b) not already
followed by the majority of market
participants that would be subject to
§ 1.81(b), and if so, how much will it
cost for a market participant to comply
with such requirement(s)?
133. Proposed § 1.81(c) requires that
AT Persons implement policies
designed to ensure that Algorithmic
Trading operates in a manner that
complies with the CEA and the rules
and regulations thereunder. Among
other controls, the policies should
include a plan of internal coordination
and communication between

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78914

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

compliance staff of the AT Person and
staff of the AT Person responsible for
Algorithmic Trading regarding
Algorithmic Trading design, changes,
testing, and controls. Are any of the
requirements of § 1.81(c) not already
followed by the majority of market
participants that would be subject to
§ 1.81(c), and if so, how much will it
cost for a market participant to comply
with such requirement(s)?
134. Proposed § 1.81(d) requires that
AT Persons implement policies to
designate and train their staff
responsible for Algorithmic Trading,
which policies should include
procedures for designating and training
all staff involved in designing, testing
and monitoring Algorithmic Trading.
Are any of the requirements of § 1.81(d)
not already followed by the majority of
market participants that would be
subject to § 1.81(d), and if so, how much
will it cost for a market participant to
comply with such requirement(s)?
AT Person and FCM Compliance
Reports
135. Please comment on whether any
of the alternatives discussed above
regarding compliance reports would
provide a superior cost-benefit profile
relative to the Commission’s proposal.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

DCM Test Environments
136. Do any DCMs not currently offer
a test environment that simulates
production trading to their market
participants, as would be required by
proposed § 40.21? If so, how much
would it cost a DCM to implement a test
environment that would comply with
the requirements of § 40.21?
DCM Review of Compliance Reports
137. Please comment on the cost
estimates provided above with respect
to DCMs’ review of compliance reports
provided under § 40.22 and related
review requirements, including the
estimated cost for DCMs to: Establish
the review program required by § 40.22;
review the reports provided by AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs;
communicate remediation instructions
to a subset of AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs; and review and
evaluate, as necessary, books and
records of AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs as contemplated by
proposed § 40.22(e).
Section 15(a) Considerations
138. The Commission requests
comment on its discussion of the effects
of the proposed rules on the
considerations in § 15(a) of the CEA.
139. Are the compliance costs
associated with the proposed rules of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

sufficient magnitude to potentially
cause smaller market participants,
FCMs, or DCMs to cease or scale back
operations? Do these costs create
significant barriers to entry?
8. Requirements for Certain Entities To
Register as Floor Traders
a. Background
The Commission proposes to require
registration for certain market
participants with Direct Electronic
Access. To achieve registration, the
Commission proposes amending the
definition of ‘‘Floor trader’’ in
Commission regulation 1.3(x). The
amended definition would include any
person who purchases or sells futures or
swaps solely for such person’s own
account in any other place provided by
a contract market for the meeting of
persons similarly engaged where such
place is accessed for Algorithmic
Trading by such person in whole or in
part through Direct Electronic Access
(as defined in proposed § 1.3(yyyy)).
b. Costs
Registration and Membership Fees.
The new registration requirements
imposed on certain entities with Direct
Electronic Access would require these
entities to pay certain one-time
registration charges. NFA currently
charges non-natural persons applying
for registration as floor traders $200 per
application (on Form 7–R), and charges
individuals $85 per application (on
Form 8–R). The Commission estimates
that there will be approximately 100
entities with Direct Electronic Access
that will register as Floor Traders under
the new registration requirements. The
Commission further estimates that each
entity will be required to file 10 Forms
8–R in relation to its principals.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates
that new registrants will incur one-time
registration costs of $105,500 for Form
7–R and 8–R fees combined (Form 7–Rs
submitted by 100 new registrants, at
$200 per Form 7–R plus 10 Forms 8–R
submitted by each of 100 new
registrants, at $85 per Form 8–R).681
681 As noted previously, the Commission has
delegated its registration functions to NFA. Nonnatural person floor trader entities register with the
Commission and apply for membership in NFA via
CFTC Form 7–R. Principals of non-natural person
floor trader entities register via Form 8–R. The
Commission estimates that each non-natural person
floor trader entity will have approximately 10
principals and therefore need to file approximately
10 Forms 8–R. In the event that a natural person
meets the definition of Floor Trader in proposed
§ 1.3(x)(3), and is therefore required to register with
the Commission and become a member of NFA,
such person would only be required to complete
Form 8–R and would face substantially lower costs
than those estimated here. The Form 7–R and 8–

PO 00000

Frm 00092

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Costs for Submitting Applications. In
addition, the Commission estimates that
new registrants will incur a total onetime cost of $105,600 to prepare and
submit Forms 7–R and 8–R. This cost
represents the work of 1 Compliance
Attorney per registrant, working for 11
hours (11 × $96 = $1,056 per
registrant).682 The 100 new registrants
will therefore incur a total one-time cost
of $105,600.
Other Indirect Costs. The Commission
preliminarily believes that there are
additional indirect costs, beyond the
cost of registration, to new registrants
resulting from the new registration
requirement. New floor traders required
to register under proposed § 1.3(x)(3)
will be included in the definition of
‘‘AT Person.’’ These proposed rules
establish various requirements for AT
Persons, including the implementation
of risk controls for algorithmic systems
(proposed § 1.80), the implementation of
standards for development, testing, and
supervision of algorithmic systems
(proposed § 1.81), and the submission to
DCMs of compliance reports regarding
risk controls and, upon request, certain
related books and records (proposed
§ 1.83). Because these provisions apply
to AT Persons, new floor traders under
Proposed § 1.3(x)(3) will only be
required to follow these provisions as a
result of their status as a floor trader.
Thus, any costs associated with these
rules are also indirect costs of
registration itself.683
c. Benefits
The Commission preliminarily
believes that registration of certain
entities with Direct Electronic Access
would enhance the pre-trade controls
and risk management tools discussed
elsewhere in this NPRM. For example,
the pre-trade risk controls listed in
proposed § 1.80(a)—maximum AT
Order Message frequencies per unit
time, maximum execution frequencies
per unit time, order price parameters
and maximum order size limits—must
be established and used by all AT
Persons. If the Commission were to only
require those trading firms or clearing
member FCMs that are already
registered with the Commission to
implement such controls, it would be
ignoring a significant number of market
participants that actively trade on
Commission-regulated markets, each of
which has algorithmic trading systems
R fees estimated here are based on NFA’s current
fees.
682 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
683 See Section V(E)(7)(b) above for a discussion
of costs associated with Proposed §§ 1.80, 1.81, and
1.83.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
that could malfunction and create
systemic risk to all market participants.
The Commission estimates that there are
approximately one hundred proprietary
trading firms engaged in Algorithmic
Trading in Commission-regulated
markets. However, a technological
malfunction in a single trading firm’s
systems can significantly impact other
markets and market participants.
Accordingly, the proposed registration
requirement accomplished through
revised § 1.3(x) is critical to ensuring
that all such firms are registered and
subject to appropriate risk control,
testing, and other requirements of
Regulation AT.
A number of commenters to the
Concept Release pointed out benefits of
additional registration.684 AFR stated
that ‘‘[t]he enhancement of investigative
authority is extraordinarily important
given that the Commission would often
need to involve itself in the workings of
the ATSs to anticipate problems and to
detect and investigate problems that
have occurred. HFT firms should have
the highest priority.’’ 685
AIMA and VFL specifically
emphasized benefits of registration for
participants with direct market
access.686 VFL commented that if an
exchange provides a participant the
ability to connect directly, then that
participant enjoys all of the rights of a
member and should be regulated at the
federal and exchange level.687

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

d. Section 15(a) Factors
This section discusses the section
15(a) factors for the proposed
amendment of the definition of ‘‘Floor
trader’’ in Commission Regulation
1.3(x), for purposes of registering
participants with Direct Electronic
Access.
i. Protection of Market Participants and
the Public
The Commission preliminarily
believes that requiring market
participants with Direct Electronic
Access to register with the Commission
will further the protection of market
participants and the public by
enhancing the Commission’s ability to
seek information from such firms and
allow for wider implementation of many
of the pre-trade risk controls and other
tools discussed in this release. Broader
use of these tools will reduce the
likelihood of market disruptions that
adversely impact market participants
and the public. Regulation AT may
684 Better

Markets 13; AFR 8–9; TCL 17.
8–9.
686 AIMA 24; VFL 3.
687 VFL 3.
685 AFR

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

serve to limit a ‘‘race to the bottom,’’ in
which certain entities sacrifice effective
risk controls in order to minimize costs
or increase the speed of trading. The
proposed rules, by standardizing the
risk controls required to be used by
firms, would help ensure that the
benefits of these risk controls are more
evenly distributed across a wide set of
market participants, and reduce the
likelihood that an outlier firm without
sufficient risk controls causes
significant market disruption. Thus, the
proposed registration requirement may
help ensure the protections of market
participants and the public that these
tools provide as discussed above.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and
Financial Integrity of Futures Markets
The Commission preliminarily
believes that requiring market
participants with Direct Electronic
Access to register with the Commission
will further the efficiency,
competitiveness, and financial integrity
of futures markets by enhancing the
Commission’s ability to seek
information from such firms and allow
for wider implementation of many of
the pre-trade risk controls and other
tools discussed in this release. Broader
use of these tools will reduce the
likelihood of market disruptions that
may adversely impact the efficiency and
integrity of the futures markets.
Consistent use of these tools may also
even the playing field within groups of
automated firms, such as marketmakers, or across firms with differing
strategies. This consistency can improve
firm competitiveness and reduce
disadvantages experienced by those
firms who would employ more
comprehensive risk control and order
management programs even absent a
rule requiring use of such tools. Thus,
the proposed registration requirement
may help ensure the furtherance of
efficiency, competitiveness, and
financial integrity that these tools
provide as discussed above.
iii. Price Discovery
The Commission preliminarily
believes that requiring market
participants with direct market access to
register with the Commission will also
further price discovery by enhancing the
Commission’s ability to seek
information from such firms and allow
for wider implementation of many of
the pre-trade controls and risk
management tools discussed in this
release. Broader use of these tools will
reduce the likelihood of market
disruptions that may interfere with the
price discovery process. Thus, the
proposed registration requirement may

PO 00000

Frm 00093

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78915

help ensure the furtherance of price
discovery protections that these tools
provide as discussed above.
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
The Commission preliminarily
believes that requiring market
participants with direct market access to
register with the Commission will also
further sound risk management
practices by enhancing the
Commission’s ability to seek
information from such firms and allow
for wider implementation of many of
the pre-trade controls and risk
management tools discussed in this
release. Broader use of these tools will
reduce the likelihood of market
disruptions that may interfere with
sound risk management practices. Thus,
the proposed registration requirement
may help ensure the furtherance of
sound risk management practices that
these tools provide as discussed above.
v. Other Public Interest Considerations
The Commission has not identified
any effects that these proposed rules
would have on other public interest
considerations other than those
addressed above.
e. Consideration of Alternatives
The Commission considered a
number of alternatives to the proposed
approach of requiring registration for
entities with Direct Electronic Access.
In the Concept Release, the Commission
sought comments regarding broader
registration of proprietary traders
generally. Based upon the comments
received, many of which did not
support registration, the Commission is
not proposing broad registration of
proprietary traders at this time.
As an alternative to requiring the
registration of entities engaged in
proprietary Algorithmic Trading
through DEA, the Commission
considered reaching such entities
indirectly through the DCMs on which
they trade. This approach would have
necessitated that DCMs implement rules
requiring relevant entities to meet the
substantive standards of Regulation AT.
These DCM rules would have needed to
require, for example, that relevant
entities implement pre-trade risk
controls, establish policies and
procedures for testing and monitoring of
ATSs, and provide compliance reports
regarding their algorithmic trading to
DCMs (which are currently proposed as
direct obligations upon AT Persons
under §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.83,
respectively). This alternative would
have reduced the costs for such entities,
since they would not be required to
register with the Commission. However,

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

78916

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

such costs would instead have been
borne by DCMs, and potentially passed
back on to relevant entities. The
Commission did not pursue this
approach for a number of other reasons
as well. In particular, the Commission
wanted to ensure that such entities are
directly subject to Commission
regulations, rather than impose
obligations indirectly through DCMs. In
addition, the Commission wanted to
ensure a uniform baseline of regulatory
expectations which might not arise
where numerous DCMs are
independently producing their own selfregulatory standards in lieu of the
Commission’s standards. Furthermore,
the Commission also wanted to combine
the requirement to register with the
Commission with the requirement
under § 170.18 that all AT Persons must
become a member of a registered futures
association, so that the RFA can
consider adopting standards for
automated trading and ATSs applicable
to AT Persons. These standards are
described under § 170.19. As discussed
above, the Commission believes that
§§ 170.18 and 170.19 would allow RFAs
to supplement elements of Regulation
AT as markets and trading technologies
evolve over time, and do so in a uniform
manner that would not be available
through separate initiatives by
individual DCMs.
The Commission also considered not
requiring currently unregistered entities
to register with the Commission as floor
traders. A number of commenters
supported such an approach, including
FIA, which suggested ‘‘[r]ather than
creating a new registration framework,
expanding the information required in
[the DCM’s] audit trail may be a more
direct and efficient way to address the
Commission’s concerns.’’ 688 Other
commenters also focused on whether
the Commission already had access to
the information that registration would
ostensibly enable it to acquire.
Commenters pointed out that: DCMs
already use Operator IDs; the DCM audit
trail already satisfies the goals of
registration; implementing the
Commission’s final rule on ownership
and control reporting (OCR) will
provide additional information on
trading identities; and the Commission
already has access to trade data (i.e.,
Regulation 1.40 and part 38’s mandate
that DCMs require market participants
to submit to jurisdiction).689 The
Commission notes that obtaining
information from proprietary traders is
688 FIA

at 44.
43–46; CME at 32–34; Gelber at 22–24;
KCG at 18; MFA at 3; AIMA at 2, 24; Chicago Fed
at 3.
689 FIA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

not the primary purpose of the proposed
registration requirement, and therefore
believes that the goals of Regulation AT
can only be realized by requiring
currently unregistered entities to
register with the Commission as floor
traders.
As discussed more fully in section
IV(E)(3) above, the ‘‘floor trader’’
definition is not being expanded to
capture all proprietary traders engaged
in Algorithmic Trading; rather, the
revised floor trader definition is limited
to firms using DEA to engage in
Algorithmic Trading. Registration of
entities with DEA as floor traders would
enhance the pre-trade controls and risk
management tools discussed elsewhere
in this NPRM by making such entities
subject to the various regulations
governing AT Persons under the NPRM.
For example, the pre-trade risk controls
listed in proposed § 1.80—maximum AT
Order Message frequencies per unit
time, maximum execution frequencies
per unit time, order price parameters
and maximum order size limits—must
be established and used by all AT
Persons. The Commission is also
considering whether it is appropriate to
further limit the registration
requirement by adding a de minimis
exception, whereby only those persons
with DEA who also meet certain trading
volume or message volume thresholds
would be required to register.
f. Request for Comments
140. The Commission estimates that
the costs of registration will encompass
direct costs (those associated with NFA
membership, and reporting and
recordkeeping with the Commission),
and indirect costs (e.g. those associated
to risk control requirements placed on
all registered entities). Has the
Commission correctly identified the
costs associated with the new
registration category? What firm
characteristics would change the level
of direct and indirect costs associated
with the registration?
141. Has the Commission accurately
estimated that approximately 100
currently unregistered entities will be
captured by the new registration
requirement in proposed § 1.3(x)(3).
142. Has the Commission accurately
estimated that each currently
unregistered entity captured by the new
registration requirement in proposed
§ 1.3(x)(3) will have approximately 10
persons required to file Form 8–R?
143. As defined, the new floor trader
category restricts the registration
requirement to those who make use of
Direct Electronic Access. Is this
requirement overly restrictive or unduly
broad from a cost-benefit perspective?

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Are there alternate, or additional,
characteristics of trading activity to
determine registration status that would
be preferable from a cost-benefit
standpoint? For example, should
persons with trading volume or message
volume below a specified threshold be
exempted from registration?
144. Will any currently unregistered
entities change their business model or
exit the market in order to avoid the
proposed registration requirement?
145. The Commission believes that
the risk control protocols required of
registered entities, specifically those
under the new registration category, will
provide a general benefit to the safety
and soundness of market activity and
price formation. Has the Commission
correctly identified the type and level of
benefits which arise from placing these
requirements on a new set of significant
market participants?
146. The Commission requests
comment on its discussion of the effects
of the proposed rules on the
considerations in Section 15(a) of the
CEA.
9. Transparency in Exchange Trade
Matching Systems
a. Background
The proposed regulations concerning
additional disclosure by DCMs
regarding their trade matching systems
(amendments to §§ 38.401(a) and
40.1(i)) provide that DCMs publicly
disclose certain information
prominently and clearly. These
proposed regulations would require
DCMs to provide a description of
attributes of trade matching systems that
materially affect the entry and execution
of orders and requests for quotes,
including any changes to trade matching
systems that would cause such effects.
b. Costs
The Commission notes that DCMs are
currently obligated under DCM core
principles and existing regulations to
make available certain types of
information concerning the operation of
their electronic matching platforms
through publication of rulebooks and
through the required posting of
specifications of platforms on their Web
site. DCMs are also obligated under
DCM core principles and existing
regulations to establish and maintain a
program of risk analysis and oversight to
identify and minimize sources of
operation risk, which should identify
and remediate aspects of an electronic
matching platform that could negatively
affect market participants’ orders.
Therefore, to a large extent, the
Commission believes that the disclosure

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
requirements under proposed
§ 38.401(a) would not materially impact
a DCM’s operations costs.
The Commission anticipates that
additional costs under proposed
§ 38.401(a) would be staff hours
associated with drafting descriptions of
such attributes that the DCMs should
already be determining as part of their
systems testing and disclosure of
platform specifications. Such drafting
may also require additional
determinations as to the materiality of
attributes and, where applicable,
additional testing of systems to ensure
an accurate description of those
attributes in public documents. This
may also involve attorneys’ fees
associated with reviewing any
disclosures.
The proposed amendments to
§ 38.401(a) and (c) require DCMs to
publicly post information regarding
certain aspects of their electronic
matching platforms. The Commission
anticipates that DCMs are likely to be
aware of these aspects of their platforms
based on their daily work in operating
their matching engines, monitoring
performance, and receiving customer
feedback, among other internal
monitoring activities. As a result, the
added burden under the proposed
amendments would be limited to
drafting the description of such
attributes and making the description
available on the DCM’s Web site.
The Commission estimates that a
DCM would incur an annual cost of
$19,200 to comply with amended
§ 38.401(a)–(c), assuming the DCM is
already compliant with the
requirements to post the specifications
of its electronic matching platform
under current § 38.401(a). This cost
represents the work of 1 Compliance
Attorney, working for 200 hours (200 ×
$96 per hour = $19,200).690 The 15
DCMs that would be subject to amended
§ 38.401(a)–(c) would therefore incur a
total annual cost of $288,000 (15 ×
$19,200).691 The Commission
anticipates that this figure would
decrease in subsequent years as the
descriptions provided would only need
to be amended to reflect changes to the
electronic matching platform or the
discovery of previously unknown
attributes.
The proposed amendment to
Regulation 40.1(i) that adds the
language ‘‘(including but not limited to
any operation of an electronic matching
platform that materially affects the time,
690 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
691 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of persons subject to Regulation AT.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

priority, price, or quantity of execution
of market participant orders, the ability
to cancel, modify, or limit display of
market participant orders, or the
dissemination of real-time market data
to market participants)’’ would not
result in any additional costs for DCMs.
The Commission notes that the
proposed change to Regulation 40.1(i)
clarifies and codifies the Commission’s
existing interpretation of the term
‘‘rule.’’ Moreover, the proposal is
consistent with industry practice,
whereby DCMs have submitted as rule
changes information regarding proposed
changes to electronic trade matching
platform that affect the entry and
execution of market participant orders
and quotes. Therefore, the Commission
does not anticipate that DCMs will be
required to file submissions relating to
any changes to the platform that should
not already be filed under current
Commission interpretation and industry
practice.
c. Benefits
The Commission believes that the
additional disclosure by DCMs
regarding their trade matching systems,
pursuant to the proposed amendments
to §§ 38.401(a) and 40.1(i), would have
substantial benefits for market
participants. With a better
understanding of how their order
messages interact with an electronic
matching platform, market participants
can more efficiently use the electronic
markets to hedge risks. Moreover, the
disclosure required by the proposed rule
would foster greater transparency in the
operation of electronic markets. This
enhanced transparency would foster
confidence in the markets and ensure
the availability of efficient markets to
hedge risks. Finally, this increased
transparency would encourage
competition among DCMs to provide the
best platforms for market participants,
as market participants would be able to
evaluate better the relative benefits of
trading on individual exchanges. The
Commission believes that, to the extent
that DCMs are currently in compliance
with the proposed amendments to
§§ 38.401(a) and 40.1(i), many of the
benefits of the proposed amendments
are already being realized. The proposed
rule will ensure that the benefits are
being realized by market participants at
all DCMs.
d. Section 15(a) Factors
This section discusses the Section
15(a) factors for the proposed
regulations requiring additional
disclosure by DCMs regarding their
trade matching systems (amendments to
§§ 38.401(a) and 40.1(i)).

PO 00000

Frm 00095

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78917

i. Protection of Market Participants and
the Public
The Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposed disclosure
requirement and the enhanced
transparency that it would foster will
protect market participants by providing
them with a better understanding of
how their order messages interact with
an electronic matching platform, thus
facilitating their ability to tailor their
orders to their understanding of the
matching engine and reducing the
likelihood of unpleasant surprises
regarding order fills.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and
Financial Integrity of Futures Markets
Requiring submissions for changes to
available order types and platform
functionalities also ensures
transparency on the operation of such
platforms, further encouraging
competition among DCMs and
enhancing market integrity. The
increased transparency may increase
investor confidence and expand
participation in the futures markets.
iii. Price Discovery
The proposed rule may protect and
enhance the price discovery process by
providing market participants and the
public with a better understanding of
how buy and sell orders interact on the
trading platform, thus making the price
discovery process more transparent.
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
The proposal may promote sound risk
management practices by providing
market participants with more detailed
information regarding how their order
messages will be processed once they
reach the trading platform, and how
their messages will interact with
messages from other market
participants, including the priority with
which they will be executed. This
information will enable market
participants to calibrate their risk
controls more effectively.
v. Other Public Interest Considerations
The Commission has not identified
any effects that these proposed rules
would have on other public interest
considerations other than those
addressed above.
vi. Consideration of Alternatives
The Commission is considering the
alternative of applying the transparency
requirement only with respect to
latencies within a platform and how a
self-trade prevention tool determines
whether to cancel an order. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
the broader language that it is proposing

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78918

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

would better ensure that DCMs disclose
any additional attributes of an electronic
matching platform that may materially
impact market participant orders and
any material attributes that may arise in
the future as the structures of matching
engines continue to evolve. This
additional information may enable
market participants to make better and
more informed decisions about their
trading decisions.
e. Request for Comments
147. The Commission anticipates that
costs associated with the transparency
requirement would come from some
additional testing of platform systems
and from drafting and publishing
descriptions of any relevant attributes of
the platform. What new costs would be
associated with providing descriptions
of attributes of electronic matching
platforms that affect market participant
orders and quotes?
148. Please compare the costs and
benefits of the alternative of applying
the transparency requirement only with
respect to latencies within a platform
and how a self-trade prevention tool
determines whether to cancel an order
with the costs and benefits of the
proposed rule.
149. What benefits might market
participants receive through increased
transparency into the operation of
electronic matching platforms,
particularly for those market
participants without direct electronic
access who may not be able to
accurately measure latencies or other
metrics of market efficiency?
150. The Commission requests
comment on its discussion of the effects
of the proposed rules on the
considerations in Section 15(a) of the
CEA.
10. Self-Trade Prevention

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

a. Background
Regulation AT proposes a new
requirement (§ 40.23) that a DCM shall
implement rules reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading by market
participants, except as specified in
paragraph (b) of § 40.23. ‘‘Self-trading’’
is defined for purposes of § 40.23 as the
matching of orders between accounts
that have common beneficial ownership
or are under common control. A DCM
must either apply, or provide and
require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools that are reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading and are applicable
to all orders on its electronic trade
matching platform. This requirement is
subject to the proviso in proposed
§ 40.23(b) that a DCM may, in its
discretion, implement rules that permit

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

the matching of orders for accounts with
common beneficial ownership where
such orders are initiated by independent
decision makers. Under § 40.23(b), a
DCM could also permit the matching of
orders for accounts under common
control where such orders comply with
the DCM’s cross-trade, minimum
exposure requirements or similar rules,
and are for accounts that are not under
common beneficial ownership.
Proposed § 40.23(c) states that a DCM
may only permit the self-trading
described in § 40.23(b) if the DCM
complies with certain requirements,
including the requirement under
§ 40.23(c) that the DCM requires market
participants to request approval from
the DCM that self-trade prevention tools
not be applied with respect to specific
accounts under common beneficial
ownership or control, on the basis that
they meet the criteria of § 40.23(b).
Finally, proposed § 40.23(d) would
require DCMs to publish statistics on
their Web site with respect to selftrading activity on their platform. For
example, each DCM would be required
to describe the amount of trading on its
platform that represents permitted selftrading approved pursuant to § 40.23(b).
b. Costs
The Commission assumes that most, if
not all, DCMs currently offer self-trade
prevention controls or plan to
implement them and provide them for
use by market participants in the near
future. FIA recommends that DCMs
offer such controls,692 and several DCMs
provide the controls, a capability which
was introduced, and refined, in recent
years.693 As a result, subject to
consideration of relevant comments, the
Commission preliminarily believes that
DCMs would not incur additional costs
to develop and offer self-trade
prevention controls as required by
§ 40.23(a). The Commission has,
nonetheless, estimated the cost to a
DCM that does not currently offer selftrade prevention tools to develop and
implement such tools for purposes of
complying with § 40.23(a).
Cost to DCMs to Implement SelfTrade Prevention Tools. The
Commission estimates that a DCM
would incur a total one-time cost of
$155,520 to implement these § 40.23(a)
requirements, in the absence of any
existing controls. This cost is broken
down as follows: 1 Project Manager,
working for 480 hours (480 × $70 =
$33,600); 1 Business Analyst, working
for 480 hours (480 × $52 = $24,960); 1
692 FIA

at 25–27.
at 25–27; MFA at 8; Gelber 7–9; AIMA at
10; IATP at 5.
693 FIA

PO 00000

Frm 00096

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Tester, working for 480 hours (480 × $52
= $24,960); and 2 Developers, working
for a combined 960 hours (960 × $75 =
$72,000).694 Notwithstanding these
estimates, the Commission believes that
the requirement under proposed
§ 40.23(a) that DCMs either apply selftrade prevention tools, or provide such
tools to market participants,
standardizes existing industry practice.
As a result, subject to consideration of
relevant comments, the Commission
preliminarily believes that this
requirement under § 40.23(a) will not
impose additional costs on DCMs.
DCM Review of Approval Requests.
DCMs will, however, incur additional
costs in connection with proposed
§ 40.23(c). This provision requires
market participants to request approval
from the DCM that self-trade prevention
tools not be applied with respect to
specific accounts under common
beneficial ownership or control, on the
basis that they meet the criteria of
§ 40.23(b). DCMs will incur costs to
review these § 40.23(c) approval
requests. These costs may vary
significantly depending on the number
of approval requests a DCM receives.
The Commission has therefore
estimated the average annual costs that
a DCM will incur, while acknowledging
that DCMs may incur lower or higher
costs depending on the number of
requests received. On average, the
Commission estimates that, on an
annual basis, a DCM will incur a cost of
$22,000 to review these approval
requests. This cost is broken down as
follows: 1 Senior Compliance Examiner,
working for 200 hours (200 × $58 per
hour = $11,600); and 1 Business
Analyst, working for 200 hours (200 ×
$52 per hour = $10,400).695 The 15
DCMs that will be subject to § 40.23(c)
would therefore incur a total annual
cost of $330,000 (15 × 22,000).696
DCM Publication of Statistics
Regarding Self-Trade Prevention. In
addition, DCMs will incur costs to
generate and publish the self-trade
statistics on their Web site required by
§ 40.23(d). The Commission estimates
that, on an annual basis, a DCM will
incur a cost of $6,650 to generate and
publish these statistics. This cost is
broken down as follows: 1 Developer,
working for 50 hours (50 × $75 per hour
= $3,750); and 1 Senior Compliance
Examiner, working for 50 hours (50 ×
694 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
695 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
696 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of persons subject to Regulation AT.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
$58 per hour = $2,900).697 The 15 DCMs
that will be subject to § 40.23(c) and (d)
would therefore incur a total annual
cost of $99,750 (15 × 6,650).698 These
costs may vary significantly depending
on the size of a DCM and the number
of products it lists for trading.
As noted above, proposed § 40.23
requires DCMs to apply, or provide and
require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools that are reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading and are applicable
to all orders on its electronic trade
matching platform. To the extent that a
DCM offers self-trade prevention tools to
market participants, in lieu of the DCM
internalizing and directly applying
these tools, then market participants
will be required to use these tools.
Commenters indicated that exchangeprovided self-trading controls are
widely used by market participants.699
The FIA PTG Survey indicated that 25
of 26 responding firms use such
controls.700 In the event that a market
participant is required to use self-trade
prevention tools in the scenario
described above, and was not previously
using such tools, the Commission
estimates that the market participant
will not incur any additional costs
beyond those costs already incurred to
implement the pre-trade risk controls
required by Regulation AT.
Market Participant Approval
Requests. Market participants will,
however, incur additional costs in the
event that they prepare and submit the
approval requests contemplated by
§ 40.23(c). This provision requires
market participants to request approval
from DCMs on which they are active
that self-trade prevention tools not be
applied with respect to specific
accounts under common beneficial
ownership or control. The Commission
estimates that, on an annual basis, a
market participant will incur a total cost
of $3,810 to prepare and submit these
approval requests to the DCMs on which
the market participant is active. This
cost is broken down as follows: 1
Business Analyst, working for 30 hours
(30 × $52 per hour = $1,560); and 1
Developer, working for 30 hours (30 ×
$75 per hour = $2,250).701
The Commission cannot predict how
many market participants would likely
submit the approval requests
contemplated by § 40.23(c) on an annual
basis. The Commission believes that not
697 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
698 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of persons subject to Regulation AT.
699 FIA at 26; Gelber at 7–9.
700 FIA at 26, 59–60.
701 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

all market participants trading on a
DCM would submit such requests. In
the view of the Commission, for
example, a limited subset of market
participants will own two or more
accounts, but operate them through
‘‘independent decision makers’’ that
initiate orders for ‘‘separate business
purposes,’’ as contemplated by
§ 40.23(b). Similarly, a limited subset of
market participants will find it
advantageous to incur the costs
associated with the self-trading
described by § 40.23(b), such as trading
costs and clearing fees. In addition, the
Commission believes that market
participants submitting orders through
Algorithmic Trading are more likely
than traders submitting orders manually
to inadvertently self-trade through
independent decision-makers. The
Commission estimates that,
notwithstanding the fact that the DCM
rules described in § 40.23(c) are directed
to all market participants, the number of
market participants that will submit the
approval requests described therein are
equivalent to the number of AT Persons
calculated above (420).702 On this basis,
the Commission estimates that market
participants will incur a total annual
cost of $1,600,200 to submit the
approval requests contemplated by
§ 40.23(c) ($3,810 per market participant
× 420 market participants).
c. Benefits
The Commission notes that, to the
extent that DCMs are offering self-trade
prevention tools and market
participants are using them, many of the
benefits of the proposed rules are
already being realized. Nonetheless, the
Commission has determined to propose
rules in the area of self-trading that
address both intentional and
unintentional matching of orders for
accounts that have common beneficial
ownership or are under common
control, with the goal of benefiting
markets and market participants. In
particular, the proposed rules would
codify a regulatory baseline for selftrade prevention across DCMs, and
provide all market participants with
enhanced transparency regarding the
products in which they trade.
Regulation AT addresses certain selftrading as provided in § 40.23(a) and (b)
(trades between accounts that have
common beneficial ownership or are
under common control, with certain
exceptions). At their extreme,
intentional self-trades, or wash sales,
may indicate an intent to manipulate a
market by creating a false impression of
702 See section V(A) above for the calculation of
the number of person subject to Regulation AT.

PO 00000

Frm 00097

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78919

supply or demand or distortions in
prices. While Section 4c of the CEA
prohibits wash sales, unintentional selftrades are not specifically prohibited
under the statute. While existing
Commission rules address market
manipulation, including wash sales, the
use of self-trade tools (as compared to
an electronic market without such
controls) can improve market
functioning, aid firm and market
efficiency, and minimize unintentional,
and often unnecessary, trading by firms
that may be difficult for firms to track
on their own. Absent self-trade controls,
it has become even more difficult for
firms to avoid unintentional selfmatches due to their use of automated
strategies, which make trading decisions
in isolation from the rest of the firm at
very high speeds. The Commission
preliminarily believes that the proposed
rule, by standardizing the use of selftrade controls, will ensure that these
benefits of self-trade controls will be
available to all market participants. The
Commission believes that DCMs are best
situated to promulgate rules designed to
limit the frequency of self-trading on
their platforms, and to provide
disclosure to the marketplace regarding
the frequency of self-trade activity on
their platform.
Proposed § 40.23(c) requires market
participants to request approval from
DCMs on which they are active that selftrade prevention tools not be applied
with respect to specific accounts under
common beneficial ownership or
control. The Commission preliminarily
believes that this rule will benefit the
market by providing, to the DCMs,
additional transparency on the
relationships between accounts and
trading strategies within a firm. In
addition, the rule will better ensure that
firms will apply self-trade prevention
tools in a consistent manner.
The Commission preliminarily
believes that publication of self-trade
statistics by DCMs (proposed § 40.23(d))
will benefit market participants by
providing transparency about the
frequency of certain categories of selftrades on each DCM, which can aid in
a better understanding of the sources,
and characteristics, of liquidity demand
and supply across futures products.
d. Section 15(a) Factors
This section discusses the Section
15(a) factors for the new proposed
requirement (§ 40.23) that a DCM shall
implement rules reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading by market
participants, except as specified in
paragraph (b) of § 40.23.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78920

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

i. Protection of Market Participants and
the Public
The Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposed rule would
protect market participants and the
public by codifying the use of self-trade
controls and increasing transparency
around self-trading as required by
proposed § 40.23(d). It may also
incentivize practices that help to reduce
the likelihood of wash trades and selftrades.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and
Financial Integrity of Futures Markets
The Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposed rule
standardizing the use of self-trade
controls and increasing transparency
around self-trading would promote the
efficiency of the markets. The use of
self-trade controls may promote
financial integrity by helping to limit
self-trades (including intentional and
potentially manipulative self-trades).
Moreover, requiring that DCMs provide
self-trade controls and that market
participants use them may enhance
competitiveness by preventing a race to
the bottom; that is, eliminating the
possibility that a DCM or market
participant could elect not to require or
implement self-trade prevention in
order to gain competitive advantage.
iii. Price Discovery
The proposed rule may protect and
enhance the price discovery process by
standardizing the use of self-trade
controls and increasing transparency
around self-trading.
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
The proposed rule may promote
sound risk management practices since
self-trade controls (which the rule
codifies) give market participants
greater ability to avoid unintentional
self-trading that could expose them to
various financial risks.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

v. Other Public Interest Considerations
The Commission has not identified
any effects that these proposed rules
would have on other public interest
considerations other than those
addressed above.
e. Consideration of Alternatives
Proposed § 40.23 provides that DCMs
may comply with the requirement to
apply, or provide and require the use of,
self-trade prevention tools by requiring
market participants to identify to the
DCM which accounts should be
prohibited from trading with each other.
With respect to this account
identification process, the Commission’s
principal goal is to address

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

unintentional self-trading; the
Commission does not have a specific
interest in regulating the manner by
which market participants identify to
DCMs the accounts that should not
trade with each other, so long as this
goal is met. The Commission has
requested comment on whether other
identification methods should be
permitted in § 40.23. For example, the
Commission has requested comment on
whether the opposite approach is
preferable: market participants would
identify to DCMs the accounts that
should be permitted to trade with each
other (as opposed to those accounts that
should be prevented from trading with
each other). The Commission has also
asked for comment on whether other
identification methods would reduce
costs for market participants or be easier
for both market participants and DCMs
to administer. Upon consideration of
comments, the Commission may choose
to adopt these other methods in lieu of
what is now proposed.
f. Request for Comments
151. Please comment on the cost
estimates described above for DCMs and
market participants to comply with the
requirements of § 40.23. The
Commission is interested in commenter
opinion on all aspects of its analysis,
including its estimate of the number of
entities impacted by the proposed
regulation and the amount of costs such
entities may incur to comply with the
regulation.
152. Please comment on the benefits
described above. Do you agree with the
Commission’s position that self-trade
prevention requirements will result in
more accurate indications of the level of
market interest on both sides of the
market and help ensure arms-length
transactions that promote effective price
discovery? Are there additional benefits
to regulatory self-trade prevention
requirements not articulated above?
153. Are there any DCMs that neither
internalize and apply self-trade
prevention tools, nor provide self-trade
prevention tools to their market
participants? If so, please provide an
estimate of the cost to such a DCM to
comply with the requirement under
§ 40.23(a) to apply, or provide and
require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools.
154. Would any DCMs that currently
offer self-trade prevention tools need to
update their tools to meet the
requirements of § 40.23? If so, please
provide an estimate of the cost to such
a DCM to comply with the requirements
of § 40.23.
155. What percentage of market
participants do not currently make use

PO 00000

Frm 00098

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

of exchange-provided self-trade
prevention tools, when active on a DCM
that provides, but does not require such
tools? Please provide an estimate of the
cost to such a market participant to
initially calibrate and use exchangeprovided self-trade prevention tools, in
accordance with § 40.23. Please also
comment on any other direct or indirect
costs to a market participant that does
not currently use self-trade prevention
tools arising from the proposed
requirement to implement such tools.
156. The Commission estimates above
that the number of market participants
that will submit the approval requests
described by § 40.23(c) is approximately
equivalent to the number of AT Persons.
Please comment on whether the
estimate of the number of market
participants submitting such approval
requests should be higher or lower. For
example, should the estimate be raised
to account for proprietary algorithmic
traders that will not be AT Persons,
because they do not use Direct
Electronic Access and therefore will not
be required to register as floor traders?
157. Proposed § 40.23 provides that
DCMs may comply with the
requirement to apply, or provide and
require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools by requiring market participants to
identify to the DCM which accounts
should be prohibited from trading with
each other. With respect to this account
identification process, the Commission’s
principal goal is to prevent
unintentional self-trading; the
Commission does not have a specific
interest in regulating the manner by
which market participants identify to
DCMs the account that should be
prohibited from trading from each other,
so long as this goal is met. Should any
other identification methods be
permitted in § 40.23? For example,
please comment on whether the
opposite approach is preferable: market
participants would identify to DCMs the
accounts that should be permitted to
trade with each other (as opposed to
those accounts that should be prevented
from trading with each other). In
particular, please comment on whether
this approach or other identification
methods would reduce costs for market
participants or be easier for both market
participants and DCMs to administer.
158. The Commission requests
comment on its discussion of the effects
of the proposed rules on the
considerations in Section 15(a) of the
CEA.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
11. Market-Maker and Trading Incentive
Programs
a. Summary of Proposed Rules
The Commission is proposing new
regulations in part 40 to increase
transparency around DCM marketmaker and trading incentive programs,
underline existing regulatory
expectations, and introduce basic
safeguards in the conduct of such
programs. The proposed regulations
would amend existing § 40.1(i), which
applies to all registered entities, to make
clear that market-maker and trading
incentive programs are ‘‘rules’’ for
purposes of part 40, and therefore
subject to part 40’s rule filing
requirements. They would also establish
information requirements when DCMs
file rules for Commission approval
pursuant to existing § 40.5 or self-certify
rules pursuant to existing § 40.6.
Information requirements would be
codified in proposed § 40.25, including
§ 40.25(a) for information to be provided
to the Commission and § 40.25(b)
specifying information that must be
available on a DCM’s public Web site.
Relatedly, proposed § 40.26 would
permit the Commission or the director
of DMO to require certain information
from DCMs regarding their marketmaker or trading incentive programs,
including but not limited to copies of
program agreements, names of program
participants, and payments or other
benefits conferred pursuant to a
program.
The most substantive provisions of
the Commission’s proposed rules for
market-maker and trading incentive
programs are in new § 40.27(a).
Proposed § 40.27(a) would codify
DMO’s long-standing guidance to DCMs
that market-maker and trading incentive
programs should not provide payments
or incentives for trades between
accounts under common ownership.
Finally, the proposed regulations would
also make clear in § 40.28 that DCMs’
existing trade practice and market
surveillance responsibilities in subparts
C and E of part 38 apply equally to
market-maker and trading incentive
programs.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

b. Costs
i. Rule 40.1(i)—Definition of ‘‘Rule’’;
and Rule 40.26—Information Requests
From the Commission or the Director of
the Division of Market Oversight
Proposed amendments to § 40.1 and
new § 40.26 serve in large part to
emphasize existing regulatory
requirements and Commission or staff
authorities. As such, they are not
expected to impose meaningful costs on
DCMs. While they may in some cases

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

impose minor incremental costs, they
should not require entirely new
programs, systems, or categories of
employees for DCMs that are already
compliant with parts 38 and 40 of the
Commission’s regulations.
The Commission proposes to amend
§ 40.1(i) to make clear that marketmaker and trading incentive programs
are ‘‘rules’’ for purposes of part 40. This
codification of a previously articulated
Commission standard with broad
industry-wide acceptance should not
give rise to new costs for market
participants. The Commission has
previously stated its view, in a Final
Rule regarding Provisions Common to
Registered Entities, that a market-maker
or trading incentive program is an
‘‘agreement’’ corresponding to ‘‘trading
protocol’’ as such terms are used within
§ 40.1(i)’s existing definition of
‘‘rule.’’ 703 In the same Final Rule, the
Commission stated that ‘‘all market
maker and trading incentive programs
must be submitted to the Commission in
accordance with the procedures
established in part 40.’’ 704 DCMs, for
example, certify numerous marketmaker and trading incentive programs to
the Commission annually, including
341 such self-certifications in 2013. For
these and other rule filings, DCMs
already employ corresponding staff and
other resources to comply with their
part 40 obligations. The proposed
amendments to § 40.1(i) do not create a
new category of rule filings, nor do they
require more frequent filings.
Furthermore, the proposed amendments
would require no additional staff or
other resources beyond those already in
place to meet existing rule filing
requirements in part 40. Accordingly,
the Commission believes that the
proposed amendments to § 40.1(i) will
impose no additional costs on the
registered entities to which it applies.
Proposed § 40.26 is a new regulatory
provision that would permit the
Commission or the director of DMO to
require certain information from DCMs
regarding their market-maker or trading
incentive programs. As with § 40.1(i),
the Commission believes that proposed
§ 40.26 will impose no additional costs
on DCMs. The proposed regulation is a
more targeted iteration of existing
§ 38.5, which requires a DCM to file
with the Commission such ‘‘information
related to its business as a designated
703 See Final Rule, Provisions Common to
Registered Entities, 76 FR 44776, 44778 (July 27,
2011), where the Commission stated, specifically
with respect to DCMs, that ‘‘[a] DCM’s rules
implementing market maker and trading incentive
programs fall within the Commission’s oversight
authority.’’
704 See id.

PO 00000

Frm 00099

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78921

contract market’’ as the Commission
may require. Section 38.5 also requires
a DCM upon request by the Commission
or the director of DMO to file ‘‘a written
demonstration’’ that the DCM ‘‘is in
compliance with one or more core
principles as specified in the request’’ or
‘‘satisfies its obligations under the Act,’’
including ‘‘supporting data, information
and documents.’’
Proposed § 40.26 does not alter a
DCM’s existing obligations under § 38.5,
but rather makes clear that Commission
and DMO information requests may
pertain specifically to market-maker and
trading incentive programs. It also
provides a non-exhaustive list of the
types of ‘‘supporting data, information
and documents’’ that the Commission or
the director of DMO may request that is
particularly appropriate to marketmaker and trading incentive programs.
Proposed § 40.26 imposes no new
obligation to provide information, and
does not increase the frequency which
information must be provided. The
Commission is aware that DCMs already
employ legal, business, technology, and
other staff and resources necessary to
respond to § 38.5 information requests.
The Commission believes that the same
staff will be appropriate for any § 40.26
information request that it may issue to
focus specifically on market-maker or
trading incentive programs.
Accordingly, the Commission believes
that proposed § 40.26 will impose no
additional costs on DCMs.
ii. Rule 40.25—Additional Public
Information Required for Market Maker
and Trading Incentive Programs; and
Rule 40.28—Surveillance of Market
Maker and Trading Incentive Programs
Proposed § 40.25(a) would require
DCMs to provide the Commission with
certain information regarding their
market-maker and trading incentive
programs when submitting such
programs as rules pursuant to part 40.
Specifically, when requesting approval
of a new program pursuant to § 40.5, or
self-certifying a program pursuant to
§ 40.6, DCMs would be required to
provide the name of the program, the
date on which it begins, and the date on
which it terminates (if applicable).
DCMs would also be required to provide
a description of any categories of market
participants or eligibility criteria
limiting who may participate in the
program. For any market-maker or
trading incentive program open to only
some market participants, proposed
§ 40.25(a) would require DCMs to
explain why the program was limited to
the chosen participants or criteria.
Proposed § 40.25(a) would also require
DCMs to include in their rule filings an

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

78922

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

explanation of how persons eligible for
a market-maker or trading incentive
program would apply to participate, and
how eligibility would be evaluated by
the DCM.
Separately, proposed § 40.25(a) would
require DCMs to provide an explanation
of the specific purpose for a marketmaker or trading incentive program, and
a list of all products or services to which
the program applies. It would also
require a description of any payments,
incentives, discounts, considerations,
inducements or other benefits that
program participants may receive,
including any non-financial incentives.
Finally, proposed § 40.25(a) would
require a description of the obligations,
benchmarks, or other measures that
participants in a market-maker or
trading incentive program must meet to
receive benefits.
To ensure public transparency in
market-maker and trading incentive
programs, proposed § 40.25(b) would
enlarge upon DCMs’ existing obligations
in part 40 to provide public notice and
other information regarding their rule
filings. Specifically, proposed § 40.25(b)
would require DCMs to ensure that the
information described above in
§ 40.25(a) is easily located on their
public Web sites. Lastly, proposed
§ 40.25(c) would require DCMs to notify
the Commission upon the termination of
a market maker or trading incentive
program.
While proposed § 40.25 would require
information from DCMs regarding their
market-maker or trading incentive
programs, the Commission believes it
largely incorporates existing rule filing
requirements in part 40. For example,
existing §§ 40.5 and 40.6 each require a
DCM requesting approval or selfcertifying rules to provide the
Commission with the rule text; the
proposed effective date or date of
intended implementation; and an
‘‘explanation and analysis of the
operation, purpose, and effect’’ of the
proposed rule. Existing §§ 40.5 and 40.6
also require each DCM to provide the
Commission with an assessment of the
rule’s ‘‘compliance with applicable
provisions of the Act, including core
principles, and the Commission’s
regulations thereunder;’’ and ‘‘a brief
explanation of any substantive opposing
views expressed to [the DCM] by
governing board or committee members,
members of the entity or market
participants that were not incorporated
into the rule. . . . ’’ Furthermore, these
existing provisions each require a DCM
to certify that the DCM posted on its
public Web site a notice of pending rule
or certification and to also post a copy

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

of the DCM’s submission to the
Commission on the DCM’s Web site.
The Commission believes proposed
§ 40.25 adds important clarity to
existing rule filing requirements in part
40 when such filings pertain to marketmaker or trading incentive programs.
However, it also recognizes important
overlaps between proposed § 40.25 and
existing regulations in §§ 40.5 and 40.6.
Furthermore, proposed § 40.25 does not
create a new category of rule filings, nor
does it or require more frequent filings.
For these reasons, the Commission
believes that additional costs to DCMs
attributable to § 40.25 will not be
significant. As an example of such costs,
DCMs will need to evaluate § 40.25 and
assess whether and what filings must be
made to comply with the regulation. In
addition, the more explicit requirements
of proposed § 40.25, as compared to
existing regulations, may prompt DCMs
to make filings that they otherwise may
not have made. The Commission
estimates the costs of proposed § 40.25
per DCM as described below.
The Commission believes that the
work of proposed § 40.25 will fall
primarily upon DCM Compliance
Attorneys already employed in
completing part 40 rule filings. The
Commission estimates that a DCM
(through its Compliance Attorneys) will
incur a total annual cost of $14,976 to
comply with proposed § 40.25. This cost
is broken down as follows: 1
Compliance Attorney, working for 156
hours 705 (156 × $96 per hour =
$14,976).706 On average, the 15 DCMs to
which proposed § 40.25 would apply
would therefore incur a total annual
cost of $224,640 (15 × $14,976) to
comply with proposed § 40.25. The
Commission notes, however, that actual
costs per DCM may vary depending on
the number of market-maker and trading
incentive program rule filings submitted
by an individual DCM on an annual
basis.
Finally, proposed § 40.28 requires that
a DCM, ‘‘consistent with its obligations
pursuant to subparts C and E of part 38
. . . review all benefits accorded to
participants in market maker and
trading incentive programs . . . to
705 The Commission estimates that a Compliance
Attorney will be required to spend an additional
three hours per week over the course of a 52 week
year to comply with proposed § 40.25. Such hours
are additional because DCMs are already required
to provide substantial information regarding
market-maker and trading incentive program rule
filings pursuant to existing requirements in §§ 40.5
and 40.6 as discussed above. Three additional hours
per week across a 52 week year yields
approximately 156 additional hours per year per
DCM to comply with proposed § 40.25.
706 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.

PO 00000

Frm 00100

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

ensure that such benefits are not earned
through abusive practices.’’ Notably, the
proposed regulation points to
preexisting requirements in the
Commission’s rules—and to costs that
DCMs must already assume
independently of proposed § 40.28.
Subpart C of part 38, entitled
‘‘Compliance with Rules,’’ requires
DCMs to prohibit abusive trading
practices on its markets by all members
and market participants, including but
not limited to a series of enumerated
trade practice violations. It also requires
DCMs to have the capacity to detect and
investigate rule violations, including
sufficient compliance staff and
resources, automated trade surveillance
systems, and real-time market
monitoring. Subpart E, ‘‘Prevention of
Market Disruptions,’’ requires DCMs to
‘‘collect and evaluate data on individual
traders’ market activity on an ongoing
basis in order to detect and prevent
manipulation, [and] price distortions.’’
In addition, subpart E requires a DCM
to have the ability to ‘‘comprehensively
and accurately’’ reconstruct trading on
its markets, obtain information from its
market participants, and implement
additional requirements for cash-settled
and physically-settled contracts.
Proposed § 40.28 does not add to the
oversight responsibilities outlined
above, but rather makes clear that a
DCM’s existing obligations in subparts C
and E of part 38 apply equally in the
context of market-maker and trading
incentive programs. The Commission
believes that proposed § 40.28 will
impose no significant new costs on
DCMs, but acknowledges that it may
result in minor administrative costs.
Specifically, a DCM not already doing
so will be required to ensure
appropriate communication between its
compliance staff tasked with detecting
abusive practices and its business staff
that may administer the DCM’s marketmaker or trading incentive programs.
For example, in the case of an incentive
program based on a market participant’s
gross trading volume, compliance staff
would be required to inform business
staff of trades that should not be
credited towards the incentive program
because they were conducted in
violation of an exchange rule. The
Commission believes that the costs
associated with proposed § 40.28 are not
significant due in part to DCMs’ existing
surveillance capabilities, which are
typically highly automated.
The Commission estimated the costs
of complying with proposed § 40.28. In
making its estimates, the Commission
determined that the primary costs
associated with the regulation will be
communication between a DCM’s

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
compliance and business staffs. The
Commission estimates that a DCM will
incur a total annual cost of $12,710 to
comply with proposed § 40.28. This cost
is broken down as follows: 1
Compliance Attorney, working for 62
hours (62 × $96 per hour = $5,952); 1
Senior Compliance Specialist, working
for 62 hours (62 × $57 per hour =
$3,534); and 1 Business Analyst,
working for 62 hours (62 × $52 per hour
= $3,224).707 In the event that no DCM
is currently in compliance with
proposed § 40.28, the 15 DCMs to which
proposed § 40.28 would apply would
therefore incur a total annual cost of
$190,650 (15 × $12,710) to comply with
proposed § 40.28.708

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

iii. Rule § 40.27—Payment for Trades
With No Change in Ownership
Prohibited
The Commission is also proposing
new § 40.27(a) to require that DCMs
implement policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent the
payment of market-maker or trading
incentive payments for trades between
accounts identified to the DCM as under
common beneficial common ownership
or known to the DCM as under common
ownership. Proposed § 40.27(a) is
consistent with guidance provided to
DCMs by the Commission that incentive
payments should not be made for ‘‘selftrades.’’ In this regard, the proposed
regulation ratifies staff’s previous
guidance 709 and further develops the
Commission’s expectations regarding
appropriate uses of market-maker and
trading incentive programs. However,
because the subject matter of proposed
§ 40.27(a) is not explicitly addressed in
existing regulations, the Commission is
analyzing it as an entirely new cost to
DCMs for this purpose.
The Commission believes that the
costs associated with proposed
§ 40.27(a) will be administrative in
nature. DCMs will be required to
implement policies and procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that selftrades permitted pursuant to § 40.23
nonetheless do not receive marketmaker or trading incentives payments,
discounts or other considerations. DCMs
will also be required to implement
707 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
708 The Commission estimates that each such staff
person will be required to dedicate approximately
1 hour per week over the course of a 52 week year,
yielding approximately 52 hours per year. The
Commission is increasing these estimates by an
additional 20 percent to account for more
complicated circumstances that may arise. This
yields a total of approximately 62 hours per year
for each relevant staff role.
709 See Final Rule, Provisions Common to
Registered Entities, 76 FR 44776, 44778.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

policies and procedures reasonably
designed to ensure that any other selftrades known to the DCM do not receive
market-maker or trading incentive
payments, discounts or other
considerations.
The Commission believes a DCM
could efficiently implement proposed
§ 40.27(a) by requiring the DCM’s
compliance staff (Senior Compliance
Specialist) to periodically provide its
business staff (Business Analyst) with
summary statistics regarding self-trades
by market participants. Business
Analysts responsible for administering a
market-maker or trading incentive
program could then discount such
trades from any payments, benefits, or
other considerations made pursuant to a
program. Reports regarding self-trades
could be automated at the DCM’s
discretion. When necessary, Senior
Compliance Specialists could
collaborate with the DCM’s legal staff
(Compliance Attorney) to address
instances in which the existence of a
self-trade is unclear. Similarly, Business
Analysts could collaborate with legal or
compliance counterparts where a
market participant challenges the DCM’s
determinations or payments. The
Commission believes that a similar
process of information flow to Business
Analysts administering payments,
benefits, or other considerations
pursuant to a market-maker or trading
incentive program would also be
appropriate to implement proposed
§ 40.27(a). The Commission estimates
the costs of compliance as described
below.
The Commission estimates that a
DCM will incur a total annual cost of
$30,108 to comply with proposed
§ 40.27(a). This cost is broken down as
follows: 1 Compliance Attorney,
working for 52 hours (52 × $96 per hour
= $4,992); 1 Senior Compliance
Specialist, working for 156 hours (156 ×
$57 per hour = $8,892); and 1 Business
Analyst, working for 312 hours (312 ×
$52 per hour = $16,224).710 The 15
DCMs to which proposed § 40.27(a)
would apply would therefore incur a
total annual cost of $451,620 (15 ×
$16,224) to comply with proposed
§ 40.27(a).711
c. Benefits
The Commission anticipates that the
proposed amendments to § 40.1(i) and
710 See section V(B) above for the calculation of
hourly wage rates used in this analysis.
711 The Commission estimates that a Compliance
Attorney will require 1 hour per week, a Senior
Compliance Specialist will require 3 hours per
week, and a Business Analyst will require 6 hours
per week, in each case over the course of a 52 week
year.

PO 00000

Frm 00101

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78923

new §§ 40.25–40.28 will facilitate
Commission oversight; increase public
transparency; and help ensure marketmaker and trading incentive programs
that are compliant with the Act and
Commission regulations. The proposed
rules are consistent with existing
regulatory expectations. To the extent
that they impose requirements beyond
those of existing Commission
regulations and to the extent that DCMs
are currently not in compliance with the
proposed rules, the Commission expects
the rules to increase transparency
around DCM market-maker and trading
incentive programs, and introduce basic
safeguards in the conduct of such
programs. Building on the Dodd-Frank
Act, the Commission adopted in June
2012 core principles and final rules
modernizing the regulatory regime
applicable to all DCMs (‘‘DCM Final
Rules’’). Among other areas, the DCM
Final Rules emphasized DCMs’
obligations as the front-line regulators of
their markets. These include extensive
trade practice responsibilities pursuant
to subpart C of part 38, and market
surveillance responsibilities pursuant to
subpart E. In addition, the Commission
codified new requirements that a DCM
offer its ‘‘members [and] persons with
trading privileges . . . with impartial
access to its markets and services,’’
including: (1) ‘‘Access criteria that are
impartial, transparent and applied in a
non-discriminatory manner’’ and (2)
‘‘comparable fee structures . . . for
equal access to, or services from’’ the
DCM.
Substantively, the Commission
believes that the proposed regulations
for market-maker and trading incentive
programs will help facilitate
Commission oversight by eliminating
any potential ambiguity that may exist
regarding its authority over such
programs. Proposed amendments to the
definition of ‘‘rule’’ in § 40.1(i), in
particular, will codify previous
statements by the Commission regarding
the treatment of market-maker and
trading incentive programs as ‘‘rules’’
pursuant to part 40, which statements
however were not explicitly reflected in
existing § 40.1(i). Proposed § 40.25 will
enhance the types of information that
DCMs should expect to provide the
Commission when requesting approval
or self-certifying market-maker or
trading incentive programs. Such
information will include a description
of any eligibility criteria for
participation in a market-maker or
trading incentive program, and an
explanation for programs with limited
eligibility. Proposed § 40.25 will also
require that information regarding

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78924

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

market-maker and trading incentive
programs be easily located on a DCM’s
Web site. Taken together, these
measures will for example facilitate the
Commission’s oversight of DCMs’
compliance with impartial access and
comparable fee structure requirements
in § 38.151(b) adopted by the
Commission in 2012.
Proposed § 40.27(a) is designed to
promote market integrity and to
discourage abusive trading practices.
The Commission believes it is
imperative that market participants are
not incentivized to trade solely for the
purpose of collecting market-maker or
trading incentive program benefits.
Trading for the sake of collecting such
benefits may, for example, inaccurately
signal the level of liquidity in the
market and may result in a non-bona
fide price. Key public statistics
published by DCMs regarding trades,
orders, and other measures of liquidity
on their markets must not be inflated
through trading strategies that may be
violative of DCM or Commission rules
and that are designed solely to collect
incentives or to meet market-maker
program requirements. For example, the
Commission seeks to eliminate
incentives that may encourage market
participants to engage in illegal behavior
such as wash trading, which is
prohibited under the CEA and
Commission regulations.712

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

d. Section 15(a) Factors
This section discusses the Section
15(a) factors for the proposed new
regulations in part 40 to increase
transparency around DCM marketmaker and trading incentive programs,
underline existing regulatory
expectations, and introduce basic
safeguards in the conduct of such
programs. The proposed regulations
would amend existing § 40.1(i) and
create new §§ 40.25- 40.28.
i. Protection of Market Participants and
the Public
The Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposed rule would
protect market participants and the
public by eliminating potential
ambiguity that may exist regarding the
Commission’s expectations and
requirements with respect to marketmaker and trading incentive programs
and by guarding against such programs
incentivizing self-trading. By so doing,
the proposed rules would help ensure
that volume reports accurately reflect
levels of bona fide risk shifting
transactions activity rather than self712 See Section 4c(a) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C.
6c(a)(2)(A), and Commission regulation 1.38(a).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

trades. It may also reduce the frequency
of self-trades, and eliminate incentives
that may encourage market participants
to engage in illegal behavior such as
wash trading, by prohibiting marketmaker or trading incentive program
payments for transactions involving
accounts under common ownership.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and
Financial Integrity of Futures Markets
The Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposed rule would
promote the efficiency, competitiveness
and financial integrity of futures
markets by clarifying Commission
requirements and expectations
regarding market-maker and trading
incentive programs. The proposed rule
regarding payments to accounts with
common ownership may reduce
incentives to self-trade and thus may
also help further ensure (beyond the
rules related to self-trades also being
proposed in this release) that market
volumes reflect only trades that shift
risk between different counterparties
and thus accurately reflect supply and
demand in the market and true market
liquidity. The proposed rule regarding
payments to accounts with common
ownership may promote financial
integrity by helping to prevent
intentional self-trades (wash trades) that
could lead to price distortions.
iii. Price Discovery
The Commission expects that the
proposed rule regarding payments to
accounts with common ownership to
protect and enhance the price discovery
process by helping to prevent
intentional self-trades (wash trades) that
could lead to price distortions. The
proposed rules also would make clear
Commission requirements designed to
prevent market-maker and trading
incentive programs from interfering
with or doing harm to the price
discovery process.
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
The proposed rule regarding
payments to accounts with common
ownership may promote sound risk
management practices by helping to
ensure that market-maker and trading
incentive programs do not incentivize
self-trades or wash trades. The proposed
rules also would make clear
Commission requirements designed to
prevent market-maker and trading
incentive programs from deterring
sound risk management considerations.
v. Other Public Interest Considerations
The Commission has not identified
any effects that these proposed rules
would have on other public interest

PO 00000

Frm 00102

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

considerations other than those
addressed above.
e. Consideration of Alternatives
As discussed, the proposed rules
regarding market-maker and trading
incentive programs largely refer to and
clarify the Commission’s existing rules
and guidance and make Commission
expectations more clear to new and
existing DCMs. The Commission
considered not proposing these rules.
Absent these rules, the Commission
could still realize many of the benefits
by enforcing the existing regulations,
but it would be more difficult to ensure
that DCMs provide information
regarding market-maker and trading
incentive programs prominently on
their Web sites. Moreover, absent the
proposed rule, there would only be
guidance rather than a rule regarding
payments for self-trades. The
Commission has determined to propose
these rules to provide increased
regulatory certainty to DCMs and market
participants regarding market-maker
and trading incentive programs and to
ensure that such programs do not permit
self-trade payments.
f. Request for Comments
159. The Commission requests
comment on the accuracy of its cost
estimates.
160. To what extent are the costs
imposed on the DCMs by the proposed
rule already incurred pursuant to
existing rules?
161. To what extent are the benefits
of the proposed rule currently being
realized?
162. Do DCM Web sites currently
provide adequate information regarding
market-maker and trading incentive
programs, and is such information
easily located?
163. To what extent do DCMs
currently make payments for self-trades
pursuant to market-maker and trading
incentive programs?
164. The Commission requests
comment on its discussion of the effects
of the proposed rules on the
considerations in Section 15(a) of the
CEA.
VI. Aggregate Estimated Cost of
Regulation AT
Summarizing the cost estimates
presented above, the Commission
estimates that Regulation AT will
impose the following costs on persons
subject to its rules. These costs are
broken into one-time costs for initial
compliance, and annual costs following
thereafter. As discussed in section V
above, the Commission calculated costs
for certain risk mitigation procedures,

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
but determined that they generally will
not be imposed upon market
participants because, among other
reasons, they relate to procedures or
controls that are already widely used in
the industry.713 The two charts below
do not include such costs.

In addition, as noted above, the
Commission believes that the risk
controls and other measures required by
§§ 1.80 and 1.82 are already widely used
by market participants. Upgrading such
systems to come into full compliance
with the proposed regulations will
impose initial one-time costs, which are

Regulation

78925

included in the one-time costs chart
below. However, the Commission
believes that because market
participants already have these systems
in place, the proposed regulations will
generally not result in increased annual
costs to maintain suchsystems.
One-time costs:

Description

Cost per entity

Cost for all
entities

New Floor Traders (100 Entities)
1.3(x)/170.18 714 ...............................
1.3(x)/170.18 ....................................
1.3(x)/170.18 ....................................
1.3(x)/170.18 ....................................
Total New Floor Traders ..........

Registration of new floor traders with CFTC and
Form 7–R Fee.
Registration of new floor traders with CFTC and
preparation of Form 7–R.
Registration of new floor traders with CFTC and
Form 8–R Fee for 10 principals.
Registration of new floor traders with CFTC and
preparation of Form 8–R for 10 principals.

as members of RFA—

$200

$20,000

as members of RFA—

96

9,600

as members of RFA—

850

85,000

as members of RFA—

960

96,000

....................................................................................................................

2,106

210,600

AT Persons (420 Entities)
1.80 ..................................................
1.83(c) ..............................................

Risk controls ..............................................................................................
Recordkeeping ..........................................................................................

79,680
5,130

33,465,600
2,154,600

Total AT Persons ......................

....................................................................................................................

84,810

35,620,200

Clearing Member FCMs (57 Entities)
1.82 ..................................................
1.82 ..................................................
1.83(d) ..............................................

Risk controls—DEA orders .......................................................................
Risk controls—non-DEA orders ................................................................
Recordkeeping ..........................................................................................

49,800
159,360
5,130

2,838,600
9,083,520
292,410

Total Clearing Member FCMs ..

....................................................................................................................

214,290

12,214,530

DCMs (15 Entities)
38.255(b) ..........................................
40.20 ................................................
40.22(c) ............................................

Provide controls to FCMs ..........................................................................
Risk controls ..............................................................................................
Establish compliance report review program ............................................

155,520
155,520
37,000

2,332,800
2,332,800
555,000

Total DCMs ...............................

....................................................................................................................

348,040

5,220,600

Total All Entities ........................

....................................................................................................................

........................

53,265,930

Description

Cost per entity

Annual costs:
Regulation

Cost for all
entities

New Floor Traders (100 Entities)
170.18 ..............................................

RFA annual membership dues (payable first year of membership and
each year after).

$5,625

$562,500

Total New Floor Traders ..........

....................................................................................................................

5,625

562,500

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

AT Persons (420 Entities)
1.83(a) ..............................................
1.83(c) ..............................................
40.23 ................................................

Submit compliance reports/written policies ...............................................
Recordkeeping ..........................................................................................
Submit approval requests to DCMs to forego self-trade controls ............

4,240
2,670
3,810

1,780,800
1,121,400
1,600,200

Total AT Persons ......................

....................................................................................................................

10,720

4,502,400

713 See, e.g., the calculation of costs for
procedures related to the testing, monitoring and
supervision of Algorithmic Trading systems, which

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

are discussed in section V(E)(7) above. These costs
are not included in the charts in this section VI.

PO 00000

Frm 00103

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

714 See

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

supra note 597.

17DEP2

78926

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Regulation

Description

Cost per entity

Cost for all
entities

Clearing Member FCMs (57 Entities)
1.83(b) ..............................................
1.83(d) ..............................................

Submit compliance reports ........................................................................
Recordkeeping ..........................................................................................

7,090
2,670

404,130
152,190

Total Clearing Member FCMs ..

....................................................................................................................

9,760

556,320

DCMs (15 Entities)
38.401 ..............................................
40.22(c) ............................................
40.22(c) ............................................
40.22(e) ............................................
40.23(c) ............................................
40.23(d) ............................................
40.25 ................................................
40.27 ................................................
40.28 ................................................

Disclosure of trade matching programs ....................................................
Review of compliance reports ...................................................................
Remediation of compliance reports ..........................................................
Review books and records ........................................................................
Review approval requests from market participants re self-trading .........
Publish statistics on self-trading ................................................................
Provide information on market maker programs in rule filings .................
Restrictions on payments under marker maker programs .......................
Surveillance of market maker programs for abusive practices ................

19,200
111,000
22,200
110,880
22,000
6,650
14,976
30,108
12,710

288,000
1,665,000
333,000
1,663,200
330,000
99,750
224,640
451,620
190,650

Total DCMs ...............................

....................................................................................................................

349,724

5,245,860

Total All Entities ........................

....................................................................................................................

........................

10,867,080

The Commission is also presenting
the following costs applicable to an RFA
pursuant to proposed § 170.19. The

Commission anticipates that an RFA
will incur these costs on an episodic
basis in connection with § 170.19.

Regulation

Episodic costs:

Description

Cost per entity

Cost for all
entities

RFAs (1 Entity)
170.19 ..............................................

RFA Standards ..........................................................................................

$34,200

$34,200

Total RFAs ................................

....................................................................................................................

34,200

34,200

VII. List of All Questions in the NPRM
Listed below are all questions raised
in the preceding sections of this NPRM,
organized according to the section of the
NPRM in which the question appears.
The Commission welcomes any and all
comments on any aspect of Regulation
AT regardless of whether it is addressed
by a particular question. If responding
to a specific question enumerated in this
NPRM, the Commission requests that
commenters in their comment letters
refer to that question being answered.
IV(D) Codification of Defined Terms

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

‘‘Algorithmic Trading’’—§ 1.3(zzzz)
1. Is the Commission’s definition of
‘‘Algorithmic Trading’’ generally
consistent with what algorithmic
trading is understood to mean in the
industry? If not, please explain how it
is inconsistent and how the definition
should be modified. In your answer,
please explain whether the definition
inappropriately includes or excludes a
particular type or aspect of trading.
2. Should the Commission adopt a
definition of ‘‘Algorithmic Trading’’ that
is more closely aligned with any

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

definition used by another regulatory
organization?
3. For purposes of the Commission’s
definition of Algorithmic Trading, is it
necessary for the Commission to define
‘‘computer algorithms or systems’’? If
so, please explain what should be
included in such a definition.
4. Should the Commission’s
definition of ‘‘Algorithmic Trading’’
include systems that only make
determinations as to the routing of
orders to different venues (which is
contemplated in the proposed
definition)? With respect to the
definition of ‘‘Algorithmic Trading,’’
should the Commission differentiate
between different types of algorithms,
such as alpha-generating algorithms and
order routing algorithms?
5. Is the Commission’s understanding
correct that most entities using
automated order routers will be using
similar or related automated technology
to determine other parameters of an
order?
6. The Commission posits a scenario
in which an AT Person submits orders
through Algorithmic Trading, and a
non-clearing FCM or other entity acts

PO 00000

Frm 00104

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

only as a conduit for these AT Person
orders. If the non-clearing FCM or other
entity does not make any
determinations with respect to such
orders, the conduit entity would not be
engaged in Algorithmic Trading, as that
definition is currently proposed. Should
the definition of Algorithmic Trading be
modified to capture a conduit entity
such as a non-clearing FCM in this
scenario, thereby making the entity an
AT Person subject to Regulation AT? In
other words, should non-clearing FCMs
be required to manage the risks of AT
Person customers? How would nonclearing FCMs do so if the non-clearing
FCMs do not have risk controls
comparable to the risk controls specified
in proposed § 1.82?
7. The Commission, recognizing that
natural person traders who manually
enter orders also have the potential to
cause market disruptions, is considering
expanding the definition of Algorithmic
Trading to encompass orders that are
generated using algorithmic methods
(e.g., an algorithm generates a buy or
sell signal at a particular time), but are
then manually entered into a front-end
system by a natural person, who

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
determines all aspects of the routing of
the orders. Such order entry would not
represent Algorithmic Trading under
the currently proposed definition. The
Commission requests comment on this
proposed expansion of the definition of
Algorithmic Trading, which the
Commission may implement in the final
rulemaking for Regulation AT. The
Commission requests comment on the
costs and benefits of this proposal, in
addition to any other comments
regarding the effectiveness of this
proposal in terms of risk reduction.
‘‘Algorithmic Trading Compliance
Issue’’—§ 1.3(tttt)
8. Should the definition of
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue
be modified to include other potential
compliance failures involving an AT
Person that may have a significant
detrimental impact on such AT Person,
the relevant DCM, or other market
participants?

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

‘‘Algorithmic Trading Disruption’’—
§ 1.3(uuuu)
9. Should the definition of
Algorithmic Trading Disruption be
modified to include other types of
disruptive events that may originate
with an AT Person?
10. Should the definition be expanded
to include other types of disruptive
downstream consequences that may
result from an Algorithmic Trading
Disruption originating with an AT
Person, and which may negatively
impact the relevant designated contract
market, other market participants, or
other persons? Alternatively, should the
scope of the definition be reduced, and
if so, why?
11. In addition, should the reference
to ‘‘materially degrades’’ in the
definition of Algorithmic Trading
Disruption be expanded or otherwise
modified to encompass other types of
disruptions that may impact the
relevant designated contract market,
other market participants, or other
persons? Please provide examples of
real-world events originating with AT
Persons (as defined under Regulation
AT) that resulted in disruptions that
may not be captured by the reference to
‘‘materially degrades’’ in the definition.
‘‘AT Order Message’’—§ 1.3(wwww)
12. Please comment on the proposed
scope of the Commission’s definition of
AT Order Message. Is the proposed
definition too expansive, in that it
would limit the submission of messages
that do not have the potential to disrupt
the market? Alternatively, is the scope
of the AT Order Message too limited, in
that it could allow messages not related

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

to orders (i.e., heartbeat messages or
requests for mass quotes) to
intentionally or unintentionally flood
the DCM’s systems and slow down the
matching engine? Please explain how
this definition would be more
appropriately limited or expanded.
‘‘AT Person’’—§ 1.3(xxxx)
13. The Commission notes that the
FIA Guide recommends certain pretrade risk controls and contemplates
three levels at which these controls can
be placed: Automated trader, broker,
and exchange. FIA defines ‘‘automated
trader’’ as any trading entity that uses an
automated system, including hedge
funds, buy-side firms, trading firms, and
brokers who deploy automated
algorithms, and defines ‘‘broker’’ as
FCMs, other clearing firms, executing
brokers and other financial
intermediaries that provide access to an
exchange.
a. Should the Commission’s definition
of ‘‘AT Person’’ explicitly include or
exclude any of the classes of parties
included in FIA’s term ‘‘automated
trader’’? Please explain. Are there any
types of entities not present in this list
that should be included in the ‘‘AT
Person’’ definition?
b. Should Regulation AT use the term
‘‘broker,’’ as understood by FIA? If so,
please explain. Is there another term
that would be more appropriate in
defining the scope of AT Persons?
14. Algorithmic Trading carries
technological and personnel costs, and
the Commission expects that such
trading will be performed by entities,
not natural persons. Is this a reasonable
assumption? For purposes of
quantifying the number of AT Persons
that will be subject to the regulations,
do you believe that any AT Person (a
definition that encompasses the
following persons if engaged in
Algorithmic Trading: FCMs, floor
brokers, swap dealers, major swap
participants, commodity pool operators,
commodity trading advisors,
introducing brokers, and newly
registered floor traders using Direct
Electronic Access) will be a natural
person or a sole proprietorship with no
employees other than the sole
proprietor?
15. The Commission recognizes that a
CPO could use Algorithmic Trading to
enter orders on behalf of a commodity
pool which it operates. In these
circumstances, should the Commission
consider the CPO that operates the
commodity pool or the underlying
commodity pool itself as ‘‘engaged in

PO 00000

Frm 00105

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78927

Algorithmic Trading’’ pursuant to the
definition of AT Person? 715
16. The Commission notes that
pursuant to § 1.57(b) of the
Commission’s regulations IBs may not
carry proprietary accounts. However,
certain customer relationships may
cause an IB to fall under the definition
of AT Person. The Commission requests
comment on the types of IB customer
relationships that could cause IBs to fall
under the definition of AT Persons.
What activities are currently being
conducted by IBs that could cause an IB
to be considered engaging in
Algorithmic Trading on or subject to the
rules of a DCM and would therefore
cause the IB to be considered an AT
Person?
17. Should the definition of AT
Person be limited to persons using DEA?
In other words, should the definition
capture persons registered or required to
be registered as FCMs, floor brokers,
SDs, MSPs, CPOs, CTAs, or IBs that
engage in Algorithmic Trading on or
subject to the rules of a DCM, or persons
registered or required to be registered as
floor traders as defined in § 1.3(x)(3), in
each case if such persons are using
DEA? The Commission requests
comment on the costs and benefits of
this approach, including comments on
whether this more limited definition of
AT Persons would adequately mitigate
the risks associated with algorithmic
trading.
‘‘Direct Electronic Access’’—§ 1.3(yyyy)
18. Please explain whether the
Commission’s proposed definition of
DEA will encompass all types of access
commonly understood in Commissionregulated markets as ‘‘direct market
access.’’ In light of the proposed
regulations concerning pre-trade and
other risk controls and standards for the
development, testing and supervision of
algorithmic trading systems, do you
believe that the proposed definition of
Direct Electronic Access is too limited
(or, alternatively, too expansive)? If so,
please explain why and how the
definition should be revised.
19. Should the Commission define
‘‘routed’’ in its definition of DEA? If so,
how? Are there specific examples of
trading or routing arrangements where it
would be unclear whether trading was
performed through DEA?
20. Should the Commission use the
term ‘‘direct market access’’ instead of
DEA, and if so why?
715 The Commission notes that CPOs are separate
legal entities from the underlying commodity pools
which they operate.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78928

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

21. Should the Commission define
sub-categories of DEA, such as
sponsored market access?
22. The Commission’s proposed
definition of DEA in § 1.3(yyyy) differs
from definitions of direct electronic
access in § 38.607 and direct access for
FBOTs in § 48.2(c). The Commission
believes that the more technical
definition in proposed 1.3(yyyy) is
appropriate for Regulation AT. The
Commission solicits comment regarding
proposed 1.3(yyyy), whether all
definitions of ‘‘direct’’ access should be
harmonized across the Commission’s
rules, and if so how. Do you believe that
two definitions would create confusion
with respect to Commission
requirements as to direct electronic
access? With respect to §§ 1.80, 1.82,
and 38.255(b) and (c) provisions
imposing risk control requirements on
AT Persons, FCM and DCMs, should the
Commission use the existing definition
of direct electronic access provided in
§ 38.607?
IV(E) Registration of Certain Persons
Not Otherwise Registered With
Commission—§ 1.3(x)
23. Should firms operating
Algorithmic Trading systems in CFTCregulated markets, but not otherwise
registered with the Commission, be
required to register with the CFTC? If
not, what alternatives are available to
fully effectuate the purpose and design
of Regulation AT?
24. Should all firms deploying
Algorithmic Trading systems be
required to register with the
Commission? Are there additional
characteristics of AT Persons that
should be taken into consideration for
registration purposes? For example,
should the Commission limit
registration to trading firms meeting
certain trading volume, order or
message levels? In other words, should
there be a minimum volume, order or
message test in order to meet the
definition of ‘‘floor trader,’’ or otherwise
to meet the definition of AT Person? If
so, what should be measured and what
specific thresholds should be used?
25. In the alternative, should the
Commission broaden the registration
requirements in proposed § 1.3(x)(3)(ii)
so that all persons trading on a contract
market through DEA are required to
register, instead of only those who are
engaged in Algorithmic Trading?
26. Please supply any information or
data that would help the Commission in
deciding whether firms may or may not
meet the definition of ‘‘floor trader’’ in
Section 1a(23) of the Act.
27. Do you believe that the
registration of such firms as ‘‘floor

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

traders’’ would help effectuate the
purposes of the CEA to deter and detect
price manipulation or any other
disruptions to market integrity? If you
believe that registration of such firms
will not help effectuate the purposes of
the CEA, or that the same purposes can
be achieved by other means, please
explain.
IV(F) RFA Standards for Automated
Trading and Algorithmic Trading
Systems—§ 170.19
28. The Commission requests
comment on the scope of
responsibilities assigned to RFAs under
proposed § 170.19. Should RFAs be
responsible for fewer or additional areas
regarding AT Persons, ATSs, and
algorithmic trading than specified in
proposed § 170.19, prongs (1), (2), (3),
and (4) (§ 170.19(a)(1)–(a)(4))?
Regulation 170.19 requires RFAs to
consider the need for rules in the areas
listed in prongs (1)–(4) (§ 170.19(a)(1)–
(a)(4)). Should RFAs be responsible for
considering whether to adopt rules in
fewer or additional areas?
29. The Commission requests
comment on the latitude afforded to
RFAs in proposed § 170.19. Should
RFAs have more or less latitude to issue
rules than specified in proposed
§ 170.19?
30. The Commission requests
comment on RFAs’ obligation in
proposed § 170.19 to establish and
maintain a program for the prevention
of fraud and manipulation, protection of
the public interest, and perfecting the
mechanisms of trading, including
through rules it may determine to adopt
pursuant to § 170.19. The proposed
rules anticipate that an RFA’s program
will include examination and
enforcement components. Is this the
appropriate approach?
31. The Commission requests
comment on whether proposed § 170.19
may result in duplicative obligations on
AT Persons or any other market
participant. In particular, please
comment on potential duplication, if
any, between algorithmic trading
requirements that an RFA may impose
upon its members pursuant to § 170.19,
and similar requirements that may be
imposed by a DCM in its role as a selfregulatory organization. What
amendments would be appropriate in
any final rules arising from this NPRM
to clarify that unintended overlap
between the role of an RFA and a DCM
in this context?
IV(G) AT Persons Must Become
Members of an RFA—§ 170.18
32. The Commission requests
comment on whether the regulatory

PO 00000

Frm 00106

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

framework established by Regulation
AT would require all AT Persons to be
members of an RFA in order to be
effective. Alternatively, could the goals
of Regulation AT be realized without
requiring all AT Persons to be members
of an RFA?
IV(H) Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls
for AT Persons—§ 1.80
33. Are any pre-trade and other risk
controls required by § 1.80 ineffective,
not already widely used by AT Persons,
or likely to become obsolete?
34. Are there additional pre-trade or
other risk controls that should be
specifically enumerated in proposed
§ 1.80?
35. Do you believe that the pre-trade
and other risk controls required in
§ 1.80 sufficiently address the
possibility of technological advances in
trading, and the development of new,
more effective controls that should be
implemented by AT Persons?
36. The Commission welcomes
comment on whether the regulation’s
requirements relating to the design of
controls and the levels at which the
controls should be set are appropriate
and sufficiently granular.
37. The Commission notes that
§ 1.80(d) requires that prior to initial use
of Algorithmic Trading, an AT Person
must notify its clearing member FCM
and the DCM that it will engage in
Algorithmic Trading. The Commission
welcomes comment on whether the
content of that notification requirement
is sufficient, or whether clearing
member FCMs and DCMs should also be
notified of additional information. For
example, should AT Persons be required
to notify their clearing member FCMs of
particular changes to their Algorithmic
Trading systems that would affect the
risk controls applied by the clearing
member FCM?
38. Is § 1.80(f)’s requirement that each
AT Person periodically review its
compliance with § 1.80 appropriate?
Should there be more prescriptive and
granular requirements to ensure that
each AT Person periodically reviews its
pre-trade and other risk controls and
takes appropriate steps to update or
recalibrate them in order to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event?
Alternatively, is § 1.80(f) necessary?
Does the Commission need to explicitly
require AT Persons to conduct a
periodic review of their compliance
with § 1.80?
39. AT Persons that are registered
FCMs are required by existing
Commission regulation 1.11 to have
formal ‘‘Risk Management Programs,’’
including, pursuant to § 1.11(e)(3)(ii),
‘‘automated financial risk management

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

controls reasonably designed to prevent
the placing of erroneous orders’’ and
‘‘policies and procedures governing the
use, supervision, maintenance, testing,
and inspection of automated trading
programs.’’ As described in § 1.11, an
FCM’s Risk Management Program must
include a risk management unit
independent of the business unit;
quarterly risk exposure reports to senior
management and the governing body of
the FCM, with copies to the
Commission; and other substantive
requirements. The Commission requests
public comment regarding whether one
or more of the proposed requirements
applicable to FCMs in §§ 1.80, 1.81,
1.83(a), and 1.83(c) should be
incorporated within an FCM’s Risk
Management Program and be subject to
the requirements of such program as
described in § 1.11. In this regard, any
final rules arising from this NPRM could
place all requirements applicable to
FCMs in §§ 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and
1.83(c) within the operational risk
measures required in § 1.11(e)(3)(ii).
Such incorporation could help improve
the interaction between an FCM’s
operational risk efforts and its pre-trade
risk controls; development, monitoring,
and compliance efforts; and reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
pursuant to §§ 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and
1.83(c). It could also help ensure that an
FCM’s §§ 1.80, 1.81, 1.83(a), and 1.83(c)
processes benefit from the same internal
rigor and independence required by the
Risk Management Program in § 1.11.
40. The Commission proposes to
adopt a multi-layered approach to
regulations intended to mitigate the
risks of automated trading, including
pre-trade risk controls and other
procedures applicable to AT Persons,
clearing member FCMs and DCMs.
Please comment on whether an
alternative approach, for example one
which does not impose requirements at
each of these three levels, would more
effectively mitigate the risks of
automated trading and promote the
other regulatory goals of Regulation AT.
IV(I) Standards for Development,
Testing, Monitoring, and Compliance of
Algorithmic Trading Systems—§ 1.81
41. The Commission understands that
the requirements for developing, testing,
and supervising algorithmic systems
proposed in § 1.81(a)–(d) are already
widely used throughout the industry.
Are any specific requirements proposed
in this section not widely used by
persons that would be designated as AT
Persons under Regulation AT, and if
not, why not? If any requirements
described in § 1.81(a)–(d) are not widely
used, please provide an estimate of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

cost that would be incurred by an AT
Person to implement such requirements.
42. Are there any aspects of § 1.81(a)–
(d) that are unnecessary for purposes of
reducing the risks from Algorithmic
Trading, and should not be mandated by
regulation? If so, please explain.
43. Are the procedures described
above for the development and testing
of Algorithmic Trading sufficient to
ensure that algorithmic systems are
thoroughly tested before being used in
production, and will operate in the
manner intended in the production
environment?
44. Are there any additional
procedures for the development and
testing of Algorithmic Trading that
should be required under Regulation
AT?
45. Are any of the required
procedures for the development and
testing of Algorithmic Trading likely to
become obsolete in the near future as
development and testing standards
evolve?
46. Are the procedures for designating
and training Algorithmic Trading staff
of AT Persons sufficient to ensure that
such staff will be knowledgeable in the
strategy and operation of Algorithmic
Trading, and capable of identifying
Algorithmic Trading Events and
promptly escalating them to appropriate
staff members?
47. Is it typical that persons
responsible for monitoring algorithmic
trading do not simultaneously engage in
trading activity?
48. Proposed §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.83
would impose certain requirements on
all AT Persons regardless of the size,
sophistication, or other attributes of
their business. The Commission
requests public comment regarding
whether these requirements should vary
in some manner depending on the AT
Person. If commenters believe proposed
§§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.83 should vary,
please describe how and according to
what criteria.
IV(J) Risk Management by Clearing
Member FCMs—§ 1.82
49. Are any pre-trade or other risk
controls required by § 1.82 ineffective,
not already widely used by clearing
member FCMs, or likely to become
obsolete?
50. Are there any aspects of proposed
§ 1.82 that pose an undue burden for
clearing member FCMs and are
unnecessary for purposes of reducing
the risks associated with Algorithmic
Trading? If so, please explain (1) the
burden; (2) why it is not necessary to
reduce the risks associated with
Algorithmic Trading, particularly in the
case of DEA. What alternatives are

PO 00000

Frm 00107

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78929

available consistent with the purposes
of Regulation AT?
51. Please describe the technological
development that would be required by
clearing member FCMs to comply with
the requirement to implement and
calibrate the pre-trade and other risk
controls required by § 1.82(c) for nonDEA orders. To what extent have
clearing member FCMs already
developed the technology required by
this provision, for example in
connection with existing requirements
under § 1.11, and §§ 1.73 and 38.607 for
clearing FCMs to manage financial
risks?
52. Are there additional pre-trade or
other risk controls that should be
specifically required pursuant to
proposed § 1.82?
53. Do you believe that the pre-trade
and other risk controls required in
§ 1.82 sufficiently address the
possibility of technological advances in
trading and development of new, more
effective controls that should be
implemented by FCMs?
54. The Commission welcomes
comment on whether the requirements
of § 1.82 relating to the design of
controls and the levels at which the
controls should be set are appropriate
and sufficiently granular.
55. Proposed § 1.82 does not require
FCMs to have connectivity monitoring
such as ‘‘system heartbeats’’ or
automatic cancel-on-disconnect
functions. Do you believe that § 1.82
should require FCMs to have such
functionality?
56. Proposed § 1.82 requires clearing
FCMs to implement controls with
respect to AT Order Messages
originating with an AT Person. The
Commission is considering modifying
proposed § 1.82 to require clearing
FCMs to implement controls with
respect to all orders, including orders
that are manually submitted or are
entered through algorithmic methods
that nonetheless do not meet the
definition of Algorithmic Trading. Such
a requirement would correspond to the
requirement under proposed § 40.20(d)
that DCMs implement risk controls for
orders that do not originate from
Algorithmic Trading. If the Commission
were to incorporate such amendments
in any final rules arising from this
NPRM, its intent would be to further
reduce risk by ensuring that all orders,
regardless of source, are screened for
risk at both the clearing member FCM
and the DCM level. Risk controls at the
point of order origination would
continue to be limited to AT Persons.
The Commission requests comment on
this proposed amendment to § 1.82,
which the Commission may implement

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78930

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

in the final rulemaking for Regulation
AT. The Commission requests comment
on the costs and benefits to clearing
FCMs of this proposal, in addition to
any other comments regarding the
effectiveness of this proposal in terms of
risk reduction.
IV(K) Compliance Reports Submitted by
AT Persons and Clearing FCMs to
DCMs; Related Recordkeeping
Requirements—§ 1.83
57. The Commission welcomes
comment on the type of information that
should be included in the reports
required by proposed § 1.83. Should
different or additional descriptions be
included in the reports, which will be
evaluated by DCMs under proposed
§ 40.22?
58. How often should the reports
required by proposed § 1.83 be
submitted to the relevant DCMs? Should
the report be submitted more or less
frequently than annually?
59. When should the reports required
by proposed § 1.83 be submitted to the
relevant DCMs? Should the reports be
submitted on a date other than June 30
of each year?
60. Should a representative of the AT
Person or clearing member FCM other
than the chief executive officer or the
chief compliance officer be responsible
for certifying the reports required by
proposed § 1.83? Should only the chief
executive officer be permitted to certify
the report? Alternatively, should only
the chief compliance officer be
permitted to certify the report?
61. Are there any aspects of proposed
§ 1.83(b) that pose an undue burden for
clearing member FCMs and are
unnecessary for purposes of reducing
the risks associated with Algorithmic
Trading? If so, please explain (1) the
burden; (2) why it is not necessary to
reduce the risks associated with
Algorithmic Trading, particularly in the
case of DEA. What alternatives are
available consistent with the purposes
of Regulation AT, including in
particular Regulation AT’s intent that
§ 1.83 reports benefit from the thirdparty SRO review performed by DCMs
with respect to such reports?
62. Should the reports required by
proposed § 1.83 be sent to any entity
other than each DCM on which the AT
Person operates, such as the
Commission or an RFA? For example,
should the Commission require that AT
Persons that are members of a RFA send
compliance reports to RFA upon NFA’s
request?
63. Proposed § 1.83(c) includes
recordkeeping requirements imposed on
AT Persons, and proposed § 1.83(d)
includes recordkeeping requirements

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

imposed on clearing member FCMs.
Should the recordkeeping requirements
of § 1.83(c) be distributed throughout
the sections of the Commission’s
regulations that contain recordkeeping
requirements for various categories of
Commission registrants that will be
classified as AT Persons? Should
§ 1.83(d) be transferred to § 1.35 of the
Commission’s regulations, which
contains recordkeeping requirements for
clearing member FCMs?
IV(L) Direct Electronic Access Provided
by DCMs—§ 38.255(b) and (c)
64. Are there any pre-trade and other
risk controls required by § 38.255(b) and
(c) that will be ineffective, not already
widely provided by DCMs for use by
FCMs, or likely to become obsolete?
65. Are there additional pre-trade or
other risk controls that DCMs should be
specifically required to provide to FCMs
pursuant to proposed § 38.255(b) and
(c)?
66. Do you believe that the pre-trade
and other risk controls required
pursuant to § 38.255(b) sufficiently
address the possibility of technological
advances in trading? For example, do
they appropriately address the potential
for the future development of additional
effective controls that should be
provided by DCMs and implemented by
FCMs?
67. The Commission welcomes
comment on whether § 38.255(b)’s
requirements relating to the design of
controls and the levels at which the
controls should be set are appropriate
and sufficiently granular.
68. Proposed § 38.255(b) and (c) do
not require DCMs to provide to FCMs
connectivity monitoring systems such as
‘‘system heartbeats’’ or automatic
cancel-on-disconnect functions. Should
§ 38.255 require such functionality?
IV(M) Disclosure and Transparency in
DCM Trade Matching Systems—
§ 38.401(a)
69. The Commission has proposed
that certain components of an
exchange’s market architecture should
be considered part of the ‘‘electronic
matching platform’’ for purposes of the
DCM transparency provision. Are there
any additional systems that should fall
within the meaning of ‘‘electronic
matching platforms’’ for purposes of
proposed § 38.401(a)?
70. The Commission has specifically
identified, as ‘‘attributes’’ that must be
disclosed, latencies within a platform
and how a self-trade prevention tool
determines whether to cancel an order.
Are there any other attributes that
would materially affect the execution of
market participant orders and therefore

PO 00000

Frm 00108

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

should be made known to all market
participants? Should the Commission
revise the final rule so that it only
applies to latencies within a platform
and how a self-trade prevention tool
determines whether to cancel an order?
71. What information should be
disclosed as part of the description of
relevant attributes of the platform? For
instance, with latencies within a
platform, should statistics on latencies
be required? If so, what statistics would
help market participants assess any
impact on their orders? Would a
narrative description of attributes be
preferable, including a description of
how the attributes might affect market
participant orders under different
market conditions, such as during times
of increased messaging activity?
72. The Commission notes that
proposed § 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) are
not intended to require the disclosure of
a DCM’s trade secrets. The Commission
requests comments on whether the
proposed rules might inadvertently
require such disclosure, and if so, how
they might be amended to address this
concern. Furthermore, the Commission
anticipates that the mechanisms and
standards for requesting confidential
treatment already codified in existing
§ 40.8 could be used by DCMs to
identify and request confidential
treatment for information otherwise
required to be disclosed pursuant to
proposed § 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv), for
example by incorporating § 40.8’s
mechanisms and standards into any
final rules arising from this NPRM. If
commenters believe that the
mechanisms and standards in § 40.8 are
inappropriate for this purpose, please
describe any other mechanism that
should be included in any final rules to
facilitate DCM requests for confidential
treatment of information otherwise
required to be disclosed pursuant to
proposed § 38.401(a)(1)(iii) and (iv).
73. The Commission notes that DCMs
are required, as part of voluntary
submissions of new rules or rule
amendments under § 40.5(a) and selfcertification of rules and rule
amendment under § 40.6(a), to provide
inter alia an explanation and analysis of
the operation, purpose and effect of the
proposed rule or rule amendment.
Would the information required under
§§ 40.5(a) or 40.6(a) provide market
participants and the public with
sufficient information regarding
material attributes of an electronic
matching platform?
74. The Commission recognizes that
DCMs are required to have system
safeguards to ensure information
security, business continuity and
disaster recovery under DCM Core

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Principle 20. The Commission
understands that some attributes of an
electronic matching platform designed
to implement those safeguards should
be maintained as confidential to prevent
cybersecurity or other threats. Does
existing § 40.8, 17 CFR 40.8 (2014)
provide sufficient basis for DCMs to
publicly disclose the relevant attributes
of their platforms while maintaining as
confidential information concerning
system safeguards?
75. With respect to material attributes
affecting market participant orders
caused by temporary or emergency
situations, such as network outages or
the temporary suspension of certain
market functionality, what is the best
way for DCMs to alert market
participants? How are DCMs currently
handling these situations?
76. The Commission proposes that
DCMs provide a description of the
relevant material attributes in a single
document ‘‘disclosed prominently and
clearly’’ on the exchange’s Web site. The
Commission also proposes that this
document be written in ‘‘plain English’’
to allow market participants, even those
not technically proficient, to understand
the attributes described. Would these
requirements be practical and help
market participants locate and
understand the information provided?
77. The Commission proposes
requiring DCMs to disclose information
on the relevant attributes: (a) When
filing a rule change submission with the
Commission for changes to the
electronic matching platform; or (b)
within a ‘‘reasonable time, but no later
than ten days’’ following the
identification of such attribute. Do the
proposed timeframes provide sufficient
time for DCMs to disclose the relevant
information? Do the proposed
timeframes offer sufficient notice of
changes or discovered attributes to
market participants to allow them to
adjust any systems or strategies,
including any algorithmic trading
systems?
78. The Commission proposes
requiring disclosure of newly identified
attributes within 10 days of discovery.
Does this provide DCMs sufficient time
to analyze the attribute and provide a
description? Should DCMs be required
to provide notice of the existence of the
attribute and supplement as further
analysis is performed?
IV(N) Pre-Trade and Other Risk Controls
at DCMs—§ 40.20
79. The Commission proposes to
require DCMs to set pre-trade risk
controls at the level of the AT Person,
and allows discretion to set controls at
a more granular level. Should the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

Commission eliminate this discretion,
and require that the controls be set at a
specific, more granular, level? If so,
please explain the more appropriate
level at which pre-trade risk controls
should be set by a DCM.
80. The Commission requests public
comment on the pre-trade and other risk
controls required of DCMs in proposed
§ 40.20. Are any of the risk controls
required in the proposed rules
unhelpful to operational or other risk
mitigation, or to market stability, when
implemented at the DCM level?
81. Are there additional pre-trade or
other risk controls that should be
specifically enumerated in proposed
§ 40.20?
82. The Commission proposes, with
respect to its kill switch requirements,
to allow DCMs the discretion to design
a kill switch that allows a market
participant to submit risk-reducing
orders. The Commission also does not
mandate particular procedures for alerts
or notifications concerning kill switch
triggers. Does the proposed rule allow
for sufficient flexibility in the design of
kill switch mechanisms and the policies
and procedures concerning their
implementation? Should the
Commission consider more prescriptive
rules in this area?
83. Does existing § 38.1051 provide
the Commission with adequate
authority to require DCMs to adequately
test planned changes to their matching
engines and other automated systems?
IV(O) DCM Test Environments for AT
Persons—§ 40.21
84. Should the test environment
provided by DCMs under proposed
§ 40.21 offer any other functionality or
data inputs that will promote the
effective design and testing of
Algorithmic Trading by AT Persons?
IV(P) DCM Review of Compliance
Reports by AT Persons and Clearing
FCMs—§ 40.22
85. In lieu of a DCM’s affirmative
obligation in proposed § 40.22 to review
AT Person and clearing member FCM
compliance reports, should DCMs
instead be permitted to rely on the CEO
or CCO representations required by
proposed § 1.83(a)(2)? If so, what events
in the Algorithmic Trading of an AT
Person should trigger review obligations
by the DCM?
86. Should § 40.22(c) provide more
specific requirements regarding a DCM’s
establishment of a program for effective
periodic review and evaluation of AT
Person and clearing member FCM
reports? For example, § 40.22(c) could
require review at specific intervals (e.g.,
once every two years). Alternatively,

PO 00000

Frm 00109

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78931

§ 40.22(c) could provide greater
discretion to DCMs in establishing their
programs for the review of reports.
Please comment on the appropriateness
of these alternative approaches.
87. Should § 40.22(e) provide more
specific requirements regarding the
triggers for a DCM to review and
evaluate the books and records of AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs
required to be kept pursuant to
§ 40.22(d)? For example, § 40.22(e)
could require review at specific
intervals (e.g., once every two years), or
it could require review in response to
specific events related to the
Algorithmic Trading of AT Persons.
Please comment on the appropriateness
of these alternative approaches.
88. Does § 40.22 leave enough
discretion to the DCM in determining
how to design and implement an
effective compliance review program
regarding Algorithmic Trading?
Alternatively, is there any aspect of this
regulation that should be more specific
or prescriptive?
89. Should § 40.22 specifically
authorize a DCM to establish further
standards for the organization, method
of submission, or other attributes of the
reports described in § 40.22(a)?
IV(Q) Self-Trade Prevention Tools—
§ 40.23
90. The Commission seeks to require
self-trade prevention tools that screen
out unintentional self-trading, while
permitting bona-fide self-matched trades
that are undertaken for legitimate
business purposes. Under the
regulations proposed above, DCMs shall
implement rules reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading (‘‘the matching of
orders for accounts that have common
beneficial ownership or are under
common control’’), but DCMs may in
their discretion implement rules that
permit ‘‘the matching of orders for
accounts with common beneficial
ownership where such orders are
initiated by independent decision
makers.’’
a. Do these standards accomplish the
goal of preventing only unintentional
self-trading, or would other standards be
more effective in accomplishing this
goal? For example, should the
Commission consider adopting in any
final rules arising from this NPRM an
alternative requirement modeled on
FINRA Rule 5210 and require market
participants to implement policies and
procedures to review their trading
activity for, and a prevent a pattern of,
self-trades?
b. While the regulations contain
exceptions for bona fide self-match
trades (described in § 40.23(b)), the

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

78932

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

regulations are intended to prevent all
unintentional self-trading, and do not
include a de minimis exception for a
certain percentage of unintentional selftrading. Should the regulations permit a
certain de minimis amount of
unintentional self-trading, and if so,
what amount should be permitted (e.g.,
as a percentage of monthly trading
volume)?
c. The following terms are used in
proposed § 40.23(a) and (b): (1) Selftrading, (2) common beneficial
ownership, (3) independent decision
makers, and (4) common control. Do any
of these terms require further definition?
If so, how should they be defined?
Should any alternatives be used and, if
so, how should such substitute terms be
defined?
d. With respect to ‘‘common
beneficial ownership,’’ the Commission
requests comment on the minimum
degree of ownership in an account that
should trigger a determination that such
account is under common beneficial
ownership. For example, should an
account be deemed to be under common
beneficial ownership between two
unrelated persons if each person
directly or indirectly has a 10% or more
ownership or equity interest in such
account? The Commission refers
commenters to the aggregation rules in
part 150 of its regulations, including
specifically § 150.4, and requests
comment on a potential Commission
definition of common beneficial
ownership that is modeled on § 150.4.
e. The Commission also requests
comment on whether ‘‘common
beneficial ownership’’ should be
defined in any final rules arising from
this NPRM, or whether such definition
should be left to each DCM with respect
to its program for implementing
proposed § 40.23.
91. Are there any other types of selftrading that should be permitted in
addition to the exceptions permitted in
§ 40.23(b)(1) and (2)? If so, please
describe such other types of acceptable
self-trading and explain why they
should be permitted.
92. Proposed § 40.23 provides that
DCMs may comply with the
requirement to apply, or provide and
require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools by requiring market participants to
identify to the DCM which accounts
should be prohibited from trading with
each other. With respect to this account
identification process, the Commission’s
principal goal is to prevent
unintentional self-trading; the
Commission does not have a specific
interest in regulating the manner by
which market participants identify to
DCMs the account that should be

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

prohibited from trading from each other,
so long as this goal is met. Should any
other identification methods be
permitted in § 40.23? For example,
please comment on whether the
opposite approach is preferable: market
participants would identify to DCMs the
accounts that should be permitted to
trade with each other (as opposed to
those accounts that should be prevented
from trading with each other).
93. The Commission believes that its
requirements concerning self-trade
prevention tools must strike the
appropriate balance between flexibility
(allowing market participants with
diverse trading operations and strategies
the discretion in implementation so as
effectively prevent only unintentional
self-trades) and simplicity (a variety of
design and implementation options may
render this control too complex to be
effective).716 Does the Commission
allow sufficient discretion to exchanges
and market participants in the design
and implementation of self-trade
prevention tools? Is there any area
where the Commission should be more
prescriptive? The Commission is
particularly interested in whether there
is a particular level at which it should
require implementation of self-trade
prevention tools, i.e., if the tools must
prevent matching of orders from the
same trading firm, the same trader, the
same trading algorithm, or some other
level.
94. Proposed § 40.23(a) would require
DCMs to either apply, or provide and
require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools. Please comment whether
§ 40.23(a) should, in addition, permit
market participants to use their own
self-trade prevention tools to meet the
requirements of proposed § 40.23(a),
and if so, what additional regulations
would ensure that DCMs are able to:
ensure that such tools are comparable to
DCM-provided tools; monitor the
performance of such tools; and
otherwise review such tools and ensure
that they are sufficiently rigorous to
meet the requirements of § 40.23.
95. Is it appropriate to require
implementation of self-trade prevention
tools with respect to all orders? Should
such controls be mandatory for only a
particular subset of orders, i.e., orders
from AT Persons or orders submitted
through DEA?
96. Please comment on the
requirement that DCMs disclose selftrade statistics. Is the data required to be
disclosed appropriate? Is there any other
716 See FIA Guide, supra note 95 at 13 (discussing
balance between flexibility and complexity with
respect to self-trade prevention tools).

PO 00000

Frm 00110

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

category of self-trade data that DCMs
should be required to disclose?
97. Should DCMs be required to
disclose the amount of unintentional
self-trading that occurs each month,
alongside the self-trade statistics
required to be published under
proposed § 40.23(d)?
98. As noted above, the Commission
understands that there is some potential
for self-trade prevention tools to be used
for wrongful activity that may include
disruptive trading or other violations of
the Act or Commission regulations on
DCMs. Are there ways to design selftrade prevention tools so that they do
not facilitate disruptive trading (such as
spoofing) or other violations of the Act
or Commission regulations on DCMs?
Are additional regulations warranted to
ensure that such tools are not used to
facilitate such activities?
IV(R) DCM Market Maker and Trading
Incentive Programs—§§ 40.25–40.28
99. To what extent do market
participants currently trade in ways
designed primarily to collect market
maker or trading incentive program
benefits, rather than for risk
management purposes?
100. To what extent do that market
maker and trading incentive programs
currently provide benefits for selftrades? To what extent do market
participants collect such benefits for
self-trades?
101. The Commission requests
comment regarding whether the
information proposed to be collected in
§ 40.25 would be sufficient for it to
determine whether a DCM’s marketmaker or trading incentive program
complies with the impartial access
requirements of § 38.151(b). If
additional or different information
would be helpful, please identify such
information.
102. The Commission requests
comment regarding whether DCMs
should be required to maintain on their
public Web sites the information
required by proposed § 40.25(a) and (b)
for an additional period beyond the end
of the market maker or trading incentive
program. The Commission may
determine to include in any final rules
arising from this NPRM a requirement
that such information remain publicly
available pursuant to proposed
§ 40.25(b) for an additional period up to
six months following the end of a
market maker or trading incentive
program.
103. The Commission requests
comment regarding whether the text of
proposed § 40.27(a) identifies with
sufficient particularity the types of
trades that are not eligible for payments

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
or benefits pursuant to a DCM marketmaker or trading incentive program.
What amendments, if any, are necessary
to clearly identify trades that are not
eligible?
104. Section 40.27(a) provides that
DCMs shall implement policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed
to prevent the payment of market-maker
or trading incentive program benefits for
trades between accounts under common
ownership. Are there any other types of
trades or circumstances under which
the Commission should also prohibit or
limit DCM market-maker or trading
incentive program benefits?
105. The Commission is proposing in
§ 40.27(a) certain requirements
regarding DCM payments associated
with market maker and trading
incentive programs. Please address
whether the proposed rules will
diminish DCMs’ ability to compete or
build liquidity by using market maker or
trading incentive programs. Does any
DCM consider it appropriate to provide
market maker or trading incentive
program benefits for trades between
accounts known to be under common
beneficial ownership?
106. In any final rules arising from
this NPRM, should the Commission also
prohibit DCMs from providing trading
incentive program benefits where such
benefits on a per-trade basis are greater
than the fees charged per trade by such
DCMs and its affiliated DCO (if
applicable)? The Commission also
specifically requests comment on the
extent, if any, to which one or more
DCMs engage in this practice.
107. Proposed § 40.25(b) imposes
certain transparency requirements with
respect to both market maker and
trading incentive programs. The
Commission requests public comment
regarding:
a. The most appropriate place or
manner for a DCM to disclose the
information required by proposed
§ 40.25(b);
b. The benefits or any harm that may
result from such transparency,
including any anti-competitive effect or
pro-competitive effect among DCMs or
market participants;
c. Whether transparency as proposed
in § 40.25(b) is equally appropriate for
both market maker programs and
trading incentive programs, or are the
proposed requirements more or less
appropriate for one type of program over
the other?
d. Whether any of the enumerated
items required to be posted on a DCM’s
public Web site pursuant to proposed
§ 40.25(b) could reasonably be
considered confidential information that
should not be available to the public,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

and if so, what process should be
available for a DCM to request from the
Commission an exemption from the
requirements of proposed § 40.25(b) for
that specific enumerated item?
Related Matters—A. Calculation of
Number of Persons Subject to
Regulations
108. The Commission requests
comment on its calculation of the
number of AT Persons, newly registered
floor traders, clearing member FCMs,
and DCMs that will be subject to
Regulation AT.
Related Matters—C. Regulatory
Flexibility Act Analysis
109. The Commission requests
comment on each element of its RFA
analysis. In particular, the Commission
specifically invites comment on the
accuracy of its estimates of potential
firms that could be considered ‘‘small
entities’’ for RFA purposes.
110. The Commission also requests
comment on whether any natural
persons will be designated as AT
Persons under the proposed definition
of that term.
Related Matters—E. Cost Benefit
Considerations
111. Beyond specific questions
interspersed throughout its discussion,
the Commission generally requests
comment on all aspects of its
consideration of costs and benefits,
including: (a) Identification,
quantification, and assessment of any
costs and benefits not discussed therein;
(b) whether any of the proposed
regulations may cause FCMs or DCMs to
raise their fees for their customers, or
otherwise result in increased costs for
market participants and, if so, to what
extent; (c) whether any category of
Commission registrants will be
disproportionately impacted by the
proposed regulations, and if so whether
the burden of any regulations should be
appropriately shifted to other
Commission registrants; (d) what, if any,
costs would likely arise from market
participants engaging in regulatory
arbitrage by restructuring their trading
activities to trade on platforms not
subject to the proposed regulations, or
taking other steps to avoid costs
associated with the proposed
regulations; (e) quantitative estimates of
the impact on transaction costs and
liquidity of the proposals contained
herein; (f) the potential costs and
benefits of the alternatives that the
Commission discussed in this release,
and any other alternatives appropriate
under the CEA that commenters believe
would provide superior benefits relative

PO 00000

Frm 00111

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78933

to costs; (g) data and any other
information to assist or otherwise
inform the Commission’s ability to
quantify or qualitatively describe the
benefits and costs of the proposed rules;
and (h) substantiating data, statistics,
and any other information to support
positions posited by commenters with
respect to the Commission’s
consideration of costs and benefits.
§ 1.80 Pre-Trade and Other Risk
Controls
112. How would an alternative
definition of Algorithmic Trading that
excludes automated order routers affect
the costs and benefits of the pre-trade
and other risk controls in comparison to
the costs and benefits of the proposed
definition that includes automated order
routers? Would such an alternative
definition reduce the number of AT
Persons captured by Regulation AT?
113. Would the benefits of Regulation
AT be enhanced significantly if the
definition of Algorithmic Trading were
modified to capture a conduit entity
such as a non-clearing FCM, thereby
making the entity an AT Person subject
to Regulation AT? How would such a
modification affect costs?
114. Would the benefits of Regulation
AT be enhanced significantly if the
definition of Algorithmic Trading were
expanded to encompass orders that are
generated using algorithmic methods
(e.g., an algorithm generates a buy or
sell signal at a particular time), but are
then manually entered into a front-end
system by a natural person? How would
such a modification affect costs? Please
comment on the costs and benefits of an
alternative whereby the Commission
would implement specific rules
regarding the appropriate design of the
specific controls required by Regulation
AT and compare them to the costs and
benefits of the Commission’s proposal
whereby the relevant entities—trading
firms, clearing firms, and DCMs—would
have the discretion to determine the
appropriate design of those controls.
115. Does one particular segment of
trading firms, clearing member FCMs or
DCMs (e.g., smaller entities) currently
implement fewer of the pre-trade and
other risk controls required by
Regulation AT than some other segment
of trading firms, clearing member FCMs
or DCMs? If so, please describe any
unique or additional costs that will be
imposed on such persons to develop the
technology and systems necessary to
implement the pre-trade and other risk
controls required by Regulation AT.
116. In question 14, the Commission
asks whether there are any AT Persons
who are natural persons. Would AT
Persons who are natural persons (or sole

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

78934

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

proprietorships with no employees
other than the sole proprietor) be
required to hire staff to comply with the
risk control, testing and monitoring, or
compliance requirements of Regulation
AT?
117. Do you agree with the accuracy
of cost estimates provided by the
Commission as to how much it will cost
a trading firm, clearing member FCM or
DCM to internally develop the
technology and systems necessary to
implement the pre-trade and other risk
controls required by Regulation AT? If
you disagree with the Commission’s
analysis, please provide your own
quantitative estimates, as well as data or
other information in support. Please
specify in your answer the type of entity
and which specific pre-trade risk or
order management controls for which
you are providing estimates.
In addition, please differentiate
between the situations where an entity
(i) already has partially compliant
controls in place, and only needs to
upgrade such technology and systems to
bring it into compliance with the
regulations; and (ii) needs to build such
technology and systems from scratch.
Please include, as applicable, hardware
and software costs as well as the hourly
wage information of the employee(s)
necessary to develop such risk controls
(i.e., technology personnel such as
programmer analysts, senior
programmers and senior systems
analysts).
118. The Commission has assumed
that the effort to adjust any one risk
control (by ‘‘control,’’ in this context,
the Commission means the pre-trade
risk controls, order cancellation
systems, and connectivity systems
required by § 1.80) will require
assessment and possible modifications
to all controls. Is this assumption
correct, and if not, why not?
119. As indicated above, the
Commission lacks sufficient information
to provide full estimates of costs that a
trading firm, clearing member FCM or
DCM will incur if it chooses not to
internally develop such controls, and
instead purchases the solutions of an
outside vendor in order to comply with
Regulation AT’s pre-trade and other risk
controls requirements. Please provide
quantitative estimates of such costs,
including supporting data or other
information. In addition, please specify
in your answer the type of entity and
which specific pre-trade risk or order
management control for which you are
providing estimates. In addition, please
differentiate between the situations
where an entity (i) already uses an
outside vendor to at least some extent to
implement the controls; and (ii) does

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

not currently implement the controls
and must obtain all applicable
technology and systems from an outside
vendor necessary to comply with
Regulation AT. Please include, if
applicable, hardware and software costs
as well as the hourly wage information
of the employee(s) necessary to
effectuate the implementation of such
controls from an outside vendor.
120. Do you agree with the
Commission’s estimates of how much it
will cost a trading firm, clearing
member FCM or DCM to annually
maintain the technology and systems for
the pre-trade and other risk controls
required by Regulation AT, if it uses
internally developed technology and
systems? If not please provide
quantitative estimates and supporting
data or other information with respect to
how much it will cost a trading firm,
clearing member FCM or DCM to
annually maintain the technology and
systems for pre-trade and other risk
controls required by Regulation AT, if it
uses an outside vendor’s technology and
systems.
121. Is it correct to assume that many
of the trading firms subject to § 1.80 are
also subject to the SEC’s Market Access
Rule, and, accordingly, already
implement many of the systems
required by Regulation AT for purposes
of their securities trading? Please
specify in your answer the type of entity
and which specific pre-trade risk or
order management control is already
required pursuant to the Market Access
Rule, and the extent of the overlap.
122. Please comment on the costs and
benefits (including quantitative
estimates with supporting data or other
information) to clearing FCMs of an
alternative to proposed § 1.82 that
would require clearing FCMs to
implement controls with respect to all
orders, including orders that are
manually submitted or are entered
through algorithmic methods that
nonetheless do not meet the definition
of Algorithmic Trading and compare
those costs and benefits to those costs
and benefits of proposed § 1.82.
123. Please comment on the
additional costs (including quantitative
estimates with supporting data or other
information) to AT Persons of
complying with each of the following
specific requirements of § 1.80:
a. § 1.80(a)(2) (pre-trade risk control
threshold requirements);
b. § 1.80(a)(3) (natural person
monitors must be alerted when
thresholds are breached);
c. § 1.80(d) (notification to DCM and
clearing member FCM that AT Person
will use Algorithmic Trading);

PO 00000

Frm 00112

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

d. § 1.80(e) (self-trade prevention
tools); and
e. § 1.80(f) (periodic review of pretrade risk controls and other measures
for sufficiency and effectiveness).
124. The Commission welcomes
comment on the estimated costs of the
pre-trade risk controls proposed in
§ 1.80 as compared to the annual
industry expenditure on technology,
risk mitigation and/or technology
compliance systems.
125. Please comment on the costs to
AT Persons and clearing member FCMs
of complying with DCM rules requiring
retention and production of records
relating to §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.82
compliance, pursuant to § 40.22(d),
including without limitation on the
extent to which AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs already have policies,
procedures, staffing and technological
infrastructure in place to retain such
records and produce them upon DCM
request.
126. The Commission anticipates that
Regulation AT may promote confidence
among market participants and reduce
market risk, consequently reducing
transaction costs, but has not estimated
this reduction in transaction costs. The
Commission welcomes comment on the
extent to which Regulation AT may
impact transaction costs and effects on
liquidity provision more generally.
AT Person Membership in RFA; RFA
Standards for Automated Trading and
Algorithmic Trading Systems
127. The Commission estimates that
the costs of membership in an RFA
associated with proposed § 170.18 will
encompass certain costs, such as those
associated with NFA membership dues.
Has the Commission correctly identified
the costs associated with membership in
an RFA?
128. The Commission expects that
entities that will be required to become
members of an RFA would not incur
any additional compliance costs as a
result of their membership in an RFA.
The Commission requests comment on
the accuracy of this expectation. What
additional compliance costs, if any,
would a registrant face as a result of
being required to become a member of
an RFA pursuant to proposed § 170.18?
129. Has the Commission accurately
estimated that approximately 100
entities will be affected by the
membership requirements of § 170.18?
130. The Commission invites
estimates on the cost to an RFA to
establish and maintain the program
required by § 170.19, and the amount of
that cost that will be passed along to
individual categories of AT Person
members in the RFA.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Development, Testing, and Supervision
of Algorithmic Systems
131. Proposed § 1.81(a) establishes
principles-based standards for the
development and testing of Algorithmic
Trading systems and procedures,
including requirements for AT Persons
to test all Algorithmic Trading code and
related systems and any changes to such
code and systems prior to their
implementation. AT Persons would also
be required to maintain a source code
repository to manage source code
access, persistence, copies of all code
used in the production environment,
and changes to such code, among other
requirements. Are any of the
requirements of § 1.81(a) not already
followed by the majority of market
participants that would be subject to
§ 1.81(a) (or some particular segment of
market participants), and if so, how
much will it cost for a market
participant to comply with such
requirement(s)?
132. Proposed § 1.81(b) requires that
an AT Person’s Algorithmic Trading is
subject to continuous real-time
monitoring and supervision by
knowledgeable and qualified staff at all
times while Algorithmic Trading is
occurring. Proposed § 1.81(b) also
requires automated alerts when an
Algorithmic Trading system’s AT Order
Message behavior breaches design
parameters, upon loss of network
connectivity or data feeds, or when
market conditions approach the
boundaries within which the ATS is
intended to operate, to the extent
applicable, among other monitoring
requirements. Are any of the
requirements of § 1.81(b) not already
followed by the majority of market
participants that would be subject to
§ 1.81(b), and if so, how much will it
cost for a market participant to comply
with such requirement(s)?
133. Proposed § 1.81(c) requires that
AT Persons implement policies
designed to ensure that Algorithmic
Trading operates in a manner that
complies with the CEA and the rules
and regulations thereunder. Among
other controls, the policies should
include a plan of internal coordination
and communication between
compliance staff of the AT Person and
staff of the AT Person responsible for
Algorithmic Trading regarding
Algorithmic Trading design, changes,
testing, and controls. Are any of the
requirements of § 1.81(c) not already
followed by the majority of market
participants that would be subject to
§ 1.81(c), and if so, how much will it
cost for a market participant to comply
with such requirement(s)?

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

134. Proposed § 1.81(d) requires that
AT Persons implement policies to
designate and train their staff
responsible for Algorithmic Trading,
which policies should include
procedures for designating and training
all staff involved in designing, testing
and monitoring Algorithmic Trading.
Are any of the requirements of § 1.81(d)
not already followed by the majority of
market participants that would be
subject to § 1.81(d), and if so, how much
will it cost for a market participant to
comply with such requirement(s)?
AT Person and FCM Compliance
Reports
135. Please comment on whether any
of the alternatives discussed above
regarding compliance reports would
provide a superior cost-benefit profile
relative to the Commission’s proposal.
DCM Test Environments
136. Do any DCMs not currently offer
a test environment that simulates
production trading to their market
participants, as would be required by
proposed § 40.21? If so, how much
would it cost a DCM to implement a test
environment that would comply with
the requirements of § 40.21?
DCM Review of Compliance Reports
137. Please comment on the cost
estimates provided above with respect
to DCMs’ review of compliance reports
provided under § 40.22 and related
review requirements, including the
estimated cost for DCMs to: Establish
the review program required by § 40.22;
review the reports provided by AT
Persons and clearing member FCMs;
communicate remediation instructions
to a subset of AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs; and review and
evaluate, as necessary, books and
records of AT Persons and clearing
member FCMs as contemplated by
proposed § 40.22(e).
Section 15(a) Considerations
138. The Commission requests
comment on its discussion of the effects
of the proposed rules on the
considerations in Section 15(a) of the
CEA.
139. Are the compliance costs
associated with the proposed rules of
sufficient magnitude to potentially
cause smaller market participants,
FCMs, or DCMs to cease or scale back
operations? Do these costs create
significant barriers to entry?
Registration—§ 1.3(x)(3)
140. The Commission estimates that
the costs of registration will encompass
direct costs (those associated with NFA

PO 00000

Frm 00113

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78935

membership, and reporting and
recordkeeping with the Commission),
and indirect costs (e.g. those associated
to risk control requirements placed on
all registered entities). Has the
Commission correctly identified the
costs associated with the new
registration category? What firm
characteristics would change the level
of direct and indirect costs associated
with the registration?
141. Has the Commission accurately
estimated that approximately 100
currently unregistered entities will be
captured by the new registration
requirement in proposed § 1.3(x)(3).
142. Has the Commission accurately
estimated that each currently
unregistered entity captured by the new
registration requirement in proposed
§ 1.3(x)(3) will have approximately 10
persons required to file Form 8–R?
143. As defined, the new floor trader
category restricts the registration
requirement to those who make use of
Direct Electronic Access. Is this
requirement overly restrictive or unduly
broad from a cost-benefit perspective?
Are there alternate, or additional,
characteristics of trading activity to
determine registration status that would
be preferable from a cost-benefit
standpoint? For example, should
persons with trading volume or message
volume below a specified threshold be
exempted from registration?
144. Will any currently unregistered
entities change their business model or
exit the market in order to avoid the
proposed registration requirement?
145. The Commission believes that
the risk control protocols required of
registered entities, specifically those
under the new registration category, will
provide a general benefit to the safety
and soundness of market activity and
price formation. Has the Commission
correctly identified the type and level of
benefits which arise from placing these
requirements on a new set of significant
market participants?
146. The Commission requests
comment on its discussion of the effects
of the proposed rules on the
considerations in Section 15(a) of the
CEA.
Transparency in Exchange Trade
Matching Systems
147. The Commission anticipates that
costs associated with the transparency
requirement would come from some
additional testing of platform systems
and from drafting and publishing
descriptions of any relevant attributes of
the platform. What new costs would be
associated with providing descriptions
of attributes of electronic matching

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78936

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

platforms that affect market participant
orders and quotes?
148. Please compare the costs and
benefits of the alternative of applying
the transparency requirement only with
respect to latencies within a platform
and how a self-trade prevention tool
determines whether to cancel an order
with the costs and benefits of the
proposed rule.
149. What benefits might market
participants receive through increased
transparency into the operation of
electronic matching platforms,
particularly for those market
participants without direct electronic
access who may not be able to
accurately measure latencies or other
metrics of market efficiency?
150. The Commission requests
comment on its discussion of the effects
of the proposed rules on the
considerations in Section 15(a) of the
CEA.
Self-Trade Prevention
151. Please comment on the cost
estimates described above for DCMs and
market participants to comply with the
requirements of § 40.23. The
Commission is interested in commenter
opinion on all aspects of its analysis,
including its estimate of the number of
entities impacted by the proposed
regulation and the amount of costs such
entities may incur to comply with the
regulation.
152. Please comment on the benefits
described above. Do you agree with the
Commission’s position that self-trade
prevention requirements will result in
more accurate indications of the level of
market interest on both sides of the
market and help ensure arms-length
transactions that promote effective price
discovery? Are there additional benefits
to regulatory self-trade prevention
requirements not articulated above?
153. Are there any DCMs that neither
internalize and apply self-trade
prevention tools, nor provide self-trade
prevention tools to their market
participants? If so, please provide an
estimate of the cost to such a DCM to
comply with the requirement under
§ 40.23(a) to apply, or provide and
require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools.
154. Would any DCMs that currently
offer self-trade prevention tools need to
update their tools to meet the
requirements of § 40.23? If so, please
provide an estimate of the cost to such
a DCM to comply with the requirements
of § 40.23.
155. What percentage of market
participants do not currently make use
of exchange-provided self-trade
prevention tools, when active on a DCM

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

that provides, but does not require such
tools? Please provide an estimate of the
cost to such a market participant to
initially calibrate and use exchangeprovided self-trade prevention tools, in
accordance with § 40.23. Please also
comment on any other direct or indirect
costs to a market participant that does
not currently use self-trade prevention
tools arising from the proposed
requirement to implement such tools.
156. The Commission estimates above
that the number of market participants
that will submit the approval requests
described by § 40.23(c) is approximately
equivalent to the number of AT Persons.
Please comment on whether the
estimate of the number of market
participants submitting such approval
requests should be higher or lower. For
example, should the estimate be raised
to account for proprietary algorithmic
traders that will not be AT Persons,
because they do not use Direct
Electronic Access and therefore will not
be required to register as floor traders?
157. Proposed § 40.23 provides that
DCMs may comply with the
requirement to apply, or provide and
require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools by requiring market participants to
identify to the DCM which accounts
should be prohibited from trading with
each other. With respect to this account
identification process, the Commission’s
principal goal is to prevent
unintentional self-trading; the
Commission does not have a specific
interest in regulating the manner by
which market participants identify to
DCMs the account that should be
prohibited from trading from each other,
so long as this goal is met. Should any
other identification methods be
permitted in § 40.23? For example,
please comment on whether the
opposite approach is preferable: Market
participants would identify to DCMs the
accounts that should be permitted to
trade with each other (as opposed to
those accounts that should be prevented
from trading with each other). In
particular, please comment on whether
this approach or other identification
methods would reduce costs for market
participants or be easier for both market
participants and DCMs to administer.
158. The Commission requests
comment on its discussion of the effects
of the proposed rules on the
considerations in Section 15(a) of the
CEA.
Market-Maker and Trading Incentive
Programs
159. The Commission requests
comment on the accuracy of its cost
estimates.

PO 00000

Frm 00114

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

160. To what extent are the costs
imposed on the DCMs by the proposed
rule already incurred pursuant to
existing rules?
161. To what extent are the benefits
of the proposed rule currently being
realized?
162. Do DCM Web sites currently
provide adequate information regarding
market-maker and trading incentive
programs, and is such information
easily located?
163. To what extent do DCMs
currently make payments for self-trades
pursuant to market-maker and trading
incentive programs?
164. The Commission requests
comment on its discussion of the effects
of the proposed rules on the
considerations in Section 15(a) of the
CEA.
List of Subjects
17 CFR Part 1
Commodity futures, Commodity pool
operators, Commodity trading advisors,
Definitions, Designated contract
markets, Floor brokers, Futures
commission merchants, Introducing
brokers, Major swap participants,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Swap dealers.
17 CFR Part 38
Commodity futures, Designated
contract markets, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
17 CFR Part 40
Commodity futures, Definitions,
Designated contract markets, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
17 CFR Part 170
Commodity futures, Commodity pool
operators, Commodity trading advisors,
Floor brokers, Futures commission
merchants, Introducing brokers, Major
swap participants, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Swap
dealers.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission proposes to amend
17 CFR chapter I as follows:
PART 1—GENERAL REGULATIONS
UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE
ACT
1. The authority citation for part 1
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c,
6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p,
6r, 6s, 7, 7a–1, 7a–2, 7b, 7b–3, 8, 9, 10a, 12,
12a, 12c, 13a, 13a–1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23, and
24 (2012).

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2. In § 1.3, add paragraphs (x)(3), (tttt),
(uuuu), (vvvv), (wwww), (xxxx), (yyyy),
and (zzzz) to read as follows:

■

§ 1.3

Definitions.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

*

*
*
*
*
(x) * * *
(3)(i) Who, in or surrounding any
other place provided by a contract
market for the meeting of persons
similarly engaged purchases or sells
solely for such person’s own account—
(A) Any commodity for future
delivery, security futures product, or
swap; or
(B) Any commodity option authorized
under section 4c of the Act; and
(ii) Who uses Direct Electronic Access
as defined in paragraph (yyyy) of this
section, in whole or in part, to access
such other place for Algorithmic
Trading; and
(iii) Who is not registered with the
Commission as a futures commission
merchant, floor broker, swap dealer,
major swap participant, commodity
pool operator, commodity trading
advisor, or introducing broker.
*
*
*
*
*
(tttt) Algorithmic Trading Compliance
Issue. This term means an event at an
AT Person that has caused any
Algorithmic Trading of such entity to
operate in a manner that does not
comply with the Commodity Exchange
Act or the rules and regulations
thereunder, the rules of any designated
contract market to which such AT
Person submits orders through
Algorithmic Trading, the rules of any
registered futures association of which
such AT Person is a member, the AT
Person’s own internal requirements, or
the requirements of the AT Person’s
clearing member, in each case as
applicable.
(uuuu) Algorithmic Trading
Disruption. This term means an event
originating with an AT Person that
disrupts, or materially degrades—
(1) The Algorithmic Trading of such
AT Person,
(2) The operation of the designated
contract market on which such AT
Person is trading, or
(3) The ability of other market
participants to trade on the designated
contract market on which such AT
Person is trading.
(vvvv) Algorithmic Trading Event.
This term means an event at an AT
Person that constitutes—
(1) An Algorithmic Trading
Compliance Issue; or
(2) An Algorithmic Trading
Disruption.
(wwww) AT Order Message. This
term means each new order or quote
submitted through Algorithmic Trading

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

to a designated contract market by an
AT Person and each change or deletion
submitted through Algorithmic Trading
by an AT Person with respect to such an
order or quote.
(xxxx) AT Person. This term means
any person registered or required to be
registered as a—
(1) Futures commission merchant,
floor broker, swap dealer, major swap
participant, commodity pool operator,
commodity trading advisor, or
introducing broker that engages in
Algorithmic Trading on or subject to the
rules of a designated contract market; or
(2) Floor trader as defined in
paragraph (x)(3) of this section.
(yyyy) Direct Electronic Access. This
term means an arrangement where a
person electronically transmits an order
to a designated contract market, without
the order first being routed through a
separate person who is a member of a
derivatives clearing organization to
which the designated contract market
submits transactions for clearing.
(zzzz) Algorithmic Trading. This term
means trading in any commodity
interest as defined in paragraph (yy) of
this section on or subject to the rules of
a designated contract market, where:
(1) One or more computer algorithms
or systems determines whether to
initiate, modify, or cancel an order, or
otherwise makes determinations with
respect to an order, including but not
limited to: The product to be traded; the
venue where the order will be placed;
the type of order to be placed; the
timing of the order; whether to place the
order; the sequencing of the order in
relation to other orders; the price of the
order; the quantity of the order; the
partition of the order into smaller
components for submission; the number
of orders to be placed; or how to manage
the order after submission; and
(2) Such order, modification or order
cancellation is electronically submitted
for processing on or subject to the rules
of a designated contract market;
provided, however, that Algorithmic
Trading does not include an order,
modification, or order cancellation
whose every parameter or attribute is
manually entered into a front-end
system by a natural person, with no
further discretion by any computer
system or algorithm, prior to its
electronic submission for processing on
or subject to the rules of a designated
contract market.
■ 3. Add subpart A to read as follows:
Subpart A—Requirements for Algorithmic
Trading
Sec.
1.80 Pre-trade risk controls for AT Persons.

PO 00000

Frm 00115

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78937

1.81

Standards for the development,
monitoring, and compliance of
Algorithmic Trading systems.
1.82 Clearing futures commission merchant
risk management.
1.83 AT Person and clearing member
futures commission merchant reports
and recordkeeping.

Subpart A—Requirements for
Algorithmic Trading
§ 1.80 Pre-trade risk controls for AT
Persons.

For all AT Order Messages, an AT
Person shall implement pre-trade risk
controls and other measures reasonably
designed to prevent an Algorithmic
Trading Event, including but not limited
to:
(a) Pre-Trade Risk Controls. (1) The
pre-trade risk controls shall include, at
a minimum, the following:
(i) Maximum AT Order Message
frequency per unit time and maximum
execution frequency per unit time; and
(ii) Order price parameters and
maximum order size limits.
(2) Pre-trade risk controls shall be set
at the level of each AT Person, or such
other more granular level as the AT
Person may determine, including but
not limited to, by product, account
number or designation, or one or more
identifiers of natural persons associated
with an AT Order Message.
(3) Natural person monitors at the AT
Person shall be promptly alerted when
pre-trade risk control parameters
established pursuant to this section are
breached.
(b) Order Cancellation Systems. (1)
Systems that have the ability to:
(i) Immediately disengage Algorithmic
Trading;
(ii) Cancel selected or up to all resting
orders when system or market
conditions require it; and
(iii) Prevent submission of new AT
Order Messages.
(2) Prior to an AT Person’s initial use
of Algorithmic Trading to submit a
message or order to a designated
contract market’s trading platform, such
AT Person must notify the designated
contract market on which it conducts
Algorithmic Trading whether all of its
resting orders should be cancelled or
suspended in the event that the AT
Person’s Algorithmic Trading system
disconnects with the trading platform.
(c) System Connectivity. AT Persons
with Direct Electronic Access as defined
in § 1.3(yyyy) shall implement systems
to indicate on an ongoing basis whether
they have proper connectivity with the
trading platform and any systems used
by a designated contract market to
provide the AT Person with market
data.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78938

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

(d) Notification of Algorithmic
Trading. Prior to an AT Person’s initial
use of Algorithmic Trading to submit a
message or order to a designated
contract market’s trading platform, such
AT Person shall notify its clearing
member and the designated contract
market on which it will be trading that
it will engage in Algorithmic Trading.
(e) Self-Trade Prevention Tools. To
the extent that implementation of a
designated contract market’s self-trade
prevention tools requires calibration or
other action by an AT Person, such AT
Person shall calibrate or take such other
action as is necessary to apply such
tools.
(f) Periodic Review for Sufficiency and
Effectiveness. Each AT Person shall
periodically review its compliance with
this section to determine whether it has
effectively implemented sufficient
measures reasonably designed to
prevent an Algorithmic Trading Event.
Each AT Person shall take prompt
action to remedy any deficiencies it
identifies.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

§ 1.81 Standards for the development,
monitoring, and compliance of Algorithmic
Trading systems.

(a) Development and testing of
Algorithmic Trading Systems. (1) Each
AT Person shall implement written
policies and procedures for the
development and testing of its
Algorithmic Trading systems. Such
policies and procedures shall at a
minimum include the following:
(i) Maintaining a development
environment that is adequately isolated
from the production trading
environment. The development
environment may include computers,
networks, and databases, and should be
used by software engineers while
developing, modifying, and testing
source code.
(ii) Testing of all Algorithmic Trading
code and related systems and any
changes to such code and systems prior
to their implementation, including
testing to identify circumstances that
may contribute to future Algorithmic
Trading Events. Such testing must be
conducted both internally within the
AT Person and on each designated
contract market on which Algorithmic
Trading will occur.
(iii) Regular back-testing of
Algorithmic Trading using historical
transaction, order, and message data to
identify circumstances that may
contribute to future Algorithmic Trading
Events.
(iv) Regular stress tests of Algorithmic
Trading systems to verify their ability to
operate in the manner intended under a
variety of market conditions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

(v) Procedures for documenting the
strategy and design of proprietary
Algorithmic Trading software used by
an AT Person, as well as any changes to
such software if such changes are
implemented in a production
environment.
(vi) Maintaining a source code
repository to manage source code
access, persistence, copies of all code
used in the production environment,
and changes to such code. Such source
code repository must include an audit
trail of material changes to source code
that would allow the AT Person to
determine, for each such material
change: who made it; when they made
it; and the coding purpose of the
change. Each AT Person shall keep such
source code repository, and make it
available for inspection, in accordance
with § 1.31.
(2) Each AT Person shall periodically
review the effectiveness of the policies
and procedures required by this
paragraph (a), and take prompt action to
document and remedy deficiencies in
such policies and procedures.
(b) Monitoring of Algorithmic Trading
Systems. (1) Each AT Person shall
implement written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that each of its Algorithmic
Trading systems is subject to continuous
real-time monitoring by knowledgeable
and qualified staff while such
Algorithmic Trading system is engaged
in trading. Such policies and procedures
shall at a minimum include the
following:
(i) Continuous real-time monitoring of
Algorithmic Trading to identify
potential Algorithmic Trading Events.
(ii) Automated alerts when an
Algorithmic Trading system’s AT Order
Message behavior breaches design
parameters, upon loss of network
connectivity or data feeds, or when
market conditions approach the
boundaries within which the
Algorithmic Trading system is intended
to operate, to the extent applicable.
(iii) Monitoring staff of the AT Person
shall have the ability and authority to
disengage an Algorithmic Trading
system and to cancel resting orders
when system or market conditions
require it, including the ability to
contact staff of the applicable
designated contract market and clearing
firm, as applicable, to seek information
and cancel orders. Such monitoring staff
must also have dashboards and control
panels to monitor and interact with the
Algorithmic Trading systems for which
they are responsible.
(iv) Procedures that will enable AT
Persons to track which monitoring staff

PO 00000

Frm 00116

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

is responsible for an Algorithmic
Trading system during trading hours.
(2) Each AT Person shall periodically
review the effectiveness of the policies
and procedures required by this
paragraph (b), and take prompt action to
document and remedy deficiencies in
such policies and procedures.
(c) Compliance of Algorithmic
Trading Systems. (1) Each AT Person
shall implement written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that each of its Algorithmic
Trading systems operates in a manner
that complies with the Commodity
Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.
(2) Each AT Person shall implement
written policies and procedures
requiring:
(i) Staff of the AT Person to review
Algorithmic Trading systems in order to
detect potential Algorithmic Trading
Compliance Issues. Procedures shall
indicate that such staff shall include
staff of the AT Person familiar with the
Commodity Exchange Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder, the rules of
any designated contract market to which
such AT Person submits AT Order
Messages, the rules of any registered
futures association of which such AT
Person is a member, the AT Person’s
own internal requirements, and the
requirements of the AT Person’s
clearing member, in each case as
applicable.
(ii) A plan of internal coordination
and communication between
compliance staff of the AT Person and
staff of the AT Person responsible for
Algorithmic Trading regarding
Algorithmic Trading design, changes,
testing, and controls, which plan should
be designed to detect and prevent
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issues.
(3) Each AT Person shall periodically
review the effectiveness of the policies
and procedures required by this
paragraph (c), and take prompt action to
document and remedy deficiencies in
such policies and procedures.
(d) Designation and training of
Algorithmic Trading staff. (1) Each AT
Person shall implement written policies
and procedures to designate and train
its staff responsible for Algorithmic
Trading. Such policies and procedures
shall at a minimum include the
following:
(i) Procedures for designating and
training all staff involved in designing,
testing and monitoring Algorithmic
Trading, and documenting training
events. Training must, at a minimum,
cover design and testing standards,
Algorithmic Trading Event
communication procedures, and
requirements for notifying staff of the

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
applicable designated contract market
when Algorithmic Trading Events
occur.
(ii) Training policies reasonably
designed to ensure that natural person
monitors are adequately trained for each
Algorithmic Trading system or strategy
(or material change to such system or
strategy) for which such monitors are
responsible. Training must include, at a
minimum, the trading strategy for the
Algorithmic Trading as well as the
automated and non-automated risk
controls that are applicable to the
Algorithmic Trading.
(iii) Escalation procedures to inform
senior staff of the AT Person as soon as
Algorithmic Trading Events are
identified.
(2) Each AT Person shall periodically
review the effectiveness of the policies
and procedures required by this
paragraph (d), and take prompt action to
document and remedy deficiencies in
such policies and procedures.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

§ 1.82 Clearing member futures
commission merchant risk management.

(a) For all AT Order Messages
originating with an AT Person, the
futures commission merchant that is the
clearing member for such AT Person
shall comply with the following
requirements:
(1) Make use of pre-trade risk controls
reasonably designed to prevent or
mitigate an Algorithmic Trading
Disruption, including at a minimum,
those pre-trade risk controls described
in § 1.80(a)(1).
(2) Pre-trade risk controls must be set
at the level of each AT Person, or such
other more granular level as the clearing
futures commission merchant may
determine, including but not limited to,
by product, account number or
designation, or one or more identifiers
of natural persons associated with an
AT Order Message.
(3) The futures commission merchant
shall have policies and procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that
natural person monitors at the clearing
futures commission merchant are
promptly alerted when pre-trade risk
control parameters established pursuant
to this section are breached.
(4) Make use of the order cancellation
systems described in § 1.80(b)(1).
(b) Direct Electronic Access orders.
For all AT Order Messages originating
with an AT Person submitted to a
trading platform through Direct
Electronic Access as defined in
§ 1.3(yyyy), the futures commission
merchant that is the clearing member for
the AT Person shall comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (2),
and (4) of this section by implementing

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

the pre-trade risk controls and order
cancellation systems provided by
designated contract markets pursuant to
§ 38.255(b) and (c) of this chapter.
(c) Non-Direct Electronic Access
orders. For all AT Order Messages
originating with an AT Person that are
not submitted to a trading platform
through Direct Electronic Access as
defined in § 1.3(yyyy), the futures
commission merchant that is the
clearing member for the AT Person shall
comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (4) of this
section by itself establishing and
maintaining the pre-trade risk controls
and order cancellation systems
described therein.
§ 1.83 AT Person and clearing member
futures commission merchant reports and
recordkeeping.

(a) AT Person Reports. Each AT
Person shall annually prepare a report
and submit such report by June 30 to
each designated contract market on
which such AT Person engaged in
Algorithmic Trading. Together with the
annual report, each AT Person shall
submit copies of the written policies
and procedures developed to comply
with § 1.81(a) and (c). Such report shall
cover the time period from May 1 of the
previous year to April 30 of the year
such report is submitted. The report
shall include the following:
(1) A description of the pre-trade risk
controls required by § 1.80(a), including
a description of each item enumerated
in § 1.80(a) and a description of all
parameters and the specific quantitative
settings used by the AT Person for such
pre-trade risk controls; and
(2) A certification by the chief
executive officer or chief compliance
officer of the AT Person that, to the best
of his or her knowledge and reasonable
belief, the information contained in the
report is accurate and complete.
(b) Clearing member futures
commission merchant reports. Each
futures commission merchant that is a
clearing member for one or more AT
Person(s) shall annually prepare and
submit a report by June 30 to each
designated contract market on which
such AT Person(s) engaged in
Algorithmic Trading. Such report shall
cover the time period from May 1 of the
previous year to April 30 of the year
such report is submitted. The report
shall include the following:
(1) A description of the clearing
member futures commission merchant’s
program for establishing and
maintaining the pre-trade risk controls
required by § 1.82(a)(1) for its AT
Persons at the designated contract
market; and

PO 00000

Frm 00117

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78939

(2) A certification by the chief
executive officer or chief compliance
officer of the futures commission
merchant that, to the best of his or her
knowledge and reasonable belief, the
information contained in the report is
accurate and complete.
(c) AT Person recordkeeping. Each AT
Person shall keep, and provide upon
request to each designated contract
market on which such AT Person
engages in Algorithmic Trading, books
and records regarding such AT Person’s
compliance with all requirements
pursuant to §§ 1.80 and 1.81.
(d) Clearing member futures
commission merchant recordkeeping.
Each futures commission merchant that
is a clearing member for an AT Person
shall keep, and provide upon request to
each designated contract market on
which such AT Person engages in
Algorithmic Trading, books and records
regarding such clearing member futures
commission merchant’s compliance
with all requirements pursuant to § 1.82.
PART 38—DESIGNATED CONTRACT
MARKETS
4. The authority citation for part 38
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6c, 6d, 6e,
6f, 6g, 6i, 6j, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a–2, 7b, 7b–
1, 7b–3, 8, 9, 15, and 21, as amended by the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111–203,
124 Stat. 1376.
■

5. Revise § 38.255 to read as follows:

§ 38.255

Risk controls for trading.

(a) The designated contract market
must establish and maintain risk control
mechanisms to prevent and reduce the
potential risk of price distortions and
market disruptions, including, but not
limited to, market restrictions that pause
or halt trading in market conditions
prescribed by the designated contract
market.
(b) For all AT Order Messages
originating with an AT Person that are
submitted to a designated contract
market through Direct Electronic Access
as defined in § 1.3(yyyy) of this chapter,
the designated contract market shall
make available to the clearing member
futures commission merchant for such
AT Person effective systems and
controls, reasonably designed to
facilitate the items enumerated below:
(1) The clearing member futures
commission merchant’s management of
the risks, pursuant to § 1.82(a)(1) and (2)
of this chapter, that may arise from such
AT Person’s Algorithmic Trading using
Direct Electronic Access.
(i) Such systems and controls shall
include, at a minimum, the pre-trade

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78940

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

risk controls described in § 1.80(a)(1) of
this chapter.
(ii) Such systems shall, at a minimum,
enable the clearing member futures
commission merchant to set the pretrade risk controls at the level of each
such AT Person, product, account
number or designation, and one or more
identifiers of natural persons associated
with an AT Order Message. Designated
contract market rules should permit
clearing member futures commission
merchants to choose the level at which
they place control, so long as clearing
member futures commission merchants
use at least one of the levels.
(2) The clearing member future
commission merchant’s ability,
pursuant to § 1.82(a)(4) of this chapter,
to make use of the order cancellation
systems described in § 1.80(b)(1) of this
chapter. The designated contract market
shall enable the clearing member future
commission merchant to apply such
order cancellation systems to orders
from each such AT Person, product,
account number or designation, or one
or more identifiers of natural persons
associated with an AT Order Message.
(c) A designated contract market that
permits Direct Electronic Access as
defined in § 1.3(yyyy) of this chapter
shall also require clearing member
futures commission merchants to use
the systems and controls described in
paragraph (b) of this section with
respect to all AT Order Messages
originating with an AT Person that are
submitted through Direct Electronic
Access.
■ 6. Amend § 38.401 as follows:
■ a. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
■ b. Add paragraph (a)(1)(iv);
■ c. Revise paragraph (a)(2); and
■ d. Add paragraph (c)(3).
■ The revisions and additions read as
follows:

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

§ 38.401

General requirements.

(a) * * * (1) * * *
(iii) Rules and specifications
pertaining to the operation of the
electronic matching platform or trade
execution facility, including but not
limited to those pertaining to the
operation of its electronic matching
platform that materially affect the time,
priority, price, or quantity of execution,
or the ability to cancel, modify, or limit
display of market participant orders.
(iv) Any known attributes of the
electronic matching platform, other than
those already disclosed in rules or
specifications under paragraph (a)(1)(iii)
of this section, that materially affect the
time, priority, price, or quantity of
execution of market participant orders,
the ability to cancel, modify, or limit
display of market participant orders, or

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

the dissemination of real-time market
data to market participants, including
but not limited to latencies or other
variability in the electronic matching
platform and the transmission of
message acknowledgements, order
confirmations, or trade confirmations, or
dissemination of market data.
(2) Through the procedures,
arrangements and resources required in
paragraph (a) of this section, the
designated contract market must ensure
public dissemination of information
pertaining to new product listings, new
rules, rule amendments, rules pertaining
to the operation of the electronic
matching platform or trade execution
facility, known attributes of its
electronic trading platform under
paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, or
other changes to previously-disclosed
information, in accordance with the
timeline provided in paragraph (c) of
this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) A designated contract market, in
making available on its Web site
information pursuant to paragraphs
(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section, shall
place such information and submissions
on its Web site within a reasonable time,
but no later than 10 business days,
following the identification of or
changes to such attributes. Such
information shall be disclosed
prominently and clearly in plain
English.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. In Appendix B to part 38, in the
paragraph with the subject heading Core
Principle 4 of section 5(d) of the Act:
PREVENTION OF MARKET
DISRUPTION, revise paragraph (b)(5) to
read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 38—Guidance on,
and Acceptable Practices in,
Compliance With Core Principles
*

*

*

*

*

Core Principle 4 of section 5(d) of the Act:
PREVENTION OF MARKET DISRUPTION

*

*

*

*

*

(b) * * *
(5) Risk controls for trading. An acceptable
program for preventing market disruptions
must demonstrate appropriate trade risk
controls, in addition to pauses and halts.
Such controls must be adapted to the unique
characteristics of the markets to which they
apply and must be designed to avoid market
disruptions without unduly interfering with
that market’s price discovery function. The
designated contract market must employ the
pre-trade risk controls specified in the
Commission’s regulations (including
applicable regulations contained in part 40 of
this chapter), and may employ additional
controls that the designated contract market
believes are appropriate to its market. Within

PO 00000

Frm 00118

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

the specific array of controls that are
selected, the designated contract market also
must set the parameters for those controls, so
long as the types of controls and their
specific parameters are reasonably likely to
serve the purpose of preventing market
disruptions and price distortions, or as they
are otherwise required to be designed
pursuant to Commission regulation. If a
contract is linked to, or is a substitute for,
other contracts, either listed on its market or
on other trading venues, the designated
contract market must, to the extent
practicable, coordinate its risk controls with
any similar controls placed on those other
contracts. If a contract is based on the price
of an equity security or the level of an equity
index, such risk controls must, to the extent
practicable, be coordinated with any similar
controls placed on national security
exchanges.

*

*

*

*

*

PART 40—PROVISIONS COMMON TO
REGISTERED ENTITIES
8. The authority citation for part 40
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 7, 7a, 8 and
12, as amended by Titles VII and VIII of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111–203,
124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
■

9. Revise § 40.1(i) to read as follows:

§ 40.1

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
(i) Rule means any constitutional
provision, article of incorporation,
bylaw, rule, regulation, resolution,
interpretation, stated policy, advisory,
terms and conditions, market maker or
trading incentive program, trading
protocol (including but not limited to
any operation of an electronic matching
platform that materially affects the time,
priority, price, or quantity of execution
of market participant orders, the ability
to cancel, modify, or limit display of
market participant orders, or the
dissemination of real-time market data
to market participants), agreement or
instrument corresponding thereto,
including those that authorize a
response or establish standards for
responding to a specific emergency, and
any amendment or addition thereto or
repeal thereof, made or issued by a
registered entity or by the governing
board thereof or any committee thereof,
in whatever form adopted.
*
*
*
*
*

§§ 40.13 through 40.19

[Reserved]

10. Add reserved §§ 40.13 through
40.19.
■ 11. Add §§ 40.20 through 40.23 to
read as follows:
■

§ 40.20

Risk controls for trading.

A designated contract market shall
implement pre-trade and other risk

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
controls reasonably designed to prevent
an Algorithmic Trading Disruption (or,
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section, similar disruption resulting
from orders that originate from manual
order entry or other non-Algorithmic
Trading) or an Algorithmic Trading
Compliance Issue, including at a
minimum all of the following:
(a) Pre-trade risk controls. Pre-trade
risk controls reasonably designed to
address the risks from Algorithmic
Trading on a designated contract
market.
(1) The pre-trade risk controls to be
established and used by a designated
contract market shall include, at a
minimum, those described in
§ 1.80(a)(1) of this chapter.
(2) At a minimum, the pre-trade risk
controls established and used pursuant
to this section shall be set at the level
of each AT Person. Designated contract
markets must also evaluate whether to
establish pre-trade risk controls at a
more granular level, including at a
minimum, by product or one or more
identifiers of natural persons associated
with an AT Order Message. Where
deemed appropriate by the designated
contract market, pre-trade risk controls
should be set at such more granular
levels.
(3) A designated contract market shall
have policies and procedures reasonably
designed to ensure that natural person
monitors at such designated contract
market are promptly alerted when pretrade risk control parameters established
pursuant to this section are breached.
(b) Order cancellation systems. (1)
Order cancellation systems that have the
ability to:
(i) Perform the actions described in
§ 1.80(b)(1) of this chapter with respect
to orders from AT Persons; and
(ii) Cancel or suspend all resting
orders from AT Persons in the event of
disconnect with the trading platform.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) System connectivity. (1) Systems
that enable the systems of an AT Person
with Direct Electronic Access as defined
in § 1.3(yyyy) of this chapter to indicate
to the AT Person on an ongoing basis
whether the AT Person has proper
connectivity with—
(i) The designated contract market’s
trading platform, and
(ii) Any systems used by the
designated contract market to provide
the AT Person with market data.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) Risk control mechanisms for
manual order entry and other nonAlgorithmic Trading. (1) A designated
contract market shall implement the risk
control mechanisms described in
paragraphs (a) and (b)(1)(i) of this

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

section for orders that do not originate
from Algorithmic Trading, after making
any adjustments to the mechanisms that
the designated contract market
determines are appropriate for such
orders.
(2) [Reserved]
§ 40.21

DCM test environments.

(a) A designated contract market shall
provide a test environment that will
enable AT Persons to simulate
production trading. Such test
environment shall provide access to
historical transaction, order and
message data and shall also enable AT
Persons to conduct conformance testing
of their Algorithmic Trading systems to
verify compliance with the
requirements of §§ 1.80(a) through (c)
and 1.81(a)(1)(ii) through (iv) and (c)(1)
of this chapter.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 40.22 DCM review of compliance reports;
maintenance of books and records.

A designated contract market shall
comply with the following:
(a) Review of reports. Implement rules
that require each AT Person that trades
on the designated contract market, and
each futures commission merchant that
is a clearing member of a derivatives
clearing organization for such AT
Person, to submit the reports described
in § 1.83(a) and (b), respectively, of this
chapter;
(b) Submission date. Require the
submission of such reports by June 30th
of each year;
(c) Review program. Establish a
program for effective periodic review
and evaluation of reports described in
paragraph (a) of this section, and of the
measures described therein. An effective
program shall include measures by the
designated contract market reasonably
designed to identify and remediate any
insufficient mechanisms, policies and
procedures described in such reports,
including identification and
remediation of any inadequate
quantitative settings or calibrations of
pre-trade risk controls required of AT
Persons pursuant to § 1.80(a) of this
chapter;
(d) Maintenance of books and records.
Implement rules that require each AT
Person to keep and provide to the
designated contract market books and
records regarding such AT Person’s
compliance with all requirements
pursuant to §§ 1.80 and 1.81 of this
chapter, and require each clearing
member futures commission merchant
to keep and provide to the designated
contract market books and records
regarding such clearing member futures
commission merchant’s compliance

PO 00000

Frm 00119

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78941

with all requirements pursuant to § 1.82
of this chapter; and
(e) Review and evaluate, as necessary,
books and records required to be kept
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section, and the measures described
therein. An appropriate review shall
include measures by the designated
contract market reasonably designed to
identify and remediate any insufficient
mechanisms, policies, and procedures
described in such books and records.
§ 40.23

Self-trade prevention tools.

(a) A designated contract market shall
implement rules reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading by market
participants, except as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section. ‘‘Selftrading’’ is defined for purposes of this
section as the matching of orders for
accounts that have common beneficial
ownership or are under common
control. A designated contract market
shall either apply, or provide and
require the use of, self-trade prevention
tools that are reasonably designed to
prevent self-trading and are applicable
to all orders on its electronic trade
matching platform. For purposes of
complying with this requirement, a
designated contract market may either
determine for itself which accounts
should be prohibited from trading with
each other, or require market
participants to identify to the designated
contract market which accounts should
be prohibited from trading with each
other.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a
designated contract market may, in its
discretion, implement rules that permit
self-trading described in paragraphs
(b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section to occur,
in each case subject to the requirements
of paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) A self-trade resulting from the
matching of orders for accounts with
common beneficial ownership where
such orders are initiated by independent
decision makers. A designated contract
market may through its rules further
define for its market participants
‘‘independent decision makers.’’
(2) A self-trade resulting from the
matching of orders for accounts under
common control where such orders
comply with the designated contract
market’s cross-trade, minimum
exposure requirements or similar rules,
and are for accounts that are not under
common beneficial ownership.
(c) A designated contract market may
permit self-trading described in
paragraph (b) of this section only if the
designated contract market:
(1) Requires market participants to
request approval from the designated
contract market that self-trade

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78942

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

prevention tools not be applied with
respect to specific accounts under
common beneficial ownership or
control, on the basis that they meet the
criteria of paragraph (b) of this section.
The designated contract market must
require that such approval request be
provided to it by a compliance officer or
senior officer of the market participant;
and
(2) Requires market participants to
withdraw or amend an approval request
if any change occurs that would cause
the information provided in such
approval request to be no longer
accurate or complete.
(d) For each product and expiration
month traded on a designated contract
market in the previous quarter, the
designated contract market must
prominently display on its Web site the
following information:
(1) The percentage of trades in such
product including all expiration months
that represent self-trading approved
(pursuant to paragraph (c) of this
section) by the designated contract
market, expressed as a percentage of all
trades in such product and expiration
month;
(2) The percentage of volume of
trading in such product including all
expiration months that represents selftrading approved (pursuant to paragraph
(c) of this section) by the designated
contract market, expressed as a
percentage of all volume in such
product and expiration month; and
(3) The ratio of orders in such product
and expiration month whose matching
was prevented by the self-trade
prevention tools described in paragraph
(a) of this section, expressed as a ratio
of all trades in such product and
expiration month.
§ 40.24

[Reserved]

12. Add reserved § 40.24.
13. Add §§ 40.25 through 40.28 to
read as follows:

■
■

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

§ 40.25 Additional public information
required for market maker and trading
incentive programs.

(a) When submitting a Rule regarding
a market maker or trading incentive
program pursuant to § 40.5 or § 40.6, a
designated contract market shall, in
addition to information required by
such sections, include the following
information in its public Rule filing:
(1) The name of the market maker
program or trading incentive program,
the date on which it is scheduled to
begin, and the date on which it is
scheduled to terminate (if applicable);
(2) An explanation of the specific
purpose for the market maker or trading
incentive program;

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

(3) A list of all products or services to
which the market maker or trading
incentive program applies;
(4) A description of any eligibility
criteria or categories of market
participants defining who may
participate in the market maker or
trading incentive program;
(5) For any market maker or trading
incentive program that is not open to all
market participants, an explanation of
why such program is limited to the
chosen eligibility criteria or categories
of market participants, and an
explanation of how such limitation
complies with the impartial access and
comparable fee structure requirements
of § 38.151(b) of this chapter for
designated contract markets;
(6) An explanation of how persons
eligible for the market maker or trading
incentive program may apply to
participate, and how eligibility will be
evaluated by the designated contract
market;
(7) A description of any payments,
incentives, discounts, considerations,
inducements or other benefits that
market maker or trading incentive
program participants may receive,
including any non-financial incentives;
and
(8) A description of the obligations,
benchmarks, or other measures that a
participant in a market maker or trading
incentive program must meet to receive
the benefits described in paragraph
(a)(7) of this section.
(9) A description of any legal
affiliation between the designated
contract market and any entity acting as
a market maker or participating in a
market maker program.
(b) In addition to any public notice
required pursuant to this part (including
without limitation the requirements of
§§ 40.5(a)(6) and 40.6(a)(2)) of this
chapter a designated contract market
shall ensure that the information
required by paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(8) of this section is easily located on
its public Web site from the time that
such designated contract market begins
accepting participants in the market
maker or trading incentive program
through the time that it ceases operation
of the market maker or trading incentive
program.
(c) A designated contract market shall
notify the Commission upon the
termination of a market maker or trading
incentive program prior to the
termination date previously notified to
the Commission; any extension or
renewal of a market maker or trading
incentive program beyond its original
termination date shall require a new
Rule filing pursuant to this part.

PO 00000

Frm 00120

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

§ 40.26 Information requests from the
Commission or the Director of the Division
of Market Oversight.

(a) Upon request by the Commission
or the Director of the Division of Market
Oversight, a designated contract market
shall provide such information and data
as may be requested regarding
participation in market maker or trading
incentive programs offered by the
designated contract market, including
but not limited to, individual program
agreements, names of program
participants, benchmarks achieved by
program participants, and payments or
other benefits conferred upon program
participants.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 40.27 Payment for trades with no change
in ownership prohibited.

(a) A designated contract market shall
implement policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent the
payment of market maker or trading
incentive program benefits, including
but not limited to payments, discounts,
or other considerations, for trades
between accounts that are:
(1) Identified to such designated
contract market as under common
beneficial ownership pursuant to the
approval process described in § 40.23(c);
or
(2) Otherwise known to the
designated contract market as under
common ownership.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 40.28 Surveillance of market maker and
trading incentive programs.

(a) A designated contract market,
consistent with its obligations pursuant
to subpart C of part 38 of this chapter,
shall review all benefits accorded to
participants in market maker and
trading incentive programs, including
but not limited to payments, discounts,
or other considerations, to ensure that
such benefits are not earned through
abusive practices.
(b) [Reserved]
PART 170—REGISTERED FUTURES
ASSOCIATIONS
14. The authority citation for part 170
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6d, 6m, 6p, 6s, 12a, and
21.

15. Add § 170.18 to subpart C to read
as follows:

■

§ 170.18

AT Persons.

Each registrant, as defined in
§ 1.3(oooo) of this chapter, that is an AT
Person, as defined in § 1.3(xxxx) of this
chapter, that is not otherwise required
to be a member of a futures association
that is registered under Section 17 of the

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Act pursuant to §§ 170.15, 170.16, or
170.17 of this chapter must become and
remain a member of at least one futures
association that is registered under
Section 17 of the Act and that provides
for the membership therein of such
registrant, unless no such futures
association is so registered.
■ 16. Add subpart D, consisting of
§ 170.19, to read as follows:
Subpart D—Standards for Automated
Trading and Algorithmic Trading
Systems
§ 170.19 RFA Standards for Automated
Trading and Algorithmic Trading Systems.

(a) A registered futures association
must establish and maintain a program
for the prevention of fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, the
protection of the public interest, and
perfecting the mechanisms of trading on
designated contract markets by adopting
rules for each category of member, as
deemed appropriate by the registered
futures association, requiring:
(1) Pre-trade risk controls and other
measures for algorithmic trading
systems;
(2) Standards for the development,
testing, monitoring, and compliance of
algorithmic trading systems;
(3) Designation and training of
algorithmic trading staff; and
(4) Operational risk management
standards for clearing member futures
commission merchants with respect to
customer orders originating with
algorithmic trading systems.
(b) [Reserved]
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
27, 2015, by the Commission.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
Note: The following appendices will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendices to Regulation Automated
Trading—Commission Voting
Summary, Chairman’s Statement, and
Commissioners’ Statements
Appendix 1—Commission Voting
Summary

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

On this matter, Chairman Massad and
Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo voted
in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in
the negative.

Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman
Timothy G. Massad
Today, the Commission has approved a
proposal that addresses the increased use of
automated trading in our markets. I strongly
support this important action. In the futures
markets, today almost all trading is electronic
in some form. And over the last few years,
more than 70 percent of all trading has
become automated.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

Automated trading has brought many
benefits to market participants. These
include more efficient execution, lower
spreads and greater transparency. But its
extensive use also raises important policy
and supervisory questions and concerns.
The Commission has already taken a
number of steps to respond to the
development of automated trading in our
markets. Following the 2010 ‘‘Flash Crash,’’
the CFTC worked with the SEC to establish
certain controls to minimize the risk of
market disruptions. The Commission has also
required clearing members to implement
policies and procedures governing the use of
automated trading programs. We have also
required automatic screening of orders for
compliance with risk limits if they are
automatically executed.
But as markets continue to evolve, it is
important to continue looking at this issue.
Therefore, in September 2013, the
Commission issued a Concept Release that
requested public comment on the necessity
and operation of a variety of risk controls and
measures. The Commission received many
written comments and also held a meeting of
its Technological Advisory to discuss the
issues raised. It served as a very useful way
to understand existing industry practices and
discuss what further actions might make
sense.
The proposal approved today addresses
several areas discussed in the Concept
Release, and incorporates much of that
public input. It focuses on minimizing the
potential for disruptions and other
operational problems that may arise from the
automation of order origination, transmission
or execution. They may come about due to
malfunctioning algorithms, inadequate
testing of algorithms, errors and similar
problems.
No set of rules can prevent all such
problems. But that doesn’t discharge us from
our duty to take reasonable measures to
minimize these risks. It is our responsibility
as regulators to create a framework that
promotes the integrity of these markets. And
I believe this proposed rule helps do that.
Our futures market infrastructure is already
very strong. Our regulatory framework—and
the controls and measures that exist at the
exchange and clearing member level in
particular—have helped create the best
futures markets in the world. Our proposal
seeks to maintain that strength as our markets
evolve further.
We have proposed a number of measures
that largely reflect what are industry best
practices to minimize the risk of disruptions
and similar problems. We have tried to be
principles-based. We have set forth
requirements for certain controls, but we
have avoided prescribing the parameters or
levels at which they should be set. The
proposed risk controls will apply regardless
of whether the automated trading is high- or
low-frequency. The proposal does not define
high frequency trading.
A key principal of this proposed rule is to
have risk controls at three levels—the
exchange level, clearing member level and
trading firm level. Market participants
generally supported this multi-level
approach in response to the Concept Release,

PO 00000

Frm 00121

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78943

and I believe it is important to achieving a
sound framework. But in doing so, we must
seek efficiency, and avoid conflicting or
unnecessary requirements at multiple levels.
In order to make the multi-level approach
effective, we are proposing to require the
registration of proprietary traders who engage
in algorithmic trading on our regulated
exchanges via ‘‘direct electronic access.’’
Today, our staff estimates that roughly 35
percent of the futures trading in our markets
is done by traders who use direct electronic
access and are not registered with us. A
registration requirement will ensure that all
those with direct electronic access to our
markets are complying with pre-trade risk
controls, testing and other requirements. And
it would enhance the Commission’s ability to
carry out its oversight responsibilities.
While we believe a registration
requirement is appropriate, we have also
invited market participants to comment on
whether there are alternatives that can
achieve the proposal’s underlying objectives.
We have also asked whether the registration
requirement should be limited to trading
firms meeting certain volume, order or
message levels—or be based on other
characteristics. Further, we are seeking
comment on whether all firms trading
through direct electronic access should be
required to register, even if they are not using
algorithmic trading.
We believe that many of the requirements
we are proposing for trading firms represent
the best practices already followed by many
larger firms. However, we know that a faulty
algorithm at a single firm, regardless of size,
can potentially cause a significant problem.
As a result, we have proposed standards that
are applicable regardless of the size or similar
attributes of a trading firm. We also are
cognizant of the importance of establishing
effective standards without creating barriers
to entry for small firms. So we welcome
comment on whether these requirements
should vary in any way depending on the
size or activity level of the trading firm.
We have also proposed certain risk
controls for clearing member futures
commission merchants (FCMs) with respect
to their customers engaged in algorithmic
trading. FCMs play a critical role in overall
risk management. As I noted earlier, they
have implemented measures already to
require order limits and screening of orders.
We believe the requirements we are
proposing today help achieve an effective
multi-layered approach.
We have asked for public comment on
whether there are any aspects of the required
controls that may pose an undue burden on
clearing member FCMs or that are
unnecessary for reducing the risks associated
with algorithmic trading. We’ve also asked
about what technological development
would be required by clearing members to
comply with some requirements of this
proposal.
I’ve said frequently that it’s very important
that we have a robust clearing member
industry and that all customers—particularly
smaller ones—are able to access the markets
effectively and efficiently. We want to make
sure this proposal is consistent with
achieving that objective.

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78944

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

We have also included measures on some
additional topics not covered in the Concept
Release. These include provisions to increase
transparency for exchanges’ electronic trade
matching platforms, as well as for market
maker and trading incentive programs, which
have become more significant as automated
trading has increased.
There are concerns that have been raised
with respect to automated trading that also go
beyond the scope of this proposal. These
include whether our markets are best served
by this speed, and what are its impacts on
volatility and liquidity? These are important
topics for market participants and the
Commission to continue to study and
discuss.
This proposal provides some commonsense risk controls that I believe embrace the
benefits that automated trading has brought
to our markets, while also protecting against
the increased possibility of breakdowns and
disruptions that come with it. We
encourage—and welcome—public comment,
which will carefully be taken into account
before we take any final action.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Appendix 3—Concurring Statement of
Commissioner Sharon Y. Bowen
I want to thank the Commission staff for
the time they have devoted to the proposed
rule on automated trading. It is a timely
topic.
As I have previously said, our markets
have seen immense technological change
over the last fifteen years.1 Futures trading
used to involve ‘‘throngs of traders with
jackets and badges using hand-gestures’’ to
purchase futures and options.2 That trading
structure has largely disappeared, with even
CME closing the vast majority of its futures
pits this summer. Meanwhile, algorithmic
trading has substantially increased. Algo
trading comprised less than 10% of futures
volume at the turn of the millennium.3 Yet,
‘‘per CFTC staff’s estimates, for the most
liquid U.S. futures contracts which account
for over 75% of total trading volume, more
than 90 percent of all trades make use of
algorithms or some other form of
automation.’’ 4 Of course, these estimates are
just that, estimates. We still do not have
comprehensive, precise data on the
percentage of trades created or entered by
algorithms in many product classes. Clearly,
further research and work remain for all
stakeholders, from regulators, to industry
participants, to academics and advocates of
financial reform.
Yet, I do not believe this lack of
information requires that regulators passively
wait for this information to emerge. Simply
waiting for that kind of data to materialize
could allow problems to emerge in the
interim that harm investors and the broader
financial system. Given the current state of
our economy and a global financial system
still recovering from the 2008 financial crisis,
1 Keynote Address by Commissioner Sharon Y.
Bowen before ISDA North America Conference,
CFTC (Sep. 17, 2015), http://www.cftc.gov/
PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opabowen-6.
2 Id.
3 Id.
4 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

that is a risk that I believe we must not take.
Recent events have raised important
questions about the impact and role of
algorithmic trading in our markets. As I said
earlier, this fall, ‘‘Even though the amount of
algorithmic trading and definitions of these
various terms are not crystal clear, what is
clear is trades involving algorithms make up
a substantial portion of our markets, and
algorithms can and do malfunction at times,
with negative effects on the markets. As a
result, I believe we are obligated to consider
if it is prudent to establish some regulations
on algorithmic trading in our markets.’’ 5
Today, we begin the process of potentially
establishing those regulations. From what I
have seen, I believe we now owe it to market
participants, investors, and ordinary
consumers to ensure that a reasonable level
of regulation exists over this new trading
technology. I have said such regulation
should include requirements that entities
utilizing algorithms to trade must use risk
management strategies, be required to
disclose information to regulators, and have
people who understand the Commodity
Exchange Act and our regulations involved
in the creation and maintenance of their
algorithms. I think this proposed regulation
meets that standard and does so in a way that
allows for innovation and continued
development of this nascent technology.
Having said what I think lies at the core
of this regulation, let me also be clear about
what this regulation is not. The rule before
us today should not substantially change
how many firms utilize algorithms. If, as I
hope, a firm already uses risk management
strategies, has various protections against
malfunctions in place, and retains the
services of talented attorneys, this new
regulation will not create significant new
burdens for that firm. In effect, this
rulemaking largely formalizes and mandates
firms involved in algorithmic trading to
engage in a variety of practices that they
should already be doing for their own
protection.
I expect that some observers will have
issues with this regulation for not doing more
to constrain the growth and use of
algorithmic trading, and I expect there will
be further debate. I do not regard this
regulation as the final word on regulation of
algorithmic trading. If there is clear evidence
that more precise regulations are needed on
this technology to protect investors or ward
off systemic risk, I would support further
regulatory action. And I am sure that, given
the ferocious rate of change of this
technology, we will need to update this
regulation regularly to account for those
changes. In many ways, this regulation is
merely the first step in a process, it’s a starter
home rather than a two-story. But we have
to start somewhere, and starting with
something that formalizes best practices and
increases disclosure is an excellent place to
start.
I have said numerous times that I support
smart regulation, regulation that works. That
goal is especially critical when it comes to
regulation of such a nascent, significant, and
widespread technology as algorithmic
5 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00122

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

trading. I therefore hope we’ll get comments
on this proposal from a wide swath of
stakeholders, from industry experts, to endusers being impacted by this technology, to
even ordinary investors and consumers
concerned about the potential effects of
algorithmic trading on commodity prices. I
do not expect that everyone will have the
same views on this subject or that there will
be unanimity of opinion on any part of this
rule. Even though I’ve only been in
Washington for a year and a half, I’m
experienced enough to know that people
have different opinions on high-visibility
issues like this one. However, I do encourage
people to comment so that we can get a full
and fair read of popular opinion on both this
proposal and the topic in general. And if
people have concrete evidence that
algorithmic trading is distorting markets and
needs to be curtailed, please submit it via a
comment.
There are a few sections of this rule on
which I think public comment would be
particularly helpful. First, the proposal’s
sixth and seventh questions ask about the
nature of our proposed definition of
algorithmic trading, including whether we
should expand ‘‘the definition of Algorithmic
Trading to encompass orders that are
generated using algorithmic methods . . . but
are then manually entered into a front-end
system by a natural person. . . .’’ The
definition of algorithmic trading is at the
heart of this proposal, and we need
comments on this point. If there is evidence
that a form of algorithmic trading poses
systemic risks but is not captured by this
definition, we should expand the definition
to expand to cover that form of trading.
Second, section 1.83(a) of the proposal
requires that persons engaged in algorithmic
trading and registered as such with the
Commission must prepare and submit an
annual report to the Commission. These
persons are required to include in their
reports a description of the pre-trade risk
controls in place, copies of policies crafted to
comply with requirements regarding the
testing and development of algorithmic
trading systems and how their algorithmic
trading systems comply with the Commodity
Exchange Act and our regulations, and a
certification by their chief executive officer
or chief compliance officer that the
information in the report is accurate and
complete.
I think the current 1.83(a) does not ask
registrants for enough information. Now, we
don’t want to require each registered
algorithmic trader to submit a tome of several
thousand pages each year that lays out every
arcane factoid about their trading systems.
Such a requirement would bury our staff in
paper and create significant expense for
registrants. Yet, having already asked each
registered algorithmic trader to submit an
annual report, I believe we should ask for
more information in the report. After all, at
the point a company has to file an annual
report, it should already be doing a
comprehensive review of its policies. As a
result, asking for one or two more pieces of
information to be included in the annual
report should not be a substantial additional
cost to registrants. I therefore hope that

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
commenters will let us know what additional
information registrants should be required to
submit in their annual reports. For instance,
should we require registrants to submit
information about how they train and
monitor the staff responsible for handling
algorithmic trading or about their order
cancellation systems?
Finally, the proposal prohibits designated
contract markets (DCMs) from paying market
maker incentive program benefits for trades
between accounts under common ownership.
I think that’s a good change and worthy of
being formalized in rule text. These programs
serve a critical purpose of encouraging
liquidity, but we don’t get increased liquidity
by increasing the amount of trades a person
does with herself.
However, I wonder whether this
prohibition should not go further. Perhaps
we should also prohibit DCMs from paying
these program benefits for trades in which
the benefits are, on a per trade basis, greater
than the fees charged by the relevant DCM
and affiliated derivatives clearing
organization (DCO). Paying benefits for such
trades seems tantamount to giving a subsidy
to un-economic trades and thereby
potentially risks distorting the overall
market. I would therefore welcome
comments about whether this section is
adequate as is or whether we should also
prohibit DCMs from giving benefits to such
seemingly non-economic trades.
In closing, let me stress again that I want
this rule to be both effective and workable.
No one benefits from rules that work in the
abstract but are confusing, impossible to
implement as written, or full of gaps that
prompt stakeholders to engage in widespread
regulatory arbitrage. I believe this automated
trading proposal is a commonsense effort at
establishing reasonable regulation on a
nascent technology, but if there are flaws
with it, if it goes too far or not far enough,
I want to know that now, before it is
finalized. Thank you.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Appendix 4—Statement of
Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo
Introduction
The electronification of trading over the
past 30 to 40 years and the advent of
exponential digital technologies have
transformed financial businesses, markets
and entire economies, with dramatic
implications for capital formation and risk
transfer. In U.S. futures markets, we see this
change most presently in the area of
algorithmic or automated trading that now
constitutes up to seventy percent of regulated
futures markets. Automated trading can
lower transaction costs while increasing
trader productivity through greater
transaction speed, precision and
sophistication. For many markets, automated
trading brings trading liquidity, broader
market access, enhanced transparency and
greater competition.
At the same time, automated trading
presents a host of potential new challenges.
They include increased risk of sudden spikes
in market volatility and ‘‘phantom’’ liquidity
arising from the sheer speed of execution,
potentially flawed algorithms and position
crowding. They also include the risk of data

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

misinterpretation by computerized analysis
and mathematical models that increasingly
replace human thought and deliberation.
Legal scholars raise important questions
about the viability of traditional market
regulation in automated trading markets.
How markets and market regulators adjust
to this change from human to automated
trading will be extremely important. It
requires delicate balancing. To ensure
vibrant, accessible and durable markets, we
must cultivate and embrace new technologies
without harming innovation. Without a
doubt, there must be effective safeguards of
market integrity and credibility, but those
safeguards should not bar promising
innovation and continuous market
development.
In turning to Regulation Automated
Trading (‘‘Regulation AT’’), I acknowledge
that my staff and I had dozens of issues and
concerns that we brought to the attention of
the Division of Market Oversight. While they
were responsive to a few small topics, many
other issues require much further attention
and consideration that I will summarize in
this statement.
Still, after reading through the almost five
hundred pages of this proposal, I am left with
one major question that I still cannot answer.
That question is: does this proposal
sufficiently benefit the safety and soundness
of America’s futures markets so as to
outweigh its additional costs and burdens?
I wish the answer was clearer.
I have three main concerns with Regulation
AT. First, some of the requirements of the
proposal appear to be window dressing. That
is especially the case in its requirement for
development and implementation of risk
controls and related testing standards that the
industry has already widely adopted.
Second, I am concerned about the high
costs and burdens of this proposal, especially
on small market participants. I am especially
concerned about its requirement that
registrants hold their proprietary source code
in data repositories available for inspection
by the Commission or the U.S. Department of
Justice at any time for any reason.
Third, I question the regulatory
inconsistencies regarding the market
participants that must comply with this
rulemaking.
For these reasons and others, I have serious
doubts about today’s proposed rulemaking.
Last November, I delivered a speech at the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce where I set forth
six principles that I would follow as I
evaluate financial market regulations.1 As
part of those principles, I proposed the
‘‘SMART REG’’ standard to help analyze
whether CFTC rules actually solve for real
problems and promote the U.S. economy and
the American markets.2 I struggle to see how
1 Remarks of CFTC Commissioner J. Christopher
Giancarlo before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Re-Balancing Reform: Principles for U.S. Financial
Market Regulation In Service to the American
Economy, Nov. 20, 2014, http://www.cftc.gov/
PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opagiancarlos-2.
2 Id. The ‘‘SMART REG’’ standard follows
whether new CFTC regulations S—Solve for real
problems, not anecdotes of bad behavior; M—
Measure success through a rigorous cost benefit
analysis; A—Advance innovation and competition

PO 00000

Frm 00123

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78945

Regulation AT passes the SMART REG
standard.
Nevertheless, I want to hear the views of
market participants on this proposal. I will
evaluate any final rule based on the SMART
REG standard and thereafter determine
whether to support or reject it.
I will explain my areas of concern.
I. Necessity of Regulation AT
It is hard to identify exactly what issue in
automated trading Regulation AT is designed
to address. The agency is basically playing
catch-up to an industry that has already
developed and implemented risk controls
and related testing standards for automated
trading. Regulation AT describes the
extensive best practices and
recommendations for automated trading
issued by industry organizations and notes
that the majority of industry participants are
following such best practices. Regulation AT
simply codifies industry best practices in
many respects, but does not go as far as
current industry efforts. As such, the
Commission admits that many of the benefits
of this proposal are already being realized in
the marketplace. In reality, current industry
standards on automated trading have well
surpassed Regulation AT in many areas.
It is clear that the industry has long been
at the forefront of creating market solutions
for risk controls in automated trading well
before any regulatory mandate. As I recently
stated, I favor this type of ongoing bottom-up
market-driven approach to risk controls for
automated trading.3 Given the industry’s
leadership role and the fact that Regulation
AT simply codifies a small subset of industry
best practices, while adding heavy
compliance burdens, I question the necessity
and value-add of this proposal.
The staff partly justifies the proposal as
necessary to ensure market integrity given
the risks of automated trading. As support,
Regulation AT illustrates examples of recent
disruptive events in automated trading.
However, the dearth of incidents in the
futures market seems to indicate that current
industry solutions are working well.
Regulation AT only cites three U.S.
disruptive automated trading events in the
past five and a half years and two of those
events occurred in the equities market,
obviously outside of our jurisdiction. In
addition, the equities market events occurred
despite the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘SEC’’) having implemented
some reforms related to automated trading.4
Thus, I question whether Regulation AT will
through flexible rules; R—Represent the best
approach among alternative courses of action; T—
Take into account evidence, rather than
assumptions; R—Realistically set compliance
deadlines; E—Encourage employment of American
workers; and are G—Grounded in law.
3 Keynote Address of CFTC Commissioner J.
Christopher Giancarlo before the 2015 ISDA Annual
Asia Pacific Conference, Top-Down Financial
Market Regulation: Disease Mislabeled as Cure, Oct.
26, 2015, http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/
SpeechesTestimony/opagiancarlo-10.
4 See Regulation AT Preamble, Section II.C.1.:
‘‘Background on Regulatory Responses to
Automated Trading.’’

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78946

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

in fact reduce future disruptive events and
enhance market integrity.
As further support for market integrity, the
preamble asserts that the proposal may limit
a ‘‘race to the bottom,’’ in which certain
entities sacrifice effective risk controls in
order to minimize costs or increase the speed
of trading. In this, the proposal betrays a
naı¨ve misunderstanding of elementary microeconomics. Market participants have every
economic incentive to implement effective
risk controls to prevent the loss of their
capital and being forced out of business. That
is why the industry has been a leader in best
practices for automated trading, including
development of risk controls and related
testing standards. This ongoing bottom-up
market-driven approach to risk controls for
automated trading has raised, not lowered,
the standards.
Several commenters cited in Regulation AT
supported a principles-based approach to
regulation citing the need for flexibility
because each market and the participants in
those markets are different.5 These
commenters also noted that the Commission
already has robust regulations in place to
address the risks of automated trading.6
Tweaking the Commission’s existing
regulations 7 in line with a principles-based
approach may be a better way to build upon
ongoing industry efforts regarding automated
trading, while reducing the compliance
burdens of Regulation AT.
I invite comment on the necessity of
Regulation AT and on other approaches to
automated trading that support—rather than
burden—ongoing industry efforts.
II. Costs of Regulation AT Versus the
Benefits
I am concerned about the costs of
Regulation AT, especially on small market
participants. The Commission tries to
downplay the costs of this proposal because
in many respects it simply codifies industry
best practices and many market participants
are already following such practices.8 The
proposal also repeatedly asserts that the rules
are flexible seemingly in an effort to highlight
its low burdens. However, in reality,
Regulation AT adds compliance, reporting
and registration requirements, and
establishes designated contract market
(‘‘DCM’’) and registered futures association
(‘‘RFA’’) review programs. These additional
requirements will certainly increase costs to
all market participants engaged in
Algorithmic Trading that are subject to this
proposal.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

A. Small Market Participants
The costs of this proposal may
disproportionately impact small market
participants. While Regulation AT raises this
5 ICE Comment Letter at 1–3 (Jan. 17, 2014);
Katten Muchin Rosenmann Comment Letter on
behalf of Gelber Group at 5, 20 and 22–24 (Dec. 9,
2013).
6 Id.
7 See e.g., Commission regulations 1.11(e)(3)(ii),
1.73, 23.600(d)(9), 23.609, 38.255 and 38.607.
8 I also note that the Commission uses old
compensation data from 2012 in calculating the
costs of Regulation AT, which underreports these
costs estimates.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

concern and asks questions in this regard, at
the same time, the proposal dismisses the
possibility that it will capture many small
entities. I am not so sure that will be the case
as the definition of Algorithmic Trading is
very broad and would appear to capture
market participants using off-the-shelf type
automated systems or simple excel
spreadsheets to automate trading.9 If that is
the case, then this proposal could capture, for
example, a small proprietary trading firm, a
small commodity trading advisor (‘‘CTA’’) or
a rural grain elevator company that uses
simple automation.
Regulation AT would add numerous costs
to small market participants and raise
barriers to entry. Small market participants
may be less likely to employ risk controls
consistent with Regulation AT so they would
incur costs to develop or purchase such risk
controls. They would also incur costs to hire
additional employees to develop and
implement policies and procedures for the
development, testing, monitoring and
compliance of their Algorithmic Trading
systems. Small market participants would
have to hire additional employees to
continuously monitor their Algorithmic
Trading systems on a real-time basis. They
would incur costs to annually prepare and
submit a pre-trade risk control compliance
report to each DCM on which they trade.
Furthermore, the proposal would add costs to
small market participants given the required
registration with the Commission and an
RFA. That sounds like a whole lot of extra
costs to me for a ‘‘principles-based’’ nonprescriptive rule.
The proposed rule admits that the
Commission does not know how many small
entities this proposal will affect—
unfortunately, a common theme for CFTC
rules when discussing costs and burdens on
the marketplace. I am disappointed that the
Commission did not get a better sense of the
potential universe of small market
participants that may be impacted by
Regulation AT. To this point, I am very
interested to hear estimates of costs
Regulation AT will impose on smaller market
participants and how it will impact their
ability to conduct business.
Interestingly, the proposed rule also asserts
that a technological malfunction or error in
a very small proprietary trading firm’s
algorithm could have a significant,
detrimental impact on the market despite
providing no evidence to support this
claim.10 I invite commenters to weigh in on
this issue. I am also interested to hear
comments on whether the proposed rules
make sense for those market participants
using off-the-shelf type automated systems or
simple excel spreadsheets to automate
trading, especially the rules around
development, testing, monitoring and
compliance of Algorithmic Trading systems.

in that it requires AT Persons to register with
an RFA and, at the same time, to be subject
to reviews by DCMs. The National Futures
Association (‘‘NFA’’), the only RFA at this
time, will need to hire additional employees
to establish and maintain a program for
Algorithmic Trading systems. The preamble
to Regulation AT also contemplates that NFA
would conduct routine examinations of its
members to ensure that they are complying
with NFA rules. This requirement translates
into additional costs that will be passed
down to NFA’s members. Regulation AT
notes that NFA is the frontline regulator and
is well-positioned to address rules and issues
related to Algorithmic Trading as market
conditions and technology develops.
However, it seems that DCMs have the
most intimate knowledge of the markets and
their participants trading in those markets.
DCMs have been at the forefront of creating
market solutions for risk controls in
automated trading, along with testing and
certification of automated systems.11 In this
regard, Regulation AT requires AT Persons 12
and their clearing member futures
commission merchants (‘‘FCMs’’) to submit
annual reports and policies and procedures
regarding their Algorithmic Trading to all
DCMs on which they trade. DCMs must
establish a program to review these reports
and procedures and provide feedback,
including any deficiencies in participants’
pre-trade risk control settings or
calibrations.13 AT Persons and their clearing
member FCMs must also keep, and provide
upon request to DCMs, books and records
regarding compliance with the proposed
rules. DCMs must review these books and
records as necessary.
Although the preamble states that the NFA
and DCM requirements are not intended to
create conflicting obligations, I am afraid that
the lack of clarity provides a potential to
subject AT Persons to some duplication. As
noted above, DCMs already have standards
for risk controls, testing and certification of
automated systems, but Regulation AT
requires NFA to address these topics in its
program. Regulation AT also discusses
reviews for both NFA and DCMs. Duplicative
requirements would add unnecessary costs
that would be especially harmful to small
market participants.
I am interested to hear from market
participants if Regulation AT provides
enough clarity on this issue or if the
Commission should provide further detail. I
am particularly interested to hear comments
on the requirement for market participants to
register with NFA and to be subject to NFA’s
program for Algorithmic Trading systems. In
light of DCMs’ existing efforts on risk
controls and testing, is such a requirement
necessary or are DCMs already serving as the
frontline regulator? Would NFA serve a

B. Overlapping Requirements and
Duplicative Costs
Regulation AT contains a potential overlap
in some requirements and duplicative costs

11 E.g., CME Comment Letter at 25–26 (Dec. 11,
2013) (discussing CME’s two testing environments
for its users and its certification requirement).
12 AT Person is defined in proposed Commission
regulation 1.3(xxxx) and captures the persons
subject to Regulation AT, including existing
Commission registrants engaged in Algorithmic
Trading and the newly expanded definition of floor
trader.
13 Proposed Commission regulation 40.22(c).

9 See definition of Algorithmic Trading in
proposed Commission regulation 1.3(zzzz).
10 See Regulatory Flexibility Act section of
Regulation AT.

PO 00000

Frm 00124

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

useful role in setting consistent standards
across all markets or do DCMs need
flexibility in setting rules because each
market and the participants in those markets
are different?14 I also invite comment on
alternatives to the requirement that AT
Persons and their clearing member FCMs
prepare and submit annual reports to DCMs
and DCM reviews of those reports. One
possibility is to require AT Persons and their
clearing member FCMs to conduct selfassessments (like FINRA requires) and only
require submission to DCMs upon request.
C. Source Code Repository and Commission
Regulation 1.31
Source code is the intellectual property of
AT Persons representing their current and
future trading strategies. Source code of AT
firms is unlike traditional trading firm
information in that it reveals not what
positions are held in the past or present, but
what positions the firm intends to buy or sell
in the future upon specified market events.
I am particularly concerned that Regulation
AT requires that each market participant
keep a source code repository for algorithms
and make it available for inspection to any
representative of the Commission or the U.S.
Department of Justice for any reason.15
Currently, the federal government may only
obtain such sensitive information through a
subpoena. Regulation AT dramatically lowers
the bar for the federal government to obtain
this information.
I am unaware of any other industry where
the federal government has such easy access
to a firm’s intellectual property and future
business strategies. Other than possibly in
the area of national defense and security, I
question whether the federal government has
similarly unfettered access to the future
business strategy of any American industrial
sector. Does the SEC require such access from
its registrants? Do other agencies in the
federal government have ready access to
businesses’ intellectual property and
business strategies?
I am unclear why either the Commission or
the U.S. Department of Justice needs access
to source code information without a
subpoena, especially the Justice Department,
whose only use for such information would
be in criminal proceedings. Does today’s rule
proposal presume that the use of automated
trading technology makes a trading firm more
likely to engage in criminal behavior than a
manual trading operation?
There is strong reason for concern about
maintaining the confidentiality of this source
code. As we all know, the federal government
has a poor track record of keeping sensitive
information secure from cyberattacks and
other data breaches. Any data breach of this
information would be devastating for such
entities and, potentially, for the safety and
orderly operation of U.S. markets. Imagine
the harm that could be caused to U.S.
financial markets, if cyber terrorists or other
14 See

supra note 5.
Regulation AT, in accordance with
Commission Regulation 1.31 (17 CFR 1.31), AT
Persons would have to make their source code
repository available for inspection to any
representative of the CFTC, in addition to the U.S.
Department of Justice.
15 Under

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

belligerents were able to get their hands on
this technology the same way some of the
U.S.’ most important industrial, military and
other sensitive data have been hacked. I
question the need for this new requirement
and request commenter feedback on this
issue.
In addition to my concerns above, I
previously expressed reservations about
Commission regulation 1.31 in the proposed
rulemaking on Records of Commodity
Interest and Related Cash or Forward
Transactions.16 Commenters to that proposed
rulemaking stated that Commission
regulation 1.31 is technologically outdated
and compliance with the rule is overly
burdensome, infeasible and costly.17
Managed Funds Association, the Investment
Adviser Association and the Alternative
Investment Management Association even
petitioned the Commission to amend Rule
1.31 back on July 21, 2014.18 Unfortunately,
the Commission has not acted on this
request.
Regulation AT’s requirement that source
code repositories must be kept and made
available for inspection pursuant to
Commission regulation 1.31 will impose
unnecessary costs and burdens on AT
Persons. Given the voluminous comments
that the staff has received on the
unworkability of Rule 1.31, I am surprised
that Regulation AT would subject source
codes to this rule. As an alternative, the
Commission should consider allowing AT
Persons to keep source code repositories in
accordance with their own reasonable and
secure internal recordkeeping procedures. I
welcome comments on the costs of
Commission regulation 1.31 in this regard.
Finally, I would like to note that currently
unregistered market participants who will
now be required to register under the revised
floor trader definition may be subject to
heighted record keeping requirements under
proposed Commission regulation 1.35.19
Proposed Rule 1.35 states that a member of
a DCM that is not registered or required to
be registered with the Commission in any
capacity would not have to keep (i) records
of transactions in a manner that is searchable
or allows for identification of a particular
transaction 20 and (ii) text messages related to
those transactions.21 If the Commission
finalizes Rule 1.35 as proposed, Regulation
AT’s registration requirement would increase
the burdens under that rule. I invite
16 Records of Commodity Interest and Related
Cash or Forward Transactions, 79 FR 68140, 68148
(proposed Nov. 14, 2014).
17 Managed Funds Association Comment Letter at
4–7 (Jan. 13, 2015); Commodity Markets Council
Comment Letter at 5 (Jan. 13, 2015); SIFMA AMG
Comment Letter 5–6 (Jan. 13, 2015).
18 Managed Funds Association, the Investment
Adviser Association and the Alternative Investment
Management Association, Petition for Rulemaking
to Amend CFTC Regulations 1.31, 4.7(b) and (c),
4.23 and 4.33 (Jul. 21, 2014).
19 Records of Commodity Interest and Related
Cash or Forward Transactions, 79 FR 68140
(proposed Nov. 14, 2014).
20 Id. at 68146, Proposed Commission regulation
1.35(a)(3)(i).
21 79 FR at 68146, Proposed Commission
regulation 1.35(a)(3)(ii).

PO 00000

Frm 00125

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

78947

commenters to provide feedback on the
intersection of Regulation AT and Rule 1.35.
D. Other Costs
I would also like to obtain industry input
on the following costs of Regulation AT:
1. The costs on FCMs under proposed
Rules 1.82 and 1.83, especially the
requirement that an FCM prevent or mitigate
an Algorithmic Trading Disruption for its AT
Persons.22 I have previously expressed
concerns about the harm caused to the FCM
industry by the heightened cost of regulation,
so I am especially interested to hear
comments in this regard.23
2. The costs to DCMs to establish and
maintain a program for the review and
evaluation of compliance reports and books
and records of each AT Person and their
clearing member FCMs trading on the DCMs,
as required under proposed Rule 40.22.
3. The ease and costs for DCMs to generate
and publish self-trading statistics, as required
under proposed Rule 40.23(d).
E. Costs Versus Benefits
Based on all the costs described above,
Regulation AT does not seem to be a nonprescriptive, low-burden rule that simply
codifies industry best practices as the
proposal asserts. It goes much further and, I
fear, does greater harm. While Regulation AT
does recognize industry best practices with
respect to several risk controls, it adds
prescriptive compliance, reporting and
registration requirements and establishes
overlapping and duplicative DCM and RFA
review programs of questionable value. Given
the industry’s extensive efforts to date, I
question whether the costs of Regulation AT
actually justify the benefits. The principlesbased approach that I discussed above may
be as effective and less costly than Regulation
AT’s approach. I invite commenters to
provide feedback regarding the costs and
benefits of Regulation AT and the specific
points I raised above.
III. Regulatory Inconsistency of Regulation
AT
I would like to note three regulatory
inconsistencies in Regulation AT. The staff
proposes to amend the definition of floor
trader 24 in order to register currently
unregistered persons using direct electronic
access for algorithmic trading on DCMs.25
The preamble to Regulation AT states that in
1993, when the Commission finalized rules
regarding the definition and registration of
floor traders, the Commission decided to
include as floor traders only those traders
operating on the trading floor of an exchange.
However, in that 1993 rulemaking, the
Commission stated that certain traders using
electronic trading systems come within the
floor trader definition. Back then, the
22 Proposed

Commission regulation 1.82(a)(1).
of Commissioner J. Christopher
Giancarlo for the Market Risk Advisory Committee
Meeting, Jun. 1, 2015; http://www.cftc.gov/
PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/
giancarlostatement060115.
24 17 CFR 1.3(x).
25 Another requirement is that the person must be
trading for their own account.
23 Statement

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2

78948

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 242 / Thursday, December 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Commission took a technological approach to
the definition of floor trader.
Today, Regulation AT is taking that same
approach and is proposing to register persons
using direct electronic access for algorithmic
trading, but not those using manual means.
I am not clear on the rationale for this
technology driven distinction to registration
(as the preamble does not articulate one)
when the proposal acknowledges that
manual trading also poses risks. Several
commenters cited in Regulation AT also
noted the importance of risk controls for
manual and automated trading systems.26 I
invite industry comments on this issue,
notwithstanding my above concerns about
the registration requirement.
Another regulatory inconsistency is that
Regulation AT only captures floor traders
who use direct electronic access for
algorithmic trading, but it captures all
existing registrants, such as FCMs, swap
dealers and CTAs regardless of whether they
use direct electronic access for algorithmic
trading. Again, Regulation AT does not
articulate a reason for this inconsistency and
I question its logic. I invite comment on this
issue, including whether, for existing
registrants, the proposal should only capture
those using direct electronic access.
Finally, Regulation AT only applies to
trading on DCMs and not on SEFs.
Regulation AT justifies this distinction by
stating that compared to DCMs, SEFs and
SEF markets are newer and less liquid and
have less automated trading. However, DCMs
can also list swaps and Regulation AT
applies to that trading. In this regard,
Regulation AT may disadvantage DCMs who
list swaps as compared to SEFs. I welcome

comments on this competitive disadvantage,
including whether Regulation AT should
exclude from its scope swaps listed on
DCMs.
IV. Other Comments on Regulation AT
I also invite industry comment on the
following issues:
1. Whether the Algorithmic Trading
Compliance Issue definition in proposed
Commission regulation 1.3(tttt) is necessary.
If a major reason for Regulation AT is market
integrity then it seems the Algorithmic
Trading Disruption definition is sufficient.
Furthermore, if an AT Person violates a rule
or regulation it will be liable so the
Algorithmic Trading Compliance Issue
definition appears unnecessary.
2. Whether the definition of Direct
Electronic Access in proposed Commission
regulation 1.3(yyyy) should be harmonized
with the definition in Rule 38.607.27
3. Whether several of the proposed rules
that require periodic review of compliance
measures or regular testing of Algorithmic
Trading systems open up AT Persons to
liability risk. For example, proposed
Commission regulation 1.80(f) 28 requires
each AT Person to periodically review its
compliance with the pre-trade risk control
requirements to determine whether it has
effectively implemented sufficient measures
reasonably designed to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event. What happens if
market conditions change rapidly between
periodic reviews and the AT Person’s risk
controls are no longer sufficient to prevent an
Algorithmic Trading Event? Is the AT Person
now liable for a violation of Commission
27 17

CFR 38.607.
also proposed Commission regulations
1.81(a)(1)(iii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2) and (c)(2)(i) for
further examples.
28 See

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

26 E.g., CME Comment Letter at 43, 44 (Dec. 11,
2013).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00126

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

rules? Will this periodic review become a
continuous review in order to avoid liability?
Conclusion
While I am pleased that Regulation AT
provides flexibility in setting risk control
parameters and does not require the preapproval or pre-testing of algorithms, the
proposal appears to add many burdensome
compliance costs and does not adequately
take into account small market participants
or the work of the industry in developing
algorithmic trading risk controls and related
testing requirements. Rather than duplicating
their efforts and adding additional burdens,
the Commission should look to support and
enhance ongoing industry progress. On the
other hand, I am highly concerned about
Regulation AT’s several significant
inconsistencies and its extraordinary
requirement that AT source codes be placed
in government accessible repositories.
Overall, I have a great many concerns with
Regulation AT. Most principally, I struggle to
figure out if it will benefit the safety and
soundness of America’s futures markets
enough to outweigh its additional costs and
burdens. Its purpose must not be to allow a
Federal regulator to say that it has ‘‘done
something’’ about computerized trading in
response to media headlines, best-selling
books or political campaign agendas. The
development of automated trading is too
complicated and too important to be
addressed with such superficiality.
For my part, I will carefully review
thoughtful comments from market
participants and the public. I will measure
my support for any final rule against the
SMART REG standard.
[FR Doc. 2015–30533 Filed 12–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

E:\FR\FM\17DEP2.SGM

17DEP2