76706 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Notices 

to adopt rules for the capital and margin 

requirements applicable to swaps and 

security-based swaps of swap dealers, 

major swap participants, security-based 

swap dealers, and security-based swap 

participants. The discussion will be 

open to the public with seating on a 

first-come, first-served basis. Members 

of the public may also listen to the 

meeting by telephone. Call-in 

participants should be prepared to 

provide their first name, last name and 

affiliation. The information for the 

conference call is set forth below. 

• U.S. Toll-Free: 877–951–7311 

• International Toll: 1–203–607–0666 

• Conference ID: 8978249 

A transcript of the public roundtable 

discussion will be published at http:// 

www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/ 

DoddFrankAct/OTC_5_CapMargin.html. 

The roundtable discussion will take 

place in Lobby Level Hearing Room 

(Room 1000) at the CFTC’s headquarters 

at Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st 

Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

CFTC’s Office of Public Affairs at (202) 

418–5080 or the SEC’s Office of Public 

Affairs at (202) 551–4120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

roundtable discussion will take place on 

Friday, December 10, 2010, 

commencing at 1 p.m. and ending at 5 

p.m. Members of the public who wish 

to comment on the topics addressed at 

the discussion, or on any other topics 

related to capital and margin 

requirements for swaps and securitybased swaps in the context of the Act, 

may do so via: 

• Paper submission to David Stawick, 

Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581, or Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090; or 

• Electronic submission to 

CapitalandMargin@CFTC.gov (all emails must reference ‘‘Dodd Frank 

Roundtable Capital and Margin 

Requirements’’ in the subject field); and/ 

or by e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov 

or through the comment form available 

at: http://www.sec.gov/rules/ 

other.shtml. 

All submissions will be reviewed jointly 

by the Agencies. All comments must be 

in English or be accompanied by an 

English translation. All submissions 

provided to either Agency in any 

electronic form or on paper will be 

published on the Web site of the 

respective Agency, without review and 

without removal of personally 

identifying information. Please submit 

only information that you wish to make 

publicly available. 

By the Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

Dated: December 6, 2010. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

By the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

Dated: December 6, 2010. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31003 Filed 12–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P; 8011–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–63423; File No. 4–620] 

Acceptance of Public Submissions on 

a Study Mandated by the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act, Section 719(b) 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission; Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for Comments. 

SUMMARY: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

(‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’) was enacted on July 

21, 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act, among 

other things, mandates that the 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (‘‘CFTC’’) and the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’) 

conduct a study on ‘‘the feasibility of 

requiring the derivatives industry to 

adopt standardized computer-readable 

algorithmic descriptions which may be 

used to describe complex and 

standardized financial derivatives.’’ 

These algorithmic descriptions should 

be designed to ‘‘facilitate computerized 

analysis of individual derivative 

contracts and to calculate net exposures 

to complex derivatives.’’ The study also 

must consider the extent to which the 

algorithmic description, ‘‘together with 

standardized and extensible legal 

definitions, may serve as the binding 

legal definition of derivative contracts.’’ 

In connection with this study, the staff 

of the CFTC and SEC seek responses of 

interested parties to the questions set 

forth below. 

DATES: The CFTC will accept 

submissions on behalf of both agencies 

in response to the questions through 

December 31, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit responses 

to the CFTC, identified in the subject 

line with ‘‘algorithmic study’’ by any of 

the following methods: 

• CFTC Agency Web site: http:// 

www.cftc.gov, via its Comments Online 

process at http://comments.cftc.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments through the Web site. 

• Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary of 

the Commission, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

mail above. 

Please submit your comments using 

only one method. 

All comments must be submitted in 

English, or if not, accompanied by an 

English translation. Comments will be 

posted as received to http:// 

www.cftc.gov and http://www.sec.gov. 

