This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

12555 

Vol. 80, No. 46 

Tuesday, March 10, 2015 

1 17 CFR 145.9. 

2—F. Supp. 3d—, 2014 WL 4629567 (‘‘Op.’’). 

3 77 FR 1182 (January 9, 2012). 

4 77 FR 2136 (January 13, 2012). 

5 77 FR 2613 (January 19, 2012). 

6 77 FR 20128 (April 3, 2012). 

7 77 FR 30596 (May 23, 2012). 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Parts 1, 3, 23, 37, 43, 45, 46, 

and 170 

RIN 3038–AE27 

Initial Response to District Court 

Remand Order in Securities Industry 

and Financial Markets Association, et 

al. v. United States Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Supplementation of rulemaking 

preambles and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This release is the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission’s 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CFTC’’) initial 

response to the order of the United 

States District Court for the District of 

Columbia in Securities Industry and 

Financial Markets Association, et al. v. 

United States Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission remanding eight 

swaps-related rulemakings to the 

Commission to address what the court 

held to be inadequacies in the 

Commission’s consideration of costs 

and benefits, or its explanation of its 

consideration of costs and benefits, in 

those rulemakings. In this release, the 

Commission: supplements the 

preambles to the remanded rulemakings 

by clarifying that the costs and benefits 

identified therein applied both to 

domestic swaps activities and activities 

outside the United States that are 

subject to the Commission’s swaps rules 

by operation of section 2(i) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’); and 

solicits comments on whether there are 

cross-border costs or benefits associated 

with the remanded rules that differ from 

those associated with activities within 

the United States. Following its review 

of the comments, the Commission will 

publish a further response to the District 

Court remand order which would 

include any supplementation of or 

changes to its consideration of the costs 

and benefits of the relevant rules as set 

forth in the rule preambles. The 

Commission will also consider whether 

to amend any of these rules in light of 

information developed in this process. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 3038–AE27, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Agency Web site: http://

comments.cftc.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

through the Web site. 

• Mail: Send to Christopher 

Kirkpatrick, 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. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Please submit your comments using 

only one of these methods. 

All comments must be submitted in 

English, or if not, accompanied by an 

English translation. Comments will be 

posted as received to www.cftc.gov. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. If 

you wish the Commission to consider 

information that you believe is exempt 

from disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’), a petition for 

confidential treatment of the exempt 

information may be submitted according 

to the procedures established in § 145.9 

of the Commission’s regulations.1

The Commission reserves the right, 

but shall have no obligation, to review, 

pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or 

remove any or all of your submission 

from www.cftc.gov that it may deem to 

be inappropriate for publication, such as 

obscene language. All submissions that 

have been redacted or removed that 

contain comments on the merits of the 

rulemaking will be retained in the 

public comment file and will be 

considered as required under the 

Administrative Procedure Act and other 

applicable laws, and may be accessible 

under the FOIA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob 

Schwartz, Deputy General Counsel, 

(202) 418–5958, rschwartz@cftc.gov; 

Martin White, Assistant General 

Counsel, (202) 418–5129, mwhite@

cftc.gov; or Kavita Kumar Puri, Counsel, 

(202) 418–5291, kpuri@cftc.gov, in the 

Office of the General Counsel, 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1151 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 

20581. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

This release is the Commission’s 

initial response to the order of the 

United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia in Securities 

Industry and Financial Markets 

Association, et al. v. United States 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, No. 13–1916 (PLF) (D.D.C. 

September 16, 2014) 2 (‘‘SIFMA v. 

CFTC’’) remanding eight swaps-related 

rulemakings to the Commission to 

address what the court held to be 

inadequacies in the Commission’s 

explanation of its consideration of costs 

and benefits in those rulemakings. The 

eight remanded rulemakings are: 

Real-Time Public Reporting of Swap 

Transactions Data 3 (‘‘Real-Time 

Reporting Rule’’) 

Swap Data Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements 4 (‘‘SDR 

Reporting Rule’’) 

Registration of Swap Dealers and 

Major Swap Participants 5 (‘‘Swap Entity 

Registration Rule’’) 

Swap Dealer and Major Swap 

Participant Recordkeeping, Reporting, 

and Duties Rules; Futures Commission 

Merchant and Introducing Broker 

Conflict of Interest Rules; and Chief 

Compliance Officer Rules for Swap 

Dealers, Major Swap Participants, and 

Futures Commission Merchants 6

(‘‘Daily Trading Records,’’ ‘‘Risk 

Management,’’ and ‘‘Chief Compliance 

Officer’’ Rules) 

Further Definition of ‘‘Swap Dealer,’’ 

‘‘Security-Based Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Major 

Swap Participant,’’ ‘‘Major SecurityBased Swap Participant,’’ and ‘‘Eligible 

Contract Participant’’ 7 (‘‘Entity 

Definition Rule’’) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

12556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

8 77 FR 35200 (June 12, 2012). 

9 77 FR 55904 (September 11, 2012). 

10 78 FR 33476 (June 4, 2013). 

11 7 U.S.C. 2(i). 

12See infra n.52. 

13 78 FR 45292 (July 26, 2013). 

14Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376. 

15Op. at *1, *5. The plaintiffs were the Securities 

Industry and Financial Markets Association, the 

International Swaps and Derivatives Association, 

and the Institute of International Bankers. Op. at *1. 

16See Op. at *5. Three of the fourteen challenged 

rules, informally identified by the court as the 

‘‘Daily Trading Records,’’ ‘‘Risk Management,’’ and 

‘‘Chief Compliance Officer’’ Rules, were 

promulgated as part of a single rulemaking. Id. 

17Op. at *42. 

18Op. at *34. 

19Op. at *34. Section 2(i), 7 U.S.C. 2(i), provides 

that the provisions of this Act relating to swaps that 

were enacted by the Wall Street Transparency and 

Accountability Act of 2010 (including any rule 

prescribed or regulation promulgated under that 

Act), shall not apply to activities outside the United 

States unless those activities—(1) have a direct and 

significant connection with activities in, or effect 

on, commerce of the United States; or (2) 

contravene such rules or regulations as the 

Commission may prescribe or promulgate as are 

necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of 

any provision of this Act that was enacted by the 

Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 

2010. 

Section 2(i)(2), regarding anti-evasion rules, was 

not at issue in the SIFMA v. CFTC litigation. 

20Op. at *33 (‘‘As already noted, Section 2(i) 

provides the authority—without implementing 

regulations, see infra Section III.A—to enforce the 

Title VII Rules extraterritorially whenever 

activities’’ meet the test set forth in the statute). 

21Op. at *36–*37. 

22Op. at *38. 

Swap Data Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements: Pre-Enactment 

and Transition Swaps 8 (‘‘Historical SDR 

Reporting Rule’’) 

Confirmations, Portfolio 

Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, 

and Swap Trading Relationship 

Documentation Requirements for Swap 

Dealers and Major Swap Participants 9

(‘‘Portfolio Reconciliation Rule’’) 

Core Principles and Other 

Requirements for Swap Execution 

Facilities 10 (‘‘SEF Registration Rule’’) 

The court directed the Commission to 

address explicitly whether the costs and 

benefits the Commission identified in 

those rulemakings apply to activities 

outside the United States, and to 

address any differences that may exist. 

In this release, the Commission takes 

two actions: 

First, the Commission supplements 

the preambles to the eight remanded 

rulemakings by clarifying that, unless 

otherwise specified, the costs and 

benefits identified therein addressed 

both domestic swaps activities and 

overseas swaps activities subject to the 

Commission’s jurisdiction by operation 

of CEA section 2(i).11 In considering 

those costs and benefits, the 

Commission considered all evidence in 

the record, regardless of whether the 

evidence pertained to activities in the 

United States or overseas. The rule 

preambles, including the Commission’s 

discussions of costs and benefits, reflect 

the Commission’s understanding that 

the swaps market operates across 

borders, that some regulated activity 

would occur overseas, and that Congress 

expressly provided that the 

Commission’s swaps regulations would 

apply to activities outside the United 

States to the extent of CEA section 2(i). 

As with other variations in the universe 

of covered swaps activities, where the 

record evidence contained no 

information indicating a material 

difference in costs and benefits based on 

the geographic locus of swaps activities, 

the Commission addressed its 

consideration of costs and benefits of 

the rules to all swaps activities to which 

the rules apply. In the small number of 

instances where commenters raised 

issues specific to overseas activities or 

provided data about those activities, the 

Commission addressed those issues and 

data.12 Consistent with this approach, 

and subject to the limitations of the 

information available in the rulemaking 

records, the costs and benefits identified 

in the rule preambles applied to all 

covered activity within the 

Commission’s jurisdiction. 

Second, the Commission is soliciting 

comments on whether there are costs or 

benefits of the remanded rules as 

applied to business activities outside 

the United States that differ from those 

of the rules as applied to activities 

within the United States. Following its 

review of the comments, the 

Commission will publish a further 

response to the District Court remand 

order which would include any 

supplementation of, or changes to, its 

consideration of the costs and benefits 

of the rules as set forth in the rule 

preambles. The Commission will also 

consider proposing changes to the rules 

based on information developed in this 

process and other relevant 

considerations. 

II. Background 

A. The District Court Litigation and 

Decision 

On December 4, 2013, three trade 

associations sued the Commission in the 

United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia, challenging, on 

various grounds, the Commission’s 

Interpretive Guidance and Policy 

Statement Regarding Compliance with 

Certain Swap Regulations 13 (‘‘CrossBorder Guidance’’) as well as the 

extraterritorial application of fourteen of 

the rules promulgated by the 

Commission to implement the 

provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act 14 regarding swaps.15 The fourteen 

challenged rules were promulgated by 

the Commission in twelve 

rulemakings.16 On September 16, 2014, 

the court issued a decision, granting 

summary judgment to the Commission 

on most issues. 

The court summarized the case by 

observing, 

The majority of plaintiffs’ claims fail 

because Congress has clearly indicated that 

the swaps provisions within Title VII of the 

Dodd-Frank Act—including any rules or 

regulations prescribed by the CFTC—apply 

extraterritorially whenever the jurisdictional 

nexus in 7 U.S.C. 2(i) is satisfied. In this 

regard, plaintiffs’ challenges to the 

extraterritorial application of the Title VII 

Rules merely seek to delay the inevitable.17

Major holdings by the court regarding 

the cross-border application of the 

Commission’s swaps rules included the 

following: 

1. The Commission’s Cross-Border 

Guidance is not subject to judicial 

review because it is in part a nonbinding general statement of policy and 

in part an interpretive rule, neither of 

which is subject to judicial review 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act.18

2. Section 2(i) of the CEA is a selfeffectuating provision that makes 

Commission swaps rules apply to 

business activities outside the United 

States to the extent they meet the test set 

forth in the statutory language.19 No 

Commission rulemaking is needed to 

make swaps rules extend to the 

geographic reach established by 

Congress in this provision.20 Thus, the 

Commission’s substantive rules 

regarding swaps do not need to specify 

their international scope since that was 

done by statute.21

3. Because Congress determined that 

the Commission’s swaps rules apply to 

certain overseas activities and 

established the test for determining 

when the rules would apply to those 

activities, the Commission was not 

tasked with reconsidering the costs and 

benefits of those legislative decisions.22

4. Because section 2(i) establishes the 

extraterritorial scope of the 

Commission’s swaps rules, the 

Commission can enforce those rules 

overseas relying on that provision. 

However, to the extent that it may be 

useful to develop a more refined 

interpretation of how section 2(i) 

applies in particular circumstances, the 

Commission has discretion to address 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12557 

23Op. at *35. 

24Op. at *36–*37. 

25Op. at *35. 

26Op. at *36. 

27As noted above, three of the rules at issue were 

promulgated as part of a single rulemaking. 

28Although the Commission believes that it was 

sufficiently clear that the discussion of costs and 

benefits in the rule preambles applied to all swaps 

activity within the Commission’s jurisdiction 

unless otherwise specified, the Commission has 

declined to appeal the district court’s ruling. Thus, 

the court’s remand order is final and binding on the 

Commission. 

29Op. at *39–*40. 

30Op. at *40, *42. 

31Op. at *41 (internal quotation and citation 

omitted). 

