electronic system. However, the Commission is unable to quantify these
potential coordination costs as it would depend on the extent to which
there would be disagreements among the NMS plan participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1055\ The Commission believes the monetized initial burden for
this requirement to be $294,950. The Commission derived this
estimate based on per hour figure from SIFMA's Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013, modified by
Commission staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-year and
inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size,
employee benefits and overhead: [(Programmer Analyst at $267 for 40
hours) + (Business Analyst at $255 for 5 hour) + (Attorney at $462
for 15 hours) + (Assistant General Counsel at $518 for 5 hours)] =
$17,350 per respondent for a total initial monetized burden of
$365,075 ($21,475 x 17 respondents).
    \1056\ The Commission believes the monetized annual burden for
this requirement to be $80,444. The Commission derived this estimate
based on per hour figure from SIFMA's Management & Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013, modified by Commission
staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-year and inflation, and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead: [(Attorney at $462 for 10 hours) + (Assistant
General Counsel at $518 for 5 hours)] = $4,732 per respondent for a
total initial monetized burden of $122,570 ($7,210 x 17
respondents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that the above initial and ongoing burdens
would result in an estimated total initial compliance cost of
approximately $294,950 and a total annual compliance cost of $80,444
for all NMS Plan participants. These costs would likely be passed on to
reporting entities in the form of reporting fees, or to consumers of
Rule 605 reports in the form of access fees. Thus, these costs could
result in an increase in the initial and ongoing compliance costs
incurred by reporting entities, and/or an increase in costs or a
limitation to benefits for Rule 605 consumers. As discussed above, to
the extent that the centralized electronic system would include pre-
acceptance checks that Rule 605 reports are appropriately standardized,
formatted, and complete, reporting entities would also incur costs to
resolve any issues flagged by such checks, though the specific process
for resolving such issues would determine the precise costs involved.
(2) Require Rule 605 Reports To Be Provided to the Commission Through
EDGAR
    As another alternative, the Commission could propose to have
reporting entities disclose Rule 605 information directly to the
Commission through the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering,
Analysis, and Retrieval (``EDGAR'') system, with the Commission
subsequently making the information publicly available on EDGAR. Such
an alternative would increase certain reporting entities' compliance
costs relative to the proposed amendments, as any reporting entities
that do not already submit documents to the Commission via EDGAR would
incur a one-time burden of submitting a notarized Form ID application
to obtain EDGAR access codes, a burden that would not apply under the
proposed amendments.\1057\ However, an EDGAR requirement would not
involve any costs to NMS Plan participants of creating and maintaining
an electronic system for Rule 605 reports, and, as EDGAR would not
charge any reporting or access fees, would not involve the cost to
reporting entities of paying reporting fees or the cost to consumers of
Rule 605 reports of paying access fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1057\ See 17 CFR 232.10; section 3 of the EDGAR Filer Manual
(Volume I) version 40 (June 2022). Any market centers, brokers, and
dealers that already submit documents on EDGAR would not incur this
burden. For example, some broker-dealers choose to file the annual
audit reports required by Form X-17A-5 Part III on EDGAR rather than
via paper, and would thus already have the required access and
procedures in place to submit Rule 605 Reports to EDGAR. See section
8.2.19 of the EDGAR Filer Manual (Volume II) version 62 (June 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDGAR functionality would allow consumers of Rule 605 to search for
specific reports or all reports for a given month. However, consumers
wishing to combine reports for analysis would need to pull each report
separately. EDGAR functionality would also allow for programmatic
checks to ensure Rule 605 reports are appropriately standardized,
formatted, and complete before posting; Commission staff could design
and periodically assess such checks to ensure they are effective. To
the extent that these checks detect any issues in Rule 605 reports
before posting, reporting entities may incur costs in resolving these
issues and re-submitting their reports.
    Under this alternative, entities would submit Rule 605 information
to the Commission, but would not file Rule 605 information with the
Commission. Under the Exchange Act, documents filed with the Commission
are subject to heightened liability for misstatements contained therein
than documents otherwise provided to the Commission (e.g., documents
furnished to the Commission).\1058\ Because this alternative is
intended to alter the manner by which Rule 605 reports are made
available, and not the liability attached to Rule 605 reports, the
alternative does not contemplate filing Rule 605 information with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1058\ See section 32 of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Require Rule 605 Reports To Be Filed Using an Expanded Version of
the Rule 606 XML Schema
    Rule 605 currently requires that reports be provided in a machine-
readable electronic format,\1059\ and the governing NMS Plan specifies
that Rule 605 reports must be provided in pipe-delimited ASCII, which
is a machine-readable electronic format.\1060\ This would not be
changed under the proposed amendments. As an alternative, the
Commission could revise Rule 605 to specify that Rule 605 reports must
be provided using an

expanded version of the existing XML schema for Rule 606 reports.\1061\
This alternative would allow the data on Rule 605 reports to be used
interchangeably with the data in Rule 606 reports, thus facilitating
the usage of Rule 605 data together with Rule 606 data, in line with
the Commission's original intent for the rules.\1062\ In addition, the
use of XML rather than pipe-delimited ASCII would facilitate the use of
more complex data error checks (such as checks on elements in nested
structures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1059\ See CFR 242.605(a)(2) requiring that ``. . . market
centers shall prepare their reports in a consistent, usable, and
machine-readable electronic format . . .''
    \1060\ See Plan at 2 (``Section V . . . provides that market
center files must be in standard, pipe-delimited ASCII format'').
See also supra note 49 and accompanying text.
    \1061\ See 17 CFR 242.606(a)(2) and (b)(3), requiring reports to
be made available ``using the most recent versions of the XML schema
and the associated PDF renderer as published on the Commission's
website.'' See also Order Routing and Handling Data Technical
Specification, SEC (Feb. 25, 2022), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/order_handling_data_technical_specification-2022-02-25.pdf.
    \1062\ See supra note 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, this alternative would require reporting
entities to establish technical systems to format the reports using the
expanded XML schema and render them using the PDF renderer, thus
imposing additional compliance costs relative to the baseline and the
proposed amendments. Furthermore, because Rule 605 reports consist
solely of a series of discrete numeric values, and do not contain
elements in nested structures, the Commission does not believe the more
sophisticated validations enabled by the use of XML would provide
significant benefits for Rule 605 reports. In addition, because the
nature of the Rule 606 data (which includes narrative discussions)
differs from the nature of the Rule 605 data (which is limited to a
discrete set of numerical statistics), and because the population of
entities that report Rule 606 data (broker-dealers) does not coincide
with the population of entities that report Rule 605 data (market
centers, and, under the proposed amendments, certain broker-dealers),
the Commission does not believe the benefits to be realized from
interchangeable usage of Rule 605 and Rule 606 data would justify the
compliance costs that would arise under this alternative.
5. Other Reasonable Alternatives
(a) Releasing Aggregated CAT Data
    As an alternative to the proposed amendments, the Commission could
use CAT data to have either the Commission or the CAT Plan Processor
\1063\ provide execution quality information to the public at monthly
intervals--or more frequently. This alternative would effectively
eliminate the need for Rule 605 reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1063\ As set forth in the CAT NMS Plan, the Plan Processor is
required to develop and, with the prior approval of the Operating
Committee, implement policies, procedures, and control structures
related to the CAT System that are consistent with 17 CFR
242.613(e)(4), and Appendix C and Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan.
See Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving the National Market System
Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail, SEC, n.136 (Nov. 15,
2016), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nms/2016/34-79318.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This approach would have lower compliance costs for reporting
entities than the current proposal, as it would not require reporting
entities to prepare Rule 605 reports. Another benefit of this
alternative with regard to the current proposal is that the data in
this alternative could be more comprehensive in terms of the breadth of
broker-dealers whose execution quality information could be aggregated
and published, because the Commission could publish aggregated data on
execution quality from all broker-dealers instead of just those that
meet the customer account threshold. As a result, the data would be
more comprehensive, resulting in even greater benefits from
transparency.\1064\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1064\ See supra section VII.D.1.(a)(1)(a) for a discussion of
the benefits of increased transparency from expanding reporting
requirements to include larger broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, it would be a major undertaking for the Plan Processor to
build out and adapt systems to collect, process, and publish this
information, which would increase costs associated with the Plan
Processor. Costs associated with the Plan Processor would also increase
as a result of increased requirements for processing power for the
aggregation of CAT data if such computations could not be performed
with existing resources (without reducing other functionality). Any
costs incurred by the Plan Processor would be passed along to Plan
Participants and Industry Members, which could result in larger costs
to some reporting entities.\1065\ Another drawback to this alternative
is that releasing CAT data to the public could increase security risks.
CAT contains highly sensitive information and creating a process that
would release portions of the data, even if aggregated, could present
risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1065\ Some reporting entities, on the other hand, may incur
lower costs if they pay a smaller proportion of CAT costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Request for Comment

    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of this initial
economic analysis, including whether the analysis has: (1) identified
all benefits and costs, including all effects on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation; (2) given due consideration to each
benefit and cost, including each effect on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation; and (3) identified and considered reasonable
alternatives to the proposed new rules and rule amendments. The
Commission requests and encourages any interested person to submit
comments regarding the proposed rules, our analysis of the potential
effects of the proposed rules and proposed amendments, and other
matters that may have an effect on the proposed rules. The Commission
requests that commenters identify sources of data and information as
well as provide data and information to assist us in analyzing the
economic consequences of the proposed rules and proposed amendments.
The Commission also is interested in comments on the qualitative
benefits and costs identified here and any benefits and costs that may
have been overlooked. In addition to the general request for comments
on the economic analysis associated with the proposed rules and
proposed amendments, the Commission requests specific comment on
certain aspects of the proposed amendments to Rule 605:
    56. Do commenters believe that rulemaking is necessary to provide
investors with a more modernized source of standardized execution
quality information than what is currently contained in Rule 605
reports? What are commenters' views on why alternative market-based
sources of standardized execution quality information, such as the FIF
Template, have not been more widely adopted?
    57. Has the Commission accurately assessed the current usage of
Rule 605 reports? Do commenters agree that broker-dealers currently use
Rule 605 reports in assessing best execution? Do commenters believe
that Rule 605 reports currently have low usage among individual
investors? If so, why? Do commenters believe that Rule 605 reports
currently have low usage among institutional investors? If so, why?
What are commenters' understandings of the current availability and
cost of data products and/or summary reports sourced from Rule 605
data? Does the availability and costs of such products vary depending
on the type of investor that the product is targeting (i.e., individual
or institutional)?
    58. Do market participants currently lack information about the
execution quality of broker-dealers? If so, does this limit the extent
to which broker-dealers must compete on the basis of execution quality?
Why or why not? Do commenters believe that the ability to use
information on broker-dealer routing in Rule 606 reports and

information on market center execution quality in Rule 605 reports in
order to discern the execution quality of broker-dealers currently
limited? Why or why not?
    59. Are commenters aware of any inconsistencies in how reporting
entities separate or combine information across several market centers
or business lines that they operate for the purposes of Rule 605
reporting? To the best of commenters' knowledge, is it common practice
for market centers that operate SDPs to combine information about
orders submitted to their SDPs with information about other orders
handled by the market center for the purposes of Rule 605 reporting?
Are commenters aware of any other situations in which reporting
entities typically co-mingle execution quality statistics across
several market centers or business lines that they operate?
    60. Do commenters agree that orders submitted to qualified auctions
would likely differ from other types of orders? If so, in what ways
might these differences impact execution quality metrics?
    61. Do commenters agree that the number of order types has
increased since the early 2000s? If so, do commenters believe that a
proliferation of order types has contributed to any changes in the
extent to which Rule 605 reports contain information about relevant
order sizes and order types? Are there any additional order types that
are currently excluded from Rule 605 reporting requirements that the
Commission should include?
    62. Do commenters believe that a significant portion of ISO order
volume may be made up of ISO orders trading at prices inferior to the
NBBO? Are commenters aware of whether a significant portion of ISO
orders are excluded from Rule 605 reporting requirements? Do commenters
believe that it would be useful for market participants to have access
to information about the execution quality of ISO orders submitted with
limit prices inferior to the NBBO? Why or why not?
    63. Do commenters believe that there are any other market or
regulatory changes that have significantly contributed to changes in
the extent to which Rule 605 reports contain information about relevant
order sizes and order types?
    64. Do commenters agree that, by excluding odd-lots, fractional
shares, and block orders (i.e., orders that are larger than 10,000
shares), Rule 605 reports are missing information about an important
segments of order flow? Why or why not? Do commenters agree that
individual investors would benefit from the inclusion of information
about odd-lots and fractional share orders? Why or why not? Do
commenters agree that the use of block trades has decreased since the
initial adoption of Rule 605 but still represents an important segment
of order flow in terms of total share volume? Why or why not? Are
commenters aware of whether the majority of block orders tend to be not
held to the market?
    65. Do commenters agree that information about the execution
quality of stop orders would be useful for investors? Why or why not?
Do commenters agree that market centers and broker-dealers may differ
in how they handle stop orders? Why or why not? Do commenters believe
that the use of stop orders (e.g., as a percent of total order flow)
has increased or decreased in recent years? How might stop orders be
different from other types of orders in terms of their execution
quality metrics? Do commenters agree that grouping executable stop
orders together with other types of NMLOs would skew or add noise to
execution quality metrics? Why or why not? Do commenters believe that
there could be any negative consequences associated with increasing the
transparency of stop-loss order volume, such as the increasing the risk
of certain trading strategies, i.e., ``gunning for stops''? Why or why
not?
    66. Do commenters agree that information about the execution
quality of non-exempt short sale orders would be useful for investors?
Why or why not? How might non-exempt short sale orders be different
from other types of orders in terms of their execution quality metrics?
Do commenters believe that grouping non-exempt short sale orders
together with other types of orders would skew or add noise to
execution quality metrics? Why or why not?
    67. Do commenters agree that orders submitted outside of regular
market hours represent a small portion of overall order flow, but
contain a higher concentration of individual investor orders compared
to order flow during regular market hours? Why or why not? Are
commenters aware of any other ways in which orders submitted outside of
regular market hours differ from other types of orders and, if so,
whether these differences would impact execution quality metrics in
ways that may skew or add noise to these metrics?
    68. Do commenters believe that, following the new definition of
``round lot'' under the MDI Rules, the order size categories currently
defined in Rule 605 reports would lead to the exclusion of a relevant
portion of order flow? Do commenters find the order size categories
currently defined in Rule 605 reports useful? Why or why not?
    69. Do commenters believe that the current categorization of NMLOs
does not lead to meaningful information about execution quality? Why or
why not? Do commenters find these categories useful? If so, why? Do
commenters believe that the Commission should use a 10 cent threshold
to determine whether a NMLO should be included within the scope of Rule
605?
    70. Do commenters believe that information about the execution
quality of beyond-the-midpoint limit orders is currently missing from
Rule 605 reports and would be useful for investors? Do commenters
believe that some market centers, such as wholesalers, may handle
beyond-the-midpoint limit orders more like marketable limit orders than
NMLOs? Are commenters aware of any other differences in the handling of
beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, as compared to other types of NMLOs?
If so, do commenters believe that these differences would impact
execution quality metrics in ways that may skew or add noise to these
metrics?
    71. Do commenters believe that the current time-to-execution
information required by Rule 605 is inappropriate given the current
speed of trading in equity markets? Do commenters believe that the
current time-to-execution categories defined in Rule 605 are not
granular enough? What do commenters believe would be an appropriate
granularity, and does it depend on the type of order (marketable, NMLO,
etc.)?
    72. Do commenters believe that the current requirements in Rule 605
related to measures of effective, realized and quotes spreads may lead
to inaccurate or incomplete information? Do commenters agree that the
use of a five-minute time horizon to calculate the realized spread is
inappropriate? If so, why? Do commenters believe that the use of a
five-minute time horizon leads to biased realized spreads, noisy
realized spreads, both, or potentially other issues? Do commenters find
effective and realized spreads expressed in dollar terms to be useful?
If so, why? Do commenters believe that there are any problems with
using effective and realized spreads expressed in dollar terms? If so,
what?
    73. Do commenters believe that size improvement information is
currently missing from Rule 605 reports? If not, what specific
information in Rule 605 reports (e.g., effective spreads, price
improvement) do commenters make use

