CFTC Final Rule

Vol.
81
Monday,
No. 123
June 27, 2016
Part III
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
17 CFR Part 45
Amendments to Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
for Cleared Swaps; Final Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41736
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Advisor, Division of Market Oversight,
2024185360, okopon@cftc.gov;
Benjamin DeMaria, Special Counsel,
Division of Market Oversight, 202418
5988, bdemaria@cftc.gov; Aaron
Brodsky, Special Counsel, Division of
Market Oversight, 2024185349,
abrodsky@cftc.gov; or Esen Onur,
Economist, Office of the Chief
Economist, 2024186146, eonur@
cftc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 45
RIN 3038AE12
Amendments to Swap Data

Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements for Cleared Swaps
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (Commission or
CFTC) is adopting final regulations
relating to swap data reporting in
connection with cleared swaps for swap
data repositories (SDRs), derivatives
clearing organizations (DCOs),
designated contract markets (DCMs),
swap execution facilities (SEFs), swap
dealers (SDs), major swap
participants (MSPs), and swap
counterparties who are neither SDs nor
MSPs. Commodity Exchange Act
(CEA or Act) provisions relating to
swap data recordkeeping and reporting
were added by the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act (Dodd-Frank Act). These
regulations adopt without change
revisions to the Commission regulations
as proposed in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) issued August
31, 2015. These revisions clarify
regulations to clearly delineate the swap
data reporting requirements associated
with each of the swaps involved in a
cleared swap transaction. Additionally,
these revisions leave the choice of SDR
for each swap in a cleared swap
transaction to the entity submitting the
first report on such swap.
DATES: This rule is effective July 27,
2016 except for the removal of
45.4(b)(2)(ii) which is effective June
27, 2016.
Compliance Date: The compliance
date for all revisions and additions to
part 45 of the Commissions regulations
under this final rule is December 27,
2016. Until such date, all existing
reporting obligations under part 45
(other than those contained in removed
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of 45.4), including
existing obligations on reporting
continuation data on original swaps and
creation and continuation data on
clearing swaps, shall remain in effect.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Bucsa, Deputy Director, Division
of Market Oversight, 2024185435,
dbucsa@cftc.gov; Andrew Ridenour,
Special Counsel, Division of Market
Oversight, 2024185438, aridenour@
cftc.gov; Owen J. Kopon, AttorneySUMMARY:
Table of Contents
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
I. Background
A. Introduction
B. Statutory Authority
C. Regulatory HistoryFinal Part 45
Rulemaking
D. Consultation With Other U.S. Financial
Regulators
E. Summary of Proposed Revisions and
Additions to Part 45
II. Revised and New Regulations
A. DefinitionsAmendments to 45.1
B. Swap Data Reporting: Creation Data
Amendments to 45.3
C. Swap Data Reporting: Continuation
DataAmendments to 45.4
D. Unique Swap IdentifiersAmendments
to 45.5
E. Determination of Which Counterparty
Must ReportAmendments to 45.8
F. Reporting to a Single Swap Data
RepositoryAmendments to 45.10
G. Examples of Cleared Swap Reporting
Workflows Under the Adopted Revisions
H. Primary Economic Terms Data
Amendments to Appendix 1 to Part 45
Tables of Minimum Primary Economic
Terms
III. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Cost-Benefit Considerations
D. Antitrust Considerations
IV. Compliance Dates
I. Background
A. Introduction
On July 21, 2010, President Obama
signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act.1
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act
amended the CEA 2 to establish a
comprehensive new regulatory
framework for swaps and security-based
swaps. The legislation was enacted to
reduce systemic risk, increase
transparency, and promote market
integrity within the financial system by,
among other things: Providing for the
registration and comprehensive
regulation of SDs and MSPs; imposing
clearing and trade execution
requirements on standardized derivative
1 See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111203, 124
Stat. 1376 (2010). The text of the Dodd-Frank Act
may be accessed at http://www.cftc.gov/
LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/index.htm.
2 7 U.S.C. 1, et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
products; creating rigorous

recordkeeping and data reporting
regimes with respect to swaps,
including real time reporting; and
enhancing the Commissions
rulemaking and enforcement authorities
with respect to, among others, all
registered entities, intermediaries, and
swap counterparties subject to the
Commissions oversight.
B. Statutory Authority
To enhance transparency, promote
standardization, and reduce systemic
risk, section 727 of the Dodd-Frank Act
added to the CEA section 2(a)(13)(G),3
which requires all swaps, whether
cleared or uncleared, to be reported to
SDRs.4 SDRs are registered entities
created by section 728 of the DoddFrank Act to collect and maintain data
related to swap transactions as
prescribed by the Commission, and to
make such data available to the
Commission and other regulators.5
Section 21(b) of the CEA,6 added by
section 728 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
directs the Commission to prescribe
standards for swap data recordkeeping
and reporting, which are to apply to
both registered entities and
counterparties involved with swaps,7
and which are to be comparable to
standards for clearing organizations in
connection with their clearing of
swaps.8
C. Regulatory HistoryFinal Part 45
Rulemaking
On December 20, 2011, the
Commission adopted part 45 of the
Commissions regulations (Final Part
45 Rulemaking).9 Part 45 implements
the requirements of section 21 of the
CEA by setting forth the manner and
content of reporting to SDRs, and
requires electronic reporting both when
a swap is initially executed, referred to
as creation data,10 and over the course
37
U.S.C. 2(a)(13)(G).
also 7 U.S.C. 1a(40)(E), 1a(48).
5 Regulations governing core principles and
registration requirements for, and the duties of,
SDRs are the subject of part 49 of this chapter.
6 7 U.S.C. 24a(b).
7 7 U.S.C. 24a(b)(1)(A).
8 7 U.S.C. 24a(b)(3).
9 See Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements, Final Rule, 77 FR 2136 (Jan. 13,
2012).
10 See 17 CFR 45.1 (defining required swap
creation data as all primary economic terms data
for a swap in the swap asset class in question, and
all confirmation data for the swap.). Primary
economic terms data is defined as all of the data
elements necessary to fully report all of the primary
economic terms of a swap in the swap asset class
of the swap in question, while confirmation data
is defined as all of the terms of a swap matched and
agreed upon by the counterparties in confirming the
swap. Id. For cleared swaps, confirmation data also
4 See
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
of the swaps existence, referred to as

continuation data.11 Additionally,
part 45 sets forth varying reporting
timeframes depending on the type of
reporting, counterparty, execution, or
product.12
As part of the Commissions ongoing
efforts to improve swap transaction data
quality and to improve the
Commissions ability to utilize the data
for regulatory purposes, Commission
staff has continued to evaluate issues in
connection with reporting under part
45, including those related to cleared
swaps in particular. To this end,
Commission staff formed an
interdivisional staff working group
(IDWG) to identify, and to
recommend resolutions to, reporting
challenges associated with certain
swaps transaction data recordkeeping
and reporting provisions, including the
provisions adopted in the Final Part 45
Rulemaking.13
Based in large part on those efforts,
the Commission published a request for
comment on a variety of swap data
reporting and recordkeeping provisions
to help determine how such provisions
were being applied, and to determine
whether or what clarifications or
enhancements to these provisions may
be appropriate (the IDWG Request for
Comment).14 One of the subjects of the
IDWG Request for Comment was the
reporting of cleared swaps, and, in
particular, the manner in which the
swap data reporting rules should
address cleared swaps.15 After
considering the comments submitted in
response to the IDWG Request for
Comment relating to the reporting of
includes the internal identifiers assigned by the
automated systems of the DCO to the two
transactions resulting from novation to the clearing
house. Id. See also 17 CFR 45.3.
11 See 17 CFR 45.1 (defining required swap
continuation data as all of the data elements that
must be reported during the existence of a swap to
ensure that all data concerning the swap in the
swap data repository remains current and accurate,
and includes all changes to the primary economic
terms of the swap occurring during the existence of
the swap). See also 17 CFR 45.4.
12 See 17 CFR 45.3(a), 45.3(b), 45.3(c), and
45.3(d).
13 See Press Release, CFTC to Form an
Interdivisional Working Group to Review
Regulatory Reporting (Jan. 21, 2014), available at
http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/
pr6837-14.
14 See Review of Swap Data Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements, Request for Comment, 79
FR 16689 (Mar. 26, 2014). The IDWG Request for
Comment was referred to simply as the Request for
Comment in the NPRM. The Commission has
changed the short form citation for that document
in the final release to distinguish it from the
subsequent request for comment related to draft
technical specifications, referenced throughout this
release.
15 79 FR 16689, 16694.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
cleared swaps,16 the Commission issued

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the
NPRM) in which it proposed changes
to part 45 as they relate to the reporting
of cleared swaps transactions.17 In
response to the NPRM, the Commission
received 17 comments letters addressing
its proposed revisions to part 45.18 This
release will address the comments
received on specific aspects of the
NPRM, and on specific issues raised in
the IDWG Request for Comment, in
16 The comment file for responses to the IDWG
Request for Comment is available at http://
comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/
CommentList.aspx?id=1484. Commenters
responding to the IDWG Request for Comment
included: The American Gas Association, May 27,
2014; American Petroleum Institute, May 27, 2014;
Americans for Financial Reform, May 27, 2014
(AFR); Australian Bankers Association, May 27,
2014 (ABA); Better Markets, Inc., May 27, 2014,
(Better Markets); B&F Capital Markets, Inc., May
27, 2014; CME Group, May 27, 2014 (CME);
Coalition for Derivatives End-Users, May 27, 2014
(CDEU); Coalition of Physical Energy Companies,
May 27, 2014; Commercial Energy Working Group,
May 27, 2014 (CEWG); Commodity Markets
Council, May 27, 2014 (CMC); The Depository
Trust & Clearing Corporation, May 27, 2014
(DTCC); EDF Trading North America, LLC, May
27, 2014; Edison Electric Institute, May 27, 2014
(EEI); Financial InterGroup Holdings Ltd, May
27, 2014; Financial Services Roundtable (FSR),
May 27, 2014; Fix Trading Community, May 27,
2014; The Global Foreign Exchange Division of the
Global Financial Markets Association, May 27, 2014
(GFMA); HSBC, May 27, 2014; Interactive Data
Corporation, May 27, 2014; ICE Trade Vault, LLC,
May 27, 2014 (ITV); International Energy Credit
Association, May 27, 2014; International Swaps and
Derivatives Association, Inc., May 23, 2014
(ISDA); Japanese Bankers Association, May 27,
2014 (JBA); Just Energy Group Inc., May 27, 2014;
LCH.Clearnet Group Limited, May 29, 2014
(LCH); Managed Funds Association, May 27,
2014 (MFA); Markit, May 27, 2014; Natural Gas
Supply Association, May 27, 2014 (NGSA); NFP
Electric Associations (National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association, American Public Power
Association, and Large Public Power Council), May
27, 2014 (NFPEA); OTC Clearing Hong Kong
Limited, May 27, 2014 (OTC Hong Kong);
Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association Asset Management Group, May 27,
2014 (SIFMA); SWIFT, May 27, 2014; Swiss Re,
May 27, 2014; Thomson Reuters (SEF) LLC, May 27,
2014 (TR SEF); and TriOptima, May 27, 2014.
Discussions of comments on reporting of cleared
swaps received in response to the IDWG Request for
Comment are included in the preamble to the
NPRM.
17 See Amendments to Swap Data Recordkeeping
and Reporting Requirements for Cleared Swaps,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 52544 (Aug.
31, 2015).
18 The comment file for responses to the NPRM
is available at http://comments.cftc.gov/
PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1614.
Commenters to the NPRM included: Better Markets,
October 30, 2015; CME, October 30, 2015; COPE,
October 30, 2015; CEWG, October 30, 2015; CMC,
October 30, 2015; DTCC, October 30, 2015; EEI/
EPSA, October 30, 2015; Eurex Clearing AG
(Eurex); FSR, October 30, 2015; ITV, October 30,
2015; ISDA, October 30, 2015; JBA, October 30,
2015; LCH, October 30, 2015; MFA and Alternative
Investment Management Association (AIMA),
October 30, 2015; Markit, October 30, 2015; and
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc., October
30, 2015 (Nadex).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41737
connection with explaining each of the

amended regulations adopted herein.19
The swap data reporting framework
adopted in the original Final Part 45
Rulemaking was largely based on the
mechanisms for the trading and
execution of uncleared swaps. Under
such a regime, swap data reporting was
premised upon the existence of one
continuous swap for reporting and data
representation purposes. The
Commission has since had additional
opportunities to consult with industry
and has observed how the part 45
regulations function in practice with
respect to swaps that are cleared,
including how the implementation of
part 45 interacts with the
implementation of part 39 of the
Commissions regulations, which
contains provisions applicable to DCOs.
In particular, 39.12(b)(6) provides
that upon acceptance of a swap by a
DCO for clearing, that original swap is
extinguished and replaced by equal and
opposite swaps, with the DCO as the
counterparty to each resulting swap.20
The original swap that is extinguished
upon acceptance for clearing is
commonly referred to by market
participants as the alpha swap and
the equal and opposite swaps that
replace the original swap are commonly
referred to as beta and gamma
swaps. The process of extinguishing the
alpha swap and creating the beta
and gamma swaps is generally
referred to as a novation. The
Commission has observed that certain
provisions of part 45 could better
accommodate the cleared swap
framework set forth in 39.12(b)(6). The
new regulations in this release are
intended to provide clarity to swap
counterparties and registered entities of
their part 45 reporting obligations with
respect to the swaps involved in a
cleared swap transaction. These
amendments and new regulations are
also intended to improve the efficiency
of data collection and maintenance
associated with the reporting of the
19 Unless otherwise noted, references to
commenters throughout this release refer to those
who submitted comment letters to the NPRM.
20 See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6) (requiring a DCO that
clears swaps to have rules providing that, upon
acceptance of a swap by the DCO for clearing: (i)
The original swap is extinguished; (ii) the original
swap is replaced by an equal and opposite swap
between the [DCO] and each clearing member
acting as principal for a house trading or acting as
agent for a customer trade). The Commission
reaffirmed its position regarding the composition of
a cleared swap in a statement regarding Chicago
Mercantile Exchange (CME) Rule 1001. See
Statement of the Commission on the Approval of
CME Rule 1001 (Mar. 6, 2013), at 6, available at
http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@
newsroom/documents/file/
statementofthecommission.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41738
swaps involved in a cleared swap

transaction.
D. Consultation With Other U.S.
Financial Regulators
In developing these rules,
Commission staff has engaged in
extensive consultations with other U.S.
financial regulators, including the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), the Federal Reserve Board of
Governors, the Federal Housing Finance
Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, Office of Comptroller of
the Currency, and the Farm Credit
Administration. As noted in the
NPRM,21 the Commission endeavored to
harmonize the regulations in this release
with the approach proposed by the SEC
in its release proposing certain new
rules and rule amendments to
Regulation SBSRReporting and
Dissemination of Security-Based Swap
Information (Regulation SBSR).22
E. Summary of Revisions and Additions

to Part 45
The Commission is making revisions
and additions to 45.1, 45.3, 45.4,
45.5, 45.8, 45.10, and appendix 1 to part
45 in order to provide clarity to swap
counterparties as well as to registered
entities regarding their respective part
45 reporting obligations in connection
with each of the swaps involved in a
cleared swap transaction.23 The
Commission is adopting the following
amendments, each of which is
discussed in greater detail in Section II
of this release:
Amendments to 45.1 revise the
definition of derivatives clearing
organization to update a crossreference and to clarify that the
definition covers only registered DCOs.
Revised 45.1 also adds new definitions
for original swaps and clearing
swaps. These terms are used
throughout amended part 45 to help
clarify reporting obligations for the
transaction.
Amendments to 45.3 modify and
clarify DCO creation data reporting
obligations for swaps that result from
the clearing process; establish which
entity has the obligation to choose the
SDR to which creation data is reported;
eliminate confirmation data reporting
obligations for swaps that are intended
to be submitted to a DCO for clearing at
21 80
FR 52544, 5254546.
Regulation SBSRReporting and
Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information,
80 FR 14740 (Mar. 19, 2015).
23 The Commission is also amending the part 45
authority citation to replace a reference to 7 U.S.C.
24 with a reference to 7 U.S.C. 24a.
22 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
the time of execution; and make

conforming changes.
Amendments to 45.4 modify and
clarify continuation data reporting
obligations for original swaps, including
the obligation of a clearing DCO to
report original swap terminations to the
SDR to which the original swap was
reported; modify and clarify the
obligation to report data providing for
the linking of original and clearing
swaps and the original and clearing
swap SDRs; remove the requirement for
SD/MSP reporting counterparties to
report daily valuation data for cleared
swaps; and make conforming changes.
Amendments to 45.5 set forth a
DCOs obligations to create, transmit,
and use unique swap identifiers
(USIs) to identify clearing swaps.
Amendments to 45.8 provide that
the DCO will be the reporting
counterparty for clearing swaps.
Amendments to 45.10 provide
that all swap data for a given clearing
swap, and all swap data for each
clearing swap that replaces a particular
original swap (and each equal and
offsetting clearing swap that is created
upon execution of the same transaction
and that does not replace an original
swap), must be reported to a single SDR.
Amendments also make conforming
changes.
Amendments to appendix 1 modify
certain existing primary economic term
(PET) data fields and certain
explanatory notes in the Comment
sections for existing PET data fields, and
add several new PET data fields to
account for the clarifications provided
in this release for the reporting of
clearing swaps.
II. Revised and New Regulations
Throughout Section II of this release,
the Commission will discuss each
amendment and the related comments.
The Commission is also including
several examples to demonstrate how
cleared swap reporting workflows
would function under the new
regulations.
The Commission received some
general comments on the proposed
amendments to part 45 relating to data
quality. Better Markets was generally
supportive of the proposals, and
commented that the NPRM integrated
many of the technical public comments
on the concept release to address the
small but important fixes on reporting of
cleared swap transactions.24 COPE was
also generally supportive of the NPRM
on the guiding principal that endusers should not be unduly burdened by
the Commissions swap reporting
24 See
PO 00000
Better Markets Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2.
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
regulations.25 COPE requested that the

Commission clarify that, under the
proposed amendments, end-users would
not have reporting obligations on swaps
executed pursuant to the rules of a SEF
or DCM and then cleared by a DCO.26
A. DefinitionsAmendments to 45.1
1. Existing 45.1
Existing 45.1 defines derivatives
clearing organization for purposes of
part 45 by cross-referencing section
1a(9) of the CEA 27 and any Commission
regulations implementing that section,
including but not limited to 39.5.
Existing 45.1 does not include
definitions of either original swap or
clearing swap.
2. Proposed Amendments and
Additions to 45.1
i. Derivatives Clearing Organization
The Commission proposed to revise
the definition of derivatives clearing
organization in 45.1 so that it crossreferences the definition provided in
1.3(d) of the Commissions regulations
and so that it explicitly refers to a DCO
registered with the Commission under
section 5b(a) of the CEA.28 This
modification redefines a derivatives
part 45 to mean a derivatives clearing
organization, as defined by 1.3(d) of
this chapter, that is registered with the
Commission.29
ii. Original Swap and Clearing
Swap
The Commission proposed to add
definitions of original swap and
clearing swap to part 45 so that the
part 45 reporting rules will be more
consistent with the regulations
25 See
COPE Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2.

COPE Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. In response
to COPEs request for clarification, the Commission
notes that under the final rule being adopted, a nonSD/MSP would likely have no reporting obligations
on a swap executed on a SEF or DCM that is
intended to be cleared at the time of execution.
However, the original swap reporting counterparty
as determined by the reporting hierarchy under
45.8 could have obligations to report any
amendments or modifications of PET data fields, as
well as any continuation data on a swap between
the execution of the swap and its acceptance for
clearing, such as a novation, allocation or
termination. In such circumstances, the reporting
counterparty on the original swap would have a
reporting obligation under either 45.3 or 45.4,
respectively. Separately, end-users may also have
obligations to correct errors or omissions discovered
in swap data for which the end-user is the reporting
counterparty pursuant to 45.14(a), or to notify the
reporting counterparty of such errors or omissions
if the end-user is not the reporting counterparty
pursuant to 45.14(b).
27 7 U.S.C. 1a(9).
28 7 U.S.C. 7a1(a).
29 See 80 FR 52544, 52547.
26 See
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
applicable to DCOs set forth in
39.12(b)(6).30
The Commission proposed to define
original swap as a swap that has been
accepted for clearing by a derivatives
clearing organization and clearing
swap as a swap created pursuant to the
rules of a derivatives clearing
organization that has a derivatives
clearing organization as a counterparty,
including any swap that replaces an
original swap that was extinguished
upon acceptance of such original swap
by the derivatives clearing organization
for clearing.
As noted above, while original swaps
are commonly referred to as alpha
swaps and while the equal and opposite
swaps that replace the original swap are
commonly referred to as beta and
gamma swaps, the Commission will
use the proposed defined terms
original swap and clearing swap
throughout this section of the release.
3. Comments
The Commission received comments
on the proposed definitions from a
variety of market participants. Many
commenters were supportive of the
proposed amendments to the definitions
and the clarification that they provide.
Other commenters supported
clarification of the definitions, but
suggested further modifications to the
proposed definitions.
i. Derivatives Clearing Organization
Both ISDA and FSR commented that
the proposed definition of derivatives
clearing organization should be
expanded to include derivatives
clearing organizations that are exempt
from registering with the Commission.31
These commenters suggested that the
reporting obligations should apply to
the central counterparty regardless of
whether that counterparty is registered
with the Commission. ISDA also
commented that the reporting
obligations should apply to those
derivatives clearing organizations that
are currently in the process of
registering with the Commission.32
With respect to the proposed

definition of clearing swap, ISDA
reiterated its comment that the
definition should include all swaps that
are cleared through registered
derivatives clearing organizations as
well as those that are cleared through
derivatives clearing organizations that
30 See
80 FR 52544, 52547.
ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23; FSR Oct.
30, 2015 Letter, at 5.
32 See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23.
31 See
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
iii. Original Swap

Regarding the definition of original
swap, ISDA commented that it is
supportive of the proposed definition
and agrees that swaps submitted for
clearing should be classified as original
swaps.35 LCH commented that the
definition of original swap is
sufficiently clear and complete.36 ISDA
requested clarification on guidance
issued by the Commissions Divisions of
Clearing and Risk and Market
Oversight,37 specifically as to whether
there is an original swap associated with
CDS Clearing-Related Swaps that are
created through a firm or forced trade
process.38 EEI/EPSA sought clarification
from the Commission that the definition
of original swap includes both offfacility swaps that are submitted for
clearing, rejected, then resubmitted and
accepted for clearing, and swaps that are
not intended to be cleared when
executed but are cleared at some point
subsequent to execution.39
4. Final Rule
Having reviewed all relevant
comments, the Commission has
determined to adopt the definitions as
proposed in the NPRM. The
Commission has noted the comments
received from market participants on
the limitation of derivatives clearing
organization to DCOs registered with
the Commission. The Commission notes
that, as of the date of this release, it has
granted exemptive relief to four nonU.S. central counterparties from
registering as a DCO with the
Commission, under section 5b(h) of the
CEA, pursuant to Commission Orders
(DCO Exemptive Orders).40 The DCO
33 See
Id. at 3.
LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2.
36 See LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2.
37 See CFTC Letter No. 1551 (Sept. 18, 2015).
38 ISDA also commented that it is not clear
whether the associated clearing swaps are publicly
reportable swap transactions for Part 43 purposes.
See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3.
39 See EEI/EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3.
40 As of the date of this final release, the
Commission has issued DCO Exemptive Orders to
ASX Clear (Futures) Pty Ltd. (ASX), Japan
Securities Clearing Corp., Korea Exchange Inc., and
OTC Clear Hong Kong Ltd. (OTC Clear). The
Commission amended ASXs DCO Exemptive Order
on January 28, 2016 to require ASX to report the
termination of any swap accepted for clearing by
34 See
ii. Clearing Swap
VerDate Sep<11>2014
are in the process of registering or are

exempt from registration.33 LCH
commented that the definition of
clearing swap is incomplete as it may
not capture cleared trades between a
clearing member and its client in a
principal clearing model, because the
DCO is not a party to that transaction.34
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41739
Exemptive Orders include reporting

obligations that are consistent with
those imposed on registered DCOs
under amended part 45.41 Therefore, the
Commission believes that it is sufficient
for the obligations on derivatives
clearing organizations in part 45 to
apply only to registered DCOs and, as a
result, the definition of derivatives
clearing organization under amended
regulation 45.1 will cover only
registered DCOs, as proposed.
The Commission notes general
support for the definition of clearing
swap. The Commission notes that the
newly-defined term clearing swap
would include any swap to which the
DCO is a counterparty, regardless of
whether such swap is replacing an
original swap.42 While a cleared swap
transaction generally comprises an
original swap that is terminated upon
novation and the equal and opposite
swaps that replace it, the Commission is
aware of certain circumstances in which
a cleared swap transaction may not
involve the replacement of an original
swap.43 Accordingly, the revised
definition of clearing swap is
intended to encompass: (1) Swaps to
which the DCO is a counterparty and
that replace an original swap (i.e., swaps
commonly known as betas and gammas)
and (2) all other swaps to which the
DCO is a counterparty (even if such
swap does not replace an original swap).
ASX to the SDR to which the original swap was
reported.
41 The Commission also notes ISDAs comment
concerning entities that are in the process of
registering as a DCO. Because there is no temporary
or provisional registration of DCOs, such entities
should not be entering into swaps that must be
reported under part 45 without full registration.
42 The Commission has noted LCHs request for
guidance concerning reporting clearing swaps
under the principal model of clearing more
commonly used outside of the United States. The
Commission declines to include such guidance at
this time, but would note that this issue of reporting
principal versus agency model clearing swaps is
under consideration as part of the Technical
Specifications Request for Comment issued by the
Commissions Office of Data and Technology and
the Division of Market Oversight on December 22,
2015 relating to draft technical specifications for
certain swap data elements (Technical
Specifications Request for Comment). See Draft
Technical Specifications for Certain Swap Data
Elements, Request for Comment (Dec. 22, 2015),
available at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/
@newsroom/documents/file/
specificationsswapdata122215.pdf.
43 For example, in the preamble to the part 39
adopting release, the Commission noted that open
offer systems are acceptable under 39.12(b)(6),
stating that: Effectively, under an open offer system
there is no original swap between executing
parties that needs to be novated; the swap that is
created upon execution is between the DCO and the
clearing member, acting either as principal or agent.
Derivatives Clearing Organization General
Provisions and Core Principles, Final Rule 76 FR
69334, 69361 (Nov. 8, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41740
The Commission also notes the broad

support for the newly-defined term
original swap. 44 In addressing ISDAs
request for clarification on firm or
forced trades at the DCO, the
Commission notes that guidance from
its Divisions of Clearing and Risk and
Market Oversight states that swaps
arising out of a DCOs firm or forced
trade process would constitute clearing
swaps. 45 The Divisions guidance also
states that DCOs should be the reporting
counterparty of such swaps.
The proposed definition of original
swap will provide clarity with respect to
certain continuation data reporting
requirements for such swaps by tying
such obligations to a specific point in
time in the life of a swap that is either
intended to be submitted to a DCO for
clearing at the time of execution, or that
is not intended to be cleared at the time
of execution but is later submitted to a
DCO for clearing. The Commission
notes that under the proposed
definition, a swap that is submitted to
a DCO for clearing can become an
original swap by virtue of the DCOs
acceptance of such swap for clearing,
irrespective of: (1) Whether such swap
is executed on or pursuant to the rules
of a SEF or DCM or off-facility; (2)
whether or not such swap is subject to
the clearing requirement; and (3)
whether such swap is intended to be
cleared at the time of execution or not
intended to be cleared at the time of
execution, but subsequently submitted
to a DCO for clearing.46
In addressing EEI/EPSAs comment
on whether the term original swaps
would include off-facility swaps
rejected and then resubmitted for
clearing, or swaps not intended to be
cleared at execution but subsequently
submitted for clearing, the Commission
notes that a swap becomes an original
swap once it is accepted for clearing by
a DCO. The definition would apply
regardless of whether the swap had
previously been rejected for clearing, or
whether it was not intended to be
cleared at the time of execution.
B. Swap Data Reporting: Creation

1. Existing 45.3
Regulation 45.3 requires reporting to
an SDR of two types of creation data
generated in connection with a swaps
creation: primary economic terms
44 See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; LCH Oct.
30, 2015 Letter, at 2.
45 CFTC Letter No. 1551 (Sept. 18, 2015).
46 See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6). Clearing swaps would
not be executed on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF
or DCM as such swaps are created pursuant to the
rules of a DCO.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
data (PET data) and confirmation

data. Additionally, 45.3 governs what
creation data must be reported, who
must report it, and deadlines for its
reporting.
The swap data reporting requirements
under 45.3 concerning both PET data
and confirmation data differ for
reporting counterparties and entities
depending on whether the swap is
executed on or pursuant to the rules of
a SEF or DCM ( 45.3(a)), is subject to
mandatory clearing and executed offfacility ( 45.3(b)), or is not subject to
mandatory clearing and executed offfacility ( 45.3(c) and (d)). Regulation
45.3 also addresses specific creation
data reporting requirements in
circumstances where a swap is accepted
for clearing by a DCO,47 including the
excusal of the reporting counterparty
from reporting creation data in certain
circumstances.48
2. Proposed Amendments to 45.3
As noted above, the Commission has
observed how the part 45 regulations
function in practice with respect to
swaps that are cleared. While CEA
section 2(a)(13)(G) requires each swap
(whether cleared or uncleared) to be
reported to a registered SDR, the
Commission believes that the interplay
between the 45.3 reporting
requirements applicable to SEFs, DCMs
and reporting counterparties, and the
reporting requirements applicable to
DCOs, should be clarified in the context
of a cleared swap transaction.
Accordingly, the Commission proposed
several amendments to 45.3 to better
delineate the creation data reporting
requirements associated with each swap
involved in a cleared swap transaction.
i. Proposed Revised References to
Clearing Requirement Exceptions and
Exemptions
References to the end-user exception
to the swap clearing requirement set
forth in section 2(h)(7) of the CEA are
included in existing 45.3 and 45.8.
Following the publication of the Final
Part 45 Rulemaking, the Commission
codified the end-user exception in
50.50 and published two exemptions
to the swap clearing requirement: The
inter-affiliate exemption in 50.52, and
the financial cooperative exemption in
50.51. Therefore, the Commission
proposed revisions to the introductory
language of 45.3, 45.3(b)(d), and
45.8(h)(1)(vi) to reflect that exceptions
to, and exemptions from, the clearing
47 See 17 CFR 45.3(a)(2), (b)(2), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(ii),
and (d)(2).
48 See 17 CFR 45.3(b)(1), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(i), and
(d)(1).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requirement are now codified in part 50

of the Commissions regulations.49
ii. Proposed Addition of 45.3(e)
Clearing Swaps
Paragraphs (a)(d) of 45.3 govern
creation data reporting in connection
with swaps executed on or pursuant to
the rules of a SEF or DCM and for offfacility swaps, but do not separately
address creation data reporting for
swaps created through the clearing
process by a DCO (i.e., clearing swaps).
renumbering existing paragraph (e)
(Allocations) of 45.3 as paragraph (f),
and adding new paragraph (e) to 45.3,
which will exclusively govern creation
data reporting requirements for clearing
swaps. The Commission also proposed
revising the introductory language of
45.3 to clarify that paragraphs (a)(d)
apply to all swaps except clearing
swaps, while paragraph (e) applies to
clearing swaps.50 The Commission did
not propose to change the existing
requirements for who reports creation
data for those swaps that become
original swaps. Creation data for such
swaps will continue to be reported by
the reporting counterparty, as
determined pursuant to 45.8, or by the
SEF/DCM in the case of on-facility
swaps.
Under the proposed revisions to
45.3(e), a DCO would be required as
reporting counterparty under new
45.8(i) 51 to report all required swap
creation data for each clearing swap,
either as soon as technologically
practicable after an original swap is
accepted by the DCO for clearing (in the
event that the clearing swap replaced an
original swap), or as soon as
technologically practicable after
execution of a clearing swap (in the
event that the clearing swap does not
replace an original swap). Additionally,
under the proposed revisions to
45.3(e), required swap creation data
for clearing swaps must be provided to
a registered SDR electronically by the
DCO and must include all PET data and
all confirmation data for each clearing
swap.
As noted above, CEA section
2(a)(13)(G) 52 requires each swap
49 See
80 FR 52544, 52548.
80 FR 52544, 5254849.
51 The Commission proposed adding 45.8(i),
which establishes the DCO as the reporting
counterparty for all clearing swaps. This change is
discussed in greater detail in Section II.E. of this
release. The Commission also proposed conforming
amendments to 45.4(b)(1) and (2) to add the
phrase as reporting counterparty after
derivatives clearing organization to make clear
that the DCO will be the reporting counterparty for
purposes of those provisions. See Section II.C.
52 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(13)(G).
50 See
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
(whether cleared or uncleared) to be
reported to a registered SDR. Proposed
revisions to paragraphs (a)(d) and new
paragraph (e) of 45.3 will thus cover
creation data reporting requirements for
all swaps: Revised 45.3(a) applies to
each swap executed on or pursuant to
the rules of a SEF or DCM, revised
45.3(b)(d) applies to all off-facility
swaps, and proposed new 45.3(e)
would apply to clearing swaps. The
proposed amendments to 45.3(a)(d)
would thus exclude clearing swaps.
Under the proposed amendments to
45.3, a SEF/DCM or counterparty other
than the DCO will not have swap data
reporting obligations with respect to
clearing swaps. Additionally, revised
45.3(a)(d) will govern the creation
data reporting requirements for swaps,
including swaps commonly known as
alpha swaps, regardless of whether
they later become original swaps by
virtue of their acceptance for clearing.53
iii. Proposed Removal of Provisions