You should submit only information 

that you wish to make available 

publicly. If you wish the CFTC to 

consider information that you believe is 

exempt from disclosure under the 

Freedom of Information Act, a petition 

for confidential treatment of the exempt 

information may be submitted according 

to the procedures established in CFTC 

Regulation 145.9, 17 CFR 145.9. 

The CFTC and the SEC reserve the 

right, but shall have no obligation, to 

review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse 

or remove any or all of your submission 

from http://www.cftc.gov and http:// 

www.sec.gov that they may deem to be 

inappropriate for publication, such as 

obscene language. All submissions that 

have been redacted or removed that 

contain comments may be accessible 

under the Freedom of Information Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy R. Doyle, Office of the General 

Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581, telephone: (202) 418–5136, or 

Matthew P. Reed, Division of Risk, 

Strategy, and Financial Innovation, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549-[mail stop], telephone (202) 551– 

2607. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

21, 2010, The Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

(‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’), Public Law 111– 

203, was enacted. 

Pursuant to Title VII, Sec. 719(b) of 

Dodd-Frank, the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission, jointly, 

must report to Congress by March of 

2011 on ‘‘the feasibility of requiring the 

derivatives industry to adopt 

standardized computer-readable 

algorithmic descriptions which may be 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Notices 76707 

used to describe complex and 

standardized financial derivatives.’’ 

These algorithmic descriptions should 

be designed to ‘‘facilitate computerized 

analysis of individual derivative 

contracts and to calculate net exposures 

to complex derivatives.’’ The study also 

must consider whether a combination of 

these algorithmic descriptions and 

‘‘standardized and extensible legal 

definitions[ ] may serve as the binding 

legal definition of derivative contracts.’’ 

A copy of the text of the statute 

calling for this study may be found here: 

http://www.dodd-frank-act.us/Dodd_

Frank_Act_Text_Section_719.html. 

In furtherance of this report, we seek 

responses to the following questions. 

Please note that responses may be made 

public, and may be cited in this report. 

Questions relate to the current use of 

standardized computer-readable 

descriptions for both data storage and 

messaging, and to the usefulness and 

cost of any transition to a universal 

standard for messaging and data storage. 

Responders are encouraged to provide 

any additional relevant information 

beyond that called for by these 

questions. 

Calculation of ‘‘Net Exposures to 

Complex Derivatives’’ and other 

‘‘Computerized Analysis’’: 

1. How would your organization or 

community define ‘‘net exposures to 

complex derivatives?’’ 

2. Do you calculate net exposures to 

complex derivatives? 

3. What data do you require to 

calculate net exposures to complex 

derivatives? Does it depend on the 

derivatives instrument type? How? 

4. Are there any difficulties associated 

with your ability to gather the data 

needed to calculate net exposures to 

complex derivatives? What are they? 

5. What other analyses do you 

currently perform on derivatives 

agreements? What kinds of analyses 

would you like to perform, and how 

could regulators and standards setters 

make those analyses possible? 

6. How often do you perform net 

exposure calculations at the level of 

your organization? Is it continuous and 

real time, only for periodic external 

reporting, or some frequency in 

between? 

Current practices concerning 

standardized computer descriptions of 

derivatives: 

7. Do you rely on a discrete set of 

computer-readable descriptions 

(‘‘ontologies’’) to define and describe 

derivatives transactions and positions? 

If yes, what computer language do you 

use? 

8. If you use one or more ontologies 

to define derivatives transactions and 

positions, are they proprietary or open 

to the public? Are they used by your 

counterparties and others in the 

derivatives industry? 

9. How do you maintain and extend 

the ontologies that you use to define 

derivatives data to cover new financial 

derivative products? How frequently are 

new terms, concepts and definitions 

added? 

10. What is the scope and variety of 

derivatives and their positions covered 

by the ontologies that you use? What do 

they describe well, and what are their 

limitations? 

11. How do you think any limitations 

to the ontologies you use to describe 

derivatives can be overcome? 

12. Are these ontologies able to 

describe derivatives transactions in 

sufficient detail to enable you to 

calculate net exposures to complex 

derivatives? 

13. Are these ontologies able to 

describe derivatives transactions in 

sufficient detail to enable you to 

perform other analysis? What types of 

analysis can you conduct with this data, 

and what additional data must be 

captured to perform this analysis? 

14. Which identifier regimes, if any, 

do you use to identify counterparties, 

financial instruments, and other entities 

as part of derivatives contract analysis? 

Current use of standardized computer 

readable descriptions for messaging of 

derivatives transactions: 

15. Which computer language or 

message standard do you currently use 

to create and communicate your 

messages for derivatives transactions? 

16. Is there a difference between the 

created message and the communicated 

message? For example, does your 

internally archived version of the 

message contain proprietary fields or 

data that are removed when it is 

communicated to counterparties or 

clearing houses? 

17. Are different messaging standards 

used to describe different contracts, 

counterparties, and transactions? 

18. How and where are the messages 

stored, and do the messages capture 

different information from that 

information stored in internal systems? 

19. What information is currently 

communicated, by and to whom, and for 

what purposes? 

20. For lifecycle event messages (e.g., 

credit events, changes of party names or 

identifiers), are there extant messaging 

standards that can update data relating 

to derivatives contracts that are stored 

in data repositories? 

21. What other standards (i.e., FpML, 

FIX, etc.) related to derivatives 

transactions does your organization or 

community use, and for what purposes? 

Has your implementation of these 

standards had any effect on the way 

your business is conducted (e.g., does it 

reduce misunderstanding of contract 

terms, has it increased the frequency or 

ease of trades). 

22. Is the data represented by this/ 

these messaging standard(s) complete 

enough to calculate net exposures to 

complex derivatives? What additional 

information would need to be 

represented? 

23. In general, to what extent are 

XML-based languages able to describe a 

derivatives contract for further analysis? 

To what extent is other technology 

needed to provide a full description? 

24. What other analysis can be 

conducted with this data? What 

additional information should be 

captured? 

25. Do you have plans to change your 

messaging schemes/formats in the near 

future? 

26. Are there identifier regimes 

widely used in the derivatives market 

for identifying counterparties, financial 

instruments, and other entities in 

messaging? 

The need for standardized computer 

descriptions of derivatives: 

27. Would there be a benefit to 

standardizing computer readable 

descriptions of financial derivatives? 

What about standardization for a certain 

class/type of financial derivatives (i.e., 

CDS versus interest rate, or plain vanilla 

versus complex)? 

28. What would be the issues, costs 

and concerns associated with 

standardizing computer readable 

descriptions of financial derivatives? 

Are there existing standards that could 

or should be expanded (i.e., FpML, FIX, 

etc.)? Do the existing standards in this 

area have materially different costs or 

issues? 

29. What would be an ideal ontology 

for you in terms of design, 

implementation, and maintenance of the 

data sets and applications needed for 

your business? 

30. How would a standardized 

computer readable description of 

financial derivatives be developed and 

maintained (i.e., a governmentsponsored initiative, a public-private 

partnership, standard-setting by a 

collaborative process, etc.)? Are there 

current models that should be 

considered? 

31. What is the importance of 

ontologies for the representation of 

derivatives data now and in the future? 

Implementation: 

32. Have you ever implemented a 

transition to a new data ontology, data 

messaging standard, or internal data 

standard? 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
76708 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Notices 

1The Commission voted 3–1–1 to approve this 

notice. Chairman Inez Tennenbaum, Commissioner 

Thomas Moore, and Commissioner Robert Adler 

approved the notice. Commissioner Nancy Nord 

voted to approve a different version of the notice. 

Commissioner Anne Northup abstained. 

33. If yes, how did the perceived and 

actual benefits compare to estimated 

and actual costs over the short- and 

long-run? 

34. What were the main difficulties 

that you experienced during a 

transition/implementation of new data 

standards? What could the organization 

developing and maintaining the 

standards do (or avoid) to help alleviate 

these difficulties? 

35. Would it be useful to use a 

standardized, computer readable 

description for financial derivatives 

instruments? How would it be useful? 

Would such a standard be useful for 

communicating transactions, storing 

position information, both, or other 

purposes? What would be the costs 

involved? 

36. How should regulators and 

standard setters implement description 

standards in the derivatives market? 

Making computer descriptions legally 

binding: 

37. Are there currently aspects of 

financial derivatives messaged in a 

computer readable format that have a 

legally-binding effect? 

38. What information, if any, is not 

captured that would be required to 

make the computer descriptions 

themselves, without reference to other 

materials, legally binding? 

39. What information would need to 

be captured for a legally binding 

contract that would not need to be 

captured for analyzing the contract? Is 

there a substantial cost differential 

between the processes needed to 

capture one set of information versus 

another? 

40. Would there be a benefit to 

making the computer readable 

descriptions of financial derivatives 

legally binding? Would there be 

drawbacks? What are they? 

Other: 

41. Is there other information not 

called for by these questions that we 

should consider? 

Dated: December 2, 2010. 

By the CFTC. 

David Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

By the Commission (SEC). 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30905 Filed 12–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–8011–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0115] 

Extension of the Date by Which Youth 

All-Terrain Vehicles Must Be Tested 

and Certified 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of extension of date of 

testing and certification of youth allterrain vehicles. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) is announcing that the 

Commission has extended, by 60 days, 

the date by which manufacturers 

(including importers) of youth allterrain vehicles (ATVs) must submit 

sufficient samples of such products to a 

third party conformity assessment body 

approved by the Commission for testing 

and, based on such testing, issue a 

certificate that the products 

manufactured after the deadline comply 

with certain CPSC regulations relating 

to ATVs. The extension is granted 

because there are an insufficient number 

of third party conformity assessment 

bodies accredited by the Commission to 

permit testing and certification under 

the original schedule.1

DATES: The date after which youth ATVs 

must be tested by third party conformity 

assessment bodies accredited by the 

Commission to assess conformity with 

the CPSC regulations for all-terrain 

vehicles is extended until January 25, 

2011. 

Comments in response to this notice 

should be submitted by December 30, 

2010. Comments on this notice should 

be captioned ‘‘Third Party Testing and 

Certification of Youth All-Terrain 

Vehicles: Request for Stay of 

Enforcement and Other Relief.’’ 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010– 

0115, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments in the following 

way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (e-mail) except through: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions: Submit written 

submissions in the following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of 

the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this notice. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

(such as a Social Security Number) 

electronically; if furnished at all, such 

information should be submitted in 

writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard McCallion, Program Area Team 

Leader, Office of Hazard Identification 

and Reduction, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission,10901 Darnestown 

Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20878; e-mail: 

rmccallion@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

Section 14(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the CPSA, as 

added by section 102(a)(2) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’), Public Law 110– 

314, directs the CPSC to establish and 

publish a notice of requirements for 

accreditation of third party conformity 

assessment bodies to assess children’s 

products for conformity with ‘‘other 

children’s product safety rules.’’ Section 

14(f)(1) of the CPSA defines ‘‘children’s 

product safety rule’’ as ‘‘a consumer 

product safety rule under [the CPSA] or 

similar rule, regulation, standard, or ban 

under any other Act enforced by the 

Commission, including a rule declaring 

a consumer product to be a banned 

hazardous product or substance.’’ Under 

section 14(a)(3)(A) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2063(a)(3)(A), each manufacturer 

(including an importer) or private 

labeler of products subject to those 

regulations must have products that are 

manufactured more than 90 days after 

the establishment and Federal Register 

publication of a notice of the 

requirements for accreditation tested by 

a third party conformity assessment 

body accredited to do so, and must issue 

a certificate of compliance with the 

applicable regulations based on that 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES