Certain Swap Data Repository and Data Reporting Requirements, 75601-75678 [2020-21570]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
ISDA commented that the higher block size
thresholds might incentivize swap dealers to
move at least a portion of their swap trading
from United States SEFs to European trading
platforms. They also noted that this
regulatory arbitrage activity could apply to
swaps that are subject to mandatory exchange
trading. Importantly, European platforms
allow a non-competitive single-quote trading
mechanism for these swaps while U.S. SEFs
are required to maintain more competitive
request-for-quotes mechanisms from at least
three parties. The three-quote requirement
serves to fulfill important purposes
delineated in the CEA to facilitate price
discovery and promote fair competition.
The migration of swap trading from SEFs
to non-U.S. trading platforms to avoid U.S.
trade execution and/or swap reporting
requirements would diminish the liquidity in
and transparency of U.S. markets, to the
detriment of many U.S. swap market
participants. Additionally, as the ISDA/
SIFMA comment letter notes, it would
provide an unfair competitive advantage to
non-U.S. trading platforms over SEFs
registered with the CFTC, who are required
to abide by CFTC regulations. Such migration
would fragment the global swaps market and
undermine U.S. swap markets.5
I have supported the Commission’s
substituted compliance determinations for
foreign swap trading platforms in non-U.S.
markets where the foreign laws and
regulations provide for comparable and
comprehensive regulation. Substituted
compliance recognizes the interests of nonU.S. jurisdictions in regulating non-U.S.
markets and allows U.S. firms to compete in
those non-U.S. markets. However, substituted
compliance is not intended to encourage—or
permit—regulatory arbitrage or
circumvention of U.S. swap market
regulations. If swap dealers were to move
trading activity away from U.S. SEFs to a
foreign trading platform for regulatory
arbitrage purposes, such as, for example, to
avoid the CFTC’s transparency and trade
execution requirements, it would undermine
the goals of U.S. swap market regulation, and
constitute the type of fragmentation of the
swaps markets that our cross-border regime
was meant to mitigate. It also would
undermine findings by the Commission that
the non-U.S. platform is subject to regulation
that is as comparable and comprehensive as
U.S. regulation, or that the non-U.S. regime
achieves a comparable outcome.
The Commission should be vigilant to
protect U.S. markets and market participants.
The Commission should monitor swap data
to identify whether any such migration from
U.S. markets to overseas markets is occurring
and respond, if necessary, to protect the U.S.
swap markets.
5 In my dissenting statement on the Commission’s
recent revisions to it cross-border regulations, I
detailed a number of concerns with how those
revisions could provide legal avenues for U.S. swap
dealers to migrate swap trading activity currently
subject to CFTC trade execution requirements to
non-U.S. markets that would not be subject to those
CFTC requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Part 45 (Swap Data Reporting), Part 46 (Preenactment and Transition Swaps), and Part
49 (Swap Data Repositories) Amendments
I also support today’s final rules amending
the swap data reporting, verification, and
SDR registration requirements in parts 45, 46,
and 49 of the Commission’s rules. These
regulatory reporting rules will help ensure
that reporting counterparties, including SDs,
MSPs, designated contract markets
(‘‘DCMs’’), SEFs, derivatives clearing
organizations (‘‘DCOs’’), and others report
accurate and timely swap data to SDRs. Swap
data will also be subject to a periodic
verification program requiring the
cooperation of both SDRs and reporting
counterparties. Collectively, the final rules
create a comprehensive framework of swap
data standards, reporting deadlines, and data
validation and verification procedures for all
reporting counterparties.
The final rules simplify the swap data
reports required in part 45, and organize
them into two report types: (1) ‘‘Swap
creation data’’ for new swaps; and (2) ‘‘swap
continuation data’’ for changes to existing
swaps.6 The final rules also extend the
deadline for SDs, MSPs, SEFs, DCMs, and
DCOs to submit these data sets to an SDR,
from ‘‘as soon as technologically practicable’’
to the end of the next business day following
the execution date (T+1). Off-facility swaps
where the reporting counterparty is not an
SD, MSP, or DCO must be reported no later
than T+2 following the execution date.
The amended reporting deadlines will
result in a moderate time window where
swap data may not be available to the
Commission or other regulators with access
to an SDR. However, it is likely that they will
also improve the accuracy and reliability of
data. Reporting parties will have more time
to ensure that their data reports are complete
and accurate before being transmitted to an
SDR.7
The final rules in part 49 will also promote
data accuracy through validation procedures
to help identify errors when data is first sent
to an SDR, and periodic reconciliation
exercises to identify any discrepancies
between an SDR’s records and those of the
reporting party that submitted the swaps. The
final rules provide for less frequent
reconciliation than the proposed rules, and
depart from the proposal’s approach to
reconciliation in other ways that may merit
future scrutiny to ensure that reconciliation
is working as intended. Nonetheless, the
validation and periodic reconciliation
required by the final rule is an important step
in ensuring that the Commission has access
to complete and accurate swap data to
monitor risk and fulfill its regulatory
mandate.
6 Swap creation data reports replace primary
economic terms (‘‘PET’’) and confirmation data
previously required in part 45. The final rules also
eliminate optional ‘‘state data’’ reporting, which
resulted in extensive duplicative reports crowding
SDR databases, and often included no new
information.
7 The amended reporting deadlines are also
consistent with comparable swap data reporting
obligations under the Securities and Exchange
Commission’s and European Securities and Markets
Authority’s rules.
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75601
The final rules also better harmonize with
international technical standards, the
development of which included significant
Commission participation and leadership.
These harmonization efforts will reduce
complexity for reporting parties without
significantly reducing the specific data
elements needed by the Commission for its
purposes. For example, the final rules adopt
the Unique Transaction Identifier and related
rules, consistent with CPMI–IOSCO technical
standards, in lieu of the Commission’s
previous Unique Swap Identifier. They also
adopt over 120 distinct data elements and
definitions that specify information to be
reported to SDRs. Clear and well-defined
data standards are critical for the efficient
analysis of swap data across many hundreds
of reporting parties and multiple SDRs.
Although data elements may not be the most
riveting aspect of Commission policy making,
I support the Commission’s determination to
focus on these important, technical elements
as a necessary component of any effective
swap data regime.
Conclusion
Today’s Reporting Rules are built upon
nearly eight years of experience with the
current reporting rules and benefitted from
extensive international coordination. The
amendments make important strides toward
fulfilling Congress’s mandate to bring
transparency and effective oversight to the
swap markets. I commend CFTC staff,
particularly in Division of Market Oversight
and the Office of Data and Technology, who
have worked on the Reporting Rules over
many years. Swaps are highly variable and
can be difficult to represent in standardized
data formats. Establishing accurate, timely,
and complete swap reporting requirements is
a difficult, but important function for the
Commission and regulators around the globe.
This proposal offers a number of pragmatic
solutions to known issues with the current
swap data rules. For these reasons, I am
voting for the final Reporting Rules.
[FR Doc. 2020–21569 Filed 11–24–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
17 CFR Parts 43, 45, and 49
RIN 3038–AE32
Certain Swap Data Repository and
Data Reporting Requirements
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or
‘‘CFTC’’) is amending its regulations to
improve the accuracy of data reported
to, and maintained by, swap data
repositories (‘‘SDRs’’), and to provide
enhanced and streamlined oversight
over SDRs and data reporting generally.
Among other changes, the amendments
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75602
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
modify existing requirements for SDRs
to establish policies and procedures to
confirm the accuracy of swap data with
both counterparties to a swap and
require reporting counterparties to
verify the accuracy of swap data
pursuant to those SDR procedures. The
amendments also update existing
requirements related to corrections for
data errors and certain provisions
related to SDR governance.
DATES: Effective date: The effective date
for this final rule is January 25, 2021.
Compliance date: The compliance
date for all amendments and additions
under this final rule is May 25, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benjamin DeMaria, Special Counsel,
Division of Market Oversight, (202) 418–
5988, bdemaria@cftc.gov; Eliezer
Mishory, Special Counsel, Division of
Market Oversight, (202) 418–5609,
emishory@cftc.gov; Israel Goodman,
Special Counsel, Division of Market
Oversight, (202) 418–6715, igoodman@
cftc.gov; Mark Fajfar, Assistant General
Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,
(202) 418–6636, mfajfar@cftc.gov; and
Gloria Clement, Senior Special Counsel,
Office of the Chief Economist, (202)
418–5122, gclement@cftc.gov;
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1151 21st Street NW, Washington, DC
20581.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Amendments to Part 49
A. § 49.2—Definitions
B. § 49.3—Procedures for Registration
C. § 49.5—Equity Interest Transfers
D. § 49.6—Request for Transfer of
Registration
E. § 49.9—Open Swaps Reports Provided to
the Commission
F. § 49.10—Acceptance of Data
G. § 49.11—Verification of Swap Data
Accuracy
H. § 49.12—Swap Data Repository
Recordkeeping Requirements
I. § 49.13—Monitoring, Screening, and
Analyzing Data
J. § 49.15—Real-Time Public Reporting by
Swap Data Repositories
K. § 49.16—Privacy and Confidentiality
Requirements of Swap Data Repositories
L. § 49.17—Access to SDR Data
M. § 49.18—Confidentiality Arrangement
N. § 49.20—Governance Arrangements
(Core Principle 2)
O. § 49.22—Chief Compliance Officer
P. § 49.24—System Safeguards
Q. § 49.25—Financial Resources
R. § 49.26—Disclosure Requirements of
Swap Data Repositories
S. § 49.28—Operating Hours of Swap Data
Repositories
T. § 49.29—Information Relating to Swap
Data Repository Compliance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
U. § 49.30—Form and Manner of Reporting
and Submitting Information to the
Commission
V. § 49.31—Delegation of Authority to the
Director of the Division of Market
Oversight Relating to Certain Part 49
Matters
III. Amendments to Part 45
A. § 45.1—Definitions
B. § 45.2—Swap Recordkeeping
C. § 45.14—Correcting Errors in Swap Data
and Verification of Swap Data Accuracy
IV. Amendments to Part 43
§ 43.3—Method and Timing for Real-Time
Public Reporting
A. § 43.3(e)—Correction of Errors
B. Removal of § 43.3(f) and (g)
V. Amendments to Part 23
§ 23.204—Reports to Swap Data
Repositories, and § 23.205—Real-Time
Public Reporting
VI. Compliance Date
VII. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Cost-Benefit Considerations
D. Antitrust Considerations
I. Background
Section 727 of the Dodd-Frank Act
added section 2(a)(13)(G) to the
Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’ or
‘‘Act’’), which requires each swap—
whether cleared or uncleared—to be
reported to an SDR,1 a type of registered
entity created by section 728 of the
Dodd-Frank Act.2 CEA section 21 3
requires each SDR to register with the
Commission and directs the
Commission to adopt rules governing
SDRs.
To register and maintain registration
with the Commission, an SDR must
comply with specific duties and core
principles enumerated in CEA section
21 as well as other requirements that the
Commission may prescribe by rule. In
particular, CEA section 21(c) mandates
that an SDR: (1) Accept data; (2) confirm
with both counterparties the accuracy of
submitted data; (3) maintain data
according to standards prescribed by the
Commission; (4) provide direct
electronic access to the Commission or
any designee of the Commission
1 Section 721 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended
section 1a of the CEA to add the definition of SDR.
See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376
(2010), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
PLAW-111publ203/pdf/PLAW-111publ203.pdf.
Pursuant to CEA section 1a(48), the term SDR
means any person that collects and maintains
information or records with respect to transactions
or positions in, or the terms and conditions of,
swaps entered into by third parties for the purpose
of providing a centralized recordkeeping facility for
swaps. 7 U.S.C. 1a(48).
2 The Commission notes that there are currently
three SDRs provisionally registered with the
Commission: CME Inc., DTCC Data Repository
(U.S.) LLC (‘‘DDR’’), and ICE Trade Vault, LLC
(‘‘ICE’’).
3 7 U.S.C. 24a.
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(including another registered entity); (5)
provide public reporting of data in the
form and frequency required by the
Commission; (6) establish automated
systems for monitoring, screening, and
analyzing data (including the use of
end-user clearing exemptions) at the
direction of the Commission; (7)
maintain data privacy; (8) make data
available to other specified regulators,
on a confidential basis, pursuant to CEA
section 8,4 upon request and after
notifying the Commission; and (9)
establish and maintain emergency and
business continuity-disaster recovery
(‘‘BC–DR’’) procedures. CEA section
21(f)(4)(C) further requires the
Commission to establish additional
duties for SDRs to minimize conflicts of
interest, protect data, ensure
compliance, and guarantee the safety
and security of the SDR.5 CEA section
21(b) also directs the Commission to
prescribe standards for data
recordkeeping and reporting that apply
to both registered entities and reporting
counterparties.6
Part 49 of the Commission’s
regulations implements the
requirements of CEA section 21.7 Part
49 sets forth the specific duties an SDR
must comply with to be registered and
maintain registration as an SDR,
including requirements under § 49.11
for an SDR to confirm the accuracy of
data reported to the SDR.
Since the Commission adopted its
part 49 regulations in 2011, Commission
staff has led many efforts to evaluate
and improve the reporting of swap data
and its accuracy. Commission staff leads
or participates in several international
regulatory working groups concentrating
on harmonization of data reporting.
Commission staff’s efforts have also
included the formation of an
interdivisional staff working group to
identify, and make recommendations to
resolve, reporting challenges associated
with certain swap data recordkeeping
and reporting provisions.8 The
Commission has also requested
comments from the public on reporting
issues.9
47
U.S.C. 12(e).
to this provision, the Commission may
develop one or more additional duties applicable to
SDRs. 7 U.S.C. 24a(f)(4).
6 See 7 U.S.C. 24a(b)(1)(B).
7 Swap Data Repositories: Registration Standards,
Duties and Core Principles, 76 FR 54538 (Sept. 1,
2011) (‘‘Part 49 Adopting Release’’).
8 See Press Release, CFTC to Form an
Interdivisional Working Group to Review
Regulatory Reporting (Jan. 21, 2014), available at
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/
pr6837-14.
9 See, e.g., Review of Swap Data Recordkeeping
and Reporting Requirements, Request for Comment,
79 FR 16689 (Mar. 26, 2014).
5 Pursuant
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Based on its efforts, the Commission
determined that three conditions work
in concert to achieve a higher degree of
data accuracy: (i) SDR processes
confirming the accuracy of data
submitted; (ii) data reconciliation
exercises by entities that reported data;
and (iii) the prompt reporting of errors
and omissions when discovered.10 With
the goal of advancing in these three
areas to improve data accuracy,
Commission staff conducted a
comprehensive review of swap
reporting regulations and released the
Roadmap to Achieve High Quality Swap
Data (‘‘Roadmap’’).11 The Roadmap’s
overall goals were to improve the
quality, accuracy, and completeness of
swap data reported to the Commission,
streamline swap data reporting, and
clarify obligations for market
participants.12 Within these overall
goals, the Roadmap’s SDR Operations
Review aimed to assure a high degree of
accuracy of swap data and swap
transaction and pricing data,13 improve
the clarity and consistency of
regulations governing SDRs, and bolster
the Commission’s oversight of SDRs.
The Roadmap solicited public
comment on how to improve data
reporting and achieve the Commission’s
regulatory goals without imposing
unnecessary burdens on market
participants. Commission staff received
numerous comments in response to the
Roadmap that addressed data accuracy
and confirmation of data reported to
SDRs, among other subjects.14
Based in part on these public
comments and the Commission staff’s
review of these issues, the Commission
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(‘‘Proposal’’) on May 13, 2019 to address
the Roadmap’s SDR Operations Review
goals.15 The Proposal was the first of
three Roadmap rulemakings that
10 See
id. at 16695.
CFTC Letter 17–33, Division of Market
Oversight Announces Review of Swap Reporting
Rules in Parts 43, 45, and 49 of Commission
Regulations (July 10, 2017), available at https://
www.cftc.gov/csl/17-33/download; Roadmap to
Achieve High Quality Swap Data, available at
https://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@newsroom/
documents/file/dmo_swapdataplan071017.pdf.
12 See id. at 3 (describing the Commission’s goals
for the review of reporting regulations).
13 See Roadmap at 6 (stating the Commission’s
intent to ‘‘Identify the most efficient and effective
solution for swap counterparty(ies) to confirm the
accuracy and completeness of data held in an
SDR.’’).
14 These comment letters are available at https://
comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.
aspx?id=1824.
15 Certain Swap Data Repository and Data
Reporting Requirements, 84 FR 21044 (May 13,
2019).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
11 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
together aim to achieve the Roadmap’s
overall goals.16
In the Proposal, the Commission set
forth a new swap data verification
regime to replace existing requirements
for swap data confirmation and
proposed amendments to error
correction requirements in parts 43, 45,
and 49 of the Commission’s regulations.
The primary components of the
proposed verification regime included:
A requirement for an SDR to regularly
distribute to reporting counterparties an
open swaps report containing the data
maintained by the SDR for a relevant
reporting counterparty’s open swaps; a
requirement that a reporting
counterparty reconcile the data in the
open swaps reports with the reporting
counterparty’s own data; a requirement
that a reporting counterparty provide
the SDR with a verification of the data’s
accuracy or a notice of discrepancy; and
a requirement that, in the event of a
discrepancy, a reporting counterparty
submit corrected data to the SDR within
a specified time frame or, if it is unable
to do so, inform Commission staff of the
error, its scope, and the reporting
counterparty’s initial remediation plan.
In this final rulemaking, the
Commission has determined to adopt
the amendments as proposed, with
certain exceptions. The Commission has
determined, based, in part, on public
comments,17 not to adopt, or to adopt
with modifications, certain elements of
the Proposal relating to data verification
and error correction. More specifically,
the final rule eliminates the proposed
requirement for an SDR to distribute
16 The other two notices of proposed rulemakings
are Amendments to the Real-Time Public Reporting
Requirements, 85 FR 21516 (April 17, 2020) and
Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements, 85 FR 21578 (April 17, 2020).
17 The Commission received 25 responsive
comment letters addressing the Proposal from the
following entities: American Public Power
Association/Edison Electric Institute/National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association (‘‘Joint
Associations’’), Chatham Financial (‘‘Chatham’’),
Chris Barnard, CME Group Inc. (‘‘CME’’), CME
Group Inc./DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC/ICE
Trade Vault LLC (‘‘Joint SDR’’), Coalition of
Physical Energy Companies (‘‘COPE’’), Commercial
Energy Working Group (‘‘CEWG’’), Credit Suisse
(‘‘CS’’), Data Coalition, DTCC Data Repository (U.S.)
LLC (‘‘DDR’’), Eurex Clearing AG (‘‘Eurex’’), Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (‘‘Freddie Mac’’),
Futures Industry Association August 2019 letter
(‘‘FIA August’’), Futures Industry Association May
2020 letter (‘‘FIA May’’), Global Financial Markets
Association (‘‘GFMA’’), Global Legal Entity
Identifier Foundation (‘‘GLEIF’’), ICE Clear Credit
LLC/ICE Clear Europe Limited (‘‘ICE Clear’’), ICE
Trade Vault (‘‘ICE TV’’), IHS Markit (‘‘Markit’’),
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (‘‘IATP’’),
International Swaps and Derivatives Association,
Inc./Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (‘‘ISDA/SIFMA’’), Investment Company
Institute (‘‘ICI’’), LCH Ltd/LCH SA (‘‘LCH’’), Natural
Gas Supply Association (‘‘NGSA’’), and Prudential
Global Funding LLC (‘‘Prudential’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75603
open swaps reports to a reporting
counterparty, and the requirement for a
counterparty to submit notices of
verification or discrepancy in response.
Instead, under the final rules, an SDR
must provide a mechanism for a
reporting counterparty to access swap
data maintained by the SDR for the
reporting counterparty’s open swaps.
Further, the final rules require a
reporting counterparty to verify the
SDR’s data by using the mechanism
provided by the SDR to compare the
swap data for open swaps maintained
by the SDR with the reporting
counterparty’s own books and records
for the swap data, and to submit
corrected swap data, if necessary, to the
SDR. The reporting counterparty must
perform the verification at specified
intervals and maintain a verification log
that sets forth any errors discovered and
corrections made by the reporting
counterparty. The final rule also extends
the time frame within which a reporting
counterparty must correct an error or
notify the Commission.
The Proposal also included various
amendments and new regulations aimed
at eliminating unduly burdensome
requirements, streamlining and
consolidating the provisions of part 49
and other Commission regulations
applicable to SDRs, and enhancing the
Commission’s ability to fulfill its
oversight obligations with respect to
SDRs. The Commission is generally
adopting those rules as proposed, with
limited modifications in some cases to
address public comments. Additionally,
for the reasons discussed below, the
Commission has determined not to
finalize at this time its proposed
amendments to § 49.13 and § 49.22 and
its proposed additions to part 23.
Where possible, in developing the
Proposal and in adopting final rules as
set forth herein, the Commission has
taken into consideration certain
pertinent rules adopted by other
regulators, including the European
Securities and Markets Authority and
the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘SEC’’). This is
particularly the case for the SEC’s
regulations relating to the registration
requirements, duties, and core
principles applicable to security-based
swap data repositories (‘‘SBSDRs’’) 18
and reporting requirements for securitybased swaps (‘‘SBSs’’) set forth in
Regulation SBSR (‘‘Regulation
18 See generally Security-Based Swap Data
Repository Registration, Duties and Core Principles,
80 FR 11438 (Mar. 19, 2015). The SEC adopted
Rules 13n–1 through 13n–12 (17 CFR 240.13n–1
through 240.13n–12) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’) relating to the
registration and operation of SBSDRs.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75604
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
SBSR’’).19 The Commission notes that
there are similarities between the
regulatory framework for SBSDRs and
the SDR regulations that are the subject
of this final rulemaking. Finally, the
Commission notes that this final
rulemaking incorporates lessons learned
from the undertakings described above
and the best practices of the
international regulatory community.
II. Amendments to Part 49
A. § 49.2—Definitions
1. General Formatting Changes
The Commission proposed a general
formatting change to the definitions in
§ 49.2(a). The defined terms in § 49.2(a)
currently are numbered and arranged in
alphabetical order. The Commission
proposed to remove the numbering
while still arranging the terms in
§ 49.2(a) in alphabetical order.
Eliminating the numbering of defined
terms in § 49.2(a) will reduce the need
for the Commission to make conforming
amendments to § 49.2(a) and other
regulations when it amends § 49.2(a) in
future rulemaking by adding or
removing defined terms.20
The Commission did not receive any
comments on the proposed formatting
changes to § 49.2(a). The Commission is
adopting the formatting amendments to
§ 49.2(a) as proposed, with nonsubstantive editorial changes to conform
the format to the current style
conventions.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
2. Non-Substantive Amendments to
Definitions
The Commission proposed nonsubstantive editorial and conforming
amendments to certain definitions to
provide clarity and for consistency with
other Commission regulations.21 The
Commission believes the proposed
amendments are non-substantive and
19 See generally Regulation SBSR—Reporting and
Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information,
80 FR 14740 (Mar. 19, 2015). The SEC adopted
Regulation SBSR (Rules 900 through 909, 17 CFR
242.900 through 909) to create a reporting
framework for SBSs. The SEC has also adopted
additional regulations regarding the reporting and
dissemination of certain information related to
SBSs. See generally 81 FR 53546 (Aug. 12, 2016).
20 The Office of the Federal Register prefers the
solely alphabetical approach to definitions sections.
See Office of the Federal Register, Document
Drafting Handbook May 2017 Update, Revision 5,
2–31 (2017) (‘‘Definitions. In sections or paragraphs
containing only definitions, we recommend that
you do not use paragraph designations if you list
the terms in alphabetical order.’’).
21 Other than removing subsection numbering as
discussed above in section II.A.1, the Commission
did not propose any substantive changes to the
definitions of ‘‘affiliate,’’ ‘‘control,’’ ‘‘foreign
regulator,’’ ‘‘independent perspective,’’ ‘‘position,’’
or ‘‘section 8 material,’’ as those terms are defined
in current § 49.2(a).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
will increase clarity and consistency
across the Commission’s regulations.
The comments were generally
supportive of the Commission’s efforts
to streamline definitions and increase
consistency.22 The Commission did not
receive comments opposed to the
proposed amendments described above.
The Commission accordingly adopts
these amended definitions as proposed.
Specifically, the Commission adopts
the following amendments to
definitions in § 49.2(a):
• Asset class: Modify the definition to
conform the wording to the definition of
‘‘asset class’’ used in part 43.23
• Commercial use: Modify the
definition to use active instead of
passive voice, and to change ‘‘use of
swap data for regulatory purposes and/
or responsibilities’’ to ‘‘use of SDR data
for regulatory purposes and/or to
perform its regulatory responsibilities.’’
• Market participant: Change the term
‘‘swaps execution facilities’’ to ‘‘swap
execution facilities,’’ to conform to CEA
section 5h and other Commission
regulations, and make the word
‘‘counterparties’’ singular.
• Non-affiliated third party: Clarify
paragraph (3) to identify ‘‘a person
jointly employed’’ by an SDR and any
affiliate.
• Person associated with a swap data
repository: Clarify that paragraph (3)
includes a ‘‘jointly employed person.’’
• Swap data: Modify the definition to
more closely match the related
definitions of ‘‘SDR data’’ and ‘‘swap
transaction and pricing data’’ that are
being added to § 49.2(a) and to
incorporate the requirements to provide
swap data to the Commission pursuant
to part 49.
The Commission also is removing the
word ‘‘capitalized’’ from § 49.2(b), to
reflect that most defined terms used in
part 49 are not capitalized in the text of
part 49.
The Commission is also removing the
term ‘‘registered swap data repository’’
from the definitions in § 49.2. In the
Proposal, the Commission explained
that the term ‘‘registered swap data
repository’’ is not needed in part 49
because the defined term ‘‘swap data
repository’’ already exists in § 1.3.24 The
22 See,
e.g., IATP at 4–5.
17 CFR 43.2. Asset class means a broad
category of commodities including, without
limitation, any ‘‘excluded commodity’’ as defined
in section 1a(19) of the Act, with common
characteristics underlying a swap. The asset classes
include interest rate, foreign exchange, credit,
equity, other commodity and such other asset
classes as may be determined by the Commission.
24 See 17 CFR 1.3. Swap data repository is defined
as any person that collects and maintains
information or records with respect to transactions
or positions in, or the terms and conditions of,
23 See
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
definition of ‘‘swap data repository’’ in
§ 1.3 is identical to the definition
contained in CEA section 1a(48).25 This
definition of ‘‘swap data repository’’
therefore already applies, and would
continue to apply, to part 49 and all
other Commission regulations and,
when combined with § 49.1,26 removes
the need for a separate defined term for
‘‘registered swap data repository.’’
The Commission further explained
that the inclusion of the word
‘‘registered’’ in ‘‘registered swap data
repository’’ and the definition of the
term 27 also may create doubt whether
the requirements of part 49 apply to
entities that are in the process of
registering as SDRs or are provisionally
registered as SDRs under the
requirements of § 49.3(b).28 The
requirements of part 49 apply to
provisionally-registered SDRs and any
entity seeking to become an SDR must
comply with the same requirements in
order to become a provisionallyregistered or fully-registered SDR.
Finally, the removal of the term
‘‘registered swap data repository’’ would
increase consistency in terms within
part 49 and would also increase
consistency between part 49 and other
Commission regulations, which
overwhelmingly use the term ‘‘swap
data repository.’’ The Commission
emphasized that removing the defined
term ‘‘registered swap data repository’’
is a non-substantive amendment that
would not in any way modify the
requirements applicable to current or
future SDRs.
3. Additions and Substantive
Amendments
a. Definition of As Soon as
Technologically Practicable
The Commission proposed to add the
term ‘‘as soon as technologically
practicable’’ as a defined term in § 49.2.
The Proposal defined the term to mean
‘‘as soon as possible, taking into
consideration the prevalence,
swaps entered into by third parties for the purpose
of providing a centralized recordkeeping facility for
swaps.
25 See 7 U.S.C. 1a(48). Swap data repository
means any person that collects and maintains
information or records with respect to transactions
or positions in, or the terms and conditions of,
swaps entered into by third parties for the purpose
of providing a centralized recordkeeping facility for
swaps.
26 See 17 CFR 49.1. The provisions of part 49
apply to any swap data repository as defined under
section 1a(48) of the CEA which is registered or is
required to register as such with the Commission
pursuant to Section 21(a) of the CEA.
27 See 17 CFR 49.2(a)(11). Registered swap data
repository means a swap data repository that is
registered under section 21 of the CEA.
28 See 17 CFR 49.3(b) (creating standards for
granting provisional registration to an SDR).
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
implementation, and use of technology
by comparable market participants.’’
This addition would standardize the
meaning and use of this term across the
Commission’s swap reporting
regulations and is intended to be
identical to the term as it is used in
parts 43 and 45 of the Commission’s
regulations.29
The Commission received several
comments on the proposed definition.
One comment generally supported
standardizing definitions across the
Commission’s regulations.30 One
comment recommended that the
definition should be expanded to clarify
what are considered comparable market
participants.31 The Commission
declines to adopt this recommendation.
The Commission proposed to add the
term ‘‘as soon as technologically
practicable’’ merely to create
consistency in defined terms across the
swap reporting regulations, not to
modify or interpret the term. The
Commission also does not believe this
final rulemaking is the appropriate
venue to provide guidance on the
parameters of comparable market
participants, as any guidance would
need to evaluate and impose standards
for many different market participants
and scenarios, without the opportunity
for the affected market participants to
comment on the guidance. The
Commission also notes that the defined
term has been in use through the
application of the Commission’s swap
reporting regulations since the inception
of swap reporting, without the need for
additional guidance.
The Commission is adopting the
addition of ‘‘as soon as technologically
practicable’’ as a defined term as
proposed. The Commission notes that
concomitant with adopting these final
rules, the Commission is adopting final
rules for § 43.2 and § 45.1, which both
include the identical definition for this
term.
b. Definition of Non-Swap Dealer/Major
Swap Participant/Derivatives Clearing
Organization Reporting Counterparty
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
The Commission proposed to add the
term ‘‘non-swap dealer/major swap
participant/derivatives clearing
organization reporting counterparty’’ as
a defined term in § 49.2. The
Commission is not adopting this
29 See 17 CFR 43.2 (defining of as soon as
technologically practicable). Part 45 of the
Commission’s regulations also uses the term ‘‘as
soon as technologically practicable’’ in the same
way as part 43 and as defined in proposed § 49.2.
30 ISDA/SIFMA at 38.
31 IATP at 4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
proposed definition.32 This defined
term was intended to clarify the
meaning of the term in part 49,
specifically in proposed § 49.11(b)(3).
As discussed below in section II.G, the
Commission is not finalizing proposed
§ 49.11(b)(3) and this term does not
otherwise appear in part 49.
Accordingly, the inclusion of the
defined term is not necessary and
Commission is not adopting this
proposed definition.
c. Definition of Open Swap
The Commission proposed to add the
term ‘‘open swap’’ as a defined term in
§ 49.2. The Proposal defined the term to
mean an executed swap transaction that
has not reached maturity or the final
contractual settlement date, and has not
been exercised, closed out, or
terminated. Under this definition, the
term ‘‘open swap’’ refers to swaps that
are often colloquially called ‘‘alive.’’
The Commission noted in the Proposal
that the definition is intended to have
the same function as the definitions of
‘‘open swap’’ 33 and ‘‘closed swap’’ 34 in
part 20.
The Commission received several
comments on the proposed definition.
One comment supported standardizing
definitions across the Commission’s
rules, and supported the proposed
definition for ‘‘open swap.’’ 35 One
comment noted that there is no market
practice of reporting a ‘‘final contractual
settlement date.’’ 36 Instead, the
comment stated, market practice is to
report expiration, maturity date, or
termination date. The comment further
recommended that the definition be
amended to allow for events to affect
parts of a trade. The commenter
recommended that the Commission
define ‘‘open swap’’ to mean ‘‘an
executed swap transaction that has not
reached maturity or expiration date, and
has not been fully exercised, closed out,
or terminated.’’ 37 The Commission
agrees with this comment and is
adopting the recommended changes to
the definition, with a slight
modification for grammar. Accordingly,
final § 49.2 includes the term ‘‘open
swap’’ as a defined term, which means
an executed swap transaction that has
32 The
Proposal defined the term to mean a
reporting counterparty that is not a swap dealer
(‘‘SD’’), major swap participant (‘‘MSP’’),
derivatives clearing organization (‘‘DCO’’), or
exempt derivatives clearing organization.
33 See 17 CFR 20.1. An open swap or swaption
means a swap or swaption that has not been closed.
34 See 17 CFR 20.1. A closed swap or closed
swaption means a swap or swaption that has been
settled, exercised, closed out, or terminated.
35 DDR at 2.
36 ISDA/SIFMA at 38.
37 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75605
not reached maturity or expiration, and
has not been fully exercised, closed out,
or terminated.38 The Commission notes
that, as with the definition in the
Proposal, the final definition of ‘‘open
swap’’ is intended to mean swaps, or the
remaining portion of a swap, that would
be commonly thought of as ‘‘alive.’’
d. Definition of Reporting Counterparty
and the Removal of Reporting Entity
The Commission proposed to add the
term ‘‘reporting counterparty’’ as a
defined term to § 49.2. This term would
mean the counterparty responsible for
reporting SDR data to an SDR pursuant
to part 43, 45, or 46 of the Commission’s
regulations. The Proposal explained that
this would standardize its meaning and
use across the Commission’s swap
reporting regulations. The Commission
also proposed to remove the term
‘‘reporting entity’’ from the definitions
in § 49.2 because it is no longer
necessary with the addition of
‘‘reporting counterparty’’ as a defined
term.39
Concomitant with the adoption of
these final rules, the Commission also is
adopting final rules amending § 43.2
and § 45.1. Those final rules both
include a definition for the term
‘‘reporting counterparty’’ specific to part
43 and part 45, respectively. Current
§ 46.1 also includes a definition for the
term.40 The definitions of the term
‘‘reporting counterparty’’ in §§ 43.2,
45.1, and 46.1 are more narrow than the
proposed definition in § 49.2. While the
definitions do not have identical
wording, the defined terms have a
standardized meaning that follows a
consistent format and is appropriate for
each context.
The Commission notes that the
reporting counterparty may not always
be the entity reporting SDR data to the
SDR, particularly for transactions
executed on a swap execution facility
(‘‘SEF’’) or designated contract market
(‘‘DCM’’), but it is the counterparty
responsible for the initial and/or
subsequent SDR data reporting,
pursuant to part 43, 45, or 46 of the
Commission’s regulations, as applicable
to a particular swap. SEFs and DCMs are
38 As discussed below in section III.A, the
Commission is also adding an identical definition
for ‘‘open swap’’ to part 45 of this chapter, in order
to create consistency between parts 45 and 49 of the
Commission’s regulations and to accommodate the
use of the term ‘‘open swap’’ in part 45.
39 See 17 CFR 49.2(a)(12) (defining reporting
entity as entities that are required to report swap
data to a registered swap data repository, which
includes derivatives clearing organizations, swap
dealers, major swap participants and certain nonswap dealer/non-major swap participant
counterparties).
40 17 CFR 46.1.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75606
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
the only entities not included in the
proposed definition of ‘‘reporting
counterparty’’ that may have a
responsibility to report data.
The Commission did not receive any
comments on the proposed definition of
the term ‘‘reporting counterparty’’ and
the related removal of the defined term
‘‘reporting entity.’’ The Commission is
adopting these amendments as
proposed, with minor, non-substantive
editorial changes to conform the
definition of ‘‘reporting counterparty’’
in § 49.2 to the definitions in §§ 43.2,
45.1, and 46.1, as discussed above.
Accordingly, final § 49.2 includes the
term ‘‘reporting counterparty’’ as a
defined term, which means the
counterparty required to report SDR
data pursuant to part 43, 45, or 46 of 17
CFR chapter I. Final § 49.2 no longer
includes the term ‘‘reporting entity’’ as
a defined term.
e. Definition of SDR Data
The Commission proposed to add the
term ‘‘SDR data’’ as a defined term in
§ 49.2. The Proposal defined the term to
mean the specific data elements and
information required to be reported to
an SDR or disseminated by an SDR,
pursuant to two or more of parts 43, 45,
46, and/or 49, as applicable in the
context. The Commission noted that in
this context, ‘‘disseminated’’ would
include an SDR making swap data
available to the Commission as required
by part 49.
In the Proposal, the Commission
noted that the proposed definition of
‘‘SDR data’’ would include multiple
sources of data reported to the SDR or
disseminated by the SDR. For example,
‘‘SDR data’’ could refer to all data
reported or disseminated pursuant to
parts 43, 45, and 46. It may also refer to
data reported or disseminated pursuant
to parts 45 and 46, depending on the
context in which the term is used. This
is in contrast with the proposed term
‘‘swap transaction and pricing data,’’
which, as defined in the Proposal,
would only refer to data reported to an
SDR or publicly disseminated by an
SDR pursuant to part 43. It is also in
contrast with the term ‘‘swap data,’’
which, as defined in the Proposal,
would only refer to data reported to an
SDR or made available to the
Commission pursuant to part 45. In the
Proposal, the Commission explained
that consolidating references to the
different types of data that must be
reported to an SDR or disseminated by
an SDR to the public or to the
Commission into a single term would
provide clarity throughout part 49.
The Commission received several
comments on the proposed addition of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
the defined term ‘‘SDR data’’ and the
proposed definition in § 49.2. One
comment generally supported the
proposed amendment.41 One comment
stated that the proposed definition
limited ‘‘SDR Data’’ to information that
is required to be reported or
disseminated pursuant to ‘‘two or more
of parts 43, 45, 46 and/or 49,’’ which
would exclude information that is
required to be reported or disseminated
pursuant to one of those parts. The
Commenter recommended that the
Commission define the term ‘‘SDR
Data’’ to include information that is
required to be reported or disseminated
by one or more of parts 43, 45, 46, and/
or 49. The Commission disagrees with
this comment and its interpretation of
the term ‘‘SDR data.’’ By definition,
‘‘SDR data’’ will always include at least
two sets of data or information that is
required reported to an SDR or
disseminated by an SDR. The definition
is inclusive of all data being referenced,
based on the context of the use of the
term. When the Commission intends to
refer to data that is reported or
disseminated pursuant to only one of
part 43, 45, 46, or 49, it uses the term
or reference that corresponds to that
specific set of data, for example ‘‘swap
transaction and pricing data’’ for part
43-related data and ‘‘swap data’’ for part
45-related data.
The Commission is adopting the
addition of the defined term ‘‘SDR data’’
to final § 49.2, as proposed.
Accordingly, final § 49.2 includes the
defined term ‘‘SDR data,’’ which is
defined to mean the specific data
elements and information required to be
reported to a swap data repository or
disseminated by a swap data repository
pursuant to two or more of parts 43, 45,
46, and/or 49 of 17 CFR chapter I, as
applicable in the context.
f. Definition of SDR Information
The Commission proposed to amend
the existing definition of ‘‘SDR
information’’ in § 49.2 to add the clause
‘‘related to the business of the swap data
repository that is not SDR data’’ to the
end of the definition. This change
clarifies that the scope of SDR
information is limited to information
that the SDR receives or maintains
related to its business that is not the
SDR data reported to or disseminated by
the SDR. SDR information would
include, for example, SDR policies and
procedures created pursuant to part
49.42 The Commission did not receive
41 ISDA/SIFMA
at 41.
42 This clarification is particularly relevant for the
SDR recordkeeping obligations in the proposed
amendments to § 49.12, discussed below in section
II.H.
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
comments on the proposed amendment
and the Commission adopts the
amendment as proposed.
g. Definition of Swap Transaction and
Pricing Data
The Commission proposed to add
‘‘swap transaction and pricing data’’ as
a defined term in § 49.2 to increase
consistency in terminology used in the
Commission’s swap reporting
regulations. The Proposal defined the
term to mean the specific data elements
and information required to be reported
to a swap data repository or publicly
disseminated by a swap data repository
pursuant to part 43 of this chapter, as
applicable. Concomitant with adopting
these final rules, the Commission is
adopting final rules in § 43.2 that add
‘‘swap transaction and pricing data’’ as
a defined term. As defined in final
§ 43.2, the term means all data elements
for a swap in appendix A of this part
that are required to be reported or
publicly disseminated pursuant to this
part. In order to increase consistency
throughout its rules, the Commission
adopts the addition of the defined term
‘‘swap transaction and pricing data’’ and
the definition in § 49.2 as proposed.
One commenter stated that the
definition of the term in § 49.2 should
not include the clause ‘‘or publicly
disseminated by a swap data
repository.’’ 43 The Commission does
not agree with this comment because
dissemination is included in the
definition of the same term in final
§ 43.2, and the term is being included in
final § 49.2 to increase consistency
between Commission regulations.
Moreover, to not include the public
dissemination requirements would
frustrate the purpose of adding the
defined term by not allowing the term
to be used in reference to an SDR’s
public dissemination responsibilities.
The Commission believes that the
specific context in which the term is
used will make clear whether the
Commission is referring to the
requirements to report the data to an
SDR, for an SDR to disseminate the data
to the public, or both. Accordingly, final
§ 49.2 includes ‘‘swap transaction and
pricing data’’ as a defined term that
means the specific data elements and
information required to be reported to a
swap data repository or publicly
disseminated by a swap data repository
pursuant to part 43 of 17 CFR chapter
I, as applicable.
B. § 49.3—Procedures for Registration
Section 49.3 sets forth the procedures
and standard of approval for registration
43 DDR
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
at 2.
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
as an SDR.44 Current § 49.3(a)(1)
requires a person seeking SDR
registration to file an application on
Form SDR.45 Form SDR consists of
instructions, general questions and a list
of exhibits required by the Commission
in order to determine whether an
applicant for SDR registration is able to
comply with the SDR core principles
and Commission regulations
thereunder.46
Existing § 49.3(a)(5) requires an SDR
to promptly file an amended Form SDR
to update any information that becomes
inaccurate before or after the SDR’s
application for registration is granted. In
addition, the regulation requires an SDR
to annually file an amendment on Form
SDR within 60 days after the end of its
fiscal year.47
The Commission proposed to amend
§ 49.3(a)(5) to eliminate the
requirements for an SDR that has been
granted registration under § 49.3(a) to:
(i) file an amended Form SDR if any of
the information therein becomes
inaccurate, and (ii) annually file an
amended Form SDR.48 Thus, proposed
§ 49.3(a)(5) would only require an SDR
to file an amended Form SDR to update
information before the Commission
grants it registration under § 49.3(a). The
Commission also proposed to make
conforming amendments to the Form
SDR and § 49.22(f)(2) 49 to eliminate
references to the annual filing of Form
SDR.50
The Commission is adopting the
amendments to § 49.3(a)(5) and the
conforming amendments to Form SDR
and § 49.22(f)(2) as proposed in part and
not adopting the amendments as
proposed in part. The Commission is
adopting the removal of the requirement
to file an annual amendment to Form
SDR because the Commission believes
the annual Form SDR filing requirement
is unnecessary and is duplicative of the
requirement to file an amended Form
SDR if any of the information in the
Form SDR becomes inaccurate.
The Commission has, however,
reconsidered the proposed removal of
the requirement to file an amended
Form SDR if any of the information in
the Form SDR (including the Form SDR
exhibits) becomes inaccurate and has
determined not to finalize the proposed
removal of this requirement. SDRs will
continue to be required to file
amendments to Form SDR as necessary
44 17 CFR 49.3. Form SDR is set forth in
Appendix A to part 49.
45 17 CFR 49.3(a)(1).
46 17 CFR 49.3(a)(2).
47 17 CFR 49.3(a)(5).
48 Proposal at 84 FR 21048 (May 13, 2019).
49 17 CFR 49.22(f)(2).
50 Proposal at 84 FR 21048 (May 13, 2019).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
after being granted registration under
§ 49.3(a). While the Commission stated
in the Proposal that the Commission
would have access to the information
that would be updated in an amended
Form SDR because an SDR would be
required to file updates for some of the
information with the Commission as a
rule change under part 40 of the
Commission’s regulations and that,
under proposed § 49.29, the
Commission could require an SDR to
file information demonstrating the
SDR’s compliance with its obligations
under the CEA and Commission
regulations,51 the Commission no longer
believes these methods of obtaining
access to updated Form SDR
information are the most efficient or
practicable methods.
Instead, the Commission believes that
Commission staff would be more
effectively alerted to changes to the
information in Form SDR for
compliance monitoring purposes by
maintaining the existing requirement for
SDRs to update any Form SDR
information that is or that becomes
inaccurate. The Commission also
believes it would be more efficient for
SDRs to continue to send the updated
Form SDR information to the
Commission as currently required, as
opposed to the Commission requesting
the SDRs to demonstrate compliance
whenever the Commission needs to
check whether the Form SDR
information remains current. Under the
proposed approach, for example, the
Commission may need to require SDRs
to provide an all-encompassing
demonstration of compliance for all of
the Form SDR information under
§ 49.29, as opposed to the SDRs only
updating Form SDR information that
has changed, as the SDRs regularly do
under the existing requirement, because
the Commission will not be aware of
what information may or may not have
changed. The Commission is therefore
not adopting the proposed removal of
the requirement for an SDR that is
registered under § 49.3(a) to file an
updated Form SDR when the
information in its Form SDR is
inaccurate or becomes inaccurate, and
this existing requirement in § 49.3(a)(5)
remains in effect.
The Commission requested comment
on all aspects of the proposed changes
to § 49.3(a)(5). Two comments
supported the proposed amendments to
§ 49.3(a)(5).52 One comment also
suggested the Commission further
amend the text of proposed § 49.3(a)(5)
to clarify that the requirement to file an
amended Form SDR to update
inaccurate information does not apply
to an SDR provisionally registered
under § 49.3(b).53 Existing § 49.3(b) 54
provides that, upon request, the
Commission may grant an applicant
provisional registration as an SDR if,
among other things, the applicant is in
‘‘substantial compliance’’ with the
standard for approval for full SDR
registration set forth in § 49.3(a)(4). If
granted, provisional registration expires
on the earlier of: (i) The date the
Commission grants or denies full
registration of the SDR; or (ii) the date
the Commission rescinds the SDR’s
provisional registration.55
One comment suggested that the
Commission add the legal entity
identifier (‘‘LEI’’) of the applicant into
the Form SDR, stating that incorporating
an applicant’s LEI record in the form
would make various information fields
unnecessary, while making the
information provided more
standardized and accurate.56
As explained above, the Commission
agrees with the comments that
supported the removal of the annual
Form SDR update requirement and the
Commission disagrees with the
comments supporting the removal of the
requirement to update Form SDR when
the information is inaccurate. The
Commission also disagrees with the
suggestion regarding provisionallyregistered SDRs. Final § 49.3(a)(5), as
adopted, requires a provisionallyregistered SDR to file an amended Form
SDR if information in the form becomes
inaccurate. The Commission notes that
provisional registration is an interim
status for applicants for registration, and
the accuracy of information in the Form
SDR of a provisionally-registered SDR is
necessary for the Commission to make
a determination regarding the SDR’s
application for full registration.
The Commission is also declining to
adopt the suggestion to use the LEI of
the applicant instead of various data
fields in the Form SDR. While there may
be benefits to doing so, the Commission
believes the current format is more
useful to Commission staff in reviewing
applications for registration by
providing the relevant entity names
directly, without the need to reference
the information underlying an LEI.
51 Id.
52 CME at 2 (‘‘[T]he addition of Part 49.29 is a
much more effective and efficient approach for the
Commission to ensure it has the information it
needs to ensure an SDR’s compliance with the
regulations’’); DDR at 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75607
53 DDR
54 17
at 3.
CFR 49.3(b).
55 Id.
56 GLEIF
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
at 1.
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
75608
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
C. § 49.5—Equity Interest Transfers
Section 49.5 sets forth requirements
for an SDR that enters into an agreement
involving the transfer of an equity
interest of ten percent or more in the
SDR.57 The Commission proposed
various amendments to § 49.5 to
simplify and streamline the
requirements of the regulation. The
Commission is adopting the
amendments to § 49.5 as proposed. The
Commission continues to believe, as
stated in the Proposal, that the
amendments to § 49.5 will simplify and
streamline the requirements of the
regulation, and remove unnecessary
burdens on SDRs while preserving the
Commission’s ability to obtain
information regarding transfers of SDR
equity interests.
Current § 49.5(a) requires an SDR to
(i) notify the Commission of the
agreement no later than the business
day following the date of the agreement
and; (ii) amend any information that is
no longer accurate on Form SDR.58
Current § 49.5(b) sets forth various
agreements, associated documents and
information, and representations an
SDR must provide the Commission in
advance of the equity interest transfer.59
Current 49.5(c) provides that within two
business days following the equity
interest transfer, an SDR must file with
the Commission a certification stating
that the SDR is in compliance with CEA
section 21 and Commission regulations
adopted thereunder, stating whether any
changes were made to the SDR’s
operations as a result of the transfer,
and, if so, identifying such changes.60
The Commission is amending § 49.5
to specify that the regulation applies to
both direct and indirect transfers of ten
percent or more of an equity interest in
an SDR. As the Commission explained
in the Proposal, indirect transfers of
equity ownership (e.g., the transfer of an
equity interest in a parent company of
an SDR) also require Commission
oversight of the SDR to address any
compliance concerns that may arise.61
The Commission is also replacing the
documentation and informational
requirements in current § 49.5(b) with a
provision in § 49.5(a) stating that the
Commission may, upon receiving an
equity transfer notification, request that
the SDR provide supporting
documentation for the transaction. The
Commission believes reserving the
authority to request supporting
documentation rather than compelling
CFR 49.5.
CFR 49.5(a).
59 17 CFR 49.5(b).
60 17 CFR 49.5(c).
61 Proposal at 84 FR 21048 (May 13, 2019).
specific production satisfies the
Commission’s need for information
without placing unnecessary burdens on
an SDR.
In addition, the Commission is
amending § 49.5 to extend the deadline
by which an SDR must file an equity
transfer notification and to specify that
the SDR shall file the notice with the
Secretary of the Commission and the
Director of the Division of Market
Oversight (‘‘DMO’’) via email. The
Commission believes an SDR may need
additional time to file the necessary
documents, and ten business days
provides greater flexibility without
sacrificing the availability of
information the Commission needs to
conduct effective oversight of the SDR.
The Commission also is removing the
requirement for an SDR to amend
information that is no longer accurate
on Form SDR due to the equity interest
transfer because the requirement is
duplicative of other requirements.
Finally, the Commission is amending
§ 49.5(c) to simplify the certification and
information requirements in the filing
an SDR is required to make with the
Commission following an equity interest
transfer. The Commission believes these
amendments provide the Commission
with the pertinent information it needs
to assess the impact of an equity interest
transfer on the SDR’s operations.
The Commission requested public
comment on all aspects of proposed
§ 49.5. One comment supported the
Commission’s proposal to simplify
§ 49.5, stating that current requirements
of the regulation are overly burdensome,
and reserving authority for the
Commission to request supporting
documentation, rather than compelling
specific document production, would
satisfy the Commission’s need for
information.62 The Commission agrees
with this comment and is finalizing
§ 49.5 as described.
D. § 49.6—Request for Transfer of
Registration
The Commission proposed to amend
§ 49.6 63 to clarify and streamline the
process and procedures for the transfer
of an SDR registration to a successor
entity.64 The amendments include retitling the section ‘‘Request for transfer
of registration,’’ to more accurately
reflect the subject of the regulation.65
The Commission has determined to
adopt the amendments to § 49.6 as
proposed. The Commission believes the
amendments to § 49.6 will simplify the
57 17
58 17
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
62 CME
at 2–3.
CFR 49.6.
64 Proposal at 84 FR 21049 (May 13, 2019).
65 Id.
63 17
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
process for requesting a transfer of SDR
registration by providing procedures
that focus on informing the Commission
of changes relevant to the Commission’s
oversight responsibilities, as opposed to
requiring the successor entity to file a
Form SDR, which would likely
duplicate most of the transferor’s
existing Form SDR. Further, the
amendments to § 49.6 provide the
Commission with the information it
needs in order to determine whether to
approve a request for a transfer of an
SDR registration.
Current § 49.6(a) provides that, in the
event of a corporate transaction that
creates a new entity as which an SDR
operates, the SDR must request a
transfer of its registration no later than
30 days after the succession.66 Current
§ 49.6(a) also specifies that the SDR
registration shall be deemed to remain
effective as the registration of the
successor if the successor, within 30
days after such succession, files a Form
SDR application for registration, and the
predecessor files a request for vacation.
Further, the SDR registration ceases to
be effective 90 days after the application
for registration on Form SDR is filed by
the successor SDR.
Final § 49.6(a) instead requires an
SDR seeking to transfer its registration
to a new legal entity as a result of a
corporate change to file a request for
approval of the transfer with the
Secretary of the Commission in the form
and manner specified by the
Commission. Examples of such
corporate changes may include, but are
not limited to, re-organizations, mergers,
acquisitions, bankruptcy, or other
similar events that result in the creation
of a new legal entity for the SDR.
Final § 49.6(b) specifies that an SDR
shall file a request for transfer of
registration as soon as practicable prior
to the anticipated corporate change.
Final § 49.6(c) sets forth the
information that must be included in a
request for transfer of registration,
including, among other things, the
underlying documentation that governs
the corporate change, a description of
the corporate change and its impact on
the SDR and on the rights and
obligations of market participants,
governance documents of the transferee,
and various representations by the
transferee related to its ability to operate
the SDR and comply with the Act and
Commission regulations.
Final § 49.6(d) specifies that upon
review of a request for transfer of
registration, the Commission, as soon as
practicable, shall issue an order either
66 17
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
CFR 49.6(a).
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
approving or denying the request for
transfer of registration.
The Commission requested public
comment on all aspects of proposed
§ 49.6. One comment opposed the
proposed amendments to § 49.6,
asserting that the amendments will add
uncertainty into the transfer process by
making a transfer contingent upon
obtaining prior Commission approval
without specifying a deadline by which
the Commission must approve or deny
a request for transfer.67
The Commission has determined to
adopt the amendments to § 49.6 as
proposed. With respect to the comment,
the Commission recognizes that
corporation transactions and
reorganizations that involve the transfer
of an SDR registration may arise without
significant notice, and require certainty
and prompt action by regulators. The
Commission similarly has an interest in
facilitating such transfers in order to
maintain the operation of SDRs while
also ensuring compliance with the
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements. To that end, the
Commission believes it is important to
apply the information and procedural
requirements set forth in § 49.6, as
proposed and adopted, in order to
enable the Commission and its staff to
promptly address requests for transfer
and to ensure that the transferee entity
is fully capable of complying with the
Commission’s regulations for SDRs.
E. § 49.9—Open Swaps Reports
Provided to the Commission
The Commission proposed to remove
the text of existing § 49.9 68 and replace
it with new requirements for SDRs to
provide open swaps reports to the
Commission.69 Existing § 49.9 lists and
briefly summarizes the duties of SDRs,
with references to where those duties
are found in other sections of part 49.70
The Commission believes existing § 49.9
is superfluous because all of the SDR
duties listed in § 49.9 are also
contained, in much greater detail, in the
other sections of part 49. Removing
existing § 49.9 is a non-substantive
amendment that does not affect the
requirements for SDRs.
As part of the Commission’s proposed
new requirements in § 49.9 for SDRs to
provide open swaps reports to the
Commission,71 the Commission
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
67 CME
at 3.
CFR 49.9.
69 Proposal at 84 FR 21050 (May 13, 2019).
70 17 CFR 49.9. As discussed below in section
II.Q, the Commission proposed conforming
amendments to § 49.25 to remove references to
current § 49.9.
71 Section 49.2, as proposed and as adopted in
this final rulemaking, defines the term ‘‘open swap’’
68 17
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
proposed renaming § 49.9 ‘‘Open swaps
reports provided to the Commission’’
and, as discussed above, proposed to
add a new definition in § 49.2 for the
term ‘‘open swap.’’ 72 The Commission
received several comments on the
proposed new requirements for open
swaps reports under § 49.9, as discussed
below. The Commission has determined
to adopt the amendments to § 49.9 as
proposed.
Final § 49.9(a) requires each SDR to
provide the Commission with open
swaps reports that contain an accurate
reflection of the swap data maintained
by the SDR for every swap data field
required to be reported under part 45 of
the Commission’s regulations for every
open swap, as of the time the SDR
compiles the report. Open swaps reports
must be organized by the unique
identifier created pursuant to § 45.5 of
the Commission’s regulations that is
associated with each open swap.
SDRs currently send reports that are
similar to the proposed open swaps
reports to the Commission on a regular
basis. The Commission currently uses
these reports to produce a weekly swaps
report that is made available to the
public 73 and for entity-netted notional
calculations.74 The Commission also
uses these reports to perform market
risk and position calculations, and for
additional market research projects.
However, in formulating these reports,
SDRs employ a variety of calculation
approaches and differing formats, which
reduces the utility of the data for the
Commission. The Commission therefore
proposed requiring each SDR to
regularly provide the Commission with
standardized open swaps reports
containing accurate and up-to-date
information. The Commission continues
to believe it is necessary to require SDRs
to provide open swaps reports and to
require such reports to be standardized,
in order to maximize their utility to the
Commission and enhance the
Commission’s ability to perform its
regulatory functions.
Final § 49.9(b) requires an SDR to
transmit all open swaps reports to the
Commission as instructed by the
Commission. Such instructions may
include, but are not limited to, the
to mean an executed swap transaction that has not
reached maturity or expiration, and has not been
fully exercised, closed out, or terminated.
72 See section II.A above for a discussion of the
definitions in final § 49.2.
73 The Commission’s various public reports,
including the weekly swaps reports, are available at
https://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/index.htm.
74 See generally ‘‘Introducing ENNs: A Measure of
the Size of Interest Rate Swaps Markets,’’ Jan. 2018,
available at https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/
idc/groups/public/@economicanalysis/documents/
file/oce_enns0118.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75609
method, timing, and frequency of
transmission, as well as the format of
the swap data to be transmitted.75
Retaining the flexibility to determine
these requirements, and the ability to
modify them over time as necessary,
allows the Commission to tailor the
information that is required to be in the
reports to meet the Commission’s needs
without imposing undue burdens on
SDRs. As stated in the Proposal, the
Commission intends to work with SDRs
in formulating instructions pursuant to
final § 49.9(b) and expects to provide a
reasonable amount of time for SDRs to
adjust their systems before any
instructions regarding open swaps
reports take effect. This collaborative
process will allow the Commission’s
current practice of working with SDRs
to implement changes to swaps reports
to continue, which provides SDRs time
to update their systems as needed.
The Commission requested comment
on all aspects of proposed § 49.9. One
comment generally supported
standardizing the open swaps reports.76
Several comments addressed the
Commission’s discretion with respect to
the transmission of open swaps reports
under proposed § 49.9(b). One comment
stated that any revisions the
Commission makes to the requirements
for transmitting open swaps reports
should not require revisions to reports
provided by the SDR to reporting
counterparties, which would increase
costs for reporting counterparties.77
Likewise, the requirements should not
result in reporting counterparties having
to submit additional data, or to submit
previously reported data in a different
data format.78 One comment stated that
the Commission should modify the
proposed rule to include ‘‘reasonable
constraints’’ on the instruction process
by amending the text of proposed
§ 49.9(b) to include ‘‘as soon as
practicable, given the nature of the
instructions and the swap data
repository’s circumstances’’ at the end
of the first sentence.79
The Commission is adopting § 49.9 as
proposed, with non-substantive
editorial changes for clarity. With regard
to the comments on open swaps reports
provided by SDRs to reporting
counterparties, the Commission notes
that, as described in section II.G below,
final § 49.11 will not require SDRs to
75 As discussed below in section II.V, proposed
§ 49.31 delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission’s authority in proposed § 49.9,
including the authority to create instructions for
transmitting open swaps reports to the Commission.
76 DDR at 3.
77 ISDA/SIFMA at 39.
78 Id.
79 DDR at 3.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75610
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
provide open swaps reports to reporting
counterparties as part of the swap data
verification process, and therefore the
comments are moot.
The Commission declines to adopt the
suggested revisions related to
constraints, which would unnecessarily
restrict the Commission’s discretion to
issue transmission instructions. The
Commission reiterates its intent to work
with the SDRs before creating or
modifying any instructions pursuant to
§ 49.9 and to provide a reasonable
amount of time for SDRs to adjust their
systems before any instructions take
effect. The Commission’s existing
practice of collaborating with SDRs
stems from the recognition that such
collaboration will ultimately improve
SDRs’ ability to comply with their
regulatory obligations and further the
Commission’s regulatory objectives.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
F. § 49.10—Acceptance of Data
The Commission is adopting new
§ 49.10(e) generally as proposed, with
modifications and textual clarifications
in response to the comments received.
Final § 49.10(e) complements the error
correction requirements in other
Commission regulations, including final
§§ 43.3(e) and 45.14(b), that apply to the
entities that report SDR data to the
SDRs. Each SEF, DCM, and reporting
counterparty must correct errors in their
SDR data by submitting complete and
accurate SDR data to the relevant SDR.80
Final § 49.10(e) is intended to ensure
that SDRs correct errors in SDR data and
disseminate corrected data as soon as
possible.
As it stated in the Proposal, the
Commission believes that clearly
delineating an SDR’s obligations to
receive and make corrections to SDR
data, and to disseminate the corrected
SDR data to the public and the
Commission, as applicable, will further
the Commission’s goal of more accurate
and complete SDR data being made
available to the public and the
Commission. The Commission believes
that the steps required by § 49.10(e) will
also facilitate, and therefore encourage,
compliance by SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties with their
regulatory obligation to correct SDR
data. The Commission further believes
proposed § 49.10(e) is consistent with
the current statutory and regulatory
requirements for SDRs to correct errors
and omissions.
Final § 49.10(e)(1) requires an SDR to
accept corrections of errors and
80 See section IV below for a discussion of final
§ 43.3(e) (regarding swap transaction and pricing
data) and section III.C below for a discussion of
final § 45.14 (regarding swap data).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
omissions 81 reported to the SDR
pursuant to part 43, 45, or 46 of the
Commission’s regulations. Final
§ 49.10(e) specifies that the
requirements of § 49.10(e) apply to SDR
data regardless of the state of the swap
that is the subject such data, unless the
record retention period for the SDR data
under final § 49.12(b)(2) has expired.
Thus, final § 49.10(e) requires an SDR to
correct and disseminate SDR data for
swaps that have matured or were
otherwise terminated and are no longer
open swaps, if such swaps are still
within the required SDR data retention
period. Final § 49.10(e)(2) requires an
SDR to record corrections as soon as
technologically practicable after the
SDR accepts the corrections. Final
§ 49.10(e)(3) requires an SDR to
disseminate the corrected SDR data to
the public and the Commission, as
applicable, as soon as technologically
practicable after the SDR records the
correction to the SDR data. Lastly, final
§ 49.10(e)(4) requires each SDR to
establish, maintain, and enforce policies
and procedures designed for the SDR to
fulfill its responsibilities under
§ 49.10(e).
One comment suggested that the final
rule should clarify that the only
obligation on SDRs under § 49.10(e) is to
accept, record, and disseminate
corrections to SDR data.82 The
Commission notes that this is the scope
of proposed § 49.10(e), and is the scope
of final § 49.10(e).
The comment also stated that
applying the requirements of proposed
§ 49.10(e)(2) to SDR data ‘‘regardless of
the state of the swap’’ will require SDRs
to make SDR data available for
corrections for an unlimited amount of
time.83 The comment suggested that the
Commission should instead limit the
requirements in the regulation with
respect to ‘‘dead swaps’’ to the required
SDR data recordkeeping retention
period.84 The Commission agrees with
this comment and final § 49.10(e)(1)
81 The Commission notes that, as described
below, final § 45.14 and final § 43.3(e) do not use
the word ‘‘omission’’ in the error correction
requirements. The word ‘‘omission’’ is not included
in those sections because the term ‘‘error’’ is
defined to include all omissions in final § 45.14(c)
and final § 43.3(e)(4). The Commission is, however,
using the word ‘‘omission’’ in final § 49.10(e),
because ‘‘error’’ is not defined in final part 49. The
Commission emphasizes that this difference
between the three sections is merely semantic and
does not in any way change the SDRs’ data
correction requirements. All omissions of required
SDR data are errors, and an SDR is required to
correct, in accordance with final § 49.10(e), all
errors reported to the SDR, including errors that
arise from omissions in SDR data reported to an
SDR or the omission of all SDR data for a swap.
82 Joint SDR at 9.
83 Id.
84 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provides that the rules in § 49.10(e)
apply only if ‘‘the record retention
period under § 49.12(b)(2) of this part
has not expired as of the time the error
correction is reported.’’
Finally, the comment stated that the
Commission should make clear that an
entity submitting SDR data corrections
or previously omitted SDR data must
comply with the then current technical
specifications of the SDR and that an
SDR is not required to make
accommodations for data that is unable
to comport with the then current
technical specifications.85 The
Commission does not agree with the
recommendation that the regulation be
revised to require error corrections to be
made using the prevailing validations
and technical specifications of the SDR.
The Commission notes that final
§ 49.10(e) provides discretion to SDRs to
establish, maintain, and enforce policies
and procedures designed for the SDRs to
fulfill their responsibilities under final
§ 49.10(e), which includes the discretion
to require error corrections to use
prevailing validations and the SDR’s
technical specifications. Final §§ 43.3(e)
and 45.14(a) contain companion
requirements for market participants to
conform to these SDR policies and
procedures when correcting SDR data.
The Commission believes that this
discretion provides necessary flexibility
to SDRs and market participants.
G. § 49.11—Verification of Swap Data
Accuracy
1. Background
Section 21(c)(2) of the CEA requires
SDRs to confirm submitted swap data.86
The Commission implemented this
statutory requirement by promulgating
current § 49.11.87 Current § 49.11(a)
requires an SDR to establish policies
and procedures to ensure the accuracy
of swap data and other regulatory
information reported to the SDR.
Current § 49.11(b) sets forth the general
requirement that an SDR confirm the
accuracy and completeness of all swap
data submitted pursuant to part 45. The
regulation then sets forth specific
confirmation requirements for creation
data in § 49.11(b)(1) and for
continuation data in § 49.11(b)(2).88
85 Id.
at 9–10.
7 U.S.C. 24a(c)(2) (providing that, among
other duties, a swap data repository shall confirm
with both counterparties to the swap the accuracy
of the data that was submitted).
87 See Part 49 Adopting Release at 54547.
88 In both cases, the requirements vary depending
on whether the SDR received the data directly from
a counterparty or from a SEF, DCM, derivatives
clearing organization (‘‘DCO’’), or third-party
service provider acting on behalf of the swap
counterparty.
86 See
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
For swap creation data, if the swap
data was submitted directly by a swap
counterparty, such as an SD, MSP, or
non-SD/MSP counterparty, an SDR is
required to notify both counterparties to
the swap and to receive from both
counterparties acknowledgement of the
accuracy of the swap data and
corrections for any errors.89 However,
because counterparties do not currently
have a corollary obligation to respond to
an SDR’s notifications, SDRs have
adopted rules based on the concept of
negative affirmation: Reported swap
data is presumed accurate and
confirmed if a counterparty does not
inform the SDR of errors or omissions or
otherwise make modifications to a trade
record for a certain period of time.90
If the swap data was instead
submitted by a SEF, DCM, DCO, or
third-party service provider acting on
behalf of a swap counterparty, the SDR
must, among other things, provide both
counterparties with a 48-hour correction
period after which a counterparty is
assumed to have acknowledged the
accuracy of the swap data.91 For swap
continuation data, an SDR may rely on
a 48-hour correction period regardless of
the type of entity that submitted the
swap data.92
These provisions in existing § 49.11
reflect the Commission’s view in
adopting the regulation that an SDR
need not always affirmatively
communicate with both counterparties
to in order to confirm the accuracy of
swap data.93 In the Proposal, the
Commission stated that, based on the its
experience with swap data submitted by
SEFs, DCMs, DCOs, and third-party
service providers, the current
requirements of § 49.11 have failed to
ensure swap data accuracy and
consistency, which has hampered the
Commission’s ability to carry out its
regulatory responsibilities.94
As noted in the Proposal, the
Commission previously raised these
issues in the Roadmap and received
89 See § 49.11(b)(1)(i) (providing that an SDR has
confirmed the accuracy of swap creation data that
was submitted directly by a counterparty if the
swap data repository has notified both
counterparties of the data that was submitted and
received from both counterparties
acknowledgement of the accuracy of the swap data
and corrections for any errors) and § 49.11(b)(2)(i).
90 See DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC Rule
3.3.3.3 and ICE Trade Vault Rules 4.6 and 4.7.
91 Additional requirements include the following:
(i) The SDR must have formed a reasonable belief
that the swap data is accurate; and the swap data
that was submitted, or any accompanying
information, evidences that both counterparties
agreed to the data. See 17 CFR 49.11(b)(1)(ii).
92 See 17 CFR 49.11(b)(2)(ii).
93 See Part 49 Adopting Release at 54547
(describing the requirements of § 49.11).
94 See Proposal at 84 FR 21052 (May 13, 2019).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
many comments in response.95 As
discussed in the Proposal, commenters
generally held the view that SDRs are
not able to confirm swap data with nonreporting counterparties; 96 the
obligation to confirm data accuracy
should generally reside with the parties
to the swap, not SDRs; 97 and
confirmation requirements for nonreporting counterparties are generally
unnecessary and will not improve data
accuracy.98
Based on its experience with swap
data reporting and the comments it
received in response to the Roadmap,
the Proposal set forth a new swap
verification scheme for swap data.
2. Summary of the Final Rule
The Commission is modifying its
approach to verification in final § 49.11,
based on comments received on
proposed § 49.11. The Commission
believes the verification process
required by final § 49.11 is less
burdensome and more flexible than the
verification process set forth in the
proposed regulation. As described in
detail below, in order for SDRs to verify
the accuracy and completeness of swap
data, final § 49.11 requires each SDR to
provide reporting counterparties that are
users of the SDR with a mechanism that
allows a reporting counterparty to
access the current swap data for all open
swaps for which the reporting
counterparty is serving as the reporting
counterparty, in such a manner that
allows the reporting counterparty to
fulfill its own verification obligations
under final § 45.14.99
This approach is similar to the
requirements in proposed § 49.11 in
many respects, particularly in that
under final § 49.11, SDRs are required to
facilitate verification by reporting
counterparties of all swap data for all
open swaps on a regular basis. However,
the Commission believes final § 49.11
provides a less prescriptive and less
burdensome method to achieve the
Commission’s goals related to swap data
verification. In particular, final § 49.11
will not require the SDRs to create and
send open swaps reports to reporting
counterparties as proposed.100 Also, in
place of the requirement that SDRs
establish, maintain, and enforce policies
and procedures reasonably designed for
95 See
id.
96 Id.
97 Id.
98 Id.
99 See section III.C below for a discussion of final
§ 45.14.
100 The Commission is requiring SDRs to create
and send open swaps reports to the Commission
under final § 49.9. See section II.E above for a
discussion of final § 49.9.
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75611
the SDR to successfully receive replies
to open swaps reports from reporting
counterparties in the form of a
verification of data accuracy or notice of
discrepancy, the SDR’s policies and
procedures will be required to address
how the SDR will fulfill all of the
requirements of § 49.11, including how
reporting counterparties and third-party
service providers may successfully use
the verification mechanism to fulfill the
reporting counterparties’
responsibilities under § 45.14. Final
§ 49.11 will also require reporting
counterparties to perform verification
on a less frequent basis than proposed,
meaning that SDRs will likewise not be
required to facilitate verification on as
frequent a basis as proposed.
a. § 49.11(a)
The Commission adopts final
§ 49.11(a) largely as proposed, with
some non-substantive rearrangement of
proposed § 49.11(a) into final
paragraphs § 49.11(a) and (c). The first
sentence of proposed § 49.11(a) is being
finalized as final § 49.11(a). Final
§ 49.11(a) reiterates each SDR’s statutory
duty to verify the accuracy of swap data
pursuant to CEA section 21(c)(2). The
second sentence of proposed § 49.11(a)
is now included in final § 49.11(c)(1),
with non-substantive rewording to more
clearly articulate the requirement for
SDRs to establish, maintain, and enforce
policies and procedures related to
verification and the content
requirements for the policies and
procedures.
b. § 49.11(b)(1)
Final § 49.11(b)(1) requires each SDR
to provide a mechanism through which
each reporting counterparty that is a
user of the SDR can access all swap data
the SDR maintains for each open swap
for which the reporting counterparty
serves as the reporting counterparty.
The mechanism must allow sufficient
access, provide sufficient information,
and be in a form and manner to enable
each reporting counterparty to perform
swap data verification as required under
§ 45.14 of this chapter. The Commission
believes that, together with final
§ 45.14(b), final § 49.11(b)(1) will create
an effective verification process to help
ensure that swap data maintained by
SDRs is complete and accurate.
The Commission notes that, similar to
the communication requirements in
proposed § 49.11, it is not prescribing
the form of mechanism that SDRs must
provide in final § 49.11(b)(1), beyond
the data access, data scope, frequency,
and confidentiality requirements
contained in final § 49.11(b). The
Commission expects that SDRs and
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75612
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
reporting counterparties will be able to
work together to devise the most
effective and efficient verification
mechanism, with particular attention to
accommodating non-SD/MSP/DCO
reporting counterparties that may have
fewer resources to perform verification
than their SD/MSP/DCO counterparts.
The Commission is also aware that at
least one SDR already offers a
mechanism that allows counterparties to
access their own swap data, which may
be readily modified to meet the
requirements of final § 49.11(b).
c. § 49.11(b)(2)
The Commission adopts the substance
of the Proposal in final § 49.11(b)(2) in
regards to the scope of data that the
SDRs must make available to reporting
counterparties for verification. Final
§ 49.11(b)(2) provides that the swap data
accessible through the mechanism must
accurately reflect the most current swap
data maintained by the SDR, as of the
time the reporting counterparty accesses
the swap data using the mechanism, for
each data field that the reporting
counterparty was required to report
under part 45 for each of the reporting
counterparty’s open swaps for which it
is serving as the reporting counterparty.
Final § 49.11(b)(2) only requires the
mechanism to make available the thencurrent swap data for each of the data
fields that the SDR maintains for the
relevant open swaps. There is no
requirement to include swap data
contained in any particular messages
from the reporting counterparty or any
outdated swap data.
The Commission notes again that it is
not prescribing the particular method by
which the mechanism grants access to
all of the swap data as required, as long
as the mechanism satisfies the
requirements in final § 49.11(b)(2),
including the general requirement that
the swap data accessible through the
mechanism provides sufficient
information to allow the reporting
counterparties utilizing the mechanism
to successfully perform their swap data
verification responsibilities as required
under final § 45.14. The Commission
expects that SDRs will work with
reporting counterparties to devise the
most efficient and effective method by
which the mechanism will provide
access to all of the required swap data,
with particular attention to
accommodating non-SD/MSP/DCO
reporting counterparties.
The Commission also notes that final
§ 49.11(b)(2) references the limits on
providing access to swap data that must
be kept confidential under final
§ 49.11(b)(3). The swap data access
provided under final § 49.11(b)(2) must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
not allow access to data that is required
to be kept confidential, as described
further below in the discussion of
§ 49.11(b)(3).
d. 49.11(b)(3)
Final § 49.11(b)(3) adopts the
proposed limits on access to swap data
as part of verification for swap data that
is required to be kept confidential from
reporting counterparties under the Act
or other Commission regulations.
Notwithstanding the other requirements
of final § 49.11(b), final § 49.11(b)(3)
explicitly prohibits SDRs from allowing
access to swap data that a reporting
counterparty is otherwise prohibited to
access. The Commission notes that the
same confidential swap data is also
excluded from the reporting
counterparties’ corresponding
verification requirements in final
§ 45.14(b).
This confidentiality requirement is
particularly relevant for counterparty
identity information that is required to
be kept confidential under final
§ 49.17.101 Existing and final § 49.17(f)
prohibit SDRs from allowing access to
counterparty identifying information for
certain anonymously-executed cleared
swaps. Under the provisions of final
§ 49.11(b)(3), nothing in final § 49.11
overrides the confidentiality
requirements of § 49.17, or any other
confidentiality requirements of the Act
or other Commission regulations. This
information is also excluded from the
verification requirements in the
corresponding verification obligation
rules in final § 45.14(b).
at least two months between
verifications.102
The Commission notes that the
frequency requirement in final
§ 49.11(b)(4) is a minimum frequency
standard. Nothing prohibits SDRs from
allowing reporting counterparties to
access swap data through the
mechanism more frequently than
required and nothing prohibits reporting
counterparties from utilizing the
mechanism to access their own swap
data more frequently than is required.
Final § 49.11(b)(4) provides that the
mechanism each SDR adopts under final
§ 49.11(b) must allow sufficiently
frequent access for reporting
counterparties to perform the required
swap data verification under § 45.14(b).
This minimum frequency is necessary
so that reporting counterparties are able
to access all of their relevant swap data
every time they are required to perform
verification under § 45.14(b), in order to
help ensure that reporting
counterparties perform a robust
verification of all swap data for their
relevant open swaps. Final § 45.14(b)
requires SD/MSP/DCO reporting
counterparties to verify every 30
calendar days and requires non-SD/
MSP/DCO reporting counterparties to
verify once every calendar quarter, with
f. § 49.11(b)(5)
Final § 49.11(b)(5) provides
requirements related to SDRs making
swap data available to third-party
service providers for verification
purposes. As with other Commission
regulations, reporting counterparties are
permitted to utilize third-party service
providers to perform verification, and
the Commission believes that
accommodating the use of diligent
third-party services providers may
increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of the verification process.
Accordingly, in order to accommodate
the reporting counterparties’ use of
third-party service providers, final
§ 49.11(b)(5) provides that an SDR will
satisfy its verification requirements
under final § 49.11 by, after a reporting
counterparty informs the SDR that the
reporting counterparty will utilize a
particular third-party service provider
for verification purposes, providing the
third-party service provider with the
same access to the mechanism and the
relevant swap data as the SDR is
required to provide to the reporting
counterparty.
As part of this third-party service
provider access, final § 49.11(b)(5) also
provides that the third-party service
provider access is in addition to (i.e.,
not instead of) the access for the
relevant reporting counterparty. Each
SDR must still grant the same required
level of access to the mechanism and
the relevant swap data to the reporting
counterparty, regardless of whether a
reporting counterparty utilizes a thirdparty service provider. The third-party
service provider’s access under final
§ 49.11(b)(5) must also continue until
the reporting counterparty informs the
SDR that the third-party service
provider should no longer have access
to the mechanism and relevant swap
data on the reporting counterparty’s
behalf. This requirement is necessary to
ensure that the third-party service
provider can provide services to the
101 The Commission is finalizing a technical
correction to § 49.17(f) in this rulemaking, as
described below in section II.L.
102 See section III.C below for a discussion of the
verification requirements for reporting
counterparties under final § 45.14(b).
e. § 49.11(b)(4)
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
reporting counterparty without
interruption.
Finally, § 49.11(b)(5) requires the
verification policies and procedures an
SDR must create pursuant to final
§ 49.11(c) to include instructions
detailing how each reporting
counterparty can successfully inform
the SDR so that the SDR will grant or
discontinue access for a third-party
service provider at the reporting
counterparty’s instruction. This
requirement is necessary to ensure that
third-party service provider access for
verification purposes is as efficient and
seamless as possible. The Commission
notes that these SDR policies and
procedures are required to be publicly
disclosed under final § 49.26(j).103
g. § 49.11(c)
The Commission made several nonsubstantive organizational and editorial
modifications in final § 49.11(c), as
compared to the Proposal. For example,
as described above, the SDR verification
policies and procedures requirement
from proposed § 49.11(a) is included in
final § 49.11(c). The wording in final
§ 49.11(c)(1) is changed slightly from
proposed § 49.11(a) for clarity purposes,
but similarly requires SDRs to establish,
maintain, and enforce policies and
procedures that address how the swap
data repository will fulfill all of the
applicable requirements of final § 49.11.
The policies and procedures must also
include instructions on how each
reporting counterparty, or third-party
service provider acting on behalf of a
reporting counterparty, can successfully
utilize the mechanism to access swap
data in order to perform the reporting
counterparty’s verification
responsibilities under final § 45.14(b).
This requirement is necessary to ensure
that reporting counterparties are clearly
instructed on how to access the
verification mechanism and their
relevant swap data, in order to ensure
that verification is as efficient and
seamless as possible. The Commission
notes that the companion verification
requirements for reporting
counterparties in final § 45.14(b) require
reporting counterparties to follow the
relevant SDR policies and procedures
when performing verification.104
Final § 49.11(c)(2) sets forth the
requirements for an SDR that amends its
verification policies and procedures,
which were previously set forth in
proposed § 49.11(d). Final § 49.11(c)(2),
like proposed § 49.11(d), requires each
103 See section II.R below for a discussion of final
§ 49.26(j).
104 See section III.C for a discussion of the
verification requirements for reporting
counterparties under final § 45.14(b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
SDR to comply with the requirements of
part 40 of the Commission’s regulations
in adopting or amending the verification
policies and procedures required under
final § 49.11(c)(1). The Commission
notes that SDRs would be required to
comply with part 40 when adopting or
amending the verification policies and
procedures regardless of whether this
requirement is included in § 49.11(c)(2).
3. Comments on the Proposed Rule
The Commission received many
comments on the verification approach
in proposed § 49.11. Many commenters
did not distinguish their comments
between the verification requirements
proposed for SDRs under proposed
§ 49.11 and the verification
requirements proposed for reporting
counterparties under proposed § 45.14,
but the Commission has organized the
discussion between the two different
final rules based on its best estimation
of whether particular comments applied
to one or both of the proposed sections.
The discussion of comments relevant to
final § 49.11 is contained in this section,
while the discussion of comments that
pertain to the verification requirements
for reporting counterparties is contained
in the discussion of final § 45.14(b),
unless otherwise noted below.105
Many comments on specific
requirements of proposed § 49.11 are
now moot, because the Commission is
not adopting the proposed
requirements. For example, some
commenters addressed particular
aspects and mechanics of the proposed
verification of open swaps reports and
the messages the Proposal would
require reporting counterparties to send
to SDRs related to verification results.106
These comments are no longer
applicable, because the Commission is
not adopting the proposed requirement
that SDRs provide open swaps reports to
reporting counterparties or the
companion requirement that reporting
counterparties verify the data in such
reports and send messages to SDRs
related to verification results. The
Commission acknowledges these
comments on specific proposed
requirements and thanks the
commenters for submitting these
comments, but these requirements are
not included in the final rule.
Many comments were generally
supportive of the Commission’s efforts
to improve the accuracy of data reported
to and maintained by SDRs.107 The
Commission agrees with the many
commenters and market participants
who support the Roadmap rulemakings
to improve the quality of swap data, and
reiterates the importance of improved
data accuracy and completeness.
Along with the comments of general
support, the Commission received many
comments supporting specific
requirements in proposed § 49.11.
Comments in particular supported
limiting data verification to swap
data,108 and excluding non-reporting
counterparties from data verification
requirements.109 The Commission
agrees with these comments and is
finalizing § 49.11 with requirements that
only apply verification to swap data and
only require verification for reporting
counterparties.
Commenters also suggested
alternatives for the proposed approach
to verification, including alternatives
that helped form the basis of the revised
verification requirements in final
§ 49.11. Multiple comments suggested
that the Commission adopt a more
‘‘principles based’’ approach to
verification.110 As part of a more
principles-based approach, one
comment suggested monthly
verification for SDs and quarterly for
non-SDs, while also recommending that
SDRs or the Commission should be able
to request evidence that verification was
conducted as required.111 Another
comment advocated for requiring
reporting counterparties to implement
procedures to periodically reconcile
swaps data reported to SDRs.112 The
Commission also received one comment
related to alternatives to verification of
accuracy and notice of discrepancy
messaging, which recommended an
obligation on reporting counterparties to
maintain, and make available to the
Commission upon request, evidence
that verification was conducted and any
necessary corrections were submitted to
the SDR.113
The Commission recognizes the
comments that provided robust
alternatives to the proposed verification
requirements that also met the
Commission need for swap data to be
verified in a thorough and timely
manner. The Commission is finalizing
§ 49.11 with more principles-based
requirements that incorporate each of
these suggestions, including that
reporting counterparties periodically
108 ISDA/SIFMA
109 GFMA
106 See,
e.g., GFMA at 4; IATP at 5; ICE TV at 3–
4; ISDA/SIFMA at 40, 43–44; Joint SDR at 2–7.
107 See Freddie Mac at 1, 2; IATP at 1–5; Joint
SDR at 1; Markit at 2.
Frm 00193
at 39–41, 44.
at 4, ISDA/SIFMA at 39, Joint SDR at
2.
105 Id.
PO 00000
75613
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
110 CS
at 3, FIA at 7–8, ISDA/SIFMA at 45.
at 45.
112 CS at 3.
113 Joint SDR at 6–8.
111 ISDA/SIFMA
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75614
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
reconcile the open swap data
maintained by SDRs with the open swap
data in their own books and records;
that verification occur on a monthly
basis for SD reporting counterparties
(though the Commission will also
require monthly verification for MSPs
and DCOs) and quarterly for other
reporting counterparties; and that
reporting counterparties maintain and
make available to the Commission
evidence that verification was
conducted properly and any discovered
corrections submitted to the relevant
SDR(s).114
The Commission also received other
comments addressing issues that have
been incorporated into the final
verification requirements. Though
largely included with comments related
to the proposed open swaps reports,
multiple comments advocated for
flexibility in the form and manner that
SDRs and reporting counterparties
perform verification, as these entities
already have established methods for
communicating swap data and other
information.115 These comments on the
proposed open swaps reports also
recommended that verification only be
required for swap data as current at the
time of verification, as opposed to
verification on every data message.116
Another comment also requested
clarification that the required
distribution of open swaps reports is a
minimum, not a maximum, and that
SDRs are able to provide open swaps
reports more frequently than the
minimum.117
The Commission recognizes the
suggestions included with these
comments and agrees with the
comments. The Commission originally
proposed, and is also now adopting,
verification requirements that provide
SDRs with flexibility in implementing
the verification requirements. Thus,
final § 49.11(b) intentionally does not
prescribe the form and manner of the
verification mechanism and allows
SDRs to determine the means for
reporting counterparties access to their
relevant swap data. The Commission
expects that SDRs and reporting
counterparties will work together to
devise the most efficient and effective
mechanism that meets the specific
verification requirements in final
§§ 49.11 and 45.14. The Commission
also proposed, and is now adopting,
requirements that only require the
114 See section III.C for a more thorough
discussion of the verification requirements for
reporting counterparties under final § 45.14(b).
115 GFMA at 5, ISDA/SIFMA at 40, Joint SDR at
6.
116 ISDA/SIFMA at 40, Joint SDR at 6.
117 Joint SDR at 6–7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
verification of up-to-date swap data, as
opposed to verification of all messages.
Final § 49.11(b)(2) only requires SDRs to
make the relevant ‘‘most current’’ swap
data available to reporting
counterparties, as opposed to every
message regarding swap data. Though
no longer related to open swaps reports,
the Commission is also adopting
verification timing requirements in
§ 45.14(b) that serve as a minimum
frequency requirement, not a maximum.
As the Commission detailed above in
the discussion of final § 49.11(b)(4), the
SDRs must make the verification
mechanism available to the reporting
counterparties at least as often as
needed for the reporting counterparties
to perform their verification
responsibilities under final § 45.14(b),
but that nothing prevents the SDRs from
providing proper access more
frequently. The Commission anticipates
that some SDRs may choose to provide
access to the mechanism on a morefrequent, even potentially continuous,
basis.
The Commission also received a
comment related to open swaps reports
that observed that SDRs would not be
able perform verification with reporting
counterparties or third-party service
providers that are not members of the
SDR. The comment suggested that the
Commission modify the verification
requirement to limit an SDR’s
verification responsibilities to reporting
counterparties and third-party service
providers that are members of the
SDR.118 The Commission agrees with
this comment and notes that it would
not be practical for an SDR to perform
verification with reporting
counterparties or third-party service
providers that are not connected to the
SDR. To address this, the Commission is
adopting final § 49.11(b)(1), which
specifically requires an SDR to provide
a verification mechanism that grants
swap data access to each ‘‘reporting
counterparty that is a user of the swap
data repository,’’ as required under final
§ 49.11(b). The Commission notes that
final § 49.11(b)(5) contains provisions
related to access for a third-party service
provider working on behalf of a
reporting counterparty and that final
§ 49.11(c) requires SDR verification
policies and procedures to address how
a third-party service provider can
successfully utilize the SDR verification
mechanism on behalf of a reporting
counterparty.
The Commission also received a
number of comments that made
suggestions that are not being accepted.
In the context of open swaps reports,
118 Joint
PO 00000
SDR at 4–5.
Frm 00194
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
one comment suggested that the
Commission should specify that
verification timing requirements be
clarified as ‘‘business days’’ and
‘‘business hours,’’ as this would
facilitate the SDRs including the date
and time that an open swap report was
sent.119 The Commission is including
verification timing requirements for
reporting counterparties in final
§ 45.14(b), but these timing
requirements are stated in terms of
calendar days, calendar months, and
calendar quarters. The Commission
notes that the comment is now moot, as
there will be no open swaps reports
from SDRs to the reporting
counterparties that would necessitate a
timestamp, but the Commission also
believes that the final use of calendar
timing instead of business timing will
not cause any issues in regards to
reporting counterparties and SDRs
performing verification and will provide
consistent parameters for when
verification must be performed. The use
of calendar time allows the reporting
counterparties to choose the date most
convenient for them to accomplish
regular verification without the
potential confusion arising from
business days shifting based on
weekends and holidays.
One comment suggested that the
Commission should remove the
requirement in proposed § 49.11(d) that
SDRs make a filing under part 40 of the
Commission’s regulations when
changing their verification policies and
procedures, asserting that such a
requirement is unnecessary because
reporting counterparties will be
required to follow SDR verification
procedures.120 The Commission
disagrees and is adopting the
requirement in final § 49.11(c)(2). The
Commission notes that the requirements
of part 40 of the Commission’s
regulations would apply to the SDR
verification policies and procedures
regardless of whether this provision is
included in final § 49.11(c)(2), because
the verification policies and procedures
are ‘‘rules’’ for the purposes of part 40
of the Commission’s regulations.121 The
Commission also believes that requiring
SDRs to comply with part 40 to update
verification policies and procedures will
help alert reporting counterparties and
other market participants to when an
SDR seeks to change its policies and
procedures, which will help ensure
compliance with the verification
119 ISDA/SIFMA
at 40.
SDR at 7.
121 See 17 CFR 40.1(i) (defining ‘‘rule’’ for the
purposes of part 40 of the Commission’s
regulations).
120 Joint
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
policies and procedures and help
prevent errors in the verification
process.
The Commission also received
multiple comments suggesting changes
that would narrow the data fields
subject to verification. One comment
recommended that verification be
limited to data fields related to the
‘‘economic terms’’ of the trade only,
with the Commission identifying which
fields are included in the economic
terms.122 Comments also recommended
limiting the reported information to
information that would improve the
Commission’s market surveillance
capabilities and promote price
transparency, while also limiting
optional fields and fields that do not
apply to the relevant swaps.123 One
comment suggested the Commission
clarify the duties relating to static data
elements.124 Other comments also
suggested streamlining data fields to
only those necessary for the
Commission’s work and to harmonize
data fields with foreign regulators, if
possible,125 and clarifying the data
fields.126
As described in more detail in the
discussion of verification requirements
under final § 45.14(b),127 the
Commission disagrees with comments
suggesting that the Commission adopt
any verification requirement that would
allow reporting counterparties to verify
anything less than all swap data fields
for all of the reporting counterparty’s
relevant open swaps. All swap data
fields are important and are necessary
for the Commission to successfully
fulfill its regulatory responsibilities,
which extend beyond performing robust
market surveillance and promoting
price transparency. The Commission is
adopting verification requirements that
require the reporting counterparties to
verify every swap data field for all swap
data for every one of a reporting
counterparty’s relevant open swaps, and
is adopting the requirements in final
§ 49.11(b) that will facilitate this by
requiring SDRs to provide a mechanism
that allows the reporting counterparties
to verify every data field for all relevant
swap data. This requirement includes
all static data elements, as errors are still
possible in swap data maintained by
SDRs, even if it is intended to be static.
The Commission also notes that
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
122 GFMA
at 10–11, 13–14.
Associations at 4–10, NGSA at 4.
124 Markit at 2–3.
125 Eurex at 1–2, GFMA at 14, Joint Associations
at 4–10.
126 CEWG at 2–3.
127 See section III.C for a more thorough
discussion of the verification requirements for
reporting counterparties under final § 45.14(b).
123 Joint
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
streamlining, clarifying, and
harmonizing data fields is one of the
express purposes of the Roadmap
rulemakings, and that this work on data
fields is accomplished in a separate
Roadmap rulemaking.128
The Commission received several
comments suggesting that verification is
unnecessary and that the Commission
can instead rely on SDR swap data
validation, standardized and
harmonized swap data fields, and/or the
swap data error corrections
requirements to improve data quality.129
As described in more detail in the
discussion of verification requirements
under final § 45.14(b), the Commission
disagrees with the suggestions that
verification is unnecessary and that
swap data validation, standardized
swap data fields, and error correction
would be sufficient to meet the
Commission’s data quality goals. While
swap data validation and standardized
data fields are valuable tools to prevent
certain types of swap data errors, such
as swap data being reported without
required data, they do not address the
same errors that swap data verification
is intended to address. Swap data
verification, which is designed to
inform and trigger the swap data error
correction process, is intended to
address plausible but incorrect swap
data that would not be identified by
validation because the incorrect data
meets the technical standards for the
standardized fields, such as a swap
being reported with a notional value of
$1,000,000 instead of the correct
$10,000,000. These errors would only be
found, and the error correction
requirement triggered, by a party to the
swap reviewing the data after it has
been reported and discovering the
error(s), such as through the verification
process. The Commission also notes that
swap data validation and standardized
data fields can only prevent errors in
swap data that have not yet been
reported, as opposed to swap data
verification, which will be useful for
finding undiscovered errors in swap
data for open swaps that have already
been reported.
Through its experience administering
the data reporting regulations, the
Commission is also aware of many
examples of significant swap data errors
that would not have been prevented by
swap data validations, and that, in the
absence of an adequate verification
requirement, persisted for long periods
of time before being discovered and
128 See generally 85 FR 21578, et seq. (Apr. 17,
2020).
129 CEWG at 2–3, Chatham at 3, Eurex at 2, NGSA
at 4, Joint Associations at 6–10, Joint SDR at 7–8.
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75615
corrected. Based on this experience, the
Commission determined that swap data
validation, standardized data fields, and
the error correction requirements are not
sufficient to meet the Commission’s data
quality goals without the addition of
swap data verification. As a result, the
Commission is adopting final § 49.11,
and the companion requirements in
final § 45.14(b), in order to require a
robust and effective verification process
for SDRs and reporting counterparties
that the Commission expects will help
ensure significant improvements in
swap data quality.
H. § 49.12—Swap Data Repository
Recordkeeping Requirements
Section 49.12 sets forth recordkeeping
requirements for SDRs.130 The
Commission proposed to amend § 49.12
to incorporate the recordkeeping
requirements for SDRs in current
§ 45.2(f) and (g) 131 into final § 49.12,
and to resolve ambiguities and potential
inconsistencies between the
regulations.132 The Commission has
determined to adopt the amendments to
§§ 49.12 and 45.2 as proposed, except
for a technical change discussed below.
Current § 49.12(a) requires an SDR to
maintain its books and records in
accordance with the recordkeeping
requirements of part 45. The
Commission proposed to amend
§ 49.12(a) to incorporate the provisions
of current § 45.2(f) and to clarify that the
requirement in final § 49.12(a) that an
SDR keep records applies to records of
all activities relating to the business of
the SDR, not just records of swap data
reported to the SDR.133 Accordingly, as
amended, final § 49.12(a) requires an
SDR to keep full, complete, and
systematic records, together with all
pertinent data and memoranda, of all
activities relating to the business of the
SDR, including, but not limited to, all
SDR information and all SDR data that
is reported to the SDR. The amendments
to § 49.12(a) do not impose new
requirements on an SDR; rather, the
amendments incorporate the currentlyapplicable requirements of § 45.2(f).
130 17 CFR 49.12. Current § 49.12 sets forth
specific recordkeeping requirements and references
the public reporting requirements and
recordkeeping requirements for SDRs included in
parts 43 and 45.
131 17 CFR 45.2(f) and (g).
132 Proposal at 84 FR 21055 (May, 13, 2019).
Consolidating these regulations in part 49 will
reduce confusion that may arise from having
separate SDR recordkeeping requirements in two
different rules.
133 Id. Current § 49.12(a) applies to swap data
required to be reported to the SDR, whereas
§ 45.2(g) applies to records of all activities relating
to the business of the SDR and all swap data
reported to the SDR.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75616
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Current § 49.12(b) requires an SDR to
maintain swap data (including all
historical positions) throughout the
existence of the swap and for five years
following the final termination of the
swap, during which time the records
must be readily accessible by the SDR,
and available to the Commission via
real-time electronic access; and in
archival storage from which the data is
retrievable by the SDR within three
business days.134
The Commission is amending
§ 49.12(b) by incorporating the
requirements of § 45.2(g) into final
§ 49.12(b). Thus, as amended, final
§ 49.12(b) will: (i) Clarify that the
requirements of the regulation apply to
all records required to be kept by an
SDR, not just swap data reported to an
SDR,135 and (ii) incorporate the
additional ten-year retention period set
forth in current § 45.2(g)(2).136
Final § 49.12(b) sets forth separate
recordkeeping requirements for SDR
information in final § 49.12(b)(1) and
SDR data reported to the SDR in final
§ 49.12(b)(2). Section 49.12(b)(1)
requires an SDR to maintain all SDR
information, including, but not limited
to, all documents, policies, and
procedures required to be kept by the
Act and the Commission’s regulations,
correspondence, memoranda, papers,
books, notices, accounts, and other such
records made or received by the SDR in
the course of its business. An SDR must
maintain such information in
accordance with § 1.31 of the
Commission’s regulations.137
As amended, final § 49.12(b)(2)
requires an SDR to maintain all SDR
data and timestamps reported to or
created by the SDR, and all messages
related to such reporting, throughout the
134 17
CFR 49.12(b).
at 84 FR 21055 (May 13, 2019).
Current § 49.12(b) applies to swap data, whereas
§ 45.2(g) applies to all records required to be kept
by an SDR.
136 Section 45.2(g)(2) provides that all records
required to be kept by an SDR must be kept in
archival storage for ten years after the initial 5-year
retention period under § 45.2(g)(1). Current
§ 49.12(b) only sets forth the initial 5-year retention
period.
137 Section 1.31 of the Commission’s regulations
is the Commission’s general recordkeeping
provision, which requires, among other things, that
any regulatory records that do not pertain to
specific transactions and are not retained oral
communications be kept for no less than five years
from their creation date. See 17 CFR 1.31(b)(3). As
noted in the Proposal, current § 49.12(b) and § 45.2
use the existence of the swap as the basis for the
record retention timeframes specified therein, but
this offers no guidance on how long to keep a
record of SDR information, such as SDR policies
and procedures. See Proposal at 21056. Therefore,
the Commission is clarify in § 49.12(b)(1) that the
record retention period for such records is the
generally applicable retention period under § 1.31
of the Commission’s regulations.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
135 Proposal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
existence of the swap that is the subject
of the SDR data and for five years
following final termination of the swap,
during which time the records must be
readily accessible by the SDR and
available to the Commission via realtime electronic access, and for a period
of at least ten additional years in
archival storage from which such
records are retrievable by the SDR
within three business days.138
The amendments to § 49.12(b) are also
intended to help harmonize the
Commission’s regulations with the
SEC’s regulations.139 The SDR
information listed in final § 49.12(b)(1)
largely matches the SEC’s requirement
for SBSDR recordkeeping 140 and the
retention provisions of § 1.31 largely
match the requirement for SBSDRs.141
Any SDR that also registers with the
SEC as an SBSDR will have to comply
with both final § 49.12 and § 240.13n–7,
and therefore consistency between the
recordkeeping provisions is particularly
beneficial to such SDRs.
The Commission again notes that the
amendments to § 49.12(b) do not change
the requirements for SDRs; they merely
consolidate existing requirements set
forth in current § 45.2(f) and (g) into
final § 49.12.142
138 The retention period under § 49.12(b)(2) is the
current requirement for SDR records retention
under § 45.2(g).
139 The concept of separate recordkeeping
requirements for information similar to SDR
information and for SDR data reported to an SDR
has already been adopted by the SEC in its
regulations governing SBSDRs. See 17 CFR
240.13n–7(b) (listing recordkeeping requirements
for SBSDRs); 17 CFR 240.13n–7(d) (excluding
‘‘transaction data and positions’’ from the
recordkeeping requirements and instead referring to
17 CFR 240.13n–5 for such recordkeeping).
140 See 17 CFR 240.13n–7(b)(1). This rule
provides that every security-based swap data
repository shall keep and preserve at least one copy
of all documents, including all documents and
policies and procedures required by the Securities
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder, correspondence, memoranda, papers,
books, notices, accounts, and other such records as
shall be made or received by it in the course of its
business as such.
141 Compare 17 CFR 1.31(b)(3) (providing that a
records entity shall keep each regulatory record for
a period of not less than five years from the date
on which the record was created) and 17 CFR
1.31(b)(4) (providing that a records entity shall keep
regulatory records exclusively created and
maintained on paper readily accessible for no less
than two years, and shall keep electronic regulatory
records readily accessible for the duration of the
required record keeping period) with 17 CFR
240.13n–7(b)(2) (providing that every SBSDR shall
keep all such documents for a period of not less
than five years, the first two years in a place that
is immediately available to representative of the
Securities and Exchange Commission for inspection
and examination).
142 See 17 CFR 45.2(f) and (g). Though the term
‘‘swap data’’ is defined in § 49.2(a) to mean the
specific data elements and information set forth in
17 CFR part 45, the Commission notes that the term
‘‘swap data’’ is not currently defined in part 45.
PO 00000
Frm 00196
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The Commission is amending existing
§ 49.12(c) and renumbering it as
§ 49.12(d).143 In place of existing
§ 49.12(c), final § 49.12(c) requires an
SDR to create and maintain records of
SDR validation errors and SDR data
reporting errors and omissions. Final
§ 49.12(c)(1) requires an SDR to create
and maintain an accurate record of all
reported SDR data that fails to satisfy
the SDR’s data validation procedures.
The records must include, but are not be
limited to, records of all of the SDR data
reported to the SDR that failed to satisfy
the SDR data validation procedures, all
SDR validation errors, and all related
messages and timestamps.
Final § 49.12(c)(2) requires an SDR to
create and maintain an accurate record
of all SDR data errors and omissions
reported to the SDR and all corrections
disseminated by the SDR pursuant to
parts 43, 45, 46, and 49 of the
Commission’s regulations. Section
49.12(c)(2) also requires SDRs to make
the records available to the Commission
on request.
The Commission believes SDRs
already receive the data validation
information specified in final § 49.12(c)
via regular interaction with SEFs,
DCMs, and reporting counterparties.
The Commission emphasizes that such
data must be maintained in order to
allow for assessments of reporting
compliance, including the initial
reporting and the correction of the SDR
data.
The Commission notes that while
final § 49.12(c) specifies recordkeeping
requirements for SDR data validation
errors and SDR data reporting errors,
these requirements do not in any way
limit the applicability of the
recordkeeping requirements in final
§ 49.12 to these records. Thus, since the
records specified in final § 49.12(c) are
Current § 45.2(f) requires the SDR to keep full,
complete, and systematic records, together with all
pertinent data and memoranda, of all activities
related to the business of the swap data repository
and all swap data reported to the swap data
repository, as prescribed by the Commission. This
expansive requirement for all pertinent data and
memoranda for all activities related to the business
of the swap data repository and all swap data
reported to the swap data repository reflects that
§ 45.2(f) requires an SDR to keep records of data
from activities beyond reporting pursuant to part
45, including, for example, all of the required swap
transaction and pricing data reporting pursuant to
part 43. The ‘‘full, complete, and systematic
records’’ that must be kept for ‘‘all activities related
to the business’’ of the SDR also include all
messages related to the reported data, including all
messages sent from the SDR and to the SDR. This
recordkeeping obligation on SDRs is analogous to
recordkeeping obligations on DCMs, SEFs, and
DCOs. See 17 CFR 38.950, 37.1001, and 39.20(a).
143 As discussed below, as part of the
amendments to § 49.12, the Commission is
removing current § 49.12(d).
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
comprised of, or relate to, SDR data
reported to an SDR, all records created
and maintained by an SDR pursuant to
final § 49.12(c) are subject to the
requirements of final § 49.12(b)(2).
Existing § 49.12(d) requires an SDR to
comply with the real time public
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of existing § 49.15 and
part 43. The Commission believes that
existing § 49.12(d) 144 is redundant
because its requirements that an SDR
comply with the real time public
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements set forth in § 49.15 and
part 43 are also required by final
§ 49.12(b)(2) and § 49.15, as well as part
43.
Accordingly, the Commission is
moving the text of existing § 49.12(c) to
final § 49.12(d) and amending the
regulation to provide that (i) all records
required to be kept pursuant to part 49
must be open to inspection upon
request by any representative of the
Commission or any representative of the
U.S. Department of Justice; and (ii) an
SDR must produce any record required
to be kept, created, or maintained by the
SDR in accordance with § 1.31 of the
Commission’s regulations.
Finally, the Commission proposed a
technical change to move the existing
requirements of § 49.12(e) to proposed
§ 49.13.145 However, as discussed
below, the Commission is not adopting
the proposed amendments to § 49.13 at
this time. Therefore, the Commission is
not moving existing § 49.12(e) to
§ 49.13.
The Commission requested comment
on all aspects of proposed § 49.12.146
One comment supported
consolidating the SDR recordkeeping
requirements in part 45 into part 49.147
Another comment stated that the
requirement in proposed § 49.12(b)(2)
for an additional ten-year retention
period following a five-year period after
termination of a swap is excessive.148
This comment recommended that the
Commission replace the proposed
requirements for record retention in
proposed § 49.12 with a seven-year
retention period following final
144 See 17 CFR 49.12(d) (providing that a
registered swap data repository shall comply with
the real time public reporting and recordkeeping
requirements prescribed in § 49.15 and in 17 CFR
part 43).
145 Current § 49.12(e) requires an SDR to establish
policies and procedures to calculate positions for
position limits and for any other purpose as
required by the Commission.
146 The Commission also invited specific
comment on the archival storage requirements of
current § 45.2(g)(2) and proposed § 49.12(b)(2). See
Proposal at 21057.
147 ISDA/SIFMA at 43.
148 Joint SDR at 11.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
termination of the swap, during which
time the records would be readily
accessible by the SDR and available to
the Commission.149
The Commission has determined to
adopt the amendments to §§ 49.12 and
45.2 as proposed, except the
Commission is not adopting the
technical change of moving § 49.12(e) to
§ 49.13, as discussed below in Section
II.I.
With regard to record retention period
comments, the Commission notes that
retention period in final § 49.12(b)(2) is
the current retention period applicable
to SDRs, not a new requirement, and
that SDRs currently have this unique
ten-year retention period because they
are the source of all SDR data for the
public and the CFTC. Further, the
Commission believes the existing 10year retention period has functioned
well and did not propose to amend the
retention period. Accordingly, the
Commission declines to shorten the
retention period.
I. § 49.13—Monitoring, Screening, and
Analyzing Data
Existing § 49.13 implements CEA
section 21(c)(5), which requires SDRs to,
at the direction of the Commission,
establish automated systems for
monitoring, screening, and analyzing
swap data, including compliance and
frequency of end-user clearing
exemption claims by individuals and
affiliated entities.150 Existing § 49.13
requires SDRs to: (i) Monitor, screen,
and analyze all swap data in their
possession as the Commission may
require, including for the purpose of any
standing swap surveillance objectives
that the Commission may establish as
well as ad hoc requests; and (ii) develop
systems and maintain sufficient
resources as necessary to execute any
monitoring, screening, or analyzing
functions assigned by the
Commission.151
The Commission proposed to amend
§ 49.13 to provide more detail on the
monitoring, screening, and analyzing
tasks that an SDR may be required to
perform as directed by the Commission.
The Commission also proposed to
amend § 49.13 to make clear that the
requirements of proposed § 49.13 apply
to SDR data reported to the SDR
pursuant to parts 43, 45, and 46. The
Commission received a number of
149 Id. Joint SDR also stated the Commission
‘‘should harmonize the SDR retention periods with
that of Europe and other Commission regulated
entities such as [DCMs, DCOs and SEFs],’’ and that
a 7-year retention period ‘‘gets closer to a
harmonized global standard.’’ Id.
150 7 U.S.C. 24a(c)(5).
151 See generally 17 CFR 49.13.
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75617
comments on the proposed rule, both
supporting and recommending against
its adoption.152
The Commission has determined not
to make any amendments to § 49.13 at
this time. The Commission believes it
may benefit from further consideration
and experience with swap data
following the implementation of the
requirements of part 49, as amended in
this final rule, as well as the
implementation of the significantly
amended rules in part 45 that the
Commission is adopting as final along
with this final rule. The Commission
may consider the proposed amendments
to § 49.13 in a future rulemaking.
As part of the Proposal, the
Commission also proposed a technical
change that would move existing
§ 49.15(c) to § 49.13.153 The
Commission also proposed to move the
requirements of existing § 49.12(e) to
§ 49.13. While moving existing
§§ 49.15(c) and 49.12(e) to § 49.13 is not
a substantive amendment, the
Commission has determined that it
would be more efficient to defer these
proposed amendments along with the
other proposed changes to existing
§ 49.13, and is therefore not adopting
these amendments as part of this final
rulemaking. Thus, the current text of
§ 49.13 will remain in effect after this
rulemaking.
J. § 49.15—Real-Time Public Reporting
by Swap Data Repositories
The Commission proposed to amend
existing § 49.15 to conform the
regulation to the proposed amended
definitions in § 49.2. As discussed
above, the Commission also proposed to
152 IATP generally supported the proposed rule.
IATP at 7. IATP further provided recommendations
and support for adopting specific requirements for
SDRs, such as a requirement to produce a report
regarding ‘‘mortgage swaps risks of reporting
counterparties’’ that would be relevant to assessing
climate-related financial risks, and to calculate
positions for market participants. Id. at 8–9. ISDA/
SIFMA recommended adopting a requirement that
SDRs produce rejection statistics reports. ISDA/
SIFMA at 45. Joint SDR generally supported
adopting rules that provide more detail about the
tasks that the Commission may require an SDR to
perform. Joint SDR at 12. However, Joint SDR
recommended against adopting the proposed rule,
stating that the requirements in the proposed rule
exceed those authorized by the Act, would
impermissibly require the SDRs to perform
regulatory functions, and that it would be
impracticable for the SDRs to fulfill the proposed
requirements for lack of sufficient data. Joint SDR
at 12–15.
153 Existing § 49.15(c) provides that an SDR must
notify the Commission of any swap transaction for
which the real-time swap data was not received by
the SDR in accordance with 17 CFR part 43. In
addition to moving existing § 49.15(c) to § 49.13, the
Commission proposed to amend the regulation to
similarly require an SDR to notify the Commission
with regard to data not received by the SDR
pursuant to parts 45 and 46.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75618
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
move existing § 49.15(c) to proposed
§ 49.13(c). Additionally, the
Commission proposed to amend
existing § 49.15(a) and § 49.15(b) to
remove the term ‘‘swap data,’’ which is
defined in § 49.2 as part 45 data, and
replace it with text clarifying that
§ 49.15 pertains to swap transaction and
pricing data submitted to an SDR
pursuant to part 43. These nonsubstantive amendments do not affect
the existing requirements of § 49.15.
The Commission did not receive any
comments on the proposed amendments
to § 49.15(b) and is adopting the
amendments as proposed, with the
exception of the proposed movement of
existing § 49.15(c) to proposed
§ 49.13(c).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
K. § 49.16—Privacy and Confidentiality
Requirements of Swap Data Repositories
The Commission proposed to amend
existing § 49.16 to conform the
regulation to the proposed amendments
to the definitions in § 49.2.154
Specifically, the Commission proposed
to amend § 49.16(a)(1) to clarify that the
policy and procedure requirements of
§ 49.16 apply to SDR information and to
any SDR data that is not swap
transaction and pricing data
disseminated under part 43.155 The
requirements include that an SDR have
policies and procedures to protect the
privacy and confidentiality of any and
all SDR information and all SDR data
(except for swap transaction and pricing
data disseminated under part 43) that
the SDR shares with affiliates and nonaffiliated third parties. The proposed
amendments also conform the text of
§ 49.16 with the removal of the term
‘‘reporting entity’’ and the amended
definitions of ‘‘SDR data’’ and ‘‘swap
data’’ in final § 49.2. The amendments
are non-substantive and do not affect
the existing requirements or
applicability of § 49.16.
The Commission did not receive any
comments on the proposed conforming
amendments to § 49.16 and is adopting
the amendments as proposed.
L. § 49.17—Access to SDR Data
Section 49.17 sets forth the
requirements and conditions for an SDR
to provide access to SDR data to the
Commission, foreign and domestic
regulators, and swap counterparties,
among others.156 The Commission
proposed to amend § 49.17 to clarify
some of the requirements in the
regulation with respect to the
Commission’s access to SDR data. One
154 See
section II.A above.
at 21059.
156 See generally 17 CFR 49.17.
155 Proposal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
commenter recommended revisions to
the proposed amendments to § 49.17, as
discussed below. The Commission has
determined to adopt the amendments to
§ 49.17 as proposed.
As discussed in the Proposal, the
Commission believes the amendments
to the definition of ‘‘direct electronic
access’’ in final § 49.17(b)(3) will
provide additional flexibility to
implement methods for data transfers
from SDRs to the Commission, and may
facilitate the use of advancing
technology and more efficient means of
direct electronic access for the
Commission. The amendments also
make clear that the Commission may
decide to accept other methods of
access, as long as the method is able to
efficiently provide the Commission with
real-time access to SDR data and
scheduled SDR data transfers to the
Commission.
1. Amendments to § 49.17(b)—
Definition of Direct Electronic Access
Existing § 49.17(c)(1) requires an SDR
to provide ‘‘direct electronic access,’’ a
term defined in existing § 49.17(b)(3),157
to the Commission or the Commission’s
designee, including another registered
entity, in order for the Commission to
carry out its legal and statutory
responsibilities under the Act.158 The
Commission is amending the definition
of ‘‘direct electronic access’’ in final
§ 49.17(b)(3) to mean an electronic
system, platform, framework, or other
technology that provides internet-based
or other form of access to real-time SDR
data that is acceptable to the
Commission and also provides
scheduled data transfers to Commission
electronic systems. The amended
definition expands the potential means
by which an SDR may provide direct
electronic access to include ‘‘other
technology’’ and ‘‘other forms of
access.’’ 159 The amendments are
intended to provide greater flexibility to
SDRs and the Commission by making
clear that the Commission may accept
other technology or other forms of
access that are not internet-based, as
long as the access to SDR data is realtime and provides for scheduled SDR
data transfers to the Commission. The
Commission believes innovation and
advances in technology may provide
alternative, more-efficient means for
data transfer, and the amended
157 17
CFR 49.17(b)(3).
CFR 49.17(c)(1).
159 Current § 49.17(b)(3) defines direct electronic
access as an electronic system, platform or
framework that provides internet or Web-based
access to real-time swap transaction data and also
provides scheduled data transfers to Commission
electronic systems.
158 17
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
regulation is intended to facilitate the
use of such technology by SDRs and the
Commission.
The revised definition of direct
electronic access also adds a condition
that the technology or form of access be
‘‘acceptable to the Commission’’ in
order to clarify that any form of direct
electronic access, including any new
technology, must be approved by the
Commission. As discussed below, the
Commission anticipates working with
SDRs to determine acceptable forms of
direct electronic access, consistent with
the Commission’s current practice of
coordinating and collaborating with
SDRs to facilitate transfers of, and realtime access to, SDR data.
Finally, the amended definition of
‘‘direct electronic access’’ replaces the
phrase ‘‘real-time swap transaction
data’’ 160 with ‘‘real-time SDR data,’’ to
eliminate confusion and maintain
consistency with the use of the term
‘‘SDR data’’ in other amended
provisions in part 49.161 This nonsubstantive amendment is not intended
to change the existing requirements or
current SDR practice for providing the
Commission with direct electronic
access to SDR data.
2. Amendments to § 49.17(c)—
Commission Access
The Commission is amending
§ 49.17(c) to incorporate the
requirements of current § 45.13(a),162
which relates to the requirements for an
SDR to maintain and transmit data to
the Commission, and to make additional
clarifications in the regulation. The
Commission is also making nonsubstantive edits to final § 49.17 to
conform terms used in the section with
the rest of the Commission’s regulations
(e.g., replacing ‘‘swap data and SDR
Information’’ with ‘‘SDR data and SDR
Information’’). The amendments are
intended to consolidate other related
requirements into final § 49.17(c) and to
improve the regulation’s clarity and
160 17
CFR 49.17(b)(3).
Commission notes that the phrase ‘‘realtime’’ is often used to reference swap transaction
and pricing data that is publicly reported pursuant
to part 43. In this instance, the term refers to direct
electronic access requiring that SDR data be
available in real time to the entity granted direct
electronic access (i.e., the Commission or its
designee).
162 While the amendments consolidate the
requirements for Commission access to SDR data,
the Commission did not propose to modify current
§ 45.13(a) in the Proposal. See Proposal at 21060,
n. 132. The Commission subsequently proposed
amendments to current § 45.13(a) that are consistent
with final § 49.17(c) in a separate notice of
proposed rulemaking related to the Roadmap. See
85 FR at 21633.
161 The
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
consistency with other Commission
regulations.
Final § 49.17(c) adds introductory text
that requires an SDR to provide the
Commission with access to all SDR data
maintained by the SDR.163 Final
§ 49.17(c)(1) retains the requirements of
current § 49.17(c)(1) and adds a
provision to incorporate the
requirements of current § 45.13(a), with
modifications.164 Specifically, final
§ 49.17(c)(1) requires an SDR to
maintain all SDR data reported to the
SDR in a format acceptable to the
Commission, and to transmit all SDR
data requested by the Commission to the
Commission as instructed by the
Commission. Section 49.17(c)(1) also
includes a new provision not found in
current § 45.13(a), stating that the
Commission’s instructions may include,
but are not limited to, the method,
timing, and frequency of transmission,
as well as the format and scope of the
SDR data to be transmitted. Final
§ 49.17(c)(1) also revises the
requirement in existing § 45.13(a) that
an SDR maintain and transmit ‘‘swap
data’’ to ‘‘SDR data,’’ to make clear that
an SDR must maintain all SDR data
reported to the SDR in a format
acceptable to the Commission and
transmit all SDR data requested by the
Commission.165
3. § 49.17(f)(2)—Technical Correction
The Commission is amending existing
§ 49.17 to replace an incorrect reference
to ‘‘§ 37.12(b)(7)’’ at the end of
paragraph (f)(2) with the correct
reference to ‘‘§ 39.12(b)(7).’’ 166 The
Commission is also making nonsubstantive amendments to conform the
terminology in final § 49.17(f)(2) with
the terms listed in final § 49.2.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
4. Delegation of Authority—§ 49.17(i)
The Commission is moving the
delegation of authority provision in
existing § 49.17(i) 167 to final
§ 49.31(a)(7). Existing § 49.17(i)
delegates to the Director of DMO the
authority reserved to the Commission in
163 See 17 CFR 49.17(c)(1) (providing that a
registered swap data repository shall provide direct
electronic access to the Commission or the
Commission’s designee, including another
registered entity, in order for the Commission to
carry out its legal and statutory responsibilities
under the Act and related regulations).
164 Section 45.13(a) provides that an SDR shall
maintain all swap data reported to it in a format
acceptable to the Commission, and shall transmit
all swap data requested by the Commission to the
Commission in an electronic file in a format
acceptable to the Commission.
165 The Commission believes this revision is
consistent with current SDR practice.
166 There is no § 37.12(b)(7) in the Commission’s
regulations. See 17 CFR 37.12(b).
167 17 CFR 49.17(i).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
existing § 49.17. This includes the
authority to instruct an SDR on how to
transmit SDR data to the Commission.
As discussed below, the Commission
proposed to consolidate the delegation
of authority provisions in part 49 in
final new § 49.31. This amendment is
not a substantive change, as all
functions delegated to the Director of
DMO under existing § 49.17(i) will
continue to be delegated under final
§ 49.31.
5. Comments
The Commission requested comment
on all aspects of proposed § 49.17. The
Commission also requested specific
comment on a whether there is a need
to further clarify any of the
requirements of proposed § 49.17 and
whether there are any aspects of existing
or proposed § 49.17 that would inhibit
or prevent the development of new
technological approaches to SDR
operations or the provision of SDR data
to the Commission.168
The Commission received one
comment on the proposed rule. The
comment agreed with the Commission
that flexibility as to future technological
advancements and innovations is an
important consideration in an SDR’s
provision of direct electronic access to
the Commission.169 This comment also,
however, recommended a number of
textual revisions to proposed § 49.17
that would condition or limit the
Commission’s authority and discretion
in making determinations regarding an
SDR’s maintenance and transfer of data
pursuant to the regulation.170
Specifically, the comment asserted
that the amended definition of direct
electronic access in proposed
§ 49.17(b)(3) is too broad because the
term ‘‘SDR data’’ includes data reported
pursuant to part 46 of this chapter, and
the Commission should not have a timesensitive need for such data.171 The
comment also recommended revising
the text of the proposed definition to
subject the Commission’s
determinations regarding methods of
transmission to a reasonableness
standard and require the Commission to
work with SDRs in making such
determinations.172
In addition, the comment
recommended the Commission remove
168 Proposal
169 DDR
at 21061.
at 4.
170 Id.
171 Id. (stating the Commission should replace the
term ‘‘SDR data’’ which ‘‘swap data and swap
transaction and pricing information’’).
172 Id. (recommending the Commission replace
the phrase ‘‘that is acceptable to the Commission’’
with ‘‘that has been agreed to by the Commission,
in its reasonable discretion, following consultation
with the SDR’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00199
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75619
the phrase ‘‘in a format acceptable to the
Commission’’ from the second sentence
of proposed § 49.17(c)(1), asserting that
the phrase deprives the SDRs of the
flexibility and discretion needed with
respect to the storage and maintenance
of data without a clear regulatory
purpose.173 Similarly, the comment
recommended amending the text of the
second sentence of proposed
§ 49.17(c)(1) to provide ‘‘reasonable
limitations’’ on the Commission’s
discretion to instruct an SDR on the
transmission of SDR data to the
Commission.’’ 174
6. Final Rule
The Commission has determined to
adopt the amendments to 49.17 as
proposed.
With regard to the comment that the
definition of direct electronic access is
too broad and provides the Commission
with too much discretion, the
Commission believes the amendments
to the definition are appropriately
tailored to help ensure that the
Commission’s direct electronic access,
and the data provided through this
access, serves the Commission needs to
meet its regulatory obligations, and
ensures that an SDR does not change the
means of direct electronic access in a
manner that impairs the Commission’s
regulatory functions. The Commission
intends to be flexible, when possible, in
regards to the methods and forms of
direct electronic access an SDR may
utilize, especially in the context of
technological advancement, and
believes that the definition ensures an
appropriate level of discretion as to
whether a method of direct electronic
access is acceptable.
The Commission believes final
§ 49.17(b)(3) will not hinder or prevent
an SDR from incorporating new
technology for collecting or maintaining
SDR data, as long as the SDR data is
collected by the SDR and provided to
the Commission as required. The
Commission does, however, expect an
SDR to provide SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties with
commonly-used methods for reporting
SDR data and to not force SEFs, DCMs,
and reporting counterparties to
unnecessarily expend resources on
technology upgrades by unreasonably
limiting available reporting methods.
The Commission also expects SDRs to
be particularly accommodating of nonSD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties
173 Id.
174 DDR at 4 (stating that the Commission should
add the phrase ‘‘as soon as practicable, given the
nature of the instructions and the SDR’s
circumstances’’ at the end of the second sentence
of proposed § 49.17(c)(1)).
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75620
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
that may have limited resources to
devote to technology changes.
Similarly, final § 49.17(c)(1) is
intended to provide clarity and certainty
to SDRs regarding their responsibilities
and the Commission’s authority with
respect to how an SDR maintains and
transmits data to the Commission.175
The Commission believes it is critical
that it has the ability to instruct SDRs
regarding all aspects of SDR data
transfers to the Commission, including,
but not necessarily limited to, method of
transmission (e.g., electronic or nonelectronic transmission and file types
used for transmission), the timing of
data transmission, the frequency of data
transmission, the formatting of the data
to be transmitted (e.g., data feeds or
batch transmission), and the actual SDR
data to be transmitted. As noted above,
innovation and advances in technology
may provide alternative and more
efficient means for data transfer, so this
flexibility may facilitate the use of such
technology by SDRs and the
Commission. Also, the format,
frequency, and related matters may well
depend on the circumstances of a
particular context, so an inflexible rule
would not be appropriate.
With regard to the comments’
suggested revisions, the Commission
believes the revisions would unduly
constrain the Commission’s authority.
The Commission notes that it currently
works with SDRs to facilitate data
transfers and implement technology
changes.176 The Commission fully
expects to continue to collaborate with
SDRs to ensure any Commission
instructions or changes requested
pursuant its authority in § 49.17(c)(1)
are practical and reasonable, and
provide SDRs with the requisite time for
implementation. To do otherwise would
be counterproductive and harmful to the
175 While these revisions may appear to broaden
the scope of the Commission’s ability to define the
terms of data transfer to the Commission, existing
§ 45.13 provides the Commission broad discretion
in instructing SDRs on how to send data to the
Commission to enable the Commission to perform
its regulatory functions, increase market
transparency, and mitigate systemic risk. See Swap
Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 77
FR 2136, 2169 (Jan. 13, 2012) (requiring an SDR to
maintain all swap data reported to it in a format
acceptable to the Commission, and to transmit all
swap data requested by the Commission to the
Commission in an electronic file in a format
acceptable to the Commission); see also Part 49
Adopting Release at 54552 (stating that the
Commission does not believe that SDRs should
have the discretion or ability to determine the
appropriate data sets that should be provided to the
Commission).
176 Current SDR practice also reflects the
Commission’s wide discretion in instructing SDRs
in how to send data to the Commission, as the SDRs
currently send large amounts of data to the
Commission on a regular basis in various formats,
based on instructions provided by the Commission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Commission’s ability to fulfill its
regulatory functions. The Commission
believes the coordination and
collaboration between the Commission
and SDRs is, and will be, supported and
enhanced by clarity regarding the
Commission’s authority in this area.
This, in turn, will encourage SDRs and
the Commission to work together to
devise the most efficient and effective
ways for data transfer to the
Commission, while ensuring that the
Commission has the data it needs to
perform its regulatory functions.
M. § 49.18—Confidentiality
Arrangement
The Commission proposed to amend
existing § 49.18 177 to move the
delegation of authority provision in
§ 49.18(e) to proposed § 49.31(a)(8).178
Existing § 49.18(e) delegates to the
Director of DMO all functions reserved
to the Commission in § 49.18, including
the authority to specify the form of
confidentiality arrangements required
prior to disclosure of swap data by an
SDR to an appropriate domestic or
foreign regulator, and the authority to
limit, suspend, or revoke such
appropriate domestic or foreign
regulator’s access to swap data held by
an SDR.
This non-substantive amendment
does not change the functions delegated
by the Commission and, as discussed
further below, is intended to enable the
Commission to locate most delegations
of authority in proposed § 49.31. The
Commission did not receive any
comments on the proposed amendments
to § 49.18 and is adopting amendments
as proposed.
N. § 49.20—Governance Arrangements
(Core Principle 2)
The Commission proposed to amend
§ 49.20 179 to conform the regulation to
the amended definitions and related
numbering changes in final § 49.2.
Specifically, final § 49.20 amends the
citations to § 49.2(a)(14) in
§ 49.20(b)(2)(v) and to § 49.2(a)(1) in
§ 49.20(c)(1)(ii)(B) to citations to
§ 49.2(a). The proposed amendments
also conform the provisions of
§ 49.20(b)(2)(vii) to reflect the
amendments in final § 49.2 to the
definitions of ‘‘SDR data,’’ ‘‘SDR
information,’’ ‘‘registered swap data
repository,’’ and ‘‘reporting entity.’’ 180
These non-substantive amendments to
177 17
CFR 49.18.
at 84 FR 21061 (May 13, 2019).
179 17 CFR 49.20.
180 Id.
178 Proposal
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
final § 49.20 do not affect the existing
requirements of the regulation.
The Commission did not receive any
comments on the proposed amendments
to § 49.20 and is adopting the
amendments as proposed.
O. § 49.22—Chief Compliance Officer
Existing § 49.22 sets forth an SDR’s
requirements with respect to its chief
compliance officer (‘‘CCO’’).181 The
Commission proposed to amend § 49.22
to clarify an SDR’s obligations, remove
unnecessary requirements, and make
technical corrections and nonsubstantive changes. The Commission
received a number of comments on the
proposed amendments to § 49.22,
including on the proposed amendments
to existing § 49.22(d)(2) with respect to
a CCO’s obligation to resolve conflicts of
interest.182
The Commission has determined not
to address the proposed amendments in
this final rulemaking, with the
exception of a number of technical
changes to conform § 49.22 to other
regulations amended in this final
rulemaking.183 The Commission notes
that a number of the proposed
amendments to § 49.22, including
provisions that were the subject of
public comment, mirror the
Commission’s proposed amendments to
the CCO requirements for SEFs under
§ 37.1501,184 which have not been
adopted to date. The Commission
believes it may be appropriate to
address the proposed amendments to
the CCO requirements for SDRs and for
SEFs concurrently, in order to maintain
consistency in the CCO requirements for
different registered entities, to the extent
appropriate. The Commission may do so
in a future rulemaking.
P. § 49.24—System Safeguards
The Commission proposed to make
non-substantive amendments § 49.24 185
to provide additional detail as to the
duties and obligations of an SDR under
the regulation and to make other
conforming technical changes.186
181 17
CFR 49.22.
e.g., IATP at 9–10 (asserting that the
proposed amendments that limit a CCO’s obligation
to resolve conflicts are not consistent with statutory
requirements).
183 As discussed above, the conforming changes
include the removal of the reference in § 49.22(f)(2)
to the annual filing of a Form SDR, which is not
required under final § 49.3(a)(5). The Commission
is also making a technical correction to final
§ 49.22(f)(3) to correct a reference to nonexistent
§ 49.22(e)(67). The correct reference is to existing
§ 49.22(e)(6).
184 17 CFR 37.1501. See Swap Execution
Facilities and Trade Execution Requirement, 83 FR
61946, 62032 (Nov. 30, 2018).
185 17 CFR 49.24.
186 Proposal at 21063.
182 See,
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Existing § 49.24(d) requires an SDR’s
BC–DR plans, resources, and procedures
to enable an SDR to resume operations
and meet its regulatory duties and
obligations, and sets forth a nonexhaustive list of those duties and
obligations.187 The amendments to
existing § 49.24 expand the nonexhaustive list of duties and obligations
of an SDR under part 49 that are
enumerated in final § 49.24(d) to
include specific reference to §§ 49.10 to
49.21, § 49.23, and §§ 49.25 to 49.27.
The Commission emphasizes that the
part 49 provisions listed in the amended
regulation are only references intended
for clarification, and the amendments to
existing § 49.24(d) do not change any
requirements applicable to an SDR.
The Commission also proposed to
make technical amendments to
§ 49.24(i), to remove a reference to
§ 45.2. As described above, the
Commission is moving the SDR
recordkeeping requirements contained
in current § 45.2(f) and (g) to § 49.12 for
consistency and clarity purposes. This
proposed technical change would
conform § 49.24(i) to final §§ 45.2 and
49.12, but would not change any of the
requirements applicable to SDRs.
The Commission did not receive any
comments on the proposed amendments
to § 49.24 and is adopting the
amendments as proposed.
Q. § 49.25—Financial Resources
As discussed above, the Commission
proposed conforming changes to
existing § 49.25 188 to remove the
reference to existing § 49.9 and to core
principle obligations identified in
existing § 49.19.189 Proposed § 49.25(a)
would instead refer to SDR obligations
under ‘‘this chapter,’’ to be broadly
interpreted as any regulatory or
statutory obligation specified in part 49
of the Commission’s regulations. These
technical amendments do not impact
any existing obligations of SDRs.
The Commission also proposed to
amend existing § 49.25(f)(3) to change
the deadlines for an SDR to submit the
financial resources report under
§ 49.25.190 Existing § 49.25(f)(3) requires
an SDR to submit the report no later
than 17 business days after the end of
the SDR’s fiscal quarter, or a later time
that the Commission permits upon
request. The proposed amendment to
existing § 49.25(f)(3) provides that an
SDR must submit its quarterly financial
resources report to the Commission not
later than 40 calendar days after the end
187 17
CFR 49.24(d).
CFR 49.25.
189 Proposal at 21063.
190 Id.
188 17
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
of the SDR’s first three fiscal quarters,
and not later than 90 calendar days after
the end of the SDR’s fourth fiscal
quarter, or such later time as the
Commission may permit in its
discretion. The Commission requested
comment on all aspects of proposed
§ 49.25.
One comment supported the
extension of the deadline for filings
financial reports under § 49.25, stating
that the amendment reduces burdens on
SDRs without material detriment to the
CFTC’s oversight.191
The Commission has determined to
adopt the proposed amendments to
§ 49.25, except for the proposed
amendments to 49.25(f)(3),which would
align the deadline for an SDR’s fourth
quarter financial resources report with
the deadline for an SDR to submit its
annual CCO report under proposed
§ 49.22(f)(2). As discussed above, the
Commission has determined not to
address the proposed changes to the
filing deadline for the annual
compliance report under § 49.22(f)(2) in
this final rulemaking, and accordingly,
the Commission is not adopting the
related proposed amendment to
§ 49.25(f)(3).
R. § 49.26—Disclosure Requirements of
Swap Data Repositories
Section 49.26 requires an SDR to
furnish SEFs, DCMs, and reporting
counterparties with an SDR disclosure
document that sets forth the risks and
costs associated with using the services
of the SDR, and contains the
information specified in § 49.26(a)
through (i).192 The Commission
proposed to add a new § 49.26(j)
providing that an SDR disclosure
document must set forth the SDR’s
policies and procedures regarding the
reporting of SDR data to the SDR,
including the SDR’s data validation
procedures, swap data verification
procedures, and procedures for
correcting SDR data errors.193 The
Commission also proposed to amend
existing § 49.26 to conform terms in the
regulation to proposed § 49.2.194 The
Commission has determined to adopt
the amendments to § 49.26 as proposed.
The addition of final § 49.26(j) is
intended to provide information about
an SDR’s operations to market
participants in order to assist them in
191 DDR
at 5.
CFR 49.26.
193 Proposal at 21063–64.
194 Id. at 21063. Specifically, the proposed
amendments to the introductory paragraph of
§ 49.26 reflect updates to the terms ‘‘SDR data,’’
‘‘registered swap data repository,’’ and ‘‘reporting
entity.’’ These non-substantive amendments do not
change the current requirements of § 49.26.
192 17
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75621
making decisions regarding which SDR
to use for swaps reporting.195 Moreover,
requiring an SDR to disclose its data
reporting policies and procedures, data
validation procedures, swap data
verification procedures, and SDR data
correction procedures should reduce the
number of data errors and improve data
quality by providing SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties with the
information needed to properly design
their reporting systems before any
reporting occurs.196 The Commission
notes that the disclosure requirements
in § 49.26(j) apply for all SDR data
required to be reported, as applicable.
The Commission requested comment
on all aspects of proposed § 49.26. The
Commission also invited specific
comment on whether the Commission
should require an SDR to disclose any
other information under § 49.26.197
Two comments supported the
proposed disclosure requirements under
§ 49.26(j).198 One of these comments
also suggested requiring an SDR to
disclose any revisions to the policies
specified in proposed 49.26(j) at a
reasonable time before
implementation.199 Similarly, the other
comment suggested that an SDR should
be required to provide any revisions to
such policies and procedures promptly
to a reporting counterparty.200
The Commission has determined to
adopt the amendments to § 49.26(j) as
proposed. With regard to the
suggestions in the comments, the
Commission notes that the requirement
to make the specified disclosures in
§ 49.26 is an ongoing requirement that
applies to an SDR ‘‘[b]efore accepting
any swap data from [the relevant party]
. . . ’’ Accordingly, the Commission
believes § 49.26(j), as proposed and
adopted, requires an SDR to update the
required disclosures if the SDR revises
the policies or procedures specified in
§ 49.26(j). Moreover, under part 40, an
SDR would be required to file with the
Commission revisions to the policies
and procedures required to be disclosed
§ 49.26(j).201 Under part 40, such filings
are generally required to be made
publicly available.202
195 See
id.
id.
197 Id. at 21064.
198 ISDA/SIFMA at 43; CS at 3.
199 ISDA/SIFMA at 43.
200 CS at 3.
201 See 17 CFR 40.6(a).
202 See, e.g., 17 CFR 40.6(a)(2) (requiring a
registered entity that self-certifies a rule or rule
amendment under § 40.6 to post a notice of pending
certification with the Commission and a copy of the
submission, concurrent with the filing of a
submission with the Commission, on the registered
entity’s website); See also 17 CFR 40.8(c) (providing
196 See
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
Continued
25NOR2
75622
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
S. § 49.28—Operating Hours of Swap
Data Repositories
The Commission proposed to add a
new § 49.28 to address an SDR’s
obligations with respect to its hours of
operation, which are currently set forth
in existing § 43.3(f) and (g).203 The
Commission proposed to (i) move the
provisions in existing § 43.3(f) and (g) to
proposed § 49.28 and (ii) amend the
provisions so that the operating hours
requirements also apply with respect to
an SDR’s responsibilities under parts 45,
46, and 49.204 The amendments to these
requirements reflect the Commission’s
belief that SDRs should operate as
continuously as possible while still
being afforded the opportunity to
perform necessary testing, maintenance,
and upgrades of their systems.
The Commission has determined to
adopt § 49.28 as proposed. The
Commission continues to believe that
the continuous operation of SDRs is
critical to the proper functioning of the
swaps market and the SDR data
reporting process. Moreover, the need
for continuous operation of SDRs is not
limited to the receipt and dissemination
of swap transaction and pricing data
pursuant to part 43. Rather, an SDR
must be able to continuously perform all
of its responsibilities under the
Commission’s regulations. To this end,
proposed and final § 49.28 expands the
obligations of an SDR to continuously
accept, promptly record, and publicly
disseminate all SDR data reported to the
SDR.
While the Commission strongly
encourages SDRs to adopt redundant
systems to allow public reporting during
closing hours, final § 49.28 continues to
allow SDRs to schedule downtime to
perform system maintenance. However,
the Commission continues to believe
that disruptions to the data reporting
process due to closing hours should be
as limited as possible, with advance
notice of, or, if not possible, notice
promptly after, closing.
The need for continuous operations of
SDRs also mandates that SDRs minimize
and mitigate disruptions caused by
necessary downtime or unexpected
disruptions, to the extent reasonably
possible. Therefore, final § 49.28
requires an SDR to have the capacity to
that a registered entity’s filing of new rules and rule
amendments for Commission review and approval
or pursuant to the self-certification procedures in
part 40 shall be treated as public information unless
accompanied by a request for confidential
treatment).
203 Proposal at 21064. The Commission believes
that is beneficial to SDRs and market participants
to move all SDR operating hours requirements to
part 49 from part 43.
204 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
receive and hold in queue data reported
to it, and to process and disseminate
that data following a resumption in its
operations. The Commission
emphasizes that it expects SDRs to be
able to accept and hold in queue SDR
data that is reported during closing
hours. The inability to accept and hold
in queue SDR data should be a rare
occurrence that results from
unanticipated emergency situations, and
the provisions in final § 49.28(c)(2) are
intended as a last resort to prevent data
loss.
As discussed below, the requirements
of final § 49.28 also include many of the
requirements of the SEC’s operating
hours regulations governing SBSDRs in
order to increase consistency between
the regulations for SDRs and SBSDRs.205
1. General Requirements—§ 49.28(a)
Existing § 43.3(f) requires an SDR to
have systems in place to continuously
receive and publicly disseminate swap
transaction and pricing data in realtime. Existing § 43.3(f) allows an SDR to
declare closing hours to perform system
maintenance, while requiring that the
SDR must, to the extent reasonably
possible, avoid scheduling closing hours
when, in its estimation, the U.S. market
and major foreign markets are most
active.206
These provisions were adopted based
on the Commission’s belief that the
global nature of the swaps market
necessitates that SDRs be able to
publicly disseminate swap transaction
and pricing data at all times and that
SDRs should generally be fully
operational 24 hours a day, seven days
a week.207
Proposed and final § 49.28(a) require
an SDR to have systems in place to
continuously accept and promptly
record all SDR data reported to the SDR,
and publicly disseminate swap
transaction and pricing data reported to
the SDR as required under part 43.
205 The SEC’s operating hours regulations are
contained in 17 CFR 242.904. While current
§ 43.3(f) allows SDRs to schedule closing hours
while avoiding the times that, in an SDR’s
estimation, U.S. markets and major foreign markets
are most active, and requires the SDRs to provide
advance notice of closing hours to market
participants and the public, current § 43.3(f) does
not make a distinction between regular closing
hours and special closing hours. The distinction is
present, however, in operating hours requirements
for SBSDRs, and final § 49.28(a)(1) and (2) largely
adopts the SBSDR requirements. These
requirements make clear that an SDR may establish
both normal and special closing hours and allow an
SDR that also registers with the SEC as an SBSDR
to effectively follow the same operating hours
requirements for both requirements.
206 17 CFR 43.3(f).
207 See Real-Time Public Reporting of Swap
Transaction Data, 77 FR 1182, 1204 (Jan. 9, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00202
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Final § 49.28(a)(1) allows an SDR to
establish normal closing hours to
perform system maintenance during
periods when, in the SDR’s reasonable
estimation, the SDR typically receives
the least amount of SDR data.208 Under
final § 49.28(a)(1), an SDR must provide
reasonable advance notice of its normal
closing hours to market participants and
to the public.
Final § 49.28(a)(2) allows an SDR to
declare, on an ad hoc basis, special
closing hours to perform system
maintenance that cannot wait until
normal closing hours. Similar to final
§ 49.28(a)(1), final § 49.28(a)(2) requires
an SDR to schedule special closing
hours during periods when, in the
SDR’s reasonable estimation, the special
closing hours would, to the extent
possible given the circumstances
prompting the special closing hours, be
least disruptive to the SDR satisfying its
SDR data-related responsibilities. Final
§ 49.28(a)(2) also requires an SDR to
provide reasonable advance notice of
the special closing hours to market
participants and the public whenever
possible, and, if advance notice is not
reasonably possible, to notify market
participants and the public as soon as is
reasonably possible after declaring
special closing hours.
2. Part 40 Requirement for Closing
Hours—§ 49.28(b)
Proposed and final § 49.28(b) require
an SDR to comply with the
requirements under part 40 of the
Commission’s regulations when
adopting or amending normal closing
hours and special closing hours.209 This
requirement is already applicable to
SDRs pursuant to current § 43.3(f)(3).210
The Commission anticipates that, due to
the unexpected and emergency nature of
special closing hours, rule filings related
to special closing hours will likely
qualify for the emergency rule
certification provisions of
§ 40.6(a)(6).211
208 This reflects a minor change from the existing
requirements of § 43.3(f)(2), which provides that an
SDR shall, to the extent reasonably possible, avoid
scheduling closing hours when, in its estimation,
the U.S. market and major foreign markets are most
active. The Commission believes that final
§ 49.28(a)(1) provides a better measure of when an
SDR should schedule closing hours.
209 The establishment or change to closing hours
constitutes a ‘‘rule’’ for the purposes of part 40
requirements. See 17 CFR 40.1, et seq.
210 See 17 CFR 43.3(f)(3) (providing that a
registered swap data repository must comply with
the requirements under 17 CFR part 40 in setting
closing hours and must provide advance notice of
its closing hours to market participants and the
public).
211 See 17 CFR 40.6(a)(6) (setting forth the
requirements for implementing rules or rule
amendments in response to an emergency, as
defined under 17 CFR 40.1(h)).
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
3. Acceptance of SDR Data During
Closing Hours—§ 49.28(c)
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Existing § 43.3(g) addresses an SDR’s
obligations regarding swap transaction
and pricing data sent to the SDR for
publicly reportable swap transactions
during closing hours. The Commission
is moving existing § 43.3(g) to final
§ 49.28(c), and expanding the existing
requirements for swap transaction and
pricing data in current § 43.3(g) 212 to all
SDR data. Proposed and final § 49.28(c)
require an SDR to have the capability to
accept and hold in queue any and all
SDR data reported to the SDR during
normal closing hours and special
closing hours. Final § 49.28(c) is
intended to prevent the loss of any SDR
data that is reported to an SDR during
closing hours and to facilitate the SDR’s
prompt fulfillment of its data reporting
responsibilities, including public
dissemination of swap transaction and
pricing data, as applicable, once the
SDR reopens from closing hours. The
requirements in § 49.28(c) mirror the
requirements for an SBSDR to receive
and hold in queue information
regarding security-based swaps.213
Final § 49.28(c)(1) requires an SDR, on
reopening from normal or special
closing hours, to promptly process all
SDR data received during the closing
hours and, pursuant to part 43, publicly
disseminate swap transaction and
pricing data reported to the SDR that
was held in queue during the closing
hours. Final § 49.28(c)(1) expands the
existing requirements for an SDR to
disseminate swap transaction and
pricing data pursuant to § 43.3(g)(1) 214
to also include the prompt processing of
all other SDR data received and held in
queue during closing hours.215
212 See 17 CFR 43.3(g) (providing that during
closing hours, a registered swap data repository
must have the capability to receive and hold in
queue any data regarding publicly reportable swap
transactions pursuant to part 43).
213 See 17 CFR 242.904(c) (providing that during
normal closing hours, and to the extent reasonably
practicable during special closing hours, a
registered security-based swap data repository must
have the capability to receive and hold in queue
information regarding security-based swaps that has
been reported pursuant to §§ 242.900 through
242.909).
214 See 17 CFR 43.3(g)(1) (providing that upon
reopening after closing hours, a registered swap
data repository must promptly and publicly
disseminate the swap transaction and pricing data
of swaps held in queue, in accordance with the
requirements of part 43).
215 These requirements mirror the SBSDR
requirements for disseminating transaction reports
after reopening following closing hours. See 17 CFR
242.904(d) (providing that when a registered
security-based swap data repository re-opens
following normal closing hours or special closing
hours, it must disseminate transaction reports of
security-based swaps held in queue, in accordance
with the requirements of § 242.902).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Final § 49.28(c)(2) expands existing
requirements for swap transaction and
pricing data that an SDR cannot receive
and hold in queue during closing hours
in existing § 43.3(g)(2) to all SDR data
and also mirrors the requirements for an
SBSDR that cannot receive and hold in
queue information regarding securitybased swaps during closing hours.216
Final § 49.28(c)(2) requires an SDR to
immediately issue a notice to all SEFs,
DCMs, reporting counterparties, and the
public in the event that an SDR is
unable to receive or hold in queue any
SDR data reported during normal
closing hours or special closing hours.
Final § 49.28(c)(2) also requires an SDR
to issue a notice to all SEFs, DCMs,
reporting counterparties, and the public
that the SDR has resumed normal
operations immediately on
reopening.217 Lastly, final § 49.28(c)(2)
requires a SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty that was not able to report
SDR data to an SDR because of the
SDR’s inability to receive and hold in
queue any SDR data to immediately
report the SDR data to the SDR after the
SDR provides notice that it has resumed
normal operations.
Though final § 49.28 expands the
existing requirements of § 43.3(f) and (g)
to apply to all SDR data, the
Commission believes the regulation will
not lead to significant changes in the
operations of an SDR. The Commission
understands that, under current
practice, SDRs routinely receive and
hold in queue all SDR data submitted
during declared SDR closing hours,
regardless of whether that data is being
submitted pursuant to part 43.
Additionally, because the requirements
of final § 49.28 largely mirror the
requirements for an SBSDR to receive
and hold in queue information
216 See 17 CFR 242.904(e) (providing that if a
registered security-based swap data repository
could not receive and hold in queue transaction
information that was required to be reported
pursuant to §§ 242.900 through 242.909, it must
immediately upon re-opening send a message to all
participants that it has resumed normal operations.
Thereafter, any participant that had an obligation to
report information to the registered security-based
swap data repository pursuant to §§ 242.900
through 242.909, but could not do so because of the
registered security-based swap data repository’s
inability to receive and hold in queue data, must
promptly report the information to the registered
security-based swap data repository.).
217 Consistent with the current requirements
under part 43, an SDR may issue such notices to
its participants and the public by publicizing the
notices that the SDR is unable to receive and hold
in queue any SDR data and that the SDR has
resumed normal operations in a conspicuous place
on the SDR’s website. See 77 FR at 1205, n. 208
(Jan. 9, 2012) (allowing SDRs to provide reasonable
advance notice of its closing hours to participants
and the public by providing notices directly to its
participants or publicizing its closing hours in a
conspicuous place on its website).
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75623
regarding security-based swaps, final
§ 49.28 will not impose additional
requirements on an SDR that is also
registered as an SBSDR. Therefore, the
Commission believes that expanding the
operating hours requirements to all SDR
data would have little practical impact
on current SDR operations.
The Commission requested comment
on all aspects of proposed § 49.28. The
Commission also invited specific
comment on whether proposed § 49.28
provides SDRs sufficient flexibility to
conduct necessary maintenance on their
systems while facilitating the
availability of SDR data for the
Commission and the public.218
One comment stated that business
flow considerations should be taken
into account in addition to sufficient
flexibility for SDRs when considering
operating hours. The comment
suggested that proposed § 49.28(a)(1) be
revised to employ the phrase ‘‘based on
historical volume’’ in place of ‘‘in the
reasonable estimation of the [SDR]’’ to
describe the basis on which an SDR may
determine when it typically receives the
least amount of SDR data.219
Another comment supported the
proposed requirements in § 49.28(a)(2)
for normal closing hours and special
closing hours.220 This comment,
however, also opposed the requirement
in proposed § 49.28(b) that the adoption
or amendment of special closing hours
be subject to part 40 filing requirements.
The comment asserted that ‘‘for the
foreseeable future SDRs may need to
frequently make use of special closing
hours to accommodate changes to their
systems’’ and that requiring an SDR to
comply with part 40 in each such
instance would ‘‘impose an
administrative burden that does not
provide a corresponding benefit to
impacted parties.’’ 221
This comment also opposed the
requirement in proposed § 49.28(c)(2)
that an SDR provide notice of its
resumption of normal activities
following a period of time during which
it was unable to receive and hold in
queue any SDR data. The comment
asserted such notice is unnecessary
when the downtime was planned and
218 Proposal
at 21065.
at 42.
220 DDR at 6 (stating that these requirements
‘‘recognize the importance of system maintenance
to the safe operation of an SDR’s systems’’).
221 Id. (recommending that, instead of a making
a submission under part 40, an SDR should be
required to notify the Commission along with
market participants when declaring special closing
hours).
219 ISDA/SIFMA
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
75624
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
previously communicated to the SDR’s
members and the public.222
In response to the business flow
considerations comment, the
Commission believes an SDR is best
situated to make a judgement regarding
when it receives the least amount of
SDR data. The Commission agrees that
historical volume is one factor SDRs
may consider, but other considerations
may factor into an SDR’s determination,
so long as the estimation is reasonable.
With regard to the comment on
proposed § 49.28(b), the Commission
notes that the regulation, as adopted,
does not impose requirements beyond
what is already required under part 40.
The Commission also notes that special
closing hours are intended for
unforeseeable, emergency situations, not
planned system updates and
maintenance, as described in the
comment. For planned system updates
or maintenance, under the normal
closing hours provisions, an SDR could
use a single part 40 filing for all planned
updates or maintenance, to the extent
that the SDR knows the schedule for
such activities. The Commission would
expect SDRs to plan anticipated system
updates or maintenance, and the related
closing hours determinations, well
ahead of time and for SDRs to follow the
normal closing hours requirements, and
their reasonable discretion on timing of
such closing hours, when performing
the system updates or maintenance.
With regard to the comment on
proposed § 49.28(c)(2), the Commission
believes that in circumstances where an
SDR is unable to receive and hold in
queue SDR data, keeping impacted
parties informed and updated as to
changes to the SDR’s operations is
critical to limiting potential negative
impacts caused by the disruption. The
Commission expects that instances
where an SDR is unable to receive and
hold in queue SDR will be the result of
emergency situations that prompt
special closing hours, as opposed to
planned and scheduled SDR system
outages. Such situations do not easily
allow for accurate planning or
estimation of when the SDR will resume
normal operations. Further, even for
planned outages, the scheduled outage
may not finish on schedule, for myriad
reasons, and it would be extremely
disruptive for market participants to
begin reporting SDR data to an SDR
based on an outdated estimate of when
the SDR would resume normal
operations. Accordingly, the
Commission believes an SDR should be
required to inform market participants
and the public that it has resumed
operations following a period during
which it was unable to receive and hold
SDR data, regardless of whether the
inability to receive and hold SDR was
planned and announced ahead of time.
T. § 49.29—Information Relating to
Swap Data Repository Compliance
The Commission proposed to add a
new § 49.29 to require an SDR to
provide, upon the Commission’s
request, information necessary for the
Commission to perform its duties or to
demonstrate the SDR’s compliance with
its obligations under the Act and
Commission regulations.223
Proposed § 49.29(a) would require an
SDR, upon request by the Commission,
to file with the Commission information
related to its business as an SDR and
information the Commission determines
to be necessary or appropriate for the
Commission to perform its duties under
the Act and Commission regulations
thereunder. The SDR must provide the
requested information in the form and
manner and within the time specified
by the Commission in its request.
Proposed § 49.29(b) would require an
SDR, upon request by the Commission,
to file with the Commission a written
demonstration, containing supporting
data, information, and documents, that
it is in compliance with its obligations
under the Act and the Commission’s
regulations. SDRs must provide the
written demonstration in the form and
manner and within the time specified
by the Commission in its request. The
Commission notes that the requests may
include, but are not limited to,
demonstrating compliance with the core
principles applicable to SDRs under
CEA section 21(f) and with any or all
requirements in part 49 of the
Commission’s regulations.
The Commission requested comment
on all aspects of proposed § 49.29 and
received one comment in response. The
comment generally supported proposed
§ 49.29,224 but also recommended that
the Commission revise § 49.29(a) and
49.29(b) to include the phrase ‘‘as soon
as practicable, given the nature of the
request and the SDR’s circumstances’’ in
order to recognize that SDRs will need
a reasonable amount of time to comply
with a request, and to encourage
collaboration with the SDR in
determining the appropriate form,
223 Proposal
at 21065–66.
at 6 (‘‘DDR supports the Commission’s
inclusion of a requirement to provide information
on an as needed basis in place of a requirement for
SDRs to file an annual Form SDR update in
proposed section 49.29.).’’
224 DDR
222 Id. (stating that in these situations, the
impacted parties would be prepared for the
resumption of normal operations and, therefore, a
notification to that effect is unnecessary).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
manner and timing associated with the
request.225 The comment also asserted
that the proposed language of § 49.29 is
vague and lacking detail, which would
hinder an SDR in determining what is
required to comply with the proposed
regulation.226
The Commission has determined to
adopt final § 49.29 as proposed. The
Commission believes that § 49.29, as
proposed and adopted, provides the
Commission with the necessary
flexibility to obtain information and
documentation to determine whether an
SDR is complying with applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements,
and to ensure that the Commission is
able to fulfill its responsibilities in the
oversight of SDRs. The Commission
notes that requests under § 49.29 may be
made for any Commission oversight
purpose. For example, the Commission
may request that an SDR provide
information relating to its operations or
its practices in connection with its
compliance with particular regulatory
duties and core principles, other
conditions of its registration, or in
connection with the Commission’s
general oversight responsibilities under
the Act. Final § 49.29 is also based on
similar existing Commission
requirements applicable to SEFs and
DCMs, which have successfully assisted
the Commission in obtaining needed
information from these registered
entities for many years without
difficulty.227
The Commission also notes that, as
discussed above, final § 49.29 facilitates
the removal of the requirement in
§ 49.3(a)(5) that an SDR file an annual
amendment to Form SDR, by allowing
the Commission to request the relevant
information as needed without requiring
an SDR to file a full Form SDR update.
The Commission believes the
comment’s proposed revisions would
unduly constrain the Commission’s
ability to obtain needed information in
a timely manner and inappropriately
restrict the Commission in fulfilling its
oversight responsibilities. However, the
Commission emphasizes that it intends
to coordinate and collaborate with SDRs
in formulating information requests
pursuant to § 49.29 in order to ensure
that such requests are reasonable, based
on the facts and circumstances, as is the
current practice between the
Commission and the SDRs.
225 DDR
at 6–7.
at 7.
227 See 17 CFR 37.5 and 38.5.
226 DDR
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
U. § 49.30—Form and Manner of
Reporting and Submitting Information
to the Commission
The Commission proposed to add a
new § 49.30 to place in one location the
requirements governing the form and
manner in which an SDR must provide
information to the Commission.228 Final
§ 49.30, as adopted in this final
rulemaking, requires SDRs to provide
reports and other information to the
Commission in ‘‘the form and manner’’
requested or directed by the
Commission. Other regulations within
part 49, such as final § 49.29, require an
SDR to provide reports and certain other
information to the Commission in the
‘‘form and manner’’ requested or
directed by the Commission. The
Commission has determined to adopt
§ 49.30 as proposed.
Final § 49.30 sets forth the broad
parameters of the ‘‘form and manner’’
requirement. Under final § 49.30, unless
otherwise instructed by the
Commission, an SDR must submit SDR
data reports and any other information
required to be provided to the
Commission under part 49 within the
time specified, using the format, coding
structure, and electronic data
transmission procedures approved in
writing by the Commission.
The Commission requested comment
on all aspects of proposed § 49.30. The
Commission also invited specific
comment on (i) whether the
Commission should provide a single
format or coding structure for each SDR
to deliver reports and other information
in a consistent manner; (ii) whether
existing standards and formats are
sufficient for providing the Commission
with requested information; and (iii)
whether the Commission should require
specific electronic data transmission
methods and/or protocols for SDRs to
disseminate reports and other
information to the Commission.229
One comment supported mandating
messaging formats for transmission from
an SDR to the Commission, but
emphasized the Commission should not
mandate the format for reporting from a
reporting counterparty to an SDR.230
Another comment recommended that
the Commission revise the text of
proposed § 49.30 to include the phrase
‘‘as soon as practicable, given the nature
of the request and the SDR’s
circumstances’’ after ‘‘[u]nless otherwise
instructed by the Commission.’’ 231 The
comment asserted that the suggested
revision recognizes an SDR will need a
228 Proposal
at 21066.
229 Id.
230 ISDA/SIFMA
231 DDR
at 42.
at 7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
reasonable amount of time to implement
technical changes necessary to comply
with the request and will encourage
collaboration between an SDR and
Commission in determining the
appropriate form, manner and timing
associated with the request.232 Similar
to the comment on § 49.29, noted above,
the comment also asserted that the
proposed language of § 49.30 is vague
and lacking detail as to data
transmission requirements, which may
be determined by the Commission at a
later time.233
The Commission has determined to
adopt § 49.30 as proposed. The
Commission notes that final § 49.30
does not expand the existing substantive
SDR informational requirements of part
49. Rather, the regulation authorizes the
Commission to specify how information
reported to an SDR under other
requirements of part 49 should be
formatted and delivered to the
Commission.
Under final § 49.30, the format,
coding structure, and electronic data
transmission procedures an SDR uses
for reports and submissions to the
Commission pursuant to part 49 must be
approved in writing by the Commission.
These written specifications could
include specifications similar to the
‘‘guidebooks’’ and other technical
specifications currently published on
the Commission’s website.234
Specifications may also be more limited
in their application, potentially
involving more specific or tailored
requirements applicable to a report or
information required by the
Commission from a particular SDR.
The Commission believes the
comment’s proposed revision may
unduly constrain the Commission’s
ability to adjust the process by which it
obtains information. However, the
Commission emphasizes that it intends
to continue to coordinate and
collaborate with SDRs in formulating
information requests and specifications
pursuant to § 49.30 in order to ensure
that such requests are reasonable, based
on the facts and circumstances, as is the
current practice for the Commission and
the SDRs.
232 Id.
233 Id.
234 The Commission’s current published
‘‘guidebooks’’ include those published for reporting
required by parts 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20 of the
Commission’s regulations relating to ownership and
control reports, large trader reports, and data
reporting. These guidebooks are available on the
Commission’s website at https://www.cftc.gov/
Forms/index.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75625
V. § 49.31—Delegation of Authority to
the Director of the Division of Market
Oversight Relating to Certain Part 49
Matters
The Commission proposed to add
new § 49.31 to set forth and consolidate
delegations of authority for part 49 of
the Commission’s regulations.235 A
number of current and proposed
provisions in part 49 require an SDR to
perform various functions at the
Commission’s request or to provide
information as prescribed or instructed
by the Commission. The Commission
proposed to adopt new § 49.31 by which
the Commission would delegate its
authority under most these of the part
49 provisions to the Director of DMO.
The new delegations are intended to
enhance the Commission’s ability to
respond to changes in the swaps market
and technological developments, to
quickly and efficiently access
information and data from SDRs to meet
the Commission’s oversight obligations,
and to more efficiently perform the
Commission’s regulatory functions.
More specifically, the Commission
proposed to delegate its authority under
the current and proposed part 49
regulations, as set forth below, to the
Director of DMO, and to such members
of the Commission’s staff acting under
his or her direction as he or she may see
fit from time to time.
The Commission did not receive any
comments on proposed § 49.31. The
Commission continues to believe the
proposed addition of § 49.31 and the
proposed new delegations thereunder
will improve the Commission’s ability
to respond to developments in the
swaps market, to access information and
data from SDRs, and to fulfill the
Commission’s oversight obligations.
Accordingly, the Commission is
adopting § 49.31 as proposed.
Final § 49.31(a)(1) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
authority to request documentation
related to an SDR equity interest transfer
pursuant to § 49.5.236
Final § 49.31(a)(2) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
authority to instruct an SDR on
transmitting open swaps reports to the
Commission pursuant to § 49.9.237
Final § 49.31(a)(3) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
authority under § 49.10 to modify an
SDR’s required acceptance of all SDR
data in a particular asset class for which
the SDR accepts data.
Final § 49.31(a)(4) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
235 Proposal
at 21066–67.
section II.C above.
237 See section II.E above.
236 See
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75626
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
authority under § 49.12 to request
records from an SDR.238
Final § 49.31(a)(5) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
authority under § 49.13 to require an
SDR to monitor, screen, and analyze
SDR data.239
Final § 49.31(a)(6) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
authority under § 49.16 to request that
an SDR disclose aggregated SDR data in
the form and manner prescribed by the
Commission.
Final § 49.31(a)(7) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
authority with respect to all functions
reserved to the Commission under
§ 49.17.240
Final § 49.31(a)(8) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
authority under § 49.18 to permit an
SDR to accept alternative forms of
confidentiality arrangements and the
ability to direct an SDR to limit,
suspend, or revoke access to swap
data.241
Final § 49.31(a)(9) delegates to the
Director of DMO the authority under
§ 49.22 to grant an SDR an extension to
the annual compliance report filing
deadline.
Final § 49.31(a)(10) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
authority under § 49.23 to require an
SDR to exercise emergency authority
and to request the documentation
underlying an SDR’s decision to
exercise its emergency authority.
Final § 49.31(a)(11) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
authority under § 49.24 to determine an
SDR to be a ‘‘critical SDR’’ and to
request copies of BC–DR books and
records, assessments, test results, plans,
and reports.
Final § 49.31(a)(12) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
authority under § 49.25, including the
authority under § 49.25(b)(2) to deem
other financial resources as acceptable;
the authority under § 49.25(c) to review
and require changes to an SDR’s
computations of projected operating
costs; the authority under § 49.25(f)(1) to
request reports of financial resources;
and the authority under § 49.25(f)(3) to
extend the deadline by which an SDR
must file a quarterly financial report.
238 See
section II.H above.
section II.I above.
240 This includes the authority to: prescribe the
form of direct electronic access that an SDR must
make available to the Commission; prescribe the
format by which an SDR must maintain SDR data;
request an SDR transmit SDR data to the
Commission; and instruct an SDR on the
transmission of SDR data to the Commission. See
section II.L above.
241 See section II.M above.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
239 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Final § 49.31(a)(13) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
authority under § 49.29 to request
information from an SDR, and to require
an SDR to provide a written
demonstration of its compliance with
the Act and Commission regulations,
including the authority to specify the
form, manner and time for the an SDR’s
provision of such information or written
demonstration.242
Final § 49.31(a)(14) delegates to the
Director of DMO the Commission’s
authority under § 49.30 to establish the
format, coding structure, and electronic
data transmission procedures for the
submission of SDR data reports and any
other information required by the
Commission under part 49.243
III. Amendments to Part 45
A. § 45.1—Definitions
The Commission is adding a
definition for the term ‘‘open swap’’ to
final § 45.1 that will define the term as
an executed swap transaction that has
not reached maturity or expiration, and
has not been fully exercised, closed out,
or terminated. The definition is
identical to the definition for ‘‘open
swap’’ added to final § 49.2 and is
intended to create consistency between
defined terms in parts 45 and 49 of the
Commission’s regulations. The term
‘‘open swap’’ is used is both final part
45 and part 49, particularly in regards
to the requirements related to swap data
verification, and consistency in the use
of the term across both parts is crucial
to ensure swap data verification
functions properly. See section II.A.3
above for a more robust discussion of
the definition of ‘‘open swap.’’
B. § 45.2—Swap Recordkeeping
As discussed above in Section II.H, as
part of the amendments to § 49.12, the
Commission proposed to consolidate
the SDR recordkeeping requirements set
forth in current § 45.2(f) and (g) into
§ 49.12. As discussed above, the
Commission has determined to adopt
the consolidation of § 45.2(f) and (g) into
§ 49.12, as proposed.
C. § 45.14—Correcting Errors in Swap
Data and Verification of Swap Data
Accuracy
1. Background and Summary of the
Final Rule
Pursuant to CEA section 2(a)(13)(G),
all swaps must be reported to an
SDR.244 The requirements for reporting
swaps to an SDR, including
242 See
section II.T above.
section II.U above.
244 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(13)(g).
243 See
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requirements regarding swap data, are
set forth in part 45 of the Commission’s
regulations.245 If the information for a
specific data element that is required to
be reported is incorrect, or swap data
was not reported as required, the SEF,
DCM, DCO, or reporting counterparty
that was required to report has not
satisfied its obligations under the Act
and the Commission’s regulations.
There is no expiration for the
requirement in the CEA and the
Commission’s regulations to report
swaps, and therefore, the requirement to
report swap data remains in effect until
satisfied. Accordingly, if swap data is
not completely and accurately reported,
the obligation to report the swap data
remains in effect. The Commission also
interprets the statutory requirement to
report swaps to include a requirement to
ensure that the reporting was performed
completely and accurately. Further, as
discussed in section II.G above, CEA
section 21(c)(2) requires SDRs to
confirm the accuracy of swap data with
both counterparties. The Commission
interprets this provision to require each
counterparty to participate in ensuring
the completeness and accuracy of swap
data.
Accordingly, in order to ensure the
high quality of swap data, the
Commission is adopting the proposed
rules, with modifications, to require
counterparties to take steps to ensure
the accuracy and completeness of swap
data reported to SDRs. In response to
comments, the Commission is
modifying final § 45.14 to make the
error-correction and verification
processes less burdensome and more
flexible than the processes set forth in
proposed § 45.14. To this end, final
§ 45.14(a)(1), as does current § 45.14,
requires each SEF, DCM, and reporting
counterparty to correct errors 246 relating
to swap data that it was required to
report under part 45. Further, final
§ 45.14(b) requires reporting
counterparties to verify the accuracy
and completeness of the swap data for
their open swaps. Final § 45.14(a)(2)
requires each non-reporting
245 See
generally 17 CFR part 45.
Commission notes that current § 45.14
and proposed § 45.14 both use the phrases ‘‘errors
and omissions’’ and ‘‘errors or omissions’’ in the
correction requirements. See generally 17 CFR
45.14 and Proposal at 21098–99. The Commission
is not including the word ‘‘omission’’ in final
§ 45.14 for simplicity purposes, but the Commission
emphasizes that all omissions of required swap
data, whether the omissions are the failure to report
individual data elements for a swap or the failure
to report all swap data for a swap, are errors that
must be corrected under final § 45.14, just as the
omissions must be corrected under current § 45.14.
The Commission makes clear in final § 45.14(c),
discussed below, that all omissions of required
swap data are errors under final § 45.14.
246 The
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
counterparty to notify the reporting
counterparty if it discovers an error.
Final § 45.14(a)(1) provides that any
SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty
that by any means 247 becomes aware of
any error relating to swap data that it
was required to report under part 45
must correct the error. This correction
requirement includes swap data for a
swap that has terminated, matured, or
otherwise is no longer considered to be
an open swap. As noted, there is no
expiration on the requirement to report
swaps, and the requirement includes all
swaps regardless of the state of the
swap.
However, final § 45.14(a)(3) provides
that the error correction requirement in
final § 45.14(a)(1) does not apply to
swaps for which the record retention
periods under § 45.2 of this part have
expired as of the time that the errors are
discovered. The Commission
determined that this exclusion is
appropriate, as SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties are not
required to maintain records related to
their swaps beyond the applicable
retention periods in § 45.2. The
exclusion therefore removes any
potential confusion as to the correction
of swaps beyond the retention period for
these swaps. The Commission further
notes that, with the adoption of the
verification requirement, the
Commission expects that errors will
generally be discovered during the
record retention period and the
exclusion will not have a significant
impact on the accuracy of swap data for
247 The Commission notes that, as explained in
the Proposal, ‘‘by any means’’ includes absolutely
any means that alerts a SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty to an error in the relevant swap data.
Awareness or discovery of errors to be corrected
would include, but would not be limited to, errors
present in the swap data during the verification
process specified in final § 45.14(b). This would
include swap data for any open swaps that should
be present in the swap data accessible through the
applicable SDR verification mechanism that are
omitted, or swap data for swaps that are no longer
open that is still accessible through the verification
mechanism, in addition to any other errors in the
swap data accessible through the verification
mechanism. The requirement would also include,
but is not limited to, a SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty being informed of errors by an outside
source, such as a non-reporting counterparty under
final § 45.14(a)(2), a SEF or DCM, or the
Commission; errors discovered by a SEF, DCM, or
reporting counterparty during a review of its own
records or a voluntary review of swap data
maintained by the SDR, including the discovery of
any over-reporting or under-reporting of swap data;
and the discovery of errors during the investigation
of a separate issue. The Commission also expects
that a SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty that
repeatedly discovers errors, especially repeated
errors that follow a pattern, such as the reporting
for a certain type of swap regularly resulting in
errors, would evaluate its reporting systems to
discover and correct any issues. See Proposal at
21069–70.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
future swaps. The Commission
emphasizes that a SEF, DCM, or
reporting counterparty may not in any
way attempt to avoid ‘‘discovering’’
errors, including, but not limited to, by
not performing thorough verification as
required under final § 45.14(b).
Final § 45.14(a)(1)(i) provides that
corrections must be made as soon as
technologically practicable after
discovery of an error. In all cases, errors
must be corrected within seven business
days after discovery. This deadline is
necessary to ensure that errors are
corrected in a timely manner. Final
§ 45.14(a)(1)(ii) provides that if an error
will not be corrected in a timely fashion,
the entity required to correct must
notify the Director of DMO, or such
other employee or employees of the
Commission as the Director may
designate from time to time, of the error.
The notification must be made within
twelve hours of when the determination
is made that the error will not be
corrected in time. This notification
requirement is necessary to alert the
Commission to problems with the
quality of swap data. The notification
must be made according to the
instructions that will be specified by the
Director of DMO, or such other
employee or employees of the
Commission as the Director may
designate from time to time. The
notification must generally include an
initial assessment of the scope of the
error or errors. If an initial remediation
plan exists, the notification must
include the initial remediation plan as
well.248
Final § 45.14(b) requires each
reporting counterparty to verify the
accuracy and completeness of swap data
for all of its open swaps. To perform
verification, each reporting counterparty
must utilize the mechanism adopted for
verification under § 49.11 by each SDR
the reporting counterparty uses for swap
data reporting. Each reporting
counterparty must use the relevant SDR
mechanism to compare all swap data for
each open swap that is maintained by
the SDR for which it is the reporting
counterparty with all swap data
contained in the reporting
counterparty’s internal books and
records to verify that there are no errors.
Final § 45.14(a)(1)(i) provides that any
error that is discovered or could have
been discovered during the performance
248 The Commission notes that, while final
§ 45.14(a)(1)(ii) only requires the entity to provide
an initial remediation plan with the notice if such
a plan exists, the Commission may also request
additional information regarding any error(s) and
the correction process at any time, including
requesting an updated or fully-developed
remediation plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75627
of the verification process is considered
discovered as of the moment the
verification process began, and the error
must be corrected accordingly. The
Commission determined that this rule is
necessary in order to ensure that
reporting counterparties diligently
perform verification.
Under final § 45.14(b)(1) and final
§ 49.11(b)(2), the verification
requirement entails verifying that there
are no errors for each data field for each
open swap that the reporting
counterparty was required to report
under this part. The Commission
determined that all swap data is
relevant, and that none of the data that
the Commission requires to be reported
is unnecessary. All swap data fields are
necessary to ensure the quality of all
swap data available to the Commission,
which the Commission uses to fully
perform its regulatory mission.
Accordingly, the verification
requirement applies to all reporting
counterparties, for all open swaps, and
for each required data element.
However, the Commission determined
that it is only necessary for reporting
counterparties to verify that there are no
errors in the up-to-date swap data for
each data field that is required to be
reported under part 45 of this chapter,
and it is unnecessary to require
verification of data reporting messages.
Accordingly, SDRs are only required to
make available to reporting
counterparties the most current swap
data the SDR maintains using the
verification mechanism, as discussed
above in II.G, and reporting
counterparties are only required to
verify using the swap data available
through this mechanism under final
§ 45.14(b).
Final § 45.14(b)(4) provides the
minimum frequency at which a
reporting counterparty must perform
verification. A reporting counterparty
that is an SD, MSP, or DCO, must
perform verification once every thirty
calendar days. All other reporting
counterparties must perform verification
once every calendar quarter, provided
that there are at least two calendar
months between verifications.
The Commission determined that
these time frames are sufficient to
ensure the quality of swap data because
SDs, MSPs, and DCOs serve as reporting
counterparties for the overwhelming
majority of swap data,249 meaning the
overwhelming majority of open swaps
would be verified on a monthly basis.
249 See De Minimis Exception to the Swap Dealer
Definition, 83 FR 56666, 56674 (Nov. 13, 2018)
(stating that, in 2017, approximately 98 percent of
swap transactions involved at least one registered
SD).
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
75628
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
The Commission also believes that nonSD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties
may include various entities that would
bear a significant burden to verify swap
data more often than quarterly, without
a corresponding increase in data quality,
because these entities are more likely to
not have the same resources and
experience to devote to verification as
SD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties
and are only responsible for verifying a
small proportion of swaps. The
Commission further determined that
final § 45.14(b)(4)(ii) requiring a
duration of at least two calendar months
between quarterly verifications for nonSD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties
is necessary to ensure that there is
sufficient time between verifications to
adequately ensure data quality.
Under final § 45.14(b), a reporting
counterparty is not required to notify
the relevant SDR regarding the result of
a verification,250 as was required under
proposed § 45.14(a).251 The Commission
determined that in order to ensure the
quality of swap data, it is sufficient for
the Commission to have the ability to
confirm that verification was performed
timely and properly, and to enforce the
verification and error correction
requirements. Therefore, the notification
of the result of a verification is not
necessary to ensure data quality or to
fulfill the SDR’s obligation to confirm
the accuracy of data under CEA section
21. Accordingly, final § 45.14(b)(5)
requires each reporting counterparty to
keep a log of each verification that it
performs. The log must include all
errors discovered during the
verification, as well as the corrections
made under final § 45.14(a). Final
§ 45.14(b)(5) further clarifies that the
requirement to keep a verification log is
in addition to all other applicable
recordkeeping requirements.
Non-reporting counterparties must
also participate in ensuring that errors
in swap data are corrected, although to
a much smaller degree than reporting
counterparties. Final § 45.14(a)(2)
provides that a non-reporting
counterparty that by any means
discovers an error must notify the
reporting counterparty of the error. The
notification must be made as soon as
technologically practicable after
discovery, but not later than three
business days following discovery of the
error. The Commission notes that nonreporting counterparties are not
required to verify swap data, and that
250 However, as noted, under final § 45.14(a)(1)(i)
and final § 45.14(b)(3), if the reporting counterparty
discovered, or could have discovered, an error, the
reporting counterparty is required to correct the
error under final § 45.14(a)(1).
251 See Proposal at 21099.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
the notification only needs to include
the errors that the non-reporting
counterparty discovers. To the extent
that an error exists, the reporting
counterparty will be required to correct
the error under the requirements of final
§ 45.14(a)(1). The Commission
determined that this notification
requirement is necessary to ensure the
quality of swap data. The Commission
further determined that the threebusiness-day notification deadline is
necessary to ensure that the nonreporting counterparty will notify the
reporting counterparty of errors in a
timely manner.
The Commission recognizes that a
non-reporting counterparty may not
know the identity of the reporting
counterparty. Accordingly, § 45.14(a)(2)
provides that when the non-reporting
counterparty does not know the identity
of the reporting counterparty, the nonreporting counterparty must notify the
SEF or DCM where the swap was
executed of the error in the same time
frame for notifying the reporting
counterparty. Such notification
constitutes discovery of the error for the
SEF or DCM for purpose of the SEF’s or
DCM’s error correction requirement
under final § 45.14(a).
Errors are described in final
§ 45.14(c), which provides that for the
purposes of § 45.14, there is an error
when swap data is not completely and
accurately reported. Under final
§ 45.14(c)(1), errors include, but are not
limited to, where swap data is reported
to an SDR, or is maintained by an SDR,
containing incorrect information (i.e.
the swap data is present, but is
incorrect); where some required swap
data for a swap is reported to an SDR,
or is maintained by an SDR, and other
required swap data is omitted (i.e. some
required swap data elements are blank);
where no required swap data for a swap
is reported to an SDR, or maintained by
an SDR, at all (i.e. none of the swap data
was reported as required and/or is
missing from the SDR); and where swap
data for swaps that are no longer open
is maintained by an SDR as if the swaps
are still open (i.e., swap data for swaps
that are no longer open swaps is still
available during the verification
process).252 In each of these
252 The Commission notes that for each of these
examples the entity responsible for the error may
or may not be the entity that is required to correct
the error. For example, if an SDR fails to record
swap data that a reporting counterparty properly
reported, it will still be the reporting counterparty
that reports the error. The Commission emphasizes
that the error correction process is one overarching
requirement intended to result in accurate and
complete swap data, regardless of the entities
involved and their respective roles in any particular
error correction. The SEFs, DCMs, and reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
circumstances, among others, swap data
is not complete and accurate.
Under § 45.14(c)(2), there is a
presumption that, for the purposes of
§ 45.14, an error exists if the swap data
that is maintained and disseminated by
an SDR for a swap is not complete and
accurate. The Commission determined
that this presumption is necessary
because the swap data maintained and
disseminated by the SDRs is the same as
the swap data available to the
Commission and it is necessary to
ensure the accuracy of that swap data
for the Commission’s regulatory
purposes. Further, the presumption that
the swap data maintained and
disseminated by SDRs is the same as the
swap data that was reported is implicit
in the structure of swap data reporting
under CEA section 21. Under CEA
section 21(c)(4) and (7), an SDR is
required to make the swap data it
maintains available to the Commission
and to certain other regulators. This
requirement only serves its purpose if
there is a presumption that the swap
data maintained by the SDR is the same
as the swap data that was reported to
the SDR.
2. Comments on the Proposal
The Commission received a number
of comments on the Proposal
recommending limitations on the scope
of the error correction rules. Comments
recommended that the error correction
rules should only apply to open
swaps 253 or that error correction rules
should only apply in a limited fashion
to swaps that are not open.254 These
comments included recommendations
to add a materiality threshold to the
requirement to correct errors for swaps
that are not open; 255 to limit the
requirement to correct errors to specific
data elements, such as counterparty,
price, and product; 256 to limit the
requirement to correct errors to errors
that are discovered within the relevant
record retention period for the swap; 257
and to limit the requirement to correct
errors to certain reporting
counterparties.258
counterparties have the responsibility to correct
errors to the SDR once they are discovered, even if
the SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty is not at
fault for the error, which is an independent
responsibility from the responsibility to
successfully report or maintain swap data. The
Commission would endeavor to hold the entity
responsible for the reporting error accountable for
the failure to correctly report or maintain the
erroneous swap data, as applicable, regardless of
which entity corrects the error under final § 45.14.
253 FIA at 9; Chatham at 4–5.
254 ISDA/SIFMA at 46; FIA at 9.
255 CS at 3.
256 ISDA/SIFMA at 47; FIA at 9.
257 Id.
258 Joint Associations at 10–12.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
The Commission generally does not
agree with the recommendations to
exclude swaps that are no longer open
from the full requirement to correct
errors. There is no expiration in the CEA
and the Commission’s regulations on
the requirement to report swap data. If
there is an error in the reporting of swap
data, the reporting counterparty has not
fulfilled its requirement to report swap
data. Further, the Commission utilizes
data regarding swaps that are no longer
open in a variety of ways, including in
its market and economic analyses and in
its enforcement and administration of
the provisions of the CEA. It is therefore
necessary to ensure that swap data for
these swaps does not contain errors.
Although the Commission is limiting
the verification requirements to open
swaps, the Commission is doing so
because the verification of swaps that
are no longer open is not as practicable
as with open swaps, not because it is
unnecessary to ensure that swap data
from these swaps is free from error.
The Commission similarly declines to
accept recommendations to limit the
scope of the error correction rules by
adopting a materiality requirement, or
by limiting the application of the rules
to only certain data elements. A
reporting counterparty does not satisfy
the requirement to report swap data
until all required elements are
accurately reported. Further, all the
required swap data elements are
significant and required in order for the
Commission to perform its regulatory
functions. As a result, it is necessary for
the Commission to ensure that the swap
data for every data element is accurate.
However, the Commission agrees with
the recommendation to exclude errors
that are discovered after the expiration
of the relevant recordkeeping
requirement. The Commission
recognizes that it would be
impracticable for SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties to be required
to correct such errors, as these entities
are not required to keep records of swap
data beyond the applicable retention
periods, and these records would be
necessary to discover and correct errors.
Accordingly, final § 45.14(a)(3) excludes
such errors from the error correction
requirement.
The Proposal provided that errors
must be corrected as soon as
technologically practicable after
discovery, but no later than three
business days after discovery.259 The
Proposal, like final § 45.14(a)(1)(ii), also
included a requirement to notify the
Director of DMO if an error will not be
259 See Proposal at 21099 (proposed
§ 45.14(b)(1)(i)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
timely corrected.260 The Commission
received a number of comments on
these rules. Comments generally
recommended limiting the notification
requirement by expanding the time
frame to correct errors.261 Comments
also stated that three business days may
not be sufficient time to identify the
scope of the errors and develop a
remediation plan.262 Other comments
recommended including a materiality
threshold to the notification
requirement,263 and adopting a
principles-based rule that would
provide greater flexibility regarding the
deadline for correcting errors.264 Other
comments recommended not adopting
the three-day deadline and the
notification requirement,265 and instead
replacing the notification requirement
with a requirement to maintain a log of
errors and remediation and only require
notification for material errors and only
after ‘‘due review of the facts and
circumstances.’’ 266
The Commission does not agree with
the recommendations to replace or not
adopt the notification requirement. The
purpose of the notification requirement
is to provide the Commission with the
information that it needs to assess the
accuracy of swap data. The notification
requirement is not punitive. However,
to make the notification more useful to
the Commission, the Commission
accepts the recommendation for a longer
notification time frame and final
§ 45.14(a)(1)(ii) extends the notification
deadline for correcting errors to seven
business days. This longer time frame
will provide the entity making the
correction time to develop a more
accurate understanding of the scope of
the error. The Commission also agrees
with the recommendations that it may
not be feasible in every case to develop
an initial remediation plan.
Accordingly, final § 45.14(a)(1)(ii)
provides that the notification needs to
include the initial remediation plan, but
only if one exists.267
The Commission received several
comments recommending against
requiring reporting counterparties to
260 See
id. (proposed § 45.14(b)(1)(ii)).
e.g., CEWG at 5.
262 Id.; ISDA/SIFMA at 46.
263 Id. at 5–6.
264 ICE Clear at 3–4.
265 FIA at 8; Joint Associations at 13.
266 ISDA/SIFMA at 46.
267 The current common practice for market
participants is to notify DMO after discovering
reporting errors and to develop a remediation plan
once a solution for the errors is formulated. The
Commission expects that this practice will
continue, but notes that final § 45.14(a)(1)(ii) does
not require the notification of the failure to timely
correct an error to include an initial remediation
plan if one does not yet exist.
261 See,
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75629
verify their swap data. Several
commenters stated that improving SDR
validations and the required data
elements is a more efficient way to
increase data accuracy than the
proposed verification rules.268 Other
commenters stated that verification is
unnecessary because it would only
marginally improve the data accuracy,
and the burden on reporting
counterparties outweighs that marginal
gain.269 Other commenters stated that
verification is unnecessary because the
extent of errors in swap data is
unknown.270 The Commission also
received several comments generally
supporting the proposed verification
rule, asserting that it will help to ensure
the high quality of swap data.271
The Commission does not agree with
the recommendations against requiring
verification. As noted above, the
Commission interprets the requirement
to report data to an SDR in section
2(a)(13)(G) of the CEA to include a
requirement that the reporting
counterparty verifies that it accurately
complied with the requirement. The
Commission also interprets the
requirement in section 21(c)(2) of the
CEA for SDRs to confirm the accuracy
of reported data with the counterparties
to also include a requirement for
counterparties to participate in ensuring
the swap data accuracy, as not including
counterparties in the confirmation
process would render the statutory
requirement useless. The purpose of the
verification requirement is to ensure the
quality of swap data, as required by the
Act. Improving SDR validations and
standardizing the data elements alone
will not accomplish this, because a
swap data error that is still a plausible
value, such as reporting a notional value
of $1,000,000 instead of the correct
notional value of $10,000,000, would
not be caught by validations. Only a
review of the swap data by the
counterparty that is responsible for
reporting the swap data would catch
this error.
Additionally, the Commission has
ample experience with the existence of
swap data errors that would pass
validations that, in the absence of an
adequate verification requirement,
persisted for long periods of time before
being discovered and corrected. The
Commission cannot know the precise
nature and scope of existing errors that
have not been corrected, which the
268 Chatham at 6; FIA at 7–8; ICE TV at 2–4;
NGSA at 4; Joint Associations at 6–10; Eurex at 2;
CEWG at 2–3.
269 FIA at 2–3.
270 Chatham at 5; GIFMA at 14.
271 Joint SDR at 1; IATP at 1–7; LCH at 4; Markit
at 2.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
75630
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
verification requirement is designed to
address, because the errors are not
obvious from the swap data and will not
be knowable to the Commission unless
and until they are discovered and
corrected. However, based on its
experience, the Commission has
determined that data quality can be
further improved by requiring
verification, and doing so is consistent
with the requirements in the Act to
report swap data and to verify the
accuracy of the reported swap data.
The Commission also received
comments regarding which
counterparties should be required to
perform verifications. Comments
recommended excluding specific
reporting counterparties, including end
users with centralized trading
structures,272 non-bank SDs and
reporting counterparties that are not SDs
or MSPs,273 ‘‘unregistered end
users,’’ 274 reporting counterparties that
report less than fifty-one swaps per
month,275 and DCOs.276 The
Commission rejects these
recommendations to exempt any classes
of reporting counterparties from
verification. As noted, the requirement
under section 2(a)(13)(G) of the CEA to
verify that swap data was reported
correctly and the requirement under
section 21(c)(2) to confirm the accuracy
of swap data applies to all reporting
counterparties, regardless of size,
registration status, type, or how
frequently the reporting counterparty
report swaps. All reporting
counterparties are, by definition, also
users of at least one SDR and are fully
capable of communicating with an SDR
to report swap data and correct swap
data as required, whether directly or
through the use of a third-party service
provider, and are also therefore fully
capable of verifying swap data through
an SDR-provided mechanism, as
required by final § 45.14(b). Further, all
swap data for all swaps is significant,
material, and important for the
Commission’s performance of its
regulatory responsibilities. Verification
is necessary to ensure that the swap data
is free from errors, and every reporting
counterparty performing verification as
required is essential to rooting out swap
data errors.
The Commission notes that although
CEA section 21(c)(2) also includes nonreporting counterparties in the
obligation to confirm the accuracy of
reported swap data, the Commission
272 Prudential
at 1–2.
273 NGSA at 1–4.
274 Freddie Mac at 2.
275 COPE at 3.
276 lCH at 3–4; ICE Clear at 2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
determined that it is unnecessary to
require non-reporting counterparties to
perform verification. The Act places the
burden of reporting on the reporting
counterparty, and, as the only
counterparty with swap data reporting
responsibilities, the reporting
counterparty is best positioned to
perform verification. Commenters
generally supported this
determination.277 Comments stated that
non-reporting counterparties will
generally not be able to communicate
with the relevant SDR(s), and that it will
be very uncommon for there to be
discrepancies between the data
maintained by the reporting
counterparty and the non-reporting
counterparty, such that the reporting
counterparty’s verification is sufficient
to ensure the quality of swap data.278
The Commission also received
comments recommending changes to
the proposed verification rule. The
proposed rule required reporting
counterparties that are SDs, MSPs, or
DCOs to perform verification weekly
and all other reporting counterparties to
perform verification monthly.279
Instead, commenters recommended
adopting a rule that would require
verification to be performed less
frequently. One suggested alternative
was to adopt a more ‘‘principles based’’
approach, under which reporting
counterparties would periodically
perform verification less frequently than
the proposed rule required.280 One
comment recommended that
verification should only be required to
be performed monthly by all reporting
counterparties.281 Another comment
recommended that verification should
only be required to be performed
monthly by reporting counterparties
that are SDs, and quarterly by all other
reporting counterparties.282 The
Commission accepts the
recommendation that it is not necessary
for verification to be performed with the
frequency of the Proposal in order to
meet the Commission’s swap data
quality needs. Accordingly, final
§ 45.14(b)(4) provides that a reporting
counterparty that is an SD, MSP or DCO
must perform verification once every
thirty calendar days, and all other
reporting counterparties must perform
verification once every calendar quarter,
provided that there are at least two
277 Joint Associations at 13; ISDA/SIFMA at 39;
Chatham at 1–2; COPE at 2; Joint SDR at 2; ICI at
10–11.
278 GIFMA at 4; Chatham at 1–2.
279 Proposal at 84 FR 21103 (May 13, 2019).
280 CS at 3; FIA at 7–8; ISDA/SIFMA at 45.
281 GIFMA at 5.
282 ISDA/SIFMA at 45.
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
calendar months between the quarterly
verifications.
The Commission also received
comments on the scope of the data that
must be verified. The verification rule in
the Proposal would apply to all required
swap data fields for all open swaps.283
The Commission received comments in
support of limiting the verification
requirement to only the required swap
data elements and not to all swap data
messages.284 The Commission also
received a comment recommending that
the verification rule should be limited to
specific data elements, such as
economic terms.285
The Commission declines to accept
the recommendation to limit the scope
of the verification requirement. Every
data field that is required to be reported
to the Commission is significant and
necessary for the Commission’s
performance of its regulatory
responsibilities, and to ensure the
quality of all swap data.
One comment recommended limiting
the verification requirement to once per
swap, meaning that once swap data for
a particular swap has been verified, the
reporting counterparty no longer is
required to verify the data for that
swap.286 The Commission does not
agree with this recommendation. Swap
data is often updated frequently through
continuation data reporting, including
lifecycle event reporting and valuation
reporting, and errors can occur
throughout the life of the swap. Regular
verification of open swaps is necessary
to ensure that the swap data for each
open swap remains free from errors
throughout the life of the swap.
The Commission also received
comments regarding the requirements
on non-reporting counterparties to
ensure that swap data is free from
errors. Comments supported excluding
non-reporting counterparties from the
verification requirements.287 Comments
also supported not requiring nonreporting counterparties to submit error
corrections to SDRs.288 The Commission
received one comment recommending
against requiring a non-reporting
counterparty to notify the reporting
counterparty when it discovers an
error.289 The Commission does not agree
with this recommendation. The
confirmation requirement in CEA
283 Proposal
284 GIFMA
at 21098, 21103.
at 4–6; ISDA/SIFMA at 40–41; IATP at
285 GIFMA
at 10.
5.
286 ISDA/SIFMA
at 45.
Associations at 13; ISDA/SIFMA at 39;
Chatham at 1–2; COPE at 2; Joint SDR at 2; ICI at
10–11.
288 COPE at 2.
289 Joint Associations at 13.
287 Joint
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
section 21(c)(2) requires both
counterparties to confirm the accuracy
of swap data. The Commission has
excluded non-reporting counterparties
from the requirement to verify swap
data, but if a non-reporting counterparty
discovers an error, it must take steps to
correct the error by notify the reporting
counterparty.
The Commission also received
comments on the proposed
§ 45.14(b)(2),which provided, in part,
that a reporting counterparty, SEF, or
DCM that is notified of an error by a
non-reporting counterparty is only
required to correct the error if it agrees
with the non-reporting counterparty that
an error exists.290 Comments
recommended against adopting the
requirement that the non-reporting
counterparty and the reporting
counterparty, SEF, or DCM must agree
to the error,291 and comments requested
that the requirement be clarified.292
The Commission is not adopting the
requirement. Final § 45.14(a) explicitly
applies to errors regardless of the how
the SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty
becomes aware of the error. If the nonreporting counterparty notifies the
reporting counterparty of the error, and
the SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty
disagrees that there is an error, then the
SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty
has not discovered an error and there is
nothing to correct. The Commission
does however note that a SEF, DCM, or
reporting counterparty refusing to
acknowledge an error that does exist,
and therefore not correcting the error,
would violate the Commission’s
regulations.
IV. Amendments to Part 43
A. § 43.3(e)—Correction of Errors
The Commission is adopting
proposed § 43.3(e), with modifications.
Final § 43.3(e) is identical in substance
to § 45.14(a), described in III.B, above,
except that § 45.14(a) provides the rules
for correcting errors 293 in swap data,
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
290 CEWG
at 5, Joint Associations at 13.
291 Joint Associations at 13.
292 CEWG at 5.
293 The Commission notes that, as with final
§ 45.14, current § 43.3(e) and proposed § 43.3(e)
both use the phrases ‘‘errors and omissions’’ and
‘‘errors or omissions’’ in the correction
requirements. See generally 17 CFR 43.3(e) and
Proposal at 84 FR 21097–98 (May 13, 2019). The
Commission is not including the word ‘‘omission’’
in final § 43.3(e) for simplicity purposes, but the
Commission emphasizes that all omissions of
required swap transaction and pricing data,
whether the omissions are the failure to report
individual data elements for a swap or the failure
to report all swap transaction and pricing data for
a swap, are errors that must be corrected under final
§ 43.3(e), just as the omissions must be corrected
under current § 43.3(e). The Commission makes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
while § 43.3(e) provides the rules for
correcting errors in swap transaction
and pricing data. As in § 45.14(a),
§ 43.3(e) generally requires each SEF,
DCM, and reporting counterparty to
correct any error it discovers, including
for swaps that are no longer open. The
Commission notes that, although market
participants generally treat the current
error correction requirements in
§ 43.3(e) and § 45.14 as if they are
consistent, existing §§ 43.3(e) and 45.14
do not share consistent terminology and
style. In addition to the substantive
amendments and rules that are
described above in section III.C, the
Commission determined that the
terminology and style of the error
correction rules final §§ 45.14(a) and
43.3(e) should be consistent. This will
add clarity to the error correction
requirements, which may result in
increased compliance. The Commission
received numerous comments on the
proposed amendments to the error
correction rules The Commission did
not receive any comments that apply
only to § 43.3(e), and is assessing all
comments on error correction as if they
apply equally to both §§ 43.3(e) and
45.14(a).294 The comments are described
above in section III.C.
B. Removal of § 43.3(f) and (g)
Current § 43.3(f) and (g) set forth the
operating hours requirements for
SDRs.295 As discussed above, the
Commission proposed to remove
§ 43.3(f) and (g) and to incorporate the
provisions in new § 49.28.296 The
Commission believes these provisions
are better placed in part 49 of this
chapter because they address SDR
operations and, as amended, final
§ 49.28 applies to all SDR data and also
incorporates provisions from SBSDR
operating hours requirements.
Accordingly, the Commission is
adopting the proposed removal of
§ 43.3(f) and (g).
V. Amendments to Part 23
§ 23.204—Reports to Swap Data
Repositories, and § 23.205—Real-Time
Public Reporting
The Commission proposed additions
to §§ 23.204 and 23.205 of the
Commission’s regulations. The
clear in final § 43.3(e)(4) that all omissions of
required swap data are errors under final § 43.3(e).
294 See e.g., ISDA/SIFMA at 47 (‘‘Refer to
responses above for proposed § 45.14 which also
apply similarly to § 43.3.’’).
295 17 CFR 43.3(f) and (g).
296 See section II.S above. Current § 43.3(f)
contains the hours of operations requirements and
current § 43.3(g) contains the requirements for SDRs
to accept swap transaction and pricing data during
closing hours.
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75631
proposed additions would require each
SD and MSP to establish, maintain,
enforce, review, and update as needed
written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to ensure that the
SD or MSP complies with all obligations
to report swap data to an SDR,
consistent with parts 43 and 45. The
Proposal noted that pursuant to other
Commission regulations, SDs and MSPs
are already expected to establish
policies and procedures related to their
swap market activities, including but
not limited to, swaps reporting
obligations.297 The Commission
proposed to make this expectation
explicit with respect to swaps reporting
obligations. Commenters recommended
that the Commission take a less
prescriptive approach than the Proposal,
and noted that it is unnecessary to add
specificity for swaps reporting
obligations for data reporting policies
and procedures.298 The Commission
notes that existing §§ 23.204 and 23.205
require SDs and MSPs to report all swap
data and swap transaction and pricing
data they are required to report under
parts 43 and 45, and to have in place the
electronic systems and procedures
necessary to transmit electronically all
such information and data.299 As noted
above, these requirements are
encompassed by the existing
requirement that SDs and MSPs
establish policies and procedures.
Therefore, the Commission agrees with
the comments and determines that it is
unnecessary to make the proposed
additions. Accordingly, the Commission
does not adopt any amendments to
§ 23.204 or 23.205.
VI. Compliance Date
In the Proposal, the Commission
stated that it intended to provide a
unified compliance date for all three of
the Roadmap rulemakings because all
three must work in tandem to achieve
the Commission’s goals.300 The
Commission also stated its intention to
provide sufficient time for market
participants to implement the changes
in the rulemakings prior to the
297 See, e.g., 17 CFR 3.3(d)(1) (requiring a chief
compliance officer to administer each of the
registrant’s policies and procedures relating to its
business as an SD/MSP that are required to be
establish pursuant to the Act and the Commission’s
regulations); 17 CFR 3.2(c)(3)(ii) (requiring the
National Futures Association to assess whether an
entity’s SD/MSP documentation demonstrates
compliance with the Section 4s Implementing
Regulation to which it pertains, which includes
§ 23.204 and § 23.205).
298 ISDA/SIFMA at 48; GFMA at 12.
299 17 CFR 23.204, 23.205.
300 Proposal at 84 FR 21046 (May 13, 2019).
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75632
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
compliance date.301 The Commission is
adopting a unified compliance date for
all three Roadmap rulemakings, May 25,
2022, unless otherwise noted.
The Commission received comments
recommending a staggered
implementation period instead of a
unified one,302 comments supporting an
implementation period of one year,303
and a comment stating that one year is
insufficient and recommending a
compliance date that allows for a twoyear implementation period.304 The
Commission disagrees with comments
recommending a staggered
implementation period. The various
rules in the Roadmap rulemakings,
including verification and error
correction, address different compliance
areas and will achieve the overall goal
of improved data quality only by
working in tandem. The Commission
agrees with the comment recommending
an implementation period longer than a
year, but the Commission disagrees that
the implementation period should
extend for two years. The amendments
and additions in these final rules, as
well as the related Roadmap
rulemakings, are critical steps in
implementing the requirements of the
Act and ensuring high quality swap
data. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that an implementation period
longer than eighteen months is
unwarranted and to ensure that all
market participants have sufficient time
to implement the changes required in
these rulemakings, the Commission has
determined to provide an eighteen
month implementation period.
VII. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(‘‘RFA’’) requires federal agencies, in
promulgating rules, to consider the
impact of those rules on small
entities.305 The Commission has
previously established certain
definitions of ‘‘small entities’’ to be used
by the Commission in evaluating the
impact of its rules on small entities in
accordance with the RFA.306 The
changes to parts 43, 45, and 49 adopted
herein would have a direct effect on the
operations of DCMs, DCOs, MSPs,
reporting counterparties, SDs, SDRs,
and SEFs. The Commission has
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
301 Id.
302 GFMA
at 13; GFXD at 35.
at 36; LCH at 2 and 4; ICE SDR
303 ISDSA/SIFMA
at 2 and 5.
304 FIA at 10–11.
305 See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
306 See Policy Statement and Establishment of
‘‘Small Entities’’ for purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 47 FR 18618 (Apr. 30, 1982).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
previously certified that DCMs,307
DCOs,308 MSPs,309 SDs,310 SDRs 311,
and SEFs 312 are not small entities for
purpose of the RFA.
Various changes to parts 43, 45, and
49 would have a direct impact on all
reporting counterparties. These
reporting counterparties may include
SDs, MSPs, DCOs, and non-SD/MSP/
DCO counterparties. Regarding whether
non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting
counterparties are small entities for RFA
purposes, the Commission notes that
CEA section 2(e) prohibits a person from
entering into a swap unless the person
is an eligible contract participant
(‘‘ECP’’), except for swaps executed on
or pursuant to the rules of a DCM.313
The Commission has previously
certified that ECPs are not small entities
for purposes of the RFA.314
The Commission has analyzed swap
data reported to each SDR 315 across all
five asset classes to determine the
number and identities of non-SD/MSP/
DCOs that are reporting counterparties
to swaps under the Commission’s
jurisdiction. A recent Commission staff
review of swap data, including swaps
executed on or pursuant to the rules of
a DCM, identified nearly 1,600 non-SD/
307 See
id.
Derivatives Clearing Organization General
Provisions and Core Principles, 76 FR 69334, 69428
(Nov. 8, 2011).
309 See Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant
Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Duties Rules, 77 FR
20128, 20194 (Apr. 3, 2012) (basing determination
in part on minimum capital requirements).
310 See Swap Trading Relationship
Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and
Major Swap Participants, 76 FR 6715 (Feb. 8, 2011).
311 See Swap Data Repositories; Proposed Rule,
75 FR 80898, 80926 (Dec. 23, 2010) (basing
determination in part on the central role of SDRs
in swaps reporting regime, and on the financial
resource obligations imposed on SDRs).
312 Core Principles and Other Requirements for
Swap Execution Facilities, 78 FR 33476, 33548
(June 4, 2013).
313 See 7 U.S.C. 2(e).
314 See Opting Out of Segregation, 66 FR 20740,
20743 (Apr. 25, 2001). The Commission also notes
that this determination was based on the definition
of ECP as provided in the Commodity Futures
Modernization Act of 2000. The Dodd-Frank Act
amended the definition of ECP as to the threshold
for individuals to qualify as ECPs, changing ‘‘an
individual who has total assets in an amount in
excess of’’ to ‘‘an individual who has amounts
invested on a discretionary basis, the aggregate of
which is in excess of . . . .’’ Therefore, the
threshold for ECP status is currently higher than
was in place when the Commission certified that
ECPs are not small entities for RFA purposes,
meaning that there are likely fewer entities that
could qualify as ECPs than when the Commission
first made the determination.
315 The sample data sets varied across SDRs and
asset classes based on relative trade volumes. The
sample represents data available to the Commission
for swaps executed over a period of one month.
These sample data sets captured 2,551,907 FX
swaps, 98,145 credit default swaps, 357,851
commodities swaps, 603,864 equities swaps, and
276,052 interest rate swaps.
308 See
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
MSP/DCO reporting counterparties.
Based on its review of publicly available
data, the Commission believes that the
overwhelming majority of these non-SD/
MSP/DCO reporting counterparties are
either ECPs or do not meet the
definition of ‘‘small entity’’ established
in the RFA. Accordingly, the
Commission does not believe the rules
would affect a substantial number of
small entities.
Based on the above analysis, the
Commission does not believe that this
Final Rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Therefore, the
Chairman, on behalf of the Commission,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), hereby
certifies that the Final Rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(‘‘PRA’’) 316 imposes certain
requirements on federal agencies,
including the Commission, in
connection with their conducting or
sponsoring any collection of
information, as defined by the PRA. The
rule amendments adopted herein will
result in the revision of three
information collections, as discussed
below. The Commission has previously
received three control numbers from the
Office of Management and Budget
(‘‘OMB’’), one for each of the
information collections impacted by this
rulemaking: (1) OMB Control Number
3038–0096 (Swap Data Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements), relating
to part 45 swap data recordkeeping and
reporting; (2) OMB Control Number
3038–0070 (Real-Time Public Reporting
and Block Trades), relating to part 43
real-time swap transaction and pricing
data; and (3) OMB Control Number
3038–0086 (Swap Data Repositories;
Registration and Regulatory
Requirements), relating to part 49 SDR
regulations. Persons otherwise required
to respond to an information collection
are not required to respond to the
collection of information unless a
currently valid OMB control number is
displayed.
The Commission did not receive any
comments regarding its PRA burden
analysis in the preamble to the Proposal.
The Commission is revising the three
information collections to reflect the
adoption of amendments to parts 43, 44,
and 49, including changes to reflect
adjustments that were made to the final
rules in response to comments on the
Proposal (not relating to the PRA).
316 See
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
44 U.S.C. 3501.
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
1. Revisions to Collection 3038–0096
(Relating to Part 45 Swap Data
Recordkeeping and Reporting)
i. § 45.2—Swap Recordkeeping
The Commission is adopting changes
that remove paragraphs (f) and (g) from
§ 45.2 and move the requirements of
these paragraphs to amended § 49.12.
Paragraphs (f) and (g) contain
recordkeeping requirements specific to
SDRs. Existing § 49.12 already
incorporates the requirements of current
§ 45.2(f) and (g), and amended § 49.12
includes the same requirements, but
deleting this requirement from § 45.2
and amending § 49.12 to clarify the
requirements better organizes the
regulations for SDRs by locating these
SDR requirements in part 49 of the
Commission’s regulations. These
amendments modify collection 3038–
0096 because it removes these
recordkeeping requirements from part
45 of the Commission’s regulations. The
Commission estimates that moving
these requirements results in a
reduction of 50 annual burden hours for
each SDR in collection 3038–0096, for a
total reduction of 150 annual burden
hours across all three SDRs.
ii. § 45.14—Verification of Swap Data
Accuracy and Correcting Errors and
Omissions in Swap Data
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Final § 45.14(a) requires SEFs, DCMs,
and reporting counterparties to correct
errors and omissions in swap data
previously reported to an SDR, or
erroneously not reported to an SDR as
required, as soon as technologically
practicable after discovery of the errors
or omissions, similar to existing § 45.14.
Also, similar to existing § 45.14, final
§ 45.14(a) requires a non-reporting
counterparty to report a discovered error
or omission to the relevant SEF, DCM,
or reporting counterparty as soon as
technologically practicable after
discovery of the error or omission.317
These requirements, being effectively
the same as the requirements in existing
§ 45.14, do not require amendments to
the collection.
317 The Commission notes that final § 45.14(a)(2)
does add provisions that are not present in current
§ 45.14(a) to address the situation where a nonreporting counterparty does not know the identity
of the reporting counterparty. The Commission does
not believe that these additions have PRA
implications, as the amount of information the nonreporting counterparty must provide and the
frequency with which it must be provided remain
the same and are de minimis. The only change is
the requirement that non-reporting counterparties
inform the SEF or DCM of errors, instead of the
reporting counterparty. SEFs and DCMs have
correction responsibilities under current § 45.14(b)
and final § 45.14(a)(2) does not change these
responsibilities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Final § 45.14(a)(1)(ii) includes the
new requirement for SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties to notify the
Director of DMO when errors or
omissions cannot be timely corrected
and, in such case, to provide the
Director of DMO with an initial
assessment of the errors and omissions
and an initial remediation plan if one
exists. The notification shall be made in
the form and manner, and according to
the instructions, specified by the
Director of DMO. This requirement
constitutes a new collection of
information. The Commission estimates
that each SEF, DCM, and reporting
counterparty will, on average need to
provide notice to the Commission under
final § 45.14(a)(1)(ii) once per year and
that each instance will require 6 burden
hours.318 As there are approximately
1,729 SEFs, DCMs, and reporting
counterparties that handle swaps, the
Commission estimates an overall
additional annual hours burden of
10,374, hours related to this
requirement. This estimate is based on
the Commission’s experience with the
current practices of SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties regarding the
reporting of errors and omissions,
including the initial assessments and
remediation plans that SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties provide to the
Commission under current practice. The
Commission does not anticipate any
one-time, initial burdens related to final
§ 45.14(b)(1)(ii).
Final § 45.14(b) requires all reporting
counterparties to verify the accuracy
and completeness of all swap data for
all open swaps to which they are the
reporting counterparty. Reporting
counterparties comply with this
provision by utilizing the relevant
mechanism(s) to compare all swap data
for each open swap for which it serves
as the reporting counterparty
maintained by the relevant swap data
repository or repositories with all swap
data contained in the reporting
counterparty’s internal books and
records for each swap, to verify that
there are no errors in the relevant swap
data maintained by the swap data
repository. Additionally, reporting
counterparties must conform to each
relevant swap data repository’s
verification policies and procedures
created pursuant to final § 49.11. Final
318 The Commission notes that, currently, it
receives significantly less than one notice and
initial assessment of reporting errors and omissions
per SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty per year,
but estimates one notice annually, as the final
requirements of § 45.14(a) may reveal more
reporting errors to reporting counterparties that
would then require corrections pursuant to final
§ 45.14(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75633
§ 45.14(b)(5) requires each reporting
counterparty to keep a log of each
verification that it performs. The log
must include all errors discovered
during the verification and the
corrections performed under § 45.14(a).
Compliance with § 45.14(b) constitutes a
collection of information not currently
included in collection 3038–0096, and
therefore requires a revision of that
collection.
The Commission expects that
compliance with § 45.14(b) will include:
(1) A one-time hours burden to establish
internal systems needed to perform their
verification responsibilities, and (2) an
ongoing hours burden to complete the
verification process for each report
provided by an SDR.
In order to comply with the relevant
SDR verification policies and
procedures as required to complete the
verification process, the Commission
believes that reporting counterparties
will create their own verification
systems or modify their existing
connections to the SDRs. The
Commission estimates that each
reporting counterparty will incur an
initial, one-time burden of 100 hours to
build, test, and implement their
verification systems based on SDR
instructions. This burden may be
reduced, if complying with SDR
verification requirements only requires
reporting counterparties to make small
modifications to their existing SDR
reporting systems, but the Commission
is estimating the burden based on the
creation of a new system. The
Commission also estimates an ongoing
annual burden of 10 hours per reporting
counterparty to maintain their
verification systems and to make any
needed updates to verification systems
to conform to any changes to SDR
verification policies and procedures. As
there are approximately 1,702 reporting
counterparties based on data available
to the Commission, the Commission
estimates a one-time overall hours
burden of 170,200 hours to build
reporting counterparty verification
systems and an ongoing annual overall
hours burden of 17,020 hours to
maintain the reporting counterparty
verification systems.
Under final § 45.14(b)(4), SD, MSP, or
DCO reporting counterparties must
perform verification once every thirty
days for each SDR where the reporting
counterparty maintains any open swaps.
Non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting
counterparties must perform verification
once every calendar quarter for each
SDR where the reporting counterparty
maintains any opens swaps. The
Commission also expects, based on
discussions with SDRs and reporting
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75634
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
counterparties, that the verification
process will be largely automated for all
parties involved. The Commission
estimates an average burden of two
hours per verification performed at each
SDR per reporting counterparty.
As there are 117 SDs, MSPs, or DCOs
that clear swaps registered with the
Commission, the Commission
estimates 319 that these 117 reporting
counterparties will, at maximum, be
required to verify data 13 times per year
at a maximum of 3 SDRs, for an overall
additional annual hours burden of 9,126
ongoing burden hours related to the
verification process for these reporting
counterparties. The Commission also
estimates, based on data available to the
Commission, that there are 1,585 nonSD/MSP/DCO reporting
counterparties.320 The Commission
estimates that these 1,585 reporting
counterparties will be required to, at
maximum, verify data 4 times per year
at a maximum of 3 SDRs, for an overall
additional annual hours burden of
38,040 burden hours related to
verification process for these reporting
counterparties.
The Commission therefore estimates
that the overall burden for updated
Information Collection 3038–0096 will
be as follows:
Estimated number of respondents
affected: 1,732 SEFs, DCMs, DCOs,
SDRs, and reporting counterparties.
Estimated annual number of
responses per respondent: 257,595.
Estimated total annual responses:
446,154,540.
Estimated burden hours per response:
0.005.
Estimated total annual burden hours
per respondent: 1,316.
Estimated aggregate total burden
hours for all respondents: 2,279,312.
2. Revisions to Collection 3038–0070
(Real-Time Transaction Reporting)
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
§ 43.3—Method and Timing for RealTime Public Reporting
Final § 43.3(e) requires SEFs, DCMs,
and reporting counterparties to correct
errors and omissions in swap
transaction and pricing data as soon as
319 Though there are 117 SDs, MSPs, or DCOs that
clear swaps registered with the Commission that
could be a reporting counterparty, not all potential
reporting counterparties will perform data
verification for any given verification cycle. Only
those reporting counterparties with open swaps are
required to perform data verification for that
verification cycle.
320 Though there are 1,585 non-SD/MSP/DCOs
that could be a reporting counterparty, not all
potential reporting counterparties will perform data
verification for any given verification cycle. Only
those reporting counterparties with open swaps are
required to perform data verification for that
verification cycle.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
technologically practicable after
discovery. Final § 43.3(e) also requires a
non-reporting counterparty to report a
discovered error or omission to the
relevant SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty as soon as technologically
practicable after discovery of the error
or omission. These final rules clarify the
requirements to be consistent with the
requirements in final § 45.14(b), but are
also effectively the same as the
requirements of exiting § 43.3(e).321
These requirements therefore do not
require amendments to the collection.
Final § 43.3(e)(1)(ii) includes the new
requirement for SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties to notify the
Director of DMO when errors or
omissions cannot be timely corrected
and, in such case, to provide the
Director of DMO with an initial
assessment of the errors and omissions
and an initial remediation plan if one
exists. This requirement constitutes a
new collection of information. The
Commission estimates that each SEF,
DCM, and reporting counterparty will,
on average need to provide notice to the
Commission under final § 43.3(e)(1)(ii)
once per year and that each instance
will require 6 burden hours.322 As there
are approximately 1,729 SEFs, DCMs,
and reporting counterparties that handle
swaps, the Commission estimates an
overall additional annual hours burden
of 10,374 hours related to this
requirement. This estimate is based on
the Commission’s experience with SEFs,
DCMs, and reporting counterparties
current practices regarding the reporting
of errors and omissions, including the
initial assessments that SEFs, DCMs,
and reporting counterparties provide to
the Commission under current practice.
The Commission does not anticipate
any one-time, initial burdens related to
final § 43.3(e)(1)(ii).
321 The Commission notes that final § 43.3(e)(2)
does add provisions that are not present in current
§ 43.3(e)(1) to address the situation where a nonreporting counterparty does not know the identity
of the reporting counterparty. The Commission does
not believe that these additions have PRA
implications, as the amount of information the nonreporting counterparty must provide and the
frequency with which it must be provided remain
the same as the current requirement and are de
minimis. The only change is the requirement that
non-reporting counterparties inform the SEF or
DCM of errors, instead of the reporting
counterparty. SEFs and DCMs have correction
responsibilities under current § 43.3(e)(1) and final
§ 43.3(e)(2) does not change these responsibilities.
322 The Commission notes that, currently, it
receives significantly less than one notice and
initial assessment of reporting errors and omissions
per SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty per year,
but estimates one notice annually, as the final
requirements of § 45.14(a) may reveal more
reporting errors to reporting counterparties that
would then require corrections pursuant to final
§ 43.3(e).
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The Commission is also removing
paragraphs (f) and (g) from § 43.3 in
order to move the requirements of these
paragraphs to final § 49.28. Paragraphs
(f) and (g) contain requirements for
SDRs related to their operating hours.
Final § 49.28 includes all of the current
§ 43.3(f) and (g) requirements, and this
deletion and move is intended to better
organize regulations for SDRs by
locating as many SDR requirements as
possible in part 49 of the Commission’s
regulations. Moving the requirements
modifies collections 3038–0070 and
3038–0086 because it removes these
recordkeeping requirements from part
43 of the Commission’s regulations and
adds them to part 49 of the
Commission’s regulations. The
Commission estimates that the public
notice requirements of existing § 43.3(f)
and (g) require SDRs to issue three
notices per year and spend five hours
creating and disseminating each notice,
for a total of 15 hours annually for each
SDR, for a total of 45 annual burden
hours being moved across all three
SDRs. As a result, the Commission
estimates that moving these
requirements will result in a total
reduction of 45 annual burden hours for
SDRs in collection 3038–0070.
The Commission therefore estimates
that the total overall burdens for
updated Information Collection 3038–
0070 will be as follows:
Estimated number of respondents
affected: 1,732 SEFs, DCMs, DCOs,
SDRs, and reporting counterparties.
Estimated annual number of
responses per respondent: 21,247.
Estimated total annual responses:
36,799,804.
Estimated burden hours per response:
0.033.
Estimated total annual burden hours
per respondent: 701.
Estimated aggregate total burden
hours for all respondents: 1,214,392.
3. Revisions to Collection 3038–0086
(Relating to Part 49 SDR Regulations) 323
The Commission is revising collection
3038–0086 to account for changes in
certain SDR responsibilities under the
final amendments to §§ 49.3, 49.5, 49.6,
49.9, 49.10, 49.11, and 49.26, and to the
addition of §§ 49.28, 49.29, and 49.30.
The estimated hours burdens and costs
provided below are in addition to or
subtracted from the existing hours
burdens and costs in collection 3038–
323 The Commission is also proposing to reduce
the number of SDRs used in collection 3038–0086
to calculate burdens and costs from 4 to 3. There
are currently three SDRs provisionally registered
with the Commission. The Commission has not
received any applications for SDR registration since
2012.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
0086. The Commission also describes a
number of changes to sections that do
not have PRA implications below, for
clarity.
i. § 49.3—Procedures for Registration
The final amendments to § 49.3(a)(5)
remove the requirement for each SDR to
file an annual amendment to its Form
SDR. This reduces the PRA burden for
SDRs by lowering the number of filings
required for each SDR. The Commission
estimates that the PRA burden for each
SDR will remain at 15 hours per filing,
but that the number of filings per year
will be reduced from three to two,
meaning that the final amendments to
§ 49.3(a)(5) reduces the burden on SDRs
by 15 hours per year, for a total
reduction of 45 annual burden hours
across all three SDRs. This estimate is
based on the Commission’s experience
with current SDR practices and the
original supporting statement for
collection 3038–0086.324 The
Commission does not anticipate any
one-time, initial burden changes related
to final § 49.3(a)(5).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
ii. § 49.5—Equity Interest Transfers
The final amendments to § 49.5
require SDRs to file a notification with
the Commission for each transaction
involving the direct or indirect transfer
of ten percent or more of the equity
interest in the SDR within ten business
days of the firm obligation to transfer
the equity interest, to provide the
Commission with supporting
documentation for the transaction upon
the Commission’s request, and, within
two business days of the completion of
the equity interest transfer, to file a
certification with the Commission that
the SDR will meet all of its obligations
under the Act and the Commission’s
regulations. The Commission estimates
that the requirements of final § 49.5
create a burden of 15 hours per SDR for
each qualifying equity interest transfer.
Equity interest transfers for SDR are
rare, so the Commission estimates that
each SDR will provide information
pursuant to final § 49.5 no more often
than once every three years. As a result,
the estimated average annual PRA
burden related to final § 49.5 is 5 hours
per SDR, for a total estimated ongoing
annual burden of 15 hours total for all
three SDRs. The Commission does not
anticipate any one-time, initial burdens
related to final § 49.5.
324 The original supporting statement for
collection 3038–0086 estimated that the
requirements of current § 49.3(a)(5) will necessitate
three filings per year and 15 hours per filing.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
iii. § 49.6—Request for Transfer of
Registration
The final amendments to § 49.6
require an SDR seeking to transfer its
registration to another legal entity due
to a corporate change to file a request for
approval with the Commission before
the anticipated corporate change,
including the specific documents and
information listed in final § 49.6(c). The
Commission estimates that the
requirements of final § 49.6 create a
burden of 15 hours per SDR for each
transfer of registration. Transfers of
registration for SDR are rare, so the
Commission estimates that each SDR
will provide information pursuant to
final § 49.6 no more often than once
every three years. As a result, the
estimated average annual PRA burden
related to final § 49.6 is 5 hours per
SDR, for a total estimated ongoing
annual burden of 15 hours total for all
three SDRs. The Commission does not
anticipate any one-time, initial burdens
related to final § 49.6.
iv. § 49.9—Open Swaps Reports
Provided to the Commission
The final amendments to § 49.9
remove the current text of the section
and replace it with requirements related
to SDRs providing open swaps reports
to the Commission, as instructed by the
Commission. The instructions may
include the method, timing, frequency,
and format of the open swaps reports.
The Commission estimates that SDRs
will incur a one-time initial burden of
250 hours per SDR to create or modify
their systems to provide the open swaps
reports to the Commission as instructed,
for a total estimated hours burden of 750
hours. This burden may be mitigated by
the fact that SDRs currently have
systems in place to provide similar
information to the Commission, which
may reduce the effort needed to create
or modify SDRs’ systems. The
Commission additionally estimates 30
hours per SDR annually to perform any
needed maintenance or adjustments to
SDR systems.
The Commission expects that the
process for providing the open swaps
reports to the Commission will be
largely automated and therefore
estimates a burden on the SDRs of 2
hours per report. Though the
Commission is not prescribing the
frequency of the open swaps reports at
this time, the Commission estimates,
only for the purposes of this burden
calculation, that the SDRs will provide
the Commission with 365 open swaps
reports per year, meaning that the
estimated ongoing annual additional
hours burden for generating the open
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75635
swaps reports and providing the reports
to the Commission is 730 hours per
SDR.
The Commission therefore estimates a
total ongoing additional annual hours
burden related to final § 49.9 of 760
hours per SDR, 325 for a total estimated
ongoing annual burden of 2,280 hours.
v. § 49.10—Acceptance of Data
Final § 49.10(e) requires SDRs to
accept, process, and disseminate
corrections to SDR data errors and
omissions. Final § 49.10(e) also requires
SDRs to have policies and procedures in
place to fulfill these requirements.
The Commission estimates that SDRs
will incur a one-time initial burden of
100 hours per SDR to update and
implement the systems, policies, and
procedures necessary to fulfill their
obligations under final § 49.10(e), for a
total increased initial hours burden of
300 hours across all three SDRs. This
burden may be mitigated by the fact that
SDRs already have systems, policies,
and procedures in place to accomplish
corrections to SDR data and that the
SDRs currently make such corrections
on a regular basis. The Commission
additionally estimates 30 hours per SDR
annually to perform any needed
maintenance on correction systems and
to update corrections policies and
procedures as needed.
The Commission anticipates that the
process for SDRs to perform corrections
will be largely automated, as this is the
case with current SDR corrections.
Based on swap data available to the
Commission and discussions with the
SDRs, the Commission estimates that an
SDR will perform an average of
approximately 2,652,000 data
corrections per year. Based on the same
information, the Commission estimates
that performing each correction will
require 2 seconds from an SDR. As a
result, the Commission estimates that
the ongoing burden of performing the
actual corrections to SDR data will be
approximately 1,473 hours per SDR
annually, on average. The Commission
anticipates that once applicable, the
verification rules may have the short
term effect of increasing the number of
corrections per year, as reporting
counterparties discover errors in open
swaps. The Commission further
anticipates that the number of
corrections will then decrease as the
new validation rules and revised
technical specifications improve the
quality and accuracy of initial reporting,
reducing the number of corrections.
325 730 hours for the open swaps reports, and 30
hours to perform system maintenance.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75636
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
The Commission therefore estimates a
total additional annual hours burden
related to final § 49.10(e) of 1,503 hours
per SDR annually, for a total estimated
ongoing burden of 4,509 hours.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
vi. § 49.11—Verification of Swap Data
Accuracy
The final amendments to § 49.11
modify the existing obligations on SDRs
to confirm the accuracy and
completeness of swap data. Final
§ 49.11(b) requires SDRs to provide a
mechanism that allows each reporting
counterparty that is a user of the swap
data repository to access all swap data
maintained by the swap data repository
for each open swap for which the
reporting counterparty is serving as the
reporting counterparty. Final §§ 49.11(a)
and 49.11(c) 326 do not have PRA
implications beyond the burdens
discussed for paragraph (b) below.
While SDRs are already required to
confirm the accuracy and completeness
of swap data under current § 49.11, the
requirements in final § 49.11 impose
different burdens on the SDRs than the
current regulation. The Commission
estimates that each SDR will incur an
initial, one-time burden of 300 hours to
build, test, and implement updated
verification systems, for a total of 900
initial burden hours across all SDRs.
The Commission also estimates 30
hours per SDR annually for SDRs to
maintain their verification systems and
make any needed updates to verification
policies and procedures required under
final § 49.11(a) and (c).
Currently, SDRs are required to
confirm swap data by contacting both
counterparties for swaps that are not
submitted by a SEF, DCM, DCO, or
third-party service provider every time
the SDR receives swap data related to
the swap. For swaps reported by a SEF,
DCM, DCO, or third-party service
provider, the SDRs must currently
assess the swap data to form a
reasonable belief that the swap data is
accurate every time swap data is
submitted for a swap. Under final
§ 49.11(b) and (c), SDRs are only
required to provide the mechanism that
will allow reporting counterparties to
perform verification, as described above.
The Commission also anticipates, based
on discussions with SDRs and other
market participants, that the verification
326 The Commission notes that requirements of
part 40 of the Commission’s regulations apply to
SDRs amending their verification policies and
procedures regardless of final § 49.11(c), because
verification policies and procedures fall under the
part 40 definition of a ‘‘rule.’’ See 17 CFR 40.1(i)
(definition of rule for the purposes of part 40). PRA
implications for final § 49.11(c) are included under
the existing approved PRA collection for part 40 of
the Commission’s regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
process will be largely automated once
the processes are in place, and will
consist of an annual burden of 30 hours
per SDR.
The Commission therefore estimates a
total additional ongoing hours burden
related to final § 49.11 of 60 hours per
SDR annually,327 for a total estimated
ongoing burden of 180 hours.
vii. § 49.12—Swap Data Repository
Recordkeeping Requirements
The final amendments to § 49.12(a)
and (b) incorporate existing SDR
recordkeeping obligations from § 45.2(f)
and (g) respectively, which are already
applicable to SDRs under current
§ 49.12(a). As the recordkeeping
requirements being moved from § 45.2
already apply to SDRs under current
§ 49.12, the Commission does not
believe that amended § 49.12(a) or (b)
requires any revision to hours burden
related to § 49.12 already included in
collection 3038–0086. Final
amendments to § 49.12(c) require SDRs
to maintain records of data validation
errors and of data reporting errors,
which include records of data
subsequently corrected by a SEF, DCM,
or reporting counterparty pursuant to
parts 43, 45, and 46. Final § 49.12(c)
does not, however, add any new
requirement to part 49, as all of the
records to be kept are already required
to be kept by existing recordkeeping
obligations as data submitted under part
43, 45, or 46. As a result, the
Commission does not believe that final
§ 49.12(c) requires an additional PRA
burden beyond that already included in
collection 3038–0086.
viii. § 49.26—Disclosure Requirements
of Swap Data Repositories
Final new § 49.26(j) requires SDRs to
provide their users and potential users
with the SDR’s policies and procedures
on reporting SDR data, including SDR
data validation procedures, swap data
verification procedures, and SDR data
correction procedures. The Commission
anticipates that SDRs will incur a onetime burden of 20 burden hours to draft
written documents to provide to their
users and potential users, for a total
increase of 60 one-time burden hours
across SDRs. The Commission also
anticipates that SDRs will update their
policies once per year and incur a
recurring burden of 10 hours annually
from providing any updated reporting
policies and procedures to their users
and potential users, as needed, for a for
a total estimated ongoing annual burden
of 30 hours across the three SDRs.
327 30 hours for system maintenance and 30 hours
for the verification process.
PO 00000
Frm 00216
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ix. § 49.28—Operating Hours of Swap
Data Repositories
Final new § 49.28 incorporates
existing provisions of § 43.3(f) and (g)
with respect to hours of operation with
minor changes and clarifications. Final
§ 49.28 extends the provisions of current
§ 43.3(f) and (g) to include all SDR data
and clarifies the different treatment of
regular closing hours and special
closing hours. SDRs currently have
closing hours systems, policies, and
procedures that apply to all SDR
functions and all SDR data under the
current requirements. The final
requirements related to declaring
regular closing hours and special
closing hours also effectively follow
current requirements, without
necessitating changes to current SDR
systems or practices. The Commission
does, however, anticipate that the SDRs
will need to issue notices to the public
related to closing hours under final
§ 49.28(a) and (c). The Commission
estimates that each SDR will issue three
notices per year and spend five hours
creating and disseminating each notice,
for a total of 15 hours per year preparing
and providing public notices per SDR,
for a for a total estimated ongoing
annual burden of 45 hours per year
across all SDRs.
x. § 49.29—Information Relating to
Swap Data Repository Compliance
Final new § 49.29 requires each SDR
to provide, upon request by the
Commission, information relating to its
business as an SDR, and such other
information that the Commission needs
to perform its regulatory duties. This
provision also requires each SDR, upon
request by the Commission, to provide
a written demonstration of compliance
with the SDR core principles and other
regulatory obligations. The PRA burden
associated with such responses is
dependent on the number of requests
made and the complexity of such
requests. Based on its experience with
requests to DCMs, the Commission
estimates that each SDR will likely
receive on average between three and
five requests per year, considering that
an SDR is a newer type of registered
entity than a DCM. The Commission
anticipates that the number of requests
will decrease over time. The
Commission also anticipates that each
such request will require the SDR to
spend 20 hours to gather information
and formulate a response, and bases its
estimate of burden hours assuming five
such requests per year, for a total
additional hours burden of 100 hours
per SDR per year, for a total estimated
ongoing annual burden of 300 hours per
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
year across all SDRs. The Commission
does not anticipate that SDRs will incur
any one-time hours burden or costs in
complying with this regulation.
The Commission therefore estimates
that the total overall burdens for
updated Information Collection 3038–
0086 will be as follows:
Estimated number of respondents
affected: 3 SDRs.
Estimated annual number of
responses per respondent: 154,327,169.
Estimated total annual responses:
462,981,508.
Estimated burden hours per response:
0.0006.
Estimated total annual burden hours
per respondent: 99,197.
Estimated aggregate total burden
hours for all respondents: 297,591.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
C. Cost-Benefit Considerations
1. Introduction
Section 15(a) 328 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. Section
15(a) further specifies that the costs and
benefits shall be evaluated in light of
five broad areas of market and public
concern: (1) Protection of market
participants and the public; (2)
efficiency, competitiveness, and
financial integrity of 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.
In this release, the Commission is
revising existing regulations in parts 43,
45, and 49. The Commission is also
issuing new regulations in part 49.
Together, these revisions and additions
are intended to address swap data
verification and to improve the quality
of data reporting generally. Some of the
amendments are substantive. A number
of amendments, however, are nonsubstantive or technical, and therefore
will not have associated cost-benefits
implications.329
In the sections that follow, the
Commission discusses the costs and
benefits associated with the final rule
and reasonable alternatives are
considered. Comments addressing the
associated costs and benefits of the rule
are addressed in the appropriate
sections. Wherever possible, the
Commission has considered the costs
U.S.C. 19(a).
Commission believes there are no costbenefit implications for Final §§ 49.2, 49.15, 49.16,
49.18, 49.20, 49.24, and 49.31.
and benefits of the final rule in
quantitative terms.
Given that many aspects of the
Proposal did not dictate the means by
which SDRs or reporting counterparties
must comply, the Commission
recognized that the quantitative impact
of the proposed rule would vary by each
entity because the affected market
participants vary in technological and
staffing structure and resources. The
Commission also noted in the Proposal
that because of differences in the sizes
of SDR operations, many of the costs
associated with the proposed
rulemaking were not readily
quantifiable without relying on and
potentially divulging confidential
information. The Commission believed
that many of the proposed rules would
have affected a wide variety of
proprietary reporting systems developed
by SDRs and reporting counterparties.
With these understandings, the
Commission asked the public to provide
information regarding quantitative costs
and benefits related to complying with
the Commission’s proposed rules. The
Commission received comments from
market participants, such as SDRs and
reporting counterparties, and other
interested public commenters. Some of
the commenters asserted that some of
the proposed rules would generate
significant or burdensome costs, but no
commenters quantified such costs. Nor
did commenters, in particular the
limited universe of market participants
required to report and collect data,
quantify costs they currently expend to
comply with current swap data
reporting requirements.330 If the
Commission possessed information
regarding current and actual costs, the
Commission could consider current
monetary outlays against the anticipated
quantitative costs and benefits needed
to comply with the rules in this final
rulemaking.
As a result, the Commission has
considered the costs and benefits of the
rules in this final rulemaking and has
provided broad ranges of estimates of
the costs associated with implementing
some of the rule changes. It is
reasonable to use ranges because the
final rules are flexible, which means
SDRs and reporting counterparties will
take different approaches to comply
with the final rules. In addition, ranges
account for variation in technological
and staffing structure, resources, and
operational sophistication of affected
market participants.
328 7
329 The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
330 See section I above for discussion of the
history behind swaps data reporting required by
CEA section 21.
PO 00000
Frm 00217
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75637
In several of the sections below, the
Commission has estimated the number
of hours it believes market participants
will likely expend to comply with the
final rules. These cost estimates focus
on the technical aspects of the final
rules and are separate from those listed
in the Paperwork Reduction Act
discussion above in section VII.B. The
Commission has made reasonable
estimations based, in part, on its
familiarity with the work of SDRs and
reporting counterparties, and its own
experience in building systems to
collect swap data. To monetize the
hours, the Commission multiplies the
number of hours and an hourly wage
estimate. As most of the final rules may
require technological changes, the
Commission uses hourly wages for
developers. The Commission estimated
the hourly wages market participants
will likely pay software developers to
implement changes to be between $48
and $101 per hour.331 The Commission
recognizes that for some services—like
compliance review, and legal drafting
and review—the wage rates may be
more or less than the $48 to $101 range
for developers. The Commission
believes, however, that the estimated
cost ranges, discussed below, will cover
most budgets for tasks, regardless of the
exact nature of the tasks needed to
comply with the final rules.
2. Background
Since their promulgation in 2011, the
provisions in part 49 have required
SDRs to, among other things, accept and
confirm data reported to SDRs. The
Commission believes SDRs’ collection
and maintenance of swap data as
required in parts 45 and 49 has allowed
the Commission to better monitor the
overall swaps market and individual
market participants. In contrast, before
the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act and
its implementing regulations, the swaps
331 Hourly wage rates were based on the Software
Developers and Programmers category of the May
2019 National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates Report produced by the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, available at https://www.bls.gov/
oes/current/oes_nat.htm. The 25th percentile was
used for the low range and the 90th percentile was
used for the upper range ($36.89 and $78.06,
respectively). Each number was multiplied by an
adjustment factor of 1.3 for overhead and benefits
(rounded to the nearest whole dollar) which is in
line with adjustment factors the Commission has
used for similar purposes in other final rules
adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act. See, e.g., 77 FR
at 2173 (Jan. 13, 2012) (using an adjustment factor
of 1.3 for overhead and other benefits). These
estimates are intended to capture and reflect U.S.
developer hourly rates market participants are
likely to pay when complying with the proposed
changes. The Commission recognizes that
individual entities may, based on their
circumstances, incur costs substantially above or
below the estimated averages.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
75638
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
market generally, and transactions and
positions of individual market
participants in particular, were not
transparent to regulators or the public.
Under the current data reporting
requirements, the Commission has had
the opportunity to work directly with
SDR data reported to, and held by,
SDRs. Based on its experience working
with SDR data, along with extensive
feedback and comments received from
market participants, the Commission
believes that improving SDR data
quality will help enhance the data’s
usefulness. In this final rulemaking, the
Commission has focused on the
operation and implementation of CEA
section 21,332 which contains
requirements related to SDRs, including
the requirement to confirm data.333 The
Commission also is modifying a number
of other regulations for clarity and
consistency and to enhance the
Commission’s ability to monitor and
supervise the swaps market.
Prior to discussing the rule changes,
the Commission describes below the
current environment that will be
impacted by these changes. Three SDRs
are currently provisionally registered
with the Commission: CME, DDR, and
ICE. Each SDR has unique
characteristics and structures that
determine how the rule changes will
impact its operations. For example,
SDRs affiliated with DCOs tend to
receive a large proportion of their SDR
data from swaps cleared through those
affiliated DCOs, while independent
SDRs tend to receive SDR data from a
wider range of market participants.
The current reporting environment
also involves third-party service
providers. These entities assist market
participants with fulfilling the
applicable data reporting requirements,
though the reporting requirements do
not apply to third-party service
providers directly.
Current regulations have not resulted
in data quality that meets the
Commission’s expectations. For
example, current regulations do not
include a specific affirmative obligation
for swap counterparties to review
reported swap data for errors.334 Swap
counterparties are required to correct
data errors only if inaccurate data is
discovered, and therefore data quality is
partially dependent on processes that
are not mandated by the Commission.
The result has been that market
participants too often have not reviewed
data and corrected any errors. It is not
uncommon for Commission staff to find
332 See
7 U.S.C. 24a.
7 U.S.C. 24a(c)(2).
334 See 17 CFR 43.3(e); 17 CFR 45.14.
333 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
discrepancies between open swaps
information available to the
Commission and reported data for the
same swaps. For example, in processing
open swaps reports to generate the
CFTC’s Weekly Swaps Report,335
Commission staff has observed
instances where the notional amount of
a swap differs from the swap data
reported to an SDR for the same swap.
Other common examples of
discrepancies include incorrect
references to an underlying currency,
such as a notional value incorrectly
linked to U.S. dollars instead of
Japanese Yen. These examples, among
others, strongly suggest a need for better
verification of reported swap data.
Weaknesses in SDR policies and
procedures also have created additional
challenges for swap data accuracy. As
discussed above, certain SDR policies
and procedures for swap data have been
based on negative affirmation, i.e.,
predicated on the assumption that
reported swap data is accurate and
confirmed if a reporting counterparty
does not inform the SDR of errors, or
otherwise make subsequent
modifications to the swap data, within
a certain period of time.336 As reporting
counterparties are typically not
reviewing their reported swap data
maintained by SDRs, the data is
effectively assumed to be accurate, and
errors are not sufficiently discovered
and corrected. The volume of inaccurate
swap data that is discovered by market
participants or the Commission shows
that current regulations are ineffective
in producing the quality of swap data
the Commission expects and needs to
fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.
The Commission believes that
amendments and additions to certain
regulations, particularly in parts 43, 45,
and 49, will improve data accuracy and
completeness. The regulatory changes in
this final rulemaking aim to meet this
objective.
This final rulemaking also includes
amendments to part 49 to improve and
streamline the Commission’s oversight
of SDRs. These amendments include
new provisions allowing the
Commission to request demonstrations
of compliance and other information
from SDRs.
For each amendment discussed
below, the Commission summarizes the
changes,337 and identifies and discusses
335 See CFTC’s Weekly Swaps Report, available
at https://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/
SwapsReports/index.htm.
336 See 17 CFR 49.11(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii).
337 As described throughout this release, the
Commission is also proposing a number of nonsubstantive, conforming rule amendments in this
release, such as renumbering certain provisions and
PO 00000
Frm 00218
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the costs and benefits attributable to the
changes. The Commission then
considers reasonable alternatives to the
rules. Finally, the Commission
considers the costs and benefits of all of
the rules jointly in light of the five
public interest considerations in CEA
section 15(a).
The Commission notes that this
consideration of costs and benefits is
based on the understanding that the
swaps market functions internationally.
Many swaps transactions involving U.S.
firms occur across international borders
and some Commission registrants are
organized outside of the United States,
with leading industry members often
conducting operations both within and
outside the United States, and with
market participants commonly
following substantially similar business
practices wherever located. Where the
Commission does not specifically refer
to matters of location, the discussion of
costs and benefits refers to the rules’
effects on all swaps activity, 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).338 The Commission contemplated
this cross-border perspective in 2011
when it adopted § 49.7, which applies
to trade repositories located in foreign
jurisdictions.339
3. Baseline
There are separate baselines for the
costs and benefits that arise from the
finalized regulations in this release. The
baseline for final § 43.3(e) is existing
§ 43.3(e). The baseline for final § 45.14
is existing § 45.14. The baseline for
amendments to current part 49
regulations is the existing part 49 and
current practices. For final § 49.12, the
baseline is existing § 49.12, as well as
modifying the wording of existing provisions. Nonsubstantive amendments of this nature may be
described in the cost-benefit portion of this release,
but the Commission will note that there are no costs
or benefits to consider.
338 See 7 U.S.C. 2(i). CEA section 2(i) limits the
applicability of the CEA provisions enacted by the
Dodd-Frank Act, and Commission regulations
promulgated under those provisions, to activities
within the U.S., unless the activities have a direct
and significant connection with activities in, or
effect on, commerce of the U.S.; or contravene such
rules or regulations as the Commission may
prescribe or promulgate as are necessary or
appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provision
of the CEA enacted by the Dodd-Frank Act. The
application of section 2(i)(1) to § 45.2(a), to the
extent it duplicates § 23.201, with respect to SDs/
MSPs and non-SD/MSP counterparties is discussed
in the Commission’s final rule, ‘‘Cross-Border
Application of the Registration Thresholds and
Certain Requirements Applicable to Swap Dealers
and Major Swap Participants,’’ 85 FR 56924, 56965–
66 (Sept. 14, 2020).
339 See 17 CFR 49.7.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
§ 45.2(f) and (g), which will be replaced
by final § 49.12. For final § 49.17, the
baseline is current §§ 49.17 and 45.13.
The Commission is also finalizing
four new regulations: §§ 49.28, 49.29,
49.30, and 49.31. For final § 49.28 the
baseline is existing § 43.3(f) and (g),
because the requirements in § 43.3(f)
and (g) are being moved to final § 49.28.
For final §§ 49.29 and 49.30, the
baselines are current practices. Final
§ 49.31 concerns internal Commission
practices and is not subject to
consideration of costs and benefits.
4. Costs and Benefits of Amendments to
Part 49
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
i. § 49.2—Definitions
The Commission is adopting editorial
and conforming amendments to certain
definitions in final § 49.2. The
Commission considers the definitions to
have no cost-benefit implications on
their own. In addition, the Commission
believes the amendments to § 49.2 are
non-substantive changes that will not
impact existing obligations on SDRs or
reporting counterparties, and, therefore,
the amended definitions have no costbenefit implications.
ii. § 49.3—Procedures for Registration
The Commission is adopting the
amendments to § 49.3(a)(5) and the
conforming amendments to Form SDR
and § 49.22(f)(2) as proposed in part and
is not adopting the proposed
amendments in part. The Commission is
removing the current requirements for
SDRs to file an annual amendment to
Form SDR but declines to amend the
requirement to update the Form SDR
after the Commission grants an SDR
registration under § 49.3(a).340 The
annual Form SDR filing requirement is
unnecessary for the Commission to
successfully perform its regulatory
functions.
The amendments to § 49.3(a)(5)
benefit SDRs by reducing the amount of
information that SDRs must provide to
the Commission on an annual basis and
the frequency with which SDRs must
deliver information updating Form SDR.
By removing the requirement to file
an annual update to Form SDR in
current § 49.3(a)(5), SDRs will benefit
from expending fewer resources to
provide information to the Commission.
The Commission believes that the
eliminated requirement is burdensome
and unnecessary, as the SDRs already
submit, and will continue to submit, the
same updated information in the
required periodic Form SDR
amendments. The Commission believes
that costs of eliminating the annual
340 See
17 CFR 49.3(a)(5).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Form SDR update requirement, in terms
of impairing the Commission’s access to
information, will be minimal. The costs
related to the changes to § 49.3(a)(5)
will largely be associated with any
needed adjustments to SDR policies and
procedures related to reducing the
number of updates to Form SDR.
Notwithstanding the anticipated
incremental costs, the Commission
believes this change to § 49.3(a)(5) is
warranted in light of the anticipated
benefits.
iii. § 49.5—Equity Interest Transfers
The Commission is finalizing various
amendments to § 49.5 to simplify and
streamline the requirements for when an
SDR enters into an agreement involving
the transfer of an equity interest of ten
percent or more in the SDR. The
Commission also is extending the notice
filing deadline.
Current § 49.5 requires three actions
by an SDR as part of an equity interest
transfer: (1) Issue a notice to the
Commission within one business day of
committing to the transfer; (2) submit
specific documents to the Commission,
as well as update its Form SDR; and (3)
certify compliance with CEA section 21
and Commission regulations adopted
thereunder within two business days of
the transfer of equity.
Final § 49.5 is less demanding than
current § 49.5. Final § 49.5 ensures that
the Commission is apprised of a change
that might impact SDR operations and
provided with information to aid any
evaluation processes the Commission
undertakes. Yet, final § 49.5 gives an
SDR more time in which to notify the
Commission of an equity interest
transfer and eliminates unnecessary
filings. Final § 49.5(a) requires an SDR:
(i) To notify the Commission of each
transaction involving the direct or
indirect transfer of ten percent or more
of the equity interest in the SDR within
ten business days of ‘‘a firm obligation
to transfer’’; and (ii) to provide the
Commission with supporting
documentation upon request. Final
§ 49.5(b) requires that the notice in
§ 49.5(a) be filed electronically with the
Secretary of the Commission and DMO
at the earliest possible time, but in no
event later than ten business days
following the date upon which a firm
obligation is made for the equity interest
transfer. Final § 49.5(c) requires that
upon the transfer, whether directly or
indirectly, the SDR shall file
electronically with the Secretary of the
Commission and DMO a certification
that the SDR meets all of the
requirements of CEA section 21 and the
Commission regulations thereunder, no
later than two business days following
PO 00000
Frm 00219
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75639
the date on which the equity interest
was acquired.
The Commission requested the public
to comment on the cost-benefit
considerations related to proposed
§ 49.5, but the Commission did not
receive any comments. Consequently,
the Commission continues to believe
that the amendments will benefit SDRs
by lowering the burdens related to
notifying the Commission of equity
interest transfers and by extending the
time SDRs have to file the notice with
the Commission. The amendments
benefit SDRs by reducing the burden to
notify the Secretary of the Commission
and DMO of transfers by extending the
available time from one business day to
ten business days. More time will give
SDRs greater latitude in managing how
they use their time and allocate
resources to file the required notices
and certification.
In addition, SDRs will no longer have
the obligations in current § 49.5(a) to
update Form SDR and in current
§ 49.5(b) to provide specificallyidentified documents to the
Commission with the equity interest
transfer notification. Final § 49.5 instead
states that the Commission may request
supporting documentation for the
transaction. Even if the request causes
the SDR to submit more documents than
the ones listed in the current regulation
or Form SDR, the requested documents
will be tailored to the Commission’s
evaluation of the equity transfer. SDRs
will benefit from not expending
resources and time to collect, file,
record, and track documents listed in
current § 49.5 that may have no value to
the Commission’s review. The
Commission’s ability to request
supporting documentation mitigates
costs in terms of detrimental effects that
could arise from less information about
the transfer being available to the
Commission.
Additional costs to SDRs, if any, will
stem from the inclusion of ‘‘indirect
transfers’’ of equity interest in § 49.5.
This could increase the costs to SDRs,
if the inclusion of indirect transfers
results in more equity interest transfers
being subject to the regulation and the
associated need to provide information
to the Commission. The inclusion of
indirect transfers benefits the
Commission by providing greater
insight into equity interest transfers that
could affect the business of an SDR,
even though the equity interest transfer
does not involve the SDR directly. As
equity interest transfers are rare
occurrences and the Commission does
not anticipate that including indirect
transfers will result in substantially
more equity interest transfers, the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75640
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Commission expects the potential
additional costs connected to final
§ 49.5 to be small.
Notwithstanding the anticipated
incremental costs, the Commission
believes the changes to § 49.5 are
warranted in light of the anticipated
benefits.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
iv. § 49.6—Request for Transfer of
Registration
The Commission is finalizing § 49.6 as
proposed. Final § 49.6(a) requires an
SDR seeking to transfer its SDR
registration following a corporate
change to file a request for approval to
transfer the registration with the
Secretary of the Commission in the form
and manner specified by the
Commission. Final § 49.6(b) specifies
that an SDR file a request for transfer of
registration as soon as practicable before
the anticipated corporate change. Final
§ 49.6(c) sets forth the information that
must be included in the request for
transfer of registration, including the
documentation underlying the corporate
change, the impact of the change on the
SDR, governance documents, updated
rulebooks, and representations by the
transferee entity, among other things.
Final § 49.6(d) specifies that upon
review of a request for transfer of
registration, the Commission, as soon as
practicable, shall issue an order either
approving or denying the request for
transfer of registration.
The Commission sought public
comment on its cost-benefit
considerations related to § 49.6. The
Commission did not receive any
comments.
The Commission continues to believe
that § 49.6 will not impose any
additional costs on SDRs compared to
the current requirements that include
meeting filing deadlines for submitting
a Form SDR. The amendments to § 49.6
create several benefits that include
simplifying the process for requesting a
transfer of SDR registration and
reducing the burdens on SDRs for
successfully transferring an SDR
registration to a successor entity. Final
§ 49.6 eliminates duplicative filings by
requiring a more limited scope of
information and representations from
the transferor and transferee entities
than existing § 49.6, which requires a
full application for registration on Form
SDR, including all Form SDR exhibits.
Final § 49.6 focuses on ensuring the
Commission receives relevant
information needed to approve a request
for a transfer of an SDR registration
promptly.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
v. § 49.9—Open Swaps Reports
Provided to the Commission
The Commission is finalizing § 49.9 as
proposed. Final § 49.9 creates a new
regulatory obligation by requiring an
SDR to provide the Commission with an
open swaps report that contains an
accurate reflection of data for every
swap data field required to be reported
under part 45 for every open swap
maintained by the SDR.
Final § 49.9 alters current § 49.9
substantially. Current § 49.9 does not
specifically discuss open swaps reports;
rather, it outlines twelve SDR duties
through cross-references to other part 49
regulations. For example, current § 49.9
states that SDRs must ‘‘accept swap data
as prescribed in § 49.10;’’ provide direct
electronic access to the Commission ‘‘as
prescribed in § 49.17;’’ and adopt
disaster recovery plans ‘‘as prescribed in
§ 49.23 and § 49.13.’’ 341 The
Commission is removing the list of
duties in § 49.9 and replacing it with a
regulation that assigns SDRs the
obligation to issue open swaps reports
to the Commission.342
The Commission requested public
comment on its consideration of the
costs and benefits related to proposed
§ 49.9. The Commission did not receive
any comments.
The Commission believes that while
there may be costs imposed by final
§ 49.9, costs will be mitigated by the fact
that SDRs already send the Commission
reports that are similar to the open
swaps reports required by final § 49.9.
Given that SDRs already have systems to
issue reports, the adjustments SDRs
must undertake to comply with final
§ 49.9 should be incremental in terms of
financial and administrative outlays to
modify technological infrastructures to
meet the Commission’s requirements.
The Commission believes the costs may
include expenditures to modify current
reporting systems to meet the
requirements for the open swaps
reporting systems and costs to maintain
SDR systems.
Currently, SDRs produce reports
using differing approaches to
calculations and formats. There may be
costs to change systems to meet the
Commission’s required standardized
format for open swaps reports. The
Commission, however, does not expect
the format of these reports to change
frequently. The Commission believes a
341 17
CFR 49.9(a).
Commission believes that removing the
list of duties in § 49.9 is a non-substantive change
that does not implicate cost or benefit
considerations, because the list consists of crossreferences to other regulations. The costs and
benefits of the addition of new requirements in final
§ 49.9 are considered below.
342 The
PO 00000
Frm 00220
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
standardized report will ensure the
report is in a more usable format that
assists and improves the Commission’s
regulatory efforts. The Commission uses
current SDR reports to perform market
risk and position calculations. The
Commission also uses SDR reports to
create and publish the Commission’s
weekly swaps report and quarterly
entity-netted notional reports. The
Commission-issued reports benefit
market participants and the public by
providing and analyzing data sourced
directly from the SDRs. This
information on open swaps is unique
and is not available to the public until
the Commission publishes its reports.
The Commission recognizes that the
three existing SDRs vary in size of
operations. They also service and
process different volumes of data for
various asset classes. As a result, the
qualitative and quantitative costs to
comply with § 49.9 will differ between
SDRs. Notably, however, no
commenters submitted estimates of time
or monetized costs for proposed § 49.9
or the amount of current costs to
produce reports. Based on the
Commission’s knowledge of SDRs and
its own technological experience, the
Commission estimates that each SDR
will expend 250 hours to establish an
open swaps report system that complies
with § 49.9. Thereafter, the Commission
estimates that each SDR will spend 30
hours on maintenance and 730 hours
dedicated to issuing open swaps reports
annually. The Commission monetizes
the initial set-up and annual hours by
multiplying by the wage-rate range of
$48 to $101 to estimate that each SDR
will expend $12,000 to $25,250 to
establish an open swaps report system
and then expend $36,480 to $76,760 for
annual maintenance and reporting.343
The Commission considered and
rejected the alternative of not adopting
§ 49.9. The Commission believes that
the absence of a requirement for open
swaps reports creates regulatory
ambiguity and the possibility that SDRs
might stop voluntarily producing open
swaps reports. If the latter were to
343 See supra note 344 (discussion of BLS wage
estimates). These estimates, discussed here and
below, focus on the costs and benefits of the
amended rules market participants are likely to
encounter with an emphasis on technical details,
implementation, and market-level impacts. Where
software changes are expected, these costs reflect
software developer labor costs only, not a blend of
different occupations. Costs and benefits quantified
at the market participant or reporting entity level
are listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act
discussion above in section VII.B and reflect
blended burden costs as defined in the supporting
statement for Part 49. Those costs are not repeated
in this section. Wherever appropriate, quantified
costs reflected in the Paperwork Reduction Act
discussion are noted below.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
occur, the weekly swaps report would
be adversely impacted, possibly
temporarily eliminated, and efforts to
inform the public of developments in
swaps markets would be hindered. This
cost is significant because SDR reports
and Commission-issued reports have
become invaluable to the public’s and
the Commission’s understanding of
derivatives markets.
Notwithstanding the costs and in light
of the drawbacks of possible
alternatives, the Commission believes
§ 49.9 is warranted in light of the
anticipated benefits.
vi. § 49.10—Acceptance of Data
Final § 49.10(e) requires an SDR to
accept corrections for errors in SDR data
that was previously reported, or
erroneously not reported, to SDRs. The
Commission is finalizing § 49.10(e)(1)
through (4) generally as proposed, with
modifications and textual clarifications
in response to public comments. The
final rule sets forth the specific
requirements SDRs will need to satisfy
under § 49.10(e): (i) Accept corrections
for errors reported to, or erroneously not
reported to, the SDR until the end of the
record-keeping retention period under
§ 49.12(b)(2); (ii) record corrections as
soon as technologically practicable after
accepting the corrections; (iii)
disseminate corrected SDR data to the
public and the Commission, as
applicable; and (iv) establish, maintain,
and enforce policies and procedures
designed to fulfill these responsibilities
under § 49.10(e)(1) through (3).
In the Proposal, the Commission
explained that § 49.10(e) could impose
some costs on SDRs, but that the costs
would not be significant and are largely
related to any needed updates to SDR
error correction systems. The
Commission based its belief, in part, on
the fact that SDRs are currently required
to identify cancellations, corrections,
and errors under parts 43 and 45.344
Joint SDR commented that this is an
incorrect understanding because SDRs
‘‘make available facilities to reporting
entities to meet their obligations to
make such corrections.’’ 345 Joint SDR
added: ‘‘In order for an SDR to take on
the new obligation of making
corrections, rather than allowing a
reporting entity to submit corrections
themselves, would necessitate
significant changes to the SDR’s
systems.’’ 346 Joint SDR also stated that
it would be costly to make corrections
to data for dead swaps. They
344 See
17 CFR 43.3(e)(1), (3), and (4); 17 CFR
45.14(c).
345 Joint SDR at 8 n. 28.
346 Joint SDR at 8 n. 28.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
specifically explained: ‘‘This
requirement would be costly for the
SDRs as data will need to be maintained
in a readily accessible format for an
unlimited amount of time and the SDR
will be unable to archive the data in
accordance with its internal policies
and procedures.’’ 347
The Commission is persuaded by
commenters’ statements that proposed
§ 49.10(e) would be costly and
burdensome without changes. Given
that final § 49.10(e) must be read with
final §§ 43.3(e), 45.14, and 49.11, SDRs’
costs related to § 49.10(e) should be far
less than anticipated.
The Commission believes that there
will be costs connected with
implementing final § 49.10(e).
Currently, SDRs must accept and record
data, as well as disseminate calculations
and corrections to SDR data.348 Final
§ 49.10(e) might require SDRs to expend
incremental costs in terms of financial
and staff outlays to adjust systems to
‘‘accept’’ and ‘‘record’’ corrections.
These incremental costs should be
limited because, as mentioned earlier,
SDRs already make facilities available to
reporting counterparties to make
corrections. The Commission believes
that the commenter misunderstands the
requirements of proposed and final
§ 49.10(e) and the associated costs as
requiring more direct participation in
the correction process than is currently
required. Nothing in proposed or final
§ 49.10(e) would require the SDRs to
change a current approach based on
making facilities available that allow
market participants to submit
corrections or obligate an SDR to do
anything more to accept, record, and
disseminate corrections than is
currently required.
The Commission also believes that the
inclusion of the technical specification
and validation requirements for SDR
data in parallel Commission
rulemaking 349 will help prevent certain
types of SDR data reporting errors before
they occur, and, therefore, reduce the
need for market participants and the
SDRs to correct those types of errors
and, as a result, the corresponding costs
incurred by SDRs to correct errors will
likely decrease over time.
Final § 49.10(e) will also limit SDR
error correction requirements to the
applicable recordkeeping obligation in
final § 49.12. SDRs will not be obligated
to indefinitely maintain storage and
legacy systems for dead swaps or to
347 Joint
SDR at 9.
CFR 49.10 (SDR ‘‘shall accept and promptly
record all swap data. . . .’’). See also § 43.3(e)(1),
(3), and (4); 17 CFR 45.14(c).
349 See generally 85 FR 21516, et seq. (Apr. 17,
2020); 85 FR 21578, et seq. (Apr. 17, 2020).
348 17
PO 00000
Frm 00221
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75641
correct dead swaps for which the
records retention period has expired.
SDRs also might incur incremental
costs related to establishing,
maintaining, and enforcing the policies
and procedures required by final
§ 49.10(e). The Commission, however,
believes that costs will be limited to
initial creation costs and update costs
for the policies and procedures as
needed, as mitigated by any existing
SDR error correction policies and
procedures.
The Commission continues to believe
that one of the main benefits of
§ 49.10(e) is improved data quality
resulting from SDRs collecting and
disseminating accurate swaps data.
Accurate and complete datasets will
enable the Commission to better
understand markets and trading
behavior, and guard against abusive
practices. In addition, the Commission
uses swap SDR data to produce public
information on the swaps markets, such
as the weekly swaps reports. The
Commission believes that accurate data
reflected in the weekly swaps report
will improve the quality and reliability
of the reports. All market participants
and the public benefit from complete
and accurate SDR data.
Final § 49.10(e) is linked closely to
final §§ 43.3(e), 45.14, and 49.11.
Because of the changes to current
§§ 43.3(e), 45.14, and 49.11, there will
be costs associated with § 49.10(e). The
Commission, however, believes that the
benefits related to using accurate data
sets warrant the costs of changes to
§ 49.10(e).
vii. § 49.11—Verification of Swap Data
Accuracy
In response to comments, the
Commission is modifying final § 49.11
so that the verification process is less
burdensome and more flexible than the
process set forth in proposed § 49.11.
Final § 49.11 requires an SDR to: (i)
Verify the accuracy and completeness of
swap data that the SDR receives from a
SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty, or
third-party service providers acting on
their behalf; and (ii) establish, maintain,
and enforce policies and procedures
reasonably designed to verify the
accuracy and completeness of that swap
data. In terms of implementation,
§ 49.11 requires an SDR to provide a
mechanism that allows each reporting
counterparty that is a user of the SDR
to access all swap data maintained by
the SDR for each open swap for which
the reporting counterparty is serving as
the reporting counterparty. Under
companion provisions in § 45.14, a
reporting counterparty is required to
perform verifications of the relevant
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75642
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
swap data at specified intervals, using
the mechanism provided by an SDR
under § 49.11, and to correct any errors
discovered.
The Commission anticipates that the
final rule will provide benefits, as
compared to the current regulation, by
improving the quality of data received
and maintained by SDRs. The final rule
is expected to lead to swap data errors
being discovered and corrected more
frequently and earlier than is often the
case under the current regulations.
Existing Commission regulations and
SDRs rules and policies allow
counterparties to presume data is
accurate when it may not be. The
absence of an affirmative verification
requirement has also resulted in
counterparties not discovering errors,
including many obvious errors, and
therefore not correcting the errors, for
extended periods.
The new requirements in final § 49.11
will also impose costs. As discussed in
more detail below, commenters
provided qualitative comments on the
Commission’s consideration of the costs
and benefits of proposed § 49.11, but
did not provide quantitative
information. As final § 49.11 grants
SDRs the flexibility to devise their own
processes to allow reporting
counterparties to access swap data for
verification, it is difficult to determine
the amount of hours and effort SDRs
will need to comply with § 49.11. Based
on comments, the Commission believes
that SDRs will be able to leverage
current technological systems to provide
access to reporting counterparties to
verify data under § 49.11.350 In the
absence of information from
commenters, the Commission estimates
that it will take each SDR up to 500
hours to build, test, and implement
verification systems that are of their
own design.351 The Commission
estimates that SDRs will expend 50
hours or fewer annually to maintain
systems and revise policies and
procedures. The Commission monetizes
the hours by multiplying by a wage rate
of $48 to $101.352 The Commission
estimates that the initial costs to an SDR
350 Joint
SDR at 6 n. 28.
the Proposal, the Commission estimated
burden hours based on proposed § 49.11. Because
final § 49.11 is more flexible and does not require
the creation of open swaps reports or the building
of systems to send and receive messages with
reporting counterparties, the Commission believes
that SDRs and reporting counterparties will employ
less onerous and more economical approaches to
meeting their § 49.11 and § 45.14 obligations.
Therefore, the Commission is using the estimated
burden hours in the Proposal as upper limits on the
number of hours entities will use to develop and
maintain data verification systems.
352 See supra note 344 (discussion of BLS wage
estimates).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
351 In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
of implementing § 49.11 will range
between $24,000 and $50,500. The
annual costs will range between $2,400
and $5,050.
Before adopting the verification
requirements in final § 49.11, the
Commission considered the two
following requirements that were in the
Proposal: (1) Requiring an SDR to
establish, maintain, and enforce policies
and procedures reasonably designed for
the SDR to successfully receive
verifications of data accuracy and
notices of discrepancy from reporting
counterparties 353 and (2) requiring
SDRs to issue open swaps reports to
reporting counterparties on a weekly or
monthly basis, depending on the type of
reporting counterparty involved.354
The Commission received numerous
comments on these two requirements in
response to the Commission’s request
for comment. ISDA/SIFMA suggested
that the Commission issue a more
principles-based verification process
than the one described in proposed
§§ 45.14(a) and 49.11(b).355 ISDA/
SIFMA recommended eliminating the
requirement that reporting
counterparties reconcile swaps data
with SDR-issued open swaps reports as
well as obligations that SDRs manage or
monitor such reconciliations.356 ISDA/
SIFMA proposed a verification process
that would require reporting
counterparties, via required policies and
procedures, ‘‘to periodically reconcile
the relevant SDR data with the data
from their internal books and records for
accuracy.’’ 357 Reporting counterparties
that are SDs, MSPs, or DCOs would be
required to perform verifications
monthly and all other reporting
counterparties would be required to
verify data quarterly.358 The reporting
counterparties would need to keep a
record of verifications and make that
information available to SDRs or the
Commission upon request.359 This
approach would enable reporting
counterparties to leverage their own
data validation efforts and eliminate the
burden of sending multiple
notifications.360
As explained in section II.G above,
the Commission is persuaded by
comments that a more flexible
verification process will have the same,
if not better, effect on data quality as the
proposed verification process. As final
353 Proposal
at 84 FR 21051–55 (May 13, 2019).
354 Id.
355 ISDA/SIFMA
at 45.
356 Id.
357 Id.
358 Id.
359 Id.
360 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00222
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 49.11 does not include the
requirement for SDRs to distribute open
swaps reports to reporting
counterparties or to have policies and
procedures to receive verifications of
accuracy and notices of discrepancy
from reporting counterparties, SDRs will
have greater flexibility in managing
their relationships with reporting
counterparties than they were expected
to have under the Proposal.
The differences between final § 49.11
and the Proposal also affect the
Commission’s cost considerations. In
the Proposal, the Commission
recognized that the SDRs would bear
most of the costs associated with the
proposed amendments to § 49.11.361
The Commission stated that there would
be initial costs from establishing
systems to generate open swaps reports
and to successfully distribute these
reports to all reporting counterparties.
There also would be recurring costs
related to any needed adjustments to
SDR systems over time and to
accommodate the arrival or departure of
reporting counterparties. The
Commission also stated that an SDR’s
costs would be insignificant because an
SDR would automate the verification
process.362
Joint SDR disagreed with the
Commission’s cost assessments for
proposed § 49.11.363 Joint SDR
commented that ‘‘chasing reporting
counterparties who have not provided
verification of data accuracy or a notice
of discrepancy in order to establish the
SDR made a ‘full, good-faith effort to
comply’ ’’ would require an expenditure
of significant resources.364 Joint SDR
also highlighted that the ‘‘cost of
creating and maintaining a system to
verify each message would be
significant.’’ 365 Joint SDR encouraged
the Commission to recognize that any
new message types impose development
costs on SDRs, reporting counterparties,
and all third-parties or vendors who
build and maintain reporting
systems.366
Other commenters characterized their
objections to the proposed messagebased verification process as a costly
endeavor. FIA requested a more
principles-based approach to verifying
swaps under § 49.11, because they
361 Proposal
at 84 FR 21084 (May 13, 2019).
at 84 FR 21084 (May 13, 2019)
(‘‘these changes would [not] be significant because,
based on discussion with the SDRs and other
market participants, the Commission believes SDRs
would largely automate the verification process.’’)
363 Joint SDR at 2–3.
364 Joint SDR at 3.
365 Joint SDR at 6. See also ICE Clear at 3
(referencing Joint SDR).
366 Joint SDR at 6 and n. 22.
362 Proposal
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
believed the approach in proposed
§ 49.11 would create more burdens than
benefits.367 FIA added that ‘‘verification
requirements will have little marginal
benefit relative to the increased costs on
reporting counterparties, in particular
those that are not registered [SDs].’’ 368
ISDA/SIFMA stated that they believe
the ‘‘proposed prescriptive approach to
verification would result in
considerable costs for reporting parties
to implement.’’ 369 ICE Clear commented
that the Commission failed to discuss
how the additional verification and
messaging costs ‘‘would result in
increased levels of data accuracy
sufficient to warrant imposing the
obligations.’’ 370
The Commission believes that the
costs resulting from the verification
process under § 49.11 as finalized will
be less burdensome than the costs the
Commission estimated in the Proposal.
For instance, SDRs would have incurred
costs to create and distribute weekly
and monthly open swaps reports as the
Commission initially proposed, but will
not incur these costs under final
§ 49.11.371 Under final § 49.11, SDRs
and other entities will incur fewer costs
because they will be able to employ
different data-accuracy approaches that
will not include the costs of buildingout and maintaining message-based
verification systems that rely on open
swaps reports.
The Commission is not eliminating
the overall verification requirement
because it believes verifying data is
crucial to ensure data quality. Data
review and verification improves the
reliability and usability of swap data,
and more accurate swap data helps the
Commission in monitoring risk;
analyzing metrics for such indicators as
volume, price, and liquidity; and
developing policy. Thus, final § 49.11
will benefit the Commission and the
public by improving the accuracy of
data they will receive.
Besides considering proposed § 49.11,
the Commission also considered and
rejected the idea of maintaining current
§ 49.11. The Commission rejected this
approach because of concerns about the
quality of data received under current
regulations, as swap data quality has not
sufficiently improved under current
regulations. As explained above, the
presumption that reported swap data is
accurate along with the absence of an
affirmative verification requirement,
367 See
FIA May at 7–8; ISDA/SIFMA at 44–45.
May at 7.
at 44.
370 ICE Clear at 3.
371 Proposal at 84 FR 21084 (May 13, 2019)
(discussion of costs related to generating and
distributing open swaps reports).
368 FIA
369 ISDA/SIFMA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
have resulted in many instances of
inaccurate or unusable swap data being
provided to the Commission under
current regulations and procedures. In
the nine years since the Commission
issued the data reporting regulations, it
has become apparent that the current
requirements are inadequate to ensure
swap data accuracy and that processes
like verification can improve the
accuracy and completeness of data sets.
Accurate data sets are crucial for
overseeing modern markets and for
understanding the structure and
operations of the markets.
Notwithstanding the anticipated
incremental costs of final § 49.11 and
after considering alternatives, the
Commission believes the amendments
to § 49.11 are warranted in light of the
anticipated benefits.
viii. § 49.12—Swap Data Repository
Recordkeeping Requirements
The Commission is finalizing § 49.12
as proposed. Final § 49.12(a) requires an
SDR to keep full, complete, and
systematic records, together with all
pertinent data and memoranda, of all
activities relating to the business of the
SDR, including, but not limited to, all
SDR information and all SDR data
reported to the SDR.
Final § 49.12(b)(1) requires an SDR to
maintain all SDR information received
by the SDR in the course of its business.
Final § 49.12(b)(2) requires an SDR to
maintain all SDR data and timestamps,
and all messages to and from an SDR,
related to SDR data reported to the SDR
throughout the existence of the swap to
which the SDR data relates and for five
years following final termination of the
swap, during which time the records
must be readily accessible by the SDR
and available to the Commission via
real-time electronic access, and then for
an additional period of at least ten years
in archival storage from which such
records are retrievable by the SDR
within three business days.
Final § 49.12(c) requires an SDR to
create and maintain records of errors
related to SDR data validations and
errors related to SDR data reporting.
Final § 49.12(c)(1) requires an SDR to
create and maintain an accurate record
of all SDR data that fails to satisfy the
SDR’s data validation procedures. Final
§ 49.12(c)(2) requires an SDR to create
and maintain an accurate record of all
SDR data errors reported to the SDR and
all corrections disseminated by the SDR
pursuant to parts 43, 45, 46, and 49.
SDRs must make the records available to
the Commission on request.
Final § 49.12(d) contains the
requirements of existing § 49.12(c) and
provides that: (i) All records required to
PO 00000
Frm 00223
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75643
be kept pursuant to part 49 must be
open to inspection upon request by any
representative of the Commission or any
representative of the U.S. Department of
Justice; and (ii) an SDR must produce
any record required to be kept, created,
or maintained by the SDR in accordance
with § 1.31.
The Commission did not receive any
comments concerning its consideration
of costs and benefits related to the
recordkeeping requirements in proposed
§ 49.12.
The Commission continues to believe
that the costs of amendments to § 49.12
will primarily be incurred by the SDRs
as they make any needed adjustments to
create and maintain all required records.
The Commission believes these
incremental costs will be limited, as the
recordkeeping requirements in § 49.12
are largely the same as the requirements
in existing § 49.12 and existing § 45.2(f)
and (g).
The amendments to § 49.12 related to
SDR information will also be
substantially similar to the SEC’s
requirements for its SBSDRs.372 The
Commission expects that there will be
substantial overlap in these
requirements for SDRs that are also
SBSDRs and these entities will be able
to leverage resources to reduce any
duplicative costs.
Joint SDR objected to the
requirements moved to final § 49.12(b)
that requires SDRs to retain data ‘‘for a
period of at least ten additional years in
archival storage from which such
records are retrievable by the swap data
repository within three business
days.’’ 373 Joint SDR suggested that the
Commission harmonize retention
periods with that of Europe and other
Commission-regulated entities.374 Joint
SDR pointed-out that the Commission
collects its own data from SDRs so the
Commission ‘‘can itself retain relevant
data in accordance with its own
recordkeeping policies.’’ 375
The Commission recognizes that the
ten-year archival storage is lengthy, but
the Commission notes that this period is
the current SDR retention periods for
the same data under existing § 45.2(f)
and (g) 376 and that the Commission has
not proposed to modify this current
requirement. The amendments to
§ 49.12(b) are part of the Commission’s
effort to better organize its own rules,
not the result of the Commission
changing a current requirement. As a
372 See 17 CFR 240.13n–7 (detailing the SBSDR
recordkeeping requirements).
373 Final § 49.12(b); See Joint SDR at 11.
374 Joint SDR at 11.
375 Id.
376 17 CFR 45.2(f) and (g).
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75644
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
result, there are no new costs to SDRs
associated with the retention period in
final § 49.12(b). The Commission also
continues to believe the ten-year period
is reasonable. Archived data is
important to regulatory oversight and
the SDRs serve as the source of SDR
data for the Commission. The
Commission benefits from access to
archived swap data, for the purpose of
understanding trends in swaps markets,
such as exposures, trades, and positions,
and guarding against abusive practices.
The Commission believes that the
amendments to § 49.12 will provide
greater clarity to SDRs in regards to their
recordkeeping responsibilities. The
amendments also will help improve
efforts to track data reporting errors,
because the requirements for SDRs to
maintain records of reporting errors will
be clearer. Data recordkeeping should
lead to better quality data by allowing
an SDR and the Commission to look for
patterns in records that may lead to
adjustments to SDR systems or future
adjustments to reporting policies. The
availability of quality records is also
crucial for the Commission to effectively
perform its market surveillance and
enforcement functions, which benefit
the public by protecting market integrity
and identifying risks within the swaps
markets.
Notwithstanding the anticipated
incremental costs of § 49.12, the
Commission believes this change is
warranted in light of the anticipated
benefits.
ix. § 49.17—Access to SDR Data
The Commission is finalizing § 49.17
as proposed. Final § 49.17(b)(3) amends
the definition of ‘‘direct electronic
access’’ to mean an electronic system,
platform, framework, or other
technology that provides internet-based
or other form of access to real-time SDR
data that is acceptable to the
Commission and also provides
scheduled data transfers to Commission
electronic systems.
Final § 49.17(c) requires an SDR to
provide access to the Commission for all
SDR data maintained by the SDR
pursuant to the Commission’s
regulations. Final § 49.17(c)(1) requires
an SDR to provide direct electronic
access to the Commission or its designee
in order for the Commission to carry out
its legal and statutory responsibilities
under the CEA and Commission
regulations. Final § 49.17(c)(1) also
requires an SDR to maintain all SDR
data reported to the SDR in a format
acceptable to the Commission, and
transmit all SDR data requested by the
Commission to the Commission as
instructed by the Commission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Final § 49.17(c)(1) amends the
requirements of existing § 45.13(a) from
maintaining and transmitting ‘‘swap
data’’ to maintaining and transmitting
‘‘SDR data,’’ to make clear that an SDR
must maintain all SDR data reported to
the SDR in a format acceptable to the
Commission and transmit all SDR data
requested by the Commission, not just
swap data.
Final § 49.17(c)(1) also modifies the
requirements of existing § 45.13(a) from
‘‘transmit all swap data requested by the
Commission to the Commission in an
electronic file in a format acceptable to
the Commission’’ to ‘‘transmit all SDR
data requested by the Commission to the
Commission as instructed by the
Commission,’’ and explains what these
instructions may include.
The Commission also is finalizing
amendments to § 49.17(f) to replace the
incorrect reference to § ‘‘37.12(b)(7)’’ at
the end of paragraph (f)(2) with a correct
reference to § ‘‘39.12(b)(7)’’ of the
Commission’s regulations, as there is no
§ 37.12(b)(7) in the Commission’s
regulations.
The Commission’s amendments also
include the movement of the delegation
of authority in existing § 49.17(i) to final
§ 49.31(a)(7).
The Commission believes that § 49.17
will generate costs and benefits. In the
Proposal, the Commission asked for
public comment on its consideration of
costs and benefits. DDR commented that
an SDR cannot estimate costs of
proposed § 49.17(c)(1) because the
proposed rule provided ‘‘no specificity
as to the method, timing, format or
transmission frequency for required
transmission of SDR data requested by
the Commission’’ and left ‘‘the
requirements associated with both the
provision of direct electronic access and
the maintenance of SDR data to be
determined by the Commission at a later
date.’’ 377 While the Commission agrees
that costs may be difficult to determine,
the Commission notes that no
commenters provided information
related to current costs associated with
responding to the similar current
requirements for scheduled data
transfers. If the Commission possessed
current financial and staffing outlays,
the Commission could consider
incremental increases or decreases that
might result from finalizing § 49.17.
The Commission continues to believe
that the costs imposed by the changes to
§ 49.17(c) will fall mainly on SDRs,
because SDRs will incur costs to
provide the Commission with direct
electronic access to all SDR data and to
provide access to SDR data as
377 DDR
PO 00000
at 5.
Frm 00224
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
instructed. The costs associated with the
use of the term ‘‘direct electronic
access’’ in § 49.17(c) are negligible, as
SDRs are currently required to provide
the Commission with direct electronic
access and the definition is being
modified to allow SDRs more flexibility
in providing the Commission with
direct electronic access to SDR data,
subject to the Commission’s approval.
The other amendments to § 49.17(c)
grant the Commission greater flexibility
to instruct SDRs on how to transfer SDR
data to the Commission at the
Commission’s request. As mentioned
above, the Commission currently works
closely with SDRs to facilitate data
transfers and implement technology
changes. The Commission anticipates
that because the rule changes reinforce
the existing working relationships, there
will be better communications between
the Commission and SDRs that will help
both parties devise efficient and costeffective ways to facilitate the transfer of
SDR data to the Commission. As
explained in the Proposal, SDRs are
already required to transmit data under
existing § 49.17(b)(3) and (c)(1), and are
required to transmit all swap data
requested by the Commission to the
Commission in an electronic file in a
format acceptable to the Commission
under existing § 45.13(a). It is also
current market practice for SDRs to
regularly provide SDR data to the
Commission as instructed by
Commission staff. The changes in final
§ 49.17 do not substantially change the
current requirements or market
practices.
The final changes to § 49.17(b)(3) that
modify the definition of ‘‘direct
electronic access’’ to allow for more
technological flexibility will likely
reduce future costs for SDRs because the
amendment allows the Commission to
consider any technology that may
provide direct electronic access. This
will allow the Commission to adapt to
changing technology more quickly and
may allow SDRs to save costs by having
more efficient technology and processes
approved in the future.
The Commission continues to believe
that the amendments to § 49.17 will be
beneficial to SDRs by including the data
access requirements applicable to SDRs
in one section and by more clearly
stating the Commission’s ability to
instruct SDRs on all aspects of
providing SDR data to the Commission.
Notwithstanding the anticipated
incremental costs of § 49.12, the
Commission believes the changes are
warranted in light of the anticipated
benefits.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
x. § 49.25—Financial Resources
The Commission is finalizing changes
to § 49.25 as proposed, except for the
proposed amendments to § 49.25(f)(3).
The conforming changes to § 49.25
eliminate the reference to § 49.9 and to
core principle obligations identified in
§ 49.19. Final § 49.25(a) refers to SDR
obligations under ‘‘this chapter,’’ to be
broadly interpreted as any regulatory or
statutory obligation specified in part 49.
The Commission considered these to be
non-substantive changes that will not
impact existing obligations on SDRs,
and therefore have no cost-benefit
implications. The Commission did not
receive any comments on this point.
The Commission is not finalizing
proposed amendments to § 49.25(f)(3) to
extend the time SDRs have to submit
their quarterly financial resources
reports to 40 calendar days after the end
of the SDR’s first three fiscal quarters,
and 90 days after the end of the SDR’s
fourth fiscal quarter, or a later time that
the Commission permits upon request.
As discussed above, the Commission
has determined not to address the
proposed changes to the filing deadline
for the annual compliance report under
§ 49.22(f)(2) in this final rulemaking.
Accordingly, the Commission is not
adopting the related proposed
amendment to § 49.25(f)(3).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
xi. § 49.26—Disclosure Requirements of
Swap Data Repositories
The Commission is finalizing § 49.26
as proposed. Final § 49.26 includes
updates to the introductory paragraph of
§ 49.26 to reflect updates to the terms
‘‘SDR data,’’ ‘‘registered swap data
repository,’’ and ‘‘reporting entity’’ in
final § 49.2. The Commission is also
finalizing updates to other defined
terms used in the section to conform to
the amendments to § 49.2. These nonsubstantive amendments do not change
the requirements of § 49.26 and do not
have cost-benefit implications.
The Commission also is finalizing
§ 49.26(j) as proposed. Final § 49.26(j)
requires that the SDR disclosure
document set forth the SDR’s policies
and procedures regarding the reporting
of SDR data to the SDR, including the
SDR data validation and swap data
verification procedures implemented by
the SDR, and the SDR’s procedures for
correcting SDR data errors and
omissions (including the failure to
report SDR data as required pursuant to
the Commission’s regulations).
The Commission requested public
comments on its cost-benefit
considerations related to § 49.26, but
the Commission did not receive any
comments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
The Commission believes that costs
related to final § 49.26 will be limited
and incremental given that current
§ 49.26 requires every SDR to issue
disclosure documents.378 Costs will
likely entail the costs related to adding
information required under final
§ 49.26(j) to the required SDR disclosure
document and updating the document
as needed. For example, there may be
administrative and staff costs to revise
current SDR disclosure documents to
include the required information.
The Commission expects that the
addition of final § 49.26(j) will benefit
market participants by providing more
instructive information regarding data
reporting to SDR users. The availability
of this information should improve data
reporting, because SDR users will be
able to align their data reporting systems
with SDRs’ data reporting systems
before using the SDRs’ services. SDR
users will be able to prepare operations
and train staff before reporting SDR data
and, thereby, able reduce reporting
errors and potential confusion.
Notwithstanding the anticipated
incremental costs associated with
§ 49.26, the Commission believes this
change is warranted in light of the
anticipated benefits.
xii. § 49.28—Operating Hours of Swap
Data Repositories
The Commission is finalizing § 49.28
as proposed. Final § 49.28 provides
more detail on an SDR’s responsibilities
with respect to hours of operation. Final
§ 49.28(a) requires an SDR to have
systems in place to continuously accept
and promptly record all SDR data
reported to the SDR, and, as applicable,
publicly disseminate all swap
transaction and pricing data reported to
the SDR pursuant to part 43. Final
§ 49.28(a)(1) allows an SDR to establish
normal closing hours to perform system
maintenance when, in the SDR’s
reasonable estimation, the SDR typically
receives the least amount of SDR data,
and requires the SDR to provide
reasonable advance notice of its normal
closing hours to market participants and
the public.
Final § 49.28(a)(2) allows an SDR to
declare, on an ad hoc basis, special
closing hours to perform system
maintenance that cannot wait until
normal closing hours. Final
§ 49.28(a)(2) requires an SDR to
schedule special closing hours during
periods when, in the SDR’s reasonable
estimation while considering the
circumstances that prompt the need for
the special closing hours, the special
closing hours will be least disruptive to
378 See
PO 00000
the SDR’s data reporting
responsibilities. Final § 49.28(a)(2) also
requires the SDR to provide reasonable
advance notice of the special closing
hours to market participants and the
public whenever possible, and, if
advance notice is not reasonably
possible, to give notice to the public as
soon as is reasonably possible after
declaring special closing hours.
Final § 49.28(b) requires an SDR to
comply with the requirements under
part 40 of the Commission’s regulations
when adopting or amending normal
closing hours or special closing
hours.379
Final § 49.28(c) requires an SDR to
have the capability to accept and hold
in queue any and all SDR data reported
to the SDR during normal closing hours
and special closing hours 380 Final
§ 49.28(c)(1) requires an SDR, on
reopening from normal or special
closing hours, to promptly process all
SDR data received during the closing
hours and, pursuant to part 43, publicly
disseminate swap transaction and
pricing data reported to the SDR that
was held in queue during the closing
hours.381 Final § 49.28(c)(2) requires an
SDR to immediately issue notice to all
SEFs, DCMs, reporting counterparties,
and the public in the event that the SDR
is unable to receive and hold in queue
any SDR data reported during normal
closing hours or special closing hours.
Final § 49.28(c)(2) also requires an SDR
to issue notice to all SEFs, DCMs,
reporting counterparties, and the public
that the SDR has resumed normal
operations immediately on reopening.
Final § 49.28(c)(2) requires a SEF, DCM,
or reporting counterparty that was not
able to report SDR data to an SDR
because of the SDR’s inability to receive
and hold in queue SDR data to report
the SDR data to the SDR immediately
after receiving such notice that the SDR
has resumed normal operations.382
379 This requirement already applies to SDRs
pursuant to current § 43.3(f)(3). See 17 CFR
43.3(f)(3).
380 Final § 49.28(c) expands the similar existing
requirements for swap transaction and pricing data
in current § 43.3(g) to all SDR data and largely
follows the SBSDR requirements to receive and
hold in queue information regarding security-based
swaps.
381 Final § 49.28(c)(1) expands the similar existing
requirements for the SDRs to disseminate swap
transaction and pricing data pursuant to current
§ 43.3(g)(1) to also include the prompt processing
of all other SDR data received and held in queue
during closing hours. The requirements also largely
follow the SBSDR requirements for disseminating
transaction reports after reopening following
closing hours.
382 Final § 49.28(c)(2) expands the similar
existing requirements for swap transaction and
pricing data in current § 43.3(g)(2) to all SDR data
and is largely consistent with the SBSDR
17 CFR 49.26(a) through (i).
Frm 00225
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75645
Continued
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75646
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
The Commission requested public
comment on its consideration of costs
and benefit related to § 49.28 but did not
receive any.
The Commission continues to believe
that the final requirements, which are
largely based on existing rule text found
in current § 43.3(f) and (g), will have
limited cost implications for SDRs.
There may be costs associated with any
needed modification to SDR systems to
accommodate all SDR data during
closing hours, as opposed to only swap
transaction and pricing data. These
costs will be incremental because all
SDRs currently have policies,
procedures, and systems in place to
accommodate all SDR data during
closing hours under the current
requirements.
The Commission also still believes
that SDRs, market participants, and the
public will benefit from final § 49.28
because the requirements for setting
closing hours and handling SDR data
during closing hours will be clearer.
Final § 49.28 removes discrepancies
between current requirements for SDRs
and SBSDRs related to closing hours,
which will allow SDRs that are also
registered as SBSDRs to comply with
one consistent requirement.
Notwithstanding the anticipated
incremental costs related to § 49.28, the
Commission believes the addition of
§ 49.28 is warranted in light of the
anticipated benefits.
xiii. § 49.29—Information Relating to
Swap Data Repository Compliance
The Commission is finalizing new
§ 49.29 as proposed, which requires an
SDR to respond to Commission
information requests regarding, among
other things, its business as an SDR and
its compliance with SDR regulatory
duties and core principles.
Final § 49.29(a) requires an SDR,
upon request of the Commission, to file
certain information related to its
business as an SDR or other such
information as the Commission
determines to be necessary or
appropriate for the Commission to
perform its regulatory duties. An SDR
must provide the requested information
in the form and manner and within the
time specified by the Commission in its
request.
Final § 49.29(b) requires an SDR,
upon the request of the Commission, to
demonstrate compliance with its
obligations under the CEA and
Commission regulations, as specified in
the request. An SDR must provide the
requested information in the form and
requirements to receive and hold in queue
information regarding security-based swaps.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
manner and within the time specified
by the Commission in its request. Final
§ 49.29 is based on similar existing
Commission requirements applicable to
SEFs and DCMs.383
The costs associated with responding
to requests for information include the
staff hours required to prepare and
submit materials related to the
Commission’s requests. These costs will
vary among SDRs depending upon the
nature and frequency of Commission
inquiries. The Commission expects
these requests to be limited in both size
and scope, which will likely mitigate
the associated costs for SDRs. While
final § 49.29 allows the Commission to
make requests on an ad hoc basis, the
Commission expects that the need for
these requests will decrease over time as
SDR data quality and SDR compliance
with Commission regulations
improve.384
DDR commented that because
proposed § 49.29 provided ‘‘no detail as
to the potential scope of a request or to
the form, manner and timing associated
with satisfying the request’’ an SDR
could not assess accurately costs
associated with the rule.385 While the
Commission agrees that costs are
difficult to accurately determine, the
Commission notes that no commenters
provided current costs associated with
responding to requests for information,
as currently SDRs routinely provide the
same information to the Commission on
request. If the Commission possessed
current cost information related to
responding to requests, the Commission
could consider incremental increases or
decreases that might result from
finalizing § 49.29 as proposed. Without
that information as a reference, the
Commission continues to believe that
there will be an incremental cost for
each response. Yet, the Commission also
believes that that costs will be mitigated
by the fact that current practice is for
SDRs to provide similar information to
the Commission on request and that the
SDRs do so regularly. In addition, SDRs
will be required to adhere to form and
manner specifications established
pursuant to final § 49.30. The
Commission expects that clearly
defining the form and manner for each
response will further mitigate the cost
burden to SDRs that may arise from any
uncertainty as to the information to be
provided.
Benefits attributed to final § 49.29
include improving the Commission’s
383 See,
e.g., 17 CFR 37.5 and 38.5.
Commission currently exercises similar
authority fewer than ten times per year in total with
other registered entities, such as SEFs, DCMs, and
DCOs.
385 DDR at 7.
384 The
PO 00000
Frm 00226
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
oversight of SDRs due to Commission
inquiries. The Commission expects that
this oversight will lead to improved data
quality and SDR compliance with
Commission regulations. Better data
quality will help improve the
Commission’s ability to fulfill its
regulatory responsibilities and help to
increase the Commission’s
understanding of the swaps market.
These improvements are expected to
benefit the public because accurate and
complete SDR data reporting improves
the Commission’s analyses and
oversight of the swaps markets, and
increases market integrity due to the
Commission’s improved ability to detect
and investigate noncompliance issues
and oversee their correction.
The Commission also continues to
believe that final § 49.29 will help the
Commission to obtain the information it
needs to perform its regulatory
functions more effectively, as opposed
to requiring SDRs to supply information
on a set schedule, such as under the
current requirement for annual Form
SDR updates in § 49.3(a)(5). This will
reduce the burden on SDRs, as the SDRs
will no longer need to expend resources
to prepare annual filings.
Notwithstanding the anticipated
incremental costs related to § 49.29, the
Commission believes the addition of
§ 49.29 is warranted in light of the
anticipated benefits.
xiii. § 49.30—Form and Manner of
Reporting and Submitting Information
to the Commission
The Commission is finalizing new
§ 49.30 as proposed to address the form
and manner of information the
Commission requests from SDRs.
Final § 49.30 establishes the broad
parameters of the ‘‘form and manner’’
requirements found in part 49. The form
and manner requirement in § 49.30 will
not supplement or expand upon existing
substantive provisions of part 49, but
instead, will allow the Commission to
specify how information reported by
SDRs should be formatted and delivered
to the Commission. Final § 49.30
provides that an SDR must submit any
information required under part 49,
within the time specified, using the
format, coding structure, and electronic
data transmission procedures approved
in writing by the Commission.
The Commission continues to believe
that the form and manner requirements
will have costs associated with
conforming reports and information to
Commission specifications. For
instance, there may be costs associated
with staff hours and technology used to
format reports. DDR commented that
because proposed § 49.30 was vague, an
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
SDR could not assess accurately costs
associated with the rule.386 While the
Commission agrees that costs are
difficult to determine, the Commission
notes that no commenters provided
current reporting costs or projections for
staffing and systems costs, which the
Commission could use to consider
incremental increases or decreases that
might result from finalizing § 49.30 as
proposed.
The Commission continues to believe
that, in practice, the incremental costs
of § 49.30 will be limited, because SDRs
have ample experience working with
Commission staff to deliver data,
reports, and other information in the
form and manner requested by
Commission staff. The Commission
believes that this experience will
significantly mitigate the costs of similar
activities under this requirement. The
Commission also still believes that the
Commission will benefit through
increased standardization of
information provided by SDRs, thereby
aiding the Commission in the
performance of its regulatory obligations
by ensuring the provided information is
in useable formats and delivered by
usable methods. The ability to
standardize the form and manner of
information provided to the
Commission will also help SDRs to
efficiently fulfill their obligations to
provide information to the Commission.
Notwithstanding the anticipated
incremental costs related to § 49.30, the
Commission believes the addition of
§ 49.30 is warranted in light of the
anticipated benefits.
5. Costs and Benefits of Amendments to
Part 45
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
i. § 45.2—Swap Recordkeeping
The Commission is moving existing
§ 45.2(f) and (g) (SDR recordkeeping
and SDR records retention, respectively)
to final § 49.12. As such, all costs and
benefits associated with this change are
discussed in the section, above, that
discusses the amendments to § 49.12.
ii. § 45.14—Correcting Errors and
Omissions in Swap Data and
Verification of Swap Data Accuracy
The Commission is adopting
proposed § 45.14, with modifications, to
improve the requirements to correct
data errors and to verify data. Currently,
the Commission requires error
corrections but it does not directly
require reporting counterparties to
verify data. In the Proposal, the
Commission outlined error correction
and verification processes that included
specific actions and timelines for those
actions. In response to comments on the
Proposal, the Commission is modifying
final § 45.14 so that the error-correction
and verification processes for reporting
counterparties are less burdensome and
more flexible than the processes set
forth in the Proposal. The Commission
will discuss the final error-correction
process first, and then the final
verification process.
Final § 45.14(a) sets forth
requirements for correcting swap data
errors. Final § 45.14(a) requires a SEF,
DCM, or reporting counterparty to
correct swap data errors as soon as
technologically practicable, but no later
than seven business days, after
discovery. Final § 45.14(a) requires a
SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty to
correct errors and omissions for open
swaps and dead swaps, but § 45.14(a)(3)
provides that the error correction
requirement does not apply to swaps for
which the applicable record retention
period under § 45.2 has expired. Final
§ 45.14(a)(2) requires a non-reporting
counterparty that becomes aware of an
error to notify the reporting
counterparty of the error as soon as
technologically practicable, but no later
than three business days, after
discovery. If a non-reporting
counterparty does not know the identity
of the reporting counterparty, the nonreporting counterparty must notify the
SEF or DCM where the swap was
executed of the error as soon as
technologically practicable, but no later
than three business days, following the
discovery.
Final § 45.14(a) differs from current
§ 45.14, because it provides more
parameters for SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties correcting
errors and sets timelines for correcting
errors or issuing error notices to the
Commission. Current § 45.14(a) requires
each registered entity or swap
counterparty to report discovered data
errors and omissions as soon as
technologically practicable, but there is
no deadline for making a correction.387
Current § 45.14(b) requires a nonreporting counterparty to promptly
notify the reporting counterparty of any
errors or omissions, but the rule does
not define promptly.388 Proposed
§ 45.14(b) would have required a SEF,
DCM, or reporting counterparty to
correct errors or notify the Director of
DMO within three business days of
discovery of errors, regardless of the
state of the swap.
In final § 45.14(a), the Commission
establishes a seven-day correction
period in response to comments that the
387 17
386 DDR
at 7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
388 17
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
CFR 45.14(a).
CFR 45.14(b).
Frm 00227
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75647
proposed three-day period to correct or
notify would not be practicable.389 One
commenter asserted that the
Commission’s proposed rule was a ‘‘one
size fits all’’ approach that failed to
account for ‘‘different errors and
omission scenarios and levels of
materiality’’ with an impractical error
remediation period that would result in
an excessive volume of notifications
being sent to the director of DMO 390
The proposed three-day period was
based on the Commission’s preliminary
belief that the costs related to correcting
errors and omissions or drafting
remediation plans and sending notices
would not impose an undue burden on
reporting counterparties. Commenters
stated that the requirements of proposed
§ 45.14(b), such as the notification
requirement, would consume significant
resources, even for immaterial errors,
that would take away resources needed
to actually correct errors.391
Commenters also explained that the
proposed three-day deadline would be
burdensome because the process for
identifying errors and then resolving
such issues often takes more than three
business days.392 The Commission is
persuaded by comments that the threeday period, as proposed, would hamper
the correction of errors.
The Commission believes there will
be costs associated with correcting
errors under the revised seven-business
day correction period. Market
participants correcting errors will need
to expend technological and staff
resources to identify the causes of data
errors and resources to correct errors.
The amount of resources used will
likely be dictated by the complexity of
the error. The Commission notes that
these costs will be minimal, compared
to current requirements, because the
current requirements would necessitate
the same cause identification and error
correction. The seven-day deadline in
final § 45.14, however, will require
389 ISDA/SIFMA
at 46. FIA May at 8–9; ICE Clear
at 3.
390 ISDA/SIFMA at 45–46. See also FIA May at 8
(‘‘Verification of swap data and/or remediation of
known errors or omission is not a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’
task’’).
391 ISDA/SIFMA at 46. See also GFMA at 6, 12
(timeframe should be in business days); CEWG at
5–6 (For a non-registrant reporting counterparty, it
would be difficult to address a reporting error while
simultaneously commit resources to file a report
with the Commission).
392 FIA May at 8 (‘‘Members report that these
reviews routinely take significantly more than three
business days to determine scope, let alone to
outline a remediation plan to a regulator.’’); ISDA/
SIFMA at 45–46 (three days would often not be
enough time to fine the causes and scope of errors
and omissions and submit a report); GFMA at 13
(proposed verification process would impose
significant headcount costs).
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
75648
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
some reporting counterparties to
allocate resources differently to meet the
deadline, because the current errorcorrection rule has no time deadline.393
The Commission believes that market
participants will benefit from the sevenday correction period because it
eliminates any uncertainty about the
time period in which market
participants must correct errors before
notifying the Commission of an issue. A
time period also helps market
participants manage time in terms of
scheduling and assigning resources to
correct errors. The Commission believes
seven business days is sufficient time to
complete the steps needed to identify,
investigate, and rectify most errors or
omissions. The Commission also
believes that the seven-day period, as
compared to the absence of a deadline
in current § 45.14, will not negatively
affect the Commission’s regulatory
duties, including its ability to monitor
swaps markets. Under the current error
correction requirements, counterparties
have neglected to inform SDRs of errors
or omissions for extended periods,
which has meant that SDRs have
transmitted inaccurate data to the
Commission and the Commission may
have relied on inaccurate data while
performing its regulatory
responsibilities.
The Commission is also modifying, in
final § 45.14, the proposed requirement
for a reporting counterparty to produce
remediation plans and issue notices to
the Commission, and for a non-reporting
counterparty to notify a reporting
counterparty, SEF, or DCM of errors, as
applicable.394 Current § 45.14 does not
require market participants to issue any
error notices or submit a remediation
plan, if one exists, to the Commission.
Final § 45.14 requires SEF, DCM, or
reporting counterparties to notify the
Commission of any error that cannot be
corrected within seven business days of
discovery. The notice must include an
initial assessment of the scope of the
error and an initial remediation plan, if
one exists. This notification must be
made within twelve hours of the SEF’s,
DCM’s, or reporting counterparty’s
determination that it will fail to timely
correct the error.
The Commission believes that the
final § 45.14 requirement to issue error
notices will generate costs. Market
participants will need to expend
technological and staff resources to
develop and maintain notification
systems. SEF’s, DCM’s, and reporting
393 See
generally 17 CFR 45.14.
at 84 FR 21069–70 (May 13, 2019)
(discussion of proposed § 45.14(b)(1)(ii) and the
current practices for remediation plans).
394 Proposal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
counterparties will incur additional
costs to develop systems to assess the
scope of an error and to submit initial
remediation plans, if they decide to use
such plans. For SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties that already
send the Commission error-correction
notices and remediation plans, the costs
will be incremental.395
The Commission believes that error
correction notices are beneficial because
they will help alert the Commission to
data that is unreliable and to reporting
issues. Notices also will help the
Commission monitor whether market
participants are complying with
Commission regulations. If a market
participant creates an initial
remediation plan, it will be useful to the
market participants and the Commission
because such plans help with tracking
errors, identifying data issues,
discovering recurring errors, and
preventing errors from reoccurring. The
Commission also believes that the
inclusion of the technical specification
and validation requirements for swap
data in parallel Commission
rulemaking 396 will help reduce certain
types of swap data reporting errors, and
reduce the need for market participants
to correct those types of errors and, as
a result, the corresponding costs
incurred by market participants to
correct swap data errors will likely
decrease over time. Finally, the
Commission believes that the error
correction process becomes less
burdensome and less disruptive when
market participants remedy data errors
as soon as possible and in an organized
manner.
The Commission also believes that the
final § 45.14 error correction process
will improve data accuracy and will
enable the Commission to better
monitor risk and identify issues in the
swaps markets. As discussed above, the
Commission currently issues a weekly
swaps report and quarterly entity-netted
notional reports using swaps data.397
Using swap data, the weekly swaps
report has the capacity to illustrate
trends in exposures, trades, and
positions, and the entity-netted notional
reports measure the transfer of risk in
swaps markets. Both reports give the
Commission and the public greater
insight into trading behavior, liquidity,
pricing, various types of risk, and how
swaps markets work in general—all
395 Proposal
396 See
at 84 FR 20170 (May 13, 2019).
generally 85 FR 21578, et seq. (Apr. 17,
2020).
397 The weekly swaps report is available at:
https://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/SwapsReports/
index.htm. ENNs reports for different asset classes
are available at: https://www.cftc.gov/About/
EconomicAnalysis/ReportsOCE/index.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00228
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
factors important in developing policy
and allocating oversight resources. More
accurate swap data will increase the
usefulness of these reports.
The Commission is requiring error
corrections for all swaps that are within
their respective records retention
periods. In a change from the Proposal,
and is response to comments received,
the Commission is finalizing a limit on
the SEFs’, DCMs’, and reporting
counterparties’ obligations to correct
errors in swap data that confines the
error correction requirements to errors
discovered during the relevant
recordkeeping periods for the relevant
swaps under § 45.2. The Commission
recognizes the comments that argued
that correcting swaps that are outside of
their record retention periods is
burdensome and impractical. ISDA/
SIFMA explained that as dead swaps
‘‘no longer pose risks to U.S. markets, it
is unclear how correcting any errors
would enhance the Commission’s
ability to monitor risk.’’ 398 ISDA/
SIFMA also remarked that there would
be costs incurred by SDRs and reporting
counterparties that are associated with
correcting dead swaps, such as
maintaining and storing data and
building validations that can
accommodate the reporting of dead
swaps.399
The Commission acknowledges that
the burden shouldered by market
participants to expend resources to
correct older data and to maintain
legacy formats will affect costs and
complexity of compliance.400 However,
there is value in correcting dead swaps,
as the Commission is charged with
ensuring market integrity and guarding
against fraud and manipulation, among
its other regulatory responsibilities,
which includes the use of data for dead
swaps. With accurate data, including for
dead swaps, the Commission will be
able to better analyze years of market
activity, study market events, perform
back-testing, and, ultimately, use the
swap data to inform policy.401 The
398 ISDA/SIFMA
at 47.
399 Id.
400 Id.
at 46–47. See also FIA May at 9.
example, since January 2013, the
Commission has produced weekly swaps data, and
since early 2018, the Commission has issued
quarterly, ENNs reports. Over time, Commission
staff will be able to produce studies using historical
swaps data, similar to the papers about futures
trading. See, e.g., ‘‘Commodity Index Trading and
Hedging Costs,’’ Celso Brunetti and David Reiffen,
August 2014, Journal of Financial Markets, vol. 21,
pp. 153–180, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.finmar.2014.08.001 (authors used 10 years of
futures data, 2003–2012; ‘‘The Lifecycle of
Exchange-traded Derivatives,’’ Grant Cavanaugh
and Michael Penick, July 2014, Journal of
Commodity Markets, vol. 10, pp. 47–68, available
at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomm.2018.05.007
401 For
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
correction of dead swaps also provides
a strong incentive for market
participants to properly design their
reporting systems, to perform thorough
verification, and to promptly correct
errors, to avoid or mitigate the cost of
correcting data errors, which will
improve data quality.
In final § 45.14(b), the Commission is
requiring reporting counterparties to
verify data. Currently, there are no
specific verification requirements for
reporting counterparties. The
Commission is adopting verification
requirements in final § 45.14(b) that
differ from the process described in the
Proposal.
Proposed § 45.14(a) outlined a
verification process that involved an
exchange of open swaps reports and
messaging between SDRs and reporting
counterparties. Proposed § 45.14(a)
would have required reporting
counterparties to reconcile open swaps
reports with their internal records for
the swap data and to submit to an SDR
a verification of the accuracy or notice
of discrepancy for the relevant swap
data within a 48- or 96-hour period, as
applicable,402 after receipt of open
swaps reports from the SDR. Proposed
49.11 would have required an SDR to
distribute open swaps reports for
verification by reporting counterparties
who are SDs, MSPs or DCOs on a
weekly basis and to other reporting
counterparties on a monthly basis. By
not adopting certain elements in
proposed § 49.11—that is, the messaging
process based on open swaps reports
issued by SDRs—SDRs and reporting
counterparties will have more flexibility
(as compared to the Proposal) in
determining how reporting
counterparties verify data and correct
errors pursuant to § 45.14.
Final § 45.14(b) modifies the proposed
verification process. Final § 45.14(b)(1)
requires a reporting counterparty to
utilize the mechanism provided by an
SDR pursuant to final § 49.11 to access
and verify swap data by comparing its
internal records for swap data with the
relevant swap data maintained by the
SDR. Under final § 45.14(b)(2), a
reporting counterparty must conform to
the relevant SDR’s policies and
procedures for verification. In final
§ 45.14(b)(4), the Commission is setting
the verification frequency at every thirty
calendar days for reporting
counterparties that are SDs, MSPs, or
DCOs, and at every quarter for other
(authors studied over 50 years of futures data from
1954 to the 2000s).
402 Under the Proposal, SDs, MSPs and DCOs are
subject to a shorter 48-hour time frame for
verification.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
reporting counterparties. Final
§ 45.14(b)(5) requires a reporting
counterparty to maintain a verification
log, wherein the reporting counterparty
records the verifications it performed,
errors discovered during the verification
processes, and corrections made. The
reporting counterparty must provide the
verification log to the Commission on
request.
The Commission understands that the
costs of verification processes under
final § 45.14 will involve time and
personnel resources for reporting
counterparties. A reporting counterparty
may be required to expend resources to
develop processes to access swap data
through one or more SDR mechanisms
and to compare swap data maintained
by SDRs with its internal data and
records for open swaps. The absence of
a verification process under the
Commission’s current rules has been
costly in terms of the harmful effect
erroneous and incomplete swaps data
submissions have had on the
Commission’s regulatory efforts,
especially when data errors that could
have been discovered through
verification are not discovered and not
corrected.
The Commission believes there may
be recurring costs associated with
performing monthly and quarterly
verifications and with preparing
verification logs. The Commission
proposed more frequent verifications
than are included in the final
requirement, and some commenters
suggested that the Commission reduce
the frequency of the verification process
and focus on key economic fields for
trades to alleviate the costs and the
challenges of verification.403 A number
of commenters believed that the
Commission’s technical specifications
and validation requirements proposed
from other Roadmap rules would mean
that data is reliable enough for
verification to be performed less
frequently than proposed.404 The
Commission agrees with these
comments, and has reduced the
frequency of verifications from the
proposed weekly/monthly to monthly/
quarterly, as recommended by
commenters.
The Commission believes that the
final frequency of verifications will still
support the Commission’s objectives for
high-quality data without
403 See,
e.g., GFMA at 13.
ICE Clear at 3 (‘‘By focusing on obtaining
a critical set of data elements, utilizing existing and
future upfront data validations, and leveraging
existing requirements to correct errors and
omissions, the Commission has crafted a reporting
framework that should substantially enhance the
accuracy, reliability and utility of swap data.’’)
404 See
PO 00000
Frm 00229
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75649
overburdening reporting counterparties
and SDRs.405 Monthly and quarterly
verifications, depending on the type of
reporting counterparty, will also require
the use of resources, such as personnel
and time, but the Commission believes
that reporting counterparties’
verification processes will become more
efficient and, in some cases, automated
as experience and technology develops.
Also, as commenters suggested, it is
likely that the Commission’s enhanced
validation and technical specifications
will produce more accurate and reliable
data, in certain respects, which, in turn,
will reduce the reduce the amount of
time needed to verify data. Validations
and standardized data fields would help
eliminate inappropriately blank data
fields, though they would not eliminate
the reporting of incorrect but plausible
swap data, meaning that verification is
still a necessity. Reducing or
eliminating the number of
inappropriately blank data fields will,
however reduce the number of errors to
be discovered in verification and the
number of errors to be corrected.
The Commission also believes that
§ 45.14 encourages accountability,
because reporting counterparties must
record their data verification efforts.
Under the current regulations, there is
little accountability for counterparties
that do not participate in the
confirmation process.
The Commission believes that
verification processes that lead to
accurate data are vital to meaningful
regulation and essential to fulfilling the
purposes of CEA section 21. With more
accurate data, the Commission can
better identify discrepancies in swaps
markets, determine whether market
participants are complying with
Commission regulations, and guard
against abusive practices. Accurate data
also benefits the public, because it is
used to inform the Commission’s policy
decisions that help support wellfunctioning markets.
For proposed § 45.14, like proposed
§ 49.11, commenters provided
qualitative comments in response to the
Commission’s consideration of costs
and benefits. Commenters did not
provide quantitative information.
Based on the Commission’s
familiarity with reporting counterparty
operations and the currently collected
data, the Commission recognizes there
will be monetary costs for reporting
counterparties to comply with the errorcorrection and verification requirements
405 ISDA/SIFMA at 45 (ISDA/SIFMA suggested
monthly verifications for reporting counterparties
that are SDs, MSPs, or DCOs, and quarterly
verifications for all other reporting counterparties).
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
75650
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
in § 45.14. For the error-correction
process, the Commission estimates that
SEFs, DCMs, and reporting
counterparties will each spend about 30
hours per year correcting data
previously submitted to SDRs,
providing notices to the Commission,
and submitting remediation plans, if
such plans exist.406 Those hours will
not be new time commitments because
reporting counterparties are currently
required to correct errors. The
Commission monetizes the hours by
multiplying by a wage rate of $48 to
$101.407 Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that each reporting
counterparty will expend between
$1,440 and $3,030 annually to
implement § 45.14(a), and each nonreporting counterparty will expend
between $48 and $101.
The Commission estimates that the
hours needed for reporting
counterparties to meet their verification
obligations under the final rules will be
less than the hours estimated to be
required under the Proposal, as a result
of the technical specifications and
validation requirements from other
Roadmap rulemakings, which the
Commission expects will reduce errors
in the first instance, and because the
verification process under final
§ 45.14(b) will be less time-consuming
than the requirements under proposed
§§ 45.14(a) and 49.11. The Commission
understands that the hours and rates
will vary based on many factors,
including each reporting counterparty’s
expertise in data reporting and
operational size. The Commission
estimates that the initial efforts to
implement § 45.14(b) will require 100
hours on average, meaning each
reporting counterparty will expend up
to 100 hours a year to establish systems
to verify data and prepare verification
logs. The Commission estimates these
efforts to cost between $4,800 to
$10,100, which are the sums of the
hours multiplied by a wage rate of $48
to $101.408 The Commission estimates
that reporting counterparties will
expend up to two hours every 30 days
to verify data, or 24 hours annually. The
annual costs to verify data every 30 days
for some reporting counterparties will
range between $1,152 and $2,424. The
annual costs to expend up to two hours
every quarter to verify data for other
reporting counterparties will range
between $384 and $808.
406 Proposal
at 84 FR 21076 (May 13, 2019).
supra note 344 (discussion of BLS wage
estimates).
408 See supra note 344 (discussion of BLS wage
estimates).
407 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Besides considering proposed § 45.14,
the Commission considered and rejected
the idea of maintaining current § 45.14.
The Commission rejected this approach
because it has become evident that
mandates to correct errors and
verification processes improve data
quality, and that current requirements
have proven inadequate for providing
the Commission with the level of data
quality that it requires to perform its
regulatory functions. As explained
above, the current regulations for
confirmation and error correction have
resulted in the Commission receiving
data that is presumed accurate, when
this is often not the case. The
Commission also has observed that the
absence of a verification requirement
has resulted in counterparties neglecting
to inform SDRs of errors, or otherwise
not discovering even glaring errors in
swap data, often for long periods of
time. This leaves the Commission with
flawed data, which hinders the
Commission’s ability to understand the
nature of swaps, price fluctuations, and
markets generally, and hampers the
Commission’s ability to perform its
regulatory functions. Thus, the
Commission believes the alternative of
retaining current § 45.14 would
undermine the Commission’s regulatory
efforts and hinder the Commission’s
ability to make informed decisions
using accurate data.
Notwithstanding the anticipated
incremental costs related to final § 45.14
and after considering alternative
approaches, the Commission believes
the amendments to § 45.14 are
warranted in light of the anticipated
benefits.
6. Costs and Benefits of Amendments to
Part 43
§ 43.3(e)—Error Correction
The Commission is amending the
error correction requirements of existing
§ 43.3(e) to conform to the error
correction requirements in § 45.14. The
amendments to § 43.3(e) create
regulatory consistency and reduce any
confusion around error-correction
requirements for data under Part 43 and
swap data required under Part 45.
Final § 43.3(e)(1) requires any SEF,
DCM, or reporting counterparty that by
any means becomes aware of any errors
in swap transaction and pricing data
previously-reported, or not properly
reported, to an SDR by the SEF, DCM,
or reporting counterparty to submit
corrected swap transaction and pricing
data to the SDR regardless of the state
of the swap, including swaps that have
terminated, matured, or are otherwise
no longer open. Final § 43.3(e)(1)(i)
PO 00000
Frm 00230
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requires a SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty to correct swap transaction
and pricing data as soon as
technologically practicable following
discovery of the errors, but no later than
seven business days following the
discovery of the error. Under final
§ 43.3(e)(1)(ii), if a SEF, DCM, or
reporting counterparty is unable to
correct the errors within seven business
days following discovery of the errors,
the SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty
must inform the Director of DMO, or his
or her designee, of such errors or
omissions and provide an initial
assessment of the scope of the errors or
omissions and an initial remediation
plan for correcting the errors, if one
exists, within 12 hours of determining
that the correction cannot be made
within the required time frame. Final
§ 43.3(e)(1)(iii) requires that a SEF,
DCM, or reporting counterparty conform
to an SDR’s policies and procedures for
corrections of errors in previouslyreported swap transaction and pricing
data and reporting of omitted swap
transaction and pricing data.
Final § 43.3(e)(2) applies to a nonreporting counterparty that becomes
aware of any errors in swap transaction
and pricing data. Final § 43.3(e)(2)
requires a non-reporting counterparty to
inform the reporting counterparty for
the swap of the error, but does not
require the non-reporting counterparty
to correct the error. A non-reporting
counterparty has three business days
following the discovery of the errors or
omissions to notify the reporting
counterparty of the error, instead of the
seven business days provided for
corrections under final § 43.3(e)(1). If a
non-reporting counterparty does not
know the identity of the reporting
counterparty, the non-reporting
counterparty must notify the SEF or
DCM where the swap was executed of
the errors and omissions no later than
three business days after the discovery.
The Commission is moving all of the
requirements of existing § 43.3(f) and (g)
to new § 49.28. As such, all costs and
benefits associated with this change are
discussed above in section discussing
§ 49.28.
The costs related to final § 43.3(e)(1)
are similar to the costs to correct errors
under final § 45.14(a)(1), as the final
rules to each section are intended to be
consistent. Final § 43.3(e) will impose
costs on SEFs, DCMs, and reporting
counterparties for correcting errors and
submitting remediation plans, if they
exist, to the Director of DMO within a
seven-day period. Market participants
are also currently required to correct
errors under existing § 43.3(e), so costs
associated with § 43.3(e) are only those
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
that result from the modified
requirements as compared to the
existing requirements, such as the
requirement for notices. Costs to correct
errors and issue error notices with
initial remediation plans, if they exist,
will be mitigated by the fact that the
duties under § 43.3(e) are similar to
duties in final § 45.14. The Commission
also believes that the costs related to
remediation plans will be incremental
because reporting counterparties
typically provide a remediation plan to
the Commission as part of current
practice. The seven-day deadline will
require some reporting counterparties to
allocate resources differently to meet the
deadline because the current rule does
not have a specific time deadline.409
The Commission also believes that the
inclusion of the technical specification
and validation requirements for swap
transaction and pricing data in parallel
Commission rulemaking 410 will help
reduce certain types of swap transaction
and pricing data reporting errors, and,
therefore, reduce the need for market
participants to correct those types of
errors and, as a result, the
corresponding costs incurred by market
participants to correct swap transaction
and pricing data errors will likely
decrease over time.
Non-reporting counterparties also
may incur additional costs related to the
requirements in § 43.3(e)(2). Nonreporting counterparties may expend
resources to make the required
notification within the three-day period
under final § 43.3(e)(2). Under current
§ 43.3(e)(1)(i), non-reporting
counterparties must act ‘‘promptly’’ so
the three-day deadline under the final
rule may require non-reporting
counterparties to allocate resources
differently to meet the deadline. The
additional requirement in final
§ 43.3(e)(2) for a non-reporting
counterparty to inform a SEF or DCM of
an error if the identity of the reporting
counterparty is not known is intended
to accommodate non-reporting
counterparties in fulfilling their role in
the data correction process for swaps
executed anonymously. The
Commission expects that non-reporting
counterparties will not incur many costs
to notify a SEF or DCM of errors and
omissions beyond the cost currently
incurred when notifying reporting
counterparties.
As discussed in the section regarding
the benefits of final § 45.14, the
Commission believes consistent error
correction requirements for swap data
409 See
410 See
generally 17 CFR 43.3(e).
generally 85 FR 21516, et seq. (Apr. 17,
2020).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
and swap transaction and pricing data
will help ensure that the Commission
has access to accurate and complete
swap transaction and pricing data in
order to fulfill its various regulatory
responsibilities. Accurate swap
transaction and pricing data helps the
Commission to monitor and surveil
market activity and risks within the
swaps markets. Accurate and complete
swap transaction and pricing data is
also beneficial to market participants
and the public, who rely on the data in
their swaps-related decision-making.
Inaccurate or incomplete swap
transaction and pricing data can create
market volatility. Additionally, the
Commission believes that accurate swap
transaction and pricing data is necessary
for effective risk management for swap
counterparties, and the correction
requirements under the final rule will
help ensure that swap counterparties
have access to accurate and complete
swap transaction and pricing data.
SDRs and counterparties also benefit
from consistent regulations. The final
rule establishes a swap data errorcorrection framework for reporting
counterparties in § 45.14. The
requirements in final § 43.3(e) are
consistent with the requirements in
final § 45.14(a). Both of these rules
complement amendments to Part 49 that
require SDRs to provide reporting
counterparties with access to swaps data
reporting systems to identify errors and
make corrections. The Commission
believes that inconsistent requirements
may lead to confusion and unnecessary
efforts by covered entities. By ensuring
that obligations in final § 43.3(e) are
consistent with the obligations to
§ 45.14, these issues should be avoided.
Finally, the Commission believes its
ability to monitor swaps markets is not
compromised by the three-day or sevenday correction and notification periods
in final § 43.3(e). While incorrect data
might affect market analysis in the
short-term, there is greater value in
possessing accurate data for the life of
a swap that can provide insight into
market activity for months and years;
support a point-in-time examination of
the data, and enable back-testing.
The Commission recognizes there will
be monetary costs for reporting
counterparties and non-reporting
counterparties to comply with the errorcorrection and notification requirements
in § 43.3(e). For the error-correction and
remediation process, the Commission
estimates that 1,729 SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties will each spend
about 30 hours a year correcting swap
transaction and pricing data, providing
notices to the Commission and
submitting remediation plans, if such
PO 00000
Frm 00231
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75651
plans exist.411 Those hours will not be
new time commitments because
reporting counterparties are currently
required to correct errors. Because the
Commission believes that error
notifications by non-reporting
counterparties will be infrequent, it
estimates that non-reporting
counterparties will expend no more
than one hour issuing error notices. The
Commission monetizes the hours by
multiplying by a wage rate of $48 to
$101.412 Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that each reporting
counterparty will expend between
$1,440 and $3,030 annually to
implement § 43.3(e), and each nonreporting counterparty will expend
between $48 and $101 annually.
While the Commission does
anticipate incremental costs associated
with § 43.3(e), the Commission believes
the amendments to § 43.3(e) are
warranted in light of the anticipated
benefits related to error-correction
processes that lead to accurate data.
7. Section 15(a) Factors
The Dodd-Frank Act sought to
promote the financial stability of the
United States, in part, by improving
financial system accountability and
transparency. More specifically, Title
VII of the Dodd-Frank Act directs the
Commission to promulgate regulations
to increase swaps market transparency
and thereby reduce the potential for
counterparty and systemic risk.413
Transaction-based reporting is a
fundamental component of the
legislation’s objectives to increase
transparency, reduce risk, and promote
market integrity within the financial
system generally, and the swaps market
in particular. SEFs, DCMs, and reporting
counterparties that submit data to SDRs
are central to achieving the legislation’s
objectives related to swap reporting.
Section 15(a) of the Act requires the
Commission to consider the costs and
benefits of the amendments to parts 43,
45, and 49 with respect to the following
factors:
• Protection of market participants
and the public;
• Efficiency, competitiveness, and
financial integrity of markets;
• Price discovery;
411 Proposal
at 84 FR 21076–77 (May 13, 2019).
supra note 344 (discussion of BLS wage
estimates).
413 See Congressional Research Service Report for
Congress, The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act: Title VII, Derivatives, by
Mark Jickling and Kathleen Ann Ruane (August 30,
2010); Department of the Treasury, Financial
Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation: Rebuilding
Financial Supervision and Regulation 1 (June 17,
2009) at 47–48.
412 See
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75652
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
• Sound risk management practices;
and
• Other public interest
considerations.
A discussion of these amendments in
light of section 15(a) factors is set out
immediately below.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
i. Protection of Market Participants and
the Public
In the Part 49 Adopting Release, the
Commission noted that it believed that
the registration and regulation of SDRs
will serve to better protect market
participants by providing the
Commission and other regulators with
important oversight tools to monitor,
measure, and comprehend the swaps
markets. Inaccurate and incomplete data
reporting hinders the Commission’s
ability to oversee the swaps market. The
final rules adopted in this release
mostly focus on ensuring that SDRs and
reporting counterparties verify and
correct errors or omissions in data
reported to SDRs and on streamlining
and simplifying the requirements for
SDRs. Both error-correction and
verification processes are steps in a
series of data checks or techniques
needed to build accurate data sets.
Regardless of whether verification is
done automatically or manually, the
accuracy of SDR data should improve
under these final regulations because
inaccuracies will be removed.
Overall, the Commission believes that
the adoption of all the amendments to
parts 43, 45, and 49 will improve the
quality of the data reported, increase
transparency, and enhance the
Commission’s ability to fulfill its
regulatory responsibilities, including its
market surveillance and enforcement
capabilities. In some cases, as discussed
above, the final regulations are expected
to be more flexible as compared to the
requirements in the Proposal. The
Commission does not believe that this
increased flexibility will encumber the
benefits from better quality data. Rather,
the Commission believes that
monitoring of potential risks to financial
stability will be more effective with
more accurate data. More accurate data
will therefore lead to improved
protection of market participants and
the public.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and
Financial Integrity of Markets
The Commission believes that the
adoption of the amendments to parts 43,
45, and 49, together with the swap data
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in parts 43 and 45, will
provide a robust source of information
on swaps markets that is expected to
promote increased efficiency and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
competition. Under the final Roadmap
regulations, parts 43, 45, and 49 will
work together to establish a data
validation and verification system for
SDRs and reporting counterparties. The
result is a data reporting system that
fulfills the CEA’s mandate that the
Commission prescribe data collection
and maintenance standards for SDRs,
and, ultimately, supports the collection
of accurate and complete data.
The Commission believes that
accurate swap transaction and pricing
data will lead to greater efficiencies for
market participants executing swap
transactions due to a better
understanding of their overall positions
within the context of the broader
market. This improved understanding
will be facilitated by two distinct
channels. First, amendments adopted in
this final rulemaking are expected to
result in improved swap transaction and
pricing data being made available to the
public, which will improve the ability
of market participants to monitor realtime activity by other participants and
to respond as they see fit. Second,
amendments that result in improved
swap data will improve the
Commission’s ability to monitor the
swaps markets for abusive practices and
improve the Commission’s ability to
create policies that ensure the integrity
of the swaps markets. This improvement
will be facilitated by the Commission’s
improved oversight and enforcement
capabilities and the reports and studies
published as part of the Commission’s
research and information programs.
In particular, the amendments to
§§ 45.14, 49.2, 49.10, 49.11, 49.12, and
49.26 will help improve the financial
integrity of markets. For example, the
verification and correction of swap data
will improve the accuracy and
completeness of swap data available to
the Commission. The verification and
correction processes also will assist the
Commission with, among other things,
improving monitoring of risk exposures
of individual counterparties, monitoring
concentrations of risk exposure, and
evaluating systemic risk. The efficient
oversight and accurate data reporting
enabled by these amendments will
improve the financial integrity of the
swaps markets.
In the Part 49 Adopting Release, the
Commission expected that the
introduction of SDRs would further
automate the reporting of swap data.
The Commission expected that
automation would benefit market
participants and reduce transactional
risks through the SDRs and other service
providers offering important ancillary
services, such as confirmation and
matching services, valuation, pricing,
PO 00000
Frm 00232
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reconciliation, position limits
management, and dispute resolution.
These benefits did follow and have
enhanced the efficiency,
competitiveness, and financial integrity
of markets.414 The Commission believes
that the amendments in this release will
help to further enhance these benefits.
iii. Price Discovery
The CEA requires that swap
transaction and pricing data be made
publicly available. The CEA and its
existing regulations in part 43 also
require swap transaction and pricing
data to be available to the public in realtime. Combined, parts 43 and 49
achieve the statutory objective of
providing transparency and enhanced
price discovery to swap markets in a
timely manner. The amendments to
§§ 43.3, 49.2, 49.10, 49.11, 49.12, and
49.26 improve the fulfillment of these
objectives. The amendments, both
directly and indirectly, upgrade the
quality of real-time public reporting of
swap transaction and pricing data by
improving the accuracy of information
that is reported to the SDRs and
disseminated to the public.
As explained above, many of the final
rules adopted in this release focus on a
system for verifying swap data reported
to and maintained by SDRs, who are
also charged with disseminating such
data to the Commission. The value of
the swap data to the Commission
depends on its accuracy and
completeness. Swap data that contains
errors or missing information has
limited value because the Commission
cannot rely on it to monitor risk and
pricing, measure volume and liquidity,
or inform policy.
Similarly, the Commission believes
that inaccurate and incomplete swap
transaction and pricing data hinders the
public’s use of the data, which harms
transparency and price discovery. The
Commission is aware of at least three
publicly-available studies that support
this point. The studies examined data
and remarked on incomplete,
inaccurate, and unreliable data. The first
study analyzed the potential impact of
the Dodd-Frank Act on OTC transaction
costs and liquidity using real-time CDS
trade data. The study found that more
than 5,000 reports had missing data and
more than 15,000 reports included a
price of zero, leaving a usable sample of
180,149 reports.415 The second study
reported a number of data fields that
See Part 49 Adopting Release at 54573.
Y.C. Loon, Z. (Ken) Zhong, ‘‘Does Dodd-Frank
affect OTC transaction costs and liquidity?
Evidence from real-time trade reports,’’ Journal of
Financial Economics (2016), available at https://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.01.019.
414
415
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
were routinely null or missing, making
it difficult to analyze swap market
volumes.416 The third study assessed
the size of the agricultural swaps market
and described problems in identifying
the underlying commodity as well as
other errors in the reported data that
made some data unusable, including, for
example, swaps with a reported
notional quantity roughly equal to the
size of the entire U.S. soybean crop.417
The Commission expects the final rules
will result in more accurate and
complete data, which will improve
market participants’ ability to analyze
swap transaction and pricing data. This,
in turn, should improve transparency
and price discovery.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
In the Part 49 Adopting Release, the
Commission stated that part 49 and part
45 will strengthen the risk management
practices of the swaps market.418 Prior
to the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act,
participants in the swaps markets
operated without obligations to disclose
transactions to regulators or to the
public. The Dodd-Frank Act specifically
changed the transparency of the swaps
market with the adoption of CEA
section 21 and the establishment of
SDRs as the entities to which swap data
and swap transaction and pricing data
are reported and maintained for use by
regulators or disseminated to the public.
The Commission believes that the
improved reporting of data to SDRs will
serve to improve risk management
practices by market participants. To the
extent that better swap transaction and
pricing data improves the ability of
market participants to gauge their risks
in the context of the overall market, risk
management practices should improve.
Earlier and more-informed discussions
between relevant market participants
and regulators regarding systemic risk,
facilitated by accurate swap data, will
also lead to improved risk management
outcomes. Market participants should
also see improvements in their risk
management practices, as improved
swap data allows for more accurate and
timely market analyses that are publicly
disseminated by the Commission.
The Commission believes that the
amendments to parts 43, 45, and 49 will
416 See Financial Stability Report, Office of
Financial Research (Dec. 15, 2015) at 84–85,
available at https://financialresearch.gov/financialstability-reports/files/OFR_2015-Financial-StabilityReport_12-15-2015.pdf.
417 Peterson, P.E. 2014. ‘‘How Large is the
Agricultural Swaps Market?’’ Proceedings of the
NCCC–134 Conference on Applied Commodity
Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk
Management. St. Louis, MO, available at https://
www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/nccc134.
418 See Part 49 Adopting Release at 54574.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
improve the quality of SDR data
reported to SDRs and, hence, improve
the Commission’s ability to monitor the
swaps market, react to potential market
emergencies, and fulfill its regulatory
responsibilities generally. The
amendments adopted in this final
rulemaking place different obligations
on SDRs and reporting counterparties to
verify accuracy and completeness of
SDR data. The Commission believes that
access for regulators to accurate and
reliable SDR data is essential for
appropriate risk management and is
especially important for regulators’
ability to monitor the swaps market for
systemic risk. Moreover, the
Commission expects efforts to improve
data quality will increase market
participants’ confidence in SDR data
and therefore their confidence in any
subsequent analyses based on the data.
v. Other Public Interest Considerations
The Commission believes that the
increased transparency resulting from
improvements to the SDR data via the
amendments to parts 43, 45, and 49 has
other public interest considerations
including: Creating greater
understanding for the public, market
participants, and the Commission of the
interaction between the swaps market,
other financial markets, and the overall
economy; improving regulatory
oversight and enforcement capabilities;
and generating more information for
regulators so that they may establish
more effective public policies to reduce
overall systemic risk.
D. Antitrust Considerations
Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the
Commission to take into consideration
the public interest to be protected by the
antitrust laws and endeavor to take the
least anticompetitive means of
achieving the objectives of the CEA, in
issuing any order or adopting any
Commission rule or regulation
(including any exemption under section
4(c) or 4c(b)), or in requiring or
approving any bylaw, rule, or regulation
of a contract market or registered futures
association established pursuant to
section 17 of the CEA.419 The
Commission believes that the public
interest to be protected by the antitrust
laws is generally to protect competition.
The Commission requested comments
on whether the Proposal may have the
potential to be inconsistent with the
anti-trust laws or anti-competitive in
nature. The Commission has considered
this final rule to determine whether it is
anticompetitive and has identified no
anticompetitive effects.
419 7
PO 00000
U.S.C. 19(b).
Frm 00233
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75653
Because the Commission has
determined that the final rule is not
anticompetitive and has no
anticompetitive effects, the Commission
has not identified any less
anticompetitive means of achieving the
purposes of the CEA.
List of Subjects
17 CFR Part 43
Real-time public swap reporting.
17 CFR Part 45
Data recordkeeping requirements,
Data reporting requirements, Swaps.
17 CFR Part 49
Registration and regulatory
requirements, Swap data repositories.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission amends 17 CFR
chapter I as follows:
PART 43—REAL-TIME PUBLIC
REPORTING
1. The authority citation for part 43
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2(a), 12a(5) and 24a, as
amended by Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376
(2010).
2. Amend § 43.3 by revising paragraph
(e) to read as follows:
■
§ 43.3 Method and timing for real-time
public reporting.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Correction of errors—(1) Swap
execution facilities, designated contract
markets, and reporting counterparties.
Any swap execution facility, designated
contract market, or reporting
counterparty that by any means
becomes aware of any error relating to
swap transaction and pricing data that
it was required to report under this part
shall correct the error. To correct an
error, the swap execution facility,
designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty shall submit complete and
accurate swap transaction and pricing
data to the swap data repository that
maintains the swap transaction and
pricing data for the relevant swap, or
completely and accurately report swap
transaction and pricing data for a swap
that was not previously reported to a
swap data repository as required under
this part, as applicable. Except as
otherwise provided in this section, the
requirement to correct any error applies
regardless of the state of the swap that
is the subject of the swap transaction
and pricing data, including a swap that
has terminated, matured, or otherwise is
no longer considered to be an open
swap.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
75654
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(i) Timing requirement for correcting
errors. The swap execution facility,
designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty shall correct any error as
soon as technologically practicable after
discovery of the error. In all cases, errors
shall be corrected within seven business
days after discovery. Any error that a
reporting counterparty discovers or
could have discovered during the
verification process required under
§ 45.14(b) of this chapter is considered
discovered for the purposes of this
section as of the moment the reporting
counterparty began the verification
process during which the error was first
discovered or discoverable.
(ii) Notification of failure to timely
correct. If the swap execution facility,
designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty will, for any reason, fail to
timely correct an error, the swap
execution facility, designated contract
market, or reporting counterparty shall
notify the Director of the Division of
Market Oversight, or such other
employee or employees of the
Commission as the Director may
designate from time to time. The
notification shall be in the form and
manner, and according to the
instructions, specified by the Director of
the Division of Market Oversight, or
such other employee or employees of
the Commission as the Director may
designate from time to time. Unless
otherwise instructed by the Director of
the Division of Market Oversight, or
such other employee or employees of
the Commission as the Director may
designate from time to time, the
notification shall include an initial
assessment of the scope of the error or
errors that were discovered, and shall
include any initial remediation plan for
correcting the error or errors, if an initial
remediation plan exists. This
notification shall be made within 12
hours of the swap execution facility’s,
designated contract market’s, or
reporting counterparty’s determination
that it will fail to timely correct the
error.
(iii) Form and manner for error
correction. In order to satisfy the
requirements of this section, a swap
execution facility, designated contract
market, or reporting counterparty shall
conform to a swap data repository’s
policies and procedures created
pursuant to § 49.10 of this chapter for
correction of errors.
(2) Non-reporting counterparties. Any
non-reporting counterparty that by any
means becomes aware of any error in
the swap transaction and pricing data
for a swap to which it is the nonreporting counterparty, shall notify the
reporting counterparty for the swap of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
the error as soon as technologically
practicable after discovery, but not later
than three business days following
discovery of the error. If the nonreporting counterparty does not know
the identity of the reporting
counterparty, the non-reporting
counterparty shall notify the swap
execution facility or designated contract
market where the swap was executed of
the error as soon as technologically
practicable after discovery, but no later
than three business days following the
discovery. Such notice from the nonreporting counterparty to the swap
execution facility, designated contract
market, or reporting counterparty
constitutes discovery under this section.
(3) Exception. The requirements to
correct errors set forth in paragraph (e)
of this section only apply to errors in
swap transaction and pricing data
relating to swaps for which the record
retention period under § 45.2 of this
chapter has not expired as of the time
the error is discovered. Errors in swap
transaction and pricing data relating to
swaps for which the record retention
periods under § 45.2 of this chapter
have expired at the time that the errors
are discovered are not subject to the
requirements to correct errors set forth
in paragraph (e) of this section.
(4) Error defined—(i) Errors. For the
purposes of this part, there is an error
when swap transaction and pricing data
is not completely and accurately
reported. This includes, but is not
limited to, the following circumstances:
(A) Any of the swap transaction and
pricing data for a swap reported to a
swap data repository is incorrect or any
of the swap transaction and pricing data
that is maintained by a swap data
repository differs from any of the
relevant swap transaction and pricing
data contained in the books and records
of a party to the swap.
(B) Any of the swap transaction and
pricing data for a swap that is required
to be reported to a swap data repository
or to be maintained by a swap data
repository is not reported to a swap data
repository or is not maintained by the
swap data repository as required by this
part.
(C) None of the swap transaction and
pricing data for a swap that is required
to be reported to a swap data repository
or to be maintained by a swap data
repository is reported to a swap data
repository or is maintained by a swap
data repository.
(D) Any of the swap transaction and
pricing data for a swap that is no longer
an open swap is maintained by the swap
data repository as if the swap is still an
open swap.
PO 00000
Frm 00234
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(ii) Presumption. For the purposes of
this section, there is a presumption that
an error exists if the swap data or the
swap transaction and pricing data that
is maintained and disseminated by an
SDR for a swap is not complete and
accurate. This includes, but is not
limited to, the swap data that the SDR
makes available to the reporting
counterparty for verification under
§ 49.11 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 45—SWAP DATA
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
3. The authority citation for part 45
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6r, 7, 7a–1, 7b–3, 12a,
and 24a, as amended by Title VII of the Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
of 2010, Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376
(2010), unless otherwise noted.
4. In § 45.1(a), add a definition for the
term ‘‘Open swap’’ in alphabetical order
to read as follows:
■
§ 45.1
Definitions.
(a) * * *
Open swap means an executed swap
transaction that has not reached
maturity or expiration, and has not been
fully exercised, closed out, or
terminated.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 45.2
[Amended]
5. In § 45.2, remove and reserve
paragraphs (f) and (g).
■ 6. Revise § 45.14 to read as follows:
■
§ 45.14 Correcting errors in swap data and
verification of swap data accuracy.
(a) Correction of errors—(1) Swap
execution facilities, designated contract
markets, and reporting counterparties.
Any swap execution facility, designated
contract market, or reporting
counterparty that by any means
becomes aware of any error relating to
swap data that it was required to report
under this part shall correct the error.
To correct an error, the swap execution
facility, designated contract market, or
reporting counterparty shall submit
complete and accurate swap data to the
swap data repository that maintains the
swap data for the relevant swap, or
completely and accurately report swap
data for a swap that was not previously
reported to a swap data repository as
required under this part, as applicable.
Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the requirement to correct any
error applies regardless of the state of
the swap that is the subject of the swap
data, including a swap that has
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
terminated, matured, or otherwise is no
longer considered to be an open swap.
(i) Timing requirement for correcting
errors. The swap execution facility,
designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty shall correct any error as
soon as technologically practicable after
discovery of the error. In all cases, errors
shall be corrected within seven business
days after discovery. Any error that a
reporting counterparty discovers or
could have discovered during the
verification process required under
paragraph (b) of this section is
considered discovered for the purposes
of this section as of the moment the
reporting counterparty began the
verification process during which the
error was first discovered or
discoverable.
(ii) Notification of failure to timely
correct. If the swap execution facility,
designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty will, for any reason, fail to
timely correct an error, the swap
execution facility, designated contract
market, or reporting counterparty shall
notify the Director of the Division of
Market Oversight, or such other
employee or employees of the
Commission as the Director may
designate from time to time. The
notification shall be in the form and
manner, and according to the
instructions, specified by the Director of
the Division of Market Oversight, or
such other employee or employees of
the Commission as the Director may
designate from time to time. Unless
otherwise instructed by the Director of
the Division of Market Oversight, or
such other employee or employees of
the Commission as the Director may
designate from time to time, the
notification shall include an initial
assessment of the scope of the error or
errors that were discovered, and shall
include any initial remediation plan for
correcting the error or errors, if an initial
remediation plan exists. This
notification shall be made within 12
hours of the swap execution facility’s,
designated contract market’s, or
reporting counterparty’s determination
that it will fail to timely correct the
error.
(iii) Form and manner for error
correction. In order to satisfy the
requirements of this section, a swap
execution facility, designated contract
market, or reporting counterparty shall
conform to a swap data repository’s
policies and procedures created
pursuant to § 49.10 of this chapter for
correction of errors.
(2) Non-reporting counterparties. Any
non-reporting counterparty that by any
means becomes aware of any error in
the swap data for a swap to which it is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
the non-reporting counterparty, shall
notify the reporting counterparty for the
swap of the error as soon as
technologically practicable after
discovery, but not later than three
business days following discovery of the
error. If the non-reporting counterparty
does not know the identity of the
reporting counterparty, the nonreporting counterparty shall notify the
swap execution facility or designated
contract market where the swap was
executed of the error as soon as
technologically practicable after
discovery, but no later than three
business days following the discovery.
Such notice from the non-reporting
counterparty to the swap execution
facility, designated contract market, or
reporting counterparty constitutes
discovery under this section.
(3) Exception. The requirements to
correct errors set forth in paragraph (a)
of this section only apply to errors in
swap data relating to swaps for which
the record retention period under § 45.2
has not expired as of the time the error
is discovered. Errors in swap data
relating to swaps for which the record
retention periods under § 45.2 have
expired at the time that the errors are
discovered are not subject to the
requirements to correct errors set forth
in paragraph (a) of this section.
(b) Verification that swap data is
complete and accurate. Each reporting
counterparty shall verify that there are
no errors in the swap data for all open
swaps that the reporting counterparty
reported, or was required to report, to a
swap data repository under the
requirements of this part, in accordance
with this paragraph (b).
(1) Method of verification. Each
reporting counterparty shall utilize the
mechanism for verification that each
swap data repository to which the
reporting counterparty reports swap
data adopts under § 49.11 of this
chapter. Each reporting counterparty
shall utilize the relevant mechanism(s)
to compare all swap data for each open
swap for which it serves as the reporting
counterparty maintained by the relevant
swap data repository or repositories
with all swap data contained in the
reporting counterparty’s internal books
and records for each swap, to verify that
there are no errors in the relevant swap
data maintained by the swap data
repository. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, a reporting counterparty is
not required to verify the accuracy and
completeness of any swap data to which
the reporting counterparty is not
permitted access under the Act or
Commission regulations, including, but
not limited to, § 49.17 of this chapter.
PO 00000
Frm 00235
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75655
(2) Verification policies and
procedures. In performing verification
as required by this paragraph, each
reporting counterparty shall conform to
each relevant swap data repository’s
verification policies and procedures
created pursuant to § 49.11 of this
chapter. If a reporting counterparty
utilizes a third-party service provider to
perform verification, the reporting
counterparty shall conform to each
relevant swap data repository’s thirdparty service provider verification
policies and procedures created
pursuant to § 49.11 of this chapter and
shall require the third-party service
provider to conform to the same policies
and procedures while performing
verification on behalf of the reporting
counterparty.
(3) Correcting errors. Any and all
errors discovered during the verification
process shall be corrected in accordance
with paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(4) Frequency. Each reporting
counterparty shall perform verification
at a minimum:
(i) If the reporting counterparty is a
swap dealer, major swap participant, or
derivatives clearing organization, once
every thirty calendar days; or
(ii) If the reporting counterparty is not
a swap dealer, major swap participant,
or a derivatives clearing organization,
once every calendar quarter, provided
that there are at least two calendar
months between verifications.
(5) Verification log. Each reporting
counterparty shall keep a log of each
verification that it performs. For each
verification, the log shall include all
errors discovered during the
verification, and the corrections
performed under paragraph (a) of this
section. This requirement is in addition
to any other applicable reporting
counterparty recordkeeping
requirement.
(c) Error defined—(1) Errors. For the
purposes of this part, there is an error
when swap data is not completely and
accurately reported. This includes, but
is not limited to, the following
circumstances:
(i) Any of the swap data for a swap
reported to a swap data repository is
incorrect or any of the swap data that is
maintained by a swap data repository
differs from any of the relevant swap
data contained in the books and records
of a party to the swap.
(ii) Any of the swap data for a swap
that is required to be reported to a swap
data repository or to be maintained by
a swap data repository is not reported to
a swap data repository or is not
maintained by the swap data repository
as required by this part.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75656
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(iii) None of the swap data for a swap
that is required to be reported to a swap
data repository or to be maintained by
a swap data repository is reported to a
swap data repository or is maintained
by a swap data repository.
(iv) Any of the swap data for a swap
that is no longer an open swap is
maintained by the swap data repository
as if the swap is still an open swap.
(2) Presumption. For the purposes of
this section, there is a presumption that
an error exists if the swap data that is
maintained and disseminated by an SDR
for a swap is not complete and accurate.
This includes, but is not limited to, the
swap data that the SDR makes available
to the reporting counterparty for
verification under § 49.11 of this
chapter.
PART 49—SWAP DATA
REPOSITORIES
7. The authority citation for part 49 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2(a), 6r, 12a, and
24a, as amended by Title VII of the Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
of 2010, Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (Jul.
21, 2010), unless otherwise noted.
8. Amend § 49.2 by:
a. In paragraph (a)—
i. Revising the definition of
‘‘Affiliate’’;
■ ii. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘As soon as
technologically practicable’’;
■ iii. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Asset
class,’’ ‘‘Commercial use,’’ ‘‘Control,’’
‘‘Foreign regulator,’’ ‘‘Independent
perspective,’’ ‘‘Market participant,’’ and
‘‘Non-affiliated third party’’;
■ iv. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘Open swap’’;
■ v. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Person
associated with a swap data repository’’
and ‘‘Position’’;
■ vi. Removing the definition of
‘‘Registered swap data repository’’;
■ vii. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘Reporting counterparty’’;
■ viii. Removing the definition of
‘‘Reporting entity’’;
■ ix. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘SDR data’’;
■ x. Revising the definitions of ‘‘SDR
Information,’’ ‘‘Section 8 material,’’ and
‘‘Swap data’’;
■ xi. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘Swap transaction and
pricing data’’; and
■ b. Revising paragraph (b).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
■
■
■
§ 49.2
Definitions.
(a) * * *
Affiliate means a person that directly,
or indirectly, controls, is controlled by,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
or is under common control with, the
swap data repository.
As soon as technologically practicable
means as soon as possible, taking into
consideration the prevalence,
implementation, and use of technology
by comparable market participants.
Asset class means a broad category of
commodities including, without
limitation, any ‘‘excluded commodity’’
as defined in section 1a(19) of the Act,
with common characteristics underlying
a swap. The asset classes include
interest rate, foreign exchange, credit,
equity, other commodity, and such
other asset classes as may be determined
by the Commission.
Commercial use means the use of SDR
data held and maintained by a swap
data repository for a profit or business
purposes. A swap data repository’s use
of SDR data for regulatory purposes
and/or to perform its regulatory
responsibilities would not be
considered a commercial use regardless
of whether the swap data repository
charges a fee for reporting such SDR
data.
Control (including the terms
‘‘controlled by’’ and ‘‘under common
control with’’) means the possession,
direct or indirect, of the power to direct
or cause the direction of the
management and policies of a person,
whether through the ownership of
voting securities, by contract, or
otherwise.
*
*
*
*
*
Foreign regulator means a foreign
futures authority as defined in section
1a(26) of the Act, foreign financial
supervisors, foreign central banks,
foreign ministries, and other foreign
authorities.
Independent perspective means a
viewpoint that is impartial regarding
competitive, commercial, or industry
concerns and contemplates the effect of
a decision on all constituencies
involved.
Market participant means any person
participating in the swap market,
including, but not limited to, designated
contract markets, derivatives clearing
organizations, swap execution facilities,
swap dealers, major swap participants,
and any other counterparty to a swap
transaction.
Non-affiliated third party means any
person except:
(1) The swap data repository;
(2) The swap data repository’s
affiliate; or
(3) A person jointly employed by a
swap data repository and any entity that
is not the swap data repository’s affiliate
(the term ‘‘non-affiliated third party’’
includes such entity that jointly
employs the person).
PO 00000
Frm 00236
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Open swap means an executed swap
transaction that has not reached
maturity or expiration, and has not been
fully exercised, closed out, or
terminated.
Person associated with a swap data
repository means:
(1) Any partner, officer, or director of
such swap data repository (or any
person occupying a similar status or
performing similar functions);
(2) Any person directly or indirectly
controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with such swap data
repository; or
(3) Any person employed by such
swap data repository, including a jointly
employed person.
Position means the gross and net
notional amounts of open swap
transactions aggregated by one or more
attributes, including, but not limited to,
the:
(1) Underlying instrument;
(2) Index, or reference entity;
(3) Counterparty;
(4) Asset class;
(5) Long risk of the underlying
instrument, index, or reference entity;
and
(6) Short risk of the underlying
instrument, index, or reference entity.
Reporting counterparty means the
counterparty required to report SDR
data pursuant to part 43, 45, or 46 of
this chapter.
SDR data means the specific data
elements and information required to be
reported to a swap data repository or
disseminated by a swap data repository
pursuant to two or more of parts 43, 45,
46, and/or 49 of this chapter, as
applicable in the context.
SDR information means any
information that the swap data
repository receives or maintains related
to the business of the swap data
repository that is not SDR data.
Section 8 material means the business
transactions, SDR data, or market
positions of any person and trade
secrets or names of customers.
Swap data means the specific data
elements and information required to be
reported to a swap data repository
pursuant to part 45 of this chapter or
made available to the Commission
pursuant to this part, as applicable.
Swap transaction and pricing data
means the specific data elements and
information required to be reported to a
swap data repository or publicly
disseminated by a swap data repository
pursuant to part 43 of this chapter, as
applicable.
(b) Other defined terms. Terms not
defined in this part have the meanings
assigned to the terms in § 1.3 of this
chapter.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
9. In § 49.3:
a. Revise paragraph (a)(5);
b. Remove the phrase ‘‘swap
transaction data’’ from paragraph (d)
and add in its place ‘‘SDR data’’; and
■ c. Remove the reference ‘‘§ 40.1(e)’’
from paragraph (d) and add in its place
‘‘§ 40.1’’.
The revision reads as follows:
■
■
■
§ 49.3
Procedures for registration.
(a) * * *
(5) Amendments. If any information
reported on Form SDR or in any
amendment thereto is or becomes
inaccurate for any reason, whether
before or after the application for
registration has been granted under this
paragraph (a), the swap data repository
shall promptly file an amendment on
Form SDR updating such information.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Revise the paragraph heading for
§ 49.4(c) to read as follows:
§ 49.4
Withdrawal from registration.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Revocation of registration for false
application. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
■ 11. Revise § 49.5 to read as follows:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
§ 49.5
Equity interest transfers.
(a) Equity interest transfer
notification. A swap data repository
shall file with the Commission a
notification of each transaction
involving the direct or indirect transfer
of ten percent or more of the equity
interest in the swap data repository. The
Commission may, upon receiving such
notification, request that the swap data
repository provide supporting
documentation of the transaction.
(b) Timing of notification. The equity
interest transfer notice described in
paragraph (a) of this section shall be
filed electronically with the Secretary of
the Commission at its Washington, DC
headquarters at submissions@cftc.gov
and the Division of Market Oversight at
DMOSubmissions@cftc.gov, at the
earliest possible time but in no event
later than the open of business ten
business days following the date upon
which a firm obligation is made to
transfer, directly or indirectly, ten
percent or more of the equity interest in
the swap data repository.
(c) Certification. Upon a transfer,
whether directly or indirectly, of an
equity interest of ten percent or more in
a swap data repository, the swap data
repository shall file electronically with
the Secretary of the Commission at its
Washington, DC headquarters at
submissions@cftc.gov and the Division
of Market Oversight at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
DMOSubmissions@cftc.gov, a
certification that the swap data
repository meets all of the requirements
of section 21 of the Act and the
Commission regulations in 17 CFR
chapter I, no later than two business
days following the date on which the
equity interest of ten percent or more
was acquired.
■ 12. Revise § 49.6 to read as follows:
§ 49.6
Request for transfer of registration.
(a) Request for approval. A swap data
repository seeking to transfer its
registration from its current legal entity
to a new legal entity as a result of a
corporate change shall file a request for
approval to transfer such registration
with the Secretary of the Commission in
the form and manner specified by the
Commission.
(b) Timing for filing a request for
transfer of registration. A swap data
repository shall file a request for transfer
of registration as soon as practicable
prior to the anticipated corporate
change.
(c) Required information. The request
for transfer of registration shall include
the following:
(1) The underlying documentation
that governs the corporate change;
(2) A description of the corporate
change, including the reason for the
change and its impact on the swap data
repository, including the swap data
repository’s governance and operations,
and its impact on the rights and
obligations of market participants;
(3) A discussion of the transferee’s
ability to comply with the Act,
including the core principles applicable
to swap data repositories and the
Commission’s regulations;
(4) The governance documents
adopted by the transferee, including a
copy of any constitution; articles or
certificate of incorporation,
organization, formation, or association
with all amendments thereto;
partnership or limited liability
agreements; and any existing bylaws,
operating agreement, or rules or
instruments corresponding thereto;
(5) The transferee’s rules marked to
show changes from the current rules of
the swap data repository; and
(6) A representation by the transferee
that it:
(i) Will be the surviving entity and
successor-in-interest to the transferor
swap data repository and will retain and
assume the assets and liabilities of the
transferor, except if otherwise indicated
in the request;
(ii) Will assume responsibility for
complying with all applicable
provisions of the Act and the
Commission’s regulations; and
PO 00000
Frm 00237
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75657
(iii) Will notify market participants of
all changes to the transferor’s rulebook
prior to the transfer, including those
changes that may affect the rights and
obligations of market participants, and
will further notify market participants of
the concurrent transfer of the
registration to the transferee upon
Commission approval and issuance of
an order permitting the transfer.
(d) Commission determination. Upon
review of a request for transfer of
registration, the Commission, as soon as
practicable, shall issue an order either
approving or denying the request for
transfer of registration.
■ 13. Revise § 49.9 to read as follows:
§ 49.9 Open swaps reports provided to the
Commission.
Each swap data repository shall
provide reports of open swaps to the
Commission in accordance with this
section.
(a) Content of the open swaps report.
In order to satisfy the requirements of
this section, each swap data repository
shall provide the Commission with
open swaps reports that contain an
accurate reflection, as of the time the
swap data repository compiles the open
swaps report, of the swap data
maintained by the swap data repository
for every swap data field required to be
reported for swaps pursuant to part 45
of this chapter for every open swap. The
report shall be organized by the unique
identifier created pursuant to § 45.5 of
this chapter that is associated with each
open swap.
(b) Transmission of the open swaps
report. Each swap data repository shall
transmit all open swaps reports to the
Commission as instructed by the
Commission. Such instructions may
include, but are not limited to, the
method, timing, and frequency of
transmission, as well as the format of
the swap data to be transmitted.
■ 14. In § 49.10, add paragraph (e) to
read as follows:
§ 49.10
Acceptance of data.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Error corrections—(1) Accepting
corrections. A swap data repository
shall accept error corrections for SDR
data. Error corrections include
corrections to errors and omissions in
SDR data previously reported to the
swap data repository pursuant to part
43, 45, or 46 of this chapter, as well as
omissions in reporting SDR data for
swaps that were not previously reported
to a swap data repository as required
under part 43, 45, or 46 of this chapter.
The requirement to accept error
corrections applies for all swaps,
regardless of the state of the swap that
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75658
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
is the subject of the SDR data. This
includes swaps that have terminated,
matured, or are otherwise no longer
considered to be open swaps, provided
that the record retention period under
§ 49.12(b)(2) has not expired as of the
time the error correction is reported.
(2) Recording corrections. A swap
data repository shall record the
corrections, as soon as technologically
practicable after the swap data
repository accepts the error correction.
(3) Dissemination. A swap data
repository shall disseminate corrected
SDR data to the public and the
Commission, as applicable, in
accordance with this chapter, as soon as
technologically practicable after the
swap data repository records the
corrected SDR data.
(4) Policies and procedures. A swap
data repository shall establish, maintain,
and enforce policies and procedures
designed for the swap data repository to
accept error corrections, to record the
error corrections as soon as
technologically practicable after the
swap data repository accepts the error
correction, and to disseminate corrected
SDR data to the public and to the
Commission, as applicable, in
accordance with this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 15. Revise § 49.11 to read as follows:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
§ 49.11
Verification of swap data accuracy.
(a) General requirement. Each swap
data repository shall verify the accuracy
and completeness of swap data that it
receives from swap execution facilities,
designated contract markets, reporting
counterparties, or third-party service
providers acting on their behalf, in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Verifying swap data accuracy and
completeness—(1) Swap data access.
Each swap data repository shall provide
a mechanism that allows each reporting
counterparty that is a user of the swap
data repository to access all swap data
maintained by the swap data repository
for each open swap for which the
reporting counterparty is serving as the
reporting counterparty, as specified in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section. This
mechanism shall allow sufficient access,
provide sufficient information, and be
in a form and manner to enable each
reporting counterparty to perform swap
data verification as required under
§ 45.14 of this chapter.
(2) Scope of swap data access. The
swap data accessible through the
mechanism provided by each swap data
repository shall accurately reflect the
most current swap data maintained by
the swap data repository, as of the time
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
the reporting counterparty accesses the
swap data using the provided
mechanism, for each data field that the
reporting counterparty was required to
report for each relevant open swap
pursuant to part 45 of this chapter,
except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of
this section. The swap data accessible
through the mechanism provided by
each swap data repository shall include
sufficient information to allow reporting
counterparties to successfully perform
the swap data verification required
under § 45.14 of this chapter.
(3) Confidentiality. The swap data
access each swap data repository shall
provide pursuant to this section is
subject to all applicable confidentiality
requirements of the Act and this
chapter, including, but not limited to,
§ 49.17. The swap data accessible to any
reporting counterparty shall not include
any swap data that the relevant
reporting counterparty is prohibited to
access under any Commission
regulation.
(4) Frequency of swap data access.
Each swap data repository shall allow
each reporting counterparty that is a
user of the relevant swap data repository
to utilize the mechanism as required
under this section with at least
sufficient frequency to allow each
relevant reporting counterparty to
perform the swap data verification
required under § 45.14 of this chapter.
(5) Third-party service providers. If a
reporting counterparty informs a swap
data repository that the reporting
counterparty will utilize a third-party
service provider to perform verification
as required pursuant to § 45.14 of this
chapter, the swap data repository will
satisfy its requirements under this
section by providing the third-party
service provider with the same access to
the mechanism and the relevant swap
data for the reporting counterparty
under this section, as if the third-party
service provider was the reporting
counterparty. The access for the thirdparty service provider shall be in
addition to the access for the reporting
counterparty required under this
section. The access for the third-party
service provider under this paragraph
shall continue until the reporting
counterparty informs the swap data
repository that the third-party service
provider should no longer have access
on behalf of the reporting counterparty.
The policies and procedures each swap
data repository adopts under paragraph
(c) of this section shall include
instructions detailing how each
reporting counterparty can successfully
inform the swap data repository
regarding a third-party service provider.
PO 00000
Frm 00238
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(c) Policies and procedures—(1)
Contents. Each swap data repository
shall establish, maintain, and enforce
policies and procedures designed to
ensure compliance with the
requirements of this section. Such
policies and procedures shall include,
but are not limited to, instructions
detailing how each reporting
counterparty, or third-party service
provider acting on behalf of a reporting
counterparty, can successfully utilize
the mechanism provided pursuant to
this section to perform each reporting
counterparty’s verification
responsibilities under § 45.14 of this
chapter.
(2) Amendments. Each swap data
repository shall comply with the
requirements under part 40 of this
chapter in adopting or amending the
policies and procedures required by this
section.
■ 16. Revise § 49.12 to read as follows:
§ 49.12 Swap data repository
recordkeeping requirements.
(a) General requirement. A swap data
repository shall keep full, complete, and
systematic records, together with all
pertinent data and memoranda, of all
activities relating to the business of the
swap data repository, including, but not
limited to, all SDR information and all
SDR data that is reported to the swap
data repository pursuant to this chapter.
(b) Maintenance of records. A swap
data repository shall maintain all
records required to be kept by this
section in accordance with this
paragraph (b).
(1) A swap data repository shall
maintain all SDR information,
including, but not limited to, all
documents, policies, and procedures
required by the Act and the
Commission’s regulations,
correspondence, memoranda, papers,
books, notices, accounts, and other such
records made or received by the swap
data repository in the course of its
business. All SDR information shall be
maintained in accordance with § 1.31 of
this chapter.
(2) A swap data repository shall
maintain all SDR data and timestamps
reported to or created by the swap data
repository pursuant to this chapter, and
all messages related to such reporting,
throughout the existence of the swap
that is the subject of the SDR data and
for five years following final termination
of the swap, during which time the
records shall be readily accessible by
the swap data repository and available
to the Commission via real-time
electronic access, and for a period of at
least ten additional years in archival
storage from which such records are
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
retrievable by the swap data repository
within three business days.
(c) Records of data errors and
omissions. A swap data repository shall
create and maintain records of data
validation errors and SDR data reporting
errors and omissions in accordance with
this paragraph (c).
(1) A swap data repository shall create
and maintain an accurate record of all
reported SDR data that fails to satisfy
the swap data repository’s data
validation procedures including, but not
limited to, all SDR data reported to the
swap data repository that fails to satisfy
the data validation procedures, all data
validation errors, and all related
messages and timestamps. A swap data
repository shall make these records
available to the Commission on request.
(2) A swap data repository shall create
and maintain an accurate record of all
SDR data errors and omissions reported
to the swap data repository and all
corrections disseminated by the swap
data repository pursuant to parts 43, 45,
and 46 of this chapter and this part. A
swap data repository shall make these
records available to the Commission on
request.
(d) Availability of records. All records
required to be kept pursuant to this part
shall be open to inspection upon request
by any representative of the
Commission or the United States
Department of Justice in accordance
with the provisions of § 1.31 of this
chapter. A swap data repository
required to keep, create, or maintain
records pursuant to this section shall
provide such records in accordance
with the provisions of § 1.31 of this
chapter, unless otherwise provided in
this part.
(e) A swap data repository shall
establish policies and procedures to
calculate positions for position limits
and any other purpose as required by
the Commission, for all persons with
swaps that have not expired maintained
by the swap data repository.
■ 17. Revise paragraph (a) and the
paragraph (b) heading in § 49.13 to read
as follows:
§ 49.13 Monitoring, screening and
analyzing swap data.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
(a) Duty to monitor, screen and
analyze SDR data. A swap data
repository shall monitor, screen, and
analyze all relevant SDR data in its
possession in such a manner as the
Commission may require. A swap data
repository shall routinely monitor,
screen, and analyze SDR data for the
purpose of any standing swap
surveillance objectives that the
Commission may establish as well as
perform specific monitoring, screening,
and analysis tasks based on ad hoc
requests by the Commission.
(b) Capacity to monitor, screen and
analyze SDR data. * * *
■ 18. Revise § 49.15 to read as follows:
§ 49.15 Real-time public reporting by swap
data repositories.
(a) Scope. The provisions of this
section apply to the real-time public
reporting of swap transaction and
pricing data submitted to a swap data
repository pursuant to part 43 of this
chapter.
(b) Systems to accept and disseminate
data in connection with real-time public
reporting. A swap data repository shall
establish such electronic systems as are
necessary to accept and publicly
disseminate swap transaction and
pricing data submitted to the swap data
repository pursuant to part 43 of this
chapter in order to meet the real-time
public reporting obligations of part 43 of
this chapter. Any electronic system
established for this purpose shall be
capable of accepting and ensuring the
public dissemination of all data fields
required by part 43 this chapter.
(c) Duty to notify the Commission of
untimely data. A swap data repository
shall notify the Commission of any
swap transaction for which the real-time
swap data was not received by the swap
data repository in accordance with part
43 of this chapter.
■ 19. Revise § 49.16 to read as follows:
§ 49.16 Privacy and confidentiality
requirements of swap data repositories.
(a) Each swap data repository shall:
(1) Establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to protect the
privacy and confidentiality of any and
all SDR information and all SDR data
that is not swap transaction and pricing
data disseminated under part 43 of this
chapter. Such policies and procedures
shall include, but are not limited to,
policies and procedures to protect the
Paragraphs
Remove
(a) .........................................
(a) .........................................
(b)(1) heading ......................
(b)(1) introductory text .........
(b)(2) heading ......................
(b)(2) ....................................
swap data ........................................................................
Section 8 of the Act ........................................................
Domestic Regulator .........................................................
Appropriate Domestic Regulator .....................................
Foreign Regulator ...........................................................
Appropriate Foreign Regulator ........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00239
privacy and confidentiality of any and
all SDR information and all SDR data
(except for swap transaction and pricing
data disseminated under part 43 of this
chapter) that the swap data repository
shares with affiliates and non-affiliated
third parties; and
(2) Establish and maintain safeguards,
policies, and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent the
misappropriation or misuse, directly or
indirectly, of:
(i) Section 8 material;
(ii) Other SDR information or SDR
data; and/or
(iii) Intellectual property, such as
trading strategies or portfolio positions,
by the swap data repository or any
person associated with a swap data
repository. Such safeguards, policies,
and procedures shall include, but are
not limited to:
(A) Limiting access to such section 8
material, other SDR information or SDR
data, and intellectual property;
(B) Standards controlling persons
associated with a swap data repository
trading for their personal benefit or the
benefit of others; and
(C) Adequate oversight to ensure
compliance with this paragraph (a)(2).
(b) A swap data repository shall not,
as a condition of accepting SDR data
from any swap execution facility,
designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty, require the waiver of any
privacy rights by such swap execution
facility, designated contract market, or
reporting counterparty.
(c) Subject to section 8 of the Act, a
swap data repository may disclose
aggregated SDR data on a voluntary
basis or as requested, in the form and
manner prescribed by the Commission.
■ 20. Amend § 49.17 by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(3);
■ b. Adding paragraph (c) introductory
text;
■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(1), the
headings to paragraphs (d)(1) and (5),
and paragraph (f)(2);
■ d. Removing paragraph (i); and
■ e. In the table below, for each
paragraph indicated in the left column,
remove the text indicated in the middle
column from wherever it appears, and
add in its place the text indicated in the
right column:
Add
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75659
SDR data.
section 8 of the Act
domestic regulator
appropriate domestic regulator
foreign regulator
appropriate foreign regulator
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75660
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Paragraphs
Remove
Add
(b)(2) ....................................
(c)(2) .....................................
(c)(2) .....................................
(c)(3) .....................................
(c)(3) .....................................
(d)(1)(i) .................................
(d)(1)(i) .................................
(d)(1)(ii) ................................
those Foreign Regulators ................................................
analyzing of swap data ...................................................
transfer of data ................................................................
swap data provided .........................................................
authorizedusers ...............................................................
Appropriate Domestic Regulator .....................................
Appropriate Foreign Regulator ........................................
Appropriate Domestic Regulators and Appropriate Foreign Regulators seeking.
applicable to Appropriate Domestic Regulators and Appropriate Foreign Regulators.
Foreign Regulator ...........................................................
Foreign Regulator ...........................................................
Foreign Regulator’s .........................................................
requests for data access .................................................
Appropriate Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign
Regulator.
Appropriate Domestic Regulator’s or Appropriate Foreign Regulator’s.
Appropriate Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign
Regulator.
Appropriate Domestic Regulator’s or Appropriate Foreign Regulator’s.
Appropriate Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign
Regulator.
Arrangement ....................................................................
Appropriate Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign
Regulator.
swap data and SDR Information .....................................
those foreign regulators
analyzing of SDR data
transfer of SDR data
SDR data provided
authorized users
appropriate domestic regulator
appropriate foreign regulator
Appropriate domestic regulators and appropriate foreign
regulators seeking
applicable to appropriate domestic regulators and appropriate foreign regulators
Foreign regulator
foreign regulator.
foreign regulator’s
requests for swap data access
appropriate domestic regulator or appropriate foreign
regulator
appropriate domestic regulator’s or appropriate foreign
regulator’s
appropriate domestic regulator or appropriate foreign
regulator
appropriate domestic regulator’s or appropriate foreign
regulator’s
appropriate domestic regulator or appropriate foreign
regulator
arrangement
appropriate domestic regulator or appropriate foreign
regulator
SDR data and SDR information
swap data or SDR Information .......................................
swap data maintained .....................................................
Commercial uses of data ................................................
Swap data accepted .......................................................
swap data required .........................................................
The swap dealer, counterparty, or any other registered
entity.
swap data maintained .....................................................
swap transaction data .....................................................
reporting party .................................................................
SDR data or SDR information
SDR data maintained
Commercial uses of SDR data
SDR data accepted
SDR data required
The swap execution facility, designated contract market, or reporting counterparty
SDR data maintained
SDR data
swap execution facility, designated contract market, or
reporting counterparty
any reported SDR data
swap transaction and pricing data
section 21(c)(7) of the Act
appropriate domestic regulator or appropriate foreign
regulator
(d)(1)(ii) ................................
(d)(3) heading ......................
(d)(3) ....................................
(d)(3) ....................................
(d)(4) heading ......................
(d)(4)(i) .................................
(d)(4)(i) .................................
(d)(4)(iii) ................................
(d)(4)(iii) ................................
(d)(5)(i) through (iii) ..............
(d)(6) heading ......................
(d)(6) ....................................
(e) introductory text, (e)(1),
and (e)(2).
(e)(2) ....................................
(f)(1) .....................................
(g) heading ...........................
(g) introductory text ..............
(g)(1) ....................................
(g)(2)(A) ................................
(g)(2)(A) ................................
(g)(2)(B) ................................
(g)(2)(B) ................................
(g)(2)(B) ................................
(g)(3) ....................................
(h)(3) introductory text .........
(h)(4) ....................................
any reported data ............................................................
real-time swap data .........................................................
CEA section 21(c)(7) .......................................................
Appropriate Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign
Regulator.
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 49.17
Access to SDR data.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Direct electronic access. For the
purposes of this section, the term
‘‘direct electronic access’’ shall mean an
electronic system, platform, framework,
or other technology that provides
internet-based or other form of access to
real-time SDR data that is acceptable to
the Commission and also provides
scheduled data transfers to Commission
electronic systems.
(c) Commission access. A swap data
repository shall provide access to the
Commission for all SDR data
maintained by the swap data repository
pursuant to this chapter in accordance
with this paragraph (c).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
(1) Direct electronic access
requirements. A swap data repository
shall provide direct electronic access to
the Commission or the Commission’s
designee, including another registered
entity, in order for the Commission to
carry out its legal and statutory
responsibilities under the Act and the
Commission’s regulations in 17 CFR
chapter I. A swap data repository shall
maintain all SDR data reported to the
swap data repository in a format
acceptable to the Commission, and shall
transmit all SDR data requested by the
Commission to the Commission as
instructed by the Commission. Such
instructions may include, but are not
limited to, the method, timing, and
frequency of transmission, as well as the
format and scope of the SDR data to be
transmitted.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00240
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(d) * * *
(1) General procedure for gaining
access to swap data repository data.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Timing, limitation, suspension, or
revocation of swap data access. * * *
(f) * * *
(2) Exception. SDR data and SDR
information related to a particular swap
transaction that is maintained by the
swap data repository may be accessed
by either counterparty to that particular
swap. However, the SDR data and SDR
information maintained by the swap
data repository that may be accessed by
either counterparty to a particular swap
shall not include the identity or the
legal entity identifier (as such term is
used in part 45 of this chapter) of the
other counterparty to the swap, or the
other counterparty’s clearing member
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
for the swap, if the swap is executed
anonymously on a swap execution
facility or designated contract market,
and cleared in accordance with §§ 1.74,
23.610, and 39.12(b)(7) of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 49.18
[Amended]
21. Amend § 49.18 by:
a. Removing from paragraphs (a) and
(d) the words ‘‘Appropriate Domestic
Regulator or Appropriate Foreign
Regulator’’ and ‘‘Appropriate Domestic
■
■
§ 49.19
[Amended]
22. In § 49.19(a), remove the word
‘‘paragraph’’ from wherever it appears
and add in its place the word ‘‘section’’.
Remove
(b) heading ...........................
(c)(1)(i) introductory text ......
(c)(1)(i)(A)(2) ........................
(c)(1)(i)(B) .............................
(c)(5) .....................................
Governance Arrangements .............................................
Regulation .......................................................................
Independent Perspective ................................................
Independent Perspective ................................................
Regulation .......................................................................
§ 49.20 Governance arrangements (Core
Principle 2).
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) A description of the manner in
which the board of directors, as well as
any committee referenced in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, considers an
independent perspective in its decisionmaking process, as § 49.2(a) defines
such term;
*
*
*
*
*
(vii) Summaries of significant
decisions impacting the public interest,
the rationale for such decisions, and the
process for reaching such decisions.
23. Amend § 49.20 by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(v),
(b)(2)(vii), and (c)(1)(ii)(B); and
■ b. In the table below, for each
paragraph indicated in the left column,
removing the text indicated in the
middle column from wherever it
appears, and adding in its place the text
indicated in the right column:
■
■
Paragraph
The revisions read as follows:
Add
governance arrangements
section
independent perspective
independent perspective
section
Such significant decisions shall include
decisions relating to pricing of
repository services, offering of ancillary
services, access to SDR data, and use of
section 8 material, SDR information,
and intellectual property (as referenced
in § 49.16). Such summaries of
significant decisions shall not require
the swap data repository to disclose
section 8 material or, where appropriate,
information that the swap data
repository received on a confidential
basis from a swap execution facility,
designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) A description of the relationship,
if any, between such members and the
swap data repository or any swap
execution facility, designated contract
market, or reporting counterparty user
thereof (or, in each case, affiliates
thereof, as § 49.2(a) defines such term);
and
*
*
*
*
*
24. Amend § 49.22 by:
■ a. In the table below, for each
paragraph indicated in the left column,
removing the text indicated in the
middle column from wherever it
appears, and adding in its place the text
indicated in the right column:
■
Paragraph
Remove
(a) heading ...........................
(b)(1) heading ......................
(b)(2) heading ......................
(b)(2)(i) .................................
(d)(1) ....................................
(d)(4) ....................................
(e)(2) introductory text and
(e)(2)(i).
(f)(3) .....................................
(g)(1)(iii)(A) ...........................
Board of Directors ...........................................................
Compliance Officer ..........................................................
Chief Compliance Officer ................................................
Sections ...........................................................................
Section ............................................................................
Section ............................................................................
Section ............................................................................
board of directors
compliance officer
chief compliance officer
section
section
section
section
(e)(67) ..............................................................................
Created, sent or received in connection with the annual
compliance report and.
(e)(6)
Created, sent, or received in connection with the annual compliance report; and
b. Revising the paragraph (c)(1)
heading, the paragraph (f) heading, and
paragraph (f)(2) to read as follows:
■
§ 49.22
Chief compliance officer.
*
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Regulator’s or Appropriate Foreign
Regulator’s’’ wherever they appear, and
add in their places ‘‘appropriate
domestic regulator or appropriate
foreign regulator’’ and ‘‘appropriate
domestic regulator’s or appropriate
foreign regulator’s’’, respectively; and
■ b. Removing paragraph (e).
75661
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Appointment and compensation of
chief compliance officer determined by
board of directors. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Add
(f) Submission of annual compliance
report to the Commission. * * *
(2) The annual compliance report
shall be provided electronically to the
Commission not more than 60 days after
the end of the swap data repository’s
fiscal year.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 49.23
■
[Amended]
25. Amend § 49.23 by:
PO 00000
Frm 00241
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
a. Removing from paragraph (a) the
words ‘‘swap transaction data’’ and
adding in their place ‘‘SDR data’’; and
■ b. Removing from the heading of
paragraph (e) the word ‘‘commission’’
and adding in its place ‘‘Commission’’.
■ 26. Amend § 49.24 by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (d); and
■ b. In the table below, for each
paragraph indicated in the left column,
removing the text indicated in the
middle column from wherever it
■
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75662
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
appears, and adding in its place the text
indicated in the right column:
Paragraphs
Remove
(a) introductory text ..............
(e)(3)(i) .................................
(e)(3)(ii) ................................
(f)(2) .....................................
(i) introductory text and (i)(5)
(j)(1) definitions of ‘‘Controls’’ and ‘‘Enterprise
technology risk assessment’’.
(j)(1) definition of ‘‘Security
incident’’.
(k)(1) and (2) ........................
(l)(3) ......................................
(m) ........................................
all swap data in its custody .............................................
dissemination of swap data ............................................
normal swap data ............................................................
all swap data contained ..................................................
§§ 1.31 and 45.2 .............................................................
data and information .......................................................
all SDR data in its custody
dissemination of SDR data
normal SDR data
all SDR data contained
§ 1.31
SDR data and SDR information
or integrity of data ...........................................................
, or integrity of SDR data
report swap data .............................................................
any data related to ..........................................................
Board of Directors ...........................................................
report SDR data
any SDR data related to
board of directors
The revision reads as follows:
§ 49.24
System safeguards.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) A swap data repository shall
maintain a business continuity-disaster
recovery plan and business continuitydisaster recovery resources, emergency
procedures, and backup facilities
sufficient to enable timely recovery and
resumption of its operations and
resumption of its ongoing fulfillment of
its duties and obligations as a swap data
repository following any disruption of
its operations. Such duties and
obligations include, without limitation,
the duties set forth in §§ 49.10 through
49.18, § 49.23, and the core principles
set forth in §§ 49.19 through 49.21 and
§§ 49.25 through 49.27, and
maintenance of a comprehensive audit
trail. The swap data repository’s
business continuity-disaster recovery
plan and resources generally should
enable resumption of the swap data
repository’s operations and resumption
of ongoing fulfillment of the swap data
repository’s duties and obligation
during the next business day following
the disruption. A swap data repository
shall update its business continuitydisaster recovery plan and emergency
procedures at a frequency determined
by an appropriate risk analysis, but at a
minimum no less frequently than
annually.
*
*
*
*
*
Paragraph
27. In § 49.25, revise paragraph (a)(1)
to read as follows:
■
§ 49.25
Financial resources.
(a) * * * (1) A swap data repository
shall maintain sufficient financial
resources to perform its statutory and
regulatory duties set forth in this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 28. Amend § 49.26 by:
■ a. Revising the introductory text;
■ b. In the table below, for each
paragraph indicated in the left column,
removing the text indicated in the
middle column from wherever it
appears, and adding in its place the text
indicated in the right column:
Remove
Add
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
swap data maintained .....................................................
safeguarding of swap data ..............................................
any and all swap data .....................................................
reporting entity ................................................................
(e) .........................................
(e) .........................................
swap data that it receives ...............................................
market participant, any registered entity, or any other
person;
rebates; and ....................................................................
arrangements. .................................................................
SDR data maintained.
safeguarding of SDR data.
any and all SDR data.
swap execution facility, designated contract market, or
reporting counterparty.
SDR data that it receives.
swap execution facility, designated contract market, or
reporting counterparty;
rebates;
arrangements; and.
(a)
(c)
(d)
(d)
(h) .........................................
(i) ..........................................
c. Adding paragraph (j).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 49.26 Disclosure requirements of swap
data repositories.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Add
Before accepting any SDR data from a
swap execution facility, designated
contract market, or reporting
counterparty; or upon a swap execution
facility’s, designated contract market’s,
or reporting counterparty’s request; a
swap data repository shall furnish to the
swap execution facility, designated
contract market, or reporting
counterparty a disclosure document that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
contains the following written
information, which shall reasonably
enable the swap execution facility,
designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty to identify and evaluate
accurately the risks and costs associated
with using the services of the swap data
repository:
*
*
*
*
*
(j) The swap data repository’s policies
and procedures regarding the reporting
of SDR data to the swap data repository,
including the swap data repository’s
SDR data validation procedures, swap
data verification procedures, and
PO 00000
Frm 00242
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
procedures for correcting SDR data
errors and omissions.
§ 49.27
[Amended]
29. Amend § 49.27 by removing the
term ‘‘Regulation’’ from paragraph (a)(2)
and add in its place the term ‘‘section’’,
and by removing ‘‘reporting of swap
data’’ from paragraph (b)(1) and adding
in its place ‘‘reporting of SDR data’’.
■ 30. Add § 49.28 to read as follows:
■
§ 49.28 Operating hours of swap data
repositories.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in
this paragraph (a), a swap data
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
repository shall have systems in place to
continuously accept and promptly
record all SDR data reported to the swap
data repository as required in this
chapter and, as applicable, publicly
disseminate all swap transaction and
pricing data reported to the swap data
repository as required in part 43 of this
chapter.
(1) A swap data repository may
establish normal closing hours to
perform system maintenance during
periods when, in the reasonable
estimation of the swap data repository,
the swap data repository typically
receives the least amount of SDR data.
A swap data repository shall provide
reasonable advance notice of its normal
closing hours to market participants and
to the public.
(2) A swap data repository may
declare, on an ad hoc basis, special
closing hours to perform system
maintenance that cannot wait until
normal closing hours. A swap data
repository shall schedule special closing
hours during periods when, in the
reasonable estimation of the swap data
repository in the context of the
circumstances prompting the special
closing hours, the special closing hours
will be the least disruptive to the swap
data repository’s SDR data reporting
responsibilities. A swap data repository
shall provide reasonable advance notice
of its special closing hours to market
participants and to the public whenever
possible, and, if advance notice is not
reasonably possible, shall provide
notice of its special closing hours to
market participants and to the public as
soon as reasonably possible after
declaring special closing hours.
(b) A swap data repository shall
comply with the requirements under
part 40 of this chapter in adopting or
amending normal closing hours and
special closing hours.
(c) During normal closing hours and
special closing hours, a swap data
repository shall have the capability to
accept and hold in queue any and all
SDR data reported to the swap data
repository during the normal closing
hours or special closing hours.
(1) Upon reopening after normal
closing hours or special closing hours,
a swap data repository shall promptly
process all SDR data received during
normal closing hours or special closing
hours, as required pursuant to this
chapter, and, pursuant to part 43 of this
chapter, publicly disseminate all swap
transaction and pricing data reported to
the swap data repository that was held
in queue during the normal closing
hours or special closing hours.
(2) If at any time during normal
closing hours or special closing hours a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
swap data repository is unable to
receive and hold in queue any SDR data
reported pursuant to this chapter, then
the swap data repository shall
immediately issue notice to all swap
execution facilities, designated contract
markets, reporting counterparties, and
the public that it is unable to receive
and hold in queue SDR data.
Immediately upon reopening, the swap
data repository shall issue notice to all
swap execution facilities, designated
contract markets, reporting
counterparties, and the public that it has
resumed normal operations. Any swap
execution facility, designated contract
market, or reporting counterparty that
was obligated to report SDR data
pursuant to this chapter to the swap
data repository, but could not do so
because of the swap data repository’s
inability to receive and hold in queue
SDR data, shall report the SDR data to
the swap data repository immediately
after receiving such notice.
■ 31. Add § 49.29 to read as follows:
§ 49.29 Information relating to swap data
repository compliance.
(a) Requests for information. Upon the
Commission’s request, a swap data
repository shall file with the
Commission information related to its
business as a swap data repository and
such information as the Commission
determines to be necessary or
appropriate for the Commission to
perform the duties of the Commission
under the Act and regulations in 17 CFR
chapter I. The swap data repository
shall file the information requested in
the form and manner and within the
time period the Commission specifies in
the request.
(b) Demonstration of compliance.
Upon the Commission’s request, a swap
data repository shall file with the
Commission a written demonstration,
containing supporting data, information,
and documents, that it is in compliance
with its obligations under the Act and
the Commission’s regulations in 17 CFR
chapter I, as the Commission specifies
in the request. The swap data repository
shall file the written demonstration in
the form and manner and within the
time period the Commission specifies in
the request.
■ 32. Add § 49.30 to read as follows:
§ 49.30 Form and manner of reporting and
submitting information to the Commission.
Unless otherwise instructed by the
Commission, a swap data repository
shall submit SDR data reports and any
other information required under this
part to the Commission, within the time
specified, using the format, coding
structure, and electronic data
PO 00000
Frm 00243
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75663
transmission procedures approved in
writing by the Commission.
■ 33. Add § 49.31 to read as follows:
§ 49.31 Delegation of authority to the
Director of the Division of Market Oversight
relating to certain part 49 matters.
(a) The Commission hereby delegates,
until such time as the Commission
orders otherwise, the following
functions to the Director of the Division
of Market Oversight and to such
members of the Commission staff acting
under his or her direction as he or she
may designate from time to time:
(1) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.5.
(2) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.9.
(3) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.10.
(4) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.12.
(5) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.13.
(6) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.16.
(7) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.17.
(8) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.18.
(9) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.22.
(10) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.23.
(11) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.24.
(12) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.25.
(13) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.29.
(14) All functions reserved to the
Commission in § 49.30.
(b) The Director of the Division of
Market Oversight may submit to the
Commission for its consideration any
matter that has been delegated under
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Nothing in this section may
prohibit the Commission, at its election,
from exercising the authority delegated
in this section.
■ 34. Revise appendix A to part 49 to
read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 49—Form SDR
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION FORM SDR
SWAP DATA REPOSITORY APPLICATION
OR AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION FOR
REGISTRATION
REGISTRATION INSTRUCTIONS
Intentional misstatements or omissions of
material fact may constitute federal criminal
violations (7 U.S.C. 13 and 18 U.S.C. 1001)
or grounds for disqualification from
registration.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75664
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
DEFINITIONS
Unless the context requires otherwise, all
terms used in this Form SDR have the same
meaning as in the Commodity Exchange Act,
as amended (‘‘Act’’), and in the General Rules
and Regulations of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’)
thereunder (17 CFR chapter I).
For the purposes of this Form SDR, the
term ‘‘Applicant’’ shall include any applicant
for registration as a swap data repository or
any applicant amending a pending
application.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
1. This Form SDR, which includes
instructions, a Cover Sheet, and required
Exhibits (together ‘‘Form SDR’’), is to be filed
with the Commission by all Applicants,
pursuant to section 21 of the Act and the
Commission’s regulations thereunder. Upon
the filing of an application for registration in
accordance with the instructions provided
herein, the Commission will publish notice
of the filing and afford interested persons an
opportunity to submit written comments
concerning such application. No application
for registration shall be effective unless the
Commission, by order, grants such
registration.
2. Individuals’ names, except the executing
signature, shall be given in full (Last Name,
First Name, Middle Name).
3. Signatures on all copies of the Form SDR
filed with the Commission can be executed
electronically. If this Form SDR is filed by a
corporation, it shall be signed in the name of
the corporation by a principal officer duly
authorized; if filed by a limited liability
company, it shall be signed in the name of
the limited liability company by a manager
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
or member duly authorized to sign on the
limited liability company’s behalf; if filed by
a partnership, it shall be signed in the name
of the partnership by a general partner duly
authorized; if filed by an unincorporated
organization or association that is not a
partnership, it shall be signed in the name of
such organization or association by the
managing agent, i.e., a duly authorized
person who directs manages or who
participates in the directing or managing of
its affairs.
4. If this Form SDR is being filed as an
application for registration, all applicable
items must be answered in full. If any item
is inapplicable, indicate by ‘‘none,’’ ‘‘not
applicable,’’ or ‘‘N/A,’’ as appropriate.
5. Under section 21 of the Act and the
Commission’s regulations thereunder, the
Commission is authorized to solicit the
information required to be supplied by this
Form SDR from any Applicant seeking
registration as a swap data repository.
Disclosure by the Applicant of the
information specified in this Form SDR is
mandatory prior to the start of the processing
of an application for registration as a swap
data repository. The information provided in
this Form SDR will be used for the principal
purpose of determining whether the
Commission should grant or deny
registration to an Applicant. The Commission
may determine that additional information is
required from an Applicant in order to
process its application. A Form SDR that is
not prepared and executed in compliance
with applicable requirements and
instructions may be returned as not
acceptable for filing. Acceptance of this Form
SDR, however, shall not constitute a finding
that the Form SDR has been filed as required
PO 00000
Frm 00244
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
or that the information submitted is true,
current, or complete.
6. Except in cases where confidential
treatment is requested by the Applicant and
granted by the Commission pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act and Commission
Regulation § 145.9, information supplied on
this Form SDR will be included in the public
files of the Commission and will be available
for inspection by any interested person. The
Applicant must identify with particularity
the information in these exhibits that will be
subject to a request for confidential treatment
and supporting documentation for such
request pursuant to Commission Regulations
§ 40.8 and § 145.9.
APPLICATION AMENDMENTS
1. An Applicant amending a pending
application for registration as a swap data
repository shall file an amended Form SDR
electronically with the Secretary of the
Commission in the manner specified by the
Commission.
2. When filing this Form SDR for purposes
of amending a pending application, an
Applicant must re-file the entire Cover Sheet,
amended if necessary, include an executing
signature, and attach thereto revised Exhibits
or other materials marked to show any
amendments. The submission of an
amendment to a pending application
represents that all unamended items and
Exhibits remain true, current, and complete
as previously filed.
WHERE TO FILE
This Form SDR shall be filed electronically
with the Secretary of the Commission in the
manner specified by the Commission.
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00245
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75665
ER25NO20.038</GPH>
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00246
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO20.039</GPH>
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
75666
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00247
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75667
ER25NO20.040</GPH>
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 6351–01–C
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
EXHIBITS INSTRUCTIONS
The following Exhibits must be included as
part of Form SDR and filed with the
Commission by each Applicant seeking
registration as a swap data repository
pursuant to section 21 of the Act and the
Commission’s regulations thereunder. Such
Exhibits must be labeled according to the
items specified in this Form SDR. If any
Exhibit is inapplicable, please specify the
Exhibit letter and indicate by ‘‘none,’’ ‘‘not
applicable,’’ or ‘‘N/A,’’ as appropriate. The
Applicant must identify with particularity
the information in these Exhibits that will be
subject to a request for confidential treatment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
and supporting documentation for such
request pursuant to Commission Regulations
§ 40.8 and § 145.9.
If the Applicant is a newly formed
enterprise and does not have the financial
statements required pursuant to Items 27 and
28 of this form, the Applicant should provide
pro forma financial statements for the most
recent six months or since inception,
whichever is less.
EXHIBITS I—BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
14. Attach as Exhibit A, any person who
owns ten (10) percent or more of Applicant’s
equity or possesses voting power of any class,
either directly or indirectly, through
agreement or otherwise, in any other manner,
PO 00000
Frm 00248
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
may control or direct the management or
policies of Applicant. ‘‘Control’’ for this
purpose is defined in Commission Regulation
§ 49.2(a).
State in Exhibit A the full name and
address of each such person and attach a
copy of the agreement or, if there is none
written, describe the agreement or basis upon
which such person exercises or may exercise
such control or direction.
15. Attach as Exhibit B, a narrative that sets
forth the fitness standards for the board of
directors and its composition including the
number or percentage of public directors.
Attach a list of the present officers,
directors (including an identification of the
public directors), governors (and, if the
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO20.041</GPH>
75668
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Applicant is not a corporation, the members
of all standing committees grouped by
committee), or persons performing functions
similar to any of the foregoing, of the swap
data repository or of the entity identified in
Item 16 that performs the swap data
repository activities of the Applicant,
indicating for each:
a. Name
b. Title
c. Date of commencement and, if
appropriate, termination of present term of
position
d. Length of time each present officer,
director, or governor has held the same
position
e. Brief account of the business experience
of each officer and director over the last five
(5) years
f. Any other business affiliations in the
securities industry or OTC derivatives
industry
g. A description of:
(1) any order of the Commission with
respect to such person pursuant to section 5e
of the Act;
(2) any conviction or injunction within the
past 10 years;
(3) any disciplinary action with respect to
such person within the last five (5) years;
(4) any disqualification under sections 8b
and 8d of the Act;
(5) any disciplinary action under section 8c
of the Act; and
(6) any violation pursuant to section 9 of
the Act.
h. For directors, list any committees on
which the director serves and any
compensation received by virtue of their
directorship.
16. Attach as Exhibit C, the following
information about the chief compliance
officer who has been appointed by the board
of directors of the swap data repository or a
person or group performing a function
similar to such board of directors:
a. Name
b. Title
c. Dates of commencement and termination
of present term of office or position
d. Length of time the chief compliance
officer has held the same office or position
e. Brief account of the business experience
of the chief compliance officer over the last
five (5) years
f. Any other business affiliations in the
derivatives/securities industry or swap data
repository industry
g. A description of:
(1) any order of the Commission with
respect to such person pursuant to section 5e
of the Act;
(2) any conviction or injunction within the
past 10 years;
(3) any disciplinary action with respect to
such person within the last five (5) years;
(4) any disqualification under sections 8b
and 8d of the Act;
(5) any disciplinary action under section 8c
of the Act; and
(6) any violation pursuant to section 9 of
the Act.
17. Attach as Exhibit D, a copy of
documents relating to the governance
arrangements of the Applicant, including, but
not limited to:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
a. The nomination and selection process of
the members on the Applicant’s board of
directors, a person or group performing a
function similar to a board of directors
(collectively, ‘‘board’’), or any committee that
has the authority to act on behalf of the
board, the responsibilities of each of the
board and such committee, and the
composition of each board and such
committee;
b. a description of the manner in which the
composition of the board allows the
Applicant to comply with applicable core
principles, regulations, as well as the rules of
the Applicant; and
c. a description of the procedures to
remove a member of the board of directors,
where the conduct of such member is likely
to be prejudicial to the sound and prudent
management of the swap data repository.
18. Attach as Exhibit E, a narrative or
graphic description of the organizational
structure of the Applicant. Note: If the swap
data repository activities are conducted
primarily by a division, subdivision, or other
segregable entity within the Applicant’s
corporation or organization, describe the
relationship of such entity within the overall
organizational structure and attach as Exhibit
E only such description as applies to the
segregable entity. Additionally, provide any
relevant jurisdictional information, including
any and all jurisdictions in which the
Applicant or any affiliated entity is doing
business and registration status, including
pending application (e.g., country, regulator,
registration category, date of registration). In
addition, include a description of the lines of
responsibility and accountability for each
operational unit of the Applicant to (i) any
committee thereof and/or (ii) the board.
19. Attach as Exhibit F, a copy of the
conflicts of interest policies and procedures
implemented by the Applicant to minimize
conflicts of interest in the decision-making
process of the swap data repository and to
establish a process for the resolution of any
such conflicts of interest.
20. Attach as Exhibit G, a list of all
affiliates of the swap data repository and
indicate the general nature of the affiliation.
Provide a copy of any agreements entered
into or to be entered by the swap data
repository, including partnerships or joint
ventures, or its participants, that will enable
the Applicant to comply with the registration
requirements and core principles specified in
section 21 of the Act. With regard to an
affiliate that is a parent company of the
Applicant, if such parent controls the
Applicant, an Applicant must provide (i) the
board composition of the parent, including
public directors, and (ii) all ownership
information requested in Exhibit A for the
parent. ‘‘Control’’ for this purpose is defined
in Commission Regulation § 49.2(a).
21. Attach as Exhibit H, a copy of the
constitution; articles of incorporation or
association with all amendments thereto;
existing by-laws, rules, or instruments
corresponding thereto, of the Applicant. The
Applicant shall also provide a certificate of
good standing dated within one week of the
date of the application.
22. Where the Applicant is a foreign entity
seeking registration or filing an amendment
PO 00000
Frm 00249
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75669
to an existing registration, attach as Exhibit
I, an opinion of counsel that the swap data
repository, as a matter of law, is able to
provide the Commission with prompt access
to the books and records of such swap data
repository and that the swap data repository
can submit to onsite inspection and
examination by the Commission.
23. Where the Applicant is a foreign entity
seeking registration, attach as Exhibit I–1, a
form that designates and authorizes an agent
in the United States, other than a
Commission official, to accept any notice or
service of process, pleadings, or other
documents in any action or proceedings
brought against the swap data repository to
enforce the Act and the regulations
thereunder.
24. Attach as Exhibit J, a current copy of
the Applicant’s rules, as defined in
Commission Regulation § 40.1, consisting of
all the rules necessary to carry out the duties
as a swap data repository.
25. Attach as Exhibit K, a description of the
Applicant’s internal disciplinary and
enforcement protocols, tools, and procedures.
Include the procedures for dispute
resolution.
26. Attach as Exhibit L, a brief description
of any material pending legal proceeding(s),
other than ordinary and routine litigation
incidental to the business, to which the
Applicant or any of its affiliates is a party or
to which any of its or their property is the
subject. Include the name of the court or
agency in which the proceeding(s) are
pending, the date(s) instituted, and the
principal parties thereto, a description of the
factual basis alleged to underlie the
proceeding(s) and the relief sought. Include
similar information as to any such
proceeding(s) known to be contemplated by
the governmental agencies.
EXHIBITS II—FINANCIAL INFORMATION
27. Attach as Exhibit M, a balance sheet,
statement of income and expenses, statement
of sources and application of revenues, and
all notes or schedules thereto, as of the most
recent fiscal year of the Applicant. If a
balance sheet and statements certified by an
independent public accountant are available,
such balance sheet and statement shall be
submitted as Exhibit M.
28. Attach as Exhibit N, a balance sheet
and an income and expense statement for
each affiliate of the swap data repository that
also engages in swap data repository
activities as of the end of the most recent
fiscal year of each such affiliate.
29. Attach as Exhibit O, the following:
a. A complete list of all dues, fees, and
other charges imposed, or to be imposed, by
or on behalf of Applicant for its swap data
repository services and identify the service or
services provided for each such due, fee, or
other charge.
b. Furnish a description of the basis and
methods used in determining the level and
structure of the dues, fees, and other charges
listed in paragraph a of this item.
c. If the Applicant differentiates, or
proposes to differentiate, among its
customers, or classes of customers in the
amount of any dues, fees, or other charges
imposed for the same or similar services, so
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75670
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
state and indicate the amount of each
differential. In addition, identify and
describe any differences in the cost of
providing such services, and any other
factors, that account for such differentiations.
EXHIBITS III—OPERATIONAL
CAPABILITY
30. Attach as Exhibit P, copies of all
material contracts with any swap execution
facility, designated contract market, clearing
agency, central counterparty, or third party
service provider. To the extent that form
contracts are used by the Applicant, submit
a sample of each type of form contract used.
In addition, include a list of swap execution
facilities, designated contract markets,
clearing agencies, central counterparties, and
third party service providers with whom the
Applicant has entered into material
contracts. Where swap data repository
functions are performed by a third-party,
attach any agreements between or among the
Applicant and such third party, and identify
the services that will be provided.
31. Attach as Exhibit Q, any technical
manuals, other guides or instructions for
users of, or participants in, the market.
32. Attach as Exhibit R, a description of
system test procedures, test conducted or test
results that will enable the Applicant to
comply, or demonstrate the Applicant’s
ability to comply, with the core principles for
swap data repositories.
33. Attach as Exhibit S, a description in
narrative form, or by the inclusion of
functional specifications, of each service or
function performed as a swap data
repository. Include in Exhibit S a description
of all procedures utilized for the collection,
processing, distribution, publication, and
retention (e.g., magnetic tape) of information
with respect to transactions or positions in,
or the terms and conditions of, swaps entered
into by market participants.
34. Attach as Exhibit T, a list of all
computer hardware utilized by the Applicant
to perform swap data repository functions,
indicating where such equipment (terminals
and other access devices) is physically
located.
35. Attach as Exhibit U, a description of
the personnel qualifications for each category
of professional employees employed by the
swap data repository or the division,
subdivision, or other segregable entity within
the swap data repository as described in Item
16.
36. Attach as Exhibit V, a description of the
measures or procedures implemented by
Applicant to provide for the security of any
system employed to perform the functions of
a swap data repository. Include a general
description of any physical and operational
safeguards designed to prevent unauthorized
access (whether by input or retrieval) to the
system. Describe any circumstances within
the past year in which the described security
measures or safeguards failed to prevent any
such unauthorized access to the system and
any measures taken to prevent a
reoccurrence. Describe any measures used to
verify the accuracy of information received or
disseminated by the system.
37. Attach as Exhibit W, copies of
emergency policies and procedures and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Applicant’s business continuity-disaster
recovery plan. Include a general description
of any business continuity-disaster recovery
resources, emergency procedures, and
backup facilities sufficient to enable timely
recovery and resumption of its operations
and resumption of its ongoing fulfillment of
its duties and obligations as a swap data
repository following any disruption of its
operations.
38. Where swap data repository functions
are performed by automated facilities or
systems, attach as Exhibit X a description of
all backup systems or subsystems that are
designed to prevent interruptions in the
performance of any swap data repository
function as a result of technical malfunctions
or otherwise in the system itself, in any
permitted input or output system connection,
or as a result of any independent source.
Include a narrative description of each type
of interruption that has lasted for more than
two minutes and has occurred within the six
(6) months preceding the date of the filing,
including the date of each interruption, the
cause, and duration. Also state the total
number of interruptions that have lasted two
minutes or less.
39. Attach as Exhibit Y, the following:
a. For each of the swap data repository
functions:
(1) Quantify in appropriate units of
measure the limits on the swap data
repository’s capacity to receive (or collect),
process, store, or display (or disseminate for
display or other use) the data elements
included within each function (e.g., number
of inquiries from remote terminals);
(2) identify the factors (mechanical,
electronic, or other) that account for the
current limitations reported in answer to (1)
on the swap data repository’s capacity to
receive (or collect), process, store, or display
(or disseminate for display or other use) the
data elements included within each function.
b. If the Applicant is able to employ, or
presently employs, the central processing
units of its system(s) for any use other than
for performing the functions of a swap data
repository, state the priorities of assignment
of capacity between such functions and such
other uses, and state the methods used or
able to be used to divert capacity between
such functions and such other uses.
EXHIBITS IV—ACCESS TO SERVICES
40. Attach as Exhibit Z, the following:
a. As to each swap data repository service
that the Applicant provides, state the number
of persons who presently utilize, or who have
notified the Applicant of their intention to
utilize, the services of the swap data
repository.
b. For each instance during the past year
in which any person has been prohibited or
limited in respect of access to services
offered by the Applicant as a swap data
repository, indicate the name of each such
person and the reason for the prohibition or
limitation.
c. Define the data elements for purposes of
the swap data repository’s real-time public
reporting obligation. Appendix A to Part 43
of the Commission’s Regulations (Data
Elements and Form for Real-Time Reporting
for Particular Markets and Contracts) sets
PO 00000
Frm 00250
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
forth the specific data elements for real-time
public reporting.
41. Attach as Exhibit AA, copies of any
agreements governing the terms by which
information may be shared by the swap data
repository, including with market
participants. To the extent that form
contracts are used by the Applicant, submit
a sample of each type of form contract used.
42. Attach as Exhibit BB, a description of
any specifications, qualifications, or other
criteria that limit, are interpreted to limit, or
have the effect of limiting access to or use of
any swap data repository services furnished
by the Applicant and state the reasons for
imposing such specifications, qualifications,
or other criteria, including whether such
specifications, qualifications, or other criteria
are imposed.
43. Attach as Exhibit CC, any
specifications, qualifications, or other criteria
required of participants who utilize the
services of the Applicant for collection,
processing, preparing for distribution, or
public dissemination by the Applicant.
44. Attach as Exhibit DD, any
specifications, qualifications, or other criteria
required of any person, including, but not
limited to, regulators, market participants,
market infrastructures, venues from which
data could be submitted to the Applicant,
and third party service providers who request
access to data maintained by the Applicant.
45. Attach as Exhibit EE, policies and
procedures implemented by the Applicant to
review any prohibition or limitation of any
person with respect to access to services
offered or data maintained by the Applicant
and to grant such person access to such
services or data if such person has been
discriminated against unfairly.
EXHIBITS V—OTHER POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES
46. Attach as Exhibit FF, a narrative and
supporting documents that may be provided
under other Exhibits herein, that describes
the manner in which the Applicant is able to
comply with each core principle and other
requirements pursuant to Commission
Regulation § 49.19.
47. Attach as Exhibit GG, policies and
procedures implemented by the Applicant to
protect the privacy of any and all SDR data,
section 8 material, and SDR information that
the swap data repository receives from
reporting entities.
48. Attach as Exhibit HH, a description of
safeguards, policies, and procedures
implemented by the Applicant to prevent the
misappropriation or misuse of (a) any
confidential information received by the
Applicant, including, but not limited to, SDR
data, section 8 material, and SDR
information, about a market participant or
any of its customers; and/or (b) intellectual
property by Applicant or any person
associated with the Applicant for their
personal benefit or the benefit of others.
49. Attach as Exhibit II, policies and
procedures implemented by the Applicant
regarding its use of the SDR data, section 8
material, and SDR information that it
receives from a market participant, any
registered entity, or any person for noncommercial and/or commercial purposes.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75671
50. Attach as Exhibit JJ, procedures and a
description of facilities of the Applicant for
effectively resolving disputes over the
accuracy of the SDR data and positions that
are maintained by the swap data repository.
51. Attach as Exhibit KK, policies and
procedures relating to the Applicant’s
calculation of positions.
52. Attach as Exhibit LL, policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to
prevent any provision in a valid swap from
being invalidated or modified through the
procedures or operations of the Applicant.
53. Attach as Exhibit MM, Applicant’s
policies and procedures that ensure that the
SDR data that are maintained by the
Applicant continues to be maintained after
the Applicant withdraws from registration as
a swap data repository, which shall include
procedures for transferring the SDR data to
the Commission or its designee (including
another swap data repository).
■
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (‘‘CFTC’’) and the [name of
foreign/domestic regulator (‘‘ABC’’)] (each an
‘‘Authority’’ and collectively the
‘‘Authorities’’) have entered into this
Confidentiality Arrangement
(‘‘Arrangement’’) in connection with
[whichever is applicable] [CFTC Regulation
49.17(b)(1)[(i)–(vi)]/the determination order
issued by the CFTC to [ABC] (‘‘Order’’)] and
any request for swap data by [ABC] to any
swap data repository (‘‘SDR’’) registered or
provisionally registered with the CFTC.
regulatory responsibilities or to prejudice the
individual responsibilities or autonomy of
any Authority.
4. This Arrangement does not alter the
terms and conditions of any existing
arrangements.
the benefit of others or with respect to any
commercial or business purpose; and
f. Include a process for monitoring
compliance with the confidentiality
safeguards described herein and for promptly
notifying the CFTC, and each SDR from
which ABC has received Swap Data, of any
violation of such safeguards or failure to
fulfill the terms of this Arrangement.
7. Except as provided in Paragraphs 6.d.
and 8, ABC will not onward share or
otherwise disclose any Confidential
Information.
8. ABC undertakes that:
a. If a department, central bank, or agency
of the Government of the United States, it
will not disclose Confidential Information
except in an action or proceeding under the
laws of the United States to which it, the
CFTC, or the United States is a party;
b. If a department or agency of a State or
political subdivision thereof, it will not
disclose Confidential Information except in
connection with an adjudicatory action or
proceeding brought under the Act or the laws
of [name of either the State or the State and
political subdivision] to which it is a party;
or
c. If a foreign futures authority or a
department, central bank, ministry, or agency
of a foreign government or subdivision
thereof, or any other Foreign Regulator, as
defined in Commission Regulation 49.2(a)(5),
it will not disclose Confidential Information
except in connection with an adjudicatory
action or proceeding brought under the laws
of [name of country, political subdivision, or
(if a supranational organization)
supranational lawmaking body] to which it
is a party.
9. Prior to complying with any legally
enforceable demand for Confidential
Information, ABC will notify the CFTC of
such demand in writing, assert all available
appropriate legal exemptions or privileges
with respect to such Confidential
Information, and use its best efforts to protect
Article One: General Provisions
1. ABC is permitted to request and receive
swap data directly from an SDR (‘‘Swap
Data’’) on the terms and subject to the
conditions of this Arrangement.
2. This Arrangement is entered into to
fulfill the requirements under Section 21(d)
of the Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘Act’’) and
CFTC Regulation 49.18. Upon receipt by an
SDR, this Arrangement will satisfy the
requirement for a written agreement pursuant
to Section 21(d) of the Act and CFTC
Regulation 49.17(d)(6). This Arrangement
does not apply to information that is
[reported to an SDR pursuant to [ABC]’s
regulatory regime where the SDR also is
registered with [ABC] pursuant to separate
statutory authority, even if such information
also is reported pursuant to the Act and
CFTC regulations][reported to an SDR
pursuant to [ABC]’s regulatory regime where
the SDR also is registered with, or recognized
or otherwise authorized by, [ABC], which has
supervisory authority over the repository
pursuant to foreign law and/or regulation,
even if such information also is reported
pursuant to the Act and CFTC regulations.] 1
3. This Arrangement is not intended to
limit or condition the discretion of an
Authority in any way in the discharge of its
1 The first bracketed phrase will be used for
ADRs; the second will be used for AFRs. The
inapplicable phrase will be deleted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Article Two: Confidentiality of Swap Data
5. ABC will be acting within the scope of
its jurisdiction in requesting Swap Data and
employs procedures to maintain the
confidentiality of Swap Data and any
information and analyses derived therefrom
(collectively, the ‘‘Confidential
Information’’). ABC undertakes to notify the
CFTC and each relevant SDR promptly of any
change to ABC’s scope of jurisdiction.
6. ABC undertakes to treat Confidential
Information as confidential and will employ
safeguards that:
a. To the maximum extent practicable,
identify the Confidential Information and
maintain it separately from other data and
information;
b. Protect the Confidential Information
from misappropriation and misuse;
c. Ensure that only authorized ABC
personnel with a need to access particular
Confidential Information to perform their job
functions related to such Confidential
Information have access thereto, and that
such access is permitted only to the extent
necessary to perform their job functions
related to such particular Confidential
Information;
d. Prevent the disclosure of aggregated
Confidential Information; provided, however,
that ABC is permitted to disclose any
sufficiently aggregated Confidential
Information that is anonymized to prevent
identification, through disaggregation or
otherwise, of a market participant’s business
transactions, trade data, market positions,
customers, or counterparties;
e. Prohibit use of the Confidential
Information by ABC personnel for any
improper purpose, including in connection
with trading for their personal benefit or for
PO 00000
Frm 00251
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
35. Revise appendix B to part 49 to
read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 49—Confidentiality
Arrangement for Appropriate Domestic
Regulators and Appropriate Foreign
Regulators To Obtain Access To Swap
Data Maintained by Swap Data
Repositories Pursuant to §§ 49.17(d)(6)
and 49.18(a)
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
ER25NO20.042</GPH>
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
75672
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
the confidentiality of the Confidential
Information.
10. ABC acknowledges that, if it does not
fulfill the terms of this Arrangement, the
CFTC may direct any SDR to suspend or
revoke ABC’s access to Swap Data.
11. ABC will comply with all applicable
security-related requirements imposed by an
SDR in connection with access to Swap Data
maintained by the SDR, as such requirements
may be revised from time to time.
12. ABC will promptly destroy all
Confidential Information for which it no
longer has a need or which no longer falls
within the scope of its jurisdiction, and will
certify to the CFTC, upon request, that ABC
has destroyed such Confidential Information.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Article Three: Administrative Provisions
13. This Arrangement may be amended
with the written consent of the Authorities.
14. The text of this Arrangement will be
executed in English, and may be made
available to the public.
15. On the date this Arrangement is signed
by the Authorities, it will become effective
and may be provided to any SDR that holds
and maintains Swap Data that falls within
the scope of ABC’s jurisdiction.
16. This Arrangement will expire 30 days
after any Authority gives written notice to the
other Authority of its intention to terminate
the Arrangement. In the event of termination
of this Arrangement, Confidential
Information will continue to remain
confidential and will continue to be covered
by this Arrangement.
This Arrangement is executed in duplicate,
this llday of ll.
[name of Chairman]
Chairman,
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission
[name of signatory]
[title]
[name of foreign/domestic regulator]
[Exhibit A: Description of Scope of
Jurisdiction. If ABC is not enumerated in
Commission Regulations 49.17(b)(1)(i)–(vi), it
must attach the Determination Order
received from the Commission pursuant to
Commission Regulation 49.17(h). If ABC is
enumerated in Commission Regulations
49.17(b)(1)(i)–(vi), it must attach a
sufficiently detailed description of the scope
of ABC’s jurisdiction as it relates to Swap
Data maintained by SDRs. In both cases, the
description of the scope of jurisdiction must
include elements allowing SDRs to establish,
without undue obstacles, objective
parameters for determining whether a
particular Swap Data request falls within
such scope of jurisdiction. Such elements
could include legal entity identifiers of all
jurisdictional entities and could also include
unique product identifiers of all
jurisdictional products or, if no CFTCapproved unique product identifier and
product classification system is yet available,
the internal product identifier or product
description used by an SDR from which
Swap Data is to be sought.]
36. Further amend part 49 by
removing all references to ‘‘registered
swap data repository’’, ‘‘Registered
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Swap Data Repository’’, and ‘‘registered
swap data repositories’’, and adding in
their place ‘‘swap data repository’’,
‘‘Swap Data Repository’’, and ‘‘swap
data repositories’’, respectively,
wherever they appear.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September
24, 2020, by the Commission.
Christopher Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
Note: The following appendices will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Appendices to Amendments to
Regulations Relating to Certain Swap
Data Repository and Data Reporting
Requirements—Commission Voting
Summary, Chairman’s Statement, and
Commissioners’ Statements
Appendix 1—Commission Voting
Summary
On this matter, Chairman Tarbert and
Commissioners Quintenz, Behnam, Stump,
and Berkovitz voted in the affirmative. No
Commissioner voted in the negative.
Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman
Heath P. Tarbert
I am pleased to support today’s final swap
data reporting rules under Parts 43, 45, and
49 of the CFTC’s regulations, which are
foundational to effective oversight of the
derivatives markets. As I noted when these
rules were proposed in February, ‘‘[d]ata is
the lifeblood of our markets.’’ 1 Little did I
know just how timely that statement would
prove to be.
COVID–19 Crisis and Beyond
In the month following our data rule
proposals, historic volatility caused by the
coronavirus pandemic rocketed through our
derivatives markets, affecting nearly every
asset class.2 I said at the time that while our
margin rules acted as ‘‘shock absorbers’’ to
cushion the impact of volatility, the
Commission was also considering data rules
that would expand our insight into potential
systemic risk. In particular, the data rules
‘‘would for the first time require the reporting
of margin and collateral data for uncleared
swaps . . . significantly strengthen[ing] the
CFTC’s ability to monitor for systemic risk’’
in those markets.3 Today we complete those
rules, shoring up the data-based reporting
systems that can help us identify—and
quickly respond to—emerging systemic
threats.
But data reporting is not just about
mitigating systemic risk. Vibrant derivatives
1 Statement of Chairman Heath P. Tarbert in
Support of Proposed Rules on Swap Data Reporting
(Feb. 20, 2020), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/
SpeechesTestimony/tabertstatement022020
(hereinafter, Tarbert, Proposal Statement).
2 See Heath P. Tarbert, Volatility Ain’t What it
Used to Be, Wall Street Journal (Mar. 23, 2020),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/volatility-aint-what-itused-to-be11585004897?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
(hereinafter Tarbert, Volatility).
3 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00252
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
markets must be open and free, meaning
transparency is a critical component of any
reporting system. Price discovery requires
robust public reporting that supplies market
participants with the information they need
to price trades, hedge risk, and supply
liquidity. Today we double down on
transparency, ensuring that public reporting
of swap transactions is even more accurate
and timely. In particular, our final rules
adjust certain aspects of the Part 43
proposal’s block-trade 4 reporting rules to
improve transparency in our markets. These
changes have been carefully considered to
enhance clarity, one of the CFTC’s core
values. 5
Promoting clarity in our markets also
demands that we, as an agency, have clear
goals in mind. Today’s final swap data
reporting rules reflect a hard look at the data
we need and the data we collect, building on
insights gleaned from our own analysis as
well as feedback from market participants.
The key point is that more data does not
necessarily mean better information. Instead,
the core of an effective data reporting system
is focus.
As Aesop reminds us, ‘‘Beware lest you
lose the substance by grasping at the
shadow.’’ 6 Today’s final swap data reporting
rules place substance first, carefully tailoring
our requirements to reach the data that really
matters, while removing unnecessary
burdens on our market participants. As Bill
Gates once remarked, ‘‘My success, part of it
certainly, is that I have focused in on a few
things.’’ 7 So too are the final swap data
reporting rules limited in number. The Part
45 Technical Specification, for example,
streamlines hundreds of different data fields
currently required by swap data repositories
into 128 that truly advance the CFTC’s
regulatory goals. This focus will simplify the
data reporting process without undermining
its effectiveness, thus fulfilling the CFTC’s
strategic goal of enhancing the regulatory
experience for market participants at home
and abroad.8
That last point is worth highlighting: our
final swap data reporting rules account for
market participants both within and outside
the United States. A diversity of market
participants, some of whom reside beyond
our borders and are accountable to foreign
regulatory regimes, contribute to vibrant
derivatives markets. But before today,
inconsistent international rules meant some
swap dealers were left to navigate what I
have called ‘‘a byzantine maze of disparate
data fields and reporting timetables’’ for the
very same swap.9 While perfect alignment
4 The final rule’s definition of ‘‘block trade’’ is
provided in regulation 43.2.
5 See CFTC Core Values, https://www.cftc.gov/
About/Mission/index.htm.
6 Aesop, ‘‘The Dog and the Shadow,’’ The
Harvard Classics, https://www.bartleby.com/17/1/
3.html.
7 ABC News, One-on-One with Bills Gates (Feb.
21, 2008), https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/
CEOProfiles/story?id=506354&page=1.
8 See CFTC Strategic Plan 2020–2024, at 4
(discussing Strategic Goal 3), https://www.cftc.gov/
media/3871/CFTC2020_2024StrategicPlan/
download.
9 Tarbert, Proposal Statement, supra note 1.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
may not be possible or even desirable, the
final rules significantly harmonize reportable
data fields, compliance timetables, and
implementation requirements to advance our
global markets. Doing so brings us closer to
realizing the CFTC’s vision of being the
global standard for sound derivatives
regulation.10
Overview of the Swap Data Reporting Rules
It is important to understand the specific
function of each of the three swap data
reporting rules, which together form the
CFTC’s reporting system. First, Part 43 relates
to the real-time public reporting of swap
pricing and transaction data, which appears
on the ‘‘public tape.’’ Swap dealers and other
reporting parties supply Part 43 data to swap
data repositories (SDRs), which then make
the data public. Part 43 includes provisions
relating to the treatment and public reporting
of large notional trades (blocks), as well as
the ‘‘capping’’ of swap trades that reach a
certain notional amount.
Second, Part 45 relates to the regulatory
reporting of swap data to the CFTC by swap
dealers and other covered entities. Part 45
data provides the CFTC with insight into the
swaps markets to assist with regulatory
oversight. A Technical Specification
available on the CFTC’s website 11 includes
data elements that are unique to CFTC
reporting, as well as certain ‘‘Critical Data
Elements,’’ which reflect longstanding efforts
by the CFTC and other regulators to develop
global guidance for swap data reporting.12
Finally, Part 49 requires data verification
to help ensure that the data reported to SDRs
and the CFTC in Parts 43 and 45 is accurate.
The final Part 49 rule will provide enhanced
and streamlined oversight of SDRs and data
reporting generally. In particular, Part 49 will
now require SDRs to have a mechanism by
which reporting counterparties can access
and verify the data for their open swaps held
at the SDR. A reporting counterparty must
compare the SDR data with the
counterparty’s own books and records,
correcting any data errors with the SDR.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Systemic Risk Mitigation
Today’s final swap data reporting rules are
designed to fulfill our agency’s first Strategic
Goal: To strengthen the resilience and
integrity of our derivatives markets while
fostering the vibrancy.13 The Part 45 rule
10 See CFTC Vision Statement, available at
https://www.cftc.gov/About/AboutThe
Commission#:∼:text=CFTC%20Vision%20
Statement,standard%20for%20sound
%20derivatives%20regulation.
11 See CFTC, Technical Specification Document,
https://www.cftc.gov/media/3496/DMO_Part43_
45TechnicalSpecification022020/download.
12 Since November 2014, the CFTC and regulators
in other jurisdictions have collaborated through the
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures
(‘‘CPMI’’) and the International Organization of
Securities Commissions (‘‘IOSCO’’) working group
for the harmonization of key over-the-counter
(‘‘OTC’’) derivatives data elements (‘‘Harmonisation
Group’’). The Harmonisation Group developed
global guidance for key OTC derivatives data
elements, including the Unique Transaction
Identifier, the Unique Product Identifier, and
critical data elements other than UTI and UPI.
13 See CFTC Strategic Plan, supra note 7, at 5.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
requires swap dealers to report uncleared
margin data for the first time, enhancing the
CFTC’s ability to ‘‘to monitor systemic risk
accurately and to act quickly if cracks begin
to appear in the system.’’ 14 As Justice
Brandeis famously wrote in advocating for
transparency in organizations, ‘‘sunlight is
the best disinfectant.’’ 15 So too it is for
financial markets: the better visibility the
CFTC has into the uncleared swaps markets,
the more effectively it can address what until
now has been ‘‘a black box of potential
systemic risk.’’ 16
Doubling Down on Transparency
Justice Brandeis’s words also resonate
across other areas of the final swap data
reporting rules. The final swap data reporting
rules enhance transparency to the public of
pricing and trade data.
1. Blocks and Caps
A critical aspect of the final Part 43 rule
is the issue of block trades and dissemination
delays. When the Part 43 proposal was
issued, I noted that ‘‘[o]ne of the issues we
are looking at closely is whether a 48-hour
delay for block trade reporting is
appropriate.’’ 17 I encouraged market
participants to ‘‘provide comment letters and
feedback concerning the treatment of block
delays.’’ 18 Market participants responded
with extensive feedback, much of which
advocated for shorter delays in making block
trade data publicly available. I agree with this
view, and support a key change in the final
Part 43 rule. Rather than apply the proposal’s
uniform 48-hour dissemination delay on
block trade reporting, the final rule returns to
bespoke public reporting timeframes that
consider liquidity, market depth, and other
factors unique to specific categories of swaps.
The result is shorter reporting delays for most
block trades.
The final Part 43 rule also changes the
threshold for block trade treatment, raising
the amount needed from a 50% to 67%
notional calculation. It also increases the
threshold for capping large notional trades
from 67% to 75%. These changes will
enhance market transparency by applying a
stricter standard for blocks and caps, thereby
enhancing public access to swap trading
data. At the same time, the rule reflects
serious consideration of how these
thresholds are calculated, particularly for
block trades. In excluding certain option
trades and CDS trades around the roll months
from the 67% notional threshold for blocks,
the final rule helps ensure that dissemination
delays have their desired effect of preventing
front-running and similar disruptive activity.
2. Post-Priced and Prime-Broker Swaps
The swaps market is highly complex,
reflecting a nearly endless array of
transaction structures. Part 43 takes these
differences into account in setting forth the
14 Tarbert,
Proposal Statement, supra note 1, note
2.
15 Hon. Louis D. Brandeis, Other People’s Money
62 (National Home Library Foundation ed. 1933).
16 Tarbert, Proposal Statement, supra note 1.
17 Tarbert, Proposal Statement, supra note 1, note
14.
18 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00253
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75673
public reporting requirements for price and
transaction data. For example, post-priced
swaps are valued after an event occurs, such
as the ringing of the daily closing bell in an
equity market. As it stands today, post-priced
swaps often appear on the public tape with
no corresponding pricing data—rendering the
data largely unusable. The final Part 43 rule
addresses this data quality issue and
improves price discovery by requiring postpriced swaps to appear on the public tape
after pricing occurs.
The final Part 43 rule also resolves an issue
involving the reporting of prime-brokerage
swaps. The current rule requires that
offsetting swaps executed with prime
brokers—in addition to the initial swap
reflecting the actual terms of trade—be
reported on the public tape. This duplicative
reporting obfuscates public pricing data by
including prime-broker costs and fees that
are unrelated to the terms of the swap. As I
explained when the rule was proposed,
cluttering the public tape with duplicative or
confusing data can impair price discovery.19
The final Part 43 rule addresses this issue by
requiring that only the initial ‘‘trigger’’ swap
be reported, thereby improving public price
information.
3. Verification and Error Correction
Data is only as useful as it is accurate. The
final Part 49 rule establishes an efficient
framework for verifying SDR data accuracy
and correcting errors, which serves both
regulatory oversight and public price
discovery purposes.
Improving the Regulatory Experience
Today’s final swap data reporting rules
improve the regulatory experience for market
participants at home and abroad in several
key ways, advancing the CFTC’s third
Strategic Goal.20 Key examples are set forth
below.
1. Streamlined Data Fields
As I stated at the proposal stage,
‘‘[s]implicity should be a central goal of our
swap data reporting rules.’’ 21 This sentiment
still holds true, and a key improvement to
our final Part 45 Technical Specification is
the streamlining of reportable data fields. The
current system has proven unworkable,
leaving swap dealers and other market
participants to wander alone in the digital
wilderness, with little guidance about the
data elements that the CFTC actually needs.
This uncertainty has led to ‘‘a proliferation
of reportable data fields’’ required by SDRs
that ‘‘exceed what market participants can
readily provide and what the [CFTC] can
realistically use.’’ 22
We resolve this situation today by
replacing the sprawling mass of disparate
SDR fields—sometimes running into the
hundreds or thousands—with 128 that are
important to the CFTC’s oversight of the
swaps markets. These fields reflect an honest
look at the data we are collecting and the
data we can use, ensuring that our market
participants are not burdened with swap
19 Tarbert,
Proposal Statement, supra note 1.
Strategic Plan, supra note 7, at 7.
21 Tarbert, Proposal Statement, supra note 1.
22 Id.
20 CFTC
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75674
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
reporting obligations that do not advance our
statutory mandates.
achieves the goal—data accuracy—with
fewer costs and burdens.27
2. Regulatory Harmonization
4. Relief for End Users
I have long said that if our derivatives
markets are not working for agriculture, then
they are not working at all.28 While swaps are
often the purview of large financial
institutions, they also provide critical riskmanagement functions for end users like
farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers. Our
final Part 45 rule removes the requirement
that end users report swap valuation data,
and it provides them with a longer ‘‘T+2’’
timeframe to report the data that is required.
I am pleased to support these changes to enduser reporting, which will help ensure that
our derivatives markets work for all
Americans, advancing another CFTC strategic
goal.29
The swaps markets are integrated and
global; our data rules must follow suit.23 To
that end, the final Part 45 rule takes a
sensible approach to aligning the CFTC’s data
reporting fields with the standards set by
international efforts. Swap data reporting is
an area where harmonization simply makes
sense. The costs of failing to harmonize are
high, as swap dealers and other reporting
parties must provide entirely different data
sets to multiple regulators for the very same
swap.24 A better approach is to conform
swap data reporting requirements where
possible.
Data harmonization is not just good for
market participants: it also advances the
CFTC’s vision of being the global standard for
sound derivatives regulation.25 The CFTC
has a long history of leading international
harmonization efforts in data reporting,
including by serving as a co-chair of the
Committee on Payments and Infrastructures
and the International Organization of
Securities Commissioners (CPMI–IOSCO)
working group on critical data elements
(CDE) in swap reporting.26 I am pleased to
support a final Part 45 rule that advances
these efforts by incorporating CDE fields that
serve our regulatory goals.
In addition to certain CDE fields, the final
Part 45 rule also adopts other important
features of the CPMI–IOSCO Technical
Guidance, such as the use of a Unique
Transaction Identifier (UTI) system in place
of today’s Unique Swap Identifier (USI)
system. This change will bring the CFTC’s
swap data reporting system in closer
alignment with those of other regulators,
leading to better data sharing and lower
burdens on market participants.
Last, the costs of altering data reporting
systems makes implementation timeframes
especially important. To that effect, the CFTC
has worked with ESMA to bring our
jurisdictions’ swap data reporting
compliance timetables into closer harmony,
easing transitions to new reporting systems.
3. Verification and Error Correction
The final Part 49 rule has changed since
the proposal stage to facilitate easier
verification of SDR data by swap dealers.
Based on feedback we received, the final rule
now requires SDRs to provide a mechanism
for swap dealers and other reporting
counterparties to access the SDR’s data for
their open swaps to verify accuracy and
address errors. This approach replaces a
message-based system for error identification
and correction, which would have produced
significant implementation costs without
improving error remediation. The final rule
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
23 See
Tarbert, Proposal Statement, supra note 1.
id.
25 See CFTC Vision Statement, https://
www.cftc.gov/About/AboutTheCommission#:∼:text=
CFTC%20Vision%20Statement,standard%20for
%20sound%20derivatives%20regulation.
26 The CFTC also co-chaired the Financial
Stability Board’s working group on UTI and UPI
governance.
24 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
Conclusion
The derivatives markets run on data. They
will be even more reliant on it in the future,
as digitization continues to sweep through
society and industry. I am pleased to support
the final rules under Parts 43, 45, and 49,
which will help ensure that the CFTC’s swap
data reporting systems are effective, efficient,
and built to last.
Appendix 3—Supporting Statement of
Commissioner Brian Quintenz
The Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)
specifically directs the Commission to ensure
that real-time public reporting requirements
for swap transactions (i) do not identify the
participants; (ii) specify the criteria for what
constitutes a block trade and the appropriate
time delay for reporting such block trades,
and (iii) take into account whether public
disclosure will materially reduce market
liquidity.1 The Commission has long
recognized the intrinsic tension between the
policy goals of enhanced transparency versus
market liquidity. In fact, in 2013, the
Commission noted that the optimal point in
this interplay between enhanced swap
transaction transparency and the potential
that, in certain circumstances, this enhanced
transparency could reduce market liquidity
‘‘defies precision.’’ 2 I agree with the
Commission that the ideal balance between
transparency and liquidity is difficult to
ascertain and necessarily requires not only
robust data but also the exercise of reasoned
27 Limiting error correction to open swaps—
versus all swaps that a reporting counterparty may
have entered into at any point in time—is also a
sensible approach to addressing risk in the markets.
The final Part 49 rule limits error correction to
errors discovered prior to the expiration of the fiveyear recordkeeping period in regulation 45.2,
ensuring that market participants are not tasked
with addressing old or closed transactions that pose
no active risk.
28 Opening Statement of Chairman Heath P.
Tarbert Before the April 22 Agricultural Advisory
Committee Meeting (April 22, 2020), https://
www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/
tarbertstatement042220.
29 CFTC Strategic Plan, supra note 7, at 6.
1 CEA Section 2(a)(13)(E).
2 Procedures to Establish Appropriate Minimum
Block Sizes for Large Notional Off-Facility Swaps
and Block Trades, 78 FR 32866, 32917 (May 31,
2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00254
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
judgement, particularly in the swaps
marketplace with a finite number of
institutional investors trading hundreds of
thousands of products, often by appointment.
Unfortunately, I fear the balance struck in
this rule misses that mark. The final rule
before us today clearly favors transparency
over market liquidity, with the sacrifice of
the latter being particularly more acute given
the nature of the swaps market. In this final
rule, the Commission asserts that the
increased transparency resulting from higher
block trade thresholds and cap sizes will lead
to increased competition, stimulate more
trading, and enhance liquidity and pricing.
That is wishful thinking, which is no basis
upon which to predicate a final rule. As
numerous commenters pointed out, this
increased transparency comes directly at the
expense of market liquidity, competitive
pricing for end-users, and the ability of
dealers to efficiently hedge their large swap
transactions. While the Commission hopes
the 67% block calculation will bring about
the ample benefits it cites, I think the exact
opposite is the most probable outcome. I
remain unconvinced that the move from the
50% notional amount calculation for block
sizes to the 67% notional amount calculation
is necessary or appropriate. Unfortunately,
the decision to retain the 67% calculation,
which was adopted in 2013 but never
implemented, was not seriously reconsidered
in this rule.
Instead, in the final rule, the Commission
asserts that it ‘‘extensively analyzed the costs
and benefits of the 50-percent threshold and
67-percent threshold when it adopted the
phased-in approach’’ in 2013. Respectfully, I
believe that statement drastically inflates the
Commission’s prior analysis. I have no doubt
the Commission ‘‘analyzed’’ the costs and
benefits in 2013 to the best of its ability.
However, the reality is that in 2013, as the
Commission acknowledged in its own costbenefit analysis, ‘‘in a number of instances,
the Commission lacks the data and
information required to precisely estimate
costs, owing to the fact that these markets do
not yet exist or are not yet fully developed.’’ 3
In 2013, the Commission was just standing
up its SEF trading regime, had not yet
implemented its trade execution mandate,
and had adopted interim time delays for all
swaps—meaning that, in 2013 when it first
adopted this proposal, no swap transaction
data was publicly disseminated in real time.
Seven years later, the Commission has a
robust, competitive SEF trading framework
and a successful real-time reporting regime
that results in 87% of IRS trades and 82% of
CDS trades being reported in real time. In
light of the sea change that has occurred
since 2013, I believe the Commission should
have undertaken a comprehensive review of
whether the transition to a 67% block trade
threshold was appropriate.
In my opinion, the fact that currently 87%
of IRS and 82% of CDS trades are reported
in real time is evidence that the transparency
policy goals underlying the real-time
reporting requirements have already been
achieved. In 2013, the Commission, quoting
directly from the Congressional Record,
3 Id.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
noted that when it considered the benefits
and effects of enhanced market transparency,
the ‘‘guiding principle in setting appropriate
block trade levels [is that] the vast majority
of swap transactions should be exposed to
the public market through exchange
trading.’’ 4 The current block sizes have
resulted in exactly that—the vast majority of
trades being reported in real time. The final
rule, acknowledging these impressively high
percentages, nevertheless concludes that
because less than half of total IRS and CDS
notional amounts is reported in real time,
additional trades should be forced into realtime reporting. I reach the exact opposite
conclusion. By my logic, the 13% of IRS and
18% of CDS trades that currently receive a
time delay represent roughly half of notional
for those asset classes. In other words, these
trades are huge. In my view, these trades are
exactly the type of outsized transactions that
Congress appropriately decided should
receive a delay from real-time reporting.
Despite my reservations, I am voting for the
real-time reporting rule before the
Commission today for several reasons. First,
I worked hard to ensure that this final rule
contains many significant improvements
from the initial draft we were first presented,
as well as the original proposal which I
supported. For example, in order to make
sure the CDS swap categories are
representative, the Commission established
additional categories for CDS with
optionality. In addition, the Commission is
also providing guidance that certain riskreduction exercises, which are not arm’s
length transactions, are not publicly
reportable swap transactions, and therefore
should be excluded from the block size
calculations.
Second, while most of the changes to the
part 43 rules will have a compliance period
of 18 months, compliance with the new block
and cap sizes will not be not be required
until one year later, providing market
participants with a 30-month compliance
period and the Commission with an extra 12
months to revisit this issue with actual data
analysis, as good government and wellreasoned public policy demands. This means
that when any final block and cap sizes go
into effect for the amended swap categories,
it will be with the benefit of cleaner, more
precise data resulting from our part 43 final
rule improvements adopted today. It is my
firm expectation that DMO staff will review
the revised block trade sizes, in light of the
new data, at that time to ensure they are
appropriately calibrated for each swap
category. In addition, as required by the rule,
DMO will publish the revised block trade
and cap sizes the month before they go
effective. I am hopeful that with the benefit
of time, cleaner data and public comment,
the Commission can, if necessary, re-calibrate
the minimum block sizes to ensure they
strike the appropriate balance built into our
statute between the liquidity needs of the
market and transparency. To the extent
market participants also have concerns about
maintaining the current time delays for block
4 Id.
at 32870 n.41 (quoting from the
Congressional Record—Senate, S5902, S5922 (July
15, 2010) (emphasis added)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
trades given the move to the 67% calculation,
I encourage them to reach out to DMO and
my fellow Commissioners during the
intervening 30-month window. That time
frame is more than enough to further refine
the reporting delays, as necessary, for the
new swap categories based on sound data.
Appendix 4—Concurring Statement of
Commissioner Rostin Behnam
I respectfully concur in the Commission’s
amendments to its regulations regarding realtime public reporting, recordkeeping, and
swap data repositories. The three rules being
finalized together today are the culmination
of a multi-year effort to streamline, simplify,
and internationally harmonize the
requirements associated with reporting
swaps. Today’s actions represent the end of
a long procedural road at the Commission,
one that started with the Commission’s 2017
Roadmap to Achieve High Quality Swap
Data.1
But the road really goes back much further
than that, to the time prior to the 2008
financial crisis, when swaps were largely
exempt from regulation and traded
exclusively over-the-counter.2 Lack of
transparency in the over-the-counter swaps
market contributed to the financial crisis
because both regulators and market
participants lacked the visibility necessary to
identify and assess swaps market exposures,
counterparty relationships, and counterparty
credit risk.3
In the aftermath of the financial crisis,
Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010
(Dodd-Frank Act).4 The Dodd-Frank Act
largely incorporated the international
financial reform initiatives for over-thecounter derivatives laid out at the 2009 G20
Pittsburgh Summit, which sought to improve
transparency, mitigate systemic risk, and
protect against market abuse.5 With respect
to data reporting, the policy initiative
developed by the G20 focused on
establishing a consistent and standardized
global data set across jurisdictions in order to
support regulatory efforts to timely identify
systemic risk. The critical need and
importance of this policy goal given the
consequences of the financial crisis cannot be
overstated.
1 Roadmap to Achieve High Quality Swap Data,
available at https://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/
@newsroom/documents/file/dmo_
swapdataplan071017.pdf.
2 See Commodity Futures Modernization Act of
2000, Public Law 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000).
3 See The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission,
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of
the National Commission on the Causes of the
Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States
(Official Government Edition), at 299, 352, 363–364,
386, 621 n. 56 (2011), available at https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPOFCIC.pdf.
4 See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124
Stat. 1376 (2010).
5 G20, Leaders’ Statement, The Pittsburgh Summit
(Sept. 24–25, 2009) at 9, available at https://
www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/g7g20/Documents/pittsburgh_summit_leaders_
statement_250909.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00255
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75675
Among many critically important statutory
changes, which have shed light on the overthe-counter derivatives markets, Title VII of
the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Commodity
Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’ or ‘‘Act’’) and added
a new term to the Act: ‘‘Real-time public
reporting.’’ 6 The Act defines that term to
mean reporting ‘‘data relating to swap
transaction, including price and volume, as
soon as technologically practicable after the
time at which the swap transaction has been
executed.’’ 7
As we amend these rules, I think it is
important that we keep in mind the DoddFrank Act’s emphasis on transparency, and
what transpired to necessitate that emphasis.
However, the Act is also clear that its
purpose, in regard to transparency and real
time public reporting, is to authorize the
Commission to make swap transaction and
pricing data available to the public ‘‘as the
Commission determines appropriate to
enhance price discovery.’’ 8 The Act
expressly directs the Commission to specify
the criteria for what constitutes a block trade,
establish appropriate time delays for
disseminating block trade information to the
public, and ‘‘take into account whether the
public disclosure will materially reduce
market liquidity.’’ 9 So, as we keep Congress’s
directive regarding public transparency (and
the events that necessitated that directive) in
mind as we promulgate rules, we also need
to be cognizant of instances where public
disclosure of the details of large transactions
in real time will materially reduce market
liquidity. This is a complex endeavor, and
the answers vary across markets and
products. I believe that these final rules strike
an appropriate balance.
Today’s final rules amending the swap data
and recordkeeping and reporting
requirements also culminate a multi-year
undertaking by dedicated Commission staff
and our international counterparts working
through the Committee on Payments and
Market Infrastructures and the International
Organization of Securities Commissions
working group for the harmonization of key
over-the-counter derivatives data elements.
The amendments benefit from substantial
public consultation as well as internal data
and regulatory analyses aimed at
determining, among other things, how the
Commission can meet its current data needs
in support of its duties under the CEA. These
include ensuring the financial integrity of
swap transactions, monitoring of substantial
and systemic risks, formulating bases for and
granting substituted compliance and trade
repository access, and entering information
sharing agreements with fellow regulators.
I wish to thank the responsible staff in the
Division of Market Oversight, as well as in
the Offices of International Affairs, Chief
Economist, and General Counsel for their
efforts and engagement over the last several
years as well as their constructive dialogues
with my office over the last several months.
Their timely and fulsome responsiveness
amid the flurry of activity at the Commission
67
U.S.C. 2(a)(13)(A).
7 Id.
87
97
U.S.C. 2(a)(13)(B).
U.S.C. 2(a)(13)(C)(ii–iv).
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75676
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
as we continue to work remotely is greatly
appreciated.
The final rules should improve data quality
by eliminating duplication, removing
alternative or adjunct reporting options,
utilizing universal data elements and
identifiers, and focusing on critical data
elements. To the extent the Commission is
moving forward with mandating a specific
data standard for reporting swap data to swap
data repositories (‘‘SDRs’’), and that the
standard will be ISO 20022, I appreciate the
Commission’s thorough discussion of its
rationale in support of that decision. I also
commend Commission staff for its
demonstrated expertise in incorporating the
mandate into the regulatory text in a manner
that provides certainty while acknowledging
that the chosen standard remains in
development.
The rules provide clear, reasonable and
universally acceptable reporting deadlines
that not only account for the minutiae of
local holidays, but address the practicalities
of common market practices such as
allocation and compression exercises.
I am especially pleased that the final rules
require consistent application of rules across
SDRs for the validation of both Part 43 and
Part 45 data submitted by reporting
counterparties. I believe the amendments to
part 49 set forth a practical approach to
ensuring SDRs can meet the statutory
requirement to confirm the accuracy of swap
data set forth in CEA section 21(c) 10 without
incurring unreasonable burdens.
I appreciate that the Commission
considered and received comments regarding
whether to require reporting counterparties
to indicate whether a specific swap: (1) Was
entered into for dealing purposes (as opposed
to hedging, investing, or proprietary trading);
and/or (2) needs not be considered in
determining whether a person is a swap
dealer or need not be counted towards a
person’s de minimis threshold for purposes
of determining swap dealer status under
Commission regulations.11 While today’s
rules may not be the appropriate means to
acquire such information, I continue to
believe that that the Commission’s ongoing
surveillance for compliance with the swap
dealer registration requirements could be
enhanced through data collection and
analysis.
Thank you again to the staff who worked
on these rules. I support the overall vision
articulated in these several rules and am
10 7
U.S.C. 24a(c)(2).
staff has identified the lack of
these fields as limiting constraints on the usefulness
of SDR data to identify which swaps should be
counted towards a person’s de minimis threshold,
and the ability to precisely assess the current de
minimis threshold or the impact of potential
changes to current exclusions. See De Minimis
Exception to the Swap Dealer Definition, 83 FR
27444, 27449 (proposed June 12, 2018); Swap
Dealer De Minimis Exception Final Staff Report at
19 (Aug. 15, 2016); (Nov. 18, 2015), available at
https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/
public/@swaps/documents/file/dfreport_
sddeminis081516.pdf; Swap Dealer De Minimis
Exception Preliminary Report at 15 (Nov. 18, 2015),
available at https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/
idc/groups/public/@swaps/documents/file/
dfreport_sddeminis_1115.pdf.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
11 Commission
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
committed to supporting the acquisition and
development of information technology and
human resources needed for execution of that
vision. As data forms the basis for much of
what we do here at the Commission,
especially in terms of identifying, assessing,
and monitoring risk, I look forward to future
discussions with staff regarding how the
CFTC’s Market Risk Advisory Committee
which I sponsor may be of assistance.
data reporting rules. Today’s final rules are
informed by the Commission’s and the
market’s experience with these initial rules.
Today’s revisions also reflect recent
international work to harmonize and
standardize data elements.
Appendix 5—Statement of
Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz
Price transparency fosters price
competition and reduces the cost of hedging.
In directing the Commission to adopt realtime public reporting regulations, the
Congress stated ‘‘[t]he purpose of this section
is to authorize the Commission to make swap
transaction and pricing data available to the
public in such form and at such times as the
Commission determines appropriate to
enhance price discovery.’’ 4 For real-time data
to be useful for price discovery, SDRs must
be able to report standardized, valid, and
timely data. The reported data should also
reflect the large majority of swaps executed
within a particular swap category. The final
Reporting Rules for part 43 address a number
of infirmities in the current rules affecting
the aggregation, validation, and timeliness of
the data. They also provide pragmatic
solutions to several specific reporting issues,
such as the treatment of prime broker trades
and post-priced swaps.
Introduction
I support today’s final rules amending the
swap data reporting requirements in parts 43,
45, 46, and 49 of the Commission’s rules (the
‘‘Reporting Rules’’). The amended rules
provide major improvements to the
Commission’s swap data reporting
requirements. They will increase the
transparency of the swap markets, enhance
the usability of the data, streamline the data
collection process, and better align the
Commission’s reporting requirements with
international standards.
The Commission must have accurate,
timely, and standardized data to fulfill its
customer protection, market integrity, and
risk monitoring mandates in the Commodity
Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’).1 The 2008 financial
crisis highlighted the systemic importance of
global swap markets, and drew attention to
the opacity of a market valued notionally in
the trillions of dollars. Regulators such as the
CFTC were unable to quickly ascertain the
exposures of even the largest financial
institutions in the United States. The absence
of real-time public swap reporting
contributed to uncertainty as to market
liquidity and pricing. One of the primary
goals of the Dodd-Frank Act is to improve
swap market transparency through both realtime public reporting of swap transactions
and ‘‘regulatory reporting’’ of complete swap
data to registered swap data repositories
(‘‘SDRs’’).2
As enacted by the Dodd-Frank Act, CEA
section 2(a)(13)(G) directs the CFTC to
establish real-time and comprehensive swap
data reporting requirements, on a swap-byswap basis. CEA section 21 establishes SDRs
as the statutory entities responsible for
receiving, storing, and facilitating regulators’
access to swap data. The Commission began
implementing these statutory directives in
2011 and 2012 in several final rules that
addressed regulatory and real-time public
reporting of swaps; established SDRs to
receive data and make it available to
regulators and the public; and defined certain
swap dealer (‘‘SD’’) and major swap
participant (‘‘MSP’’) reporting obligations.3
The Commission was the first major
regulator to adopt data repository and swap
1 See
CEA section 3b.
Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, section 727, Public Law 111–203,
124 Stat. 1376 (2010) (the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’),
available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW111publ203/pdf/PLAW-111publ203.pdf.
3 Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements, 77 FR 2136 (Jan. 13, 2012); and Swap
Data Repositories: Registration Standards, Duties
and Core Principles, 76 FR 54538 (Sept. 1, 2011).
2 Dodd-Frank
PO 00000
Frm 00256
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Part 43 Amendments (Real-time Public
Reporting)
Benefits of Real Time Public Reporting
Block Trade Reporting
The Commission’s proposed rule for block
trades included two significant amendments
to part 43: (1) refined swap categories for
calculating blocks; and (2) a single 48-hour
time-delay for reporting all blocks. In
addition, the proposed rule would give effect
to increased block trade size thresholds from
50% to 67% of a trimmed (excluding
outliers) trade data set as provided for in the
original part 43. The increases in the block
sizing thresholds and the refinement of swap
categories were geared toward better meeting
the statutory directives to the Commission to
enhance price discovery through real-time
reporting while also providing appropriate
time delays for the reporting of swaps with
very large notional amounts, i.e., block
trades.
Although I supported the issuance of the
proposed rule, I outlined a number of
concerns with the proposed blanket 48-hour
delay. As described in the preamble to the
part 43 final rule, a number of commenters
supported the longer delay as necessary to
facilitate the laying off of risk resulting from
entering into swaps in illiquid markets or
with large notional amounts. Other
commenters raised concerns that such a
broad, extended delay was unwarranted and
could impede, rather than foster, price
discovery. The delay also would provide
counterparties to large swaps with an
information advantage during the 48-hour
delay.
The CEA directs the Commission to
provide for both real-time reporting and
appropriate block sizes. In developing the
final rule the Commission has sought to
achieve these objectives.
4 CEA
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
section 2(13)(B) (emphasis added).
25NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
As described in the preamble, upon
analysis of market data and consideration of
the public comments, the Commission has
concluded that the categorization of swap
transactions and associated block sizes and
time delay periods set forth in the final rule
strikes an appropriate balance to achieve the
statutory objectives of enhancing price
discovery, not disclosing ‘‘the business
transactions and market positions of any
person,’’ preserving market liquidity, and
providing appropriate time delays for block
transactions. The final part 43 includes a
mechanism for regularly reviewing swap
transaction data to refine the block trade
sizing and reporting delays as appropriate to
maintain that balance.
Consideration of Additional Information
Going Forward
I have consistently supported the use of the
best available data to inform Commission
rulemakings, and the periodic evaluation and
updating of those rules, as new data becomes
available. The preamble to the final rules for
part 43 describes how available data,
analytical studies, and public comments
informed the Commission’s rulemaking.
Following press reports about the contents of
the final rule, the Commission recently has
received comments from a number of market
participants raising issues with the reported
provisions in the final rule. These
commenters have expressed concern that the
reported reversion of the time delays for
block trades to the provisions in the current
regulations, together with the 67% threshold
for block trades, will impair market liquidity,
increase costs to market participants, and not
achieve the Commission’s objectives of
increasing price transparency and
competitive trading of swaps. Many of these
commenters have asked the Commission to
delay the issuance of the final rule or to repropose the part 43 amendments for
additional public comments.
I do not believe it would be appropriate for
the Commission to withhold the issuance of
the final rule based on these latest comments
and at this late stage in the process. The
Commission has expended significant time
and resources in analyzing data and
responding to the public comments received
during the public comment period. As
explained in the preamble, the Commission
is already years behind its original schedule
for revising the block thresholds. I therefore
do not support further delay in moving
forward on these rules.
Nonetheless, I also support evaluation and
refinement of the block reporting rules, if
appropriate, based upon market data and
analysis. The 30-month implementation
schedule for the revised block sizes provides
market participants with sufficient time to
review the final rule and analyze any new
data. Market participants can then provide
their views to the Commission on whether
further, specific adjustments to the block
sizes and/or reporting delay periods may be
appropriate for certain instrument classes.
This implementation period is also sufficient
for the Commission to consider those
comments and make any adjustments as may
be warranted. The Commission should
consider any such new information in a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
transparent, inclusive, and deliberative
manner. Amended part 43 also provides a
process for the Commission to regularly
review new data as it becomes available and
amend the block size thresholds and caps as
appropriate.
Cross Border Regulatory Arbitrage Risk
The International Swaps and Derivatives
Association, Inc. (‘‘ISDA’’) and the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association
(‘‘SIFMA’’) commented that higher block size
thresholds may put swap execution facilities
(‘‘SEFs’’) organized in the United States at a
competitive disadvantage as compared to
European trading platforms that provide
different trading protocols and allow longer
delays in swap trade reporting. SIFMA and
ISDA commented that the higher block size
thresholds might incentivize swap dealers to
move at least a portion of their swap trading
from United States SEFs to European trading
platforms. They also noted that this
regulatory arbitrage activity could apply to
swaps that are subject to mandatory exchange
trading. Importantly, European platforms
allow a non-competitive single-quote trading
mechanism for these swaps while U.S. SEFs
are required to maintain more competitive
request-for-quotes mechanisms from at least
three parties. The three-quote requirement
serves to fulfill important purposes
delineated in the CEA to facilitate price
discovery and promote fair competition.
The migration of swap trading from SEFs
to non-U.S. trading platforms to avoid U.S.
trade execution and/or swap reporting
requirements would diminish the liquidity in
and transparency of U.S. markets, to the
detriment of many U.S. swap market
participants. Additionally, as the ISDA/
SIFMA comment letter notes, it would
provide an unfair competitive advantage to
non-U.S. trading platforms over SEFs
registered with the CFTC, who are required
to abide by CFTC regulations. Such migration
would fragment the global swaps market and
undermine U.S. swap markets.5
I have supported the Commission’s
substituted compliance determinations for
foreign swap trading platforms in non-U.S.
markets where the foreign laws and
regulations provide for comparable and
comprehensive regulation. Substituted
compliance recognizes the interests of nonU.S. jurisdictions in regulating non-U.S.
markets and allows U.S. firms to compete in
those non-U.S. markets. However, substituted
compliance is not intended to encourage—or
permit—regulatory arbitrage or
circumvention of U.S. swap market
regulations. If swap dealers were to move
trading activity away from U.S. SEFs to a
foreign trading platform for regulatory
arbitrage purposes, such as, for example, to
avoid the CFTC’s transparency and trade
execution requirements, it would undermine
the goals of U.S. swap market regulation, and
5 In my dissenting statement on the Commission’s
recent revisions to it cross-border regulations, I
detailed a number of concerns with how those
revisions could provide legal avenues for U.S. swap
dealers to migrate swap trading activity currently
subject to CFTC trade execution requirements to
non-U.S. markets that would not be subject to those
CFTC requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00257
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75677
constitute the type of fragmentation of the
swaps markets that our cross-border regime
was meant to mitigate. It also would
undermine findings by the Commission that
the non-U.S. platform is subject to regulation
that is as comparable and comprehensive as
U.S. regulation, or that the non-U.S. regime
achieves a comparable outcome.
The Commission should be vigilant to
protect U.S. markets and market participants.
The Commission should monitor swap data
to identify whether any such migration from
U.S. markets to overseas markets is occurring
and respond, if necessary, to protect the U.S.
swap markets.
PART 45 (Swap Data Reporting), PART 46
(Pre-enactment and Transition Swaps), and
PART 49 (Swap Data Repositories)
Amendments
I also support today’s final rules amending
the swap data reporting, verification, and
SDR registration requirements in parts 45, 46,
and 49 of the Commission’s rules. These
regulatory reporting rules will help ensure
that reporting counterparties, including SDs,
MSPs, designated contract markets
(‘‘DCMs’’), SEFs, derivatives clearing
organizations (‘‘DCOs’’), and others report
accurate and timely swap data to SDRs. Swap
data will also be subject to a periodic
verification program requiring the
cooperation of both SDRs and reporting
counterparties. Collectively, the final rules
create a comprehensive framework of swap
data standards, reporting deadlines, and data
validation and verification procedures for all
reporting counterparties.
The final rules simplify the swap data
reports required in part 45, and organize
them into two report types: (1) ‘‘Swap
creation data’’ for new swaps; and (2) ‘‘swap
continuation data’’ for changes to existing
swaps.6 The final rules also extend the
deadline for SDs, MSPs, SEFs, DCMs, and
DCOs to submit these data sets to an SDR,
from ‘‘as soon as technologically practicable’’
to the end of the next business day following
the execution date (T+1). Off-facility swaps
where the reporting counterparty is not an
SD, MSP, or DCO must be reported no later
than T+2 following the execution date.
The amended reporting deadlines will
result in a moderate time window where
swap data may not be available to the
Commission or other regulators with access
to an SDR. However, it is likely that they will
also improve the accuracy and reliability of
data. Reporting parties will have more time
to ensure that their data reports are complete
and accurate before being transmitted to an
SDR.7
The final rules in part 49 will also promote
data accuracy through validation procedures
6 Swap creation data reports replace primary
economic terms (‘‘PET’’) and confirmation data
previously required in part 45. The final rules also
eliminate optional ‘‘state data’’ reporting, which
resulted in extensive duplicative reports crowding
SDR databases, and often included no new
information.
7 The amended reporting deadlines are also
consistent with comparable swap data reporting
obligations under the Securities and Exchange
Commission’s and European Securities and Markets
Authority’s rules.
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
75678
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
to help identify errors when data is first sent
to an SDR, and periodic reconciliation
exercises to identify any discrepancies
between an SDR’s records and those of the
reporting party that submitted the swaps. The
final rules provide for less frequent
reconciliation than the proposed rules, and
depart from the proposal’s approach to
reconciliation in other ways that may merit
future scrutiny to ensure that reconciliation
is working as intended. Nonetheless, the
validation and periodic reconciliation
required by the final rule is an important step
in ensuring that the Commission has access
to complete and accurate swap data to
monitor risk and fulfill its regulatory
mandate.
The final rules also better harmonize with
international technical standards, the
development of which included significant
Commission participation and leadership.
These harmonization efforts will reduce
complexity for reporting parties without
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Nov 24, 2020
Jkt 253001
significantly reducing the specific data
elements needed by the Commission for its
purposes. For example, the final rules adopt
the Unique Transaction Identifier and related
rules, consistent with CPMI–IOSCO technical
standards, in lieu of the Commission’s
previous Unique Swap Identifier. They also
adopt over 120 distinct data elements and
definitions that specify information to be
reported to SDRs. Clear and well-defined
data standards are critical for the efficient
analysis of swap data across many hundreds
of reporting parties and multiple SDRs.
Although data elements may not be the most
riveting aspect of Commission policy making,
I support the Commission’s determination to
focus on these important, technical elements
as a necessary component of any effective
swap data regime.
Conclusion
Today’s Reporting Rules are built upon
nearly eight years of experience with the
PO 00000
Frm 00258
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
current reporting rules and benefitted from
extensive international coordination. The
amendments make important strides toward
fulfilling Congress’s mandate to bring
transparency and effective oversight to the
swap markets. I commend CFTC staff,
particularly in Division of Market Oversight
and the Office of Data and Technology, who
have worked on the Reporting Rules over
many years. Swaps are highly variable and
can be difficult to represent in standardized
data formats. Establishing accurate, timely,
and complete swap reporting requirements is
a difficult, but important function for the
Commission and regulators around the globe.
This proposal offers a number of pragmatic
solutions to known issues with the current
swap data rules. For these reasons, I am
voting for the final Reporting Rules.
[FR Doc. 2020–21570 Filed 11–24–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM
25NOR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 25, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75601-75678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21570]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
17 CFR Parts 43, 45, and 49
RIN 3038-AE32
Certain Swap Data Repository and Data Reporting Requirements
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``Commission'' or
``CFTC'') is amending its regulations to improve the accuracy of data
reported to, and maintained by, swap data repositories (``SDRs''), and
to provide enhanced and streamlined oversight over SDRs and data
reporting generally. Among other changes, the amendments
[[Page 75602]]
modify existing requirements for SDRs to establish policies and
procedures to confirm the accuracy of swap data with both
counterparties to a swap and require reporting counterparties to verify
the accuracy of swap data pursuant to those SDR procedures. The
amendments also update existing requirements related to corrections for
data errors and certain provisions related to SDR governance.
DATES: Effective date: The effective date for this final rule is
January 25, 2021.
Compliance date: The compliance date for all amendments and
additions under this final rule is May 25, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin DeMaria, Special Counsel,
Division of Market Oversight, (202) 418-5988, [email protected];
Eliezer Mishory, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, (202)
418-5609, [email protected]; Israel Goodman, Special Counsel, Division
of Market Oversight, (202) 418-6715, [email protected]; Mark Fajfar,
Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, (202) 418-
6636, [email protected]; and Gloria Clement, Senior Special Counsel,
Office of the Chief Economist, (202) 418-5122, [email protected];
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1151 21st
Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Amendments to Part 49
A. Sec. 49.2--Definitions
B. Sec. 49.3--Procedures for Registration
C. Sec. 49.5--Equity Interest Transfers
D. Sec. 49.6--Request for Transfer of Registration
E. Sec. 49.9--Open Swaps Reports Provided to the Commission
F. Sec. 49.10--Acceptance of Data
G. Sec. 49.11--Verification of Swap Data Accuracy
H. Sec. 49.12--Swap Data Repository Recordkeeping Requirements
I. Sec. 49.13--Monitoring, Screening, and Analyzing Data
J. Sec. 49.15--Real-Time Public Reporting by Swap Data
Repositories
K. Sec. 49.16--Privacy and Confidentiality Requirements of Swap
Data Repositories
L. Sec. 49.17--Access to SDR Data
M. Sec. 49.18--Confidentiality Arrangement
N. Sec. 49.20--Governance Arrangements (Core Principle 2)
O. Sec. 49.22--Chief Compliance Officer
P. Sec. 49.24--System Safeguards
Q. Sec. 49.25--Financial Resources
R. Sec. 49.26--Disclosure Requirements of Swap Data
Repositories
S. Sec. 49.28--Operating Hours of Swap Data Repositories
T. Sec. 49.29--Information Relating to Swap Data Repository
Compliance
U. Sec. 49.30--Form and Manner of Reporting and Submitting
Information to the Commission
V. Sec. 49.31--Delegation of Authority to the Director of the
Division of Market Oversight Relating to Certain Part 49 Matters
III. Amendments to Part 45
A. Sec. 45.1--Definitions
B. Sec. 45.2--Swap Recordkeeping
C. Sec. 45.14--Correcting Errors in Swap Data and Verification
of Swap Data Accuracy
IV. Amendments to Part 43
Sec. 43.3--Method and Timing for Real-Time Public Reporting
A. Sec. 43.3(e)--Correction of Errors
B. Removal of Sec. 43.3(f) and (g)
V. Amendments to Part 23
Sec. 23.204--Reports to Swap Data Repositories, and Sec.
23.205--Real-Time Public Reporting
VI. Compliance Date
VII. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Cost-Benefit Considerations
D. Antitrust Considerations
I. Background
Section 727 of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 2(a)(13)(G) to the
Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'' or ``Act''), which requires each swap--
whether cleared or uncleared--to be reported to an SDR,\1\ a type of
registered entity created by section 728 of the Dodd-Frank Act.\2\ CEA
section 21 \3\ requires each SDR to register with the Commission and
directs the Commission to adopt rules governing SDRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 721 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 1a of the
CEA to add the definition of SDR. See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376
(2010), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ203/pdf/PLAW-111publ203.pdf. Pursuant to CEA section 1a(48), the term
SDR means any person that collects and maintains information or
records with respect to transactions or positions in, or the terms
and conditions of, swaps entered into by third parties for the
purpose of providing a centralized recordkeeping facility for swaps.
7 U.S.C. 1a(48).
\2\ The Commission notes that there are currently three SDRs
provisionally registered with the Commission: CME Inc., DTCC Data
Repository (U.S.) LLC (``DDR''), and ICE Trade Vault, LLC (``ICE'').
\3\ 7 U.S.C. 24a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To register and maintain registration with the Commission, an SDR
must comply with specific duties and core principles enumerated in CEA
section 21 as well as other requirements that the Commission may
prescribe by rule. In particular, CEA section 21(c) mandates that an
SDR: (1) Accept data; (2) confirm with both counterparties the accuracy
of submitted data; (3) maintain data according to standards prescribed
by the Commission; (4) provide direct electronic access to the
Commission or any designee of the Commission (including another
registered entity); (5) provide public reporting of data in the form
and frequency required by the Commission; (6) establish automated
systems for monitoring, screening, and analyzing data (including the
use of end-user clearing exemptions) at the direction of the
Commission; (7) maintain data privacy; (8) make data available to other
specified regulators, on a confidential basis, pursuant to CEA section
8,\4\ upon request and after notifying the Commission; and (9)
establish and maintain emergency and business continuity-disaster
recovery (``BC-DR'') procedures. CEA section 21(f)(4)(C) further
requires the Commission to establish additional duties for SDRs to
minimize conflicts of interest, protect data, ensure compliance, and
guarantee the safety and security of the SDR.\5\ CEA section 21(b) also
directs the Commission to prescribe standards for data recordkeeping
and reporting that apply to both registered entities and reporting
counterparties.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 7 U.S.C. 12(e).
\5\ Pursuant to this provision, the Commission may develop one
or more additional duties applicable to SDRs. 7 U.S.C. 24a(f)(4).
\6\ See 7 U.S.C. 24a(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 49 of the Commission's regulations implements the requirements
of CEA section 21.\7\ Part 49 sets forth the specific duties an SDR
must comply with to be registered and maintain registration as an SDR,
including requirements under Sec. 49.11 for an SDR to confirm the
accuracy of data reported to the SDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Swap Data Repositories: Registration Standards, Duties and
Core Principles, 76 FR 54538 (Sept. 1, 2011) (``Part 49 Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Commission adopted its part 49 regulations in 2011,
Commission staff has led many efforts to evaluate and improve the
reporting of swap data and its accuracy. Commission staff leads or
participates in several international regulatory working groups
concentrating on harmonization of data reporting. Commission staff's
efforts have also included the formation of an interdivisional staff
working group to identify, and make recommendations to resolve,
reporting challenges associated with certain swap data recordkeeping
and reporting provisions.\8\ The Commission has also requested comments
from the public on reporting issues.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Press Release, CFTC to Form an Interdivisional Working
Group to Review Regulatory Reporting (Jan. 21, 2014), available at
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6837-14.
\9\ See, e.g., Review of Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements, Request for Comment, 79 FR 16689 (Mar. 26, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75603]]
Based on its efforts, the Commission determined that three
conditions work in concert to achieve a higher degree of data accuracy:
(i) SDR processes confirming the accuracy of data submitted; (ii) data
reconciliation exercises by entities that reported data; and (iii) the
prompt reporting of errors and omissions when discovered.\10\ With the
goal of advancing in these three areas to improve data accuracy,
Commission staff conducted a comprehensive review of swap reporting
regulations and released the Roadmap to Achieve High Quality Swap Data
(``Roadmap'').\11\ The Roadmap's overall goals were to improve the
quality, accuracy, and completeness of swap data reported to the
Commission, streamline swap data reporting, and clarify obligations for
market participants.\12\ Within these overall goals, the Roadmap's SDR
Operations Review aimed to assure a high degree of accuracy of swap
data and swap transaction and pricing data,\13\ improve the clarity and
consistency of regulations governing SDRs, and bolster the Commission's
oversight of SDRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See id. at 16695.
\11\ See CFTC Letter 17-33, Division of Market Oversight
Announces Review of Swap Reporting Rules in Parts 43, 45, and 49 of
Commission Regulations (July 10, 2017), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/17-33/download; Roadmap to Achieve High Quality
Swap Data, available at https://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/dmo_swapdataplan071017.pdf.
\12\ See id. at 3 (describing the Commission's goals for the
review of reporting regulations).
\13\ See Roadmap at 6 (stating the Commission's intent to
``Identify the most efficient and effective solution for swap
counterparty(ies) to confirm the accuracy and completeness of data
held in an SDR.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Roadmap solicited public comment on how to improve data
reporting and achieve the Commission's regulatory goals without
imposing unnecessary burdens on market participants. Commission staff
received numerous comments in response to the Roadmap that addressed
data accuracy and confirmation of data reported to SDRs, among other
subjects.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ These comment letters are available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1824.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based in part on these public comments and the Commission staff's
review of these issues, the Commission issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (``Proposal'') on May 13, 2019 to address the Roadmap's SDR
Operations Review goals.\15\ The Proposal was the first of three
Roadmap rulemakings that together aim to achieve the Roadmap's overall
goals.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Certain Swap Data Repository and Data Reporting
Requirements, 84 FR 21044 (May 13, 2019).
\16\ The other two notices of proposed rulemakings are
Amendments to the Real-Time Public Reporting Requirements, 85 FR
21516 (April 17, 2020) and Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements, 85 FR 21578 (April 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Proposal, the Commission set forth a new swap data
verification regime to replace existing requirements for swap data
confirmation and proposed amendments to error correction requirements
in parts 43, 45, and 49 of the Commission's regulations. The primary
components of the proposed verification regime included: A requirement
for an SDR to regularly distribute to reporting counterparties an open
swaps report containing the data maintained by the SDR for a relevant
reporting counterparty's open swaps; a requirement that a reporting
counterparty reconcile the data in the open swaps reports with the
reporting counterparty's own data; a requirement that a reporting
counterparty provide the SDR with a verification of the data's accuracy
or a notice of discrepancy; and a requirement that, in the event of a
discrepancy, a reporting counterparty submit corrected data to the SDR
within a specified time frame or, if it is unable to do so, inform
Commission staff of the error, its scope, and the reporting
counterparty's initial remediation plan.
In this final rulemaking, the Commission has determined to adopt
the amendments as proposed, with certain exceptions. The Commission has
determined, based, in part, on public comments,\17\ not to adopt, or to
adopt with modifications, certain elements of the Proposal relating to
data verification and error correction. More specifically, the final
rule eliminates the proposed requirement for an SDR to distribute open
swaps reports to a reporting counterparty, and the requirement for a
counterparty to submit notices of verification or discrepancy in
response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Commission received 25 responsive comment letters
addressing the Proposal from the following entities: American Public
Power Association/Edison Electric Institute/National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association (``Joint Associations''), Chatham Financial
(``Chatham''), Chris Barnard, CME Group Inc. (``CME''), CME Group
Inc./DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC/ICE Trade Vault LLC (``Joint
SDR''), Coalition of Physical Energy Companies (``COPE''),
Commercial Energy Working Group (``CEWG''), Credit Suisse (``CS''),
Data Coalition, DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC (``DDR''), Eurex
Clearing AG (``Eurex''), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(``Freddie Mac''), Futures Industry Association August 2019 letter
(``FIA August''), Futures Industry Association May 2020 letter
(``FIA May''), Global Financial Markets Association (``GFMA''),
Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (``GLEIF''), ICE Clear
Credit LLC/ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear''), ICE Trade Vault
(``ICE TV''), IHS Markit (``Markit''), Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy (``IATP''), International Swaps and Derivatives
Association, Inc./Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``ISDA/SIFMA''), Investment Company Institute
(``ICI''), LCH Ltd/LCH SA (``LCH''), Natural Gas Supply Association
(``NGSA''), and Prudential Global Funding LLC (``Prudential'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, under the final rules, an SDR must provide a mechanism for
a reporting counterparty to access swap data maintained by the SDR for
the reporting counterparty's open swaps. Further, the final rules
require a reporting counterparty to verify the SDR's data by using the
mechanism provided by the SDR to compare the swap data for open swaps
maintained by the SDR with the reporting counterparty's own books and
records for the swap data, and to submit corrected swap data, if
necessary, to the SDR. The reporting counterparty must perform the
verification at specified intervals and maintain a verification log
that sets forth any errors discovered and corrections made by the
reporting counterparty. The final rule also extends the time frame
within which a reporting counterparty must correct an error or notify
the Commission.
The Proposal also included various amendments and new regulations
aimed at eliminating unduly burdensome requirements, streamlining and
consolidating the provisions of part 49 and other Commission
regulations applicable to SDRs, and enhancing the Commission's ability
to fulfill its oversight obligations with respect to SDRs. The
Commission is generally adopting those rules as proposed, with limited
modifications in some cases to address public comments. Additionally,
for the reasons discussed below, the Commission has determined not to
finalize at this time its proposed amendments to Sec. 49.13 and Sec.
49.22 and its proposed additions to part 23.
Where possible, in developing the Proposal and in adopting final
rules as set forth herein, the Commission has taken into consideration
certain pertinent rules adopted by other regulators, including the
European Securities and Markets Authority and the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC''). This is particularly the case for the
SEC's regulations relating to the registration requirements, duties,
and core principles applicable to security-based swap data repositories
(``SBSDRs'') \18\ and reporting requirements for security-based swaps
(``SBSs'') set forth in Regulation SBSR (``Regulation
[[Page 75604]]
SBSR'').\19\ The Commission notes that there are similarities between
the regulatory framework for SBSDRs and the SDR regulations that are
the subject of this final rulemaking. Finally, the Commission notes
that this final rulemaking incorporates lessons learned from the
undertakings described above and the best practices of the
international regulatory community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See generally Security-Based Swap Data Repository
Registration, Duties and Core Principles, 80 FR 11438 (Mar. 19,
2015). The SEC adopted Rules 13n-1 through 13n-12 (17 CFR 240.13n-1
through 240.13n-12) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') relating to the registration and operation of
SBSDRs.
\19\ See generally Regulation SBSR--Reporting and Dissemination
of Security-Based Swap Information, 80 FR 14740 (Mar. 19, 2015). The
SEC adopted Regulation SBSR (Rules 900 through 909, 17 CFR 242.900
through 909) to create a reporting framework for SBSs. The SEC has
also adopted additional regulations regarding the reporting and
dissemination of certain information related to SBSs. See generally
81 FR 53546 (Aug. 12, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Amendments to Part 49
A. Sec. 49.2--Definitions
1. General Formatting Changes
The Commission proposed a general formatting change to the
definitions in Sec. 49.2(a). The defined terms in Sec. 49.2(a)
currently are numbered and arranged in alphabetical order. The
Commission proposed to remove the numbering while still arranging the
terms in Sec. 49.2(a) in alphabetical order. Eliminating the numbering
of defined terms in Sec. 49.2(a) will reduce the need for the
Commission to make conforming amendments to Sec. 49.2(a) and other
regulations when it amends Sec. 49.2(a) in future rulemaking by adding
or removing defined terms.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The Office of the Federal Register prefers the solely
alphabetical approach to definitions sections. See Office of the
Federal Register, Document Drafting Handbook May 2017 Update,
Revision 5, 2-31 (2017) (``Definitions. In sections or paragraphs
containing only definitions, we recommend that you do not use
paragraph designations if you list the terms in alphabetical
order.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed
formatting changes to Sec. 49.2(a). The Commission is adopting the
formatting amendments to Sec. 49.2(a) as proposed, with non-
substantive editorial changes to conform the format to the current
style conventions.
2. Non-Substantive Amendments to Definitions
The Commission proposed non-substantive editorial and conforming
amendments to certain definitions to provide clarity and for
consistency with other Commission regulations.\21\ The Commission
believes the proposed amendments are non-substantive and will increase
clarity and consistency across the Commission's regulations. The
comments were generally supportive of the Commission's efforts to
streamline definitions and increase consistency.\22\ The Commission did
not receive comments opposed to the proposed amendments described
above. The Commission accordingly adopts these amended definitions as
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Other than removing subsection numbering as discussed above
in section II.A.1, the Commission did not propose any substantive
changes to the definitions of ``affiliate,'' ``control,'' ``foreign
regulator,'' ``independent perspective,'' ``position,'' or ``section
8 material,'' as those terms are defined in current Sec. 49.2(a).
\22\ See, e.g., IATP at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the Commission adopts the following amendments to
definitions in Sec. 49.2(a):
Asset class: Modify the definition to conform the wording
to the definition of ``asset class'' used in part 43.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 17 CFR 43.2. Asset class means a broad category of
commodities including, without limitation, any ``excluded
commodity'' as defined in section 1a(19) of the Act, with common
characteristics underlying a swap. The asset classes include
interest rate, foreign exchange, credit, equity, other commodity and
such other asset classes as may be determined by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial use: Modify the definition to use active
instead of passive voice, and to change ``use of swap data for
regulatory purposes and/or responsibilities'' to ``use of SDR data for
regulatory purposes and/or to perform its regulatory
responsibilities.''
Market participant: Change the term ``swaps execution
facilities'' to ``swap execution facilities,'' to conform to CEA
section 5h and other Commission regulations, and make the word
``counterparties'' singular.
Non-affiliated third party: Clarify paragraph (3) to
identify ``a person jointly employed'' by an SDR and any affiliate.
Person associated with a swap data repository: Clarify
that paragraph (3) includes a ``jointly employed person.''
Swap data: Modify the definition to more closely match the
related definitions of ``SDR data'' and ``swap transaction and pricing
data'' that are being added to Sec. 49.2(a) and to incorporate the
requirements to provide swap data to the Commission pursuant to part
49.
The Commission also is removing the word ``capitalized'' from Sec.
49.2(b), to reflect that most defined terms used in part 49 are not
capitalized in the text of part 49.
The Commission is also removing the term ``registered swap data
repository'' from the definitions in Sec. 49.2. In the Proposal, the
Commission explained that the term ``registered swap data repository''
is not needed in part 49 because the defined term ``swap data
repository'' already exists in Sec. 1.3.\24\ The definition of ``swap
data repository'' in Sec. 1.3 is identical to the definition contained
in CEA section 1a(48).\25\ This definition of ``swap data repository''
therefore already applies, and would continue to apply, to part 49 and
all other Commission regulations and, when combined with Sec.
49.1,\26\ removes the need for a separate defined term for ``registered
swap data repository.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 17 CFR 1.3. Swap data repository is defined as any
person that collects and maintains information or records with
respect to transactions or positions in, or the terms and conditions
of, swaps entered into by third parties for the purpose of providing
a centralized recordkeeping facility for swaps.
\25\ See 7 U.S.C. 1a(48). Swap data repository means any person
that collects and maintains information or records with respect to
transactions or positions in, or the terms and conditions of, swaps
entered into by third parties for the purpose of providing a
centralized recordkeeping facility for swaps.
\26\ See 17 CFR 49.1. The provisions of part 49 apply to any
swap data repository as defined under section 1a(48) of the CEA
which is registered or is required to register as such with the
Commission pursuant to Section 21(a) of the CEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission further explained that the inclusion of the word
``registered'' in ``registered swap data repository'' and the
definition of the term \27\ also may create doubt whether the
requirements of part 49 apply to entities that are in the process of
registering as SDRs or are provisionally registered as SDRs under the
requirements of Sec. 49.3(b).\28\ The requirements of part 49 apply to
provisionally-registered SDRs and any entity seeking to become an SDR
must comply with the same requirements in order to become a
provisionally-registered or fully-registered SDR. Finally, the removal
of the term ``registered swap data repository'' would increase
consistency in terms within part 49 and would also increase consistency
between part 49 and other Commission regulations, which overwhelmingly
use the term ``swap data repository.'' The Commission emphasized that
removing the defined term ``registered swap data repository'' is a non-
substantive amendment that would not in any way modify the requirements
applicable to current or future SDRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 17 CFR 49.2(a)(11). Registered swap data repository
means a swap data repository that is registered under section 21 of
the CEA.
\28\ See 17 CFR 49.3(b) (creating standards for granting
provisional registration to an SDR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Additions and Substantive Amendments
a. Definition of As Soon as Technologically Practicable
The Commission proposed to add the term ``as soon as
technologically practicable'' as a defined term in Sec. 49.2. The
Proposal defined the term to mean ``as soon as possible, taking into
consideration the prevalence,
[[Page 75605]]
implementation, and use of technology by comparable market
participants.'' This addition would standardize the meaning and use of
this term across the Commission's swap reporting regulations and is
intended to be identical to the term as it is used in parts 43 and 45
of the Commission's regulations.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See 17 CFR 43.2 (defining of as soon as technologically
practicable). Part 45 of the Commission's regulations also uses the
term ``as soon as technologically practicable'' in the same way as
part 43 and as defined in proposed Sec. 49.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission received several comments on the proposed
definition. One comment generally supported standardizing definitions
across the Commission's regulations.\30\ One comment recommended that
the definition should be expanded to clarify what are considered
comparable market participants.\31\ The Commission declines to adopt
this recommendation. The Commission proposed to add the term ``as soon
as technologically practicable'' merely to create consistency in
defined terms across the swap reporting regulations, not to modify or
interpret the term. The Commission also does not believe this final
rulemaking is the appropriate venue to provide guidance on the
parameters of comparable market participants, as any guidance would
need to evaluate and impose standards for many different market
participants and scenarios, without the opportunity for the affected
market participants to comment on the guidance. The Commission also
notes that the defined term has been in use through the application of
the Commission's swap reporting regulations since the inception of swap
reporting, without the need for additional guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ISDA/SIFMA at 38.
\31\ IATP at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is adopting the addition of ``as soon as
technologically practicable'' as a defined term as proposed. The
Commission notes that concomitant with adopting these final rules, the
Commission is adopting final rules for Sec. 43.2 and Sec. 45.1, which
both include the identical definition for this term.
b. Definition of Non-Swap Dealer/Major Swap Participant/Derivatives
Clearing Organization Reporting Counterparty
The Commission proposed to add the term ``non-swap dealer/major
swap participant/derivatives clearing organization reporting
counterparty'' as a defined term in Sec. 49.2. The Commission is not
adopting this proposed definition.\32\ This defined term was intended
to clarify the meaning of the term in part 49, specifically in proposed
Sec. 49.11(b)(3). As discussed below in section II.G, the Commission
is not finalizing proposed Sec. 49.11(b)(3) and this term does not
otherwise appear in part 49. Accordingly, the inclusion of the defined
term is not necessary and Commission is not adopting this proposed
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The Proposal defined the term to mean a reporting
counterparty that is not a swap dealer (``SD''), major swap
participant (``MSP''), derivatives clearing organization (``DCO''),
or exempt derivatives clearing organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Definition of Open Swap
The Commission proposed to add the term ``open swap'' as a defined
term in Sec. 49.2. The Proposal defined the term to mean an executed
swap transaction that has not reached maturity or the final contractual
settlement date, and has not been exercised, closed out, or terminated.
Under this definition, the term ``open swap'' refers to swaps that are
often colloquially called ``alive.'' The Commission noted in the
Proposal that the definition is intended to have the same function as
the definitions of ``open swap'' \33\ and ``closed swap'' \34\ in part
20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See 17 CFR 20.1. An open swap or swaption means a swap or
swaption that has not been closed.
\34\ See 17 CFR 20.1. A closed swap or closed swaption means a
swap or swaption that has been settled, exercised, closed out, or
terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission received several comments on the proposed
definition. One comment supported standardizing definitions across the
Commission's rules, and supported the proposed definition for ``open
swap.'' \35\ One comment noted that there is no market practice of
reporting a ``final contractual settlement date.'' \36\ Instead, the
comment stated, market practice is to report expiration, maturity date,
or termination date. The comment further recommended that the
definition be amended to allow for events to affect parts of a trade.
The commenter recommended that the Commission define ``open swap'' to
mean ``an executed swap transaction that has not reached maturity or
expiration date, and has not been fully exercised, closed out, or
terminated.'' \37\ The Commission agrees with this comment and is
adopting the recommended changes to the definition, with a slight
modification for grammar. Accordingly, final Sec. 49.2 includes the
term ``open swap'' as a defined term, which means an executed swap
transaction that has not reached maturity or expiration, and has not
been fully exercised, closed out, or terminated.\38\ The Commission
notes that, as with the definition in the Proposal, the final
definition of ``open swap'' is intended to mean swaps, or the remaining
portion of a swap, that would be commonly thought of as ``alive.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ DDR at 2.
\36\ ISDA/SIFMA at 38.
\37\ Id.
\38\ As discussed below in section III.A, the Commission is also
adding an identical definition for ``open swap'' to part 45 of this
chapter, in order to create consistency between parts 45 and 49 of
the Commission's regulations and to accommodate the use of the term
``open swap'' in part 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Definition of Reporting Counterparty and the Removal of Reporting
Entity
The Commission proposed to add the term ``reporting counterparty''
as a defined term to Sec. 49.2. This term would mean the counterparty
responsible for reporting SDR data to an SDR pursuant to part 43, 45,
or 46 of the Commission's regulations. The Proposal explained that this
would standardize its meaning and use across the Commission's swap
reporting regulations. The Commission also proposed to remove the term
``reporting entity'' from the definitions in Sec. 49.2 because it is
no longer necessary with the addition of ``reporting counterparty'' as
a defined term.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 17 CFR 49.2(a)(12) (defining reporting entity as
entities that are required to report swap data to a registered swap
data repository, which includes derivatives clearing organizations,
swap dealers, major swap participants and certain non-swap dealer/
non-major swap participant counterparties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concomitant with the adoption of these final rules, the Commission
also is adopting final rules amending Sec. 43.2 and Sec. 45.1. Those
final rules both include a definition for the term ``reporting
counterparty'' specific to part 43 and part 45, respectively. Current
Sec. 46.1 also includes a definition for the term.\40\ The definitions
of the term ``reporting counterparty'' in Sec. Sec. 43.2, 45.1, and
46.1 are more narrow than the proposed definition in Sec. 49.2. While
the definitions do not have identical wording, the defined terms have a
standardized meaning that follows a consistent format and is
appropriate for each context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 17 CFR 46.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that the reporting counterparty may not always
be the entity reporting SDR data to the SDR, particularly for
transactions executed on a swap execution facility (``SEF'') or
designated contract market (``DCM''), but it is the counterparty
responsible for the initial and/or subsequent SDR data reporting,
pursuant to part 43, 45, or 46 of the Commission's regulations, as
applicable to a particular swap. SEFs and DCMs are
[[Page 75606]]
the only entities not included in the proposed definition of
``reporting counterparty'' that may have a responsibility to report
data.
The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed
definition of the term ``reporting counterparty'' and the related
removal of the defined term ``reporting entity.'' The Commission is
adopting these amendments as proposed, with minor, non-substantive
editorial changes to conform the definition of ``reporting
counterparty'' in Sec. 49.2 to the definitions in Sec. Sec. 43.2,
45.1, and 46.1, as discussed above. Accordingly, final Sec. 49.2
includes the term ``reporting counterparty'' as a defined term, which
means the counterparty required to report SDR data pursuant to part 43,
45, or 46 of 17 CFR chapter I. Final Sec. 49.2 no longer includes the
term ``reporting entity'' as a defined term.
e. Definition of SDR Data
The Commission proposed to add the term ``SDR data'' as a defined
term in Sec. 49.2. The Proposal defined the term to mean the specific
data elements and information required to be reported to an SDR or
disseminated by an SDR, pursuant to two or more of parts 43, 45, 46,
and/or 49, as applicable in the context. The Commission noted that in
this context, ``disseminated'' would include an SDR making swap data
available to the Commission as required by part 49.
In the Proposal, the Commission noted that the proposed definition
of ``SDR data'' would include multiple sources of data reported to the
SDR or disseminated by the SDR. For example, ``SDR data'' could refer
to all data reported or disseminated pursuant to parts 43, 45, and 46.
It may also refer to data reported or disseminated pursuant to parts 45
and 46, depending on the context in which the term is used. This is in
contrast with the proposed term ``swap transaction and pricing data,''
which, as defined in the Proposal, would only refer to data reported to
an SDR or publicly disseminated by an SDR pursuant to part 43. It is
also in contrast with the term ``swap data,'' which, as defined in the
Proposal, would only refer to data reported to an SDR or made available
to the Commission pursuant to part 45. In the Proposal, the Commission
explained that consolidating references to the different types of data
that must be reported to an SDR or disseminated by an SDR to the public
or to the Commission into a single term would provide clarity
throughout part 49.
The Commission received several comments on the proposed addition
of the defined term ``SDR data'' and the proposed definition in Sec.
49.2. One comment generally supported the proposed amendment.\41\ One
comment stated that the proposed definition limited ``SDR Data'' to
information that is required to be reported or disseminated pursuant to
``two or more of parts 43, 45, 46 and/or 49,'' which would exclude
information that is required to be reported or disseminated pursuant to
one of those parts. The Commenter recommended that the Commission
define the term ``SDR Data'' to include information that is required to
be reported or disseminated by one or more of parts 43, 45, 46, and/or
49. The Commission disagrees with this comment and its interpretation
of the term ``SDR data.'' By definition, ``SDR data'' will always
include at least two sets of data or information that is required
reported to an SDR or disseminated by an SDR. The definition is
inclusive of all data being referenced, based on the context of the use
of the term. When the Commission intends to refer to data that is
reported or disseminated pursuant to only one of part 43, 45, 46, or
49, it uses the term or reference that corresponds to that specific set
of data, for example ``swap transaction and pricing data'' for part 43-
related data and ``swap data'' for part 45-related data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ISDA/SIFMA at 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is adopting the addition of the defined term ``SDR
data'' to final Sec. 49.2, as proposed. Accordingly, final Sec. 49.2
includes the defined term ``SDR data,'' which is defined to mean the
specific data elements and information required to be reported to a
swap data repository or disseminated by a swap data repository pursuant
to two or more of parts 43, 45, 46, and/or 49 of 17 CFR chapter I, as
applicable in the context.
f. Definition of SDR Information
The Commission proposed to amend the existing definition of ``SDR
information'' in Sec. 49.2 to add the clause ``related to the business
of the swap data repository that is not SDR data'' to the end of the
definition. This change clarifies that the scope of SDR information is
limited to information that the SDR receives or maintains related to
its business that is not the SDR data reported to or disseminated by
the SDR. SDR information would include, for example, SDR policies and
procedures created pursuant to part 49.\42\ The Commission did not
receive comments on the proposed amendment and the Commission adopts
the amendment as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ This clarification is particularly relevant for the SDR
recordkeeping obligations in the proposed amendments to Sec. 49.12,
discussed below in section II.H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. Definition of Swap Transaction and Pricing Data
The Commission proposed to add ``swap transaction and pricing
data'' as a defined term in Sec. 49.2 to increase consistency in
terminology used in the Commission's swap reporting regulations. The
Proposal defined the term to mean the specific data elements and
information required to be reported to a swap data repository or
publicly disseminated by a swap data repository pursuant to part 43 of
this chapter, as applicable. Concomitant with adopting these final
rules, the Commission is adopting final rules in Sec. 43.2 that add
``swap transaction and pricing data'' as a defined term. As defined in
final Sec. 43.2, the term means all data elements for a swap in
appendix A of this part that are required to be reported or publicly
disseminated pursuant to this part. In order to increase consistency
throughout its rules, the Commission adopts the addition of the defined
term ``swap transaction and pricing data'' and the definition in Sec.
49.2 as proposed.
One commenter stated that the definition of the term in Sec. 49.2
should not include the clause ``or publicly disseminated by a swap data
repository.'' \43\ The Commission does not agree with this comment
because dissemination is included in the definition of the same term in
final Sec. 43.2, and the term is being included in final Sec. 49.2 to
increase consistency between Commission regulations. Moreover, to not
include the public dissemination requirements would frustrate the
purpose of adding the defined term by not allowing the term to be used
in reference to an SDR's public dissemination responsibilities. The
Commission believes that the specific context in which the term is used
will make clear whether the Commission is referring to the requirements
to report the data to an SDR, for an SDR to disseminate the data to the
public, or both. Accordingly, final Sec. 49.2 includes ``swap
transaction and pricing data'' as a defined term that means the
specific data elements and information required to be reported to a
swap data repository or publicly disseminated by a swap data repository
pursuant to part 43 of 17 CFR chapter I, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ DDR at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Sec. 49.3--Procedures for Registration
Section 49.3 sets forth the procedures and standard of approval for
registration
[[Page 75607]]
as an SDR.\44\ Current Sec. 49.3(a)(1) requires a person seeking SDR
registration to file an application on Form SDR.\45\ Form SDR consists
of instructions, general questions and a list of exhibits required by
the Commission in order to determine whether an applicant for SDR
registration is able to comply with the SDR core principles and
Commission regulations thereunder.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 17 CFR 49.3. Form SDR is set forth in Appendix A to part
49.
\45\ 17 CFR 49.3(a)(1).
\46\ 17 CFR 49.3(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Sec. 49.3(a)(5) requires an SDR to promptly file an
amended Form SDR to update any information that becomes inaccurate
before or after the SDR's application for registration is granted. In
addition, the regulation requires an SDR to annually file an amendment
on Form SDR within 60 days after the end of its fiscal year.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 17 CFR 49.3(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission proposed to amend Sec. 49.3(a)(5) to eliminate the
requirements for an SDR that has been granted registration under Sec.
49.3(a) to: (i) file an amended Form SDR if any of the information
therein becomes inaccurate, and (ii) annually file an amended Form
SDR.\48\ Thus, proposed Sec. 49.3(a)(5) would only require an SDR to
file an amended Form SDR to update information before the Commission
grants it registration under Sec. 49.3(a). The Commission also
proposed to make conforming amendments to the Form SDR and Sec.
49.22(f)(2) \49\ to eliminate references to the annual filing of Form
SDR.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Proposal at 84 FR 21048 (May 13, 2019).
\49\ 17 CFR 49.22(f)(2).
\50\ Proposal at 84 FR 21048 (May 13, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is adopting the amendments to Sec. 49.3(a)(5) and
the conforming amendments to Form SDR and Sec. 49.22(f)(2) as proposed
in part and not adopting the amendments as proposed in part. The
Commission is adopting the removal of the requirement to file an annual
amendment to Form SDR because the Commission believes the annual Form
SDR filing requirement is unnecessary and is duplicative of the
requirement to file an amended Form SDR if any of the information in
the Form SDR becomes inaccurate.
The Commission has, however, reconsidered the proposed removal of
the requirement to file an amended Form SDR if any of the information
in the Form SDR (including the Form SDR exhibits) becomes inaccurate
and has determined not to finalize the proposed removal of this
requirement. SDRs will continue to be required to file amendments to
Form SDR as necessary after being granted registration under Sec.
49.3(a). While the Commission stated in the Proposal that the
Commission would have access to the information that would be updated
in an amended Form SDR because an SDR would be required to file updates
for some of the information with the Commission as a rule change under
part 40 of the Commission's regulations and that, under proposed Sec.
49.29, the Commission could require an SDR to file information
demonstrating the SDR's compliance with its obligations under the CEA
and Commission regulations,\51\ the Commission no longer believes these
methods of obtaining access to updated Form SDR information are the
most efficient or practicable methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, the Commission believes that Commission staff would be
more effectively alerted to changes to the information in Form SDR for
compliance monitoring purposes by maintaining the existing requirement
for SDRs to update any Form SDR information that is or that becomes
inaccurate. The Commission also believes it would be more efficient for
SDRs to continue to send the updated Form SDR information to the
Commission as currently required, as opposed to the Commission
requesting the SDRs to demonstrate compliance whenever the Commission
needs to check whether the Form SDR information remains current. Under
the proposed approach, for example, the Commission may need to require
SDRs to provide an all-encompassing demonstration of compliance for all
of the Form SDR information under Sec. 49.29, as opposed to the SDRs
only updating Form SDR information that has changed, as the SDRs
regularly do under the existing requirement, because the Commission
will not be aware of what information may or may not have changed. The
Commission is therefore not adopting the proposed removal of the
requirement for an SDR that is registered under Sec. 49.3(a) to file
an updated Form SDR when the information in its Form SDR is inaccurate
or becomes inaccurate, and this existing requirement in Sec.
49.3(a)(5) remains in effect.
The Commission requested comment on all aspects of the proposed
changes to Sec. 49.3(a)(5). Two comments supported the proposed
amendments to Sec. 49.3(a)(5).\52\ One comment also suggested the
Commission further amend the text of proposed Sec. 49.3(a)(5) to
clarify that the requirement to file an amended Form SDR to update
inaccurate information does not apply to an SDR provisionally
registered under Sec. 49.3(b).\53\ Existing Sec. 49.3(b) \54\
provides that, upon request, the Commission may grant an applicant
provisional registration as an SDR if, among other things, the
applicant is in ``substantial compliance'' with the standard for
approval for full SDR registration set forth in Sec. 49.3(a)(4). If
granted, provisional registration expires on the earlier of: (i) The
date the Commission grants or denies full registration of the SDR; or
(ii) the date the Commission rescinds the SDR's provisional
registration.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ CME at 2 (``[T]he addition of Part 49.29 is a much more
effective and efficient approach for the Commission to ensure it has
the information it needs to ensure an SDR's compliance with the
regulations''); DDR at 3.
\53\ DDR at 3.
\54\ 17 CFR 49.3(b).
\55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One comment suggested that the Commission add the legal entity
identifier (``LEI'') of the applicant into the Form SDR, stating that
incorporating an applicant's LEI record in the form would make various
information fields unnecessary, while making the information provided
more standardized and accurate.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ GLEIF at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, the Commission agrees with the comments that
supported the removal of the annual Form SDR update requirement and the
Commission disagrees with the comments supporting the removal of the
requirement to update Form SDR when the information is inaccurate. The
Commission also disagrees with the suggestion regarding provisionally-
registered SDRs. Final Sec. 49.3(a)(5), as adopted, requires a
provisionally-registered SDR to file an amended Form SDR if information
in the form becomes inaccurate. The Commission notes that provisional
registration is an interim status for applicants for registration, and
the accuracy of information in the Form SDR of a provisionally-
registered SDR is necessary for the Commission to make a determination
regarding the SDR's application for full registration.
The Commission is also declining to adopt the suggestion to use the
LEI of the applicant instead of various data fields in the Form SDR.
While there may be benefits to doing so, the Commission believes the
current format is more useful to Commission staff in reviewing
applications for registration by providing the relevant entity names
directly, without the need to reference the information underlying an
LEI.
[[Page 75608]]
C. Sec. 49.5--Equity Interest Transfers
Section 49.5 sets forth requirements for an SDR that enters into an
agreement involving the transfer of an equity interest of ten percent
or more in the SDR.\57\ The Commission proposed various amendments to
Sec. 49.5 to simplify and streamline the requirements of the
regulation. The Commission is adopting the amendments to Sec. 49.5 as
proposed. The Commission continues to believe, as stated in the
Proposal, that the amendments to Sec. 49.5 will simplify and
streamline the requirements of the regulation, and remove unnecessary
burdens on SDRs while preserving the Commission's ability to obtain
information regarding transfers of SDR equity interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 17 CFR 49.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Sec. 49.5(a) requires an SDR to (i) notify the Commission
of the agreement no later than the business day following the date of
the agreement and; (ii) amend any information that is no longer
accurate on Form SDR.\58\ Current Sec. 49.5(b) sets forth various
agreements, associated documents and information, and representations
an SDR must provide the Commission in advance of the equity interest
transfer.\59\ Current 49.5(c) provides that within two business days
following the equity interest transfer, an SDR must file with the
Commission a certification stating that the SDR is in compliance with
CEA section 21 and Commission regulations adopted thereunder, stating
whether any changes were made to the SDR's operations as a result of
the transfer, and, if so, identifying such changes.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ 17 CFR 49.5(a).
\59\ 17 CFR 49.5(b).
\60\ 17 CFR 49.5(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is amending Sec. 49.5 to specify that the
regulation applies to both direct and indirect transfers of ten percent
or more of an equity interest in an SDR. As the Commission explained in
the Proposal, indirect transfers of equity ownership (e.g., the
transfer of an equity interest in a parent company of an SDR) also
require Commission oversight of the SDR to address any compliance
concerns that may arise.\61\ The Commission is also replacing the
documentation and informational requirements in current Sec. 49.5(b)
with a provision in Sec. 49.5(a) stating that the Commission may, upon
receiving an equity transfer notification, request that the SDR provide
supporting documentation for the transaction. The Commission believes
reserving the authority to request supporting documentation rather than
compelling specific production satisfies the Commission's need for
information without placing unnecessary burdens on an SDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Proposal at 84 FR 21048 (May 13, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Commission is amending Sec. 49.5 to extend the
deadline by which an SDR must file an equity transfer notification and
to specify that the SDR shall file the notice with the Secretary of the
Commission and the Director of the Division of Market Oversight
(``DMO'') via email. The Commission believes an SDR may need additional
time to file the necessary documents, and ten business days provides
greater flexibility without sacrificing the availability of information
the Commission needs to conduct effective oversight of the SDR. The
Commission also is removing the requirement for an SDR to amend
information that is no longer accurate on Form SDR due to the equity
interest transfer because the requirement is duplicative of other
requirements.
Finally, the Commission is amending Sec. 49.5(c) to simplify the
certification and information requirements in the filing an SDR is
required to make with the Commission following an equity interest
transfer. The Commission believes these amendments provide the
Commission with the pertinent information it needs to assess the impact
of an equity interest transfer on the SDR's operations.
The Commission requested public comment on all aspects of proposed
Sec. 49.5. One comment supported the Commission's proposal to simplify
Sec. 49.5, stating that current requirements of the regulation are
overly burdensome, and reserving authority for the Commission to
request supporting documentation, rather than compelling specific
document production, would satisfy the Commission's need for
information.\62\ The Commission agrees with this comment and is
finalizing Sec. 49.5 as described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ CME at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Sec. 49.6--Request for Transfer of Registration
The Commission proposed to amend Sec. 49.6 \63\ to clarify and
streamline the process and procedures for the transfer of an SDR
registration to a successor entity.\64\ The amendments include re-
titling the section ``Request for transfer of registration,'' to more
accurately reflect the subject of the regulation.\65\ The Commission
has determined to adopt the amendments to Sec. 49.6 as proposed. The
Commission believes the amendments to Sec. 49.6 will simplify the
process for requesting a transfer of SDR registration by providing
procedures that focus on informing the Commission of changes relevant
to the Commission's oversight responsibilities, as opposed to requiring
the successor entity to file a Form SDR, which would likely duplicate
most of the transferor's existing Form SDR. Further, the amendments to
Sec. 49.6 provide the Commission with the information it needs in
order to determine whether to approve a request for a transfer of an
SDR registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ 17 CFR 49.6.
\64\ Proposal at 84 FR 21049 (May 13, 2019).
\65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Sec. 49.6(a) provides that, in the event of a corporate
transaction that creates a new entity as which an SDR operates, the SDR
must request a transfer of its registration no later than 30 days after
the succession.\66\ Current Sec. 49.6(a) also specifies that the SDR
registration shall be deemed to remain effective as the registration of
the successor if the successor, within 30 days after such succession,
files a Form SDR application for registration, and the predecessor
files a request for vacation. Further, the SDR registration ceases to
be effective 90 days after the application for registration on Form SDR
is filed by the successor SDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ 17 CFR 49.6(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.6(a) instead requires an SDR seeking to transfer its
registration to a new legal entity as a result of a corporate change to
file a request for approval of the transfer with the Secretary of the
Commission in the form and manner specified by the Commission. Examples
of such corporate changes may include, but are not limited to, re-
organizations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy, or other similar
events that result in the creation of a new legal entity for the SDR.
Final Sec. 49.6(b) specifies that an SDR shall file a request for
transfer of registration as soon as practicable prior to the
anticipated corporate change.
Final Sec. 49.6(c) sets forth the information that must be
included in a request for transfer of registration, including, among
other things, the underlying documentation that governs the corporate
change, a description of the corporate change and its impact on the SDR
and on the rights and obligations of market participants, governance
documents of the transferee, and various representations by the
transferee related to its ability to operate the SDR and comply with
the Act and Commission regulations.
Final Sec. 49.6(d) specifies that upon review of a request for
transfer of registration, the Commission, as soon as practicable, shall
issue an order either
[[Page 75609]]
approving or denying the request for transfer of registration.
The Commission requested public comment on all aspects of proposed
Sec. 49.6. One comment opposed the proposed amendments to Sec. 49.6,
asserting that the amendments will add uncertainty into the transfer
process by making a transfer contingent upon obtaining prior Commission
approval without specifying a deadline by which the Commission must
approve or deny a request for transfer.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ CME at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined to adopt the amendments to Sec. 49.6
as proposed. With respect to the comment, the Commission recognizes
that corporation transactions and reorganizations that involve the
transfer of an SDR registration may arise without significant notice,
and require certainty and prompt action by regulators. The Commission
similarly has an interest in facilitating such transfers in order to
maintain the operation of SDRs while also ensuring compliance with the
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. To that end, the
Commission believes it is important to apply the information and
procedural requirements set forth in Sec. 49.6, as proposed and
adopted, in order to enable the Commission and its staff to promptly
address requests for transfer and to ensure that the transferee entity
is fully capable of complying with the Commission's regulations for
SDRs.
E. Sec. 49.9--Open Swaps Reports Provided to the Commission
The Commission proposed to remove the text of existing Sec. 49.9
\68\ and replace it with new requirements for SDRs to provide open
swaps reports to the Commission.\69\ Existing Sec. 49.9 lists and
briefly summarizes the duties of SDRs, with references to where those
duties are found in other sections of part 49.\70\ The Commission
believes existing Sec. 49.9 is superfluous because all of the SDR
duties listed in Sec. 49.9 are also contained, in much greater detail,
in the other sections of part 49. Removing existing Sec. 49.9 is a
non-substantive amendment that does not affect the requirements for
SDRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 17 CFR 49.9.
\69\ Proposal at 84 FR 21050 (May 13, 2019).
\70\ 17 CFR 49.9. As discussed below in section II.Q, the
Commission proposed conforming amendments to Sec. 49.25 to remove
references to current Sec. 49.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Commission's proposed new requirements in Sec. 49.9
for SDRs to provide open swaps reports to the Commission,\71\ the
Commission proposed renaming Sec. 49.9 ``Open swaps reports provided
to the Commission'' and, as discussed above, proposed to add a new
definition in Sec. 49.2 for the term ``open swap.'' \72\ The
Commission received several comments on the proposed new requirements
for open swaps reports under Sec. 49.9, as discussed below. The
Commission has determined to adopt the amendments to Sec. 49.9 as
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Section 49.2, as proposed and as adopted in this final
rulemaking, defines the term ``open swap'' to mean an executed swap
transaction that has not reached maturity or expiration, and has not
been fully exercised, closed out, or terminated.
\72\ See section II.A above for a discussion of the definitions
in final Sec. 49.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.9(a) requires each SDR to provide the Commission
with open swaps reports that contain an accurate reflection of the swap
data maintained by the SDR for every swap data field required to be
reported under part 45 of the Commission's regulations for every open
swap, as of the time the SDR compiles the report. Open swaps reports
must be organized by the unique identifier created pursuant to Sec.
45.5 of the Commission's regulations that is associated with each open
swap.
SDRs currently send reports that are similar to the proposed open
swaps reports to the Commission on a regular basis. The Commission
currently uses these reports to produce a weekly swaps report that is
made available to the public \73\ and for entity-netted notional
calculations.\74\ The Commission also uses these reports to perform
market risk and position calculations, and for additional market
research projects. However, in formulating these reports, SDRs employ a
variety of calculation approaches and differing formats, which reduces
the utility of the data for the Commission. The Commission therefore
proposed requiring each SDR to regularly provide the Commission with
standardized open swaps reports containing accurate and up-to-date
information. The Commission continues to believe it is necessary to
require SDRs to provide open swaps reports and to require such reports
to be standardized, in order to maximize their utility to the
Commission and enhance the Commission's ability to perform its
regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The Commission's various public reports, including the
weekly swaps reports, are available at https://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/index.htm.
\74\ See generally ``Introducing ENNs: A Measure of the Size of
Interest Rate Swaps Markets,'' Jan. 2018, available at https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@economicanalysis/documents/file/oce_enns0118.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.9(b) requires an SDR to transmit all open swaps
reports to the Commission as instructed by the Commission. Such
instructions may include, but are not limited to, the method, timing,
and frequency of transmission, as well as the format of the swap data
to be transmitted.\75\ Retaining the flexibility to determine these
requirements, and the ability to modify them over time as necessary,
allows the Commission to tailor the information that is required to be
in the reports to meet the Commission's needs without imposing undue
burdens on SDRs. As stated in the Proposal, the Commission intends to
work with SDRs in formulating instructions pursuant to final Sec.
49.9(b) and expects to provide a reasonable amount of time for SDRs to
adjust their systems before any instructions regarding open swaps
reports take effect. This collaborative process will allow the
Commission's current practice of working with SDRs to implement changes
to swaps reports to continue, which provides SDRs time to update their
systems as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ As discussed below in section II.V, proposed Sec. 49.31
delegates to the Director of DMO the Commission's authority in
proposed Sec. 49.9, including the authority to create instructions
for transmitting open swaps reports to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission requested comment on all aspects of proposed Sec.
49.9. One comment generally supported standardizing the open swaps
reports.\76\ Several comments addressed the Commission's discretion
with respect to the transmission of open swaps reports under proposed
Sec. 49.9(b). One comment stated that any revisions the Commission
makes to the requirements for transmitting open swaps reports should
not require revisions to reports provided by the SDR to reporting
counterparties, which would increase costs for reporting
counterparties.\77\ Likewise, the requirements should not result in
reporting counterparties having to submit additional data, or to submit
previously reported data in a different data format.\78\ One comment
stated that the Commission should modify the proposed rule to include
``reasonable constraints'' on the instruction process by amending the
text of proposed Sec. 49.9(b) to include ``as soon as practicable,
given the nature of the instructions and the swap data repository's
circumstances'' at the end of the first sentence.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ DDR at 3.
\77\ ISDA/SIFMA at 39.
\78\ Id.
\79\ DDR at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is adopting Sec. 49.9 as proposed, with non-
substantive editorial changes for clarity. With regard to the comments
on open swaps reports provided by SDRs to reporting counterparties, the
Commission notes that, as described in section II.G below, final Sec.
49.11 will not require SDRs to
[[Page 75610]]
provide open swaps reports to reporting counterparties as part of the
swap data verification process, and therefore the comments are moot.
The Commission declines to adopt the suggested revisions related to
constraints, which would unnecessarily restrict the Commission's
discretion to issue transmission instructions. The Commission
reiterates its intent to work with the SDRs before creating or
modifying any instructions pursuant to Sec. 49.9 and to provide a
reasonable amount of time for SDRs to adjust their systems before any
instructions take effect. The Commission's existing practice of
collaborating with SDRs stems from the recognition that such
collaboration will ultimately improve SDRs' ability to comply with
their regulatory obligations and further the Commission's regulatory
objectives.
F. Sec. 49.10--Acceptance of Data
The Commission is adopting new Sec. 49.10(e) generally as
proposed, with modifications and textual clarifications in response to
the comments received. Final Sec. 49.10(e) complements the error
correction requirements in other Commission regulations, including
final Sec. Sec. 43.3(e) and 45.14(b), that apply to the entities that
report SDR data to the SDRs. Each SEF, DCM, and reporting counterparty
must correct errors in their SDR data by submitting complete and
accurate SDR data to the relevant SDR.\80\ Final Sec. 49.10(e) is
intended to ensure that SDRs correct errors in SDR data and disseminate
corrected data as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See section IV below for a discussion of final Sec.
43.3(e) (regarding swap transaction and pricing data) and section
III.C below for a discussion of final Sec. 45.14 (regarding swap
data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it stated in the Proposal, the Commission believes that clearly
delineating an SDR's obligations to receive and make corrections to SDR
data, and to disseminate the corrected SDR data to the public and the
Commission, as applicable, will further the Commission's goal of more
accurate and complete SDR data being made available to the public and
the Commission. The Commission believes that the steps required by
Sec. 49.10(e) will also facilitate, and therefore encourage,
compliance by SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties with their
regulatory obligation to correct SDR data. The Commission further
believes proposed Sec. 49.10(e) is consistent with the current
statutory and regulatory requirements for SDRs to correct errors and
omissions.
Final Sec. 49.10(e)(1) requires an SDR to accept corrections of
errors and omissions \81\ reported to the SDR pursuant to part 43, 45,
or 46 of the Commission's regulations. Final Sec. 49.10(e) specifies
that the requirements of Sec. 49.10(e) apply to SDR data regardless of
the state of the swap that is the subject such data, unless the record
retention period for the SDR data under final Sec. 49.12(b)(2) has
expired. Thus, final Sec. 49.10(e) requires an SDR to correct and
disseminate SDR data for swaps that have matured or were otherwise
terminated and are no longer open swaps, if such swaps are still within
the required SDR data retention period. Final Sec. 49.10(e)(2)
requires an SDR to record corrections as soon as technologically
practicable after the SDR accepts the corrections. Final Sec.
49.10(e)(3) requires an SDR to disseminate the corrected SDR data to
the public and the Commission, as applicable, as soon as
technologically practicable after the SDR records the correction to the
SDR data. Lastly, final Sec. 49.10(e)(4) requires each SDR to
establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures designed for
the SDR to fulfill its responsibilities under Sec. 49.10(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ The Commission notes that, as described below, final Sec.
45.14 and final Sec. 43.3(e) do not use the word ``omission'' in
the error correction requirements. The word ``omission'' is not
included in those sections because the term ``error'' is defined to
include all omissions in final Sec. 45.14(c) and final Sec.
43.3(e)(4). The Commission is, however, using the word ``omission''
in final Sec. 49.10(e), because ``error'' is not defined in final
part 49. The Commission emphasizes that this difference between the
three sections is merely semantic and does not in any way change the
SDRs' data correction requirements. All omissions of required SDR
data are errors, and an SDR is required to correct, in accordance
with final Sec. 49.10(e), all errors reported to the SDR, including
errors that arise from omissions in SDR data reported to an SDR or
the omission of all SDR data for a swap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One comment suggested that the final rule should clarify that the
only obligation on SDRs under Sec. 49.10(e) is to accept, record, and
disseminate corrections to SDR data.\82\ The Commission notes that this
is the scope of proposed Sec. 49.10(e), and is the scope of final
Sec. 49.10(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Joint SDR at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment also stated that applying the requirements of proposed
Sec. 49.10(e)(2) to SDR data ``regardless of the state of the swap''
will require SDRs to make SDR data available for corrections for an
unlimited amount of time.\83\ The comment suggested that the Commission
should instead limit the requirements in the regulation with respect to
``dead swaps'' to the required SDR data recordkeeping retention
period.\84\ The Commission agrees with this comment and final Sec.
49.10(e)(1) provides that the rules in Sec. 49.10(e) apply only if
``the record retention period under Sec. 49.12(b)(2) of this part has
not expired as of the time the error correction is reported.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Id.
\84\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the comment stated that the Commission should make clear
that an entity submitting SDR data corrections or previously omitted
SDR data must comply with the then current technical specifications of
the SDR and that an SDR is not required to make accommodations for data
that is unable to comport with the then current technical
specifications.\85\ The Commission does not agree with the
recommendation that the regulation be revised to require error
corrections to be made using the prevailing validations and technical
specifications of the SDR. The Commission notes that final Sec.
49.10(e) provides discretion to SDRs to establish, maintain, and
enforce policies and procedures designed for the SDRs to fulfill their
responsibilities under final Sec. 49.10(e), which includes the
discretion to require error corrections to use prevailing validations
and the SDR's technical specifications. Final Sec. Sec. 43.3(e) and
45.14(a) contain companion requirements for market participants to
conform to these SDR policies and procedures when correcting SDR data.
The Commission believes that this discretion provides necessary
flexibility to SDRs and market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Sec. 49.11--Verification of Swap Data Accuracy
1. Background
Section 21(c)(2) of the CEA requires SDRs to confirm submitted swap
data.\86\ The Commission implemented this statutory requirement by
promulgating current Sec. 49.11.\87\ Current Sec. 49.11(a) requires
an SDR to establish policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy of
swap data and other regulatory information reported to the SDR. Current
Sec. 49.11(b) sets forth the general requirement that an SDR confirm
the accuracy and completeness of all swap data submitted pursuant to
part 45. The regulation then sets forth specific confirmation
requirements for creation data in Sec. 49.11(b)(1) and for
continuation data in Sec. 49.11(b)(2).\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See 7 U.S.C. 24a(c)(2) (providing that, among other duties,
a swap data repository shall confirm with both counterparties to the
swap the accuracy of the data that was submitted).
\87\ See Part 49 Adopting Release at 54547.
\88\ In both cases, the requirements vary depending on whether
the SDR received the data directly from a counterparty or from a
SEF, DCM, derivatives clearing organization (``DCO''), or third-
party service provider acting on behalf of the swap counterparty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75611]]
For swap creation data, if the swap data was submitted directly by
a swap counterparty, such as an SD, MSP, or non-SD/MSP counterparty, an
SDR is required to notify both counterparties to the swap and to
receive from both counterparties acknowledgement of the accuracy of the
swap data and corrections for any errors.\89\ However, because
counterparties do not currently have a corollary obligation to respond
to an SDR's notifications, SDRs have adopted rules based on the concept
of negative affirmation: Reported swap data is presumed accurate and
confirmed if a counterparty does not inform the SDR of errors or
omissions or otherwise make modifications to a trade record for a
certain period of time.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See Sec. 49.11(b)(1)(i) (providing that an SDR has
confirmed the accuracy of swap creation data that was submitted
directly by a counterparty if the swap data repository has notified
both counterparties of the data that was submitted and received from
both counterparties acknowledgement of the accuracy of the swap data
and corrections for any errors) and Sec. 49.11(b)(2)(i).
\90\ See DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC Rule 3.3.3.3 and ICE
Trade Vault Rules 4.6 and 4.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the swap data was instead submitted by a SEF, DCM, DCO, or
third-party service provider acting on behalf of a swap counterparty,
the SDR must, among other things, provide both counterparties with a
48-hour correction period after which a counterparty is assumed to have
acknowledged the accuracy of the swap data.\91\ For swap continuation
data, an SDR may rely on a 48-hour correction period regardless of the
type of entity that submitted the swap data.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Additional requirements include the following: (i) The SDR
must have formed a reasonable belief that the swap data is accurate;
and the swap data that was submitted, or any accompanying
information, evidences that both counterparties agreed to the data.
See 17 CFR 49.11(b)(1)(ii).
\92\ See 17 CFR 49.11(b)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These provisions in existing Sec. 49.11 reflect the Commission's
view in adopting the regulation that an SDR need not always
affirmatively communicate with both counterparties to in order to
confirm the accuracy of swap data.\93\ In the Proposal, the Commission
stated that, based on the its experience with swap data submitted by
SEFs, DCMs, DCOs, and third-party service providers, the current
requirements of Sec. 49.11 have failed to ensure swap data accuracy
and consistency, which has hampered the Commission's ability to carry
out its regulatory responsibilities.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See Part 49 Adopting Release at 54547 (describing the
requirements of Sec. 49.11).
\94\ See Proposal at 84 FR 21052 (May 13, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the Proposal, the Commission previously raised these
issues in the Roadmap and received many comments in response.\95\ As
discussed in the Proposal, commenters generally held the view that SDRs
are not able to confirm swap data with non-reporting counterparties;
\96\ the obligation to confirm data accuracy should generally reside
with the parties to the swap, not SDRs; \97\ and confirmation
requirements for non-reporting counterparties are generally unnecessary
and will not improve data accuracy.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See id.
\96\ Id.
\97\ Id.
\98\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its experience with swap data reporting and the comments
it received in response to the Roadmap, the Proposal set forth a new
swap verification scheme for swap data.
2. Summary of the Final Rule
The Commission is modifying its approach to verification in final
Sec. 49.11, based on comments received on proposed Sec. 49.11. The
Commission believes the verification process required by final Sec.
49.11 is less burdensome and more flexible than the verification
process set forth in the proposed regulation. As described in detail
below, in order for SDRs to verify the accuracy and completeness of
swap data, final Sec. 49.11 requires each SDR to provide reporting
counterparties that are users of the SDR with a mechanism that allows a
reporting counterparty to access the current swap data for all open
swaps for which the reporting counterparty is serving as the reporting
counterparty, in such a manner that allows the reporting counterparty
to fulfill its own verification obligations under final Sec.
45.14.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See section III.C below for a discussion of final Sec.
45.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This approach is similar to the requirements in proposed Sec.
49.11 in many respects, particularly in that under final Sec. 49.11,
SDRs are required to facilitate verification by reporting
counterparties of all swap data for all open swaps on a regular basis.
However, the Commission believes final Sec. 49.11 provides a less
prescriptive and less burdensome method to achieve the Commission's
goals related to swap data verification. In particular, final Sec.
49.11 will not require the SDRs to create and send open swaps reports
to reporting counterparties as proposed.\100\ Also, in place of the
requirement that SDRs establish, maintain, and enforce policies and
procedures reasonably designed for the SDR to successfully receive
replies to open swaps reports from reporting counterparties in the form
of a verification of data accuracy or notice of discrepancy, the SDR's
policies and procedures will be required to address how the SDR will
fulfill all of the requirements of Sec. 49.11, including how reporting
counterparties and third-party service providers may successfully use
the verification mechanism to fulfill the reporting counterparties'
responsibilities under Sec. 45.14. Final Sec. 49.11 will also require
reporting counterparties to perform verification on a less frequent
basis than proposed, meaning that SDRs will likewise not be required to
facilitate verification on as frequent a basis as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ The Commission is requiring SDRs to create and send open
swaps reports to the Commission under final Sec. 49.9. See section
II.E above for a discussion of final Sec. 49.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Sec. 49.11(a)
The Commission adopts final Sec. 49.11(a) largely as proposed,
with some non-substantive rearrangement of proposed Sec. 49.11(a) into
final paragraphs Sec. 49.11(a) and (c). The first sentence of proposed
Sec. 49.11(a) is being finalized as final Sec. 49.11(a). Final Sec.
49.11(a) reiterates each SDR's statutory duty to verify the accuracy of
swap data pursuant to CEA section 21(c)(2). The second sentence of
proposed Sec. 49.11(a) is now included in final Sec. 49.11(c)(1),
with non-substantive rewording to more clearly articulate the
requirement for SDRs to establish, maintain, and enforce policies and
procedures related to verification and the content requirements for the
policies and procedures.
b. Sec. 49.11(b)(1)
Final Sec. 49.11(b)(1) requires each SDR to provide a mechanism
through which each reporting counterparty that is a user of the SDR can
access all swap data the SDR maintains for each open swap for which the
reporting counterparty serves as the reporting counterparty. The
mechanism must allow sufficient access, provide sufficient information,
and be in a form and manner to enable each reporting counterparty to
perform swap data verification as required under Sec. 45.14 of this
chapter. The Commission believes that, together with final Sec.
45.14(b), final Sec. 49.11(b)(1) will create an effective verification
process to help ensure that swap data maintained by SDRs is complete
and accurate.
The Commission notes that, similar to the communication
requirements in proposed Sec. 49.11, it is not prescribing the form of
mechanism that SDRs must provide in final Sec. 49.11(b)(1), beyond the
data access, data scope, frequency, and confidentiality requirements
contained in final Sec. 49.11(b). The Commission expects that SDRs and
[[Page 75612]]
reporting counterparties will be able to work together to devise the
most effective and efficient verification mechanism, with particular
attention to accommodating non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties that
may have fewer resources to perform verification than their SD/MSP/DCO
counterparts. The Commission is also aware that at least one SDR
already offers a mechanism that allows counterparties to access their
own swap data, which may be readily modified to meet the requirements
of final Sec. 49.11(b).
c. Sec. 49.11(b)(2)
The Commission adopts the substance of the Proposal in final Sec.
49.11(b)(2) in regards to the scope of data that the SDRs must make
available to reporting counterparties for verification. Final Sec.
49.11(b)(2) provides that the swap data accessible through the
mechanism must accurately reflect the most current swap data maintained
by the SDR, as of the time the reporting counterparty accesses the swap
data using the mechanism, for each data field that the reporting
counterparty was required to report under part 45 for each of the
reporting counterparty's open swaps for which it is serving as the
reporting counterparty. Final Sec. 49.11(b)(2) only requires the
mechanism to make available the then-current swap data for each of the
data fields that the SDR maintains for the relevant open swaps. There
is no requirement to include swap data contained in any particular
messages from the reporting counterparty or any outdated swap data.
The Commission notes again that it is not prescribing the
particular method by which the mechanism grants access to all of the
swap data as required, as long as the mechanism satisfies the
requirements in final Sec. 49.11(b)(2), including the general
requirement that the swap data accessible through the mechanism
provides sufficient information to allow the reporting counterparties
utilizing the mechanism to successfully perform their swap data
verification responsibilities as required under final Sec. 45.14. The
Commission expects that SDRs will work with reporting counterparties to
devise the most efficient and effective method by which the mechanism
will provide access to all of the required swap data, with particular
attention to accommodating non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties.
The Commission also notes that final Sec. 49.11(b)(2) references
the limits on providing access to swap data that must be kept
confidential under final Sec. 49.11(b)(3). The swap data access
provided under final Sec. 49.11(b)(2) must not allow access to data
that is required to be kept confidential, as described further below in
the discussion of Sec. 49.11(b)(3).
d. 49.11(b)(3)
Final Sec. 49.11(b)(3) adopts the proposed limits on access to
swap data as part of verification for swap data that is required to be
kept confidential from reporting counterparties under the Act or other
Commission regulations. Notwithstanding the other requirements of final
Sec. 49.11(b), final Sec. 49.11(b)(3) explicitly prohibits SDRs from
allowing access to swap data that a reporting counterparty is otherwise
prohibited to access. The Commission notes that the same confidential
swap data is also excluded from the reporting counterparties'
corresponding verification requirements in final Sec. 45.14(b).
This confidentiality requirement is particularly relevant for
counterparty identity information that is required to be kept
confidential under final Sec. 49.17.\101\ Existing and final Sec.
49.17(f) prohibit SDRs from allowing access to counterparty identifying
information for certain anonymously-executed cleared swaps. Under the
provisions of final Sec. 49.11(b)(3), nothing in final Sec. 49.11
overrides the confidentiality requirements of Sec. 49.17, or any other
confidentiality requirements of the Act or other Commission
regulations. This information is also excluded from the verification
requirements in the corresponding verification obligation rules in
final Sec. 45.14(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ The Commission is finalizing a technical correction to
Sec. 49.17(f) in this rulemaking, as described below in section
II.L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Sec. 49.11(b)(4)
Final Sec. 49.11(b)(4) provides that the mechanism each SDR adopts
under final Sec. 49.11(b) must allow sufficiently frequent access for
reporting counterparties to perform the required swap data verification
under Sec. 45.14(b). This minimum frequency is necessary so that
reporting counterparties are able to access all of their relevant swap
data every time they are required to perform verification under Sec.
45.14(b), in order to help ensure that reporting counterparties perform
a robust verification of all swap data for their relevant open swaps.
Final Sec. 45.14(b) requires SD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties to
verify every 30 calendar days and requires non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting
counterparties to verify once every calendar quarter, with at least two
months between verifications.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See section III.C below for a discussion of the
verification requirements for reporting counterparties under final
Sec. 45.14(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that the frequency requirement in final Sec.
49.11(b)(4) is a minimum frequency standard. Nothing prohibits SDRs
from allowing reporting counterparties to access swap data through the
mechanism more frequently than required and nothing prohibits reporting
counterparties from utilizing the mechanism to access their own swap
data more frequently than is required.
f. Sec. 49.11(b)(5)
Final Sec. 49.11(b)(5) provides requirements related to SDRs
making swap data available to third-party service providers for
verification purposes. As with other Commission regulations, reporting
counterparties are permitted to utilize third-party service providers
to perform verification, and the Commission believes that accommodating
the use of diligent third-party services providers may increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of the verification process.
Accordingly, in order to accommodate the reporting counterparties'
use of third-party service providers, final Sec. 49.11(b)(5) provides
that an SDR will satisfy its verification requirements under final
Sec. 49.11 by, after a reporting counterparty informs the SDR that the
reporting counterparty will utilize a particular third-party service
provider for verification purposes, providing the third-party service
provider with the same access to the mechanism and the relevant swap
data as the SDR is required to provide to the reporting counterparty.
As part of this third-party service provider access, final Sec.
49.11(b)(5) also provides that the third-party service provider access
is in addition to (i.e., not instead of) the access for the relevant
reporting counterparty. Each SDR must still grant the same required
level of access to the mechanism and the relevant swap data to the
reporting counterparty, regardless of whether a reporting counterparty
utilizes a third-party service provider. The third-party service
provider's access under final Sec. 49.11(b)(5) must also continue
until the reporting counterparty informs the SDR that the third-party
service provider should no longer have access to the mechanism and
relevant swap data on the reporting counterparty's behalf. This
requirement is necessary to ensure that the third-party service
provider can provide services to the
[[Page 75613]]
reporting counterparty without interruption.
Finally, Sec. 49.11(b)(5) requires the verification policies and
procedures an SDR must create pursuant to final Sec. 49.11(c) to
include instructions detailing how each reporting counterparty can
successfully inform the SDR so that the SDR will grant or discontinue
access for a third-party service provider at the reporting
counterparty's instruction. This requirement is necessary to ensure
that third-party service provider access for verification purposes is
as efficient and seamless as possible. The Commission notes that these
SDR policies and procedures are required to be publicly disclosed under
final Sec. 49.26(j).\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See section II.R below for a discussion of final Sec.
49.26(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. Sec. 49.11(c)
The Commission made several non-substantive organizational and
editorial modifications in final Sec. 49.11(c), as compared to the
Proposal. For example, as described above, the SDR verification
policies and procedures requirement from proposed Sec. 49.11(a) is
included in final Sec. 49.11(c). The wording in final Sec.
49.11(c)(1) is changed slightly from proposed Sec. 49.11(a) for
clarity purposes, but similarly requires SDRs to establish, maintain,
and enforce policies and procedures that address how the swap data
repository will fulfill all of the applicable requirements of final
Sec. 49.11. The policies and procedures must also include instructions
on how each reporting counterparty, or third-party service provider
acting on behalf of a reporting counterparty, can successfully utilize
the mechanism to access swap data in order to perform the reporting
counterparty's verification responsibilities under final Sec.
45.14(b). This requirement is necessary to ensure that reporting
counterparties are clearly instructed on how to access the verification
mechanism and their relevant swap data, in order to ensure that
verification is as efficient and seamless as possible. The Commission
notes that the companion verification requirements for reporting
counterparties in final Sec. 45.14(b) require reporting counterparties
to follow the relevant SDR policies and procedures when performing
verification.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See section III.C for a discussion of the verification
requirements for reporting counterparties under final Sec.
45.14(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.11(c)(2) sets forth the requirements for an SDR that
amends its verification policies and procedures, which were previously
set forth in proposed Sec. 49.11(d). Final Sec. 49.11(c)(2), like
proposed Sec. 49.11(d), requires each SDR to comply with the
requirements of part 40 of the Commission's regulations in adopting or
amending the verification policies and procedures required under final
Sec. 49.11(c)(1). The Commission notes that SDRs would be required to
comply with part 40 when adopting or amending the verification policies
and procedures regardless of whether this requirement is included in
Sec. 49.11(c)(2).
3. Comments on the Proposed Rule
The Commission received many comments on the verification approach
in proposed Sec. 49.11. Many commenters did not distinguish their
comments between the verification requirements proposed for SDRs under
proposed Sec. 49.11 and the verification requirements proposed for
reporting counterparties under proposed Sec. 45.14, but the Commission
has organized the discussion between the two different final rules
based on its best estimation of whether particular comments applied to
one or both of the proposed sections. The discussion of comments
relevant to final Sec. 49.11 is contained in this section, while the
discussion of comments that pertain to the verification requirements
for reporting counterparties is contained in the discussion of final
Sec. 45.14(b), unless otherwise noted below.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many comments on specific requirements of proposed Sec. 49.11 are
now moot, because the Commission is not adopting the proposed
requirements. For example, some commenters addressed particular aspects
and mechanics of the proposed verification of open swaps reports and
the messages the Proposal would require reporting counterparties to
send to SDRs related to verification results.\106\ These comments are
no longer applicable, because the Commission is not adopting the
proposed requirement that SDRs provide open swaps reports to reporting
counterparties or the companion requirement that reporting
counterparties verify the data in such reports and send messages to
SDRs related to verification results. The Commission acknowledges these
comments on specific proposed requirements and thanks the commenters
for submitting these comments, but these requirements are not included
in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ See, e.g., GFMA at 4; IATP at 5; ICE TV at 3-4; ISDA/SIFMA
at 40, 43-44; Joint SDR at 2-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many comments were generally supportive of the Commission's efforts
to improve the accuracy of data reported to and maintained by
SDRs.\107\ The Commission agrees with the many commenters and market
participants who support the Roadmap rulemakings to improve the quality
of swap data, and reiterates the importance of improved data accuracy
and completeness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See Freddie Mac at 1, 2; IATP at 1-5; Joint SDR at 1;
Markit at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Along with the comments of general support, the Commission received
many comments supporting specific requirements in proposed Sec. 49.11.
Comments in particular supported limiting data verification to swap
data,\108\ and excluding non-reporting counterparties from data
verification requirements.\109\ The Commission agrees with these
comments and is finalizing Sec. 49.11 with requirements that only
apply verification to swap data and only require verification for
reporting counterparties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ ISDA/SIFMA at 39-41, 44.
\109\ GFMA at 4, ISDA/SIFMA at 39, Joint SDR at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also suggested alternatives for the proposed approach to
verification, including alternatives that helped form the basis of the
revised verification requirements in final Sec. 49.11. Multiple
comments suggested that the Commission adopt a more ``principles
based'' approach to verification.\110\ As part of a more principles-
based approach, one comment suggested monthly verification for SDs and
quarterly for non-SDs, while also recommending that SDRs or the
Commission should be able to request evidence that verification was
conducted as required.\111\ Another comment advocated for requiring
reporting counterparties to implement procedures to periodically
reconcile swaps data reported to SDRs.\112\ The Commission also
received one comment related to alternatives to verification of
accuracy and notice of discrepancy messaging, which recommended an
obligation on reporting counterparties to maintain, and make available
to the Commission upon request, evidence that verification was
conducted and any necessary corrections were submitted to the SDR.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ CS at 3, FIA at 7-8, ISDA/SIFMA at 45.
\111\ ISDA/SIFMA at 45.
\112\ CS at 3.
\113\ Joint SDR at 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission recognizes the comments that provided robust
alternatives to the proposed verification requirements that also met
the Commission need for swap data to be verified in a thorough and
timely manner. The Commission is finalizing Sec. 49.11 with more
principles-based requirements that incorporate each of these
suggestions, including that reporting counterparties periodically
[[Page 75614]]
reconcile the open swap data maintained by SDRs with the open swap data
in their own books and records; that verification occur on a monthly
basis for SD reporting counterparties (though the Commission will also
require monthly verification for MSPs and DCOs) and quarterly for other
reporting counterparties; and that reporting counterparties maintain
and make available to the Commission evidence that verification was
conducted properly and any discovered corrections submitted to the
relevant SDR(s).\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ See section III.C for a more thorough discussion of the
verification requirements for reporting counterparties under final
Sec. 45.14(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also received other comments addressing issues that
have been incorporated into the final verification requirements. Though
largely included with comments related to the proposed open swaps
reports, multiple comments advocated for flexibility in the form and
manner that SDRs and reporting counterparties perform verification, as
these entities already have established methods for communicating swap
data and other information.\115\ These comments on the proposed open
swaps reports also recommended that verification only be required for
swap data as current at the time of verification, as opposed to
verification on every data message.\116\ Another comment also requested
clarification that the required distribution of open swaps reports is a
minimum, not a maximum, and that SDRs are able to provide open swaps
reports more frequently than the minimum.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ GFMA at 5, ISDA/SIFMA at 40, Joint SDR at 6.
\116\ ISDA/SIFMA at 40, Joint SDR at 6.
\117\ Joint SDR at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission recognizes the suggestions included with these
comments and agrees with the comments. The Commission originally
proposed, and is also now adopting, verification requirements that
provide SDRs with flexibility in implementing the verification
requirements. Thus, final Sec. 49.11(b) intentionally does not
prescribe the form and manner of the verification mechanism and allows
SDRs to determine the means for reporting counterparties access to
their relevant swap data. The Commission expects that SDRs and
reporting counterparties will work together to devise the most
efficient and effective mechanism that meets the specific verification
requirements in final Sec. Sec. 49.11 and 45.14. The Commission also
proposed, and is now adopting, requirements that only require the
verification of up-to-date swap data, as opposed to verification of all
messages. Final Sec. 49.11(b)(2) only requires SDRs to make the
relevant ``most current'' swap data available to reporting
counterparties, as opposed to every message regarding swap data. Though
no longer related to open swaps reports, the Commission is also
adopting verification timing requirements in Sec. 45.14(b) that serve
as a minimum frequency requirement, not a maximum. As the Commission
detailed above in the discussion of final Sec. 49.11(b)(4), the SDRs
must make the verification mechanism available to the reporting
counterparties at least as often as needed for the reporting
counterparties to perform their verification responsibilities under
final Sec. 45.14(b), but that nothing prevents the SDRs from providing
proper access more frequently. The Commission anticipates that some
SDRs may choose to provide access to the mechanism on a more-frequent,
even potentially continuous, basis.
The Commission also received a comment related to open swaps
reports that observed that SDRs would not be able perform verification
with reporting counterparties or third-party service providers that are
not members of the SDR. The comment suggested that the Commission
modify the verification requirement to limit an SDR's verification
responsibilities to reporting counterparties and third-party service
providers that are members of the SDR.\118\ The Commission agrees with
this comment and notes that it would not be practical for an SDR to
perform verification with reporting counterparties or third-party
service providers that are not connected to the SDR. To address this,
the Commission is adopting final Sec. 49.11(b)(1), which specifically
requires an SDR to provide a verification mechanism that grants swap
data access to each ``reporting counterparty that is a user of the swap
data repository,'' as required under final Sec. 49.11(b). The
Commission notes that final Sec. 49.11(b)(5) contains provisions
related to access for a third-party service provider working on behalf
of a reporting counterparty and that final Sec. 49.11(c) requires SDR
verification policies and procedures to address how a third-party
service provider can successfully utilize the SDR verification
mechanism on behalf of a reporting counterparty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Joint SDR at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also received a number of comments that made
suggestions that are not being accepted. In the context of open swaps
reports, one comment suggested that the Commission should specify that
verification timing requirements be clarified as ``business days'' and
``business hours,'' as this would facilitate the SDRs including the
date and time that an open swap report was sent.\119\ The Commission is
including verification timing requirements for reporting counterparties
in final Sec. 45.14(b), but these timing requirements are stated in
terms of calendar days, calendar months, and calendar quarters. The
Commission notes that the comment is now moot, as there will be no open
swaps reports from SDRs to the reporting counterparties that would
necessitate a timestamp, but the Commission also believes that the
final use of calendar timing instead of business timing will not cause
any issues in regards to reporting counterparties and SDRs performing
verification and will provide consistent parameters for when
verification must be performed. The use of calendar time allows the
reporting counterparties to choose the date most convenient for them to
accomplish regular verification without the potential confusion arising
from business days shifting based on weekends and holidays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ ISDA/SIFMA at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One comment suggested that the Commission should remove the
requirement in proposed Sec. 49.11(d) that SDRs make a filing under
part 40 of the Commission's regulations when changing their
verification policies and procedures, asserting that such a requirement
is unnecessary because reporting counterparties will be required to
follow SDR verification procedures.\120\ The Commission disagrees and
is adopting the requirement in final Sec. 49.11(c)(2). The Commission
notes that the requirements of part 40 of the Commission's regulations
would apply to the SDR verification policies and procedures regardless
of whether this provision is included in final Sec. 49.11(c)(2),
because the verification policies and procedures are ``rules'' for the
purposes of part 40 of the Commission's regulations.\121\ The
Commission also believes that requiring SDRs to comply with part 40 to
update verification policies and procedures will help alert reporting
counterparties and other market participants to when an SDR seeks to
change its policies and procedures, which will help ensure compliance
with the verification
[[Page 75615]]
policies and procedures and help prevent errors in the verification
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Joint SDR at 7.
\121\ See 17 CFR 40.1(i) (defining ``rule'' for the purposes of
part 40 of the Commission's regulations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also received multiple comments suggesting changes
that would narrow the data fields subject to verification. One comment
recommended that verification be limited to data fields related to the
``economic terms'' of the trade only, with the Commission identifying
which fields are included in the economic terms.\122\ Comments also
recommended limiting the reported information to information that would
improve the Commission's market surveillance capabilities and promote
price transparency, while also limiting optional fields and fields that
do not apply to the relevant swaps.\123\ One comment suggested the
Commission clarify the duties relating to static data elements.\124\
Other comments also suggested streamlining data fields to only those
necessary for the Commission's work and to harmonize data fields with
foreign regulators, if possible,\125\ and clarifying the data
fields.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ GFMA at 10-11, 13-14.
\123\ Joint Associations at 4-10, NGSA at 4.
\124\ Markit at 2-3.
\125\ Eurex at 1-2, GFMA at 14, Joint Associations at 4-10.
\126\ CEWG at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in more detail in the discussion of verification
requirements under final Sec. 45.14(b),\127\ the Commission disagrees
with comments suggesting that the Commission adopt any verification
requirement that would allow reporting counterparties to verify
anything less than all swap data fields for all of the reporting
counterparty's relevant open swaps. All swap data fields are important
and are necessary for the Commission to successfully fulfill its
regulatory responsibilities, which extend beyond performing robust
market surveillance and promoting price transparency. The Commission is
adopting verification requirements that require the reporting
counterparties to verify every swap data field for all swap data for
every one of a reporting counterparty's relevant open swaps, and is
adopting the requirements in final Sec. 49.11(b) that will facilitate
this by requiring SDRs to provide a mechanism that allows the reporting
counterparties to verify every data field for all relevant swap data.
This requirement includes all static data elements, as errors are still
possible in swap data maintained by SDRs, even if it is intended to be
static. The Commission also notes that streamlining, clarifying, and
harmonizing data fields is one of the express purposes of the Roadmap
rulemakings, and that this work on data fields is accomplished in a
separate Roadmap rulemaking.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ See section III.C for a more thorough discussion of the
verification requirements for reporting counterparties under final
Sec. 45.14(b).
\128\ See generally 85 FR 21578, et seq. (Apr. 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission received several comments suggesting that
verification is unnecessary and that the Commission can instead rely on
SDR swap data validation, standardized and harmonized swap data fields,
and/or the swap data error corrections requirements to improve data
quality.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ CEWG at 2-3, Chatham at 3, Eurex at 2, NGSA at 4, Joint
Associations at 6-10, Joint SDR at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in more detail in the discussion of verification
requirements under final Sec. 45.14(b), the Commission disagrees with
the suggestions that verification is unnecessary and that swap data
validation, standardized swap data fields, and error correction would
be sufficient to meet the Commission's data quality goals. While swap
data validation and standardized data fields are valuable tools to
prevent certain types of swap data errors, such as swap data being
reported without required data, they do not address the same errors
that swap data verification is intended to address. Swap data
verification, which is designed to inform and trigger the swap data
error correction process, is intended to address plausible but
incorrect swap data that would not be identified by validation because
the incorrect data meets the technical standards for the standardized
fields, such as a swap being reported with a notional value of
$1,000,000 instead of the correct $10,000,000. These errors would only
be found, and the error correction requirement triggered, by a party to
the swap reviewing the data after it has been reported and discovering
the error(s), such as through the verification process. The Commission
also notes that swap data validation and standardized data fields can
only prevent errors in swap data that have not yet been reported, as
opposed to swap data verification, which will be useful for finding
undiscovered errors in swap data for open swaps that have already been
reported.
Through its experience administering the data reporting
regulations, the Commission is also aware of many examples of
significant swap data errors that would not have been prevented by swap
data validations, and that, in the absence of an adequate verification
requirement, persisted for long periods of time before being discovered
and corrected. Based on this experience, the Commission determined that
swap data validation, standardized data fields, and the error
correction requirements are not sufficient to meet the Commission's
data quality goals without the addition of swap data verification. As a
result, the Commission is adopting final Sec. 49.11, and the companion
requirements in final Sec. 45.14(b), in order to require a robust and
effective verification process for SDRs and reporting counterparties
that the Commission expects will help ensure significant improvements
in swap data quality.
H. Sec. 49.12--Swap Data Repository Recordkeeping Requirements
Section 49.12 sets forth recordkeeping requirements for SDRs.\130\
The Commission proposed to amend Sec. 49.12 to incorporate the
recordkeeping requirements for SDRs in current Sec. 45.2(f) and (g)
\131\ into final Sec. 49.12, and to resolve ambiguities and potential
inconsistencies between the regulations.\132\ The Commission has
determined to adopt the amendments to Sec. Sec. 49.12 and 45.2 as
proposed, except for a technical change discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ 17 CFR 49.12. Current Sec. 49.12 sets forth specific
recordkeeping requirements and references the public reporting
requirements and recordkeeping requirements for SDRs included in
parts 43 and 45.
\131\ 17 CFR 45.2(f) and (g).
\132\ Proposal at 84 FR 21055 (May, 13, 2019). Consolidating
these regulations in part 49 will reduce confusion that may arise
from having separate SDR recordkeeping requirements in two different
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Sec. 49.12(a) requires an SDR to maintain its books and
records in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements of part 45.
The Commission proposed to amend Sec. 49.12(a) to incorporate the
provisions of current Sec. 45.2(f) and to clarify that the requirement
in final Sec. 49.12(a) that an SDR keep records applies to records of
all activities relating to the business of the SDR, not just records of
swap data reported to the SDR.\133\ Accordingly, as amended, final
Sec. 49.12(a) requires an SDR to keep full, complete, and systematic
records, together with all pertinent data and memoranda, of all
activities relating to the business of the SDR, including, but not
limited to, all SDR information and all SDR data that is reported to
the SDR. The amendments to Sec. 49.12(a) do not impose new
requirements on an SDR; rather, the amendments incorporate the
currently-applicable requirements of Sec. 45.2(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Id. Current Sec. 49.12(a) applies to swap data required
to be reported to the SDR, whereas Sec. 45.2(g) applies to records
of all activities relating to the business of the SDR and all swap
data reported to the SDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75616]]
Current Sec. 49.12(b) requires an SDR to maintain swap data
(including all historical positions) throughout the existence of the
swap and for five years following the final termination of the swap,
during which time the records must be readily accessible by the SDR,
and available to the Commission via real-time electronic access; and in
archival storage from which the data is retrievable by the SDR within
three business days.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ 17 CFR 49.12(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is amending Sec. 49.12(b) by incorporating the
requirements of Sec. 45.2(g) into final Sec. 49.12(b). Thus, as
amended, final Sec. 49.12(b) will: (i) Clarify that the requirements
of the regulation apply to all records required to be kept by an SDR,
not just swap data reported to an SDR,\135\ and (ii) incorporate the
additional ten-year retention period set forth in current Sec.
45.2(g)(2).\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Proposal at 84 FR 21055 (May 13, 2019). Current Sec.
49.12(b) applies to swap data, whereas Sec. 45.2(g) applies to all
records required to be kept by an SDR.
\136\ Section 45.2(g)(2) provides that all records required to
be kept by an SDR must be kept in archival storage for ten years
after the initial 5-year retention period under Sec. 45.2(g)(1).
Current Sec. 49.12(b) only sets forth the initial 5-year retention
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.12(b) sets forth separate recordkeeping requirements
for SDR information in final Sec. 49.12(b)(1) and SDR data reported to
the SDR in final Sec. 49.12(b)(2). Section 49.12(b)(1) requires an SDR
to maintain all SDR information, including, but not limited to, all
documents, policies, and procedures required to be kept by the Act and
the Commission's regulations, correspondence, memoranda, papers, books,
notices, accounts, and other such records made or received by the SDR
in the course of its business. An SDR must maintain such information in
accordance with Sec. 1.31 of the Commission's regulations.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Section 1.31 of the Commission's regulations is the
Commission's general recordkeeping provision, which requires, among
other things, that any regulatory records that do not pertain to
specific transactions and are not retained oral communications be
kept for no less than five years from their creation date. See 17
CFR 1.31(b)(3). As noted in the Proposal, current Sec. 49.12(b) and
Sec. 45.2 use the existence of the swap as the basis for the record
retention timeframes specified therein, but this offers no guidance
on how long to keep a record of SDR information, such as SDR
policies and procedures. See Proposal at 21056. Therefore, the
Commission is clarify in Sec. 49.12(b)(1) that the record retention
period for such records is the generally applicable retention period
under Sec. 1.31 of the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As amended, final Sec. 49.12(b)(2) requires an SDR to maintain all
SDR data and timestamps reported to or created by the SDR, and all
messages related to such reporting, throughout the existence of the
swap that is the subject of the SDR data and for five years following
final termination of the swap, during which time the records must be
readily accessible by the SDR and available to the Commission via real-
time electronic access, and for a period of at least ten additional
years in archival storage from which such records are retrievable by
the SDR within three business days.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ The retention period under Sec. 49.12(b)(2) is the
current requirement for SDR records retention under Sec. 45.2(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendments to Sec. 49.12(b) are also intended to help
harmonize the Commission's regulations with the SEC's regulations.\139\
The SDR information listed in final Sec. 49.12(b)(1) largely matches
the SEC's requirement for SBSDR recordkeeping \140\ and the retention
provisions of Sec. 1.31 largely match the requirement for SBSDRs.\141\
Any SDR that also registers with the SEC as an SBSDR will have to
comply with both final Sec. 49.12 and Sec. 240.13n-7, and therefore
consistency between the recordkeeping provisions is particularly
beneficial to such SDRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ The concept of separate recordkeeping requirements for
information similar to SDR information and for SDR data reported to
an SDR has already been adopted by the SEC in its regulations
governing SBSDRs. See 17 CFR 240.13n-7(b) (listing recordkeeping
requirements for SBSDRs); 17 CFR 240.13n-7(d) (excluding
``transaction data and positions'' from the recordkeeping
requirements and instead referring to 17 CFR 240.13n-5 for such
recordkeeping).
\140\ See 17 CFR 240.13n-7(b)(1). This rule provides that every
security-based swap data repository shall keep and preserve at least
one copy of all documents, including all documents and policies and
procedures required by the Securities Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder, correspondence, memoranda, papers, books,
notices, accounts, and other such records as shall be made or
received by it in the course of its business as such.
\141\ Compare 17 CFR 1.31(b)(3) (providing that a records entity
shall keep each regulatory record for a period of not less than five
years from the date on which the record was created) and 17 CFR
1.31(b)(4) (providing that a records entity shall keep regulatory
records exclusively created and maintained on paper readily
accessible for no less than two years, and shall keep electronic
regulatory records readily accessible for the duration of the
required record keeping period) with 17 CFR 240.13n-7(b)(2)
(providing that every SBSDR shall keep all such documents for a
period of not less than five years, the first two years in a place
that is immediately available to representative of the Securities
and Exchange Commission for inspection and examination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission again notes that the amendments to Sec. 49.12(b) do
not change the requirements for SDRs; they merely consolidate existing
requirements set forth in current Sec. 45.2(f) and (g) into final
Sec. 49.12.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ See 17 CFR 45.2(f) and (g). Though the term ``swap data''
is defined in Sec. 49.2(a) to mean the specific data elements and
information set forth in 17 CFR part 45, the Commission notes that
the term ``swap data'' is not currently defined in part 45. Current
Sec. 45.2(f) requires the SDR to keep full, complete, and
systematic records, together with all pertinent data and memoranda,
of all activities related to the business of the swap data
repository and all swap data reported to the swap data repository,
as prescribed by the Commission. This expansive requirement for all
pertinent data and memoranda for all activities related to the
business of the swap data repository and all swap data reported to
the swap data repository reflects that Sec. 45.2(f) requires an SDR
to keep records of data from activities beyond reporting pursuant to
part 45, including, for example, all of the required swap
transaction and pricing data reporting pursuant to part 43. The
``full, complete, and systematic records'' that must be kept for
``all activities related to the business'' of the SDR also include
all messages related to the reported data, including all messages
sent from the SDR and to the SDR. This recordkeeping obligation on
SDRs is analogous to recordkeeping obligations on DCMs, SEFs, and
DCOs. See 17 CFR 38.950, 37.1001, and 39.20(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is amending existing Sec. 49.12(c) and renumbering
it as Sec. 49.12(d).\143\ In place of existing Sec. 49.12(c), final
Sec. 49.12(c) requires an SDR to create and maintain records of SDR
validation errors and SDR data reporting errors and omissions. Final
Sec. 49.12(c)(1) requires an SDR to create and maintain an accurate
record of all reported SDR data that fails to satisfy the SDR's data
validation procedures. The records must include, but are not be limited
to, records of all of the SDR data reported to the SDR that failed to
satisfy the SDR data validation procedures, all SDR validation errors,
and all related messages and timestamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ As discussed below, as part of the amendments to Sec.
49.12, the Commission is removing current Sec. 49.12(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.12(c)(2) requires an SDR to create and maintain an
accurate record of all SDR data errors and omissions reported to the
SDR and all corrections disseminated by the SDR pursuant to parts 43,
45, 46, and 49 of the Commission's regulations. Section 49.12(c)(2)
also requires SDRs to make the records available to the Commission on
request.
The Commission believes SDRs already receive the data validation
information specified in final Sec. 49.12(c) via regular interaction
with SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties. The Commission
emphasizes that such data must be maintained in order to allow for
assessments of reporting compliance, including the initial reporting
and the correction of the SDR data.
The Commission notes that while final Sec. 49.12(c) specifies
recordkeeping requirements for SDR data validation errors and SDR data
reporting errors, these requirements do not in any way limit the
applicability of the recordkeeping requirements in final Sec. 49.12 to
these records. Thus, since the records specified in final Sec.
49.12(c) are
[[Page 75617]]
comprised of, or relate to, SDR data reported to an SDR, all records
created and maintained by an SDR pursuant to final Sec. 49.12(c) are
subject to the requirements of final Sec. 49.12(b)(2).
Existing Sec. 49.12(d) requires an SDR to comply with the real
time public reporting and recordkeeping requirements of existing Sec.
49.15 and part 43. The Commission believes that existing Sec. 49.12(d)
\144\ is redundant because its requirements that an SDR comply with the
real time public reporting and recordkeeping requirements set forth in
Sec. 49.15 and part 43 are also required by final Sec. 49.12(b)(2)
and Sec. 49.15, as well as part 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ See 17 CFR 49.12(d) (providing that a registered swap data
repository shall comply with the real time public reporting and
recordkeeping requirements prescribed in Sec. 49.15 and in 17 CFR
part 43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Commission is moving the text of existing Sec.
49.12(c) to final Sec. 49.12(d) and amending the regulation to provide
that (i) all records required to be kept pursuant to part 49 must be
open to inspection upon request by any representative of the Commission
or any representative of the U.S. Department of Justice; and (ii) an
SDR must produce any record required to be kept, created, or maintained
by the SDR in accordance with Sec. 1.31 of the Commission's
regulations.
Finally, the Commission proposed a technical change to move the
existing requirements of Sec. 49.12(e) to proposed Sec. 49.13.\145\
However, as discussed below, the Commission is not adopting the
proposed amendments to Sec. 49.13 at this time. Therefore, the
Commission is not moving existing Sec. 49.12(e) to Sec. 49.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ Current Sec. 49.12(e) requires an SDR to establish
policies and procedures to calculate positions for position limits
and for any other purpose as required by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission requested comment on all aspects of proposed Sec.
49.12.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ The Commission also invited specific comment on the
archival storage requirements of current Sec. 45.2(g)(2) and
proposed Sec. 49.12(b)(2). See Proposal at 21057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One comment supported consolidating the SDR recordkeeping
requirements in part 45 into part 49.\147\ Another comment stated that
the requirement in proposed Sec. 49.12(b)(2) for an additional ten-
year retention period following a five-year period after termination of
a swap is excessive.\148\ This comment recommended that the Commission
replace the proposed requirements for record retention in proposed
Sec. 49.12 with a seven-year retention period following final
termination of the swap, during which time the records would be readily
accessible by the SDR and available to the Commission.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ ISDA/SIFMA at 43.
\148\ Joint SDR at 11.
\149\ Id. Joint SDR also stated the Commission ``should
harmonize the SDR retention periods with that of Europe and other
Commission regulated entities such as [DCMs, DCOs and SEFs],'' and
that a 7-year retention period ``gets closer to a harmonized global
standard.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined to adopt the amendments to Sec. Sec.
49.12 and 45.2 as proposed, except the Commission is not adopting the
technical change of moving Sec. 49.12(e) to Sec. 49.13, as discussed
below in Section II.I.
With regard to record retention period comments, the Commission
notes that retention period in final Sec. 49.12(b)(2) is the current
retention period applicable to SDRs, not a new requirement, and that
SDRs currently have this unique ten-year retention period because they
are the source of all SDR data for the public and the CFTC. Further,
the Commission believes the existing 10-year retention period has
functioned well and did not propose to amend the retention period.
Accordingly, the Commission declines to shorten the retention period.
I. Sec. 49.13--Monitoring, Screening, and Analyzing Data
Existing Sec. 49.13 implements CEA section 21(c)(5), which
requires SDRs to, at the direction of the Commission, establish
automated systems for monitoring, screening, and analyzing swap data,
including compliance and frequency of end-user clearing exemption
claims by individuals and affiliated entities.\150\ Existing Sec.
49.13 requires SDRs to: (i) Monitor, screen, and analyze all swap data
in their possession as the Commission may require, including for the
purpose of any standing swap surveillance objectives that the
Commission may establish as well as ad hoc requests; and (ii) develop
systems and maintain sufficient resources as necessary to execute any
monitoring, screening, or analyzing functions assigned by the
Commission.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ 7 U.S.C. 24a(c)(5).
\151\ See generally 17 CFR 49.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission proposed to amend Sec. 49.13 to provide more detail
on the monitoring, screening, and analyzing tasks that an SDR may be
required to perform as directed by the Commission. The Commission also
proposed to amend Sec. 49.13 to make clear that the requirements of
proposed Sec. 49.13 apply to SDR data reported to the SDR pursuant to
parts 43, 45, and 46. The Commission received a number of comments on
the proposed rule, both supporting and recommending against its
adoption.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ IATP generally supported the proposed rule. IATP at 7.
IATP further provided recommendations and support for adopting
specific requirements for SDRs, such as a requirement to produce a
report regarding ``mortgage swaps risks of reporting
counterparties'' that would be relevant to assessing climate-related
financial risks, and to calculate positions for market participants.
Id. at 8-9. ISDA/SIFMA recommended adopting a requirement that SDRs
produce rejection statistics reports. ISDA/SIFMA at 45. Joint SDR
generally supported adopting rules that provide more detail about
the tasks that the Commission may require an SDR to perform. Joint
SDR at 12. However, Joint SDR recommended against adopting the
proposed rule, stating that the requirements in the proposed rule
exceed those authorized by the Act, would impermissibly require the
SDRs to perform regulatory functions, and that it would be
impracticable for the SDRs to fulfill the proposed requirements for
lack of sufficient data. Joint SDR at 12-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined not to make any amendments to Sec.
49.13 at this time. The Commission believes it may benefit from further
consideration and experience with swap data following the
implementation of the requirements of part 49, as amended in this final
rule, as well as the implementation of the significantly amended rules
in part 45 that the Commission is adopting as final along with this
final rule. The Commission may consider the proposed amendments to
Sec. 49.13 in a future rulemaking.
As part of the Proposal, the Commission also proposed a technical
change that would move existing Sec. 49.15(c) to Sec. 49.13.\153\ The
Commission also proposed to move the requirements of existing Sec.
49.12(e) to Sec. 49.13. While moving existing Sec. Sec. 49.15(c) and
49.12(e) to Sec. 49.13 is not a substantive amendment, the Commission
has determined that it would be more efficient to defer these proposed
amendments along with the other proposed changes to existing Sec.
49.13, and is therefore not adopting these amendments as part of this
final rulemaking. Thus, the current text of Sec. 49.13 will remain in
effect after this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ Existing Sec. 49.15(c) provides that an SDR must notify
the Commission of any swap transaction for which the real-time swap
data was not received by the SDR in accordance with 17 CFR part 43.
In addition to moving existing Sec. 49.15(c) to Sec. 49.13, the
Commission proposed to amend the regulation to similarly require an
SDR to notify the Commission with regard to data not received by the
SDR pursuant to parts 45 and 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Sec. 49.15--Real-Time Public Reporting by Swap Data Repositories
The Commission proposed to amend existing Sec. 49.15 to conform
the regulation to the proposed amended definitions in Sec. 49.2. As
discussed above, the Commission also proposed to
[[Page 75618]]
move existing Sec. 49.15(c) to proposed Sec. 49.13(c). Additionally,
the Commission proposed to amend existing Sec. 49.15(a) and Sec.
49.15(b) to remove the term ``swap data,'' which is defined in Sec.
49.2 as part 45 data, and replace it with text clarifying that Sec.
49.15 pertains to swap transaction and pricing data submitted to an SDR
pursuant to part 43. These non-substantive amendments do not affect the
existing requirements of Sec. 49.15.
The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed
amendments to Sec. 49.15(b) and is adopting the amendments as
proposed, with the exception of the proposed movement of existing Sec.
49.15(c) to proposed Sec. 49.13(c).
K. Sec. 49.16--Privacy and Confidentiality Requirements of Swap Data
Repositories
The Commission proposed to amend existing Sec. 49.16 to conform
the regulation to the proposed amendments to the definitions in Sec.
49.2.\154\ Specifically, the Commission proposed to amend Sec.
49.16(a)(1) to clarify that the policy and procedure requirements of
Sec. 49.16 apply to SDR information and to any SDR data that is not
swap transaction and pricing data disseminated under part 43.\155\ The
requirements include that an SDR have policies and procedures to
protect the privacy and confidentiality of any and all SDR information
and all SDR data (except for swap transaction and pricing data
disseminated under part 43) that the SDR shares with affiliates and
non-affiliated third parties. The proposed amendments also conform the
text of Sec. 49.16 with the removal of the term ``reporting entity''
and the amended definitions of ``SDR data'' and ``swap data'' in final
Sec. 49.2. The amendments are non-substantive and do not affect the
existing requirements or applicability of Sec. 49.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ See section II.A above.
\155\ Proposal at 21059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed
conforming amendments to Sec. 49.16 and is adopting the amendments as
proposed.
L. Sec. 49.17--Access to SDR Data
Section 49.17 sets forth the requirements and conditions for an SDR
to provide access to SDR data to the Commission, foreign and domestic
regulators, and swap counterparties, among others.\156\ The Commission
proposed to amend Sec. 49.17 to clarify some of the requirements in
the regulation with respect to the Commission's access to SDR data. One
commenter recommended revisions to the proposed amendments to Sec.
49.17, as discussed below. The Commission has determined to adopt the
amendments to Sec. 49.17 as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ See generally 17 CFR 49.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the Proposal, the Commission believes the
amendments to the definition of ``direct electronic access'' in final
Sec. 49.17(b)(3) will provide additional flexibility to implement
methods for data transfers from SDRs to the Commission, and may
facilitate the use of advancing technology and more efficient means of
direct electronic access for the Commission. The amendments also make
clear that the Commission may decide to accept other methods of access,
as long as the method is able to efficiently provide the Commission
with real-time access to SDR data and scheduled SDR data transfers to
the Commission.
1. Amendments to Sec. 49.17(b)--Definition of Direct Electronic Access
Existing Sec. 49.17(c)(1) requires an SDR to provide ``direct
electronic access,'' a term defined in existing Sec. 49.17(b)(3),\157\
to the Commission or the Commission's designee, including another
registered entity, in order for the Commission to carry out its legal
and statutory responsibilities under the Act.\158\ The Commission is
amending the definition of ``direct electronic access'' in final Sec.
49.17(b)(3) to mean an electronic system, platform, framework, or other
technology that provides internet-based or other form of access to
real-time SDR data that is acceptable to the Commission and also
provides scheduled data transfers to Commission electronic systems. The
amended definition expands the potential means by which an SDR may
provide direct electronic access to include ``other technology'' and
``other forms of access.'' \159\ The amendments are intended to provide
greater flexibility to SDRs and the Commission by making clear that the
Commission may accept other technology or other forms of access that
are not internet-based, as long as the access to SDR data is real-time
and provides for scheduled SDR data transfers to the Commission. The
Commission believes innovation and advances in technology may provide
alternative, more-efficient means for data transfer, and the amended
regulation is intended to facilitate the use of such technology by SDRs
and the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ 17 CFR 49.17(b)(3).
\158\ 17 CFR 49.17(c)(1).
\159\ Current Sec. 49.17(b)(3) defines direct electronic access
as an electronic system, platform or framework that provides
internet or Web-based access to real-time swap transaction data and
also provides scheduled data transfers to Commission electronic
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The revised definition of direct electronic access also adds a
condition that the technology or form of access be ``acceptable to the
Commission'' in order to clarify that any form of direct electronic
access, including any new technology, must be approved by the
Commission. As discussed below, the Commission anticipates working with
SDRs to determine acceptable forms of direct electronic access,
consistent with the Commission's current practice of coordinating and
collaborating with SDRs to facilitate transfers of, and real-time
access to, SDR data.
Finally, the amended definition of ``direct electronic access''
replaces the phrase ``real-time swap transaction data'' \160\ with
``real-time SDR data,'' to eliminate confusion and maintain consistency
with the use of the term ``SDR data'' in other amended provisions in
part 49.\161\ This non-substantive amendment is not intended to change
the existing requirements or current SDR practice for providing the
Commission with direct electronic access to SDR data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ 17 CFR 49.17(b)(3).
\161\ The Commission notes that the phrase ``real-time'' is
often used to reference swap transaction and pricing data that is
publicly reported pursuant to part 43. In this instance, the term
refers to direct electronic access requiring that SDR data be
available in real time to the entity granted direct electronic
access (i.e., the Commission or its designee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Amendments to Sec. 49.17(c)--Commission Access
The Commission is amending Sec. 49.17(c) to incorporate the
requirements of current Sec. 45.13(a),\162\ which relates to the
requirements for an SDR to maintain and transmit data to the
Commission, and to make additional clarifications in the regulation.
The Commission is also making non-substantive edits to final Sec.
49.17 to conform terms used in the section with the rest of the
Commission's regulations (e.g., replacing ``swap data and SDR
Information'' with ``SDR data and SDR Information''). The amendments
are intended to consolidate other related requirements into final Sec.
49.17(c) and to improve the regulation's clarity and
[[Page 75619]]
consistency with other Commission regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ While the amendments consolidate the requirements for
Commission access to SDR data, the Commission did not propose to
modify current Sec. 45.13(a) in the Proposal. See Proposal at
21060, n. 132. The Commission subsequently proposed amendments to
current Sec. 45.13(a) that are consistent with final Sec. 49.17(c)
in a separate notice of proposed rulemaking related to the Roadmap.
See 85 FR at 21633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.17(c) adds introductory text that requires an SDR to
provide the Commission with access to all SDR data maintained by the
SDR.\163\ Final Sec. 49.17(c)(1) retains the requirements of current
Sec. 49.17(c)(1) and adds a provision to incorporate the requirements
of current Sec. 45.13(a), with modifications.\164\ Specifically, final
Sec. 49.17(c)(1) requires an SDR to maintain all SDR data reported to
the SDR in a format acceptable to the Commission, and to transmit all
SDR data requested by the Commission to the Commission as instructed by
the Commission. Section 49.17(c)(1) also includes a new provision not
found in current Sec. 45.13(a), stating that the Commission's
instructions may include, but are not limited to, the method, timing,
and frequency of transmission, as well as the format and scope of the
SDR data to be transmitted. Final Sec. 49.17(c)(1) also revises the
requirement in existing Sec. 45.13(a) that an SDR maintain and
transmit ``swap data'' to ``SDR data,'' to make clear that an SDR must
maintain all SDR data reported to the SDR in a format acceptable to the
Commission and transmit all SDR data requested by the Commission.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ See 17 CFR 49.17(c)(1) (providing that a registered swap
data repository shall provide direct electronic access to the
Commission or the Commission's designee, including another
registered entity, in order for the Commission to carry out its
legal and statutory responsibilities under the Act and related
regulations).
\164\ Section 45.13(a) provides that an SDR shall maintain all
swap data reported to it in a format acceptable to the Commission,
and shall transmit all swap data requested by the Commission to the
Commission in an electronic file in a format acceptable to the
Commission.
\165\ The Commission believes this revision is consistent with
current SDR practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sec. 49.17(f)(2)--Technical Correction
The Commission is amending existing Sec. 49.17 to replace an
incorrect reference to ``Sec. 37.12(b)(7)'' at the end of paragraph
(f)(2) with the correct reference to ``Sec. 39.12(b)(7).'' \166\ The
Commission is also making non-substantive amendments to conform the
terminology in final Sec. 49.17(f)(2) with the terms listed in final
Sec. 49.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ There is no Sec. 37.12(b)(7) in the Commission's
regulations. See 17 CFR 37.12(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Delegation of Authority--Sec. 49.17(i)
The Commission is moving the delegation of authority provision in
existing Sec. 49.17(i) \167\ to final Sec. 49.31(a)(7). Existing
Sec. 49.17(i) delegates to the Director of DMO the authority reserved
to the Commission in existing Sec. 49.17. This includes the authority
to instruct an SDR on how to transmit SDR data to the Commission. As
discussed below, the Commission proposed to consolidate the delegation
of authority provisions in part 49 in final new Sec. 49.31. This
amendment is not a substantive change, as all functions delegated to
the Director of DMO under existing Sec. 49.17(i) will continue to be
delegated under final Sec. 49.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ 17 CFR 49.17(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Comments
The Commission requested comment on all aspects of proposed Sec.
49.17. The Commission also requested specific comment on a whether
there is a need to further clarify any of the requirements of proposed
Sec. 49.17 and whether there are any aspects of existing or proposed
Sec. 49.17 that would inhibit or prevent the development of new
technological approaches to SDR operations or the provision of SDR data
to the Commission.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ Proposal at 21061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission received one comment on the proposed rule. The
comment agreed with the Commission that flexibility as to future
technological advancements and innovations is an important
consideration in an SDR's provision of direct electronic access to the
Commission.\169\ This comment also, however, recommended a number of
textual revisions to proposed Sec. 49.17 that would condition or limit
the Commission's authority and discretion in making determinations
regarding an SDR's maintenance and transfer of data pursuant to the
regulation.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ DDR at 4.
\170\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the comment asserted that the amended definition of
direct electronic access in proposed Sec. 49.17(b)(3) is too broad
because the term ``SDR data'' includes data reported pursuant to part
46 of this chapter, and the Commission should not have a time-sensitive
need for such data.\171\ The comment also recommended revising the text
of the proposed definition to subject the Commission's determinations
regarding methods of transmission to a reasonableness standard and
require the Commission to work with SDRs in making such
determinations.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ Id. (stating the Commission should replace the term ``SDR
data'' which ``swap data and swap transaction and pricing
information'').
\172\ Id. (recommending the Commission replace the phrase ``that
is acceptable to the Commission'' with ``that has been agreed to by
the Commission, in its reasonable discretion, following consultation
with the SDR'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the comment recommended the Commission remove the
phrase ``in a format acceptable to the Commission'' from the second
sentence of proposed Sec. 49.17(c)(1), asserting that the phrase
deprives the SDRs of the flexibility and discretion needed with respect
to the storage and maintenance of data without a clear regulatory
purpose.\173\ Similarly, the comment recommended amending the text of
the second sentence of proposed Sec. 49.17(c)(1) to provide
``reasonable limitations'' on the Commission's discretion to instruct
an SDR on the transmission of SDR data to the Commission.'' \174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ Id.
\174\ DDR at 4 (stating that the Commission should add the
phrase ``as soon as practicable, given the nature of the
instructions and the SDR's circumstances'' at the end of the second
sentence of proposed Sec. 49.17(c)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Final Rule
The Commission has determined to adopt the amendments to 49.17 as
proposed.
With regard to the comment that the definition of direct electronic
access is too broad and provides the Commission with too much
discretion, the Commission believes the amendments to the definition
are appropriately tailored to help ensure that the Commission's direct
electronic access, and the data provided through this access, serves
the Commission needs to meet its regulatory obligations, and ensures
that an SDR does not change the means of direct electronic access in a
manner that impairs the Commission's regulatory functions. The
Commission intends to be flexible, when possible, in regards to the
methods and forms of direct electronic access an SDR may utilize,
especially in the context of technological advancement, and believes
that the definition ensures an appropriate level of discretion as to
whether a method of direct electronic access is acceptable.
The Commission believes final Sec. 49.17(b)(3) will not hinder or
prevent an SDR from incorporating new technology for collecting or
maintaining SDR data, as long as the SDR data is collected by the SDR
and provided to the Commission as required. The Commission does,
however, expect an SDR to provide SEFs, DCMs, and reporting
counterparties with commonly-used methods for reporting SDR data and to
not force SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties to unnecessarily
expend resources on technology upgrades by unreasonably limiting
available reporting methods. The Commission also expects SDRs to be
particularly accommodating of non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties
[[Page 75620]]
that may have limited resources to devote to technology changes.
Similarly, final Sec. 49.17(c)(1) is intended to provide clarity
and certainty to SDRs regarding their responsibilities and the
Commission's authority with respect to how an SDR maintains and
transmits data to the Commission.\175\ The Commission believes it is
critical that it has the ability to instruct SDRs regarding all aspects
of SDR data transfers to the Commission, including, but not necessarily
limited to, method of transmission (e.g., electronic or non-electronic
transmission and file types used for transmission), the timing of data
transmission, the frequency of data transmission, the formatting of the
data to be transmitted (e.g., data feeds or batch transmission), and
the actual SDR data to be transmitted. As noted above, innovation and
advances in technology may provide alternative and more efficient means
for data transfer, so this flexibility may facilitate the use of such
technology by SDRs and the Commission. Also, the format, frequency, and
related matters may well depend on the circumstances of a particular
context, so an inflexible rule would not be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ While these revisions may appear to broaden the scope of
the Commission's ability to define the terms of data transfer to the
Commission, existing Sec. 45.13 provides the Commission broad
discretion in instructing SDRs on how to send data to the Commission
to enable the Commission to perform its regulatory functions,
increase market transparency, and mitigate systemic risk. See Swap
Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 77 FR 2136, 2169 (Jan.
13, 2012) (requiring an SDR to maintain all swap data reported to it
in a format acceptable to the Commission, and to transmit all swap
data requested by the Commission to the Commission in an electronic
file in a format acceptable to the Commission); see also Part 49
Adopting Release at 54552 (stating that the Commission does not
believe that SDRs should have the discretion or ability to determine
the appropriate data sets that should be provided to the
Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the comments' suggested revisions, the Commission
believes the revisions would unduly constrain the Commission's
authority. The Commission notes that it currently works with SDRs to
facilitate data transfers and implement technology changes.\176\ The
Commission fully expects to continue to collaborate with SDRs to ensure
any Commission instructions or changes requested pursuant its authority
in Sec. 49.17(c)(1) are practical and reasonable, and provide SDRs
with the requisite time for implementation. To do otherwise would be
counterproductive and harmful to the Commission's ability to fulfill
its regulatory functions. The Commission believes the coordination and
collaboration between the Commission and SDRs is, and will be,
supported and enhanced by clarity regarding the Commission's authority
in this area. This, in turn, will encourage SDRs and the Commission to
work together to devise the most efficient and effective ways for data
transfer to the Commission, while ensuring that the Commission has the
data it needs to perform its regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ Current SDR practice also reflects the Commission's wide
discretion in instructing SDRs in how to send data to the
Commission, as the SDRs currently send large amounts of data to the
Commission on a regular basis in various formats, based on
instructions provided by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Sec. 49.18--Confidentiality Arrangement
The Commission proposed to amend existing Sec. 49.18 \177\ to move
the delegation of authority provision in Sec. 49.18(e) to proposed
Sec. 49.31(a)(8).\178\ Existing Sec. 49.18(e) delegates to the
Director of DMO all functions reserved to the Commission in Sec.
49.18, including the authority to specify the form of confidentiality
arrangements required prior to disclosure of swap data by an SDR to an
appropriate domestic or foreign regulator, and the authority to limit,
suspend, or revoke such appropriate domestic or foreign regulator's
access to swap data held by an SDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ 17 CFR 49.18.
\178\ Proposal at 84 FR 21061 (May 13, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This non-substantive amendment does not change the functions
delegated by the Commission and, as discussed further below, is
intended to enable the Commission to locate most delegations of
authority in proposed Sec. 49.31. The Commission did not receive any
comments on the proposed amendments to Sec. 49.18 and is adopting
amendments as proposed.
N. Sec. 49.20--Governance Arrangements (Core Principle 2)
The Commission proposed to amend Sec. 49.20 \179\ to conform the
regulation to the amended definitions and related numbering changes in
final Sec. 49.2. Specifically, final Sec. 49.20 amends the citations
to Sec. 49.2(a)(14) in Sec. 49.20(b)(2)(v) and to Sec. 49.2(a)(1) in
Sec. 49.20(c)(1)(ii)(B) to citations to Sec. 49.2(a). The proposed
amendments also conform the provisions of Sec. 49.20(b)(2)(vii) to
reflect the amendments in final Sec. 49.2 to the definitions of ``SDR
data,'' ``SDR information,'' ``registered swap data repository,'' and
``reporting entity.'' \180\ These non-substantive amendments to final
Sec. 49.20 do not affect the existing requirements of the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ 17 CFR 49.20.
\180\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed
amendments to Sec. 49.20 and is adopting the amendments as proposed.
O. Sec. 49.22--Chief Compliance Officer
Existing Sec. 49.22 sets forth an SDR's requirements with respect
to its chief compliance officer (``CCO'').\181\ The Commission proposed
to amend Sec. 49.22 to clarify an SDR's obligations, remove
unnecessary requirements, and make technical corrections and non-
substantive changes. The Commission received a number of comments on
the proposed amendments to Sec. 49.22, including on the proposed
amendments to existing Sec. 49.22(d)(2) with respect to a CCO's
obligation to resolve conflicts of interest.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ 17 CFR 49.22.
\182\ See, e.g., IATP at 9-10 (asserting that the proposed
amendments that limit a CCO's obligation to resolve conflicts are
not consistent with statutory requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined not to address the proposed
amendments in this final rulemaking, with the exception of a number of
technical changes to conform Sec. 49.22 to other regulations amended
in this final rulemaking.\183\ The Commission notes that a number of
the proposed amendments to Sec. 49.22, including provisions that were
the subject of public comment, mirror the Commission's proposed
amendments to the CCO requirements for SEFs under Sec. 37.1501,\184\
which have not been adopted to date. The Commission believes it may be
appropriate to address the proposed amendments to the CCO requirements
for SDRs and for SEFs concurrently, in order to maintain consistency in
the CCO requirements for different registered entities, to the extent
appropriate. The Commission may do so in a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ As discussed above, the conforming changes include the
removal of the reference in Sec. 49.22(f)(2) to the annual filing
of a Form SDR, which is not required under final Sec. 49.3(a)(5).
The Commission is also making a technical correction to final Sec.
49.22(f)(3) to correct a reference to nonexistent Sec.
49.22(e)(67). The correct reference is to existing Sec.
49.22(e)(6).
\184\ 17 CFR 37.1501. See Swap Execution Facilities and Trade
Execution Requirement, 83 FR 61946, 62032 (Nov. 30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. Sec. 49.24--System Safeguards
The Commission proposed to make non-substantive amendments Sec.
49.24 \185\ to provide additional detail as to the duties and
obligations of an SDR under the regulation and to make other conforming
technical changes.\186\
[[Page 75621]]
Existing Sec. 49.24(d) requires an SDR's BC-DR plans, resources, and
procedures to enable an SDR to resume operations and meet its
regulatory duties and obligations, and sets forth a non-exhaustive list
of those duties and obligations.\187\ The amendments to existing Sec.
49.24 expand the non-exhaustive list of duties and obligations of an
SDR under part 49 that are enumerated in final Sec. 49.24(d) to
include specific reference to Sec. Sec. 49.10 to 49.21, Sec. 49.23,
and Sec. Sec. 49.25 to 49.27. The Commission emphasizes that the part
49 provisions listed in the amended regulation are only references
intended for clarification, and the amendments to existing Sec.
49.24(d) do not change any requirements applicable to an SDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ 17 CFR 49.24.
\186\ Proposal at 21063.
\187\ 17 CFR 49.24(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also proposed to make technical amendments to Sec.
49.24(i), to remove a reference to Sec. 45.2. As described above, the
Commission is moving the SDR recordkeeping requirements contained in
current Sec. 45.2(f) and (g) to Sec. 49.12 for consistency and
clarity purposes. This proposed technical change would conform Sec.
49.24(i) to final Sec. Sec. 45.2 and 49.12, but would not change any
of the requirements applicable to SDRs.
The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed
amendments to Sec. 49.24 and is adopting the amendments as proposed.
Q. Sec. 49.25--Financial Resources
As discussed above, the Commission proposed conforming changes to
existing Sec. 49.25 \188\ to remove the reference to existing Sec.
49.9 and to core principle obligations identified in existing Sec.
49.19.\189\ Proposed Sec. 49.25(a) would instead refer to SDR
obligations under ``this chapter,'' to be broadly interpreted as any
regulatory or statutory obligation specified in part 49 of the
Commission's regulations. These technical amendments do not impact any
existing obligations of SDRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ 17 CFR 49.25.
\189\ Proposal at 21063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also proposed to amend existing Sec. 49.25(f)(3) to
change the deadlines for an SDR to submit the financial resources
report under Sec. 49.25.\190\ Existing Sec. 49.25(f)(3) requires an
SDR to submit the report no later than 17 business days after the end
of the SDR's fiscal quarter, or a later time that the Commission
permits upon request. The proposed amendment to existing Sec.
49.25(f)(3) provides that an SDR must submit its quarterly financial
resources report to the Commission not later than 40 calendar days
after the end of the SDR's first three fiscal quarters, and not later
than 90 calendar days after the end of the SDR's fourth fiscal quarter,
or such later time as the Commission may permit in its discretion. The
Commission requested comment on all aspects of proposed Sec. 49.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One comment supported the extension of the deadline for filings
financial reports under Sec. 49.25, stating that the amendment reduces
burdens on SDRs without material detriment to the CFTC's
oversight.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ DDR at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined to adopt the proposed amendments to
Sec. 49.25, except for the proposed amendments to 49.25(f)(3),which
would align the deadline for an SDR's fourth quarter financial
resources report with the deadline for an SDR to submit its annual CCO
report under proposed Sec. 49.22(f)(2). As discussed above, the
Commission has determined not to address the proposed changes to the
filing deadline for the annual compliance report under Sec.
49.22(f)(2) in this final rulemaking, and accordingly, the Commission
is not adopting the related proposed amendment to Sec. 49.25(f)(3).
R. Sec. 49.26--Disclosure Requirements of Swap Data Repositories
Section 49.26 requires an SDR to furnish SEFs, DCMs, and reporting
counterparties with an SDR disclosure document that sets forth the
risks and costs associated with using the services of the SDR, and
contains the information specified in Sec. 49.26(a) through (i).\192\
The Commission proposed to add a new Sec. 49.26(j) providing that an
SDR disclosure document must set forth the SDR's policies and
procedures regarding the reporting of SDR data to the SDR, including
the SDR's data validation procedures, swap data verification
procedures, and procedures for correcting SDR data errors.\193\ The
Commission also proposed to amend existing Sec. 49.26 to conform terms
in the regulation to proposed Sec. 49.2.\194\ The Commission has
determined to adopt the amendments to Sec. 49.26 as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ 17 CFR 49.26.
\193\ Proposal at 21063-64.
\194\ Id. at 21063. Specifically, the proposed amendments to the
introductory paragraph of Sec. 49.26 reflect updates to the terms
``SDR data,'' ``registered swap data repository,'' and ``reporting
entity.'' These non-substantive amendments do not change the current
requirements of Sec. 49.26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The addition of final Sec. 49.26(j) is intended to provide
information about an SDR's operations to market participants in order
to assist them in making decisions regarding which SDR to use for swaps
reporting.\195\ Moreover, requiring an SDR to disclose its data
reporting policies and procedures, data validation procedures, swap
data verification procedures, and SDR data correction procedures should
reduce the number of data errors and improve data quality by providing
SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties with the information needed to
properly design their reporting systems before any reporting
occurs.\196\ The Commission notes that the disclosure requirements in
Sec. 49.26(j) apply for all SDR data required to be reported, as
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ See id.
\196\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission requested comment on all aspects of proposed Sec.
49.26. The Commission also invited specific comment on whether the
Commission should require an SDR to disclose any other information
under Sec. 49.26.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Id. at 21064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two comments supported the proposed disclosure requirements under
Sec. 49.26(j).\198\ One of these comments also suggested requiring an
SDR to disclose any revisions to the policies specified in proposed
49.26(j) at a reasonable time before implementation.\199\ Similarly,
the other comment suggested that an SDR should be required to provide
any revisions to such policies and procedures promptly to a reporting
counterparty.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ ISDA/SIFMA at 43; CS at 3.
\199\ ISDA/SIFMA at 43.
\200\ CS at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined to adopt the amendments to Sec.
49.26(j) as proposed. With regard to the suggestions in the comments,
the Commission notes that the requirement to make the specified
disclosures in Sec. 49.26 is an ongoing requirement that applies to an
SDR ``[b]efore accepting any swap data from [the relevant party] . . .
'' Accordingly, the Commission believes Sec. 49.26(j), as proposed and
adopted, requires an SDR to update the required disclosures if the SDR
revises the policies or procedures specified in Sec. 49.26(j).
Moreover, under part 40, an SDR would be required to file with the
Commission revisions to the policies and procedures required to be
disclosed Sec. 49.26(j).\201\ Under part 40, such filings are
generally required to be made publicly available.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ See 17 CFR 40.6(a).
\202\ See, e.g., 17 CFR 40.6(a)(2) (requiring a registered
entity that self-certifies a rule or rule amendment under Sec. 40.6
to post a notice of pending certification with the Commission and a
copy of the submission, concurrent with the filing of a submission
with the Commission, on the registered entity's website); See also
17 CFR 40.8(c) (providing that a registered entity's filing of new
rules and rule amendments for Commission review and approval or
pursuant to the self-certification procedures in part 40 shall be
treated as public information unless accompanied by a request for
confidential treatment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75622]]
S. Sec. 49.28--Operating Hours of Swap Data Repositories
The Commission proposed to add a new Sec. 49.28 to address an
SDR's obligations with respect to its hours of operation, which are
currently set forth in existing Sec. 43.3(f) and (g).\203\ The
Commission proposed to (i) move the provisions in existing Sec.
43.3(f) and (g) to proposed Sec. 49.28 and (ii) amend the provisions
so that the operating hours requirements also apply with respect to an
SDR's responsibilities under parts 45, 46, and 49.\204\ The amendments
to these requirements reflect the Commission's belief that SDRs should
operate as continuously as possible while still being afforded the
opportunity to perform necessary testing, maintenance, and upgrades of
their systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ Proposal at 21064. The Commission believes that is
beneficial to SDRs and market participants to move all SDR operating
hours requirements to part 49 from part 43.
\204\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined to adopt Sec. 49.28 as proposed. The
Commission continues to believe that the continuous operation of SDRs
is critical to the proper functioning of the swaps market and the SDR
data reporting process. Moreover, the need for continuous operation of
SDRs is not limited to the receipt and dissemination of swap
transaction and pricing data pursuant to part 43. Rather, an SDR must
be able to continuously perform all of its responsibilities under the
Commission's regulations. To this end, proposed and final Sec. 49.28
expands the obligations of an SDR to continuously accept, promptly
record, and publicly disseminate all SDR data reported to the SDR.
While the Commission strongly encourages SDRs to adopt redundant
systems to allow public reporting during closing hours, final Sec.
49.28 continues to allow SDRs to schedule downtime to perform system
maintenance. However, the Commission continues to believe that
disruptions to the data reporting process due to closing hours should
be as limited as possible, with advance notice of, or, if not possible,
notice promptly after, closing.
The need for continuous operations of SDRs also mandates that SDRs
minimize and mitigate disruptions caused by necessary downtime or
unexpected disruptions, to the extent reasonably possible. Therefore,
final Sec. 49.28 requires an SDR to have the capacity to receive and
hold in queue data reported to it, and to process and disseminate that
data following a resumption in its operations. The Commission
emphasizes that it expects SDRs to be able to accept and hold in queue
SDR data that is reported during closing hours. The inability to accept
and hold in queue SDR data should be a rare occurrence that results
from unanticipated emergency situations, and the provisions in final
Sec. 49.28(c)(2) are intended as a last resort to prevent data loss.
As discussed below, the requirements of final Sec. 49.28 also
include many of the requirements of the SEC's operating hours
regulations governing SBSDRs in order to increase consistency between
the regulations for SDRs and SBSDRs.\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ The SEC's operating hours regulations are contained in 17
CFR 242.904. While current Sec. 43.3(f) allows SDRs to schedule
closing hours while avoiding the times that, in an SDR's estimation,
U.S. markets and major foreign markets are most active, and requires
the SDRs to provide advance notice of closing hours to market
participants and the public, current Sec. 43.3(f) does not make a
distinction between regular closing hours and special closing hours.
The distinction is present, however, in operating hours requirements
for SBSDRs, and final Sec. 49.28(a)(1) and (2) largely adopts the
SBSDR requirements. These requirements make clear that an SDR may
establish both normal and special closing hours and allow an SDR
that also registers with the SEC as an SBSDR to effectively follow
the same operating hours requirements for both requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. General Requirements--Sec. 49.28(a)
Existing Sec. 43.3(f) requires an SDR to have systems in place to
continuously receive and publicly disseminate swap transaction and
pricing data in real-time. Existing Sec. 43.3(f) allows an SDR to
declare closing hours to perform system maintenance, while requiring
that the SDR must, to the extent reasonably possible, avoid scheduling
closing hours when, in its estimation, the U.S. market and major
foreign markets are most active.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ 17 CFR 43.3(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These provisions were adopted based on the Commission's belief that
the global nature of the swaps market necessitates that SDRs be able to
publicly disseminate swap transaction and pricing data at all times and
that SDRs should generally be fully operational 24 hours a day, seven
days a week.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ See Real-Time Public Reporting of Swap Transaction Data,
77 FR 1182, 1204 (Jan. 9, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed and final Sec. 49.28(a) require an SDR to have systems in
place to continuously accept and promptly record all SDR data reported
to the SDR, and publicly disseminate swap transaction and pricing data
reported to the SDR as required under part 43.
Final Sec. 49.28(a)(1) allows an SDR to establish normal closing
hours to perform system maintenance during periods when, in the SDR's
reasonable estimation, the SDR typically receives the least amount of
SDR data.\208\ Under final Sec. 49.28(a)(1), an SDR must provide
reasonable advance notice of its normal closing hours to market
participants and to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ This reflects a minor change from the existing
requirements of Sec. 43.3(f)(2), which provides that an SDR shall,
to the extent reasonably possible, avoid scheduling closing hours
when, in its estimation, the U.S. market and major foreign markets
are most active. The Commission believes that final Sec.
49.28(a)(1) provides a better measure of when an SDR should schedule
closing hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.28(a)(2) allows an SDR to declare, on an ad hoc
basis, special closing hours to perform system maintenance that cannot
wait until normal closing hours. Similar to final Sec. 49.28(a)(1),
final Sec. 49.28(a)(2) requires an SDR to schedule special closing
hours during periods when, in the SDR's reasonable estimation, the
special closing hours would, to the extent possible given the
circumstances prompting the special closing hours, be least disruptive
to the SDR satisfying its SDR data-related responsibilities. Final
Sec. 49.28(a)(2) also requires an SDR to provide reasonable advance
notice of the special closing hours to market participants and the
public whenever possible, and, if advance notice is not reasonably
possible, to notify market participants and the public as soon as is
reasonably possible after declaring special closing hours.
2. Part 40 Requirement for Closing Hours--Sec. 49.28(b)
Proposed and final Sec. 49.28(b) require an SDR to comply with the
requirements under part 40 of the Commission's regulations when
adopting or amending normal closing hours and special closing
hours.\209\ This requirement is already applicable to SDRs pursuant to
current Sec. 43.3(f)(3).\210\ The Commission anticipates that, due to
the unexpected and emergency nature of special closing hours, rule
filings related to special closing hours will likely qualify for the
emergency rule certification provisions of Sec. 40.6(a)(6).\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ The establishment or change to closing hours constitutes a
``rule'' for the purposes of part 40 requirements. See 17 CFR 40.1,
et seq.
\210\ See 17 CFR 43.3(f)(3) (providing that a registered swap
data repository must comply with the requirements under 17 CFR part
40 in setting closing hours and must provide advance notice of its
closing hours to market participants and the public).
\211\ See 17 CFR 40.6(a)(6) (setting forth the requirements for
implementing rules or rule amendments in response to an emergency,
as defined under 17 CFR 40.1(h)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75623]]
3. Acceptance of SDR Data During Closing Hours--Sec. 49.28(c)
Existing Sec. 43.3(g) addresses an SDR's obligations regarding
swap transaction and pricing data sent to the SDR for publicly
reportable swap transactions during closing hours. The Commission is
moving existing Sec. 43.3(g) to final Sec. 49.28(c), and expanding
the existing requirements for swap transaction and pricing data in
current Sec. 43.3(g) \212\ to all SDR data. Proposed and final Sec.
49.28(c) require an SDR to have the capability to accept and hold in
queue any and all SDR data reported to the SDR during normal closing
hours and special closing hours. Final Sec. 49.28(c) is intended to
prevent the loss of any SDR data that is reported to an SDR during
closing hours and to facilitate the SDR's prompt fulfillment of its
data reporting responsibilities, including public dissemination of swap
transaction and pricing data, as applicable, once the SDR reopens from
closing hours. The requirements in Sec. 49.28(c) mirror the
requirements for an SBSDR to receive and hold in queue information
regarding security-based swaps.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ See 17 CFR 43.3(g) (providing that during closing hours, a
registered swap data repository must have the capability to receive
and hold in queue any data regarding publicly reportable swap
transactions pursuant to part 43).
\213\ See 17 CFR 242.904(c) (providing that during normal
closing hours, and to the extent reasonably practicable during
special closing hours, a registered security-based swap data
repository must have the capability to receive and hold in queue
information regarding security-based swaps that has been reported
pursuant to Sec. Sec. 242.900 through 242.909).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.28(c)(1) requires an SDR, on reopening from normal
or special closing hours, to promptly process all SDR data received
during the closing hours and, pursuant to part 43, publicly disseminate
swap transaction and pricing data reported to the SDR that was held in
queue during the closing hours. Final Sec. 49.28(c)(1) expands the
existing requirements for an SDR to disseminate swap transaction and
pricing data pursuant to Sec. 43.3(g)(1) \214\ to also include the
prompt processing of all other SDR data received and held in queue
during closing hours.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ See 17 CFR 43.3(g)(1) (providing that upon reopening after
closing hours, a registered swap data repository must promptly and
publicly disseminate the swap transaction and pricing data of swaps
held in queue, in accordance with the requirements of part 43).
\215\ These requirements mirror the SBSDR requirements for
disseminating transaction reports after reopening following closing
hours. See 17 CFR 242.904(d) (providing that when a registered
security-based swap data repository re-opens following normal
closing hours or special closing hours, it must disseminate
transaction reports of security-based swaps held in queue, in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 242.902).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.28(c)(2) expands existing requirements for swap
transaction and pricing data that an SDR cannot receive and hold in
queue during closing hours in existing Sec. 43.3(g)(2) to all SDR data
and also mirrors the requirements for an SBSDR that cannot receive and
hold in queue information regarding security-based swaps during closing
hours.\216\ Final Sec. 49.28(c)(2) requires an SDR to immediately
issue a notice to all SEFs, DCMs, reporting counterparties, and the
public in the event that an SDR is unable to receive or hold in queue
any SDR data reported during normal closing hours or special closing
hours. Final Sec. 49.28(c)(2) also requires an SDR to issue a notice
to all SEFs, DCMs, reporting counterparties, and the public that the
SDR has resumed normal operations immediately on reopening.\217\
Lastly, final Sec. 49.28(c)(2) requires a SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty that was not able to report SDR data to an SDR because of
the SDR's inability to receive and hold in queue any SDR data to
immediately report the SDR data to the SDR after the SDR provides
notice that it has resumed normal operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ See 17 CFR 242.904(e) (providing that if a registered
security-based swap data repository could not receive and hold in
queue transaction information that was required to be reported
pursuant to Sec. Sec. 242.900 through 242.909, it must immediately
upon re-opening send a message to all participants that it has
resumed normal operations. Thereafter, any participant that had an
obligation to report information to the registered security-based
swap data repository pursuant to Sec. Sec. 242.900 through 242.909,
but could not do so because of the registered security-based swap
data repository's inability to receive and hold in queue data, must
promptly report the information to the registered security-based
swap data repository.).
\217\ Consistent with the current requirements under part 43, an
SDR may issue such notices to its participants and the public by
publicizing the notices that the SDR is unable to receive and hold
in queue any SDR data and that the SDR has resumed normal operations
in a conspicuous place on the SDR's website. See 77 FR at 1205, n.
208 (Jan. 9, 2012) (allowing SDRs to provide reasonable advance
notice of its closing hours to participants and the public by
providing notices directly to its participants or publicizing its
closing hours in a conspicuous place on its website).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though final Sec. 49.28 expands the existing requirements of Sec.
43.3(f) and (g) to apply to all SDR data, the Commission believes the
regulation will not lead to significant changes in the operations of an
SDR. The Commission understands that, under current practice, SDRs
routinely receive and hold in queue all SDR data submitted during
declared SDR closing hours, regardless of whether that data is being
submitted pursuant to part 43. Additionally, because the requirements
of final Sec. 49.28 largely mirror the requirements for an SBSDR to
receive and hold in queue information regarding security-based swaps,
final Sec. 49.28 will not impose additional requirements on an SDR
that is also registered as an SBSDR. Therefore, the Commission believes
that expanding the operating hours requirements to all SDR data would
have little practical impact on current SDR operations.
The Commission requested comment on all aspects of proposed Sec.
49.28. The Commission also invited specific comment on whether proposed
Sec. 49.28 provides SDRs sufficient flexibility to conduct necessary
maintenance on their systems while facilitating the availability of SDR
data for the Commission and the public.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ Proposal at 21065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One comment stated that business flow considerations should be
taken into account in addition to sufficient flexibility for SDRs when
considering operating hours. The comment suggested that proposed Sec.
49.28(a)(1) be revised to employ the phrase ``based on historical
volume'' in place of ``in the reasonable estimation of the [SDR]'' to
describe the basis on which an SDR may determine when it typically
receives the least amount of SDR data.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ ISDA/SIFMA at 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another comment supported the proposed requirements in Sec.
49.28(a)(2) for normal closing hours and special closing hours.\220\
This comment, however, also opposed the requirement in proposed Sec.
49.28(b) that the adoption or amendment of special closing hours be
subject to part 40 filing requirements. The comment asserted that ``for
the foreseeable future SDRs may need to frequently make use of special
closing hours to accommodate changes to their systems'' and that
requiring an SDR to comply with part 40 in each such instance would
``impose an administrative burden that does not provide a corresponding
benefit to impacted parties.'' \221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ DDR at 6 (stating that these requirements ``recognize the
importance of system maintenance to the safe operation of an SDR's
systems'').
\221\ Id. (recommending that, instead of a making a submission
under part 40, an SDR should be required to notify the Commission
along with market participants when declaring special closing
hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment also opposed the requirement in proposed Sec.
49.28(c)(2) that an SDR provide notice of its resumption of normal
activities following a period of time during which it was unable to
receive and hold in queue any SDR data. The comment asserted such
notice is unnecessary when the downtime was planned and
[[Page 75624]]
previously communicated to the SDR's members and the public.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ Id. (stating that in these situations, the impacted
parties would be prepared for the resumption of normal operations
and, therefore, a notification to that effect is unnecessary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the business flow considerations comment, the
Commission believes an SDR is best situated to make a judgement
regarding when it receives the least amount of SDR data. The Commission
agrees that historical volume is one factor SDRs may consider, but
other considerations may factor into an SDR's determination, so long as
the estimation is reasonable.
With regard to the comment on proposed Sec. 49.28(b), the
Commission notes that the regulation, as adopted, does not impose
requirements beyond what is already required under part 40. The
Commission also notes that special closing hours are intended for
unforeseeable, emergency situations, not planned system updates and
maintenance, as described in the comment. For planned system updates or
maintenance, under the normal closing hours provisions, an SDR could
use a single part 40 filing for all planned updates or maintenance, to
the extent that the SDR knows the schedule for such activities. The
Commission would expect SDRs to plan anticipated system updates or
maintenance, and the related closing hours determinations, well ahead
of time and for SDRs to follow the normal closing hours requirements,
and their reasonable discretion on timing of such closing hours, when
performing the system updates or maintenance.
With regard to the comment on proposed Sec. 49.28(c)(2), the
Commission believes that in circumstances where an SDR is unable to
receive and hold in queue SDR data, keeping impacted parties informed
and updated as to changes to the SDR's operations is critical to
limiting potential negative impacts caused by the disruption. The
Commission expects that instances where an SDR is unable to receive and
hold in queue SDR will be the result of emergency situations that
prompt special closing hours, as opposed to planned and scheduled SDR
system outages. Such situations do not easily allow for accurate
planning or estimation of when the SDR will resume normal operations.
Further, even for planned outages, the scheduled outage may not finish
on schedule, for myriad reasons, and it would be extremely disruptive
for market participants to begin reporting SDR data to an SDR based on
an outdated estimate of when the SDR would resume normal operations.
Accordingly, the Commission believes an SDR should be required to
inform market participants and the public that it has resumed
operations following a period during which it was unable to receive and
hold SDR data, regardless of whether the inability to receive and hold
SDR was planned and announced ahead of time.
T. Sec. 49.29--Information Relating to Swap Data Repository Compliance
The Commission proposed to add a new Sec. 49.29 to require an SDR
to provide, upon the Commission's request, information necessary for
the Commission to perform its duties or to demonstrate the SDR's
compliance with its obligations under the Act and Commission
regulations.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ Proposal at 21065-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 49.29(a) would require an SDR, upon request by the
Commission, to file with the Commission information related to its
business as an SDR and information the Commission determines to be
necessary or appropriate for the Commission to perform its duties under
the Act and Commission regulations thereunder. The SDR must provide the
requested information in the form and manner and within the time
specified by the Commission in its request.
Proposed Sec. 49.29(b) would require an SDR, upon request by the
Commission, to file with the Commission a written demonstration,
containing supporting data, information, and documents, that it is in
compliance with its obligations under the Act and the Commission's
regulations. SDRs must provide the written demonstration in the form
and manner and within the time specified by the Commission in its
request. The Commission notes that the requests may include, but are
not limited to, demonstrating compliance with the core principles
applicable to SDRs under CEA section 21(f) and with any or all
requirements in part 49 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission requested comment on all aspects of proposed Sec.
49.29 and received one comment in response. The comment generally
supported proposed Sec. 49.29,\224\ but also recommended that the
Commission revise Sec. 49.29(a) and 49.29(b) to include the phrase
``as soon as practicable, given the nature of the request and the SDR's
circumstances'' in order to recognize that SDRs will need a reasonable
amount of time to comply with a request, and to encourage collaboration
with the SDR in determining the appropriate form, manner and timing
associated with the request.\225\ The comment also asserted that the
proposed language of Sec. 49.29 is vague and lacking detail, which
would hinder an SDR in determining what is required to comply with the
proposed regulation.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ DDR at 6 (``DDR supports the Commission's inclusion of a
requirement to provide information on an as needed basis in place of
a requirement for SDRs to file an annual Form SDR update in proposed
section 49.29.).''
\225\ DDR at 6-7.
\226\ DDR at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined to adopt final Sec. 49.29 as
proposed. The Commission believes that Sec. 49.29, as proposed and
adopted, provides the Commission with the necessary flexibility to
obtain information and documentation to determine whether an SDR is
complying with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and to
ensure that the Commission is able to fulfill its responsibilities in
the oversight of SDRs. The Commission notes that requests under Sec.
49.29 may be made for any Commission oversight purpose. For example,
the Commission may request that an SDR provide information relating to
its operations or its practices in connection with its compliance with
particular regulatory duties and core principles, other conditions of
its registration, or in connection with the Commission's general
oversight responsibilities under the Act. Final Sec. 49.29 is also
based on similar existing Commission requirements applicable to SEFs
and DCMs, which have successfully assisted the Commission in obtaining
needed information from these registered entities for many years
without difficulty.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ See 17 CFR 37.5 and 38.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also notes that, as discussed above, final Sec.
49.29 facilitates the removal of the requirement in Sec. 49.3(a)(5)
that an SDR file an annual amendment to Form SDR, by allowing the
Commission to request the relevant information as needed without
requiring an SDR to file a full Form SDR update.
The Commission believes the comment's proposed revisions would
unduly constrain the Commission's ability to obtain needed information
in a timely manner and inappropriately restrict the Commission in
fulfilling its oversight responsibilities. However, the Commission
emphasizes that it intends to coordinate and collaborate with SDRs in
formulating information requests pursuant to Sec. 49.29 in order to
ensure that such requests are reasonable, based on the facts and
circumstances, as is the current practice between the Commission and
the SDRs.
[[Page 75625]]
U. Sec. 49.30--Form and Manner of Reporting and Submitting Information
to the Commission
The Commission proposed to add a new Sec. 49.30 to place in one
location the requirements governing the form and manner in which an SDR
must provide information to the Commission.\228\ Final Sec. 49.30, as
adopted in this final rulemaking, requires SDRs to provide reports and
other information to the Commission in ``the form and manner''
requested or directed by the Commission. Other regulations within part
49, such as final Sec. 49.29, require an SDR to provide reports and
certain other information to the Commission in the ``form and manner''
requested or directed by the Commission. The Commission has determined
to adopt Sec. 49.30 as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ Proposal at 21066.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.30 sets forth the broad parameters of the ``form and
manner'' requirement. Under final Sec. 49.30, unless otherwise
instructed by the Commission, an SDR must submit SDR data reports and
any other information required to be provided to the Commission under
part 49 within the time specified, using the format, coding structure,
and electronic data transmission procedures approved in writing by the
Commission.
The Commission requested comment on all aspects of proposed Sec.
49.30. The Commission also invited specific comment on (i) whether the
Commission should provide a single format or coding structure for each
SDR to deliver reports and other information in a consistent manner;
(ii) whether existing standards and formats are sufficient for
providing the Commission with requested information; and (iii) whether
the Commission should require specific electronic data transmission
methods and/or protocols for SDRs to disseminate reports and other
information to the Commission.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\229\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One comment supported mandating messaging formats for transmission
from an SDR to the Commission, but emphasized the Commission should not
mandate the format for reporting from a reporting counterparty to an
SDR.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ ISDA/SIFMA at 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another comment recommended that the Commission revise the text of
proposed Sec. 49.30 to include the phrase ``as soon as practicable,
given the nature of the request and the SDR's circumstances'' after
``[u]nless otherwise instructed by the Commission.'' \231\ The comment
asserted that the suggested revision recognizes an SDR will need a
reasonable amount of time to implement technical changes necessary to
comply with the request and will encourage collaboration between an SDR
and Commission in determining the appropriate form, manner and timing
associated with the request.\232\ Similar to the comment on Sec.
49.29, noted above, the comment also asserted that the proposed
language of Sec. 49.30 is vague and lacking detail as to data
transmission requirements, which may be determined by the Commission at
a later time.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ DDR at 7.
\232\ Id.
\233\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined to adopt Sec. 49.30 as proposed. The
Commission notes that final Sec. 49.30 does not expand the existing
substantive SDR informational requirements of part 49. Rather, the
regulation authorizes the Commission to specify how information
reported to an SDR under other requirements of part 49 should be
formatted and delivered to the Commission.
Under final Sec. 49.30, the format, coding structure, and
electronic data transmission procedures an SDR uses for reports and
submissions to the Commission pursuant to part 49 must be approved in
writing by the Commission. These written specifications could include
specifications similar to the ``guidebooks'' and other technical
specifications currently published on the Commission's website.\234\
Specifications may also be more limited in their application,
potentially involving more specific or tailored requirements applicable
to a report or information required by the Commission from a particular
SDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ The Commission's current published ``guidebooks'' include
those published for reporting required by parts 15, 16, 17, 18, and
20 of the Commission's regulations relating to ownership and control
reports, large trader reports, and data reporting. These guidebooks
are available on the Commission's website at https://www.cftc.gov/Forms/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes the comment's proposed revision may unduly
constrain the Commission's ability to adjust the process by which it
obtains information. However, the Commission emphasizes that it intends
to continue to coordinate and collaborate with SDRs in formulating
information requests and specifications pursuant to Sec. 49.30 in
order to ensure that such requests are reasonable, based on the facts
and circumstances, as is the current practice for the Commission and
the SDRs.
V. Sec. 49.31--Delegation of Authority to the Director of the Division
of Market Oversight Relating to Certain Part 49 Matters
The Commission proposed to add new Sec. 49.31 to set forth and
consolidate delegations of authority for part 49 of the Commission's
regulations.\235\ A number of current and proposed provisions in part
49 require an SDR to perform various functions at the Commission's
request or to provide information as prescribed or instructed by the
Commission. The Commission proposed to adopt new Sec. 49.31 by which
the Commission would delegate its authority under most these of the
part 49 provisions to the Director of DMO. The new delegations are
intended to enhance the Commission's ability to respond to changes in
the swaps market and technological developments, to quickly and
efficiently access information and data from SDRs to meet the
Commission's oversight obligations, and to more efficiently perform the
Commission's regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ Proposal at 21066-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, the Commission proposed to delegate its
authority under the current and proposed part 49 regulations, as set
forth below, to the Director of DMO, and to such members of the
Commission's staff acting under his or her direction as he or she may
see fit from time to time.
The Commission did not receive any comments on proposed Sec.
49.31. The Commission continues to believe the proposed addition of
Sec. 49.31 and the proposed new delegations thereunder will improve
the Commission's ability to respond to developments in the swaps
market, to access information and data from SDRs, and to fulfill the
Commission's oversight obligations. Accordingly, the Commission is
adopting Sec. 49.31 as proposed.
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(1) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's authority to request documentation related to an SDR
equity interest transfer pursuant to Sec. 49.5.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ See section II.C above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(2) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's authority to instruct an SDR on transmitting open swaps
reports to the Commission pursuant to Sec. 49.9.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ See section II.E above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(3) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's authority under Sec. 49.10 to modify an SDR's required
acceptance of all SDR data in a particular asset class for which the
SDR accepts data.
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(4) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's
[[Page 75626]]
authority under Sec. 49.12 to request records from an SDR.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ See section II.H above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(5) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's authority under Sec. 49.13 to require an SDR to monitor,
screen, and analyze SDR data.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ See section II.I above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(6) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's authority under Sec. 49.16 to request that an SDR
disclose aggregated SDR data in the form and manner prescribed by the
Commission.
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(7) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's authority with respect to all functions reserved to the
Commission under Sec. 49.17.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ This includes the authority to: prescribe the form of
direct electronic access that an SDR must make available to the
Commission; prescribe the format by which an SDR must maintain SDR
data; request an SDR transmit SDR data to the Commission; and
instruct an SDR on the transmission of SDR data to the Commission.
See section II.L above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(8) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's authority under Sec. 49.18 to permit an SDR to accept
alternative forms of confidentiality arrangements and the ability to
direct an SDR to limit, suspend, or revoke access to swap data.\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ See section II.M above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(9) delegates to the Director of DMO the
authority under Sec. 49.22 to grant an SDR an extension to the annual
compliance report filing deadline.
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(10) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's authority under Sec. 49.23 to require an SDR to exercise
emergency authority and to request the documentation underlying an
SDR's decision to exercise its emergency authority.
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(11) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's authority under Sec. 49.24 to determine an SDR to be a
``critical SDR'' and to request copies of BC-DR books and records,
assessments, test results, plans, and reports.
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(12) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's authority under Sec. 49.25, including the authority under
Sec. 49.25(b)(2) to deem other financial resources as acceptable; the
authority under Sec. 49.25(c) to review and require changes to an
SDR's computations of projected operating costs; the authority under
Sec. 49.25(f)(1) to request reports of financial resources; and the
authority under Sec. 49.25(f)(3) to extend the deadline by which an
SDR must file a quarterly financial report.
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(13) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's authority under Sec. 49.29 to request information from an
SDR, and to require an SDR to provide a written demonstration of its
compliance with the Act and Commission regulations, including the
authority to specify the form, manner and time for the an SDR's
provision of such information or written demonstration.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ See section II.T above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.31(a)(14) delegates to the Director of DMO the
Commission's authority under Sec. 49.30 to establish the format,
coding structure, and electronic data transmission procedures for the
submission of SDR data reports and any other information required by
the Commission under part 49.\243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ See section II.U above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Amendments to Part 45
A. Sec. 45.1--Definitions
The Commission is adding a definition for the term ``open swap'' to
final Sec. 45.1 that will define the term as an executed swap
transaction that has not reached maturity or expiration, and has not
been fully exercised, closed out, or terminated. The definition is
identical to the definition for ``open swap'' added to final Sec. 49.2
and is intended to create consistency between defined terms in parts 45
and 49 of the Commission's regulations. The term ``open swap'' is used
is both final part 45 and part 49, particularly in regards to the
requirements related to swap data verification, and consistency in the
use of the term across both parts is crucial to ensure swap data
verification functions properly. See section II.A.3 above for a more
robust discussion of the definition of ``open swap.''
B. Sec. 45.2--Swap Recordkeeping
As discussed above in Section II.H, as part of the amendments to
Sec. 49.12, the Commission proposed to consolidate the SDR
recordkeeping requirements set forth in current Sec. 45.2(f) and (g)
into Sec. 49.12. As discussed above, the Commission has determined to
adopt the consolidation of Sec. 45.2(f) and (g) into Sec. 49.12, as
proposed.
C. Sec. 45.14--Correcting Errors in Swap Data and Verification of Swap
Data Accuracy
1. Background and Summary of the Final Rule
Pursuant to CEA section 2(a)(13)(G), all swaps must be reported to
an SDR.\244\ The requirements for reporting swaps to an SDR, including
requirements regarding swap data, are set forth in part 45 of the
Commission's regulations.\245\ If the information for a specific data
element that is required to be reported is incorrect, or swap data was
not reported as required, the SEF, DCM, DCO, or reporting counterparty
that was required to report has not satisfied its obligations under the
Act and the Commission's regulations. There is no expiration for the
requirement in the CEA and the Commission's regulations to report
swaps, and therefore, the requirement to report swap data remains in
effect until satisfied. Accordingly, if swap data is not completely and
accurately reported, the obligation to report the swap data remains in
effect. The Commission also interprets the statutory requirement to
report swaps to include a requirement to ensure that the reporting was
performed completely and accurately. Further, as discussed in section
II.G above, CEA section 21(c)(2) requires SDRs to confirm the accuracy
of swap data with both counterparties. The Commission interprets this
provision to require each counterparty to participate in ensuring the
completeness and accuracy of swap data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\244\ 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(13)(g).
\245\ See generally 17 CFR part 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, in order to ensure the high quality of swap data, the
Commission is adopting the proposed rules, with modifications, to
require counterparties to take steps to ensure the accuracy and
completeness of swap data reported to SDRs. In response to comments,
the Commission is modifying final Sec. 45.14 to make the error-
correction and verification processes less burdensome and more flexible
than the processes set forth in proposed Sec. 45.14. To this end,
final Sec. 45.14(a)(1), as does current Sec. 45.14, requires each
SEF, DCM, and reporting counterparty to correct errors \246\ relating
to swap data that it was required to report under part 45. Further,
final Sec. 45.14(b) requires reporting counterparties to verify the
accuracy and completeness of the swap data for their open swaps. Final
Sec. 45.14(a)(2) requires each non-reporting
[[Page 75627]]
counterparty to notify the reporting counterparty if it discovers an
error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ The Commission notes that current Sec. 45.14 and proposed
Sec. 45.14 both use the phrases ``errors and omissions'' and
``errors or omissions'' in the correction requirements. See
generally 17 CFR 45.14 and Proposal at 21098-99. The Commission is
not including the word ``omission'' in final Sec. 45.14 for
simplicity purposes, but the Commission emphasizes that all
omissions of required swap data, whether the omissions are the
failure to report individual data elements for a swap or the failure
to report all swap data for a swap, are errors that must be
corrected under final Sec. 45.14, just as the omissions must be
corrected under current Sec. 45.14. The Commission makes clear in
final Sec. 45.14(c), discussed below, that all omissions of
required swap data are errors under final Sec. 45.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 45.14(a)(1) provides that any SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty that by any means \247\ becomes aware of any error
relating to swap data that it was required to report under part 45 must
correct the error. This correction requirement includes swap data for a
swap that has terminated, matured, or otherwise is no longer considered
to be an open swap. As noted, there is no expiration on the requirement
to report swaps, and the requirement includes all swaps regardless of
the state of the swap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ The Commission notes that, as explained in the Proposal,
``by any means'' includes absolutely any means that alerts a SEF,
DCM, or reporting counterparty to an error in the relevant swap
data. Awareness or discovery of errors to be corrected would
include, but would not be limited to, errors present in the swap
data during the verification process specified in final Sec.
45.14(b). This would include swap data for any open swaps that
should be present in the swap data accessible through the applicable
SDR verification mechanism that are omitted, or swap data for swaps
that are no longer open that is still accessible through the
verification mechanism, in addition to any other errors in the swap
data accessible through the verification mechanism. The requirement
would also include, but is not limited to, a SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty being informed of errors by an outside source, such as
a non-reporting counterparty under final Sec. 45.14(a)(2), a SEF or
DCM, or the Commission; errors discovered by a SEF, DCM, or
reporting counterparty during a review of its own records or a
voluntary review of swap data maintained by the SDR, including the
discovery of any over-reporting or under-reporting of swap data; and
the discovery of errors during the investigation of a separate
issue. The Commission also expects that a SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty that repeatedly discovers errors, especially repeated
errors that follow a pattern, such as the reporting for a certain
type of swap regularly resulting in errors, would evaluate its
reporting systems to discover and correct any issues. See Proposal
at 21069-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, final Sec. 45.14(a)(3) provides that the error correction
requirement in final Sec. 45.14(a)(1) does not apply to swaps for
which the record retention periods under Sec. 45.2 of this part have
expired as of the time that the errors are discovered. The Commission
determined that this exclusion is appropriate, as SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties are not required to maintain records related
to their swaps beyond the applicable retention periods in Sec. 45.2.
The exclusion therefore removes any potential confusion as to the
correction of swaps beyond the retention period for these swaps. The
Commission further notes that, with the adoption of the verification
requirement, the Commission expects that errors will generally be
discovered during the record retention period and the exclusion will
not have a significant impact on the accuracy of swap data for future
swaps. The Commission emphasizes that a SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty may not in any way attempt to avoid ``discovering''
errors, including, but not limited to, by not performing thorough
verification as required under final Sec. 45.14(b).
Final Sec. 45.14(a)(1)(i) provides that corrections must be made
as soon as technologically practicable after discovery of an error. In
all cases, errors must be corrected within seven business days after
discovery. This deadline is necessary to ensure that errors are
corrected in a timely manner. Final Sec. 45.14(a)(1)(ii) provides that
if an error will not be corrected in a timely fashion, the entity
required to correct must notify the Director of DMO, or such other
employee or employees of the Commission as the Director may designate
from time to time, of the error. The notification must be made within
twelve hours of when the determination is made that the error will not
be corrected in time. This notification requirement is necessary to
alert the Commission to problems with the quality of swap data. The
notification must be made according to the instructions that will be
specified by the Director of DMO, or such other employee or employees
of the Commission as the Director may designate from time to time. The
notification must generally include an initial assessment of the scope
of the error or errors. If an initial remediation plan exists, the
notification must include the initial remediation plan as well.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ The Commission notes that, while final Sec.
45.14(a)(1)(ii) only requires the entity to provide an initial
remediation plan with the notice if such a plan exists, the
Commission may also request additional information regarding any
error(s) and the correction process at any time, including
requesting an updated or fully-developed remediation plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 45.14(b) requires each reporting counterparty to verify
the accuracy and completeness of swap data for all of its open swaps.
To perform verification, each reporting counterparty must utilize the
mechanism adopted for verification under Sec. 49.11 by each SDR the
reporting counterparty uses for swap data reporting. Each reporting
counterparty must use the relevant SDR mechanism to compare all swap
data for each open swap that is maintained by the SDR for which it is
the reporting counterparty with all swap data contained in the
reporting counterparty's internal books and records to verify that
there are no errors.
Final Sec. 45.14(a)(1)(i) provides that any error that is
discovered or could have been discovered during the performance of the
verification process is considered discovered as of the moment the
verification process began, and the error must be corrected
accordingly. The Commission determined that this rule is necessary in
order to ensure that reporting counterparties diligently perform
verification.
Under final Sec. 45.14(b)(1) and final Sec. 49.11(b)(2), the
verification requirement entails verifying that there are no errors for
each data field for each open swap that the reporting counterparty was
required to report under this part. The Commission determined that all
swap data is relevant, and that none of the data that the Commission
requires to be reported is unnecessary. All swap data fields are
necessary to ensure the quality of all swap data available to the
Commission, which the Commission uses to fully perform its regulatory
mission. Accordingly, the verification requirement applies to all
reporting counterparties, for all open swaps, and for each required
data element. However, the Commission determined that it is only
necessary for reporting counterparties to verify that there are no
errors in the up-to-date swap data for each data field that is required
to be reported under part 45 of this chapter, and it is unnecessary to
require verification of data reporting messages. Accordingly, SDRs are
only required to make available to reporting counterparties the most
current swap data the SDR maintains using the verification mechanism,
as discussed above in II.G, and reporting counterparties are only
required to verify using the swap data available through this mechanism
under final Sec. 45.14(b).
Final Sec. 45.14(b)(4) provides the minimum frequency at which a
reporting counterparty must perform verification. A reporting
counterparty that is an SD, MSP, or DCO, must perform verification once
every thirty calendar days. All other reporting counterparties must
perform verification once every calendar quarter, provided that there
are at least two calendar months between verifications.
The Commission determined that these time frames are sufficient to
ensure the quality of swap data because SDs, MSPs, and DCOs serve as
reporting counterparties for the overwhelming majority of swap
data,\249\ meaning the overwhelming majority of open swaps would be
verified on a monthly basis.
[[Page 75628]]
The Commission also believes that non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting
counterparties may include various entities that would bear a
significant burden to verify swap data more often than quarterly,
without a corresponding increase in data quality, because these
entities are more likely to not have the same resources and experience
to devote to verification as SD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties and
are only responsible for verifying a small proportion of swaps. The
Commission further determined that final Sec. 45.14(b)(4)(ii)
requiring a duration of at least two calendar months between quarterly
verifications for non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties is necessary
to ensure that there is sufficient time between verifications to
adequately ensure data quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ See De Minimis Exception to the Swap Dealer Definition, 83
FR 56666, 56674 (Nov. 13, 2018) (stating that, in 2017,
approximately 98 percent of swap transactions involved at least one
registered SD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under final Sec. 45.14(b), a reporting counterparty is not
required to notify the relevant SDR regarding the result of a
verification,\250\ as was required under proposed Sec. 45.14(a).\251\
The Commission determined that in order to ensure the quality of swap
data, it is sufficient for the Commission to have the ability to
confirm that verification was performed timely and properly, and to
enforce the verification and error correction requirements. Therefore,
the notification of the result of a verification is not necessary to
ensure data quality or to fulfill the SDR's obligation to confirm the
accuracy of data under CEA section 21. Accordingly, final Sec.
45.14(b)(5) requires each reporting counterparty to keep a log of each
verification that it performs. The log must include all errors
discovered during the verification, as well as the corrections made
under final Sec. 45.14(a). Final Sec. 45.14(b)(5) further clarifies
that the requirement to keep a verification log is in addition to all
other applicable recordkeeping requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ However, as noted, under final Sec. 45.14(a)(1)(i) and
final Sec. 45.14(b)(3), if the reporting counterparty discovered,
or could have discovered, an error, the reporting counterparty is
required to correct the error under final Sec. 45.14(a)(1).
\251\ See Proposal at 21099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-reporting counterparties must also participate in ensuring that
errors in swap data are corrected, although to a much smaller degree
than reporting counterparties. Final Sec. 45.14(a)(2) provides that a
non-reporting counterparty that by any means discovers an error must
notify the reporting counterparty of the error. The notification must
be made as soon as technologically practicable after discovery, but not
later than three business days following discovery of the error. The
Commission notes that non-reporting counterparties are not required to
verify swap data, and that the notification only needs to include the
errors that the non-reporting counterparty discovers. To the extent
that an error exists, the reporting counterparty will be required to
correct the error under the requirements of final Sec. 45.14(a)(1).
The Commission determined that this notification requirement is
necessary to ensure the quality of swap data. The Commission further
determined that the three-business-day notification deadline is
necessary to ensure that the non-reporting counterparty will notify the
reporting counterparty of errors in a timely manner.
The Commission recognizes that a non-reporting counterparty may not
know the identity of the reporting counterparty. Accordingly, Sec.
45.14(a)(2) provides that when the non-reporting counterparty does not
know the identity of the reporting counterparty, the non-reporting
counterparty must notify the SEF or DCM where the swap was executed of
the error in the same time frame for notifying the reporting
counterparty. Such notification constitutes discovery of the error for
the SEF or DCM for purpose of the SEF's or DCM's error correction
requirement under final Sec. 45.14(a).
Errors are described in final Sec. 45.14(c), which provides that
for the purposes of Sec. 45.14, there is an error when swap data is
not completely and accurately reported. Under final Sec. 45.14(c)(1),
errors include, but are not limited to, where swap data is reported to
an SDR, or is maintained by an SDR, containing incorrect information
(i.e. the swap data is present, but is incorrect); where some required
swap data for a swap is reported to an SDR, or is maintained by an SDR,
and other required swap data is omitted (i.e. some required swap data
elements are blank); where no required swap data for a swap is reported
to an SDR, or maintained by an SDR, at all (i.e. none of the swap data
was reported as required and/or is missing from the SDR); and where
swap data for swaps that are no longer open is maintained by an SDR as
if the swaps are still open (i.e., swap data for swaps that are no
longer open swaps is still available during the verification
process).\252\ In each of these circumstances, among others, swap data
is not complete and accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\ The Commission notes that for each of these examples the
entity responsible for the error may or may not be the entity that
is required to correct the error. For example, if an SDR fails to
record swap data that a reporting counterparty properly reported, it
will still be the reporting counterparty that reports the error. The
Commission emphasizes that the error correction process is one
overarching requirement intended to result in accurate and complete
swap data, regardless of the entities involved and their respective
roles in any particular error correction. The SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties have the responsibility to correct errors
to the SDR once they are discovered, even if the SEF, DCM, or
reporting counterparty is not at fault for the error, which is an
independent responsibility from the responsibility to successfully
report or maintain swap data. The Commission would endeavor to hold
the entity responsible for the reporting error accountable for the
failure to correctly report or maintain the erroneous swap data, as
applicable, regardless of which entity corrects the error under
final Sec. 45.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Sec. 45.14(c)(2), there is a presumption that, for the
purposes of Sec. 45.14, an error exists if the swap data that is
maintained and disseminated by an SDR for a swap is not complete and
accurate. The Commission determined that this presumption is necessary
because the swap data maintained and disseminated by the SDRs is the
same as the swap data available to the Commission and it is necessary
to ensure the accuracy of that swap data for the Commission's
regulatory purposes. Further, the presumption that the swap data
maintained and disseminated by SDRs is the same as the swap data that
was reported is implicit in the structure of swap data reporting under
CEA section 21. Under CEA section 21(c)(4) and (7), an SDR is required
to make the swap data it maintains available to the Commission and to
certain other regulators. This requirement only serves its purpose if
there is a presumption that the swap data maintained by the SDR is the
same as the swap data that was reported to the SDR.
2. Comments on the Proposal
The Commission received a number of comments on the Proposal
recommending limitations on the scope of the error correction rules.
Comments recommended that the error correction rules should only apply
to open swaps \253\ or that error correction rules should only apply in
a limited fashion to swaps that are not open.\254\ These comments
included recommendations to add a materiality threshold to the
requirement to correct errors for swaps that are not open; \255\ to
limit the requirement to correct errors to specific data elements, such
as counterparty, price, and product; \256\ to limit the requirement to
correct errors to errors that are discovered within the relevant record
retention period for the swap; \257\ and to limit the requirement to
correct errors to certain reporting counterparties.\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ FIA at 9; Chatham at 4-5.
\254\ ISDA/SIFMA at 46; FIA at 9.
\255\ CS at 3.
\256\ ISDA/SIFMA at 47; FIA at 9.
\257\ Id.
\258\ Joint Associations at 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75629]]
The Commission generally does not agree with the recommendations to
exclude swaps that are no longer open from the full requirement to
correct errors. There is no expiration in the CEA and the Commission's
regulations on the requirement to report swap data. If there is an
error in the reporting of swap data, the reporting counterparty has not
fulfilled its requirement to report swap data. Further, the Commission
utilizes data regarding swaps that are no longer open in a variety of
ways, including in its market and economic analyses and in its
enforcement and administration of the provisions of the CEA. It is
therefore necessary to ensure that swap data for these swaps does not
contain errors. Although the Commission is limiting the verification
requirements to open swaps, the Commission is doing so because the
verification of swaps that are no longer open is not as practicable as
with open swaps, not because it is unnecessary to ensure that swap data
from these swaps is free from error.
The Commission similarly declines to accept recommendations to
limit the scope of the error correction rules by adopting a materiality
requirement, or by limiting the application of the rules to only
certain data elements. A reporting counterparty does not satisfy the
requirement to report swap data until all required elements are
accurately reported. Further, all the required swap data elements are
significant and required in order for the Commission to perform its
regulatory functions. As a result, it is necessary for the Commission
to ensure that the swap data for every data element is accurate.
However, the Commission agrees with the recommendation to exclude
errors that are discovered after the expiration of the relevant
recordkeeping requirement. The Commission recognizes that it would be
impracticable for SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties to be
required to correct such errors, as these entities are not required to
keep records of swap data beyond the applicable retention periods, and
these records would be necessary to discover and correct errors.
Accordingly, final Sec. 45.14(a)(3) excludes such errors from the
error correction requirement.
The Proposal provided that errors must be corrected as soon as
technologically practicable after discovery, but no later than three
business days after discovery.\259\ The Proposal, like final Sec.
45.14(a)(1)(ii), also included a requirement to notify the Director of
DMO if an error will not be timely corrected.\260\ The Commission
received a number of comments on these rules. Comments generally
recommended limiting the notification requirement by expanding the time
frame to correct errors.\261\ Comments also stated that three business
days may not be sufficient time to identify the scope of the errors and
develop a remediation plan.\262\ Other comments recommended including a
materiality threshold to the notification requirement,\263\ and
adopting a principles-based rule that would provide greater flexibility
regarding the deadline for correcting errors.\264\ Other comments
recommended not adopting the three-day deadline and the notification
requirement,\265\ and instead replacing the notification requirement
with a requirement to maintain a log of errors and remediation and only
require notification for material errors and only after ``due review of
the facts and circumstances.'' \266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ See Proposal at 21099 (proposed Sec. 45.14(b)(1)(i)).
\260\ See id. (proposed Sec. 45.14(b)(1)(ii)).
\261\ See, e.g., CEWG at 5.
\262\ Id.; ISDA/SIFMA at 46.
\263\ Id. at 5-6.
\264\ ICE Clear at 3-4.
\265\ FIA at 8; Joint Associations at 13.
\266\ ISDA/SIFMA at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission does not agree with the recommendations to replace
or not adopt the notification requirement. The purpose of the
notification requirement is to provide the Commission with the
information that it needs to assess the accuracy of swap data. The
notification requirement is not punitive. However, to make the
notification more useful to the Commission, the Commission accepts the
recommendation for a longer notification time frame and final Sec.
45.14(a)(1)(ii) extends the notification deadline for correcting errors
to seven business days. This longer time frame will provide the entity
making the correction time to develop a more accurate understanding of
the scope of the error. The Commission also agrees with the
recommendations that it may not be feasible in every case to develop an
initial remediation plan. Accordingly, final Sec. 45.14(a)(1)(ii)
provides that the notification needs to include the initial remediation
plan, but only if one exists.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ The current common practice for market participants is to
notify DMO after discovering reporting errors and to develop a
remediation plan once a solution for the errors is formulated. The
Commission expects that this practice will continue, but notes that
final Sec. 45.14(a)(1)(ii) does not require the notification of the
failure to timely correct an error to include an initial remediation
plan if one does not yet exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission received several comments recommending against
requiring reporting counterparties to verify their swap data. Several
commenters stated that improving SDR validations and the required data
elements is a more efficient way to increase data accuracy than the
proposed verification rules.\268\ Other commenters stated that
verification is unnecessary because it would only marginally improve
the data accuracy, and the burden on reporting counterparties outweighs
that marginal gain.\269\ Other commenters stated that verification is
unnecessary because the extent of errors in swap data is unknown.\270\
The Commission also received several comments generally supporting the
proposed verification rule, asserting that it will help to ensure the
high quality of swap data.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\268\ Chatham at 6; FIA at 7-8; ICE TV at 2-4; NGSA at 4; Joint
Associations at 6-10; Eurex at 2; CEWG at 2-3.
\269\ FIA at 2-3.
\270\ Chatham at 5; GIFMA at 14.
\271\ Joint SDR at 1; IATP at 1-7; LCH at 4; Markit at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission does not agree with the recommendations against
requiring verification. As noted above, the Commission interprets the
requirement to report data to an SDR in section 2(a)(13)(G) of the CEA
to include a requirement that the reporting counterparty verifies that
it accurately complied with the requirement. The Commission also
interprets the requirement in section 21(c)(2) of the CEA for SDRs to
confirm the accuracy of reported data with the counterparties to also
include a requirement for counterparties to participate in ensuring the
swap data accuracy, as not including counterparties in the confirmation
process would render the statutory requirement useless. The purpose of
the verification requirement is to ensure the quality of swap data, as
required by the Act. Improving SDR validations and standardizing the
data elements alone will not accomplish this, because a swap data error
that is still a plausible value, such as reporting a notional value of
$1,000,000 instead of the correct notional value of $10,000,000, would
not be caught by validations. Only a review of the swap data by the
counterparty that is responsible for reporting the swap data would
catch this error.
Additionally, the Commission has ample experience with the
existence of swap data errors that would pass validations that, in the
absence of an adequate verification requirement, persisted for long
periods of time before being discovered and corrected. The Commission
cannot know the precise nature and scope of existing errors that have
not been corrected, which the
[[Page 75630]]
verification requirement is designed to address, because the errors are
not obvious from the swap data and will not be knowable to the
Commission unless and until they are discovered and corrected. However,
based on its experience, the Commission has determined that data
quality can be further improved by requiring verification, and doing so
is consistent with the requirements in the Act to report swap data and
to verify the accuracy of the reported swap data.
The Commission also received comments regarding which
counterparties should be required to perform verifications. Comments
recommended excluding specific reporting counterparties, including end
users with centralized trading structures,\272\ non-bank SDs and
reporting counterparties that are not SDs or MSPs,\273\ ``unregistered
end users,'' \274\ reporting counterparties that report less than
fifty-one swaps per month,\275\ and DCOs.\276\ The Commission rejects
these recommendations to exempt any classes of reporting counterparties
from verification. As noted, the requirement under section 2(a)(13)(G)
of the CEA to verify that swap data was reported correctly and the
requirement under section 21(c)(2) to confirm the accuracy of swap data
applies to all reporting counterparties, regardless of size,
registration status, type, or how frequently the reporting counterparty
report swaps. All reporting counterparties are, by definition, also
users of at least one SDR and are fully capable of communicating with
an SDR to report swap data and correct swap data as required, whether
directly or through the use of a third-party service provider, and are
also therefore fully capable of verifying swap data through an SDR-
provided mechanism, as required by final Sec. 45.14(b). Further, all
swap data for all swaps is significant, material, and important for the
Commission's performance of its regulatory responsibilities.
Verification is necessary to ensure that the swap data is free from
errors, and every reporting counterparty performing verification as
required is essential to rooting out swap data errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ Prudential at 1-2.
\273\ NGSA at 1-4.
\274\ Freddie Mac at 2.
\275\ COPE at 3.
\276\ lCH at 3-4; ICE Clear at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that although CEA section 21(c)(2) also
includes non-reporting counterparties in the obligation to confirm the
accuracy of reported swap data, the Commission determined that it is
unnecessary to require non-reporting counterparties to perform
verification. The Act places the burden of reporting on the reporting
counterparty, and, as the only counterparty with swap data reporting
responsibilities, the reporting counterparty is best positioned to
perform verification. Commenters generally supported this
determination.\277\ Comments stated that non-reporting counterparties
will generally not be able to communicate with the relevant SDR(s), and
that it will be very uncommon for there to be discrepancies between the
data maintained by the reporting counterparty and the non-reporting
counterparty, such that the reporting counterparty's verification is
sufficient to ensure the quality of swap data.\278\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ Joint Associations at 13; ISDA/SIFMA at 39; Chatham at 1-
2; COPE at 2; Joint SDR at 2; ICI at 10-11.
\278\ GIFMA at 4; Chatham at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also received comments recommending changes to the
proposed verification rule. The proposed rule required reporting
counterparties that are SDs, MSPs, or DCOs to perform verification
weekly and all other reporting counterparties to perform verification
monthly.\279\ Instead, commenters recommended adopting a rule that
would require verification to be performed less frequently. One
suggested alternative was to adopt a more ``principles based''
approach, under which reporting counterparties would periodically
perform verification less frequently than the proposed rule
required.\280\ One comment recommended that verification should only be
required to be performed monthly by all reporting counterparties.\281\
Another comment recommended that verification should only be required
to be performed monthly by reporting counterparties that are SDs, and
quarterly by all other reporting counterparties.\282\ The Commission
accepts the recommendation that it is not necessary for verification to
be performed with the frequency of the Proposal in order to meet the
Commission's swap data quality needs. Accordingly, final Sec.
45.14(b)(4) provides that a reporting counterparty that is an SD, MSP
or DCO must perform verification once every thirty calendar days, and
all other reporting counterparties must perform verification once every
calendar quarter, provided that there are at least two calendar months
between the quarterly verifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\279\ Proposal at 84 FR 21103 (May 13, 2019).
\280\ CS at 3; FIA at 7-8; ISDA/SIFMA at 45.
\281\ GIFMA at 5.
\282\ ISDA/SIFMA at 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also received comments on the scope of the data that
must be verified. The verification rule in the Proposal would apply to
all required swap data fields for all open swaps.\283\ The Commission
received comments in support of limiting the verification requirement
to only the required swap data elements and not to all swap data
messages.\284\ The Commission also received a comment recommending that
the verification rule should be limited to specific data elements, such
as economic terms.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\283\ Proposal at 21098, 21103.
\284\ GIFMA at 4-6; ISDA/SIFMA at 40-41; IATP at 5.
\285\ GIFMA at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission declines to accept the recommendation to limit the
scope of the verification requirement. Every data field that is
required to be reported to the Commission is significant and necessary
for the Commission's performance of its regulatory responsibilities,
and to ensure the quality of all swap data.
One comment recommended limiting the verification requirement to
once per swap, meaning that once swap data for a particular swap has
been verified, the reporting counterparty no longer is required to
verify the data for that swap.\286\ The Commission does not agree with
this recommendation. Swap data is often updated frequently through
continuation data reporting, including lifecycle event reporting and
valuation reporting, and errors can occur throughout the life of the
swap. Regular verification of open swaps is necessary to ensure that
the swap data for each open swap remains free from errors throughout
the life of the swap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ ISDA/SIFMA at 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also received comments regarding the requirements on
non-reporting counterparties to ensure that swap data is free from
errors. Comments supported excluding non-reporting counterparties from
the verification requirements.\287\ Comments also supported not
requiring non-reporting counterparties to submit error corrections to
SDRs.\288\ The Commission received one comment recommending against
requiring a non-reporting counterparty to notify the reporting
counterparty when it discovers an error.\289\ The Commission does not
agree with this recommendation. The confirmation requirement in CEA
[[Page 75631]]
section 21(c)(2) requires both counterparties to confirm the accuracy
of swap data. The Commission has excluded non-reporting counterparties
from the requirement to verify swap data, but if a non-reporting
counterparty discovers an error, it must take steps to correct the
error by notify the reporting counterparty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\287\ Joint Associations at 13; ISDA/SIFMA at 39; Chatham at 1-
2; COPE at 2; Joint SDR at 2; ICI at 10-11.
\288\ COPE at 2.
\289\ Joint Associations at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also received comments on the proposed Sec.
45.14(b)(2),which provided, in part, that a reporting counterparty,
SEF, or DCM that is notified of an error by a non-reporting
counterparty is only required to correct the error if it agrees with
the non-reporting counterparty that an error exists.\290\ Comments
recommended against adopting the requirement that the non-reporting
counterparty and the reporting counterparty, SEF, or DCM must agree to
the error,\291\ and comments requested that the requirement be
clarified.\292\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ CEWG at 5, Joint Associations at 13.
\291\ Joint Associations at 13.
\292\ CEWG at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is not adopting the requirement. Final Sec.
45.14(a) explicitly applies to errors regardless of the how the SEF,
DCM, or reporting counterparty becomes aware of the error. If the non-
reporting counterparty notifies the reporting counterparty of the
error, and the SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty disagrees that there
is an error, then the SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty has not
discovered an error and there is nothing to correct. The Commission
does however note that a SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty refusing
to acknowledge an error that does exist, and therefore not correcting
the error, would violate the Commission's regulations.
IV. Amendments to Part 43
A. Sec. 43.3(e)--Correction of Errors
The Commission is adopting proposed Sec. 43.3(e), with
modifications. Final Sec. 43.3(e) is identical in substance to Sec.
45.14(a), described in III.B, above, except that Sec. 45.14(a)
provides the rules for correcting errors \293\ in swap data, while
Sec. 43.3(e) provides the rules for correcting errors in swap
transaction and pricing data. As in Sec. 45.14(a), Sec. 43.3(e)
generally requires each SEF, DCM, and reporting counterparty to correct
any error it discovers, including for swaps that are no longer open.
The Commission notes that, although market participants generally treat
the current error correction requirements in Sec. 43.3(e) and Sec.
45.14 as if they are consistent, existing Sec. Sec. 43.3(e) and 45.14
do not share consistent terminology and style. In addition to the
substantive amendments and rules that are described above in section
III.C, the Commission determined that the terminology and style of the
error correction rules final Sec. Sec. 45.14(a) and 43.3(e) should be
consistent. This will add clarity to the error correction requirements,
which may result in increased compliance. The Commission received
numerous comments on the proposed amendments to the error correction
rules The Commission did not receive any comments that apply only to
Sec. 43.3(e), and is assessing all comments on error correction as if
they apply equally to both Sec. Sec. 43.3(e) and 45.14(a).\294\ The
comments are described above in section III.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ The Commission notes that, as with final Sec. 45.14,
current Sec. 43.3(e) and proposed Sec. 43.3(e) both use the
phrases ``errors and omissions'' and ``errors or omissions'' in the
correction requirements. See generally 17 CFR 43.3(e) and Proposal
at 84 FR 21097-98 (May 13, 2019). The Commission is not including
the word ``omission'' in final Sec. 43.3(e) for simplicity
purposes, but the Commission emphasizes that all omissions of
required swap transaction and pricing data, whether the omissions
are the failure to report individual data elements for a swap or the
failure to report all swap transaction and pricing data for a swap,
are errors that must be corrected under final Sec. 43.3(e), just as
the omissions must be corrected under current Sec. 43.3(e). The
Commission makes clear in final Sec. 43.3(e)(4) that all omissions
of required swap data are errors under final Sec. 43.3(e).
\294\ See e.g., ISDA/SIFMA at 47 (``Refer to responses above for
proposed Sec. 45.14 which also apply similarly to Sec. 43.3.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Removal of Sec. 43.3(f) and (g)
Current Sec. 43.3(f) and (g) set forth the operating hours
requirements for SDRs.\295\ As discussed above, the Commission proposed
to remove Sec. 43.3(f) and (g) and to incorporate the provisions in
new Sec. 49.28.\296\ The Commission believes these provisions are
better placed in part 49 of this chapter because they address SDR
operations and, as amended, final Sec. 49.28 applies to all SDR data
and also incorporates provisions from SBSDR operating hours
requirements. Accordingly, the Commission is adopting the proposed
removal of Sec. 43.3(f) and (g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ 17 CFR 43.3(f) and (g).
\296\ See section II.S above. Current Sec. 43.3(f) contains the
hours of operations requirements and current Sec. 43.3(g) contains
the requirements for SDRs to accept swap transaction and pricing
data during closing hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Amendments to Part 23
Sec. 23.204--Reports to Swap Data Repositories, and Sec. 23.205--
Real-Time Public Reporting
The Commission proposed additions to Sec. Sec. 23.204 and 23.205
of the Commission's regulations. The proposed additions would require
each SD and MSP to establish, maintain, enforce, review, and update as
needed written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to
ensure that the SD or MSP complies with all obligations to report swap
data to an SDR, consistent with parts 43 and 45. The Proposal noted
that pursuant to other Commission regulations, SDs and MSPs are already
expected to establish policies and procedures related to their swap
market activities, including but not limited to, swaps reporting
obligations.\297\ The Commission proposed to make this expectation
explicit with respect to swaps reporting obligations. Commenters
recommended that the Commission take a less prescriptive approach than
the Proposal, and noted that it is unnecessary to add specificity for
swaps reporting obligations for data reporting policies and
procedures.\298\ The Commission notes that existing Sec. Sec. 23.204
and 23.205 require SDs and MSPs to report all swap data and swap
transaction and pricing data they are required to report under parts 43
and 45, and to have in place the electronic systems and procedures
necessary to transmit electronically all such information and
data.\299\ As noted above, these requirements are encompassed by the
existing requirement that SDs and MSPs establish policies and
procedures. Therefore, the Commission agrees with the comments and
determines that it is unnecessary to make the proposed additions.
Accordingly, the Commission does not adopt any amendments to Sec.
23.204 or 23.205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\297\ See, e.g., 17 CFR 3.3(d)(1) (requiring a chief compliance
officer to administer each of the registrant's policies and
procedures relating to its business as an SD/MSP that are required
to be establish pursuant to the Act and the Commission's
regulations); 17 CFR 3.2(c)(3)(ii) (requiring the National Futures
Association to assess whether an entity's SD/MSP documentation
demonstrates compliance with the Section 4s Implementing Regulation
to which it pertains, which includes Sec. 23.204 and Sec. 23.205).
\298\ ISDA/SIFMA at 48; GFMA at 12.
\299\ 17 CFR 23.204, 23.205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Compliance Date
In the Proposal, the Commission stated that it intended to provide
a unified compliance date for all three of the Roadmap rulemakings
because all three must work in tandem to achieve the Commission's
goals.\300\ The Commission also stated its intention to provide
sufficient time for market participants to implement the changes in the
rulemakings prior to the
[[Page 75632]]
compliance date.\301\ The Commission is adopting a unified compliance
date for all three Roadmap rulemakings, May 25, 2022, unless otherwise
noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\300\ Proposal at 84 FR 21046 (May 13, 2019).
\301\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission received comments recommending a staggered
implementation period instead of a unified one,\302\ comments
supporting an implementation period of one year,\303\ and a comment
stating that one year is insufficient and recommending a compliance
date that allows for a two-year implementation period.\304\ The
Commission disagrees with comments recommending a staggered
implementation period. The various rules in the Roadmap rulemakings,
including verification and error correction, address different
compliance areas and will achieve the overall goal of improved data
quality only by working in tandem. The Commission agrees with the
comment recommending an implementation period longer than a year, but
the Commission disagrees that the implementation period should extend
for two years. The amendments and additions in these final rules, as
well as the related Roadmap rulemakings, are critical steps in
implementing the requirements of the Act and ensuring high quality swap
data. Accordingly, the Commission believes that an implementation
period longer than eighteen months is unwarranted and to ensure that
all market participants have sufficient time to implement the changes
required in these rulemakings, the Commission has determined to provide
an eighteen month implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\302\ GFMA at 13; GFXD at 35.
\303\ ISDSA/SIFMA at 36; LCH at 2 and 4; ICE SDR at 2 and 5.
\304\ FIA at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') requires federal agencies,
in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small
entities.\305\ The Commission has previously established certain
definitions of ``small entities'' to be used by the Commission in
evaluating the impact of its rules on small entities in accordance with
the RFA.\306\ The changes to parts 43, 45, and 49 adopted herein would
have a direct effect on the operations of DCMs, DCOs, MSPs, reporting
counterparties, SDs, SDRs, and SEFs. The Commission has previously
certified that DCMs,\307\ DCOs,\308\ MSPs,\309\ SDs,\310\ SDRs \311\,
and SEFs \312\ are not small entities for purpose of the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
\306\ See Policy Statement and Establishment of ``Small
Entities'' for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 47 FR
18618 (Apr. 30, 1982).
\307\ See id.
\308\ See Derivatives Clearing Organization General Provisions
and Core Principles, 76 FR 69334, 69428 (Nov. 8, 2011).
\309\ See Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant Recordkeeping,
Reporting, and Duties Rules, 77 FR 20128, 20194 (Apr. 3, 2012)
(basing determination in part on minimum capital requirements).
\310\ See Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements
for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 76 FR 6715 (Feb. 8,
2011).
\311\ See Swap Data Repositories; Proposed Rule, 75 FR 80898,
80926 (Dec. 23, 2010) (basing determination in part on the central
role of SDRs in swaps reporting regime, and on the financial
resource obligations imposed on SDRs).
\312\ Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution
Facilities, 78 FR 33476, 33548 (June 4, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various changes to parts 43, 45, and 49 would have a direct impact
on all reporting counterparties. These reporting counterparties may
include SDs, MSPs, DCOs, and non-SD/MSP/DCO counterparties. Regarding
whether non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties are small entities for
RFA purposes, the Commission notes that CEA section 2(e) prohibits a
person from entering into a swap unless the person is an eligible
contract participant (``ECP''), except for swaps executed on or
pursuant to the rules of a DCM.\313\ The Commission has previously
certified that ECPs are not small entities for purposes of the
RFA.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\313\ See 7 U.S.C. 2(e).
\314\ See Opting Out of Segregation, 66 FR 20740, 20743 (Apr.
25, 2001). The Commission also notes that this determination was
based on the definition of ECP as provided in the Commodity Futures
Modernization Act of 2000. The Dodd-Frank Act amended the definition
of ECP as to the threshold for individuals to qualify as ECPs,
changing ``an individual who has total assets in an amount in excess
of'' to ``an individual who has amounts invested on a discretionary
basis, the aggregate of which is in excess of . . . .'' Therefore,
the threshold for ECP status is currently higher than was in place
when the Commission certified that ECPs are not small entities for
RFA purposes, meaning that there are likely fewer entities that
could qualify as ECPs than when the Commission first made the
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has analyzed swap data reported to each SDR \315\
across all five asset classes to determine the number and identities of
non-SD/MSP/DCOs that are reporting counterparties to swaps under the
Commission's jurisdiction. A recent Commission staff review of swap
data, including swaps executed on or pursuant to the rules of a DCM,
identified nearly 1,600 non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties. Based
on its review of publicly available data, the Commission believes that
the overwhelming majority of these non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting
counterparties are either ECPs or do not meet the definition of ``small
entity'' established in the RFA. Accordingly, the Commission does not
believe the rules would affect a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\315\ The sample data sets varied across SDRs and asset classes
based on relative trade volumes. The sample represents data
available to the Commission for swaps executed over a period of one
month. These sample data sets captured 2,551,907 FX swaps, 98,145
credit default swaps, 357,851 commodities swaps, 603,864 equities
swaps, and 276,052 interest rate swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above analysis, the Commission does not believe that
this Final Rule will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Chairman, on
behalf of the Commission, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), hereby certifies
that the Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'') \316\ imposes certain
requirements on federal agencies, including the Commission, in
connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of
information, as defined by the PRA. The rule amendments adopted herein
will result in the revision of three information collections, as
discussed below. The Commission has previously received three control
numbers from the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB''), one for
each of the information collections impacted by this rulemaking: (1)
OMB Control Number 3038-0096 (Swap Data Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements), relating to part 45 swap data recordkeeping and
reporting; (2) OMB Control Number 3038-0070 (Real-Time Public Reporting
and Block Trades), relating to part 43 real-time swap transaction and
pricing data; and (3) OMB Control Number 3038-0086 (Swap Data
Repositories; Registration and Regulatory Requirements), relating to
part 49 SDR regulations. Persons otherwise required to respond to an
information collection are not required to respond to the collection of
information unless a currently valid OMB control number is displayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\316\ See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission did not receive any comments regarding its PRA
burden analysis in the preamble to the Proposal. The Commission is
revising the three information collections to reflect the adoption of
amendments to parts 43, 44, and 49, including changes to reflect
adjustments that were made to the final rules in response to comments
on the Proposal (not relating to the PRA).
[[Page 75633]]
1. Revisions to Collection 3038-0096 (Relating to Part 45 Swap Data
Recordkeeping and Reporting)
i. Sec. 45.2--Swap Recordkeeping
The Commission is adopting changes that remove paragraphs (f) and
(g) from Sec. 45.2 and move the requirements of these paragraphs to
amended Sec. 49.12. Paragraphs (f) and (g) contain recordkeeping
requirements specific to SDRs. Existing Sec. 49.12 already
incorporates the requirements of current Sec. 45.2(f) and (g), and
amended Sec. 49.12 includes the same requirements, but deleting this
requirement from Sec. 45.2 and amending Sec. 49.12 to clarify the
requirements better organizes the regulations for SDRs by locating
these SDR requirements in part 49 of the Commission's regulations.
These amendments modify collection 3038-0096 because it removes these
recordkeeping requirements from part 45 of the Commission's
regulations. The Commission estimates that moving these requirements
results in a reduction of 50 annual burden hours for each SDR in
collection 3038-0096, for a total reduction of 150 annual burden hours
across all three SDRs.
ii. Sec. 45.14--Verification of Swap Data Accuracy and Correcting
Errors and Omissions in Swap Data
Final Sec. 45.14(a) requires SEFs, DCMs, and reporting
counterparties to correct errors and omissions in swap data previously
reported to an SDR, or erroneously not reported to an SDR as required,
as soon as technologically practicable after discovery of the errors or
omissions, similar to existing Sec. 45.14. Also, similar to existing
Sec. 45.14, final Sec. 45.14(a) requires a non-reporting counterparty
to report a discovered error or omission to the relevant SEF, DCM, or
reporting counterparty as soon as technologically practicable after
discovery of the error or omission.\317\ These requirements, being
effectively the same as the requirements in existing Sec. 45.14, do
not require amendments to the collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\317\ The Commission notes that final Sec. 45.14(a)(2) does add
provisions that are not present in current Sec. 45.14(a) to address
the situation where a non-reporting counterparty does not know the
identity of the reporting counterparty. The Commission does not
believe that these additions have PRA implications, as the amount of
information the non-reporting counterparty must provide and the
frequency with which it must be provided remain the same and are de
minimis. The only change is the requirement that non-reporting
counterparties inform the SEF or DCM of errors, instead of the
reporting counterparty. SEFs and DCMs have correction
responsibilities under current Sec. 45.14(b) and final Sec.
45.14(a)(2) does not change these responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 45.14(a)(1)(ii) includes the new requirement for SEFs,
DCMs, and reporting counterparties to notify the Director of DMO when
errors or omissions cannot be timely corrected and, in such case, to
provide the Director of DMO with an initial assessment of the errors
and omissions and an initial remediation plan if one exists. The
notification shall be made in the form and manner, and according to the
instructions, specified by the Director of DMO. This requirement
constitutes a new collection of information. The Commission estimates
that each SEF, DCM, and reporting counterparty will, on average need to
provide notice to the Commission under final Sec. 45.14(a)(1)(ii) once
per year and that each instance will require 6 burden hours.\318\ As
there are approximately 1,729 SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties
that handle swaps, the Commission estimates an overall additional
annual hours burden of 10,374, hours related to this requirement. This
estimate is based on the Commission's experience with the current
practices of SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties regarding the
reporting of errors and omissions, including the initial assessments
and remediation plans that SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties
provide to the Commission under current practice. The Commission does
not anticipate any one-time, initial burdens related to final Sec.
45.14(b)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\318\ The Commission notes that, currently, it receives
significantly less than one notice and initial assessment of
reporting errors and omissions per SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty per year, but estimates one notice annually, as the
final requirements of Sec. 45.14(a) may reveal more reporting
errors to reporting counterparties that would then require
corrections pursuant to final Sec. 45.14(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 45.14(b) requires all reporting counterparties to
verify the accuracy and completeness of all swap data for all open
swaps to which they are the reporting counterparty. Reporting
counterparties comply with this provision by utilizing the relevant
mechanism(s) to compare all swap data for each open swap for which it
serves as the reporting counterparty maintained by the relevant swap
data repository or repositories with all swap data contained in the
reporting counterparty's internal books and records for each swap, to
verify that there are no errors in the relevant swap data maintained by
the swap data repository. Additionally, reporting counterparties must
conform to each relevant swap data repository's verification policies
and procedures created pursuant to final Sec. 49.11. Final Sec.
45.14(b)(5) requires each reporting counterparty to keep a log of each
verification that it performs. The log must include all errors
discovered during the verification and the corrections performed under
Sec. 45.14(a). Compliance with Sec. 45.14(b) constitutes a collection
of information not currently included in collection 3038-0096, and
therefore requires a revision of that collection.
The Commission expects that compliance with Sec. 45.14(b) will
include: (1) A one-time hours burden to establish internal systems
needed to perform their verification responsibilities, and (2) an
ongoing hours burden to complete the verification process for each
report provided by an SDR.
In order to comply with the relevant SDR verification policies and
procedures as required to complete the verification process, the
Commission believes that reporting counterparties will create their own
verification systems or modify their existing connections to the SDRs.
The Commission estimates that each reporting counterparty will incur an
initial, one-time burden of 100 hours to build, test, and implement
their verification systems based on SDR instructions. This burden may
be reduced, if complying with SDR verification requirements only
requires reporting counterparties to make small modifications to their
existing SDR reporting systems, but the Commission is estimating the
burden based on the creation of a new system. The Commission also
estimates an ongoing annual burden of 10 hours per reporting
counterparty to maintain their verification systems and to make any
needed updates to verification systems to conform to any changes to SDR
verification policies and procedures. As there are approximately 1,702
reporting counterparties based on data available to the Commission, the
Commission estimates a one-time overall hours burden of 170,200 hours
to build reporting counterparty verification systems and an ongoing
annual overall hours burden of 17,020 hours to maintain the reporting
counterparty verification systems.
Under final Sec. 45.14(b)(4), SD, MSP, or DCO reporting
counterparties must perform verification once every thirty days for
each SDR where the reporting counterparty maintains any open swaps.
Non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties must perform verification once
every calendar quarter for each SDR where the reporting counterparty
maintains any opens swaps. The Commission also expects, based on
discussions with SDRs and reporting
[[Page 75634]]
counterparties, that the verification process will be largely automated
for all parties involved. The Commission estimates an average burden of
two hours per verification performed at each SDR per reporting
counterparty.
As there are 117 SDs, MSPs, or DCOs that clear swaps registered
with the Commission, the Commission estimates \319\ that these 117
reporting counterparties will, at maximum, be required to verify data
13 times per year at a maximum of 3 SDRs, for an overall additional
annual hours burden of 9,126 ongoing burden hours related to the
verification process for these reporting counterparties. The Commission
also estimates, based on data available to the Commission, that there
are 1,585 non-SD/MSP/DCO reporting counterparties.\320\ The Commission
estimates that these 1,585 reporting counterparties will be required
to, at maximum, verify data 4 times per year at a maximum of 3 SDRs,
for an overall additional annual hours burden of 38,040 burden hours
related to verification process for these reporting counterparties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\319\ Though there are 117 SDs, MSPs, or DCOs that clear swaps
registered with the Commission that could be a reporting
counterparty, not all potential reporting counterparties will
perform data verification for any given verification cycle. Only
those reporting counterparties with open swaps are required to
perform data verification for that verification cycle.
\320\ Though there are 1,585 non-SD/MSP/DCOs that could be a
reporting counterparty, not all potential reporting counterparties
will perform data verification for any given verification cycle.
Only those reporting counterparties with open swaps are required to
perform data verification for that verification cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission therefore estimates that the overall burden for
updated Information Collection 3038-0096 will be as follows:
Estimated number of respondents affected: 1,732 SEFs, DCMs, DCOs,
SDRs, and reporting counterparties.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 257,595.
Estimated total annual responses: 446,154,540.
Estimated burden hours per response: 0.005.
Estimated total annual burden hours per respondent: 1,316.
Estimated aggregate total burden hours for all respondents:
2,279,312.
2. Revisions to Collection 3038-0070 (Real-Time Transaction Reporting)
Sec. 43.3--Method and Timing for Real-Time Public Reporting
Final Sec. 43.3(e) requires SEFs, DCMs, and reporting
counterparties to correct errors and omissions in swap transaction and
pricing data as soon as technologically practicable after discovery.
Final Sec. 43.3(e) also requires a non-reporting counterparty to
report a discovered error or omission to the relevant SEF, DCM, or
reporting counterparty as soon as technologically practicable after
discovery of the error or omission. These final rules clarify the
requirements to be consistent with the requirements in final Sec.
45.14(b), but are also effectively the same as the requirements of
exiting Sec. 43.3(e).\321\ These requirements therefore do not require
amendments to the collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\321\ The Commission notes that final Sec. 43.3(e)(2) does add
provisions that are not present in current Sec. 43.3(e)(1) to
address the situation where a non-reporting counterparty does not
know the identity of the reporting counterparty. The Commission does
not believe that these additions have PRA implications, as the
amount of information the non-reporting counterparty must provide
and the frequency with which it must be provided remain the same as
the current requirement and are de minimis. The only change is the
requirement that non-reporting counterparties inform the SEF or DCM
of errors, instead of the reporting counterparty. SEFs and DCMs have
correction responsibilities under current Sec. 43.3(e)(1) and final
Sec. 43.3(e)(2) does not change these responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 43.3(e)(1)(ii) includes the new requirement for SEFs,
DCMs, and reporting counterparties to notify the Director of DMO when
errors or omissions cannot be timely corrected and, in such case, to
provide the Director of DMO with an initial assessment of the errors
and omissions and an initial remediation plan if one exists. This
requirement constitutes a new collection of information. The Commission
estimates that each SEF, DCM, and reporting counterparty will, on
average need to provide notice to the Commission under final Sec.
43.3(e)(1)(ii) once per year and that each instance will require 6
burden hours.\322\ As there are approximately 1,729 SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties that handle swaps, the Commission estimates an
overall additional annual hours burden of 10,374 hours related to this
requirement. This estimate is based on the Commission's experience with
SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties current practices regarding
the reporting of errors and omissions, including the initial
assessments that SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties provide to
the Commission under current practice. The Commission does not
anticipate any one-time, initial burdens related to final Sec.
43.3(e)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\322\ The Commission notes that, currently, it receives
significantly less than one notice and initial assessment of
reporting errors and omissions per SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty per year, but estimates one notice annually, as the
final requirements of Sec. 45.14(a) may reveal more reporting
errors to reporting counterparties that would then require
corrections pursuant to final Sec. 43.3(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is also removing paragraphs (f) and (g) from Sec.
43.3 in order to move the requirements of these paragraphs to final
Sec. 49.28. Paragraphs (f) and (g) contain requirements for SDRs
related to their operating hours. Final Sec. 49.28 includes all of the
current Sec. 43.3(f) and (g) requirements, and this deletion and move
is intended to better organize regulations for SDRs by locating as many
SDR requirements as possible in part 49 of the Commission's
regulations. Moving the requirements modifies collections 3038-0070 and
3038-0086 because it removes these recordkeeping requirements from part
43 of the Commission's regulations and adds them to part 49 of the
Commission's regulations. The Commission estimates that the public
notice requirements of existing Sec. 43.3(f) and (g) require SDRs to
issue three notices per year and spend five hours creating and
disseminating each notice, for a total of 15 hours annually for each
SDR, for a total of 45 annual burden hours being moved across all three
SDRs. As a result, the Commission estimates that moving these
requirements will result in a total reduction of 45 annual burden hours
for SDRs in collection 3038-0070.
The Commission therefore estimates that the total overall burdens
for updated Information Collection 3038-0070 will be as follows:
Estimated number of respondents affected: 1,732 SEFs, DCMs, DCOs,
SDRs, and reporting counterparties.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 21,247.
Estimated total annual responses: 36,799,804.
Estimated burden hours per response: 0.033.
Estimated total annual burden hours per respondent: 701.
Estimated aggregate total burden hours for all respondents:
1,214,392.
3. Revisions to Collection 3038-0086 (Relating to Part 49 SDR
Regulations) 323
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\323\ The Commission is also proposing to reduce the number of
SDRs used in collection 3038-0086 to calculate burdens and costs
from 4 to 3. There are currently three SDRs provisionally registered
with the Commission. The Commission has not received any
applications for SDR registration since 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is revising collection 3038-0086 to account for
changes in certain SDR responsibilities under the final amendments to
Sec. Sec. 49.3, 49.5, 49.6, 49.9, 49.10, 49.11, and 49.26, and to the
addition of Sec. Sec. 49.28, 49.29, and 49.30. The estimated hours
burdens and costs provided below are in addition to or subtracted from
the existing hours burdens and costs in collection 3038-
[[Page 75635]]
0086. The Commission also describes a number of changes to sections
that do not have PRA implications below, for clarity.
i. Sec. 49.3--Procedures for Registration
The final amendments to Sec. 49.3(a)(5) remove the requirement for
each SDR to file an annual amendment to its Form SDR. This reduces the
PRA burden for SDRs by lowering the number of filings required for each
SDR. The Commission estimates that the PRA burden for each SDR will
remain at 15 hours per filing, but that the number of filings per year
will be reduced from three to two, meaning that the final amendments to
Sec. 49.3(a)(5) reduces the burden on SDRs by 15 hours per year, for a
total reduction of 45 annual burden hours across all three SDRs. This
estimate is based on the Commission's experience with current SDR
practices and the original supporting statement for collection 3038-
0086.\324\ The Commission does not anticipate any one-time, initial
burden changes related to final Sec. 49.3(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\324\ The original supporting statement for collection 3038-0086
estimated that the requirements of current Sec. 49.3(a)(5) will
necessitate three filings per year and 15 hours per filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Sec. 49.5--Equity Interest Transfers
The final amendments to Sec. 49.5 require SDRs to file a
notification with the Commission for each transaction involving the
direct or indirect transfer of ten percent or more of the equity
interest in the SDR within ten business days of the firm obligation to
transfer the equity interest, to provide the Commission with supporting
documentation for the transaction upon the Commission's request, and,
within two business days of the completion of the equity interest
transfer, to file a certification with the Commission that the SDR will
meet all of its obligations under the Act and the Commission's
regulations. The Commission estimates that the requirements of final
Sec. 49.5 create a burden of 15 hours per SDR for each qualifying
equity interest transfer. Equity interest transfers for SDR are rare,
so the Commission estimates that each SDR will provide information
pursuant to final Sec. 49.5 no more often than once every three years.
As a result, the estimated average annual PRA burden related to final
Sec. 49.5 is 5 hours per SDR, for a total estimated ongoing annual
burden of 15 hours total for all three SDRs. The Commission does not
anticipate any one-time, initial burdens related to final Sec. 49.5.
iii. Sec. 49.6--Request for Transfer of Registration
The final amendments to Sec. 49.6 require an SDR seeking to
transfer its registration to another legal entity due to a corporate
change to file a request for approval with the Commission before the
anticipated corporate change, including the specific documents and
information listed in final Sec. 49.6(c). The Commission estimates
that the requirements of final Sec. 49.6 create a burden of 15 hours
per SDR for each transfer of registration. Transfers of registration
for SDR are rare, so the Commission estimates that each SDR will
provide information pursuant to final Sec. 49.6 no more often than
once every three years. As a result, the estimated average annual PRA
burden related to final Sec. 49.6 is 5 hours per SDR, for a total
estimated ongoing annual burden of 15 hours total for all three SDRs.
The Commission does not anticipate any one-time, initial burdens
related to final Sec. 49.6.
iv. Sec. 49.9--Open Swaps Reports Provided to the Commission
The final amendments to Sec. 49.9 remove the current text of the
section and replace it with requirements related to SDRs providing open
swaps reports to the Commission, as instructed by the Commission. The
instructions may include the method, timing, frequency, and format of
the open swaps reports.
The Commission estimates that SDRs will incur a one-time initial
burden of 250 hours per SDR to create or modify their systems to
provide the open swaps reports to the Commission as instructed, for a
total estimated hours burden of 750 hours. This burden may be mitigated
by the fact that SDRs currently have systems in place to provide
similar information to the Commission, which may reduce the effort
needed to create or modify SDRs' systems. The Commission additionally
estimates 30 hours per SDR annually to perform any needed maintenance
or adjustments to SDR systems.
The Commission expects that the process for providing the open
swaps reports to the Commission will be largely automated and therefore
estimates a burden on the SDRs of 2 hours per report. Though the
Commission is not prescribing the frequency of the open swaps reports
at this time, the Commission estimates, only for the purposes of this
burden calculation, that the SDRs will provide the Commission with 365
open swaps reports per year, meaning that the estimated ongoing annual
additional hours burden for generating the open swaps reports and
providing the reports to the Commission is 730 hours per SDR.
The Commission therefore estimates a total ongoing additional
annual hours burden related to final Sec. 49.9 of 760 hours per SDR,
\325\ for a total estimated ongoing annual burden of 2,280 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\325\ 730 hours for the open swaps reports, and 30 hours to
perform system maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Sec. 49.10--Acceptance of Data
Final Sec. 49.10(e) requires SDRs to accept, process, and
disseminate corrections to SDR data errors and omissions. Final Sec.
49.10(e) also requires SDRs to have policies and procedures in place to
fulfill these requirements.
The Commission estimates that SDRs will incur a one-time initial
burden of 100 hours per SDR to update and implement the systems,
policies, and procedures necessary to fulfill their obligations under
final Sec. 49.10(e), for a total increased initial hours burden of 300
hours across all three SDRs. This burden may be mitigated by the fact
that SDRs already have systems, policies, and procedures in place to
accomplish corrections to SDR data and that the SDRs currently make
such corrections on a regular basis. The Commission additionally
estimates 30 hours per SDR annually to perform any needed maintenance
on correction systems and to update corrections policies and procedures
as needed.
The Commission anticipates that the process for SDRs to perform
corrections will be largely automated, as this is the case with current
SDR corrections. Based on swap data available to the Commission and
discussions with the SDRs, the Commission estimates that an SDR will
perform an average of approximately 2,652,000 data corrections per
year. Based on the same information, the Commission estimates that
performing each correction will require 2 seconds from an SDR. As a
result, the Commission estimates that the ongoing burden of performing
the actual corrections to SDR data will be approximately 1,473 hours
per SDR annually, on average. The Commission anticipates that once
applicable, the verification rules may have the short term effect of
increasing the number of corrections per year, as reporting
counterparties discover errors in open swaps. The Commission further
anticipates that the number of corrections will then decrease as the
new validation rules and revised technical specifications improve the
quality and accuracy of initial reporting, reducing the number of
corrections.
[[Page 75636]]
The Commission therefore estimates a total additional annual hours
burden related to final Sec. 49.10(e) of 1,503 hours per SDR annually,
for a total estimated ongoing burden of 4,509 hours.
vi. Sec. 49.11--Verification of Swap Data Accuracy
The final amendments to Sec. 49.11 modify the existing obligations
on SDRs to confirm the accuracy and completeness of swap data. Final
Sec. 49.11(b) requires SDRs to provide a mechanism that allows each
reporting counterparty that is a user of the swap data repository to
access all swap data maintained by the swap data repository for each
open swap for which the reporting counterparty is serving as the
reporting counterparty. Final Sec. Sec. 49.11(a) and 49.11(c) \326\ do
not have PRA implications beyond the burdens discussed for paragraph
(b) below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\326\ The Commission notes that requirements of part 40 of the
Commission's regulations apply to SDRs amending their verification
policies and procedures regardless of final Sec. 49.11(c), because
verification policies and procedures fall under the part 40
definition of a ``rule.'' See 17 CFR 40.1(i) (definition of rule for
the purposes of part 40). PRA implications for final Sec. 49.11(c)
are included under the existing approved PRA collection for part 40
of the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While SDRs are already required to confirm the accuracy and
completeness of swap data under current Sec. 49.11, the requirements
in final Sec. 49.11 impose different burdens on the SDRs than the
current regulation. The Commission estimates that each SDR will incur
an initial, one-time burden of 300 hours to build, test, and implement
updated verification systems, for a total of 900 initial burden hours
across all SDRs. The Commission also estimates 30 hours per SDR
annually for SDRs to maintain their verification systems and make any
needed updates to verification policies and procedures required under
final Sec. 49.11(a) and (c).
Currently, SDRs are required to confirm swap data by contacting
both counterparties for swaps that are not submitted by a SEF, DCM,
DCO, or third-party service provider every time the SDR receives swap
data related to the swap. For swaps reported by a SEF, DCM, DCO, or
third-party service provider, the SDRs must currently assess the swap
data to form a reasonable belief that the swap data is accurate every
time swap data is submitted for a swap. Under final Sec. 49.11(b) and
(c), SDRs are only required to provide the mechanism that will allow
reporting counterparties to perform verification, as described above.
The Commission also anticipates, based on discussions with SDRs and
other market participants, that the verification process will be
largely automated once the processes are in place, and will consist of
an annual burden of 30 hours per SDR.
The Commission therefore estimates a total additional ongoing hours
burden related to final Sec. 49.11 of 60 hours per SDR annually,\327\
for a total estimated ongoing burden of 180 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\327\ 30 hours for system maintenance and 30 hours for the
verification process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vii. Sec. 49.12--Swap Data Repository Recordkeeping Requirements
The final amendments to Sec. 49.12(a) and (b) incorporate existing
SDR recordkeeping obligations from Sec. 45.2(f) and (g) respectively,
which are already applicable to SDRs under current Sec. 49.12(a). As
the recordkeeping requirements being moved from Sec. 45.2 already
apply to SDRs under current Sec. 49.12, the Commission does not
believe that amended Sec. 49.12(a) or (b) requires any revision to
hours burden related to Sec. 49.12 already included in collection
3038-0086. Final amendments to Sec. 49.12(c) require SDRs to maintain
records of data validation errors and of data reporting errors, which
include records of data subsequently corrected by a SEF, DCM, or
reporting counterparty pursuant to parts 43, 45, and 46. Final Sec.
49.12(c) does not, however, add any new requirement to part 49, as all
of the records to be kept are already required to be kept by existing
recordkeeping obligations as data submitted under part 43, 45, or 46.
As a result, the Commission does not believe that final Sec. 49.12(c)
requires an additional PRA burden beyond that already included in
collection 3038-0086.
viii. Sec. 49.26--Disclosure Requirements of Swap Data Repositories
Final new Sec. 49.26(j) requires SDRs to provide their users and
potential users with the SDR's policies and procedures on reporting SDR
data, including SDR data validation procedures, swap data verification
procedures, and SDR data correction procedures. The Commission
anticipates that SDRs will incur a one-time burden of 20 burden hours
to draft written documents to provide to their users and potential
users, for a total increase of 60 one-time burden hours across SDRs.
The Commission also anticipates that SDRs will update their policies
once per year and incur a recurring burden of 10 hours annually from
providing any updated reporting policies and procedures to their users
and potential users, as needed, for a for a total estimated ongoing
annual burden of 30 hours across the three SDRs.
ix. Sec. 49.28--Operating Hours of Swap Data Repositories
Final new Sec. 49.28 incorporates existing provisions of Sec.
43.3(f) and (g) with respect to hours of operation with minor changes
and clarifications. Final Sec. 49.28 extends the provisions of current
Sec. 43.3(f) and (g) to include all SDR data and clarifies the
different treatment of regular closing hours and special closing hours.
SDRs currently have closing hours systems, policies, and procedures
that apply to all SDR functions and all SDR data under the current
requirements. The final requirements related to declaring regular
closing hours and special closing hours also effectively follow current
requirements, without necessitating changes to current SDR systems or
practices. The Commission does, however, anticipate that the SDRs will
need to issue notices to the public related to closing hours under
final Sec. 49.28(a) and (c). The Commission estimates that each SDR
will issue three notices per year and spend five hours creating and
disseminating each notice, for a total of 15 hours per year preparing
and providing public notices per SDR, for a for a total estimated
ongoing annual burden of 45 hours per year across all SDRs.
x. Sec. 49.29--Information Relating to Swap Data Repository Compliance
Final new Sec. 49.29 requires each SDR to provide, upon request by
the Commission, information relating to its business as an SDR, and
such other information that the Commission needs to perform its
regulatory duties. This provision also requires each SDR, upon request
by the Commission, to provide a written demonstration of compliance
with the SDR core principles and other regulatory obligations. The PRA
burden associated with such responses is dependent on the number of
requests made and the complexity of such requests. Based on its
experience with requests to DCMs, the Commission estimates that each
SDR will likely receive on average between three and five requests per
year, considering that an SDR is a newer type of registered entity than
a DCM. The Commission anticipates that the number of requests will
decrease over time. The Commission also anticipates that each such
request will require the SDR to spend 20 hours to gather information
and formulate a response, and bases its estimate of burden hours
assuming five such requests per year, for a total additional hours
burden of 100 hours per SDR per year, for a total estimated ongoing
annual burden of 300 hours per
[[Page 75637]]
year across all SDRs. The Commission does not anticipate that SDRs will
incur any one-time hours burden or costs in complying with this
regulation.
The Commission therefore estimates that the total overall burdens
for updated Information Collection 3038-0086 will be as follows:
Estimated number of respondents affected: 3 SDRs.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 154,327,169.
Estimated total annual responses: 462,981,508.
Estimated burden hours per response: 0.0006.
Estimated total annual burden hours per respondent: 99,197.
Estimated aggregate total burden hours for all respondents:
297,591.
C. Cost-Benefit Considerations
1. Introduction
Section 15(a) \328\ 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. Section 15(a) further
specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of
five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market
participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and
financial integrity of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\328\ 7 U.S.C. 19(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this release, the Commission is revising existing regulations in
parts 43, 45, and 49. The Commission is also issuing new regulations in
part 49. Together, these revisions and additions are intended to
address swap data verification and to improve the quality of data
reporting generally. Some of the amendments are substantive. A number
of amendments, however, are non-substantive or technical, and therefore
will not have associated cost-benefits implications.\329\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\329\ The Commission believes there are no cost-benefit
implications for Final Sec. Sec. 49.2, 49.15, 49.16, 49.18, 49.20,
49.24, and 49.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the sections that follow, the Commission discusses the costs and
benefits associated with the final rule and reasonable alternatives are
considered. Comments addressing the associated costs and benefits of
the rule are addressed in the appropriate sections. Wherever possible,
the Commission has considered the costs and benefits of the final rule
in quantitative terms.
Given that many aspects of the Proposal did not dictate the means
by which SDRs or reporting counterparties must comply, the Commission
recognized that the quantitative impact of the proposed rule would vary
by each entity because the affected market participants vary in
technological and staffing structure and resources. The Commission also
noted in the Proposal that because of differences in the sizes of SDR
operations, many of the costs associated with the proposed rulemaking
were not readily quantifiable without relying on and potentially
divulging confidential information. The Commission believed that many
of the proposed rules would have affected a wide variety of proprietary
reporting systems developed by SDRs and reporting counterparties.
With these understandings, the Commission asked the public to
provide information regarding quantitative costs and benefits related
to complying with the Commission's proposed rules. The Commission
received comments from market participants, such as SDRs and reporting
counterparties, and other interested public commenters. Some of the
commenters asserted that some of the proposed rules would generate
significant or burdensome costs, but no commenters quantified such
costs. Nor did commenters, in particular the limited universe of market
participants required to report and collect data, quantify costs they
currently expend to comply with current swap data reporting
requirements.\330\ If the Commission possessed information regarding
current and actual costs, the Commission could consider current
monetary outlays against the anticipated quantitative costs and
benefits needed to comply with the rules in this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\330\ See section I above for discussion of the history behind
swaps data reporting required by CEA section 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, the Commission has considered the costs and benefits
of the rules in this final rulemaking and has provided broad ranges of
estimates of the costs associated with implementing some of the rule
changes. It is reasonable to use ranges because the final rules are
flexible, which means SDRs and reporting counterparties will take
different approaches to comply with the final rules. In addition,
ranges account for variation in technological and staffing structure,
resources, and operational sophistication of affected market
participants.
In several of the sections below, the Commission has estimated the
number of hours it believes market participants will likely expend to
comply with the final rules. These cost estimates focus on the
technical aspects of the final rules and are separate from those listed
in the Paperwork Reduction Act discussion above in section VII.B. The
Commission has made reasonable estimations based, in part, on its
familiarity with the work of SDRs and reporting counterparties, and its
own experience in building systems to collect swap data. To monetize
the hours, the Commission multiplies the number of hours and an hourly
wage estimate. As most of the final rules may require technological
changes, the Commission uses hourly wages for developers. The
Commission estimated the hourly wages market participants will likely
pay software developers to implement changes to be between $48 and $101
per hour.\331\ The Commission recognizes that for some services--like
compliance review, and legal drafting and review--the wage rates may be
more or less than the $48 to $101 range for developers. The Commission
believes, however, that the estimated cost ranges, discussed below,
will cover most budgets for tasks, regardless of the exact nature of
the tasks needed to comply with the final rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\331\ Hourly wage rates were based on the Software Developers
and Programmers category of the May 2019 National Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates Report produced by the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. The 25th percentile was used for the low range and the
90th percentile was used for the upper range ($36.89 and $78.06,
respectively). Each number was multiplied by an adjustment factor of
1.3 for overhead and benefits (rounded to the nearest whole dollar)
which is in line with adjustment factors the Commission has used for
similar purposes in other final rules adopted under the Dodd-Frank
Act. See, e.g., 77 FR at 2173 (Jan. 13, 2012) (using an adjustment
factor of 1.3 for overhead and other benefits). These estimates are
intended to capture and reflect U.S. developer hourly rates market
participants are likely to pay when complying with the proposed
changes. The Commission recognizes that individual entities may,
based on their circumstances, incur costs substantially above or
below the estimated averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Background
Since their promulgation in 2011, the provisions in part 49 have
required SDRs to, among other things, accept and confirm data reported
to SDRs. The Commission believes SDRs' collection and maintenance of
swap data as required in parts 45 and 49 has allowed the Commission to
better monitor the overall swaps market and individual market
participants. In contrast, before the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act
and its implementing regulations, the swaps
[[Page 75638]]
market generally, and transactions and positions of individual market
participants in particular, were not transparent to regulators or the
public.
Under the current data reporting requirements, the Commission has
had the opportunity to work directly with SDR data reported to, and
held by, SDRs. Based on its experience working with SDR data, along
with extensive feedback and comments received from market participants,
the Commission believes that improving SDR data quality will help
enhance the data's usefulness. In this final rulemaking, the Commission
has focused on the operation and implementation of CEA section 21,\332\
which contains requirements related to SDRs, including the requirement
to confirm data.\333\ The Commission also is modifying a number of
other regulations for clarity and consistency and to enhance the
Commission's ability to monitor and supervise the swaps market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\332\ See 7 U.S.C. 24a.
\333\ See 7 U.S.C. 24a(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to discussing the rule changes, the Commission describes
below the current environment that will be impacted by these changes.
Three SDRs are currently provisionally registered with the Commission:
CME, DDR, and ICE. Each SDR has unique characteristics and structures
that determine how the rule changes will impact its operations. For
example, SDRs affiliated with DCOs tend to receive a large proportion
of their SDR data from swaps cleared through those affiliated DCOs,
while independent SDRs tend to receive SDR data from a wider range of
market participants.
The current reporting environment also involves third-party service
providers. These entities assist market participants with fulfilling
the applicable data reporting requirements, though the reporting
requirements do not apply to third-party service providers directly.
Current regulations have not resulted in data quality that meets
the Commission's expectations. For example, current regulations do not
include a specific affirmative obligation for swap counterparties to
review reported swap data for errors.\334\ Swap counterparties are
required to correct data errors only if inaccurate data is discovered,
and therefore data quality is partially dependent on processes that are
not mandated by the Commission. The result has been that market
participants too often have not reviewed data and corrected any errors.
It is not uncommon for Commission staff to find discrepancies between
open swaps information available to the Commission and reported data
for the same swaps. For example, in processing open swaps reports to
generate the CFTC's Weekly Swaps Report,\335\ Commission staff has
observed instances where the notional amount of a swap differs from the
swap data reported to an SDR for the same swap. Other common examples
of discrepancies include incorrect references to an underlying
currency, such as a notional value incorrectly linked to U.S. dollars
instead of Japanese Yen. These examples, among others, strongly suggest
a need for better verification of reported swap data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\334\ See 17 CFR 43.3(e); 17 CFR 45.14.
\335\ See CFTC's Weekly Swaps Report, available at https://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/SwapsReports/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weaknesses in SDR policies and procedures also have created
additional challenges for swap data accuracy. As discussed above,
certain SDR policies and procedures for swap data have been based on
negative affirmation, i.e., predicated on the assumption that reported
swap data is accurate and confirmed if a reporting counterparty does
not inform the SDR of errors, or otherwise make subsequent
modifications to the swap data, within a certain period of time.\336\
As reporting counterparties are typically not reviewing their reported
swap data maintained by SDRs, the data is effectively assumed to be
accurate, and errors are not sufficiently discovered and corrected. The
volume of inaccurate swap data that is discovered by market
participants or the Commission shows that current regulations are
ineffective in producing the quality of swap data the Commission
expects and needs to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\336\ See 17 CFR 49.11(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that amendments and additions to certain
regulations, particularly in parts 43, 45, and 49, will improve data
accuracy and completeness. The regulatory changes in this final
rulemaking aim to meet this objective.
This final rulemaking also includes amendments to part 49 to
improve and streamline the Commission's oversight of SDRs. These
amendments include new provisions allowing the Commission to request
demonstrations of compliance and other information from SDRs.
For each amendment discussed below, the Commission summarizes the
changes,\337\ and identifies and discusses the costs and benefits
attributable to the changes. The Commission then considers reasonable
alternatives to the rules. Finally, the Commission considers the costs
and benefits of all of the rules jointly in light of the five public
interest considerations in CEA section 15(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\337\ As described throughout this release, the Commission is
also proposing a number of non-substantive, conforming rule
amendments in this release, such as renumbering certain provisions
and modifying the wording of existing provisions. Non-substantive
amendments of this nature may be described in the cost-benefit
portion of this release, but the Commission will note that there are
no costs or benefits to consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that this consideration of costs and benefits
is based on the understanding that the swaps market functions
internationally. Many swaps transactions involving U.S. firms occur
across international borders and some Commission registrants are
organized outside of the United States, with leading industry members
often conducting operations both within and outside the United States,
and with market participants commonly following substantially similar
business practices wherever located. Where the Commission does not
specifically refer to matters of location, the discussion of costs and
benefits refers to the rules' effects on all swaps activity, 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).\338\ The Commission contemplated this cross-
border perspective in 2011 when it adopted Sec. 49.7, which applies to
trade repositories located in foreign jurisdictions.\339\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\338\ See 7 U.S.C. 2(i). CEA section 2(i) limits the
applicability of the CEA provisions enacted by the Dodd-Frank Act,
and Commission regulations promulgated under those provisions, to
activities within the U.S., unless the activities have a direct and
significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of
the U.S.; or contravene such rules or regulations as the Commission
may prescribe or promulgate as are necessary or appropriate to
prevent the evasion of any provision of the CEA enacted by the Dodd-
Frank Act. The application of section 2(i)(1) to Sec. 45.2(a), to
the extent it duplicates Sec. 23.201, with respect to SDs/MSPs and
non-SD/MSP counterparties is discussed in the Commission's final
rule, ``Cross-Border Application of the Registration Thresholds and
Certain Requirements Applicable to Swap Dealers and Major Swap
Participants,'' 85 FR 56924, 56965-66 (Sept. 14, 2020).
\339\ See 17 CFR 49.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Baseline
There are separate baselines for the costs and benefits that arise
from the finalized regulations in this release. The baseline for final
Sec. 43.3(e) is existing Sec. 43.3(e). The baseline for final Sec.
45.14 is existing Sec. 45.14. The baseline for amendments to current
part 49 regulations is the existing part 49 and current practices. For
final Sec. 49.12, the baseline is existing Sec. 49.12, as well as
[[Page 75639]]
Sec. 45.2(f) and (g), which will be replaced by final Sec. 49.12. For
final Sec. 49.17, the baseline is current Sec. Sec. 49.17 and 45.13.
The Commission is also finalizing four new regulations: Sec. Sec.
49.28, 49.29, 49.30, and 49.31. For final Sec. 49.28 the baseline is
existing Sec. 43.3(f) and (g), because the requirements in Sec.
43.3(f) and (g) are being moved to final Sec. 49.28. For final
Sec. Sec. 49.29 and 49.30, the baselines are current practices. Final
Sec. 49.31 concerns internal Commission practices and is not subject
to consideration of costs and benefits.
4. Costs and Benefits of Amendments to Part 49
i. Sec. 49.2--Definitions
The Commission is adopting editorial and conforming amendments to
certain definitions in final Sec. 49.2. The Commission considers the
definitions to have no cost-benefit implications on their own. In
addition, the Commission believes the amendments to Sec. 49.2 are non-
substantive changes that will not impact existing obligations on SDRs
or reporting counterparties, and, therefore, the amended definitions
have no cost-benefit implications.
ii. Sec. 49.3--Procedures for Registration
The Commission is adopting the amendments to Sec. 49.3(a)(5) and
the conforming amendments to Form SDR and Sec. 49.22(f)(2) as proposed
in part and is not adopting the proposed amendments in part. The
Commission is removing the current requirements for SDRs to file an
annual amendment to Form SDR but declines to amend the requirement to
update the Form SDR after the Commission grants an SDR registration
under Sec. 49.3(a).\340\ The annual Form SDR filing requirement is
unnecessary for the Commission to successfully perform its regulatory
functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\340\ See 17 CFR 49.3(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendments to Sec. 49.3(a)(5) benefit SDRs by reducing the
amount of information that SDRs must provide to the Commission on an
annual basis and the frequency with which SDRs must deliver information
updating Form SDR.
By removing the requirement to file an annual update to Form SDR in
current Sec. 49.3(a)(5), SDRs will benefit from expending fewer
resources to provide information to the Commission. The Commission
believes that the eliminated requirement is burdensome and unnecessary,
as the SDRs already submit, and will continue to submit, the same
updated information in the required periodic Form SDR amendments. The
Commission believes that costs of eliminating the annual Form SDR
update requirement, in terms of impairing the Commission's access to
information, will be minimal. The costs related to the changes to Sec.
49.3(a)(5) will largely be associated with any needed adjustments to
SDR policies and procedures related to reducing the number of updates
to Form SDR.
Notwithstanding the anticipated incremental costs, the Commission
believes this change to Sec. 49.3(a)(5) is warranted in light of the
anticipated benefits.
iii. Sec. 49.5--Equity Interest Transfers
The Commission is finalizing various amendments to Sec. 49.5 to
simplify and streamline the requirements for when an SDR enters into an
agreement involving the transfer of an equity interest of ten percent
or more in the SDR. The Commission also is extending the notice filing
deadline.
Current Sec. 49.5 requires three actions by an SDR as part of an
equity interest transfer: (1) Issue a notice to the Commission within
one business day of committing to the transfer; (2) submit specific
documents to the Commission, as well as update its Form SDR; and (3)
certify compliance with CEA section 21 and Commission regulations
adopted thereunder within two business days of the transfer of equity.
Final Sec. 49.5 is less demanding than current Sec. 49.5. Final
Sec. 49.5 ensures that the Commission is apprised of a change that
might impact SDR operations and provided with information to aid any
evaluation processes the Commission undertakes. Yet, final Sec. 49.5
gives an SDR more time in which to notify the Commission of an equity
interest transfer and eliminates unnecessary filings. Final Sec.
49.5(a) requires an SDR: (i) To notify the Commission of each
transaction involving the direct or indirect transfer of ten percent or
more of the equity interest in the SDR within ten business days of ``a
firm obligation to transfer''; and (ii) to provide the Commission with
supporting documentation upon request. Final Sec. 49.5(b) requires
that the notice in Sec. 49.5(a) be filed electronically with the
Secretary of the Commission and DMO at the earliest possible time, but
in no event later than ten business days following the date upon which
a firm obligation is made for the equity interest transfer. Final Sec.
49.5(c) requires that upon the transfer, whether directly or
indirectly, the SDR shall file electronically with the Secretary of the
Commission and DMO a certification that the SDR meets all of the
requirements of CEA section 21 and the Commission regulations
thereunder, no later than two business days following the date on which
the equity interest was acquired.
The Commission requested the public to comment on the cost-benefit
considerations related to proposed Sec. 49.5, but the Commission did
not receive any comments. Consequently, the Commission continues to
believe that the amendments will benefit SDRs by lowering the burdens
related to notifying the Commission of equity interest transfers and by
extending the time SDRs have to file the notice with the Commission.
The amendments benefit SDRs by reducing the burden to notify the
Secretary of the Commission and DMO of transfers by extending the
available time from one business day to ten business days. More time
will give SDRs greater latitude in managing how they use their time and
allocate resources to file the required notices and certification.
In addition, SDRs will no longer have the obligations in current
Sec. 49.5(a) to update Form SDR and in current Sec. 49.5(b) to
provide specifically-identified documents to the Commission with the
equity interest transfer notification. Final Sec. 49.5 instead states
that the Commission may request supporting documentation for the
transaction. Even if the request causes the SDR to submit more
documents than the ones listed in the current regulation or Form SDR,
the requested documents will be tailored to the Commission's evaluation
of the equity transfer. SDRs will benefit from not expending resources
and time to collect, file, record, and track documents listed in
current Sec. 49.5 that may have no value to the Commission's review.
The Commission's ability to request supporting documentation mitigates
costs in terms of detrimental effects that could arise from less
information about the transfer being available to the Commission.
Additional costs to SDRs, if any, will stem from the inclusion of
``indirect transfers'' of equity interest in Sec. 49.5. This could
increase the costs to SDRs, if the inclusion of indirect transfers
results in more equity interest transfers being subject to the
regulation and the associated need to provide information to the
Commission. The inclusion of indirect transfers benefits the Commission
by providing greater insight into equity interest transfers that could
affect the business of an SDR, even though the equity interest transfer
does not involve the SDR directly. As equity interest transfers are
rare occurrences and the Commission does not anticipate that including
indirect transfers will result in substantially more equity interest
transfers, the
[[Page 75640]]
Commission expects the potential additional costs connected to final
Sec. 49.5 to be small.
Notwithstanding the anticipated incremental costs, the Commission
believes the changes to Sec. 49.5 are warranted in light of the
anticipated benefits.
iv. Sec. 49.6--Request for Transfer of Registration
The Commission is finalizing Sec. 49.6 as proposed. Final Sec.
49.6(a) requires an SDR seeking to transfer its SDR registration
following a corporate change to file a request for approval to transfer
the registration with the Secretary of the Commission in the form and
manner specified by the Commission. Final Sec. 49.6(b) specifies that
an SDR file a request for transfer of registration as soon as
practicable before the anticipated corporate change. Final Sec.
49.6(c) sets forth the information that must be included in the request
for transfer of registration, including the documentation underlying
the corporate change, the impact of the change on the SDR, governance
documents, updated rulebooks, and representations by the transferee
entity, among other things. Final Sec. 49.6(d) specifies that upon
review of a request for transfer of registration, the Commission, as
soon as practicable, shall issue an order either approving or denying
the request for transfer of registration.
The Commission sought public comment on its cost-benefit
considerations related to Sec. 49.6. The Commission did not receive
any comments.
The Commission continues to believe that Sec. 49.6 will not impose
any additional costs on SDRs compared to the current requirements that
include meeting filing deadlines for submitting a Form SDR. The
amendments to Sec. 49.6 create several benefits that include
simplifying the process for requesting a transfer of SDR registration
and reducing the burdens on SDRs for successfully transferring an SDR
registration to a successor entity. Final Sec. 49.6 eliminates
duplicative filings by requiring a more limited scope of information
and representations from the transferor and transferee entities than
existing Sec. 49.6, which requires a full application for registration
on Form SDR, including all Form SDR exhibits. Final Sec. 49.6 focuses
on ensuring the Commission receives relevant information needed to
approve a request for a transfer of an SDR registration promptly.
v. Sec. 49.9--Open Swaps Reports Provided to the Commission
The Commission is finalizing Sec. 49.9 as proposed. Final Sec.
49.9 creates a new regulatory obligation by requiring an SDR to provide
the Commission with an open swaps report that contains an accurate
reflection of data for every swap data field required to be reported
under part 45 for every open swap maintained by the SDR.
Final Sec. 49.9 alters current Sec. 49.9 substantially. Current
Sec. 49.9 does not specifically discuss open swaps reports; rather, it
outlines twelve SDR duties through cross-references to other part 49
regulations. For example, current Sec. 49.9 states that SDRs must
``accept swap data as prescribed in Sec. 49.10;'' provide direct
electronic access to the Commission ``as prescribed in Sec. 49.17;''
and adopt disaster recovery plans ``as prescribed in Sec. 49.23 and
Sec. 49.13.'' \341\ The Commission is removing the list of duties in
Sec. 49.9 and replacing it with a regulation that assigns SDRs the
obligation to issue open swaps reports to the Commission.\342\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\341\ 17 CFR 49.9(a).
\342\ The Commission believes that removing the list of duties
in Sec. 49.9 is a non-substantive change that does not implicate
cost or benefit considerations, because the list consists of cross-
references to other regulations. The costs and benefits of the
addition of new requirements in final Sec. 49.9 are considered
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission requested public comment on its consideration of the
costs and benefits related to proposed Sec. 49.9. The Commission did
not receive any comments.
The Commission believes that while there may be costs imposed by
final Sec. 49.9, costs will be mitigated by the fact that SDRs already
send the Commission reports that are similar to the open swaps reports
required by final Sec. 49.9. Given that SDRs already have systems to
issue reports, the adjustments SDRs must undertake to comply with final
Sec. 49.9 should be incremental in terms of financial and
administrative outlays to modify technological infrastructures to meet
the Commission's requirements. The Commission believes the costs may
include expenditures to modify current reporting systems to meet the
requirements for the open swaps reporting systems and costs to maintain
SDR systems.
Currently, SDRs produce reports using differing approaches to
calculations and formats. There may be costs to change systems to meet
the Commission's required standardized format for open swaps reports.
The Commission, however, does not expect the format of these reports to
change frequently. The Commission believes a standardized report will
ensure the report is in a more usable format that assists and improves
the Commission's regulatory efforts. The Commission uses current SDR
reports to perform market risk and position calculations. The
Commission also uses SDR reports to create and publish the Commission's
weekly swaps report and quarterly entity-netted notional reports. The
Commission-issued reports benefit market participants and the public by
providing and analyzing data sourced directly from the SDRs. This
information on open swaps is unique and is not available to the public
until the Commission publishes its reports.
The Commission recognizes that the three existing SDRs vary in size
of operations. They also service and process different volumes of data
for various asset classes. As a result, the qualitative and
quantitative costs to comply with Sec. 49.9 will differ between SDRs.
Notably, however, no commenters submitted estimates of time or
monetized costs for proposed Sec. 49.9 or the amount of current costs
to produce reports. Based on the Commission's knowledge of SDRs and its
own technological experience, the Commission estimates that each SDR
will expend 250 hours to establish an open swaps report system that
complies with Sec. 49.9. Thereafter, the Commission estimates that
each SDR will spend 30 hours on maintenance and 730 hours dedicated to
issuing open swaps reports annually. The Commission monetizes the
initial set-up and annual hours by multiplying by the wage-rate range
of $48 to $101 to estimate that each SDR will expend $12,000 to $25,250
to establish an open swaps report system and then expend $36,480 to
$76,760 for annual maintenance and reporting.\343\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\343\ See supra note 344 (discussion of BLS wage estimates).
These estimates, discussed here and below, focus on the costs and
benefits of the amended rules market participants are likely to
encounter with an emphasis on technical details, implementation, and
market-level impacts. Where software changes are expected, these
costs reflect software developer labor costs only, not a blend of
different occupations. Costs and benefits quantified at the market
participant or reporting entity level are listed in the Paperwork
Reduction Act discussion above in section VII.B and reflect blended
burden costs as defined in the supporting statement for Part 49.
Those costs are not repeated in this section. Wherever appropriate,
quantified costs reflected in the Paperwork Reduction Act discussion
are noted below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission considered and rejected the alternative of not
adopting Sec. 49.9. The Commission believes that the absence of a
requirement for open swaps reports creates regulatory ambiguity and the
possibility that SDRs might stop voluntarily producing open swaps
reports. If the latter were to
[[Page 75641]]
occur, the weekly swaps report would be adversely impacted, possibly
temporarily eliminated, and efforts to inform the public of
developments in swaps markets would be hindered. This cost is
significant because SDR reports and Commission-issued reports have
become invaluable to the public's and the Commission's understanding of
derivatives markets.
Notwithstanding the costs and in light of the drawbacks of possible
alternatives, the Commission believes Sec. 49.9 is warranted in light
of the anticipated benefits.
vi. Sec. 49.10--Acceptance of Data
Final Sec. 49.10(e) requires an SDR to accept corrections for
errors in SDR data that was previously reported, or erroneously not
reported, to SDRs. The Commission is finalizing Sec. 49.10(e)(1)
through (4) generally as proposed, with modifications and textual
clarifications in response to public comments. The final rule sets
forth the specific requirements SDRs will need to satisfy under Sec.
49.10(e): (i) Accept corrections for errors reported to, or erroneously
not reported to, the SDR until the end of the record-keeping retention
period under Sec. 49.12(b)(2); (ii) record corrections as soon as
technologically practicable after accepting the corrections; (iii)
disseminate corrected SDR data to the public and the Commission, as
applicable; and (iv) establish, maintain, and enforce policies and
procedures designed to fulfill these responsibilities under Sec.
49.10(e)(1) through (3).
In the Proposal, the Commission explained that Sec. 49.10(e) could
impose some costs on SDRs, but that the costs would not be significant
and are largely related to any needed updates to SDR error correction
systems. The Commission based its belief, in part, on the fact that
SDRs are currently required to identify cancellations, corrections, and
errors under parts 43 and 45.\344\ Joint SDR commented that this is an
incorrect understanding because SDRs ``make available facilities to
reporting entities to meet their obligations to make such
corrections.'' \345\ Joint SDR added: ``In order for an SDR to take on
the new obligation of making corrections, rather than allowing a
reporting entity to submit corrections themselves, would necessitate
significant changes to the SDR's systems.'' \346\ Joint SDR also stated
that it would be costly to make corrections to data for dead swaps.
They specifically explained: ``This requirement would be costly for the
SDRs as data will need to be maintained in a readily accessible format
for an unlimited amount of time and the SDR will be unable to archive
the data in accordance with its internal policies and procedures.''
\347\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\344\ See 17 CFR 43.3(e)(1), (3), and (4); 17 CFR 45.14(c).
\345\ Joint SDR at 8 n. 28.
\346\ Joint SDR at 8 n. 28.
\347\ Joint SDR at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is persuaded by commenters' statements that proposed
Sec. 49.10(e) would be costly and burdensome without changes. Given
that final Sec. 49.10(e) must be read with final Sec. Sec. 43.3(e),
45.14, and 49.11, SDRs' costs related to Sec. 49.10(e) should be far
less than anticipated.
The Commission believes that there will be costs connected with
implementing final Sec. 49.10(e). Currently, SDRs must accept and
record data, as well as disseminate calculations and corrections to SDR
data.\348\ Final Sec. 49.10(e) might require SDRs to expend
incremental costs in terms of financial and staff outlays to adjust
systems to ``accept'' and ``record'' corrections. These incremental
costs should be limited because, as mentioned earlier, SDRs already
make facilities available to reporting counterparties to make
corrections. The Commission believes that the commenter misunderstands
the requirements of proposed and final Sec. 49.10(e) and the
associated costs as requiring more direct participation in the
correction process than is currently required. Nothing in proposed or
final Sec. 49.10(e) would require the SDRs to change a current
approach based on making facilities available that allow market
participants to submit corrections or obligate an SDR to do anything
more to accept, record, and disseminate corrections than is currently
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\348\ 17 CFR 49.10 (SDR ``shall accept and promptly record all
swap data. . . .''). See also Sec. 43.3(e)(1), (3), and (4); 17 CFR
45.14(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also believes that the inclusion of the technical
specification and validation requirements for SDR data in parallel
Commission rulemaking \349\ will help prevent certain types of SDR data
reporting errors before they occur, and, therefore, reduce the need for
market participants and the SDRs to correct those types of errors and,
as a result, the corresponding costs incurred by SDRs to correct errors
will likely decrease over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\349\ See generally 85 FR 21516, et seq. (Apr. 17, 2020); 85 FR
21578, et seq. (Apr. 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.10(e) will also limit SDR error correction
requirements to the applicable recordkeeping obligation in final Sec.
49.12. SDRs will not be obligated to indefinitely maintain storage and
legacy systems for dead swaps or to correct dead swaps for which the
records retention period has expired.
SDRs also might incur incremental costs related to establishing,
maintaining, and enforcing the policies and procedures required by
final Sec. 49.10(e). The Commission, however, believes that costs will
be limited to initial creation costs and update costs for the policies
and procedures as needed, as mitigated by any existing SDR error
correction policies and procedures.
The Commission continues to believe that one of the main benefits
of Sec. 49.10(e) is improved data quality resulting from SDRs
collecting and disseminating accurate swaps data. Accurate and complete
datasets will enable the Commission to better understand markets and
trading behavior, and guard against abusive practices. In addition, the
Commission uses swap SDR data to produce public information on the
swaps markets, such as the weekly swaps reports. The Commission
believes that accurate data reflected in the weekly swaps report will
improve the quality and reliability of the reports. All market
participants and the public benefit from complete and accurate SDR
data.
Final Sec. 49.10(e) is linked closely to final Sec. Sec. 43.3(e),
45.14, and 49.11. Because of the changes to current Sec. Sec. 43.3(e),
45.14, and 49.11, there will be costs associated with Sec. 49.10(e).
The Commission, however, believes that the benefits related to using
accurate data sets warrant the costs of changes to Sec. 49.10(e).
vii. Sec. 49.11--Verification of Swap Data Accuracy
In response to comments, the Commission is modifying final Sec.
49.11 so that the verification process is less burdensome and more
flexible than the process set forth in proposed Sec. 49.11. Final
Sec. 49.11 requires an SDR to: (i) Verify the accuracy and
completeness of swap data that the SDR receives from a SEF, DCM, or
reporting counterparty, or third-party service providers acting on
their behalf; and (ii) establish, maintain, and enforce policies and
procedures reasonably designed to verify the accuracy and completeness
of that swap data. In terms of implementation, Sec. 49.11 requires an
SDR to provide a mechanism that allows each reporting counterparty that
is a user of the SDR to access all swap data maintained by the SDR for
each open swap for which the reporting counterparty is serving as the
reporting counterparty. Under companion provisions in Sec. 45.14, a
reporting counterparty is required to perform verifications of the
relevant
[[Page 75642]]
swap data at specified intervals, using the mechanism provided by an
SDR under Sec. 49.11, and to correct any errors discovered.
The Commission anticipates that the final rule will provide
benefits, as compared to the current regulation, by improving the
quality of data received and maintained by SDRs. The final rule is
expected to lead to swap data errors being discovered and corrected
more frequently and earlier than is often the case under the current
regulations. Existing Commission regulations and SDRs rules and
policies allow counterparties to presume data is accurate when it may
not be. The absence of an affirmative verification requirement has also
resulted in counterparties not discovering errors, including many
obvious errors, and therefore not correcting the errors, for extended
periods.
The new requirements in final Sec. 49.11 will also impose costs.
As discussed in more detail below, commenters provided qualitative
comments on the Commission's consideration of the costs and benefits of
proposed Sec. 49.11, but did not provide quantitative information. As
final Sec. 49.11 grants SDRs the flexibility to devise their own
processes to allow reporting counterparties to access swap data for
verification, it is difficult to determine the amount of hours and
effort SDRs will need to comply with Sec. 49.11. Based on comments,
the Commission believes that SDRs will be able to leverage current
technological systems to provide access to reporting counterparties to
verify data under Sec. 49.11.\350\ In the absence of information from
commenters, the Commission estimates that it will take each SDR up to
500 hours to build, test, and implement verification systems that are
of their own design.\351\ The Commission estimates that SDRs will
expend 50 hours or fewer annually to maintain systems and revise
policies and procedures. The Commission monetizes the hours by
multiplying by a wage rate of $48 to $101.\352\ The Commission
estimates that the initial costs to an SDR of implementing Sec. 49.11
will range between $24,000 and $50,500. The annual costs will range
between $2,400 and $5,050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\350\ Joint SDR at 6 n. 28.
\351\ In the Proposal, the Commission estimated burden hours
based on proposed Sec. 49.11. Because final Sec. 49.11 is more
flexible and does not require the creation of open swaps reports or
the building of systems to send and receive messages with reporting
counterparties, the Commission believes that SDRs and reporting
counterparties will employ less onerous and more economical
approaches to meeting their Sec. 49.11 and Sec. 45.14 obligations.
Therefore, the Commission is using the estimated burden hours in the
Proposal as upper limits on the number of hours entities will use to
develop and maintain data verification systems.
\352\ See supra note 344 (discussion of BLS wage estimates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before adopting the verification requirements in final Sec. 49.11,
the Commission considered the two following requirements that were in
the Proposal: (1) Requiring an SDR to establish, maintain, and enforce
policies and procedures reasonably designed for the SDR to successfully
receive verifications of data accuracy and notices of discrepancy from
reporting counterparties \353\ and (2) requiring SDRs to issue open
swaps reports to reporting counterparties on a weekly or monthly basis,
depending on the type of reporting counterparty involved.\354\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\353\ Proposal at 84 FR 21051-55 (May 13, 2019).
\354\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission received numerous comments on these two requirements
in response to the Commission's request for comment. ISDA/SIFMA
suggested that the Commission issue a more principles-based
verification process than the one described in proposed Sec. Sec.
45.14(a) and 49.11(b).\355\ ISDA/SIFMA recommended eliminating the
requirement that reporting counterparties reconcile swaps data with
SDR-issued open swaps reports as well as obligations that SDRs manage
or monitor such reconciliations.\356\ ISDA/SIFMA proposed a
verification process that would require reporting counterparties, via
required policies and procedures, ``to periodically reconcile the
relevant SDR data with the data from their internal books and records
for accuracy.'' \357\ Reporting counterparties that are SDs, MSPs, or
DCOs would be required to perform verifications monthly and all other
reporting counterparties would be required to verify data
quarterly.\358\ The reporting counterparties would need to keep a
record of verifications and make that information available to SDRs or
the Commission upon request.\359\ This approach would enable reporting
counterparties to leverage their own data validation efforts and
eliminate the burden of sending multiple notifications.\360\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\355\ ISDA/SIFMA at 45.
\356\ Id.
\357\ Id.
\358\ Id.
\359\ Id.
\360\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in section II.G above, the Commission is persuaded by
comments that a more flexible verification process will have the same,
if not better, effect on data quality as the proposed verification
process. As final Sec. 49.11 does not include the requirement for SDRs
to distribute open swaps reports to reporting counterparties or to have
policies and procedures to receive verifications of accuracy and
notices of discrepancy from reporting counterparties, SDRs will have
greater flexibility in managing their relationships with reporting
counterparties than they were expected to have under the Proposal.
The differences between final Sec. 49.11 and the Proposal also
affect the Commission's cost considerations. In the Proposal, the
Commission recognized that the SDRs would bear most of the costs
associated with the proposed amendments to Sec. 49.11.\361\ The
Commission stated that there would be initial costs from establishing
systems to generate open swaps reports and to successfully distribute
these reports to all reporting counterparties. There also would be
recurring costs related to any needed adjustments to SDR systems over
time and to accommodate the arrival or departure of reporting
counterparties. The Commission also stated that an SDR's costs would be
insignificant because an SDR would automate the verification
process.\362\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\361\ Proposal at 84 FR 21084 (May 13, 2019).
\362\ Proposal at 84 FR 21084 (May 13, 2019) (``these changes
would [not] be significant because, based on discussion with the
SDRs and other market participants, the Commission believes SDRs
would largely automate the verification process.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint SDR disagreed with the Commission's cost assessments for
proposed Sec. 49.11.\363\ Joint SDR commented that ``chasing reporting
counterparties who have not provided verification of data accuracy or a
notice of discrepancy in order to establish the SDR made a `full, good-
faith effort to comply' '' would require an expenditure of significant
resources.\364\ Joint SDR also highlighted that the ``cost of creating
and maintaining a system to verify each message would be significant.''
\365\ Joint SDR encouraged the Commission to recognize that any new
message types impose development costs on SDRs, reporting
counterparties, and all third-parties or vendors who build and maintain
reporting systems.\366\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\363\ Joint SDR at 2-3.
\364\ Joint SDR at 3.
\365\ Joint SDR at 6. See also ICE Clear at 3 (referencing Joint
SDR).
\366\ Joint SDR at 6 and n. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters characterized their objections to the proposed
message-based verification process as a costly endeavor. FIA requested
a more principles-based approach to verifying swaps under Sec. 49.11,
because they
[[Page 75643]]
believed the approach in proposed Sec. 49.11 would create more burdens
than benefits.\367\ FIA added that ``verification requirements will
have little marginal benefit relative to the increased costs on
reporting counterparties, in particular those that are not registered
[SDs].'' \368\ ISDA/SIFMA stated that they believe the ``proposed
prescriptive approach to verification would result in considerable
costs for reporting parties to implement.'' \369\ ICE Clear commented
that the Commission failed to discuss how the additional verification
and messaging costs ``would result in increased levels of data accuracy
sufficient to warrant imposing the obligations.'' \370\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\367\ See FIA May at 7-8; ISDA/SIFMA at 44-45.
\368\ FIA May at 7.
\369\ ISDA/SIFMA at 44.
\370\ ICE Clear at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the costs resulting from the
verification process under Sec. 49.11 as finalized will be less
burdensome than the costs the Commission estimated in the Proposal. For
instance, SDRs would have incurred costs to create and distribute
weekly and monthly open swaps reports as the Commission initially
proposed, but will not incur these costs under final Sec. 49.11.\371\
Under final Sec. 49.11, SDRs and other entities will incur fewer costs
because they will be able to employ different data-accuracy approaches
that will not include the costs of building-out and maintaining
message-based verification systems that rely on open swaps reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\371\ Proposal at 84 FR 21084 (May 13, 2019) (discussion of
costs related to generating and distributing open swaps reports).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is not eliminating the overall verification
requirement because it believes verifying data is crucial to ensure
data quality. Data review and verification improves the reliability and
usability of swap data, and more accurate swap data helps the
Commission in monitoring risk; analyzing metrics for such indicators as
volume, price, and liquidity; and developing policy. Thus, final Sec.
49.11 will benefit the Commission and the public by improving the
accuracy of data they will receive.
Besides considering proposed Sec. 49.11, the Commission also
considered and rejected the idea of maintaining current Sec. 49.11.
The Commission rejected this approach because of concerns about the
quality of data received under current regulations, as swap data
quality has not sufficiently improved under current regulations. As
explained above, the presumption that reported swap data is accurate
along with the absence of an affirmative verification requirement, have
resulted in many instances of inaccurate or unusable swap data being
provided to the Commission under current regulations and procedures. In
the nine years since the Commission issued the data reporting
regulations, it has become apparent that the current requirements are
inadequate to ensure swap data accuracy and that processes like
verification can improve the accuracy and completeness of data sets.
Accurate data sets are crucial for overseeing modern markets and for
understanding the structure and operations of the markets.
Notwithstanding the anticipated incremental costs of final Sec.
49.11 and after considering alternatives, the Commission believes the
amendments to Sec. 49.11 are warranted in light of the anticipated
benefits.
viii. Sec. 49.12--Swap Data Repository Recordkeeping Requirements
The Commission is finalizing Sec. 49.12 as proposed. Final Sec.
49.12(a) requires an SDR to keep full, complete, and systematic
records, together with all pertinent data and memoranda, of all
activities relating to the business of the SDR, including, but not
limited to, all SDR information and all SDR data reported to the SDR.
Final Sec. 49.12(b)(1) requires an SDR to maintain all SDR
information received by the SDR in the course of its business. Final
Sec. 49.12(b)(2) requires an SDR to maintain all SDR data and
timestamps, and all messages to and from an SDR, related to SDR data
reported to the SDR throughout the existence of the swap to which the
SDR data relates and for five years following final termination of the
swap, during which time the records must be readily accessible by the
SDR and available to the Commission via real-time electronic access,
and then for an additional period of at least ten years in archival
storage from which such records are retrievable by the SDR within three
business days.
Final Sec. 49.12(c) requires an SDR to create and maintain records
of errors related to SDR data validations and errors related to SDR
data reporting. Final Sec. 49.12(c)(1) requires an SDR to create and
maintain an accurate record of all SDR data that fails to satisfy the
SDR's data validation procedures. Final Sec. 49.12(c)(2) requires an
SDR to create and maintain an accurate record of all SDR data errors
reported to the SDR and all corrections disseminated by the SDR
pursuant to parts 43, 45, 46, and 49. SDRs must make the records
available to the Commission on request.
Final Sec. 49.12(d) contains the requirements of existing Sec.
49.12(c) and provides that: (i) All records required to be kept
pursuant to part 49 must be open to inspection upon request by any
representative of the Commission or any representative of the U.S.
Department of Justice; and (ii) an SDR must produce any record required
to be kept, created, or maintained by the SDR in accordance with Sec.
1.31.
The Commission did not receive any comments concerning its
consideration of costs and benefits related to the recordkeeping
requirements in proposed Sec. 49.12.
The Commission continues to believe that the costs of amendments to
Sec. 49.12 will primarily be incurred by the SDRs as they make any
needed adjustments to create and maintain all required records. The
Commission believes these incremental costs will be limited, as the
recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 49.12 are largely the same as the
requirements in existing Sec. 49.12 and existing Sec. 45.2(f) and
(g).
The amendments to Sec. 49.12 related to SDR information will also
be substantially similar to the SEC's requirements for its SBSDRs.\372\
The Commission expects that there will be substantial overlap in these
requirements for SDRs that are also SBSDRs and these entities will be
able to leverage resources to reduce any duplicative costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\372\ See 17 CFR 240.13n-7 (detailing the SBSDR recordkeeping
requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint SDR objected to the requirements moved to final Sec.
49.12(b) that requires SDRs to retain data ``for a period of at least
ten additional years in archival storage from which such records are
retrievable by the swap data repository within three business days.''
\373\ Joint SDR suggested that the Commission harmonize retention
periods with that of Europe and other Commission-regulated
entities.\374\ Joint SDR pointed-out that the Commission collects its
own data from SDRs so the Commission ``can itself retain relevant data
in accordance with its own recordkeeping policies.'' \375\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\373\ Final Sec. 49.12(b); See Joint SDR at 11.
\374\ Joint SDR at 11.
\375\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission recognizes that the ten-year archival storage is
lengthy, but the Commission notes that this period is the current SDR
retention periods for the same data under existing Sec. 45.2(f) and
(g) \376\ and that the Commission has not proposed to modify this
current requirement. The amendments to Sec. 49.12(b) are part of the
Commission's effort to better organize its own rules, not the result of
the Commission changing a current requirement. As a
[[Page 75644]]
result, there are no new costs to SDRs associated with the retention
period in final Sec. 49.12(b). The Commission also continues to
believe the ten-year period is reasonable. Archived data is important
to regulatory oversight and the SDRs serve as the source of SDR data
for the Commission. The Commission benefits from access to archived
swap data, for the purpose of understanding trends in swaps markets,
such as exposures, trades, and positions, and guarding against abusive
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\376\ 17 CFR 45.2(f) and (g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the amendments to Sec. 49.12 will
provide greater clarity to SDRs in regards to their recordkeeping
responsibilities. The amendments also will help improve efforts to
track data reporting errors, because the requirements for SDRs to
maintain records of reporting errors will be clearer. Data
recordkeeping should lead to better quality data by allowing an SDR and
the Commission to look for patterns in records that may lead to
adjustments to SDR systems or future adjustments to reporting policies.
The availability of quality records is also crucial for the Commission
to effectively perform its market surveillance and enforcement
functions, which benefit the public by protecting market integrity and
identifying risks within the swaps markets.
Notwithstanding the anticipated incremental costs of Sec. 49.12,
the Commission believes this change is warranted in light of the
anticipated benefits.
ix. Sec. 49.17--Access to SDR Data
The Commission is finalizing Sec. 49.17 as proposed. Final Sec.
49.17(b)(3) amends the definition of ``direct electronic access'' to
mean an electronic system, platform, framework, or other technology
that provides internet-based or other form of access to real-time SDR
data that is acceptable to the Commission and also provides scheduled
data transfers to Commission electronic systems.
Final Sec. 49.17(c) requires an SDR to provide access to the
Commission for all SDR data maintained by the SDR pursuant to the
Commission's regulations. Final Sec. 49.17(c)(1) requires an SDR to
provide direct electronic access to the Commission or its designee in
order for the Commission to carry out its legal and statutory
responsibilities under the CEA and Commission regulations. Final Sec.
49.17(c)(1) also requires an SDR to maintain all SDR data reported to
the SDR in a format acceptable to the Commission, and transmit all SDR
data requested by the Commission to the Commission as instructed by the
Commission.
Final Sec. 49.17(c)(1) amends the requirements of existing Sec.
45.13(a) from maintaining and transmitting ``swap data'' to maintaining
and transmitting ``SDR data,'' to make clear that an SDR must maintain
all SDR data reported to the SDR in a format acceptable to the
Commission and transmit all SDR data requested by the Commission, not
just swap data.
Final Sec. 49.17(c)(1) also modifies the requirements of existing
Sec. 45.13(a) from ``transmit all swap data requested by the
Commission to the Commission in an electronic file in a format
acceptable to the Commission'' to ``transmit all SDR data requested by
the Commission to the Commission as instructed by the Commission,'' and
explains what these instructions may include.
The Commission also is finalizing amendments to Sec. 49.17(f) to
replace the incorrect reference to Sec. ``37.12(b)(7)'' at the end of
paragraph (f)(2) with a correct reference to Sec. ``39.12(b)(7)'' of
the Commission's regulations, as there is no Sec. 37.12(b)(7) in the
Commission's regulations.
The Commission's amendments also include the movement of the
delegation of authority in existing Sec. 49.17(i) to final Sec.
49.31(a)(7).
The Commission believes that Sec. 49.17 will generate costs and
benefits. In the Proposal, the Commission asked for public comment on
its consideration of costs and benefits. DDR commented that an SDR
cannot estimate costs of proposed Sec. 49.17(c)(1) because the
proposed rule provided ``no specificity as to the method, timing,
format or transmission frequency for required transmission of SDR data
requested by the Commission'' and left ``the requirements associated
with both the provision of direct electronic access and the maintenance
of SDR data to be determined by the Commission at a later date.'' \377\
While the Commission agrees that costs may be difficult to determine,
the Commission notes that no commenters provided information related to
current costs associated with responding to the similar current
requirements for scheduled data transfers. If the Commission possessed
current financial and staffing outlays, the Commission could consider
incremental increases or decreases that might result from finalizing
Sec. 49.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\377\ DDR at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission continues to believe that the costs imposed by the
changes to Sec. 49.17(c) will fall mainly on SDRs, because SDRs will
incur costs to provide the Commission with direct electronic access to
all SDR data and to provide access to SDR data as instructed. The costs
associated with the use of the term ``direct electronic access'' in
Sec. 49.17(c) are negligible, as SDRs are currently required to
provide the Commission with direct electronic access and the definition
is being modified to allow SDRs more flexibility in providing the
Commission with direct electronic access to SDR data, subject to the
Commission's approval. The other amendments to Sec. 49.17(c) grant the
Commission greater flexibility to instruct SDRs on how to transfer SDR
data to the Commission at the Commission's request. As mentioned above,
the Commission currently works closely with SDRs to facilitate data
transfers and implement technology changes. The Commission anticipates
that because the rule changes reinforce the existing working
relationships, there will be better communications between the
Commission and SDRs that will help both parties devise efficient and
cost-effective ways to facilitate the transfer of SDR data to the
Commission. As explained in the Proposal, SDRs are already required to
transmit data under existing Sec. 49.17(b)(3) and (c)(1), and are
required to transmit all swap data requested by the Commission to the
Commission in an electronic file in a format acceptable to the
Commission under existing Sec. 45.13(a). It is also current market
practice for SDRs to regularly provide SDR data to the Commission as
instructed by Commission staff. The changes in final Sec. 49.17 do not
substantially change the current requirements or market practices.
The final changes to Sec. 49.17(b)(3) that modify the definition
of ``direct electronic access'' to allow for more technological
flexibility will likely reduce future costs for SDRs because the
amendment allows the Commission to consider any technology that may
provide direct electronic access. This will allow the Commission to
adapt to changing technology more quickly and may allow SDRs to save
costs by having more efficient technology and processes approved in the
future.
The Commission continues to believe that the amendments to Sec.
49.17 will be beneficial to SDRs by including the data access
requirements applicable to SDRs in one section and by more clearly
stating the Commission's ability to instruct SDRs on all aspects of
providing SDR data to the Commission.
Notwithstanding the anticipated incremental costs of Sec. 49.12,
the Commission believes the changes are warranted in light of the
anticipated benefits.
[[Page 75645]]
x. Sec. 49.25--Financial Resources
The Commission is finalizing changes to Sec. 49.25 as proposed,
except for the proposed amendments to Sec. 49.25(f)(3). The conforming
changes to Sec. 49.25 eliminate the reference to Sec. 49.9 and to
core principle obligations identified in Sec. 49.19. Final Sec.
49.25(a) refers to SDR obligations under ``this chapter,'' to be
broadly interpreted as any regulatory or statutory obligation specified
in part 49. The Commission considered these to be non-substantive
changes that will not impact existing obligations on SDRs, and
therefore have no cost-benefit implications. The Commission did not
receive any comments on this point.
The Commission is not finalizing proposed amendments to Sec.
49.25(f)(3) to extend the time SDRs have to submit their quarterly
financial resources reports to 40 calendar days after the end of the
SDR's first three fiscal quarters, and 90 days after the end of the
SDR's fourth fiscal quarter, or a later time that the Commission
permits upon request. As discussed above, the Commission has determined
not to address the proposed changes to the filing deadline for the
annual compliance report under Sec. 49.22(f)(2) in this final
rulemaking. Accordingly, the Commission is not adopting the related
proposed amendment to Sec. 49.25(f)(3).
xi. Sec. 49.26--Disclosure Requirements of Swap Data Repositories
The Commission is finalizing Sec. 49.26 as proposed. Final Sec.
49.26 includes updates to the introductory paragraph of Sec. 49.26 to
reflect updates to the terms ``SDR data,'' ``registered swap data
repository,'' and ``reporting entity'' in final Sec. 49.2. The
Commission is also finalizing updates to other defined terms used in
the section to conform to the amendments to Sec. 49.2. These non-
substantive amendments do not change the requirements of Sec. 49.26
and do not have cost-benefit implications.
The Commission also is finalizing Sec. 49.26(j) as proposed. Final
Sec. 49.26(j) requires that the SDR disclosure document set forth the
SDR's policies and procedures regarding the reporting of SDR data to
the SDR, including the SDR data validation and swap data verification
procedures implemented by the SDR, and the SDR's procedures for
correcting SDR data errors and omissions (including the failure to
report SDR data as required pursuant to the Commission's regulations).
The Commission requested public comments on its cost-benefit
considerations related to Sec. 49.26, but the Commission did not
receive any comments.
The Commission believes that costs related to final Sec. 49.26
will be limited and incremental given that current Sec. 49.26 requires
every SDR to issue disclosure documents.\378\ Costs will likely entail
the costs related to adding information required under final Sec.
49.26(j) to the required SDR disclosure document and updating the
document as needed. For example, there may be administrative and staff
costs to revise current SDR disclosure documents to include the
required information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\378\ See 17 CFR 49.26(a) through (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission expects that the addition of final Sec. 49.26(j)
will benefit market participants by providing more instructive
information regarding data reporting to SDR users. The availability of
this information should improve data reporting, because SDR users will
be able to align their data reporting systems with SDRs' data reporting
systems before using the SDRs' services. SDR users will be able to
prepare operations and train staff before reporting SDR data and,
thereby, able reduce reporting errors and potential confusion.
Notwithstanding the anticipated incremental costs associated with
Sec. 49.26, the Commission believes this change is warranted in light
of the anticipated benefits.
xii. Sec. 49.28--Operating Hours of Swap Data Repositories
The Commission is finalizing Sec. 49.28 as proposed. Final Sec.
49.28 provides more detail on an SDR's responsibilities with respect to
hours of operation. Final Sec. 49.28(a) requires an SDR to have
systems in place to continuously accept and promptly record all SDR
data reported to the SDR, and, as applicable, publicly disseminate all
swap transaction and pricing data reported to the SDR pursuant to part
43. Final Sec. 49.28(a)(1) allows an SDR to establish normal closing
hours to perform system maintenance when, in the SDR's reasonable
estimation, the SDR typically receives the least amount of SDR data,
and requires the SDR to provide reasonable advance notice of its normal
closing hours to market participants and the public.
Final Sec. 49.28(a)(2) allows an SDR to declare, on an ad hoc
basis, special closing hours to perform system maintenance that cannot
wait until normal closing hours. Final Sec. 49.28(a)(2) requires an
SDR to schedule special closing hours during periods when, in the SDR's
reasonable estimation while considering the circumstances that prompt
the need for the special closing hours, the special closing hours will
be least disruptive to the SDR's data reporting responsibilities. Final
Sec. 49.28(a)(2) also requires the SDR to provide reasonable advance
notice of the special closing hours to market participants and the
public whenever possible, and, if advance notice is not reasonably
possible, to give notice to the public as soon as is reasonably
possible after declaring special closing hours.
Final Sec. 49.28(b) requires an SDR to comply with the
requirements under part 40 of the Commission's regulations when
adopting or amending normal closing hours or special closing
hours.\379\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\379\ This requirement already applies to SDRs pursuant to
current Sec. 43.3(f)(3). See 17 CFR 43.3(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 49.28(c) requires an SDR to have the capability to
accept and hold in queue any and all SDR data reported to the SDR
during normal closing hours and special closing hours \380\ Final Sec.
49.28(c)(1) requires an SDR, on reopening from normal or special
closing hours, to promptly process all SDR data received during the
closing hours and, pursuant to part 43, publicly disseminate swap
transaction and pricing data reported to the SDR that was held in queue
during the closing hours.\381\ Final Sec. 49.28(c)(2) requires an SDR
to immediately issue notice to all SEFs, DCMs, reporting
counterparties, and the public in the event that the SDR is unable to
receive and hold in queue any SDR data reported during normal closing
hours or special closing hours. Final Sec. 49.28(c)(2) also requires
an SDR to issue notice to all SEFs, DCMs, reporting counterparties, and
the public that the SDR has resumed normal operations immediately on
reopening. Final Sec. 49.28(c)(2) requires a SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty that was not able to report SDR data to an SDR because of
the SDR's inability to receive and hold in queue SDR data to report the
SDR data to the SDR immediately after receiving such notice that the
SDR has resumed normal operations.\382\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\380\ Final Sec. 49.28(c) expands the similar existing
requirements for swap transaction and pricing data in current Sec.
43.3(g) to all SDR data and largely follows the SBSDR requirements
to receive and hold in queue information regarding security-based
swaps.
\381\ Final Sec. 49.28(c)(1) expands the similar existing
requirements for the SDRs to disseminate swap transaction and
pricing data pursuant to current Sec. 43.3(g)(1) to also include
the prompt processing of all other SDR data received and held in
queue during closing hours. The requirements also largely follow the
SBSDR requirements for disseminating transaction reports after
reopening following closing hours.
\382\ Final Sec. 49.28(c)(2) expands the similar existing
requirements for swap transaction and pricing data in current Sec.
43.3(g)(2) to all SDR data and is largely consistent with the SBSDR
requirements to receive and hold in queue information regarding
security-based swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75646]]
The Commission requested public comment on its consideration of
costs and benefit related to Sec. 49.28 but did not receive any.
The Commission continues to believe that the final requirements,
which are largely based on existing rule text found in current Sec.
43.3(f) and (g), will have limited cost implications for SDRs. There
may be costs associated with any needed modification to SDR systems to
accommodate all SDR data during closing hours, as opposed to only swap
transaction and pricing data. These costs will be incremental because
all SDRs currently have policies, procedures, and systems in place to
accommodate all SDR data during closing hours under the current
requirements.
The Commission also still believes that SDRs, market participants,
and the public will benefit from final Sec. 49.28 because the
requirements for setting closing hours and handling SDR data during
closing hours will be clearer. Final Sec. 49.28 removes discrepancies
between current requirements for SDRs and SBSDRs related to closing
hours, which will allow SDRs that are also registered as SBSDRs to
comply with one consistent requirement.
Notwithstanding the anticipated incremental costs related to Sec.
49.28, the Commission believes the addition of Sec. 49.28 is warranted
in light of the anticipated benefits.
xiii. Sec. 49.29--Information Relating to Swap Data Repository
Compliance
The Commission is finalizing new Sec. 49.29 as proposed, which
requires an SDR to respond to Commission information requests
regarding, among other things, its business as an SDR and its
compliance with SDR regulatory duties and core principles.
Final Sec. 49.29(a) requires an SDR, upon request of the
Commission, to file certain information related to its business as an
SDR or other such information as the Commission determines to be
necessary or appropriate for the Commission to perform its regulatory
duties. An SDR must provide the requested information in the form and
manner and within the time specified by the Commission in its request.
Final Sec. 49.29(b) requires an SDR, upon the request of the
Commission, to demonstrate compliance with its obligations under the
CEA and Commission regulations, as specified in the request. An SDR
must provide the requested information in the form and manner and
within the time specified by the Commission in its request. Final Sec.
49.29 is based on similar existing Commission requirements applicable
to SEFs and DCMs.\383\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\383\ See, e.g., 17 CFR 37.5 and 38.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs associated with responding to requests for information
include the staff hours required to prepare and submit materials
related to the Commission's requests. These costs will vary among SDRs
depending upon the nature and frequency of Commission inquiries. The
Commission expects these requests to be limited in both size and scope,
which will likely mitigate the associated costs for SDRs. While final
Sec. 49.29 allows the Commission to make requests on an ad hoc basis,
the Commission expects that the need for these requests will decrease
over time as SDR data quality and SDR compliance with Commission
regulations improve.\384\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\384\ The Commission currently exercises similar authority fewer
than ten times per year in total with other registered entities,
such as SEFs, DCMs, and DCOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDR commented that because proposed Sec. 49.29 provided ``no
detail as to the potential scope of a request or to the form, manner
and timing associated with satisfying the request'' an SDR could not
assess accurately costs associated with the rule.\385\ While the
Commission agrees that costs are difficult to accurately determine, the
Commission notes that no commenters provided current costs associated
with responding to requests for information, as currently SDRs
routinely provide the same information to the Commission on request. If
the Commission possessed current cost information related to responding
to requests, the Commission could consider incremental increases or
decreases that might result from finalizing Sec. 49.29 as proposed.
Without that information as a reference, the Commission continues to
believe that there will be an incremental cost for each response. Yet,
the Commission also believes that that costs will be mitigated by the
fact that current practice is for SDRs to provide similar information
to the Commission on request and that the SDRs do so regularly. In
addition, SDRs will be required to adhere to form and manner
specifications established pursuant to final Sec. 49.30. The
Commission expects that clearly defining the form and manner for each
response will further mitigate the cost burden to SDRs that may arise
from any uncertainty as to the information to be provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\385\ DDR at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits attributed to final Sec. 49.29 include improving the
Commission's oversight of SDRs due to Commission inquiries. The
Commission expects that this oversight will lead to improved data
quality and SDR compliance with Commission regulations. Better data
quality will help improve the Commission's ability to fulfill its
regulatory responsibilities and help to increase the Commission's
understanding of the swaps market. These improvements are expected to
benefit the public because accurate and complete SDR data reporting
improves the Commission's analyses and oversight of the swaps markets,
and increases market integrity due to the Commission's improved ability
to detect and investigate noncompliance issues and oversee their
correction.
The Commission also continues to believe that final Sec. 49.29
will help the Commission to obtain the information it needs to perform
its regulatory functions more effectively, as opposed to requiring SDRs
to supply information on a set schedule, such as under the current
requirement for annual Form SDR updates in Sec. 49.3(a)(5). This will
reduce the burden on SDRs, as the SDRs will no longer need to expend
resources to prepare annual filings.
Notwithstanding the anticipated incremental costs related to Sec.
49.29, the Commission believes the addition of Sec. 49.29 is warranted
in light of the anticipated benefits.
xiii. Sec. 49.30--Form and Manner of Reporting and Submitting
Information to the Commission
The Commission is finalizing new Sec. 49.30 as proposed to address
the form and manner of information the Commission requests from SDRs.
Final Sec. 49.30 establishes the broad parameters of the ``form
and manner'' requirements found in part 49. The form and manner
requirement in Sec. 49.30 will not supplement or expand upon existing
substantive provisions of part 49, but instead, will allow the
Commission to specify how information reported by SDRs should be
formatted and delivered to the Commission. Final Sec. 49.30 provides
that an SDR must submit any information required under part 49, within
the time specified, using the format, coding structure, and electronic
data transmission procedures approved in writing by the Commission.
The Commission continues to believe that the form and manner
requirements will have costs associated with conforming reports and
information to Commission specifications. For instance, there may be
costs associated with staff hours and technology used to format
reports. DDR commented that because proposed Sec. 49.30 was vague, an
[[Page 75647]]
SDR could not assess accurately costs associated with the rule.\386\
While the Commission agrees that costs are difficult to determine, the
Commission notes that no commenters provided current reporting costs or
projections for staffing and systems costs, which the Commission could
use to consider incremental increases or decreases that might result
from finalizing Sec. 49.30 as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\386\ DDR at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission continues to believe that, in practice, the
incremental costs of Sec. 49.30 will be limited, because SDRs have
ample experience working with Commission staff to deliver data,
reports, and other information in the form and manner requested by
Commission staff. The Commission believes that this experience will
significantly mitigate the costs of similar activities under this
requirement. The Commission also still believes that the Commission
will benefit through increased standardization of information provided
by SDRs, thereby aiding the Commission in the performance of its
regulatory obligations by ensuring the provided information is in
useable formats and delivered by usable methods. The ability to
standardize the form and manner of information provided to the
Commission will also help SDRs to efficiently fulfill their obligations
to provide information to the Commission.
Notwithstanding the anticipated incremental costs related to Sec.
49.30, the Commission believes the addition of Sec. 49.30 is warranted
in light of the anticipated benefits.
5. Costs and Benefits of Amendments to Part 45
i. Sec. 45.2--Swap Recordkeeping
The Commission is moving existing Sec. 45.2(f) and (g) (SDR
recordkeeping and SDR records retention, respectively) to final Sec.
49.12. As such, all costs and benefits associated with this change are
discussed in the section, above, that discusses the amendments to Sec.
49.12.
ii. Sec. 45.14--Correcting Errors and Omissions in Swap Data and
Verification of Swap Data Accuracy
The Commission is adopting proposed Sec. 45.14, with
modifications, to improve the requirements to correct data errors and
to verify data. Currently, the Commission requires error corrections
but it does not directly require reporting counterparties to verify
data. In the Proposal, the Commission outlined error correction and
verification processes that included specific actions and timelines for
those actions. In response to comments on the Proposal, the Commission
is modifying final Sec. 45.14 so that the error-correction and
verification processes for reporting counterparties are less burdensome
and more flexible than the processes set forth in the Proposal. The
Commission will discuss the final error-correction process first, and
then the final verification process.
Final Sec. 45.14(a) sets forth requirements for correcting swap
data errors. Final Sec. 45.14(a) requires a SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty to correct swap data errors as soon as technologically
practicable, but no later than seven business days, after discovery.
Final Sec. 45.14(a) requires a SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty to
correct errors and omissions for open swaps and dead swaps, but Sec.
45.14(a)(3) provides that the error correction requirement does not
apply to swaps for which the applicable record retention period under
Sec. 45.2 has expired. Final Sec. 45.14(a)(2) requires a non-
reporting counterparty that becomes aware of an error to notify the
reporting counterparty of the error as soon as technologically
practicable, but no later than three business days, after discovery. If
a non-reporting counterparty does not know the identity of the
reporting counterparty, the non-reporting counterparty must notify the
SEF or DCM where the swap was executed of the error as soon as
technologically practicable, but no later than three business days,
following the discovery.
Final Sec. 45.14(a) differs from current Sec. 45.14, because it
provides more parameters for SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties
correcting errors and sets timelines for correcting errors or issuing
error notices to the Commission. Current Sec. 45.14(a) requires each
registered entity or swap counterparty to report discovered data errors
and omissions as soon as technologically practicable, but there is no
deadline for making a correction.\387\ Current Sec. 45.14(b) requires
a non-reporting counterparty to promptly notify the reporting
counterparty of any errors or omissions, but the rule does not define
promptly.\388\ Proposed Sec. 45.14(b) would have required a SEF, DCM,
or reporting counterparty to correct errors or notify the Director of
DMO within three business days of discovery of errors, regardless of
the state of the swap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\387\ 17 CFR 45.14(a).
\388\ 17 CFR 45.14(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In final Sec. 45.14(a), the Commission establishes a seven-day
correction period in response to comments that the proposed three-day
period to correct or notify would not be practicable.\389\ One
commenter asserted that the Commission's proposed rule was a ``one size
fits all'' approach that failed to account for ``different errors and
omission scenarios and levels of materiality'' with an impractical
error remediation period that would result in an excessive volume of
notifications being sent to the director of DMO \390\ The proposed
three-day period was based on the Commission's preliminary belief that
the costs related to correcting errors and omissions or drafting
remediation plans and sending notices would not impose an undue burden
on reporting counterparties. Commenters stated that the requirements of
proposed Sec. 45.14(b), such as the notification requirement, would
consume significant resources, even for immaterial errors, that would
take away resources needed to actually correct errors.\391\ Commenters
also explained that the proposed three-day deadline would be burdensome
because the process for identifying errors and then resolving such
issues often takes more than three business days.\392\ The Commission
is persuaded by comments that the three-day period, as proposed, would
hamper the correction of errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\389\ ISDA/SIFMA at 46. FIA May at 8-9; ICE Clear at 3.
\390\ ISDA/SIFMA at 45-46. See also FIA May at 8 (``Verification
of swap data and/or remediation of known errors or omission is not a
``one-size-fits-all' task'').
\391\ ISDA/SIFMA at 46. See also GFMA at 6, 12 (timeframe should
be in business days); CEWG at 5-6 (For a non-registrant reporting
counterparty, it would be difficult to address a reporting error
while simultaneously commit resources to file a report with the
Commission).
\392\ FIA May at 8 (``Members report that these reviews
routinely take significantly more than three business days to
determine scope, let alone to outline a remediation plan to a
regulator.''); ISDA/SIFMA at 45-46 (three days would often not be
enough time to fine the causes and scope of errors and omissions and
submit a report); GFMA at 13 (proposed verification process would
impose significant headcount costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes there will be costs associated with
correcting errors under the revised seven-business day correction
period. Market participants correcting errors will need to expend
technological and staff resources to identify the causes of data errors
and resources to correct errors. The amount of resources used will
likely be dictated by the complexity of the error. The Commission notes
that these costs will be minimal, compared to current requirements,
because the current requirements would necessitate the same cause
identification and error correction. The seven-day deadline in final
Sec. 45.14, however, will require
[[Page 75648]]
some reporting counterparties to allocate resources differently to meet
the deadline, because the current error-correction rule has no time
deadline.\393\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\393\ See generally 17 CFR 45.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that market participants will benefit from
the seven-day correction period because it eliminates any uncertainty
about the time period in which market participants must correct errors
before notifying the Commission of an issue. A time period also helps
market participants manage time in terms of scheduling and assigning
resources to correct errors. The Commission believes seven business
days is sufficient time to complete the steps needed to identify,
investigate, and rectify most errors or omissions. The Commission also
believes that the seven-day period, as compared to the absence of a
deadline in current Sec. 45.14, will not negatively affect the
Commission's regulatory duties, including its ability to monitor swaps
markets. Under the current error correction requirements,
counterparties have neglected to inform SDRs of errors or omissions for
extended periods, which has meant that SDRs have transmitted inaccurate
data to the Commission and the Commission may have relied on inaccurate
data while performing its regulatory responsibilities.
The Commission is also modifying, in final Sec. 45.14, the
proposed requirement for a reporting counterparty to produce
remediation plans and issue notices to the Commission, and for a non-
reporting counterparty to notify a reporting counterparty, SEF, or DCM
of errors, as applicable.\394\ Current Sec. 45.14 does not require
market participants to issue any error notices or submit a remediation
plan, if one exists, to the Commission. Final Sec. 45.14 requires SEF,
DCM, or reporting counterparties to notify the Commission of any error
that cannot be corrected within seven business days of discovery. The
notice must include an initial assessment of the scope of the error and
an initial remediation plan, if one exists. This notification must be
made within twelve hours of the SEF's, DCM's, or reporting
counterparty's determination that it will fail to timely correct the
error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\394\ Proposal at 84 FR 21069-70 (May 13, 2019) (discussion of
proposed Sec. 45.14(b)(1)(ii) and the current practices for
remediation plans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the final Sec. 45.14 requirement to
issue error notices will generate costs. Market participants will need
to expend technological and staff resources to develop and maintain
notification systems. SEF's, DCM's, and reporting counterparties will
incur additional costs to develop systems to assess the scope of an
error and to submit initial remediation plans, if they decide to use
such plans. For SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties that already
send the Commission error-correction notices and remediation plans, the
costs will be incremental.\395\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\395\ Proposal at 84 FR 20170 (May 13, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that error correction notices are
beneficial because they will help alert the Commission to data that is
unreliable and to reporting issues. Notices also will help the
Commission monitor whether market participants are complying with
Commission regulations. If a market participant creates an initial
remediation plan, it will be useful to the market participants and the
Commission because such plans help with tracking errors, identifying
data issues, discovering recurring errors, and preventing errors from
reoccurring. The Commission also believes that the inclusion of the
technical specification and validation requirements for swap data in
parallel Commission rulemaking \396\ will help reduce certain types of
swap data reporting errors, and reduce the need for market participants
to correct those types of errors and, as a result, the corresponding
costs incurred by market participants to correct swap data errors will
likely decrease over time. Finally, the Commission believes that the
error correction process becomes less burdensome and less disruptive
when market participants remedy data errors as soon as possible and in
an organized manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\396\ See generally 85 FR 21578, et seq. (Apr. 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also believes that the final Sec. 45.14 error
correction process will improve data accuracy and will enable the
Commission to better monitor risk and identify issues in the swaps
markets. As discussed above, the Commission currently issues a weekly
swaps report and quarterly entity-netted notional reports using swaps
data.\397\ Using swap data, the weekly swaps report has the capacity to
illustrate trends in exposures, trades, and positions, and the entity-
netted notional reports measure the transfer of risk in swaps markets.
Both reports give the Commission and the public greater insight into
trading behavior, liquidity, pricing, various types of risk, and how
swaps markets work in general--all factors important in developing
policy and allocating oversight resources. More accurate swap data will
increase the usefulness of these reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\397\ The weekly swaps report is available at: https://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/SwapsReports/index.htm. ENNs reports for
different asset classes are available at: https://www.cftc.gov/About/EconomicAnalysis/ReportsOCE/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is requiring error corrections for all swaps that
are within their respective records retention periods. In a change from
the Proposal, and is response to comments received, the Commission is
finalizing a limit on the SEFs', DCMs', and reporting counterparties'
obligations to correct errors in swap data that confines the error
correction requirements to errors discovered during the relevant
recordkeeping periods for the relevant swaps under Sec. 45.2. The
Commission recognizes the comments that argued that correcting swaps
that are outside of their record retention periods is burdensome and
impractical. ISDA/SIFMA explained that as dead swaps ``no longer pose
risks to U.S. markets, it is unclear how correcting any errors would
enhance the Commission's ability to monitor risk.'' \398\ ISDA/SIFMA
also remarked that there would be costs incurred by SDRs and reporting
counterparties that are associated with correcting dead swaps, such as
maintaining and storing data and building validations that can
accommodate the reporting of dead swaps.\399\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\398\ ISDA/SIFMA at 47.
\399\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission acknowledges that the burden shouldered by market
participants to expend resources to correct older data and to maintain
legacy formats will affect costs and complexity of compliance.\400\
However, there is value in correcting dead swaps, as the Commission is
charged with ensuring market integrity and guarding against fraud and
manipulation, among its other regulatory responsibilities, which
includes the use of data for dead swaps. With accurate data, including
for dead swaps, the Commission will be able to better analyze years of
market activity, study market events, perform back-testing, and,
ultimately, use the swap data to inform policy.\401\ The
[[Page 75649]]
correction of dead swaps also provides a strong incentive for market
participants to properly design their reporting systems, to perform
thorough verification, and to promptly correct errors, to avoid or
mitigate the cost of correcting data errors, which will improve data
quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\400\ Id. at 46-47. See also FIA May at 9.
\401\ For example, since January 2013, the Commission has
produced weekly swaps data, and since early 2018, the Commission has
issued quarterly, ENNs reports. Over time, Commission staff will be
able to produce studies using historical swaps data, similar to the
papers about futures trading. See, e.g., ``Commodity Index Trading
and Hedging Costs,'' Celso Brunetti and David Reiffen, August 2014,
Journal of Financial Markets, vol. 21, pp. 153-180, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finmar.2014.08.001 (authors used 10 years
of futures data, 2003-2012; ``The Lifecycle of Exchange-traded
Derivatives,'' Grant Cavanaugh and Michael Penick, July 2014,
Journal of Commodity Markets, vol. 10, pp. 47-68, available at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomm.2018.05.007 (authors studied over 50
years of futures data from 1954 to the 2000s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In final Sec. 45.14(b), the Commission is requiring reporting
counterparties to verify data. Currently, there are no specific
verification requirements for reporting counterparties. The Commission
is adopting verification requirements in final Sec. 45.14(b) that
differ from the process described in the Proposal.
Proposed Sec. 45.14(a) outlined a verification process that
involved an exchange of open swaps reports and messaging between SDRs
and reporting counterparties. Proposed Sec. 45.14(a) would have
required reporting counterparties to reconcile open swaps reports with
their internal records for the swap data and to submit to an SDR a
verification of the accuracy or notice of discrepancy for the relevant
swap data within a 48- or 96-hour period, as applicable,\402\ after
receipt of open swaps reports from the SDR. Proposed 49.11 would have
required an SDR to distribute open swaps reports for verification by
reporting counterparties who are SDs, MSPs or DCOs on a weekly basis
and to other reporting counterparties on a monthly basis. By not
adopting certain elements in proposed Sec. 49.11--that is, the
messaging process based on open swaps reports issued by SDRs--SDRs and
reporting counterparties will have more flexibility (as compared to the
Proposal) in determining how reporting counterparties verify data and
correct errors pursuant to Sec. 45.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\402\ Under the Proposal, SDs, MSPs and DCOs are subject to a
shorter 48-hour time frame for verification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Sec. 45.14(b) modifies the proposed verification process.
Final Sec. 45.14(b)(1) requires a reporting counterparty to utilize
the mechanism provided by an SDR pursuant to final Sec. 49.11 to
access and verify swap data by comparing its internal records for swap
data with the relevant swap data maintained by the SDR. Under final
Sec. 45.14(b)(2), a reporting counterparty must conform to the
relevant SDR's policies and procedures for verification. In final Sec.
45.14(b)(4), the Commission is setting the verification frequency at
every thirty calendar days for reporting counterparties that are SDs,
MSPs, or DCOs, and at every quarter for other reporting counterparties.
Final Sec. 45.14(b)(5) requires a reporting counterparty to maintain a
verification log, wherein the reporting counterparty records the
verifications it performed, errors discovered during the verification
processes, and corrections made. The reporting counterparty must
provide the verification log to the Commission on request.
The Commission understands that the costs of verification processes
under final Sec. 45.14 will involve time and personnel resources for
reporting counterparties. A reporting counterparty may be required to
expend resources to develop processes to access swap data through one
or more SDR mechanisms and to compare swap data maintained by SDRs with
its internal data and records for open swaps. The absence of a
verification process under the Commission's current rules has been
costly in terms of the harmful effect erroneous and incomplete swaps
data submissions have had on the Commission's regulatory efforts,
especially when data errors that could have been discovered through
verification are not discovered and not corrected.
The Commission believes there may be recurring costs associated
with performing monthly and quarterly verifications and with preparing
verification logs. The Commission proposed more frequent verifications
than are included in the final requirement, and some commenters
suggested that the Commission reduce the frequency of the verification
process and focus on key economic fields for trades to alleviate the
costs and the challenges of verification.\403\ A number of commenters
believed that the Commission's technical specifications and validation
requirements proposed from other Roadmap rules would mean that data is
reliable enough for verification to be performed less frequently than
proposed.\404\ The Commission agrees with these comments, and has
reduced the frequency of verifications from the proposed weekly/monthly
to monthly/quarterly, as recommended by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\403\ See, e.g., GFMA at 13.
\404\ See ICE Clear at 3 (``By focusing on obtaining a critical
set of data elements, utilizing existing and future upfront data
validations, and leveraging existing requirements to correct errors
and omissions, the Commission has crafted a reporting framework that
should substantially enhance the accuracy, reliability and utility
of swap data.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the final frequency of verifications
will still support the Commission's objectives for high-quality data
without overburdening reporting counterparties and SDRs.\405\ Monthly
and quarterly verifications, depending on the type of reporting
counterparty, will also require the use of resources, such as personnel
and time, but the Commission believes that reporting counterparties'
verification processes will become more efficient and, in some cases,
automated as experience and technology develops. Also, as commenters
suggested, it is likely that the Commission's enhanced validation and
technical specifications will produce more accurate and reliable data,
in certain respects, which, in turn, will reduce the reduce the amount
of time needed to verify data. Validations and standardized data fields
would help eliminate inappropriately blank data fields, though they
would not eliminate the reporting of incorrect but plausible swap data,
meaning that verification is still a necessity. Reducing or eliminating
the number of inappropriately blank data fields will, however reduce
the number of errors to be discovered in verification and the number of
errors to be corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\405\ ISDA/SIFMA at 45 (ISDA/SIFMA suggested monthly
verifications for reporting counterparties that are SDs, MSPs, or
DCOs, and quarterly verifications for all other reporting
counterparties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also believes that Sec. 45.14 encourages
accountability, because reporting counterparties must record their data
verification efforts. Under the current regulations, there is little
accountability for counterparties that do not participate in the
confirmation process.
The Commission believes that verification processes that lead to
accurate data are vital to meaningful regulation and essential to
fulfilling the purposes of CEA section 21. With more accurate data, the
Commission can better identify discrepancies in swaps markets,
determine whether market participants are complying with Commission
regulations, and guard against abusive practices. Accurate data also
benefits the public, because it is used to inform the Commission's
policy decisions that help support well-functioning markets.
For proposed Sec. 45.14, like proposed Sec. 49.11, commenters
provided qualitative comments in response to the Commission's
consideration of costs and benefits. Commenters did not provide
quantitative information.
Based on the Commission's familiarity with reporting counterparty
operations and the currently collected data, the Commission recognizes
there will be monetary costs for reporting counterparties to comply
with the error-correction and verification requirements
[[Page 75650]]
in Sec. 45.14. For the error-correction process, the Commission
estimates that SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties will each spend
about 30 hours per year correcting data previously submitted to SDRs,
providing notices to the Commission, and submitting remediation plans,
if such plans exist.\406\ Those hours will not be new time commitments
because reporting counterparties are currently required to correct
errors. The Commission monetizes the hours by multiplying by a wage
rate of $48 to $101.\407\ Accordingly, the Commission estimates that
each reporting counterparty will expend between $1,440 and $3,030
annually to implement Sec. 45.14(a), and each non-reporting
counterparty will expend between $48 and $101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\406\ Proposal at 84 FR 21076 (May 13, 2019).
\407\ See supra note 344 (discussion of BLS wage estimates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission estimates that the hours needed for reporting
counterparties to meet their verification obligations under the final
rules will be less than the hours estimated to be required under the
Proposal, as a result of the technical specifications and validation
requirements from other Roadmap rulemakings, which the Commission
expects will reduce errors in the first instance, and because the
verification process under final Sec. 45.14(b) will be less time-
consuming than the requirements under proposed Sec. Sec. 45.14(a) and
49.11. The Commission understands that the hours and rates will vary
based on many factors, including each reporting counterparty's
expertise in data reporting and operational size. The Commission
estimates that the initial efforts to implement Sec. 45.14(b) will
require 100 hours on average, meaning each reporting counterparty will
expend up to 100 hours a year to establish systems to verify data and
prepare verification logs. The Commission estimates these efforts to
cost between $4,800 to $10,100, which are the sums of the hours
multiplied by a wage rate of $48 to $101.\408\ The Commission estimates
that reporting counterparties will expend up to two hours every 30 days
to verify data, or 24 hours annually. The annual costs to verify data
every 30 days for some reporting counterparties will range between
$1,152 and $2,424. The annual costs to expend up to two hours every
quarter to verify data for other reporting counterparties will range
between $384 and $808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\408\ See supra note 344 (discussion of BLS wage estimates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides considering proposed Sec. 45.14, the Commission considered
and rejected the idea of maintaining current Sec. 45.14. The
Commission rejected this approach because it has become evident that
mandates to correct errors and verification processes improve data
quality, and that current requirements have proven inadequate for
providing the Commission with the level of data quality that it
requires to perform its regulatory functions. As explained above, the
current regulations for confirmation and error correction have resulted
in the Commission receiving data that is presumed accurate, when this
is often not the case. The Commission also has observed that the
absence of a verification requirement has resulted in counterparties
neglecting to inform SDRs of errors, or otherwise not discovering even
glaring errors in swap data, often for long periods of time. This
leaves the Commission with flawed data, which hinders the Commission's
ability to understand the nature of swaps, price fluctuations, and
markets generally, and hampers the Commission's ability to perform its
regulatory functions. Thus, the Commission believes the alternative of
retaining current Sec. 45.14 would undermine the Commission's
regulatory efforts and hinder the Commission's ability to make informed
decisions using accurate data.
Notwithstanding the anticipated incremental costs related to final
Sec. 45.14 and after considering alternative approaches, the
Commission believes the amendments to Sec. 45.14 are warranted in
light of the anticipated benefits.
6. Costs and Benefits of Amendments to Part 43
Sec. 43.3(e)--Error Correction
The Commission is amending the error correction requirements of
existing Sec. 43.3(e) to conform to the error correction requirements
in Sec. 45.14. The amendments to Sec. 43.3(e) create regulatory
consistency and reduce any confusion around error-correction
requirements for data under Part 43 and swap data required under Part
45.
Final Sec. 43.3(e)(1) requires any SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty that by any means becomes aware of any errors in swap
transaction and pricing data previously-reported, or not properly
reported, to an SDR by the SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty to
submit corrected swap transaction and pricing data to the SDR
regardless of the state of the swap, including swaps that have
terminated, matured, or are otherwise no longer open. Final Sec.
43.3(e)(1)(i) requires a SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty to correct
swap transaction and pricing data as soon as technologically
practicable following discovery of the errors, but no later than seven
business days following the discovery of the error. Under final Sec.
43.3(e)(1)(ii), if a SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty is unable to
correct the errors within seven business days following discovery of
the errors, the SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty must inform the
Director of DMO, or his or her designee, of such errors or omissions
and provide an initial assessment of the scope of the errors or
omissions and an initial remediation plan for correcting the errors, if
one exists, within 12 hours of determining that the correction cannot
be made within the required time frame. Final Sec. 43.3(e)(1)(iii)
requires that a SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty conform to an SDR's
policies and procedures for corrections of errors in previously-
reported swap transaction and pricing data and reporting of omitted
swap transaction and pricing data.
Final Sec. 43.3(e)(2) applies to a non-reporting counterparty that
becomes aware of any errors in swap transaction and pricing data. Final
Sec. 43.3(e)(2) requires a non-reporting counterparty to inform the
reporting counterparty for the swap of the error, but does not require
the non-reporting counterparty to correct the error. A non-reporting
counterparty has three business days following the discovery of the
errors or omissions to notify the reporting counterparty of the error,
instead of the seven business days provided for corrections under final
Sec. 43.3(e)(1). If a non-reporting counterparty does not know the
identity of the reporting counterparty, the non-reporting counterparty
must notify the SEF or DCM where the swap was executed of the errors
and omissions no later than three business days after the discovery.
The Commission is moving all of the requirements of existing Sec.
43.3(f) and (g) to new Sec. 49.28. As such, all costs and benefits
associated with this change are discussed above in section discussing
Sec. 49.28.
The costs related to final Sec. 43.3(e)(1) are similar to the
costs to correct errors under final Sec. 45.14(a)(1), as the final
rules to each section are intended to be consistent. Final Sec.
43.3(e) will impose costs on SEFs, DCMs, and reporting counterparties
for correcting errors and submitting remediation plans, if they exist,
to the Director of DMO within a seven-day period. Market participants
are also currently required to correct errors under existing Sec.
43.3(e), so costs associated with Sec. 43.3(e) are only those
[[Page 75651]]
that result from the modified requirements as compared to the existing
requirements, such as the requirement for notices. Costs to correct
errors and issue error notices with initial remediation plans, if they
exist, will be mitigated by the fact that the duties under Sec.
43.3(e) are similar to duties in final Sec. 45.14. The Commission also
believes that the costs related to remediation plans will be
incremental because reporting counterparties typically provide a
remediation plan to the Commission as part of current practice. The
seven-day deadline will require some reporting counterparties to
allocate resources differently to meet the deadline because the current
rule does not have a specific time deadline.\409\ The Commission also
believes that the inclusion of the technical specification and
validation requirements for swap transaction and pricing data in
parallel Commission rulemaking \410\ will help reduce certain types of
swap transaction and pricing data reporting errors, and, therefore,
reduce the need for market participants to correct those types of
errors and, as a result, the corresponding costs incurred by market
participants to correct swap transaction and pricing data errors will
likely decrease over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\409\ See generally 17 CFR 43.3(e).
\410\ See generally 85 FR 21516, et seq. (Apr. 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-reporting counterparties also may incur additional costs
related to the requirements in Sec. 43.3(e)(2). Non-reporting
counterparties may expend resources to make the required notification
within the three-day period under final Sec. 43.3(e)(2). Under current
Sec. 43.3(e)(1)(i), non-reporting counterparties must act ``promptly''
so the three-day deadline under the final rule may require non-
reporting counterparties to allocate resources differently to meet the
deadline. The additional requirement in final Sec. 43.3(e)(2) for a
non-reporting counterparty to inform a SEF or DCM of an error if the
identity of the reporting counterparty is not known is intended to
accommodate non-reporting counterparties in fulfilling their role in
the data correction process for swaps executed anonymously. The
Commission expects that non-reporting counterparties will not incur
many costs to notify a SEF or DCM of errors and omissions beyond the
cost currently incurred when notifying reporting counterparties.
As discussed in the section regarding the benefits of final Sec.
45.14, the Commission believes consistent error correction requirements
for swap data and swap transaction and pricing data will help ensure
that the Commission has access to accurate and complete swap
transaction and pricing data in order to fulfill its various regulatory
responsibilities. Accurate swap transaction and pricing data helps the
Commission to monitor and surveil market activity and risks within the
swaps markets. Accurate and complete swap transaction and pricing data
is also beneficial to market participants and the public, who rely on
the data in their swaps-related decision-making. Inaccurate or
incomplete swap transaction and pricing data can create market
volatility. Additionally, the Commission believes that accurate swap
transaction and pricing data is necessary for effective risk management
for swap counterparties, and the correction requirements under the
final rule will help ensure that swap counterparties have access to
accurate and complete swap transaction and pricing data.
SDRs and counterparties also benefit from consistent regulations.
The final rule establishes a swap data error-correction framework for
reporting counterparties in Sec. 45.14. The requirements in final
Sec. 43.3(e) are consistent with the requirements in final Sec.
45.14(a). Both of these rules complement amendments to Part 49 that
require SDRs to provide reporting counterparties with access to swaps
data reporting systems to identify errors and make corrections. The
Commission believes that inconsistent requirements may lead to
confusion and unnecessary efforts by covered entities. By ensuring that
obligations in final Sec. 43.3(e) are consistent with the obligations
to Sec. 45.14, these issues should be avoided. Finally, the Commission
believes its ability to monitor swaps markets is not compromised by the
three-day or seven-day correction and notification periods in final
Sec. 43.3(e). While incorrect data might affect market analysis in the
short-term, there is greater value in possessing accurate data for the
life of a swap that can provide insight into market activity for months
and years; support a point-in-time examination of the data, and enable
back-testing.
The Commission recognizes there will be monetary costs for
reporting counterparties and non-reporting counterparties to comply
with the error-correction and notification requirements in Sec.
43.3(e). For the error-correction and remediation process, the
Commission estimates that 1,729 SEFs, DCMs, and reporting
counterparties will each spend about 30 hours a year correcting swap
transaction and pricing data, providing notices to the Commission and
submitting remediation plans, if such plans exist.\411\ Those hours
will not be new time commitments because reporting counterparties are
currently required to correct errors. Because the Commission believes
that error notifications by non-reporting counterparties will be
infrequent, it estimates that non-reporting counterparties will expend
no more than one hour issuing error notices. The Commission monetizes
the hours by multiplying by a wage rate of $48 to $101.\412\
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that each reporting counterparty
will expend between $1,440 and $3,030 annually to implement Sec.
43.3(e), and each non-reporting counterparty will expend between $48
and $101 annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\411\ Proposal at 84 FR 21076-77 (May 13, 2019).
\412\ See supra note 344 (discussion of BLS wage estimates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Commission does anticipate incremental costs associated
with Sec. 43.3(e), the Commission believes the amendments to Sec.
43.3(e) are warranted in light of the anticipated benefits related to
error-correction processes that lead to accurate data.
7. Section 15(a) Factors
The Dodd-Frank Act sought to promote the financial stability of the
United States, in part, by improving financial system accountability
and transparency. More specifically, Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act
directs the Commission to promulgate regulations to increase swaps
market transparency and thereby reduce the potential for counterparty
and systemic risk.\413\ Transaction-based reporting is a fundamental
component of the legislation's objectives to increase transparency,
reduce risk, and promote market integrity within the financial system
generally, and the swaps market in particular. SEFs, DCMs, and
reporting counterparties that submit data to SDRs are central to
achieving the legislation's objectives related to swap reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\413\ See Congressional Research Service Report for Congress,
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Title
VII, Derivatives, by Mark Jickling and Kathleen Ann Ruane (August
30, 2010); Department of the Treasury, Financial Regulatory Reform:
A New Foundation: Rebuilding Financial Supervision and Regulation 1
(June 17, 2009) at 47-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 15(a) of the Act requires the Commission to consider the
costs and benefits of the amendments to parts 43, 45, and 49 with
respect to the following factors:
Protection of market participants and the public;
Efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of
markets;
Price discovery;
[[Page 75652]]
Sound risk management practices; and
Other public interest considerations.
A discussion of these amendments in light of section 15(a) factors
is set out immediately below.
i. Protection of Market Participants and the Public
In the Part 49 Adopting Release, the Commission noted that it
believed that the registration and regulation of SDRs will serve to
better protect market participants by providing the Commission and
other regulators with important oversight tools to monitor, measure,
and comprehend the swaps markets. Inaccurate and incomplete data
reporting hinders the Commission's ability to oversee the swaps market.
The final rules adopted in this release mostly focus on ensuring that
SDRs and reporting counterparties verify and correct errors or
omissions in data reported to SDRs and on streamlining and simplifying
the requirements for SDRs. Both error-correction and verification
processes are steps in a series of data checks or techniques needed to
build accurate data sets. Regardless of whether verification is done
automatically or manually, the accuracy of SDR data should improve
under these final regulations because inaccuracies will be removed.
Overall, the Commission believes that the adoption of all the
amendments to parts 43, 45, and 49 will improve the quality of the data
reported, increase transparency, and enhance the Commission's ability
to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities, including its market
surveillance and enforcement capabilities. In some cases, as discussed
above, the final regulations are expected to be more flexible as
compared to the requirements in the Proposal. The Commission does not
believe that this increased flexibility will encumber the benefits from
better quality data. Rather, the Commission believes that monitoring of
potential risks to financial stability will be more effective with more
accurate data. More accurate data will therefore lead to improved
protection of market participants and the public.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity of Markets
The Commission believes that the adoption of the amendments to
parts 43, 45, and 49, together with the swap data recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in parts 43 and 45, will provide a robust source
of information on swaps markets that is expected to promote increased
efficiency and competition. Under the final Roadmap regulations, parts
43, 45, and 49 will work together to establish a data validation and
verification system for SDRs and reporting counterparties. The result
is a data reporting system that fulfills the CEA's mandate that the
Commission prescribe data collection and maintenance standards for
SDRs, and, ultimately, supports the collection of accurate and complete
data.
The Commission believes that accurate swap transaction and pricing
data will lead to greater efficiencies for market participants
executing swap transactions due to a better understanding of their
overall positions within the context of the broader market. This
improved understanding will be facilitated by two distinct channels.
First, amendments adopted in this final rulemaking are expected to
result in improved swap transaction and pricing data being made
available to the public, which will improve the ability of market
participants to monitor real-time activity by other participants and to
respond as they see fit. Second, amendments that result in improved
swap data will improve the Commission's ability to monitor the swaps
markets for abusive practices and improve the Commission's ability to
create policies that ensure the integrity of the swaps markets. This
improvement will be facilitated by the Commission's improved oversight
and enforcement capabilities and the reports and studies published as
part of the Commission's research and information programs.
In particular, the amendments to Sec. Sec. 45.14, 49.2, 49.10,
49.11, 49.12, and 49.26 will help improve the financial integrity of
markets. For example, the verification and correction of swap data will
improve the accuracy and completeness of swap data available to the
Commission. The verification and correction processes also will assist
the Commission with, among other things, improving monitoring of risk
exposures of individual counterparties, monitoring concentrations of
risk exposure, and evaluating systemic risk. The efficient oversight
and accurate data reporting enabled by these amendments will improve
the financial integrity of the swaps markets.
In the Part 49 Adopting Release, the Commission expected that the
introduction of SDRs would further automate the reporting of swap data.
The Commission expected that automation would benefit market
participants and reduce transactional risks through the SDRs and other
service providers offering important ancillary services, such as
confirmation and matching services, valuation, pricing, reconciliation,
position limits management, and dispute resolution. These benefits did
follow and have enhanced the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial
integrity of markets.\414\ The Commission believes that the amendments
in this release will help to further enhance these benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\414\ See Part 49 Adopting Release at 54573.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Price Discovery
The CEA requires that swap transaction and pricing data be made
publicly available. The CEA and its existing regulations in part 43
also require swap transaction and pricing data to be available to the
public in real-time. Combined, parts 43 and 49 achieve the statutory
objective of providing transparency and enhanced price discovery to
swap markets in a timely manner. The amendments to Sec. Sec. 43.3,
49.2, 49.10, 49.11, 49.12, and 49.26 improve the fulfillment of these
objectives. The amendments, both directly and indirectly, upgrade the
quality of real-time public reporting of swap transaction and pricing
data by improving the accuracy of information that is reported to the
SDRs and disseminated to the public.
As explained above, many of the final rules adopted in this release
focus on a system for verifying swap data reported to and maintained by
SDRs, who are also charged with disseminating such data to the
Commission. The value of the swap data to the Commission depends on its
accuracy and completeness. Swap data that contains errors or missing
information has limited value because the Commission cannot rely on it
to monitor risk and pricing, measure volume and liquidity, or inform
policy.
Similarly, the Commission believes that inaccurate and incomplete
swap transaction and pricing data hinders the public's use of the data,
which harms transparency and price discovery. The Commission is aware
of at least three publicly-available studies that support this point.
The studies examined data and remarked on incomplete, inaccurate, and
unreliable data. The first study analyzed the potential impact of the
Dodd-Frank Act on OTC transaction costs and liquidity using real-time
CDS trade data. The study found that more than 5,000 reports had
missing data and more than 15,000 reports included a price of zero,
leaving a usable sample of 180,149 reports.\415\ The second study
reported a number of data fields that
[[Page 75653]]
were routinely null or missing, making it difficult to analyze swap
market volumes.\416\ The third study assessed the size of the
agricultural swaps market and described problems in identifying the
underlying commodity as well as other errors in the reported data that
made some data unusable, including, for example, swaps with a reported
notional quantity roughly equal to the size of the entire U.S. soybean
crop.\417\ The Commission expects the final rules will result in more
accurate and complete data, which will improve market participants'
ability to analyze swap transaction and pricing data. This, in turn,
should improve transparency and price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\415\ Y.C. Loon, Z. (Ken) Zhong, ``Does Dodd-Frank affect OTC
transaction costs and liquidity? Evidence from real-time trade
reports,'' Journal of Financial Economics (2016), available at
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.01.019.
\416\ See Financial Stability Report, Office of Financial
Research (Dec. 15, 2015) at 84-85, available at https://financialresearch.gov/financial-stability-reports/files/OFR_2015-Financial-Stability-Report_12-15-2015.pdf.
\417\ Peterson, P.E. 2014. ``How Large is the Agricultural Swaps
Market?'' Proceedings of the NCCC-134 Conference on Applied
Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management.
St. Louis, MO, available at https://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/nccc134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
In the Part 49 Adopting Release, the Commission stated that part 49
and part 45 will strengthen the risk management practices of the swaps
market.\418\ Prior to the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act, participants
in the swaps markets operated without obligations to disclose
transactions to regulators or to the public. The Dodd-Frank Act
specifically changed the transparency of the swaps market with the
adoption of CEA section 21 and the establishment of SDRs as the
entities to which swap data and swap transaction and pricing data are
reported and maintained for use by regulators or disseminated to the
public. The Commission believes that the improved reporting of data to
SDRs will serve to improve risk management practices by market
participants. To the extent that better swap transaction and pricing
data improves the ability of market participants to gauge their risks
in the context of the overall market, risk management practices should
improve. Earlier and more-informed discussions between relevant market
participants and regulators regarding systemic risk, facilitated by
accurate swap data, will also lead to improved risk management
outcomes. Market participants should also see improvements in their
risk management practices, as improved swap data allows for more
accurate and timely market analyses that are publicly disseminated by
the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\418\ See Part 49 Adopting Release at 54574.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the amendments to parts 43, 45, and 49
will improve the quality of SDR data reported to SDRs and, hence,
improve the Commission's ability to monitor the swaps market, react to
potential market emergencies, and fulfill its regulatory
responsibilities generally. The amendments adopted in this final
rulemaking place different obligations on SDRs and reporting
counterparties to verify accuracy and completeness of SDR data. The
Commission believes that access for regulators to accurate and reliable
SDR data is essential for appropriate risk management and is especially
important for regulators' ability to monitor the swaps market for
systemic risk. Moreover, the Commission expects efforts to improve data
quality will increase market participants' confidence in SDR data and
therefore their confidence in any subsequent analyses based on the
data.
v. Other Public Interest Considerations
The Commission believes that the increased transparency resulting
from improvements to the SDR data via the amendments to parts 43, 45,
and 49 has other public interest considerations including: Creating
greater understanding for the public, market participants, and the
Commission of the interaction between the swaps market, other financial
markets, and the overall economy; improving regulatory oversight and
enforcement capabilities; and generating more information for
regulators so that they may establish more effective public policies to
reduce overall systemic risk.
D. Antitrust Considerations
Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the Commission to take into
consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws
and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the
objectives of the CEA, in issuing any order or adopting any Commission
rule or regulation (including any exemption under section 4(c) or
4c(b)), or in requiring or approving any bylaw, rule, or regulation of
a contract market or registered futures association established
pursuant to section 17 of the CEA.\419\ The Commission believes that
the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws is generally
to protect competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\419\ 7 U.S.C. 19(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission requested comments on whether the Proposal may have
the potential to be inconsistent with the anti-trust laws or anti-
competitive in nature. The Commission has considered this final rule to
determine whether it is anticompetitive and has identified no
anticompetitive effects.
Because the Commission has determined that the final rule is not
anticompetitive and has no anticompetitive effects, the Commission has
not identified any less anticompetitive means of achieving the purposes
of the CEA.
List of Subjects
17 CFR Part 43
Real-time public swap reporting.
17 CFR Part 45
Data recordkeeping requirements, Data reporting requirements,
Swaps.
17 CFR Part 49
Registration and regulatory requirements, Swap data repositories.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission amends 17 CFR chapter I as follows:
PART 43--REAL-TIME PUBLIC REPORTING
0
1. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2(a), 12a(5) and 24a, as amended by Pub. L.
111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
0
2. Amend Sec. 43.3 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 43.3 Method and timing for real-time public reporting.
* * * * *
(e) Correction of errors--(1) Swap execution facilities, designated
contract markets, and reporting counterparties. Any swap execution
facility, designated contract market, or reporting counterparty that by
any means becomes aware of any error relating to swap transaction and
pricing data that it was required to report under this part shall
correct the error. To correct an error, the swap execution facility,
designated contract market, or reporting counterparty shall submit
complete and accurate swap transaction and pricing data to the swap
data repository that maintains the swap transaction and pricing data
for the relevant swap, or completely and accurately report swap
transaction and pricing data for a swap that was not previously
reported to a swap data repository as required under this part, as
applicable. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the
requirement to correct any error applies regardless of the state of the
swap that is the subject of the swap transaction and pricing data,
including a swap that has terminated, matured, or otherwise is no
longer considered to be an open swap.
[[Page 75654]]
(i) Timing requirement for correcting errors. The swap execution
facility, designated contract market, or reporting counterparty shall
correct any error as soon as technologically practicable after
discovery of the error. In all cases, errors shall be corrected within
seven business days after discovery. Any error that a reporting
counterparty discovers or could have discovered during the verification
process required under Sec. 45.14(b) of this chapter is considered
discovered for the purposes of this section as of the moment the
reporting counterparty began the verification process during which the
error was first discovered or discoverable.
(ii) Notification of failure to timely correct. If the swap
execution facility, designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty will, for any reason, fail to timely correct an error, the
swap execution facility, designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty shall notify the Director of the Division of Market
Oversight, or such other employee or employees of the Commission as the
Director may designate from time to time. The notification shall be in
the form and manner, and according to the instructions, specified by
the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, or such other
employee or employees of the Commission as the Director may designate
from time to time. Unless otherwise instructed by the Director of the
Division of Market Oversight, or such other employee or employees of
the Commission as the Director may designate from time to time, the
notification shall include an initial assessment of the scope of the
error or errors that were discovered, and shall include any initial
remediation plan for correcting the error or errors, if an initial
remediation plan exists. This notification shall be made within 12
hours of the swap execution facility's, designated contract market's,
or reporting counterparty's determination that it will fail to timely
correct the error.
(iii) Form and manner for error correction. In order to satisfy the
requirements of this section, a swap execution facility, designated
contract market, or reporting counterparty shall conform to a swap data
repository's policies and procedures created pursuant to Sec. 49.10 of
this chapter for correction of errors.
(2) Non-reporting counterparties. Any non-reporting counterparty
that by any means becomes aware of any error in the swap transaction
and pricing data for a swap to which it is the non-reporting
counterparty, shall notify the reporting counterparty for the swap of
the error as soon as technologically practicable after discovery, but
not later than three business days following discovery of the error. If
the non-reporting counterparty does not know the identity of the
reporting counterparty, the non-reporting counterparty shall notify the
swap execution facility or designated contract market where the swap
was executed of the error as soon as technologically practicable after
discovery, but no later than three business days following the
discovery. Such notice from the non-reporting counterparty to the swap
execution facility, designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty constitutes discovery under this section.
(3) Exception. The requirements to correct errors set forth in
paragraph (e) of this section only apply to errors in swap transaction
and pricing data relating to swaps for which the record retention
period under Sec. 45.2 of this chapter has not expired as of the time
the error is discovered. Errors in swap transaction and pricing data
relating to swaps for which the record retention periods under Sec.
45.2 of this chapter have expired at the time that the errors are
discovered are not subject to the requirements to correct errors set
forth in paragraph (e) of this section.
(4) Error defined--(i) Errors. For the purposes of this part, there
is an error when swap transaction and pricing data is not completely
and accurately reported. This includes, but is not limited to, the
following circumstances:
(A) Any of the swap transaction and pricing data for a swap
reported to a swap data repository is incorrect or any of the swap
transaction and pricing data that is maintained by a swap data
repository differs from any of the relevant swap transaction and
pricing data contained in the books and records of a party to the swap.
(B) Any of the swap transaction and pricing data for a swap that is
required to be reported to a swap data repository or to be maintained
by a swap data repository is not reported to a swap data repository or
is not maintained by the swap data repository as required by this part.
(C) None of the swap transaction and pricing data for a swap that
is required to be reported to a swap data repository or to be
maintained by a swap data repository is reported to a swap data
repository or is maintained by a swap data repository.
(D) Any of the swap transaction and pricing data for a swap that is
no longer an open swap is maintained by the swap data repository as if
the swap is still an open swap.
(ii) Presumption. For the purposes of this section, there is a
presumption that an error exists if the swap data or the swap
transaction and pricing data that is maintained and disseminated by an
SDR for a swap is not complete and accurate. This includes, but is not
limited to, the swap data that the SDR makes available to the reporting
counterparty for verification under Sec. 49.11 of this chapter.
* * * * *
PART 45--SWAP DATA RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
0
3. The authority citation for part 45 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6r, 7, 7a-1, 7b-3, 12a, and 24a, as amended
by Title VII of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
of 2010, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), unless otherwise
noted.
0
4. In Sec. 45.1(a), add a definition for the term ``Open swap'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 45.1 Definitions.
(a) * * *
Open swap means an executed swap transaction that has not reached
maturity or expiration, and has not been fully exercised, closed out,
or terminated.
* * * * *
Sec. 45.2 [Amended]
0
5. In Sec. 45.2, remove and reserve paragraphs (f) and (g).
0
6. Revise Sec. 45.14 to read as follows:
Sec. 45.14 Correcting errors in swap data and verification of swap
data accuracy.
(a) Correction of errors--(1) Swap execution facilities, designated
contract markets, and reporting counterparties. Any swap execution
facility, designated contract market, or reporting counterparty that by
any means becomes aware of any error relating to swap data that it was
required to report under this part shall correct the error. To correct
an error, the swap execution facility, designated contract market, or
reporting counterparty shall submit complete and accurate swap data to
the swap data repository that maintains the swap data for the relevant
swap, or completely and accurately report swap data for a swap that was
not previously reported to a swap data repository as required under
this part, as applicable. Except as otherwise provided in this section,
the requirement to correct any error applies regardless of the state of
the swap that is the subject of the swap data, including a swap that
has
[[Page 75655]]
terminated, matured, or otherwise is no longer considered to be an open
swap.
(i) Timing requirement for correcting errors. The swap execution
facility, designated contract market, or reporting counterparty shall
correct any error as soon as technologically practicable after
discovery of the error. In all cases, errors shall be corrected within
seven business days after discovery. Any error that a reporting
counterparty discovers or could have discovered during the verification
process required under paragraph (b) of this section is considered
discovered for the purposes of this section as of the moment the
reporting counterparty began the verification process during which the
error was first discovered or discoverable.
(ii) Notification of failure to timely correct. If the swap
execution facility, designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty will, for any reason, fail to timely correct an error, the
swap execution facility, designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty shall notify the Director of the Division of Market
Oversight, or such other employee or employees of the Commission as the
Director may designate from time to time. The notification shall be in
the form and manner, and according to the instructions, specified by
the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, or such other
employee or employees of the Commission as the Director may designate
from time to time. Unless otherwise instructed by the Director of the
Division of Market Oversight, or such other employee or employees of
the Commission as the Director may designate from time to time, the
notification shall include an initial assessment of the scope of the
error or errors that were discovered, and shall include any initial
remediation plan for correcting the error or errors, if an initial
remediation plan exists. This notification shall be made within 12
hours of the swap execution facility's, designated contract market's,
or reporting counterparty's determination that it will fail to timely
correct the error.
(iii) Form and manner for error correction. In order to satisfy the
requirements of this section, a swap execution facility, designated
contract market, or reporting counterparty shall conform to a swap data
repository's policies and procedures created pursuant to Sec. 49.10 of
this chapter for correction of errors.
(2) Non-reporting counterparties. Any non-reporting counterparty
that by any means becomes aware of any error in the swap data for a
swap to which it is the non-reporting counterparty, shall notify the
reporting counterparty for the swap of the error as soon as
technologically practicable after discovery, but not later than three
business days following discovery of the error. If the non-reporting
counterparty does not know the identity of the reporting counterparty,
the non-reporting counterparty shall notify the swap execution facility
or designated contract market where the swap was executed of the error
as soon as technologically practicable after discovery, but no later
than three business days following the discovery. Such notice from the
non-reporting counterparty to the swap execution facility, designated
contract market, or reporting counterparty constitutes discovery under
this section.
(3) Exception. The requirements to correct errors set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section only apply to errors in swap data
relating to swaps for which the record retention period under Sec.
45.2 has not expired as of the time the error is discovered. Errors in
swap data relating to swaps for which the record retention periods
under Sec. 45.2 have expired at the time that the errors are
discovered are not subject to the requirements to correct errors set
forth in paragraph (a) of this section.
(b) Verification that swap data is complete and accurate. Each
reporting counterparty shall verify that there are no errors in the
swap data for all open swaps that the reporting counterparty reported,
or was required to report, to a swap data repository under the
requirements of this part, in accordance with this paragraph (b).
(1) Method of verification. Each reporting counterparty shall
utilize the mechanism for verification that each swap data repository
to which the reporting counterparty reports swap data adopts under
Sec. 49.11 of this chapter. Each reporting counterparty shall utilize
the relevant mechanism(s) to compare all swap data for each open swap
for which it serves as the reporting counterparty maintained by the
relevant swap data repository or repositories with all swap data
contained in the reporting counterparty's internal books and records
for each swap, to verify that there are no errors in the relevant swap
data maintained by the swap data repository. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, a reporting counterparty is not required to verify the
accuracy and completeness of any swap data to which the reporting
counterparty is not permitted access under the Act or Commission
regulations, including, but not limited to, Sec. 49.17 of this
chapter.
(2) Verification policies and procedures. In performing
verification as required by this paragraph, each reporting counterparty
shall conform to each relevant swap data repository's verification
policies and procedures created pursuant to Sec. 49.11 of this
chapter. If a reporting counterparty utilizes a third-party service
provider to perform verification, the reporting counterparty shall
conform to each relevant swap data repository's third-party service
provider verification policies and procedures created pursuant to Sec.
49.11 of this chapter and shall require the third-party service
provider to conform to the same policies and procedures while
performing verification on behalf of the reporting counterparty.
(3) Correcting errors. Any and all errors discovered during the
verification process shall be corrected in accordance with paragraph
(a)(1) of this section.
(4) Frequency. Each reporting counterparty shall perform
verification at a minimum:
(i) If the reporting counterparty is a swap dealer, major swap
participant, or derivatives clearing organization, once every thirty
calendar days; or
(ii) If the reporting counterparty is not a swap dealer, major swap
participant, or a derivatives clearing organization, once every
calendar quarter, provided that there are at least two calendar months
between verifications.
(5) Verification log. Each reporting counterparty shall keep a log
of each verification that it performs. For each verification, the log
shall include all errors discovered during the verification, and the
corrections performed under paragraph (a) of this section. This
requirement is in addition to any other applicable reporting
counterparty recordkeeping requirement.
(c) Error defined--(1) Errors. For the purposes of this part, there
is an error when swap data is not completely and accurately reported.
This includes, but is not limited to, the following circumstances:
(i) Any of the swap data for a swap reported to a swap data
repository is incorrect or any of the swap data that is maintained by a
swap data repository differs from any of the relevant swap data
contained in the books and records of a party to the swap.
(ii) Any of the swap data for a swap that is required to be
reported to a swap data repository or to be maintained by a swap data
repository is not reported to a swap data repository or is not
maintained by the swap data repository as required by this part.
[[Page 75656]]
(iii) None of the swap data for a swap that is required to be
reported to a swap data repository or to be maintained by a swap data
repository is reported to a swap data repository or is maintained by a
swap data repository.
(iv) Any of the swap data for a swap that is no longer an open swap
is maintained by the swap data repository as if the swap is still an
open swap.
(2) Presumption. For the purposes of this section, there is a
presumption that an error exists if the swap data that is maintained
and disseminated by an SDR for a swap is not complete and accurate.
This includes, but is not limited to, the swap data that the SDR makes
available to the reporting counterparty for verification under Sec.
49.11 of this chapter.
PART 49--SWAP DATA REPOSITORIES
0
7. The authority citation for part 49 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2(a), 6r, 12a, and 24a, as amended by
Title VII of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of
2010, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (Jul. 21, 2010), unless
otherwise noted.
0
8. Amend Sec. 49.2 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)--
0
i. Revising the definition of ``Affiliate'';
0
ii. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``As soon as
technologically practicable'';
0
iii. Revising the definitions of ``Asset class,'' ``Commercial use,''
``Control,'' ``Foreign regulator,'' ``Independent perspective,''
``Market participant,'' and ``Non-affiliated third party'';
0
iv. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Open swap'';
0
v. Revising the definitions of ``Person associated with a swap data
repository'' and ``Position'';
0
vi. Removing the definition of ``Registered swap data repository'';
0
vii. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Reporting
counterparty'';
0
viii. Removing the definition of ``Reporting entity'';
0
ix. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``SDR data'';
0
x. Revising the definitions of ``SDR Information,'' ``Section 8
material,'' and ``Swap data'';
0
xi. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Swap transaction
and pricing data''; and
0
b. Revising paragraph (b).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 49.2 Definitions.
(a) * * *
Affiliate means a person that directly, or indirectly, controls, is
controlled by, or is under common control with, the swap data
repository.
As soon as technologically practicable means as soon as possible,
taking into consideration the prevalence, implementation, and use of
technology by comparable market participants.
Asset class means a broad category of commodities including,
without limitation, any ``excluded commodity'' as defined in section
1a(19) of the Act, with common characteristics underlying a swap. The
asset classes include interest rate, foreign exchange, credit, equity,
other commodity, and such other asset classes as may be determined by
the Commission.
Commercial use means the use of SDR data held and maintained by a
swap data repository for a profit or business purposes. A swap data
repository's use of SDR data for regulatory purposes and/or to perform
its regulatory responsibilities would not be considered a commercial
use regardless of whether the swap data repository charges a fee for
reporting such SDR data.
Control (including the terms ``controlled by'' and ``under common
control with'') means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power
to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a
person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by
contract, or otherwise.
* * * * *
Foreign regulator means a foreign futures authority as defined in
section 1a(26) of the Act, foreign financial supervisors, foreign
central banks, foreign ministries, and other foreign authorities.
Independent perspective means a viewpoint that is impartial
regarding competitive, commercial, or industry concerns and
contemplates the effect of a decision on all constituencies involved.
Market participant means any person participating in the swap
market, including, but not limited to, designated contract markets,
derivatives clearing organizations, swap execution facilities, swap
dealers, major swap participants, and any other counterparty to a swap
transaction.
Non-affiliated third party means any person except:
(1) The swap data repository;
(2) The swap data repository's affiliate; or
(3) A person jointly employed by a swap data repository and any
entity that is not the swap data repository's affiliate (the term
``non-affiliated third party'' includes such entity that jointly
employs the person).
Open swap means an executed swap transaction that has not reached
maturity or expiration, and has not been fully exercised, closed out,
or terminated.
Person associated with a swap data repository means:
(1) Any partner, officer, or director of such swap data repository
(or any person occupying a similar status or performing similar
functions);
(2) Any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by,
or under common control with such swap data repository; or
(3) Any person employed by such swap data repository, including a
jointly employed person.
Position means the gross and net notional amounts of open swap
transactions aggregated by one or more attributes, including, but not
limited to, the:
(1) Underlying instrument;
(2) Index, or reference entity;
(3) Counterparty;
(4) Asset class;
(5) Long risk of the underlying instrument, index, or reference
entity; and
(6) Short risk of the underlying instrument, index, or reference
entity.
Reporting counterparty means the counterparty required to report
SDR data pursuant to part 43, 45, or 46 of this chapter.
SDR data means the specific data elements and information required
to be reported to a swap data repository or disseminated by a swap data
repository pursuant to two or more of parts 43, 45, 46, and/or 49 of
this chapter, as applicable in the context.
SDR information means any information that the swap data repository
receives or maintains related to the business of the swap data
repository that is not SDR data.
Section 8 material means the business transactions, SDR data, or
market positions of any person and trade secrets or names of customers.
Swap data means the specific data elements and information required
to be reported to a swap data repository pursuant to part 45 of this
chapter or made available to the Commission pursuant to this part, as
applicable.
Swap transaction and pricing data means the specific data elements
and information required to be reported to a swap data repository or
publicly disseminated by a swap data repository pursuant to part 43 of
this chapter, as applicable.
(b) Other defined terms. Terms not defined in this part have the
meanings assigned to the terms in Sec. 1.3 of this chapter.
[[Page 75657]]
0
9. In Sec. 49.3:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a)(5);
0
b. Remove the phrase ``swap transaction data'' from paragraph (d) and
add in its place ``SDR data''; and
0
c. Remove the reference ``Sec. 40.1(e)'' from paragraph (d) and add in
its place ``Sec. 40.1''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 49.3 Procedures for registration.
(a) * * *
(5) Amendments. If any information reported on Form SDR or in any
amendment thereto is or becomes inaccurate for any reason, whether
before or after the application for registration has been granted under
this paragraph (a), the swap data repository shall promptly file an
amendment on Form SDR updating such information.
* * * * *
0
10. Revise the paragraph heading for Sec. 49.4(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 49.4 Withdrawal from registration.
* * * * *
(c) Revocation of registration for false application. * * *
* * * * *
0
11. Revise Sec. 49.5 to read as follows:
Sec. 49.5 Equity interest transfers.
(a) Equity interest transfer notification. A swap data repository
shall file with the Commission a notification of each transaction
involving the direct or indirect transfer of ten percent or more of the
equity interest in the swap data repository. The Commission may, upon
receiving such notification, request that the swap data repository
provide supporting documentation of the transaction.
(b) Timing of notification. The equity interest transfer notice
described in paragraph (a) of this section shall be filed
electronically with the Secretary of the Commission at its Washington,
DC headquarters at [email protected] and the Division of Market
Oversight at [email protected], at the earliest possible time but
in no event later than the open of business ten business days following
the date upon which a firm obligation is made to transfer, directly or
indirectly, ten percent or more of the equity interest in the swap data
repository.
(c) Certification. Upon a transfer, whether directly or indirectly,
of an equity interest of ten percent or more in a swap data repository,
the swap data repository shall file electronically with the Secretary
of the Commission at its Washington, DC headquarters at
[email protected] and the Division of Market Oversight at
[email protected], a certification that the swap data repository
meets all of the requirements of section 21 of the Act and the
Commission regulations in 17 CFR chapter I, no later than two business
days following the date on which the equity interest of ten percent or
more was acquired.
0
12. Revise Sec. 49.6 to read as follows:
Sec. 49.6 Request for transfer of registration.
(a) Request for approval. A swap data repository seeking to
transfer its registration from its current legal entity to a new legal
entity as a result of a corporate change shall file a request for
approval to transfer such registration with the Secretary of the
Commission in the form and manner specified by the Commission.
(b) Timing for filing a request for transfer of registration. A
swap data repository shall file a request for transfer of registration
as soon as practicable prior to the anticipated corporate change.
(c) Required information. The request for transfer of registration
shall include the following:
(1) The underlying documentation that governs the corporate change;
(2) A description of the corporate change, including the reason for
the change and its impact on the swap data repository, including the
swap data repository's governance and operations, and its impact on the
rights and obligations of market participants;
(3) A discussion of the transferee's ability to comply with the
Act, including the core principles applicable to swap data repositories
and the Commission's regulations;
(4) The governance documents adopted by the transferee, including a
copy of any constitution; articles or certificate of incorporation,
organization, formation, or association with all amendments thereto;
partnership or limited liability agreements; and any existing bylaws,
operating agreement, or rules or instruments corresponding thereto;
(5) The transferee's rules marked to show changes from the current
rules of the swap data repository; and
(6) A representation by the transferee that it:
(i) Will be the surviving entity and successor-in-interest to the
transferor swap data repository and will retain and assume the assets
and liabilities of the transferor, except if otherwise indicated in the
request;
(ii) Will assume responsibility for complying with all applicable
provisions of the Act and the Commission's regulations; and
(iii) Will notify market participants of all changes to the
transferor's rulebook prior to the transfer, including those changes
that may affect the rights and obligations of market participants, and
will further notify market participants of the concurrent transfer of
the registration to the transferee upon Commission approval and
issuance of an order permitting the transfer.
(d) Commission determination. Upon review of a request for transfer
of registration, the Commission, as soon as practicable, shall issue an
order either approving or denying the request for transfer of
registration.
0
13. Revise Sec. 49.9 to read as follows:
Sec. 49.9 Open swaps reports provided to the Commission.
Each swap data repository shall provide reports of open swaps to
the Commission in accordance with this section.
(a) Content of the open swaps report. In order to satisfy the
requirements of this section, each swap data repository shall provide
the Commission with open swaps reports that contain an accurate
reflection, as of the time the swap data repository compiles the open
swaps report, of the swap data maintained by the swap data repository
for every swap data field required to be reported for swaps pursuant to
part 45 of this chapter for every open swap. The report shall be
organized by the unique identifier created pursuant to Sec. 45.5 of
this chapter that is associated with each open swap.
(b) Transmission of the open swaps report. Each swap data
repository shall transmit all open swaps reports to the Commission as
instructed by the Commission. Such instructions may include, but are
not limited to, the method, timing, and frequency of transmission, as
well as the format of the swap data to be transmitted.
0
14. In Sec. 49.10, add paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 49.10 Acceptance of data.
* * * * *
(e) Error corrections--(1) Accepting corrections. A swap data
repository shall accept error corrections for SDR data. Error
corrections include corrections to errors and omissions in SDR data
previously reported to the swap data repository pursuant to part 43,
45, or 46 of this chapter, as well as omissions in reporting SDR data
for swaps that were not previously reported to a swap data repository
as required under part 43, 45, or 46 of this chapter. The requirement
to accept error corrections applies for all swaps, regardless of the
state of the swap that
[[Page 75658]]
is the subject of the SDR data. This includes swaps that have
terminated, matured, or are otherwise no longer considered to be open
swaps, provided that the record retention period under Sec.
49.12(b)(2) has not expired as of the time the error correction is
reported.
(2) Recording corrections. A swap data repository shall record the
corrections, as soon as technologically practicable after the swap data
repository accepts the error correction.
(3) Dissemination. A swap data repository shall disseminate
corrected SDR data to the public and the Commission, as applicable, in
accordance with this chapter, as soon as technologically practicable
after the swap data repository records the corrected SDR data.
(4) Policies and procedures. A swap data repository shall
establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures designed for
the swap data repository to accept error corrections, to record the
error corrections as soon as technologically practicable after the swap
data repository accepts the error correction, and to disseminate
corrected SDR data to the public and to the Commission, as applicable,
in accordance with this chapter.
* * * * *
0
15. Revise Sec. 49.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 49.11 Verification of swap data accuracy.
(a) General requirement. Each swap data repository shall verify the
accuracy and completeness of swap data that it receives from swap
execution facilities, designated contract markets, reporting
counterparties, or third-party service providers acting on their
behalf, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Verifying swap data accuracy and completeness--(1) Swap data
access. Each swap data repository shall provide a mechanism that allows
each reporting counterparty that is a user of the swap data repository
to access all swap data maintained by the swap data repository for each
open swap for which the reporting counterparty is serving as the
reporting counterparty, as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section. This mechanism shall allow sufficient access, provide
sufficient information, and be in a form and manner to enable each
reporting counterparty to perform swap data verification as required
under Sec. 45.14 of this chapter.
(2) Scope of swap data access. The swap data accessible through the
mechanism provided by each swap data repository shall accurately
reflect the most current swap data maintained by the swap data
repository, as of the time the reporting counterparty accesses the swap
data using the provided mechanism, for each data field that the
reporting counterparty was required to report for each relevant open
swap pursuant to part 45 of this chapter, except as provided in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The swap data accessible through the
mechanism provided by each swap data repository shall include
sufficient information to allow reporting counterparties to
successfully perform the swap data verification required under Sec.
45.14 of this chapter.
(3) Confidentiality. The swap data access each swap data repository
shall provide pursuant to this section is subject to all applicable
confidentiality requirements of the Act and this chapter, including,
but not limited to, Sec. 49.17. The swap data accessible to any
reporting counterparty shall not include any swap data that the
relevant reporting counterparty is prohibited to access under any
Commission regulation.
(4) Frequency of swap data access. Each swap data repository shall
allow each reporting counterparty that is a user of the relevant swap
data repository to utilize the mechanism as required under this section
with at least sufficient frequency to allow each relevant reporting
counterparty to perform the swap data verification required under Sec.
45.14 of this chapter.
(5) Third-party service providers. If a reporting counterparty
informs a swap data repository that the reporting counterparty will
utilize a third-party service provider to perform verification as
required pursuant to Sec. 45.14 of this chapter, the swap data
repository will satisfy its requirements under this section by
providing the third-party service provider with the same access to the
mechanism and the relevant swap data for the reporting counterparty
under this section, as if the third-party service provider was the
reporting counterparty. The access for the third-party service provider
shall be in addition to the access for the reporting counterparty
required under this section. The access for the third-party service
provider under this paragraph shall continue until the reporting
counterparty informs the swap data repository that the third-party
service provider should no longer have access on behalf of the
reporting counterparty. The policies and procedures each swap data
repository adopts under paragraph (c) of this section shall include
instructions detailing how each reporting counterparty can successfully
inform the swap data repository regarding a third-party service
provider.
(c) Policies and procedures--(1) Contents. Each swap data
repository shall establish, maintain, and enforce policies and
procedures designed to ensure compliance with the requirements of this
section. Such policies and procedures shall include, but are not
limited to, instructions detailing how each reporting counterparty, or
third-party service provider acting on behalf of a reporting
counterparty, can successfully utilize the mechanism provided pursuant
to this section to perform each reporting counterparty's verification
responsibilities under Sec. 45.14 of this chapter.
(2) Amendments. Each swap data repository shall comply with the
requirements under part 40 of this chapter in adopting or amending the
policies and procedures required by this section.
0
16. Revise Sec. 49.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 49.12 Swap data repository recordkeeping requirements.
(a) General requirement. A swap data repository shall keep full,
complete, and systematic records, together with all pertinent data and
memoranda, of all activities relating to the business of the swap data
repository, including, but not limited to, all SDR information and all
SDR data that is reported to the swap data repository pursuant to this
chapter.
(b) Maintenance of records. A swap data repository shall maintain
all records required to be kept by this section in accordance with this
paragraph (b).
(1) A swap data repository shall maintain all SDR information,
including, but not limited to, all documents, policies, and procedures
required by the Act and the Commission's regulations, correspondence,
memoranda, papers, books, notices, accounts, and other such records
made or received by the swap data repository in the course of its
business. All SDR information shall be maintained in accordance with
Sec. 1.31 of this chapter.
(2) A swap data repository shall maintain all SDR data and
timestamps reported to or created by the swap data repository pursuant
to this chapter, and all messages related to such reporting, throughout
the existence of the swap that is the subject of the SDR data and for
five years following final termination of the swap, during which time
the records shall be readily accessible by the swap data repository and
available to the Commission via real-time electronic access, and for a
period of at least ten additional years in archival storage from which
such records are
[[Page 75659]]
retrievable by the swap data repository within three business days.
(c) Records of data errors and omissions. A swap data repository
shall create and maintain records of data validation errors and SDR
data reporting errors and omissions in accordance with this paragraph
(c).
(1) A swap data repository shall create and maintain an accurate
record of all reported SDR data that fails to satisfy the swap data
repository's data validation procedures including, but not limited to,
all SDR data reported to the swap data repository that fails to satisfy
the data validation procedures, all data validation errors, and all
related messages and timestamps. A swap data repository shall make
these records available to the Commission on request.
(2) A swap data repository shall create and maintain an accurate
record of all SDR data errors and omissions reported to the swap data
repository and all corrections disseminated by the swap data repository
pursuant to parts 43, 45, and 46 of this chapter and this part. A swap
data repository shall make these records available to the Commission on
request.
(d) Availability of records. All records required to be kept
pursuant to this part shall be open to inspection upon request by any
representative of the Commission or the United States Department of
Justice in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 1.31 of this
chapter. A swap data repository required to keep, create, or maintain
records pursuant to this section shall provide such records in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 1.31 of this chapter, unless
otherwise provided in this part.
(e) A swap data repository shall establish policies and procedures
to calculate positions for position limits and any other purpose as
required by the Commission, for all persons with swaps that have not
expired maintained by the swap data repository.
0
17. Revise paragraph (a) and the paragraph (b) heading in Sec. 49.13
to read as follows:
Sec. 49.13 Monitoring, screening and analyzing swap data.
(a) Duty to monitor, screen and analyze SDR data. A swap data
repository shall monitor, screen, and analyze all relevant SDR data in
its possession in such a manner as the Commission may require. A swap
data repository shall routinely monitor, screen, and analyze SDR data
for the purpose of any standing swap surveillance objectives that the
Commission may establish as well as perform specific monitoring,
screening, and analysis tasks based on ad hoc requests by the
Commission.
(b) Capacity to monitor, screen and analyze SDR data. * * *
0
18. Revise Sec. 49.15 to read as follows:
Sec. 49.15 Real-time public reporting by swap data repositories.
(a) Scope. The provisions of this section apply to the real-time
public reporting of swap transaction and pricing data submitted to a
swap data repository pursuant to part 43 of this chapter.
(b) Systems to accept and disseminate data in connection with real-
time public reporting. A swap data repository shall establish such
electronic systems as are necessary to accept and publicly disseminate
swap transaction and pricing data submitted to the swap data repository
pursuant to part 43 of this chapter in order to meet the real-time
public reporting obligations of part 43 of this chapter. Any electronic
system established for this purpose shall be capable of accepting and
ensuring the public dissemination of all data fields required by part
43 this chapter.
(c) Duty to notify the Commission of untimely data. A swap data
repository shall notify the Commission of any swap transaction for
which the real-time swap data was not received by the swap data
repository in accordance with part 43 of this chapter.
0
19. Revise Sec. 49.16 to read as follows:
Sec. 49.16 Privacy and confidentiality requirements of swap data
repositories.
(a) Each swap data repository shall:
(1) Establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to protect the privacy and
confidentiality of any and all SDR information and all SDR data that is
not swap transaction and pricing data disseminated under part 43 of
this chapter. Such policies and procedures shall include, but are not
limited to, policies and procedures to protect the privacy and
confidentiality of any and all SDR information and all SDR data (except
for swap transaction and pricing data disseminated under part 43 of
this chapter) that the swap data repository shares with affiliates and
non-affiliated third parties; and
(2) Establish and maintain safeguards, policies, and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent the misappropriation or misuse, directly
or indirectly, of:
(i) Section 8 material;
(ii) Other SDR information or SDR data; and/or
(iii) Intellectual property, such as trading strategies or
portfolio positions, by the swap data repository or any person
associated with a swap data repository. Such safeguards, policies, and
procedures shall include, but are not limited to:
(A) Limiting access to such section 8 material, other SDR
information or SDR data, and intellectual property;
(B) Standards controlling persons associated with a swap data
repository trading for their personal benefit or the benefit of others;
and
(C) Adequate oversight to ensure compliance with this paragraph
(a)(2).
(b) A swap data repository shall not, as a condition of accepting
SDR data from any swap execution facility, designated contract market,
or reporting counterparty, require the waiver of any privacy rights by
such swap execution facility, designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty.
(c) Subject to section 8 of the Act, a swap data repository may
disclose aggregated SDR data on a voluntary basis or as requested, in
the form and manner prescribed by the Commission.
0
20. Amend Sec. 49.17 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(3);
0
b. Adding paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1), the headings to paragraphs (d)(1) and
(5), and paragraph (f)(2);
0
d. Removing paragraph (i); and
0
e. In the table below, for each paragraph indicated in the left column,
remove the text indicated in the middle column from wherever it
appears, and add in its place the text indicated in the right column:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraphs Remove Add
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)......................... swap data........... SDR data.
(a)......................... Section 8 of the Act section 8 of the Act
(b)(1) heading.............. Domestic Regulator.. domestic regulator
(b)(1) introductory text.... Appropriate Domestic appropriate domestic
Regulator. regulator
(b)(2) heading.............. Foreign Regulator... foreign regulator
(b)(2)...................... Appropriate Foreign appropriate foreign
Regulator. regulator
[[Page 75660]]
(b)(2)...................... those Foreign those foreign
Regulators. regulators
(c)(2)...................... analyzing of swap analyzing of SDR
data. data
(c)(2)...................... transfer of data.... transfer of SDR data
(c)(3)...................... swap data provided.. SDR data provided
(c)(3)...................... authorizedusers..... authorized users
(d)(1)(i)................... Appropriate Domestic appropriate domestic
Regulator. regulator
(d)(1)(i)................... Appropriate Foreign appropriate foreign
Regulator. regulator
(d)(1)(ii).................. Appropriate Domestic Appropriate domestic
Regulators and regulators and
Appropriate Foreign appropriate foreign
Regulators seeking. regulators seeking
(d)(1)(ii).................. applicable to applicable to
Appropriate appropriate
Domestic Regulators domestic regulators
and Appropriate and appropriate
Foreign Regulators. foreign regulators
(d)(3) heading.............. Foreign Regulator... Foreign regulator
(d)(3)...................... Foreign Regulator... foreign regulator.
(d)(3)...................... Foreign Regulator's. foreign regulator's
(d)(4) heading.............. requests for data requests for swap
access. data access
(d)(4)(i)................... Appropriate Domestic appropriate domestic
Regulator or regulator or
Appropriate Foreign appropriate foreign
Regulator. regulator
(d)(4)(i)................... Appropriate Domestic appropriate domestic
Regulator's or regulator's or
Appropriate Foreign appropriate foreign
Regulator's. regulator's
(d)(4)(iii)................. Appropriate Domestic appropriate domestic
Regulator or regulator or
Appropriate Foreign appropriate foreign
Regulator. regulator
(d)(4)(iii)................. Appropriate Domestic appropriate domestic
Regulator's or regulator's or
Appropriate Foreign appropriate foreign
Regulator's. regulator's
(d)(5)(i) through (iii)..... Appropriate Domestic appropriate domestic
Regulator or regulator or
Appropriate Foreign appropriate foreign
Regulator. regulator
(d)(6) heading.............. Arrangement......... arrangement
(d)(6)...................... Appropriate Domestic appropriate domestic
Regulator or regulator or
Appropriate Foreign appropriate foreign
Regulator. regulator
(e) introductory text, swap data and SDR SDR data and SDR
(e)(1), and (e)(2). Information. information
(e)(2)...................... swap data or SDR SDR data or SDR
Information. information
(f)(1)...................... swap data maintained SDR data maintained
(g) heading................. Commercial uses of Commercial uses of
data. SDR data
(g) introductory text....... Swap data accepted.. SDR data accepted
(g)(1)...................... swap data required.. SDR data required
(g)(2)(A)................... The swap dealer, The swap execution
counterparty, or facility,
any other designated contract
registered entity. market, or
reporting
counterparty
(g)(2)(A)................... swap data maintained SDR data maintained
(g)(2)(B)................... swap transaction SDR data
data.
(g)(2)(B)................... reporting party..... swap execution
facility,
designated contract
market, or
reporting
counterparty
(g)(2)(B)................... any reported data... any reported SDR
data
(g)(3)...................... real-time swap data. swap transaction and
pricing data
(h)(3) introductory text.... CEA section 21(c)(7) section 21(c)(7) of
the Act
(h)(4)...................... Appropriate Domestic appropriate domestic
Regulator or regulator or
Appropriate Foreign appropriate foreign
Regulator. regulator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 49.17 Access to SDR data.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Direct electronic access. For the purposes of this section, the
term ``direct electronic access'' shall mean an electronic system,
platform, framework, or other technology that provides internet-based
or other form of access to real-time SDR data that is acceptable to the
Commission and also provides scheduled data transfers to Commission
electronic systems.
(c) Commission access. A swap data repository shall provide access
to the Commission for all SDR data maintained by the swap data
repository pursuant to this chapter in accordance with this paragraph
(c).
(1) Direct electronic access requirements. A swap data repository
shall provide direct electronic access to the Commission or the
Commission's designee, including another registered entity, in order
for the Commission to carry out its legal and statutory
responsibilities under the Act and the Commission's regulations in 17
CFR chapter I. A swap data repository shall maintain all SDR data
reported to the swap data repository in a format acceptable to the
Commission, and shall transmit all SDR data requested by the Commission
to the Commission as instructed by the Commission. Such instructions
may include, but are not limited to, the method, timing, and frequency
of transmission, as well as the format and scope of the SDR data to be
transmitted.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) General procedure for gaining access to swap data repository
data. * * *
* * * * *
(5) Timing, limitation, suspension, or revocation of swap data
access. * * *
(f) * * *
(2) Exception. SDR data and SDR information related to a particular
swap transaction that is maintained by the swap data repository may be
accessed by either counterparty to that particular swap. However, the
SDR data and SDR information maintained by the swap data repository
that may be accessed by either counterparty to a particular swap shall
not include the identity or the legal entity identifier (as such term
is used in part 45 of this chapter) of the other counterparty to the
swap, or the other counterparty's clearing member
[[Page 75661]]
for the swap, if the swap is executed anonymously on a swap execution
facility or designated contract market, and cleared in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 1.74, 23.610, and 39.12(b)(7) of this chapter.
* * * * *
Sec. 49.18 [Amended]
0
21. Amend Sec. 49.18 by:
0
a. Removing from paragraphs (a) and (d) the words ``Appropriate
Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign Regulator'' and ``Appropriate
Domestic Regulator's or Appropriate Foreign Regulator's'' wherever they
appear, and add in their places ``appropriate domestic regulator or
appropriate foreign regulator'' and ``appropriate domestic regulator's
or appropriate foreign regulator's'', respectively; and
0
b. Removing paragraph (e).
Sec. 49.19 [Amended]
0
22. In Sec. 49.19(a), remove the word ``paragraph'' from wherever it
appears and add in its place the word ``section''.
0
23. Amend Sec. 49.20 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(v), (b)(2)(vii), and (c)(1)(ii)(B); and
0
b. In the table below, for each paragraph indicated in the left column,
removing the text indicated in the middle column from wherever it
appears, and adding in its place the text indicated in the right
column:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph Remove Add
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) heading................. Governance governance
Arrangements. arrangements
(c)(1)(i) introductory text. Regulation.......... section
(c)(1)(i)(A)(2)............. Independent independent
Perspective. perspective
(c)(1)(i)(B)................ Independent independent
Perspective. perspective
(c)(5)...................... Regulation.......... section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 49.20 Governance arrangements (Core Principle 2).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) A description of the manner in which the board of directors, as
well as any committee referenced in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this
section, considers an independent perspective in its decision-making
process, as Sec. 49.2(a) defines such term;
* * * * *
(vii) Summaries of significant decisions impacting the public
interest, the rationale for such decisions, and the process for
reaching such decisions. Such significant decisions shall include
decisions relating to pricing of repository services, offering of
ancillary services, access to SDR data, and use of section 8 material,
SDR information, and intellectual property (as referenced in Sec.
49.16). Such summaries of significant decisions shall not require the
swap data repository to disclose section 8 material or, where
appropriate, information that the swap data repository received on a
confidential basis from a swap execution facility, designated contract
market, or reporting counterparty.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) A description of the relationship, if any, between such members
and the swap data repository or any swap execution facility, designated
contract market, or reporting counterparty user thereof (or, in each
case, affiliates thereof, as Sec. 49.2(a) defines such term); and
* * * * *
0
24. Amend Sec. 49.22 by:
0
a. In the table below, for each paragraph indicated in the left column,
removing the text indicated in the middle column from wherever it
appears, and adding in its place the text indicated in the right
column:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph Remove Add
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) heading................. Board of Directors.. board of directors
(b)(1) heading.............. Compliance Officer.. compliance officer
(b)(2) heading.............. Chief Compliance chief compliance
Officer. officer
(b)(2)(i)................... Sections............ section
(d)(1)...................... Section............. section
(d)(4)...................... Section............. section
(e)(2) introductory text and Section............. section
(e)(2)(i).
(f)(3)...................... (e)(67)............. (e)(6)
(g)(1)(iii)(A).............. Created, sent or Created, sent, or
received in received in
connection with the connection with the
annual compliance annual compliance
report and. report; and
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
b. Revising the paragraph (c)(1) heading, the paragraph (f) heading,
and paragraph (f)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 49.22 Chief compliance officer.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Appointment and compensation of chief compliance officer
determined by board of directors. * * *
* * * * *
(f) Submission of annual compliance report to the Commission. * * *
(2) The annual compliance report shall be provided electronically
to the Commission not more than 60 days after the end of the swap data
repository's fiscal year.
* * * * *
Sec. 49.23 [Amended]
0
25. Amend Sec. 49.23 by:
0
a. Removing from paragraph (a) the words ``swap transaction data'' and
adding in their place ``SDR data''; and
0
b. Removing from the heading of paragraph (e) the word ``commission''
and adding in its place ``Commission''.
0
26. Amend Sec. 49.24 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d); and
0
b. In the table below, for each paragraph indicated in the left column,
removing the text indicated in the middle column from wherever it
[[Page 75662]]
appears, and adding in its place the text indicated in the right
column:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraphs Remove Add
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) introductory text....... all swap data in its all SDR data in its
custody. custody
(e)(3)(i)................... dissemination of dissemination of SDR
swap data. data
(e)(3)(ii).................. normal swap data.... normal SDR data
(f)(2)...................... all swap data all SDR data
contained. contained
(i) introductory text and Sec. Sec. 1.31 Sec. 1.31
(i)(5). and 45.2.
(j)(1) definitions of data and information SDR data and SDR
``Controls'' and information
``Enterprise technology
risk assessment''.
(j)(1) definition of or integrity of data , or integrity of
``Security incident''. SDR data
(k)(1) and (2).............. report swap data.... report SDR data
(l)(3)...................... any data related to. any SDR data related
to
(m)......................... Board of Directors.. board of directors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 49.24 System safeguards.
* * * * *
(d) A swap data repository shall maintain a business continuity-
disaster recovery plan and business continuity-disaster recovery
resources, emergency procedures, and backup facilities sufficient to
enable timely recovery and resumption of its operations and resumption
of its ongoing fulfillment of its duties and obligations as a swap data
repository following any disruption of its operations. Such duties and
obligations include, without limitation, the duties set forth in
Sec. Sec. 49.10 through 49.18, Sec. 49.23, and the core principles
set forth in Sec. Sec. 49.19 through 49.21 and Sec. Sec. 49.25
through 49.27, and maintenance of a comprehensive audit trail. The swap
data repository's business continuity-disaster recovery plan and
resources generally should enable resumption of the swap data
repository's operations and resumption of ongoing fulfillment of the
swap data repository's duties and obligation during the next business
day following the disruption. A swap data repository shall update its
business continuity-disaster recovery plan and emergency procedures at
a frequency determined by an appropriate risk analysis, but at a
minimum no less frequently than annually.
* * * * *
0
27. In Sec. 49.25, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 49.25 Financial resources.
(a) * * * (1) A swap data repository shall maintain sufficient
financial resources to perform its statutory and regulatory duties set
forth in this chapter.
* * * * *
0
28. Amend Sec. 49.26 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. In the table below, for each paragraph indicated in the left column,
removing the text indicated in the middle column from wherever it
appears, and adding in its place the text indicated in the right
column:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph Remove Add
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)......................... swap data maintained SDR data maintained.
(c)......................... safeguarding of swap safeguarding of SDR
data. data.
(d)......................... any and all swap any and all SDR
data. data.
(d)......................... reporting entity.... swap execution
facility,
designated contract
market, or
reporting
counterparty.
(e)......................... swap data that it SDR data that it
receives. receives.
(e)......................... market participant, swap execution
any registered facility,
entity, or any designated contract
other person; market, or
reporting
counterparty;
(h)......................... rebates; and........ rebates;
(i)......................... arrangements........ arrangements; and.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
c. Adding paragraph (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 49.26 Disclosure requirements of swap data repositories.
Before accepting any SDR data from a swap execution facility,
designated contract market, or reporting counterparty; or upon a swap
execution facility's, designated contract market's, or reporting
counterparty's request; a swap data repository shall furnish to the
swap execution facility, designated contract market, or reporting
counterparty a disclosure document that contains the following written
information, which shall reasonably enable the swap execution facility,
designated contract market, or reporting counterparty to identify and
evaluate accurately the risks and costs associated with using the
services of the swap data repository:
* * * * *
(j) The swap data repository's policies and procedures regarding
the reporting of SDR data to the swap data repository, including the
swap data repository's SDR data validation procedures, swap data
verification procedures, and procedures for correcting SDR data errors
and omissions.
Sec. 49.27 [Amended]
0
29. Amend Sec. 49.27 by removing the term ``Regulation'' from
paragraph (a)(2) and add in its place the term ``section'', and by
removing ``reporting of swap data'' from paragraph (b)(1) and adding in
its place ``reporting of SDR data''.
0
30. Add Sec. 49.28 to read as follows:
Sec. 49.28 Operating hours of swap data repositories.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (a), a swap data
[[Page 75663]]
repository shall have systems in place to continuously accept and
promptly record all SDR data reported to the swap data repository as
required in this chapter and, as applicable, publicly disseminate all
swap transaction and pricing data reported to the swap data repository
as required in part 43 of this chapter.
(1) A swap data repository may establish normal closing hours to
perform system maintenance during periods when, in the reasonable
estimation of the swap data repository, the swap data repository
typically receives the least amount of SDR data. A swap data repository
shall provide reasonable advance notice of its normal closing hours to
market participants and to the public.
(2) A swap data repository may declare, on an ad hoc basis, special
closing hours to perform system maintenance that cannot wait until
normal closing hours. A swap data repository shall schedule special
closing hours during periods when, in the reasonable estimation of the
swap data repository in the context of the circumstances prompting the
special closing hours, the special closing hours will be the least
disruptive to the swap data repository's SDR data reporting
responsibilities. A swap data repository shall provide reasonable
advance notice of its special closing hours to market participants and
to the public whenever possible, and, if advance notice is not
reasonably possible, shall provide notice of its special closing hours
to market participants and to the public as soon as reasonably possible
after declaring special closing hours.
(b) A swap data repository shall comply with the requirements under
part 40 of this chapter in adopting or amending normal closing hours
and special closing hours.
(c) During normal closing hours and special closing hours, a swap
data repository shall have the capability to accept and hold in queue
any and all SDR data reported to the swap data repository during the
normal closing hours or special closing hours.
(1) Upon reopening after normal closing hours or special closing
hours, a swap data repository shall promptly process all SDR data
received during normal closing hours or special closing hours, as
required pursuant to this chapter, and, pursuant to part 43 of this
chapter, publicly disseminate all swap transaction and pricing data
reported to the swap data repository that was held in queue during the
normal closing hours or special closing hours.
(2) If at any time during normal closing hours or special closing
hours a swap data repository is unable to receive and hold in queue any
SDR data reported pursuant to this chapter, then the swap data
repository shall immediately issue notice to all swap execution
facilities, designated contract markets, reporting counterparties, and
the public that it is unable to receive and hold in queue SDR data.
Immediately upon reopening, the swap data repository shall issue notice
to all swap execution facilities, designated contract markets,
reporting counterparties, and the public that it has resumed normal
operations. Any swap execution facility, designated contract market, or
reporting counterparty that was obligated to report SDR data pursuant
to this chapter to the swap data repository, but could not do so
because of the swap data repository's inability to receive and hold in
queue SDR data, shall report the SDR data to the swap data repository
immediately after receiving such notice.
0
31. Add Sec. 49.29 to read as follows:
Sec. 49.29 Information relating to swap data repository compliance.
(a) Requests for information. Upon the Commission's request, a swap
data repository shall file with the Commission information related to
its business as a swap data repository and such information as the
Commission determines to be necessary or appropriate for the Commission
to perform the duties of the Commission under the Act and regulations
in 17 CFR chapter I. The swap data repository shall file the
information requested in the form and manner and within the time period
the Commission specifies in the request.
(b) Demonstration of compliance. Upon the Commission's request, a
swap data repository shall file with the Commission a written
demonstration, containing supporting data, information, and documents,
that it is in compliance with its obligations under the Act and the
Commission's regulations in 17 CFR chapter I, as the Commission
specifies in the request. The swap data repository shall file the
written demonstration in the form and manner and within the time period
the Commission specifies in the request.
0
32. Add Sec. 49.30 to read as follows:
Sec. 49.30 Form and manner of reporting and submitting information to
the Commission.
Unless otherwise instructed by the Commission, a swap data
repository shall submit SDR data reports and any other information
required under this part to the Commission, within the time specified,
using the format, coding structure, and electronic data transmission
procedures approved in writing by the Commission.
0
33. Add Sec. 49.31 to read as follows:
Sec. 49.31 Delegation of authority to the Director of the Division of
Market Oversight relating to certain part 49 matters.
(a) The Commission hereby delegates, until such time as the
Commission orders otherwise, the following functions to the Director of
the Division of Market Oversight and to such members of the Commission
staff acting under his or her direction as he or she may designate from
time to time:
(1) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.5.
(2) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.9.
(3) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.10.
(4) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.12.
(5) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.13.
(6) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.16.
(7) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.17.
(8) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.18.
(9) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.22.
(10) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.23.
(11) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.24.
(12) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.25.
(13) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.29.
(14) All functions reserved to the Commission in Sec. 49.30.
(b) The Director of the Division of Market Oversight may submit to
the Commission for its consideration any matter that has been delegated
under paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Nothing in this section may prohibit the Commission, at its
election, from exercising the authority delegated in this section.
0
34. Revise appendix A to part 49 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 49--Form SDR
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION FORM SDR
SWAP DATA REPOSITORY APPLICATION OR AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION FOR
REGISTRATION
REGISTRATION INSTRUCTIONS
Intentional misstatements or omissions of material fact may
constitute federal criminal violations (7 U.S.C. 13 and 18 U.S.C.
1001) or grounds for disqualification from registration.
[[Page 75664]]
DEFINITIONS
Unless the context requires otherwise, all terms used in this
Form SDR have the same meaning as in the Commodity Exchange Act, as
amended (``Act''), and in the General Rules and Regulations of the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``Commission'') thereunder (17
CFR chapter I).
For the purposes of this Form SDR, the term ``Applicant'' shall
include any applicant for registration as a swap data repository or
any applicant amending a pending application.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
1. This Form SDR, which includes instructions, a Cover Sheet,
and required Exhibits (together ``Form SDR''), is to be filed with
the Commission by all Applicants, pursuant to section 21 of the Act
and the Commission's regulations thereunder. Upon the filing of an
application for registration in accordance with the instructions
provided herein, the Commission will publish notice of the filing
and afford interested persons an opportunity to submit written
comments concerning such application. No application for
registration shall be effective unless the Commission, by order,
grants such registration.
2. Individuals' names, except the executing signature, shall be
given in full (Last Name, First Name, Middle Name).
3. Signatures on all copies of the Form SDR filed with the
Commission can be executed electronically. If this Form SDR is filed
by a corporation, it shall be signed in the name of the corporation
by a principal officer duly authorized; if filed by a limited
liability company, it shall be signed in the name of the limited
liability company by a manager or member duly authorized to sign on
the limited liability company's behalf; if filed by a partnership,
it shall be signed in the name of the partnership by a general
partner duly authorized; if filed by an unincorporated organization
or association that is not a partnership, it shall be signed in the
name of such organization or association by the managing agent,
i.e., a duly authorized person who directs manages or who
participates in the directing or managing of its affairs.
4. If this Form SDR is being filed as an application for
registration, all applicable items must be answered in full. If any
item is inapplicable, indicate by ``none,'' ``not applicable,'' or
``N/A,'' as appropriate.
5. Under section 21 of the Act and the Commission's regulations
thereunder, the Commission is authorized to solicit the information
required to be supplied by this Form SDR from any Applicant seeking
registration as a swap data repository. Disclosure by the Applicant
of the information specified in this Form SDR is mandatory prior to
the start of the processing of an application for registration as a
swap data repository. The information provided in this Form SDR will
be used for the principal purpose of determining whether the
Commission should grant or deny registration to an Applicant. The
Commission may determine that additional information is required
from an Applicant in order to process its application. A Form SDR
that is not prepared and executed in compliance with applicable
requirements and instructions may be returned as not acceptable for
filing. Acceptance of this Form SDR, however, shall not constitute a
finding that the Form SDR has been filed as required or that the
information submitted is true, current, or complete.
6. Except in cases where confidential treatment is requested by
the Applicant and granted by the Commission pursuant to the Freedom
of Information Act and Commission Regulation Sec. 145.9,
information supplied on this Form SDR will be included in the public
files of the Commission and will be available for inspection by any
interested person. The Applicant must identify with particularity
the information in these exhibits that will be subject to a request
for confidential treatment and supporting documentation for such
request pursuant to Commission Regulations Sec. 40.8 and Sec.
145.9.
APPLICATION AMENDMENTS
1. An Applicant amending a pending application for registration
as a swap data repository shall file an amended Form SDR
electronically with the Secretary of the Commission in the manner
specified by the Commission.
2. When filing this Form SDR for purposes of amending a pending
application, an Applicant must re-file the entire Cover Sheet,
amended if necessary, include an executing signature, and attach
thereto revised Exhibits or other materials marked to show any
amendments. The submission of an amendment to a pending application
represents that all unamended items and Exhibits remain true,
current, and complete as previously filed.
WHERE TO FILE
This Form SDR shall be filed electronically with the Secretary
of the Commission in the manner specified by the Commission.
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
[[Page 75665]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO20.038
[[Page 75666]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO20.039
[[Page 75667]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO20.040
[[Page 75668]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO20.041
BILLING CODE 6351-01-C
EXHIBITS INSTRUCTIONS
The following Exhibits must be included as part of Form SDR and
filed with the Commission by each Applicant seeking registration as
a swap data repository pursuant to section 21 of the Act and the
Commission's regulations thereunder. Such Exhibits must be labeled
according to the items specified in this Form SDR. If any Exhibit is
inapplicable, please specify the Exhibit letter and indicate by
``none,'' ``not applicable,'' or ``N/A,'' as appropriate. The
Applicant must identify with particularity the information in these
Exhibits that will be subject to a request for confidential
treatment and supporting documentation for such request pursuant to
Commission Regulations Sec. 40.8 and Sec. 145.9.
If the Applicant is a newly formed enterprise and does not have
the financial statements required pursuant to Items 27 and 28 of
this form, the Applicant should provide pro forma financial
statements for the most recent six months or since inception,
whichever is less.
EXHIBITS I--BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
14. Attach as Exhibit A, any person who owns ten (10) percent or
more of Applicant's equity or possesses voting power of any class,
either directly or indirectly, through agreement or otherwise, in
any other manner, may control or direct the management or policies
of Applicant. ``Control'' for this purpose is defined in Commission
Regulation Sec. 49.2(a).
State in Exhibit A the full name and address of each such person
and attach a copy of the agreement or, if there is none written,
describe the agreement or basis upon which such person exercises or
may exercise such control or direction.
15. Attach as Exhibit B, a narrative that sets forth the fitness
standards for the board of directors and its composition including
the number or percentage of public directors.
Attach a list of the present officers, directors (including an
identification of the public directors), governors (and, if the
[[Page 75669]]
Applicant is not a corporation, the members of all standing
committees grouped by committee), or persons performing functions
similar to any of the foregoing, of the swap data repository or of
the entity identified in Item 16 that performs the swap data
repository activities of the Applicant, indicating for each:
a. Name
b. Title
c. Date of commencement and, if appropriate, termination of
present term of position
d. Length of time each present officer, director, or governor
has held the same position
e. Brief account of the business experience of each officer and
director over the last five (5) years
f. Any other business affiliations in the securities industry or
OTC derivatives industry
g. A description of:
(1) any order of the Commission with respect to such person
pursuant to section 5e of the Act;
(2) any conviction or injunction within the past 10 years;
(3) any disciplinary action with respect to such person within
the last five (5) years;
(4) any disqualification under sections 8b and 8d of the Act;
(5) any disciplinary action under section 8c of the Act; and
(6) any violation pursuant to section 9 of the Act.
h. For directors, list any committees on which the director
serves and any compensation received by virtue of their
directorship.
16. Attach as Exhibit C, the following information about the
chief compliance officer who has been appointed by the board of
directors of the swap data repository or a person or group
performing a function similar to such board of directors:
a. Name
b. Title
c. Dates of commencement and termination of present term of
office or position
d. Length of time the chief compliance officer has held the same
office or position
e. Brief account of the business experience of the chief
compliance officer over the last five (5) years
f. Any other business affiliations in the derivatives/securities
industry or swap data repository industry
g. A description of:
(1) any order of the Commission with respect to such person
pursuant to section 5e of the Act;
(2) any conviction or injunction within the past 10 years;
(3) any disciplinary action with respect to such person within
the last five (5) years;
(4) any disqualification under sections 8b and 8d of the Act;
(5) any disciplinary action under section 8c of the Act; and
(6) any violation pursuant to section 9 of the Act.
17. Attach as Exhibit D, a copy of documents relating to the
governance arrangements of the Applicant, including, but not limited
to:
a. The nomination and selection process of the members on the
Applicant's board of directors, a person or group performing a
function similar to a board of directors (collectively, ``board''),
or any committee that has the authority to act on behalf of the
board, the responsibilities of each of the board and such committee,
and the composition of each board and such committee;
b. a description of the manner in which the composition of the
board allows the Applicant to comply with applicable core
principles, regulations, as well as the rules of the Applicant; and
c. a description of the procedures to remove a member of the
board of directors, where the conduct of such member is likely to be
prejudicial to the sound and prudent management of the swap data
repository.
18. Attach as Exhibit E, a narrative or graphic description of
the organizational structure of the Applicant. Note: If the swap
data repository activities are conducted primarily by a division,
subdivision, or other segregable entity within the Applicant's
corporation or organization, describe the relationship of such
entity within the overall organizational structure and attach as
Exhibit E only such description as applies to the segregable entity.
Additionally, provide any relevant jurisdictional information,
including any and all jurisdictions in which the Applicant or any
affiliated entity is doing business and registration status,
including pending application (e.g., country, regulator,
registration category, date of registration). In addition, include a
description of the lines of responsibility and accountability for
each operational unit of the Applicant to (i) any committee thereof
and/or (ii) the board.
19. Attach as Exhibit F, a copy of the conflicts of interest
policies and procedures implemented by the Applicant to minimize
conflicts of interest in the decision-making process of the swap
data repository and to establish a process for the resolution of any
such conflicts of interest.
20. Attach as Exhibit G, a list of all affiliates of the swap
data repository and indicate the general nature of the affiliation.
Provide a copy of any agreements entered into or to be entered by
the swap data repository, including partnerships or joint ventures,
or its participants, that will enable the Applicant to comply with
the registration requirements and core principles specified in
section 21 of the Act. With regard to an affiliate that is a parent
company of the Applicant, if such parent controls the Applicant, an
Applicant must provide (i) the board composition of the parent,
including public directors, and (ii) all ownership information
requested in Exhibit A for the parent. ``Control'' for this purpose
is defined in Commission Regulation Sec. 49.2(a).
21. Attach as Exhibit H, a copy of the constitution; articles of
incorporation or association with all amendments thereto; existing
by-laws, rules, or instruments corresponding thereto, of the
Applicant. The Applicant shall also provide a certificate of good
standing dated within one week of the date of the application.
22. Where the Applicant is a foreign entity seeking registration
or filing an amendment to an existing registration, attach as
Exhibit I, an opinion of counsel that the swap data repository, as a
matter of law, is able to provide the Commission with prompt access
to the books and records of such swap data repository and that the
swap data repository can submit to onsite inspection and examination
by the Commission.
23. Where the Applicant is a foreign entity seeking
registration, attach as Exhibit I-1, a form that designates and
authorizes an agent in the United States, other than a Commission
official, to accept any notice or service of process, pleadings, or
other documents in any action or proceedings brought against the
swap data repository to enforce the Act and the regulations
thereunder.
24. Attach as Exhibit J, a current copy of the Applicant's
rules, as defined in Commission Regulation Sec. 40.1, consisting of
all the rules necessary to carry out the duties as a swap data
repository.
25. Attach as Exhibit K, a description of the Applicant's
internal disciplinary and enforcement protocols, tools, and
procedures. Include the procedures for dispute resolution.
26. Attach as Exhibit L, a brief description of any material
pending legal proceeding(s), other than ordinary and routine
litigation incidental to the business, to which the Applicant or any
of its affiliates is a party or to which any of its or their
property is the subject. Include the name of the court or agency in
which the proceeding(s) are pending, the date(s) instituted, and the
principal parties thereto, a description of the factual basis
alleged to underlie the proceeding(s) and the relief sought. Include
similar information as to any such proceeding(s) known to be
contemplated by the governmental agencies.
EXHIBITS II--FINANCIAL INFORMATION
27. Attach as Exhibit M, a balance sheet, statement of income
and expenses, statement of sources and application of revenues, and
all notes or schedules thereto, as of the most recent fiscal year of
the Applicant. If a balance sheet and statements certified by an
independent public accountant are available, such balance sheet and
statement shall be submitted as Exhibit M.
28. Attach as Exhibit N, a balance sheet and an income and
expense statement for each affiliate of the swap data repository
that also engages in swap data repository activities as of the end
of the most recent fiscal year of each such affiliate.
29. Attach as Exhibit O, the following:
a. A complete list of all dues, fees, and other charges imposed,
or to be imposed, by or on behalf of Applicant for its swap data
repository services and identify the service or services provided
for each such due, fee, or other charge.
b. Furnish a description of the basis and methods used in
determining the level and structure of the dues, fees, and other
charges listed in paragraph a of this item.
c. If the Applicant differentiates, or proposes to
differentiate, among its customers, or classes of customers in the
amount of any dues, fees, or other charges imposed for the same or
similar services, so
[[Page 75670]]
state and indicate the amount of each differential. In addition,
identify and describe any differences in the cost of providing such
services, and any other factors, that account for such
differentiations.
EXHIBITS III--OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY
30. Attach as Exhibit P, copies of all material contracts with
any swap execution facility, designated contract market, clearing
agency, central counterparty, or third party service provider. To
the extent that form contracts are used by the Applicant, submit a
sample of each type of form contract used. In addition, include a
list of swap execution facilities, designated contract markets,
clearing agencies, central counterparties, and third party service
providers with whom the Applicant has entered into material
contracts. Where swap data repository functions are performed by a
third-party, attach any agreements between or among the Applicant
and such third party, and identify the services that will be
provided.
31. Attach as Exhibit Q, any technical manuals, other guides or
instructions for users of, or participants in, the market.
32. Attach as Exhibit R, a description of system test
procedures, test conducted or test results that will enable the
Applicant to comply, or demonstrate the Applicant's ability to
comply, with the core principles for swap data repositories.
33. Attach as Exhibit S, a description in narrative form, or by
the inclusion of functional specifications, of each service or
function performed as a swap data repository. Include in Exhibit S a
description of all procedures utilized for the collection,
processing, distribution, publication, and retention (e.g., magnetic
tape) of information with respect to transactions or positions in,
or the terms and conditions of, swaps entered into by market
participants.
34. Attach as Exhibit T, a list of all computer hardware
utilized by the Applicant to perform swap data repository functions,
indicating where such equipment (terminals and other access devices)
is physically located.
35. Attach as Exhibit U, a description of the personnel
qualifications for each category of professional employees employed
by the swap data repository or the division, subdivision, or other
segregable entity within the swap data repository as described in
Item 16.
36. Attach as Exhibit V, a description of the measures or
procedures implemented by Applicant to provide for the security of
any system employed to perform the functions of a swap data
repository. Include a general description of any physical and
operational safeguards designed to prevent unauthorized access
(whether by input or retrieval) to the system. Describe any
circumstances within the past year in which the described security
measures or safeguards failed to prevent any such unauthorized
access to the system and any measures taken to prevent a
reoccurrence. Describe any measures used to verify the accuracy of
information received or disseminated by the system.
37. Attach as Exhibit W, copies of emergency policies and
procedures and Applicant's business continuity-disaster recovery
plan. Include a general description of any business continuity-
disaster recovery resources, emergency procedures, and backup
facilities sufficient to enable timely recovery and resumption of
its operations and resumption of its ongoing fulfillment of its
duties and obligations as a swap data repository following any
disruption of its operations.
38. Where swap data repository functions are performed by
automated facilities or systems, attach as Exhibit X a description
of all backup systems or subsystems that are designed to prevent
interruptions in the performance of any swap data repository
function as a result of technical malfunctions or otherwise in the
system itself, in any permitted input or output system connection,
or as a result of any independent source. Include a narrative
description of each type of interruption that has lasted for more
than two minutes and has occurred within the six (6) months
preceding the date of the filing, including the date of each
interruption, the cause, and duration. Also state the total number
of interruptions that have lasted two minutes or less.
39. Attach as Exhibit Y, the following:
a. For each of the swap data repository functions:
(1) Quantify in appropriate units of measure the limits on the
swap data repository's capacity to receive (or collect), process,
store, or display (or disseminate for display or other use) the data
elements included within each function (e.g., number of inquiries
from remote terminals);
(2) identify the factors (mechanical, electronic, or other) that
account for the current limitations reported in answer to (1) on the
swap data repository's capacity to receive (or collect), process,
store, or display (or disseminate for display or other use) the data
elements included within each function.
b. If the Applicant is able to employ, or presently employs, the
central processing units of its system(s) for any use other than for
performing the functions of a swap data repository, state the
priorities of assignment of capacity between such functions and such
other uses, and state the methods used or able to be used to divert
capacity between such functions and such other uses.
EXHIBITS IV--ACCESS TO SERVICES
40. Attach as Exhibit Z, the following:
a. As to each swap data repository service that the Applicant
provides, state the number of persons who presently utilize, or who
have notified the Applicant of their intention to utilize, the
services of the swap data repository.
b. For each instance during the past year in which any person
has been prohibited or limited in respect of access to services
offered by the Applicant as a swap data repository, indicate the
name of each such person and the reason for the prohibition or
limitation.
c. Define the data elements for purposes of the swap data
repository's real-time public reporting obligation. Appendix A to
Part 43 of the Commission's Regulations (Data Elements and Form for
Real-Time Reporting for Particular Markets and Contracts) sets forth
the specific data elements for real-time public reporting.
41. Attach as Exhibit AA, copies of any agreements governing the
terms by which information may be shared by the swap data
repository, including with market participants. To the extent that
form contracts are used by the Applicant, submit a sample of each
type of form contract used.
42. Attach as Exhibit BB, a description of any specifications,
qualifications, or other criteria that limit, are interpreted to
limit, or have the effect of limiting access to or use of any swap
data repository services furnished by the Applicant and state the
reasons for imposing such specifications, qualifications, or other
criteria, including whether such specifications, qualifications, or
other criteria are imposed.
43. Attach as Exhibit CC, any specifications, qualifications, or
other criteria required of participants who utilize the services of
the Applicant for collection, processing, preparing for
distribution, or public dissemination by the Applicant.
44. Attach as Exhibit DD, any specifications, qualifications, or
other criteria required of any person, including, but not limited
to, regulators, market participants, market infrastructures, venues
from which data could be submitted to the Applicant, and third party
service providers who request access to data maintained by the
Applicant.
45. Attach as Exhibit EE, policies and procedures implemented by
the Applicant to review any prohibition or limitation of any person
with respect to access to services offered or data maintained by the
Applicant and to grant such person access to such services or data
if such person has been discriminated against unfairly.
EXHIBITS V--OTHER POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
46. Attach as Exhibit FF, a narrative and supporting documents
that may be provided under other Exhibits herein, that describes the
manner in which the Applicant is able to comply with each core
principle and other requirements pursuant to Commission Regulation
Sec. 49.19.
47. Attach as Exhibit GG, policies and procedures implemented by
the Applicant to protect the privacy of any and all SDR data,
section 8 material, and SDR information that the swap data
repository receives from reporting entities.
48. Attach as Exhibit HH, a description of safeguards, policies,
and procedures implemented by the Applicant to prevent the
misappropriation or misuse of (a) any confidential information
received by the Applicant, including, but not limited to, SDR data,
section 8 material, and SDR information, about a market participant
or any of its customers; and/or (b) intellectual property by
Applicant or any person associated with the Applicant for their
personal benefit or the benefit of others.
49. Attach as Exhibit II, policies and procedures implemented by
the Applicant regarding its use of the SDR data, section 8 material,
and SDR information that it receives from a market participant, any
registered entity, or any person for non-commercial and/or
commercial purposes.
[[Page 75671]]
50. Attach as Exhibit JJ, procedures and a description of
facilities of the Applicant for effectively resolving disputes over
the accuracy of the SDR data and positions that are maintained by
the swap data repository.
51. Attach as Exhibit KK, policies and procedures relating to
the Applicant's calculation of positions.
52. Attach as Exhibit LL, policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to prevent any provision in a valid swap from
being invalidated or modified through the procedures or operations
of the Applicant.
53. Attach as Exhibit MM, Applicant's policies and procedures
that ensure that the SDR data that are maintained by the Applicant
continues to be maintained after the Applicant withdraws from
registration as a swap data repository, which shall include
procedures for transferring the SDR data to the Commission or its
designee (including another swap data repository).
0
35. Revise appendix B to part 49 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 49--Confidentiality Arrangement for Appropriate
Domestic Regulators and Appropriate Foreign Regulators To Obtain Access
To Swap Data Maintained by Swap Data Repositories Pursuant to
Sec. Sec. 49.17(d)(6) and 49.18(a)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO20.042
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and the
[name of foreign/domestic regulator (``ABC'')] (each an
``Authority'' and collectively the ``Authorities'') have entered
into this Confidentiality Arrangement (``Arrangement'') in
connection with [whichever is applicable] [CFTC Regulation
49.17(b)(1)[(i)-(vi)]/the determination order issued by the CFTC to
[ABC] (``Order'')] and any request for swap data by [ABC] to any
swap data repository (``SDR'') registered or provisionally
registered with the CFTC.
Article One: General Provisions
1. ABC is permitted to request and receive swap data directly
from an SDR (``Swap Data'') on the terms and subject to the
conditions of this Arrangement.
2. This Arrangement is entered into to fulfill the requirements
under Section 21(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act (``Act'') and CFTC
Regulation 49.18. Upon receipt by an SDR, this Arrangement will
satisfy the requirement for a written agreement pursuant to Section
21(d) of the Act and CFTC Regulation 49.17(d)(6). This Arrangement
does not apply to information that is [reported to an SDR pursuant
to [ABC]'s regulatory regime where the SDR also is registered with
[ABC] pursuant to separate statutory authority, even if such
information also is reported pursuant to the Act and CFTC
regulations][reported to an SDR pursuant to [ABC]'s regulatory
regime where the SDR also is registered with, or recognized or
otherwise authorized by, [ABC], which has supervisory authority over
the repository pursuant to foreign law and/or regulation, even if
such information also is reported pursuant to the Act and CFTC
regulations.] \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The first bracketed phrase will be used for ADRs; the second
will be used for AFRs. The inapplicable phrase will be deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. This Arrangement is not intended to limit or condition the
discretion of an Authority in any way in the discharge of its
regulatory responsibilities or to prejudice the individual
responsibilities or autonomy of any Authority.
4. This Arrangement does not alter the terms and conditions of
any existing arrangements.
Article Two: Confidentiality of Swap Data
5. ABC will be acting within the scope of its jurisdiction in
requesting Swap Data and employs procedures to maintain the
confidentiality of Swap Data and any information and analyses
derived therefrom (collectively, the ``Confidential Information'').
ABC undertakes to notify the CFTC and each relevant SDR promptly of
any change to ABC's scope of jurisdiction.
6. ABC undertakes to treat Confidential Information as
confidential and will employ safeguards that:
a. To the maximum extent practicable, identify the Confidential
Information and maintain it separately from other data and
information;
b. Protect the Confidential Information from misappropriation
and misuse;
c. Ensure that only authorized ABC personnel with a need to
access particular Confidential Information to perform their job
functions related to such Confidential Information have access
thereto, and that such access is permitted only to the extent
necessary to perform their job functions related to such particular
Confidential Information;
d. Prevent the disclosure of aggregated Confidential
Information; provided, however, that ABC is permitted to disclose
any sufficiently aggregated Confidential Information that is
anonymized to prevent identification, through disaggregation or
otherwise, of a market participant's business transactions, trade
data, market positions, customers, or counterparties;
e. Prohibit use of the Confidential Information by ABC personnel
for any improper purpose, including in connection with trading for
their personal benefit or for the benefit of others or with respect
to any commercial or business purpose; and
f. Include a process for monitoring compliance with the
confidentiality safeguards described herein and for promptly
notifying the CFTC, and each SDR from which ABC has received Swap
Data, of any violation of such safeguards or failure to fulfill the
terms of this Arrangement.
7. Except as provided in Paragraphs 6.d. and 8, ABC will not
onward share or otherwise disclose any Confidential Information.
8. ABC undertakes that:
a. If a department, central bank, or agency of the Government of
the United States, it will not disclose Confidential Information
except in an action or proceeding under the laws of the United
States to which it, the CFTC, or the United States is a party;
b. If a department or agency of a State or political subdivision
thereof, it will not disclose Confidential Information except in
connection with an adjudicatory action or proceeding brought under
the Act or the laws of [name of either the State or the State and
political subdivision] to which it is a party; or
c. If a foreign futures authority or a department, central bank,
ministry, or agency of a foreign government or subdivision thereof,
or any other Foreign Regulator, as defined in Commission Regulation
49.2(a)(5), it will not disclose Confidential Information except in
connection with an adjudicatory action or proceeding brought under
the laws of [name of country, political subdivision, or (if a
supranational organization) supranational lawmaking body] to which
it is a party.
9. Prior to complying with any legally enforceable demand for
Confidential Information, ABC will notify the CFTC of such demand in
writing, assert all available appropriate legal exemptions or
privileges with respect to such Confidential Information, and use
its best efforts to protect
[[Page 75672]]
the confidentiality of the Confidential Information.
10. ABC acknowledges that, if it does not fulfill the terms of
this Arrangement, the CFTC may direct any SDR to suspend or revoke
ABC's access to Swap Data.
11. ABC will comply with all applicable security-related
requirements imposed by an SDR in connection with access to Swap
Data maintained by the SDR, as such requirements may be revised from
time to time.
12. ABC will promptly destroy all Confidential Information for
which it no longer has a need or which no longer falls within the
scope of its jurisdiction, and will certify to the CFTC, upon
request, that ABC has destroyed such Confidential Information.
Article Three: Administrative Provisions
13. This Arrangement may be amended with the written consent of
the Authorities.
14. The text of this Arrangement will be executed in English,
and may be made available to the public.
15. On the date this Arrangement is signed by the Authorities,
it will become effective and may be provided to any SDR that holds
and maintains Swap Data that falls within the scope of ABC's
jurisdiction.
16. This Arrangement will expire 30 days after any Authority
gives written notice to the other Authority of its intention to
terminate the Arrangement. In the event of termination of this
Arrangement, Confidential Information will continue to remain
confidential and will continue to be covered by this Arrangement.
This Arrangement is executed in duplicate, this __day of __.
__________[name of Chairman]
Chairman,
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
__________[name of signatory]
[title]
[name of foreign/domestic regulator]
[Exhibit A: Description of Scope of Jurisdiction. If ABC is not
enumerated in Commission Regulations 49.17(b)(1)(i)-(vi), it must
attach the Determination Order received from the Commission pursuant
to Commission Regulation 49.17(h). If ABC is enumerated in
Commission Regulations 49.17(b)(1)(i)-(vi), it must attach a
sufficiently detailed description of the scope of ABC's jurisdiction
as it relates to Swap Data maintained by SDRs. In both cases, the
description of the scope of jurisdiction must include elements
allowing SDRs to establish, without undue obstacles, objective
parameters for determining whether a particular Swap Data request
falls within such scope of jurisdiction. Such elements could include
legal entity identifiers of all jurisdictional entities and could
also include unique product identifiers of all jurisdictional
products or, if no CFTC-approved unique product identifier and
product classification system is yet available, the internal product
identifier or product description used by an SDR from which Swap
Data is to be sought.]
0
36. Further amend part 49 by removing all references to ``registered
swap data repository'', ``Registered Swap Data Repository'', and
``registered swap data repositories'', and adding in their place ``swap
data repository'', ``Swap Data Repository'', and ``swap data
repositories'', respectively, wherever they appear.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 24, 2020, by the
Commission.
Christopher Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
Note: The following appendices will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendices to Amendments to Regulations Relating to Certain Swap Data
Repository and Data Reporting Requirements--Commission Voting Summary,
Chairman's Statement, and Commissioners' Statements
Appendix 1--Commission Voting Summary
On this matter, Chairman Tarbert and Commissioners Quintenz,
Behnam, Stump, and Berkovitz voted in the affirmative. No
Commissioner voted in the negative.
Appendix 2--Statement of Chairman Heath P. Tarbert
I am pleased to support today's final swap data reporting rules
under Parts 43, 45, and 49 of the CFTC's regulations, which are
foundational to effective oversight of the derivatives markets. As I
noted when these rules were proposed in February, ``[d]ata is the
lifeblood of our markets.'' \1\ Little did I know just how timely
that statement would prove to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Statement of Chairman Heath P. Tarbert in Support of
Proposed Rules on Swap Data Reporting (Feb. 20, 2020), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/tabertstatement022020
(hereinafter, Tarbert, Proposal Statement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COVID-19 Crisis and Beyond
In the month following our data rule proposals, historic
volatility caused by the coronavirus pandemic rocketed through our
derivatives markets, affecting nearly every asset class.\2\ I said
at the time that while our margin rules acted as ``shock absorbers''
to cushion the impact of volatility, the Commission was also
considering data rules that would expand our insight into potential
systemic risk. In particular, the data rules ``would for the first
time require the reporting of margin and collateral data for
uncleared swaps . . . significantly strengthen[ing] the CFTC's
ability to monitor for systemic risk'' in those markets.\3\ Today we
complete those rules, shoring up the data-based reporting systems
that can help us identify--and quickly respond to--emerging systemic
threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Heath P. Tarbert, Volatility Ain't What it Used to Be,
Wall Street Journal (Mar. 23, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/volatility-aint-what-it-used-to-be-11585004897?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1 (hereinafter Tarbert,
Volatility).
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But data reporting is not just about mitigating systemic risk.
Vibrant derivatives markets must be open and free, meaning
transparency is a critical component of any reporting system. Price
discovery requires robust public reporting that supplies market
participants with the information they need to price trades, hedge
risk, and supply liquidity. Today we double down on transparency,
ensuring that public reporting of swap transactions is even more
accurate and timely. In particular, our final rules adjust certain
aspects of the Part 43 proposal's block-trade \4\ reporting rules to
improve transparency in our markets. These changes have been
carefully considered to enhance clarity, one of the CFTC's core
values. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The final rule's definition of ``block trade'' is provided
in regulation 43.2.
\5\ See CFTC Core Values, https://www.cftc.gov/About/Mission/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promoting clarity in our markets also demands that we, as an
agency, have clear goals in mind. Today's final swap data reporting
rules reflect a hard look at the data we need and the data we
collect, building on insights gleaned from our own analysis as well
as feedback from market participants. The key point is that more
data does not necessarily mean better information. Instead, the core
of an effective data reporting system is focus.
As Aesop reminds us, ``Beware lest you lose the substance by
grasping at the shadow.'' \6\ Today's final swap data reporting
rules place substance first, carefully tailoring our requirements to
reach the data that really matters, while removing unnecessary
burdens on our market participants. As Bill Gates once remarked,
``My success, part of it certainly, is that I have focused in on a
few things.'' \7\ So too are the final swap data reporting rules
limited in number. The Part 45 Technical Specification, for example,
streamlines hundreds of different data fields currently required by
swap data repositories into 128 that truly advance the CFTC's
regulatory goals. This focus will simplify the data reporting
process without undermining its effectiveness, thus fulfilling the
CFTC's strategic goal of enhancing the regulatory experience for
market participants at home and abroad.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Aesop, ``The Dog and the Shadow,'' The Harvard Classics,
https://www.bartleby.com/17/1/3.html.
\7\ ABC News, One-on-One with Bills Gates (Feb. 21, 2008),
https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/CEOProfiles/story?id=506354&page=1.
\8\ See CFTC Strategic Plan 2020-2024, at 4 (discussing
Strategic Goal 3), https://www.cftc.gov/media/3871/CFTC2020_2024StrategicPlan/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That last point is worth highlighting: our final swap data
reporting rules account for market participants both within and
outside the United States. A diversity of market participants, some
of whom reside beyond our borders and are accountable to foreign
regulatory regimes, contribute to vibrant derivatives markets. But
before today, inconsistent international rules meant some swap
dealers were left to navigate what I have called ``a byzantine maze
of disparate data fields and reporting timetables'' for the very
same swap.\9\ While perfect alignment
[[Page 75673]]
may not be possible or even desirable, the final rules significantly
harmonize reportable data fields, compliance timetables, and
implementation requirements to advance our global markets. Doing so
brings us closer to realizing the CFTC's vision of being the global
standard for sound derivatives regulation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Tarbert, Proposal Statement, supra note 1.
\10\ See CFTC Vision Statement, available at https://
www.cftc.gov/About/
AboutTheCommission#:~:text=CFTC%20Vision%20Statement,standard%20for%2
0sound%20derivatives%20regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview of the Swap Data Reporting Rules
It is important to understand the specific function of each of
the three swap data reporting rules, which together form the CFTC's
reporting system. First, Part 43 relates to the real-time public
reporting of swap pricing and transaction data, which appears on the
``public tape.'' Swap dealers and other reporting parties supply
Part 43 data to swap data repositories (SDRs), which then make the
data public. Part 43 includes provisions relating to the treatment
and public reporting of large notional trades (blocks), as well as
the ``capping'' of swap trades that reach a certain notional amount.
Second, Part 45 relates to the regulatory reporting of swap data
to the CFTC by swap dealers and other covered entities. Part 45 data
provides the CFTC with insight into the swaps markets to assist with
regulatory oversight. A Technical Specification available on the
CFTC's website \11\ includes data elements that are unique to CFTC
reporting, as well as certain ``Critical Data Elements,'' which
reflect longstanding efforts by the CFTC and other regulators to
develop global guidance for swap data reporting.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See CFTC, Technical Specification Document, https://www.cftc.gov/media/3496/DMO_Part43_45TechnicalSpecification022020/download.
\12\ Since November 2014, the CFTC and regulators in other
jurisdictions have collaborated through the Committee on Payments
and Market Infrastructures (``CPMI'') and the International
Organization of Securities Commissions (``IOSCO'') working group for
the harmonization of key over-the-counter (``OTC'') derivatives data
elements (``Harmonisation Group''). The Harmonisation Group
developed global guidance for key OTC derivatives data elements,
including the Unique Transaction Identifier, the Unique Product
Identifier, and critical data elements other than UTI and UPI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Part 49 requires data verification to help ensure that
the data reported to SDRs and the CFTC in Parts 43 and 45 is
accurate. The final Part 49 rule will provide enhanced and
streamlined oversight of SDRs and data reporting generally. In
particular, Part 49 will now require SDRs to have a mechanism by
which reporting counterparties can access and verify the data for
their open swaps held at the SDR. A reporting counterparty must
compare the SDR data with the counterparty's own books and records,
correcting any data errors with the SDR.
Systemic Risk Mitigation
Today's final swap data reporting rules are designed to fulfill
our agency's first Strategic Goal: To strengthen the resilience and
integrity of our derivatives markets while fostering the
vibrancy.\13\ The Part 45 rule requires swap dealers to report
uncleared margin data for the first time, enhancing the CFTC's
ability to ``to monitor systemic risk accurately and to act quickly
if cracks begin to appear in the system.'' \14\ As Justice Brandeis
famously wrote in advocating for transparency in organizations,
``sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' \15\ So too it is for
financial markets: the better visibility the CFTC has into the
uncleared swaps markets, the more effectively it can address what
until now has been ``a black box of potential systemic risk.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See CFTC Strategic Plan, supra note 7, at 5.
\14\ Tarbert, Proposal Statement, supra note 1, note 2.
\15\ Hon. Louis D. Brandeis, Other People's Money 62 (National
Home Library Foundation ed. 1933).
\16\ Tarbert, Proposal Statement, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubling Down on Transparency
Justice Brandeis's words also resonate across other areas of the
final swap data reporting rules. The final swap data reporting rules
enhance transparency to the public of pricing and trade data.
1. Blocks and Caps
A critical aspect of the final Part 43 rule is the issue of
block trades and dissemination delays. When the Part 43 proposal was
issued, I noted that ``[o]ne of the issues we are looking at closely
is whether a 48-hour delay for block trade reporting is
appropriate.'' \17\ I encouraged market participants to ``provide
comment letters and feedback concerning the treatment of block
delays.'' \18\ Market participants responded with extensive
feedback, much of which advocated for shorter delays in making block
trade data publicly available. I agree with this view, and support a
key change in the final Part 43 rule. Rather than apply the
proposal's uniform 48-hour dissemination delay on block trade
reporting, the final rule returns to bespoke public reporting
timeframes that consider liquidity, market depth, and other factors
unique to specific categories of swaps. The result is shorter
reporting delays for most block trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Tarbert, Proposal Statement, supra note 1, note 14.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final Part 43 rule also changes the threshold for block
trade treatment, raising the amount needed from a 50% to 67%
notional calculation. It also increases the threshold for capping
large notional trades from 67% to 75%. These changes will enhance
market transparency by applying a stricter standard for blocks and
caps, thereby enhancing public access to swap trading data. At the
same time, the rule reflects serious consideration of how these
thresholds are calculated, particularly for block trades. In
excluding certain option trades and CDS trades around the roll
months from the 67% notional threshold for blocks, the final rule
helps ensure that dissemination delays have their desired effect of
preventing front-running and similar disruptive activity.
2. Post-Priced and Prime-Broker Swaps
The swaps market is highly complex, reflecting a nearly endless
array of transaction structures. Part 43 takes these differences
into account in setting forth the public reporting requirements for
price and transaction data. For example, post-priced swaps are
valued after an event occurs, such as the ringing of the daily
closing bell in an equity market. As it stands today, post-priced
swaps often appear on the public tape with no corresponding pricing
data--rendering the data largely unusable. The final Part 43 rule
addresses this data quality issue and improves price discovery by
requiring post-priced swaps to appear on the public tape after
pricing occurs.
The final Part 43 rule also resolves an issue involving the
reporting of prime-brokerage swaps. The current rule requires that
offsetting swaps executed with prime brokers--in addition to the
initial swap reflecting the actual terms of trade--be reported on
the public tape. This duplicative reporting obfuscates public
pricing data by including prime-broker costs and fees that are
unrelated to the terms of the swap. As I explained when the rule was
proposed, cluttering the public tape with duplicative or confusing
data can impair price discovery.\19\ The final Part 43 rule
addresses this issue by requiring that only the initial ``trigger''
swap be reported, thereby improving public price information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Tarbert, Proposal Statement, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Verification and Error Correction
Data is only as useful as it is accurate. The final Part 49 rule
establishes an efficient framework for verifying SDR data accuracy
and correcting errors, which serves both regulatory oversight and
public price discovery purposes.
Improving the Regulatory Experience
Today's final swap data reporting rules improve the regulatory
experience for market participants at home and abroad in several key
ways, advancing the CFTC's third Strategic Goal.\20\ Key examples
are set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ CFTC Strategic Plan, supra note 7, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Streamlined Data Fields
As I stated at the proposal stage, ``[s]implicity should be a
central goal of our swap data reporting rules.'' \21\ This sentiment
still holds true, and a key improvement to our final Part 45
Technical Specification is the streamlining of reportable data
fields. The current system has proven unworkable, leaving swap
dealers and other market participants to wander alone in the digital
wilderness, with little guidance about the data elements that the
CFTC actually needs. This uncertainty has led to ``a proliferation
of reportable data fields'' required by SDRs that ``exceed what
market participants can readily provide and what the [CFTC] can
realistically use.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Tarbert, Proposal Statement, supra note 1.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We resolve this situation today by replacing the sprawling mass
of disparate SDR fields--sometimes running into the hundreds or
thousands--with 128 that are important to the CFTC's oversight of
the swaps markets. These fields reflect an honest look at the data
we are collecting and the data we can use, ensuring that our market
participants are not burdened with swap
[[Page 75674]]
reporting obligations that do not advance our statutory mandates.
2. Regulatory Harmonization
The swaps markets are integrated and global; our data rules must
follow suit.\23\ To that end, the final Part 45 rule takes a
sensible approach to aligning the CFTC's data reporting fields with
the standards set by international efforts. Swap data reporting is
an area where harmonization simply makes sense. The costs of failing
to harmonize are high, as swap dealers and other reporting parties
must provide entirely different data sets to multiple regulators for
the very same swap.\24\ A better approach is to conform swap data
reporting requirements where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Tarbert, Proposal Statement, supra note 1.
\24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data harmonization is not just good for market participants: it
also advances the CFTC's vision of being the global standard for
sound derivatives regulation.\25\ The CFTC has a long history of
leading international harmonization efforts in data reporting,
including by serving as a co-chair of the Committee on Payments and
Infrastructures and the International Organization of Securities
Commissioners (CPMI-IOSCO) working group on critical data elements
(CDE) in swap reporting.\26\ I am pleased to support a final Part 45
rule that advances these efforts by incorporating CDE fields that
serve our regulatory goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See CFTC Vision Statement, https://www.cftc.gov/About/
AboutTheCommission#:~:text=CFTC%20Vision%20Statement,standard%20for%2
0sound%20derivatives%20regulation.
\26\ The CFTC also co-chaired the Financial Stability Board's
working group on UTI and UPI governance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to certain CDE fields, the final Part 45 rule also
adopts other important features of the CPMI-IOSCO Technical
Guidance, such as the use of a Unique Transaction Identifier (UTI)
system in place of today's Unique Swap Identifier (USI) system. This
change will bring the CFTC's swap data reporting system in closer
alignment with those of other regulators, leading to better data
sharing and lower burdens on market participants.
Last, the costs of altering data reporting systems makes
implementation timeframes especially important. To that effect, the
CFTC has worked with ESMA to bring our jurisdictions' swap data
reporting compliance timetables into closer harmony, easing
transitions to new reporting systems.
3. Verification and Error Correction
The final Part 49 rule has changed since the proposal stage to
facilitate easier verification of SDR data by swap dealers. Based on
feedback we received, the final rule now requires SDRs to provide a
mechanism for swap dealers and other reporting counterparties to
access the SDR's data for their open swaps to verify accuracy and
address errors. This approach replaces a message-based system for
error identification and correction, which would have produced
significant implementation costs without improving error
remediation. The final rule achieves the goal--data accuracy--with
fewer costs and burdens.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Limiting error correction to open swaps--versus all swaps
that a reporting counterparty may have entered into at any point in
time--is also a sensible approach to addressing risk in the markets.
The final Part 49 rule limits error correction to errors discovered
prior to the expiration of the five-year recordkeeping period in
regulation 45.2, ensuring that market participants are not tasked
with addressing old or closed transactions that pose no active risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Relief for End Users
I have long said that if our derivatives markets are not working
for agriculture, then they are not working at all.\28\ While swaps
are often the purview of large financial institutions, they also
provide critical risk-management functions for end users like
farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers. Our final Part 45 rule removes
the requirement that end users report swap valuation data, and it
provides them with a longer ``T+2'' timeframe to report the data
that is required. I am pleased to support these changes to end-user
reporting, which will help ensure that our derivatives markets work
for all Americans, advancing another CFTC strategic goal.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Opening Statement of Chairman Heath P. Tarbert Before the
April 22 Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting (April 22, 2020),
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/tarbertstatement042220.
\29\ CFTC Strategic Plan, supra note 7, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The derivatives markets run on data. They will be even more
reliant on it in the future, as digitization continues to sweep
through society and industry. I am pleased to support the final
rules under Parts 43, 45, and 49, which will help ensure that the
CFTC's swap data reporting systems are effective, efficient, and
built to last.
Appendix 3--Supporting Statement of Commissioner Brian Quintenz
The Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) specifically directs the
Commission to ensure that real-time public reporting requirements
for swap transactions (i) do not identify the participants; (ii)
specify the criteria for what constitutes a block trade and the
appropriate time delay for reporting such block trades, and (iii)
take into account whether public disclosure will materially reduce
market liquidity.\1\ The Commission has long recognized the
intrinsic tension between the policy goals of enhanced transparency
versus market liquidity. In fact, in 2013, the Commission noted that
the optimal point in this interplay between enhanced swap
transaction transparency and the potential that, in certain
circumstances, this enhanced transparency could reduce market
liquidity ``defies precision.'' \2\ I agree with the Commission that
the ideal balance between transparency and liquidity is difficult to
ascertain and necessarily requires not only robust data but also the
exercise of reasoned judgement, particularly in the swaps
marketplace with a finite number of institutional investors trading
hundreds of thousands of products, often by appointment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CEA Section 2(a)(13)(E).
\2\ Procedures to Establish Appropriate Minimum Block Sizes for
Large Notional Off-Facility Swaps and Block Trades, 78 FR 32866,
32917 (May 31, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, I fear the balance struck in this rule misses
that mark. The final rule before us today clearly favors
transparency over market liquidity, with the sacrifice of the latter
being particularly more acute given the nature of the swaps market.
In this final rule, the Commission asserts that the increased
transparency resulting from higher block trade thresholds and cap
sizes will lead to increased competition, stimulate more trading,
and enhance liquidity and pricing. That is wishful thinking, which
is no basis upon which to predicate a final rule. As numerous
commenters pointed out, this increased transparency comes directly
at the expense of market liquidity, competitive pricing for end-
users, and the ability of dealers to efficiently hedge their large
swap transactions. While the Commission hopes the 67% block
calculation will bring about the ample benefits it cites, I think
the exact opposite is the most probable outcome. I remain
unconvinced that the move from the 50% notional amount calculation
for block sizes to the 67% notional amount calculation is necessary
or appropriate. Unfortunately, the decision to retain the 67%
calculation, which was adopted in 2013 but never implemented, was
not seriously reconsidered in this rule.
Instead, in the final rule, the Commission asserts that it
``extensively analyzed the costs and benefits of the 50-percent
threshold and 67-percent threshold when it adopted the phased-in
approach'' in 2013. Respectfully, I believe that statement
drastically inflates the Commission's prior analysis. I have no
doubt the Commission ``analyzed'' the costs and benefits in 2013 to
the best of its ability. However, the reality is that in 2013, as
the Commission acknowledged in its own cost-benefit analysis, ``in a
number of instances, the Commission lacks the data and information
required to precisely estimate costs, owing to the fact that these
markets do not yet exist or are not yet fully developed.'' \3\ In
2013, the Commission was just standing up its SEF trading regime,
had not yet implemented its trade execution mandate, and had adopted
interim time delays for all swaps--meaning that, in 2013 when it
first adopted this proposal, no swap transaction data was publicly
disseminated in real time. Seven years later, the Commission has a
robust, competitive SEF trading framework and a successful real-time
reporting regime that results in 87% of IRS trades and 82% of CDS
trades being reported in real time. In light of the sea change that
has occurred since 2013, I believe the Commission should have
undertaken a comprehensive review of whether the transition to a 67%
block trade threshold was appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, the fact that currently 87% of IRS and 82% of CDS
trades are reported in real time is evidence that the transparency
policy goals underlying the real-time reporting requirements have
already been achieved. In 2013, the Commission, quoting directly
from the Congressional Record,
[[Page 75675]]
noted that when it considered the benefits and effects of enhanced
market transparency, the ``guiding principle in setting appropriate
block trade levels [is that] the vast majority of swap transactions
should be exposed to the public market through exchange trading.''
\4\ The current block sizes have resulted in exactly that--the vast
majority of trades being reported in real time. The final rule,
acknowledging these impressively high percentages, nevertheless
concludes that because less than half of total IRS and CDS notional
amounts is reported in real time, additional trades should be forced
into real-time reporting. I reach the exact opposite conclusion. By
my logic, the 13% of IRS and 18% of CDS trades that currently
receive a time delay represent roughly half of notional for those
asset classes. In other words, these trades are huge. In my view,
these trades are exactly the type of outsized transactions that
Congress appropriately decided should receive a delay from real-time
reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. at 32870 n.41 (quoting from the Congressional Record--
Senate, S5902, S5922 (July 15, 2010) (emphasis added)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite my reservations, I am voting for the real-time reporting
rule before the Commission today for several reasons. First, I
worked hard to ensure that this final rule contains many significant
improvements from the initial draft we were first presented, as well
as the original proposal which I supported. For example, in order to
make sure the CDS swap categories are representative, the Commission
established additional categories for CDS with optionality. In
addition, the Commission is also providing guidance that certain
risk-reduction exercises, which are not arm's length transactions,
are not publicly reportable swap transactions, and therefore should
be excluded from the block size calculations.
Second, while most of the changes to the part 43 rules will have
a compliance period of 18 months, compliance with the new block and
cap sizes will not be not be required until one year later,
providing market participants with a 30-month compliance period and
the Commission with an extra 12 months to revisit this issue with
actual data analysis, as good government and well-reasoned public
policy demands. This means that when any final block and cap sizes
go into effect for the amended swap categories, it will be with the
benefit of cleaner, more precise data resulting from our part 43
final rule improvements adopted today. It is my firm expectation
that DMO staff will review the revised block trade sizes, in light
of the new data, at that time to ensure they are appropriately
calibrated for each swap category. In addition, as required by the
rule, DMO will publish the revised block trade and cap sizes the
month before they go effective. I am hopeful that with the benefit
of time, cleaner data and public comment, the Commission can, if
necessary, re-calibrate the minimum block sizes to ensure they
strike the appropriate balance built into our statute between the
liquidity needs of the market and transparency. To the extent market
participants also have concerns about maintaining the current time
delays for block trades given the move to the 67% calculation, I
encourage them to reach out to DMO and my fellow Commissioners
during the intervening 30-month window. That time frame is more than
enough to further refine the reporting delays, as necessary, for the
new swap categories based on sound data.
Appendix 4--Concurring Statement of Commissioner Rostin Behnam
I respectfully concur in the Commission's amendments to its
regulations regarding real-time public reporting, recordkeeping, and
swap data repositories. The three rules being finalized together
today are the culmination of a multi-year effort to streamline,
simplify, and internationally harmonize the requirements associated
with reporting swaps. Today's actions represent the end of a long
procedural road at the Commission, one that started with the
Commission's 2017 Roadmap to Achieve High Quality Swap Data.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Roadmap to Achieve High Quality Swap Data, available at
https://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/dmo_swapdataplan071017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the road really goes back much further than that, to the
time prior to the 2008 financial crisis, when swaps were largely
exempt from regulation and traded exclusively over-the-counter.\2\
Lack of transparency in the over-the-counter swaps market
contributed to the financial crisis because both regulators and
market participants lacked the visibility necessary to identify and
assess swaps market exposures, counterparty relationships, and
counterparty credit risk.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Public Law
106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000).
\3\ See The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, The Financial
Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on
the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States
(Official Government Edition), at 299, 352, 363-364, 386, 621 n. 56
(2011), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, Congress enacted the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010
(Dodd-Frank Act).\4\ The Dodd-Frank Act largely incorporated the
international financial reform initiatives for over-the-counter
derivatives laid out at the 2009 G20 Pittsburgh Summit, which sought
to improve transparency, mitigate systemic risk, and protect against
market abuse.\5\ With respect to data reporting, the policy
initiative developed by the G20 focused on establishing a consistent
and standardized global data set across jurisdictions in order to
support regulatory efforts to timely identify systemic risk. The
critical need and importance of this policy goal given the
consequences of the financial crisis cannot be overstated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
\5\ G20, Leaders' Statement, The Pittsburgh Summit (Sept. 24-25,
2009) at 9, available at https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/g7-g20/Documents/pittsburgh_summit_leaders_statement_250909.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among many critically important statutory changes, which have
shed light on the over-the-counter derivatives markets, Title VII of
the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'' or
``Act'') and added a new term to the Act: ``Real-time public
reporting.'' \6\ The Act defines that term to mean reporting ``data
relating to swap transaction, including price and volume, as soon as
technologically practicable after the time at which the swap
transaction has been executed.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(13)(A).
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we amend these rules, I think it is important that we keep in
mind the Dodd-Frank Act's emphasis on transparency, and what
transpired to necessitate that emphasis. However, the Act is also
clear that its purpose, in regard to transparency and real time
public reporting, is to authorize the Commission to make swap
transaction and pricing data available to the public ``as the
Commission determines appropriate to enhance price discovery.'' \8\
The Act expressly directs the Commission to specify the criteria for
what constitutes a block trade, establish appropriate time delays
for disseminating block trade information to the public, and ``take
into account whether the public disclosure will materially reduce
market liquidity.'' \9\ So, as we keep Congress's directive
regarding public transparency (and the events that necessitated that
directive) in mind as we promulgate rules, we also need to be
cognizant of instances where public disclosure of the details of
large transactions in real time will materially reduce market
liquidity. This is a complex endeavor, and the answers vary across
markets and products. I believe that these final rules strike an
appropriate balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(13)(B).
\9\ 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(13)(C)(ii-iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's final rules amending the swap data and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements also culminate a multi-year undertaking by
dedicated Commission staff and our international counterparts
working through the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures
and the International Organization of Securities Commissions working
group for the harmonization of key over-the-counter derivatives data
elements. The amendments benefit from substantial public
consultation as well as internal data and regulatory analyses aimed
at determining, among other things, how the Commission can meet its
current data needs in support of its duties under the CEA. These
include ensuring the financial integrity of swap transactions,
monitoring of substantial and systemic risks, formulating bases for
and granting substituted compliance and trade repository access, and
entering information sharing agreements with fellow regulators.
I wish to thank the responsible staff in the Division of Market
Oversight, as well as in the Offices of International Affairs, Chief
Economist, and General Counsel for their efforts and engagement over
the last several years as well as their constructive dialogues with
my office over the last several months. Their timely and fulsome
responsiveness amid the flurry of activity at the Commission
[[Page 75676]]
as we continue to work remotely is greatly appreciated.
The final rules should improve data quality by eliminating
duplication, removing alternative or adjunct reporting options,
utilizing universal data elements and identifiers, and focusing on
critical data elements. To the extent the Commission is moving
forward with mandating a specific data standard for reporting swap
data to swap data repositories (``SDRs''), and that the standard
will be ISO 20022, I appreciate the Commission's thorough discussion
of its rationale in support of that decision. I also commend
Commission staff for its demonstrated expertise in incorporating the
mandate into the regulatory text in a manner that provides certainty
while acknowledging that the chosen standard remains in development.
The rules provide clear, reasonable and universally acceptable
reporting deadlines that not only account for the minutiae of local
holidays, but address the practicalities of common market practices
such as allocation and compression exercises.
I am especially pleased that the final rules require consistent
application of rules across SDRs for the validation of both Part 43
and Part 45 data submitted by reporting counterparties. I believe
the amendments to part 49 set forth a practical approach to ensuring
SDRs can meet the statutory requirement to confirm the accuracy of
swap data set forth in CEA section 21(c) \10\ without incurring
unreasonable burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 7 U.S.C. 24a(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate that the Commission considered and received
comments regarding whether to require reporting counterparties to
indicate whether a specific swap: (1) Was entered into for dealing
purposes (as opposed to hedging, investing, or proprietary trading);
and/or (2) needs not be considered in determining whether a person
is a swap dealer or need not be counted towards a person's de
minimis threshold for purposes of determining swap dealer status
under Commission regulations.\11\ While today's rules may not be the
appropriate means to acquire such information, I continue to believe
that that the Commission's ongoing surveillance for compliance with
the swap dealer registration requirements could be enhanced through
data collection and analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Commission staff has identified the lack of these fields as
limiting constraints on the usefulness of SDR data to identify which
swaps should be counted towards a person's de minimis threshold, and
the ability to precisely assess the current de minimis threshold or
the impact of potential changes to current exclusions. See De
Minimis Exception to the Swap Dealer Definition, 83 FR 27444, 27449
(proposed June 12, 2018); Swap Dealer De Minimis Exception Final
Staff Report at 19 (Aug. 15, 2016); (Nov. 18, 2015), available at
https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@swaps/documents/file/dfreport_sddeminis081516.pdf; Swap Dealer De Minimis
Exception Preliminary Report at 15 (Nov. 18, 2015), available at
https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@swaps/documents/file/dfreport_sddeminis_1115.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you again to the staff who worked on these rules. I
support the overall vision articulated in these several rules and am
committed to supporting the acquisition and development of
information technology and human resources needed for execution of
that vision. As data forms the basis for much of what we do here at
the Commission, especially in terms of identifying, assessing, and
monitoring risk, I look forward to future discussions with staff
regarding how the CFTC's Market Risk Advisory Committee which I
sponsor may be of assistance.
Appendix 5--Statement of Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz
Introduction
I support today's final rules amending the swap data reporting
requirements in parts 43, 45, 46, and 49 of the Commission's rules
(the ``Reporting Rules''). The amended rules provide major
improvements to the Commission's swap data reporting requirements.
They will increase the transparency of the swap markets, enhance the
usability of the data, streamline the data collection process, and
better align the Commission's reporting requirements with
international standards.
The Commission must have accurate, timely, and standardized data
to fulfill its customer protection, market integrity, and risk
monitoring mandates in the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'').\1\ The
2008 financial crisis highlighted the systemic importance of global
swap markets, and drew attention to the opacity of a market valued
notionally in the trillions of dollars. Regulators such as the CFTC
were unable to quickly ascertain the exposures of even the largest
financial institutions in the United States. The absence of real-
time public swap reporting contributed to uncertainty as to market
liquidity and pricing. One of the primary goals of the Dodd-Frank
Act is to improve swap market transparency through both real-time
public reporting of swap transactions and ``regulatory reporting''
of complete swap data to registered swap data repositories
(``SDRs'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See CEA section 3b.
\2\ Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
section 727, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010) (the ``Dodd-
Frank Act''), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ203/pdf/PLAW-111publ203.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As enacted by the Dodd-Frank Act, CEA section 2(a)(13)(G)
directs the CFTC to establish real-time and comprehensive swap data
reporting requirements, on a swap-by-swap basis. CEA section 21
establishes SDRs as the statutory entities responsible for
receiving, storing, and facilitating regulators' access to swap
data. The Commission began implementing these statutory directives
in 2011 and 2012 in several final rules that addressed regulatory
and real-time public reporting of swaps; established SDRs to receive
data and make it available to regulators and the public; and defined
certain swap dealer (``SD'') and major swap participant (``MSP'')
reporting obligations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 77 FR
2136 (Jan. 13, 2012); and Swap Data Repositories: Registration
Standards, Duties and Core Principles, 76 FR 54538 (Sept. 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission was the first major regulator to adopt data
repository and swap data reporting rules. Today's final rules are
informed by the Commission's and the market's experience with these
initial rules. Today's revisions also reflect recent international
work to harmonize and standardize data elements.
Part 43 Amendments (Real-time Public Reporting)
Benefits of Real Time Public Reporting
Price transparency fosters price competition and reduces the
cost of hedging. In directing the Commission to adopt real-time
public reporting regulations, the Congress stated ``[t]he purpose of
this section is to authorize the Commission to make swap transaction
and pricing data available to the public in such form and at such
times as the Commission determines appropriate to enhance price
discovery.'' \4\ For real-time data to be useful for price
discovery, SDRs must be able to report standardized, valid, and
timely data. The reported data should also reflect the large
majority of swaps executed within a particular swap category. The
final Reporting Rules for part 43 address a number of infirmities in
the current rules affecting the aggregation, validation, and
timeliness of the data. They also provide pragmatic solutions to
several specific reporting issues, such as the treatment of prime
broker trades and post-priced swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CEA section 2(13)(B) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Block Trade Reporting
The Commission's proposed rule for block trades included two
significant amendments to part 43: (1) refined swap categories for
calculating blocks; and (2) a single 48-hour time-delay for
reporting all blocks. In addition, the proposed rule would give
effect to increased block trade size thresholds from 50% to 67% of a
trimmed (excluding outliers) trade data set as provided for in the
original part 43. The increases in the block sizing thresholds and
the refinement of swap categories were geared toward better meeting
the statutory directives to the Commission to enhance price
discovery through real-time reporting while also providing
appropriate time delays for the reporting of swaps with very large
notional amounts, i.e., block trades.
Although I supported the issuance of the proposed rule, I
outlined a number of concerns with the proposed blanket 48-hour
delay. As described in the preamble to the part 43 final rule, a
number of commenters supported the longer delay as necessary to
facilitate the laying off of risk resulting from entering into swaps
in illiquid markets or with large notional amounts. Other commenters
raised concerns that such a broad, extended delay was unwarranted
and could impede, rather than foster, price discovery. The delay
also would provide counterparties to large swaps with an information
advantage during the 48-hour delay.
The CEA directs the Commission to provide for both real-time
reporting and appropriate block sizes. In developing the final rule
the Commission has sought to achieve these objectives.
[[Page 75677]]
As described in the preamble, upon analysis of market data and
consideration of the public comments, the Commission has concluded
that the categorization of swap transactions and associated block
sizes and time delay periods set forth in the final rule strikes an
appropriate balance to achieve the statutory objectives of enhancing
price discovery, not disclosing ``the business transactions and
market positions of any person,'' preserving market liquidity, and
providing appropriate time delays for block transactions. The final
part 43 includes a mechanism for regularly reviewing swap
transaction data to refine the block trade sizing and reporting
delays as appropriate to maintain that balance.
Consideration of Additional Information Going Forward
I have consistently supported the use of the best available data
to inform Commission rulemakings, and the periodic evaluation and
updating of those rules, as new data becomes available. The preamble
to the final rules for part 43 describes how available data,
analytical studies, and public comments informed the Commission's
rulemaking. Following press reports about the contents of the final
rule, the Commission recently has received comments from a number of
market participants raising issues with the reported provisions in
the final rule. These commenters have expressed concern that the
reported reversion of the time delays for block trades to the
provisions in the current regulations, together with the 67%
threshold for block trades, will impair market liquidity, increase
costs to market participants, and not achieve the Commission's
objectives of increasing price transparency and competitive trading
of swaps. Many of these commenters have asked the Commission to
delay the issuance of the final rule or to re-propose the part 43
amendments for additional public comments.
I do not believe it would be appropriate for the Commission to
withhold the issuance of the final rule based on these latest
comments and at this late stage in the process. The Commission has
expended significant time and resources in analyzing data and
responding to the public comments received during the public comment
period. As explained in the preamble, the Commission is already
years behind its original schedule for revising the block
thresholds. I therefore do not support further delay in moving
forward on these rules.
Nonetheless, I also support evaluation and refinement of the
block reporting rules, if appropriate, based upon market data and
analysis. The 30-month implementation schedule for the revised block
sizes provides market participants with sufficient time to review
the final rule and analyze any new data. Market participants can
then provide their views to the Commission on whether further,
specific adjustments to the block sizes and/or reporting delay
periods may be appropriate for certain instrument classes. This
implementation period is also sufficient for the Commission to
consider those comments and make any adjustments as may be
warranted. The Commission should consider any such new information
in a transparent, inclusive, and deliberative manner. Amended part
43 also provides a process for the Commission to regularly review
new data as it becomes available and amend the block size thresholds
and caps as appropriate.
Cross Border Regulatory Arbitrage Risk
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.
(``ISDA'') and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA'') commented that higher block size thresholds
may put swap execution facilities (``SEFs'') organized in the United
States at a competitive disadvantage as compared to European trading
platforms that provide different trading protocols and allow longer
delays in swap trade reporting. SIFMA and ISDA commented that the
higher block size thresholds might incentivize swap dealers to move
at least a portion of their swap trading from United States SEFs to
European trading platforms. They also noted that this regulatory
arbitrage activity could apply to swaps that are subject to
mandatory exchange trading. Importantly, European platforms allow a
non-competitive single-quote trading mechanism for these swaps while
U.S. SEFs are required to maintain more competitive request-for-
quotes mechanisms from at least three parties. The three-quote
requirement serves to fulfill important purposes delineated in the
CEA to facilitate price discovery and promote fair competition.
The migration of swap trading from SEFs to non-U.S. trading
platforms to avoid U.S. trade execution and/or swap reporting
requirements would diminish the liquidity in and transparency of
U.S. markets, to the detriment of many U.S. swap market
participants. Additionally, as the ISDA/SIFMA comment letter notes,
it would provide an unfair competitive advantage to non-U.S. trading
platforms over SEFs registered with the CFTC, who are required to
abide by CFTC regulations. Such migration would fragment the global
swaps market and undermine U.S. swap markets.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In my dissenting statement on the Commission's recent
revisions to it cross-border regulations, I detailed a number of
concerns with how those revisions could provide legal avenues for
U.S. swap dealers to migrate swap trading activity currently subject
to CFTC trade execution requirements to non-U.S. markets that would
not be subject to those CFTC requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have supported the Commission's substituted compliance
determinations for foreign swap trading platforms in non-U.S.
markets where the foreign laws and regulations provide for
comparable and comprehensive regulation. Substituted compliance
recognizes the interests of non-U.S. jurisdictions in regulating
non-U.S. markets and allows U.S. firms to compete in those non-U.S.
markets. However, substituted compliance is not intended to
encourage--or permit--regulatory arbitrage or circumvention of U.S.
swap market regulations. If swap dealers were to move trading
activity away from U.S. SEFs to a foreign trading platform for
regulatory arbitrage purposes, such as, for example, to avoid the
CFTC's transparency and trade execution requirements, it would
undermine the goals of U.S. swap market regulation, and constitute
the type of fragmentation of the swaps markets that our cross-border
regime was meant to mitigate. It also would undermine findings by
the Commission that the non-U.S. platform is subject to regulation
that is as comparable and comprehensive as U.S. regulation, or that
the non-U.S. regime achieves a comparable outcome.
The Commission should be vigilant to protect U.S. markets and
market participants. The Commission should monitor swap data to
identify whether any such migration from U.S. markets to overseas
markets is occurring and respond, if necessary, to protect the U.S.
swap markets.
PART 45 (Swap Data Reporting), PART 46 (Pre-enactment and Transition
Swaps), and PART 49 (Swap Data Repositories) Amendments
I also support today's final rules amending the swap data
reporting, verification, and SDR registration requirements in parts
45, 46, and 49 of the Commission's rules. These regulatory reporting
rules will help ensure that reporting counterparties, including SDs,
MSPs, designated contract markets (``DCMs''), SEFs, derivatives
clearing organizations (``DCOs''), and others report accurate and
timely swap data to SDRs. Swap data will also be subject to a
periodic verification program requiring the cooperation of both SDRs
and reporting counterparties. Collectively, the final rules create a
comprehensive framework of swap data standards, reporting deadlines,
and data validation and verification procedures for all reporting
counterparties.
The final rules simplify the swap data reports required in part
45, and organize them into two report types: (1) ``Swap creation
data'' for new swaps; and (2) ``swap continuation data'' for changes
to existing swaps.\6\ The final rules also extend the deadline for
SDs, MSPs, SEFs, DCMs, and DCOs to submit these data sets to an SDR,
from ``as soon as technologically practicable'' to the end of the
next business day following the execution date (T+1). Off-facility
swaps where the reporting counterparty is not an SD, MSP, or DCO
must be reported no later than T+2 following the execution date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Swap creation data reports replace primary economic terms
(``PET'') and confirmation data previously required in part 45. The
final rules also eliminate optional ``state data'' reporting, which
resulted in extensive duplicative reports crowding SDR databases,
and often included no new information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amended reporting deadlines will result in a moderate time
window where swap data may not be available to the Commission or
other regulators with access to an SDR. However, it is likely that
they will also improve the accuracy and reliability of data.
Reporting parties will have more time to ensure that their data
reports are complete and accurate before being transmitted to an
SDR.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The amended reporting deadlines are also consistent with
comparable swap data reporting obligations under the Securities and
Exchange Commission's and European Securities and Markets
Authority's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rules in part 49 will also promote data accuracy
through validation procedures
[[Page 75678]]
to help identify errors when data is first sent to an SDR, and
periodic reconciliation exercises to identify any discrepancies
between an SDR's records and those of the reporting party that
submitted the swaps. The final rules provide for less frequent
reconciliation than the proposed rules, and depart from the
proposal's approach to reconciliation in other ways that may merit
future scrutiny to ensure that reconciliation is working as
intended. Nonetheless, the validation and periodic reconciliation
required by the final rule is an important step in ensuring that the
Commission has access to complete and accurate swap data to monitor
risk and fulfill its regulatory mandate.
The final rules also better harmonize with international
technical standards, the development of which included significant
Commission participation and leadership. These harmonization efforts
will reduce complexity for reporting parties without significantly
reducing the specific data elements needed by the Commission for its
purposes. For example, the final rules adopt the Unique Transaction
Identifier and related rules, consistent with CPMI-IOSCO technical
standards, in lieu of the Commission's previous Unique Swap
Identifier. They also adopt over 120 distinct data elements and
definitions that specify information to be reported to SDRs. Clear
and well-defined data standards are critical for the efficient
analysis of swap data across many hundreds of reporting parties and
multiple SDRs. Although data elements may not be the most riveting
aspect of Commission policy making, I support the Commission's
determination to focus on these important, technical elements as a
necessary component of any effective swap data regime.
Conclusion
Today's Reporting Rules are built upon nearly eight years of
experience with the current reporting rules and benefitted from
extensive international coordination. The amendments make important
strides toward fulfilling Congress's mandate to bring transparency
and effective oversight to the swap markets. I commend CFTC staff,
particularly in Division of Market Oversight and the Office of Data
and Technology, who have worked on the Reporting Rules over many
years. Swaps are highly variable and can be difficult to represent
in standardized data formats. Establishing accurate, timely, and
complete swap reporting requirements is a difficult, but important
function for the Commission and regulators around the globe. This
proposal offers a number of pragmatic solutions to known issues with
the current swap data rules. For these reasons, I am voting for the
final Reporting Rules.
[FR Doc. 2020-21570 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