As noted above, several provisions of
existing 45.3 impose certain creation
data reporting requirements on a DCO in
circumstances where a swap is accepted
for clearing by a DCO. To ensure
consistency with 39.12(b)(6), the
Commission proposed to remove these
creation data reporting provisions
(current 45.3(a)(2),54 (b)(2), (c)(1)(ii),
(c)(2)(ii), and (d)(2)), and replacing them
with new proposed 45.3(e), as
described above.55
Additionally, the Commission
proposed to remove portions of
45.3(b)(1), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(i), and
(d)(1).56 Previously, where both a DCO
and reporting counterparty had
obligations under 45.3 for reporting
creation data for the same swap, the
reporting counterparty would be
excused from reporting creation data if
the swap is accepted for clearing before
any PET data is reported by the
53 Swaps created by a DCO under 39.12(b)(6) are
a type of clearing swap as defined in this release,
and thus could not be executed on or pursuant to
the rules of a SEF or DCM. Additionally, a DCO
would not report creation data for a swap that was
executed on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF or
DCM, or for an off-facility swap that is submitted
to the DCO for clearing, because, under 45.3(a)
(d), the SEF/DCM or reporting counterparty would
be responsible for reporting creation data for such
swaps after execution. Under the revisions to 45.3,
a DCO will not have creation data reporting
obligations for swaps that are not clearing swaps.
The Commission notes that the revisions to 45.3
in this release are consistent with the prior no
action relief and guidance issued by Commission
staff relating to firm or forced trades at DCOs. See
CFTC Letter No. 1551 (Sept. 18, 2015); CFTC NoAction Letter No. 14119 (Sept. 29, 2014).
54 The Commission is also renumbering
45.3(a)(1) as 45.3(a).
55 See 80 FR 52544, 5254849.
56 See 80 FR 52544, 52549.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
reporting counterparty. Under the

proposed regulation, these excusal
provisions are no longer necessary
because the proposed rules require
DCOs to report creation data only for
clearing swaps, and not for swaps
accepted for clearing (i.e., original
swaps).
iv. Proposed Removal of Certain
Confirmation Data Reporting
Requirements
Existing 45.3(a)(d) requires the
SEF/DCM (under 45.3(a)) or the
reporting counterparty (under
45.3(b)(d)) to report both PET and
confirmation data in order to comply
with creation data reporting obligations.
The Commission believes that the
confirmation data requirements for
clearing swaps in new 45.3(e) will
provide the Commission with a
sufficient representation of the
confirmation data for a cleared swap
transaction, because the original swap is
extinguished upon acceptance for
clearing and replaced by equal and
opposite clearing swaps.
Accordingly, for swaps that are
clearing at the time of execution, the
Commission proposed to amend
45.3(a), (b), (c)(1)(iii), (c)(2)(iii), and
(d)(2) to remove the existing
confirmation data reporting
requirements.57
v. Proposed Revisions to 45.3(f)
Allocations
The Commission proposed
renumbering existing 45.3(e), which
governs creation data reporting for
swaps involving allocation, as
45.3(f).58 The Commission also
proposed replacing the phrase original
swap transaction in 45.3(f)(2) and
45.8(h)(1)(vii)(D), and in the PET data
tables found in appendix 1 to part 45,
with initial swap transaction to avoid
confusion with the term original
swap, which is defined in 45.1.59
vi. Proposed Addition of 45.3(j):
Choice of SDR
The Commission proposed adding
45.3(j) in order to explicitly establish
which entity has the obligation to
choose the SDR to which the required
swap creation data is reported.60 New
45.3(j) provides that: For swaps
a SEF or DCM (including swaps that
may later become original swaps), the
57 See
80 FR 52544, 5254950.
Commission also proposed renumbering
45.3 paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) as paragraphs (g),
(h), and (i), respectively.
59 See 80 FR 52544, 52550.
60 See 80 FR 52544, 52550.
58 The
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41741
SEF or DCM has the obligation to

choose the SDR; for all other swaps
(including off-facility swaps and/or
clearing swaps) the reporting
counterparty (as determined in 45.8)
will have the obligation to choose the
SDR.61
Under the proposed addition of
45.3(j) and the proposed revisions to
45.10,62 the entity with the obligation
to report the initial required swap
creation data will select the SDR to
which all subsequent swap creation and
continuation data for that swap will be
reported by choosing the SDR to which
such initial required swap creation data
is reported. Thereafter, all required
swap creation data and all required
swap continuation data for a given swap
will be reported to the same SDR used
by the registered entity or
counterparty.63
Finally, the Commission notes that it
is aware of certain situations wherein
SEFs, DCMs and reporting
counterparties for off-facility swap
transactions may report the part 43 data
for a swap to an SDR prior to reporting
the part 45 required creation data for the
same swap. In such situations, the
registered entity or reporting
counterparty has effectively chosen the
SDR for the swap prior to submitting the
part 45 data, since, pursuant to revisions
to 45.10 adopted in this release, all
swap data reported pursuant to parts 43
and 45 for a given swap is required to
be reported to a single SDR.64 For
example, if a swap is executed on or
pursuant to the rules of SEF A, and SEF
A immediately upon execution reports
the part 43 data to SDR B, prior to
reporting part 45 data, SEF A has
effectively chosen SDR B as the SDR for
all required creation data for the swap,
because revised 45.10 requires that all
part 43 and 45 swap data for a given
swap must be reported to a single
SDR.65 Accordingly, in this example,
61 Regulation 45.3(j) generally reflects the
language included in the preamble to the original
Final Part 45 Rulemaking, which provides that the
SEF or DCM would select the SDR for platformexecuted swaps, and the reporting counterparty
would choose the SDR for off-facility swaps. See 77
FR 2136, 2146 (Jan. 13, 2012). Under the new rule,
the DCO will have the obligation to choose the SDR
for clearing swaps.
62 Revisions to 45.10 are discussed in Section
II.F below. As will be discussed in Section II.F
below, by operation of 45.10, DCOs will be
obligated to report all required continuation data for
original swaps to the registered SDR (as selected by
the SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty pursuant
to proposed 45.3(j)) to which required creation
data for the swap was reported pursuant to
45.3(a)(d).
63 See Proposed 45.10. See also Section II.F.2,
infra.
64 Id.
65 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41742
part 45 required creation data must be

reported to SDR B.
vii. Proposed Removal of Expired
Compliance Date References
The Commission proposed to remove
the references to the expired compliance
dates in 45.3(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2),
(b)(2)(ii), (c)(1)(i)(A), (c)(1)(i)(B),
(c)(2)(i)(A), (c)(2)(i)(B), (d)(1), and (d)(3),
and in the introductory language to
45.3.66 These references to phase-in
compliance dates are no longer
necessary as they have expired.
3. Comments
The Commission received a number
of comments in response to its proposed
revisions to 45.3. Many of these
comments focused on the proposed
reporting of creation data associated
with clearing swaps and related
reporting obligations concerning
original swaps. Other comments
addressed the new choice of SDR
provision set out in 45.3(j). And,
finally, some commenters discussed the
new clearing swaps rules in the context
of principal model clearing.67
i. Creation Data Reporting for Clearing
Swaps
With respect to the reporting of
clearing swaps, commenters generally
supported the Commissions proposal to
require DCOs to report creation data for
clearing swaps.68 FSR and CMC agreed
that the DCO is in the best position to
report creation data for clearing
swaps.69 ISDA,70 DTCC, and LCH also
noted support for requiring DCOs to
66 See
80 FR 52544, 52550.
requested that the Commission codify no
action relief issued by the Division of Clearing and
Risk and the Division of Market Oversight on April
5, 2013, providing relief to non-SD/MSPs from
reporting requirements for swaps between whollyowned affiliates. See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at
5 (referencing CFTC No-Action Letter No. 1309
(Apr. 5, 2013)). This request is beyond the scope of
the NPRM and will not be addressed in this release.
68 See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; CMC Oct.
30, 2015 Letter, at 2; ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at
4; LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; DTCC Oct. 30,
2015 Letter, at 3.
30, 2015 Letter, at 2.
70 ISDA also commented that currently not all
DCOs report clearing swaps in a consistent manner
in instances where an affiliate of a clearing member
enters into a swap that is subsequently cleared
through its affiliated clearing member. ISDA
suggested that the Commission make clear that the
submission of a swap for clearing should not result
in a change in the name of the counterparty that is
reported to an SDR and that the report submitted
by the DCO for the clearing swap has to reflect the
relevant affiliate and not the clearing member as the
legal counterparty to the clearing swap with the
derivatives clearing organization. See ISDA Oct. 30,
2015 Letter, at 12. While noting this comment, the
Commission declines to address this as beyond the
scope of the NPRM.
67 FSR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
report data for clearing swaps.71 CME

likewise supported the requirement for
DCOs to report creation data for clearing
swaps, recommending that the DCO be
assigned all reporting obligations for
original and clearing swaps.72 Markit
recommended an alternative approach
whereby the reporting counterparty to
the original swap would be permitted to
choose whether it reports creation data
for the clearing swaps, while allowing
the reporting counterparty to delegate
the reporting responsibilities to a
DCO.73
LCH requested that the Commission
change references to execution of a
clearing swap in proposed 45.3(e) to
creation of a clearing swap in order to
more clearly address compression
events. LCH also suggested crossreferencing re-numbered 45.3(f) to new
45.3(e), to cover situations where
block trades are allocated postclearing.74
ii. Removal of Confirmation Data
Reporting Requirements for Intended To
Be Cleared Swaps
With respect to swaps that become
original swaps, commenters were
generally supportive of the
Commissions proposal to eliminate the
requirement for reporting confirmation
data on intended to be cleared swaps.75
FSR commented that the reporting of
confirmation data for clearing swaps
should provide sufficient confirmation
data for a cleared swap transaction.76
Markit, on the other hand, commented
that eliminating the requirement for
reporting confirmation data for swaps
that are intended to be cleared, while
still maintaining the requirement to
report primary economic terms data,
will not benefit reporting workflows and
that there is little incremental cost to
report confirmation data as reporting
systems are set up to capture that
information already.77
iii. Creation Data Reporting for Swaps
That Become Original Swaps
While the proposed amendments to
part 45, aside from the removal of the
excusal provisions noted above, do not
change creation data reporting
requirements for swaps that become
71 See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4; DTCC Oct.
30, 2015 Letter, at 3 (distinguishing between
reporting obligations and the ability to select the
SDR to which data related to clearing swaps is
reported); LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2.
72 See CME Oct. 30 2015 Letter, at 3.
73 See Markit Oct. 30 2015 Letter, at 5.
75 See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; ISDA Oct.
30, 2015 Letter, at 4; EEI/EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter,
at 3.
76 See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3.
77 See Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
original swaps, several commenters

commented on which entity should be
responsible for reporting creation data
for swaps that will become original
swaps. Some commenters suggested that
if reporting of creation data for swaps
that become original swaps continues,
the DCO, rather than the reporting
counterparty, should be responsible for
reporting the creation data for that
swap.78 CME commented that assigning
all the reporting obligations for original
and clearing swaps to the DCO is a
better and simpler way to address alpha
swap reporting, and would eliminate
the need to reconcile original and
clearing swaps across SDRs.79 CMC
similarly commented that DCOs are best
positioned to report on swaps that they
accept or reject for clearing and should
assume all reporting obligations for
cleared swaps, including all reporting of
swaps that are intended to be cleared.80
AIMA likewise suggested that if the
Commission continues to require the
reporting of original swaps, assigning
the reporting obligations to the DCO
will remove reporting burdens and the
risk of data fragmentation across
SDRs.81
Other commenters recommended that
the Commission continue requiring the
reporting counterparty to report creation
data for those swaps that will become
original swaps.82 LCH commented that
the reporting counterparty should
always be a party to the transaction and
therefore, in the case of a swap that will
become an original swap, the DCO
would not be better suited than the SEF,
DCM, or reporting counterparty to
report the creation data.83 Eurex
suggested that assigning the reporting
obligation of original swap creation data
to the DCO may present a timeliness
issue depending on when the DCO
receives the necessary information from
the counterparties.84 ISDA likewise
agreed that the obligation to report
swaps that become original swaps
should remain with the reporting
counterparty for that swap.85
78 See e.g., CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23; CMC
Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23; AIMA Oct. 30, 2015
Letter, at 6; CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3.
79 See CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3.
80 See CMC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2.
81 See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6.
30, 2015 Letter, at 2; Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at
4.
84 See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4.
85 ISDA also commented in support of the
Commissions proposal to remove the provisions in
45.3 that excused a reporting counterparty from
reporting creation data for a swap accepted for
clearing before the primary economic terms
reporting deadline. See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter,
at 4.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
Some commenters suggested that the
reporting of any creation data for swaps
that will become original swaps is
unnecessary.86 AIMA commented that
eliminating reporting for swaps that are
execution will significantly reduce
complexity in the reporting regime and
streamline the reported data.87 AIMA
also commented that the Commissions
proposed reporting approach for
original swaps will not reduce data
fragmentation.88 Similarly, EEI/EPSA
suggested that there is little to no benefit
to original swap reporting for swaps that
are intended to be cleared at the time of
execution and that counterparties
should not be required to report any
creation data for such swaps.89 Other
commenters, in response to the IDWG
Request for Comment, supported the
continued reporting of creation data for
swaps that will become original
swaps.90
iv. Choice of SDR Provisions
The Commission received a number

of comments on its proposal regarding
the selection of the SDR to which the
required swap creation data should be
reported. Some commenters were
supportive of the Commissions
proposed addition of 45.3(j) and
proposed modifications to 45.10
relating to the choice of the SDR for a
particular swap. As discussed below,
other commenters suggested
modifications to the Commissions
proposal and changes to the manner in
which the SDR is selected for a
particular swap.
With respect to clearing swaps,
commenters were divided as to which
entity should have the ability to select
the SDR. FSR, LCH, and ISDA all
supported allowing the DCO to select
the SDR for purposes of reporting
creation data for clearing swaps, as the
DCO has the sole obligation to report
clearing swaps.91 CME and LedgerX
similarly supported the proposal to
allow DCOs to select the SDR for
86 See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 26; EEI/
EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; CEWG Oct. 30, 2015
Letter, at 2.
88 See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4 (noting that
reporting original swap creation data to one SDR
and reporting clearing swap data to a different SDR
may undermine data quality for the Commissions
supervisory purposes).
90 See NPRM, 80 FR 52544, 52549 at nn. 3739
(citing DTCC May 27, 2014 Letter at 1718; AFR
May 27, 2014 Letter at 5; Markit May 27, 2014
Letter at 25; TR SEF May 27, 2014 Letter at 10).
91 See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; LCH Oct.
4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
clearing swaps.92 CME supports the

Commissions proposal to assign all
clearing swap reporting obligations, and
the right to select the SDR to which it
reports, to the DCO. CME also
recommended that the Commission
assign all original swap reporting
obligations, and associated SDR
selection rights, to the DCO, which
would, in CMEs opinion, ensure that all
data for a cleared swap transaction is
housed in the same SDR, thereby
avoiding data fragmentation.93
Other commenters suggested that the
reporting counterparty to the swap that
becomes the original swap should select
the SDR to which the clearing swaps are
reported. DTCC commented that the
DCO for a clearing swap should have
the obligation to report the clearing
swap to the SDR selected by the
reporting counterparty to the swap that
became the original swap, or selected by
the SEF or DCM for on-facility swaps.94
DTCC commented that this single SDR
approach would be vital for providing
a full audit trail and the ability to
efficiently aggregate data.95 DTCC also
commented that allowing the DCO to
select the SDR for clearing swaps creates
a competition problem due to vertically
integrated SDRs and DCOs.96 DTCC
explained that permitting a DCO to
report to an affiliated SDR when the
original swap data had been reported to
another SDR, allows DCOs to bundle
services and further entrenches DCOs
vertical integration of trade execution,
clearing, and data reporting.97 Markit
allow the reporting counterparty to the
swap that becomes the original swap to
select the SDR to which the clearing
swap is reported, while also allowing
that reporting counterparty to delegate
the selection of the swap data repository
to the DCO. Markit commented that this
counterparty choice approach would
result in a more competitive DCO
marketplace.98
Other commenters suggested that, for
on-facility swaps that are not cleared by
a DCO, the party responsible for
reporting continuation data for the swap
should not be bound by the SEF or
DCMs choice of SDR for the reporting
of creation data.99 ISDA commented that
in such cases the selection of the SDR
should not be assigned to the entity that
92 See CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 12; LedgerX
Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 1.
94 See DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3.
95 See id. at 4.
96 See id. at 7.
97 See id.
99 See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 45; JBA Oct.
30, 2015 Letter, at 1.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41743
has the first obligation to report, but

rather should be assigned to the entity
that has the longest, recurring, or most
frequent obligation to report.100
v. Reporting of Principal Model Cleared
Swaps
Finally, a few comments focused on
swaps that are cleared through a
principal, rather than agency, model.
Eurex commented that it is not clear
under the proposal which entity is to be
reported as the counterparty to the DCO
with regard to a clearing swap in the
principal model.101
4. Final Rule
The Commission has considered the
comments that it received in response to
the proposed changes to 45.3. As
discussed above, some of the proposed
changes to 45.3 received widespread
support among commenters, while other
proposed changes received both support
and objection from commenters. The
Commission has decided to adopt the
changes to 45.3 as proposed in the
NPRM for the following reasons.102
i. Creation Data Reporting for Clearing
Swaps
As discussed above, the Commissions
proposal to require DCOs to report
creation data for clearing swaps
received support from commenters.103
The Commission agrees with these
commenters that the DCO is in the best
position to report creation data for
clearing swaps. As for Markits
proposed counterparty choice
alternative, the Commission recognizes
the flexibility that Markits proposal
could offer parties to the clearing swap.
However, the Commission believes
Markits proposal would likely result in
additional complexity in the reporting
process and could obscure, to the
Commission, which entity has the
ultimate responsibility for reporting the
clearing swap. After considering the
comments received, the Commission
continues to believe that the DCO is the
entity with the easiest and quickest
access to full information with respect
to PET data and confirmation data for
clearing swaps. Commission regulation
100 See
ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 45.

See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 9; see also
FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5.
102 The Commission has made one nonsubstantive conforming change to final 45.3(b),
changing the phrase exception or exemption from
the clearing requirement to exception to, or
exemption from, the clearing requirement, to make
this provision consistent with other uses of the
phrase throughout 45.3.
4; DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; LCH Oct. 30,
2015 Letter, at 2.
101
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41744
39.12(b)(6) requires DCOs to have

rules providing that, upon acceptance of
a swap by the DCO for clearing, the
original swap is extinguished and
replaced by an equal and opposite swap
between the DCO and each clearing
member acting as either principal for a
house trade or agent for a customer
trade.104 Because the DCO must replace
an original swap with clearing swaps
when accepting the original swap for
clearing, the Commission believes that
the DCO should be the entity that
reports creation data for clearing swaps,
and adopts its proposal to require DCOs
to report creation data for clearing
swaps.
The Commission notes LCHs
comments that, when establishing the
timing requirement for reporting
clearing swaps that do not replace
original swaps in 45.3(e), the term
creation of a clearing swap may better
capture compression events than
execution of a clearing swap. The
Commission believes that the phrase
execution of a clearing swap, for
purposes of part 45, is sufficiently clear
to cover reporting obligations for all
clearing swaps that do not replace
original swaps. The Commission also
believes that the adopted reporting
requirements for clearing swaps would
cover post-clearing allocations of block
trades raised by LCH. If a block trade is
allocated after clearing, then any
allocations of that block would have a
DCO as one counterparty. Thus, such
post-allocation swaps would be clearing
swaps and must be reported by the DCO
pursuant to 45.3(e).
ii. Removal of Confirmation Data

Reporting Requirements for Intended To
Be Cleared Swaps
Under the new rules, SEFs/DCMs and
reporting counterparties will continue
to be required to report PET data as part
of their creation data reporting, but will
be required to report confirmation data
only for swaps that, at the time of
execution, are not intended to be
submitted to a DCO for clearing. For
swaps that, at the time of execution, are
clearing, SEFs/DCMs and reporting
counterparties will not be required to
report confirmation data. If the swap is
accepted for clearing by a DCO, the DCO
will be required to report confirmation
data for the clearing swaps pursuant to
proposed 45.3(e).105
104 See
17 CFR 39.12(b)(6).
105 The Commission notes that this change only
impacts certain confirmation data reporting and
recordkeeping requirements in 45.3, and does not
alter existing obligations to generate or exchange
confirmations under other Commission regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
With respect to swaps that will

become original swaps, the Commission
received widespread support of the
proposed elimination of the requirement
to report confirmation data associated
with these swaps.106 One commenter
did suggest that there is little
incremental cost to continuing to
require reporting of confirmation data
swaps.107 However, the Commission
continues to believe that the
confirmation data requirements for
clearing swaps provide the Commission
with a sufficient representation of the
transaction, as the original swap is
clearing and replaced by equal and
opposite clearing swaps. Accordingly,
the Commission is adopting its proposal
to remove the confirmation data
reporting requirement for swaps that are
execution.
iii. Creation Data Reporting for Swaps
That Become Original Swaps
With the exception of the removal of
excusal provisions, the Commission has
not proposed to change the existing
requirement to report creation data for
swaps that will become original swaps.
As noted in the NPRM, CEA section
2(a)(13)(G) requires each swap, whether
cleared or uncleared, to be reported to
a registered SDR.108 The Commission
did, however, receive some comments
urging the Commission to eliminate the
existing requirement to report swaps
that will become original swaps. The
Commission also received, in response
to the IDWG Request for Comment,
comments in support of continued
reporting of creation data for swaps that
will become original swaps.109
Having reviewed the comments
regarding reporting of swaps that
become original swaps, the Commission
continues to interpret CEA section
2(a)(13)(G) as requiring all swaps to be
reported, which would include swaps
that become original swaps as distinct
swaps from resulting clearing swaps
under 39.12(b)(6). Further, the
Commission continues to believe that
original swaps contain essential
information regarding the origins of
cleared swap transactions for market
surveillance and audit-trail purposes,
106 See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; ISDA Oct.
30, 2015 Letter, at 4; EEI/EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter,
at 3.
108 See 80 FR 52544, 52548.
109 See NPRM, 80 FR 52544, 52549, nn. 3739
(citing DTCC May 27, 2014 Letter at 1718; AFR
May 27, 2014 Letter at 5; Markit May 27, 2014
Letter at 25; TR SEF May 27, 2014 Letter at 10).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
including but not limited to the identity

of the original counterparties, the
execution venue, and the timestamp of
the original transaction between the
original counterparties. Such essential
information could not be easily
determined if only resulting clearing
swaps were to be reported. The
Commissions ability to trace the history
of a cleared swap transaction from
execution between the original
counterparties to clearing novation
relies on this information. The
Commission also notes that the
continued reporting of swaps that
become original swaps is consistent
with the SECs proposed Regulation
SBSRReporting and Dissemination of
Security-Based Swap Information.110
Finally, the continued reporting of
original swaps, including original swap
terminations, will aid the Commissions
ability to analyze cleared swap activity
and review swap activity for compliance
with the clearing requirement. For these
reasons the Commission, in this final
rule, continues to require reporting of
swaps that will become original swaps.
The Commission received divided
comments as to which entity should be
for those swaps that will become
original swaps. Some commenters
suggested that the DCO should be the
reporting counterparty,111 while other
commenters recommended that the
reporting counterparty report creation
original swaps.112 After careful
consideration of the comments received
on this issue, the Commission believes
that the creation data reporting
requirements for those swaps that will
become original swaps should remain as
they currently exist, aside from the
removal of excusal provisions noted
above. The Commission recognizes that
reporting counterparties and registered
entities have invested substantial time
and resources to report swaps (both
cleared and not cleared) to SDRs and
that DCOs have invested substantial
resources to report clearing swaps. The
Commission believes that maintaining
the existing requirement for the
reporting counterparty, rather than for
the DCO, to report creation data of the
swap that will become an original swap
will help to prevent disruption of
established industry workflows. The
Commission also continues to believe
that the SEF/DCM or reporting
110 See
Regulation SBSR, 80 FR 14740.

CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23; CMC
Letter, at 6; CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2.
4.
111 See
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
counterparty has the easiest and fastest
access to initial creation data for swaps
that become original swaps.
As discussed in its Final Part 45
Rulemaking, the Commission believes
that requiring all swaps that become
original swaps to be reported only to
SDRs chosen by the DCO of the
resulting clearing swaps could create an
uneven playing field between DCO
affiliated SDRs and non-DCO affiliated
SDRs.113 Likewise, if the reporting
counterparty or SEF/DCM were to report
creation data, or select the SDR to which
such data is reported, an SDR in which
swap dealers have an ownership interest
may obtain a dominant market position.
This Final Rule avoids injecting the
Commission into a market decision by
maintaining the requirement that
creation data for swaps that become
original swaps is reported by the
reporting counterparty for that swap, or
the SEF/DCM, and the resulting clearing
swaps are reported by the DCO.
The Commission acknowledges the
data fragmentation concerns raised by
those that recommend DCOs report
original swap creation data, however,
the Commission also recognizes that
requiring the DCOs, rather than the
original reporting counterparty, to
report original swap creation data may
also present challenges. For example,
Eurex noted that there could be a
timeliness issue depending on when the
DCO receives necessary information
from counterparties to report creation
data.114 The Commission also is
concerned that, should DCOs report
original swaps, potential delays in
clearing could delay real-time swaps
reporting pursuant to part 43. The
Commission believes that accurate and
timely reporting of the required data
fields by all parties, in particular the
clearing swap PET fields and data
elements specific to terminations of
original swaps, will alleviate data
fragmentation concerns for those
situations where the original swap and
clearing swaps are reported to different
SDRs.
iv. Choice of SDR Provisions

The Commission received a variety of
comments on its proposed addition of
45.3(j) and modifications to 45.10
regarding the choice of the SDR for a
particular swap. With respect to clearing
swaps, some commenters recommended
that the DCO should select the SDR,115
113 See
77 FR 2136, 2149.
Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4.
115 See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; LCH Oct.
4; CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23 (CME also
suggested that the DCO select the SDR to which
114 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
while other commenters suggested the

reporting counterparty to the original
swap should select the SDR to which
the clearing swap must be reported.116
The Commission has considered these
comments and continues to believe, as
discussed above, that placing the
obligation to choose the SDR on the
registered entity or counterparty that is
required to first report the required
swap creation data, rather than on
another entity, will result in more
efficient data reporting. Allowing the
first entity to report data on a swap to
choose the SDR will allow reporting
entities to select an SDR to which they
have established connections; giving
another entity the ability to choose the
SDR could require the first reporting
entities to connect to multiple SDRs.
The Commission also believes allowing
the first reporting registered entity or
counterparty to choose the SDR will
also promote competition among SDRs
to provide SDR services to a broad array
of reporting entities.
Requiring this method of SDR
selection also avoids inserting anyone
other than a party to the swap (or
facility where the transaction is
executed) into the decision as to how a
registered entity or counterparty fulfills
its regulatory obligation to report initial
required swap creation data. As with the
first-touch approach taken with
respect to the creation of USIs in part
45,117 the Commission believes that the
entity with the first reporting obligation
should select the SDR for that report.
The Commission believes that this
method of SDR selection will avoid
delays in real-time reporting for part 43
purposes. If DCOs were to select the
SDR for an original swap, the DCO
would not be in a position to make such
selection until after a swap was
accepted for clearing. Any delays in
clearing would translate into delays in
reporting for both part 43 real-time
reporting and part 45 reporting.
The registered entity or counterparty
that is required to report a swap
pursuant to 45.8 may select an SDR to
which its technological systems are
most suited or to which it already has
an established relationship, providing
for the efficient and accurate reporting
of swap data. The Commission notes
that this Final Rule does not prohibit a
registered entity or counterparty from
choosing an SDR based on consideration
original swaps are reported); LedgerX Oct. 30, 2015
Letter, at 1.
116 See DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; Markit
Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5 (Markit also suggested the
counterparty have the option to delegate the
selection of the SDR to the DCO).
117 See Final Part 45 Rulemaking, 77 FR 2136,
2158.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41745
of market preference or other factors,

however, the obligation to choose the
SDR will rest solely with the registered
entity or counterparty set forth in
amended 45.8. The Commission
recognizes that this may result in
original swaps and clearing swaps being
reported to different SDRs, however, the
Commission believes that the required
data fields, such as original swap USI
included in clearing swap reporting,
and clearing swap USIs included in
original swap reporting, will allow the
Commission to efficiently and
accurately link data across SDRs and
perform its regulatory mandate.
The Commission has also noted
ISDAs proposed alternative that the
entity with the longest, recurring, or
most frequent obligation to report be
given choice of SDR. In particular, ISDA
expressed concern that market
participants would be required, due to
the made available to trade mandate, to
trade certain swaps at a particular SEF,
and therefore be required to report to
that SEFs chosen SDR. However, the
Commission notes that any swaps made
available to trade would be subject to
the clearing mandate. As discussed
above, counterparties to cleared, onfacility swaps would likely have no
reporting obligations.118 Therefore, the
concern raised by ISDA would not
likely impact a large percentage of onfacility swaps. Moreover, ISDA notes
that its proposed alternative would
require amending various other
provisions in part 45, including
assignment of reporting counterparty
designation and USI creation.
Additionally, the Commission notes that
the longest, recurring, or most frequent
obligation to report may be difficult to
determine at the outset of a swap,
creating potential confusion as to who
could select the SDR. Because amended
45.3(j) codifies current industry
practice,119 the Commission believes the
choice of SDR provisions adopted in
this final rule create the least disruption
in the market while achieving the goal
of consistent and timely swaps
reporting.
v. Reporting of Principal Model Clearing
Swaps
The Commission has noted comments
from Eurex on reporting of clearing
swaps under the principal clearing
model. The Commission is aware of
issues surrounding the reporting of
principal model clearing swaps, but is
118 See supra, n. 26, discussing reporting
obligations for counterparties to cleared, on-facility
swaps.
119 See NPRM, 80 FR 52544, 52550.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41746
not providing further guidance at this

time.
C. Swap Data Reporting: Continuation
1. Existing 45.4
Regulation 45.4 governs the reporting
of swap continuation data to an SDR
during a swaps existence through its
final termination or expiration. This
provision establishes the manner in
which continuation data, including life
cycle event data or state data, and
valuation data,120 must be reported
( 45.4(a)), and sets forth specific
continuation data reporting
requirements for both cleared ( 45.4(b))
and uncleared ( 45.4(c)) swaps. For
cleared swaps, 45.4(b) currently
requires that life cycle event data or
state data be reported by the DCO, and
that valuation data be reported by both
the DCO and by the reporting
counterparty (if the reporting
counterparty is an SD or MSP).
For uncleared swaps, 45.4(c)
requires the reporting counterparty to
report all required swap continuation
data, including life cycle event data or
state data, and valuation data.
The Commission understands that
45.4 could be clarified regarding
responsibilities for each of the swaps
involved in a cleared swap transaction.
several amendments to 45.4 to better
delineate the continuation data
reporting requirements associated with
each swap involved in a cleared swap
transaction.121 In particular, the
Commission proposed conforming
changes to existing 45.4(a), revisions
to existing 45.4(b) and to existing
45.4(c) (proposed to be renumbered as
45.4(d)), and the addition of new
45.4(c). Each proposed amendment is
discussed in detail below.
i. Proposed Conforming Changes to

45.4(a)
The Commission proposed to revise
the heading of 45.4(a) to read
120 Required swap continuation data is defined
in 45.1 and includes life cycle event data or
state data (depending on which reporting method
is used) and valuation data. Each of these data
types is defined in 45.1. Life cycle event data
means all of the data elements necessary to fully
report any life cycle event. State data means all
of the data elements necessary to provide a
snapshot view, on a daily basis of all of the primary
economic terms of a swap. Valuation data means
all of the data elements necessary to fully describe
the daily mark of the transaction, pursuant to CEA
section 4s(h)(3)(B)(iii), and to 23.431 if applicable.
17 CFR 45.1.
121 See 80 FR 52544, 52551.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
Continuation data reporting method

generally to reflect that the
continuation data reporting method
requirements in 45.4(a) apply to all
swaps, regardless of asset class or
whether the swap is an original swap,
clearing swap or uncleared swap,
whereas the continuation data reporting
requirements in proposed 45.4(b), (c),
and (d) would apply to clearing swaps,
original swaps, and uncleared swaps,
respectively.122
ii. Proposed Revisions to 45.4(b)
Regulation 45.4(b) currently governs
continuation data reporting obligations
for cleared swaps, but does not
distinguish among the different swaps
involved in a cleared swap transaction
(i.e. original and clearing swaps). The
Commission thus proposed to revise the
introductory language of 45.4(b) to
replace the terms cleared swaps and
swaps cleared by a derivatives clearing
organization, which were not defined
in the Final Part 45 Rulemaking, with
the defined term clearing swaps. 123
The Commission proposed to remove
existing 45.4(b)(2)(ii), which requires a
reporting counterparty that is an SD or
MSP to report valuation data for cleared
swaps daily, in addition to the valuation
data that is required to be reported by
the DCO pursuant to 45.4(b)(2)(i). For
clearing swaps, the DCO would be the
only swap counterparty required to
report continuation data, including
valuation data.124
iii. Proposed Addition of 45.4(c):
Continuation Data Reporting for
Original Swaps
Existing 45.4(c) governs
continuation data reporting for
uncleared swaps. The Commission
proposed renumbering 45.4(c) as
45.4(d) (for reasons discussed below),
and proposed the addition of a new
45.4(c), which would set forth the
requirements for original swaps.125
Specifically, proposed 45.4(c) would
require a DCO to report all required
continuation data for original swaps,
including original swap terminations, to
the original swap SDR pursuant to
122 See
80 FR 52544, 52551.
80 FR 52544, 5255152.
124 This proposal would codify certain no-action
letters issued by the Commissions Division of
Market Oversight. See CFTC No-Action Letter No.
1255 (Dec. 17, 2012); CFTC No-Action Letter No.
1334 (Jun. 26, 2013); and CFTC No-Action Letter
No. 1490 (Jun. 30, 2014). Staff no-action relief from
the requirements of 45.4(b)(2)(ii) has been in effect
since the initial compliance date for part 45
reporting.
125 See 80 FR 52544, 52552.
123 See
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
45.3(a) through (d).126 As proposed,

45.4(c) would also reference the
existing requirement that all
continuation data must be reported in
the manner provided in 45.13(b), and
that the SDR, in order to comply with
49.10, must also accept and record
such data, including original swap
terminations.127 The proposed addition
of a reference to 49.10 is consistent
with an IDWG commenters request for
clarification regarding the obligation of
the SDR to accept and process the
termination message from the DCO.128
As proposed, 45.4(c)(1) would
require a DCO to report all life cycle
event data for an original swap on the
same day that any life cycle event
occurs, or to report all state data for the
original swap, daily.
The continuation data reporting
requirements of proposed 45.4(c)
126 As discussed above, under the proposed
revisions to 45.3(a)(d), a SEF/DCM or reporting
counterparty would be required to report creation
data for all swaps except clearing swaps (including
for swaps that later become original swaps by virtue
of their acceptance for clearing by a DCO). See
Section II.B.4., supra. See also 45.10 (a)(c)
(providing that all required swap continuation data
reported for a swap must be reported to the same
SDR to which required swap creation data was first
reported pursuant to 45.3). The Commission notes
that pursuant to existing regulation 45.13, each
reporting entity and/or counterparty is required to
use the facilities, methods, or data standards
provided or required by the SDR to which the entity
or counterparty reports the data. 17 CFR 45.13.
127 SDR regulation 49.10(a) provides that an
SDR shall accept and promptly record all swap data
in its selected asset class and other regulatory
information that is required to be reported pursuant
to part 45 and part 43 by DCMs, DCOs, SEFs, SDs,
MSPs and/or non-swap dealer/non-major swap
participant counterparties. Section 49.10(a)(1)
further provides that for purposes of accepting all
swap data as required by part 45 and part 43, the
registered SDR shall adopt policies and procedures,
including technological protocols, which provide
for electronic connectivity between the SDR and
DCMs, DCOs, SEFs, SDs, MSPs and/or certain other
non-swap dealer/non-major swap participant
counterparties who report such data. It further
states that the technological protocols established
by a SDR shall provide for the receipt of swap
creation data, swap continuation data, real-time
public reporting data, and all other data and
information required to be reported to such SDR.
Additionally, 49.10(a)(1) provides that the SDR
shall ensure that its mechanisms for swap data
acceptance are reliable and secure. 17 CFR 49.10.
The Commission also proposed conforming changes
to the introductory language of 45.3 and 45.4 to
make clear that all required swap creation and
continuation data must be reported to the relevant
SDR in the manner provided in 45.13, and
pursuant to 49.10, which sets forth rules
governing the acceptance and recording of such
data.
128 See ITV May 27, 2014 Letter, at 4 (noting that
failure to accept the termination message can
produce inaccurate swap data due to double
reporting and that the rejection of the termination
message could distort notional amounts and market
risks, and stating that amending the reporting rules
to place the reporting obligation on the DCO for
intended to be cleared swaps simplifies the
reporting flows and places the responsibility on the
party best-suited to accurately report cleared swap
data).
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
would apply to a swap that has been
submitted to a DCO for clearing and that
becomes an original swap by virtue of
the DCOs acceptance of such swap for
clearing. The DCOs continuation data
reporting obligations for a swap to
which it is not a counterparty (i.e., for
swaps other than clearing swaps) will
only be triggered if a swap is accepted
for clearing (and thus becomes an
original swap). If a swap is submitted to
a DCO for clearing and is not accepted
for clearing, then the DCO will not have
for the swap, because the swap is not an
original swap or a clearing swap.
iv. Proposed Additional Continuation
Data Fields To Be Reported by DCOs
Proposed 45.4(c) would require
DCOs to report additional data fields
when reporting continuation data on
original swaps.129 These fields would be
the LEI of the SDR to which the DCO
reported clearing swaps replacing the
original swap; the USI of the original
swap being replaced; and the USIs of
each clearing swap that is replacing the
original swap. As discussed in the
NPRM,130 the Commission proposed
these additional data fields to enable the
Commission to track the complete life of
a cleared swap transaction. Inclusion of
these data fields in continuation data on
the original swap, taken in conjunction
with existing requirements to reporting
original swap information in reports
clearing swaps, will aid the Commission
in linking the original swap and all
clearing swaps replacing it.
v. Proposed Revisions to 45.4(d)

As mentioned above, the Commission
proposed to renumber 45.4(c)
(Continuation data reporting for
uncleared swaps) as 45.4(d). The
Commission also proposed to amend
45.4(d), which applies to all swaps
that are not cleared by a derivatives
clearing organization, to add the phrase
including swaps executed on or
pursuant to the rules of a swap
execution facility or designated contract
market.131 This proposed change
would clarify the existing requirement
that reporting counterparties report all
required swap continuation data for an
uncleared swap, irrespective of whether
the swap was executed off-facility (in
which case the reporting counterparty
must report required swap creation
data), or whether the swap was executed
on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF or
DCM (in which case the SEF or DCM
129 See
80 FR 52544, 5255253.
80 FR 52544, 5253233.
131 See 80 FR 52544, 52553.
130 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
must report the required swap creation

data).132
Finally, the Commission proposed to
modify the introductory language to
45.4 and 45.4(d)(1)(ii)(A) to remove
outdated references to compliance dates
that have already expired.133
3. Comments Received
The Commission received numerous
comments on its proposed revisions to
45.4.134 Below is a summary of
comments for each of the primary
revisions and additions to 45.4.
i. Comments on Proposed Revisions to
45.4(b)
The proposed amendment to
45.4(b)(2), requiring only DCOs to
submit valuation data for clearing
swaps, was widely supported in the
comment letters. Although one
commenter contended that valuation
data from SD/MSP swap counterparties
is valuable information and that the
Commission should require such
information from SD/MSP
counterparties for all swaps, cleared or
uncleared,135 many commenters to the
IDWG Request for Comment and NPRM
stated that only the DCO should have
the responsibility to report valuation
data for cleared swaps, and that the
Commission should eliminate the
requirement for an SD or MSP to report
valuation data for cleared swaps.136 One
commenter noted that valuation data
and mark-to-market value data provided
by DCOs are sufficient for the
Commission to understand clearing
swap valuations, particularly because
the DCOs valuation method is the
industry standard.137
132 See 17 CFR 45.3(b)(d) (creation data reporting
requirements for off-facility swaps) and 17 CFR
45.3(a) (creation data reporting requirements for
swaps executed on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF
or DCM). See also Section II.B.4.iii supra.
133 See 80 FR 52544, 52553.
134 The Commission did not receive any comment
directly addressing the conforming changes to
45.4(a) or renumber and amended 45.4(d). The
Commission received a comment from FSR on
continuation data for amortizing swaps. See FSR
Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. Because the NPRM was
limited to revisions of 45.4 as it relates to clearing
swaps, FSRs request is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
135 See Markit May 27, 2014 Letter, at 1011
(arguing that the Commission might receive
valuable information from valuations reported by
counterparties).
136 See ABA May 27, 2014 Letter, at 2; CME May
27, 2014 Letter, at 910; FSR May 27, 2014 Letter,
at 2; ITV May 27, 2014 Letter, at 2, 10, 15; ISDA
May 27, 2014 Letter, at 1314; JBA May 27, 2014
Letter, at 23; MFA May 27, 2014 Letter, at 2, 4;
NGSA May 27, 2014 Letter, at 45; AIMA Oct. 30,
2015 Letter, at 6; ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5;
JBA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; FSR Oct. 30, 2015
Letter, at 3.
137 See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. Eurex also
stated that information on posted collateral could
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41747
ii. Comments on Proposed Revisions to

45.4(c)
Commenters were split on support of
proposed 45.4(c), which would require
the DCO to report continuation data on
the original swaps once they are
accepted for clearing to the SDR to
which the original swap was originally
reported. ISDA strongly supported the
revision, stating that it would eliminate
the issue of cleared alpha swaps that
had not been terminated, which
negatively affects data quality. ISDA
commented that DCOs should be
allowed to report continuation data as
either lifecycle event data or state
data.138 DTCC, in its response to the
IDWG Request for Comment, also
supported requiring DCOs to report
terminations of original swaps.139
However, DTCC commented that some
DCOs fail to submit termination of
original swaps to DTCC according to
DTCCs technical standards.140 CEWG
commented that DCOs were in the best
position to report all data on original
and clearing swaps, although it believes
the original swap should not be
reported.141
CME commented that under the
proposed division of reporting
obligations for original swaps and
clearing swaps, DCOs are dependent on
original swap counterparties providing
sufficient information on the original
swaps to fulfill reporting obligations on
terminations of the original swap.142
CME noted that counterparties rarely
provided this information, meaning that
DCOs cannot effectively terminate
original swaps. As an alternative, CME
proposed that DCOs should be the
reporting party for creation and
continuation data for both original and
clearing swaps.143
In contrast, some commenters
recommended that the clearing member,
and not the DCO, should report
termination of the original swap to the
be a useful data point for the Commission, but the
original counterparties would be in a better position
than the DCO to report such information. Eurex also
stated that DCOs could provide information on
margin, but that such data would require more
effort.
139 See DTCC May 27, 2014 Letter, at 7 (stating
that when an alpha swap is novated, the
Commission should require a DCO to submit
information about the beta and gamma swaps in
addition to the termination notice for the alpha
swap).
141 See CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. See
Section II.B.3, above, for discussion of CEWGs and
other commenters positions on reporting of
creation data for an original swap.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41748
SDR.144 Eurex stated that the clearing

member would already have
information on the original swap and a
connection to the SDR where the
original swap was reported, putting the
original reporting party in the best
position to report a termination.145 LCH
commented that having the original
reporting party report any continuation
events would avoid reporting gaps on
events occurring between creation and
clearing.146 LCH commented that
requiring DCOs to submit cancelations
of original swaps would be inconsistent
with reporting obligations under the
European Markets Infrastructure
Regulation (EMIR).147 LCH also
commented that the choice of original
swap SDR could become an eligibility
criterion for clearing, and that DCOs
could potentially reject swaps from
clearing based on the original swap
SDR.148 Eurex and LCH both noted that
the requirement would force DCOs to
connect to all registered SDRs and
report terminations according to the
technical requirements of each SDR.149
As an alternative, Eurex proposed that
DCOs be allowed to select the SDR to
which they report the termination of the
original swap.150
Regarding timing of reporting
ISDA supported the provision in new
45.4(c) allowing DCOs to report
continuation data on original swaps
daily and via either lifecycle event data
or state data.151 The Japanese Bankers
Association commented that original
swaps should be terminated as soon as
technologically practicable, to align
144 See OTC Hong Kong May 27, 2014 Letter, at
23. OTC Hong Kong stated that requiring the
original counterparty to report termination of the
alpha would be more cost-effective because the
original reporting counterparty is already required
to report creation data and life cycle event data of
such alpha to an SDR, and thus would already have
in place a technical and operational interface with
the SDR of its choice. The commenter also stated
that imposing an additional requirement on a DCO
to report termination of the alpha does not appear
to increase or improve the quantity and quality of
information already available to the Commission,
and that the burden on DCOs of the additional
reporting requirement appears to outweigh the
benefits to the Commission. See also LCH May 29,
2014 Letter, at 8 (stating that reporting entities
should already report terminations under the
obligation to report continuation data); LedgerX
147 See id.
148 See id.
149 Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 45; LCH Oct.
30, 2015 Letter, at 3.
150 Eurex also suggested that reporting of
terminations could be foregone entirely, as an
original swap, by definition, has been accepted for
clearing and ceases to exist. See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015
Letter, at 5.
151 ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
reporting on clearing swaps with

reporting on cleared futures transactions
under 1.74.152 Eurex commented that
terminations were the only lifecycle
events for original swaps that would
need to be reported as continuation
data.153
DTCC requested that the Commission
offer guidance on how SDRs, DCOs, and
any other affected entities should
address previously reported cleared
swaps for which the original swap had
not been terminated.154
iii. Comments on Proposed Additional
Continuation Data Fields To Be
Reported by DCOs
Several commenters asserted that the
most cost-effective method for
establishing a link between the original
swaps and the swaps that replace the
original swap upon acceptance for
clearing is to include the USI of the
original swap as a prior USI for the beta
and gamma swaps.155 Several
commenters to the IDWG Request for
Comment supported the concept of
requiring that the DCO provide USIs for
clearing swaps to the counterparties to
those swaps under proposed Section
45.5(d)(2).156 ISDA, DTCC and Markit
152 JBA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; see also LedgerX
Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3 (commenting that
termination of original swap should be reported as
soon as technologically practicable, but
commenting that reporting party of original swap
should have obligation to report termination).
153 Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. ISDA noted
that bunched orders may be cleared either pre- or
post-allocation, potentially creating multiple
clearing swaps for a single original swap. See ISDA
Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. ISDA commented that,
where allocation is done after clearing, DCOs
should report the USI of the pre-allocation swap as
the prior ISO on clearing swaps for the
allocations. Eurex commented that, in the event of
default by a clearing member, it attempts to auction
off the clearing swap. See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015
Letter, at 3. Eurex commented that it was unclear
whether the novation of an auctioned clearing swap
should be reported to the original swap SDR.
155 See CME May 27, 2014 Letter, at 10 (The
most effective and efficient method for achieving
linkage for all such events that have a one-to-one
relationship (i.e., assignment or exercise) or a oneto-many relationship (i.e., clearing, novation,
allocation) is by the inclusion of a prior USI(s).);
DTCC letter appendix at 3 (stating that a new swap
can generally be linked to an existing swaps
through the use of a prior USI data field); ISDA
May 23, 2014 Letter, at 11 (Related swaps sent to
different SDRs can also be linked via use of the USI.
. . .); Markit May 27, 2014 Letter, at 8 (arguing
that the most effective method to establish a link
between new and existing swaps is to store the USI
of the original swap as a prior USI).
156 See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7; Eurex
Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7; ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter,
at 7. ITV also commented on requirements for SDRs
to transmit USIs to non-reporting counterparties for
swaps between non-swap dealers or major swap
participants, not executed on a DCM or SEF under
existing Section 45.5(c)(2). ITV Oct. 30, 2015 Letter,
at 4. Because the NPRM did not propose to amend
45.5(c)(2), this comment is beyond the scope of
the proposed rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
generally supported the requirement

that DCOs include the USI of the
original swap when reporting clearing
swaps, but objected to requiring
additional fields linking original and
clearing swaps as redundant.157 LCH
suggested that there should be a
standardized format for reporting
terminations of original swaps that must
be accepted by all SDRs.158
4. Final Rule Text
Having considered the comments
received, the Commission has decided
to adopt the amendments to 45.4 as
proposed.
i. Conforming Changes to 45.4(a)
Receiving no comments on the
conforming changes to 45.4(a), the
Commission adopts these changes as
proposed. The changes clarify that the
standards for reporting continuation
data in 45.4(a) apply to all
continuation events regardless of asset
class or whether the swap is uncleared,
an original swap, or a clearing swap.
ii. Revisions to 45.4(b)
The Commission notes support among
market participants for the amendment
to 45.4 removing the requirement that
SDs and MSPs report valuation data for
clearing swaps. The Commission adopts
this revision, codifying existing noaction relief,159 as proposed.
iii. Addition of 45.4(c)Continuation
Data Reporting for Original Swaps
The Commission notes the different
opinions offered by commenters on the
proposed addition of 45.4(c), which
would require DCOs to report
continuation data, including
terminations, of original swaps. The
Commission has considered the
alternative approaches to reporting
original swap terminations that were
proposed by commenters, such as
requiring original swap reporting parties
to report terminations; requiring DCOs
to report both original and clearing
swaps; and allowing DCOs to select the
SDR for original swap terminations. The
Commission believes that its proposed
method best incorporates existing
industry practice, whereby DCOs
generally report clearing swaps as well
as submitting termination messages on
original swaps, thereby limiting
additional costs. It may be more
burdensome for the counterparties to
the original swaps to report
terminations because they would have
157 See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6; DTCC Oct.
30, 2015 Letter, at 8; Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter,
at 3.
159 See CFTC Letter 1538 (Jun. 12, 2015).
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
to receive messages from the DCO
confirming that the original swap was
accepted for clearing, then translate that
message from the DCO into a
termination message to the SDR. This
may be particularly burdensome for
commercial end-users executing swaps
on SEFs or DCMs who might otherwise
have no reporting obligations and who
may not have the infrastructure in place
to report as quickly or as efficiently as
DCOs.160
On the other hand, requiring DCOs to
report creation and continuation data
for both original and clearing swaps
could slow the reporting of original
swaps for part 43 and part 45 purposes.
DCOs would need to receive messages
from the counterparties, or from the SEF
or DCM where executed on-facility,
with all information necessary to report
the swap that becomes an original swap.
The DCO would then need to transmit
such information to the SDR of its
choice. Introducing an extra step in
reporting would inherently slow
reporting, which must be done as soon
as technologically practicable
particularly for transparency reasons. At
the same time, requiring DCOs to report
original swaps for part 43 and part 45
purposes would require DCOs to obtain
information beyond what would be
needed for clearing purposes, thus
increasing the burden on DCOs.
Finally, the Commission has
considered the alternative proposal that
DCOs be allowed to report an original
swap termination to an SDR other than
that where the original swap was
reported. Adoption of this alternative
approach could result in significant data
fragmentation, as data on a single swap
could be housed at more than one SDR.
Additionally, this alternative approach
would render useless any position
reports generated by an SDR, as the SDR
(or market participant accessing its own
data on an SDR) could not determine if
the swaps it housed are still in effect,
thereby removing a potential validation
tool for market participants.161
Having considered these alternatives
as suggested by commenters, the
160 See
supra, n. 26, for discussion of reporting

obligations for on-facility cleared swaps.
161 The Commission notes that the approach
adopted could generate some degree of data
fragmentation, as reports on the original swaps may
be housed at a different SDR from reports on its
clearing swaps. However, the Commission believes
this issue can be overcome for its regulatory
purposesnamely risk analysis and market
surveillanceif the Commission is able to pull
accurate data on individual swaps from each of the
registered SDRs. Moreover, accurate reporting of
original swap USIs and SDR identities in clearing
swaps reporting, and accurate clearing swaps USIs
and SDR identities in original swaps terminations,
would allow for easy tracking of the lifecycle of a
cleared swap transaction.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
Commission has determined to adopt

the amendments to 45.4 as it has
proposed. The Commission believes that
DCOs are in the best position to report
the termination of an original swap
because the DCO, through the clearing
process, has all information needed to
report such terminations. By virtue of its
decision to accept a swap for clearing
and to extinguish the swap upon
acceptance,162 a DCO will be the first
entity to know that clearing occurred
and that the original swap should be
terminated, putting the DCO in the best
position to report terminations quickly.
DCOs can build original swap
terminations into their systems
architecture, allowing for fast,
consistent, and accurate
terminations.163
DCOs will also have all information
needed to terminate the original swap
based on the swap submitted for
clearing. Data required for such
termination messages would either be
generated by the DCO itself (such as
clearing swap USIs and clearing swap
SDR LEIs) or could be included in any
message submitting a swap for clearing
(such as the USI of the original swap
and the LEI of the original swap SDR).
While CME commented that clearing
members have not consistently included
original swap USI and LEI of the
original swap SDR in messages
transmitted to the DCO for clearing, the
Commission notes that DCOs could
require their clearing members to
provide such information. As proposed,
45.4(c) would require DCOs to report
these fields. DCOs must obtain the
relevant information from their clearing
members.
iv. Addition of Continuation Data Fields
To Be Reported by DCOs
comments opposing the creation of
required continuation data fields to be
reported by DCOs for original swaps.
The Commission has also considered
ISDAs comment regarding the potential
redundancy of having USIs of clearing
swaps transmitted in the termination
message for the original swap, as well as
162 See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6). Through its rules, the
DCO determines whether or not a swap that is
submitted for clearing becomes an original swap.
163 The Commission has also considered LCHs
comment that EMIR puts the original swap
termination obligation on the original swap parties.
Placing reporting obligations on one party under
CFTC regulations, and on another party under
EMIR, would not create a direct conflict as both
parties would be able to satisfy their respective
regulatory obligations. The Commission recognizes
that this situation could result in two termination
messages for the same original swap, but this
should not have a negative impact on the quality
of SDR data.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41749
having the USI of the original swap in

the creation data for the clearing swaps.
The Commission believes that
reporting the clearing swaps USIs as
continuation data for the original swap
is an efficient mechanism for linking
clearing swaps to the original swap that
they replace and should be used for this
purpose. New 45.4(c)(2) will thus
require DCOs to include the following
additional enumerated data elements
when reporting continuation data for
original swaps pursuant to proposed
45.4(c)(1): (i) The legal entity identifier
(LEI) of the SDR to which each
clearing swap for a particular original
swap was reported by the DCO pursuant
to new 45.3(e); (ii) the USI of the
original swap that was replaced by the
clearing swaps; 164 and (iii) the USI for
the clearing swaps that replace the
original swap.
As adopted, these data fields will
enable the DCO to fulfill its
continuation data reporting obligations,
enable the SDR to maintain the accuracy
and completeness of swap transaction
data, enable the Commission to track the
life of a cleared swap transaction, and
enable the Commission to monitor
compliance with the clearing mandate.
In particular, inclusion within an
original swap termination message the
LEI of the clearing swap SDR will
permit the Commission and other
regulators to ascertain the SDR where
the clearing swaps associated with a
particular original swap reside, which
will enable the Commission and other
regulators to review and more
effectively associate data available at
multiple SDRs in circumstances where
the reporting entity or counterparty
selects one SDR for the original swap
and the DCO selects a different SDR for
the clearing swaps under 45.3.
Inclusion of the original swaps USI is
necessary to enable the original swap
SDR to associate continuation data
reported by the DCO with the initial
creation data reported by a SEF/DCM or
reporting counterparty pursuant to
45.3(a) through (d).165 These data will
164 See existing 45.5(a)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(iii), &
(c)(2)(ii) (requiring the entity that created the USI
to transmit the USI of a swap to the DCO, if any,
to which the swap is submitted for clearing, as part
of the required swap creation data transmitted to
the derivatives clearing organization for clearing
purposes). Proposed revisions to 45.5 are
described in Section II.D of this release.
165 For instance, inclusion of the USI of the
original swap in DCO continuation data reporting
will permit the SDR receiving such continuation
data to associate data regarding a life cycle event
such as termination with the existing data
maintained for the swap. This will help ensure that
data in the SDR remains current and accurate and
will enable the Commission and other regulators to
ascertain whether a swap remains in existence or
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
Continued
27JNR2
41750
allow SDRs to validate termination

messages reported by DCOs by ensuring
that the termination message has the
same USI as the original report.
Similarly, in the case of clearing swaps
that replace an original swap, inclusion
of the USIs of the clearing swaps will
permit the Commission and other
regulators to identify the specific
clearing swaps that replaced an original
swap, thereby presenting a full history
of the cleared swap transaction.
Together, the revisions to 45.4(b)
and the addition of 45.4(c) will require
the reporting of continuation data for
original swaps and clearing swaps.
Accordingly, the Commission expects
that records of original swaps that have
been terminated would include the USIs
for the clearing swaps that replaced the
original swap and the LEI of the clearing
swap SDR, such that review of an
original swap would permit the
identification of the resulting clearing
swaps and the SDR where they resides.
These provisions will reflect the
regulations applicable to DCOs outlined
in part 39 of the Commissions
regulations and will clearly delineate
the continuation data reporting
obligations associated with each swap
involved in a cleared swap
transaction.166
The Commission is mindful of LCHs
suggestion that there be an industrywide standard for original swap
termination messages and DTCCs
comment that termination reports often
do not comply with SDR specifications.
To help DCOs comply with the
requirements of amended 45.4, the
Commission encourages DCOs and
SDRs to develop an industry-wide
standard for original swap termination
messages. The Commission anticipates
that original swap termination messages
could be standardized given the limited
number of data elements that must be
transmitted, such as clearing swap USIs,
DCO LEIs, and clearing swap SDR LEIs.
Standardization also would alleviate
LCHs concern that the original swaps
SDR would become a factor in
determining whether a swap was
eligible for clearing.
conflicting comments on whether
original swap terminations should be
reported at the end of the day or as soon
as technologically practicable. The
Commission has determined to adopt
the amendment as proposed and require
reporting original swap terminations at

the end of the day, as this would be
consistent with reporting other types of
continuation data under 45.4.
v. Revisions to 45.4(d)
The Commission received no
comments on the proposed revisions to
45.4(d), and is adopting those revision
as proposed.
D. Unique Swap Identifiers
Amendments to Section 45.5
1. Existing 45.5
Existing 45.5 requires that each
swap subject to the Commissions
jurisdiction be identified in all
recordkeeping and all swap data
reporting by the use of a USI. The rule
establishes different requirements for
the creation and transmission of USIs
depending on whether the swap is
executed on a SEF or DCM ( 45.5(a)),
executed off-facility with an SD or MSP
reporting counterparty ( 45.5(b)), or
executed off-facility with a non-SD/MSP
reporting counterparty ( 45.5(c)).
Existing 45.5 provides that for swaps
executed on a SEF or DCM, the SEF or
DCM creates the USI, and for swaps not
executed on a SEF or DCM, the USI is
created by an SD or MSP reporting
counterparty, or by the SDR if the
reporting counterparty is not an SD or
MSP.167
With the exception of swaps with a
non-SD/MSP reporting counterparty, the
existing rule generally requires USI
creation and transmission to be carried
out by the entity or counterparty
required to report all required swap
creation data for the swap. Existing
45.5 thus does not distinguish between
original and clearing swaps, does not
provide USI creation and transmission
requirements specifically for DCOs, and
consequently does not provide for the
issuance to DCOs of a USI namespace,
which is one of two component parts of
a USI.168
The Commission understands that, in
practice, SEFs/DCMs and reporting
counterparties, or SDRs in the case of
non-SD/MSP reporting counterparties,
generate and assign USIs for swaps that
would become original swaps under the
proposed rules, and that DCOs generate
and assign USIs to swaps that would
qualify as clearing swaps in connection
with reporting required swap creation
data for clearing swaps to SDRs.
167 See
has been extinguished upon acceptance for clearing

by a DCO.
166 See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6). Part 45 currently
requires all swap data and information reported to
and maintained by an SDR regarding a given swap
to be current and accurate and to include all
changes to a swap. See 17 CFR 45.4(a).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
17 CFR 45.5(a)(c).
168 See, e.g., 17 CFR 45.5(a)(1)(i), (b)(1)(i) and
(c)(1)(i) (the data component of a USI commonly
referred to as a namespace is the unique
alphanumeric code assigned to the registered entity
responsible for generating the USI for the purpose
of identifying such registered entity with respect to
USI creation).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700

The Commission proposed to
renumber existing 45.5(d) as 45.5(e),
and to create a new 45.5(d) that would
set forth requirements regarding the
creation and transmission of USIs for
clearing swaps.169
As proposed, 45.5(d)(1) would
require a DCO to generate and assign a
USI for each clearing swap upon, or as
soon as technologically practicable after,
acceptance of an original swap by the
DCO for clearing (or execution of a
clearing swap that does not replace an
original swap), and prior to reporting
the required swap creation data for each
clearing swap.170 Proposed 45.5(d)(1)
would also require that the USI for each
clearing swap consist of two data
components: A unique alphanumeric
code assigned to the DCO by the
Commission for the purpose of
identifying the DCO with respect to USI
creation, and an alphanumeric code
generated and assigned to that clearing
swap by the automated systems of the
DCO. These proposed USI creation
requirements and data components for
DCOs and clearing swaps are consistent
with those currently required by part 45
for other registered entities such as
SEFs, DCMs, and SDRs.171
require a DCO to transmit the USI for a
clearing swap electronically to the SDR
to which the DCO reports required swap
creation data for the clearing swap, as
part of that report, and to the DCOs
counterparty with respect to that
clearing swap, as soon as
technologically practicable after either
acceptance of the original swap by the
DCO for clearing or execution of a
original swap.172
Finally, the Commission proposed to
amend 45.5(a), 45.8(f), and 45.10(a) to
incorporate the language or pursuant to
the rules of to the phrase swaps
executed on a swap execution facility or
designated contract market to make
clear that those provisions currently
apply to all swaps executed on or
pursuant to the rules of a SEF or
DCM.173
The Commission received several
comments regarding its proposed
amendments to 45.5.174 All comments
169 The Commission also proposes conforming
amendments to renumber existing 45.5(e) as
45.5(f).
170 See 80 FR 52544, 52554.
171 See, e.g., 17 CFR 45.5(a), 45.5(c).
172 See 80 FR 52544, 52554.
173 See 80 FR 52544, 52554.
174 ITV requested that the Commission remove
the obligation for SDRs, when a swap is executed
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
received were supportive of the
amendment to 45.5(d)(1), which
requires DCOs to generate USIs for
clearing swaps.175
FSR requested that the Commission
adopt ISDA best practices for
identifying international swaps,
including allowing for the use of a USI
as a unique transaction identifier
(UTI) for reporting swaps in other
jurisdictions.176 FSR commented that
adopting the ISDA best practice
concerning USIs would avoid potential
double-counting when an international
swap is reported to two separate SDRs
in two jurisdictions.177
ISDA commented that, in principal
model clearing, the DCO should ensure
that both the DCOs clearing member
and the ultimate counterparty (if not the
clearing member) receive the clearing
swap USIs.178 ISDA further noted that
the current Orders of Exemption issued
to foreign DCOs do not include an
obligation for those exempt DCOs to
generate the USIs for reportable clearing
swaps.179
4. Final Rule Text of 45.5

relating to the purpose and scope of the
proposed amendments to 45.5, the
Commission is adopting amended 45.5
as proposed. The proposed 45.5(d)
provisions that would govern creation
and assignment of USIs by the DCO
with respect to clearing swaps would be
consistent with the Commissions firsttouch approach to USI creation for
SEFs, DCMs, SDs, MSPs, and SDRs.180
The Commission notes ISDAs request
for guidance on whether DCOs must
ensure, in the principal clearing mode,
that the ultimate counterparty (when
not the clearing member) receive the
USI of the clearing swaps. As noted
between two non-SD/MSPs and the SDR is
obligated to create the USI, to transmit the USI to
the counterparties. ITV commented that this could
create obligations for SDRs to transmit information
to parties not enrolled with the SDR. The
Commission has noted this comment, but it is
beyond the scope of the NPRM.
175 See ITV Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3 (but noting
that generation of the USI for a clearing swap by
the SDR would slow acceptance of swaps in the
clearing process); ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7
(also suggesting that the Commission require the
namespace component of USIs for each DCO be
made publicly available); AIMA Oct. 30, 2015
Letter, at 7.
176 See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4.
177 See id.
2158 (Jan. 13, 2012). The Commissions approach
with respect to SEFs, DCMs, SDs, MSPs, and SDRs
was designed to foster efficiency by taking
advantage of the technological sophistication and
capabilities of such entities, while ensuring that a
swap is identified by a USI from its inception.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
above, the Commission is aware of

various issues relating to reporting of
principal model clearing but will not
offer further guidance at this time. The
Commission notes ISDAs comment that
the current Orders of Exemption for
foreign DCOs do not include a
requirement that the DCO generate USIs
for reportable clearing swaps. Finally,
the Commission notes FSRs request for
the Commission to align the use of USIs
and UTIs for reporting international
swaps. While the Commission declines
to address the issue in this release as it
is beyond the scope of the NPRM, the
Commission is cognizant of the need to
harmonize reporting across jurisdictions
and will continue to work with other
regulators to address this and other
issues.
E. Determination of Which Counterparty
Must ReportAmendments to 45.8
1. Existing 45.8
Existing 45.8 sets forth a hierarchy
under which the reporting counterparty
for a particular swap depends on the
nature of the counterparties involved in
the transaction. Regulation 45.8 assigns
a reporting counterparty for off-facility
swaps, for which the reporting
counterparty must report all required
swap creation data, as well as for swaps
a SEF or DCM, for which the SEF or
DCM must report all required swap
creation data.
The Commission proposed to add
paragraph (i) to 45.8 in order to
explicitly provide that the DCO will be
the reporting counterparty for clearing
swaps.181 The Commission also
proposed to amend the introductory
language of 45.8 to make clear that the
reporting counterparty for all swaps
except clearing swaps will be made as
provided in paragraphs (a) through (h)
of 45.8, while the reporting
counterparty for clearing swaps will be
made as provided in paragraph (i) of
45.8. The Commission further
proposed to remove the language if
available from 45.8(h)(1)(i) to ensure
consistency with proposed changes to
appendix 1 to part 45. As discussed
below in addressing changes to the PET
data fields in appendix 1, the if
available language was only relevant
prior to availability of the LEI system.182
The Commission proposed to further
amend 45.8 to remove part of
paragraphs (d)(1) and (f)(1) and to
remove part of paragraph (h)(2) and all
of paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii), which
181 See
80 FR 52544, 5255455.
infra, Section II.H.1.i.
182 See,
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41751
require SEFs to notify counterparties to

a swap if it cannot determine who
would be the reporting counterparty.
Finally, the Commission proposed
conforming changes to explanatory
notes in the PET data tables in appendix
1 to part 45 that reference the situation
described in 45.8(h)(2).
The Commission received six
comments in connection with its
proposed amendments to 45.8. One
commenter supported proposed 45.8(i)
as it would promote efficiency in
reporting by explicitly designating the
DCO as the reporting party for clearing
swaps.183
ISDA noted a potential inconsistency
between reporting obligations under
parts 43 and 45 for clearing swaps, as
DCOs are not included in the hierarchy
under 43.3 for determining reporting
party of real-time reporting.184 ISDA
suggested that this could result in
duplicative reporting obligations for
DCOs and clearing members in
situations where a clearing swap does
not replace an original swap.
EEI/EPSA requested that the
Commission not remove, as proposed,
the provisions in 45.8(d)(1) and (f)(1),
which currently require the
counterparties to select the reporting
party, where the swap is executed on a
SEF or DCM and both counterparties
have the same SD, MSP or financial
entity status.185 The commenter
requested that the provisions be left in
place because the proposed rule did not
set out how the reporting party would
be determined. ITV argued that the
reporting hierarchy in existing 45.8(c)
and (e), when applied to uncleared
swaps between end-users, particularly
in the commodity asset class, can
preclude end-users from negotiating
between themselves who the reporting
party would be.186 This may result in
the selection of a reporting party who
has less technical infrastructure than the
non-reporting counterparty.187 ISDA
encourage SEFs to adopt the ISDA asset
class tie-breaker logic (the ISDA RCP)
for determining reporting party for onSEF swaps.188
Two commenters noted that, with the
addition of proposed 45.8(i)
183 See
AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6.

186 See ITV Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4 and 6.
187 ITV also commented that it believes
counterparties should be permit to select the
reporting party for a swap when both counterparties
are non-SD/MSPs, regardless of financial entity
status or U.S. person status. See ITV Oct. 30, 2015
Letter, at 4.
184 See
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41752
addressing the reporting of clearing

swaps, the phrase or is cleared by a
derivatives clearing organization in
45.8(f) would become inapplicable.189
The commenters recommended that the
Commission remove this clause from
existing 45.8(f).
For the reasons expressed more fully
below, the Commission has decided to
adopt the amendments to 45.8 as
proposed.
The Commission has considered
ISDAs comment that the inclusion of
DCOs in the part 45 reporting hierarchy
could create inconsistencies between
part 43 and part 45 reporting obligations
for clearing swaps that do not replace
original swaps. Existing 43.3(a)(3) sets
out the reporting hierarchy for real-time
reporting of off-facility swaps. DCOs are
not included in this hierarchy, but the
hierarchy is applicable unless otherwise
agreed to by the parties prior to the
execution of the publicly reportable
swap transaction.190 To the extent that
clearing swaps are reportable events
under part 43, the Commission notes
that DCOs and their clearing members
could agree that the DCO should be the
reporting party for part 43 purposes
pursuant to the unless otherwise
agreed clause of 43.3(a)(3). It is only
if the DCO and its clearing member did
not so agree would the clearing member
have part 43 reporting obligations for
some clearing swaps pursuant to the
reporting hierarchy under 43.3. The
Commission therefore declines in this
rule release to include DCOs in the part
43 real-time reporting hierarchy.
comments from EEI/EPSA and ITV
regarding the removal of provisions in
45.8(d)(1) and (f)(1) governing the
selection of reporting parties for swaps
executed on SEFs and DCMs. As was
explained in the preamble to the NPRM,
the Commission proposed to remove
these provisions to help preserve
parties anonymity on SEFs and DCMs,
in particular for swaps cleared through
a straight-through-processing
mechanism.191 SEFs have adopted
various formulas to determine who will
be the reporting party when both
counterparties have the same SD, MSP,
financial entity, and U.S. Person status.
These formulas will ensure that
reporting parties are selected
consistently. Therefore, the Commission
is adopting amendments to 45.9(d)(1)
and (f)(1) as proposed. In addressing
189 See EEI/EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4; CMC
190 17 CFR 43.3(a)(3).
191 See 80 FR 52544, 52555.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
ISDAs comment regarding the ISDA

RCP, the Commission declines to adopt
or impose any particular formula at this
time for selecting the reporting party,
instead leaving such determinations to
the SEFs.
EEI/EPSAs and CMCs comments
regarding the continued inclusion of the
phrase or is cleared by a derivatives
clearing organization in 45.8(f). The
Commission notes that existing 45.8(f)
addresses reporting hierarchy for certain
categories of reportable swaps executed
between two non-U.S. Persons; one
category of such reportable swaps is a
swap cleared through a DCO. The
Commission notes that the swap
cleared by a derivatives clearing
organization in this provision relates to
the original swap between the original
counterparties, and not the clearing
swaps with the DCO. The Commission
is adopting 45.8(f) as proposed, with
the continued inclusion of the phrase
cleared by a derivatives clearing
organization.
F. Reporting to a Single Swap Data
RepositoryAmendments to 45.10
1. Existing 45.10
Existing 45.10 requires all swap
data for a given swap to be reported to
a single SDR, which must be the same
SDR to which creation data for that
swap is first reported. The time and
manner in which such data must be
reported to a single SDR depends on
whether the swap is executed on a SEF
or DCM,192 executed off-facility with an
SD/MSP reporting counterparty,193 or
executed off-facility with a non-SD/MSP
reporting counterparty.194 Currently,
45.10(b) and (c) also provide
circumstances in which a reporting
counterparty is excused from reporting
PET data to an SDR because the swap
is accepted for clearing by a DCO before
the applicable reporting deadline.
In order to further clarify that all
swap data for a given swap
encompasses all swap data required to
be reported pursuant to parts 43 and 45
of the Commissions regulations, the
Commission proposed to add language
to this effect to paragraphs (a) through
(c) and to the introductory language of
45.10.195 This proposed additional
language would clarify the existing
requirement that registered entities and
reporting counterparties must provide
all swap data required under parts 43
192 See
17 CFR 45.10(a).
17 CFR 45.10(b)
194 See 17 CFR 45.10(c).
195 See 80 FR 52544, 5255556.
193 See
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and 45 to a single SDR for a given

swap.196
The Commission also proposed to
remove 45.10(b)(2) and (c)(2),197
which are no longer applicable because
they reference provisions in 45.3(b)(1),
(c)(1)(i), and (c)(2)(i) that, as discussed
above, the Commission proposed to
remove.198
proposed to add new 45.10(d), which
would govern clearing swaps and would
establish explicit requirements that
DCOs report all required swap creation
data and all required swap continuation
data for each clearing swap to a single
SDR.199 Specifically, proposed
45.10(d)(1) would require a DCO to
report all required swap creation data
for a particular clearing swap to a single
SDR. As proposed, 45.10(d)(1) would
also require the DCO to transmit the LEI
of the SDR to which it reported the
required swap creation data for each
clearing swap to the counterparty of
each clearing swap, as soon as
technologically practicable after either
acceptance of the original swap by the
DCO for clearing or execution of a
original swap.200
swap continuation data for a particular
clearing swap to the same SDR that
received the initial swap creation data
for the clearing swap required by
45.10(d)(1). In the event there are two
or more clearing swaps that replace a
particular original swap, and in the
event there are equal and opposite
clearing swaps that are created upon
execution of the same transaction and
that do not replace an original swap,
proposed 45.10(d)(3) would require
the DCO to report all required swap
creation and continuation data for each
such clearing swap to a single SDR.201
196 The Commission also proposed to repeat the
language Off-facility swaps with a swap dealer or
major swap participant reporting counterparty
from the title of 45.10(b) in the body of that
regulation to make clear that the requirement
pertains to off-facility swaps with an SD or MSP.
197 The Commission also proposed conforming
amendments to 45.10 to renumber paragraph
(b)(3) as (b)(2), paragraph (c)(3) as (c)(2), and
paragraph (c)(4) as (c)(3). The Commission also
proposed to remove a reference to 45.10(c)(2) from
existing 45.10(c)(4) because the Commission
proposed to remove 45.10(c)(2).
198 See Section II.B.2.ii, supra.
199 See 80 FR 52544, 5255556.
200 See 80 FR 52544, 5255556.
201 The Commission notes that proposed
45.10(d)(3) would require any equal and opposite
clearing swaps, including those resulting from the
operation of 39.12(b)(6) of the Commissions
regulations, to be reported to a single SDR,
regardless of whether such clearing swaps replaced
an original swap.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
Accordingly, all required creation and
continuation data for all clearing swaps
that can be traced back to the same
original swap (and for all equal and
opposite clearing swaps that are created
upon execution of the same transaction
but that do not replace an original swap)
will be reported to a single SDR.
The Commission noted in its proposal
that by operation of proposed new
45.8(i) and (j) and proposed 45.3(e),
there may be scenarios in which the
SEF/DCM or reporting counterparty
reports required swap creation data for
the swap that became the original swap
to one SDR, and the DCO reports
required swap creation data for the
clearing swaps that replace the original
swap to a different SDR.202 The
Commission proposed to require that all
swap data for the clearing swaps that
can be traced back to the same original
swap be reported to the same SDR, but
did not require that the clearing swaps
be reported to the same SDR as the
original swap.203
The Commission included in the
NPRM the following example to
illustrate the application of proposed
45.10: 204
Swap 1 is intended to be submitted to
a DCO for clearing and executed on or
pursuant to the rules of a SEF. The SEF
reports all required creation data for
such swap to registered SDR A pursuant
to 45.3(a), which was selected by the
SEF pursuant to proposed 45.3(j)(1),
and submits the swap to the DCO for
clearing. Upon acceptance of Swap 1 for
clearing, the DCO extinguishes Swap 1
and replaces it with Swap 2 and Swap
3, both of which are clearing swaps.
Swap 1 is now an original swap.
Proposed 45.4(c) would require the
DCO to report the termination of Swap
1 to SDR A,205 reflecting that Swap 1,
now an original swap, has been
terminated through clearing
novation.206 The DCO would also report
all required swap creation data for
clearing Swap 2 to a single SDR of its
choice (say, for example, SDR B)
pursuant to proposed 45.3(e) and
(j)(2), and 45.10(d).207 Similarly, the
DCO would be required to report all
required swap creation data for clearing
Swap 3 to a single SDR, in this case SDR
202 See
80 FR 52556.
id.
204 See 80 FR 52544, 52556.
205 Pursuant to proposed 45.10(a)(2), (b)(2), and
(c)(3), continuation data for original swaps must be
reported to the SDR where the first report of
required swap creation data was made for the swap.
206 Pursuant to existing 45.13(b), the DCO shall
use the facilities, methods, or data standards
provided or required by SDR A. 17 CFR 45.13(b).
207 The Commission notes that pursuant to
proposed 45.10(a)(d), the DCO in this example
could select an SDR other than SDR A.
203 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
B. Pursuant to proposed 45.10(d)(3),

the DCO would be required to report all
required swap creation data for clearing
Swap 2 and clearing Swap 3 to the same
SDR (SDR B) because Swap 2 and Swap
3 replaced Swap 1. Thereafter, proposed
45.10(d)(2) would require the DCO to
report all required swap creation data
and continuation data to the SDR where
the first report of required swap creation
data for both clearing Swap 2 and
clearing Swap 3 was made (SDR B).
The Commission received three
comments addressing its proposed
amendments to 45.10.208 AIMA
supported the Commissions proposal
clarifying that the DCO is obligated to
report creation and continuation data
for clearing swaps to a single SDR.209
ISDA opposed the requirement in
proposed 45.10(d)(1) that a DCO
transmit to the counterparties of
clearing swaps the LEI of the SDR to
which the clearing swaps were
reported.210 ISDA doubted the value of
such information for the clearing swap
counterparties, and opined that
counterparties are unlikely to build
mechanisms to retain such information
on a transactional basis.211 ISDA also
noted that a DCO would be separately
required to send a termination of the
original swap to the original swaps
SDR, and this report would include the
LEI of the SDR to which the clearing
swaps are reported, making a report of
such data to the counterparties
redundant.212
DTCC opposed the provision in
proposed 45.10(d)(1) that would allow
a DCO to select the SDR for reporting
clearing swaps, instead arguing that
clearing swaps should be reported to the
same SDR as the original swap.213 DTCC
argued that such reporting would create
data fragmentation between the original
swap and related clearing swaps.
Having considered all of the
comments relating to the purpose and
scope of the proposed amendments to
45.10, including amendments to
45.10(a) through (c) and new
45.10(d), the Commission is adopting
amended 45.10 as proposed. The
requirements for DCOs demonstrated in
the above example and contained in
208 An additional comment letter addressed the
issue of portability of swaps reporting between
SDRs. See ITV Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 34. The
portability issue is beyond the scope of the NPRM.
211 Id.
212 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41753
proposed 45.10(d)(1) and (2) are

consistent with the existing
requirements for SEFs, DCMs, and other
reporting counterparties under current
45.10. By requiring that all swap data
for each clearing swap be reported to a
single SDR, proposed 45.10(d)(1) and
(2) further the Commissions stated
purpose in creating 45.10, and part 45
generally, of reducing fragmentation of
data for a given swap across multiple
SDRs.214
The proposed requirement in
45.10(d)(3) that the DCO report to a
single SDR all swap data for each
clearing swap that can be traced back to
the same original swap also supports the
goal of avoiding fragmentation of swap
data. Though clearing swaps are new
individual swaps, all clearing swaps
that issue from the same original swap
are component parts of a cleared swap
transaction. Fragmentation among
clearing swaps would needlessly impair
the ability of the Commission and other
regulators to view or aggregate all the
data concerning the related clearing
swaps.
While proposed 45.10 ensures that
each swap comprising a cleared swap
transaction is reported to a single SDR,
the Commission notes DTCCs
comments on data fragmentation where
original swaps are reported to different
SDRs than their resulting clearing
swaps. However, as long as DCOs
properly identify the original swaps
USI and SDR in reports on clearing
swaps, and report clearing swaps USIs
and SDR in terminations of the original
swaps, the Commission believes it will
be able to reconcile those transactions
when performing risk and other
analysis. As discussed in Section
II.C.4.iii above, the Commission has
considered various alternatives to the
adopted rules. The Commission believes
that the adopted amendments will
provide the Commission with the
information it needs to perform its
regulatory obligations while minimizing
214 See, e.g., Final Part 45 Rulemaking, 77 FR
2136, 2139 (To avoid fragmentation of data for a
given swap across multiple SDRs, the [Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking] [for part 45] would require
that all data for a particular swap must be reported
to the same SDR.); at 2143 (First, in order to
prevent fragmentation of data for a single swap
across multiple SDRs, which would seriously
impair the ability of the Commission and other
regulators to view or aggregate all of the data
concerning the swap, the proposed rule provided
that, once an initial data report concerning a swap
is made to an SDR, all data reported for that swap
thereafter must be reported to the same SDR.); and
at 2168 (The Commission believes the important
regulatory purposes of the Dodd-Frank Act would
be frustrated, and that regulators ability to see
necessary information concerning swaps could be
impeded, if data concerning a given swap was
spread over multiple SDRs.).
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41754
costs to market participants, SDRs, and

DCOs.
In response to ISDAs comment that
counterparties were unlikely to build
mechanisms to retain information on
the SDR to which clearing swaps were
reported, the Commission believes that
all swaps counterparties should be
aware of the SDR to which their swaps
are reported. The Commission notes that
under existing 45.14(b) non-reporting
parties to swaps have obligations to
correct any errors or omissions in swaps
data of which they become aware.
G. Examples of Cleared Swap Reporting
Workflows Under the Adopted Revisions
The following examples demonstrate
the manner in which the adopted
revisions and additions to part 45 rules
would operate in hypothetical scenarios
involving: (1) An off-facility swap not
subject to the clearing requirement with
an SD/MSP reporting counterparty; and
(2) a swap executed on or pursuant to
the rules of a SEF or DCM. All
references to part 45 appearing in the
following examples refer to the rules as
adopted in this release. These examples
are provided only for illustrative
purposes to demonstrate the
applicability of certain rules adopted in
this release in hypothetical scenarios.
The examples are not intended to
dictate any aspect of compliance,
reporting or other related processes and
are not intended to cover all possible
reporting circumstances.
1. Off-Facility Swap Not Subject to the

Clearing Requirement With SD/MSP
Reporting Counterparty
An off-facility swap that is not subject
to the clearing requirement is executed
with an SD reporting counterparty. The
SD generates and assigns a USI for the
swap pursuant to 45.5(b) and reports
all required swap creation data for the
swap to SDR A pursuant to 45.3(c).
The SD submits the swap to a DCO for
clearing and, pursuant to 45.10(b),
transmits to the DCO, at the time the
swap is submitted for clearing, the
identity of SDR A and the USI for the
swap.
The DCO accepts the swap for
clearing, extinguishing it and replacing
it with clearing swaps; the swap that
was submitted for clearing is now an
original swap. The DCO generates and
assigns a USI to each clearing swap
pursuant to 45.5(d) and, pursuant to
45.3(e), reports all required swap
creation data for the clearing swaps,
including the original swap USI and all
additional data fields applicable to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
clearing swaps,215 to SDR B, which the

DCO in this example selected pursuant
to 45.3(j)(2).
Pursuant to 45.4(c), the DCO would
report continuation data for the original
swap, including the original swap
termination notice, to SDR A using
either the life cycle or state data
methods, and using the facilities,
methods, or data standards provided or
required by SDR A.216 In addition to all
other necessary continuation data,
original swap continuation data
reported by the DCO, including the
original swap termination notice, would
also include: The LEI of SDR B (the SDR
to which creation data for each clearing
swap that replaced the particular
original swap was reported); 217 the USI
of the original swap as transmitted to
the DCO by the SD at the time the swap
was submitted for clearing; and the USI
for each clearing swap.
The DCO would also transmit to each
counterparty to the clearing swaps, as
soon as technologically practicable after
acceptance for clearing, the USI of each
clearing swap pursuant to 45.5(d)(2)
and the LEI of the SDR to which the
clearing swap was reported pursuant to
45.10(d)(1).
The DCO would have no further
with respect to the original swap
thereafter. However, the Commission
notes that pursuant to 45.14, registered
entities and counterparties required to
report swap data to an SDR must report
any known errors and omissions in the
data reported.218 Additionally, non215 Modifications to appendix 1 would require
that PET data include the original swap USI and all
data categories and fields applicable to clearing
swaps. See infra, Section II.H.3.
216 See 17 CFR 45.13(b).
217 The Commission notes that the amended
45.4(c)(2)(i) requirement that the DCO include the
LEI of the SDR to which all required swap creation
data for each clearing swap was reported by the
DCO applies whether or not swap data for the
original and clearing swaps is reported to the same
SDR or to different SDRs. The Commission expects
that this information will be useful for regulators
with respect to their review of data pertaining to
cleared swap transactions, and to SDRs with respect
to their processing of swap data received, even
when the original and clearing swaps reside in the
same SDR.
218 While the DCO would have no additional
continuation data reporting requirement with
respect to the original swap after reporting the
termination upon acceptance for clearing, the DCO
remains obligated under 45.14 to correct errors
and omissions in the data reported by the DCO,
including the termination notice. For example, if a
swap is submitted to, and accepted by, a DCO for
clearing, the DCO would report the termination
notice of the original swap to the SDR to which the
creation data for the original swap was reported.
After submission of the termination notice to the
SDR, if the DCO should become aware of an error
or omission in the termination notice, the DCO is
required, pursuant to 45.14, to correct any errors
and omissions in the data so reported as soon as
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reporting counterparties are required to

notify the reporting counterparty of
such errors or omissions.219 Finally,
pursuant to 49.10(a), SDR A would be
required to accept and record any
original swap continuation data,
including the original swap termination.
2. Swaps Executed on or Pursuant to the
Rules of a SEF or DCM
A swap is executed on or pursuant to
the rules of a SEF or DCM. The SEF/
DCM generates and assigns a USI for the
swap pursuant to 45.5(a) and reports
all required swap creation data to SDR
A pursuant to 45.3(a). The SEF/DCM
submits the swap to a DCO for clearing
and, pursuant to 45.10(a), transmits to
the DCO, at the time the swap is
submitted for clearing, the identity of
SDR A and the USI for the swap.
The DCO accepts the swap for
clearing, extinguishing it and replacing
it with clearing swaps; the swap that
was submitted for clearing is now an
original swap. Under 45.5(d) and
45.3(e), the DCO would generate and
assign a USI to each clearing swap and
report all required swap creation data,
including the original swap USI and all
additional data fields applicable to
clearing swaps, for the clearing swaps to
registered SDR A, which, in this
example, the DCO selected pursuant to
45.3(j)(2).220
Pursuant to 45.4(c), the DCO would
report continuation data for the original
swap, including the original swap
termination notice, to SDR A using
either the life cycle or state data
methods, and using the facilities,
methods, or data standards provided or
required by SDR A. Such continuation
data would include the LEI of SDR A
(the SDR to which creation data for each
clearing swap that replaced the
particular original swap was reported),
the USI of the original swap as
transmitted to the DCO by the SEF/DCM
at the time the swap was submitted for
clearing, and the USI for each clearing
swap.
The DCO would also transmit to each
counterparty to the clearing swaps, as
is technologically practicable after discovery of
such errors or omissions. Likewise, all reporting
entities and swap counterparties also remain
obligated under 45.14 to correct errors and
omissions in all data reported by or on behalf of
each entity and swap counterparty to an SDR.
219 Pursuant to 45.14(b), if a counterparty to a
swap that is not the reporting counterparty as
determined by 45.8 discovers any error or
omission with respect to the continuation data,
including termination notice of the original swap,
such non-reporting counterparty is required to
notify the DCO of each such error or omission.
220 Pursuant to 45.3(j)(2), the DCO could have
selected SDR B.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
acceptance for clearing, the USI of each
clearing swap pursuant to 45.5(d)(2)
and the LEI of the SDR to which the
clearing swap was reported pursuant to
45.10(d)(1).
The DCO would have no further
with respect to the original swap
thereafter. However, the Commission
notes that pursuant to 45.14, registered
entities and counterparties required to
report swap data to an SDR must report
any known errors and omissions in the
data reported. Additionally, nonreporting counterparties are also
required to notify the reporting
counterparty of such errors or
omissions.221 Finally, pursuant to
49.10(a), SDR A would be required to
accept and record the original swap
termination.
H. Primary Economic Terms Data
Amendments to Appendix 1 to Part
45Tables of Minimum Primary
Economic Terms
The Commissions existing lists of
minimum primary economic terms for
swaps in each swap asset class are
found in tables in Exhibits AD of
appendix 1 to part 45. Those tables
include data elements that reflect
generic economic terms and conditions
common to most standardized products.
They reflect the fact that PET data
captures a swaps basic nature and
essential economic terms, and are
provided in order to ensure to the extent
possible that all such essential terms,
where applicable, are included when
required primary economic terms are
reported for each swap.
1. Proposed Amendments and
Additions to Primary Economic Data
Fields
The Commission proposed the
following revisions to Exhibits AD of
appendix 1, each of which is discussed
in greater detail below: (1)
Modifications to existing PET data
fields; (2) the addition of three new PET
data fields applicable to all reporting
entities for all swaps; and (3) the
addition of a number of new data fields
that must be reported by DCOs for
clearing swaps.222
221 See
notes 220221, supra.

Commission also proposes to revise each
of the data categories and fields that reference the
clearing requirement exception in CEA section
2(h)(7) to reflect that exceptions to, and exemptions
from, the clearing requirement, including the
clearing requirement exception in CEA section
2(h)(7), are set forth under part 50 of the
Commissions regulations. Additionally, the
Commission is making non-substantive edits to the
following fields in Exhibits AD: Asset class; For a
multi-asset class swap, an indication of the primary
asset class; For a multi-asset class swap, an
222 The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
i. Proposed Modifications to Existing

PET Data Fields
The Commission proposed clarifying
and conforming changes and minor
corrective modifications to the
following existing PET data fields: 223
The Unique Swap Identifier for the
swapThe Commission proposed to
remove the explanatory note in the
Comment section to this data field in
Exhibits AD. The explanatory note is
no longer necessary because under
proposed 45.5(d), the DCO would
create the USI for each clearing swap.
PET data fields that utilize a
LEI 224The Commission proposed
conforming changes to the Comment
sections to data fields in Exhibits AD
that utilize the LEI to reflect that the
CFTC has designated an LEI system 225
and to reflect that a substitute identifier
may be reported for natural person swap
counterparties.
If no CFTC-approved LEI for the
non-reporting counterparty is yet
available, the internal identifier for the
non-reporting counterparty used by the
swap data repositoryThe Commission
proposed to remove this data field in
each of the Exhibits. As noted above, the
CFTC has designated an LEI, and these
PET data fields are no longer applicable.
For a mixed swap reported to two
non-dually-registered swap data
repositories, the identity of the other
swap data repository (if any) to which
the swap is or will be reportedThe
Commission proposed to add an
explanatory note to the Comment
section for this data field in Exhibits A
D providing that the field value is the
LEI of the other SDR to which the swap
is or will be reported.
Block trade indicatorThe
Commission proposed to modify the
Comment section to this data field in
indication of the secondary asset class(es); and to
the Clearing member client account field in Exhibits
C and D.
223 See 80 FR 52544, 52558.
224 These include the following fields in Exhibits
AD: The Legal Entity Identifier of the reporting
counterparty; If the swap will be allocated, or is a
post-allocation swap, the Legal Entity Identifier of
the agent; The Legal Entity Identifier of the nonreporting party; Clearing venue; The identity of the
counterparty electing an exception or exemption to
the clearing requirement under Part 50 of this
chapter (formerly The identity of the counterparty
electing the clearing requirement exception in CEA
section 2(h)(7)); Exhibit A: An indication of the
counterparty purchasing protection; An indication
of the counterparty selling protection; Information
identifying the reference entity; Exhibit D: Buyer,
Seller.
225 The explanatory notes discussing a situation
where no CFTC designated LEI is yet available are
no longer applicable. See generally Order Extending
the Designation of the Provider of Legal Entity
Identifiers To Be Used in Recordkeeping and Swap
Data Reporting Pursuant to the Commissions
Regulations, 80 FR 44078 (Jul. 24, 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41755
Exhibits AD to reflect that the CFTC

has issued a final rulemaking regarding
Procedures To Establish Appropriate
Minimum Block Sizes for Large Notional
Off-Facility Swaps and Block Trades.226
Execution venueThe Commission
proposed to modify the explanatory
note in the Comment section to this data
field in Exhibits AD to reflect that the
CFTC has designated an LEI system and
to require the reporting of only the LEI
of the SEF or DCM for swaps executed
on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF or
DCM.
Clearing indicatorThe
Commission proposed modifications to
the explanatory note in the Comment
section to this data field in Exhibits A
D to provide for the reporting of a Yes/
No indication of whether the swap will
be submitted for clearing to a DCO.
Clearing venueThe Commission
proposed modifications to the Comment
section of this data field in Exhibits A
D to provide for the reporting of only
the LEI of the derivatives clearing
organization.
ii. Proposed Addition of New PET Data
Fields Applicable to All Reporting
Entities for All Swaps
The Commission proposed to add to
Exhibits AD the following new PET
fields which would be applicable to all
reporting entities for all swaps: 227
Asset classThis data field would
provide the specific asset class for the
swap. Field values: Credit, equity, FX,
interest rates and other commodities.
An indication of whether the
reporting counterparty is a derivatives
clearing organization with respect to the
swap.
Clearing exception or exemption
typeThis field would provide the type
of clearing exception or exemption
being claimed. Field values: End user,
Inter-affiliate or Cooperative.
iii. Proposed Addition of New PET Data
Fields Applicable to DCOs for Clearing
Swaps
The Commission also proposed to
modify Exhibits AD in order to add
new PET fields specifically to be
reported by DCOs for clearing swaps.228
The proposed data fields that must be
reported by DCOs for clearing swaps
include the following:
Clearing swap USIsThis data field
would provide the USI for each clearing
swap that replaces the original swap,
226 See, generally, Procedures To Establish
Appropriate Minimum Block Sizes for Large
Notional Off-Facility Swaps and Block Trades,
Final Rule, 78 FR 32866 (May 31, 2013).
227 See 80 FR 52544, 5255859.
228 See 80 FR 52544, 52559.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41756
other than the USI for which the PET

data is currently being reported.
Original swap USIThis data field
would provide the USI for the original
swap that was replaced by clearing
swaps.229
Original swap SDRThis data field
would provide the LEI of the SDR to
which the original swap was
reported.230
Clearing member LEIThis data
field would provide the LEI of the
clearing member.
Clearing member client account
This data field would provide the
account number for the client, if
applicable, of the clearing member.
Origin (house or customer)This
data field would provide information
regarding whether the clearing member
acted as principal for a house trade or
agent for a customer trade.
Clearing receipt timestampThis
data field would provide the date and
time at which the DCO received the
original swap that was submitted for
clearing.
Clearing acceptance timestamp
This data field would provide the date
and time at which the DCO accepted the
original swap that was submitted for
clearing.
i. General Comments
Eurex commented that there are no

additional fields for clearing swaps
beyond those proposed which are
necessary to understand a clearing swap
or the mechanics of the clearing
process.231 JBA cautioned that the
definitions used in the markets are not
always consistent with those proposed
by the NPRM, which places a significant
burden on small-sized market
participants.232 JBA also noted potential
difficulties in reporting hybrid
instruments because swaps with
multiple underlying assets may have
their own market conventions that do
not fall under the categories in the
proposed rules.233
Several commenters addressed how
PET data fields can operate in the
context of agency and principal clearing
models. LCH recommended that the
Commission require a PET data field
indicating if a swap is cleared following
229 See also 45.10(a)(1), (b)(1)(iii), (b)(2)(ii),
(c)(1)(iii), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(3) (requiring entities
with reporting obligations to transmit to the DCO
for swaps submitted for clearing the identity of the
swap data repository to which required swap
creation data is reported and the USI for the swap).
230 Id.
232 See JBA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23.
233 See JBA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
an agency or principal model.234 ISDA

recommended combining the Clearing
indicator and Origin (house or
customer) fields into a single
Cleared field with four possible
valuesnot cleared, intended to be
cleared, cleared (principal), and cleared
(agency).235 ISDA commented that the
current reporting system results in
DCOs reporting principal cleared trades
in a manner designed for agency
clearing model. ISDA commented that
this is at odds with European Union
requirements and may result in data
reported to multiple jurisdictions that is
not reconcilable.236 Eurex commented
that, in the principal model, the DCO
may not know the identity of the
clearing members client; if the DCO is
required to report that clients identity,
it would be necessary for anyone trading
part 45 reportable swaps to possess an
LEI.237
LCH commented that the Original
swap USI, Original swap SDR, and
Clearing member client account PET
fields for clearing swaps should only be
required if applicable. 238
ii. Comments on Specific Proposed PET
Fields 239
ISDA supported the proposed
modification of the clearing venue and
execution venue PET fields to require
the submission of an LEI for such
venues.240 ISDA also supported the
addition of the Asset class PET data
field for all swaps.241 ISDA also
commented on the removal of internal
counterparty identifiers as a valid
submission for various counterparty
identification fields, noting that not all
global regulators require swap
counterparties to obtain LEIs.242 ISDA
requested that the Commission continue
to work with global regulators to ensure
uniform adoption of the LEI standard
across jurisdictions.
ISDA commented that the PET field
for Block trade indicator should be
removed rather than amended because
block trade status only affects part 43
reporting.243 ISDA questioned the value
that block trade status would provide
the Commission when evaluating swap
234 See
LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4.

239 DTCC also commented on the proposed PET
field for Clearing swap USIs, Original swap
USIs, and Original swap SDRs. See DTCC Oct.
30, 2015 Letter, at 89. These comments are
addressed in the discussions on proposed revisions
to 45.5 and 45.8, supra Sections II.D and II.E.
241 See id. at 9.
242 See id., at 8.
243 See id. at 8.
235 See
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
data.244 Further, block trade status may

change over the life of a swap and there
is no guidance in part 43 or part 45 on
how to deal with such changes.245
Finally, ISDA commented on the
proposed Clearing exception or
exemption type PET field, which
would require the reporting party to
identify the clearing exception or
exemption exercised for a particular
swap.246 ISDA commented that it could
be challenging and costly for firms to
implement this change, while providing
duplicative information because
exemption elections must already be
provided to SDRs.247 ISDA
recommended that the Clearing
exception or exemption type PET field
acceptable values be limited to interaffiliate and other, because interaffiliate trades can be identified under
existing reporting standards.
4. Final Rule Text
provided in response to the NPRM, the
Commission is adopting the revisions to
Appendix 1 of part 45 as proposed.248
In response to the IDWG Request for
Comment, some commenters argued
that the Commission should not require
additional data fields for reporting and
should reduce the number of fields
currently required.249 The Commission
explained in the NPRM that the
proposed modifications to existing PET
data fields will add clarity to the current
reporting requirements. In regards to the
additional fields, the NPRM explained
that the new fields will require the
reporting of information that is essential
to the efficient operation of reporting of
244 See
id. at 8.
id. at 8.
246 See id. at 9.
247 See id. at 9.
248 The Commission has also noted ITVs
comment requesting the addition of an indicator
that a swap was part of a package transaction. See
ITV Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. While this comment
is beyond the scope of the NPRM, the Commission
would note that the Technical Specifications
Request for Comment solicits input on this topic.
249 See CMC May 27, 2014 Letter, at 3
(recommending that the Commission reduce the
number and complexity of data fields required to
improve data reporting); CME letter at 1719
(providing recommendations on modification for
specific data fields and arguing against requiring
certain additional reporting); DTCC May 27, 2014
Letter, at 3, appendix at 15 (suggesting that the
Commission consider whether requiring fewer data
elements would better enable the Commission and
other regulators to fulfill their regulatory
obligations); International Energy Credit
Association May 27, 2014 Letter, at 56 (arguing
that existing swap data reporting requirements do
not need to be expanded and that data reporting
would be improved by reducing the current
reporting burden); Swiss Re May 27, 2014 Letter, at
5 (describing reporting difficulties for specific data
fields).
245 See
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
the swaps involved in a cleared swap

transaction.250
Regarding the proposed PET fields for
clearing swaps, as noted in the NPRM,
the Commission believes such data
elements would more accurately capture
the additional, unique features of
clearing swaps that are not relevant to
uncleared swaps.251 The Commission
has noted the number of comments
addressing the issue of reporting swaps
cleared under the principal, as opposed
to agency, model of clearing. In
particular, the Commission has
reviewed ISDAs comment on
combining the Clearing indicator and
Origin (house or customer) fields.
While the Commission is adopting those
fields as proposed, the Commission
would note that in the Technical
Specifications Request for Comment, the
Commission solicited input on a
potential data element indicating agency
versus principal clearing model, and on
reporting package transactions.252
The Commission notes LCHs
comment that certain PET data elements
should only be reported if applicable.
The Commission notes that appendix 1
to part 45 states that reporting parties
should [e]nter N/A for fields that are
not applicable, which is repeated in
the header to every column in appendix
1. To ensure that reported swap data is
complete, the Commission would
reiterate that any PET data field that is
not applicable to a particular swap
should be marked N/A and not left
blank. Otherwise, the Commission
cannot determine if a field is
inapplicable or if an applicable data
element is missing.
The Commission declines to remove
the Block trade indicator as requested
by ISDA because this indicator is
necessary for a proper review of market
activity for surveillance and
enforcement purposes. The Commission
would note that block trade status is
most relevant for part 43 real-time
reporting purposes. Therefore, in
response to ISDAs request for guidance,
the Commission would note that a
swaps block trade status should be
determined as of the time of execution;
subsequent changes to notional amounts
should not impact whether the swap
met the block trade threshold originally.
As for the Clearing exception or
exemption type PET field, the
Commission has noted ISDAs comment
250 See
80 FR 52544, 52559.
80 FR 52544, 52559.
252 See Draft Technical Specifications for Certain
Swap Data Elements, Request for Comment (Dec.
22, 2015), available at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/
groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/
specificationsswapdata122215.pdf. (Technical
Specifications Request for Comment).
251 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
that this field may be difficult to

implement. However, the Commission
believes that additional PET fields
indicating clearing exception and
exemption type are necessary for the
Commission to track compliance with
Commission regulation 50.50. While
reporting counterparties are required
under existing 50.50(b) to provide
clearing exemption election forms with
SDRs, the existing swaps data reporting
rules do not require that the reporting
counterparty indicate that such clearing
exemption was elected for a particular
swap. Without such information
provided as part of transaction-specific
swaps data, the Commission is unable to
determine which counterparties are
relying on an exemption and how often
such elections are being made.253 This
additional PET field will aid the
Commission in tracking compliance
with the clearing mandate by providing
transaction specific information on why
certain swaps were uncleared.
The asset class data field will assist
the Commission in identifying the asset
class for swaps reported to registered
SDRs pursuant to part 45. The
indication of whether the reporting
counterparty is a DCO with respect to
the swap data field is consistent with
proposed 45.8(i), which designates the
DCO as the reporting counterparty for
clearing swaps, and the existing PET
data fields that require certain
information related to the registration
status of the counterparties to be
included in PET data reporting.
III. 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.254 The rules proposed herein
will have a direct effect on SDRs, DCOs,
SEFs, DCMs, SDs, MSPs, and non-SD/
MSP counterparties who are
counterparties to one or more swaps and
subject to the Commissions
jurisdiction. 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.255 The
Commission has previously determined
that DCMs 256 and DCOs 257 are not

small entities for the purpose of the
RFA. The Commission has also
previously proposed that SDRs, SEFs,
SDs, and MSPs should not be
considered to be small entities.258
The Final Part 45 Rulemaking and
preceding proposal discussed how
certain non-SD/MSP counterparties
could be considered small entities in
certain limited situations, but
concluded that part 45 does not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.259 The
modifications to part 45 adopted herein
do not affect that conclusion, or the
reasoning behind it, and therefore the
Commission does not believe that these
adopted rules will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. To the extent
that this rulemaking has any significant
impact on small entities, it removes
some reporting obligations by explicitly
putting the obligation to terminate
original swaps on DCOs accepting those
swaps.
Therefore, the Chairman, on behalf of
the Commission, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
605(b), hereby certifies that the adopted
rules will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. (PRA) are, among other things,
to minimize the paperwork burden to
the private sector, to ensure that any
collection of information by a
government agency is put to the greatest
possible uses, and to minimize
duplicative information collections
across the government.260 The PRA
applies to all information, regardless of
form or format, whenever the
government is obtaining, causing to be
obtained, or soliciting information, and
includes required disclosure to third
parties or the public, of facts or
opinions, when the information
collection calls for answers to identical
questions posed to, or identical
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
imposed on, ten or more persons.261 The
256 Id.
257 66
FR 45604, 45609, Aug. 29, 2001.

Data Recordkeeping and Reporting,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (Part 45 NPRM)
75 FR 76574, 76595 (Dec. 8, 2010) (discussing why
SDRs, SEFs, SDs, and MSPs should not be
considered small entities).
259 Final Part 45 Rulemaking, 77 FR 2136, 2170
71 (discussion for non-SD/MSP counterparties);
Part 45 NPRM, 75 FR 76574, 76595 (discussion for
non-SD/MSP counterparties).
260 See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
261 See 44 U.S.C. 3502.
258 Swap
253 As noted above, in addition to the end-user

exception to the swap clearing requirement set forth
in section 2(h)(7) of the CEA and codified in part
50 of the Commissions regulations, the
Commission has published two exemptions to the
swap clearing requirement: The inter-affiliate
exemption ( 50.52) and the financial cooperative
exemption ( 50.51).
254 See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
255 47 FR 18618, 1861821, Apr. 30, 1982.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41757
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41758
PRA requirements have been

determined to include not only
mandatory but also voluntary
information collections, and include
both written and oral
communications.262 Under the PRA, an
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control
number from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). The OMB control
number for the information collection
associated with part 45 swaps reporting
is 30380096.263 Because reporting
entities under part 45 would also be
required to report swaps pursuant to
part 43, where applicable, some of the
burden associated with swaps reporting
under part 45 is covered in the
information collection covering realtime swaps reporting pursuant to part
43.264
The Commission intends to amend
existing collection 30380096 to
account for adjustments to reporting
entities swaps data reporting systems
necessitated by this release. Information
collection 30380096 265 includes an
estimate of burden hours and costs
associated with various requirements of
part 45 swaps reporting and
recordkeeping,266 including the
reporting of creation data under 45.3
and continuation data under 45.4,267
262 See
5 CFR 1320.3(c)(1).
NPRM improperly cited information
collection 30380089, rather than 30380096, as the
collection relating to swaps reporting under part 45.
However, the NPRMs discussion of what
information is collected and the burden estimates
for swaps reporting under part 45 correctly
described collection 30380096, which is the basis
of this PRA discussion.
264 See Information Collection 30380070; see
also 77 FR 2136, 2174. (The Commission notes,
however, that these burdens should not be
considered additional to the costs of compliance
with part 43, because the basic data reporting
technology, processes, and personnel hours and
expertise needed to fulfill the requirements of part
43 encompass both the data stream necessary for
real-time public reporting and the creation data
stream necessary for regulatory reporting.).
265 The Commission issued a notice of intent to
renew information collection 30380096 on August
7, 2015. See Notice of Intent to Renew Collection
30380096, 80 FR 47477 (Aug. 7, 2015). The
Commission received no comments on this notice
of intent to renew. The comment file is available at
http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/
CommentList.aspx?id=1608. The Office of
Management and Budget approved without change
the renewal of this information collection on
December 21, 2015.
266 Supporting documentation for the renewal of
information collection 30380096 is available at
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201508-3038-002.
267 Creation data under 45.3 includes all PET
data fields listed in appendix 1 to part 45, as well
as all confirmation data, which includes all terms
of the swap matched and agreed upon by the
parties. Continuation data reporting under 45.4
requires a reporting entity to ensure that all data on
263 The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
the maintenance of an internal order

management system (OMS), and
personnel needed to maintain a
compliance program in support of an
OMS system. The intended amendment
to the collection will add an estimate for
the burden associated (a) with changing
reporting systems to comply with
changes to the required data to be
reported under 45.3 and 45.4, and (b)
with requirements that DCOs potentially
connect to all registered SDRs. The
Commission will be filing to update this
information collection with OMB prior
to the effective date of this release. This
update will be publicly noticed and
made available for comment in the
Federal Register.
The Commission received several
comments on the costs associated with
part 45 swaps reporting that could
implicate PRA burdens.268 Regarding
the addition of PET fields applicable to
all swaps, ISDA commented that the
PET field for clearing exception or
exemption type would be very
challenging and costly to
implement.269 However, neither ISDA
nor any other commenter provided
information quantifying the cost to
update reporting systems to account for
the modified and additional PET fields.
As discussed more extensively in
Section III.C.9, the information required
to be reported in the modified clearing
exception or exemption type is also
already in the possession of the
reporting entity; changes to reporting
systems required to report this field
would involve adding a known piece of
information to the message reported to
an SDR. Regarding new PET fields for
clearing swaps, Eurex commented that
DCOs would need to collect data from
the original swap counterparties or
trading venue to be able to report these
fields.270 The information required to
report these PET fields is either
a swap is kept current and accurate, including any
changes to primary economic terms.
268 In addition, FSR requested that the
Commission promulgate rules to standardize data
elements. See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. While
this comment would relate to the burden of
reporting for part 45 purposes, it is beyond the
scope of the NPRM. The Commission would note
Commission staffs efforts in connection with the
Technical Specifications Request for Comment,
discussed in n. 42. The Commission also received
some comments suggesting that the Commission not
require the reporting of intended-to-be-cleared
original swaps, or require DCOs to report such
swaps. See, e.g., CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2
3; CMC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. While not
requiring such reporting would reduce the burden
on original swap reporting entities, the NPRM and
adopted amendments to part 45 do not change the
existing requirement to report such swaps.
Therefore, this comment is beyond the scope of the
NPRM. See, supra, Section II.B.4.iii.
269 ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 9.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
generated by the DCO itself (such as

clearing swap USI, clearing member LEI,
clearing member internal identifier,
house/customer account flag, and
receipt and clearing timestamps) or
should be included in the clearing
members submission of a swap to the
DCO for clearing (such as the original
swap USI and original swap SDR).
While the Commission believes that
reporting entities already possess
information required to report the added
and amended PET fields, the
Commission intends to amend
collection 30380096 to account for
changes that reporting entities must
make to their reporting systems to
comply with these new and amended
fields.
Some commenters raised concerns
that requiring DCOs to report
continuation data for original swaps to
the SDR to which the original swap was
reported could increase costs for DCOs
as they may need to connect to SDRs to
which they do not currently have a
connection.271 The Commission
understands that DCOs already may
report terminations to the original SDR,
and to the extent these reporting
systems are already implemented the
new rules will not introduce additional
costs for these DCOs. Moreover, the
costs of additional SDR connections that
may not yet be in place are addressed
by the Commission more fully below at
III.C.5. However, the Commission
recognizes that requiring DCOs to
potentially connect to more than one
SDR in order to report continuation data
for original swaps may require an
update to the existing information
collection 30380096. The Commission
will be filing to update this information
collection with OMB prior to the
effective date of this release. This
update will be publicly noticed and
made available for comment in the
Federal Register.
C. Cost-Benefit Considerations
1. Introduction
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the
Commission to consider the costs and
benefits of its actions before
promulgating a regulation under the
CEA or issuing certain orders.272
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
271 See e.g., Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5, 9;
LedgerX Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; LCH Oct. 30,
2015 Letter, at 3. The Commission notes that
another commenter stated that DCOs have already
made connections with the major CFTC-registered
SDRs. (DTCC Oct. 30, 2015, Letter at 5).
272 7 U.S.C. 19(a).
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
participants and the public; (2)
efficiency, competitiveness, and
financial integrity of futures markets; (3)
price discovery; (4) sound risk
management practices; and (5) other
public interest considerations. The
Commission considers the costs and
benefits resulting from its discretionary
determinations with respect to the
section 15(a) factors.
The Commission is amending and
making additions to 45.1, 45.3, 45.4,
45.5, 45.8, 45.10, and appendix 1 to part
45 in order to provide clarity to
counterparties to a swap and registered
entities regarding their part 45 reporting
obligations with respect to cleared swap
transactions and to improve the
efficiency of data collection and
maintenance associated with the
reporting of the swaps involved in a
cleared swap transaction. The final rule
adopts revisions to part 45 as proposed
in the NPRM.
2. Background
The swap data reporting framework
adopted in the Final Part 45
Rulemaking 273 was largely based on the
mechanisms for the trading and
execution of uncleared swaps. The plain
language of the existing part 45 rules
presumes the existence of a single,
continuous swap both prior to and after
acceptance of a swap for clearing by a
DCO. Under that framework, registered
entities and counterparties would each
report data with respect to a single swap
when such swap is initially executed,
referred to as creation data, and over
the course of the swaps existence,
referred to as continuation data. 274
The Commission has since had
additional opportunities to consult with
industry and with other regulators,
including the SEC,275 and to observe
how the part 45 regulations function in
practice with respect to swaps that are
cleared, including how the
implementation of part 45 interacts with
the implementation of part 39 of the
273 See
77 FR 2136.
45.1 defines required swap creation
data as primary economic terms data and
confirmation data. Section 45.1 defines primary
economic terms data as all of the data elements
necessary to fully report all of the primary
of the swap in question and defines confirmation
data as all of the terms of a swap matched and
swap. 17 CFR 45.1. For cleared swaps, confirmation
data also includes the internal identifiers assigned
by the automated systems of the derivatives clearing
organization to the two transactions resulting from
novation to the clearing house. Id.
275 The SEC proposed certain new rules and rule
amendments to Regulation SBSR governing
reporting in the context of security-based swaps.
See Regulation SBSRReporting and
80 FR 14740 (Mar. 19, 2015).
274 Section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
Commissions regulations, which

contains provisions applicable to DCOs.
In particular, 39.12(b)(6) provides
that upon acceptance of a swap by a
DCO for clearing, the original swap is
extinguished and replaced by equal and
opposite swaps, with the DCO as the
counterparty to each such swap.276 The
original swap that is extinguished upon
acceptance for clearing is commonly
referred to as the alpha swap and the
equal and opposite swaps that replace
the original swap are commonly referred
to as beta and gamma swaps. The
Commission is of the view that the
existing part 45 regulations should be
amended to better accommodate the
multi-swap framework of 39.12(b)(6)
by explicitly addressing beta and
gamma swaps as distinct swaps for
purposes of part 45 reporting.277
The existing part 45 regulations do
not explicitly address the reporting of
alpha, beta, and gamma swaps;
however, industry practice has evolved
to address such reporting. The
Commission understands that market
participants generally report part 45
data for cleared swap transactions in
conformance with the framework
described in 39.12(b)(6), where
separate swaps (alphas, betas, and
gammas) are represented individually in
reported swap data. The Commission
understands that under existing market
practice: SEFs, DCMs and reporting
counterparties generally report required
swap creation data for alpha swaps to
the SDR of their choice; DCOs that
accept alpha swaps for clearing
generally report required swap creation
data for the beta and gamma swaps that
result from clearing novation of the
alpha swap to the SDR of their choice
276 See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6) (requiring a DCO that
clears swaps to have rules providing that, upon
acceptance of a swap by the [DCO] for clearing: (i)
The original swap is extinguished; (ii) the original
swap is replaced by an equal and opposite swap
between the [DCO] and each clearing member
acting as principal for a house trading or acting as
agent for a customer trade). Subsequent to adoption
of the Final Part 45 Rulemaking, the Commission
affirmed that the multi-swap framework
(comprising separate and unique original and
resulting swaps) should apply for part 45 reporting
purposes. See Statement of the Commission on the
Approval of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Rule
1001 (Mar. 6, 2013), at 6, available at: http://
www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/
documents/file/statementofthecommission.pdf.
277 The Commission also notes that a single swap
reporting framework for cleared swaps, as opposed
to a multi-swap framework like the one
contemplated by 39.12(b)(6), would likely not be
consistent with the approach proposed by the SEC
in its release proposing certain new rules and rule
amendments to Regulation SBSR. See Regulation
SBSRReporting and Dissemination of SecurityBased Swap Information, 80 FR 14740 (Mar. 19,
2015). The Commission discusses the benefits
associated with harmonizing its approach with that
of other regulators later in this release.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41759
(which may be different than the SDR to

which the alpha swap was reported);
such DCOs do not in all cases include
the USI of the alpha swap in creation
data reported for the beta and gamma
swaps; and that DCOs may
inconsistently report, and SDRs may
inconsistently accept and process, alpha
swap terminations.278
The gaps between the existing part 45
regulations, 39.12(b)(6), and certain
industry practices, including those
outlined above, have likely contributed
to a lack of certainty regarding the
applicability of the part 45 regulations
to beta and gamma swaps, including
which registered entity or counterparty
is required to report creation data and/
or continuation data for such swaps,
and the manner in which such swaps
must be reported. The Commission
understands that this uncertainty
presents compliance challenges for
registered entities and reporting
counterparties.
Additionally, the lack of clarity
regarding existing part 45 obligations
with respect to beta and gamma swaps
has impacted the accuracy, quality, and
usefulness of data that is reported for
cleared swaps. For instance,
inconsistent DCO reporting of alpha
swap USIs in creation data for beta and
gamma swaps hinders the Commissions
ability to trace the history of a cleared
swap transaction from execution
between the original counterparties to
clearing novation. Even in cases where
the Commission can ascertain the USI of
a specific alpha swap that was replaced
by beta and gamma swaps, SDR data
available to the Commission at times
misleadingly shows some alpha swaps
as remaining open between the original
counterparties, when in actuality such
swaps have been extinguished through
clearing novation. The inability to
determine whether an alpha swap has
been terminated impedes the
Commissions ability to analyze cleared
swap activity and to review swap
activity for compliance with the clearing
278 While the above reflects the Commissions
general understanding of industry practice with
respect to the reporting of component parts of a
cleared swap transaction, the Commission does not
possess complete information regarding certain
details and nuances of the reporting practices of
different registered entities and reporting
counterparties. For instance, in some cases, the
Commission generally does not possess sufficient
information to ascertain the period of time between
the DCOs acceptance of an alpha swap for clearing
and the DCOs report of creation data for beta and
gamma swaps. The Commission posed questions
eliciting specific details or nuances of industry
practice that are likely to have cost/benefit
implications in the relevant sections of the NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41760
requirement.279 If alpha swaps have

been terminated, yet appear to remain
open, then a risk of double counting
swap notional exposures can result,
which would impede the Commissions
ability to analyze and study swaps
market activity using accurate
information. The inability to link the
different swaps in a cleared swap
transaction also impedes the
Commissions ability to assess
exposures of market participants in the
uncleared and cleared swaps markets.
Additionally, certain creation data fields
that are currently populated for beta and
gamma swaps prove difficult to
interpret by the Commission, and thus
can result in inconsistencies in their
application and reporting among alpha,
beta, and gamma swaps, hindering the
Commissions ability to interpret and
analyze data regarding beta and gamma
swaps.
The revisions and additions that are
being adopted in this final rulemaking
would amend part 45 to differentiate
reporting requirements for cleared and
uncleared swap transactions, and which
explicitly address swap counterparty
and registered entity reporting
requirements for each component (e.g.,
alpha, beta, and gamma) of a cleared
swap transaction. This rulemaking will
remove uncertainty as to which
counterparty to a swap is responsible for
reporting creation data for each of the
various components of a cleared swap
transaction. The final rule makes clear
whose obligation it is to report the
termination of the original swap upon
acceptance of a swap by a DCO for
clearing. These additional details
include where, when, and how to report
the swap data pertaining to the
establishment of the beta and gamma
swaps and the reporting of the
termination message to the SDR that
originally received the swap data for the
alpha swap. This final rule is also
intended to improve the efficiency of
data collection and maintenance
associated with the reporting of the
transaction and to improve the
accuracy, quality, and usefulness of data
that is reported for cleared swaps and
279 Commission staff recently noted difficulty in
evaluating the proper de minimis level of activity
for swap dealer registration under Commission
regulation 1.3(ggg), in part due to difficulties
linking alpha swaps with resulting beta and gamma
swaps. See Swap Dealer De Minimis Exception
Preliminary Report (Nov. 18, 2015), at 1314,
@swaps/documents/file/dfreport_sddeminis_
1115.pdf. In the report, Staff noted that the
finalization and implementation of this final rule
release for reporting of cleared swaps should help
to mitigate this issue going forward.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
alpha swaps that have been

extinguished due to clearing novation.
baseline for this consideration of costs
and benefits is generally the existing
part 45 regulations, which were adopted
in 2011.280 However, as described
above, in certain circumstances,
industry practice has been informed by
certain provisions of part 39 and by
subsequent industry developments, and
thus does not necessarily reflect the
plain language of the existing part 45
regulations. In those circumstances, the
baseline for this consideration of costs
and benefits will be industry practice.
The following consideration of costs
and benefits is organized according to
the rules and rule amendments put forth
in this final rulemaking. For each rule,
the Commission summarizes the
amendments 281 and identifies and
discusses the costs and benefits
attributable to them, including a
discussion of the commenters
suggestions with regards to the costs
and benefits of the amendments present
in the IDWG Request for Comment and
the NPRM.282 The Commission then
considers the costs and benefits of
certain alternatives to the rules put forth
in this final rulemaking, as well as the
costs and benefits of all of the rules
jointly in light of the five public interest
considerations set out in section 15(a) of
the CEA.
The Commission notes that this
consideration of costs and benefits is
based on the understanding that the
swaps market functions internationally,
with many transactions involving U.S.
firms taking place across international
boundaries, with some Commission
registrants being organized outside of
the United States, with leading industry
members typically conducting
operations both within and outside the
United States, and with industry
members commonly following
substantially similar business practices
wherever located. Where the
Commission does not specifically refer
to matters of location, the below
discussion of costs and benefits refers to
the effects of the proposed rules on all
280 See Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements, Final Rule, 77 FR 2136 (Jan. 13,
2012).
281 As described in detail throughout Section II of
this final release, the Commission is also adopting
a number of non-substantive, conforming rule
amendments in this release, such as renumbering
certain provisions and modifying the wording of
existing provisions to ensure consistency with the
wording in newly proposed definitions. Nonsubstantive amendments of this nature will not be
discussed in the cost-benefit portion of this final
release.
282 See IDWG Request for Comment, 79 FR 16689
(Mar. 26, 2014); NPRM, 80 FR 52544, 52570 (Aug.
31, 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
swaps activity subject to the amended

regulations, whether by virtue of the
activitys physical location in the
United States or by virtue of the
activitys connection with or effect on
U.S. commerce under CEA section
2(i).283 The Commission also notes that
the existing part 45 regulations
generally contemplate situations where
a swap may be required to be reported
pursuant to U.S. law and the law of
another jurisdiction.284
3. DefinitionsAmendments to 45.1
The adopted amendments to 45.1
revise the definition of derivatives
part 45 to update a reference to an
existing definition of derivatives
clearing organization and make clear
that part 45 applies to DCOs registered
with the Commission. The adopted
amendments to 45.1 will also add new
definitions for original swaps (swaps
that have been accepted for clearing by
a DCO, commonly referred to as alpha
swaps) and clearing swaps (swaps
created pursuant to the rules of a DCO
that have a DCO as a counterparty,
including, but not limited to, any swap
that replaces an original swap that was
clearing, commonly referred to as beta
and gamma swaps).
The terms original swap and clearing
swaps will be used throughout amended
part 45 to help clarify reporting
obligations for each swap involved in a
cleared swap transaction. Likewise, the
Commission will use the defined terms
original swaps and clearing swaps
throughout this consideration of costs
and benefits. Given that these terms are
a product of this release and are not yet
part of industry nomenclature, the
Commission will also use the terms
alpha, beta, and gamma throughout
this consideration of costs and benefits
when discussing existing industry
283 7 U.S.C. 2(i). Section 2(i)(1) makes the swaps
provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, and Commission
regulations promulgated under those provisions,
applicable to activities outside the United States
that have a direct and significant connection
activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United
States; while section 2(i)(2) makes them applicable
to activities outside the United States that
contravene Commission rules promulgated to
prevent evasion of Dodd-Frank. Application of
section 2(i)(1) to the existing part 45 regulations
with respect to SDs/MSPs and non-SD/non-MSP
counterparties is discussed in the Commissions
non-binding Interpretive Guidance and Policy
Statement Regarding Compliance With Certain
Swap Regulations, 78 FR 45292 (July 26, 2013).
284 See 17 CFR 45.1 (defining International
swap to mean a swap required by U.S. law and the
law of another jurisdiction to be reported both to
a swap data repository and to a different trade
repository registered with the other jurisdiction.);
see also 17 CFR 45.3(h) (prescribing requirements
with respect to international swaps).
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
practice and when helpful for purposes
of clarification.285
The Commission notes that
commenters did not submit any
comments relevant to the costs and
benefits of the proposed amendments to
45.1.
i. Costs
The Commission does not anticipate
that these definitions, in and of
themselves, impose additional costs on
DCOs or market participants. However,
these definitions will be referenced in
other proposed substantive provisions
and the costs and benefits of those
substantive requirements will be
discussed in the relevant sections
below.
ii. Benefits
As discussed earlier in this release,
the plain language of the existing part
45 regulations presumes the existence of
one continuous swap and does not
explicitly acknowledge distinct
reporting requirements for the
individual components (i.e., alphas,
betas, and gammas) of a cleared swap
transaction. However, industry practice
is generally to report part 45 data for
cleared swap transactions in
conformance with the multi-swap
framework described in 39.12(b)(6)
(i.e., to report alphas, betas, and gammas
separately). The definitions of original
and clearing swaps, along with the other
revisions to part 45 covered in this
release, will help align the part 45
regulations with part 39 and with
certain industry practices and will
explicitly delineate the swap data
reporting obligations associated with
each of the swaps involved in a cleared
swap transaction.286
4. Creation Data Reporting by DCOs

Amendments to 45.3
Existing 45.3 requires reporting to
an SDR of two types of creation data
285 The Commission determined to utilize the
proposed to be defined terms original swap and
clearing swaps in this release rather than the
industry terms alpha, beta, and gamma because
while a cleared-swap transaction generally
comprises an original swap that is terminated upon
novation and the equal and opposite swaps that
replace it, the Commission is aware of certain
circumstances in which a clearing swap may not
involve the replacement of an original swap (e.g.,
an open offer swap, as discussed earlier in this
release). See supra, Section II.A.
286 The Commission acknowledges that the
alternative approaches to the reporting of cleared
swap transactions separately discussed in Section
III.C.10, Consideration of Alternatives, later in this
release could also provide these benefits for
registered entities and swap counterparties.
However, for the reasons explained in that section,
the Commission is of the view that the proposed
approach is more consistent with industry practice
than the alternatives.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
generated in connection with a swaps

creation: primary economic terms
data and confirmation data. 287
Regulation 45.3 governs what creation
data must be reported, who must report
it, and deadlines for its reporting.
Amended 45.3(e) will govern
creation data reporting requirements for
swaps that fall under the proposed
definition of clearing swaps. Amended
45.3(e) will also require a DCO, as
reporting counterparty under adopted
45.8(i),288 to report all required swap
creation data for each clearing swap as
acceptance of an original swap by a
DCO for clearing (in the event that the
clearing swap replaces an original swap)
or as soon as technologically practicable
after execution of the clearing swap (in
the event that the clearing swap does
not replace an original swap).289
Swaps other than clearing swaps,
including swaps that later become
original swaps by virtue of their
acceptance for clearing by a DCO, will
continue to be reported as currently
required under existing 45.3(a)(d).
The Commission is thus following an
approach to creation data reporting that
will require reporting counterparties or
SEFs/DCMs to report creation data for
swaps commonly known as alpha
swaps, and that will require DCOs to
report creation data for swaps
commonly known as beta and gamma
287 Section 45.1 defines required swap creation
data as primary economic terms data and
confirmation data. Section 45.1 defines primary
economic terms data as all of the data elements
necessary to fully report all of the primary
of the swap in question and defines confirmation
data as all of the terms of a swap matched and
swap. 17 CFR 45.1. For cleared swaps, confirmation
data also includes the internal identifiers assigned
by the automated systems of the derivatives clearing
organization to the two transactions resulting from
novation to the clearing house. Id.
288 As discussed in greater detail below, adopted
45.8(i) will designate the DCO as the reporting
counterparty for clearing swaps.
289 As noted earlier in this release, the amended
definition of clearing swap is intended to
encompass: (1) Swaps that replace an original swap
and to which the DCO is a counterparty (i.e., swaps
commonly known as betas and gammas) and (2) all
other swaps to which the DCO is a counterparty
(even if such swap does not replace an original
swap). The Commission understands that there may
be instances in which a clearing swap does not
replace an original swap. For example, in the
preamble to the part 39 adopting release, the
Commission noted that open offer systems are
acceptable under 39.12(b)(6), stating that
Effectively, under an open offer system there is no
original swap between executing parties that needs
to be novated; the swap that is created upon
execution is between the DCO and the clearing
member, acting either as principal or agent.). See
Derivatives Clearing Organization General
Provisions and Core Principles, Final Rule 76 FR
69334, 69361 (Nov. 8, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41761
swaps, and for any other swaps to

which the DCO is a counterparty.290
With respect to confirmation data
reporting, for swaps that are intended to
be cleared at the time of execution, the
Commission is amending 45.3(a), (b),
(c)(1)(iii), (c)(2)(iii), and (d)(2) to remove
certain existing confirmation data
reporting requirements. Under the
modified rules, SEFs/DCMs and
reporting counterparties will continue
to be required to report PET data as part
of their creation data reporting, but will
not be required to report confirmation
data for swaps that are intended to be
submitted to a DCO for clearing at the
time of execution. Instead, the DCO will
be required to report confirmation data
for clearing swaps pursuant to proposed
45.3(e).
The Commission is also amending
45.3(j), which will provide that: for
swaps executed on or pursuant to the
rules of a SEF or DCM (including swaps
that become original swaps), the SEF or
DCM will have the obligation to choose
the SDR for such swaps; for all other
swaps (including for off-facility swaps
and/or clearing swaps) the reporting
counterparty (as determined under
45.8) will have the obligation to
choose the SDR.
letters sent by commenters to the costbenefit considerations of proposed
amendments to 45.3. Several
comments were received on the
elimination of the requirement for
reporting confirmation data for swaps
that are intended to be cleared. On the
cost-benefit considerations front, Markit
commented that eliminating the
data for swaps that are intended to be
cleared, while still maintaining the
requirement to report primary economic
terms data, will not benefit reporting
workflows and that there is little
incremental cost to report confirmation
data as reporting systems are set-up to
capture that information already.291
With regards to eliminating the
data, the Commission acknowledges
that there might be incremental cost
savings due to the elimination of this
requirement, as suggested by
commenters. Nevertheless, the
Commission believes that there is no
cost associated with the elimination of
290 Because the reporting counterparty or SEF/
DCM are currently required under Part 45 to report
a swap that would become an original swap under
this final release, there is no need to conduct a costbenefit consideration of this requirement.
Alternatives to the current reporting approach for
original swaps are discussed in the Consideration
of Alternatives section, Section III.C.10, below.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41762
this requirement and that confirmation

data requirements for clearing swaps
provide the Commission with a
sufficient representation of the
transaction. As a result, the Commission
believes that there are benefits in the
form of cost savings that need to be
considered in the elimination of this
requirement.
Other commenters responded to the
question of which entity should be
swaps. Commenters were split on this
question. Some commenters suggested
that the DCO, rather than the reporting
counterparty, should be responsible for
reporting the creation data for that
swap.292 CME commented that
assigning all the reporting obligations
for original and clearing swaps to the
DCO is a better and simpler way to
address alpha swap reporting, and will
eliminate the need to reconcile original
and clearing swaps across SDRs.293
CMC similarly commented that DCOs
are in the best position to report on
swaps that are accepted or rejected for
clearing and should assume all
reporting obligations for cleared swaps,
including all reporting of swaps that are
intended to be cleared.294 AIMA
likewise suggested that if the
Commission continues the reporting
requirements associated with original
swaps, assigning the reporting
obligations to the DCOs will remove
reporting burdens and the risk of data
fragmentation across SDRs.295
Other commenters recommended that
the Commission continue to require the
reporting counterparty to report creation
original swaps.296 LCH commented that
the reporting counterparty of a trade
should always be a party to the
transaction and therefore, in the case of
a swap that will become an original
swap, the DCO would not be better
suited than the SEF, DCM, or reporting
counterparty to report the creation
data.297 Eurex suggested that assigning
the reporting obligation of original swap
creation data to the DCO may present a
timeliness issue depending on when the
DCO receives the necessary information
from the counterparties.298 ISDA
292 See e.g., CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23;
CMC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23; AIMA Oct. 30,
2015 Letter, at 6; CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3.
294 See CMC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2.
4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
likewise agreed that the obligation to

report swaps that become original swaps
should remain with the reporting
counterparty for that swap.299
Furthermore, certain commenters
suggested that the reporting of any
creation data for swaps that will become
original swaps is unnecessary.300 AIMA
commented that eliminating reporting
for swaps that are intended to be cleared
at the time of execution will
significantly reduce complexity in the
reporting regime and streamline the
reported data.301 AIMA also commented
that the proposed reporting approach for
original swaps will not reduce data
fragmentation.302 Similarly, EEI/EPSA
suggested that there is little to no benefit
to original swap reporting for swaps that
are intended to be cleared at the time of
execution and that counterparties
should not be required to report any
creation data for such swaps.303
While the NPRM did not propose
changing the existing obligation to
report swaps that become original
swaps, and is therefore beyond the
scope of the NPRM, the Commission
continues to believe that original swaps
contain essential information regarding
the origins of cleared swap transactions
for market surveillance and audit-trail
purposes. The Commissions ability to
trace the history of a cleared swap
transaction from execution between the
original counterparties to clearing
novation relies on this information and
this is a significant benefit to the
Commission in terms of understanding
the market structure as well as for
surveillance purposes.
With respect to the issue of who
reports creation data for those swaps
that will become original swaps, the
Commission believes that the
requirement that the reporting
counterparty report creation data for
those swaps that will become original
swaps should remain. The Commission
believes there are significant benefits
associated with maintaining established
industry workflows. Reporting
counterparties and registered entities
have invested substantial time and
299 ISDA also commented in support of the
Commissions proposal to remove the provisions in
45.3 that excused a reporting counterparty from
reporting creation data for a swap accepted for
clearing before the primary economic terms
reporting deadline. See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter,
at 4.
Letter, at 2.
302 See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4 (noting
that reporting original swap creation data to one
SDR and reporting clearing swap data to a different
SDR may undermine data quality for the
Commissions supervisory purposes).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
resources to report swaps (both cleared

and not cleared) to SDRs, and DCOs
have invested substantial resources to
report clearing swaps. The Commission
believes it would be efficient to make
use of this existing infrastructure and
asking market participants to make
changes to this established workflow
might be costly. The Commission
acknowledges the data fragmentation
concerns raised by those that
recommend DCOs report original swap
creation data. However, the Commission
also recognizes that requiring the DCOs,
rather than the original reporting
counterparty, to report original swap
creation data may present challenges of
its own.304 The Commission also
believes that there are significant
benefits associated with maintaining
accurate and timely reporting of the
required data fields and that this will
outweigh data fragmentation concerns
for those situations where the original
swap and clearing swaps are reported to
different SDRs.
The Commission has considered
arguments made by the commenters
with respect to choice of SDR and
believes that placing the obligation to
choose the SDR on the registered entity
or counterparty that is required to report
the swap, rather than on another entity,
will result in more efficient data
reporting. Allowing the first entity to
report data on a swap to choose the SDR
will allow reporting entities to select an
SDR to which they have established
connections; giving another entity the
ability to choose the SDR could require
the first reporting entities to connect to
multiple SDRs. The Commission also
believes allowing the first reporting
registered entity or counterparty to
choose the SDR will also promote
competition among SDRs to provide
SDR services to a broad array of
reporting entities.
This method of SDR selection also
avoids the insertion of any entity other
than a party to the swap or facility
where the transaction is executed, into
the decision as to how a registered
entity or counterparty fulfills its
regulatory obligation to report initial
required swap creation data. As with the
first-touch approach taken with
respect to the creation of USIs in part
45,305 the Commission believes that the
entity with the first reporting obligation
should select the SDR for that report.
The Commission believes that such a
304 See e.g., Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4
(suggesting there could be timeliness issue
depending on when the DCO receives necessary
information from counterparties to report creation
data).
2158 (Jan. 13, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
method of SDR selection will avoid

delays in real-time reporting for part 43
purposes. If DCOs were to select the
SDR for an original swap, the DCO
would not be in a position to make such
selection until after a swap was
accepted for clearing. Any delays in
clearing would translate into delays in
reporting for both part 43 real-time
reporting and part 45 reporting.
Additionally, the registered entity or
counterparty that is required to report a
swap pursuant to 45.8 may select an
SDR to which its technological systems
are most suited or to which it already
has an established relationship,
providing for the efficient and accurate
reporting of swap data. As a result, the
Commission believes that amendments
to 45.3(j) simply codify existing
practice and will not impose any
additional connection costs for DCOs or
SDRs. In addition, the Commission
believes that allowing DCOs to choose
the SDRs to which they report creation
and continuation data is costminimizing for DCOs because it allows
them to select the SDR which is most
cost effective.
i. Costs
The Commission understands that
under current industry practice, DCOs
commonly report to SDRs creation data
for swaps that would fall under the
definition of clearing swaps.
Accordingly, to the extent that DCOs
already have been reporting in
conformance with adopted 45.3(e), the
Commission does not expect the final
rule to result in any additional costs.
With respect to registered DCOs
organized outside of the United States,
its territories, and possessions, that are
subject to supervision and regulation in
a foreign jurisdiction, a home country
trade reporting regulatory regime may
require the DCO to report swap data to
a trade repository in the home country
jurisdiction. For clearing swaps that a
DCO would be required to report both
to a registered SDR pursuant to the
amendments to part 45, and to a foreign
trade repository pursuant to a home
country trade reporting regulatory
regime, the Commission acknowledged
in the NPRM that a DCO could be
expected to incur some additional costs
in satisfying both its CFTC and home
country reporting obligations, relative to
a DCO that would only be subject to part
45 reporting requirements. As also
indicated in the NPRM, DCOs are not
currently required to provide such cost
information to the Commission, the
Commission lacks access to the
information needed to assess the
magnitude of the costs relating to
compliance with reporting obligations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
in multiple jurisdictions. In addition,

the Commission did not receive any
comments on, nor estimates of, the costs
relating to compliance with reporting
obligations in multiple jurisdictions. In
terms of any potential costs, the
Commission expects that industry
technological innovations may
effectively allow for satisfaction of swap
data reporting requirements across more
than one jurisdiction by means of a
single data submission, and that a
streamlined reporting process or other
technology and operational
enhancements could mitigate the cost of
satisfying reporting requirements for
swaps that may be required to be
reported to a foreign trade repository
under a home country regulatory regime
as well as to a registered SDR pursuant
to amendments to part 45.306
anticipates that adopting an approach to
the reporting of cleared swaps in the
United States that is, to the extent
possible, consistent with the approaches
adopted in other jurisdictions may also
minimize compliance costs for entities
operating in multiple jurisdictions.307
The Commission also notes that any
costs arising from reporting swap data
with respect to more than one
jurisdiction could already have been
realized, to the extent that DCOs located
outside the United States are already
reporting swap data to a registered SDR
in addition to reporting swap data to a
trade repository pursuant to a home
country regulatory regime.
Finally, with respect to choice of SDR,
the Commission believes that
amendments to 45.3(j) will not impose
any additional costs because the
amendments simply codify existing
practicethe Commission understands
that the workflows that apply the
proposed choice of SDR obligations are
already in place.
allowing DCOs to choose the SDRs to
which they report creation and
continuation data is cost-minimizing for
DCOs because it allows them to select
the SDR which is most cost effective. As
discussed in greater detail below, the
Commission anticipates that DCOs that
have affiliated SDRs will continue their
306 As noted in the NPRM, the part 45 regulations
contemplate situations where a swap may be
required to be reported pursuant to U.S. law and
the law of another jurisdiction. See 80 FR 52544,
52564 n. 138.
307 The Commission understands that the
approach followed in this final release for the
reporting of cleared swaps (e.g., requiring separate
reporting of alphas, betas, and gammas) is largely
consistent with the multi-swap approach adopted
by a number of jurisdictions, including, for
example, the European Union, Singapore, and
Australia.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41763
current practice of reporting clearing

swaps to their affiliated SDRs.308
ii. Benefits
Amended 45.3(e) will explicitly
articulate DCO part 45 reporting
obligations with respect to clearing
swaps (e.g., betas and gammas).309 As
explained above, existing 45.3 does
not explicitly acknowledge distinct
reporting requirements for swaps
commonly known as alphas, betas, and
gammas. The amendments explicitly
delineate creation data reporting
obligations for each component of a
cleared swap transaction, which will
improve the Commissions ability to
analyze data associated with such
transactions.
Requiring DCOs to report required
swap creation data for clearing swaps to
SDRs in the manner outlined in this
release is expected to result in uniform
protocols and consistent reporting of the
individual components of a cleared
swap transaction. The Commission
believes that the adopted reporting
framework for cleared swaps will result
in more consistent reporting of all
components of a cleared swap
transaction, including linkages between
the related swaps, thereby increasing
the efficiency of the SDR data collection
function and enhancing the
Commissions ability to utilize the data
for regulatory purposes, including for
systemic risk mitigation, market
monitoring, and market abuse
prevention.
With respect to confirmation data
reporting, the Commission anticipates
that the removal of certain confirmation
data reporting requirements will result
in decreased costs for swap
counterparties and/or registered entities
that are currently gathering and
conveying electronically the
information necessary to report
308 The Commission acknowledges several
commenters at both the IDWG Request for Comment
and NPRM stages who commented on the costs to
reporting counterparties when reporting original
swaps. See, e.g., CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 67;
CMC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. However, the
Commission has noted that the revisions to part 45
adopted in this release do not change the existing
obligation of those entities to report original swaps.
Therefore, the costs currently incurred by such
reporting counterparties are not a factor when
considering the costs and benefits of the revisions
adopted in this release. The Commission does
discuss those costs in the Consideration of
Alternatives, below at Section III.C.10.
alternatives separately discussed in the
Consideration of Alternatives section later in this
release could also provide these benefits for
registered entities and swap counterparties.
However, for the reasons explained in that section,
the Commission is of the view that the proposed
approach is more consistent with industry practice
than the alternatives.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41764
confirmation data for swaps that are

clearing at the time of execution.310
With respect to the adopted rule
allowing the removal of certain
confirmation data reporting
requirements for swaps that are
Commission is of the view that the
adopted confirmation data reporting
requirements for clearing swaps should
provide the necessary confirmation data
with respect to cleared swap
transactions. Given that the adopted
rules will require the DCO to report
confirmation data for clearing swaps,
requiring an additional set of
confirmation data reporting for the nowterminated original swap, in addition to
PET data, would be duplicative and
therefore unnecessary.
Finally, with respect to choice of SDR,
under adopted 45.3(j), the party with
the obligation to report the first data for
a swap has the discretion to select the
SDR of its choice. This can be an SDR
with which the party already has a
working relationship, an SDR which is,
in the registered entity or reporting
counterpartys estimation, most costeffective, or an SDR that provides the
best overall service and product. The
Commission believes that this flexibility
to select SDRs will minimize reporting
errors and improve reporting
efficiencies by allowing the reporting
entity to select an SDR with which it
has a connection and reporting systems
in place. The Commission also believes
this approach will foster competition
between SDRs, as reporting entities such
as SEFs/DCMs, SDs/MSPs, DCOs, and
non-SD/MSPs can select the SDR to
which they will report. Further,
allowing the reporting entity to select
the SDR will reduce costs, as reporting
(other than DCOs) should not have to
establish a connection to more than one
SDR unless they prefer to do so. The
Commission understands that 45.3(j) is
consistent with industry practice,311
310 See CEWG May 27, 2014 Letter, at 45 (stating
that reporting confirmation data in addition to PET
data is highly redundant because confirmation data
simply includes all of the PET data matched and
agreed to by the counterparties); ISDA May 27, 2014
Letter, at 68 (noting that Confirmation data
should not be required for an alpha trade that is
intended for clearing at point of execution, whether
due to the clearing mandate or bilateral agreement.
Confirmation data for alpha swaps is not
meaningful since they will be terminated and
replaced with cleared swaps simultaneously or
shortly after execution for which confirmation data
will be reported by the DCO.).
311 The Commission notes that industry practice
with respect to choice of SDR has likely been
influenced in part by a variety of factors, including,
among others, the Commissions statement
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
and thus that the benefits described

above are already being realized.
5. Continuation Data Reporting by
DCOsAdopted Amendments to 45.4
The Commissions amendments to
45.4, which governs the reporting of
swap continuation data to an SDR
during a swaps existence through its
final termination or expiration,
incorporate the distinction between
original swaps and clearing swaps. The
Commission is removing 45.4(b)(2)(ii),
which requires a reporting counterparty
that is an SD or MSP to report valuation
data for cleared swaps daily; instead,
the DCO will be the only swap
counterparty required to report swap
continuation data, including valuation
data, for clearing swaps.
Notably, amended 45.4(c) will
including original swap terminations, to
the SDR to which such original swap
was reported. Finally, adopted
45.4(c)(2) will require that
continuation data reported by DCOs
include the following data fields as life
cycle event data or state data for original
swaps pursuant to adopted 45.4(c)(1):
(i) The LEI of the SDR to which each
clearing swap that replaced a particular
original swap was reported by the DCO
pursuant to new 45.3(e); (ii) the USI of
the original swap that was replaced by
the clearing swaps; and (iii) the USIs for
each of the clearing swaps that replace
the original swap.
costs and benefits raised by commenters
on the proposed addition of 45.4(c)
and its requirement that DCOs report
including terminations. The
Commission believes that the adopted
revisions to 45.4(c) are broadly in line
with existing industry practice, and set
out specific obligations that will ensure
continuation data is properly reported
and reflected in the data that the
Commission uses to fulfill its regulatory
obligations. The Commission notes that
it may be more burdensome for the
counterparties to the original swaps,
rather than the DCO, to report
terminations, as the counterparty would
have to receive a message from the DCO
confirming that the original swap was
accepted for clearing and then translate
that message from the DCO into a
termination message to the SDR.
Particularly, this may be most
burdensome to commercial end-users
regarding CME Rule 1001. See Statement of the
Commission on the Approval of CME Rule 1001
(Mar. 6, 2013), at 6. The Commission notes that
other DCOs have adopted similar rules. See, e.g.,
ICE Clear Credit Rule 211.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
executing swaps on SEFs or DCMs who

might otherwise have no reporting
obligations and who may not have the
infrastructure in place to report as
quickly or as efficiently as DCOs.312 The
Commissions proposed rules largely
avoid these costs for commercial endusers.
i. Costs
Existing 45.4(b)(2) requires that both
SDs/MSPs and DCOs report daily
valuation data for cleared swaps. The
removal of 45.4(b)(2)(ii) will eliminate
the existing valuation data reporting
requirement for SDs/MSPs, leaving
DCOs as the sole entity responsible for
daily valuation data reporting. As DCOs
are currently required to report
valuation data for cleared swaps, they
will not bear any additional costs as a
result of this proposed amendment.
While DCOs are currently required to
report continuation data on cleared
swaps, including terminations, to SDRs
under existing 45.4,313 the adopted
rule clarifies reporting obligations as
they relate to swaps that become
original swaps. The Commission
understands that DCOs frequently
assume responsibility to report the
termination of swaps that become alpha
swaps, but that DCOs do not
consistently report such alpha swap
terminations or do not report them in
the form required by the alpha swap
SDR. Some DCOs that do not currently
have connectivity to the SDR where the
SEF/DCM or original counterparties first
reported the swap will incur costs
associated with establishing such
connectivity. DCOs will also realize
costs associated with the termination
notice and submissions correcting
previously erroneously reported or
omitted data. However, DCO reporting
of alpha swap terminations has not been
uniform and may vary by DCO and SDR.
The Commission is aware that, in some
instances, DCOs currently report alpha
swap terminations to the original SDR
that received the original submission of
the intended to be cleared swap. To the
extent that DCOs have implemented
systems to report alpha swap
terminations to the original swap SDR,
the amended rules thus will not
introduce any new costs for those DCOs.
The Commission received three
comments concerning the costs and
benefits of the proposed amendments to
312 See, supra, n. 26, discussing reporting
obligations for end-users trading on-facility cleared
swaps.
313 Section 45.4(b) as effective prior to this rule
release, required DCOs to report continuation data
on all swaps cleared by the derivatives clearing
organization, including life cycle event data or state
data.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
45.4 in two different contexts. In

commenting on the NPRM, LCH and
Eurex expressed concerns with the
infrastructure required to have the DCO
connected to every SDR chosen by the
SD/MSP for which the DCO clears and
report terminations according to the
technical requirements of each SDR.314
Eurex specifically indicated that the
cost of implementing the required
infrastructure would have significant
time and financial costs. In commenting
on the IDWG Request for Comment, one
foreign central counterparty now acting
pursuant to a DCO Exemptive Order
cited a specific cost for connecting to a
new SDR as involving at least 150 mandays.315 Based on the most recent
industry compensation reports, the
median cost to a firm for 150 working
days by a computer programmer in the
finance industry would be $61,000 per
DCO to SDR connection.316 Considering
that each DCO must have a connection
to at least one registered SDR currently
to report beta and gamma swaps under
current industry practice, and
considering that there are only four
registered SDRs, each DCO could be
expected to incur at most $183,000 to
connect to all registered SDRs. This cost
would be reduced to the extent that the
DCO has existing connections to more
than one SDR or if it clears swaps for
clearing members whose original swaps
are reported to a limited number of
SDRs.
With respect to additional data fields,
as discussed above, adopted 45.4(c)(2)
will add three data fields (the LEI of the
SDR to which creation data for the
clearing swaps was reported, the USI of
the original swap, and USIs of the
clearing swaps) to the life cycle event
data or to state data reported by DCOs
as continuation data for original
314 See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 45; LCH
315 See OTC Hong Kong May 27, 2014 Letter, at
23 (contending that setup, application
development, and testing to interface with each
SDR is likely to require at least 150 man-days, and
that a more cost-effective framework would be to
require the original counterparty to report
termination of the alpha once it receives
confirmation that the alpha has been accepted for
clearing, and that the original counterparty would
already have in place technical and operational
interfaces with the SDR of its choice. The
commenter also contended that the burden on
DCOs of additional reporting outweighs the benefits
to the CFTC).
316 See SIFMA Report, Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry
2013 (October 2013), available at http://
www.sifma.org/research/item.aspx?id=8589940603.
This estimate is based on the median total
compensation for a Programmer (Code 1604)
($91,050), on an hourly basis assuming 1,800 hours
worked per year ($50.83) and an eight hour work
day.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
swaps.317 All three of these data fields

are either already in use or can be
created by the SDR and reported by the
DCO. While requiring the reporting of
additional fields imposes costs, DCOs
should already possess the information
needed for these fields, and the
Commission believes that the extra costs
to DCOs associated with adopted
45.4(c)(2) would be minimal. The
Commission requested relevant
information and quantitative estimates
regarding the costs associated with
creating and using these fields but did
not receive any. As discussed in Section
II.C.4.iv above, the Commission would
encourage SDRs and DCOs to
standardize messages for terminating
original swap, which should alleviate
some of the burden on DCOs.
ii. Benefits
Adopted 45.4(c) will ensure that
data concerning original swaps remains
current and accurate, allowing the
Commission to ascertain whether an
original swap was terminated through
clearing novation. Original swap data
that does not reflect the current state of
the swap frustrates the use of swap data
for regulatory purposes, including, but
not limited to, assessing market
exposures between counterparties and
evaluating compliance with the clearing
mandate.318 The Commission is of the
view that, to the extent that DCOs
current practices are not currently in
conformance with the adopted rule,
requiring the DCO to report
continuation data for original swaps is
the most efficient and effective method
to ensure that data concerning original
swaps remains current and accurate as
the DCO, through its rules, determines
when an original swap is terminated
and thus has the quickest and easiest
access to authoritative information
concerning termination of the original
swap.
Adopted 45.4(c) will ensure that
part 45 explicitly addresses DCO part 45
with respect to original swaps (i.e.,
alphas).319 Existing 45.4(b), which
317 Required swap continuation data is defined
in 45.1 and includes life cycle event data or
state data (depending on which reporting method
is used) and valuation data. Each of these data
types is defined in 45.1. Life cycle event data
means all of the data elements necessary to fully
report any life cycle event. State data means all
of the data elements necessary to provide a
snapshot view, on a daily basis of all of the primary
economic terms of a swap. 17 CFR 45.1.
318 See Swap Dealer De Minimis Exception
Preliminary Report, (Nov. 18, 2015), at 1314,
@swaps/documents/file/dfreport_sddeminis_
1115.pdf.
alternatives separately discussed in the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41765
addresses continuation data reporting

for cleared swaps, requires DCOs to
report continuation data for all swaps
cleared by a [DCO], but does not
explicitly address the multi-swap
framework provided in 39.12(b)(6).320
Therefore, uncertainty persists as to
whether, under existing 45.4(b) the
DCO must report continuation data for
the alpha, beta and gamma swaps. The
inconsistent interpretation of this
reporting requirement leads to
substantial differences in reporting of
cleared swaps and presents challenges
for regulatory oversight. The
requirements adopted in this rule will
make explicit that the DCO has the
obligation to report continuation data
for original swaps that have been
terminated and the clearing swaps that
replace a terminated original swap.
removal of the requirement that SDs and
MSPs report daily valuation data for
cleared swaps from 45.4(b)(2) can
result in cost savings to the extent that
any SDs and MSPs are not currently
relying on no-action relief.321 In
addition, because there are fewer DCOs
than non-DCO reporting counterparties,
placing the responsibility to report
valuation data solely on the DCO will
result in a more consistent and
standardized valuation reporting
scheme, as there would be a dramatic
decrease in the number of potential
valuation data submitters to SDRs. This
will benefit SDRs, regulators, and the
public because it would facilitate data
aggregation and improve the
Commissions ability to analyze SDR
data and to satisfy its risk and market
oversight responsibilities, including
measurement of the notional amount of
outstanding swaps in the market.
Adopted 45.4(c)(2) will require
DCOs to report three important
continuation data fields for original
swaps which will assist regulators in
tracing the history of, and associating
Consideration of Alternatives, Section III.C.10,
could also provide these benefits for registered
entities and swap counterparties. However, for the
reasons explained in that section, the Commission
is of the view that the proposed approach is
superior to the alternatives.
320 As discussed earlier in this release,
39.12(b)(6) provides that upon acceptance of a
swap by a DCO for clearing, the original swap is
extinguished and replaced by equal and opposite
swaps, with the DCO as the counterparty to each
such swap. See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6).
321 See CFTC No-Action Letter No. 1255 (Dec.
17, 2012); CFTC No-Action Letter No. 1334 (Jun.
26, 2013); CFTC No-Action Letter No. 1490 (Jun.
30, 2014); and CFTC No-Action Letter No.1538
(Jun. 15, 2015). Staff no-action relief from the
requirements of 45.4(b)(2)(ii) has been in effect
since the initial compliance date for part 45
reporting.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41766
the individual swaps involved in, a

cleared swap transaction, from
execution of the original swap through
the life of each clearing swap that
replaces an original swap, regardless of
the SDR(s) to which the original and
clearing swaps are reported. The newly
required continuation data elements to
be reported by the DCOs for original
swaps will ensure that original swap
continuation data includes sufficient
information to identify, by USI, any
clearing swaps created from the same
original swap, as well as the SDR where
those clearing swaps reside. As such,
the Commission expects that review of
any particular swap in a registered SDR
will include a listing of all other
relevant USIs with respect to that swap
(e.g., original swap and clearing swaps).
The Commission believes that this
requirement will help ensure the
availability of information necessary to
link original swaps and clearing swaps,
even if those swaps are reported to
different SDRs. The ability to link
original and clearing swaps across
multiple SDRs will decrease data
fragmentation and will increase the
ability of the Commission to accurately
aggregate cleared swap data across
various SDRs. As a result, adopted
45.4(c)(2) will improve the ease of use
for cleared swaps data, which will
enhance the Commissions ability to
perform its regulatory duties, including
to protect market participants and the
public.
6. USI Creation by DCOs 45.5(d)
Existing 45.5 requires that each
swap subject to the Commissions
jurisdiction be identified in all swap
recordkeeping and data reporting by a
USI. The rule establishes different
requirements for the creation and
transmission of USIs depending on
or DCM or executed off-facility with or
without an SD or MSP reporting
counterparty. Existing 45.5 also
provides that for swaps executed on or
pursuant to the rules of a SEF or DCM,
the SEF or DCM creates the USI, and for
swaps not executed on or pursuant to
the rules of a SEF or DCM, the USI is
created by an SD or MSP reporting
counterparty, or by the SDR if the
reporting counterparty is not an SD or
MSP.
Amended rule 45.5(d) will require a
DCO to generate and assign a USI for a
clearing swap upon, or as soon as
technologically practicable after,
DCO for clearing (in the event the
clearing swap replaces an original swap)
or execution of a clearing swap (in the
event that the clearing swap does not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
replace an original swap), and prior to

reporting the required swap creation
data for the swap. Amended 45.5(d)
contains provisions governing creation
and assignment of USIs by the DCO that
are consistent with analogous
provisions governing creation and
assignment of USIs by SEFs, DCMs, SDs,
MSPs, and SDRs.
All comments received with respect
to amended 45.5(d) were supportive of
the change and there were no comments
with regards to the costs and benefits of
this amendment.
i. Costs
adopted 45.5(d) is largely consistent
with industry practice and will not
result in any additional costs for DCOs.
Any DCOs that will not be in complete
conformance with the adopted rule may
need to enhance their existing
technological protocols in order to
create USIs in house, but these marginal
costs would likely be lower than the
costs associated with obtaining a USI
with a separate USI-creating entity. The
Commission believes that creating USIs
in-house, rather than with a different
USI creating entity, is less costly for
DCOs and the Commission did not
receive any data on that comparison or
on any other quantifiable cost structures
associated with 45.5(d).
ii. Benefits
As noted above, the existing part 45
regulations do not explicitly address the
assignment of USIs to swaps that fall
within the adopted definition of
clearing swaps. Explicitly requiring
DCOs to generate, assign, and transmit
USIs for clearing swaps will provide
regulatory certainty with respect to the
generation and assignment of USIs for
clearing swaps. The adopted rule will
also help ensure consistent and uniform
USI creation and assignment for such
swaps and will allow regulators to better
identify and trace the swaps generally
involved in cleared swap transactions,
from execution of the original swap
through the life of each clearing swap.
7. Determination of the Reporting
Counterparty for Clearing Swaps 45.8
Current 45.8 establishes a hierarchy
under which the reporting counterparty
for a particular swap depends on the
nature of the counterparties involved in
the transaction. DCOs are not included
in the existing 45.8 hierarchy. The
Commission is adopting 45.8(i) in
order to identify DCOs in the hierarchy
as the reporting counterparty for
clearing swaps.
One commenter supported proposed
45.8(i) as it promoted efficiency in
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reporting by explicitly designating the

DCO as the reporting party for clearing
swaps.322 There were no other
comments with respect to the costs and
benefits of this amendment.
i. Costs
adopted amendments to 45.8, in and of
themselves, will not impose any
additional costs on registered entities or
reporting counterparties. The
Commission believes that the rule
simply reflects established reporting
arrangements, which, to the
Commissions understanding, is for the
DCO to submit data to the SDR for
swaps that would fall within the
definition of clearing swaps.
ii. Benefits
As noted above, clearing swaps are
not explicitly acknowledged in existing
45.3, and DCOs are not identified as
reporting counterparties in the reporting
counterparty hierarchy of 45.8. The
Commission acknowledges the
comment by AIMA that one benefit of
proposed 45.8(i) is that it improves
efficiency in reporting by explicitly
designating the DCO as the reporting
party for clearing swaps. In addition, the
Commission expects that modifications
to the 45.8 reporting counterparty
hierarchy will eliminate ambiguity
regarding which registered entity or
swap counterparty is required to report
required creation data for clearing
swaps, explicitly delineating the nature
and extent of DCO reporting obligations,
and affording market participants and
SDRs a more precise and accurate
understanding of reporting obligations
under part 45.
8. Reporting to a Single Swap Data
Repository 45.10
Existing 45.10 requires that all swap
data for a given swap must be reported
to a single SDR, which must be the same
SDR to which creation data for that
swap is first reported. The time and
manner in which such data must be
reported to a single SDR depends on
or DCM or executed off-facility with or
without an SD/MSP reporting
counterparty. The Commission is
amending 45.10 to require DCOs to
report all data for a particular clearing
swap to a single SDR. Moreover,
consistent with current industry
practice, amended 45.10(d)(3) will
require the DCO to report all required
swap creation data for each clearing
swap that replaces a particular original
swap (i.e., the beta and gamma that
322 See
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6.
27JNR2
replace a particular alpha) to a single
SDR, such that all required creation data
and all required continuation data for
all clearing swaps that can be traced
back to the same original swap will be
reported to the same SDR (although not
necessarily the same SDR as the original
swap).
i. Costs
The Commission does not expect
DCOs to incur any new costs associated
with ensuring that clearing swap data is
reported to a single SDR because the
requirements of the adopted rule are, to
the Commissions understanding,
consistent with current DCO reporting
practice.
ii. Benefits
benefit of reporting data associated with
each clearing swap to a single SDR is
that all required creation data, all
required continuation data for related
clearing swaps and, by extension, USIs
linking clearing swaps to the original
swap, will be stored with the same SDR.
This will minimize confusion on the
part of SDRs and regulators regarding
which swaps are still active and which
ones have been terminated. The
Commission notes that the benefits of
reporting all data for clearing swaps to
the same SDR are currently being
realized, as it is current industry
practice for DCOs to report swaps that
will fall under the amended definition
of clearing swaps in conformance with
adopted 45.10(d)(3).
9. PET DataAdopted Amendments to
the Primary Economic Terms Data
Tables
The Commissions current lists of
minimum (required) primary economic
terms for swaps in each swap asset class
are found in tables in Exhibits AD of
appendix 1 to part 45. With this final
release, the Commission has modified
the descriptions of some PET fields
applicable to all swaps, added some
PET fields applicable to all swaps, and
added some PET fields applicable only
to clearing swaps. For PET fields
applicable to clearing swaps, the
Commission is adding several new data
elements under the heading Additional
Data Categories and Fields for Clearing
Swaps to Exhibits AD in order to
more accurately capture the additional,
unique features of clearing swaps that
are not relevant to original swaps or
uncleared swaps. The newly proposed
data fields include: The USI for the
clearing swap; the USI for the original
swap; the SDR to which the original
swap was reported; clearing member
LEI, clearing member client account
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
origin, house or customer account;

clearing receipt timestamp; and clearing
acceptance timestamp.
As for PET field modifications and
additions relevant for all swaps, the
Commission is also adding several new
required data elements, which will be
applicable to all swaps, and making
conforming changes to some existing
data elements. The newly added fields
include: Asset class, an indication of
whether the reporting counterparty is a
DCO with respect to the swap, and
clearing exception or exemption types.
The Commission has received various
comments with respect to the proposed
changes to the primary economic terms
data but few that address the cost and
benefits of the changes are summarized
below.323 ISDA commented on the
proposed Clearing exception or
exemption type PET field, which
would require the reporting party to
identify the clearing exemption
exercised for a particular swap.324 ISDA
commented that it could be challenging
and costly for firms to implement this
change, while providing no new
information because exception and
exemption elections must already be
provided to SDRs. Because existing
reporting standards can identify interaffiliate trades, ISDA recommended that
the Clearing exception or exemption
type PET field acceptable values be
limited to inter-affiliate and other.
With respect to ISDAs comment, SDs
are already required already to submit to
SDRs information on any clearing
exception or exemption elections made
by their counterparties pursuant to part
50. The Commission believes that
reporting information on clearing
exception or exemption elections on a
transactional basis, in the manner
described in the proposed changes to
the primary economic terms, should not
substantially increase costs on reporting
counterparties.
i. Costs
The Commission emphasizes that, as
a result of the amendments to the PET
data tables for clearing swaps, the newly
added data fields for clearing swaps will
be reported exclusively by DCOs. While
323 One commenter cautioned that the definitions
used in the markets are not always consistent with
those proposed by the NPRM, which places a
significant burden on small-sized market
participants. See JBA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23.
Because the only new fields either relate solely to
clearing swap reporting (and therefore affect only
DCOs), reference terms defined in the Regulations
(such as Asset class), or reference the application
of certain provisions of the Regulations (such as
Clearing Exception or Exemption Type), the
Commission believes the terms in the new PET data
fields are sufficiently clear to avoid any costs or
burden cited by this commenter.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41767
there might be costs associated with

reporting newly added data fields, the
Commission believes that DCOs are
better situated than swap counterparties
to report the additional fields for
clearing swaps without the substantial
costs and operational burdens because
DCOs already possess certain
information, or other registered entities
and swap counterparties are required to
transmit the information to DCOs,
regarding those fields. For example, the
data necessary to report the adopted
original swap SDR field is currently
required to be transmitted to the DCO
under existing 45.5, and the
Commission understands that data
required by the amended clearing
receipt timestamp and clearing
acceptance timestamp fields may
already be generated and present in
DCO systemssuch DCOs would just
have to transfer those timestamps to the
reporting system for each clearing swap.
Similarly, the Commission understands
that house or customer account
designations are already collected and
maintained in relation to certain part 39
reporting obligations. Hence, there will
be no additional cost in collecting the
information necessary to report the
origin (house or customer) field, and
marginal costs might stem from
conveying the information in part 45
swap data reports. The Commission
solicited comments on the extent to
which DCOs may already possess the
information required by the amended
additional fields and the costs
associated with obtaining and/or
reporting such information but did not
receive any comments or estimates on
this topic.
While the Commission requested the
data needed to quantify the cost of the
addition of three data fields applicable
to all reporting entities (asset class, DCO
indicator, and clearing exception or
exemption type), the Commission did
not receive any quantifiable estimates of
costs associated with creating and using
these fields from commenters. The
Commission believes that the costs
associated with these additional fields
will not be substantial since the
information necessary to report these
data elements is likely to be readily
available in connection with the
execution of swaps, with some marginal
costs stemming from the requirement to
include the information in PET data
reported to an SDR (to the extent that
such information is not already
reported). The Commission understands
that in at least some cases, market
practice is to report some of the
information required by the proposed
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41768
three new data fields applicable to all

reporting entities for all swaps.
ii. Benefits
additions to the list of minimum
primary economic terms will result in a
variety of benefits. Clearing swap PET
fields, such as USI for the original swap
or the SDR to which the original swap
was reported, can facilitate the
monitoring of each original swap by
SDRs and regulators. Clearing swap PET
fields can also prevent potential doublecounting of swap transactions or
notional amounts, thus improving the
accuracy of SDR data for use by the
Commission in such activities as
evaluating swap dealer de minimis
thresholds. Other proposed fields such
as clearing member LEI or clearing
member client account information will
facilitate the Commissions assessment
of risk management of market
participants, promoting the protection
of the financial integrity of the markets
and the protection of market
participants and the public.
The new PET fields for all swaps also
will benefit the Commission in
performing its regulatory obligations.
The asset class data field will assist the
Commission in determining the asset
class for swaps reported to SDRs,
enhancing the Commissions ability to
identify swaps activity in each asset
class as well as the capability to use the
data for regulatory purposes. The
indication of whether the reporting
counterparty is a DCO with respect to
the swap data field will help the
Commission monitor DCOs compliance
with reporting of clearing swap data
elements, and improve the
Commissions ability to analyze swap
data relating to cleared swap
transactions. The clearing exception or
exemption types data field will enable
the Commission to ascertain the specific
exception or exemption from the
clearing requirement that was elected
and will assist in the evaluation of
compliance with the clearing
requirement, as well as assessing market
activity in uncleared swaps.
10. Consideration of Alternatives

The Commission considered the costs
and benefits of certain alternatives
raised by commenters in response to the
IDWG Request for Comment and the
NPRM, including whether part 45
should require intended to be cleared
swaps (original swaps) to be reported to
registered SDRs. Some commenters
noted that reporting of alpha swaps is
beneficial and should continue to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
required,325 while other commenters

contended that alpha swaps should not
be required to be reported to an SDR
and questioned the benefits of requiring
the reporting of alpha swaps.326
Some commenters stated that the
Commission should require clearing
swaps to be reported to the same SDR
as original swaps, so that the entire
history of a swap would reside at the
same SDR.327 A number of commenters
suggested that part 45 should place
swap data reporting obligations solely
on DCOs, including with respect to
swaps that are intended to be cleared at
the time of execution and accepted for
clearing by a DCO (swaps commonly
known as alpha swaps) and swaps
resulting from clearing (swaps
commonly known as beta and
gamma swaps).328 However, other
commenters noted that it would not be
appropriate to require a DCO to report
information related to the execution of
an alpha swap.329
In light of these comments, the
Commission considered the costs and
benefits of six alternatives in
comparison to the costs and benefits of
the proposed rule: (1) Requiring original
and clearing swaps to be reported to the
same SDR chosen by the reporting
counterparty or SEF/DCM; (2) requiring
original and clearing swaps to be
reported to the same SDR chosen by the
DCO accepting the swap for clearing; (3)
requiring only one report for each swap
intended for clearing, that is, not
requiring original (alpha) swaps to be
reported separately from clearing swaps,
with the SDR chosen by the reporting
counterparty or SEF/DCM; (4) requiring
only one report for each swap intended
for clearing as in (3), but with the SDR
chosen by the DCO accepting the swap
for clearing; (5) requiring the DCO to
325 See TR SEF May 27, 2014 Letter, at 10; AFR
May 27, 2014 Letter, at 5; Markit May 27, 2014
Letter, at 25; and DTCC May 27, 2014 Letter, at 17
18.
Letter. At 2; SIFMA May 27, 2014 Letter, at 4;
CEWG May 27, 2014 Letter, at 15; CME May 27,
2014 Letter, at 23
327 See DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; DTCC
May 27, 2014 Letter, at 23, appendix at 4, 21
(arguing that the Commission should adopt a
single SDR rule to ensure that all of the data for
a swap is available in one SDR); ISDA May 27, 2014
Letter, at 44.
328 See CMC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23; CME
Letter, at 6; CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; CMC
May 27, 2014 Letter, at 1, 3, 6; NFPEA May 27, 2014
Letter, at 12; EEI/EPSA May 27, 2014 Letter, at 3,
14; ITV May 27, 2014 Letter, at 3, 17; CEWG May
27, 2014 Letter, at 16; CME May 27, 2014 Letter, at
20; and NFP Electric Associations May 27, 2014
Letter, at 4.
4; LCH May 29, 2014 Letter, at 10.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
report both the original swap and all

resulting clearing swaps, to the SDR of
its choosing; and (6) requiring the
original swap reporting counterparty to
report the creation and the termination
of the original swap.330
The first two alternatives each require
swaps that become original swaps and
the resulting clearing swaps to be
reported to the same SDR. If such swaps
were reported to the same SDR, there
would be no need for certain
requirements in proposed 45.4(c) that
extra fields, such as clearing swap SDR,
be included in the report to the SDR for
the clearing swap to link the clearing
swap to an original swap on a different
SDR. Similarly, the need for certain
clearing swap PET data fields, such as
the identity of the original SDR,
intended to be used for linking
purposes, might not be necessary. This
would reduce costs to the extent that
certain PET data fields would not be
required to link the original and clearing
swaps. The first approach would require
DCOs to connect to multiple SDRs to the
same extent as the adopted rules.
However, the second approach could
require reporting counterparties or
SEFs/DCMs to connect to multiple
SDRs, which could increase costs for a
larger number of market participants.
Because the adopted rule more closely
reflects current industry practice
relative to the alternative, there would
be some potentially significant one-time
costs, including the costs of changes to
existing systems, associated with
changing practices to conform to the
alternatives. Additionally, a substantial
portion of aggregation costs for
regulators, and, likely, market
participants, arises from the current
landscape, which includes multiple
SDRs. The adopted requirements to link
original and clearing swaps at multiple
SDRs is a relatively minor burden
compared with the existing burden on
the Commission, and potentially other
regulators, in reconciling swap data for
a cleared swap transaction across
multiple SDRs without data elements
linking the original and clearing swaps.
Additionally, costs associated with
monitoring and aggregation would
likely be mitigated by the continuation
data fields of adopted 45.4(c)(2),
which would enable regulators to more
effectively connect original swaps at one
SDR with clearing swaps at another
SDR. Also, as noted in Section II.B.4.iv,
above, these options could also
introduce delays in reporting under
330 The Commission highlighted the first four
alternatives in its NPRM, and added the last two in
light of comments provided in response to the
NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
both part 43 and part 45, which could

undermine the price discovery function
of real-time reporting.
Regarding who would choose the
single SDR, the SDR could be chosen by
the reporting counterparty (or DCM or
SEF) or by the DCO. Under either of the
first two alternatives, one registered
entity or counterpartys choice of SDR
would bind a second registered entity or
counterparty to also report to that SDR,
which could be an SDR that the second
registered entity or counterparty would
not otherwise select. Allowing the
reporting counterparty or SEF/DCM to
choose the SDR would enable the
reporting party to choose the SDR with
the best combination of prices and
service, and thus may promote
competition among SDRs. Allowing the
DCO to choose the SDR for both original
and clearing swaps would likely result
in the DCO always choosing the same
SDR, which may be the SDR that is
affiliated with the DCO (that is, shares
the same parent company). This would
reduce costs for DCOs since they would
need to maintain connectivity with only
one SDR, but would limit the ability of
SDRs to compete since DCOs could
choose to report only to SDRs with
which they are affiliated.331
Under the third and fourth
alternatives, there would be no
requirement to report intended to be
cleared swaps (original swaps)
separately from the resulting clearing
swaps. Rather, there would only be one
report for each cleared swap transaction.
This would be a change from current
swap market practice. As with the first
two alternatives, the choice of SDR
could be made by the reporting
counterparty as determined under
current 45.8, or by the DCO as under
adopted 45.8(i). If there is only one
report for each cleared swap transaction,
there would be ongoing cost savings
associated with the need to make fewer
reports to SDRs. As with the first two
alternatives, there would be no need for
the requirement in adopted 45.4(c)
that extra fields, such as clearing swap
SDR, be included in the report to the
SDR to link the clearing swap to an
original swap on a different SDR, and
market participants and the Commission
could access all information about a
single cleared swap transaction at a
single SDR. This would also reduce
costs relative to the adopted rule.
331 The Commission requested comment on the
extent to which SDRs compete on the basis of price
or service and the extent to which SDRs are chosen
on the basis of relationships with registered entities
and reporting counterparties. Markit commented on
DCOs using affiliated SDRs for reporting, which is
addressed in the Antitrust Considerations, Section
III.D, below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
However, the benefits of separate

reports for original and clearing swaps
would be foregone and there may be a
less complete record of the history of
each cleared swap. Moreover, it would
be more difficult for the Commission to
determine the original counterparties,
original execution time, and other vital
information on the original swap for
market surveillance or enforcement
purposes. It may be possible to reclaim
these benefits through requiring
additional fields in each cleared swap
report, although this would also
increase costs and would require DCOs
to receive and report information
beyond what is otherwise required for
clearing purposes. Additionally,
because the adopted rule more closely
reflects current industry practice
relative to these alternatives, there
would be some potentially significant
one-time costs, including the costs of
changes to existing systems, associated
with changing practices to conform to
the alternatives. The effects of who
chooses the SDR are similar to the
effects described for the first two
alternatives.
Under the fifth alternative, the DCO
would report both the swap that
becomes the original swap (including
creation data and termination) and all
clearing swaps resulting from clearing of
the original swap. While one DCO and
some end-users supported this
alternative as simplifying work flows
and reducing costs to original swaps
counterparties,332 other DCOs opposed
requiring DCOs to report original and
clearing swaps because DCOs would not
have all information required to report
original swaps.333 While recognizing
that this alternative could reduce costs
for reporting counterparties, the
Commission declined to adopt this
alternative as DCOs would not have all
information necessary to submit such
reports. Further, the Commission
declined to adopt this alternative
because of negative impacts on the
timeliness of reporting real-time pricing
information under part 43.
Finally, under the sixth alternative,
the reporting counterparty to the
original swap would be required to
report the termination of that swap
upon acceptance for clearing. As
addressed above in the discussion of
final 45.4, the Commission believes
that DCOs would be in a better position
to report the termination of the original
swap, and would have all information
necessary to report such terminations.
332 See CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 67; CMC
Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 23.
333 See LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; Eurex Oct.
30, 2015 Letter, at 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41769
The Commission has determined not

to adopt the alternatives listed above
because the final rule is more consistent
with current industry practice than such
alternatives. The Commission
understands that reporting
are already set up to report alpha swaps
to registered SDRs (whether or not such
swaps are intended to be cleared at the
time of execution) and that DCOs are
already set up to report beta and gamma
swaps that result from acceptance of a
swap for clearing, and have been
making such reports. Accordingly, the
industry has already incurred the costs
of setting up a system for reporting
cleared swap transactions to SDRs
(including separate reports for swaps
that would fall within the proposed
definitions of original and clearing
swaps). Changing this system to
conform to an alternative rule would
have certain costs to reporting entities.
The Commission also believes that
clarifying distinct reporting
requirements in part 45 for alphas
(swaps that become original swaps) and
betas and gammas (clearing swaps that
replace original swaps) presents a full
history of each cleared swap transaction
and permits the Commission and other
regulators to identify and analyze each
component part of such transactions.
The Commission also continues to
believe that placing the part 45
reporting obligation on the counterparty
or registered entity closest to the source
of, and with the easiest and fastest
access to, complete and accurate data
regarding a swap fosters accuracy and
completeness in swap data reporting. In
light of these benefits, the Commission
will maintain the current industry
practice of separately reporting both
alpha swaps (i.e., swaps that would
become original swaps under the
proposed rules) and beta and gamma
swaps (i.e., clearing swaps as defined
under the proposed rules).
Additionally, the multi-swap
reporting approach adopted in this rule
is largely consistent with the approach
proposed by the SEC in its release
proposing certain new rules and rule
amendments to Regulation SBSR,334 and
is also largely consistent with the
approach adopted by several foreign
regulators.335 Given that the swaps
market is global in nature, the
Commission anticipates that adopting
334 See Regulation SBSRReporting and
80 FR 14740 (Mar. 19, 2015).
335 The Commissions understanding is that a
number of jurisdictions, including the European
Union, Singapore, and Australia, for example, also
account for a multi-swap approach to the reporting
of cleared swaps.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41770
an approach to the reporting of cleared

swaps in the United States that is
consistent with the approaches adopted
in other jurisdictions may minimize
compliance costs for entities operating
in multiple jurisdictions.
11. Section 15(a) Factors
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the
Commission to consider the effects of its
actions in light of the following five
factors:
(1) Protection of market participants
and the public. In the Final Part 45
Rulemaking, the Commission stated that
the data reporting requirements of part
45 provided for protection of market
participants and the public by providing
regulatory agencies with a wealth of
previously unavailable data in a unified
format, greatly enhancing the ability of
market and systemic risk regulators to
perform their oversight and enforcement
functions.336 The Commission believes
that the adopted amendments outlined
in this final release will enhance these
protections by explicitly providing how
and by whom each of the swaps
involved in a cleared swap transaction
should be reported. In particular, by
requiring DCOs to electronically report
the creation data and continuation data
for clearing swaps, the Commission
believes that data on all clearing swaps
associated with a specific original swap
will be aggregated at the same SDR,
provided by a single entity and readily
available for accurate and complete
analysis. This will also allow the
Commission and other regulators to
access all data pertaining to related
clearing swaps from a single SDR. These
enhancements should allow for
efficiencies in oversight and
enforcement functions, resulting in
improved protection of market
participants and the public.
(2) The efficiency, competitiveness
and financial integrity of the markets. In
the Final Part 45 Rulemaking, the
Commission stated that the swap data
reporting requirements of part 45 would
enhance the financial integrity of swap
markets.337 The Commission also stated
that part 45s streamlined reporting
regime, including the counterparty
hierarchy used to select the reporting
counterparty, could be considered
efficient in that it assigns greater
reporting responsibility to more
sophisticated entities more likely to be
able to realize economies of scale and
scope in reporting costs.338 The
Commission believes that the
amendments in this final release will
336 77
337 Id.
FR 2136, 2188.
at 2189.
338 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
further enhance this efficiency by

requiring DCOs to report where they are
the party best equipped to do so.339 In
addition, by explicitly delineating
reporting responsibilities associated
with each component of a cleared swap
transaction, the adopted rules should
result in improved reliability and
consistency of the swaps data reported,
further enhancing the financial integrity
of the swap markets.
The rule confirming that the reporting
counterparty or SEF/DCM has the right
to choose the SDR for the original swap
can promote competition among SDRs.
However, the Commission also
acknowledges that by allowing DCOs to
choose the SDR to which they report,
competition for SDR services can be
impacted as a result of DCOs reporting
to their affiliated SDR, that is, an SDR
that shares the same parent company as
the DCO. Any such impact on
competition will be a consequence of
business decisions designed to realize
costs savings associated with the
affiliations between DCOs and SDRs.
The Commission notes that section 21 of
the CEA permits a DCO to register as an
SDR.
(3) Price Discovery. In the Final Part
45 Rulemaking, the Commission stated
that the swap data reporting
requirements of part 45 did not have a
material effect on the price discovery
process.340 The Commission believes
that the adopted amendments also will
not have a material effect on price
discovery.
(4) Risk Management. In the Final Part
45 Rulemaking, the Commission stated
that the data reporting requirements of
part 45 did not have a material effect on
sound risk management practices.341
adopted amendments also will not have
a material effect on sound risk
management practices.
(5) Other Public Interest
Considerations. In the Final Part 45
Rulemaking, the Commission stated that
the data reporting requirements will
allow regulators to readily acquire and
analyze market data, thus streamlining
the surveillance process.342 The
Commission preliminarily believes that
the amendments outlined in this release
will enhance this consideration by
providing certainty about how and by
whom each of the swaps involved in a
339 As noted earlier in this release, the
Commissions understanding is that the DCO is the
entity that should have the easiest and quickest
access to full information with respect to PET data
and confirmation data for clearing swaps, as well
with respect to terminations of original swaps.
340 77 FR 2136, 2189 (Jan. 13, 2012).
341 Id. at 2189.
342 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
cleared swap transaction should be

reported.
As noted earlier in this release, the
multi-swap reporting approach
proposed in this final release is largely
consistent with the approaches
proposed by the SEC and adopted by
several foreign regulators. Given that the
swaps market is global in nature, the
Commission anticipates that adopting
an approach that is consistent with the
approaches adopted by other regulators
may further other public interest
considerations by reducing compliance
costs for entities operating in multiple
jurisdictions.
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. The
Commission evaluated the amendments
to Part 45 in the context of 7 U.S.C.
2(a)(13)(G) and 7 U.S.C. 24a, which
were adopted by Congress as part of the
Dodd-Frank Act. These provisions
require each swap, whether cleared or
uncleared, to be reported to a registered
SDR. The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted
to reduce systemic risk, increase
transparency, and promote market
integrity by, among other things,
creating rigorous data reporting regimes
with respect to swaps, including real
time reporting.343 As noted in this
release, the Commission has adopted
these amendments to help ensure that
cleared swaps transactions are reported
to SDRs in a consistent and accurate
way to allow the Commission to
evaluate market risk and monitor for
abusive trading practices.
In the Final Part 45 Rulemaking, the
Commission identified choice of SDR as
one area of the rules that could
potentially have an impact on
competition.344 In that release, the
Commission stated that the adopted rule
governing who makes the initial
creation data report and selects the SDR
favors market competition, avoids
injecting the Commission into a market
decision, and leaves the choice of SDR
to be influenced by market forces and
possible market innovations. 345
In the NPRM proposing amendments
on cleared swap reporting, the
Commission asked for comments on any
anticompetitive impacts of the proposed
343 77
FR 2136, 2137.
FR 2136, 2149.
345 77 FR 2136, 2149.
344 77
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
cleared swaps reporting rules.346 In
response to the NPRM, the Commission
received two comments directly
addressing competitive concerns. DTCC
and Markit both commented that
allowing a DCO to select the SDR for
clearing swaps will impact competition
as some DCOs have affiliated SDRs,
which may allow DCOs to bundle
clearing services with SDR services.347
DTCC commented that allowing the
DCO to report to an affiliated SDR,
particularly after the original swap has
already been reported to a different
SDR, will further entrench DCOs
vertical integration in trade execution,
clearing, and data reporting.348 DTCC
argued that this would, in turn, increase
barriers to entry for exchanges,
clearinghouses, and independent SDRs
that are unaffiliated with DCOs.349 As
an alternative, DTCC proposed to grant
the registered entity or reporting
counterparty that is obligated to report
the original swap the ability to select the
SDR to which the clearing swaps must
be reported by the DCO.350
Markit argued that allowing the DCO
to select the SDR to which clearing
swaps are reported would provide
regulatory approval for anticompetitive
tying of clearing and reporting
services.351 Markit contrasted the
current marketplace for clearing services
with what existed in March 2013 when
the Commission approved CME Rule
1001, and alleged that concentration has
increased since 2013.352 In support,
Markit argued that one DCOwhich is
affiliated with an SDRclears 87
percent of global credit index swaps.353
As an alternative to the Commissions
proposal, Markit proposed that the
reporting counterparty for an original
swap be permitted, at its discretion, to
both report the resulting clearing swaps
and select the SDR to which the clearing
swaps are reported. Under Markits
proposal, the reporting counterparty to
the original swap would also be
permitted to delegate this reporting and
SDR selection responsibility to the
DCO.354
The Commission has taken into
consideration the public interest to be
protected by the antitrust laws, and
endeavored to take the least
anticompetitive means of achieving the
objectives of the CEA in adopting this
346 80
FR 52571.
Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 35; DTCC
347 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
final rule. Having considered the

comments raised by DTCC and Markit,
the Commission believes that the
amendments to part 45 concerning
choice of SDR announced in this release
meet this least-anticompetitive-means
standard.
The mix of entities reporting swaps to
the various SDRs illustrates how the
choice of SDR currently operates in the
marketplace. Presently there are four
registered SDRs to which swaps may be
reported. Two of the SDRs (CME and
ICE Trade Vault) are affiliated with
DCOs and contain swaps data reported
by those DCOs, as well as data reported
by SEFs, SDs, and non-SD/MSP market
participants. These SDRs receive swap
data on uncleared swaps, as well as both
the original swaps and clearing swaps
from cleared swap transactions. One
SDR (DTCC) is a subsidiary of a large
financial services utility and has
ownership and governance ties to a
number of swap dealers. DTCC receives
swap data from a number of those swap
dealers, as well as SEFs, non-SD/MSP
market participants, and at least one
DCO. DTCC receives swaps reporting for
a large number of uncleared swaps, as
well as original swaps whose associated
clearing swaps are reported at either
DTCC or a DCO-affiliated SDR. The
fourth SDR (Bloomberg) is corporately
affiliated with a SEF and available to
accept data from, among others, SEFs/
DCMs, DCOs, and reporting
counterparties. Also relevant to this
discussion, some SD/MSPs and SEFs
report swaps to multiple SDRs. Some
SDs and SEFs, even those with
corporate affiliations or ownership links
to SDRs, report some swaps to SDRs to
which they have no such connections.
The mix of swaps reported to each SDR
(uncleared, original and clearing swaps)
and the mix of reporting entities using
each SDR are the result of market
participants decisions on how to fulfill
reporting obligations.
Consumers of SDR services under
these amendments are the entities with
the first reporting obligation on a swap:
SEFs/DCMs for uncleared or original
swaps executed on-facility; reporting
counterparties (primarily swap dealers,
but also non-SD/MSP market
participants) for uncleared or original
swaps executed off-facility; and DCOs
for clearing swaps. The amendments
place the choice of SDR for each
individual swap with the entity first
required to report data on that swap.
The amendments do not place the
choice of SDR with a single entity or
counterparty with respect to more than
one swap. In other words, the choice of
SDR will be made as to a particular
swap when a registered entity or
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41771
reporting counterparty that is required

to report the swap makes the first report
of all creation data on a particular
swap.355 Because each reporting entity
responsible for the first report of a swap
would have its choice of SDR, the
Commission does not believe that the
amendments to Part 45 in this release
will significantly impact the mix of
swaps reported to each SDR and the mix
of reporting entities using each SDR, as
described above.
In determining which entity may
select the SDR for the original and
separately for clearing swap
components of a cleared swap
transaction, the Commission considered
three alternatives that potentially could
achieve the objectives of the CEA: (a)
Allowing the entity initially reporting
an original swap to select the SDR for
both the original and clearing swaps, by
requiring clearing swaps to be reported
to the same SDR as the original swaps
they replace; (b) allowing the DCO to
select the SDR for both the original and
clearing swaps; or (c) allowing the entity
first reporting a swap to select the SDR,
specifically by allowing the original
swap reporting entity to select the SDR
for the original swap and the DCO to
select the SDR for the clearing swaps. Of
the three, the Commission considers its
ultimate decisionoption (c)to be the
least anticompetitive to satisfy its
regulatory objectives. Both option (a)
and (b) hold significant potential for a
particular constituency groupnamely
swap dealers or DCOs, respectively to
assume an outsized role in shaping the
evolving SDR landscape to favor the
competitive interests of particular SDRs
to which they have financial ties.356 In
contrast, option (c) minimizes this
potential by diffusing the SDR selection
role across different categories of
reporting entities. No reporting entity
(such as an individual DCO) or group of
similarly situated reporting entities
355 As discussed in section III.C.4. above, 45.3(j)
provides that the registered entity or counterparty
required to report swap creation data has the choice
of SDR when fulfilling its obligations under
45.3(a)(e).
356 As noted, DTCC has ownership and
governance ties to a number of swap dealers.
Additionally, some swap dealers in the DTCC
ownership consortium have ownership and/or
governance ties to certain SEFs. Accordingly, the
Commission sees a strong incentive for swap
dealers and swap dealer-affiliated SEFs to select
DTCC as the SDR to the extent this part 45
amendment grants them authority to do so.
Conversely, the Commission foresees a strong
likelihood that DCOs that have affiliate SDRs, will
select their respective SDR affiliates to the extent
this part 45 amendment grants them authority to do
so and doing so is consistent with their core
principle obligations. As discussed below, the CME
Group DCO currently has a rule providing that all
swaps that it clears be reported to the CMEaffiliated SDR.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41772
(such as SDs that have an ownership

interest in an SDR) would be able to
dictate where another reporting entity
reports a swap. As a result, swaps
reporting should not become
concentrated in a single SDR associated
with either DCOs or SDs. On the
contrary, even assuming that all SDs
choose to report all original and
uncleared swaps to DTCC while ICE and
CME report all clearing swaps to their
affiliated SDRs, swaps reporting will be
diffused across at least three SDRs. At
the same time, the adopted amendments
allow reporting entities to take
advantage of costs savings and
efficiencies by selecting an SDR with
which the reporting entity has an
existing relationship.
In the context of this rulemaking, the
Commission believes that the concerns
of DTCC and Market are misdirected.
The criticism of both commenters pivots
on the fundamental view that the
proposed rule unnecessarily permits
DCOs to bundle services and that
anticompetitive consequences flow from
such bundling.357 The instant
amendment, however, merely specifies
who, in a particular circumstance, will
select the SDR to which a particular
swap will be reported; the amendment
neither permits nor prohibits DCO/SDR
bundlingit does not speak to the issue
at all. To the extent that a particular
DCO reports all of its swaps to a
particular SDR (pursuant to a DCO rule
or otherwise), it must do so consistent
with its core principle obligations,
including Core Principle N.358 This
amendment does not alter or otherwise
impact that obligation. DCO registration
is contingent upon ongoing compliance
with Core Principle N.359 Thus the
question of whether a particular DCO
may be restraining trade or imposing an
anticompetitive burden through the
manner in which it exercises its 45.3(j)
SDR-choice (including under a theory of
anticompetitive tying) is properly
addressed as a matter of DCO
compliance with Core Principle N.360
357 DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at, p. 7; see also,
Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4 (proposed policy
would provide regulatory approval for
anticompetitive tying of clearing and regulatory
reporting services).
358 CEA section 5b(c)(2)(N), 7 U.S.C.7a1(c)(2)(N).
DCO Core Principle N provides that unless
necessary or appropriate to achieve the purposes of
this Act, a derivatives clearing organization shall
not(i) adopt any rule or take any action that
results in any unreasonable restraint of trade; or (ii)
impose any material anticompetitive burden.
359 See CEA section 5b(c)(2)(A)(i), 7 U.S.C. 7a
1(c)(2)(A)(i); 17 CFR 39.10(a).
360 Currently, CME Rule 1001 provides that the
CME Group DCO will report all swaps resulting
from its clearing to the CME Group SDR. After
consideration pursuant to section 5c(c)(5) of the
CEA and Commission regulation 40.5, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
IV. Compliance Dates

Because some revisions and additions
to part 45 create new reporting
obligations or clarify existing reporting
obligations, while some remove
obligations presently covered by noaction or other relief, the Commission is
adopting this release on a bifurcated
basis. The deletion of former
45.4(b)(2)(ii), requiring that SD/MSP
counterparties to clearing swaps report
valuation data on those swaps, shall be
effective upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Compliance with all other revisions
and additions to part 45 adopted in this
release shall be required one hundred
and eighty (180) days after this release
is published in the Federal Register.
The Commission has noted comments
on the need for market participants,
SDRs, DCOs, and other affected parties
to update systems to comply with the
proposed changes to part 45.361
Therefore, the Commission is adopting
the revisions and additions to part 45
with compliance dates for new
obligations that will provide sufficient
time to update and test reporting
systems.
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 45
Data recordkeeping requirements and
data reporting requirements, Swaps.
Commission granted CMEs request for approval of
Rule 1001 on March 6, 2013. See Statement of the
Commission (Statement), available at http://
www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@newsroom/
documents/file/statementofthecommission.pdf. In
granting the request for approval, the Commission
determined, among other things, that under the
then-current facts and circumstances Rule 1001 was
not inconsistent with DCO Core Principle N. As the
Statement expressly stated, however, the
Commissions determination was based on the
present facts and circumstances, and that CME
has a continuing obligation to implement its Rule
1001 in a manner consistent with the Commissions
regulations and the DCO Core Principles, including
Core Principle N, based on the relevant facts and
circumstances as they may change over time.
Statement at 12. The Commission expects that
DCOs will continue to monitor industry
circumstances and amend their rules and conduct
as necessary to remain in statutory and regulatory
compliance as industry conditions evolve. More
specifically in the context of compliance with Core
Principle N, the Commission expects such ongoing
monitoring to include attention to the competitive
impact of DCO rules and conduct in appropriately
defined relevant antitrust product and geographic
markets, and assessment of whether particular DCO
rules or conduct transgress antitrust laws, including
Sherman Act sections 1 and 2, 15 U.S.C. 1 and 2.
361 See JBA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2 (requesting
delayed implementation); DTCC Oct. 30, 2015
Letter, at 9 (requesting that all changes to PET fields
be required prospectively only, and not for existing
swaps; requesting implementation time of 6
months); ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 12
(requesting delayed implementation, but deferring
to SDRs and DCOs on timeline for such
implementation); LCH Oct.30, 2015 Letter, at 2
(recommending at least 12 months for DCOs and
SDRs to coordinate on solution for reporting).
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
For the reasons stated in the

preamble, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission amends 17 CFR
part 45 as set forth below:
PART 45SWAP DATA
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 45 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6r, 7, 7a1, 7b3, 12a,

and 24a, as amended by Title VII of the Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
of 2010, Pub. L. 111203, 124 Stat. 1376
(2010), unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend 45.1 as follows:

a. Add a definition for clearing
swap in alphabetical order;
b. Revise the definition of derivatives
clearing organization; and
c. Add a definition for original
swap in alphabetical order.
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
45.1
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
Clearing swap means a swap created
pursuant to the rules of a derivatives
clearing organization that has a
derivatives clearing organization as a
counterparty, including any swap that
replaces an original swap that was
extinguished upon acceptance of such
original swap by the derivatives clearing
organization for clearing.
*
*
*
*
*
Derivatives clearing organization
means a derivatives clearing
organization, as defined by 1.3(d) of
this chapter, that is registered with the
Commission.
*
*
*
*
*
Original swap means a swap that has
been accepted for clearing by a
derivatives clearing organization.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Revise 45.3 to read as follows:
45.3
Swap data reporting: Creation data.
Registered entities and swap

counterparties must report required
swap creation data electronically to a
swap data repository as set forth in this
section and in the manner provided in
45.13(b). The rules governing
acceptance and recording of such data
by a swap data repository are set forth
in 49.10 of this chapter. The reporting
obligations of swap counterparties with
respect to swaps executed prior to the
applicable compliance date and in
existence on or after July 21, 2010, the
date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank
Act, are set forth in part 46 of this
chapter. This section and 45.4
establish the general swap data
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
reporting obligations of swap dealers,
major swap participants, non-SD/MSP
counterparties, swap execution
facilities, designated contract markets,
and derivatives clearing organizations to
report swap data to a swap data
repository. In addition to the reporting
obligations set forth in this section and
in 45.4, registered entities and swap
counterparties are subject to other
reporting obligations set forth in this
chapter, including, without limitation,
the following: Swap dealers, major swap
participants, and non-SD/MSP
counterparties are also subject to the
corporate affiliations reporting set forth
in 45.6; swap execution facilities,
designated contract markets, swap
dealers, major swap participants, and
non-SD/MSP counterparties are subject
to the reporting obligations with respect
to real time reporting of swap data set
forth in part 43 of this chapter;
counterparties to a swap for which an
exception to, or an exemption from, the
clearing requirement has been elected
under part 50 of this chapter are subject
to the reporting obligations set forth in
part 50 of this chapter; and, where
applicable, swap dealers, major swap
counterparties are subject to the
large traders set forth in parts 17 and 18
of this chapter. Paragraphs (a) through
(d) of this section apply to all swaps
except clearing swaps, while paragraph
(e) applies only to clearing swaps.
(a) Swaps executed on or pursuant to
the rules of a swap execution facility or
designated contract market. For each
swap executed on or pursuant to the
rules of a swap execution facility or
designated contract market, the swap
market must report all primary
economic terms data for the swap, as
defined in 45.1, as soon as
execution of the swap. If the swap is not
intended to be submitted to a
derivatives clearing organization for
swap execution facility or designated
contract market must report all
confirmation data for the swap, as
defined in 45.1, as soon as
execution of the swap.
(b) Off-facility swaps subject to the
clearing requirement. For all off-facility
swaps subject to the clearing
requirement under part 50 of this
chapter, except for those off-facility
swaps for which an exception to, or
exemption from, the clearing
requirement has been elected under part
50 of this chapter, and those off-facility
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
swaps covered by CEA section

2(a)(13)(C)(iv), required swap creation
data must be reported as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) The reporting counterparty, as
determined pursuant to 45.8, must
report all primary economic terms data
for the swap, within the applicable
reporting deadline set forth in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) If the reporting counterparty is a
swap dealer or a major swap participant,
the reporting counterparty must report
all primary economic terms data for the
swap as soon as technologically
practicable after execution, but no later
than 15 minutes after execution.
(ii) If the reporting counterparty is a
non-SD/MSP counterparty, the reporting
counterparty must report all primary
economic terms data for the swap as
execution, but no later than one
business hour after execution.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) Off-facility swaps not subject to the
clearing requirement, with a swap
dealer or major swap participant
reporting counterparty. For all offfacility swaps not subject to the clearing
requirement under part 50 of this
chapter, all off-facility swaps for which
an exception to, or an exemption from,
the clearing requirement has been
elected under part 50 of this chapter,
and all off-facility swaps covered by
CEA section 2(a)(13)(C)(iv), for which a
swap dealer or major swap participant
is the reporting counterparty, required
swap creation data must be reported as
provided in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(1) Credit, equity, foreign exchange,
and interest rate swaps. For each such
credit swap, equity swap, foreign
exchange instrument, or interest rate
swap:
(i) The reporting counterparty, as
(c)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) If the non-reporting counterparty
is a swap dealer, a major swap
participant, or a non-SD/MSP
counterparty that is a financial entity as
defined in CEA section 2(h)(7)(C), or if
the non-reporting counterparty is a nonSD/MSP counterparty that is not a
financial entity as defined in CEA
section 2(h)(7)(C) and verification of
primary economic terms occurs
electronically, then the reporting
execution, but no later than 30 minutes
after execution.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41773
(B) If the non-reporting counterparty

is a non-SD/MSP counterparty that is
not a financial entity as defined in CEA
section 2(h)(7)(C), and if verification of
primary economic terms does not occur
execution, but no later than 30 minutes
after execution.
(ii) If the swap is not intended to be
submitted to a derivatives clearing
organization for clearing at the time of
execution, the reporting counterparty
must report all confirmation data for the
swap, as defined in 45.1, as soon as
confirmation, but no later than: 30
minutes after confirmation if
confirmation occurs electronically; or 24
business hours after confirmation if
confirmation does not occur
electronically.
(2) Other commodity swaps. For each
such other commodity swap:
(i) The reporting counterparty, as
(c)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) If the non-reporting counterparty
is a swap dealer, a major swap
participant, or a non-SD/MSP
counterparty that is a financial entity as
defined in CEA section 2(h)(7)(C), or if
the non-reporting counterparty is a nonSD/MSP counterparty that is not a
financial entity as defined in CEA
section 2(h)(7)(C) and verification of
primary economic terms occurs
execution, but no later than two hours
after execution.
(B) If the non-reporting counterparty
is a non-SD/MSP counterparty that is
not a financial entity as defined in CEA
section 2(h)(7)(C), and if verification of
primary economic terms does not occur
execution, but no later than two hours
after execution.
(ii) If the swap is not intended to be
confirmation, but no later than: 30
Minutes after confirmation if
confirmation occurs electronically; or 24
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41774
business hours after confirmation if

confirmation does not occur
electronically.
(d) Off-facility swaps not subject to
the clearing requirement, with a nonSD/MSP reporting counterparty. For all
off-facility swaps not subject to the
clearing requirement under part 50 of
this chapter, all off-facility swaps for
which an exception to, or an exemption
from, the clearing requirement has been
elected under part 50 of this chapter,
and all off-facility swaps covered by
CEA section 2(a)(13)(C)(iv), in all asset
classes, for which a non-SD/MSP
counterparty is the reporting
counterparty, required swap creation
data must be reported as provided in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(1) The reporting counterparty, as
for the swap, as soon as technologically
than 24 business hours after execution.
(2) If the swap is not intended to be
confirmation, but no later than 24
business hours after confirmation.
(e) Clearing swaps. As soon as
acceptance of an original swap by a
clearing, or as soon as technologically
practicable after execution of a clearing
swap that does not replace an original
swap, the derivatives clearing
organization, as reporting counterparty,
must report all required swap creation
data for the clearing swap. Required
swap creation data for clearing swaps
must include all confirmation data and
all primary economic terms data, as
those terms are defined in 45.1 and as
included in appendix 1 to this part.
(f) Allocations. For swaps involving
allocation, required swap creation data
shall be reported to a single swap data
repository as follows.
(1) Initial swap between reporting
counterparty and agent. The initial
swap transaction between the reporting
counterparty and the agent shall be
reported as required by 45.3(a) through
(d). A unique swap identifier for the
initial swap transaction must be created
as provided in 45.5.
(2) Post-allocation swaps(i) Duties
of the agent. In accordance with this
section, the agent shall inform the
reporting counterparty of the identities
of the reporting counterpartys actual
counterparties resulting from allocation,
as soon as technologically practicable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
after execution, but not later than eight

business hours after execution.
(ii) Duties of the reporting
counterparty. The reporting
counterparty must report all required
swap creation data for each swap
resulting from allocation to the same
swap data repository to which the initial
swap transaction is reported as soon as
technologically practicable after it is
informed by the agent of the identities
of its actual counterparties. The
reporting counterparty must create a
unique swap identifier for each such
swap as required in 45.5.
(iii) Duties of the swap data
repository. The swap data repository to
which the initial swap transaction and
the post-allocation swaps are reported
must map together the unique swap
identifiers of the initial swap
transaction and of each of the postallocation swaps.
(g) Multi-asset swaps. For each multiasset swap, required swap creation data
and required swap continuation data
shall be reported to a single swap data
repository that accepts swaps in the
asset class treated as the primary asset
class involved in the swap by the swap
execution facility, designated contract
market, or reporting counterparty
making the first report of required swap
creation data pursuant to this section.
The registered entity or reporting
counterparty making the first report of
required swap creation data pursuant to
this section shall report all primary
economic terms for each asset class
involved in the swap.
(h) Mixed swaps. (1) For each mixed
swap, required swap creation data and
required swap continuation data shall
be reported to a swap data repository
registered with the Commission and to
a security-based swap data repository
registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. This
requirement may be satisfied by
reporting the mixed swap to a swap data
repository or security-based swap data
repository registered with both
Commissions.
(2) The registered entity or reporting
counterparty making the first report of
required swap creation data pursuant to
this section shall ensure that the same
unique swap identifier is recorded for
the swap in both the swap data
repository and the security-based swap
data repository.
(i) International swaps. For each
international swap, the reporting
counterparty shall report as soon as
practicable to the swap data repository
the identity of the non-U.S. trade
repository not registered with the
Commission to which the swap is also
reported and the swap identifier used by
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the non-U.S. trade repository to identify

the swap. If necessary, the reporting
counterparty shall obtain this
information from the non-reporting
counterparty.
(j) Choice of SDR. The entity with the
obligation to choose the swap data
repository to which all required swap
creation data for the swap is reported
shall be the entity that is required to
make the first report of all data pursuant
to this section, as follows:
(1) For swaps executed on or pursuant
to the rules of a swap execution facility
or designated contract market, the swap
market shall choose the swap data
repository;
(2) For all other swaps, the reporting
counterparty, as determined in 45.8,
shall choose the swap data repository.
45.4
[Amended]
4. Effective June 27, 2016, remove

45.4 (b)(2)(ii).
5. Effective July 27, 2016, revise 45.4
to read as follows:
45.4
data.
Swap data reporting: Continuation
Registered entities and swap

counterparties must report required
swap continuation data electronically to
a swap data repository as set forth in
this section and in the manner provided
in 45.13(b). The rules governing
acceptance and recording of such data
by a swap data repository are set forth
in 49.10 of this chapter. The reporting
obligations of registered entities and
swap counterparties with respect to
swaps executed prior to the applicable
compliance date and in existence on or
after July 21, 2010, the date of
enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, are
set forth in part 46 of this chapter. This
section and 45.3 establish the general
swap data reporting obligations of swap
dealers, major swap participants, nonSD/MSP counterparties, swap execution
facilities, designated contract markets,
and derivatives clearing organizations to
report swap data to a swap data
repository. In addition to the reporting
obligations set forth in this section and
in 45.3, registered entities and swap
counterparties are subject to other
reporting obligations set forth in this
chapter, including, without limitation,
the following: Swap dealers, major swap
counterparties are also subject to the
corporate affiliations reporting set forth
in 45.6; swap execution facilities,
designated contract markets, swap
dealers, major swap participants, and
non-SD/MSP counterparties are subject
to the reporting obligations with respect
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
to real time reporting of swap data set
forth in part 43 of this chapter; and,
where applicable, swap dealers, major
swap participants, and non-SD/MSP
counterparties are subject to the
large traders set forth in parts 17 and 18
of this chapter.
(a) Continuation data reporting
method generally. For each swap,
regardless of asset class, reporting
counterparties and derivatives clearing
organizations required to report swap
continuation data must do so in a
manner sufficient to ensure that all data
in the swap data repository concerning
the swap remains current and accurate,
and includes all changes to the primary
economic terms of the swap occurring
during the existence of the swap.
Reporting entities and counterparties
fulfill this obligation by reporting either
life cycle event data or state data for the
swap within the applicable deadlines
set forth in this section. Reporting
counterparties and derivatives clearing
organizations required to report swap
continuation data for a swap may fulfill
their obligation to report either life cycle
event data or state data by reporting:
(1) Life cycle event data to a swap
data repository that accepts only life
cycle event data reporting;
(2) State data to a swap data
repository that accepts only state data
reporting; or
(3) Either life cycle event data or state
data to a swap data repository that
accepts both life cycle event data and
state data reporting.
(b) Continuation data reporting for
clearing swaps. For all clearing swaps,
required continuation data must be
reported as provided in this section.
(1) Life cycle event data or state data
reporting. The derivatives clearing
must report to the swap data repository
either:
(i) All life cycle event data for the
swap, reported on the same day that any
life cycle event occurs with respect to
the swap; or
(ii) All state data for the swap,
reported daily.
(2) Valuation data reporting.
Valuation data for the swap must be
reported by the derivatives clearing
daily.
(c) Continuation data reporting for
original swaps. For all original swaps,
required continuation data, including
terminations, must be reported to the
swap data repository to which the swap
that was accepted for clearing was
reported pursuant to 45.3(a) through
(d) in the manner provided in 45.13(b)
and in this section, and must be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
accepted and recorded by such swap

data repository as provided in 49.10 of
this chapter.
reporting. The derivatives clearing
organization that accepted the swap for
clearing must report to the swap data
repository either:
(i) All life cycle event data for the
swap, reported on the same day that any
life cycle event occurs with respect to
the swap; or
(ii) All state data for the swap,
reported daily.
(2) In addition to all other necessary
continuation data fields, life cycle event
data and state data must include all of
the following:
(i) The legal entity identifier of the
swap data repository to which all
required swap creation data for each
clearing swap was reported by the
derivatives clearing organization
pursuant to 45.3(e);
(ii) The unique swap identifier of the
original swap that was replaced by the
clearing swaps; and
(iii) The unique swap identifier of
each clearing swap that replaces a
particular original swap.
(d) Continuation data reporting for
uncleared swaps. For all swaps that are
not cleared by a derivatives clearing
organization, including swaps executed
on or pursuant to the rules of a swap
market, the reporting counterparty must
report all required swap continuation
data as provided in this section.
reporting. The reporting counterparty
for the swap must report to the swap
data repository either all life cycle event
data for the swap or all state data for the
swap, within the applicable deadline set
forth in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this
section.
swap dealer or major swap participant:
(A) Life cycle event data must be
reported on the same day that any life
cycle event occurs, with the sole
exception that life cycle event data
relating to a corporate event of the nonreporting counterparty must be reported
no later than the second business day
after the day on which such event
occurs.
(B) State data must be reported daily.
non-SD/MSP counterparty:
(A) Life cycle event data must be
reported no later than the end of the
first business day following the date of
any life cycle event; with the sole
exception that life cycle event data
relating to a corporate event of the nonreporting counterparty must be reported
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41775
no later than the end of the second

business day following such event.
(B) State data must be reported daily.
(2) Valuation data reporting.
Valuation data for the swap must be
reported by the reporting counterparty
for the swap as follows:
swap dealer or major swap participant,
the reporting counterparty must report
all valuation data for the swap, daily.
non-SD/MSP counterparty, the reporting
counterparty must report the current
daily mark of the transaction as of the
last day of each fiscal quarter. This
report must be transmitted to the swap
data repository within 30 calendar days
of the end of each fiscal quarter. If a
daily mark of the transaction is not
available for the swap, the reporting
counterparty satisfies this requirement
by reporting the current valuation of the
swap recorded on its books in
accordance with applicable accounting
standards.
45.5
Unique swap identifiers.
Each swap subject to the jurisdiction

of the Commission shall be identified in
all recordkeeping and all swap data
reporting pursuant to this part by the
use of a unique swap identifier, which
shall be created, transmitted, and used
for each swap as provided in paragraphs
(a) through (f) of this section.
designated contract market. For each
market shall create and transmit a
unique swap identifier as provided in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Creation. The swap execution
facility or designated contract market
shall generate and assign a unique swap
identifier at, or as soon as
technologically practicable following,
the time of execution of the swap, and
prior to the reporting of required swap
creation data. The unique swap
identifier shall consist of a single data
field that contains two components:
(i) The unique alphanumeric code
assigned to the swap execution facility
or designated contract market by the
Commission for the purpose of
identifying the swap execution facility
or designated contract market with
respect to unique swap identifier
creation; and
(ii) An alphanumeric code generated
and assigned to that swap by the
automated systems of the swap
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41776
market, which shall be unique with

respect to all such codes generated and
assigned by that swap execution facility
or designated contract market.
(2) Transmission. The swap execution
shall transmit the unique swap
identifier electronically as follows:
(i) To the swap data repository to
which the swap execution facility or
designated contract market reports
required swap creation data for the
swap, as part of that report;
(ii) To each counterparty to the swap,
after execution of the swap;
(iii) To the derivatives clearing
organization, if any, to which the swap
is submitted for clearing, as part of the
required swap creation data transmitted
to the derivatives clearing organization
for clearing purposes.
(b) Off-facility swaps with a swap
reporting counterparty. For each offfacility swap where the reporting
counterparty is a swap dealer or major
swap participant, the reporting
counterparty shall create and transmit a
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Creation. The reporting
counterparty shall generate and assign a
unique swap identifier as soon as
execution of the swap and prior to both
the reporting of required swap creation
data and the transmission of data to a
derivatives clearing organization if the
swap is to be cleared. The unique swap
assigned to the swap dealer or major
swap participant by the Commission at
the time of its registration as such, for
the purpose of identifying the swap
dealer or major swap participant with
respect to unique swap identifier
creation; and
automated systems of the swap dealer or
major swap participant, which shall be
unique with respect to all such codes
generated and assigned by that swap
dealer or major swap participant.
(2) Transmission. The reporting
counterparty shall transmit the unique
swap identifier electronically as follows:
which the reporting counterparty
reports required swap creation data for
the swap, as part of that report;
(ii) To the non-reporting counterparty
to the swap, as soon as technologically
practicable after execution of the swap;
and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
(iii) To the derivatives clearing

(c) Off-facility swaps with a non-SD/
MSP reporting counterparty. For each
off-facility swap for which the reporting
counterparty is a non-SD/MSP
counterparty, the swap data repository
to which primary economic terms data
is reported shall create and transmit a
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Creation. The swap data repository
shall generate and assign a unique swap
identifier as soon as technologically
practicable following receipt of the first
report of required swap creation data
concerning the swap. The unique swap
assigned to the swap data repository by
the Commission at the time of its
registration as such, for the purpose of
identifying the swap data repository
with respect to unique swap identifier
creation; and
automated systems of the swap data
repository, which shall be unique with
respect to all such codes generated and
assigned by that swap data repository.
(2) Transmission. The swap data
repository shall transmit the unique
swap identifier electronically as follows:
(i) To the counterparties to the swap,
following creation of the unique swap
identifier; and
(ii) To the derivatives clearing
is submitted for clearing, as soon as
technologically practicable following
creation of the unique swap identifier.
(d) Clearing swaps. For each clearing
swap, the derivatives clearing
organization that is a counterparty to
such swap shall create and transmit a
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Creation. The derivatives clearing
organization shall generate and assign a
unique swap identifier upon, or as soon
as technologically practicable after,
clearing or execution of a clearing swap
that does not replace an original swap,
and prior to the reporting of required
swap creation data for the clearing
swap. The unique swap identifier shall
consist of a single data field that
contains two components:
assigned to the derivatives clearing
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
organization by the Commission for the

purpose of identifying the derivatives
clearing organization with respect to
unique swap identifier creation; and
and assigned to that clearing swap by
the automated systems of the derivatives
clearing organization, which shall be
unique with respect to all such codes
generated and assigned by that
derivatives clearing organization.
(2) Transmission. The derivatives
clearing organization shall transmit the
unique swap identifier electronically as
follows:
which the derivatives clearing
organization reports required swap
creation data for the clearing swap, as
part of that report; and
(ii) To its counterparty to the clearing
swap, as soon as technologically
practicable after acceptance of a swap
by the derivatives clearing organization
for clearing or execution of a clearing
swap that does not replace an original
swap.
(e) Allocations. For swaps involving
allocation, unique swap identifiers shall
be created and transmitted as follows.
(1) Initial swap between reporting
counterparty and agent. The unique
swap identifier for the initial swap
transaction between the reporting
counterparty and the agent shall be
created as required by paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section, and shall be
transmitted as follows:
(i) If the unique swap identifier is
created by a swap execution facility or
market must include the unique swap
identifier in its swap creation data
report to the swap data repository, and
must transmit the unique identifier to
the reporting counterparty and to the
agent.
(ii) If the unique swap identifier is
created by the reporting counterparty,
the reporting counterparty must include
the unique swap identifier in its swap
creation data report to the swap data
repository, and must transmit the
unique identifier to the agent.
(2) Post-allocation swaps. The
reporting counterparty must create a
unique swap identifier for each of the
individual swaps resulting from
allocation, as soon as technologically
practicable after it is informed by the
agent of the identities of its actual
counterparties, and must transmit each
such unique swap identifier to:
(i) The non-reporting counterparty for
the swap in question.
(ii) The agent.
(iii) The derivatives clearing
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
(f) Use. Each registered entity or swap
counterparty subject to the jurisdiction
of the Commission shall include the
unique swap identifier for a swap in all
of its records and all of its swap data
reporting concerning that swap, from
the time it creates or receives the unique
swap identifier as provided in this
section, throughout the existence of the
swap and for as long as any records are
required by the CEA or Commission
regulations to be kept by that registered
entity or counterparty concerning the
swap, regardless of any life cycle events
or any changes to state data concerning
the swap, including, without limitation,
any changes with respect to the
counterparties to or the ownership of
the swap. This requirement shall not
prohibit the use by a registered entity or
swap counterparty in its own records of
any additional identifier or identifiers
internally generated by the automated
systems of the registered entity or swap
counterparty, or the reporting to a swap
data repository, the Commission, or
another regulator of such internally
generated identifiers in addition to the
reporting of the unique swap identifier.
45.8 Determination of which

counterparty must report.
The determination of which

counterparty is the reporting
counterparty for all swaps, except
clearing swaps, shall be made as
provided in paragraphs (a) through (h)
of this section. The determination of
which counterparty is the reporting
counterparty for all clearing swaps shall
be made as provided in paragraph (i) of
this section.
(a) If only one counterparty is a swap
dealer, the swap dealer shall be the
reporting counterparty.
(b) If neither counterparty is a swap
dealer, and only one counterparty is a
major swap participant, the major swap
participant shall be the reporting
counterparty.
(c) If both counterparties are non-SD/
MSP counterparties, and only one
counterparty is a financial entity as
defined in CEA section 2(h)(7)(C), the
counterparty that is a financial entity
shall be the reporting counterparty.
(d) If both counterparties are swap
dealers, or both counterparties are major
swap participants, or both
counterparties are non-SD/MSP
counterparties that are financial entities
as defined in CEA section 2(h)(7)(C), or
both counterparties are non-SD/MSP
counterparties and neither counterparty
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
is a financial entity as defined in CEA

section 2(h)(7)(C):
(1) For a swap executed on or
market, the counterparties shall agree
which counterparty shall be the
(2) For an off-facility swap, the
counterparties shall agree as one term of
their swap which counterparty shall be
the reporting counterparty.
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
section, if both counterparties to a swap
are non-SD/MSP counterparties and
only one counterparty is a U.S. person,
that counterparty shall be the reporting
counterparty.
(f) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this
section, if neither counterparty to a
swap is a U.S. person, but the swap is
a swap execution facility or designated
contract market or otherwise executed
in the United States, or is cleared by a
derivatives clearing organization:
(1) For such a swap executed on or
market, the counterparties shall agree
which counterparty shall be the
(2) For an off-facility swap, the
counterparties shall agree as one term of
their swap which counterparty shall be
the reporting counterparty.
(g) If a reporting counterparty selected
pursuant to paragraphs (a) through (f) of
this section ceases to be a counterparty
to a swap due to an assignment or
novation, the reporting counterparty for
reporting of required swap continuation
data following the assignment or
novation shall be selected from the two
current counterparties as provided in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) If only one counterparty is a swap
dealer, the swap dealer shall be the
reporting counterparty and shall fulfill
all counterparty reporting obligations.
(2) If neither counterparty is a swap
dealer, and only one counterparty is a
major swap participant, the major swap
participant shall be the reporting
counterparty and shall fulfill all
counterparty reporting obligations.
(3) If both counterparties are non-SD/
MSP counterparties, and only one
counterparty is a U.S. person, that
counterparty shall be the reporting
counterparty reporting obligations.
(4) In all other cases, the counterparty
that replaced the previous reporting
counterparty by reason of the
assignment or novation shall be the
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
41777
reporting counterparty, unless otherwise

agreed by the counterparties.
(h) For all swaps executed on or
market, the rules of the swap execution
must require each swap counterparty to
provide sufficient information to the
contract market to enable the swap
market to report all swap creation data
as provided in this part.
(1) To achieve this, the rules of the
contract market must require each
market participant placing an order with
respect to any swap traded on the swap
market to include in the order, without
limitation:
(i) The legal entity identifier of the
market participant placing the order.
(ii) A yes/no indication of whether the
market participant is a swap dealer with
respect to the product with respect to
which the order is placed.
(iii) A yes/no indication of whether
the market participant is a major swap
participant with respect to the product
with respect to which the order is
placed.
(iv) A yes/no indication of whether
the market participant is a financial
entity as defined in CEA section
2(h)(7)(C).
(v) A yes/no indication of whether the
market participant is a U.S. person.
(vi) If applicable, an indication that
the market participant will elect an
exception to, or an exemption from, the
clearing requirement under part 50 of
this chapter for any swap resulting from
the order.
(vii) If the swap will be allocated:
(A) An indication that the swap will
be allocated.
(B) The legal entity identifier of the
agent.
(C) An indication of whether the swap
is a post-allocation swap.
(D) If the swap is a post-allocation
swap, the unique swap identifier of the
initial swap transaction between the
reporting counterparty and the agent.
(2) To achieve this, the swap
market must use the information
obtained pursuant to paragraph (h)(1) of
this section to identify the counterparty
that is the reporting counterparty
pursuant to the CEA and this section.
(i) Clearing swaps. Notwithstanding
the provisions of paragraphs (a) through
(h) of this section, if the swap is a
clearing swap, the derivatives clearing
such swap shall be the reporting
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41778

reporting counterparty obligations for
such swap.
45.10 Reporting to a single swap data

repository.
All swap data for a given swap, which

shall include all swap data required to
be reported pursuant to parts 43 and 45
of this chapter, must be reported to a
single swap data repository, which shall
be the swap data repository to which the
first report of required swap creation
data is made pursuant to this part.
designated contract market. To ensure
that all swap data, including all swap
data required to be reported pursuant to
parts 43 and 45 of this chapter, for a
designated contract market is reported
to a single swap data repository:
(1) The swap execution facility or
designated contract market that reports
required swap creation data as required
by 45.3 shall report all such data to a
single swap data repository. As soon as
execution, the swap execution facility or
designated contract market shall
transmit to both counterparties to the
swap, and to the derivatives clearing
organization, if any, that will clear the
swap, both:
(i) The identity of the swap data
repository to which required swap
creation data is reported by the swap
market; and
(ii) The unique swap identifier for the
swap, created pursuant to 45.5.
(2) Thereafter, all required swap
creation data and all required swap
continuation data reported for the swap
reported by any registered entity or
counterparty shall be reported to that
same swap data repository (or to its
successor in the event that it ceases to
operate, as provided in part 49 of this
chapter).
(b) Off-facility swaps with a swap
reporting counterparty. To ensure that
all swap data, including all swap data
required to be reported pursuant to parts
43 and 45 of this chapter, for off-facility
swaps with a swap dealer or major swap
participant reporting counterparty is
reported to a single swap data
repository:
(1) If the reporting counterparty
reports primary economic terms data to
a swap data repository as required by
45.3:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
(i) The reporting counterparty shall

report primary economic terms data to
a single swap data repository.
(ii) As soon as technologically
than as required pursuant to 45.3, the
reporting counterparty shall transmit to
the other counterparty to the swap both
the identity of the swap data repository
to which primary economic terms data
is reported by the reporting
counterparty, and the unique swap
identifier for the swap created pursuant
to 45.5.
(iii) If the swap will be cleared, the
the derivatives clearing organization at
the time the swap is submitted for
clearing both the identity of the swap
data repository to which primary
economic terms data is reported by the
reporting counterparty, and the unique
swap identifier for the swap created
pursuant to 45.5.
continuation data reported for the swap,
by any registered entity or counterparty,
shall be reported to the swap data
repository to which swap data has been
reported pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) or
(2) of this section (or to its successor in
the event that it ceases to operate, as
provided in part 49 of this chapter).
(c) Off-facility swaps with a non-SD/
MSP reporting counterparty. To ensure
that all swap data, including all swap
data required to be reported pursuant to
parts 43 and 45 of this chapter, for such
swaps is reported to a single swap data
repository:
(1) If the reporting counterparty
reports primary economic terms data to
a swap data repository as required by
45.3:
(i) The reporting counterparty shall
report primary economic terms data to
a single swap data repository.
(ii) As soon as technologically
than as required pursuant to 45.3, the
the other counterparty to the swap the
identity of the swap data repository to
which primary economic terms data was
reported by the reporting counterparty.
(iii) If the swap will be cleared, the
the derivatives clearing organization at
the time the swap is submitted for
clearing the identity of the swap data
repository to which primary economic
terms data was reported by the reporting
counterparty.
(2) The swap data repository to which
the swap is reported as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section shall
transmit the unique swap identifier
created pursuant to 45.5 to both
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
counterparties and to the derivatives

clearing organization, if any, as soon as
creation of the unique swap identifier.
continuation data reported for the swap,
by any registered entity or counterparty,
shall be reported to the swap data
repository to which swap data has been
reported pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of
this section (or to its successor in the
event that it ceases to operate, as
provided in part 49 of this chapter).
(d) Clearing swaps. To ensure that all
swap data for a given clearing swap, and
for clearing swaps that replace a
particular original swap or that are
created upon execution of the same
transaction and that do not replace an
original swap, is reported to a single
swap data repository:
(1) The derivatives clearing
such clearing swap shall report all
required swap creation data for that
clearing swap to a single swap data
repository. As soon as technologically
practicable after acceptance of an
original swap by a derivatives clearing
organization for clearing or execution of
a clearing swap that does not replace an
original swap, the derivatives clearing
organization shall transmit to the
counterparty to each clearing swap the
legal entity identifier of the swap data
repository to which the derivatives
clearing organization reported the
required swap creation data for that
clearing swap.
continuation data reported for that
clearing swap shall be reported by the
derivatives clearing organization to the
swap data repository to which swap
data has been reported pursuant to
paragraph (d)(1) of this section (or to its
successor in the event that it ceases to
operate, as provided in part 49 of this
chapter).
(3) For clearing swaps that replace a
particular original swap, and for equal
and opposite clearing swaps that are
created upon execution of the same
transaction and that do not replace an
original swap, the derivatives clearing
organization shall report all required
swap continuation data for such
clearing swaps to a single swap data
repository.
9. Revise Appendix 1 to part 45 to
read as follows:
Appendix 1 to Part 45Tables of
Minimum Primary Economic Terms
Data
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41779
EXHIBIT AMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATACREDIT SWAPS AND EQUITY SWAPS
[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable]
Data categories and fields for all swaps
Comment
Asset Class ...............................................................................................

The Unique Swap Identifier for the swap .................................................
The Legal Entity Identifier of the reporting counterparty .........................
An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a swap dealer
with respect to the swap.
An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a major swap
participant with respect to the swap.
If the reporting counterparty is not a swap dealer or a major swap participant with respect to the swap, an indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a financial entity as defined in CEA section
2(h)(7)(C).
An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a derivatives
clearing organization with respect to the swap.
An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a U.S. person .....
An indication that the swap will be allocated ...........................................
If the swap will be allocated, or is a post-allocation swap, the Legal Entity Identifier of the agent.
An indication that the swap is a post-allocation swap .............................
If the swap is a post-allocation swap, the unique swap identifier of the
initial swap transaction between the reporting counterparty and the
agent.
The Legal Entity Identifier of the non-reporting party ..............................
An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a swap dealer with respect to the swap.
An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a major
swap participant with respect to the swap.
If the non-reporting counterparty is not a swap dealer or a major swap
participant with respect to the swap, an indication of whether the
non-reporting counterparty is a financial entity as defined in CEA
section 2(h)(7)(C).
An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a U.S. person.
The Unique Product Identifier assigned to the swap ...............................
If no Unique Product Identifier is available for the swap because the
swap is not sufficiently standardized, the taxonomic description of the
swap pursuant to the CFTC-approved product classification system.
If no CFTC-approved UPI and product classification system is yet available, the internal product identifier or product description used by the
swap data repository.
An indication that the swap is a multi-asset swap ...................................
For a multi-asset class swap, an indication of the primary asset class ..
For a multi-asset class swap, an indication of the secondary asset
class(es).
An indication that the swap is a mixed swap ...........................................
For a mixed swap reported to two non-dually- registered swap data repositories, the identity of the other swap data repository (if any) to
which the swap is or will be reported.
An indication of the counterparty purchasing protection ..........................
An indication of the counterparty selling protection .................................
Information identifying the reference entity ..............................................
Contract type ............................................................................................
Block trade indicator .................................................................................
Execution timestamp ................................................................................
Execution venue .......................................................................................
Start date ..................................................................................................

Maturity, termination or end date .............................................................
The price ...................................................................................................
The notional amount, and the currency in which the notional amount is
expressed.
The amount and currency (or currencies) of any up-front payment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, other commodities.

As provided in 45.5.
As provided in 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Field values: Yes, Not applicable.

Generally, the asset class traded by the desk trading the swap for the
reporting counterparty. Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates,
other commodities.
Field value: LEI of the other SDR to which the swap is or will be reported.
Field values: LEI, or substitute identifier for a natural person.
Field values: LEI, or substitute identifier for a natural person.
The entity that is the subject of the protection being purchased and
sold in the swap. Field values: LEI, or substitute identifier for a natural person.
E.g., swap, swaption, forward, option, basis swap, index swap, basket
swap.
Indication (Yes/No) of whether the swap qualifies as a block trade or
large notional swap.
The date and time of the trade, expressed using Coordinated Universal
Time (UTC).
The swap execution facility or designated contract market on or pursuant to the rules of which the swap was executed. Field values: LEI of
the swap execution facility or designated contract market, or off-facility if not so executed.
The date on which the swap starts or goes into effect.
The date on which the swap expires.
E.g., strike price, initial price, spread.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41780
EXHIBIT AMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATACREDIT SWAPS AND EQUITY SWAPSContinued
Data categories and fields for all swaps
Comment
Payment frequency of the reporting counterparty ....................................
A description of the payment stream of the reporting counterparty, e.g.,

coupon.
A description of the payment stream of the non-reporting counterparty,
e.g., coupon.
Time and date of submission to the swap data repository, expressed
using UTC, as recorded by an automated system where available, or
as recorded manually where an automated system is not available.
Yes/No indication of whether the swap will be submitted for clearing to
a derivatives clearing organization.
LEI of the derivatives clearing organization.
Yes/No.
Payment frequency of the non-reporting counterparty ............................

Timestamp for submission to swap data repository ................................
Clearing indicator ......................................................................................
Clearing venue .........................................................................................
If the swap will not be cleared, an indication of whether an exception
to, or an exemption from, the clearing requirement has been elected
with respect to the swap under part 50 of this chapter.
The identity of the counterparty electing an exception or exemption to
the clearing requirement under part 50 of this chapter.
Clearing exception or exemption type ......................................................
Indication of collateralization ....................................................................
Any other term(s) of the swap matched or affirmed by the counterparties in verifying the swap.
Field values: LEI, or substitute identifier for natural person.

The type of clearing exception or exemption being claimed. Field values: End user, Inter-affiliate or Cooperative.
Is the swap collateralized, and if so to what extent? Field values:
Uncollateralized, partially collateralized, one-way collateralized, fully
collateralized.
Use as many fields as required to report each such term.
EXHIBIT AMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATACREDIT SWAPS AND EQUITY SWAPS
Additional data categories and fields for clearing swaps
Comment
Clearing swap USIs ..................................................................................
The USIs of each clearing swap that replaces the original swap that
was submitted for clearing to the DCO, other than the USI for which
the PET data is currently being reported (as USI field above).
The USI of the original swap submitted for clearing to the DCO that is
replaced by clearing swaps.
LEI of SDR to which the original swap was reported.
LEI of Clearing member.
Clearing member client account number.
An indication whether the clearing member acted as principal for a
house trade or agent for a customer trade.
The date and time at which the DCO received the original swap for
clearing, expressed using UTC.
The date and time at which the DCO accepted the original swap for
Original swap USI .....................................................................................

Original swap SDR ...................................................................................
Clearing member LEI ...............................................................................
Clearing member client account ...............................................................
Origin (house or customer) ......................................................................
Clearing receipt timestamp .......................................................................
Clearing acceptance timestamp ...............................................................
EXHIBIT BMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATAFOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS (OTHER THAN CROSSCURRENCY SWAPS)
Data fields for all swaps
Comment
Asset Class ...............................................................................................

2(h)(7)(C).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701

Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41781
EXHIBIT BMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATAFOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS (OTHER THAN CROSSCURRENCY SWAPS)Continued
Comment

agent.
section 2(h)(7)(C).
class(es).
For a mixed swap reported to two non-dually-registered swap data repositories, the identity of the other swap data repository (if any) to
Contract type ............................................................................................
Execution venue .......................................................................................
Currency 1 ................................................................................................
Currency 2 ................................................................................................
Notional amount 1 ....................................................................................
Notional amount 2 ....................................................................................
Exchange rate ..........................................................................................
Delivery type .............................................................................................
Settlement or expiration date ...................................................................
Clearing venue .........................................................................................

If the swap will not be cleared, an exception to, or an exemption from,
the clearing requirement has been elected with respect to the swap
under part 50 of this chapter.
Any other term(s) of the trade matched or affirmed by the counterparties in verifying the trade.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.

other commodities.
E.g., forward, non-deliverable forward (NDF), non- deliverable option
(NDO), vanilla option, simple exotic option, complex exotic option.
Time (UTC).
ISO code.
ISO code.
For currency 1.
For currency 2.
Contractual rate of exchange of the currencies.
Physical (deliverable) or cash (non-deliverable).
Settlement date, or for an option the contract expiration date.
using Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), as recorded by an automated system where available, or as recorded manually where an
automated system is not available.
Yes/No.
Field values: LEI, or substitute identifier, for a natural person.
Is the trade collateralized, and if so to what extent? Field values:
collateralized.
E.g., for options, premium, premium currency, premium payment date;
for non-deliverable trades, settlement currency, valuation (fixing)
date; indication of the economic obligations of the counterparties.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41782
EXHIBIT BMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATAFOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS (OTHER THAN CROSSCURRENCY SWAPS)
Comment

EXHIBIT CMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATAINTEREST RATE SWAPS (INCLUDING CROSS-CURRENCY SWAPS)
Comment
Asset Class ...............................................................................................

2(h)(7)(C).
agent.
The Legal Entity Identifier of the non-reporting counterparty ..................
section 2(h)(7)(C).
class(es).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701

Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.

Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.

other commodities.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41783
EXHIBIT CMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATAINTEREST RATE SWAPS (INCLUDING CROSS-CURRENCY
SWAPS)Continued
Comment
For a mixed swap reported to two non-dually-registered swap data repositories, the identity of the other swap data repository (if any) to
Contract type ............................................................................................

Execution venue .......................................................................................
Start date ..................................................................................................

Maturity, termination or end date .............................................................
Day count convention.
Notional amount (leg 1) ............................................................................
Notional currency (leg 1) ..........................................................................
Notional amount (leg 2) ............................................................................
Notional currency (leg 2) ..........................................................................
Payer (fixed rate) ......................................................................................
Payer (floating rate leg 1) .........................................................................
Payer (floating rate leg 2) .........................................................................
Direction ....................................................................................................
Option type ...............................................................................................

Fixed rate.
Fixed rate day count fraction ....................................................................
Floating rate payment frequency.
Floating rate reset frequency.
Floating rate index name/rate period .......................................................
Clearing venue .........................................................................................
E.g., swap, swaption, option, basis swap, index swap.

Time (UTC).
The date on which the swap starts or goes into effect.
The date on which the swap expires or ends.
The current active notional amount.
ISO code.
The current active notional amount.
ISO code.
Is the reporting party a fixed rate payer? Yes/No/Not applicable.
If two floating legs, the payer for leg 1.
If two floating legs, the payer for leg 2.
For swaps: Whether the principal is paying or receiving the fixed rate.
For float-to-float and fixed-to-fixed swaps: Indicate N/A.
For non-swap instruments and swaptions: Indicate the instrument that
was bought or sold.
E.g., put, call, straddle.
E.g., actual 360.
E.g., USD-Libor-BBA.
Yes/No.
collateralized.
E.g., early termination option clause. Use as many fields as required to
report each such term.
EXHIBIT CMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATAINTEREST RATE SWAPS (INCLUDING CROSS-CURRENCY SWAPS)

Comment

VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:54 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41784
EXHIBIT CMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATAINTEREST RATE SWAPS (INCLUDING CROSS-CURRENCY
SWAPS)Continued
Comment
EXHIBIT DMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATAOTHER COMMODITY SWAPS

Data field for all swaps
Comment
Asset Class ...............................................................................................

2(h)(7)(C).
agent.
section 2(h)(7)(C).

class(es).
For a mixed swap reported to two non-dually- registered swap data repositories, the identity of the other swap data repository (if any) to
Contract type ............................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701

Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.

Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.
Yes/No.

other commodities.
E.g., swap, swaption, option, basis swap, index swap.
large notional off-facility swap as defined in part 43 of the CFTCs
regulations.
Time (UTC), as recorded by an automated system where available, or as recorded manually where an automated system is not
available.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41785
EXHIBIT DMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATAOTHER COMMODITY SWAPSContinued

Data field for all swaps
Comment
Execution venue .......................................................................................
The date on which the swap commences or goes into effect (e.g., in
physical oil, the pricing start date).
The date on which the swap expires or ends (e.g., in physical oil, the
pricing end date).
The counterparty purchasing the product: (E.g., the payer of the fixed
price (for a swap), or the payer of the floating price on the underlying
swap (for a put swaption), or the payer of the fixed price on the underlying swap (for a call swaption). Field values: LEI, if available, or
substitute identifier, for a natural person.
The counterparty offering the product: (E.g., the payer of the floating
price (for a swap), the payer of the fixed price on the underlying
swap (for a put swaption), or the payer of the floating price on the
underlying swap (for a call swaption). Field values: LEI, or substitute
identifier, for a natural person.
The unit of measure applicable for the quantity on the swap. E.g., barrels, bushels, gallons, pounds, tons.
The amount of the commodity (the number of quantity units) quoted on
the swap.
The rate at which the quantity is quoted on the swap. E.g., hourly,
daily, weekly, monthly.
The quantity of the commodity for the entire term of the swap.
Physical delivery or cash.
The price of the swap. For options, the strike price.
The unit of measure applicable for the price of the swap.
ISO code.
The published price as paid by the buyer (if applicable). For swaptions,
applies to the underlying swap.
The averaging method used to calculate the index of the buyer pay
index. For swaptions, applies to the underlying swap.
The published price as paid by the seller (if applicable). For swaptions,
applies to the underlying swap.
The averaging method used to calculate the index of the seller pay
index. For swaptions, applies to the underlying swap.
If applicable, the grade of the commodity to be delivered, e.g., the
grade of oil or refined product.
Descriptor for the type of option transaction. E.g., put, call, straddle.
E.g., American, European, European Daily, European Monthly, Asian.
The total amount paid by the option buyer.
For electric power, the hours of the day for which the swap is effective.
For electric power, the time zone prevailing for the hours during which
electricity is transmitted.
For electric power, the profile applicable for the delivery of power.
For electric power, the load profile for the delivery of power.
Yes/No.
Start date ..................................................................................................

Maturity, termination, or end date ............................................................
Buyer ........................................................................................................
Seller .........................................................................................................
Quantity unit .............................................................................................

Quantity ....................................................................................................
Quantity frequency ...................................................................................
Total quantity ............................................................................................
Settlement method ...................................................................................
Price ..........................................................................................................
Price unit ...................................................................................................
Price currency ...........................................................................................
Buyer pay index ........................................................................................
Buyer pay averaging method ...................................................................
Seller pay index ........................................................................................
Seller pay averaging method ...................................................................
Grade ........................................................................................................
Option type ...............................................................................................
Option style ...............................................................................................
Option premium ........................................................................................
Hours from through ..................................................................................
Hours from through time zone .................................................................
Days of week ............................................................................................
Load type ..................................................................................................
Clearing venue .........................................................................................

VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701

collateralized.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2
41786
EXHIBIT DMINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATAOTHER COMMODITY SWAPS
Comment

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14,

2016, by the Commission.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
Note: The following appendices will

not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Appendices to Amendments to Swap
Data Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements for Cleared Swaps
Commission Voting Summary and
Chairmans Statement
Appendix 1Commission Voting
Summary
On this matter, Chairman Massad and
Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo voted
in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in
the negative.
Appendix 2Statement of Chairman

Timothy G. Massad
Regular reporting of data on swaps is a key

component of the swaps reforms that were
agreed to by the G20 leaders and codified
in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:26 Jun 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
Consumer Protection Act. Since taking office,

a priority of mine has been to improve data
quality and to simplify reporting obligations
for market participants. I know that my
fellow Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo
share this goal. That is why I am very pleased
that today, the Commission has acted
unanimously to improve the process for
reporting data on cleared swaps.
This final rule will significantly enhance
data quality and reduce reporting costs in a
number of ways. It streamlines the reporting
process to ensure there are not duplicate
records of a swap, which can lead to double
counting that can distort the data. It makes
sure that accurate valuations of swaps are
provided on an ongoing basis. And it
eliminates some needless reporting
requirements for swap dealers and major
swap participants. This rule provides clarity
and certainty in a number of areas, and will
improve our ability to trace a swap through
all phases of its lifecycle. Ultimately, it will
provide us with a better picture of the swaps
market, and enhance our ability to identify
the buildup of risk that may pose a threat to
the financial system.
Todays final rule reflects the largely
positive feedback we received on our
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
proposal, which was released in August,

2015. We very much appreciate the input
that market participants have given us.
This effort is just one piece of our work to
ensure accuracy and completeness in data
reporting, to harmonize data standards, and
to improve data quality, while avoiding
excessive burdens and duplication. For
example, our other efforts will include the
development of technical specifications for
the reporting of 120 priority data elements,
which will lead to greater consistency and
standardization in reporting. We are also
leading international efforts on data
harmonization, including the development of
tools that will allow regulators to identify
swaps and swap activity by product type and
transaction type throughout the life of a
swap.
I thank CFTC staff for their hard work on
this rule, as well as the market participants
who took the time to provide us feedback.
And I also thank my fellow Commissioners
Bowen and Giancarlo for their careful
consideration and unanimous support for
this measure.
[FR Doc. 201614414 Filed 62416; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 635101P
E:\FR\FM\27JNR2.SGM
27JNR2

CFTC Final Rule

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CFTC Final Rule

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CFTC Final Rule

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol.

June 27, 2016

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

20:26 Jun 24, 2016

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

Amendments to Swap Data

The Commodity Futures

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

20:26 Jun 24, 2016

products; creating rigorous

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

of the swaps existence, referred to as

20:26 Jun 24, 2016

cleared swaps,16 the Commission issued

connection with explaining each of the

swaps involved in a cleared swap

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

E. Summary of Revisions and Additions

20:26 Jun 24, 2016

the time of execution; and make

Better Markets Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2.

regulations.25 COPE requested that the

COPE Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

With respect to the proposed

20:26 Jun 24, 2016

iii. Original Swap

ii. Clearing Swap

are in the process of registering or are

Exemptive Orders include reporting

The Commission also notes the broad

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

B. Swap Data Reporting: Creation

20:26 Jun 24, 2016

data (PET data) and confirmation

requirement are now codified in part 50

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

iii. Proposed Removal of Provisions

20:26 Jun 24, 2016

reporting counterparty. Under the

SEF or DCM has the obligation to

part 45 required creation data must be

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

20:26 Jun 24, 2016

report data for clearing swaps.71 CME

original swaps, several commenters

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

The Commission received a number

20:26 Jun 24, 2016

clearing swaps.92 CME supports the

has the first obligation to report, but

ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 45.

39.12(b)(6) requires DCOs to have

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

ii. Removal of Confirmation Data

20:26 Jun 24, 2016

With respect to swaps that will

including but not limited to the identity