of in order to proxy for size improvement?
    74. Do commenters believe that information about IOC orders is
currently missing from Rule 605 reports and would be useful for
investors? Do commenters believe that IOCs likely have different
execution quality characteristics than other types of orders? If so, in
what ways might these differences impact execution quality metrics? Do
commenters believe that these differences would impact execution
quality metrics in ways that may skew or add noise to these metrics?
    75. Do commenters believe that the reporting of riskless principal
transactions as shares executed at the market center is inappropriate?
Why or why not? Would commenters find it useful to have access to more
information about the extent to which wholesalers internalize orders?
If so, in what ways would this information be beneficial?
    76. Do commenters believe that the search costs to access,
aggregate, and compare execution quality metrics across Rule 605
reporting entities are currently high? Do commenters believe that the
search costs are high enough to limit the utility of Rule 605 reports?
Are commenters currently able to use Rule 605 reports to compare
execution quality measures across market centers? If not, why not? Do
commenters believe that the use of third parties to collect Rule 605
data alleviates some of these costs?
    77. Do commenters believe the Commission has adequately described
the baseline for the market for brokerage services? Are there elements
of this market that are relevant to the proposed amendments that are
not discussed in the release? If so, please describe.
    78. Do commenters believe the Commission has adequately described
the baseline for the market for trading services? Are there elements of
this market that are relevant to the proposed amendments that are not
discussed in the release? If so, please describe.
    79. What do commenters believe would be the effect of expanding the
scope of Rule 605 reporting entities to include larger broker-dealers
on transparency and competition in the market for brokerage services?
Do commenters believe that the costs to switching broker dealers are
significant? Do commenters believe that there are other significant
limits to the effects on competition of expanding the scope of Rule 605
reporting entities and, if so, what are these limits? Do commenters
believe that any broker-dealer(s) would need to exit the market as a
result of the proposal? If so, what effect if any would this have on
competition? What do commenters believe are the effects on competition
of limiting the scope of broker-dealers subject to Rule 605 to only
include larger broker-dealers?
    80. What are commenters' views regarding the effects of the
proposal on transparency and competition in the market for trading
services? Do commenters believe that there are significant limits to
these effects? Do commenters believe that the effects on competition
would be different (e.g., stronger or weaker) for competition for
individual investor order flow vs. institutional order flow? Do
commenters believe that any market center(s) would need to exit the
market as a result of the proposal? If so, what effect if any would
this have on competition?
    81. Do commenters believe that Rule 605 reports as proposed to be
amended would contain sufficient information such that the reports
could be used to make apples-to-apples comparisons across reporting
entities? If not, is there any additional or alternative information
that could be required to ensure a more apples-to-apples comparison?
Please be specific.
    82. Do commenters believe the proposed summary report reflecting
aggregated execution quality information would contain sufficient
information such that the summary reports could be used to make apples-
to-apples comparisons across reporting entities? If not, is there any
additional or alternative information that could be required to ensure
a more apples-to-apples comparison? Please be specific. Do commenters
believe that the availability of Rule 605 summary reports would have an
impact on competition between reporting entities? Why or why not? Do
commenters believe that the availability of Rule 605 summary reports
would increase the likelihood that investors would use execution
quality information to compare across reporting entities? Why or why
not?
    83. Do commenters believe that the availability of alternative
sources of execution quality information would limit the effects of the
proposal on competition across reporting entities? Do commenters
believe that the availability of alternative sources of execution
quality information decreases the likelihood that investors would use
reports to compare execution quality across reporting entities? If so,
which sources?
    84. Do commenters agree with the Commission's assessment that the
proposal would impact the market for TCA? Why or why not? Are
commenters aware of any other market whose competitive structure would
be effected by the proposal?
    85. What are commenters' views of the benefits of the proposal? Do
commenters believe that the proposal would increase transparency
regarding the execution quality of reporting entities? Do commenters
believe that the proposal would increase competition between reporting
entities on the basis of execution quality? Do commenters believe that
the proposal would improve execution quality for investors? Would the
benefits of the proposal depend on the type of investor (i.e.,
individual or institutional)? Why or why not? Do commenters believe
that there would be any limitations to the benefits and, if so, what?
Do commenters believe that the lack of a centralized electronic system
for Rule 605 reports represents a limitation to the benefits of the
proposed amendments? Why or why not?
    86. Do commenters agree that the benefits of the proposed
amendments would be limited if investors incur high costs to switch
between broker-dealers, and/or if broker-dealers incur costs to switch
between market centers in response to information about execution
quality? Do commenters believe that these switching costs are currently
high? Why or why not?
    87. Are commenters aware of circumstances in which customers may
not be able to select the broker-dealers of their choice, for example
as a result of the customers' order flow characteristics, and whether
this has or would have an impact on the switching costs for these
customers? Do commenters believe that the proposal, if adopted, would
affect such circumstances and, if so, how?
    88. What are commenters' views of the costs of the proposal? What
do commenters believe would be the main costs of the proposal? What do
commenters believe would be the other costs of the proposal, if any? Do
commenters believe that costs may vary across reporting entities? If
so, which characteristics of the reporting entities would be the main
drivers of cost differences between reporting entities? Do commenters
believe that the complexity of Rule 605 reports would increase as a
result of the proposed amendments and, if so, would this result in
additional costs to market participants? Why or why not? Do commenters
believe that search costs would increase as a result of the proposed
amendments? Why or why not?
    89. What are commenters' views regarding the effects the proposed

amendments might have on efficiency and capital formation?
    90. Do commenters believe the proposed amendments may have
unintended consequences that are not captured by the Commission's
assessment of the effects the proposed amendments may have on
efficiency, competition and capital formation? Why or why not?
    91. Should the Commission adopt an alternative approach to any of
the proposed amendments? Why or why not? Which alternatives? What are
the benefits and costs of such an approach?
    92. Do commenters believe that the Commission should adopt
alternatives to the proposal to include only larger broker-dealers with
100,000 or more customer accounts into the scope of Rule 605? Should
the Commission adopt alternative thresholds for determining which
broker-dealers to include or exclude? What would be the benefits and
costs of these alternative thresholds?
    93. Do commenters believe that the Commission should adopt
alternative amendments to the scope of orders covered by Rule 605?
Should the Commission include ISO orders with limit prices inferior to
the NBBO into the scope of Rule 605, either as a separate order type
category or together with other orders, and what would be the costs and
benefits of this approach? Should the Commission exclude orders that
are quickly cancelled from Rule 605 reporting requirements? If so, what
would be an appropriate threshold cancellation time below which to
exclude orders? What would be the costs and benefits of excluding
quickly cancelled orders? Should the Commission separate NMLOs
submitted outside of regular trading hours as a separate order type
category? What would be the costs and benefits of separating NMLOs
submitted outside of regular trading hours as a separate order type
category?
    94. Do commenters believe the Commission should add additional
price improvement statistics to Rule 605 reports for segmented orders
in qualified auctions measuring price improvement compared to the
initial price at which a segmented order was submitted to a qualified
auction? If so, what would be the benefits and costs of adding these
additional metrics? How would these additional metrics affect
competition between qualified auctions at different market centers?
    95. Do commenters believe that pipe-delimited ASCII is the best
format for Rule 605 reports? Should the Commission instead expand the
existing XML Schema that it has created for Rule 606 reports? Should
the Commission create a new XML Schema for Rule 605 reports in a manner
similar to the XML Schema for Rule 606 reports? Would XML be an
improvement over the use of pipe-delimited ASCII and, if so, why? Is
there another format--other than pipe-delimited ASCII and XML--that the
Commission should require for Rule 605 reports? If so, which format
should the Commission use, and why?
    96. Should the Commission require that Rule 605 reports be posted
in a centralized electronic system? Would a centralized electronic
system for Rule 605 reports make it easier for investors, analysts, and
others to access and gather information from Rule 605 reports? Would it
be beneficial for such a system to include programmatic checks to
ensure Rule 605 reports are appropriately standardized, formatted, and
complete before acceptance? Do commenters believe there would be any
additional benefits from establishing or requiring to be established a
centralized electronic system for Rule 605 reports? If so, what? Do
commenters have a view on how a centralized electronic system could be
implemented? What do commenters estimate would be the costs associated
with such a centralized electronic system (including any costs
associate with programmatic checks for completeness, consistency, and
proper formatting), and who do commenters believe would incur these
costs?
    97. If the Commission were to adopt a centralized electronic system
for Rule 605 reports, do commenters believe EDGAR or a system created
and maintained by the NMS Plan is the optimal alternative? Are there
other alternatives that the Commission should consider? If so, what
would be the costs and benefits associated with posting Rule 605
reports through that system? Should separate centralized electronic
systems be established for different categories of reporting entities?
    98. Do commenters agree with the Commission's analysis of the
accessibility, data quality, costs to build, costs to maintain,
reporting costs, and coordination costs associated with using EDGAR or
a system created and maintained by the NMS Plan for a centralized
electronic system for Rule 605 reports?
    99. Are market participants likely to access and download Rule 605
reports from a centralized electronic system, rather than from a
reporting entity's website? For which customers will a centralized
electronic system be most beneficial, and why? How will these benefits
differ if the centralized electronic system uses EDGAR, a system
created maintained by the NMS Plan, or any other system proposed by
commenters?

VIII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, (``SBREFA''),\1066\ the Commission requests comment on the
potential effect of the proposed amendments to Rule 605 on the United
States economy on an annual basis. The Commission also requests comment
on any potential increases in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries, and any potential effect on competition,
investment, or innovation. Commenters are requested to provide
empirical data and other factual support for their views to the extent
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1066\ Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996)
(codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C., and as a note
to 5 U.S.C. 601).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \1067\ requires Federal
agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules
on small entities. Section 603(a) \1068\ of the Administrative
Procedure Act,\1069\ as amended by the RFA, generally requires the
Commission to undertake a regulatory flexibility analysis of all
proposed rules, or proposed rule amendments, to determine the impact of
such rulemaking on ``small entities.'' \1070\ Section 605(b) of the RFA
states that this requirement shall not apply to any proposed rule or
proposed rule amendment which, if adopted, would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.\1071\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1067\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \1068\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \1069\ 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
    \1070\ Although section 601(b) of the RFA defines the term
``small entity,'' the statute permits agencies to formulate their
own definitions. The Commission adopted definitions for the term
``small entity'' for purposes of Commission rulemaking in accordance
with the RFA. Those definitions, as relevant to this proposed
rulemaking, are set forth in 17 CFR 240.0-10.
    \1071\ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would apply to market centers--which includes any
exchange market maker, OTC market maker, ATS, national securities
exchange registered with the Commission under section 6 of the Exchange
Act, or national securities association registered with the Commission
under section 15A of the Exchange Act--and certain brokers or dealers
that are not a market center.\1072\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1072\ A broker or dealer that is not a market center would not
be subject to the requirements unless it reaches or exceeds the
customer account threshold.

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

    None of the exchanges registered under section 6 that would be
subject to the proposed amendments are ``small entities'' for purposes
of the RFA.\1073\ There is only one national securities association,
and it is not a small entity as defined by 13 CFR<PHONE_NUMBER>.\1074\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1073\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(e). 17 CFR 240.0-10(e) states that
the term ``small business,'' when referring to an exchange, means
any exchange that has been exempted from the reporting requirements
of Rule 601 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.601, and is not affiliated
with any person (other than a natural person) that is not a small
business or small organization as defined in Rule 0-10. The
exchanges subject to this proposed rulemaking do not satisfy this
standard. See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 82873 (Mar.
14, 2018), 83 FR 13008, 13074 (Mar. 26, 2018) (File No. S7-05-18)
(Transaction Fee Pilot for NMS Stocks Proposed Rule); 55341 (May 8,
2001), 72 FR 9412, 9419 (May 16, 2007) (File No. S7-06-07) (Proposed
Rule Changes of Self-Regulatory Organizations Proposing Release).
    \1074\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90610
(Dec. 9, 2020), 86 FR 18808 (Apr. 9, 2021), n.2549 and accompanying
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A broker-dealer is considered a small entity for purposes of
Regulatory Flexibility Act if: (1) it had total capital of less than
$500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited
financial statements were prepared, or, if not required to prepare such
statements, it had total capital of less than $500,000 on the last
business day of the preceding fiscal year; and (2) it is not affiliated
with any person (other than a natural person) that is not a small
entity. Applying this standard, the Commission estimates that, of the
firms that would be impacted by the Rule, only two exchange market
makers, no OTC market makers, and no ATS are small entities.\1075\
Because the Commission estimates that not more than two small entities
would be required to comply with the proposed rule changes, the
Commission certifies that the proposed amendments to Rule 605 would
not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1075\ These estimates are based on the FYE 2021 FOCUS Reports
received by the Commission from exchange market makers, OTC market
makers, and ATSs that would be subject to the changes proposed to 17
CFR 242.600 and 17 CFR 242.605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the above reasons, the Commission certifies that the proposed
amendments to Rules 600 and 605, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for purposes of the RFA.
    The Commission invites commenters to address whether the proposed
rules would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities, and, if so, what would be the nature of any impact
on small entities. The Commission requests that commenters provide
empirical data to support the extent of such impact.

Statutory Authority and Text of Proposed Rule

    Pursuant to the Exchange Act and particularly sections 3(b), 5, 6,
11A, 15, 17, 19, 23(a), 24, and 36 thereof, 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78e, 78f,
78k-1, 78o, 78q, 78s, 78w(a), 78x, and 78mm, the Commission proposes to
amend 17 CFR 242.600 and 17 CFR 242.605 in the manner set forth below.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 242

    Brokers, Confidential business information, Fraud, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission is proposing
to amend title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations:

PART 242--REGULATIONS M, SHO, ATS, AC, NMS, AND SBSR AND CUSTOMER
MARGIN REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURITY FUTURES

0
1. The authority for part 242 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77g, 77q(a), 77s(a), 78b, 78c, 78g(c)(2),
78i(a), 78j, 78k-1(c), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(b), 78o(c), 78o(g),
78q(a), 78q(b), 78q(h), 78w(a), 78dd-1, 78mm, 80a-23, 80a-29, and
80a-37.

0
2. Amend Sec.  242.600 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (b)(40).
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(9) through (b)(110) as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Old paragraph                        New paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(9)....................................  (b)(10)
(b)(10)...................................  (b)(13)
(b)(11)...................................  (b)(15)
(b)(12)...................................  (b)(17)
(b)(13)...................................  (b)(18)
(b)(14)...................................  (b)(19)
(b)(15)...................................  (b)(20)
(b)(16)...................................  (b)(21)
(b)(17)...................................  (b)(22)
(b)(18)...................................  (b)(23)
(b)(19)...................................  (b)(24)
(b)(20)...................................  (b)(25)
(b)(21)...................................  (b)(26)
(b)(22)...................................  (b)(27)
(b)(23)...................................  (b)(28)
(b)(24)...................................  (b)(29)
(b)(25)...................................  (b)(30)
(b)(26)...................................  (b)(31)
(b)(27)...................................  (b)(32)
(b)(28)...................................  (b)(33)
(b)(29)...................................  (b)(34)
(b)(30)...................................  (b)(35)
(b)(31)...................................  (b)(36)
(b)(32)...................................  (b)(37)
(b)(33)...................................  (b)(38)
(b)(34)...................................  (b)(39)
(b)(35)...................................  (b)(40)
(b)(36)...................................  (b)(41)
(b)(37)...................................  (b)(43)
(b)(38)...................................  (b)(45)
(b)(39)...................................  (b)(46)
(b)(40)...................................  deleted
(b)(41)...................................  (b)(48)
(b)(42)...................................  (b)(49)
(b)(43)...................................  (b)(50)
(b)(44)...................................  (b)(51)
(b)(45)...................................  (b)(52)
(b)(46)...................................  (b)(53)
(b)(47)...................................  (b)(54)
(b)(48)...................................  (b)(55)
(b)(49)...................................  (b)(56)
(b)(50)...................................  (b)(57)
(b)(51)...................................  (b)(58)
(b)(52)...................................  (b)(59)
(b)(53)...................................  (b)(60)
(b)(54)...................................  (b)(61)
(b)(55)...................................  (b)(62)
(b)(56)...................................  (b)(63)
(b)(57)...................................  (b)(64)
(b)(58)...................................  (b)(65)
(b)(59)...................................  (b)(66)
(b)(60)...................................  (b)(67)
(b)(61)...................................  (b)(68)
(b)(62)...................................  (b)(69)
(b)(63)...................................  (b)(70)
(b)(64)...................................  (b)(71)
(b)(65)...................................  (b)(72)
(b)(66)...................................  (b)(73)
(b)(67)...................................  (b)(74)
(b)(68)...................................  (b)(75)
(b)(69)...................................  (b)(76)
(b)(70)...................................  (b)(77)
(b)(71)...................................  (b)(78)
(b)(72)...................................  (b)(79)
(b)(73)...................................  (b)(80)
(b)(74)...................................  (b)(81)
(b)(75)...................................  (b)(82)
(b)(76)...................................  (b)(83)
(b)(77)...................................  (b)(84)
(b)(78)...................................  (b)(85)
(b)(79)...................................  (b)(86)
(b)(80)...................................  (b)(87)
(b)(81)...................................  (b)(88)
(b)(82)...................................  (b)(89)
(b)(83)...................................  (b)(90)
(b)(84)...................................  (b)(91)
(b)(85)...................................  (b)(92)
(b)(86)...................................  (b)(93)
(b)(87)...................................  (b)(94)
(b)(88)...................................  (b)(95)
(b)(89)...................................  (b)(96)
(b)(90)...................................  (b)(97)
(b)(91)...................................  (b)(98)
(b)(92)...................................  (b)(99)
(b)(93)...................................  (b)(100)
(b)(94)...................................  (b)(101)
(b)(95)...................................  (b)(102)
(b)(96)...................................  (b)(103)
(b)(97)...................................  (b)(104)
(b)(98)...................................  (b)(105)
(b)(99)...................................  (b)(106)
(b)(100)..................................  (b)(107)
(b)(101)..................................  (b)(108)
(b)(102)..................................  (b)(109)
(b)(103)..................................  (b)(110)
(b)(104)..................................  (b)(111)
(b)(105)..................................  (b)(112)
(b)(106)..................................  (b)(113)
(b)(107)..................................  (b)(114)
(b)(108)..................................  (b)(115)
(b)(109)..................................  (b)(116)
(b)(110)..................................  (b)(117)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
c. Adding new paragraphs (b)(9), (b)(11), (b)(12), (b)(14), (b)(16),
(b)(42), (b)(44), and (b)(47).
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(10), (b)(13), (b)(19),
(b)(20), (b)(30), (b)(57), (b)(108), and (b)(109).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  242.600   NMS security designation and definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) Average effective over quoted spread means the share-weighted
average for order executions of effective spread divided by the
difference between the national best offer and the national best bid at
the time of order receipt or, for order executions of non-marketable
limit orders, beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, and orders submitted
with stop prices, the difference between the national best offer and
the national best bid at the time such orders first become executable.
The effective spread shall be calculated, for buy orders, as double the
amount of difference between the execution price and the midpoint of
the national best bid and national best offer at the time of order
receipt and, for sell orders, as double the amount of difference
between the midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer
at the time of order receipt and the execution price. For order
executions of non-marketable limit orders, beyond-the-midpoint limit
orders, and orders submitted with stop prices, average percentage
effective spread shall be calculated from the time such orders first
become executable rather than the time of order receipt.
    (10) Average effective spread means the share-weighted average of
effective spreads for order executions calculated, for buy orders, as
double the amount of difference between the execution price and the
midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer at the time
of order receipt and, for sell orders, as double the amount of
difference between the midpoint of the national best bid and national
best offer at the time of order receipt and the execution price. For
order executions of non-marketable limit orders, beyond-the-midpoint
limit orders, and orders submitted with stop prices, average effective
spread shall be calculated from the time such orders first become
executable rather than the time of order receipt.
    (11) Average percentage effective spread means the share-weighted
average for order executions of effective spread divided by the
midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer at the time
of order receipt or, for non-marketable limit orders, beyond-the-
midpoint limit orders, and orders submitted with stop prices, at the
time such orders first become executable. The effective spread shall be
calculated, for buy orders, as double the amount of difference between
the execution price and the midpoint of the national best bid and
national best offer at the time of order receipt and, for sell orders,
as double the amount of difference between the midpoint of the national
best bid and national best offer at the time of order receipt and the
execution price. For order executions of non-marketable limit orders,
beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, and orders submitted with stop
prices, average percentage effective spread shall be calculated from
the time such orders first become executable rather than the time of
order receipt.
    (12) Average percentage realized spread means the share-weighted
average for order executions of realized spread divided by the midpoint
of the national best bid and national best offer at the time of order
receipt or, for non-marketable limit orders, beyond-the-midpoint limit
orders, and orders submitted with stop prices, at the time such orders
first become executable. The realized spread shall be calculated, for
buy orders, as double the amount of difference between the execution
price and the midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer
at a specified interval after the time of order execution and, for sell
orders, as double the amount of difference between the midpoint and the
national best bid and national best offer at a specified interval after
the time of order execution and the execution price; provided, however,
that the midpoint of the final national best bid and national best
offer disseminated for regular trading hours shall be used to calculate
a realized spread if it is disseminated less than that specified
interval after the time of order execution.
    (13) Average realized spread means the share-weighted average of
realized spreads for order executions calculated, for buy orders, as
double the amount of difference between the execution price and the
midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer at a
specified interval after the time of order execution and, for sell
orders, as double the amount of difference between the midpoint and the
national best bid and national best offer at a specified interval after
the time of order execution and the execution price; provided, however,
that the midpoint of the final national best bid and national best
offer disseminated for regular trading hours shall be used to calculate
a realized spread if it is disseminated less than that specified
interval after the time of order execution.
    (14) Best available displayed price means, with respect to an order
to buy, the lower of: the national best offer at the time of order
receipt or the price of the best odd-lot order to sell at the time of
order receipt as disseminated pursuant to an effective transaction
reporting plan or effective national market system plan; and, with
respect to an order to sell, the higher of: the national best bid at
the time of order receipt or the price of the best odd-lot order to buy
at the time of order receipt as disseminated pursuant to an effective
transaction reporting plan or effective national market system plan.
With respect to a beyond-the-midpoint limit order, the best available
displayed price shall be determined at the time such order becomes
executable rather than the time of order receipt.
* * * * *
    (16) Beyond-the-midpoint limit order means, with respect to an
order received at a time when a national best bid and national best
offer is being disseminated, any non-marketable buy order with a limit
price that is higher than the midpoint of the national best bid and
national best offer at the time of order receipt and any non-marketable
sell order with a limit price that is lower than the midpoint of the
national best bid and national best offer at the time of order receipt,
and, with respect to an order received at a time when a national best
bid and national best offer is not being disseminated, any non-
marketable buy order with a limit price that is higher than the
midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer at the time
that the national best bid and national best offer is first
disseminated after the time of order receipt, or any non-marketable
sell order with a limit price that is lower than the midpoint of the
national best bid and national best offer at the time that the national
best bid and national best offer is first disseminated after the time
of order receipt.
* * * * *
    (19) Categorized by order size means dividing orders into separate
categories for the following sizes:
    (i) Less than a share;
    (ii) Odd-lot;
    (iii) 1 round lot to less than 5 round lots;
    (iv) 5 round lots to less than 20 round lots;
    (v) 20 round lots to less than 50 round lots;