32 Id. 

33 Id. 

34 Id. 

35Op. at *41, *42–43. The plaintiffs’ challenge to 

the ‘‘Trade Execution Rule,’’ Process for a 

Designated Contract Market or Swap Execution 

Facility to Make a Swap Available to Trade, Swap 

Transaction Compliance and Implementation 

Schedule, and Trade Execution Requirement Under 

the Commodity Exchange Act, 78 FR 33606 (June 

4, 2013), was dismissed for lack of standing. Op. at 

*23. For three other rules—the ‘‘Large Trader 

Reporting Rule,’’ Large Trader Reporting for 

Physical Commodity Swaps, 76 FR 43851 (July 22, 

2011); the ‘‘Straight-Through Processing Rule,’’ 

Customer Clearing Documentation, Timing of 

Acceptance for Clearing, and Clearing Member Risk 

Management, 77 FR 21278 (April 9, 2012); and the 

‘‘Clearing Determination Rule,’’ Clearing 

Requirement Determination Under Section 2(h) of 

the CEA, 77 FR 74284 (December 13, 2012)—the 

court granted summary judgment to the 

Commission without reaching the merits because 

the plaintiffs did not identify comments submitted 

to the Commission during the rulemaking 

proceedings that raised issues regarding the 

extraterritorial applications of these rules or the 

associated costs and benefits. Op. at *36 n.30. 

36Op. at *43. 

37Op. at *38. 

38Op. at *39; see also id. at *41 n.35. 

39Op. at *41. 

40Op. at *39. 

41 Id. 

42 Id. 

43Op. at *40. 

44Op. at *39. 

45Op. at *40. 

those interpretive issues via either 

rulemaking or case-by-case 

adjudication.23 Whichever choice it 

makes, the Commission is not required 

to define the precise scope of section 

2(i) each time it promulgates a 

substantive swaps rule; it can address 

issues of the scope of section 2(i) as they 

arise.24

Based on these principles, the court 

held that the rules challenged by the 

plaintiffs apply to swaps activities 

outside the United States to the extent 

specified by section 2(i).25 The court 

also held that, even though some 

commenters asked the Commission to 

address the geographical scope of the 

rules, the Commission reasonably 

determined not to address issues of 

geographical scope in these particular 

proceedings and to simply rely on the 

statute (i.e., section 2(i)) to define the 

rules’ application to activities outside 

the United States.26

On the other hand, the court further 

held that, in the preambles for ten of the 

challenged rules, promulgated as part of 

eight rulemakings,27 the Commission 

should have, but did not, state whether 

the costs and benefits identified in the 

rule preambles applied not only to 

domestic swaps activities, but also to 

swaps activities outside the United 

States.28 The eight remanded 

rulemakings are listed above. 

Specifically, the court held that the 

Commission should have discussed 

whether and to what extent the costs 

and benefits as to overseas activity may 

differ from those related to domestic 

application of the rules.29 On that basis, 

the court described the rules as 

‘‘inadequately explained.’’ 30 It stated, 

however, that it was ‘‘willing to assume 

for now’’ that the issue was ‘‘one of form 

and not of substance.’’ 31 It also held 

that this perceived shortcoming was 

‘‘not so serious as to favor vacatur’’ of 

the rules.32 The court further reasoned 

that vacatur of these rules would 

‘‘produce a bevy of disruptive 

consequences,’’ in part because ‘‘after 

vacatur, U.S.-based swap dealers would 

be able to avoid Title VII regulations by 

engaging in transactions through their 

foreign subsidiaries and affiliates, even 

if the transactions’ risk remained with 

the U.S.-based corporation.’’ 33 Based on 

its analysis of the statute and rules, the 

court determined that there ‘‘exists at 

least a serious possibility’’ that the 

affected rules would remain unchanged 

as a result of proceedings on remand to 

elaborate on the geographic element of 

the identified costs and benefits.34 The 

court therefore remanded without 

vacatur the eight rulemakings 

encompassing the rules in question for 

the Commission to better explain its 

position on whether the costs and 

benefits identified in the rule preambles 

applied to overseas activities, and to 

explain any relevant differences.35

B. The District Court’s Rulings on 

Consideration of Costs and Benefits 

The district court remanded the eight 

rulemakings ‘‘for further proceedings 

consistent with the Opinion issued this 

same day.’’ 36 The court’s opinion 

included a number of holdings and 

observations that provide guidance as to 

the actions the Commission must take 

on remand with respect to the 

consideration of the costs and benefits 

of the extraterritorial application of the 

rules in question. 

1. The court held that, because 

Congress made the determination that 

the swaps rules apply overseas to the 

extent specified in section 2(i), CEA 

section 15(a) does not require the 

Commission to consider whether it is 

necessary or desirable for particular 

rules to apply to overseas activities as 

specified in section 2(i).37 Indeed, the 

court explained, the Commission 

cannot, based on a consideration of 

costs and benefits, second-guess 

Congress’s decision that swaps rules 

apply to certain overseas activities.38 As 

a result, the court stated that ‘‘the only 

issues necessarily before the CFTC on 

remand would be the substance of the 

Title VII rules, not the scope of those 

Rules’ extraterritorial applications 

under 7 U.S.C. 2(i).’’ 39

2. At the same time, the court held 

that, in considering costs and benefits of 

the substantive regulatory choices it 

makes when promulgating a swaps rule, 

the Commission is required to take into 

consideration the fact that the rule, by 

statute, will apply to certain overseas 

activity.40 Thus, the Commission’s 

consideration of costs and benefits of 

the application of the rule must 

encompass both foreign and domestic 

business activities.41 The court held that 

the Commission failed to meet this 

requirement because, the court stated, in 

the cost-benefit discussions for the rules 

at issue the Commission did not give 

explicit consideration to costs and 

benefits specific to overseas activities.42

3. The court held that the Commission 

has discretion either to consider costs 

and benefits of the international 

application of swaps rules separately 

from domestic application or to evaluate 

them together, ‘‘so long as the costbenefit analysis makes clear that the 

CFTC reasonably considered both.’’ 43

The district court found that, at the time 

the rules at issue in the litigation were 

promulgated, foreign swaps regulations 

were still under development so that 

costs of possible duplicative regulation 

were hypothetical and did not have to 

be considered.44 The court noted that 

this fact raised the possibility that the 

costs and benefits of the rules’ 

extraterritorial application ‘‘were 

essentially identical to those of the 

Rules’ domestic applications’’ so that 

the Commission ‘‘functionally 

considered the extraterritorial costs and 

benefits’’ of the rules ‘‘by considering 

the Rules’ domestic costs and 

benefits.’’ 45 However, the court 

concluded that it did not need to 

address that possibility because the 

cost-benefit discussions in the rule 

preambles gave ‘‘no indication’’ that this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

12558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

46 Id. 

47Op. at *41. 

48Op. at *41. 

49 Id. 

50The statement in the text reflects the 

Commission’s approach in its consideration of costs 

and benefits for all of its Dodd-Frank rules, unless 

otherwise specified for a particular issue or issues 

in a particular rulemaking. 

51Op. at *40. 

52See, e.g., Portfolio Reconciliation Rule, 77 FR 

at 55945–46, 55948–49 & nn.79, 84, 98, 108 

(considering ISDA data regarding U.S. and foreign 

firms, and factoring in European proposals); Risk 

Management Rule, 77 FR at 20177 n.104 (relying on 

UK FSA study); Swaps Entity Registration Rule, 77 

FR at 2624–25 (stating in response to comments that 

Commission ‘‘does not believe that foreign-based 

Swaps Entities will bear higher costs associated 

with the registration process’’ and giving 

explanation); SDR Reporting Rule, 77 FR at 2192 

(considering costs and benefits of swap identifiers, 

including in cross-border activities). 

53Op. at *39. 

54Op. at *39. 

55Op. at *41. 

56Op. at *36–*37. 

57However, as it has done in the past, the 

Commission will continue to consider the proper 

interpretation and application of section 2(i) in 

particular circumstances. 

was so.46 The court further noted that 

foreign swaps regulations passed since 

the promulgation of the rules at issue in 

the litigation ‘‘may now raise issues of 

duplicative regulatory burdens’’ but that 

‘‘the CFTC may well conclude that its 

policy of substituted compliance largely 

negates these costs.’’ 47

4. Finally, the court noted that 

‘‘[p]laintiffs raise no complaints 

regarding the CFTC’s evaluation of the 

general, often unquantifiable, benefits 

and costs of the domestic application of 

the Title VII Rules.’’ 48 As a result, the 

court held, ‘‘[o]n remand, the CFTC 

would only need to make explicit which 

of those benefits and costs similarly 

apply to the Rules’ extraterritorial 

applications.’’ 49

III. Supplement to Preambles of 

Remanded Rulemakings Regarding the 

Scope of the Commission’s 

Consideration of Costs and Benefits 

The Commission hereby clarifies that 

it considered costs and benefits based 

on the understanding that the swaps 

market functions internationally, with 

many transactions involving U.S. firms 

taking place across international 

boundaries; 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. The Commission 

considered all evidence in the record, 

and in the absence of evidence 

indicating differences in costs and 

benefits between foreign and domestic 

swaps activities, the Commission did 

not find occasion to characterize 

explicitly the identified costs and 

benefits as foreign or domestic. Thus, 

where the Commission did not 

specifically refer to matters of location, 

its discussion of costs and benefits 

referred to the effects of its rules on all 

business activity subject to its 

regulations, whether by virtue of the 

activity’s physical location in the 

United States or by virtue of the 

activity’s connection with or effect on 

U.S. commerce under section 2(i).50 In 

the language of the district court, the 

Commission ‘‘functionally considered 

the extraterritorial costs and 

benefits,’’ 51 and this was because the 

evidence in the record did not suggest 

that differences existed, with certain 

limited exceptions that the Commission 

addressed.52 For example, as the district 

court found, at the time of the 

promulgation of the rules at issue, 

foreign swaps regulations generally 

were still being developed so any costs 

associated with potentially duplicative 

or inconsistent regulations remained 

hypothetical.53 Thus, as the court noted, 

the plaintiffs in SIFMA v. CFTC did not 

‘‘identify any specific data that the 

CFTC failed to take into account.’’ 54

IV. Request for Comments 

As noted above, the district court 

stated that, on remand, the Commission 

‘‘would only need to make explicit’’ 

which of the costs and benefits 

identified in the rule preambles 

‘‘similarly apply to the Rules’ 

extraterritorial applications.’’ 55 In order 

to assist the Commission in determining 

whether any further consideration or 

explanation—beyond that contained in 

the original rule preambles and this 

release—is needed to respond to this 

mandate, the Commission requests 

comments on the following questions: 

1. Are there any benefits or costs that 

the Commission identified in any of the 

rule preambles that do not apply, or 

apply to a different extent, to the 

relevant rule’s extraterritorial 

applications? 

2. Are there any costs or benefits that 

are unique to one or more of the rules’ 

extraterritorial applications? If so, 

please specify how. 

3. Put another way, are the types of 

costs and benefits that arise from the 

extraterritorial application of any of the 

rules different from those that arise from 

the domestic application? If so, how and 

to what extent? 

4. If significant differences exist in the 

costs and benefits of the extraterritorial 

and domestic application of one or more 

of the rules, what are the implications 

of those differences for the substantive 

requirements of the rule or rules? 

Comments should specify, in the 

header of the comment, the particular 

rule or rules that they address. The 

Commission requests that comments 

focus on information and analysis 

specifically relevant to the inquiry 

specified by the district court’s remand 

order. Consistent with the district 

court’s holding that the Commission is 

not required to address the issue of what 

the geographical scope of its rules 

should be in the challenged 

rulemakings,56 the purpose of this 

request for comments is to further 

consider the cross-border costs and 

benefits of the substance of the rules, 

not to initiate a process to address the 

rules’ cross-border scope, which, as the 

district court held, is prescribed by 

section 2(i).57 The Commission further 

requests that commenters supply the 

Commission with relevant data to 

support their comments. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 4, 

2015, by the Commission. 

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Note: The following appendix will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendix to Initial Response to District 

Court Remand Order in Securities 

Industry and Financial Markets 

Association, et al. v. United States 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission—Commission Voting 

Summary 

On this matter, Chairman Massad and 

Commissioners Wetjen, Bowen, and 

Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No 

Commissioner voted in the negative. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05413 Filed 3–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 317 

[DOD–2008–OS–0068] 

RIN 0790–AJ23 

DCAA Privacy Act Program 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Contract Audit 

Agency (DCAA) is amending the DCAA 

Privacy Act Program Regulation. 

Specifically, DCAA is adding an 

exemption section to include an 

exemption for RDCAA 900.1, DCAA 

Internal Review Case Files. This rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES