October 30, 2015
Comments on the Proposed Rules: Amendments to Swap Data Recordkeeping andReporting Requirements for Cleared Swaps,
issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Japanese Bankers Association
We, the Japanese Bankers Association (“JBA”), would like to express our gratitude
for this opportunity to comment on the proposed rules: Amendments to Swap Data
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Cleared Swaps (RIN 3038–AE12),
issued on August 31, 2015 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”).
We respectfully expect that the following comments will contribute to your furtherdiscussion.
1. Choice of SDR (p.52550, p.52574)
For swaps that are executed on the Swap Execution Facilities (“SEF”) and are notcleared by a derivatives clearing organization, a reporting party (a party with reportingobligation) of continuation data (such as snapshot and valuation reporting of existingtransactions) should be empowered to choose a Swap Data Repository (“SDR”) to
which data is reported, instead of requiring SEF to choose an SDR.
The proposed rules set forth that, for swaps that are executed on the SEF, the SEF
which is in the upstream of the transaction shall choose an SDR. However, the SEF only
reports creation data for the original swap. On the other hand, when a transaction
executed on the SEF is not cleared by a derivatives clearing organization, the reporting
party needs to report continuation data (snapshot and valuation reporting of exitingtransactions) for a long period until the termination of transactions.
Under the CFTC requirements, creation data for original swaps and continuation
data for existing transactions are required to be reported to the same SDR. Most ofmarket participants use the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”) as theirSDR, whereas SEFs may make reports to an SDR operated by their affiliate, other thanthe DTCC. Given this, the reporting parties should be empowered to select an SDR inorder to ensure a level playing field among SDRs and to respect the intention ofreporting parties which submit transaction reporting over a long period.

12. PET Data Fields (p.52558, pp.52578~52585)
For addition of new data fields to Primary Economic Terms (“PET”), it isrequested to give consideration to grant sufficient lead time before implementing thenew rules in order to ensure time necessary for systems developments.
3. Our responses to questions raised in the proposed rules
Our comments on the questions 18, 20, 32 and 34 from those raised in theproposed rules are specified below. We would highly appreciate it if you take them into
consideration.
〇p.52553 / Question (18)What value, if any, would the Commission gain by receiving clearing swap
valuation data from SD/MSP reporting counterparties?
(Comment)
We agree with the proposed amendments by the CFTC.
The proposed amendments that impose reporting obligations only onderivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) would reduce operational burden placedon Swap Dealers (SDs) and Major Swap Participants (MSPs) which are subjected
to such obligations under the current rules. Overall, this would lead to a more
efficient structure.
〇p.52553 / Question (20)
Should the Commission require original swap terminations to be reported as soon
as technologically practicable after termination of an original swap?
(Comment)
We believe that original swap terminations should be reported to regulators assoon as technologically practicable. Additionally, it is requested to align thisrequirement with the requirement under the CFTC regulation 1.74 in the future toensure market transparency and efficiency.
〇p.52559 / Question (32)Will reporting any of the new or revised data categories and fields result in any
operational or technological challenges? If so, please explain.

2

(Comment)
The new or revised data categories and fields would result in increasing
operational burden for most of market participants.
Terminology and definitions used in the markets may not always be consistent
with those proposed by the CFTC. Categorization of transaction based on specificterminology and definition should place a significant burden particularly onsmall-sized market participants (entities subject to reporting).
〇p.52559 / Question (34)
Are the newly proposed and revised PET data fields included in appendix 1,including the PET data therein, sufficiently clear? If not, please explain.
(Comment)
PET data fields (credit, equity, FX, rates and commodity) defined in the
proposed rules are not sufficiently clear, and may cause significant confusion toentities subject to reporting.
In particular, the categorization of hybrid instruments is difficult because, forexample, swaps with multiple underlying assets may have its own market
conventions and may not fall under the categories in the proposed rules.

3