    (vi) 50 round lots to less than 100 round lots; and
    (vii) 100 round lots or greater.
    (20) Categorized by order type means dividing orders into separate
categories for market orders, marketable limit orders (excluding
immediate-or-cancel orders), marketable immediate-or-cancel orders,
beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, executable non-marketable limit
orders (excluding orders submitted with stop prices and beyond-the-
midpoint limit orders), and executable orders submitted with stop
prices.
* * * * *
    (30) Covered order means any market order or any limit order
(including immediate-or-cancel orders) received by a market center,
broker, or dealer during regular trading hours at a time when a
national best bid and national best offer is being disseminated and
after the primary listing market has disseminated its first firm,
uncrossed quotations in the security, and, if executed, is executed
during regular trading hours; or any non-marketable limit order
(including an order submitted with a stop price) received by a market
center, broker, or dealer outside of regular trading hours or at a time
when a national best bid and national best offer is not being
disseminated and, if executed, is executed during regular trading
hours. Covered order shall exclude any order for which the customer
requests special handling for execution, including, but not limited to,
orders to be executed at a market opening price or a market closing
price, orders to be executed only at their full size, orders to be
executed on a particular type of tick or bid, orders submitted on a
``not held'' basis, orders for other than regular settlement, and
orders to be executed at prices unrelated to the market price of the
security at the time of execution.
* * * * *
    (42) Executable means, for any non-marketable buy order (excluding
orders submitted with stop prices), that the limit price is equal to or
greater than the national best bid during regular trading hours, and,
for any non-marketable sell order (excluding orders submitted with stop
prices), that the limit price is equal to or less than the national
best offer during regular trading hours. Executable means, for any buy
order submitted with a stop price, that the stop price is equal to or
greater than the national best bid during regular trading hours, and,
for any sell orders submitted with a stop price, that the stop price is
equal to or less than the national best offer during regular trading
hours. The time an order becomes executable shall be measured in
increments of a millisecond or finer.
* * * * *
    (44) Executed outside the best available displayed price means, for
buy orders, execution at a price higher than the best available
displayed price; and, for sell orders, execution at a price lower than
the best available displayed price.
* * * * *
    (47) Executed with price improvement relative to the best available
displayed price means, for buy orders, execution at a price lower the
best available displayed price and, for sell orders, execution at a
price higher than the best available displayed price.
* * * * *
    (57) Marketable limit order means, with respect to an order
received at a time when a national best bid and national best offer is
being disseminated, any buy order with a limit price equal to or
greater than the national best offer at the time of order receipt, or
any sell order with a limit price equal to or less than the national
best bid at the time of order receipt, and, with respect to an order
received at a time when a national best bid and national best offer is
not being disseminated, any buy order with a limit price equal to or
greater than the national best offer at the time that the national best
offer is first disseminated during regular trading hours after the time
of order receipt, or any sell order with a limit price equal to or less
than the national best bid time at the time that the national best bid
is first disseminated during regular trading hours after the time of
order receipt.
* * * * *
    (108) Time of order execution means the time (at a minimum to the
millisecond) that an order was executed at any venue.
    (109) Time of order receipt means the time (at a minimum to the
millisecond) that an order was received by a market center for
execution, or in the case of a broker or dealer that is not acting as a
market center, the time (at a minimum to the millisecond) that an order
was received by the broker or dealer for execution.
* * * * *

Sec.  242.605  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  242.605 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  242.605   Disclosure of order execution information.

    This section requires market centers, brokers, and dealers to make
available standardized, monthly reports of statistical information
concerning their order executions. This information is presented in
accordance with uniform standards that are based on broad assumptions
about order execution and routing practices. The information will
provide a starting point to promote visibility and competition on the
part of market centers and broker-dealers, particularly on the factors
of execution price and speed. The disclosures required by this section
do not encompass all of the factors that may be important to investors
in evaluating the order routing services of a broker-dealer. In
addition, any particular market center, broker, or dealer's statistics
will encompass varying types of orders routed by different broker-
dealers on behalf of customers with a wide range of objectives.
Accordingly, the statistical information required by this section alone
does not create a reliable basis to address whether any particular
broker-dealer failed to obtain the most favorable terms reasonably
available under the circumstances for customer orders.
    (a) Monthly electronic reports by market centers, brokers, and
dealers. (1) Every market center, broker, or dealer shall make
available for each calendar month, in accordance with the procedures
established pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, a report on
the covered orders in NMS stocks that it received for execution from
any person or that it received for execution in a prior calendar month
but which remained open. Any market center that operates a qualified
auction shall produce a separate report pertaining only to covered
orders that the market center receives for execution in a qualified
auction. Any market center that provides a separate routing destination
that allows persons to enter orders for execution against the bids and
offers of a single dealer shall produce a separate report pertaining
only to covered orders submitted to such routing destination.
Alternative trading systems (as defined in Regulation ATS, Sec.
242.300(a)) shall prepare reports separately from their broker-dealer
operators to the extent such entities are required to prepare reports.
Each report shall be in electronic form; shall be categorized by
security, order type, and order size; and shall include the following
columns of information:
    (i) For market orders, marketable limit orders, marketable
immediate-or-cancel orders, beyond-the-midpoint limit orders,
executable non-marketable limit orders, and executable orders with stop
prices:
    (A) The number of covered orders;

    (B) The cumulative number of shares of covered orders;
    (C) The cumulative number of shares of covered orders cancelled
prior to execution;
    (D) The cumulative number of shares of covered orders executed at
the receiving market center, broker, or dealer (excluding shares that
the market center, broker, or dealer executes on a riskless principal
basis);
    (E) The cumulative number of shares of covered orders executed at
any other venue;
    (F) For executions of covered orders, the cumulative number of
shares of the full displayed size of the protected bid at the time of
execution, in the case of a market or limit order to sell, or the full
displayed size of the protected offer at the time of execution, in the
case of a market or limit order to buy. For each order, the share count
shall be capped at the order size;
    (G) For executions of covered orders, the average realized spread
as calculated fifteen seconds after the time of execution;
    (H) For executions of covered orders, the average percentage
realized spread as calculated fifteen seconds after the time of
execution;
    (I) For executions of covered orders, the average realized spread
as calculated one minute after the time of execution;
    (J) For executions of covered orders, the average percentage
realized spread as calculated one minute after the time of execution;
    (K) For executions of covered orders, the average effective spread;
    (L) For executions of covered orders, the average percentage
effective spread; and
    (M) For executions of covered orders, the average effective over
quoted spread, expressed as a percentage; and
    (ii) For market orders, marketable limit orders, marketable
immediate-or-cancel orders, and beyond-the-midpoint limit orders:
    (A) The cumulative number of shares of covered orders executed with
price improvement;
    (B) For shares executed with price improvement, the share-weighted
average amount per share that prices were improved;
    (C) For shares executed with price improvement, the share-weighted
average period from the time of order receipt to the time of order
execution, expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer, or, in
the case of beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, from the time such orders
first become executable to the time of order execution, expressed in
increments of a millisecond or finer;
    (D) For shares executed with price improvement, the share-weighted
median period from the time of order receipt to the time of order
execution, expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer, or, in
the case of beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, from the time such orders
first become executable to the time of order execution, expressed in
increments of a millisecond or finer;
    (E) For shares executed with price improvement, the share-weighted
99th percentile period from the time of order receipt to the time of
order execution, expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer, or,
in the case of beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, from the time such
orders first become executable to the time of order execution,
expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer;
    (F) The cumulative number of shares of covered orders executed at
the quote;
    (G) For shares executed at the quote, the share-weighted average
period from the time of order receipt to the time of order execution,
expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer, or, in the case of
beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, from the time such orders first
become executable to the time of order execution, expressed in
increments of a millisecond or finer;
    (H) For shares executed at the quote, the share-weighted median
period from the time of order receipt to the time of order execution,
expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer, or, in the case of
beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, from the time such orders first
become executable to the time of order execution, expressed in
increments of a millisecond or finer;
    (I) For shares executed at the quote, the share-weighted 99th
percentile period from the time of order receipt to the time of order
execution, expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer, or, in
the case of beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, from the time such orders
first become executable to the time of order execution, expressed in
increments of a millisecond or finer;
    (J) The cumulative number of shares of covered orders executed
outside the quote;
    (K) For shares executed outside the quote, the share-weighted
average amount per share that prices were outside the quote;
    (L) For shares executed outside the quote, the share-weighted
average period from the time of order receipt, expressed in increments
of a millisecond or finer, or, in the case of beyond-the-midpoint limit
orders, from the time such orders first become executable to the time
of order execution, expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer;
    (M) For shares executed outside the quote, the share-weighted
median period from the time of order receipt to the time of order
execution, expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer, or, in
the case of beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, from the time such orders
first become executable to the time of order execution, expressed in
increments of a millisecond or finer;
    (N) For shares executed outside the quote, the share-weighted 99th
percentile period from the time of order receipt to the time of order
execution, expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer, or, in
the case of beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, from the time such orders
first become executable to the time of order execution, expressed in
increments of a millisecond or finer;
    (O) The cumulative number of shares of covered orders executed with
price improvement relative to the best available displayed price;
    (P) For shares executed with price improvement relative to the best
available displayed price, the share-weighted average amount per share
that prices were improved as compared to the best available displayed
price;
    (Q) The cumulative number of shares of covered orders executed at
the best available displayed price;
    (R) The cumulative number of shares of covered orders executed
outside the best available displayed price;
    (S) For shares executed outside the best available displayed price,
the share-weighted average amount per share that prices were outside
the best available displayed price; and
    (iii) For beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, executable non-
marketable limit orders, and executable orders with stop prices:
    (A) The number of orders that received either a complete or partial
fill;
    (B) The cumulative number of shares executed regular way at prices
that could have filled the order while the order was in force, as
reported pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan or
effective national market system plan. For each order, the share count
shall be capped at the order size;
    (C) For shares executed, the share-weighted average period from the
time the order becomes executable to the time of order execution
expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer, or, in the case of
beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, from the time such orders first
become executable to the time of order execution, expressed in
increments of a millisecond or finer;

    (D) For shares executed, the share-weighted median period from the
time the order becomes executable to the time of order execution,
expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer, or, in the case of
beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, from the time such orders first
become executable to the time of order execution, expressed in
increments of a millisecond or finer; and
    (E) For shares executed, the share-weighted 99th percentile period
from the time the order becomes executable to the time of order
execution, expressed in increments of a millisecond or finer, or, in
the case of beyond-the-midpoint limit orders, from the time such orders
first become executable to the time of order execution, expressed in
increments of a millisecond or finer.
    (2) Every market center, broker, or dealer shall make publicly
available for each calendar month a report providing summary statistics
on all executions of covered orders that are market and marketable
limit orders that it received for execution from any person. Such
report shall be made available using the most recent version of the XML
schema and the associated PDF renderer as published on the Commission's
website for all reports required by this paragraph (a)(2). Such report
shall include a section for NMS stocks that are included in the S&P 500
Index as of the first day of that month and a section for other NMS
stocks. Each section shall include, for market orders and marketable
limit orders, the following summary statistics for executed orders,
equally weighted by symbol based on share volume:
    (i) The average order size;
    (ii) The percentage of shares executed at the quote or better;
    (iii) The percentage of shares that received price improvement;
    (iv) The average percentage price improvement per order;
    (v) The average percentage effective spread;
    (vi) The average effective over quoted spread, expressed as a
percentage; and
    (vii) The average execution speed, in milliseconds.
    (3) Every national securities exchange on which NMS stocks are
traded and each national securities association shall act jointly in
establishing procedures for market centers, brokers, and dealers to
follow in making available to the public the reports required by this
section in a uniform, readily accessible, and usable electronic form.
    (4) In the event there is no effective national market system plan
establishing such procedures, market centers, brokers, and dealers
shall prepare their reports in a consistent, usable, and machine-
readable electronic format, in accordance with the requirements in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and make such reports available for
downloading from an internet website that is free and readily
accessible to the public.
    (5) Every market center, broker, or dealer shall keep the reports
required by paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section posted on an
internet website that is free and readily accessible to the public for
a period of three years from the initial date of posting on the
internet website.
    (6) A market center, broker, or dealer shall make available the
reports required by paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section within
one month after the end of the month addressed in the reports.
    (7) A broker or dealer that is not a market center shall not be
subject to the requirements of this section unless that broker or
dealer introduces or carries 100,000 or more customer accounts through
which transactions are effected for the purchase or sale of NMS stocks
(the ``customer account threshold'' for purposes of this paragraph).
For purposes of this section, a broker or dealer that utilizes an
omnibus clearing arrangement with respect to any of its underlying
customer accounts shall be considered to carry such underlying customer
accounts when calculating the number of customer accounts that it
introduces or carries. Any broker or dealer that meets or exceeds this
customer account threshold and is also a market center shall produce
separate reports pertaining to each function. A broker or dealer that
meets or exceeds the customer account threshold shall be required to
produce reports pursuant to this section for at least three calendar
months (``Reporting Period''). The Reporting Period shall begin the
first calendar day of the next calendar month after the broker or
dealer met or exceeded the customer account threshold, unless it is the
first time the broker or dealer has met or exceeded the customer
account threshold, in which case the Reporting Period shall begin the
first calendar day four calendar months later. If, at any time after a
broker or dealer has been required to produce reports pursuant to this
section for at least a Reporting Period, a broker or dealer falls below
the customer account threshold, the broker or dealer shall not be
required to produce a report pursuant to this paragraph for the next
calendar month.
* * * * *

    By the Commission.

    Dated: December 14, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27614 Filed 1-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 33)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7794-7796]
[DOCID:fr20fe09-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0219; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-46-AD;
Amendment 39-15806; AD 2009-03-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada PW206A, PW206B,
PW206B2, PW206C, PW206E, PW207C, PW207D, and PW207E Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    PW206 and PW207 compressor turbine (CT) disc bore areas may
experience impact damage resulting from bending or fracture of the
CT disc retaining nut. Damage of the CT disc bore area can reduce
LCF capabilities of the CT disc, resulting in disc fracture.

We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to the CT disc bore area,
which could result in possible uncontained failure of the engine and
damage to the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 27, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of March 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That

NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2008, (73 FR
35982). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    PW206 and PW207 compressor turbine (CT) disc bore areas may
experience impact damage resulting from bending or fracture of the
CT disc retaining nut. Damage of the CT disc bore area can reduce
LCF capabilities of the CT disc, resulting in disc fracture.

Under high centrifugal loads, the CT disk retaining nut castellations
might bend outward, then contact and mark the CT disk internal bore.
Worldwide, a total of five events of CT nut damage and associated
damage to the CT disk bore have been reported. A total of 195 out of
402 engines in the U.S. fleet have been inspected with two cases of CT
nut damage and no findings of disk damage, to date. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    Although the MCAI allows use of future revisions of PWC ASB PW200-
72-A28280, we require the use of Revision 4 of that ASB.
    Although the MCAI has a March 21, 2008 compliance date, we have
changed the final rule from a December 21, 2008 compliance date to
within 30 days after the effective date of the AD. This is based on a
review of the risk assessment and the fleet inspection results to date.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 402 engines of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take 8 work-hours per product to comply
with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required
parts will cost about $500 per product. We expect that 1 disk on the
remaining 207 engines will be replaced, at an estimated cost of
$20,000. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD to U.S.
operators to be $478,280. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible
warranty coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2009-03-05 Pratt Whitney Canada: Amendment 39-15806. Docket No. FAA-
2007-0219; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-46-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March
27, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to Pratt & Whitney
Canada (PWC) PW206A, PW206B, PW206B2, PW206C, PW206E, PW207C,
PW207D, and PW207E turboshaft engines.
    (d) These engines are installed on, but not limited to, MD
Explorer, Agusta S.p.A. A109, A109E, A109S, Bell Helicopter Textron
Canada Limited 427, Bell 429, and Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH EC135
P1, and EC135 P2 helicopters.
    (e) For engines that have been converted from one model to
another, see Effectivity paragraph 1.A. of PWC Alert Service
Bulletin (ASB) PW200-72-A28280, Revision 4, dated August 28, 2007.

Reason

    (f) Transport Canada AD CF-2007-24R1, dated December 21, 2007,
states:

    PW206 and PW207 compressor turbine (CT) disc bore areas may
experience impact damage resulting from bending or fracture of the
CT disc retaining nut. Damage of the CT disc bore area can reduce
LCF capabilities of the CT disc, resulting in disc fracture.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to the CT disc bore
area, which could result in possible uncontained failure of the disc
and damage to the helicopter.

Actions and Compliance

    (g) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) For engines that have never had a shop visit and have
accumulated 4,000 CT cycles or more since new; or for engines that
accumulated 2,700 CT cycles or more since last shop visit, last CT
disc inspection, or

incorporation of PWC SB PW200-72-28287; within 1,150 hours of engine
operating time since April 28, 2006 (original issue date of Alert
Service Bulletin (ASB) PW200-72-A28280), but not later than 30 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first,
accomplish the following in accordance with PWC ASB PW200-72-A28280,
Revision 4, dated August 28, 2007:
    (i) Inspect the CT disc bore area for damage and if any damage
is noticed, replace the CT disc before further flight.
    (ii) Replace the existing CT disc retaining nut and associated
hardware.
    (2) For engines that have never had a shop visit and have
accumulated less than 4,000 CT cycles since new, before the engine
reaches 4,000 CT cycles or within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later, accomplish the following in
accordance with PWC ASB PW200-72-A28280, Revision 4, dated August
28, 2007:
    (i) Inspect the CT disc bore area for damage and if any damage
is noticed, replace the CT disc before further flight.
    (ii) Replace the existing CT disc retaining nut and associated
hardware.
    (3) For engines that have accumulated fewer than 2,700 CT cycles
since last shop visit, last CT disc inspection, or incorporation of
PWC SB PW200-72-28287; before the engine reaches 2,700 CT cycles or
within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later, accomplish the following in accordance with PWC ASB PW200-72-
A28280, Revision 4, dated August 28, 2007:
    (i) Inspect the CT disc bore area for damage and if any damage
is noticed, replace the CT disc before further flight.
    (ii) Replace the existing CT disc retaining nut and associated
hardware.

Previous Credit

    (h) Inspection of the CT disc bore and replacement of the CT
disc retaining nut using PWC ASB PW200-72-A28280, dated April 28,
2006, or Revision 1, dated May 11, 2006, or Revision 2, dated
September 29, 2006, or Revision 3, dated December 11, 2006, before
the effective date of this AD, meets the requirements of this AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive 2007-24R1,
dated December 21, 2007, for related information.
    (k) Contact Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Pratt & Whitney Canada Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB) PW200-72-A28280, Revision 4, dated August 28, 2007 to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada J4G 1A1, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 29, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-3046 Filed 2-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		7/31/2015

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Mike Gordon, EPA Region 3

SUBJECT:	6/25/15 Southeastern Electric Exchange Conference --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      On June 25, 2015 EPA presented at the annual Southeastern Electrical Exchange conference in Hershey, PA to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.               ATTENDEES

Mike Gordon, EPA Region 3 Donna Mastro, EPA Region 3