Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 6727 

the Act, to any representative of the 

Commission, the Securities and 

Exchange Commission, or any 

applicable prudential regulator. 

Issued in Washington, DC on January 13, 

2011 by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Appendices to Swap Trading 

Relationship Documentation 

Requirements for Swap Dealers and 

Major Swap Participants— 

Commissioners Voting Summary and 

Statements of Commissioners 

Note: The following appendices will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendix 1—Commissioners Voting 

Summary 

On this matter, Chairman Gensler and 

Commissioners Dunn, Sommers, Chilton and 

O’Malia voted in the affirmative; no 

Commissioner voted in the negative. 

Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman 

Gary Gensler 

I support the proposed rulemaking that 

establishes swap trading relationship 

documentation requirements for swap 

dealers and major swap participants. The 

proposed regulations are consistent with the 

express mandate of the Dodd-Frank Act to 

prescribe standards for the timely and 

accurate confirmation, processing, netting, 

documentation and valuation of swap 

transactions. One of the primary goals of the 

Dodd-Frank Act was to establish a 

comprehensive regulatory framework that 

would reduce risk, increase transparency and 

promote market integrity within the financial 

system. The proposed regulations accomplish 

this objective by establishing procedures that 

will promote legal certainty regarding terms 

of swap transactions, early resolutions of 

valuation disputes, enhanced understanding 

of one counterparty’s risk exposure to 

another, reduced operational risk and 

increased operational efficiency. One of the 

key chapters from the 2008 financial crisis 

was when large financial players, including 

AIG, had valuation disputes and other 

problems regarding documentation 

standards. These rules will directly address 

many of these issues, highlighting issues for 

senior management and regulators earlier and 

lowering risk to the public. 

Appendix 3—Commissioner Scott D. 

O’Malia 

I respectfully dissent from the 

Commission’s decision to propose 

requirements regarding the inclusion of Title 

II of the Dodd-Frank Act (Title II) and the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) in the 

swap documentation used by swap dealers 

(Dealers) and major swap participants (MSP). 

This proposal would require Dealers and 

MSP to include a provision in their swap 

documentation which will prevent their 

counterparties from exercising certain 

private, contractual rights in the event that a 

swap becomes subject to the processes of 

either Title II or FDIA. In particular, the 

proposal requires counterparties to explicitly 

consent to the resolution processes set forth 

in Title II or FDIA, which includes a one-day 

stay on the termination, liquidation or 

netting of swaps with a ‘‘covered financial 

company’’ as that term is defined under Title 

II. Title II also provides the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Company (FDIC) with an 

unchecked authority to repudiate contracts 

and preference which creditors receive 

payments. Finally, the proposal asks whether 

swap agreements which contain cross default 

provisions should also subject counterparty 

affiliates to a ‘‘covered financial company’’ 

designation or treat them as an insured 

depository institution under FDIA. 

The Commission’s proposal relies on its 

authorities in Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act 

regarding swap documentation. Asking 

parties to agree upon and include valuation 

language in their swap agreements under this 

authority is one thing, but dictating that one 

party forego its legal contractual rights 

simply because its counterparty becomes 

subject to an overly vague and far reaching 

statute intended to address ‘‘systemic risk to 

the financial system’’ is quite another. If the 

FDIC authority to require this provision 

under Title II was clear, then there would be 

no need for the Commission to prop up the 

banking regulator’s ability to exercise its 

resolution authority. In its best attempt to 

justify the proposal, the Commission claims 

that it is merely trying to put counterparties 

on notice of the already existing 

requirements of Title II and FDIA, but neither 

the proposal regarding an explicit consent to 

transfer, nor the discussion regarding 

affiliates and cross default agreements is a 

reflection of language already included in 

Title II or FDIA. At the very least, if the CFTC 

had any specific role under Title II or FDIA, 

then it would be clear how we would inform 

the treatment of the market participants that 

we regulate and their transactions in the case 

of a default. We do not. 

By raising these objections, I hope that 

market participants will become fully aware 

of the legal regime that they will be subject 

to by virtue of entering into a swap 

agreement. I don’t believe it is in our best 

interest to adopt seemingly redundant and 

unnecessary requirements into our 

regulations or to adopt requirements under 

the guise of our Title VII authorities that 

clearly exceeds the already broad statutory 

authority Congress decided to provide the 

FDIC under both Title II and FDIA. As a 

result, I cannot support this proposal. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2643 Filed 2–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN 

COMMISSION 

18 CFR Part 410 

Proposed Amendments to the Water 

Quality Regulations, Water Code and 

Comprehensive Plan To Provide for 

Regulation of Natural Gas 

Development Projects 

AGENCY: Delaware River Basin 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental 

notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The Delaware River Basin 

Commission published in the Federal 

Register of January 4, 2011 a proposed 

rule containing tentative dates and 

locations for public hearings on 

proposed amendments to its Water 

Quality Regulations, Water Code and 

Comprehensive Plan relating to natural 

gas development projects. The public 

hearing dates have been changed and 

locations and times established, as set 

forth below. 

DATES: Public hearings will be held at 

two locations on February 22, 2011 and 

at a third on February 24, 2011. 

Hearings will run from 1:30 p.m. until 

5 p.m. and from 6 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. 

at each location. Written comments will 

be accepted through the close of 

business on March 16, 2011. 

Locations: The hearings on February 

22, 2011 will take place in the 

Honesdale High School auditorium, 459 

Terrace Street, Honesdale, Pennsylvania 

and the Liberty High School auditorium, 

125 Buckley Street, Liberty, New York. 

The hearings on February 24, 2011 will 

take place in Patriots Theater at the War 

Memorial, 1 Memorial Drive, Trenton, 

New Jersey. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Paula Schmitt at 609–883–9500, ext. 

224. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document supplements the 

Commission’s proposed rule published 

in the Federal Register of January 4, 

2011 (76 FR 295) by providing the dates, 

times and locations of the public 

hearings to be held on proposed 

amendments to the Commission’s Water 

Quality Regulations, Water Code and 

Comprehensive Plan relating to the 

conservation and development of water 

resources of the Delaware River Basin 

during the implementation of natural 

gas development projects. The tentative 

hearing dates published in the notice of 

January 4, 2011 have been changed. The 

exact locations and times of the public 

hearings were not included in the 

January 4 notice and are provided here. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
6728 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The text of the proposed amendments 

and additional details about how to 

submit written and oral testimony are 

available on the Commission’s Web site, 

drbc.net. 

Dated: February 1, 2011. 

John F. Calkin, 

Attorney. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2677 Filed 2–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6360–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–1091] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Underwater Hazard, 

Gravesend Bay, Brooklyn, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a permanent safety zone 

within the waters of Gravesend Bay, 

Brooklyn, New York. This proposed 

safety zone is necessary to provide for 

the protection of the maritime public 

and safety of navigation from recently 

discovered underwater explosive 

hazards in Gravesend Bay. This action 

is intended to restrict unauthorized 

persons and vessels from traveling 

through or conducting underwater 

activities within a portion of Gravesend 

Bay until recently discovered military 

munitions are rendered safe and 

removed from the area. Entry into this 

zone would be prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

New York or the designated on-scene 

representative. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before March 10, 2011. Requests for 

public meetings must be received by the 

Coast Guard on or before February 23, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2010–1091 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail LTJG Eunice James, 

Coast Guard; telephone (718) 354–4163, 

e-mail Eunice.A.James@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2010–1091), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a telephone number in the 

body of your document so that we can 

contact you if we have questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2010–1091’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period and may 

change the rule based on your 

comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010– 

1091’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one on or before February 23, 2011 

using one of the four methods specified 

under ADDRESSES. Please explain why 

you believe a public meeting would be 

beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

Basis and Purpose 

In response to media reports of 

military munitions found in Gravesend 

Bay by civilian divers, U.S. Navy 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal divers 

from Naval Weapons Station Earle 

conducted underwater surveys and 

confirmed the location of munitions on 

the bottom of Gravesend Bay. The 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS