Vol. 78 Monday, 

No. 222 November 18, 2013 

Part II 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

17 CFR Parts 15, 17, 18, et al. 

Ownership and Control Reports, Forms 102/102S, 40/40S, and 71; Final 

Rule 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69178 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1 17 CFR parts 15 through 21. These final rules 

generally relate to parts 15, 17, 18 and 20 of the 

Commission’s regulations. 

2 ‘‘Open contract’’ means any commodity or 

commodity option position held by any person on 

or subject to the rules of a board of trade which 

have not expired, been exercised, or offset. See 

§§ 1.3(t) and 15.00(n). 

3A ‘‘reportable position’’ is defined in § 15.00(p) 

as any open contract position that at the close of 

the market on any business day equals or exceeds 

the Commission’s reporting levels specified in 

§ 15.03. 

4A ‘‘special account’’ is defined in § 15.00(r) as 

any commodity futures or option account in which 

there is a reportable position. 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Parts 15, 17, 18, and 20 

RIN 3038–AD31 

Ownership and Control Reports, 

Forms 102/102S, 40/40S, and 71 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or 

‘‘CFTC’’) is adopting new rules and 

related forms to enhance its 

identification of futures and swap 

market participants. These final rules 

will leverage the Commission’s current 

position and transaction reporting 

programs by requiring the electronic 

submission of trader identification and 

market participant data on amended 

Forms 102 and 40, and on new Form 71. 

The new and amended forms require the 

reporting of certain trading accounts 

active on reporting markets that are 

designated contract markets or swap 

execution facilities. Among other 

information, the forms collect 

ownership and control information with 

respect to both position-based special 

accounts and trading accounts that meet 

specified volume-based reporting levels. 

DATES: Effective date: February 18, 2014. 

Compliance date: The compliance 

date will be delayed by an additional 

180 days, with the result that the 

compliance date of these final rules will 

be August 15, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sebastian Pujol Schott, Associate 

Director, Division of Market Oversight 

(‘‘DMO’’), at 202–418–5641 or sps@

cftc.gov; Mark Schlegel, Special 

Counsel, DMO, at 202–418–5055 or 

mschlegel@cftc.gov; Brian Robinson, 

Attorney Advisor, DMO, at 202–418– 

5385 or brobinson@cftc.gov; or James 

Outen, Industry Economist, DMO, at 

202–418–5710 or jouten@cftc.gov; 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 

20581. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Overview of Final Rules 

B. Benefits Derived From Final Rule 

II. Statutory Framework for Position 

Reporting and Trader and Account 

Identification 

III. Current Trader and Account 

Identification Programs 

A. Futures Large Trader Reporting— 

Current Forms 102 and 40 

i. Identification of Special Accounts— 

Current Form 102 

ii. Statement of Reporting Trader—Current 

Form 40 

B. Large Trader Reporting for Physical 

Commodity Swaps—102S and 40S 

Filings 

IV. Summary of 2010 and 2012 NPRMs 

V. Summary of New and Amended Forms 

Adopted in These Final Rules 

A. Position-Triggered Form 102A (Special 

Accounts) 

i. Special Accounts and Reportable 

Positions 

ii. 102A Form Requirements 

iii. Timing of 102A Reporting 

iv. Timing of 102A Change Updates and 

Refresh Updates 

B. Volume-Triggered Form 102B (Volume 

Threshold Accounts) 

i. Volume Threshold Accounts and 

Reportable Trading Volume Level 

ii. 102B Form Requirements 

iii. Timing of 102B Reporting 

iv. Timing of 102B Change Updates and 

Refresh Updates 

C. Position-Triggered Form 102S 

(Consolidated Accounts) 

i. 102S Form Requirements 

ii. Timing of 102S Reporting, Change 

Updates and Refresh Updates 

D. Form 71 (Omnibus Accounts and SubAccounts) 

E. New Form 40 (Reporting Traders) 

VI. Data Submission Standards and 

Procedures 

A. Overview 

B. Schedule of Effective Date and 

Compliance Date 

VII. Review of NPRM and Summary of Final 

Rules 

A. Part 15 

i. § 15.00(q)—Reporting Market 

ii. § 15.00(t)—Control 

iii. § 15.00(u)—Reportable Trading Volume 

iv. § 15.00(v)—Direct Market Access 

v. § 15.00(v)—Omnibus Account 

vi. § 15.00(w)—Omnibus Account 

Originator 

vii. § 15.00(x)—Volume Threshold Account 

viii. § 15.00(y)—Omnibus Volume 

Threshold Account 

ix. § 15.00(z)—Omnibus Reportable SubAccount 

x. § 15.00(aa)—Reportable Sub-Account 

xi. § 15.00(bb)—Trading Account 

Controller; § 15.00(cc)—Volume 

Threshold Account Controller; 

§ 15.00(dd)—Reportable Sub-Account 

Controller 

xii. § 15.01(c)—Persons Required To Report 

xiii. § 15.02—Reporting Forms 

xiv. § 15.04—Reportable Trading Volume 

Level 

B. Part 17 

i. § 17.01(a)—Identification of Special 

Accounts (via 102A) 

ii. § 17.01(b)—Identification of Volume 

Threshold Accounts (via 102B) 

iii. § 17.01(c)—Identification of Omnibus 

Accounts and Sub-Accounts (via 71) 

iv. § 17.01(d)—Exclusively Self-Cleared 

Contracts 

v. § 17.01(e)—Identification of Omnibus 

Accounts and Sub-Accounts 

vi. § 17.02(b)—Section 17.01(a) Reports 

(via 102A) 

vii. § 17.02(c)—Section 17.01(b) Reports 

(via 102B) 

viii. § 17.03(a)–(g)—Delegation of 

Authority to the Director of the Office of 

Data and Technology or the Director of 

the Division of Market Oversight 

C. Part 18 

i. § 18.04—Statement of Reporting Trader 

ii. § 18.05—Maintenance of Books and 

Records 

D. Part 20 

i. § 20.5—Series S Filings 

VIII. Related Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

i. Overview 

ii. Information To Be Provided 

iii. Total Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Costs; Methodology Used To Estimate 

Costs 

iv. Reporting Burdens—New and Revised 

Forms 

v. Recordkeeping Burdens—Revised 

§ 18.05 

B. Consideration of Costs and Benefits 

i. Background 

ii. The Statutory Requirement for the 

Commission To Consider the Costs and 

Benefits of Its Actions 

iii. Commission Request for Comments 

Regarding Cost and Benefit Estimates 

iv. Methodology Used To Estimate Costs 

v. Costs and Benefits of Individual 

Reporting Forms and Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

vi. Comments Regarding Costs and Benefits 

vii. Consideration of Alternatives 

viii. Reporting on Form 102S 

ix. Consolidation Form Proposed by FIA 

x. Section 15(a) Factors 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I. Background 

A. Overview of Final Rules 

The CFTC’s large trader reporting 

rules (also referred to herein as the 

‘‘reporting rules’’) are contained in parts 

15 through 21 of the Commission’s 

regulations.1 The reporting rules are 

currently structured to collect 

information with respect to positions in 

‘‘open contracts,’’ 2 including: (1) 

Information necessary to identify 

persons who hold or control ‘‘reportable 

positions’’ 3 in open contracts (via 

current Form 40); and (2) information 

necessary to identify ‘‘special 

accounts’’ 4 (via current Form 102). 

These final rules modify the current 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69179 

5 ‘‘Reporting market’’ is defined in current 

§ 15.00(q) as a designated contract market, 

registered entity under section 1a(29) of the Act, 

and unless determined otherwise by the 

Commission, a derivatives transaction execution 

facility. By way of these final rules, the Commission 

is revising § 15.00(q) to define reporting market as 

a designated contract market or a registered entity 

under section 1a(40) of the Act. This revision is 

technical in nature, and serves to conform 

§ 15.00(q) with recent amendments to the Act. See 

infra sections VII and IX. 

6See infra section VII and IX for a discussion of 

the definition of volume threshold account. 

7As explained below, information regarding the 

owners and controllers of volume threshold 

accounts reported on Form 102B and that are 

identified as omnibus accounts (‘‘omnibus volume 

threshold accounts’’) will be collected by the 

Commission directly from originating firms, via 

Form 71. 

8See Commission, Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking: Ownership and Control Report, 74 FR 

31642 (July 2, 2009). 9See Commission, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking: Ownership and Control Report, 75 FR 

41775 (July 19, 2010). 10See Commission, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking: Ownership and Control Reports, 

Forms 102/102S, 40/40S, and 71, 77 FR 43968 (July 

26, 2012). 11See id. at 43970. See infra section V for a 

discussion of New Form 71 and omnibus volume 

threshold accounts. 

12See infra section V for a discussion of the 102S 

and 40S filing requirements. See also 17 CFR 

20.5(a) and (b). Final part 20 was published in the 

Federal Register on July 22, 2011. See Commission, 

Large Trader Reporting for Physical Commodity 

Swaps, 76 FR 43851 (July 22, 2011) (‘‘Large Trader 

Reporting for Physical Commodity Swaps’’). 

13See NPRM supra note 10 at 43970. 

14For example, in November 2011, the 

Commission received an average of 7.4 million 

trade records per day from electronic trading on 

DCMs. 

15For example, in November 2011, the 

Commission received an average of 617,000 

position records per day from reporting firms and 

exchanges. 

16 Daily trade and position records are provided 

to the Commission pursuant to §§ 16.02 and 17.00, 

respectively. For further discussion of the 

Commission’s large trader reporting program, see 

sections III(A) and (B), below. 

reporting rules and forms as they 

pertain to positions in open contracts. 

Specifically, the Commission is 

expanding the reporting rules and forms 

so that they may also be used to identify 

‘‘volume threshold accounts,’’ defined 

as individual trading accounts that 

trigger volume-based reporting 

thresholds on a reporting market 5 that 

is a registered entity under sections 

1a(40)(A) or 1a(40)(D) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’ or ‘‘Act’’) (i.e., a 

designated contract market (‘‘DCM’’) or 

a swap execution facility (‘‘SEF’’)), 

regardless of whether such activity 

results in reportable positions.6 Volume 

threshold accounts associated with 

DCMs and SEFs will be required to be 

reported by clearing members, as 

discussed in sections V(B) and VII 

below. The Commission notes that 

volume threshold accounts could 

reflect, without limitation, trading in 

futures, options on futures, swaps, and 

any other products traded on or subject 

to the rules of a DCM or SEF. 

The amendments to the reporting 

rules and forms will achieve three 

primary purposes. First, they will 

expand and subdivide current Form 102 

into a new Form 102 (‘‘New Form 102’’), 

partitioned into three sections: Section 

102A for the identification of positionbased special accounts (‘‘102A,’’ ‘‘Form 

102A,’’ or ‘‘New Form 102A’’); section 

102B for the collection of ownership 

and control information from clearing 

members on volume threshold accounts 

associated with DCMs or SEFs (‘‘102B,’’ 

‘‘Form 102B,’’ or ‘‘New Form 102B’’); 

and section 102S for the submission of 

102S filings for swap counterparty and 

customer consolidated accounts with 

reportable positions (‘‘102S,’’ ‘‘Form 

102S,’’ or ‘‘102S filings’’). Second, the 

amendments will enhance the 

Commission’s surveillance and large 

trader reporting programs for futures, 

options on futures, and swaps through 

a variety of enhancements, including: 

Requiring the reporting on Form 102A 

of the trading accounts that comprise 

each special account; requiring the 

reporting of certain omnibus account 

information on Form 71 (‘‘Form 71’’ or 

‘‘New Form 71’’) upon special call by 

the Commission; 7 updating Form 40 

(‘‘New Form 40’’); and integrating the 

submission of 102S and 40S filings into 

the general Form 102 and Form 40 

reporting program. Finally, these rules 

will provide for the electronic 

submission of Forms 102, 40, and 71 

through either a web portal or secure 

FTP transmission. 

B. Benefits Derived From Final Rules 

The benefits of reporting through a 

dedicated ownership and control report 

(‘‘OCR’’) were discussed in proposed 

rulemakings that preceded these final 

rules—specifically, the Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

published in July 2009 8 (the ‘‘2009 

Advanced NPRM’’), the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking published in July 

2010 9 (the ‘‘2010 OCR NPRM’’) and the 

subsequent Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking published in July 2012 10

(the ‘‘NPRM’’). Section IV below 

discusses the history of certain previous 

OCR rulemakings in more detail. As 

discussed in the NPRM, the final rules 

will enhance the Commission’s current 

trade practice and market surveillance 

programs for futures and options on 

futures, and facilitate surveillance 

programs for swaps, by expanding the 

information presently collected on 

current Forms 102 and 40, and 

introducing a new information 

collection for omnibus volume 

threshold accounts in New Form 71.11

The rules will also help implement the 

102S and 40S filing requirements 

adopted in connection with the 

Commission’s part 20 rules addressing 

large trader reporting for physical 

commodity swaps (discussed below).12

Ultimately, the final rules will 

significantly enhance the Commission’s 

ability to identify participants in the 

derivatives markets and to understand 

relationships between trading accounts, 

special accounts, reportable positions, 

and market activity. This will enable the 

Commission to better deter and prevent 

market manipulation; deter and detect 

abusive or disruptive practices (such as 

marking the close, ‘‘wash trading,’’ or 

money passing); and better perform riskbased monitoring and surveillance 

between related accounts. 

As discussed in the NPRM, the final 

rules respond, in part, to the increased 

dispersion and complexity of trading in 

U.S. futures markets following their 

transition from localized, open-outcry 

venues to global electronic platforms.13

Although electronic trading has 

conferred important informational 

benefits upon regulators, the resulting 

increases in trading volumes, products 

offered, and trader dispersion have 

created equally important regulatory 

challenges. Effective surveillance now 

requires automated analysis and pattern 

and anomaly detection involving 

millions of daily trade records 14 and 

hundreds of thousands of position 

records 15 present in the surveillance 

data sets received daily by the 

Commission.16 Although the final rules 

are partly driven by these developments 

in the U.S. futures markets, as discussed 

above, the rules will also facilitate the 

creation of a robust surveillance 

program for swaps that adequately 

captures information with respect to 

swap market participants. 

In order to perform effective 

surveillance, the Commission must 

receive data sets that contain a sufficient 

number of reference points for the 

Commission to uncover relationships 

between related accounts, and analyze 

information based on surveillance 

criteria that are frequently evolving in 

response to market events. The 

collection of additional information 

regarding trading accounts and traders 

will enable the Commission to perform 

more efficient and effective 

surveillance. In particular, the OCR data 

collection will enable the Commission 

to link transaction-level data that it 

receives (which includes trading 

account numbers, but not traders’ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69180 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

17See NPRM supra note 10 at 43970. 

18As discussed in section III(A) below, a special 

account is a commodity futures or option account 

that has a reportable position, based on reporting 

levels set by the Commission. A special account 

number is a unique account identifier assigned by 

an FCM, clearing member, or foreign broker to a 

special account. See 17 CFR 17.00(g)(2)(iii) and 17 

CFR 17.01(a). Special account numbers are 

included in ISS data. The special account number 

does not correspond to the trading account number 

reported on the Trade Capture Report. Accordingly, 

the special account number is not sufficient to link 

TSS data to ISS data. 

19The final rules do not amend the current 

reporting requirements with respect to ownership 

information, in connection with both position 

reporting pursuant to § 17.00 and Form 102 

reporting pursuant to § 17.01. For a complete 

discussion of the reporting requirements with 

respect to ownership information, see section 

V(A)(i) below. 

20 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. In addition, CEA section 8a(5) 

authorizes the Commission to promulgate such 

regulations as, in its judgment, are reasonably 

necessary to effectuate any provision of the Act or 

to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act. 7 

U.S.C. 12a(5). These final rules are also consistent 

with the purposes enumerated in CEA section 3(b), 

which states that the Act seeks to ensure the 

financial integrity of regulated transactions and to 

prevent price manipulation and other disruptions to 

market integrity. 7 U.S.C. 5(b). 

21 7 U.S.C. 6a. See NPRM supra note 10 at 43970. 

See infra note 26 for a discussion of the Dodd-Frank 

Act. 

22 7 U.S.C. 6c(b). 

23 7 U.S.C. 6g(a). 

24See supra section I(B) for a discussion of the 

trade data transmitted daily to the Commission by 

registered entities. 

25 7 U.S.C. 6i. 

26See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 

Stat. 1376 (2010). The text of the Dodd-Frank Act 

may be accessed at http://www.cftc.gov./Law

Regulation/OTCDERIVATIVES/index.htm. See 

NPRM supra note 10 at 43971. 

27Pursuant to section 701 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 

Title VII may be cited as the ‘‘Wall Street 

Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010.’’ 

names) to position-based data (which 

includes large traders’ names, but not 

their trading account numbers), as 

explained below. 

As noted in the NPRM, ‘‘Commission 

staff utilizes two distinct data platforms 

to conduct market surveillance: The 

Trade Surveillance System (‘TSS’) and 

the Integrated Surveillance System 

(‘ISS’). Broadly speaking, TSS captures 

transaction-level details of trade data, 

while ISS facilitates the storage, 

analysis, and mining of large trader data 

from a position perspective. One 

important component of TSS is the 

Trade Capture Report (‘TCR’). Trade 

Capture Reports contain trade and 

related order data for every matched 

trade facilitated by an exchange, 

whether executed via open-outcry, 

electronically, or non-competitively. 

Among the data included in the TCR are 

trade date, product, contract month, 

trade time, price, quantity, trade type 

(e.g., open outcry outright future, 

electronic outright option, give-up, 

spread, block, etc.), executing broker, 

clearing member, opposite broker and 

clearing member, customer type 

indicator, trading account numbers, and 

numerous other data points.’’ 17 The 

OCR data collection will address a gap 

in the current system by providing 

common reference points between TSS 

and ISS data. New Form 102A, for 

example, is structured to collect special 

account numbers,18 trading account 

numbers that comprise the special 

account, and the names of owners and 

controllers of both special accounts and 

such trading accounts, thereby linking 

TSS data to ISS data.19

The data collection will also help the 

Commission to better identify and 

categorize individual trading accounts 

and market participants that trigger 

position or newly-created volume-based 

reporting thresholds. For example, New 

Form 102A will require reporting firms 

to identify the constituent trading 

accounts of each reported special 

account. In this manner, New Form 

102A will ensure a new level of 

interoperability between the 

Commission’s TSS trade data and ISS 

large trader data, and will permit 

Commission staff to quickly reconstruct 

trading for any special account. In 

addition to linking the two databases, 

New Form 102A will identify both the 

owners and controllers of such 

constituent trading accounts, thereby 

providing the Commission with a new 

lens through which to identify and 

surveil market activity that might 

otherwise appear unrelated to the 

Commission’s surveillance programs. 

New Form 102B will, for the first 

time, require identification of trading 

accounts based solely on their total 

trading volume during a single trading 

day. This new information collection 

will enhance the Commission’s trade 

practice surveillance program by 

revealing connections of ownership or 

control between trading accounts that 

otherwise appear unrelated in the TCR. 

More generally, it will facilitate 

Commission efforts to detect and deter 

attempted market disruptions that may 

occur even in the absence of large open 

positions that are reportable on New 

Form 102A. Finally, the automated 

collection of OCR information via 

electronic forms, rather than through adhoc, manual processes, will permit both 

the Commission and market participants 

to administer the reporting programs 

more efficiently and effectively. 

Additional information on the forms 

addressed by these final rules is 

provided in section V below. 

II. Statutory Framework for Position 

Reporting and Trader and Account 

Identification 

The Commission’s current reporting 

rules, and those adopted herein, are 

primarily implemented by the 

Commission pursuant to the authority of 

sections 4a, 4c(b), 4g, and 4i of the 

Act.20 Section 4a of the Act, as amended 

by the Dodd-Frank Act, requires the 

Commission to set and enforce 

speculative position limits with respect 

to both futures and swaps.21 Section 

4c(b) gives the Commission plenary 

authority to regulate transactions that 

involve commodity options.22 Section 

4g(a) of the Act requires, among other 

things, each futures commission 

merchant (‘‘FCM’’), introducing broker, 

floor broker, and floor trader to file such 

reports as the Commission may require 

on proprietary and customer 

transactions and positions in 

commodities for future delivery on any 

board of trade in the United States or 

elsewhere.23 In addition, section 4g(b) 

requires registered entities to maintain 

daily trading records as required by the 

Commission, and section 4g(c) requires 

floor brokers, introducing brokers, and 

FCMs to maintain their own daily 

trading records for each customer in 

such manner and form as to be 

identifiable with the daily trading 

records maintained by registered 

entities. Section 4g(d) permits the 

Commission to require that such daily 

trading records be made available to the 

Commission.24 Lastly, section 4i of the 

Act requires the filing of such reports as 

the Commission may require when 

positions taken or obtained on 

designated contract markets equal or 

exceed Commission-set levels.25

Collectively, these CEA provisions 

warrant the maintenance of an effective 

and rigorous system of market and 

financial surveillance. 

As further discussed in the NPRM, in 

addition to the CEA sections described 

above, on July 21, 2010, President 

Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’).26 Title VII of 

the Dodd-Frank Act 27 amended the CEA 

to establish a comprehensive new 

regulatory framework for swaps and 

security-based swaps. The legislation 

was enacted to reduce risk, increase 

transparency, and promote market 

integrity within the financial system by, 

among other things: (1) Providing for the 

registration and comprehensive 

regulation of swap dealers and major 

swap participants; (2) imposing clearing 

and trade execution requirements on 

standardized derivative products; (3) 

creating robust recordkeeping and realVerDate Mar<15>2010 20:54 Nov 15, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18NOR2.SGM 18NOR2

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69181 

28See generally, http://www.cftc.gov/Law

Regulation/DoddFrankAct/index.htm. 

29As noted supra in note 12, 17 CFR 20.5(a) and 

(b) contain the 102S and 40S filing requirements, 

discussed in greater detail below. Final part 20 was 

published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2011. 

30 7 U.S.C. 6s(f). 

31 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(10). 

32See NPRM supra note 10 at 43971. 

33 17 CFR 17.00. 

34 17 CFR 15.03(b). 35 17 CFR 17.00(g). 36 17 CFR 17.01. 37Current Form 102 is titled ‘‘Identification of 

Special Accounts.’’ 17 CFR 15.02. 38 17 CFR 17.02(b)(2). 39 17 CFR 17.01. 

40 17 CFR 17.01(a)–(f). 

41Form 102 requires the reporting party to 

provide the legal entity identifier (‘‘LEI’’) (if any) of 

the reporting party and of various other parties 

reportable on the form, such as account owners, 

controllers, and originators. As noted in the 

footnotes to the reporting forms in the Appendix, 

if a reporting party provides an LEI on New Form 

102 that was issued by the CICI Utility (or by any 

other CFTC-accepted LEI provider), then the 

reporting party is not required to report any of the 

fields marked as ‘‘Optional Fields’’ in the relevant 

question (i.e., name and address), provided that 

such Optional Fields were reported to the CICI 

Utility (or other CFTC-accepted LEI provider) and 

are associated with the relevant LEI. The 

Commission is addressing such otherwise 

duplicative reporting in order to leverage 

information regarding reporting parties that is 

available from another source. Furthermore, in the 

event the CICI Utility (or any other CFTC-accepted 

LEI provider) is modified in the future to accept any 

of the fields marked on the forms as ‘‘Supplemental 

Fields,’’ then the reporting party will not be 

required to report any of the Supplemental Fields 

in the relevant question, provided that such 

Supplemental Fields were reported to the CICI 

Utility (or other CFTC-accepted LEI provider) and 

are associated with the relevant LEI. ‘‘Optional 

Fields’’ are currently captured by the CICI Utility, 

while ‘‘Supplemental Fields’’ are not currently 

captured by the CICI Utility. Reporting parties that 

take advantage of such relief from duplicative 

reporting on the forms should indicate in their 

submission that the omitted information has been 

reported to an LEI provider. 

42See infra section VIII(B)(iv) for a discussion of 

the Commission’s contact reference database, which 

is intended to streamline the automated submission 

process and reduce the burden on reporting parties. 

time reporting regimes; and (4) 

enhancing the Commission’s 

rulemaking and enforcement authority 

with respect to, among other parties, all 

registered entities and intermediaries 

subject to the Commission’s oversight. 

As part of the Commission’s 

rulemaking program implementing the 

Dodd-Frank Act,28 the rule changes 

adopted herein also include swapsrelated considerations in connection 

with the Commission’s large trader 

reporting rules for swaps, enacted in 

2011.29 New CEA section 4t 

acknowledges the Commission’s 

authority to establish a large trader 

reporting system for swaps that the 

Commission has determined perform a 

significant price discovery function; 

accordingly, the swaps-related 

considerations in the rules adopted 

herein also rely in part on the 

Commission’s authority in CEA section 

4t. Similarly, new CEA section 4s(f) 

requires swap dealers and major swap 

participants to make such reports as 

required by the Commission by rule or 

regulation regarding the transactions 

and positions of the registered swap 

dealer or major swap participant.30 In 

addition, new CEA section 5h(f)(10) 

requires SEFs to report to the 

Commission, in a form and manner 

acceptable to the Commission, 

information that the Commission 

determines to be necessary or 

appropriate for the Commission to 

perform its duties under the CEA.31

III. Current Trader and Account 

Identification Programs 

Section III below summarizes the 

current trader and account 

identification program under Forms 102 

and 40, which is also discussed in detail 

in Section III of the NPRM.32

A. Futures Large Trader Reporting— 

Current Forms 102 and 40 

Current § 17.00, in part 17 of the 

Commission’s regulations, forms the 

basis of the Commission’s large trader 

reporting program.33 It requires each 

FCM, clearing member, and foreign 

broker to submit a daily report to the 

Commission for each ‘‘special account’’ 

it carries—i.e., a commodity futures or 

option account that has a reportable 

position. Such ‘‘§ 17.00 position 

reports’’ show the futures and option 

positions of traders with positions at or 

above specific reporting levels set by the 

Commission. Current reporting position 

trigger levels are located in § 15.03(b).34

The daily report is sent to the 

Commission as a single data file from 

each reporting party pursuant to 

technical specifications identified in 

§ 17.00(g).35 The Commission’s 

surveillance staff uses this report to, 

among other things: Assess individual 

traders’ activities and potential market 

power; enforce speculative position 

limits; monitor for disruptions to market 

integrity; and calculate statistics that the 

Commission publishes to enhance 

market transparency (e.g., in the 

Commitments of Traders reports). 

i. Identification of Special Accounts— 

Current Form 102 

For each special account identified by 

an FCM, clearing member, or foreign 

broker and reported to the Commission 

in a § 17.00 position report, current 

§ 17.01 36 requires the reporting party to 

separately identify the special account 

to the Commission on Form 102.37

Pursuant to current § 17.02(b)(2),38

Form 102 must be submitted by such 

parties within three days of an account 

becoming a special account. A Form 102 

submission may also be required by the 

Commission or its designee via a special 

call. The text of current § 17.01 39 states 

the requirement to submit Form 102, 

and enumerates the specific data fields 

that are required to be completed on 

Form 102. Currently, Form 102 requires 

the filing of a separate ‘‘paper’’ form for 

each special account, which is generally 

transmitted to the Commission via 

email, facsimile, or regular mail. As 

explained below, these final rules will 

replace current Form 102, and require 

respondents to electronically submit 

New Form 102; the Commission will no 

longer accept submissions by email, 

facsimile, or regular mail. 

As noted above, Form 102 identifies 

and provides information with respect 

to special accounts carried by FCMs, 

clearing members, and foreign brokers. 

The current form, which will be 

updated and replaced by these final 

rules, provides the Commission with 

contact information for the trader(s) 

who owns and/or controls trading in 

each special account included in the 

daily § 17.00 position reports. The Form 

102 questions, as currently detailed in 

§ 17.01(a)–(f),40 require the reporting 

firm to provide the following: A special 

account number; the name, address, and 

other identification information for the 

controller, owner (if also the controller), 

or originator (if an omnibus account) of 

the account; an indication whether 

trades and positions in the special 

account are usually associated with 

commercial activity of the account 

owner in a related cash commodity or 

activity; information regarding an FCM’s 

relationship to the account; and name 

and address information for the party 

submitting the Form 102.41

Based on the Commission’s 

experience in receiving and reviewing 

Form 102 submissions, and as discussed 

below in the context of the final rules, 

the Commission has determined to 

update Form 102 in order to 

accommodate more detailed ownership 

and control information regarding 

identified special accounts, and to 

identify underlying trading accounts. In 

addition, the Commission is 

implementing an automated 

transmission process for Form 102 

reporting, through either a web portal or 

secure FTP transmission, so that both 

the Commission and market participants 

may benefit from the efficiencies of 

automation.42


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69182 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

43 17 CFR 18.04. 

44See NPRM supra note 10 at 43972. 

45See supra note 12. 

46See generally: Large Trader Reporting for 

Physical Commodity Swaps: Division of Market 

Oversight Guidebook for part 20 Reports, available 

at: http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@

newsroom/documents/file/ltrguidebook053112.pdf 

(hereafter, ‘‘Swaps Large Trader Guidebook’’). 

47 17 CFR 20.5(a). 48 17 CFR 20.5(b) and 20.6. 49See supra note 46. 50As explained in the Swaps Large Trader 

Guidebook, acceptable part 20 data records include 

‘‘customer,’’ ‘‘principal,’’ ‘‘counterparty’’ and 

‘‘agent’’ records. Customer consolidated accounts, 

principal consolidated accounts, and counterparty 

consolidated accounts must be reported on new 

Form 102S, but agent data records do not need to 

be reported on Form 102S. Customer consolidated 

accounts are treated as customer accounts for 

purposes of Form 102S reporting, while principal 

consolidated accounts and counterparty 

consolidated accounts are treated as counterparty 

accounts for purposes of Form 102S reporting. 

ii. Statement of Reporting Trader— 

Current Form 40 

Current § 18.04, in part 18 of the 

Commission’s regulations, requires that, 

after a special call of the Commission, 

each trader holding or controlling a 

reportable position file with the 

Commission a ‘‘Statement of Reporting 

Trader’’ on current Form 40, at such 

time and place as directed in the call.43

Current Form 40 is most commonly 

submitted to the Commission via email, 

facsimile, or regular mail, but this 

submission scheme will be changed by 

these final rules. Specifically, as 

discussed below, current Form 40 will 

be replaced by New Form 40, which 

must be electronically submitted in 

response to a special call through either 

a web-based portal or a secure FTP 

transmission. When submitted in a 

timely and accurate manner, Form 40 

submissions provide the Commission 

with basic identifying information 

regarding reportable traders active in its 

markets. 

Similar to current § 17.01, current 

§ 18.04 specifically enumerates the data 

fields required in a Form 40 filing. 

Section 18.04 and Form 40 require a 

reporting trader receiving a special call 

to provide the following principal data 

points: Name and address; principal 

business and occupation; type of trader; 

registration status with the Commission; 

name and address of other persons 

whose trading the trader controls; name, 

address, and phone number for each 

controller of the reporting trader’s 

trading; name and location of other 

reporting firms through which the 

reporting trader has accounts; name and 

locations of persons guaranteeing the 

trading accounts of the reporting trader 

or persons having a 10 percent or greater 

financial interest in the reporting trader 

or its accounts; other identification 

information regarding accounts which 

the reporting trader guarantees or in 

which the reporting trader has a 

financial interest of 10 percent or more; 

and whether the reporting trader has 

certain relationships with owners that 

are foreign governments. 

Natural persons completing current 

Form 40 must also provide the 

following information, as applicable: A 

business telephone number; employer 

and job title; description of trading 

activity related to physical activity in or 

commercial use of a commodity; name 

and address of any organization of 

which the reporting trader participates 

in the management, if such organization 

holds a trading account; the name and 

address of a partner and/or joint tenant 

on the account; and the name and 

address of the partner and/or joint 

tenant that places orders. 

Corporations and other non-natural 

persons completing current Form 40 

must also provide the following 

information, as applicable: The 

jurisdiction where the reporting party is 

organized; names and locations of 

parent firms and their respective U.S. 

entity indication; names and locations 

of all subsidiary firms that trade in 

commodity futures and options on 

futures and their respective U.S. entity 

indication; name and address of 

person(s) controlling trading, by 

commodity and transaction type; 

contact information for a contact person 

regarding trading; and description of 

trading activity related to physical 

activity in, or the commercial use of, a 

commodity. 

As with Form 102, and based on the 

Commission’s experience in calling for 

and reviewing Form 40 submissions, the 

Commission has determined to update 

Form 40 in order to request more 

detailed information regarding the 

ownership, control and business 

activities of reporting traders. In 

addition, the Commission is 

implementing an automated 

transmission process for Form 40 

reporting, through either a web portal or 

secure FTP transmission, so that both 

the Commission and market participants 

may benefit from the efficiencies of 

automation. 

B. Large Trader Reporting for Physical 

Commodity Swaps—102S and 40S 

Filings 

As noted above, and discussed in 

detail in Section III of the NPRM,44 the 

Commission adopted rules in 2011 

pertaining to swaps large trader 

reporting as new part 20 of the 

Commission’s regulations.45 In addition 

to establishing a position-based 

reporting scheme for swaps,46 the rules 

also require the reporting of 

counterparty consolidated accounts 

with reportable positions (via Form 

102S) and the filing of a Form 40S in 

response to a special call by the 

Commission. In general, the 102S and 

40S filings serve an analogous function 

for swap counterparties with reportable 

positions to that served by the current 

Form 102 and Form 40 filings for 

futures and options on futures traders 

with reportable positions. These final 

rules will update Forms 102S and 40S, 

in part by requiring more detailed 

ownership and control information, and 

integrate the forms into the automated 

submission process. 

Pursuant to § 20.5(a), in part 20 of the 

Commission’s regulations, current 102S 

filings must be filed by a part 20 

reporting party (a swap dealer or 

clearing firm) for each reportable 

counterparty consolidated account and 

‘‘shall consist of the name, address, and 

contact information of the counterparty 

and a brief description of the nature of 

such person’s paired swaps and 

swaptions market activity.’’ 47 In 

addition, pursuant to § 20.5(b), and in 

conjunction with § 20.6, all clearing 

organizations, swap dealers, clearing 

members, and counterparties with 

reportable positions must, after a special 

call of the Commission, complete a 

Form 40 ‘‘as if any references to futures 

or options contracts were references to 

paired swaps or swaptions as defined in 

§ 20.1’’ and submit the same to the 

Commission as a 40S filing.48

These final rules update and replace 

the reporting framework established by 

part 20. The information requested in 

new Form 102S also reflects 

considerations developed in the Swaps 

Large Trader Guidebook for compliance 

with part 20.49 For example, new Form 

102S requires information on both swap 

counterparty and customer consolidated 

accounts with a reportable position.50

New Form 102S also requests 

ownership and control information 

regarding each non-omnibus 

consolidated account identified on the 

form. Building on the approach of 

modernizing Form 102 and Form 40 

submissions, these final rules also 

provide for the electronic submission of 

both Form 102S and Form 40S. 

IV. Summary of 2010 and 2012 NPRMs 

On July 19, 2010, the Commission 

published for public comment a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed 

to collect certain account ownership 

and control information for all trading 

accounts active on U.S. futures 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69183 

51See supra note 9. 

52See supra note 10. 

53See NPRM supra note 10 at 43971. 

54See NPRM supra note 10 at 43970. 

55All NPRM comment letters (‘‘CL’’) are available 

through the Commission’s Web site at: http://

comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.

aspx?id=1247. 

56CME Group submitted a single comment letter 

on behalf of four DCMs, each of which is being 

counted for purposes of this summary as a separate 

interested party: The Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 

Inc.; the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc.; 

the New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc.; and the 

Commodity Exchange, Inc. Its comments are noted 

here as those of ‘‘CME’’. 

57Hazelwood’s comment letter responds to the 

2010 OCR NPRM, rather than the NPRM; however, 

it remains part of the record for this rulemaking. 

58Mr. Troncatty’s comment letter was 

unresponsive; however, it remains part of the 

record for this rulemaking. 

59 17 CFR 15.00(r). 60 17 CFR 15.00(p)(1) and 15.03. 61 17 CFR 17.00(b) and 150.4. 

exchanges and other reporting parties 

(the ‘‘2010 OCR NPRM’’).51 The 2010 

OCR NPRM proposed to collect this 

information through a dedicated 

ownership and control report (‘‘OCR’’). 

In an effort to accommodate comments 

received in response to the 2010 OCR 

NPRM, the Commission withdrew the 

2010 OCR NPRM, and instead pursued 

the collection of account ownership and 

control information through a separate 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

published on July 26, 2012 (the 

‘‘NPRM’’).52

The NPRM proposed new rules and 

related forms to enhance the 

Commission’s identification of futures 

and swap market participants, by 

collecting ownership and control 

information for certain trading accounts 

active on reporting markets that are 

DCMs or SEFs. The rules proposed to 

leverage the Commission’s current 

position and transaction reporting 

programs by requiring the electronic 

submission of trader identification and 

market participant data on revised 

Forms 102 and 40, and on New Form 

71. The NPRM contained a detailed 

discussion of the current futures large 

trader program under Forms 102 and 

40,53 and the anticipated benefits of the 

revised and newly introduced forms,54

topics which are also summarized in 

these final rules. 

The Commission invited all interested 

parties to submit comments on the 

NPRM, including comments with 

respect to costs and benefits, within a 

designated comment window. The 

Commission received a total of eight 

comment letters from thirteen interested 

parties, which are listed below.55

The following parties submitted 

written comments: 

1. CME Group Inc. (‘‘CME’’) 56

2. Futures Industry Association 

(‘‘FIA’’) 

3. ICE Futures U.S., Inc. (‘‘ICE’’) 

4. North American Derivatives 

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Nadex’’) 

5. The National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association, the Large 

Public Power Council, and the Electric 

Power Supply Association (collectively, 

‘‘Joint Electric Association’’) 

6. John Hazelwood Estate 

(‘‘Hazelwood’’) 57

7. Sheila Bailey-Waddell (‘‘Waddell’’) 

8. Ron Troncatty (‘‘Troncatty’’) 58

The written comments received are 

summarized in section VII below. In 

response to the comments received, the 

Commission has revised and/or 

eliminated several regulations that were 

proposed in the NPRM. The 

Commission also received a number of 

comments pertaining to the costs and/or 

benefits of certain proposed regulations. 

Pursuant to section 15(a) of the CEA, the 

Commission has considered the costs 

and benefits of the regulations being 

adopted in this release, as discussed in 

more detail in section VIII(B) below. For 

purposes of these final rules, the 

Commission has updated the cost 

estimates that appeared in the NPRM 

based on the most recent data and 

statistics available to the Commission. 

V. Summary of New and Amended 

Forms Adopted in These Final Rules 

As noted above, this rulemaking 

addresses three forms—New Form 102, 

New Form 71, and New Form 40. New 

Form 102 is designed as a multifunction form, since the requirement to 

submit New Form 102 can arise from 

one of three separate triggers: A special 

account, volume threshold account, or 

consolidated account becomes 

reportable. The data required to be 

submitted on a New Form 102 is 

determined by the underlying triggering 

mechanism. A discussion follows of the 

three New Form 102 triggering 

mechanisms, the related sections of the 

form, and the information required to be 

provided in each section. The 

Commission will send New Form 71 via 

a special call to collect additional 

information about certain volume 

threshold accounts identified as 

omnibus accounts on New Form 102B. 

New Form 40 will continue to serve its 

traditional purpose as a tool to be used, 

at the Commission’s discretion, to 

collect additional information about 

traders and market participants 

identified on New Form 102, as well as 

on New Form 71. New Form 71 and 

New Form 40 are also described in 

detail below. In addition, section VII 

below discusses in detail the version of 

the forms proposed in the NPRM, the 

comments received on the forms, and 

the changes that are being made to the 

forms in these final rules in response to 

comments. 

As part of its implementation plan 

related to this rulemaking, and 

described in more detail below, the 

Commission has developed both a webbased portal and a secure FTP 

transmission through which market 

participates will submit and update 

their reporting forms. Market 

participants may provide required 

information through either submission 

method. This automated process is 

intended to cure much of the 

inefficiency and potential error 

associated with the current submission 

process via email, facsimile, or regular 

mail. 

A. Position-Triggered Form 102A 

(Special Accounts) 

i. Special Accounts and Reportable 

Positions 

New Form 102A is the section of New 

Form 102 that will serve a function most 

analogous to current Form 102. New 

Form 102A requires an FCM, clearing 

member, or foreign broker to identify 

and report its special accounts. As 

discussed above, a special account is 

defined in current § 15.00(r), and means 

any commodity futures or option 

account in which there is a reportable 

position.59 For the purposes of part 17, 

reportable position is defined in current 

§ 15.00(p)(1), and generally includes any 

open contract position that at the close 

of the market on any given business day 

equals or exceeds the levels in current 

§ 15.03.60 These final rules do not 

amend the definition of either special 

account or reportable position. 

The Commission notes that under 

current regulations (§ 17.00(b), citing 

§ 150.4),61 reporting firms are required 

to separately aggregate the positions of 

common owners and those of common 

controllers for purposes of reporting 

special accounts to the Commission, 

except as otherwise instructed by the 

Commission or its designee. Special 

accounts that are so aggregated and 

reported to the Commission pursuant to 

§ 17.00 must also be identified to the 

Commission on Form 102 pursuant to 

current § 17.01. The requirement to 

separately aggregate the positions of 

common owners and those of common 

controllers for purposes of reporting 

special accounts to the Commission on 

Form 102 is reflected in the instructions 

to New Form 102A. As noted in 

question 2 on New Form 102A, special 

accounts become reportable on the form 

based on (i) ownership of a reportable 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69184 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

62See supra section I(B) for a discussion of the 

TCR. 

63See supra section I(B) for a discussion of the 

TCR. 

64See question 10(iii) on Form 102A. 

65Pursuant to § 15.00(bb), trading account 

controllers are natural persons ‘‘who by power of 

attorney or otherwise actually direc[t] the trading of 

a trading account’’. In the event that a respondent’s 

trading in a reportable trading account is conducted 

in whole or in part through an automated trading 

system (‘‘ATS’’), when submitting New Form 102A 

the respondent should consider whether any 

operator, supervisor, or other individual involved 

in the administration of such ATS meets the 

definition of trading account controller with respect 

to the trading account. The Commission recognizes 

that, for some respondents, the individuals 

involved in the administration of an ATS may not 

qualify as trading account controllers. The 

Commission further recognizes that the 

administration of ATSs may vary from one 

respondent to another, and that such variance may 

impact which natural persons a respondent 

identifies as trading account controllers for 

accounts whose trading is conducted in whole or 

in part through an ATS. 

66See question 6 on Form 102B. 

67See infra the discussion of § 17.02(b) in section 

VII, which provides additional information 

regarding changes to the timing of New Form 102A 

reporting made in response to comments on the 

NPRM. 

68Unless otherwise specified by the Commission 

or its designee, the stated time in the final rules is 

eastern time for information concerning markets 

located in that time zone, and central time for 

information concerning all other markets, in 

accordance with § 17.02(a). 

position, (ii) control of a reportable 

position, (iii) both ownership and 

control of a reportable position, or (iv) 

because the relevant account is an 

omnibus account with a reportable 

position. 

Following the implementation of 

these final rules, reporting parties 

should continue to report special 

accounts pursuant to § 17.00 on a 

disaggregated basis if the parties have 

been so instructed by the Commission 

or its designee. All reporting parties 

should continue to provide position 

reporting based on control of a special 

account. As an example, if a special 

account is controlled by one reporting 

party but owned by another, such 

account should be reported only by the 

reporting party that controls the special 

account. 

Consistent with this guidance, and 

notwithstanding the requirement on 

New Form 102A to also report based 

solely on ownership of a reportable 

position, the Commission will not 

require reporting based on this trigger 

via New Form 102A following the 

implementation of these final rules. The 

Commission is retaining the reporting 

trigger based on ownership of a 

reportable position in New Form 102A 

as a placeholder, in the event that the 

Commission requires 102A reporting 

based solely on this trigger on a future 

date. 

ii. 102A Form Requirements 

As compared to current Form 102, the 

data fields in 102A will include new 

ownership and control information 

fields (or, in the case of special accounts 

that are omnibus accounts, omnibus 

account originator information fields) 

for position-based special accounts. 

Form 102A will also require reporting 

firms that are clearing members to 

identify the trading accounts that 

comprise a position-based special 

account, and to provide TCR trading 

account numbers for those trading 

accounts.62 To clarify, trading accounts 

that comprise a position-based special 

account include all of those trading 

accounts that: (1) Are used to execute 

trades cleared by the clearing member 

submitting the 102A; (2) are owned or 

controlled by the entity identified as 

owning or controlling the special 

account reported on a 102A; and (3) 

execute transactions in the same 

commodity or commodities in which 

the special account has a reportable 

position. Notwithstanding the fact that 

the Commission will not require 

reporting of special accounts based 

solely on ownership (as discussed 

above), when completing New Form 

102A, reporting parties must identify 

both the owners and controllers of 

trading accounts that comprise a 

position-based special account 

identified on the form. The 

Commission’s objective, in requiring 

102A reporting parties to identify the 

trading accounts that comprise a special 

account, is to facilitate trade-level 

monitoring of the means by which 

special account owners or controllers 

establish and unwind their reportable 

positions. 

Based on comments received in 

response to the 2010 OCR NPRM, it is 

the Commission’s understanding that 

non-clearing FCMs, foreign brokers, and 

omnibus account originators 

(collectively, ‘‘non-clearing entities’’) 

will generally not have the ability to 

match/identify a trading account 

number for their customers or subaccounts (hereafter, ‘‘sub-accounts’’) on 

the TCR.63 As a result, the Commission 

notes that the requirement in 102A to 

identify a trading account number for 

trading accounts that comprise a special 

account will only be a relevant/

applicable data field for clearing 

members identifying trading accounts 

that comprise a special account. 

Notwithstanding these limitations 

regarding the reporting of trading 

accounts that comprise a special 

account, non-clearing entities must 

continue to report special accounts on 

Form 102 with respect to their 

customers/sub-accounts, in the event 

that such accounts, if carried directly 

with a clearing member, would be 

required to be reported as a positionbased special account. Current Form 

102 requires non-clearing entities to 

report such special accounts, and New 

Form 102A does not change that 

requirement. 

New Form 102A will also require 

reporting firms to indicate whether a 

special account reported based on 

ownership or control of a reportable 

position is a house or customer account 

of the reporting firm. This indicator will 

allow the Commission to perform 

certain financial risk surveillance 

functions in a more automated and 

efficient manner, by quickly identifying 

house positions that potentially create 

risk for the reporting firm. Finally, 102A 

requires any reporting firm that 

indicates on 102A that it is a foreign 

broker to identify its U.S. FCM. 

New Form 102A also includes a 

question regarding the controllers of 

trading accounts.64 Respondents should 

report all individuals meeting the 

definition of ‘‘trading account 

controller’’ set forth in § 15.00(bb) when 

responding to this question.65 The 

Commission notes however that 

regardless of whether the trading is 

carried out in whole or in part through 

an automated trading system or direct 

human initiation, the underlying 

analysis remains the same. When 

completing Form 102A, reporting 

parties should identify each person that 

satisfies the definition of ‘‘trading 

account controller,’’ as defined in 

§ 15.00(bb). Once respondents have 

identified all individuals meeting the 

definition of trading account controller 

in a Form 102A submission, they will 

not be required to submit change 

updates to the 102A if one previously 

identified controller takes the place of 

another previously identified controller. 

These instructions regarding the 

reporting of trading account controllers 

on New Form 102A are also applicable 

to the reporting of volume threshold 

account controllers on New Form 

102B.66

iii. Timing of 102A Reporting 67

This rulemaking imposes a bifurcated 

deadline for submitting certain 

information on New Form 102A. 

Reporting parties are required to submit 

a completed Form 102A to the 

Commission no later than 9 a.m.68 on 

the business day following the date on 

which the special account becomes 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69185 

69Specifically, the information marked as 

‘Follow-On Information’ in questions 10(ii) and (iii) 

on New Form 102A may be provided within three 

business days. All other required fields on New 

Form 102A must be completed by 9:00 a.m. the 

following business day. See New Form 102A in the 

Appendix to these final rules for more information. 

70See supra section I(A) for an explanation of the 

reporting markets relevant to 102B filings, and infra 

sections VII and IX for amendments to the 

definition of ‘‘reporting market.’’ See also infra the 

discussion of § 15.00(x) in section VII, which 

provides additional information regarding changes 

to the definition of volume threshold account made 

in response to comments on the NPRM. 

71The RTVL is based on the Commission’s 

analysis of DCM trade data received through the 

TCR from a sample of DCMs during a recent six 

month period. It is calibrated to yield information 

with respect to those trading accounts that are 

responsible for a substantial percentage of trading 

volume, while minimizing the adopted regulations’ 

impact on low-volume accounts whose trading 

activity does not warrant inclusion in the adopted 

reporting and identification regime. Based on the 

sample data set used in the Commission’s analysis, 

the RTVL would result in the reporting and 

identification of approximately one-third of the 

trading accounts reported in the sample data set. 

However, due to the concentration of trading 

activity among a minority of accounts and some 

accounts’ tendency to be active in more than one 

product, the RTVL, as adopted, would nonetheless 

result in the identification of at least 85% of the 

trading volume in approximately 90% of the 

products in the sample data set, as measured at the 

conclusion of the six-month period sampled by the 

Commission. See the discussion of § 15.04 in 

section VII below for additional information 

regarding the application of the RTVL to products 

traded on or subject to the rules of a SEF. 

72See supra section I(B) for a discussion of the 

TCR. 

reportable. This form must include all 

required information, including the 

names of the owner(s) and controller(s) 

of each trading account that is not an 

omnibus account, and that comprises a 

special account reported on the form. 

However, the reporting party may 

provide certain supplemental 

information regarding such owner(s) 

and controller(s) on a later date. No later 

than 9 a.m. on the third business day 

following the date on which the special 

account becomes reportable, the 

reporting party may update its Form 102 

submission to provide information with 

respect to such owner(s) and 

controller(s) other than their names 

(e.g., their address and other contact 

information).69 The final rules also 

include an ‘‘on-call’’ provision, which 

requires a 102A to be submitted on such 

other date as directed by special call of 

the Commission. 

iv. Timing of 102A Change Updates and 

Refresh Updates 

The final rules also require reporting 

parties to submit an updated Form 102A 

in the event that a change occurs that 

causes the information submitted on the 

form to no longer be accurate (‘‘change 

updates’’). Change updates must be 

submitted according to the bifurcated 

schedule described in the preceding 

paragraph. The final rules also include 

an ‘‘on-call’’ provision, which requires 

102A change updates to be submitted on 

such other date as directed by special 

call of the Commission. 

In addition to change updates, 

§ 17.02(b) requires that, starting on a 

date specified by the Commission or its 

designee and at the end of each annual 

increment thereafter (or such other date 

specified by the Commission or its 

designee that is equal to or greater than 

six months), each FCM, clearing 

member, or foreign broker resubmit 

every 102A that it has submitted to the 

Commission or its designee for each of 

its special accounts (‘‘refresh updates’’). 

The goal of the refresh update provision 

for 102A is to establish discrete points 

in time where all 102A data is 

considered accurate and reliable, 

thereby avoiding the data drift that is 

often associated with long-term data 

collection efforts. 

Both the change update and refresh 

update provisions of § 17.02(b) include 

a sunset provision. An FCM, clearing 

member, or foreign broker may stop 

providing change updates or refresh 

updates for a Form 102A that it has 

submitted to the Commission for any 

special account upon notifying the 

Commission or its designee that the 

account in question is no longer 

reportable as a special account and has 

not been reportable as a special account 

for the past six months. If a reporting 

party so notifies the Commission, and 

the special account becomes reportable 

again at a subsequent date, then the 

reporting party would be required to file 

a new Form 102A. 

B. Volume-Triggered Form 102B 

(Volume Threshold Accounts) 

i. Volume Threshold Accounts and 

Reportable Trading Volume Level 

New Form 102B of New Form 102 

introduces a new volume-based 

reporting structure not found in current 

Form 102. While current Form 102 

reporting requirements arise when an 

account (or collection of related 

accounts) has a reportable position, 

102B reporting is triggered when an 

individual trading account meets a 

specified trading volume level in an 

individual product and, as a result, 

becomes a ‘‘volume threshold account.’’ 

Volume threshold account, as defined 

below in final § 15.00(x), means any 

trading account that carries reportable 

trading volume on or subject to the rules 

of a reporting market that is a DCM or 

SEF.70 The reportable trading volume 

level (‘‘RTVL’’) is defined in final 

§ 15.04 as trading volume of 50 or more 

contracts, during a single trading day, 

on a single reporting market that is a 

DCM or SEF, in all instruments that 

such reporting market designates with 

the same product identifier (including 

purchases and sales, and inclusive of all 

expiration months).71 As noted above, 

volume threshold accounts could 

reflect, without limitation, trading in 

futures, options on futures, swaps, and 

any other product traded on or subject 

to the rules of a DCM or SEF. 

ii. 102B Form Requirements 

As a threshold question, 102B 

requires that clearing members provide, 

in response to question 2, the trading 

account number of any trading account 

that meets the criteria for a volume 

threshold account; any related short 

code(s) for such account; and the name 

of the reporting market (i.e. the DCM or 

SEF) at which the volume threshold 

account had reportable trading volume. 

These data points are necessary to 

report and identify volume threshold 

accounts in TCRs received from DCMs, 

or similar transaction-based reports that 

may be received from SEFs, and to link 

the volume threshold account to other 

Commission’s surveillance databases.72

The data points will also assist the 

Commission in identifying traders 

whose end-of-day open interest does not 

reach reportable levels on Form 102A, 

but whose intra-day trading reaches the 

volume threshold, thus enabling the 

Commission to monitor trading that 

could potentially impact markets during 

concentrated periods of intra-day 

trading. 

Second, 102B requires that clearing 

members provide, in response to 

question 3, the volume threshold 

account’s associated special account 

number, if applicable. This information 

will permit the Commission to more 

effectively and efficiently connect 

position data received via the large 

trader reporting system and trade data 

received via the TCR. 

Third, 102B requires that clearing 

members indicate, in response to 

question 4, whether the volume 

threshold account is an omnibus 

account, or used to execute trades for an 

omnibus account. If the account is an 

omnibus account or used to execute 

trades for an omnibus account, question 

4 requires clearing members to indicate 

whether the account is a house or 

customer omnibus account, and to 

provide information sufficient to 

uniquely identify and contact the 

originator of the account (e.g., the 

originator’s name, address and phone 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69186 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

73See supra note 41. Form 102B also requires the 

reporting party to provide the LEI (if any) of any 

omnibus account originator and volume threshold 

account owner(s) reported on the form. As noted in 

the footnotes to the reporting forms in the 

Appendix, if a reporting party provides an LEI on 

Form 102B that was issued by the CICI Utility (or 

by any other CFTC-accepted LEI provider), then the 

reporting party is not required to report any of the 

fields marked as ‘‘Optional Fields’’ in the relevant 

question (i.e., name and address), provided that 

such optional fields were reported to the CICI 

Utility (or other CFTC-accepted LEI provider) and 

are associated with the relevant LEI. Footnotes to 

the reporting forms in the Appendix contain 

instructions regarding other fields that are not 

required to be reported in certain circumstances. 

74As with Form 102A, respondents should report 

all individuals meeting the definition of volume 

threshold account controller on Form 102B. In the 

event that a respondent’s trading in a reportable 

volume threshold account is conducted in whole or 

in part through an ATS, when submitting New 

Form 102B the respondent should consider whether 

any operator, supervisor, or other individual 

involved in the administration of such ATS meets 

the definition of volume threshold account 

controller with respect to the volume threshold 

account. The Commission recognizes that, for some 

respondents, the individuals involved in the 

administration of an ATS may not qualify as 

volume threshold account controllers. See supra 

section V(A)(ii). 

75See infra the discussion of § 17.02(c) in section 

VII, which provides additional information 

regarding changes to the timing of New Form 102B 

reporting made in response to comments on the 

NPRM. 

76Specifically, the information marked as 

‘Follow-On Information’ in questions 5 and 6 on 

New Form 102B may be provided within three 

business days. All other required fields on New 

Form 102B must be completed by 9:00 a.m. the 

following business day (including question 4, with 

respect to omnibus account information). See New 

Form 102B in the Appendix to these final rules for 

more information. 

77 17 CFR 20.5(a). 

78See supra note 41. Form 102S also requires the 

reporting party to provide the LEI (if any) of any 

omnibus account originator and consolidated 

account owner(s) and controller(s) reported on the 

form. As noted in the footnotes to the reporting 

forms in the Appendix, if a reporting party provides 

an LEI on Form 102S that was issued by the CICI 

Utility (or by any other CFTC-accepted LEI 

provider), then the reporting party is not required 

to report any of the fields marked as ‘‘Optional 

Fields’’ in the relevant question (i.e., name and 

number, among other information).73

More detailed information regarding 

ownership and control with respect to a 

volume threshold account that is a 

customer omnibus account will be 

collected separately at the Commission’s 

request, from the omnibus account’s 

originating firm (via a New Form 71), 

also adopted herein and described 

below. 

Fourth, 102B requires clearing 

members to provide information, in 

response to question 5, sufficient to 

uniquely identify and contact each 

owner of a volume threshold account 

that is not an omnibus account (e.g., the 

owner’s name, address and phone 

number, among other information). For 

each account owner that is not a natural 

person, question 5 also requests, among 

other identifying information, a contact 

name, contact job title, and the 

relationship of the contact to the 

account owner. Finally, the Commission 

requests that clearing members provide 

information, in response to question 6, 

sufficient to uniquely identify and 

contact each volume threshold account 

controller of an account that is not an 

omnibus account. Pursuant to final 

§ 15.00(cc), a volume threshold account 

controller must be a natural person. The 

requested information includes the 

name of the account controller(s), 

address, phone number and job title, 

together with the name of the 

controller’s employer and other 

identifying information.74

iii. Timing of 102B Reporting 75

This rulemaking imposes a bifurcated 

deadline for submitting certain 

information on New Form 102B. 

Reporting parties are required to submit 

a completed Form 102B to the 

Commission no later than 9 a.m. on the 

business day following the date on 

which the volume threshold account 

becomes reportable. This form must 

include all required information, 

including the names of the owner(s) and 

controller(s) of each volume threshold 

account reported on the form that is not 

an omnibus account. However, the 

reporting party may provide certain 

supplemental information regarding 

such owner(s) and controller(s) on a 

later date. No later than 9 a.m. on the 

third business day following the date on 

which the volume threshold account 

becomes reportable, the reporting party 

may update its Form 102 submission to 

provide information with respect to 

such owner(s) and controller(s) other 

than their names (e.g., their address and 

other contact information).76 The final 

rules also include an ‘‘on-call’’ 

provision, which requires a 102B to be 

submitted on such other date as directed 

by special call of the Commission. 

iv. Timing of 102B Change Updates and 

Refresh Updates 

The final rules also require reporting 

parties to submit an updated Form 102B 

in the event that a change occurs that 

causes the information submitted on the 

form to no longer be accurate (‘‘change 

updates’’). Change updates must be 

submitted according to the bifurcated 

schedule described in the preceding 

paragraph. The final rules also include 

an ‘‘on-call’’ provision, which requires 

102B change updates to be submitted on 

such other date as directed by special 

call of the Commission. 

In addition to change updates, 

§ 17.02(c) requires that, starting on a 

date specified by the Commission or its 

designee and at the end of each annual 

increment thereafter (or such other date 

specified by the Commission or its 

designee that is equal to or greater than 

six months), each clearing member 

resubmit every 102B that it has 

submitted to the Commission for each of 

its volume threshold accounts (‘‘refresh 

updates’’). The goal of the refresh 

update provision for 102B is to establish 

discrete points in time where all 102B 

data is considered accurate and reliable, 

thereby avoiding the data drift that is 

often associated with long-term data 

collection efforts. 

Both the change update and refresh 

update provisions of § 17.02(c) include 

a sunset provision. A clearing member 

may stop providing change updates or 

refresh updates for a Form 102B that it 

has submitted to the Commission for 

any volume threshold account upon 

notifying the Commission or its 

designee that the account in question 

executed no trades in any product in the 

past six months on the reporting market 

at which the volume threshold account 

reached the reportable trading volume 

level. If a reporting party so notifies the 

Commission, and the volume threshold 

account becomes reportable again at a 

subsequent date, then the reporting 

party would be required to file a new 

Form 102B. 

C. Position-Triggered Form 102S 

(Consolidated Accounts) 

i. 102S Form Requirements 

Section 102S of New Form 102 is 

designed to facilitate the electronic 

submission of 102S filings. Such filings 

are currently being submitted to the 

Commission (pursuant to § 17 CFR 

20.5(a)) through a non-automated 

process. As noted above, pursuant to 

§ 20.5(a), 102S filings must be filed by 

a part 20 reporting party (a swap dealer 

or clearing firm) for each reportable 

counterparty consolidated account 

when such account first becomes 

reportable, and ‘‘shall consist of the 

name, address, and contact information 

of the counterparty and a brief 

description of the nature of such 

person’s paired swaps and swaptions 

market activity.’’ 77 By incorporating 

102S in New Form 102, these rules will 

request more detailed ownership and 

control information regarding identified 

consolidated accounts, and require the 

submission of consolidated account 

reporting via an automated 

submission.78 As explained above, 102S 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69187 

address), provided that such optional fields were 

reported to the CICI Utility (or other CFTC-accepted 

LEI provider) and are associated with the relevant 

LEI. Footnotes to the reporting forms in the 

Appendix contain instructions regarding other 

fields that are not required to be reported in certain 

circumstances. 

79See Swaps Large Trader Guidebook at p. 26 and 

p. 91, Appendix D. See also supra note 12. 

80 17 CFR 20.5(a)(3) provides: ‘‘Reporting entities 

shall submit a 102S filing within three days 

following the first day a consolidated account first 

becomes reportable or at such time as instructed by 

the Commission upon special call.’’ 

81The relevant trading date will be specified by 

Commission staff on Form 71 at the time the special 

call is made. 

will also incorporate considerations 

developed in the Swaps Large Trader 

Guidebook for compliance with part 20. 

These rules will replace the 102S 

submission procedure and guidance in 

the Swaps Large Trader Guidebook.79

ii. Timing of 102S Reporting, Change 

Updates and Refresh Updates 

The timing for submitting new 102S 

filings will continue to be subject to 

current § 20.5(a)(3).80

Section 20.5(a)(4) of the final rules 

requires that if any change causes the 

information filed on a 102S for a 

consolidated account to no longer be 

accurate, an updated 102S must be filed 

with the Commission no later than 9:00 

a.m. on the business day after such 

change occurs, or on such other date as 

directed by special call of the 

Commission (‘‘change updates’’). 

In addition to change updates, final 

§ 20.5(a)(5) requires that, starting on a 

date specified by the Commission or its 

designee and at the end of each annual 

increment thereafter (or such other date 

specified by the Commission or its 

designee that is equal to or greater than 

six months), each clearing member or 

swap dealer must resubmit every 102S 

that it has submitted to the Commission 

for each of its consolidated accounts 

(‘‘refresh updates’’). As with the 102A 

and 102B, discussed above, the goal of 

the refresh update provision is to 

establish discrete points in time where 

all 102S data is considered accurate and 

reliable. The Commission is proposing 

the refresh update provision in an effort 

to maintain accurate 102S data, and to 

avoid the data drift which is often 

associated with long-term data 

collection efforts. 

Both the change update and refresh 

update provisions of § 20.5(a) include a 

sunset provision. A clearing member or 

swap dealer may stop providing change 

updates or refresh updates for a Form 

102S that it has submitted to the 

Commission for any consolidated 

account upon notifying the Commission 

or its designee that the account in 

question is no longer reportable as a 

consolidated account and has not been 

reportable as a consolidated account for 

the past six months. If a reporting party 

so notifies the Commission, and the 

consolidated account becomes 

reportable again at a subsequent date, 

then the reporting party would be 

required to file a new Form 102S. 

D. Form 71 (Omnibus Accounts and 

Sub-Accounts) 

New Form 71 (‘‘Identification of 

Omnibus Accounts and Sub-Accounts’’) 

will be sent, in the Commission’s 

discretion, in the event that a volume 

threshold account is identified as a 

customer omnibus account on Form 

102B. The Commission will send New 

Form 71 via a special call to the 

originating firm of such an account. The 

Commission will provide the relevant 

account number and reporting market 

reported on the 102B when sending the 

Form 71. Recipients of a Form 71 will 

be required to provide information 

regarding any account to which the 

customer omnibus account allocated 

trades that resulted in reportable trading 

volume for the account receiving such 

allocations (a ‘‘reportable sub-account’’) 

on a specified trading date.81 Form 71 

is designed to permit originating firms 

to report the required information 

directly to the Commission without 

requiring such firms to disclose 

information regarding customers to 

potential competitors. If a reportable 

sub-account is itself an omnibus 

account (an ‘‘omnibus reportable subaccount’’), then the originating firm will 

be required to (a) indicate whether the 

omnibus reportable sub-account is a 

house or customer omnibus account and 

(b) identify the originator of the 

omnibus reportable sub-account. 

Another Form 71 will be sent, at the 

discretion of Commission staff, to the 

originator of a customer omnibus 

reportable sub-account identified on 

Form 71. At its discretion, the 

Commission will continue to reach 

through layered customer omnibus 

reportable sub-accounts via successive 

Form 71s until reaching all reportable 

sub-accounts, if any, that are not 

omnibus sub-accounts. 

If a reportable sub-account identified 

on Form 71 is not an omnibus subaccount, then the originating firm will 

be required to identify the owner(s) and 

controller(s) of the non-omnibus 

reportable sub-account. A New Form 40 

will be sent, via a special call at the 

discretion of the Commission, to such 

owner(s) and controller(s). Form 71 will 

therefore enable the Commission to 

collect the same level of information 

regarding owners and controllers (via a 

subsequent New Form 40) that the 

Commission will collect with respect to 

a non-omnibus volume threshold 

account identified on 102B. The key 

data points to be collected in Form 71 

are summarized below. 

As a threshold question, section A of 

Form 71 requires the originator of an 

omnibus volume threshold account or a 

reportable sub-account to confirm 

certain identifying information 

regarding the originator. Such 

information would have been reported 

to the Commission by an omnibus 

account carrying firm on Form 102B or 

on a preceding Form 71 (e.g., the 

originator’s name, address and phone 

number), and used to auto-populate the 

present Form 71. The originator is 

prompted to update any incorrect 

information provided in Section A. 

Second, section B of Form 71 requires 

the originator to provide certain 

information regarding the allocation of 

trades from a specified account number, 

and on a specified date and reporting 

market, to another account (called a 

‘‘recipient account’’). Specifically, the 

originator is required to indicate 

whether: (1) It allocated trades from the 

specified account number on the 

specified date and reporting market that 

resulted in reportable trading volume 

for a recipient account; (2) it allocated 

trades from the specified account 

number on the specified date and 

reporting market, but the allocations did 

not sum to reportable trading volume for 

a recipient account on such date; or (3) 

it did not allocate any trades from the 

specified account number on the 

specified date and reporting market. 

If condition (1) is met, the originator 

is required to indicate in section B 

whether the reportable sub-account is 

an omnibus reportable sub-account. If 

so, the originator is required to indicate 

whether the omnibus reportable subaccount is a house or customer omnibus 

account, and to provide information 

sufficient to identify and contact the 

originator of the sub-account (e.g., the 

originator’s name, address and phone 

number, and a contact name, contact job 

title, and the relationship of the contact 

to the originator). As noted above, 

another Form 71 will be sent at the 

discretion of Commission staff to the 

originator of a customer omnibus 

reportable sub-account identified in 

response to section B of Form 71. 

Therefore, Form 71 may be sent to a 

chain of such originators if each 

originator allocated trades to another 

customer omnibus reportable subaccount. 

If the reportable sub-account is not an 

omnibus sub-account, the originator is 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69188 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

82See question 14 in New Form 40. 

83See question 14ii(a) in New Form 40. 

84Summaries of these discussions are available 

through the Commission’s Web site at: http://

comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.

aspx?id=1247. 

85For a recent example of a similar undertaking, 

see the Swaps Large Trader Guidebook, linked 

supra at note 46. 

required to provide information 

sufficient to identify and contact the 

owner(s) and controller(s) of such nonomnibus reportable sub-account (e.g., 

the name, address and phone number of 

the owner(s) and controller(s)). This 

information will enable the 

Commission, in its discretion, to send a 

New Form 40 to such owner(s) and 

controller(s). 

E. New Form 40 (Reporting Traders) 

In these final rules, the Commission 

adopts a revised Form 40 that will be 

sent, on special call of the Commission, 

to individuals and other entities 

identified on any of 102A, 102B, and 

Form 71. As adopted herein, New Form 

40, still referred to as the ‘‘Statement of 

Reporting Trader,’’ will continue to 

serve the function traditionally met by 

current Form 40. New Form 40 will 

provide the Commission with detailed 

information regarding both the business 

activities and the ownership and control 

structure of a reporting trader identified 

in the Commission’s Form 102 program 

(as updated by these final rules). New 

Form 40 will also be the vehicle through 

which market participants subject to 17 

CFR 20.5(b) submit their 40S filings, 

and will be used to collect additional 

information regarding the owners and 

controllers of non-omnibus volume 

threshold accounts identified by Form 

71. Those entities required to complete 

a New Form 40 will be under a 

continuing obligation, per direction in 

the special call, to update and maintain 

the accuracy of the information 

submitted on New Form 40 by 

periodically updating the information 

on the New Form 40 web portal or by 

periodically resubmitting New Form 40 

by secure FTP transmission. 

Among other data, New Form 40 will 

request the following regarding the 

reporting trader: Contact information for 

the individual(s) responsible for the 

reporting trader’s trading activities, risk 

management operations, and the 

information on the New Form 40; if 

applicable, omnibus account 

information, foreign government 

affiliation information, and an 

indication regarding the reporting 

trader’s status as a domestic or nondomestic entity; information regarding 

the reporting party’s ownership 

structure in connection with its parents 

and subsidiaries; information regarding 

the reporting trader’s control 

relationships with other entities; 

information regarding other 

relationships with persons that 

influence or exercise authority over the 

trading of the reporting trader; an 

indication regarding swap dealer status 

and major swap participant status; an 

indication of all commodity groups and 

individual commodities that the 

reporting trader presently trades, or 

expects to trade in the near future, in 

derivatives markets; and other 

indications regarding the nature of the 

reporting trader’s derivatives trading 

activity. The form includes definitions 

of certain terms, including parent, 

subsidiary, and control, to be used for 

the purpose of completing New Form 

40. 

New Form 40 will also require 

reporting traders who engage in 

commodity index trading (‘‘CIT’’), as 

defined in the new form, to identify 

themselves to the Commission.82 New 

Form 40 defines CIT as: (a) An 

investment strategy that consists of 

investing in an instrument (e.g., a 

commodity index fund, exchange-traded 

fund for commodities, or exchangetraded note for commodities) that enters 

into one or more derivative contracts to 

track the performance of a published 

index that is based on the price of one 

or more commodities, or commodities 

in combination with other securities; or 

(b) an investment strategy that consists 

of entering into one or more derivative 

contracts to track the performance of a 

published index that is based on the 

price of one or more commodities, or 

commodities in combination with other 

securities. Reporting traders engaged in 

CIT as defined in (b) are required to 

indicate whether they are, in the 

aggregate, pursuing long exposure or 

short exposure with respect to the 

relevant commodities or commodity 

groups listed on the Form.83

VI. Data Submission Standards and 

Procedures 

A. Overview 

During the comment period of the 

NPRM, the Commission’s data and 

technology staff worked with potential 

reporting parties and other market 

participants to address the information 

technology standards associated with 

the rules proposed by the NPRM.84

Following these discussions, the 

Commission established two submission 

methods for the reporting forms 

required by these final rules: (a) A webbased portal and (b) an XML-based, 

secure FTP data feed. While the NPRM 

contemplated that certain forms (Forms 

40/S and 71) could be submitted only 

via the web portal, these final rules 

provide that reporting parties may 

submit each of the new or revised forms 

through either the web-based portal or 

the FTP data feed, in order to provide 

additional flexibility to reporting 

parties. The Commission is offering two 

filing methods for each form because it 

anticipates a wide range of 

technological capabilities among 

reporting parties (varying based on the 

relative size and experience of a given 

reporting party). Reporting parties will 

be able to select the submission method 

that works best with their existing data 

and technology infrastructure and the 

number of filings they expect to make. 

Those reporting parties electing to 

submit information through the FTP 

data feed should contact the 

Commission, which will provide the 

necessary technical information to 

establish the data feed. Following the 

publication of these final rules, the 

Commission intends to publish a data 

compliance guidebook with detailed 

instructions for the two submission 

methods.85

When a reporting party identifies a 

new account on New Form 102A, 102B 

or 102S, the Commission will evaluate 

the account to determine whether to 

request a New Form 40/40S or New 

Form 71 via a special call. If the 

Commission determines to send a New 

Form 40/40S or New Form 71 to the 

applicable reporting trader or account 

originator, the Commission will contact 

the reporting party (generally via email, 

using the email address provided on the 

New Form 102). The Commission will 

provide instructions for submitting the 

applicable form through either the webbased portal or secure FTP data feed. 

Depending on the information provided 

in New Form 71, the Commission may 

require a New Form 40 or New Form 71 

from additional persons or entities 

identified in the New Form 71, using 

the same process described above. 

B. Schedule of Effective Date and 

Compliance Date 

As noted above, these final rules 

include separate ‘‘effective’’ and 

‘‘compliance’’ dates: 

• The effective date of these final 

rules will be February 18, 2014. 

• The compliance date, however, will 

be delayed by an additional 180 days, 

with the result that the compliance date 

of these final rules will be August 15, 

2014. 

Between the publication of these final 

rules and the effective date, reporting 

parties should work with the 

Commission’s data and technology staff 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69189 

86The Commission will protect proprietary 

information consistent with the Freedom of 

Information Act and 17 CFR part 145, ‘‘Commission 

Records and Information.’’ In addition, section 

8(a)(1) of the Act strictly prohibits the Commission, 

unless specifically authorized by the Act, from 

making public ‘‘data and information that would 

separately disclose the business transactions or 

market positions of any person and trade secrets or 

names of customers.’’ The Commission is also 

required to protect certain information contained in 

a government system of records according to the 

Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

87 17 CFR 15.00(q) and 15.02. The Dodd-Frank 

Act modified section 1a of the CEA. As a result, the 

definition of ‘‘registered entity’’ previously found in 

section 1a(29) of the CEA is now in section 1a(40). 

In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to revise 

current § 15.00(q) so that it cites to section 1a(40) 

for the definition of registered entity. The 

Commission also proposed to revise current 

§ 15.00(q) by removing the provision’s reference to 

DTEFs, a category of regulated markets that was 

eliminated by section 734 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

88The definition of ‘‘control’’ in § 15.00 is based 

upon the definition of ‘‘controlled account’’ in 

section 1.3(j) of the Commission’s regulations. 

89CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 5. 

90CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 6. 

91CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 5. The 2010 

OCR NPRM proposed a broader definition of an 

account controller: ‘‘A natural person, or a group of 

natural persons, with the legal authority to exercise 

discretion over trading decisions by a trading 

account, with the authority to determine the trading 

strategy of an automated trading system, or 

responsible for the supervision of any automated 

system or strategy.’’ In a comment letter dated 

December 23, 2010, FIA commented that ‘‘this 

definition cuts too broad a swath and would require 

information on individuals that never actually 

exercise trading authority over an account but, 

because of their position with the customer, as an 

owner or officer, would be deemed to have this 

authority . . . FIA believes the definition of an 

account controller should be consistent with the 

Commission’s definition of control as set out in 

Commission Rule 1.3(j) and generally applied at 

exchanges.’’ The definition of an account controller 

reflected in § 15.00(t) and (bb)–(dd) of these final 

rules is based on Commission Rule 1.3(j). 

92The Commission recognizes that, for some 

respondents that conduct trading in a reportable 

trading account or volume threshold account in 

whole or in part through an ATS, the individuals 

involved in the administration of such ATS may not 

qualify as trading account controllers or volume 

threshold account controllers. See supra section 

V(A)(ii). 

to test and implement any information 

technology standards or systems 

associated with the final rules. During 

this testing period, reporting parties 

should provide all test data or form 

filings requested by the Commission’s 

data and technology staff, in the form 

and manner requested by staff.86 In 

addition, the Commission will conduct 

beta testing of each submission method 

prior to the compliance date. All 

reporting parties subject to the final 

rules must be in full compliance by the 

compliance date, including having 

submitted complete and accurate filings 

using one of the two submission 

methods described above. 

VII. Review of NPRM and Summary of 

Final Rules 

A. Part 15 

i. § 15.00(q)—Reporting Market 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 15.00(q) revised the 

definition of ‘‘reporting market’’ in 

current § 15.00(q) to replace the 

provision’s cross-reference to section 

1a(29) of the Act with a cross-reference 

to § 1a(40). The proposed rule also 

revised current § 15.00(q) to remove the 

provision’s reference to derivatives 

transaction execution facilities 

(‘‘DTEFs’’).87

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to the proposed rule, and the 

Commission is adopting proposed 

§ 15.00(q) without modification. 

ii. § 15.00(t)—Control 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 15.00(t) added ‘‘control’’ 

to the list of defined terms in § 15.00.88

The Commission’s proposed definition, 

which applied only to special accounts 

(New Form 102A) and consolidated 

accounts (Form 102S), defined control 

as ‘‘to actually direct, by power of 

attorney or otherwise, the trading of a 

special account or a consolidated 

account.’’ The proposed definition 

specified that special accounts and 

consolidated accounts may have more 

than one controller. The Commission 

notes that the proposed definition of 

‘‘control’’ applied solely for the purpose 

of satisfying the reporting obligations 

under parts 15 through 19 and 21 of the 

Commission’s regulations. The 

proposed definition did not limit or 

alter existing law with respect to the 

meaning of the term control for the 

purpose of enforcing other requirements 

under the Act and the Commission’s 

regulations, including those relating to 

position limits or manipulation. 

Similarly, existing requirements 

regarding the aggregation of positions in 

separate accounts for reporting or other 

purposes under the Act and 

Commission regulations (e.g., 

§§ 17.00(b) and 150.4) were not altered 

by the definition of ‘‘control’’ proposed 

in § 15.00(t). 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

FIA commented that it would be 

difficult and/or meaningless to provide 

the requested control information, 

because the individuals responsible for 

trading an account within a special 

account or a volume threshold account 

can change often, even within the same 

trading day.89 Furthermore, ‘‘in the case 

of algorithmic trading programs, there 

likely will not be an identifiable 

individual who ‘actually directs the 

trading’ of the program. For this reason, 

FCMs do not currently collect this 

information.’’ 90 FIA recommended 

removing the requirement to identify 

account controllers on Forms 102A and 

102B.91

Discussion of Final Rule 

The Commission is adopting 

proposed § 15.00(t) without 

modification. At the same time, the 

Commission is modifying the 

instructions on Form 102 in response to 

comments that discussed the difficulty 

of identifying individuals that exercise 

control on a transient basis, such as 

individuals operating an automated 

trading system (‘‘ATS’’) during a daily 

shift. The instructions for Form 102A 

and Form 102B have been revised to 

state that respondents should report all 

individuals who qualify as ‘‘trading 

account controllers’’ or ‘‘volume 

threshold account controllers,’’ as 

defined in § 15.00(bb) and (cc), 

respectively.92 The Commission notes 

that regardless of whether the trading is 

carried out in whole or in part through 

an automated trading system or direct 

human initiation, the underlying 

analysis remains the same. When 

completing Form 102A and Form 102B, 

reporting parties should identify each 

person that satisfies the definition of 

‘‘trading account controller’’ or ‘‘volume 

threshold account controller,’’ as 

defined in § 15.00(bb) and (cc), 

respectively. Once respondents have 

identified all individuals meeting the 

applicable controller definition in a 

Form 102A or Form 102B submission, 

they will not be required to submit 

change updates to the submission if one 

previously identified controller takes 

the place of another previously 

identified controller. 

iii. § 15.00(u)—Reportable Trading 

Volume 

NPRM Proposal 

Volume threshold accounts, omnibus 

volume threshold accounts, omnibus 

reportable sub-accounts, and reportable 

sub-accounts all reflect accounts that 

execute (or receive via allocation or 

give-up) ‘‘reportable trading volume.’’ 

Proposed § 15.00(u) defined reportable 

trading volume as contract trading 

volume that meets or exceeds the level 

specified in proposed § 15.04. Section 

15.04, in turn, provided that reportable 

trading volume for a trading account is 

trading volume of 50 or more contracts, 

during a single trading day, on a single 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69190 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

93CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 6. CL–2012– 

CME supra note 55 at 2–3. CL–2012–ICE supra note 

55 at 2. 

94CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 2–3. 

95Note that the following definitions in section 

§ 15.00 have been reordered due to the elimination 

of the definition of direct market access (proposed 

in the NPRM as § 15.00(v)). 

96CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 4. 

97Based on comment letters received in response 

to various proposed OCR rulemakings, the 

Commission understands that, in the case of a giveup trade, the industry regards the account to which 

a give-up trade is ultimately allocated as the only 

‘‘carrying’’ account in the give-up process. On this 

basis, the Commission does not view the original 

executing account of a give-up trade, or any 

intervening account(s) prior to the account to which 

the give-up trade is ultimately allocated, as 

‘‘carrying’’ accounts in the give-up process. 

reporting market that is a board of trade 

designated as a contract market under 

section 5 of the Act or a swap execution 

facility registered under section 5h of 

the Act, in all instruments that such 

reporting market designates with the 

same product identifier (including 

purchases and sales, and inclusive of all 

expiration months). 

Discussion of Final Rule 

See below the discussion of 

comments received regarding the 

reportable trading volume level 

proposed by § 15.04. No comments were 

received pertaining specifically to 

proposed § 15.00(u), and the 

Commission is adopting § 15.00(u) 

without modification. 

iv. § 15.00(v)—Direct Market Access 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 15.00(v) defined direct 

market access (‘‘DMA’’) as ‘‘a 

connection method that enables a 

market participant to transmit orders to 

a DCM’s electronic trade matching 

system without re-entry by another 

person or entity, or similar access to the 

trade execution platform of a SEF.’’ 

Pursuant to the proposed definition, 

such access could be provided directly 

by a DCM or SEF, or by a 3rd-party 

platform. Proposed Forms 102A and 

102B required an FCM to indicate 

whether a trading account or volume 

threshold account has been granted 

DMA to the trade matching system or 

the respective reporting system of the 

applicable reporting market. 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

FIA, CME and ICE commented that 

the definition of DMA was overbroad, 

and FIA predicted that ‘‘virtually all 

customers for which a Form 102 would 

be required to be filed will have been 

granted DMA.’’ 93 CME commented that 

DMA data is not related to account 

ownership and control, the focus of 

these final rules, but rather to 

connectivity.94

Discussion of Final Rule 

In response to CME’s comment 

regarding the relevance of DMA 

information, the Commission has 

concluded that the OCR reporting forms 

are not the appropriate vehicle for 

reporting information regarding 

connectivity. The Commission is 

therefore not adopting proposed 

§ 15.00(v), and will not include a 

question regarding DMA in Form 102. 

v. § 15.00(v)—Omnibus Account 95

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 15.00(w) (re-ordered in the 

final rules as § 15.00(v)) defined 

omnibus account as any trading account 

that one FCM, clearing member or 

foreign broker carries for another and in 

which the transactions of multiple 

individual accounts are combined. The 

identities of the holders of the 

individual accounts are not generally 

known or disclosed to the carrying firm. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to the proposed rule, and the 

Commission is adopting proposed 

§ 15.00(w) (re-ordered in the final rules 

as § 15.00(v)) without modification. 

vi. § 15.00(w)—Omnibus Account 

Originator 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 15.00(x) (re-ordered in the 

final rules as § 15.00(w)) defined 

omnibus account originator as any FCM, 

clearing member or foreign broker that 

executes trades for one or more 

customers via one or more accounts that 

are part of an omnibus account carried 

by another FCM, clearing member or 

foreign broker. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to the proposed rule, and the 

Commission is adopting proposed 

§ 15.00(x) (re-ordered in the final rules 

as § 15.00(w)) without modification. 

vii. § 15.00(x)—Volume Threshold 

Account 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 15.00(y) (re-ordered in the 

final rules as § 15.00(x)) defined volume 

threshold account as any trading 

account that executes, or receives via 

allocation or give-up, reportable trading 

volume on or subject to the rules of a 

reporting market that is a board of trade 

designated as a contract market under 

section 5 of the Act or a swap execution 

facility registered under section 5h of 

the Act. 

In the case of a give-up trade, this 

NPRM definition was intended to 

require reporting by: (i) The carrying 

firm of the original executing account; 

(ii) the carrying firm of any intervening 

account(s); and (iii) the carrying firm of 

the account to which the give-up trade 

was ultimately allocated. Question 10 in 

Section VII of the NPRM emphasized 

the broad scope of the definition: ‘‘The 

Commission intends that the definition 

of ‘volume threshold account’ captures 

all possible categories of accounts with 

reportable trading volume. . . . The 

Commission requests public comment 

regarding whether the proposed 

definition of ‘volume threshold account’ 

achieves this purpose.’’ 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

In response to this question, CME 

commented that volume-based accounts 

should be reported at the carrying 

broker level, and noted that, ‘‘this is 

where the account ownership and 

control information resides, not at 

executing brokers.’’ 96

Discussion of Final Rule 

The Commission is adopting 

proposed § 15.00(y) (re-ordered in the 

final rules as § 15.00(x)) with one 

modification. The definition of volume 

threshold account is being scaled back 

in the final rules, to capture a smaller 

number of volume threshold accounts 

than under the NPRM proposal. The 

definition is being modified to: ‘‘any 

trading account that carries reportable 

trading volume on or subject to the rules 

of a reporting market that is a [DCM or 

SEF].’’ 97 This change will reduce the 

number of reportable volume threshold 

accounts in the case of a give-up trade: 

• In a give-up scenario, this definition 

will require reporting by the carrying 

firm of the account to which the trade 

is ultimately allocated. Reporting will 

not be required, however, by the 

carrying firm of the original executing 

account, or by the carrying firm of any 

intervening account(s) prior to the 

account to which the trade is ultimately 

allocated. 

• In a non-give-up scenario, there will 

be no change to the number of 

reportable volume threshold accounts. 

Under both the original and revised 

definition, reporting will be required by 

the carrying firm of the account in 

which the trade is both executed and 

cleared. 

The Commission believes that this 

approach will be more efficient and less 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69191 

98 17 CFR 15.01(c). 

99 17 CFR 15.00(q) and 15.02. The Dodd-Frank 

Act modified section 1a of the CEA. As a result, the 

definition of ‘‘registered entity’’ previously found in 

section 1a(29) of the CEA is now in section 1a(40). 

In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to revise 

current § 15.00(q) so that it cites to section 1a(40) 

for the definition of registered entity. The 

Commission also proposed to revise current 

§ 15.00(q) by removing the provision’s reference to 

DTEFs, a category of regulated markets that was 

eliminated by section 734 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

These proposals are adopted in the final rules. 

burdensome for reporting parties, while 

nonetheless capturing a sufficient 

number of volume threshold accounts to 

advance the Commission’s surveillance 

objectives. 

viii. § 15.00(y)—Omnibus Volume 

Threshold Account 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 15.00(z) (re-ordered in the 

final rules as § 15.00(y)) defined 

omnibus volume threshold account as 

any trading account that, on an omnibus 

basis, executes, or receives via 

allocation or give-up, reportable trading 

volume on or subject to the rules of a 

reporting market that is a board of trade 

designated as a contract market under 

section 5 of the Act or a swap execution 

facility registered under section 5h of 

the Act. 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

See the discussion above regarding 

CME’s comment on the definition of 

‘‘volume threshold account.’’ 

Discussion of Final Rule 

The Commission is adopting 

proposed § 15.00(z) (re-ordered in the 

final rules as § 15.00(y)) with one 

modification, consistent with the 

change to the definition of volume 

threshold account described above. 

Under the final rules, omnibus volume 

threshold account means ‘‘any trading 

account that, on an omnibus basis, 

carries reportable trading volume on or 

subject to the rules of a reporting market 

that is a [DCM or SEF].’’ 

ix. § 15.00(z)—Omnibus Reportable SubAccount 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 15.00(aa) (re-ordered in 

the final rules as § 15.00(z)) defined 

omnibus reportable sub-account as any 

trading sub-account of an omnibus 

volume threshold account, which subaccount executes reportable trading 

volume on an omnibus basis. Omnibus 

reportable sub-account also means any 

trading account that is itself an omnibus 

account, executes reportable trading 

volume, and is a sub-account of another 

omnibus reportable sub-account. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to the proposed rule, and the 

Commission is adopting proposed 

§ 15.00(aa) (re-ordered in the final rules 

as § 15.00(z)) without modification. 

x. § 15.00(aa)—Reportable Sub-Account 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 15.00(bb) (re-ordered in 

the final rules as § 15.00(aa)) defined 

reportable sub-account as any trading 

sub-account of an omnibus volume 

threshold account or omnibus 

reportable sub-account, which subaccount executes reportable trading 

volume. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to the proposed rule, and the 

Commission is adopting proposed 

§ 15.00(bb) (re-ordered in the final rules 

as § 15.00(aa)) without modification. 

xi. § 15.00(bb)—Trading Account 

Controller; § 15.00(cc)—Volume 

Threshold Account Controller; 

§ 15.00(dd)—Reportable Sub-Account 

Controller 

NPRM Proposal 

The Commission proposed to 

separately define the concept of control 

in the context of trading accounts, 

volume threshold accounts, and 

reportable sub-accounts. For these 

accounts, ‘‘control’’ may only be 

exercised by natural persons. 

Accordingly, proposed § 15.00(cc), (dd), 

and (ee) (re-ordered in the final rules as 

§ 15.00(bb), (cc), and (dd)) defined 

trading account controllers, volume 

threshold account controllers, and 

reportable sub-account controllers, 

respectively, as ‘‘a natural person who 

by power of attorney or otherwise 

actually directs the trading of a [trading 

account, volume threshold account, or 

reportable sub-account].’’ Each account 

type may have more than one controller. 

The proposed definitions in § 15.00(cc), 

(dd), and (ee) are relevant to the 

submission of New Forms 102A (trading 

accounts), 102B (volume threshold 

accounts), and 71 (reportable subaccounts), respectively. 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

See above the discussion of comments 

received regarding the definition of 

control proposed by § 15.00(t). 

Discussion of Final Rule 

The Commission is adopting 

proposed § 15.00(cc), (dd), and (ee) (reordered in the final rules as § 15.00(bb), 

(cc), and (dd)) without modification. See 

the discussion of § 15.00(t) above 

regarding the modifications to the Form 

102 instructions that will be made in 

response to comments received 

regarding the definition of control. 

xii. § 15.01(c)—Persons Required To 

Report 

NPRM Proposal 

The introduction of new account and 

controller types in New Forms 102A, 

102B, and 71 will result in a 

corresponding expansion in the 

categories of persons required to 

provide New Form 40 reports. 

Accordingly, the Commission proposed 

to amend § 15.01(c), which currently 

requires Form 40 reports only from 

persons who hold or control reportable 

positions.98 Proposed § 15.01(c) 

required New Form 40 reports from: 

Traders who own, hold, or control 

reportable positions (identified via New 

Form 102A); volume threshold account 

controllers (identified via New Form 

102B); persons who own volume 

threshold accounts (identified via New 

Form 102B); reportable sub-account 

controllers (identified via New Form 

71); and persons who own reportable 

sub-accounts (identified via New Form 

71). 

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to the proposed rule, and the 

Commission is adopting proposed 

§ 15.01(c) without modification. 

xiii. § 15.02—Reporting Forms 

NPRM Proposal 

Current § 15.02 contains a list of the 

forms contained in parts 15 through 19, 

and 21.99 Proposed § 15.02 was revised 

to reflect the proposed introduction of 

new Form 71, the renaming of Form 

102, and the new OMB control number 

created by this rulemaking. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to the proposed rule, and the 

Commission is adopting proposed 

§ 15.02 without modification. 

xiv. § 15.04—Reportable Trading 

Volume Level 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 15.04 provided that 

reportable trading volume for a trading 

account is trading volume of 50 or more 

contracts, during a single trading day, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69192 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

100CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 8. CL–2012– 

CME supra note 55 at 3. CL–2012–ICE supra note 

55 at 6. 

101CL–2012–Nadex supra note 55 at 2–3. 

102CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 8. CL–2012– 

ICE supra note 55 at 6. 

103CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 8. 

104CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 3. 

105CL–2012–Nadex supra note 55 at 3. 

106 Id. 

107See infra section VIII(B)(vii) for a discussion 

of the administrative difficulties of implementing 

such a proposal. 

on a single reporting market that is a 

board of trade designated as a contract 

market under section 5 of the Act or a 

swap execution facility registered under 

section 5h of the Act, in all instruments 

that such reporting market designates 

with the same product identifier 

(including purchases and sales, and 

inclusive of all expiration months). 

Notably, proposed § 15.04 addressed 

trading volume, not open positions, and 

required that purchases and sales by a 

trading account be summed to 

determine whether such account has 

reached the reportable trading volume. 

Section 15.04 also stipulates that 

reportable trading volume should 

encompass all instruments that the 

reporting market designates with the 

same product identifier. 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

FIA, CME and ICE commented that 

the reportable trading volume level 

(‘‘RTVL’’), as proposed, would generate 

an excessive amount of data that may 

not be meaningful to the Commission’s 

trade practice and market surveillance 

programs.100 More specifically, Nadex 

commented that the proposed 50- 

contract reportable trading volume level 

would capture too many retail 

customers that are trading contracts 

with very small notional values.101

FIA and ICE both recommended that 

the Commission phase in a descending 

RTVL until the optimum level is 

reached.102 FIA, for example, 

recommended that ‘‘the Commission 

could require that only accounts 

meeting a volume threshold of 1,000 

contracts per day be reported in the first 

three months; contracts meeting a 

volume threshold of 750 contracts per 

day be reported in the second three 

months after the compliance date; and 

so on until the optimum volume 

threshold is reached.’’ 103 CME also 

expressed concern that the RTVL will 

capture too many accounts, but 

recommended that the RTVL should be 

changed to 250 contracts bought or sold 

during a calendar week.104

Nadex recommended that a different 

RTVL should be applied to contracts 

with small notional values, as compared 

to contracts with larger, traditional 

notional values. ‘‘For any contract with 

a notional value of $1,000 or less, the 

RTVL could be increased to 5,000 (i.e., 

1,000 times the standard RTVL of 50). 

This would still result in the 

Commission capturing information with 

respect to a relatively insignificant 

amount of trading activity in terms of 

notional value, but would be 

significantly less burdensome for the 

DCMs that offer these contracts.’’ 105 If 

the Commission determined not to 

adopt a different RTVL for contracts 

with small notional values, then Nadex 

recommended that ‘‘DCMs should have 

the opportunity to obtain a waiver from 

the standard RTVL level with an 

appropriate alternative to be determined 

after consultation between the relevant 

market and CFTC staff.’’ 106

Discussion of Final Rule 

Although the Commission 

acknowledges comments received 

regarding the appropriate RTVL, the 

Commission is adopting proposed 

§ 15.04 without modification. 

As indicated in the NPRM, the RTVL 

is based on Commission staff’s analysis 

of DCM trade data received through the 

trade capture report from a sample of 

DCMs during a recent six-month period. 

The 50-contract RTVL is calibrated to 

identify a critical mass of the trading 

accounts active in Commissionregulated markets, measured not only by 

the percentage of trading volume for 

which those accounts are responsible, 

but also by the absolute number of 

accounts identified. The 50-contract 

RTVL identifies approximately 85 

percent of trading volume in 

approximately 90 percent of the 

products sampled by the Commission 

over the six-month sample period. The 

50-contract RTVL also identifies 

approximately one-third of the trading 

accounts in the sample set. As a result, 

the 50-contract RTVL will capture both: 

(1) Those accounts responsible for the 

large majority of trading volume; and (2) 

a meaningful absolute number of the 

trading accounts active in Commissionregulated markets. The Commission 

believes that (1) and (2) are both equally 

important in improving the 

Commission’s ability to perform robust 

and comprehensive market and trade 

practice surveillance. While the 50- 

contract RTVL achieves the 

Commission’s regulatory objectives, it is 

nonetheless also calibrated to minimize 

the regulations’ impact on low-volume 

accounts whose trading activity does 

not warrant inclusion in the reporting 

regime. 

Furthermore, the Commission also 

reiterates that volume threshold account 

reporting, through Form 102B, is a 

transaction-based reporting regime 

rather than a position-based regime. A 

fundamental purpose of volume-based 

reporting on Form 102B is to identify 

trading accounts based solely on their 

trading volume, independently of such 

accounts’ contribution to open interest. 

The Commission’s intent in this 

rulemaking is to achieve a 

comprehensive identification of the 

participants in regulated derivatives 

markets regardless of the trading 

strategies they may pursue. 

For these reasons, the Commission 

declines to accept proposals that could 

reduce the trading volume or absolute 

number of accounts identified, 

including FIA’s proposal that the final 

rules switch to an RTVL that descends 

from 1,000 contracts to 750 contracts, or 

proposals that would change the basis of 

measurement, including CME’s proposal 

to use an RTVL of 250 contracts bought 

or sold per week. In addition, the 

Commission also declines to accept 

recommendations that would result in 

an impracticable administrative burden, 

including Nadex’s recommendation that 

a different RTVL should be applied to 

contracts with small notional values. 

The Commission believes it would be 

inefficient for both the Commission and 

various reporting parties to create a 

reporting regime for its regulated 

markets that is differently scaled across 

multiple products, in response to the 

fact that trading volume varies from one 

product to the next.107 Accordingly, the 

final rules will use the same RTVL 

proposed in the NPRM. 

The NPRM proposed to apply the 

same RTVL (50 contracts) to volume 

threshold accounts associated with both 

DCMs and SEFs. Because the RTVL is 

based on the Commission’s experience 

with DCMs, the NPRM asked for 

comment whether the 50-contract RTVL 

was also appropriate for the reporting of 

accounts associated with SEFs—and if 

not, what changes would be appropriate 

for reporting with regard to SEFs. The 

Commission did not receive any 

comments in response to this question. 

As a result, the Commission will apply 

the same RTVL (50 contracts) to volume 

threshold accounts associated with both 

DCMs and SEFs in the final rules, as 

contemplated by the NPRM. 

In the event that trading activity in 

the SEF marketplace is lower than in the 

futures marketplace, the Commission 

expects that the 50 contract RTVL will 

likely identify a smaller percentage of 

volume threshold accounts associated 

with SEFs. The 50 contract RTVL for 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69193 

108CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 3–4. CL–2012– 

CME supra note 55 at 2. 

109CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 4. 

110 Id. 

111 Id. 

112CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 2. 

113CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 4. 

114 Id. 

115CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 2. 

116See also supra note 41. New Form 102 

requires the reporting party to provide the LEI (if 

any) of the reporting party and of various other 

parties reportable on the form, such as account 

owners, controllers, and originators. As noted in the 

footnotes to the reporting forms in the Appendix, 

if a reporting party provides an LEI on New Form 

102 that was issued by the CICI Utility (or by any 

other CFTC-accepted LEI provider), then the 

reporting party is not required to report any of the 

fields marked as ‘‘Optional Fields’’ in the relevant 

question (i.e., name and address), provided that 

such optional fields were reported to the CICI 

Utility (or other CFTC-accepted LEI provider) and 

are associated with the relevant LEI. The 

Commission is addressing such otherwise 

duplicative reporting in order to leverage 

information previously submitted by reporting 

parties. Footnotes to the reporting forms in the 

Appendix contain instructions regarding other 

fields that are not required to be reported in certain 

circumstances. 

117 Id. 

118 Id. 

119CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 6. 

120CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 7. 

121CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 4 and Exhibit 

A. 

122CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 2. 

123See infra section VIII(B)(vi) for a more detailed 

discussion of the FIA consolidated form. 

SEFs would, correspondingly, impose a 

lesser burden on parties reporting 

volume threshold accounts on SEFs as 

compared to parties reporting such 

accounts on DCMs. Once the final rules 

have been implemented, if the 

Commission determines that the 50 

contract RTVL is identifying an 

insufficient number of volume threshold 

accounts, the Commission may adjust 

the RTVL for SEF reporting via a 

subsequent rulemaking, to ensure that 

an equivalent segment of both the DCM 

and SEF marketplace is identified. 

B. Part 17 

i. § 17.01(a)—Identification of Special 

Accounts (via 102A) 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 17.01(a) required reporting 

parties to identify special accounts on 

New Form 102A, and referred reporting 

parties directly to the new form for the 

required data points. 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

Efficiency of Forms. FIA and CME 

both commented that the use of 

multiple reporting forms (i.e., the 102A, 

102B and 102S) to capture similar 

information is inefficient and 

unnecessary.108 FIA stated that ‘‘the 

proposed amendments appear to be 

designed to populate three separate data 

bases to accommodate the Commission’s 

existing systems for conducting trade 

practice and market surveillance, 

thereby perpetuating an inefficient 

system.’’ 109 As an example of this 

inefficiency, FIA noted that ‘‘the 

proposed amendments would require 

reporting firms to provide contact 

information for each of Form 102A, 

Form 102B and Form 102S.’’ 110 FIA 

stated that ‘‘managing three separate 

forms for the same customer will create 

unnecessary work and be more 

challenging to keep current.’’ 111 CME 

regarded the 102 reporting as 

duplicative and inefficient because it 

‘‘requires a different Form 102 

depending on the type of trigger.’’ 112

In order to eliminate redundant 

requests on the forms for contact 

information, FIA suggested creating a 

‘‘Reporting Contact Reference 

Database,’’ where contact information 

would be stored once for each special 

account number.113 ‘‘This would ensure 

that contact information is stored and 

maintained as a single record, eliminate 

redundancy and improve the quality of 

information in the ownership and 

control reporting process.’’ 114 More 

generally, CME recommended that ‘‘the 

Commission’s systems can and should 

use a common set of reference data so 

that a previously identified account 

does not need to be re-reported based 

upon a different trigger.’’ 115

Discussion of Final Rule 

Efficiency of Forms. In response to 

comments regarding the efficiency of 

the electronic submission process, the 

Commission is creating a contact 

reference database so that respondents 

will not need to enter contact 

information each time they manually 

complete a 102A, 102B or 102S through 

the web portal. For example, the 

respondent would enter the account 

number for the applicable form, and the 

Web portal page would automatically 

populate the contact information for 

that account number which the 

respondent had most recently provided. 

The Commission expects that this 

solution may be particularly helpful to 

small entities, which are likely to 

manually complete forms through the 

web portal. Larger firms, by contrast, are 

more likely to completely automate the 

process.116

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

Burden of Collecting Information for 

Certain Fields. CME recommended that 

the data fields collected on any 

automated form should be limited to 

those records that an FCM obtains in its 

regular onboarding processes.117 CME 

commented that if the Commission 

requires the inclusion of certain data 

points that are not currently collected, 

‘‘FCMs will need to revise their 

onboarding procedures to obtain that 

data for every account so that it can be 

recorded in a system and eventually be 

extracted for the automated reports, 

which would be, among other things, 

incredibly costly.’’ 118 FIA 

recommended that data points that are 

not currently collected by FCMs be 

removed from the forms. Specifically, 

FIA recommended removing the 

requirement to provide a customer or 

account controller’s NFA identification 

number, because FCMs generally do not 

request or record this information.119

FIA also recommended that certain 

ownership and control fields be 

removed, because FCMs do not collect 

this information. On a related topic, FIA 

recommended that the requirement to 

list the customer or account controller’s 

Web site be removed, because Web site 

addresses are subject to change and 

FCMs would have no ability to monitor 

for such changes and update their 

records.120

FIA proposed that the three sections 

of the proposed 102 be consolidated 

into a single Form 102, a draft of which 

is attached to the FIA comment letter 

(the ‘‘FIA consolidated form’’).121 CME 

expressed support for the FIA 

consolidated form.122 The FIA 

consolidated form does not include 

fields that FIA indicated are currently 

unavailable and would be burdensome 

to collect and/or maintain, such as the 

customer or account controller’s NFA ID 

and Web site address. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

Burden of Collecting Information for 

Certain Fields. The Commission 

declines to accept the proposal to create 

a single, consolidated Form 102 based 

on the FIA consolidated form. The FIA 

consolidated form is missing a number 

of key data fields, the absence of which 

would undermine the goals of the 

Commission’s data collection effort.123

For example, the FIA consolidated form 

does not require respondents to state the 

reporting trigger. Instead, the directions 

to the FIA consolidated form state that, 

‘‘This form must be completed if an 

account exceeds the reportable levels on 

special accounts, volume threshold 

accounts or consolidated accounts.’’ The 

form does not clarify whether 

respondents are reporting a special 

account, volume threshold account, or 

consolidated account that has reached a 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69194 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

124CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 5. 

125 Id. 

126 Id. 

127 Id. 

128 Id. 

129See supra section V(A)(i) regarding the 

requirement on New Form 102A to report special 

accounts solely on the basis of ownership. 

130CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 8. CL–2012– 

CME supra note 55 at 3. 

131CL–2012–ICE supra note 55 at 6. 132See supra section V(D) and infra section IX. 

reportable level. Without knowing the 

reporting trigger for the form (e.g., 

whether the reporting party had reached 

a reportable position or reportable 

volume level), the Commission would 

be unable to efficiently and accurately 

categorize the trading accounts reported 

on the form, and utilize this account 

information for surveillance or other 

related purposes. 

However, the Commission is 

accommodating FIA’s comments in a 

more limited fashion, by clarifying in 

the instructions to the new forms that 

the NFA ID and Web site (the two 

examples of problematic fields cited by 

FIA) are only required to be reported to 

the extent the respondent has this 

information available in its records. 

There is no affirmative obligation for 

respondents to poll customers or other 

parties for the NFA ID and Web site if 

this information has not been previously 

collected. 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

Identification of Special Account 

Owners. FIA noted that the current 

Form 102 requires that a special account 

be identified only by account controller 

(who may also be the account owner).124

The new Form 102A requires that both 

the owner and controller of a special 

account be identified, if the account is 

reportable due to both ownership and 

control of a reportable position. FIA 

commented that ‘‘if an account is 

identified by owner or controller, the 

FCM may be required to file two Form 

102s for the same account.’’ 125 FIA also 

commented that ownership information 

may be difficult for FCMs to provide, 

because FCMs ‘‘currently collect only 

limited information on certain indirect 

owners of an account, e.g., fund 

participants that have a 10 percent or 

greater ownership interest, when the 

account is opened. This information is 

not updated.’’ 126 Finally, FIA 

commented that ‘‘owner’’ is not defined 

for purposes of Form 102.127 FIA 

recommended ‘‘removing the proposed 

requirement that special accounts be 

identified only by account owner.’’ 128

Discussion of Final Rule 

Identification of Special Account 

Owners. The Commission declines to 

modify the reporting forms in response 

to comments regarding the 

identification of account owners. The 

Commission notes that FIA’s comment 

that FCMs may be required to file two 

Form 102s for the same account appears 

to be based upon a misunderstanding of 

the New Form 102 filing procedure. 

Regardless of whether a Form 102A is 

filed as a result of ownership of a 

reportable position, control of a 

reportable position, or both ownership 

and control of a reportable position,129

the form would be filed only once in 

response to each reporting trigger, by 

means of an electronic submission 

through a secure FTP data feed or 

through the Commission’s secure Web 

site portal. 

As discussed above, FIA commented 

on the difficulty of collecting 

information regarding the direct owners 

of an account. However, the 

Commission notes that New Form 102 is 

identical to current Form 102 in that it 

requires respondents to determine 

which party directly owns a special 

account. The New Form 102 is not more 

burdensome in this regard. As a result, 

the Commission is not, pursuant to 

these final rules, requiring respondents 

to change their current practices with 

respect to the manner in which they 

identify owners for purposes of 102 

reporting. 

Finally, FIA discussed the difficulty 

of maintaining accurate information 

regarding the indirect owners of an 

account. The Commission notes that the 

New Form 102 requests information 

regarding only the direct owners of 

trading accounts, not the indirect 

owners. 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

Sharing of Information With 

Regulatory and Self-Regulatory 

Authorities. FIA and CME 

recommended that the information 

collected via the revised forms should 

be made available to ‘‘appropriate 

regulatory and self-regulatory 

authorities’’ (FIA) and ‘‘relevant SROs’’ 

(CME).130 Furthermore, ICE 

recommended that the Commission 

should ‘‘either provide a feed or 

separate file differentiated by exchange 

code(s) to each DCM containing 

information only for those accounts 

actively trading on the DCM, or permit 

DCMs to access and download the LTR 

[large trader reporting] and OCR data 

specific to the DCM.’’ 131

Discussion of Final Rule 

Sharing of Information With 

Regulatory and Self-Regulatory 

Authorities. The Commission is not 

modifying the final rules to provide for 

the sharing of information collected via 

the forms with the parties proposed by 

commenters, such as regulatory and 

self-regulatory authorities. The 

Commission believes that it would be 

costly and overly burdensome for the 

Commission to distribute the collected 

information to external parties; 

furthermore, distribution to external 

parties would not be consistent with the 

scope of the Commission’s 

responsibilities. The Commission notes 

that DCMs and SEFs may also 

implement rules requiring market 

participants to submit ownership and 

control information directly to them, if 

DCMs and SEFs determine that such 

reporting would be beneficial. 

ii. § 17.01(b)—Identification of Volume 

Threshold Accounts (via 102B) 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 17.01(b) subjects volume 

threshold accounts to an account 

identification regime comparable to the 

position-based regime already existing 

for special accounts. Proposed § 17.01(b) 

specifically requires clearing firms to 

identify volume threshold accounts on 

New Form 102B. 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

See the discussion of § 17.01(a) above, 

which describes comments received 

regarding the identification of special 

accounts and volume threshold 

accounts on Forms 102A and 102B, 

respectively. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

The Commission is adopting 

proposed § 17.01(b) without 

modification. 

iii. § 17.01(c)—Identification of 

Omnibus Accounts and Sub-Accounts 

(via 71) 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 17.01(c) subjected 

omnibus accounts to their own volumebased account identification regime.132

The proposed rule required the 

originator of an omnibus volume 

threshold account (or the originator of 

an omnibus reportable sub-account 

within such account) to file New Form 

71 (‘‘Identification of Omnibus 

Accounts and Sub-Accounts’’) upon 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69195 

133The Commission’s special call authority with 

respect to special accounts is currently found in 

§ 17.02(b)(1), which the Commission will now 

strike, as explained below. 

134 17 CFR 17.02(b). 

135CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 7. 

136 Id. 

137 Id. 

138CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 3. 

139CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 7. 

140CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 7–8. 

141Under the NPRM and these final rules, 

clearing members may stop providing change and 

refresh updates on Form 102B for any volume 

threshold account upon notifying the Commission 

or its designee that the volume threshold account 

executed no trades in any product in the past six 

months on the reporting market at which the 

volume threshold account reached the reportable 

trading volume level. See § 17.01(c)(3) and (4) in 

section IX, infra. 

special call by the Commission or its 

designee. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to the proposed rule, and the 

Commission is adopting proposed 

§ 17.01(c) without modification. 

iv. § 17.01(d)—Exclusively Self-Cleared 

Contracts 

NPRM Proposal 

Proposed § 17.01(d) required 

reporting markets that list exclusively 

self-cleared contracts to file § 17.01(a) 

and § 17.01(b) reports as if they were 

clearing members. Proposed § 17.01(d) 

reflects the requirements of current 

§ 17.01(h) with respect to special 

accounts, but also incorporates the new 

volume threshold accounts added by 

these final rules. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to the proposed rule, and the 

Commission is adopting proposed 

§ 17.01(d) without modification. 

v. § 17.01(e)—Identification of Omnibus 

Accounts and Sub-Accounts 

NPRM Proposal 

The Commission proposed to 

introduce a new § 17.01(e) that would 

extend the Commission’s special call 

authority—currently applicable to 

special accounts—to also include 

volume threshold accounts, omnibus 

volume threshold accounts and 

reportable sub-accounts.133 Responses 

to special calls would be due within 24 

hours. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to the proposed rule, and the 

Commission is adopting proposed 

§ 17.01(e) without modification. 

vi. § 17.02(b)—Section 17.01(a) Reports 

(via 102A) 

NPRM Proposal 

Section 17.02(b) 134 currently 

addresses the form, manner, and 

completion date requirements of current 

102 filings. Specifically, § 17.02(b)(1) 

requires reporting parties to submit 

current Form 102 upon special call by 

the Commission; in the absence of a 

special call, § 17.02(b)(2) requires 

reporting parties to submit current Form 

102 within three business days of the 

first day that a special account is 

reported to the Commission. The 

Commission proposed to replace both 

provisions as described below. 

First, as explained above, the 

Commission proposed to strike current 

§ 17.02(b)(1) and to shift its special call 

requirements to proposed § 17.01(e). 

Second, the Commission proposed to 

strike current § 17.02(b)(2) and to 

replace its Form 102 submission 

requirements with a new § 17.02(b)(1)– 

(4) to address the form and manner of 

New Form 102A filings for special 

accounts. Proposed § 17.02(b)(1) 

directed reporting parties to the 

Commission’s Web site (www.cftc.gov) 

for detailed instructions on the Form 

102A filing process. Proposed 

§ 17.02(b)(2)–(4) addressed the 

completion date requirements of initial 

Form 102A submissions, 102A change 

updates, and 102A refresh updates, 

respectively. 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

§ 17.02(b)(2)–(3) (new 102A filings 

and change 102A filings). Proposed 

§ 17.02(b)(2)–(3) required firms to file a 

new Form 102A by 9:00 a.m. ET the 

following business day after a special 

account becomes reportable; similarly, 

changes to a previously submitted Form 

102A were required to be reported by 

9:00 a.m. ET the following business day. 

FIA stated that obtaining all the 

information required by Form 102A 

(including, for example, the trading 

accounts that comprise a special 

account) can take several days.135 As a 

result, FIA recommended that the 

deadline for filing a complete Form 

102A or any change update be modified 

to five business days from the date the 

account or change becomes 

reportable.136

§ 17.02(b)(4) (refresh 102A filings). 

Proposed § 17.02(b)(4) required firms to 

resubmit the Form 102A every six 

months for each special account, in 

order to ensure that the information 

reported is frequently updated. Refresh 

updates were also required under this 

proposed rule on such later date (i.e., 

later than six months) specified by the 

Commission or its designee. FIA 

commented that this timeframe ‘‘will 

impose significant operational and 

financial burden on reporting firms,’’ 

and recommended that refresh updates 

instead be required every two years.137

CME also recommended that refresh 

updates be required every two years.138

§ 17.02(b)(3)–(4) (when 102A accounts 

are no longer reportable). Proposed 

§ 17.02(b)(3)–(4) provided that an FCM 

may stop reporting a change update or 

refresh update with respect to a special 

account upon notifying the Commission 

or its designee that the account in 

question is no longer reportable. FIA 

stated that ‘‘the Commission provides 

no guidance on when an FCM may 

reasonably conclude that an account is 

no longer reportable. A customer may 

fall below and rise above the reportable 

position level frequently during the 

course of its relationship with an 

FCM.’’ 139 FIA therefore recommended 

that the Commission revise the 

proposed rule to provide that an FCM 

may determine that an account is no 

longer reportable with respect to a 

particular product if the account 

remains below the reporting level for a 

fixed period of time, such as 180 days/ 

six months.140 FIA’s six-month proposal 

tracks the sunset provision in the NPRM 

for the reporting of change and refresh 

updates on Form 102B.141

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to proposed § 17.02(b)(1), and 

the Commission is adopting this 

proposed rule without modification. In 

light of the comments received, the 

Commission is making the following 

modifications to § 17.02(b)(2)–(4) and to 

new Form 102A: 

§ 17.02(b)(2)–(3) (new 102A filings 

and change 102A filings). New Form 

102A requests information regarding 

both special accounts and the trading 

accounts that comprise a special 

account. The Commission is modifying 

the reporting deadline for new and 

changed Form 102A filings, specifically 

with respect to the reporting of nonomnibus trading accounts that comprise 

a special account. Respondents are 

required to provide the names of such 

trading account owners and controllers 

by 9:00 a.m. the following business day. 

However, respondents are required to 

provide the other contact details with 

respect to such trading account owners 

and controllers (address, telephone 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69196 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

142Specifically, the information marked as 

‘Follow-On Information’ in questions 10(ii) and (iii) 

on New Form 102A may be provided within three 

business days. All other required fields on New 

Form 102A must be completed by 9:00 a.m. the 

following business day. See New Form 102A in the 

Appendix to these final rules for more information. 

The Commission is adopting a reporting 

requirement of three business days as an acceptable 

intermediate point between one business day (as 

proposed in the NPRM) and five business days (as 

requested by FIA, per the preceding summary of 

comments). The three business day requirement is 

therefore less burdensome than the one business 

day requirement proposed in the NPRM. Based on 

the experience of the Commission’s surveillance 

group, the Commission believes that the three 

business day requirement, while longer than the 

one day proposal in the NPRM, will nonetheless 

enable the Commission to maintain current 

databases, including up-to-date contact information 

that will allow the Commission to contact market 

participants quickly in the event of significant 

market events that occur close to the time of 

reporting. By contrast, based on the experience of 

the Commission’s surveillance group, the 

Commission believes that a five business day 

reporting deadline is too long to perform timely 

market surveillance, and maintain databases that 

are sufficiently accurate and current to be useful. 

143The Commission is adopting a refresh 

reporting requirement of once per year as an 

acceptable intermediate point between once each 

six months (as proposed in the NPRM) and once 

every two years (as requested by FIA and CME, per 

the preceding summary of comments). The annual 

refresh requirement is therefore less burdensome 

than the six month requirement proposed in the 

NPRM. Based on the experience of the 

Commission’s surveillance group, the Commission 

believes that the annual refresh requirement, while 

longer than the six month requirement proposed in 

the NPRM, will nonetheless enable the Commission 

to maintain current databases, including up-to-date 

contact information that will allow the Commission 

to contact market participants quickly in the event 

of significant market events. By contrast, based on 

the experience of the Commission’s surveillance 

group, the Commission believes that a two year 

refresh deadline is too long to perform timely 

market surveillance and maintain databases that are 

sufficiently accurate and current to be useful. 

144CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 7. 

145CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 3. 

146Specifically, the information marked as 

‘Follow-On Information’ in questions 5 and 6 on 

New Form 102B may be provided within three 

business days. All other required fields on New 

Form 102B must be completed by 9:00 a.m. the 

following business day. See New Form 102B in the 

Appendix to these final rules for more information. 

number, etc.) within three business 

days.142

In addition, the final rules will reduce 

the burden on reporting parties by 

clarifying that all Form 102 reporting 

deadlines in the final rules are eastern 

time for information concerning markets 

located in that time zone, and central 

time for information concerning all 

other markets. 

§ 17.02(b)(4) (refresh 102A filings). 

Refresh filings for special accounts will 

be required once per year, as opposed to 

once each six months (as proposed in 

the NPRM).143 In light of this change, 

the final rules provide that refresh 

updates are required on such other date 

specified by the Commission or its 

designee that is equal to or greater than 

six months, which is consistent with the 

alternative deadline language in 

proposed §§ 17.02 and 20.5. 

§ 17.02(b)(3)–(4) (when 102A special 

accounts are no longer reportable). In 

response to FIA’s comment, pursuant to 

these final rules, reporting parties may 

stop providing Form 102A change 

updates and refresh updates for a 

special account if the account is no 

longer reportable as a special account 

and has not been reportable as a special 

account for the past six months. This 

change is intended to substantively 

replicate § 17.02(c)(3)–(4), which 

provide that clearing members may stop 

providing Form 102B change updates 

and refresh updates, respectively, upon 

notifying the Commission or its 

designee that the relevant volume 

threshold account executed no trades in 

any product in the past six months on 

the reporting market at which the 

volume threshold account reached the 

reportable trading volume level. 

Sections 17.02(b)(3) and (4) have also 

been modified to enable reporting 

parties to notify the Commission ‘‘or its 

designee’’ that an account is no longer 

reportable as a special account, based on 

the criteria described in these sections. 

vii. § 17.02(c)—Section 17.01(b) Reports 

(via 102B) 

NPRM Proposal 

To address New Form 102B filings for 

volume threshold accounts, the 

Commission proposed to codify a new 

§ 17.02(c). Proposed § 17.02(c) followed 

a structure similar to that of proposed 

§ 17.02(b), with § 17.02(c)(1) directing 

reporting parties to www.cftc.gov for 

detailed instructions on the Form 102B 

filing process, and proposed 

§ 17.02(c)(2)–(4) addressing the timing 

of initial Form 102B filings, 102B 

change updates, and 102B refresh 

updates, respectively. 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

§ 17.02(c)(2)–(3) (new 102B filings 

and change 102B filings). Proposed 

§ 17.02(c)(2)–(3) required firms to file a 

new Form 102B by 9:00 a.m. ET the 

following business day after the account 

becomes a volume threshold account; 

similarly, changes to a previously 

submitted Form 102B were required to 

be reported by 9:00 a.m. ET the 

following business day. See the 

discussion above of the comments 

received regarding Form 102A filings 

required by § 17.02(b)(2)–(3), which are 

also relevant to the new 102B and 

change 102B reporting obligations. 

§ 17.02(c)(4) (refresh 102B filings). 

Proposed § 17.02(c)(4) required firms to 

resubmit the Form 102B every six 

months for each volume threshold 

account, in order to ensure that the 

information reported is frequently 

updated. Refresh updates were also 

required under this proposed rule on 

such later date (i.e., later than six 

months) specified by the Commission or 

its designee. As noted above, FIA 

commented that this timeframe ‘‘will 

impose significant operational and 

financial burden on reporting firms,’’ 

and recommended that refresh updates 

instead be required every two years.144

CME also recommended that refresh 

updates be required every two years.145

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to proposed § 17.02(c)(1), and 

the Commission is adopting this 

proposed rule without modification. In 

light of the comments received, the 

Commission is making the following 

modifications to § 17.02(c)(2)–(4) and to 

new Form 102B: 

§ 17.02(c)(2)–(3) (new 102B filings 

and change 102B filings). The 

Commission is modifying the reporting 

deadline for new and changed Form 

102B filings, specifically with respect to 

the reporting of non-omnibus volume 

threshold accounts. Respondents are 

required to provide the names of nonomnibus volume threshold account 

owners and controllers reported on 

102B by 9:00 a.m. the following 

business day. Respondents are required 

to provide the other contact details 

reported on 102B with respect to such 

parties (i.e., the address, telephone 

number, etc. of non-omnibus volume 

threshold account owners and 

controllers) within three business 

days.146 Notwithstanding this change to 

the reporting deadline with respect to 

non-omnibus volume threshold 

accounts, these final rules do not 

modify the reporting deadline for 

omnibus account information (question 

4 on New Form 102B). Such omnibus 

account information must be reported 

by 9:00 a.m. the following business day. 

§ 17.02(c)(4) (refresh 102B filings). 

Refresh filings for volume threshold 

accounts will be required once per year, 

as opposed to once each six months (as 

proposed in the NPRM). In light of this 

change, the final rules provide that 

refresh updates are required on such 

other date specified by the Commission 

or its designee that is equal to or greater 

than six months, which is consistent 

with the alternative deadline language 

in proposed §§ 17.02 and 20.5. 

Sections 17.02(c)(3) and (4) have also 

been modified to enable reporting 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69197 

147 17 CFR 17.03(a). 

148 17 CFR 17.03(b). 

149 17 CFR 17.01. 

150 17 CFR 17.01(g). 

151 17 CFR 17.03(c). 

152 17 CFR 17.01(f). 

153 17 CFR 17.03(d) and 17.00(g). 

154 17 CFR 18.04(a)–(c). 

155CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 8. CL–2012– 

Joint Electric Association supra note 55 at 3–4. 156CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 8. 157CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 5. 158 Id. 

159CL–2012–Joint Electric Association supra note 

55 at 3. 

parties to notify the Commission ‘‘or its 

designee’’ that an account is no longer 

reportable as a volume threshold 

account, based on the criteria described 

in these sections. 

viii. § 17.03(a)–(g)—Delegation of 

Authority to the Director of the Office of 

Data and Technology or the Director of 

the Division of Market Oversight 

NPRM Proposal 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed a number of new and revised 

provisions relating to the delegation of 

authority to solicit information on the 

OCR reporting forms. First, the 

Commission proposed to codify a new 

§ 17.03(e) that provided the Director of 

ODT with delegated authority to make 

special calls to solicit information from 

omnibus volume threshold account 

originators and omnibus reportable subaccount originators on New Form 71. 

The Commission also proposed to 

codify (a) a new § 17.03(f) that provided 

the Director of DMO with delegated 

authority to determine the date on 

which each FCM, clearing member, or 

foreign broker shall update or otherwise 

resubmit every Form 102 that it has 

submitted to the Commission for each of 

its special accounts and (b) a new 

§ 17.03(g) that provided the Director of 

DMO with delegated authority to 

determine the date on which each 

clearing member shall update or 

otherwise resubmit every Form 102 that 

it has submitted to the Commission for 

each of its volume threshold accounts. 

Second, the Commission proposed to 

revise current § 17.03(a), which grants 

the Director of DMO the authority to 

determine whether FCMs, clearing 

members and foreign brokers can report 

certain information on series ‘01 forms, 

or can use some other format upon a 

determination that such person is 

unable to report the information using 

the standard transmission format.147

More specifically, the NPRM revised 

§ 17.03(a) to grant such authority to the 

Director of ODT, rather than the Director 

of DMO. 

Third, the Commission proposed to 

revise current § 17.03(b), which grants 

the Director of DMO the authority to 

approve the late submission of position 

reports and Form 102.148 The NPRM 

revised § 17.03(b) to grant such 

authority to the Director of ODT, rather 

than the Director of DMO. The NPRM 

further revised § 17.03(b) to: (i) Replace 

the provision’s cross-reference to 

§ 17.01,149 which the Commission 

proposed to strike, with cross-references 

to proposed §§ 17.01(a) and 17.01(b); 

and (ii) eliminate the provision’s crossreference to current § 17.01(g),150 which 

the Commission also proposed to strike. 

Fourth, the Commission proposed to 

revise current § 17.03(c), which grants 

the Director of DMO the authority to 

permit reporting parties filing Form 102 

to authenticate it through a means other 

than signing the form.151 The NPRM 

revised § 17.03(c) to grant such 

authority to the Director of ODT, rather 

than the Director of DMO. The NPRM 

further revised § 17.03(c) to replace the 

provision’s current cross-reference to 

§ 17.01(f),152 which the Commission 

proposed to strike, with a crossreference to proposed § 17.01, and to 

address New Form 71. 

Finally, the Commission proposed to 

revise current § 17.03(d), which grants 

the Director of DMO the authority to 

approve a format and coding structure 

other than that set forth in § 17.00(g).153

The NPRM revised § 17.03(d) to grant 

such authority to the Director of ODT, 

rather than the Director of DMO. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to the proposed rules, and 

the Commission is adopting proposed 

§ 17.03(a)–(g) without modification. 

C. Part 18 

i. § 18.04—Statement of Reporting 

Trader 

NPRM Proposal 

Current § 18.04 (the ‘‘Statement of 

Reporting Trader’’) requires every trader 

who holds or controls a reportable 

position to file a Form 40 upon special 

call by the Commission or its designee 

and to provide on Form 40 information 

required by current § 18.04(a)–(c).154 In 

the NPRM, the Commission proposed to 

amend § 18.04 by striking all of its 

current provisions and replacing them 

as described below. 

First, and consistent with its approach 

to New Form 102, the Commission 

proposed to transition current 

§ 18.04(a)–(c)’s detailed form content 

requirements from the regulatory text to 

New Form 40. Second, the Commission 

proposed to codify a new § 18.04(a) that, 

as with current § 18.04, would require 

every trader who holds or controls a 

reportable position to file a New Form 

40 upon special call by the Commission 

or its designee. Finally, to accommodate 

volume threshold accounts and 

reportable sub-accounts identified on 

New Forms 102 and 71, the Commission 

proposed to codify a new § 18.04(b) that 

would require volume threshold 

account controllers, persons who own a 

volume threshold account, reportable 

sub-account controllers, and persons 

who own a reportable sub-account to 

file New Form 40 upon special call by 

the Commission or its designee. 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

FIA and Joint Electric Association 

stated that the Form 40 (and the 

corresponding Form 40S) is overly 

complicated and extensive without a 

justified regulatory need.155 The forms 

request information regarding the 

ownership structure of the reporting 

trader, including all direct and indirect 

parents and subsidiaries and 

information regarding their trading 

activities. FIA commented that ‘‘for 

some reporting traders, the number of 

parents and subsidiaries could number 

in the hundreds. Moreover, the 

reporting trader may not know, and may 

not be permitted to know, if the person 

in which the reporting trader has a 10 

percent or greater interest engages in 

derivatives trading.’’ 156 FIA also noted 

that the Form 40 requires the reporting 

of persons that have a 10 percent or 

greater ownership interest in the 

reporting trader.157 FIA viewed the 10 

percent threshold as inconsistent with 

the precedent established by 

Commission Rule 45.6(a), which 

establishes a control definition based in 

part upon ‘‘the right to vote 25 percent 

or more of a class of voting interest.’’ 158

Joint Electric Association expressed 

concern that its members, which often 

enter into energy commodity swaps to 

hedge commercial risks, will not 

understand the terminology and 

purpose of the Form 40S.159 They noted 

that Association members would, for the 

most part, be unlikely to have received 

an old Form 40. Joint Electric 

Association commented that ‘‘most of 

the words in the form were not revised 

to reflect the different market structure 

whereby swap counterparties transact 

directly with registered ‘swap dealers’ 

. . . rather than through financial 

intermediaries or market professionals 

as is the case in the futures industry. As 

a result, commercial market participants 

receiving the New Form 40, if they have 

never seen old Form 40, have no context 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69198 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

160 Id. 

161CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 5. 

162CL–2012–Joint Electric Association supra note 

55 at 4–5. 

163CL–2012–Joint Electric Association supra note 

55 at 5. 

164CL–2012–Joint Electric Association supra note 

55 at 6. 

165CL–2012–Joint Electric Association supra note 

55 at 7. 

166 Id. 

167See Commission, Further Definition of ‘‘Swap 

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

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

Participant’’ and ‘‘Eligible Swap Participant’’, 77 FR 

30596 (May 23, 2012). 

168The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that 

agencies consider whether the rules they propose 

will have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities and, if so, 

provide a regulatory flexibility analysis regarding 

the impact. See NPRM supra note 10 at 43990 and 

section VIII(C) infra. 

169See supra the discussion of the RTVL for 

volume-based reporting in section VII(xiv). As 

noted above, the RTVL has been calibrated to yield 

information with respect to those trading accounts 

that are responsible for a substantial percentage of 

trading volume, while minimizing the proposed 

regulations’ impact on low-volume accounts whose 

trading activity does not warrant inclusion in the 

reporting regime. 170 17 CFR 18.05. 

within which to understand the new 

Form or their responsibilities to the 

Commission.’’ 160

FIA recommended that, instead of 

requiring identification of indirect 

owners that have an ownership interest 

of 10 percent or more, ‘‘Form 40 be 

revised to require identification of 

indirect owners that have an ownership 

interest of 25 percent or more. Setting 

different indirect ownership levels for 

related purposes imposes an 

unnecessary operational burden on 

firms that must develop systems and 

procedures to assure compliance with 

these reporting requirements.’’ 161

Joint Electric Association 

recommended that various terms in the 

Form 40S (such as ‘‘reportable 

position,’’ ‘‘swap dealer’’ and ‘‘major 

swap participant’’) should be clarified 

and made more understandable to a 

commercial end user of energy 

commodity swaps.162 Joint Electric 

Association made several other 

recommendations to simplify the form 

and reduce the reporting burden on 

small entities, including the following: 

Provide a ‘‘regulatory reporting lite’’ 

version of the form, which would 

excuse commercial end users from 

completing the majority of the form; 163

permit small entities to deliver the form 

by paper, facsimile or email, rather than 

make electronic filing through a web 

portal; 164 excuse small entities from any 

requirement to periodically update the 

form in response to a subsequent special 

call by the Commission; 165 and 

establish procedures to limit the 

application of the special call authority 

to small entities.166

Discussion of Final Rule 

The Commission is adopting 

proposed § 18.04 without modifications. 

The current Form 40 asks whether 

any person has a financial interest of 10 

percent or more in the reporting trader. 

The Commission believes that it is 

appropriate to maintain the 10 percent 

threshold for reporting based on 

ownership that appears in current Form 

40. The 10 percent threshold in current 

Form 40 allows the Commission to 

receive reporting on a greater number of 

ownership relationships than a 25 

percent threshold would require, 

thereby benefiting the Commission’s 

surveillance capabilities. The 10 percent 

threshold is also consistent with other 

Commission regulations, such as the 

aggregation requirements (based on 10 

percent or greater ownership or equity 

interest) in § 150.4(b)–(c). The 

Commission notes that the 25 percent 

reporting threshold recommended by 

FIA reflects the definition of control for 

purposes of assigning legal entity 

identifiers (‘‘LEIs’’) to swap 

counterparties, a regulatory objective 

unrelated to the Form 40’s objective of 

obtaining ownership and control 

information with regard to reporting 

traders. 

The questions added to New Form 40 

will provide the Commission with 

crucial information regarding reporting 

traders’ ownership and control 

relationships and business activities. 

The Commission will utilize this 

information to perform more 

comprehensive oversight and 

surveillance of regulated derivatives 

markets, including by better 

understanding relationships that may 

exist among market participants, and to 

facilitate analysis of potentially 

disruptive or manipulative trading 

activity. The definitions of ‘‘swap 

dealer’’ and ‘‘major swap participant,’’ 

which are the subject of a comment by 

Joint Electric Association, have now 

been finalized.167 In response to Joint 

Electric Association’s other comments, 

the Commission expects New Form 40 

to affect only a small subset of 

respondents that may be ‘‘small 

entities’’ for purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act.168 This is due, in part, 

to the fact that the Commission will 

send New Form 40 on a discretionary 

basis in response to the reporting of an 

account that reaches a minimum 

position or volume threshold. The 

Commission does not expect that small 

entities will typically reach such 

reporting thresholds.169

Finally, the Commission declines to 

accept the proposal by Joint Electric 

Association that respondents retain the 

option to file by paper, facsimile or 

email. The Commission believes that the 

automation of Form 40, and the use of 

auto-population on the web-based Form, 

will result in increased efficiencies for 

the Commission and the majority of 

reporting parties. As noted in section 

VIII(A) below, the Commission expects 

that the majority of reporting parties 

will submit Form 40 via the web-based 

portal, as opposed to via an FTP data 

feed. The auto-population of certain 

data fields on the portal will reduce the 

burden and complexity of the 

submission process. As a result, the 

Commission estimates that the time 

required to update information 

contained in New Form 40 using the 

web-based portal will be de minimis for 

most reporting parties. 

ii. § 18.05—Maintenance of Books and 

Records 

NPRM Proposal 

Current § 18.05 requires traders who 

hold or control reportable positions to 

maintain books and records regarding 

all positions and transactions in the 

commodity in which they have 

reportable positions.170 In addition, 

current § 18.05 requires that the trader 

furnish the Commission with 

information concerning such positions 

upon request. The Commission 

proposed to expand § 18.05 to also 

impose books and records requirements 

upon (a) volume threshold account 

controllers and owners of volume 

threshold accounts reported on New 

Form 102B and (b) reportable subaccount controllers and persons who 

own a reportable sub-account reported 

on New Form 71. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

No comments were received 

pertaining to the proposed rule. As 

noted above, the Commission proposed 

to expand § 18.05 to impose books and 

records requirements on volume 

threshold account controllers and 

owners of volume threshold accounts 

reported on New Form 102B and 

reportable sub-account controllers and 

persons who own a reportable subaccount reported on New Form 71. The 

Commission also notes that the 

definition of reportable trading volume 

encompasses trading on both DCMs and 

SEFs. Accordingly, the Commission is 

adopting § 18.05 as proposed, with the 

clarification that the books and records 

required to be kept by volume threshold 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69199 

171 17 CFR 20.5. 

172 17 CFR 20.5(a)(3). 

173CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 2–3. 

174CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 3. 

175CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 3. 

176The Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC) of 

the Global LEI System (GLEIS) is seeking to modify 

ISO 17442 LEI, the core standard underlying the 

GLEIS, in order to collect certain additional 

information from persons registering to receive an 

LEI. 

177The supplemental fields required on New 

Form 102 include the name, phone number and 

email address of certain contact persons required by 

the reporting forms, among other fields. See the 

footnotes to the reporting forms in the Appendix for 

a detailed list of the information that may be 

omitted from the forms for the reasons described in 

this paragraph. 

account controllers, owners of volume 

threshold accounts, reportable subaccount controllers, and persons who 

own reportable sub-accounts include 

books and records with respect to both 

their futures and swap market activities. 

D. Part 20 

i. § 20.5—Series S Filings 

NPRM Proposal 

As with Forms 102 and 40, the 

Commission proposed to transfer the list 

of data points required in Form 102S 

from the relevant regulatory text (i.e., 

§ 20.5) 171 to the form itself. More 

specifically, the Commission proposed 

to eliminate the data points specified in 

§ 20.5(a)(1), and to revise § 20.5(a)(1) to 

provide that when a counterparty 

consolidated account first becomes 

reportable, the reporting party shall 

submit a 102S filing (‘‘initial 102S 

filing’’). The timing for submitting 

initial 102S filings would continue to be 

subject to current § 20.5(a)(3).172

Finally, the Commission proposed to 

codify new § 20.5(a)(4) and (5) to require 

change and refresh updates for Form 

102S in the same manner as they are 

required for Form 102A. The 

Commission also proposed a 

conforming amendment to § 20.5(a)(2) to 

eliminate the current instructions with 

respect to updating 102S filings. 

Summary of Comments on NPRM 

Proposal 

FIA commented on the utility of Form 

102S, which requires swap dealers and 

clearing members to identify and report 

a swap counterparty or customer 

consolidated account with a reportable 

position. FIA stated that the information 

that will be reported to swap data 

repositories under part 45 would 

provide the Commission with access to 

essentially the same information that 

proposed Form 102S will require.173

FIA commented that ‘‘requiring FCMs, 

and the industry generally, to divert 

critical operational and financial 

resources from building the systems 

necessary to implement the part 45 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to implement this interim 

solution, would impose an unnecessary 

operational burden and cost without a 

significant offsetting benefit.’’ 174 CME 

commented that ‘‘requiring swap 

reporting as part of OCR, to accomplish 

reporting that is already being done 

under part 20- and soon to be 

duplicated under SDR reporting with 

new unique legal entity identifiers- is 

unnecessary and imposes additional 

unjustified costs on the industry.’’ 175

See the discussion of § 17.02(b) above 

for a summary of the comments received 

on change and refresh obligations 

related to the Form 102, which are 

relevant to Form 102S. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

The Commission acknowledges the 

comments of FIA and CME regarding 

the Form 102S. Contrary to commenters’ 

claims, however, SDRs will not, in all 

cases, be able to provide the ownership 

and control information requested on 

102S. For example, the Commission 

anticipates that swap dealers and 

clearing members (the 102S reporting 

parties) will be able to consistently 

provide the contact information for 

owners and controllers of consolidated 

accounts on the 102S, based on the 

records these entities maintain. Part 45 

reporting, by contrast, is based on 

counterparty data. This counterparty 

data may, in some cases, overlap with 

the owners and controllers of 

consolidated accounts reported on 102S. 

However, counterparty data will not, in 

all cases, overlap with 102S reporting 

and provide the ownership and control 

information required by 102S. As a 

result, the Commission cannot rely on 

SDR reporting under part 45 as a 

substitute for 102S. In addition, SDRs 

would not have a proactive obligation to 

send swap account information to the 

Commission; in contrast, 102S places an 

affirmative obligation on respondents to 

provide swap counterparty consolidated 

account information to the Commission. 

Such differences notwithstanding, in 

developing New Form 102, the 

Commission has endeavored to identify 

and eliminate any duplicative reporting 

obligations that may arise from these 

final rules. For example, New Form 102 

requires respondents to provide the 

legal entity identifiers (LEI) and related 

information (i.e., names and addresses) 

of parties reportable on the form. 

However, if such related information 

has previously been reported to a CFTCaccepted provider of LEIs (e.g., the CICI 

Utility), then reporting parties are not 

required to report it again on New Form 

102. This eliminates all duplication 

between New Form 102 and data 

currently reported to an LEI provider. 

Furthermore, in the event the CICI 

Utility or another CFTC-accepted LEI 

provider is modified in the future to 

accept certain supplemental fields 

required on the forms,176 then reporting 

parties will not be required to report 

these supplemental fields on New Form 

102, if the information has previously 

been reported to such an LEI 

provider.177

More generally, staff is considering 

recommending that the Commission 

issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking seeking public input on 

possible revisions to part 45 that could 

increase efficiencies in reporting swap 

data and mitigate the burden on market 

participants. As markets, market 

participants, and trading conventions 

adapt to the swap data recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements under part 

45, staff will review these requirements 

to ensure that they continue to fulfill 

their regulatory objectives in light of the 

evolving swaps marketplace. For the 

reasons discussed above, the 

Commission is implementing 102S 

reporting pursuant to the final rules. 

The Commission is adopting 

proposed § 20.5(a)(1)–(2) without 

modification. In response to comments 

received with respect to § 17.02(b), the 

Commission is making the following 

modifications to proposed § 20.5(a)(4)– 

(5) and to Form 102S: 

§ 20.5(a)(5) (refresh 102S filings). The 

discussion of § 17.02(b) above contains 

a summary of the comments received on 

change and refresh obligations related to 

the Form 102, which are relevant to 

Form 102S. In response to FIA’s 

comments, refresh filings for 

consolidated accounts will be required 

once per year, as opposed to once each 

six months (as proposed in the NPRM). 

In light of this change, the final rules 

provide that refresh updates are 

required on such other date specified by 

the Commission or its designee that is 

equal to or greater than six months, 

which is consistent with the alternative 

deadline language in proposed §§ 17.02 

and 20.5. 

§ 20.5(a)(4)–(5) (when 102S 

consolidated accounts are no longer 

reportable). Reporting parties may stop 

providing Form 102S change updates 

and refresh updates for a consolidated 

account if the account is no longer 

reportable as a consolidated account 

and has not been reportable as a 

consolidated account for the past six 

months. This change is intended to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69200 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

178 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

179 7 U.S.C. 12(a)(1). 

180 17 CFR 17.01, 18.04 and 18.05. 

181 17 CFR 20.5. 

182 17 CFR 15.00(r). 

183See supra sections III(A) and V(A) for a 

description of current Form 102 and a comparison 

to New Form 102A. 

184See supra section V(B) for a description of 

New Form 102B. 

185See supra section V(D) for a description of 

New Form 71. 

186See supra sections III(A) and V(E) for a 

description of current Form 40 and a comparison 

to New Form 40. 

187 ‘‘Reporting entity,’’ ‘‘counterparty,’’ and 

‘‘consolidated account’’ are each defined in § 20.1 

of the Commission’s regulations. See supra sections 

III(B) and V(C) for a description of current Form 

102S and a comparison to New Form 102S. 

188 17 CFR 20.5(b) and 20.6. See supra sections 

III(B) and V(E) for a description of current Form 40S 

and a comparison to New Form 40S. 

substantively replicate § 17.02(c)(3)–(4), 

which provide that clearing members 

may stop providing Form 102B change 

updates and refresh updates, 

respectively, upon notifying the 

Commission or its designee that the 

relevant volume threshold account 

executed no trades in any product in the 

past six months on the reporting market 

at which the volume threshold account 

reached the reportable trading volume 

level. 

Sections 20.5(a)(4) and (5) have also 

been modified to enable reporting 

parties to notify the Commission ‘‘or its 

designee’’ that an account is no longer 

reportable as a consolidated account, 

based on the criteria described in these 

sections. 

VIII. Related Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

i. Overview 

The Paperwork Reduction Act 

(‘‘PRA’’) 178 imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies in 

connection with their conducting or 

sponsoring any collection of 

information as defined by 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. This rulemaking will result in 

new collection of information 

requirements within the meaning of the 

PRA. The Commission has therefore 

submitted this proposal to the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for 

review in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 

3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. The title for 

this collection of information is ‘‘Trader 

and Account Identification Reports’’ 

(OMB control number 3038–0103). 

Responses to this collection of 

information will be mandatory. The 

Commission will protect proprietary 

information consistent with the 

Freedom of Information Act and 17 CFR 

part 145, ‘‘Commission Records and 

Information.’’ In addition, section 

8(a)(1) of the Act strictly prohibits the 

Commission, unless specifically 

authorized by the Act, from making 

public ‘‘data and information that 

would separately disclose the business 

transactions or market positions of any 

person and trade secrets or names of 

customers.’’ 179 The Commission is also 

required to protect certain information 

contained in a government system of 

records according to the Privacy Act of 

1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

The rulemaking will create new 

information collection requirements via 

§§ 17.01, 18.04, 18.05, and 20.5. 

Currently, OMB control number 3038– 

0009 covers, among other things, the 

collection requirements arising from 

current §§ 17.01, 18.04, and 18.05.180

Also, OMB control number 3038–0095 

covers, among other things, the 

collection requirements arising from 

current § 20.5.181 Accordingly, the 

Commission is requesting a new OMB 

control number for the purpose of 

consolidating the collections into a 

common control number. Collection 

requirements arising from §§ 17.01, 

18.04, 18.05, and 20.5 will be covered 

by 3038–0103. Once the collections 

covered by control number 3038–0103 

become operational, OMB control 

number 3038–0009 will no longer cover 

collection requirements arising from 

§§ 17.01, 18.04, and 18.05. In addition, 

OMB control number 3038–0095 will no 

longer cover collection requirements 

arising from § 20.5. The remaining 

collection requirements covered by 

3038–0009 and 3038–0095 will not be 

affected. 

ii. Information To Be Provided 

Section 17.01, as revised by this 

rulemaking, will result in the collection 

of information regarding the following 

types of accounts: (a) Special accounts 

(as defined in current § 15.00(r)); 182 and 

(b) volume threshold accounts, omnibus 

volume threshold accounts, and 

omnibus reportable sub-accounts (each 

as defined in § 15.00). Specifically, 

§ 17.01 will provide for the filing of 

New Form 102A, New Form 102B and 

New Form 71, as follows: 

1. pursuant to § 17.01(a), FCMs, 

clearing members, and foreign brokers 

will identify new special accounts to the 

Commission on New Form 102A; 183

2. pursuant to § 17.01(b), clearing 

members will identify volume threshold 

accounts to the Commission on New 

Form 102B; 184 and 

3. pursuant to § 17.01(c), omnibus 

volume threshold account originators 

and omnibus reportable sub-account 

originators will identify reportable subaccounts to the Commission on New 

Form 71 when requested via a special 

call by the Commission or its 

designee.185

Additional reporting requirements 

will arise from § 18.04, which will result 

in the collection of information from 

and regarding traders who own, hold, or 

control reportable positions; volume 

threshold account controllers; persons 

who own volume threshold accounts; 

reportable sub-account controllers; and 

persons who own reportable subaccounts. Specifically, § 18.04 will 

provide for the filing of New Form 40, 

as follows: 

1. pursuant to § 18.04(a), a trader who 

owns, holds, or controls a reportable 

position will file New Form 40, when 

requested via a special call by the 

Commission or its designee; and 

2. pursuant to § 18.04(b), a volume 

threshold account controller, person 

who owns a volume threshold account, 

reportable sub-account controller, and 

person who owns a reportable subaccount will file New Form 40 when 

requested via a special call by the 

Commission or its designee.186

Reporting requirements will also arise 

from § 20.5(a), which will require all 

reporting entities to submit New Form 

102S for swap counterparty or customer 

consolidated accounts with reportable 

positions.187 In addition, current 

§ 20.5(b) requires every person subject 

to books or records under current § 20.6 

to complete a 40S filing after a special 

call upon such person by the 

Commission.188 However, current 

§ 20.5(b) also provides that a 40S filing 

shall consist of the submission of Form 

40. As discussed above, the final rules 

provide for the creation of New Form 

40, which will expand and replace 

current Form 40. Accordingly, the final 

rules will require additional information 

from 40S filers. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69201 

189 17 CFR 18.05. 

190The estimated total annual industry cost 

includes annual reporting and recordkeeping costs, 

as well as annualized start-up costs and ongoing 

operating and maintenance costs. The estimated 

total costs for each form included in this chart are 

subject to the limitations described in section 

VIII(B), below. 

191 17 CFR 18.04(a). 

192 17 CFR 18.04(b). 

193 In this example, the Commission expects that 

reporting parties making a small number of filings 

would choose to submit via the web-based portal, 

because web submission would be the most costeffective submission method for such parties. In 

doing so, they will incur fewer costs than they 

would if they submitted via FTP, thereby lowering 

the total costs to the industry. As a result, the 

simplifying assumption that all reporting parties 

will submit New Form 102A (along with certain 

other forms discussed below) via FTP is a 

conservative assumption, which will tend to 

overestimate the total industry cost. 

In addition to the reporting 

requirements summarized above, 

§ 18.05 will impose recordkeeping 

requirements upon: (1) Traders who 

own, hold, or control a reportable 

futures or options on futures position 

(who are subject to current § 18.05); (2) 

volume threshold account controllers; 

(3) persons who own volume threshold 

accounts; (4) reportable sub-account 

controllers; and (5) persons who own 

reportable sub-accounts. These 

provisions extend the recordkeeping 

requirements of current § 18.05, which 

are applicable to traders who hold or 

control a reportable futures or options 

on futures position, to owners and 

controllers of accounts with reportable 

trading volume.189

iii. Total Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Costs; Methodology Used To Estimate 

Costs 

(a) Total Costs 

Set forth below is the estimated total 

annual industry cost for affected 

participants to (i) Complete Forms 102A 

and 102S and any resulting Form 40s, 

(ii) complete Forms 102B and 71 for 

volume threshold accounts associated 

with DCMs and SEFs and any resulting 

Form 40s, and (iii) comply with the 

books and records obligations arising 

from revised § 18.05: 

Regulation Associated report 

Estimated 

total annual 

industry cost 190

Anticipated 

transmission 

method 

17.01(a) ......................................................... New Form 102A ............................................................. $1,931,129 FTP. 

17.01(b) ......................................................... New Form 102B ............................................................. 1,299,799 FTP. 

17.01(c) ......................................................... New Form 71 .................................................................. 427,147 Web. 

18.04(a) ......................................................... New Form 40 .................................................................. 1,103,603 Web. 

18.04(b) ......................................................... New Form 40 .................................................................. 3,977,173 Web. 

18.05 ............................................................. Books and Records ........................................................ 18,569 N/A. 

20.5(a) ........................................................... 102S Filing ..................................................................... 289,669 FTP. 

20.5(b) ........................................................... 40S Filing ....................................................................... 527,207 Web. 

Total ....................................................... ......................................................................................... 9,574,296 

Total reporting and recordkeeping 

costs for the final rules reflect the sum 

of estimated burdens, multiplied by the 

wage rate provided below, for: (1) New 

Form 102A; (2) New Form 102B; (3) 

New Form 71; (4) New Form 40 

(pursuant to 18.04(a)); 191 (5) New Form 

40 (pursuant to § 18.04(b)); 192 (6) the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of revised § 18.05; (7) New 

Form 102S; and (8) New Form 40S. The 

Commission has updated the cost 

estimates in the NPRM based on the 

most recent data and statistics available 

to the Commission. 

Methodology Used To Estimate Costs 

The Commission estimated the 

reporting burden associated with each 

filing obligation below by considering 

the two distinct filing methods that it 

will accommodate pursuant to these 

final rules (via FTP or via the web 

portal). With two methods of 

submission, reporting parties will have 

the flexibility to select the submission 

method that works best with their 

existing data and technology 

infrastructure and the number of filings 

they expect to make. While the NPRM 

contemplated that certain forms (Forms 

40/S and 71) could be submitted only 

via the web portal, these final rules 

provide that all forms may be submitted 

either via the web portal or via FTP, in 

order to provide additional flexibility to 

reporting parties. In general, the 

Commission believes that FTP 

submission will be more cost effective 

for reporting parties with a large number 

of filings, while submission through the 

web-based portal will be more cost 

effective for reporting parties with a 

small number of filings. 

As noted above, the Commission has 

calculated the total estimated industry 

cost for submitting each form via FTP or 

via the web portal. These calculations 

represent the total industry cost if all 

reporting parties submit information via 

one method—as compared to the total 

industry cost if all parties submit via the 

other method. For example, the 102A 

calculations below represent the total 

estimated industry cost if all reporting 

parties submit 102A via FTP 

($1,931,129), or if all parties submit 

102A via the web portal ($5,954,969). 

The Commission recognizes that, even if 

it is less expensive for the industry as 

a whole to submit 102A via FTP, it may 

be less expensive for certain individual 

reporting parties to submit 102A via the 

web portal. This may be due to the 

limited number of forms these parties 

expect to submit, their technology 

infrastructure, or other factors. 

To expand on this example, if a new 

reporting party anticipates that it will 

submit only two 102A filings per year, 

it might logically conclude that it would 

be less expensive to submit its two 

filings via the web portal than to incur 

the development costs associated with 

establishing an FTP link to the 

Commission. In this instance, the 

Commission has estimated that the 

reporting party would incur 20 hours of 

initial development burden for each of 

the two records submitted via the web 

portal, or a total initial development 

burden of 40 hours. Accordingly, the 

reporting party may conclude that 

submitting its 102A filings via the web 

portal is more cost-effective than 

submitting the same information via 

FTP, which the Commission has 

estimated would require an initial 

development burden of 264 hours per 

entity (regardless of the number of forms 

submitted).193


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69202 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

194Certain parties that will be required to report 

under these final rules now provide certain forms 

under the current reporting system (e.g., the current 

Forms 102 and 40). 

195All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. The 

106 hour figure is arrived at by dividing 264 hours 

(initial development burden per reporting party) by 

5 years, which results in an estimated annualized 

initial development burden of 53 hours per 

reporting party. 53 hours plus 53 hours (annual, 

ongoing operation and maintenance burdens per 

reporting party) equals 106 hours per reporting 

party. The submission of Form 71 through the webbased portal does not require initial development 

expenditures; as a result, the burdens and costs for 

this form are calculated on an annual basis rather 

than an annualized basis. 

196The Commission staff’s estimates concerning 

the wage rates are based on salary information for 

the securities industry compiled by the Securities 

Industry and Financial Markets Association 

(‘‘SIFMA’’). The $70.07 per hour is derived from 

figures from a weighted average of salaries and 

bonuses across different professions from the 

SIFMA Report on Management & Professional 

Earnings in the Securities Industry 2011, modified 

to account for an 1800-hour work-year and 

multiplied by 1.3 to account for overhead and other 

benefits. The wage rate is a weighted national 

average of salary and bonuses for professionals with 

the following titles (and their relative weight): 

‘‘programmer (senior)’’ (30% weight); 

‘‘programmer’’ (29% weight); ‘‘compliance advisor 

(intermediate)’’ (15%), ‘‘systems analyst’’ (16%), 

and ‘‘assistant/associate general counsel’’ (10%). 

The $70.07 wage rate is a blended rate, such that 

the Commission has applied the same $70.07 wage 

rate when calculating the cost of submission via 

both FTP and the web-based portal. As noted above, 

the NPRM contemplated that Forms 40/S and 71 

could be submitted only via the web portal. 

However, pursuant to these final rules, the 

Commission is allowing reporting parties to submit 

Forms 40/S and 71 via FTP as well, with the result 

that reporting parties may submit all forms either 

via the web portal or via FTP. In light of this 

change, the wage rage percentages in these final 

rules have been updated and slightly modified from 

the wage rate percentages in the NPRM, to more 

accurately reflect anticipated labor allocations. The 

NPRM employed the following wage rage 

percentages: ‘‘programmer (senior)’’ (30% weight); 

‘‘programmer’’ (30% weight); ‘‘compliance advisor 

(intermediate)’’ (20%), ‘‘systems analyst’’ (10%), 

and ‘‘assistant/associate general counsel’’ (10%). 

While the NPRM calculated an estimated wage rate 

of $78.61 per hour, these final rules calculate an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour, using the 

2011 SIFMA statistics and updated wage rate 

percentages. (Note that the national average of 

salary and bonuses for the professionals listed 

above declined between 2010 to 2011, according to 

the SIFMA report addressing each of those years. 

The 2010 SIMA report (which is the basis for the 

wage rate in the NPRM) indicates an aggregate 

national average of salary and bonuses of $530,321 

for these professionals, while the 2011 SIFMA 

report indicates an aggregate national average of 

salary and bonuses of $510,943.) The Commission 

has also updated the cost estimates that appeared 

in the NPRM based on the most recent data and 

statistics available to the Commission (including, 

for example, the number of reporting forms and/or 

records received by the Commission in 2012). The 

NPRM calculated an estimated total annual cost to 

the industry of $9,147,061, as compared to an 

estimated total cost to the industry of $9,574,296 in 

these final rules, supra. See also infra note 265. 

All burden estimates assume that 

information required by each form is 

generally available within the reporting 

party; however, in preparing its 

estimates, the Commission did make an 

effort to account for the added burden 

associated with assembling data 

distributed among multiple systems 

and/or databases within a reporting 

party. Finally, the cost estimates in 

section VIII(A) and (B) assume that all 

market participants will start from the 

same point in developing the systems 

required to implement OCR reporting. 

Accordingly, to the extent that current 

reporting parties leverage their existing 

reporting systems 194 to implement OCR 

reporting, the cost estimates are likely to 

overestimate actual costs to some degree 

for such parties. 

For the following additional reasons, 

the Commission anticipates that total 

reporting and recordkeeping costs to the 

industry are likely to be lower than the 

sum of the costs associated with each 

form individually, as the Commission 

has calculated herein. 

First, the Commission notes that 

reporting and recordkeeping burdens 

arising from each regulation and 

associated form were estimated 

independently of the requirements of 

the other regulations and associated 

forms, and that substantial synergies are 

likely to exist across the systems and 

data necessary to meet the reporting 

requirements. As a result, the total 

reporting and recordkeeping costs to the 

industry for the final rules are likely to 

be substantially lower than estimated. 

For example, many reporting firms 

submitting New Form 102A will also 

submit New Form 102B, and will be 

able to leverage systems and 

information necessary for submitting 

one form to meet the requirements of 

the other. 

Second, the Commission responded to 

several proposals by commenters to 

modify the reporting requirements in 

order to reduce the requirements’ 

burdens and associated costs. 

Commenters did not quantify the 

magnitude of the potential cost savings 

from their alternative proposals. The 

final rules adopt a number of these 

proposals in modified fashion in order 

to reduce the rules’ burden and costs, 

while also maintaining their regulatory 

benefits. The Commission has taken a 

conservative approach and made no 

downward adjustment for cost savings 

attributable to modifications that the 

Commission has made to the final rules 

to accommodate commenters’ proposals. 

iv. Reporting Burdens—New and 

Revised Forms 

New Form 102A—§ 17.01(a): 

Method 1 (102A FTP submission— 

lower estimate): Method 1 assumes that 

each New Form 102A reporting party 

will use an automated program to 

submit its forms via secure FTP. Each 

Method 1 submission will likely contain 

numerous 102A records. The 

Commission estimates that the total 

initial development burden will average 

264 hours per reporting party. The 

Commission also estimates that the 

highly automated nature of this option 

will virtually eliminate the marginal 

costs associated with each additional 

submission or each additional record 

contained in a submission. Accordingly, 

the Commission estimates that 102A 

change and refresh updates will not 

increase a reporting party’s burden 

when using Method 1. The Commission 

further estimates that the ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden will 

average 53 hours per year no matter how 

many records are contained in a 

submission. The total Method 1 

annualized initial development burden 

and the ongoing operation and 

maintenance burden (total yearly 

burden) will equal approximately 106 

hours per reporting party.195

An assessment of Commission data 

collection efforts demonstrated that the 

Commission received Form 102 

submissions from 260 reporting parties 

in 2012. The Commission anticipates 

that it will receive New Form 102A 

submissions from a similar number of 

reporting parties each year. Assuming 

all New Form 102A reporting parties 

utilize Method 1, the Commission 

estimates that the total annual industry 

burden for New Form 102A will equal 

27,560 hours. Using an estimated wage 

rate of $70.07 per hour,196 annual 

industry costs for 102A filings made 

pursuant to Method 1 are estimated at 

$1,931,129. As indicated throughout 

this section VIII(A), the Commission has 

applied the same wage rate of $70.07 to 

submission via both the web portal and 

FTP, although each submission method 

will require a different annual or 

annualized burden, in terms of hours. 

This $70.07 wage rate encompasses the 

work of a senior programmer, 

programmer, intermediate compliance 

advisor, systems analyst, and assistant/ 

associate general counsel, in the 

proportions described in the preceding 

footnote. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69203 

197See supra note 195 for a discussion of the 

calculation of this annualized burden. As discussed 

above, the initial development burden per reporting 

party (264 hours) has been divided by 5 years, 

which results in an estimated annualized initial 

development burden of 53 hours per reporting 

party. On a non-annualized basis, the initial 

development cost per reporting party is estimated 

at $18,498 (264 hours × a wage rate of $70.07). The 

Commission expects that reporting parties will 

budget initial development costs in the manner that 

is most cost-effective for each party, which may 

result in some reporting parties incurring the 

majority of these initial development costs in the 

beginning of the rule compliance period. 

198All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 199See §§ 17.00 and 150.4 of the Commission’s 

regulations. 200This estimate is based on the requirements of 

§§ 17.00 and 150.4 of the Commission’s regulations. 

The 7,726 figure represents an increase from the 

4,415 Form 102 records the Commission received 

in 2012. The Commission calculated that in 

approximately 75 percent of New Form 102A 

filings, the owner and controller of a special 

account reported on the form will be different. As 

a result, the Commission multiplied the 4,415 figure 

from 2012 by 1.75, and estimated that it will receive 

approximately 7,726 New Form 102A records per 

year. 

Notwithstanding this estimate, which is based on 

the requirements of §§ 17.00 and 150.4, reporting 

parties should continue to report special accounts 

pursuant to § 17.00 on a disaggregated basis 

following the implementation of these final rules, 

if the parties have been so instructed by the 

Commission or its designee. All reporting parties 

should continue to provide position reporting based 

on control of a special account. As an example, if 

a special account is controlled by one reporting 

party but owned by another, such account should 

be reported only by the reporting party that controls 

the special account. Consistent with this guidance, 

and notwithstanding the requirement on New Form 

102A to also report based solely on ownership of 

a reportable position, the Commission will not 

require reporting based on this trigger via New 

Form 102A following the implementation of these 

final rules. Because the Commission will not 

require reporting on New Form 102A based solely 

on ownership of a reportable position, the 

Commission anticipates that the number of New 

Form 102A records it receives per year is likely to 

be lower than the estimated 7,726 records. See also 

supra section V(A)(i). 

201The $5,954,969 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 7,726 records by 11 hours (equals 

84,986 hours) by $70.07 (equals $5,954,969). 

FORM 102A—LOWER ESTIMATE IS METHOD 1 

[FTP submission] 

Number of reporting parties per year 

Annualized 

burden per 

reporting party 

(hours) 197

Total annual 

industry 

burden 

(hours) 

Estimated 

wage rate 

Annual 

industry 

costs 

260 ................................................................................................................... 106 27,560 $70.07 $1,931,129 

Method 2 (102A web submission— 

higher estimate): Method 2 assumes that 

each New Form 102A reporting party 

will complete and submit its forms 

online via a secure portal provided by 

the Commission. The Commission 

estimates that the total initial 

development burden will average 20 

hours per New Form 102A record. The 

Commission also estimates that the 

annual ongoing burden, which includes 

change and refresh filings, will average 

7 hours per year for each New Form 

102A record. The estimated Method 2 

total annualized initial development 

burden and the ongoing operation and 

maintenance burden (total yearly 

burden) equals approximately 11 hours 

per New Form 102A record.198

In connection with the introduction of 

New Form 102A pursuant to this 

rulemaking, the Commission notes that 

(except as otherwise instructed by the 

Commission or its designee) its 

regulations require reporting firms to 

separately aggregate positions by 

common ownership and by common 

control for the purpose of identifying 

and reporting special accounts.199 On 

the basis of such regulations, the 

Commission anticipates that it will 

receive 7,726 New Form 102A records 

per year.200 Assuming each of the 7,726 

New Form 102A records are provided 

via Method 2, the Commission estimates 

that the total annual industry burden for 

New Form 102A will equal 84,986 

hours. Using an estimated wage rate of 

$70.07 per hour, annual industry costs 

for 102A filings made pursuant to 

Method 2 are estimated at 

$5,954,969.201


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69204 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

202All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

203The 10,600 hour figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 106 hours (annualized development 

burden and ongoing operation and maintenance 

burden per reporting party) by 100 reporting 

parties. 

204The $742,742 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 100 reporting parties by 106 hours 

(equals 10,600 hours) by $70.07 (equals $742,742). 

205The 7,950 hour figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 106 hours (annualized development 

burden and ongoing operation and maintenance 

burden per reporting party) by 75 reporting parties. 206The $557,057 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 75 reporting parties by 106 hours 

(equals 7,950 hours) by $70.07 (equals $557,057). 207The $1,299,799 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 175 reporting parties by 106 hours 

(equals 18,550 hours) by $70.07 (equals $1,299,799). 208See supra note 195 for a discussion of the 

calculation of this annualized burden. As discussed 

above, the initial development burden per reporting 

party (264 hours) has been divided by 5 years, 

which results in an estimated annualized initial 

development burden of 53 hours per reporting 

party. On a non-annualized basis, the initial 

development cost per reporting party is estimated 

at $18,498 (264 hours × a wage rate of $70.07). The 

Commission expects that reporting parties will 

budget initial development costs in the manner that 

is most cost-effective for each party, which may 

result in some reporting parties incurring the 

majority of these initial development costs in the 

beginning of the rule compliance period. 

209All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

Conclusion: The Commission believes 

that providing filing options to the 

industry should lower their ultimate 

costs. Because of this, estimated total 

costs to the industry for 102A filings 

should be lower than any cost 

associated with mandating either 

Method 1 or Method 2. Given the cost 

estimates for the two individual 

methods discussed above, the 

Commission anticipates that the annual 

cost to the industry of filing 102A will 

be approximately $1,931,129 (Method 

1—FTP submission), the lower of the 

two estimated filing methods. In 

developing this estimate, the 

Commission does not make any 

assumptions about the behavior of an 

individual reporting party. Reporting 

parties, given their own individualized 

needs, are assumed to make the most 

cost-effective choice for them, which 

may be either of the two methods. 

New Form 102B—§ 17.01(b) 

Method 1 (102B FTP submission— 

lower estimate): Method 1 assumes that 

each New Form 102B reporting party 

will use an automated program to 

submit its forms via secure FTP. Each 

Method 1 submission will likely contain 

numerous 102B records. The 

Commission estimates that the total 

initial development burden should 

average 264 hours per reporting party. 

The Commission also estimates that the 

highly automated nature of this option 

will virtually eliminate the marginal 

costs associated with each additional 

submission or each additional record 

contained in a submission. Accordingly, 

the Commission estimates that 102B 

change and refresh updates will not 

increase a reporting party’s burden 

when using Method 1. The Commission 

further estimates that the ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden will 

average 53 hours per year no matter how 

many records are contained in a 

submission. The total Method 1 

annualized initial development burden 

and the ongoing operation and 

maintenance burden (total yearly 

burden) equals approximately 106 hours 

per reporting party.202

Because New Form 102B provides a 

new volume-based reporting structure 

not found in current Form 102, the 

Commission is unable to refer to 

historical reporting statistics to directly 

estimate the number of New Form 102B 

reporting parties. Instead, based on a 

review of transaction volume across a 

sample of several DCMs from the second 

half of 2011, the Commission estimated 

the number of trading accounts that the 

Commission anticipates will qualify as 

volume threshold accounts. The 

Commission estimated the number of 

DCM-related New Form 102B reporting 

parties by calculating the number of 

clearing members associated with these 

projected volume threshold accounts. 

• For volume threshold accounts 

associated with DCMs, the Commission 

anticipates that it will receive New 

Form 102B submissions from 

approximately 100 reporting parties 

annually. Assuming that all such 

reporting parties utilize Method 1, the 

Commission estimates that the total 

annual industry burden for the reporting 

of such accounts on New Form 102B 

would equal 10,600 hours.203 Using an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour, 

annual industry costs for such filings 

made pursuant to Method 1 are 

estimated at $742,742.204

• In estimating the number of 

reporting parties that will submit New 

Form 102B for volume threshold 

accounts associated with SEFs, the 

Commission has made an assumption 

that trading activity in the SEF 

marketplace will be lower than in the 

futures marketplace. For volume 

threshold accounts associated with 

SEFs, the Commission anticipates that it 

will receive New Form 102B 

submissions from approximately 75 

reporting parties annually. Assuming 

that all such reporting parties utilize 

Method 1, the Commission estimates 

that the total annual industry burden for 

the reporting of such accounts on New 

Form 102B would equal 7,950 hours.205

Using an estimated wage rate of $70.07 

per hour, annual industry costs for such 

filings made pursuant to Method 1 are 

estimated at $557,057.206

Collectively, annual industry costs for 

102B filings made pursuant to Method 

1 are estimated at $1,299,799.207

FORM 102B—LOWER ESTIMATE IS METHOD 1 

[FTP submission] 

Number of reporting parties per year 

Annualized 

burden per 

reporting party 

(hours) 208

Total annual 

industry 

burden 

(hours) 

Estimated 

wage rate 

Annual 

industry 

costs 

175 ................................................................................................................... 106 18,550 $70.07 $1,299,799 

Method 2 (102B web submission— 

higher estimate): Method 2 assumes that 

each New Form 102B reporting party 

will complete and submit its forms 

online via a secure portal provided by 

the Commission. The Commission 

estimates that the total initial 

development burden will average 20 

hours per New Form 102B record. The 

Commission also estimates that annual 

ongoing burdens, which include both 

change and refresh updates, will average 

7 hours per year for each New Form 

102B record. The estimated Method 2 

total annualized initial development 

burden and the ongoing operation and 

maintenance burden (total yearly 

burden) equals approximately 11 hours 

per New Form 102B record.209

Because New Form 102B provides a 

new volume-based reporting structure 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69205 

210The $97,117,020 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 126,000 records by 11 hours (equals 

1,386,000 records) by $70.07 (equals $97,117,020). 

211The $47,799,302 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 62,015 records by 11 hours (equals 

682,165 records) by $70.07 (equals $47,799,302). 

212The $144,916,322 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 188,015 records by 11 hours (equals 

2,068,165 hours) by $70.07 (equals $144,916,322). 

213All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

214The Commission is estimating the number of 

New Form 71 filings in this manner because New 

Form 71 provides for an omnibus account reporting 

structure that does not currently exist, making 

direct estimates impracticable. 

not found in current Form 102, the 

Commission is unable to refer to 

historical reporting statistics to directly 

estimate the number of New Form 102B 

records it might receive. Instead, the 

Commission estimated the number of 

New Form 102B records that it will 

receive on an annual basis by reviewing 

transaction volume across a sample of 

several DCMs from the second half of 

2011. Based on this data, the 

Commission calculated the relationship 

between (a) volume activity on the 

DCMs reviewed, (b) the number of 

reportable volume threshold accounts 

that would result from this volume 

activity, and (c) the number of DCMrelated New Form 102B records the 

Commission would receive in 

connection with these volume threshold 

accounts. The Commission created a 

mathematical function based on these 

three factors. The Commission then 

made a projection regarding anticipated 

SEF-related volume activity, and 

applied the mathematical function 

described above to estimate (i) the 

number of SEF-related, reportable 

volume threshold accounts that would 

result from this volume activity, and (ii) 

the number of SEF-related New Form 

102B records the Commission would 

receive in connection with these volume 

threshold accounts. Based on the 

preceding methodology, the 

Commission estimated the following: 

• For volume threshold accounts 

associated with DCMs, the Commission 

anticipates that it will receive 

approximately 126,000 New Form 102B 

records annually. Assuming each such 

record is provided via Method 2, the 

Commission estimates that the total 

annual industry burden for the reporting 

of such accounts on New Form 102B 

would equal 1,386,000 hours. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour, 

annual industry costs for such filings 

made pursuant to Method 2 are 

estimated at $97,117,020.210

• For volume threshold accounts 

associated with SEFs, the Commission 

anticipates that it will receive 

approximately 62,015 New Form 102B 

records annually. Assuming each such 

record is provided via Method 2, the 

Commission estimates that the total 

annual industry burden for the reporting 

of such accounts on New Form 102B 

would equal 682,165 hours. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour, 

annual industry costs for such filings 

made pursuant to Method 2 are 

estimated at $47,799,302.211

Collectively, annual industry costs for 

102B filings made pursuant to Method 

2 are estimated at $144,916,322.212

Conclusion 

As discussed above, while the 

Commission estimates that establishing 

an FTP link will require an initial 

development burden of 264 hours, the 

Commission also believes that 

submission via FTP will virtually 

eliminate the ongoing marginal costs 

associated with each additional 

submission or each additional record 

contained in a submission. For this 

reason, the Commission believes that 

FTP submission will be more cost 

effective for reporting parties making a 

large number of filings. The 

Commission expects that a significant 

majority of New Form 102B reporting 

parties will be making a large number of 

filings. Therefore, when estimating the 

industry-wide costs, the Commission 

has made the simplifying assumption 

that all reporting parties will use the 

FTP submission method when 

submitting New Form 102B. 

Given the cost estimates for the two 

individual methods discussed above, 

the Commission anticipates the annual 

cost to the industry of filing DCM and 

SEF-related 102B will be approximately 

$1,299,799 (Method 1—FTP 

submission), the lower of the two 

estimated filing methods. 

Notwithstanding the preceding 

discussion regarding submission via 

FTP by New Form 102B reporting 

parties, the Commission recognizes that 

reporting parties, given their own 

individualized needs, will make the 

most cost-effective choice for them, 

which may be either of the two 

submission methods. 

New Form 71—§ 17.01(c) 

Method 1 (71 FTP submission—higher 

estimate): New Form 71 must be 

provided in response to a special call by 

the Commission or its designee. Method 

1 assumes that each New Form 71 

reporting party will use an automated 

program to submit its form via secure 

FTP. The Commission estimates that the 

total initial development burden will 

average 264 hours per reporting party. 

The Commission further estimates that 

the ongoing operation and maintenance 

burden will average 53 hours per year 

no matter how many records are 

contained in a submission. The total 

Method 1 annualized initial 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden 

(total yearly burden) will equal 

approximately 106 hours per reporting 

party.213

The number of New Form 71 filings 

per year will vary according to the 

number of special calls for the form 

made by the Commission. In order to 

estimate the annual number of New 

Form 71 filings (i.e., the number of 

special calls made), the Commission 

considered the number of current Form 

102 omnibus special accounts and 

estimated that New Form 102B will 

capture a similar number of DCMrelated omnibus volume threshold 

accounts.214 Furthermore, the 

Commission estimated that it will 

require a New Form 71 for every such 

omnibus volume threshold account. 

Commission records indicate 564 

omnibus special accounts in 2012, and 

the Commission expects an equal 

number of DCM-related omnibus 

volume threshold accounts. The 

Commission therefore anticipates that it 

will receive approximately 564 DCMrelated New Form 71 filings per year, 

from the same number of reporting 

parties (564). 

Because the Commission does not 

presently receive filings pertaining to 

SEF-related omnibus volume threshold 

accounts, the Commission is unable to 

refer to historical reporting statistics to 

calculate the number of applicable 

reporting parties. To estimate the 

number of Form 71 reporting parties for 

omnibus volume threshold accounts 

associated with SEFs, the Commission 

assumed that SEF transactions will 

likely be intermediated to a lesser extent 

than DCM transactions. The 

Commission estimates that there may be 

35 percent as many SEF-related 

omnibus volume threshold accounts as 

DCM-related omnibus volume threshold 

accounts. Accordingly, the Commission 

estimates that there will be 198 SEFrelated omnibus volume threshold 

accounts, and an equal number of 

reporting parties (198). 

The Commission notes that the final 

rules do not require change or refresh 

updates of New Form 71. Accordingly, 

the burdens and costs associated with 

such updates in the case of other forms 

described herein are not relevant to the 

calculation of burdens and costs for 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69206 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

215The $4,189,065 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 564 reporting parties by 106 hours 

(equals 59,784 hours) by $70.07 (equals $4,189,065). 

216The $1,470,629 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 198 reporting parties by 106 hours 

(equals 20,988 hours) by $70.07 (equals $1,470,629). 

217The $5,659,694 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 762 reporting parties by 106 hours 

(equals 80,772 hours) by $70.07 (equals $5,659,694). 

218The Commission’s special call will likely be 

in the form of an email request that will contain a 

URL for the portal, and a unique login and 

password for access to the portal. 

219The submission of New Form 71 through the 

web-based portal does not require initial 

development expenditures; as a result, the burdens 

and costs for this form are calculated on an annual 

basis rather than an annualized basis. 

220The $316,156 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 564 records by 8 hours (equals 4,512 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $316,156). 

221The $110,991 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 198 records by 8 hours (equals 1,584 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $110,991). 

222The $427,147 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 762 records by 8 hours (equals 6,096 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $427,147). 

223As discussed in section VIII(A)(iii) above, the 

Commission is evaluating the burden associated 

with each regulation and associated form 

separately. It should be noted that the burdens 

estimated for New Form 40 filings, arising from 

proposed § 18.04(a) and (b), are especially 

duplicative. For example, many of the traders that 

complete New Form 40 pursuant to § 18.04(a) may 

also be volume threshold account controllers that 

could receive New Form 40 pursuant to § 18.04(b). 

In practice, if the Commission possesses a recent 

Form 40 filing from a reporting party, it may elect 

not to request a second Form 40 filing from that 

same entity if the entity becomes reportable under 

an additional provision of the proposed regulations 

and there is no additional information to be gained. 

224All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

225See §§ 17.00 and 150.4 of the Commission’s 

regulations. 

New Form 71 filings. The Commission 

also notes that it is likely to request the 

resubmission of New Form 71 each year. 

• Based on an estimated 564 DCMrelated New Form 71 reporting parties 

per year, the Commission estimates an 

aggregate reporting burden of 59,784 

hours annually for DCM-related New 

Form 71 filings via Method 1. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour, 

annual industry costs for such filings 

made pursuant to Method 1 are 

estimated at $4,189,065.215

• Based on an estimated 198 SEFrelated New Form 71 reporting parties 

per year, the Commission estimates an 

aggregate reporting burden of 20,988 

hours annually for SEF-related New 

Form 71 filings via Method 1. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour, 

annual industry costs for such filings 

made pursuant to Method 1 are 

estimated at $1,470,629.216

Collectively, annual industry costs for 

New Form 71 filings made pursuant to 

Method 1 are estimated at 

$5,659,694.217

Method 2 (71 web submission—lower 

estimate): Method 2 assumes that each 

New Form 71 reporting party (i.e., 

originators of omnibus volume 

threshold accounts or omnibus 

reportable sub-accounts) will complete 

and submit New Form 71 online via a 

secure portal provided by the 

Commission.218 The Commission 

estimates that, on average, New Form 71 

will create an annual reporting burden 

of 8 hours per filing.219

As discussed above, the Commission 

expects approximately 564 DCM-related 

New Form 71 filings per year, and 198 

SEF-related New Form 71 filings per 

year. 

• Based on an estimated 564 DCMrelated New Form 71 filings per year, 

the Commission estimates an aggregate 

reporting burden of 4,512 hours 

annually for such filings via Method 2. 

Using an estimated wage rate of $70.07 

per hour, annual industry costs for such 

filings made pursuant to Method 2 are 

estimated at $316,156.220

• Based on an estimated 198 SEFrelated New Form 71 filings per year, 

the Commission estimates an aggregate 

reporting burden of 1,584 hours 

annually for such filings via Method 2. 

Using an estimated wage rate of $70.07 

per hour, annual industry costs for such 

filings made pursuant to Method 2 are 

estimated at $110,991.221

Collectively, annual industry costs for 

New Form 71 filings made pursuant to 

Method 2 are estimated at $427,147.222

FORM 71—LOWER ESTIMATE IS METHOD 2 

[Web submission] 

Number of responses 

per year 

Annual burden 

per response 

(hours) 

Total annual 

industry 

burden 

(hours) 

Estimated 

wage rate 

Annual 

industry 

costs 

762 ................................................................................................................... 8 6,096 $70.07 $427,147 

Conclusion: The Commission believes 

that providing filing options to the 

industry should lower their ultimate 

costs. Because of this, estimated total 

costs to the industry for 71 filings 

should be lower than any cost 

associated with mandating either 

Method 1 or Method 2. Given the cost 

estimates for the two individual 

methods discussed above, the 

Commission anticipates the annual cost 

to the industry of filing 71 will be 

approximately $427,147 (Method 2— 

web submission), the lower of the two 

estimated filing methods. In developing 

this estimate, the Commission does not 

make any assumptions about the 

behavior of an individual reporting 

party. Reporting parties, given their own 

individualized needs, are assumed to 

make the most cost-effective choice for 

them, which may be either of the two 

methods. New Form 40—§ 18.04(a) 

(arising from New Form 102A): 223

Method 1 (40 FTP submission (arising 

from New Form 102A)—higher 

estimate): New Form 40 must be 

provided in response to a special call by 

the Commission or its designee. Method 

1 assumes that each New Form 40 

reporting party will use an automated 

program to submit its forms (arising 

from New Form 102A) via secure FTP. 

The Commission estimates that the total 

initial development burden will average 

224 hours per reporting party. The 

Commission further estimates that the 

ongoing operation and maintenance 

burden will average 53 hours per year 

no matter how many records are 

contained in a submission. The total 

Method 1 annualized initial 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden 

(total yearly burden) will equal 

approximately 98 hours per reporting 

party.224

As noted above, in connection with 

the introduction of New Form 102A 

pursuant to this rulemaking, the 

Commission notes that (except as 

otherwise instructed by the Commission 

or its designee) its regulations require 

reporting firms to separately aggregate 

positions by common ownership and by 

common control for the purpose of 

identifying and reporting special 

accounts.225 On the basis of such 

regulations, the Commission anticipates 

that it will receive a greater number of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69207 

226The Commission received 4,415 Form 102 

records in 2012. See also supra note 200. 

227The Commission made approximately 3,000 

special calls in 2012. Such calls were made to 

special account owners and controllers identified 

via existing DCM-related Form 102. 

228See also supra note 200. Because the 

Commission anticipates that the number of New 

Form 102A records it receives per year is likely to 

be lower than the estimated 7,726 records, the 

Commission may also make fewer special calls than 

the estimated 5,250 calls. 

229See infra section VIII(B)(iv) for a discussion of 

the Commission’s contact reference database, which 

is intended to streamline the automated submission 

process and reduce the burden on reporting parties. 

230The $36,051,015 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 5,250 reporting parties by 98 hours 

(equals 514,500 hours) by $70.07 (equals 

$36,051,015). 

231The Commission’s special call will likely be 

in the form of an email request that will contain a 

URL for the portal, and a unique login and 

password for access to the portal. 

232The Commission’s estimate of three hours per 

response reflects an initial, one-time burden of 10 

hours, annualized over a five-year period, plus an 

additional hour per year for change updates. 

233The $1,103,603 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 5,250 records by 3 hours (equals 15,750 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $1,103,603). 

234As discussed above, the initial development 

burden per reporting party (10 hours) has been 

divided by 5 years, which results in an estimated 

annualized initial development burden of two 

hours per reporting party. On a non-annualized 

basis, the initial development cost per reporting 

party is estimated at $701 (10 hours × a wage rate 

of $70.07). The Commission expects that reporting 

parties will budget initial development costs in the 

manner that is most cost-effective for each party, 

which may result in some reporting parties 

incurring the majority of these initial development 

costs in the beginning of the rule compliance 

period. 

235All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

New Form 102A records per year (7,726) 

than the number of Form 102 records it 

has received in recent years.226 While 

the number of New Form 40 filings 

arising from New Form 102A filings will 

vary according to the number of special 

calls made by the Commission, the 

Commission nonetheless anticipates 

that it may make a larger number of 

special calls than in recent years, due to 

the larger number of anticipated New 

Form 102A records.227 As a result, the 

Commission estimates that New Form 

102A will result in approximately 5,250 

New Form 40 records per year, 

submitted by an equal number of 

reporting parties (5,250).228

Entities required to complete a New 

Form 40 will be under a continuing 

obligation, per direction in the special 

call, to update and maintain the 

accuracy of the information they 

provide. Entities can update this 

information by either visiting the online 

New Form 40 portal to review, verify, 

and/or update their information, or by 

submitting updated information via 

FTP. Regardless of whether entities 

update the information contained in 

New Form 40 via the web or FTP, the 

Commission believes that the time 

required to provide this information 

will be de minimis.229

Assuming all 5,250 New Form 40 

reporting parties utilize Method 1, the 

Commission estimates that the total 

annual industry burden for New Form 

40, as a result of New Form 102A, will 

equal 514,500 hours. Using an estimated 

wage rate of $70.07 per hour, annual 

industry costs for such New Form 40 

filings made pursuant to Method 1 are 

estimated at $36,051,015.230

Method 2 (40 web submission (arising 

from New Form 102A)—lower estimate): 

Method 2 assumes that each reporting 

party filing New Form 40 as a result of 

Form 102A (i.e., special account owners 

and controllers) will complete and 

submit New Form 40 online via a secure 

portal provided by the Commission.231

The Commission estimates that each 

of the 5,250 New Form 40 records will 

require three hours to complete.232

Assuming each such New Form 40 

record is provided via Method 2, the 

Commission estimates that the total 

annual industry burden for reporting on 

New Form 40, as a result of New Form 

102A, will equal 15,750 hours. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour, 

annual industry costs for New Form 40 

filings arising from special accounts are 

estimated at $1,103,603.233

FORM 40—LOWER ESTIMATE IS METHOD 2 

[Web submission] 

Number of responses per year 

Annualized 

burden per 

response 

(hours) 234

Total annual 

industry 

burden 

(hours) 

Estimated 

wage rate 

Annual 

industry 

costs 

5,250 ................................................................................................................ 3 15,750 $70.07 $1,103,603 

Conclusion: The Commission believes 

that providing filing options to the 

industry should lower their ultimate 

costs. Because of this, estimated total 

costs to the industry for 40 filings, as a 

result of New Form 102A, should be 

lower than any cost associated with 

mandating either Method 1 or Method 2. 

Given the cost estimates for the two 

individual methods discussed above, 

the Commission anticipates the annual 

cost to the industry of filing 40, as a 

result of New Form 102A, will be 

approximately $1,103,603 (Method 2— 

web submission), the lower of the two 

estimated filing methods. In developing 

this estimate, the Commission does not 

make any assumptions about the 

behavior of an individual reporting 

party. Reporting parties, given their own 

individualized needs, are assumed to 

make the most cost-effective choice for 

them, which may be either of the two 

methods. 

New Form 40—§ 18.04(b) (arising 

from New Form 102B and New Form 

71): 

Method 1 (40 FTP submission (arising 

from New Form 102B and New Form 

71)—higher estimate): 

New Form 40 must be provided in 

response to a special call by the 

Commission or its designee. Method 1 

assumes that each New Form 40 

reporting party will use an automated 

program to submit its forms (arising 

from New Form 102B and New Form 

71) via secure FTP. The Commission 

estimates that the total initial 

development burden will average 224 

hours per reporting party. The 

Commission further estimates that the 

ongoing operation and maintenance 

burden will average 53 hours per year 

no matter how many records are 

contained in a submission. The total 

Method 1 annualized initial 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden 

(total yearly burden) will equal 

approximately 98 hours per reporting 

party.235

In estimating the number of 

anticipated New Form 40 special calls 

arising from both DCM-related and SEFrelated New Form 102B and New Form 

71, the Commission first considered the 

number of Form 40 special calls made 

in 2012 (approximately 3,000). The 

Commission sent some of these special 

calls to a subset of the 260 special 

account owners and controllers 

identified via existing DCM-related 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69208 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

236The Commission applied the ratio of reporting 

parties to special calls that it developed with 

respect to its 2012 Form 40 special call practices. 

260 reporting parties represents approximately 8.7 

percent of the 3,000 special calls sent in 2012. 

Similarly, 664 reporting parties represents 

approximately 8.7 percent of 7,662 special calls. 

The Commission believes that 664 reporting parties 

is a high-end estimate, because the Commission 

will likely send New Form 40 to a subset of New 

Form 71 reporting parties, rather than to each 

reporting party, as this calculation assumes. 

237As with 102A records, the Commission 

estimates that in approximately 25 percent of 

filings, the owner and the controller of a volume 

threshold account reported on New Form 102B or 

New Form 71 will be the same, and that 

accordingly, only one New Form 40 would be 

required. Similarly, a number of potential New 

Form 40 reporting parties are likely to own or 

control both DCM-related and SEF-related volume 

threshold accounts, but only one New Form 40 

would be required. 

238The Commission applied the ratio of reporting 

parties to special calls that it developed with 

respect to its 2012 Form 40 special call practices. 

260 reporting parties represents approximately 8.7 

percent of the 3,000 special calls sent in 2012. 

Similarly, 273 reporting parties represents 

approximately 8.7 percent of 3,149 special calls. 

The Commission believes that 273 reporting parties 

is a high-end estimate, because the Commission 

will likely send New Form 40 to a subset of New 

Form 71 reporting parties, rather than to each 

reporting party, as this calculation assumes. 

239See supra note 237. 

240See infra section VIII(B)(iv) for a discussion of 

the Commission’s contact reference database, which 

is intended to streamline the automated submission 

process and reduce the burden on reporting parties. 

241The $92,077,726 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 13,409 reporting parties by 98 hours 

(equals 1,314,082 hours) by $70.07 (equals 

$92,077,726). 242The $37,843,265 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 5,511 reporting parties by 98 hours 

(equals 540,078 hours) by $70.07 (equals 

$37,843,265). 243The $129,920,991 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 18,920 reporting parties by 98 hours 

(equals 1,854,160 hours) by $70.07 (equals 

$129,920,991). 244The Commission’s special call will likely be 

in the form of an email request that will contain a 

URL for the portal, and a unique login and 

password for access to the portal. 245As with 102A records, the Commission 

estimates that in approximately 25 percent of 

filings, the owner and the controller of a volume 

threshold account reported on New Form 102B will 

be the same, and that accordingly, only one New 

Form 40 would be required. Similarly, a number of 

potential New Form 40 reporting parties are likely 

to own or control both DCM-related and SEF-related 

volume threshold accounts, but only one New Form 

40 would be required. 

246The Commission’s estimate of three hours per 

response reflects an initial, one-time burden of 10 

hours, annualized over a five-year period, plus an 

additional hour per year for change updates. 

Form 102 in 2012. The Commission sent 

other of these special calls to 

individuals that were not identified via 

Form 102, but instead were identified 

through other surveillance means. The 

260 reporting parties that submitted a 

Form 102 in 2012 represent 

approximately 8.7 percent of the 3,000 

special calls sent in 2012 (‘‘the special 

call ratio’’). The Commission used this 

special call ratio as a baseline in 

calculating the number of anticipated 

New Form 40 filings arising from New 

Form 102B and New Form 71. The 

Commission acknowledges that this 

percentage represents a high-end 

baseline, since as noted above, the 

Commission made a special call in 2012 

to a subset of the 260 reporting parties, 

rather than to each one. 

Form 40s Arising From DCM-related 

New Form 102B and New Form 71. To 

estimate the number of Form 40 special 

calls arising from DCM-related New 

Form 102B and New Form 71, the 

Commission first calculated the number 

of anticipated reporting parties for each 

form: 100 reporting parties for DCMrelated New Form 102B, and 564 

reporting parties for DCM-related New 

Form 71, or 664 in total. Based on the 

special call ratio calculations performed 

above with respect to the Commission’s 

2012 special call practices, the 

Commission estimated that it will send 

special calls to approximately 7,662 

recipients per year in connection with 

DCM-related New Form 102B and New 

Form 71.236 Finally, the Commission 

calculated that in approximately 75 

percent of New Form 102B and New 

Form 71 filings, the owner and 

controller of a volume threshold 

account reported on the form will be 

different.237 In this scenario, the 

Commission may make a separate 

special call to both the owner and 

controller. As a result, the Commission 

multiplied the 7,662 recipient estimate 

by 1.75, and concluded that it will 

receive approximately 13,409 New Form 

40 filings annually arising from DCMrelated New Form 102B and New Form 

71, from the same number of reporting 

parties (13,409). 

Form 40s Arising From SEF-related 

New Form 102B and New Form 71. The 

Commission applied the same rationale 

to calculate the number of anticipated 

New Form 40 filings arising from SEFrelated New Form 102B and New Form 

71. The Commission first calculated the 

number of anticipated reporting parties 

for each form: 75 reporting parties for 

SEF-related New Form 102B, and 198 

reporting parties for SEF-related New 

Form 71, or 273 in total. Based on the 

special call ratio calculations performed 

above with respect to the Commission’s 

2012 special call practices, the 

Commission estimated that it will send 

special calls to approximately 3,149 

recipients per year in connection with 

SEF-related New Form 102B and New 

Form 71.238 Finally, the Commission 

calculated that in approximately 75 

percent of New Form 102B and New 

Form 71 filings, the owner and 

controller of a volume threshold 

account reported on the form will be 

different.239 In this scenario, the 

Commission may make a separate 

special call to both the owner and 

controller. As a result, the Commission 

multiplied the 3,149 recipient estimate 

by 1.75, and concluded that it will 

receive approximately 5,511 New Form 

40 filings annually arising from SEFrelated New Form 102B and New Form 

71, from the same number of reporting 

parties (5,511). 

As discussed above, the Commission 

estimates that the time required to 

update information contained in New 

Form 40, whether submitted via the web 

or FTP, will be de minimis.240

• Based on an estimated 13,409 DCMrelated New Form 40 reporting parties 

per year, the Commission estimates an 

aggregate reporting burden of 1,314,082 

hours annually for DCM-related New 

Form 40 filings, arising from New Form 

102B and New Form 71, via Method 1. 

Using an estimated wage rate of $70.07 

per hour, annual industry costs for such 

filings made pursuant to Method 1 are 

estimated at $92,077,726.241

• Based on an estimated 5,511 SEFrelated New Form 40 reporting parties 

per year, the Commission estimates an 

aggregate reporting burden of 540,078 

hours annually for SEF-related New 

Form 40 filings, arising from New Form 

102B and New Form 71, via Method 1. 

Using an estimated wage rate of $70.07 

per hour, annual industry costs for such 

filings made pursuant to Method 1 are 

estimated at $37,843,265.242

Collectively, annual industry costs for 

New Form 40 filings (arising from New 

Form 102B and New Form 71) made 

pursuant to Method 1 are estimated at 

$129,920,991.243

Method 2 (40 web submission (arising 

from New Form 102B and New Form 

71)—lower estimate): 

Method 2 assumes that each reporting 

party filing New Form 40 as a result of 

New Form 102B and New Form 71 (i.e., 

volume threshold account controllers, 

persons who own volume threshold 

accounts, reportable sub-account 

controllers, and persons who own 

reportable sub-accounts) will complete 

and submit New Form 40 online via a 

secure portal provided by the 

Commission.244

As discussed above, the Commission 

anticipates that it will receive 

approximately 13,409 DCM-related New 

Form 40 filings annually and 

approximately 5,511 SEF-related New 

Form 40 filings annually, in each case 

arising from New Form 102B and New 

Form 71.245 Each such New Form 40 

filing is estimated to require three 

hours.246 Assuming each such New 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69209 

247The $2,818,706 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 13,409 filings by 3 hours (equals 40,227 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $2,818,706). 

248The $1,158,467 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 5,511 filings by 3 hours (equals 16,533 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $1,158,467). 

249The $3,977,173 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 18,920 filings by 3 hours (equals 56,760 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $3,977,173). 

250As discussed above, the initial development 

burden per reporting party (10 hours) has been 

divided by 5 years, which results in an estimated 

annualized initial development burden of two 

hours per reporting party. On a non-annualized 

basis, the initial development cost per reporting 

party is estimated at $701 (10 hours × a wage rate 

of $70.07). The Commission expects that reporting 

parties will budget initial development costs in the 

manner that is most cost-effective for each party, 

which may result in some reporting parties 

incurring the majority of these initial development 

costs in the beginning of the rule compliance 

period. 

251 17 CFR 20.5(a)(3). 

252All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

253 17 CFR 20.5. 

254The $289,669 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 39 reporting parties by 106 hours 

(equals 4,134 hours) by $70.07 (equals $289,669). 

Form 40 record is provided via Method 

2: 

• The Commission estimates that the 

total annual industry burden for 

reporting on New Form 40, as a result 

of New Form 102B and New Form 71, 

will equal 40,227 hours for DCM-related 

New Form 40 filings. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour, 

annual industry costs for such filings 

arising from volume threshold accounts 

and reportable sub-accounts are 

estimated at $2,818,706.247

• The Commission estimates that the 

total annual industry burden for 

reporting on New Form 40, as a result 

of New Form 102B and New Form 71, 

will equal 16,533 hours for SEF-related 

New Form 40 filings. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour, 

annual industry costs for such filings 

arising from volume threshold accounts 

and reportable sub-accounts are 

estimated at $1,158,467.248

Collectively, annual industry costs for 

New Form 40 filings, as a result of New 

Form 102B and New Form 71, are 

estimated at $3,977,173.249

FORM 40—LOWER ESTIMATE IS METHOD 2 

[Web submission] 

Number of responses per year 

Annualized 

burden per 

response 

(hours) 250

Total annual 

industry 

burden 

(hours) 

Estimated 

wage rate 

Annual 

industry 

costs 

18,920 .............................................................................................................. 3 56,760 $70.07 $3,977,173 

Conclusion: The Commission believes 

that providing filing options to the 

industry should lower their ultimate 

costs. Because of this, estimated total 

costs to the industry for 40 filings, as a 

result of New Form 102B and New Form 

71, should be lower than any cost 

associated with mandating either 

Method 1 or Method 2. Given the cost 

estimates for the two individual 

methods discussed above, the 

Commission anticipates the annual cost 

to the industry of filing 40, as a result 

of New Form 102B and New Form 71, 

will be approximately $3,977,173 

(Method 2—web submission), the lower 

of the two estimated filing methods. In 

developing this estimate, the 

Commission does not make any 

assumptions about the behavior of an 

individual reporting party. Reporting 

parties, given their own individualized 

needs, are assumed to make the most 

cost-effective choice for them, which 

may be either of the two methods. New 

Form 102S — § 20.5(a): 

Method 1 (102S FTP submission— 

lower estimate): Method 1 assumes that 

each New Form 102S reporting party 

will use an automated program to 

submit its forms via secure FTP. Each 

Method 1 submission will likely contain 

numerous 102S records. The 

Commission estimates that the total 

initial development burden will average 

264 hours per reporting party. The 

Commission also estimates that the 

highly automated nature of this option 

will virtually eliminate the marginal 

costs associated with each additional 

submission or each additional record 

contained in a submission. The 

Commission believes that the timing 

requirements for 102S filings in current 

§ 20.5(a)(3),251 or any new submission 

procedures arising from the Swaps 

Large Trader Guidebook (i.e., frequency 

of 102S filing submission), will not 

increase a reporting party’s burden 

when using Method 1. The Commission 

further estimates that the ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden will 

average 53 hours per year no matter how 

many records are contained in a 

submission. The total Method 1 

annualized initial development burden 

and the ongoing operation and 

maintenance burden (total yearly 

burden) will equal approximately 106 

hours per reporting party.252

The 102S filing requirements in 

current § 20.5 253 are nearly identical to 

the filing requirements for revised 102S; 

accordingly, the Commission used its 

recent experience with 102S filings to 

estimate the number of 102S reporting 

parties. An assessment of Commission 

data collection efforts demonstrated that 

the Commission received Form 102S 

submissions from 39 reporting parties in 

2012. The Commission anticipates that 

it will receive New Form 102S 

submissions from a similar number of 

reporting parties each year. Assuming 

102S reporting parties utilize Method 1, 

the Commission estimates that the total 

annual industry burden for 102S filing 

will equal 4,134 hours. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour, 

annual industry costs for New Form 

102S are estimated at $289,669.254


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69210 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

255See supra note 195 for a discussion of the 

calculation of this annualized burden. As discussed 

above, the initial development burden per reporting 

party (264 hours) has been divided by 5 years, 

which results in an estimated annualized initial 

development burden of 53 hours per reporting 

party. On a non-annualized basis, the initial 

development cost per reporting party is estimated 

at $18,498 (264 hours × a wage rate of $70.07). The 

Commission expects that reporting parties will 

budget initial development costs in the manner that 

is most cost-effective for each party, which may 

result in some reporting parties incurring the 

majority of these initial development costs in the 

beginning of the rule compliance period. 

256All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

257The $1,757,356 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 2,508 records by 10 hours (equals 

25,080 hours) by $70.07 (equals $1,757,356). 

258The final rules do not revise § 20.5(b); 

however, current § 20.5(b) requires a person, after 

special call by the Commission, to submit a 40S 

filing, which shall consist of the submission of 

Form 40. The final rules do include changes to 

Form 40. Accordingly, the reporting burden 

associated with § 20.5(b) and the 40S filing is being 

recalculated to account for variations between 

current and New Form 40. 

259All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

260 17 CFR 20.5(b). 

261The $17,222,085 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 2,508 reporting parties by 98 hours 

(equals 245,784 hours) by $70.07 (equals 

$17,222,085). 

262The Commission’s special call will likely be 

in the form of an email request that will contain a 

URL for the portal, and a unique login and 

password for access to the portal. 

263The Commission’s estimate of three hours per 

response reflects an initial, one-time burden of 10 

hours, annualized over a five-year period, plus an 

additional hour per year for change updates. 

264The $527,207 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 2,508 filings by 3 hours (equals 7,524 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $527,207). 

FORM 102S—LOWER ESTIMATE IS METHOD 1 

[FTP submission] 

Number of reporting parties per year 

Annualized 

burden per 

reporting party 

(hours) 255

Total annual 

industry 

burden 

(hours) 

Estimated 

wage rate 

Annual 

industry 

costs 

39 ..................................................................................................................... 106 4,134 $70.07 $289,669 

Method 2 (102S web submission— 

higher estimate): Method 2 assumes that 

each New Form 102S reporting party 

will complete and submit its forms 

online via a secure portal provided by 

the Commission. The Commission 

estimates that the total initial 

development burden will average 17 

hours per 102S record. The Commission 

also estimates that the annual ongoing 

burden, including change and refresh 

updates, will average 7 hours per year 

for each 102S record. The sum of the 

Method 2 annualized initial 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden 

(total yearly burden) equals 

approximately 10 hours per 102S 

record.256

An assessment of Commission data 

collection efforts demonstrated that the 

Commission received approximately 

2,508 102S records in 2012. The 

Commission anticipates that it will 

receive a similar number of 102S 

records each year. Assuming each of the 

estimated 2,508 102S records are 

provided via Method 2, the Commission 

estimates that the total annual industry 

burden for New Form 102S will equal 

25,080 hours. Using an estimated wage 

rate of $70.07 per hour, annual industry 

costs for New Form 102S filings made 

pursuant to Method 2 are estimated at 

$1,757,356.257

Conclusion: The Commission 

understands that providing options to 

the industry should lower costs relative 

to failing to provide these options. 

Because of this, estimated total costs to 

the industry for 102S filing should be 

lower than any cost associated with 

mandating either Method 1 or Method 2. 

Given the cost estimates for the two 

individual methods discussed above, 

the Commission anticipates the annual 

cost to the industry of filing 102S will 

be approximately $289,669 (Method 1— 

FTP submission), the lower of the two 

estimated submission costs. In 

developing this estimate, the 

Commission does not make any 

assumptions about the behavior of an 

individual reporting party. Reporting 

parties, given their own individualized 

needs, are assumed to make the most 

cost-effective choice for them, which 

may be either of the two methods. 

New Form 40S—§ 20.5(b): 258

Method 1 (40S FTP submission— 

higher estimate): New Form 40S must be 

provided in response to a special call by 

the Commission or its designee. Method 

1 assumes that each New Form 40S 

reporting party will use an automated 

program to submit its forms via secure 

FTP. The Commission estimates that the 

total initial development burden will 

average 224 hours per reporting party. 

The Commission further estimates that 

the ongoing operation and maintenance 

burden will average 53 hours per year 

no matter how many records are 

contained in a submission. The total 

Method 1 annualized initial 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden 

(total yearly burden) will equal 

approximately 98 hours per reporting 

party.259

Current § 20.5(b),260 which requires 

the 40S filing, will not be altered by this 

rulemaking. As noted above, the 

Commission anticipates that it will 

receive approximately 2,508 102S 

records per year, and the Commission 

estimates that it will make 

approximately the same number of 40S 

special calls each year (2,508). 

Assuming all Form 40S reporting parties 

utilize Method 1, the Commission 

estimates that the total annual industry 

burden for Form 40S will equal 245,784 

hours. Time required to update 

information contained in 40S filings, 

whether submitted via the web or FTP, 

will be de minimis. Using an estimated 

wage rate of $70.07 per hour, annual 

industry costs for Form 40S filings made 

pursuant to Method 1 are estimated at 

$17,222,085.261

Method 2 (40S web submission— 

lower estimate): Method 2 assumes that 

each New Form 40S reporting party will 

complete and submit its forms online 

via a secure portal provided by the 

Commission.262 As noted above, the 

Commission anticipates that it will 

receive approximately 2,508 102S 

records per year, and the Commission 

estimates that it will make 

approximately the same number of 40S 

special calls each year (2,508). Each 

response is estimated to require three 

hours,263 resulting in an estimated total 

annual reporting burden of 7,524 hours. 

Using an estimated wage rate of $70.07 

per hour, annual industry costs for New 

Form 40S filings made pursuant to 

Method 2 are estimated at $527,207.264


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69211 

265As discussed above, the initial development 

burden per reporting party (10 hours) has been 

divided by 5 years, which results in an estimated 

annualized initial development burden of two 

hours per reporting party. On a non-annualized 

basis, the initial development cost per reporting 

party is estimated at $701 (10 hours × a wage rate 

of $70.07). The Commission expects that reporting 

parties will budget initial development costs in the 

manner that is most cost-effective for each party, 

which may result in some reporting parties 

incurring the majority of these initial development 

costs in the beginning of the rule compliance 

period. 266 17 CFR 18.05. 267See supra section I(B) for a discussion of the 

TCR. 

268The NPRM estimated the total annual cost to 

the industry of § 18.05 following implementation of 

the final rules as $214,605. This figure included the 

cost to parties already subject to § 18.05 who will 

not be impacted by the amendments to § 18.05 

described herein. Consistent with the description of 

costs to reporting parties presented elsewhere 

herein, the estimate of $18,569 represents only the 

new or incremental costs imposed by the changes 

to § 18.05 described in these final rules. The 

$18,569 estimate is therefore less than the $214,605 

estimate for revised § 18.05 in the NPRM. 

269The $18,569 figure is arrived at by multiplying 

53 responses by 5 hours (equals 265 hours) by 

$70.07 (equals $18,569). 

FORM 40S—LOWER ESTIMATE IS METHOD 2 

[Web submission] 

Number of responses per year 

Annualized 

burden per 

response 

(hours) 265

Total annual 

industry 

burden 

(hours) 

Estimated 

wage rate 

Annual 

industry 

costs 

2,508 ................................................................................................................ 3 7,524 $70.07 $527,207 

Conclusion: The Commission 

understands that providing options to 

the industry should lower costs relative 

to failing to provide these options. 

Because of this, estimated total costs to 

the industry for 40S filing should be 

lower than any cost associated with 

mandating either Method 1 or Method 2. 

Given the cost estimates for the two 

individual methods discussed above, 

the Commission anticipates the annual 

industry cost to the industry of filing 

40S will be approximately $527,207 

(Method 2—web submission), the lower 

of the two estimated submission costs. 

In developing this estimate, the 

Commission does not make any 

assumptions about the behavior of an 

individual reporting party. Reporting 

parties, given their own individualized 

needs, are assumed to make the most 

cost-effective choice for them, which 

may be either of the two methods. 

v. Recordkeeping Burdens—Revised 

§ 18.05 

Current § 18.05 requires traders who 

hold or control reportable positions to 

maintain books and records regarding 

all positions and transactions in the 

commodity in which they have 

reportable positions.266 In addition, 

current § 18.05 requires that the trader 

furnish the Commission with 

information concerning such positions 

upon request. The Commission is 

expanding § 18.05 to also impose books 

and records requirements upon (1) 

Volume threshold account controllers 

and (2) owners of volume threshold 

accounts, and upon (3) reportable subaccount controllers and (4) persons who 

own reportable sub-accounts. As a 

result, revised § 18.05 will likely impose 

a recordkeeping burden on a larger 

number of persons than current § 18.05. 

However, any additional persons subject 

to § 18.05 may be able to rely on books 

and records already kept in the ordinary 

course of business to meet the 

requirements of the final regulation. 

Accordingly, the Commission believes 

that revised § 18.05 will not 

meaningfully increase recordkeeping 

burdens on persons brought under its 

scope. 

The Commission sent 59 special calls 

pursuant to § 18.05 in 2012, 42 of which 

were based on trade data reflected in the 

TCR data feed.267 As noted above, 

revised § 18.05 will make four new 

categories of persons, identified through 

the volume-based reporting regime, 

subject to § 18.05. Because the volumebased reporting regime is designed to 

identify designated types of trading 

activity, the Commission estimates that 

it will send special calls pursuant to 

revised § 18.05 to, at a minimum, 42 

recipients (i.e., the same number of 

persons to which the Commission sent 

special calls in 2012 based on trade data 

reflected in the TCR). At the same time, 

the Commission expects that the 

introduction of volume-based reporting 

will lead to the Commission sending 

more special calls than it would 

otherwise, because this regime will 

identify new ownership and control 

relationships and patterns of trading 

activity. As a result, for purposes of 

estimating the costs of revised § 18.05, 

the Commission assumes it will send 

25% more special calls in response to 

trade data than it did in 2012, for a total 

of 53 special calls per year. These 

special calls will require a response 

from approximately 53 individual 

traders per year. 

This estimate reflects only special 

calls sent pursuant to § 18.05 as a result 

of information collected via the volumebased reporting regime (i.e., New Form 

102B and New Form 71).268 The 

estimated 53 recipients of such special 

calls may include some traders that are 

already subject to the costs and 

obligations of current § 18.05. The 

Commission estimates that each special 

call response submitted by the new 

categories of persons subject to revised 

§ 18.05 will take approximately 5 hours, 

for a total annual reporting burden of 

265 hours. Using an estimated wage rate 

of $70.07 per hour, annual reporting 

costs for the new categories of persons 

that are subject to revised § 18.05 are 

estimated at $18,569.269

§ 18.05—RECORDKEEPING BURDEN

Number of responses per year 

Annual burden 

per response 

(hours) 

Total annual 

industry 

burden 

(hours) 

Estimated 

wage rate 

Annual 

industry 

costs 

53 ..................................................................................................................... 5 265 $70.07 $18,569 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69212 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

270See supra section III for a discussion of the 

current trader and account identification programs. 

271See supra section IV for a detailed summary 

of the new and amended forms adopted in these 

final rules. 

272See the discussion of the daily trade capture 

reports in section I(B) above. 

B. Consideration of Costs and Benefits 

i. Background 

The current rules and forms, which 

these final rules update, require FCMs, 

clearing members, and foreign brokers 

to identify special account traders to the 

Commission via Form 102.270 The 

Commission sends a Form 40 in its 

discretion via a special call to a trader 

identified on Form 102, requiring the 

trader to provide the Commission with 

detailed information regarding the 

nature of the trader’s market activity. 

The current Form 102 and Form 40 are 

generally submitted to the Commission 

via a manual submission process (via 

email, facsimile, or regular mail). The 

Commission then individually uploads 

the forms into the Commission’s 

Integrated Surveillance System (ISS), 

discussed in section I(B) above. The 

questions and data points on both forms 

relate only to the Commission’s current 

position-based reporting rules. 

The final rules establish the 

information architecture necessary for 

the Commission to efficiently identify 

and categorize individual trading 

accounts and market participants that 

trigger position or newly-created 

volume-based reporting thresholds. By 

requiring the collection of ownership 

and control information via the new and 

amended forms, the Commission will be 

able to efficiently and effectively 

monitor risk exposure by institution, 

market class, and asset class over an 

extended period of time. To accomplish 

this, the final rules modify current 

Forms 102 and 40 to require additional 

information, require additional 

reporting via New Form 71, and modify 

the timing and method by which market 

participants are required to submit these 

forms to the Commission. New Form 

102 will now be divided into three 

sections: 102A, 102B, and 102S. Section 

102A captures information that must be 

reported when a trading account 

exceeds open position thresholds (a 

‘‘special account’’); section 102B, which 

is new in its entirety, will capture 

information that must be reported when 

a trading account exceeds a specified 

volume threshold during a single 

trading day (a ‘‘volume threshold 

account’’); and section 102S will 

capture information that must be 

reported for consolidated accounts and 

swap counterparties that have a 

reportable position in swaps. The 

following summarizes each of the new 

and amended forms that will take the 

place of current Form 102 and 40 

pursuant to these final rules.271

New Form 102A. As noted above, 

Form 102A is a position-based reporting 

form, which requires the reporting of 

both special accounts and the trading 

accounts that comprise special 

accounts. This reporting will allow the 

Commission to link special accounts 

holding reportable positions to the 

transactions (and associated trading 

accounts) identified on daily trade 

capture reports received by the 

Commission. By illustrating the 

connections between end-of-day 

position reporting via Form 102 and 

daily trade capture reports, the final 

rules will enable the Commission to 

perform a more accurate and timely 

accounting of market position at the 

level of individual trading accounts, 

thereby improving the Commission’s 

surveillance capabilities.272

New Form 102B. While Form 102A 

requires the reporting of large trader 

positions that remain open at the end of 

the day, Form 102B requires the 

reporting of trading accounts that 

exceed a stated volume threshold during 

a single trading day, regardless of 

whether these positions remain open at 

the end of the day. This will identify 

traders whose end-of-day open interest 

does not reach reportable levels on 

Form 102A, but whose intra-day trading 

reaches the volume threshold, thus 

enabling the Commission to monitor 

trading that could potentially impact 

markets during concentrated periods of 

intra-day trading. The Commission 

expects that the addition of volumebased reporting will provide much 

needed information about highfrequency traders and other market 

participants using algorithmic systems, 

whose activities are not typically 

captured by the current position-based 

reporting regime. When combined with 

the position data reported on Form 

102A, New Form 102B will improve the 

Commission’s ability to: (i) Aggregate 

accounts under common ownership 

and/or control; (ii) better understand 

how certain market segments may affect 

the process of price formation; (iii) 

efficiently analyze trading behavior 

surrounding price spikes and other 

pricing anomalies throughout the day; 

and (iv) detect and investigate 

disruptive trading activities, including 

intraday speculative position limit 

violations and wash trades. 

New Form 71. The Commission will 

send Form 71, in its discretion via a 

special call, to collect additional 

information on omnibus volume 

threshold accounts identified on Form 

102B (or on another Form 71). Form 71 

is designed to permit originating firms 

to report the required information 

directly to the Commission without 

requiring such firms to disclose 

information regarding customers to 

potential competitors. Form 71 

illustrates the ‘nested’ structure of 

omnibus accounts and underlying 

omnibus sub-accounts that are volume 

threshold accounts, and identifies the 

ultimate owner and controller of these 

accounts. Form 71 will provide crucial 

ownership and control information to 

the Commission that is not collected 

under the current reporting regime. The 

Commission will use this ownership 

information to aggregate and analyze all 

trading by a market participant for 

surveillance purposes, irrespective of 

whether this trading is conducted 

through a single account, or through a 

number of accounts maintained by one 

or more intermediaries. 

New Form 102S. Form 102S is 

designed to facilitate the electronic 

submission of 102S filings. Such filings 

are currently being submitted to the 

Commission (pursuant to 17 CFR 

20.5(a)) through a non-automated 

process. Form 102S will provide 

position-based reporting of consolidated 

accounts in the swaps market. The form 

expands the current 102S reporting 

regime to require the reporting of 

ownership and control information with 

respect to such accounts. Swap 

reporting on Form 102S significantly 

improves the Commission’s surveillance 

capabilities, by enabling it to track the 

market activity of a specific trader, 

including traders that may be dividing 

risk exposure between both on-exchange 

and off-exchange instruments. Swap 

reporting will also enable the 

Commission to more efficiently 

aggregate position exposure in a 

particular product or commodity group. 

Such reporting also aligns with the 

Commission’s recently finalized rules 

on real-time public and regulatory 

reporting of swap trades, and improves 

transparency into markets that, 

historically, have often been opaque 

and/or over-the-counter. 

New Form 40/40S. Each of the 102 

forms and Form 71 requires respondents 

to identify the parties that the 

Commission should contact (such as the 

account owner, controller, and related 

contact persons) if the Commission 

requires additional information 

regarding traders or trading accounts 

identified on the forms. The 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69213 

273 7 U.S.C. 19(a). 274As discussed below with respect to costs more 

specifically, the Commission’s estimated cost 

ranges assume that all market participants will start 

from the same point in developing the systems 

required to implement OCR reporting, irrespective 

of whether they provide certain forms under the 

current reporting system (e.g., the current Forms 

102 and 40). 

275For example, to quantify benefits such as 

improved transparency and enhanced protections 

for market participants and the public would 

require information, data and/or metrics that either 

do not exist, or to which the Commission generally 

does not have access. 

276See section VIII(B)(vi) below for additional 

discussion of comments received by the 

Commission regarding the costs and benefits of 

reporting. 277See id. 

Commission will send New Form 40 in 

its discretion via a special call to collect 

additional information from traders 

reported on each of the 102 forms and 

Form 71. These final rules expand Form 

40 by requiring the reporting trader to: 

(1) Indicate whether it is engaged in 

commodity index trading (as that term 

is defined in the form) (a question that 

does not appear on current Form 40); (2) 

report its control relationships with 

other entities, and other relationships 

with persons that influence or exercise 

authority over the trading of a reporting 

trader (a question that has been 

expanded on New Form 40); (3) identify 

all the business sectors that pertain to 

its business activities or occupation (a 

question that has been expanded on 

New Form 40); and (4) identify all 

commodity groups and individual 

commodities that it presently trades, or 

expects to trade in the near future, in 

derivatives markets (a question that has 

been expanded on New Form 40), 

among other information. 

Responses to these questions will 

improve the Commission’s ability to 

perform effective surveillance, by 

enabling it to better understand the 

ownership and control structure of 

reporting traders, and the extent of their 

business activities across multiple 

markets and product groups. The 

Commission will, furthermore, be able 

to use information reported on New 

Form 40 to cross-check several of the 

ownership and control data fields 

reported on New Form 102. The 

additional information requested on 

New Form 40 will improve the quality 

of data published in the Commission’s 

reports, including the classifications in 

the Commitments of Traders Report. 

Finally, the Commission will be able to 

compare the trading goals that a 

respondent reports on New Form 40 to 

its subsequent market activity. If the two 

do not correspond, the Commission will 

request additional information from the 

respondent in order to maintain 

accuracy in Commission databases and 

reports, or take other appropriate action. 

In sum, the final rules will build upon 

the Commission’s existing market and 

trade practice surveillance programs for 

futures, options on futures, and swaps, 

by improving the Commission’s 

understanding of the impact of special 

accounts, consolidated accounts, and 

newly designated volume threshold 

accounts on market activity. In turn, this 

will allow the Commission to better 

perform risk-based monitoring and 

surveillance among related accounts; 

efficiently monitor risk exposure by 

institution, market class, and asset class; 

facilitate investigations into disruptive 

trading activity by Commission 

enforcement staff; and expand the 

Commission’s ability to research and 

analyze how a wide-ranging variety of 

market participants impact market 

behavior. 

ii. The Statutory Requirement for the 

Commission To Consider the Costs and 

Benefits of Its Actions 

Section 15(a) of the CEA 273 requires 

the Commission to ‘‘consider the costs 

and benefits’’ of its actions before 

promulgating a regulation under the 

CEA or issuing certain orders. Section 

15(a) further specifies that the costs and 

benefits must be evaluated in light of 

the following five broad areas of market 

and public concern: (1) Protection of 

market 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 below. 

As a general matter, the Commission 

considers the incremental costs and 

benefits of these rules, that is the costs 

and benefits that are above the standard 

established by the Commission’s 

existing regulations.274 Where 

reasonably feasible, the Commission has 

endeavored to estimate quantifiable 

costs and benefits. Where quantification 

is not feasible, the Commission 

identifies and describes costs and 

benefits qualitatively.275

iii. Commission Request for Comments 

Regarding Cost and Benefit Estimates 

The Commission requested comment 

on a variety of cost and benefit metrics 

in the NPRM. As a general matter, the 

Commission requested that commenters 

provide data and any other information 

or statistics that they relied on to reach 

conclusions on the Commission’s cost 

and benefit estimates. The Commission 

also requested comment, including 

specific quantitative estimates, on the 

expected costs related to upgrading or 

obtaining systems to implement and 

comply with the reporting requirement 

under the proposed new and revised 

forms, as well as the impact of the 

proposed rules (or the relative impact of 

any alternative rules) on the section 

15(a) factors. Although some 

commenters stated that the NPRM 

understated the total cost to the 

industry, no commenter provided 

specific quantitative cost or benefit 

estimates, or other information to more 

precisely estimate costs beyond those 

presented in the NPRM.276

In the absence of specific quantitative 

estimates or alternative cost proposals 

by commenters, the Commission 

performed its own analysis in updating 

the NPRM cost benefit considerations 

for these final rules. As explained 

below, for purposes of these final rules, 

the Commission has updated the cost 

estimates that appeared in the NPRM 

based on the most recent data and 

statistics available to the Commission. 

In this section VIII(B), the Commission 

has also calculated an estimated range 

of 25 percent below and 25 percent 

above the estimated total annual 

industry cost for each form. The 

Commission has applied these ranges 

because reporting costs will differ 

among market participants based on a 

variety of factors, including the state of 

their current technology systems, and 

their differing levels of market and 

reporting experience. The upper end of 

the ranges also responds to comments 

stating that the cost estimates in the 

NPRM understated the total cost to the 

industry (without expressing by how 

much, or to what degree).277

iv. Methodology Used To Estimate Costs 

As discussed above, the Commission 

has calculated the total estimated 

industry cost for submitting each form 

via FTP or via the web portal. For each 

form, these calculations represent the 

total industry cost if all reporting parties 

submit information via one method—as 

compared to the total industry cost if all 

parties submit via the other method. For 

example, the 102A estimates described 

in sections VIII(A) and (B) represent the 

total estimated industry cost if all 

reporting parties submit 102A via FTP 

($1,931,129), or if all parties submit 

102A via the web portal ($5,954,969). 

The Commission recognizes that, even if 

it is less expensive for the industry as 

a whole to submit 102A via FTP, it may 

be less expensive for certain individual 

reporting parties to submit 102A via the 

web portal. This may be due to the 

limited number of forms these parties 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69214 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

278 In this example, the Commission expects that 

reporting parties making a small number of filings 

would choose to submit via the web-based portal, 

because web submission would be the most costeffective submission method for such parties. In 

doing so, they will incur fewer costs than they 

would if they submitted via FTP, thereby lowering 

the total costs to the industry. As a result, the 

simplifying assumption that all reporting parties 

will submit New Form 102A (along with certain 

other forms discussed below) via FTP is a 

conservative assumption, which will tend to 

overestimate the total industry cost. 

279Certain parties that will be required to report 

under these final rules now provide certain forms 

under the current reporting system (e.g., the current 

Forms 102 and 40). 

280See § 15.005(r) of the Commission’s 

regulations. 

281All 2010 OCR NPRM comment letters are 

available through the Commission’s Web site at: 

http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/

CommentList.aspx?id=755&ctl00_ctl00_cphContent

Main_MainContent_gvCommentListChangePage=1 282The Commission received a number of 

comment letters in response to the 2010 OCR 

NPRM, and incorporated several of their 

suggestions in the NPRM (published in the Federal 

Register in 2012), which forms the basis for these 

final rules. Among these changes, the Commission 

removed certain questions from the reporting forms 

asking for data that, in the view of commenters, is 

not maintained by reporting parties. See NPRM 

supra note 10 at 43973–43974 for a discussion of 

comments received in response to the 2010 OCR 

NPRM that were incorporated in the NPRM. See 

also the December 23, 2010 comment letter from 

FIA at 9 and Exhibit A; October 7, 2010 comment 

letter from CME at 4; and October 7, 2010 comment 

letter from ICE at 3, which establish that the 

majority of the remaining data points, which appear 

on the forms adopted in these final rules, already 

reside with reporting parties. 

283See supra section I(B) for a discussion of the 

TSS and ISS. 

expect to submit, their technology 

infrastructure, or other factors. 

To expand on this example, if a new 

reporting party anticipates that it will 

submit only two 102A filings per year, 

it might logically conclude that it would 

be less expensive to submit its two 

filings via the web portal than to incur 

the development costs associated with 

establishing an FTP link to the 

Commission. In this instance, the 

Commission has estimated that the 

reporting party would incur 20 hours of 

initial development burden for each of 

the two records submitted via the web 

portal, or a total initial development 

burden of 40 hours. Accordingly, the 

reporting party may conclude that 

submitting its 102A filings via the web 

portal is more cost-effective than 

submitting the same information via 

FTP, which the Commission has 

estimated would require an initial 

development burden of 264 hours per 

entity (regardless of the number of forms 

submitted).278

The cost estimates in section VIII(A) 

and (B) assume that all market 

participants will start from the same 

point in developing the systems 

required to implement OCR reporting. 

Accordingly, to the extent that current 

reporting parties leverage their existing 

reporting systems 279 to implement OCR 

reporting, the cost estimates are likely to 

overestimate actual costs to some degree 

for such parties. 

For the following additional reasons, 

the Commission anticipates that total 

reporting and recordkeeping costs to the 

industry are likely to be lower than the 

sum of the costs associated with each 

form individually, as the Commission 

has calculated herein. 

First, the reporting and recordkeeping 

burdens arising from each regulation 

and associated form were estimated 

independently of the requirements of 

the other regulations and associated 

forms. The Commission anticipates that 

substantial synergies are likely to exist 

across the systems and data necessary to 

meet the reporting requirements. For 

example, many reporting firms 

submitting New Form 102A via FTP 

(which the Commission believes is the 

more cost-effective submission method 

for the industry as a whole) will also 

submit New Form 102B via FTP, and 

will be able to leverage systems and 

information necessary for submitting 

one form to meet the requirement to 

submit the other. 

Second, the Commission has 

incorporated a number of proposals 

made by commenters that are intended 

to reduce the reporting burden and 

associated costs to market participants. 

These proposals are described in section 

VII above and section VIII(B)(vii) below. 

While the Commission has updated the 

cost estimates that appeared in the 

NPRM based on the most recent data 

and statistics available to the 

Commission, in order to generate more 

conservative cost estimates, the 

Commission has not reduced the cost 

estimates in these final rules to account 

for the incorporation of these costsaving proposals. 

v. Costs and Benefits of Individual 

Reporting Forms and Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

The discussion below considers the 

anticipated costs and benefits to the 

industry of New Form 102A, New Form 

102B, New Form 71, New Form 40, New 

Form 102S, New Form 40S, and the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of revised § 18.05. 

New Form 102A 

(1) Overview of New Form 102A 

New Form 102A, which identifies 

owners and controllers of special 

accounts and other related information, 

is based on the Form 102 currently in 

use. These final rules do not modify the 

definition of what constitutes a ‘‘special 

account’’ for reporting purposes.280 The 

rules do, however, increase the amount 

of information required to be reported 

with respect to each special account. 

For example, New Form 102A requests 

that the respondent provide the Web 

site, NFA ID, and Legal Entity Identifier 

of the owners and controllers reported 

on the form, to the extent this 

information is available in the 

respondent’s records. More 

significantly, New Form 102A requires 

respondents to identify the owners and 

controllers of each trading account that 

comprises the reported special account. 

The preceding information is not 

collected on current Form 102. These 

newly collected data points will allow 

the Commission to link special accounts 

holding reportable positions to the 

transactions (and associated trading 

accounts) identified on daily trade 

capture reports received by the 

Commission. The Commission 

understands that (as noted by comment 

letters on the 2010 OCR NPRM) 281 the 

majority of these data points already 

reside with reporting parties.282 As a 

result, reporting parties will not need to 

coordinate with external parties in order 

to compile most data points required by 

New Form 102A. 

(2) Benefits of New Form 102A 

The reporting of trading accounts that 

comprise a special account will provide 

common reference points between TSS 

and ISS data, thereby enabling the 

Commission to efficiently compare endof-day reportable positions with intraday account activity.283 By connecting 

end-of-day position level data with 

intra-day account activity, the 

Commission will be able to efficiently 

determine the ownership or control of 

specific positions held by individual 

trading accounts at any time throughout 

the trading day, thereby improving 

market transparency. More specifically, 

Commission staff will use the additional 

ownership and control information to 

determine whether a reported account is 

a new account of a previously reported 

trader, or whether it correlates to a 

previously unreported trader. If the 

account is owned or controlled by a 

previously reported trader, it will be 

aggregated with other related accounts 

currently being reported. By identifying 

and aggregating accounts in this 

manner, Commission staff can more 

thoroughly monitor and assess a trader’s 

potential market impact during 

significant periods such as price spikes 

or settlement periods, monitor the 

trader’s compliance with speculative 

position limits, and determine whether 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69215 

284All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. The 

106 hour figure is arrived at by dividing 264 hours 

(initial development burden per reporting party) by 

5 years, which results in an estimated annualized 

initial development burden of 53 hours per 

reporting party. 53 hours plus 53 hours (annual, 

ongoing operation and maintenance burdens per 

reporting party) equals 106 hours per reporting 

party. 

285The Commission staff’s estimates concerning 

the wage rates are based on salary information for 

the securities industry compiled by the Securities 

Industry and Financial Markets Association 

(‘‘SIFMA’’). The $70.07 per hour is derived from 

figures from a weighted average of salaries and 

bonuses across different professions from the 

SIFMA Report on Management & Professional 

Earnings in the Securities Industry 2011, modified 

to account for an 1800-hour work-year and 

multiplied by 1.3 to account for overhead and other 

benefits. The wage rate is a weighted national 

average of salary and bonuses for professionals with 

the following titles (and their relative weight): 

‘‘programmer (senior)’’ (30% weight); 

‘‘programmer’’ (29% weight); ‘‘compliance advisor 

(intermediate)’’ (15%), ‘‘systems analyst’’ (16%), 

and ‘‘assistant/associate general counsel’’ (10%). 

The $70.07 wage rate is a blended rate, such that 

the Commission has applied the same $70.07 wage 

rate when calculating the cost of submission via 

both FTP and the web-based portal. As noted above, 

the NPRM contemplated that Forms 40/S and 71 

could be submitted only via the web portal. 

However, pursuant to these final rules, the 

Commission is allowing reporting parties to submit 

Forms 40/S and 71 via FTP as well, with the result 

that reporting parties may submit all forms either 

via the web portal or via FTP. In light of this 

change, the wage rage percentages in these final 

rules have been updated and slightly modified from 

the wage rate percentages in the NPRM, to more 

accurately reflect anticipated labor allocations. The 

NPRM employed the following wage rage 

percentages: ‘‘programmer (senior)’’ (30% weight); 

‘‘programmer’’ (30% weight); ‘‘compliance advisor 

(intermediate)’’ (20%), ‘‘systems analyst’’ (10%), 

and ‘‘assistant/associate general counsel’’ (10%). 

While the NPRM calculated an estimated wage rate 

of $78.61 per hour, these final rules calculate an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour using the 

2011 SIFMA statistics and updated wage rate 

percentages. (Note that the national average of 

salary and bonuses for the professionals listed 

above declined between 2010 to 2011, according to 

the SIFMA report addressing each of those years. 

The 2010 SIMA report (which is the basis for the 

wage rate in the NPRM) indicates an aggregate 

national average of salary and bonuses of $530,321 

for these professionals, while the 2011 SIFMA 

report indicates an aggregate national average of 

salary and bonuses of $510,943.) The Commission 

has also updated the cost estimates that appeared 

in the NPRM based on the most recent data and 

statistics available to the Commission (including, 

for example, the number of reporting forms received 

by the Commission in 2012). The NPRM calculated 

an estimated total annual cost to the industry of 

$9,147,061, as compared to an estimated total cost 

to the industry of $9,574,296 in these final rules, 

per section VIII(A) above. See also supra note 265. 

286As noted in section VIII(A), the initial 

development cost per reporting party is estimated 

at $18,498 (264 hours of initial development burden 

× a wage rate of $70.07). The Commission expects 

that reporting parties will budget initial 

development costs in the manner that is most costeffective for each party, which may result in some 

reporting parties incurring the majority of these 

initial development costs in the beginning of the 

rule compliance period. 

287The Commission has calculated an estimated 

range of 25% below and 25% above the estimated 

total annual industry cost, due to the fact that 

reporting costs will differ among market 

participants based on a variety of factors, including 

the state of their current technology systems, and 

their differing levels of market and reporting 

experience. The upper end of the ranges also 

responds to comments stating that the cost 

estimates in the NPRM understated the total cost to 

the industry (without expressing by how much, or 

to what degree). 

288The Commission estimated the total annual 

industry cost associated with each filing obligation 

by considering the two distinct filing methods that 

it will accommodate pursuant to these final rules 

(web-based submission and FTP submission). The 

estimated cost of each filing obligation assumes that 

all reporting parties will file via the less expensive 

of the two filing methods. However, reporting 

parties, given their own individualized needs, are 

assumed to make the most cost-effective choice for 

them, which may be either of the two methods. As 

noted in section VIII(A) above, the estimated total 

annual industry cost of the more expensive 

submission method, via the web-based portal, is 

$5,954,969. The $5,954,969 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying the anticipated 7,726 records by 11 

hours anticipated burden per record (equals 84,986 

hours) by a wage rate of $70.07 (equals $5,954,969). 

An estimated low and high range (25% below and 

above this figure) equals $4,466,227 and $7,443,711, 

respectively. 

the trader is engaging in abusive or 

disruptive practices (such as marking 

the close, ‘‘wash trading,’’ or money 

passing). By aggregating the accounts of 

individual traders, the Commission will 

also be able to more efficiently calculate 

aggregate position exposure in a 

particular product or commodity group. 

In sum, the additional information 

provided by New Form 102A will 

contribute to the overall integrity of the 

financial markets, by improving the 

Commission’s ability to detect and 

investigate disruptive or manipulative 

behavior. 

(3) Costs of New Form 102A 

The Commission assumes that each 

New Form 102A reporting party will 

submit New Form 102A via secure FTP, 

which the Commission believes is the 

more cost-effective of the two filing 

methods for the industry as a whole. 

Each FTP submission will likely contain 

numerous 102A records. The 

Commission estimates that the total 

initial development burden will average 

264 hours per reporting party. The 

Commission also estimates that the 

highly automated nature of this option 

will virtually eliminate the marginal 

costs associated with each additional 

submission or each additional record 

contained in a submission. Accordingly, 

the Commission estimates that 102A 

change and refresh updates will not 

increase a reporting party’s burden 

when using the FTP submission 

method. The Commission further 

estimates that the ongoing operation and 

maintenance burden will average 53 

hours per year no matter how many 

records are contained in a submission. 

The total annualized initial 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden 

(total yearly burden) will equal 

approximately 106 hours per reporting 

party.284

An assessment of Commission data 

collection efforts demonstrated that the 

Commission received Form 102 

submissions from 260 reporting parties 

in 2012. The Commission anticipates 

that it will receive New Form 102A 

submissions from a similar number of 

reporting parties each year. Assuming 

all New Form 102A reporting parties 

utilize the FTP submission method, the 

Commission estimates that the total 

annual industry burden for New Form 

102A will equal 27,560 hours. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per 

hour,285 annual industry costs for 102A 

filings made pursuant to the FTP 

submission method are estimated at 

$1,931,129. 

As indicated throughout this section 

VIII(B), the Commission has used the 

same wage rate of $70.07 when 

calculating the cost of submission via 

both the web portal and FTP. Each 

submission method will, nonetheless, 

require a different annual or annualized 

burden, in terms of hours. This $70.07 

wage rate represents the work of a 

senior programmer, programmer, 

intermediate compliance advisor, 

systems analyst, and assistant/associate 

general counsel, in the proportions 

described in the preceding footnote. 

FORM 102A 

Regulation 

Estimated 

total annual 

industry 

cost 286

Estimated low and high range 

(25% below and 25% above 

estimated total annual 

industry cost) 287

Anticipated 

transmission 

method 288

17.01(a) .............................................................................................................. $1,931,129 $1,448,347–$2,413,911 FTP 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69216 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

289See ‘‘Findings Regarding the Market Events of 

May 6, 2010,’’ available at: http://www.sec.gov/

news/studies/2010/marketevents-report.pdf. 

290All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

291The 10,600 hour figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 106 hours (annualized development 

burden and ongoing operation and maintenance 

burden per reporting party) by 100 reporting 

parties. 

292The $742,742 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 100 reporting parties by 106 hours 

(equals 10,600 hours) by $70.07 (equals $742,742). 

293The 7,950 hour figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 106 hours (annualized development 

New Form 102B 

(4) Overview of New Form 102B 

New Form 102B provides a new 

volume-based reporting structure not 

found in current Form 102. While 

current Form 102 reporting 

requirements arise when an account (or 

collection of related accounts) has a 

reportable position, 102B reporting is 

triggered when an individual trading 

account meets a specified trading 

volume level in an individual product 

and, as a result, becomes a ‘‘volume 

threshold account.’’ As noted above, 

volume threshold accounts could 

reflect, without limitation, trading in 

futures, options on futures, swaps, and 

any other product traded on or subject 

to the rules of a DCM or SEF. 

(5) Benefits of New Form 102B 

The current position-based reporting 

regime captures over 90 percent of open 

interest in many markets regulated by 

the Commission. Nonetheless, the 

current system is not specifically 

designed to identify market participants 

using algorithmic systems, whose 

activities have been opaque under the 

position-based reporting regime. These 

traders typically enter and exit a given 

market position within very brief 

periods intraday, and are therefore 

rarely captured by end-of-day position 

reports. In highly liquid markets, 

participants of this type can make up a 

meaningful percentage of market 

activity. The addition of volume-based 

reporting, which identifies intra-day 

trading activity meeting a volume 

threshold regardless of whether 

positions continue to be held at the end 

of day, will enable the Commission to 

better understand the behavior and 

evolution of this rapidly growing market 

segment. Reporting on 102B will also 

enable the Commission to identify other 

types of high-volume traders that may 

hold positions for longer periods of time 

than is characteristic of high-frequency 

traders, but nonetheless enter and exit 

positions intraday. 

While the Commission is able to view 

intraday transactions via the 

Commission’s trade capture report, this 

report does not provide ownership or 

control information regarding the 

relevant trading accounts. Because the 

Commission lacks the information 

necessary to efficiently link transaction 

and account data, the Commission is 

unable to aggregate the positions of 

individual trading accounts, or associate 

trading accounts with special accounts 

in a timely fashion. The addition of 

volume-based reporting via New Form 

102B will remedy this, by providing the 

Commission with an efficient means to 

collect the information required to 

aggregate positions, detect intra-day 

position limit violations, and calculate 

market share. When analyzing periods 

of elevated volatility—especially at 

significant trading times such as market 

open and close—the ability to aggregate 

intra-day trading behavior by owner/

controller is crucial to understanding 

whether a trader has adversely affected 

(or has the potential to affect) market 

quality or price discovery. 

In sum, the information collected on 

new Form 102B will significantly 

improve the efficiency and performance 

of the Commission’s market and trade 

practice surveillance program. The 

Commission anticipates that New Form 

102B will allow the Commission to 

perform more comprehensive 

surveillance, by identifying over 90 

percent of market activity in many 

significant products that are traded 

intra-day but not held overnight, 

mirroring the level of account 

identification under the current end-ofday position-based reporting regime. In 

so doing, it will improve the integrity of 

financial markets, protecting market 

participants and the public from the 

costs of disruptive trading practices and 

other market abuses. Improving the 

Commission’s surveillance program will 

also support the Commission’s 

enforcement efforts to investigate such 

market abuses. Finally, the ability to 

more efficiently identify and aggregate 

trading activity will improve the 

Commission’s research capabilities as 

well as its forensic analysis of 

disruptive market events, even when 

prohibited practices are not involved. 

For example, the Commission’s efforts 

to identify and aggregate trading activity 

were shown to be particularly helpful in 

diagnosing events such as the Flash 

Crash of 2010.289

(6) Costs of New Form 102B 

The Commission assumes that each 

New Form 102B reporting party will 

submit New Form 102B via secure FTP, 

which the Commission believes is the 

more cost-effective of the two filing 

methods for the industry as a whole. 

Each FTP submission will likely contain 

numerous 102B records. The 

Commission estimates that the total 

initial development burden should 

average 264 hours per reporting party. 

The Commission also estimates that the 

highly automated nature of this option 

will virtually eliminate the marginal 

costs associated with each additional 

submission or each additional record 

contained in a submission. Accordingly, 

the Commission estimates that 102B 

change and refresh updates will not 

increase a reporting party’s burden 

when using the FTP submission 

method. The Commission further 

estimates that the ongoing operation and 

maintenance burden will average 53 

hours per year no matter how many 

records are contained in a submission. 

The total annualized initial 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden 

(total yearly burden) equals 

approximately 106 hours per reporting 

party.290

Because New Form 102B provides a 

new volume-based reporting structure 

not found in current Form 102, the 

Commission is unable to refer to 

historical reporting statistics to directly 

estimate the number of New Form 102B 

reporting parties. Instead, the 

Commission estimated the number of 

New Form 102B reporting parties by 

estimating the number of clearing 

members associated with trading 

accounts that the Commission projects 

will qualify as volume threshold 

accounts. 

• For volume threshold accounts 

associated with DCMs, the Commission 

anticipates that it will receive New 

Form 102B submissions from 

approximately 100 reporting parties 

annually. Assuming that all such 

reporting parties utilize the FTP 

submission method, the Commission 

estimates that the total annual industry 

burden for the reporting of such 

accounts on New Form 102B will equal 

10,600 hours.291 Using an estimated 

wage rate of $70.07 per hour, annual 

industry costs for such filings made 

pursuant to the FTP submission method 

are estimated at $742,742.292

• For volume threshold accounts 

associated with SEFs, the Commission 

anticipates that it will receive New 

Form 102B submissions from 

approximately 75 reporting parties 

annually. Assuming that all such 

reporting parties utilize the FTP 

submission method, the Commission 

estimates that the total annual industry 

burden for the reporting of such 

accounts on New Form 102B will equal 

7,950 hours.293 Using an estimated wage 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69217 

burden and ongoing operation and maintenance 

burden per reporting party) by 75 reporting parties. 

294The $557,057 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 75 reporting parties by 106 hours 

(equals 7,950 hours) by $70.07 (equals $557,057). 

295The $1,299,799 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 175 reporting parties by 106 hours 

(equals 18,550 hours) by $70.07 (equals $1,299,799). 

296As noted in section VIII(A), the initial 

development cost per reporting party is estimated 

at $18,498 (264 hours of initial development burden 

× a wage rate of $70.07). The Commission expects 

that reporting parties will budget initial 

development costs in the manner that is most costeffective for each party, which may result in some 

reporting parties incurring the majority of these 

initial development costs in the beginning of the 

rule compliance period. 

297The Commission has calculated an estimated 

range of 25% below and 25% above the estimated 

total annual industry cost, due to the fact that 

reporting costs will differ among market 

participants based on a variety of factors, including 

the state of their current technology systems, and 

their differing levels of market and reporting 

experience. The upper end of the ranges also 

responds to comments stating that the cost 

estimates in the NPRM understated the total cost to 

the industry (without expressing by how much, or 

to what degree). 

298As noted in section VIII(A) above, the 

estimated total annual industry cost of the more 

expensive submission method, via the web-based 

portal, is $144,916,322. The $144,916,322 figure is 

arrived at by multiplying the anticipated 188,015 

records by 11 hours anticipated burden per record 

(equals 2,068,165 hours) by a wage rate of $70.07 

(equals $144,916,322). An estimated low and high 

range (25% below and above this figure) equals 

$108,687,242 and $181,145,403, respectively. 

299The submission of New Form 71 through the 

web-based portal does not require initial 

development expenditures; as a result, the burdens 

and costs for this form are calculated on an annual 

basis rather than an annualized basis. In addition, 

Form 71 does not require change or refresh updates. 

300The $316,156 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 564 records by 8 hours (equals 4,512 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $316,156). 

301The $110,991 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 198 records by 8 hours (equals 1,584 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $110,991). 

302The $427,147 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 762 records by 8 hours (equals 6,096 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $427,147). 

303The Commission has calculated an estimated 

range of 25% below and 25% above the estimated 

total annual industry cost, due to the fact that 

reporting costs will differ among market 

participants based on a variety of factors, including 

the state of their current technology systems, and 

their differing levels of market and reporting 

experience. The upper end of the ranges also 

responds to comments stating that the cost 

estimates in the NPRM understated the total cost to 

the industry (without expressing by how much, or 

to what degree). 

304As noted in section VIII(A) above, the 

estimated total annual industry cost of the more 

expensive submission method, via FTP data feed, 

Continued 

rate of $70.07 per hour, annual industry 

costs for such filings made pursuant to 

the FTP submission method are 

estimated at $557,057.294

Collectively, annual industry costs for 

102B filings made pursuant to the FTP 

submission method are estimated at 

$1,299,799.295

FORM 102B 

Regulation 

Estimated total 

annual 

industry 

cost 296

Estimated low and high range 

(25% below and 25% above 

estimated total annual 

industry cost) 297

Anticipated 

transmission 

method 298

17.01(b) .............................................................................................................. $1,299,799 $974,849–$1,624,749 FTP 

New Form 71 

(7) Overview of New Form 71 

New Form 71 (‘‘Identification of 

Omnibus Accounts and Sub-Accounts’’) 

will be sent, in the Commission’s 

discretion, in the event that a volume 

threshold account is identified as a 

customer omnibus account on Form 

102B. The Commission will send New 

Form 71 via a special call to the 

originating firm of such an account. If 

the originating firm indicates that this 

account is itself an omnibus account (an 

‘‘omnibus reportable sub-account’’), 

then the originating firm will be 

required to indicate whether the 

omnibus reportable sub-account is a 

house or customer omnibus account and 

identify the originator of the omnibus 

reportable sub-account. Another Form 

71 will be sent, at the discretion of 

Commission staff, to the originator of a 

customer omnibus reportable subaccount identified on Form 71. At its 

discretion, the Commission will 

continue to reach through layered 

customer omnibus reportable subaccounts via successive Form 71s until 

reaching all reportable sub-accounts, if 

any, that are not omnibus sub-accounts. 

Form 71 therefore illustrates the ‘nested’ 

structure of omnibus accounts and 

underlying omnibus sub-accounts that 

are volume threshold accounts, and 

identifies the ultimate owner and 

controller of these accounts. 

(8) Benefits of New Form 71 

Without the information provided on 

New Form 71, the Commission is unable 

to determine whether trading activity in 

omnibus accounts is attributable to 

accounts under common ownership or 

control, or whether it simply represents 

the combined trading activity of 

multiple traders acting independently of 

one another. Similar to the benefits of 

New Form 102B, the ability to aggregate 

trading activity will enable the 

Commission to better identify 

manipulative and disruptive trading 

activity, regardless of whether this 

activity is conducted through a single 

account, or spread across a number of 

omnibus accounts and sub-accounts. 

(9) Costs of New Form 71 

The Commission assumes that each 

New Form 71 reporting party (i.e., 

originators of omnibus volume 

threshold accounts or omnibus 

reportable sub-accounts) will complete 

and submit New Form 71 online via a 

secure web-based portal provided by the 

Commission, which the Commission 

believes is the more cost-effective of the 

two filing methods for the industry as a 

whole. The Commission estimates that, 

on average, New Form 71 will create an 

annual reporting burden of 8 hours per 

filing.299

As discussed in section VIII(A) above, 

the Commission expects approximately 

564 DCM-related New Form 71 filings 

per year, and 198 SEF-related New Form 

71 filings per year. 

• Based on an estimated 564 DCMrelated New Form 71 filings per year, 

the Commission estimates an aggregate 

reporting burden of 4,512 hours 

annually for such filings via the webbased portal. Using an estimated wage 

rate of $70.07 per hour, annual industry 

costs for such filings made via the webbased portal are estimated at 

$316,156.300

• Based on an estimated 198 SEFrelated New Form 71 filings per year, 

the Commission estimates an aggregate 

reporting burden of 1,584 hours 

annually for such filings via the webbased portal. Using an estimated wage 

rate of $70.07 per hour, annual industry 

costs for such filings made via the webbased portal are estimated at 

$110,991.301

Collectively, annual industry costs for 

New Form 71 filings made via the webbased portal are estimated at 

$427,147.302


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69218 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

is $5,659,694. The $5,659,694 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying the anticipated 762 reporting parties by 

106 hours of annualized development burden and 

ongoing operation and maintenance burden (equals 

80,772 hours) by a wage rate of $70.07 (equals 

$5,659,694). An estimated low and high range (25% 

below and above this figure) equals $4,244,771 and 

$7,074,618, respectively. 

305The Commission’s estimate of three hours per 

response reflects an initial, one-time burden of 10 

hours, annualized over a five-year period, plus an 

additional hour per year for change updates. 

306The $1,103,603 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 5,250 records by 3 hours (equals 15,750 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $1,103,603). 

FORM 71 

Regulation 

Estimated total 

annual 

industry cost 

Estimated low and high range 

(25% below and 25% above 

estimated total annual 

industry cost) 303

Anticipated 

transmission 

method 304

17.01(c) .............................................................................................................. $427,147 $320,360–$533,934 web 

New Form 40 

(10) Overview of New Form 40 

New Form 40 will be sent, on special 

call of the Commission, to individuals 

and other entities identified on any of 

102A, 102B, and Form 71. New Form 

40, still referred to as the ‘‘Statement of 

Reporting Trader,’’ will continue to 

serve the function traditionally met by 

current Form 40. At the same time, New 

Form 40 will provide the Commission 

with more detailed information than 

current Form 40 regarding both the 

business activities and the ownership 

and control structure of a reporting 

trader identified in the Commission’s 

Form 102 program (as updated by these 

final rules). New Form 40 will also be 

the vehicle through which market 

participants subject to 17 CFR 20.5(b) 

submit their 40S filings (discussed 

below), and will be used to collect 

additional information regarding the 

owners and controllers of non-omnibus 

volume threshold accounts identified by 

Form 71. Those entities required to 

complete a New Form 40 will be under 

a continuing obligation, per direction in 

the special call, to update and maintain 

the accuracy of the information 

submitted on New Form 40 by 

periodically updating the information 

on the New Form 40 web portal or by 

periodically resubmitting New Form 40 

by secure FTP transmission. 

Among other requested data fields, 

New Form 40: asks if the respondent is 

engaged in commodity index trading (as 

that term is defined in the form) (a 

question that does not appear on current 

Form 40); requires the respondent to 

identify all the business sectors that 

pertain to its business activities or 

occupation (a question that has been 

expanded on New Form 40); requires 

the respondent to identify all 

commodity groups and individual 

commodities that it presently trades, or 

expects to trade in the near future, in 

derivatives markets (a question that has 

been expanded on New Form 40); and 

requires the respondent to indicate the 

business purpose for which it uses 

derivatives markets (a question that has 

been expanded on New Form 40). 

(11) Benefits of New Form 40 

The expanded Form 40 will improve 

the Commission’s ability to perform 

effective surveillance, by providing the 

Commission with more detailed data on 

reporting traders, including: information 

regarding reporting traders’ control 

relationships with other entities; other 

relationships with persons that 

influence or exercise authority over the 

trading of a reporting trader; and more 

detailed information regarding the 

business activities of the reporting 

trader. Responses to the questions above 

will enable the Commission to better 

understand the ownership and control 

structure of reporting traders, and the 

extent of their business activities across 

multiple markets and product groups. 

This enhanced visibility will, in turn, 

improve the Commission’s ability to 

respond to market disruptions, which 

can come at a high cost to the investing 

and general public. The Commission 

will also be able to use information 

reported on New Form 40 to cross-check 

several of the ownership and control 

data fields reported on New Form 102. 

The Commission will be able to 

compare the trading goals that a 

respondent reports on New Form 40 to 

its subsequent market activity. If the two 

do not correspond, the Commission will 

request additional information from the 

respondent in order to maintain 

accuracy in Commission databases and 

reports, or take other appropriate action. 

Currently, Form 40s (as well as Form 

102s) are submitted to the Commission 

via facsimile, email, and physical mail. 

The Commission converts these 

submissions into an electronic format, 

and loads them into the Commission’s 

Integrated Surveillance System. 

Automating Form 40 submission will 

improve efficiency by eliminating this 

additional layer of transcription. As a 

result, these final rules will reduce the 

likelihood of input errors. The rules will 

also reduce the burden and costs that 

arise when Commission staff must 

contact reporting parties to request 

additional information or clarification 

due to errors arising from mistaken 

inputs. The more accurate data reported 

via the automated Form 40 will, in turn, 

improve the quality of the Commission’s 

published reports, such as the 

classifications in the Commitments of 

Traders report. 

(12) Costs of New Form 40 

New Form 40 Submissions Resulting 

from New Form 102A. The Commission 

assumes that each reporting party filing 

New Form 40 as a result of New Form 

102A (i.e., special account owners and 

controllers) will complete and submit 

New Form 40 online via a secure webbased portal provided by the 

Commission, which the Commission 

believes is the more cost-effective of the 

two filing methods for the industry as a 

whole. 

As discussed in section VIII(A) above, 

the Commission expects approximately 

5,250 New Form 40 records filings per 

year arising from New Form 102A 

filings. The Commission estimates that 

each of the 5,250 New Form 40 records 

will require three hours to complete.305

Assuming each such New Form 40 

record is provided via the web-based 

portal, the Commission estimates that 

the total annual industry burden for 

reporting on New Form 40, as a result 

of New Form 102A, will equal 15,750 

hours. Using an estimated wage rate of 

$70.07 per hour, annual industry costs 

for New Form 40 filings arising from 

special accounts are estimated at 

$1,103,603.306

New Form 40 Submissions Resulting 

from New Form 102B and New Form 71. 

The Commission also assumes that each 

reporting party filing New Form 40 as a 

result of New Form 102B and New Form 

71 (i.e., volume threshold account 

controllers, persons who own volume 

threshold accounts, reportable subaccount controllers, and persons who 

own reportable sub-accounts) will 

complete and submit New Form 40 

online via a secure web-based portal 

provided by the Commission. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69219 

307As with 102A records, the Commission 

estimates that in approximately 25 percent of 

filings, the owner and the controller of a volume 

threshold account reported on New Form 102B will 

be the same, and that accordingly, only one New 

Form 40 would be required. Similarly, a number of 

potential New Form 40 reporting parties are likely 

to own or control both DCM-related and SEF-related 

volume threshold accounts, but only one New Form 

40 would be required. 

308The Commission’s estimate of three hours per 

response reflects an initial, one-time burden of 10 

hours, annualized over a five-year period, plus an 

additional hour per year for change updates. 

309The $2,818,706 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 13,409 filings by 3 hours (equals 40,227 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $2,818,706). 

310The $1,158,467 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 5,511 filings by 3 hours (equals 16,533 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $1,158,467). 

311The $3,977,173 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 18,920 filings by 3 hours (equals 56,760 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $3,977,173). 

312As noted in section VIII(A) above, the initial 

development cost per reporting party is estimated 

at $701 (10 hours of initial development burden × 

a wage rate of $70.07). The Commission expects 

that reporting parties will budget initial 

development costs in the manner that is most costeffective for each party, which may result in some 

reporting parties incurring the majority of these 

initial development costs in the beginning of the 

rule compliance period. 313The Commission has calculated an estimated 

range of 25% below and 25% above the estimated 

total annual industry cost, due to the fact that 

reporting costs will differ among market 

participants based on a variety of factors, including 

the state of their current technology systems, and 

their differing levels of market and reporting 

experience. The upper end of the ranges also 

responds to comments stating that the cost 

estimates in the NPRM understated the total cost to 

the industry (without expressing by how much, or 

to what degree). 

314As noted in section VIII(A) above, the 

estimated total annual industry cost of the more 

expensive submission method for New Form 40 

submissions arising from New Form 102A, via FTP 

data feed, is $36,051,015. The $36,051,015 figure is 

arrived at by multiplying the anticipated 5,250 

reporting parties by 98 hours of annualized 

development burden and ongoing operation and 

maintenance burden (equals 514,500 hours) by a 

wage rate of $70.07 (equals $36,051,015). An 

estimated low and high range (25% below and 

above this figure) equals $27,038,261 and 

$45,063,769, respectively. 

315As noted in section VIII(A) above, the 

estimated total annual industry cost of the more 

expensive submission method for New Form 40 

submissions arising from New Form 102B and New 

Form 71, via FTP data feed, is $129,920,991. The 

$129,920,991 figure is arrived at by multiplying the 

anticipated 18,920 reporting parties by 98 hours of 

annualized development burden and ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden (equals 

1,854,160 hours) by a wage rate of $70.07 (equals 

$129,920,991). An estimated low and high range 

(25% below and above this figure) equals 

$97,440,743 and $162,401,239, respectively. 

316References in these final rules to ‘‘102S 

filings’’ are based on the regulatory text of § 20.5, 

which refers to ‘‘102S filings’’ and ‘‘40S filings.’’ 

317 17 CFR 20.5(a). 

As discussed in section VIII(A) above, 

the Commission anticipates that it will 

receive approximately 13,409 DCMrelated New Form 40 filings annually 

and approximately 5,511 SEF-related 

New Form 40 filings annually, in each 

case arising from New Form 102B and 

New Form 71.307 Each such New Form 

40 filing is estimated to require three 

hours.308 Assuming each such New 

Form 40 record is provided via the webbased portal: 

• The Commission estimates that the 

total annual industry burden for 

reporting on New Form 40, as a result 

of New Form 102B and New Form 71, 

will equal 40,227 hours for DCM-related 

New Form 40 filings. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour, 

annual industry costs for such filings 

arising from volume threshold accounts 

and reportable sub-accounts are 

estimated at $2,818,706.309

• The Commission estimates that the 

total annual industry burden for 

reporting on New Form 40, as a result 

of New Form 102B and New Form 71, 

will equal 16,533 hours for SEF-related 

New Form 40 filings. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $70.07 per hour, 

annual industry costs for such filings 

arising from volume threshold accounts 

and reportable sub-accounts are 

estimated at $1,158,467.310

Collectively, annual industry costs for 

New Form 40 filings, as a result of New 

Form 102B and New Form 71, are 

estimated at $3,977,173.311

FORM 40—SUBMISSIONS RESULTING FROM (a) NEW FORM 102A AND (b) NEW FORM 102B AND NEW FORM 71 

Regulation 

Estimated total 

annual 

industry 

cost 312

Estimated low and high range 

(25% below and 25% above 

estimated total annual 

industry cost) 313

Anticipated 

transmission 

method 

18.04(a) .............................................................................................................. $1,103,603 $827,702–$1,379,504 web 314

18.04(b) .............................................................................................................. 3,977,173 $2,982,880–$4,971,466 web 315

New Form 102S 

(13) Overview of New Form 102S 

Section 102S of New Form 102 is 

designed to facilitate the electronic 

submission of 102S filings. Such filings 

are currently being submitted to the 

Commission (pursuant to 17 CFR 

20.5(a)) through a non-automated 

process.316 Pursuant to § 20.5(a), 102S 

filings must be submitted by a part 20 

reporting party (a swap dealer or 

clearing firm) for each reportable 

counterparty consolidated account 

when such account first becomes 

reportable.317 By incorporating 102S in 

New Form 102, these final rules will 

require more detailed ownership and 

control information regarding identified 

consolidated accounts, and require the 

submission of consolidated account 

reporting via an automated submission. 

(14) Benefits of New Form 102S 

Form 102S will require reporting 

parties to identify swap counterparty or 

customer consolidated accounts with 

reportable positions. Swap reporting on 

Form 102S significantly improves the 

Commission’s surveillance capabilities, 

by enabling it to track the market 

activity of a specific trader, including 

traders that may be dividing risk 

exposure between both on-exchange and 

off-exchange instruments. Swap 

reporting will also enable the 

Commission to more efficiently 

aggregate position exposure in a 

particular product or commodity group. 

The reporting of swap activity on Form 

102S aligns with the Commission’s 

recently finalized rules on real-time 

public and regulatory reporting of swap 

trades, and provides further 

transparency into markets that, 

historically, have often been opaque 

and/or over-the-counter. 

As further changes arise in the 

commodity swap market, such as the 

introduction of SEFs, the identification 

of both special accounts (via 102A) and 

consolidated accounts (via 102S) will 

enable the Commission to monitor a 

broad range of market activity across 

traditional futures exchanges and SEFs. 

This will enable the Commission to 

quantify the amount of activity in a 

given product across different execution 

platforms, and monitor changes in this 

amount over time. The Commission’s 

expanded view of the marketplace will 

enable it to more quickly and efficiently 

identify disruptive market activity 

occurring across multiple trading 

facilities (similar to the transmission 

effects that occurred during the Flash 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69220 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

318See supra note 289 for further information 

regarding the Flash Crash. 319The Commission also notes that 102S 

reporting is a necessary complement to SDR 

reporting under Part 45, and will provide 

information that is not otherwise available under 

the SDR reporting regime. The Commission 

anticipates that swap dealers and clearing members 

(the 102S reporting parties) will be able to 

consistently provide the contact information for 

owners and controllers of consolidated accounts on 

the 102S, based on the records these entities 

maintain. Part 45 reporting, by contrast, is based on 

counterparty data. Although this counterparty data 

may, in some cases, include the owners and 

controllers of consolidated accounts, it will not 

include this information in all cases. As a result, the 

Commission cannot rely on SDR reporting under 

Part 45 as a substitute for 102S reporting. 

320 17 CFR 20.5(a)(3). 

321All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

322 17 CFR 20.5. 

323The $289,669 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 39 reporting parties by 106 hours 

(equals 4,134 hours) by $70.07 (equals $289,669). 

324As noted in section VIII(A), the initial 

development cost per reporting party is estimated 

at $18,498 (264 hours of initial development burden 

× a wage rate of $70.07). The Commission expects 

that reporting parties will budget initial 

development costs in the manner that is most costeffective for each party, which may result in some 

reporting parties incurring the majority of these 

initial development costs in the beginning of the 

rule compliance period. 

325The Commission has calculated an estimated 

range of 25% below and 25% above the estimated 

total annual industry cost, due to the fact that 

reporting costs will differ among market 

participants based on a variety of factors, including 

the state of their current technology systems, and 

their differing levels of market and reporting 

experience. The upper end of the ranges also 

responds to comments stating that the cost 

estimates in the NPRM understated the total cost to 

the industry (without expressing by how much, or 

to what degree). 

326As noted in section VIII(A) above, the 

estimated total annual industry cost of the more 

expensive submission method, via the web-based 

portal, is $1,757,356. The $1,757,356 figure is 

arrived at by multiplying the anticipated 2,508 

records by 10 hours anticipated burden per record 

(equals 25,080 hours) by a wage rate of $70.07 

(equals $1,757,356). An estimated low and high 

range (25% below and above this figure) equals 

$568,017 and $946,695, respectively. 

Crash).318 In particular, New Form 102S 

will improve the Commission’s ability 

to perform risk-based monitoring of 

trading activity conducted through 

accounts owned or controlled by, for 

example, a single market participant, 

but spread across multiple platform 

types.319 In the event the Commission 

identifies trading activity requiring 

further investigation, the Commission 

will be able to contact market 

participants more quickly and 

efficiently using the ownership and 

control information collected through 

the OCR reporting process. 

(15) Costs of New Form 102S 

The Commission assumes that each 

New Form 102S reporting party will 

submit New Form 102S via secure FTP, 

which the Commission believes is the 

more cost-effective of the two filing 

methods for the industry as a whole. 

Each FTP submission will likely contain 

numerous 102S records. The 

Commission estimates that the total 

initial development burden will average 

264 hours per reporting party. The 

Commission also estimates that the 

highly automated nature of this option 

will virtually eliminate the marginal 

costs associated with each additional 

submission or each additional record 

contained in a submission. The 

Commission believes that the timing 

requirements for 102S filings in current 

§ 20.5(a)(3),320 or any new submission 

procedures arising from the Swaps 

Large Trader Guidebook (i.e., frequency 

of 102S filing submission), will not 

increase a reporting party’s burden 

when using the FTP submission 

method. The Commission further 

estimates that the ongoing operation and 

maintenance burden will average 53 

hours per year no matter how many 

records are contained in a submission. 

The total annualized initial 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden 

(total yearly burden) will equal 

approximately 106 hours per reporting 

party.321

The 102S filing requirements in 

current § 20.5 322 are nearly identical to 

the filing requirements for revised 102S; 

accordingly, the Commission used its 

experience to date with 102S filings to 

estimate the number of 102S reporting 

parties. An assessment of Commission 

data collection efforts demonstrated that 

the Commission received Form 102S 

submissions from 39 reporting parties in 

2012. The Commission anticipates that 

it will receive New Form 102S 

submissions from a similar number of 

reporting parties each year. Assuming 

102S reporting parties utilize the FTP 

submission method, the Commission 

estimates that the total annual industry 

burden for 102S filing will equal 4,134 

hours. Using an estimated wage rate of 

$70.07 per hour, annual industry costs 

for New Form 102S are estimated at 

$289,669.323

FORM 102S 

Regulation 

Estimated total 

annual 

industry 

cost 324

Estimated low and high range 

(25% below and 25% above 

estimated total annual 

industry cost) 325

Anticipated 

transmission 

method 326

20.5(a) ................................................................................................................ $289,669 $217,252–$362,086 FTP 

New Form 40S 

(16) Overview of New Form 40S 

New Form 40 will be the vehicle 

through which market participants 

subject to 17 CFR 20.5(b) submit New 

Form 40S. As a result, New Form 40 and 

New Form 40S are substantively 

identical. New Form 40S will be sent, 

on special call of the Commission, to 

individuals and other entities identified 

on Form 102S. New Form 40S will 

continue to serve the function 

traditionally met by current Form 40S. 

New Form 40S will provide the 

Commission with detailed information 

regarding both the business activities 

and the ownership and control structure 

of a reporting trader identified in the 

Commission’s Form 102S program (as 

updated by these final rules). As noted 

above, a reporting party (a swap dealer 

or clearing firm) must submit a Form 

102S for each reportable counterparty 

consolidated account when such 

account first becomes reportable. Those 

entities required to complete a New 

Form 40S will be under a continuing 

obligation, per direction in the special 

call, to update and maintain the 

accuracy of the information submitted 

on New Form 40S by periodically 

updating the information on the New 

Form 40S web portal or by periodically 

resubmitting New Form 40S by secure 

FTP transmission. 

The expanded Form 40S will provide 

the Commission with more detailed data 

on reporting traders, including 

information regarding reporting traders’ 

control relationships with other entities, 

and other relationships with persons 

that influence or exercise authority over 

the trading of a reporting trader. The 

expanded form also collects more 

detailed information regarding the 

business activities of the reporting 

trader. For example, New Form 40S: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69221 

327The Commission’s estimate of three hours per 

response reflects an initial, one-time burden of 10 

hours, annualized over a five-year period, plus an 

additional hour per year for change updates. 

328The $527,207 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 2,508 filings by 3 hours (equals 7,524 

hours) by $70.07 (equals $527,207). 

329As noted in section VIII(A) above, the initial 

development cost per reporting party is estimated 

at $701 (10 hours of initial development burden × 

a wage rate of $70.07). The Commission expects 

that reporting parties will budget initial 

development costs in the manner that is most costeffective for each party, which may result in some 

reporting parties incurring the majority of these 

initial development costs in the beginning of the 

rule compliance period. 

330The Commission has calculated an estimated 

range of 25% below and 25% above the estimated 

total annual industry cost, due to the fact that 

reporting costs will differ among market 

participants based on a variety of factors, including 

the state of their current technology systems, and 

their differing levels of market and reporting 

experience. The upper end of the ranges also 

responds to comments stating that the cost 

estimates in the NPRM understated the total cost to 

the industry (without expressing by how much, or 

to what degree). 

331As noted in section VIII(A) above, the 

estimated total annual industry cost of the more 

expensive submission method, via FTP data feed, 

is $17,222,085. The $17,222,085 figure is arrived at 

by multiplying the anticipated 2,508 reporting 

parties by 98 hours of annualized development 

burden and ongoing operation and maintenance 

burden (equals 245,784 hours) by a wage rate of 

$70.07 (equals $17,222,085). An estimated low and 

high range (25% below and above this figure) 

equals $12,916,564 and $21,527,606, respectively. 

332 17 CFR 18.05. 

Asks if the respondent is engaged in 

commodity index trading (as that term 

is defined in the form) (a question that 

does not appear on current Form 40S); 

requires the respondent to identify all 

the business sectors that pertain to its 

business activities or occupation (a 

question that has been expanded on 

New Form 40S); requires the respondent 

to identify all commodity groups and 

individual commodities that it presently 

trades, or expects to trade in the near 

future, in derivatives markets (a 

question that has been expanded on 

New Form 40S); and requires the 

respondent to indicate the business 

purpose for which it uses derivatives 

markets (a question that has been 

expanded on New Form 40S). 

(17) Benefits of New Form 40S 

Responses to the questions above will 

improve the Commission’s ability to 

perform effective surveillance, by 

enabling it to better understand the 

ownership and control structure of 

reporting traders, and the extent of their 

business activities across multiple 

markets and product groups. The 

collection of the information described 

above will improve the Commission’s 

ability to analyze and/or respond to 

market disruptions, which can exact a 

high cost to the investing and general 

public. The Commission will also be 

able to use information reported on New 

Form 40S to cross-check several of the 

ownership and control data fields 

reported on New Form 102S. The 

Commission will be able to compare the 

trading goals that a respondent reports 

on New Form 40S to its subsequent 

market activity. If the two do not 

correspond, the Commission will 

request additional information from the 

respondent in order to maintain 

accuracy in Commission databases and 

reports, or take other appropriate action. 

(18) Costs of New Form 40S 

The Commission assumes that each 

New Form 40S reporting party will 

complete and submit its forms online 

via a secure web-based portal provided 

by the Commission, which the 

Commission believes is the more costeffective of the two filing methods for 

the industry as a whole. As discussed in 

section VIII(A) above, the Commission 

anticipates that it will receive 

approximately 2,508 102S records per 

year, and the Commission estimates that 

it will make approximately the same 

number of 40S special calls each year 

(2,508). Each response is estimated to 

require three hours,327 resulting in an 

estimated total annual reporting burden 

of 7,524 hours. Using an estimated wage 

rate of $70.07 per hour, annual industry 

costs for New Form 40S filings made via 

the web-based portal are estimated at 

$527,207.328

FORM 40S 

Regulation 

Estimated total 

annual 

industry 

cost 329

Estimated low and high range 

(25% below and 25% above 

estimated total annual 

industry cost) 330

Anticipated 

transmission 

method 331

20.5(b) ................................................................................................................ $527,207 $395,405–$659,009 web 

Expanded Obligation To Maintain 

Books and Records and Furnish 

Information to the Commission Under 

§ 18.05 

(19) Overview of § 18.05 

Current § 18.05 requires traders who 

hold or control reportable positions to 

maintain books and records regarding 

all positions and transactions in the 

commodity in which they have 

reportable positions.332 In addition, 

current § 18.05 requires that the trader 

furnish the Commission with 

information concerning such positions 

upon request. The Commission is 

expanding § 18.05 to impose books and 

records requirements upon four new 

categories of market participants, who 

are not required to maintain books and 

records pursuant to current § 18.05: (1) 

Owners of volume threshold accounts 

reported on New Form 102B; (2) 

controllers of volume threshold 

accounts reported on New Form 102B; 

(3) owners of reportable sub-accounts 

reported on New Form 71; and (4) 

controllers of reportable sub-accounts 

reported on New Form 71. Traders who 

hold or control reportable positions will 

remain subject to the books and records 

requirements, consistent with the 

current requirements. 

(20) Benefits of Expanded 

Recordkeeping 

As a result of the final rules, the four 

new categories of persons identified 

above will have the same books and 

records requirements as traders who 

hold or control a reportable futures or 

options on futures position, and are 

therefore required to maintain books 

and records under current § 18.05. 

When the Commission identifies 

potential instances of manipulative or 

abusive practices via the new and 

amended Forms 102, 40 and 71, or in 

the daily trade capture reports received 

by the Commission, it may request 

additional information via special call 

regarding traders’ positions, transactions 

or activities. The § 18.05 special call 

enables the Commission to analyze a 

trader’s activities in Commissionregulated markets and related cash 

markets, as well as the trader’s other 

commercial activity. By requiring all 

persons subject to the revised reporting 

regime to provide detailed books and 

records to the Commission upon its 

request, the Commission will strengthen 

its ability to conduct surveillance and 

pursue enforcement actions in the event 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69222 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

333See supra section I(B) for a discussion of the 

TCR. 

334The $18,569 figure is arrived at by multiplying 

53 responses by 5 hours (equals 265 hours) by 

$70.07 (equals $18,569). 

335The Commission has calculated an estimated 

range of 25% below and 25% above the estimated 

total annual industry cost, due to the fact that 

recordkeeping costs will differ among market 

participants based on a variety of factors, including 

the state of their current technology and 

recordkeeping systems, and their differing levels of 

market and reporting experience. The upper end of 

the ranges also responds to comments stating that 

the cost estimates in the NPRM understated the 

total cost to the industry (without expressing by 

how much, or to what degree). 

336See NPRM supra note 10 at 43984 and 43990. 

337CL–2012–ICE supra note 55 at 5. 

338See supra note 8. All 2009 Advanced NPRM 

comment letters (‘‘CL–2009’’) are available through 

the Commission’s Web site at: http://www.cftc.gov/ 

LawRegulation/FederalRegister/CommentFiles/09- 

008. 

339CL–2009–PMAA supra note 338 at 2. 

Similarly, the Air Transport Association (ATA), 

commenting on the 2009 Advanced NPRM, 

included a list of market and regulatory benefits of 

the ownership and control report. These include 

allowing Commission staff to aggregate trading 

accounts under common ownership or control, 

allowing large trader reports and exchange trade 

registers to be linked, allowing expanded oversight 

of trading by widely dispersed individuals and 

accounts, linking traders’ intra-day transactions 

with end-of-day positions, assisting investigations 

into intra-day manipulation and other trade practice 

abuses, and bridging gaps in current data reporting 

systems. CL–2009–ATA supra note 338 at 2–3. 

of potentially manipulative or abusive 

activity. 

(21) Costs of Expanded Recordkeeping 

As noted above, revised § 18.05 will 

likely impose a recordkeeping burden 

on a larger number of persons than 

current § 18.05. The Commission 

anticipates that additional persons 

subject to § 18.05 will likely be able to 

rely on books and records already kept 

in the ordinary course of business to 

meet the requirements of the final 

regulation. This is due, in part, to the 

fact that § 18.05 requires traders to 

maintain fairly limited information 

regarding their trading activity. Section 

18.05(a), for example, requires that, 

‘‘Every trader who holds or controls a 

reportable futures or option position 

shall keep books and records showing 

all details concerning all positions and 

transactions in the commodity’’ on 

certain enumerated trading markets. 

Furthermore, the Commission assumes 

that some parties required to maintain 

books and records pursuant to revised 

§ 18.05 are likely required to maintain 

books and records under current 

§ 18.05, because they hold or control 

reportable positions (i.e., there will be a 

certain amount of overlap between these 

two groups). Accordingly, the 

Commission believes that revised 

§ 18.05 will not meaningfully increase 

recordkeeping burdens on persons 

brought under its scope. As noted in 

section VII above, the Commission did 

not receive any comments regarding the 

changes to § 18.05 proposed in the 

NPRM. 

The Commission sent 59 special calls 

pursuant to § 18.05 in 2012, 42 of which 

were based on trade data reflected in the 

TCR data feed.333 As noted above, 

revised § 18.05 will make four new 

categories of persons, identified through 

the volume-based reporting regime, 

subject to § 18.05. Because the volumebased reporting regime is designed to 

identify designated types of trading 

activity, the Commission estimates that 

it will send special calls pursuant to 

revised § 18.05 to, at a minimum, 42 

recipients (i.e., the same number of 

persons to which the Commission sent 

special calls in 2012 based on trade data 

reflected in the TCR). At the same time, 

the Commission expects that the 

introduction of volume-based reporting 

will lead to the Commission sending 

more special calls than it would 

otherwise, because this regime will 

identify new ownership and control 

relationships and patterns of trading 

activity. As a result, for purposes of 

estimating the costs of revised § 18.05, 

the Commission assumes it will send 

25% more special calls in response to 

trade data than it did in 2012, for a total 

of 53 special calls per year. These 

special calls will require a response 

from approximately 53 individual 

traders per year. 

This estimate reflects only special 

calls sent pursuant to § 18.05 as a result 

of information collected via the volumebased reporting regime (i.e., New Form 

102B and New Form 71). The estimated 

53 recipients of such special calls may 

include some traders that are already 

subject to the costs and obligations of 

current § 18.05. The Commission 

estimates that each special call response 

submitted by the new categories of 

persons subject to revised § 18.05 will 

take approximately 5 hours, for a total 

annual reporting burden of 265 hours. 

Using an estimated wage rate of $70.07 

per hour, annual reporting costs for the 

new categories of persons that are 

subject to revised § 18.05 are estimated 

at $18,569.334

§ 18.05 RECORDKEEPING BURDEN

Regulation 

Estimated total 

annual 

industry cost 

Estimated low and high range 

(25% below and 25% above 

estimated total annual 

industry cost) 335

18.05 .............................................................................................................................................. $18,569 $13,927–$23,211 

vi. Comments Regarding Costs and 

Benefits 

As previously noted, the NPRM 

requested comment on many aspects of 

the proposed rules, including the 

Commission’s evaluation of the rules’ 

costs and benefits.336 In response, ICE 

commented that it ‘‘recognizes the value 

in collecting this OCR information for 

accounts that actively trade on DCMs, 

and integrating it with existing market 

surveillance and trade practice 

surveillance data to bridge gaps that 

may exist between individual 

transaction data contained in the trade 

register and position data contained in 

LTRs [large trader reporting]. Having 

such data readily available in 

Commission . . . surveillance systems 

would improve the efficiency of the 

investigative process by saving the 

additional work and time required to 

manually request such information from 

clearing members.’’ 337

ICE’s comments are consistent with 

other supportive comments received in 

response to the 2009 NPRM.338

Petroleum Marketers Association of 

America (PMAA), for example, stated 

that, ‘‘Efficient integration of large 

trader and trade register data from 

DCMs, ECMS, and [other markets] will 

improve market transparency and 

ensure that no one trader, investment 

fund or other entity controls a large 

percentage of the interest on commodity 

futures exchanges. Increased reporting 

requirements will help to identify those 

who possibly attempt to corner the 

market by taking huge positions in the 

futures markets which can move futures 

prices beyond what supply and demand 

fundamentals dictate.’’ 339

Other NPRM commenters, however, 

asserted that the Commission’s cost 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69223 

340See, e.g., the discussion of § 15.00(v) (direct 

market access), § 15.04 (reportable trading volume 

level) and § 17.01(a) in section VII, above. 

341CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 4. 

342CL–2012–FIA NPRM supra note 55 at 9. 

343 Id. 

344As noted in section VIII(A) above, while the 

Commission has updated the cost estimates that 

appeared in the NPRM based on the most recent 

data and statistics available to the Commission, the 

Commission has not reduced the cost estimates in 

these final rules to account for the incorporation of 

the cost-saving proposals described below. As a 

result, total reporting costs to the industry are likely 

to be lower than the sum of the costs associated 

with each form individually, as the Commission has 

calculated above. 

345CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 4. 

346 Id. 

347See also supra note 41 for a discussion of 

certain fields in the reporting forms that have been 

made optional, subject to certain conditions 

discussed in the reporting forms, in order to 

leverage information that reporting parties have 

previously provided. 

348The definition of ‘‘control’’ in § 15.00 is based 

upon the definition of ‘‘controlled account’’ in 

§ 1.3(j) of the Commission’s regulations. 

349CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 5. 

350CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 6. 

351CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 5. 

352The Commission recognizes that, for some 

respondents that conduct trading in a reportable 

trading account or volume threshold account in 

whole or in part through an ATS, the individuals 

involved in the administration of such ATS may not 

qualify as trading account controllers or volume 

threshold account controllers. See supra section 

V(A)(ii). 

estimates were underestimated, that 

certain requirements imposed costs 

unwarranted by the magnitude of the 

anticipated benefits, and/or that certain 

requirements would not provide 

meaningful benefits.340 CME 

commented that ‘‘Commission estimates 

do not appear to take into consideration 

the process changes that firms would 

need to engage in to obtain all OCR data, 

nor do they contain estimates for 

changes that SROs might have to 

institute to their systems to incorporate 

the three tiered reporting method.’’ 341

FIA commented that ‘‘the proposed 

rules . . . would require significant 

changes to the procedures, processes 

and systems pursuant to which FCMs 

create and maintain records with 

respect to their customers and customer 

transactions. Such redesign would take 

longer and be substantially more 

expensive than the Commission has 

suggested in the Federal Register 

release accompanying the proposed 

rules.’’ 342 FIA also stated that ‘‘we are 

still developing our costs analyses and 

will forward them to the Commission as 

soon as they are ready.’’343 FIA did not 

provide the cost analyses mentioned in 

its comment letter to the Commission. 

In the absence of specific quantitative 

estimates or alternative cost proposals 

by commenters, the Commission 

performed its own analysis in updating 

the NPRM cost benefit considerations 

for these final rules. As noted above, for 

purposes of these final rules, the 

Commission has updated the cost 

estimates that appeared in the NPRM 

based on the most recent data and 

statistics available to the Commission. 

The Commission has also calculated the 

total initial development burden on a 

non-annualized basis for each reporting 

form, as applicable, and presented cost 

ranges below and above each estimate in 

this section VIII(B). The high end of the 

cost ranges responds to comments 

stating that the cost estimates in the 

NPRM understated the total cost to the 

industry (without expressing by how 

much, or to what degree). 

Commenters asserting that certain 

requirements imposed costs 

unwarranted by the magnitude of 

anticipated benefits, and/or that certain 

requirements would not provide 

meaningful benefits, typically proposed 

an alternative approach, such as 

removing a question on the reporting 

forms, or modifying a reporting 

deadline. Such comments are addressed 

in the consideration of alternatives 

below. In addition, section VII above 

contains a detailed discussion of the 

comments received in response to the 

NPRM, the Commission’s response to 

comments, and any changes made to the 

final rules in response to comments. 

vii. Consideration of Alternatives 

Commenters suggested a number of 

alternatives to the rules proposed in the 

NPRM for purposes of minimizing the 

cost to market participants. The final 

rules incorporate a number of these 

alternative proposals, or otherwise 

modify the proposed rules where doing 

so reduces costs without sacrificing 

benefits.344 The various alternatives 

considered for purposes of minimizing 

the cost to market participants 

(including those not ultimately adopted) 

are discussed below. 

(a) Creation of Contact Reference 

Database 

FIA commented that requiring firms 

to potentially submit three separate 

forms (102A, 102B and 102S) for the 

same customer ‘‘will create unnecessary 

work and be more challenging to keep 

current.’’ 345 To address this issue, FIA 

suggested that the Commission create a 

reporting contact reference database, 

which would ‘‘ensure that contact 

information is stored and maintained as 

a single record, eliminate redundancy 

and improve the quality of information 

in the ownership and control reporting 

process.’’ 346 In response to FIA’s 

comment, the Commission is creating a 

contact reference database that will 

store contact information previously 

provided through the web-based portal 

by a reporting party on each of the 

reporting forms with respect to owners, 

controllers, and other parties. When a 

reporting party submits a subsequent 

reporting form through the web-based 

portal, the Commission will, to the 

extent practicable, pre-populate contact 

information that the reporting party 

previously provided. This will reduce 

the amount of time that is required for 

reporting entities to update information 

submitted to the Commission through 

the web-based portal without reducing 

the amount of information that is 

required to be submitted through the 

portal.347

Definition of ‘‘Control’’ 

Section 15.00(t), as proposed in the 

NPRM, added ‘‘control’’ to the list of 

defined terms in § 15.00.348 The 

Commission’s proposed definition, 

which applied only to special accounts 

(New Form 102A) and consolidated 

accounts (Form 102S), defined control 

as ‘‘to actually direct, by power of 

attorney or otherwise, the trading of a 

special account or a consolidated 

account.’’ FIA commented that it would 

be difficult and/or meaningless to 

provide the requested control 

information, because the individuals 

responsible for trading an account 

within a special account or a volume 

threshold account can change often, 

even within the same trading day.349

Furthermore, ‘‘in the case of algorithmic 

trading programs, there likely will not 

be an identifiable individual who 

‘actually directs the trading’ of the 

program. For this reason, FCMs do not 

currently collect this information.’’ 350

FIA recommended removing the 

requirement to identify account 

controllers on Forms 102A and 102B.351

As noted in section VII, these final 

rules adopt proposed § 15.00(t) without 

modification. At the same time, the 

Commission is modifying the 

instructions on Form 102 in response to 

comments that discussed the difficulty 

of identifying individuals that exercise 

control on a transient basis, such as 

individuals operating an automated 

trading system (‘‘ATS’’) during a daily 

shift. The instructions for Form 102A 

and Form 102B have been revised to 

state that respondents should report all 

individuals who qualify as ‘‘trading 

account controllers’’ or ‘‘volume 

threshold account controllers,’’ as 

defined in § 15.00(bb) and (cc), 

respectively.352 The Commission notes 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69224 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

353CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 4. 

354The definition of volume threshold account 

appears in the final rules as § 15.00(x). 

355CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 8. CL–2012– 

CME supra note 55 at 3. CL–2012–ICE supra note 

55 at 6. 

356CL–2012–Nadex supra note 55 at 2–3. 

357CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 8. CL–2012– 

ICE supra note 55 at 6. 

358CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 8. 

359CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 3. 

that regardless of whether the trading is 

carried out in whole or in part through 

an automated trading system or direct 

human initiation, the underlying 

analysis remains the same. When 

completing Form 102A and Form 102B, 

reporting parties should identify each 

person that satisfies the definition of 

‘‘trading account controller’’ or ‘‘volume 

threshold account controller,’’ as 

defined in § 15.00(bb) and (cc), 

respectively. Once respondents have 

identified all individuals meeting the 

applicable controller definition in a 

Form 102A or Form 102B submission, 

they will not be required to submit 

change updates to the submission if one 

previously identified controller takes 

the place of another previously 

identified controller. These changes to 

the instructions on Form 102 are 

intended to reduce the reporting burden 

on market participants, who would 

otherwise be required to submit change 

updates to the 102 in the prior scenario. 

Respondents will be required to report 

the same number of controllers that they 

would be required to report under the 

NPRM proposal, but will do so in their 

original 102 submission, thereby 

eliminating the cost of submitting 

change updates due to a shift change. 

The Commission believes that this is a 

more effective solution than removing 

the control question altogether, as FIA 

had suggested, which would deprive the 

Commission of the ability to aggregate 

trading accounts based on common 

control. 

Definition of ‘‘Volume Threshold 

Account’’ 

The NPRM defined a volume 

threshold account as any trading 

account that executes, or receives via 

allocation or give-up, reportable trading 

volume on or subject to the rules of a 

reporting market that is a board of trade 

designated as a contract market under 

section 5 of the Act or a swap execution 

facility registered under section 5h of 

the Act. 

In the case of a give-up trade, this 

NPRM definition was intended to 

require reporting by: (i) The carrying 

firm of the original executing account; 

(ii) the carrying firm of any intervening 

account(s); and (iii) the carrying firm of 

the account to which the give-up trade 

was ultimately allocated. Question 10 in 

Section VII of the NPRM emphasized 

the broad scope of the definition: ‘‘The 

Commission intends that the definition 

of ‘volume threshold account’ captures 

all possible categories of accounts with 

reportable trading volume . . . The 

Commission requests public comment 

regarding whether the proposed 

definition of ‘volume threshold account’ 

achieves this purpose.’’ In response to 

this question, CME commented that 

volume-based accounts should be 

reported at the carrying broker level, 

and noted that, ‘‘this is where the 

account ownership and control 

information resides, not at executing 

brokers.’’ 353

As noted in section VII above, the 

Commission is adopting the definition 

of volume threshold account with one 

modification.354 The following change 

incorporates CME’s comment. It is also 

intended to reduce the burden and cost 

to reporting parties. The definition of 

volume threshold account is being 

scaled back in the final rules, to capture 

a smaller number of volume threshold 

accounts than under the NPRM 

proposal. The definition is being 

modified to: ‘‘any trading account that 

carries reportable trading volume on or 

subject to the rules of a reporting market 

that is a [DCM or SEF].’’ This change 

will lessen the burden on reporting 

parties, by reducing the number of 

reportable volume threshold accounts in 

the case of a give-up trade: 

• In a give-up scenario, this definition 

will require reporting by the carrying 

firm of the account to which the trade 

is ultimately allocated. Reporting will 

not be required, however, by the 

carrying firm of the original executing 

account, or by the carrying firm of any 

intervening account(s). 

• In a non-give-up scenario, there will 

be no change to the number of 

reportable volume threshold accounts. 

Under both the original and revised 

definition, reporting will be required by 

the carrying firm of the account in 

which the trade is both executed and 

cleared. 

The Commission believes that this 

approach, which incorporates CME’s 

comment, will be more efficient (and 

less burdensome and costly) for 

reporting parties than the approach 

proposed in the NPRM. At the same 

time, it captures a sufficient number of 

volume threshold accounts to advance 

the Commission’s surveillance 

objectives. 

Reportable Trading Volume Level 

Section 15.04, as proposed in the 

NPRM, provided that reportable trading 

volume for a trading account is trading 

volume of 50 or more contracts, during 

a single trading day, on a single 

reporting market that is a board of trade 

designated as a contract market under 

section 5 of the Act or a swap execution 

facility registered under section 5h of 

the Act, in all instruments that such 

reporting market designates with the 

same product identifier (including 

purchases and sales, and inclusive of all 

expiration months). Relative to 

alternatives proposed by commenters, 

the Commission has determined—as 

shown through its analysis of sample 

DCM trade data received through the 

TCR during a recent six-month period— 

that the 50-contract threshold represents 

the level that best optimizes visibility 

into both trading volume and the 

absolute number of trading accounts. 

Both components are fundamental to 

the volume-based reporting regime 

established by Form 102B. At the same 

time, the RTVL is calibrated to 

minimize the impact of the volumebased reporting requirements on lowvolume accounts whose trading activity 

would not meaningfully advance the 

Commission’s volume-based 

surveillance goals. 

Several commenters criticized the 50- 

contract RTVL, and proposed 

alternatives to it. FIA, CME and ICE 

commented that the RTVL, as proposed, 

would generate an excessive amount of 

data that may not be meaningful to the 

Commission’s trade practice and market 

surveillance programs.355 More 

specifically, Nadex commented that the 

proposed 50-contract RTVL would 

capture too many retail customers that 

are trading contracts with very small 

notional values.356 FIA and ICE both 

recommended that the Commission 

phase in a descending RTVL until the 

optimum level is reached.357 FIA, for 

example, recommended that ‘‘the 

Commission could require that only 

accounts meeting a volume threshold of 

1,000 contracts per day be reported in 

the first three months; contracts meeting 

a volume threshold of 750 contracts per 

day be reported in the second three 

months after the compliance date; and 

so on until the optimum volume 

threshold is reached.’’ 358 CME also 

expressed concern that the RTVL will 

capture too many accounts, but 

recommended that the RTVL should be 

changed to 250 contracts bought or sold 

during a calendar week.359

Nadex recommended that a different 

RTVL should be applied to contracts 

with small notional values, as compared 

to contracts with larger, traditional 

notional values. ‘‘For any contract with 

a notional value of $1,000 or less, the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69225 

360CL–2012–Nadex supra note 55 at 3. 

361This is because the correlation between 

trading volume and number of accounts when 

RTVL is adjusted up or down is not proportional. 

Rather, the curve for the number of accounts is 

much steeper than for trading account volume, 

meaning that, while a tick up or down in RTVL 

translates to a relatively modest proportional 

change in trading volume coverage, the impact on 

number-of-account coverage is more exaggerated. 

The Commission took this relationship into account 

when proposing the 50 RTVL threshold: while a 

lower RTVL threshold would yield a substantially 

higher number of accounts, the slight incremental 

gain in trading volume coverage would not 

significantly advance the Commission’s volume 

account surveillance objectives. Furthermore, the 

relationship also explains why the alternatives 

proposed are suboptimal and unacceptable to 

capture the twin elements essential to achieve the 

regulatory objective of volume account surveillance. 

362See supra section VIII(A)(iv). 

363See the discussion of the definition of direct 

market access in proposed § 15.00(v). 

364CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 3. 

RTVL could be increased to 5,000 (i.e., 

1,000 times the standard RTVL of 50). 

This would still result in the 

Commission capturing information with 

respect to a relatively insignificant 

amount of trading activity in terms of 

notional value, but would be 

significantly less burdensome for the 

DCMs that offer these contracts.’’ 360

Compared to these various 

alternatives, the 50-contract RTVL— 

which the Commission’s analysis has 

shown to identify approximately 85 

percent of trading volume in 

approximately 90 percent of the 

products sampled, and approximately 

one-third of the trading accounts in the 

sample set—best achieves the regulatory 

objective and design-purpose of Form 

102B. That objective is to identify a 

critical mass of the trading accounts 

active in its regulated markets through 

102B reporting, measured not only by 

the percentage of trading volume for 

which those accounts are responsible, 

but also by the number of accounts 

identified. This objective is independent 

of whether the identified accounts hold 

reportable positions and what trading 

strategies market participants may 

pursue. The 50-contract RTVL achieves 

this objective by capturing both: (1) 

Those accounts responsible for the 

majority of trading volume; and (2) a 

meaningful number of the trading 

accounts active in the Commission’s 

regulated markets. The Commission 

seeks to identify a meaningful number 

of such trading accounts in order to 

improve its ability to protect market 

participants from instances of 

fraudulent or deceptive trading 

practices, regardless of the amount of 

trading volume that such practices 

represent, or their impact on the overall 

market. In determining the optimal 

threshold level, the Commission gave 

equal weight to the twin objectives of 

the volume-based reporting regime— 

trading volume and trading account 

identification. In its analysis, the 

Commission found that although higher 

RTVLs, such as those proposed by 

commenters, may have a relatively 

minor impact on the identification of 

trading volume in a particular market, 

they would likely lead to a 

disproportionately large exclusion of the 

number of trading accounts, thus 

rendering the RTVL ineffective to 

achieve the Commission’s objective.361

In particular, the alternative proposals 

to raise the RTVL threshold to 250 

contracts and/or to incrementally 

introduce moderately lower thresholds 

down from 1,000 contracts over time 

would sacrifice visibility with respect to 

the number of trading accounts (and at 

the highest threshold levels perhaps in 

trading volume, as well) to a degree 

likely to frustrate the intent of volume 

account surveillance. 

Furthermore, if the Commission were 

to substitute an alternative RTVL, in 

response to commenter proposals, that 

does not identify a sufficient percentage 

of trading volume or absolute number of 

trading accounts, the Commission 

would, in effect, partially transform 

102B into another vehicle for 

identifying trading accounts associated 

with reportable positions. Form 102A 

will accomplish this objective 

separately. 

Finally, even if modifying the RTVL 

to make fewer accounts reportable were 

consistent with the Commission’s 

regulatory objectives (which it is not), 

doing so is unlikely to result in 

significant cost savings to market 

participants. As explained above, FTP 

submission of New Form 102B will be 

most cost-effective for the industry as a 

whole. Furthermore, the ongoing 

operation and maintenance burden for 

FTP submission of New Form 102B will 

average the same number of hours per 

year (53 hours) irrespective of how 

many records are contained in a 

submission.362 Accordingly, the number 

of volume threshold accounts reported 

to the Commission by a reporting party 

via FTP should not have a material 

impact on the overall cost burden. 

The Commission also considered the 

alternative of adopting threshold levels 

that distinguish on the basis of notional 

value, such as proposed by Nadex, and/ 

or other contract or market 

characteristics. The Commission 

recognizes that the uniform 50-contract 

threshold will capture a relatively small 

degree of market activity that is less 

significant for purposes of its Form 

102B regulatory objectives. However, an 

alternative that would appropriately 

filter for such less-significant contracts 

would be administratively impracticable 

for the Commission and increase the 

administrative burden for some, if not 

many, reporting parties. For example, in 

the five year period from January 1, 

2008 through December 31, 2012, the 

Commission received from DCMs selfcertifications or requests for approval 

for approximately 5,400 new products, 

or an average of almost 21 new products 

per week. It is simpler, and far superior 

in terms of administrative cost and 

burden to set a single RTVL level, above 

which all parties report, than to 

determine differing levels for different 

markets/products, monitor the 

appropriateness of such levels and 

adjust them as circumstances warrant 

over time, and effectively communicate 

such differing levels and their periodic 

adjustments to the trading community. 

Moreover, the cost of determining 

whether parties were compliant with 

the reporting requirements and 

enforcing those requirements would 

place further burden upon the 

Commission and reporting parties. 

In sum, the Commission believes that 

it is has achieved an appropriate 

balance by implementing a uniform 50- 

contract RTVL rather than a product-byproduct RTVL. While the uniform RVTL 

may capture a small number of 

additional accounts, representing a 

relatively small degree of market 

activity that is less significant for 

purposes of its Form 102B regulatory 

objectives, it avoids the administrative 

complexity of a product-by-product 

RTVL, which carries the potential to 

hobble Form 102B’s regulatory 

effectiveness. 

Direct Market Access 

CME commented on a question in 

proposed Forms 102A and 102B, 

discussed in more detail in section VII 

above, which asks whether certain 

trading accounts have been granted 

direct market access (DMA).363 CME 

stated that ‘‘requiring this data may 

force substantial process change at the 

firms to obtain the data upfront and 

record it in the firm’s reference database 

with other account information.’’ 364 As 

discussed in section VII above, the 

Commission is not including the 

question regarding DMA in the final 

rules. 

Reporting Deadline for Certain 

Information Required on Forms 

FIA commented that obtaining all the 

information required by the Form 102 

could potentially take longer than the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69226 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

365 Id. 

366 Id. 

367Unless otherwise specified by the Commission 

or its designee, the stated time in the final rules is 

eastern time for information concerning markets 

located in that time zone, and central time for 

information concerning all other markets, in 

accordance with § 17.02(a). 

368Specifically, the information marked as 

‘Follow-On Information’ in questions 10(ii) and (iii) 

on New Form 102A may be provided within three 

business days. All other required fields on New 

Form 102A must be completed by 9:00 a.m. the 

following business day. See New Form 102A in the 

Appendix to these final rules for more information. 

Notwithstanding the change to the reporting 

deadline with respect to non-omnibus trading 

accounts that comprise a special account, these 

final rules do not modify the reporting deadline for 

information with respect to omnibus trading 

accounts that comprise a special account (question 

10(i) on New Form 102A). Such omnibus account 

information must be reported by 9:00 a.m. the 

following business day. The Commission is 

adopting a reporting requirement of three business 

days as an intermediate compromise between one 

business day (as proposed in the NPRM) and five 

business days (as requested by FIA). The three 

business day requirement is therefore less 

burdensome than the one business day requirement 

proposed in the NPRM. Based on the experience of 

the Commission’s surveillance group, the 

Commission believes that the three business day 

requirement, while longer than the one day 

proposal in the NPRM, will nonetheless enable the 

Commission to maintain current databases, 

including up-to-date contact information that will 

allow the Commission to contact market 

participants quickly in the event of significant 

market events that occur close to the time of 

reporting. By contrast, based on the experience of 

the Commission’s surveillance group, the 

Commission believes that a five business day 

reporting deadline is too long to perform timely 

market surveillance, and maintain databases that 

are sufficiently accurate and current to be useful. 

369Specifically, the information marked as 

‘Follow-On Information’ in questions 5 and 6 on 

New Form 102B may be provided within three 

business days. All other required fields on New 

Form 102B must be completed by 9:00 a.m. the 

following business day. See New Form 102B in the 

Appendix to these final rules for more information. 

Notwithstanding the change to the reporting 

deadline with respect to non-omnibus volume 

threshold accounts, these final rules do not modify 

the reporting deadline for information with respect 

to omnibus volume threshold accounts (question 4 

on New Form 102B). Such omnibus account 

information must be reported by 9:00 a.m. the 

following business day. 

370CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 7. 

371CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 3. 

372The Commission is adopting a refresh 

reporting requirement of once per year as an 

acceptable intermediate point between once each 

six months (as proposed in the NPRM) and once 

every two years (as requested by FIA and CME). The 

annual refresh requirement is therefore less 

burdensome than the six month requirement 

proposed in the NPRM. Based on the experience of 

the Commission’s surveillance group, the 

Commission believes that the annual refresh 

requirement, while longer than the six month 

requirement proposed in the NPRM, will 

nonetheless enable the Commission to maintain 

current databases, including up-to-date contact 

information that will allow the Commission to 

contact market participants quickly in the event of 

significant market events. By contrast, based on the 

experience of the Commission’s surveillance group, 

the Commission believes that a two year refresh 

deadline is too long to perform timely market 

surveillance and maintain databases that are 

sufficiently accurate and current to be useful. 373CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 2–3. 374CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 3. 375CL–2012–CME supra note 55 at 3. 

deadlines proposed in the NPRM. 

‘‘Although it is possible to file limited 

information by 9:00 a.m., i.e., the name 

of the account holder and the special 

account number, it is not practical to 

complete the entire Form 102 by that 

deadline.’’ 365 As a result, FIA 

recommended that the deadline for 

filing a complete Form 102A or any 

change update be modified to five 

business days from the date the account 

or change becomes reportable.366 In 

response to this comment, the 

Commission is extending the reporting 

deadline for new and changed Form 

102A filings, specifically with respect to 

the reporting of non-omnibus trading 

accounts that comprise a special 

account. Respondents are required to 

provide the names of such trading 

account owners and controllers by 9:00 

a.m. the following business day.367

However, respondents are required to 

provide the other contact details with 

respect to such trading account owners 

and controllers (address, telephone 

number, etc.) within three business 

days, in order to permit respondents 

additional time to compile the required 

information.368

The Commission is also modifying the 

reporting deadline for new and changed 

Form 102B filings, specifically with 

respect to the reporting of non-omnibus 

volume threshold accounts. 

Respondents are required to provide the 

names of non-omnibus volume 

threshold account owners and 

controllers reported on 102B by 9:00 

a.m. the following business day. 

Consistent with the change described 

above, respondents are required to 

provide the other contact details 

reported on 102B with respect to such 

parties (i.e., the address, telephone 

number, etc. of non-omnibus volume 

threshold account owners and 

controllers) within three business days, 

in order to permit respondents 

additional time to compile the required 

information.369

FIA commented that the refresh filing 

deadline proposed by the NPRM, which 

required firms to resubmit the Form 102 

for each special account, volume 

threshold account and consolidated 

account every six months, was too short. 

FIA stated that this six-month schedule 

‘‘will impose a significant operational 

and financial burden on reporting 

firms,’’ and recommended that refresh 

updates instead be required every two 

years.370 CME also recommended that 

refresh updates be required every two 

years.371 In response to this comment, 

the Commission is modifying the 

reporting deadline for refresh filings. 

Refresh filings for special accounts, 

volume threshold accounts and 

consolidated accounts will be required 

once per year, as opposed to once every 

six months.372 The Commission believes 

that the annual refresh requirement is a 

reasonable accommodation that will 

limit costs to market participants while 

still achieving the Commission’s 

surveillance objectives. For the majority 

of accounts, there should be little or no 

change to prior reported information. As 

a result, the reporting burden for refresh 

filings should be minimal. 

viii. Reporting on Form 102S 

FIA commented on the utility of Form 

102S, which requires swap dealers and 

clearing members to identify and report 

a swap counterparty or customer 

consolidated account with a reportable 

position. FIA stated that the information 

that will be reported to swap data 

repositories under part 45 would 

provide the Commission with access to 

essentially the same information that 

proposed Form 102S will require.373

FIA commented that ‘‘requiring FCMs, 

and the industry generally, to divert 

critical operational and financial 

resources from building the systems 

necessary to implement the part 45 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to implement this interim 

solution, would impose an unnecessary 

operational burden and cost without a 

significant offsetting benefit.’’ 374 CME 

commented that ‘‘requiring swap 

reporting as part of OCR, to accomplish 

reporting that is already being done 

under part 20—and soon to be 

duplicated under SDR reporting with 

new unique legal entity identifiers—is 

unnecessary and imposes additional 

unjustified costs on the industry.’’ 375

In light of FIA and CME’s comments 

regarding the Form 102S, the 

Commission considered, but rejected, 

the alternative of omitting Form 102S 

from the final rules. Contrary to 

commenters’ claims, SDRs will not, in 

all cases, be able to provide the 

ownership and control information 

requested on 102S. For example, the 

Commission anticipates that swap 

dealers and clearing members (the 102S 

reporting parties) will be able to 

consistently provide the contact 

information for owners and controllers 

of consolidated accounts on the 102S, 

based on the records these entities 

maintain. Part 45 reporting, by contrast, 

is based on counterparty data. This 

counterparty data may, in some cases, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69227 

376CL–2012–FIA NPRM supra note 55 at 4. 377Note that the Commission published a prior 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on July 19, 2010 

(the 2010 OCR NPRM) with respect to ownership 

and control reporting, which the Commission 

withdrew concurrent with the publication of the 

NPRM. See supra note 9. The Commission received 

a number of comment letters in response to the 

2010 OCR NPRM, and incorporated several of their 

suggestions in the NPRM (published in the Federal 

Register in 2012), which forms the basis for these 

final rules. See NPRM supra note 10 at 43973– 

43974 for a discussion of comments received in 

response to the 2010 OCR NPRM that were 

incorporated in the NPRM. 

378This information will be collected on New 

Form 102S as a result of these final rules. 

379This information will be collected on New 

Form 102B as a result of these final rules. 

380CL–2012–FIA supra note 55 at 4. 

381As discussed in section VIII(B)(iv) above, the 

Commission has determined that it will be more 

cost-effective for the industry as a whole to submit 

Forms 102A, 102B and 102S via FTP. Nonetheless, 

it may be less expensive for certain individual 

reporting parties to submit these forms via the web 

portal. This may be due to the limited number of 

forms these parties expect to submit, their 

technology infrastructure, or other factors. The 

Commission has also determined that it will be 

more cost-effective for the industry as a whole to 

submit Forms 40/S and 71 via the web portal. The 

contact reference database will pre-populate 

information on Forms 40/S and 71 to the extent 

practicable. 

382See also supra note 41 for a discussion of 

certain fields in the reporting forms that have been 

made optional, subject to certain conditions 

discussed in the reporting forms, in order to 

leverage information that reporting parties have 

previously provided. 

overlap with the owners and controllers 

of consolidated accounts reported on 

102S. However, counterparty data will 

not, in all cases, overlap with 102S 

reporting. Furthermore, even when 

counterparty data does overlap with 

102S reporting, it does not provide the 

ownership and control information 

required by 102S. Counterparty data 

provides a Legal Entity Identifier, which 

is a numeric data field that must be 

cross-checked against an external source 

in order to generate the names of owners 

and controllers. As a result, the 

Commission cannot rely on SDR 

reporting under part 45 as a substitute 

for 102S. For these reasons, the 

Commission is implementing 102S 

reporting pursuant to these final rules. 

ix. Consolidated Form Proposed by FIA 

For purposes of reducing the costs to 

reporting parties, and alleviating 

perceived inefficiencies in the forms 

proposed in the NPRM, FIA 

recommended consolidating the 

proposed forms into a single Form 

102.376 FIA attached a proposed form to 

its NPRM comment letter that 

consolidates Forms 102A, 102B and 

102S (the ‘‘FIA consolidated form’’). 

The FIA consolidated form is the 

principal alternative approach proposed 

by commenters on the NPRM.377

The Commission notes that FIA’s 

description of New Form 102A, 102B 

and 102S as inefficient and overlapping 

appears to arise from a presumption that 

reporting parties will print and 

complete each form as a separate paper 

filing. The forms included in the 

Appendix to these final rules are visual 

representations of reporting forms that 

will be completed through the 

Commission’s web-based portal. In such 

an electronic environment, it will not be 

more burdensome for reporting parties 

to enter information via separate screens 

on a web portal (for 102A, 102B and 

102S), as compared to via a single 

screen. 

The Commission does not consider 

the FIA consolidated form an acceptable 

alternative, because it is missing a 

number of key data fields that appear on 

Forms 102A, 102B, and 102S. As 

discussed in more detail below, while 

the list of data fields that the FIA 

consolidated form is missing is not 

extensive, the absence of these data 

fields would create gaps in the reporting 

of ownership and control information. 

These gaps would prevent the 

Commission from realizing the goals of 

the OCR data collection. If the missing 

data fields were added back to FIA 

consolidated form, then the FIA form 

would be substantively identical to the 

forms adopted in these final rules. 

The FIA consolidated form does not 

include the following data fields 

collected on New Forms 102A, 102B 

and 102S: 

• The FIA consolidated form does not 

require respondents to state the 

reporting trigger. I.e., the form does not 

clarify whether respondents are 

reporting a special account, volume 

threshold account, or consolidated 

account that has reached a reportable 

level. Instead, the directions to the FIA 

consolidated form state that, ‘‘This form 

must be completed if an account 

exceeds the reportable levels on special 

accounts, volume threshold accounts or 

consolidated accounts.’’ The 

Commission would receive ownership 

and control information regarding the 

reported trading accounts, but would 

not know what market activity the 

trader had engaged in that necessitated 

reporting pursuant to the Commission’s 

regulations. Without knowing the 

reporting trigger for the form (e.g., 

whether the reporting party had reached 

a reportable position or reportable 

volume level), the Commission would 

be unable to efficiently and accurately 

categorize the trading accounts reported 

on the form, and utilize this account 

information for surveillance or other 

related purposes. 

• The FIA consolidated form does not 

require respondents to identify the 

originator of a consolidated account that 

is also an omnibus account, and provide 

contact information for this 

originator.378 Without this contact 

information, the Commission would not 

know which party to contact to request 

additional information on the reported 

omnibus account (e.g., via a Form 40). 

As noted above, one of the key reasons 

that the Commission is requesting 

additional information regarding 

ownership and control on the reporting 

forms is to enable it to send a Form 40 

to such parties in order to identify them 

for surveillance purposes. Alternative 

proposals that would leave significant 

and potentially exploitable gaps in the 

reporting and identification system— 

e.g., with respect to omnibus accounts— 

would defeat the Commission’s intent 

for these final rules. 

• Similarly, the FIA consolidated 

form does not require respondents to 

state whether a volume threshold 

account is an omnibus account—and if 

so, to identify the originator of the 

omnibus account and provide contact 

information for this originator.379

Without the name and contact 

information of the originator of an 

omnibus volume threshold account, the 

Commission would be unable to send a 

Form 71 to the originator and collect 

ownership and control information for 

underlying sub-accounts. If the 

Commission does not send a Form 71 in 

this scenario, the Commission would 

again be unable to send a Form 40 to 

identify the ultimate owner and 

controller of the underlying subaccounts. This would again create 

significant gaps in the reporting and 

identification system, which would 

defeat the Commission’s intent for these 

final rules. 

As discussed above, FIA commented 

that requiring respondents to potentially 

submit three separate forms (102A, 102B 

and 102S) for the same customer is 

inefficient. FIA proposed its 

consolidated form in an attempt to 

address this overlap, reduce the costs to 

reporting parties, and alleviate other 

perceived inefficiencies in the forms 

proposed in the NPRM.380 As 

previously noted, the Commission is 

implementing a contact reference 

database to reduce the burden on parties 

reporting via the web-based portal.381

This database will pre-populate certain 

fields on the portal with information 

previously provided by the respondent, 

thereby reducing the inefficiency 

associated with responding to more than 

one section of New Form 102.382


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69228 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

383See the discussion of the daily trade capture 

reports in section I(B) above. 

x. Section 15(a) Factors 

(a) Protection of Market Participants and 

the Public 

The data collection requirements 

under these final rules will support the 

Commission in its mission to protect 

market participants and the public, by 

significantly improving the 

Commission’s visibility with respect to 

market participants and their activities 

across derivatives markets. Specifically, 

the final rules build upon the 

Commission’s existing market and trade 

practice surveillance programs for 

futures, options on futures, and swaps, 

by providing for the timely and efficient 

analysis of market data related to special 

accounts, consolidated accounts, and 

newly designated volume threshold 

accounts. The rules implement these 

goals in a manner designed to reduce 

costs to reporting entities. Improving the 

capabilities of the Commission’s market 

and trade practice surveillance 

programs will support the integrity of 

financial markets, and protect market 

participants and the public from the 

costs of disruptive trading practices and 

other market abuses. 

New Form 102A. As an example of 

these benefits, New Form 102A requires 

reporting of ownership and control 

information for the trading accounts that 

constitute special accounts. This will 

allow the Commission to more 

efficiently link special accounts holding 

reportable positions to the transactions 

(and associated trading accounts) 

identified on daily trade capture reports 

received by the Commission.383 By 

illustrating the connections between 

end-of-day position reporting via Form 

102 and daily trade capture reports, the 

final rules will enable the Commission 

to perform a more accurate and timely 

accounting of market position at the 

level of individual trading accounts. 

With this information, the Commission 

will be able to conduct a thorough 

assessment of a trader’s potential market 

impact, including with respect to 

disruptive practices. 

New Form 102B. New Form 102B 

institutes a reporting requirement for 

trading accounts that exceed a specific 

volume threshold on any single trading 

day, regardless of whether the account 

maintains open positions at the end of 

the day. The addition of volume-based 

reporting will provide the Commission 

with an efficient means to collect the 

information required to aggregate 

positions, detect intra-day position limit 

violations, and calculate market share. 

When analyzing periods of elevated 

volatility—especially at significant 

trading times such as market open and 

close—the ability to aggregate intra-day 

trading behavior by owner/controller is 

crucial to understanding whether a 

trader has adversely affected (or has the 

potential to affect) market quality or 

price discovery. 

New Form 102S. New Form 102S will 

improve upon the current 102S 

reporting system by providing detailed 

ownership and control information 

regarding consolidated accounts. The 

information collected via Form 102S 

will allow the Commission’s market and 

trade practice surveillance programs to 

track the market activity of traders that 

may be dividing risk exposure between 

both on-exchange and off-exchange 

instruments. In addition to the ability to 

track individual traders, swap reporting 

will also enable the Commission to 

aggregate exposure in a particular 

product or commodity group. The 

reporting of swap activity on Form 102S 

aligns with the Commission’s recently 

finalized rules on real-time public and 

regulatory reporting of swap trades, and 

provides further transparency into 

markets that, historically, have often 

been opaque and/or over-the-counter. 

Collectively, the ownership and 

control information on New Forms 

102A/102B/102S, 40/40S and 71 will 

improve the Commission’s ability to 

analyze and/or respond to market 

disruptions, which can come at a high 

cost to the investing and general public. 

The information will also enable the 

Commission to perform more robust 

research and analytics, encompassing a 

significantly greater segment of market 

activity on a more diverse set of 

platforms, as well as improve its 

classification of traders in Commission 

publications, such as the Commitments 

of Traders report. Finally, the 

Commission will be able to perform data 

integrity checks within and between its 

databases using the additional fields 

collected on the revised forms. 

Efficiency, Competitiveness, and 

Financial Integrity of the Markets 

The collection of ownership and 

control information via the new and 

amended forms will enable the 

Commission to better perform risk-based 

monitoring and surveillance among 

related accounts, and monitor risk 

exposure by institution, market class, 

and asset class. For example, the rules 

will enable the Commission to more 

efficiently link end-of-day position 

reporting and the trade capture reports 

received by the Commission. 

Accordingly, the rules will allow the 

Commission to aggregate respondents’ 

positions across multiple products and 

markets, assess their potential market 

impact with respect to disruptive or 

manipulative activities during 

important periods, and analyze their 

compliance with speculative position 

limits at any time during the trading 

day. In the event the Commission 

identifies trading activity requiring 

further investigation, the Commission 

will be able to contact market 

participants more quickly and 

efficiently using the ownership and 

control information collected through 

the OCR reporting process. 

The final rules will also promote 

resource allocation efficiency by 

automating the submission process, 

eliminating an additional layer of 

transcription and reducing the 

likelihood of input errors and/or the 

need to revert back to reporting parties 

for further explanation. In addition, the 

final rules permit respondents to use 

either of two available submission 

methods (FTP or web portal), thereby 

allowing respondents to select the 

method that is most economical in light 

of the number of filings they expect to 

make, and that integrates most 

efficiently with their existing data and 

technology infrastructure. These 

improvements in resource efficiency 

and data quality will also improve the 

Commission’s published reports, such 

as the classifications in the 

Commitments of Traders report. Finally, 

the Commission will be able to perform 

data integrity checks within and 

between its databases using the 

additional data fields collected on the 

revised forms. 

The Commission believes that market 

integrity is essential to fair and orderly 

markets that serve as effective centers 

for price discovery and risk 

management. By promoting these 

important goals, the final rules will help 

promote the utility of Commissionregulated markets. 

Price Discovery 

The Commission does not view the 

costs and benefits of the final rules as 

impacting price discovery in markets 

that it regulates. 

Sound Risk Management Practices 

The final rules establish the 

information architecture necessary to 

support Dodd-Frank’s objectives of 

reducing risk, increasing transparency, 

and promoting market integrity within 

the financial system. The expanded 

reporting requirements will significantly 

improve the Commission’s ability to 

perform risk-based monitoring of 

trading activity spread across multiple 

platform types but directed or 

controlled by individual entities. Such 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69229 

384 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

385 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603, 604 and 605. While the 

definition of ‘‘entity’’ does not encompass natural 

persons, it does encompass sole proprietorships. 5 

U.S.C. 601(6). The Commission recognizes that floor 

brokers and other natural persons doing business as 

sole proprietors could potentially be considered 

small entities. See generally 58 FR 40,335 at 

40,347–48, n. 45 (July 28, 1993); 47 FR 18618 at 

18,620, (Apr. 30, 1982). 

386See respectively and as indicated: 47 FR 18618 

(April 30, 1982) (FCMs and large traders); 72 FR 

34417 at 34418 (June 22, 2007) (foreign brokers); 76 

FR 71626 at 71680 (November 18, 2011) (swap 

dealers); 76 FR 71626 at 71680 (November 18, 2011) 

and 76 FR 43851 at 43860 (July 22, 2011) (clearing 

members). 

387See 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

388Small Business Administration, Table of 

Small Business Size Standards (Nov. 5, 2010). See 

also the regulatory flexibility analysis regarding 

such entities in 77 FR 1182 at 1240 (January 9, 

2012), 77 FR 2136 at 2170 (January 13, 2012), and 

77 FR 2613 at 2620 (January 19, 2012). 

389See supra section VIII(A). 

390 17 CFR 18.05. 

an expanded view of the marketplace 

will enable the Commission to more 

effectively identify disruptive or 

manipulative trading activity. The 

Commission does not believe that the 

costs arising from the final rules, which 

the Commission has taken steps to 

reduce, threaten the ability of market 

participants to manage risk. 

Other Public Interest Considerations 

The Commission does not view the 

costs and benefits of the final rules as 

impacting other public interest 

considerations beyond those discussed 

above. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) requires that agencies consider 

whether the rules they propose will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

and, if so, provide a regulatory 

flexibility analysis regarding the 

impact.384 A regulatory flexibility 

analysis or certification is typically 

required for ‘‘any rule for which the 

agency publishes a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking’’ pursuant to the 

notice-and-comment provisions of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b).385

The final rules require FCMs, clearing 

members, foreign brokers, swap dealers 

and other reporting traders (including 

natural persons) to complete New Forms 

102 or 71, and to submit them to the 

Commission as specified in the final 

rules, or upon special call by the 

Commission. The Commission has 

previously determined that FCMs, 

clearing members, foreign brokers, and 

swap dealers are not small entities for 

purposes of the RFA.386 The 

Commission has also determined that 

natural persons are not ‘entities’ for 

purposes of the RFA.387 Accordingly, 

the final rules with respect to Forms 102 

and 71 will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

The final rules also require certain 

reporting traders to complete and 

submit New Form 40 upon special call 

by the Commission. Some of these 

reporting traders may be ‘‘small 

entities’’ under the RFA. In 2012, the 

Commission received approximately 

3,123 completed Form 40s, from a total 

population of approximately 10,000 

reporting traders. Of these 3,123 Form 

40s, approximately 2,500 were 

completed by institutions, a portion of 

which could potentially be small 

entities under the RFA. For example, 

the Commission has received comments 

on its Dodd-Frank Act rulemakings 

indicating that certain entities that may 

be required to comply with the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in the final rules have 

been determined by the Small Business 

Administration to be small entities. In 

particular, the Commission understands 

that some not-for-profit electric 

generators, transmitters, and distributors 

that may be required to comply with the 

proposed rules have been determined to 

be small entities by the SBA, because 

they are ‘‘primarily engaged in the 

generation, transmission, and/or 

distribution of electric energy for sale 

and [their] total electric output for the 

preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 

million megawatt hours.’’ 388

The Commission believes that, due to 

the limited number of institutions likely 

to receive a New Form 40 request in any 

given year, as well as the limited nature 

of the New Form 40 reporting burden, 

the final rules with respect to New Form 

40 will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. New Form 40 will not be 

required on a routine and ongoing basis, 

but rather will be sent by the 

Commission on a discretionary basis in 

response to the reporting of an account 

that reaches a minimum position or 

volume threshold. As summarized 

above, in 2012 the Commission made 

Form 40 requests to only 25 percent of 

all reporting traders that could 

potentially be small entities; 

furthermore, some of these reporting 

traders were not in fact small entities. 

As a result, New Form 40 should be 

expected to affect only a small subset of 

the entities that may be small entities 

under the RFA. In addition, New Form 

40 is not lengthy or complex, and will 

require reporting traders to provide only 

limited information to the Commission. 

As discussed above, the Commission 

estimates that a reporting trader 

submitting New Form 40 via the webbased portal will require only three 

hours, on an annualized basis, to 

complete the form.389

The final rules regarding revised 

§ 18.05 will also impose books and 

records obligations upon a new category 

of market participants—specifically, 

certain owners (but not controllers) of a 

volume threshold account or a 

reportable sub-account. Such owners 

may be small entities under the RFA. 

The Commission does not believe that 

the obligation to maintain books and 

records under revised § 18.05 will 

impose significant costs on the 

additional small entities subject to the 

recordkeeping requirements of such 

section. The Commission expects that 

such account owners may largely rely 

on the books and records that they 

maintain in the ordinary course of 

business to fulfill the requirements of 

revised § 18.05. The Commission also 

expects that a portion of the account 

owners subject to revised § 18.05 are 

subject to the position-based 

recordkeeping requirements of current 

§ 18.05,390 and will not incur significant 

costs expanding their recordkeeping 

practices to comply with revised 

§ 18.05. To the extent that certain small 

entities are required to modify their 

practices to comply with the volumebased recordkeeping requirements of 

revised § 18.05, the Commission 

believes that the resulting economic 

burden will be appropriate, because this 

requirement will: (a) Ensure that (i) 

owners of volume threshold accounts 

and reportable sub-accounts and (ii) 

owners of reportable positions are 

subject to equivalent recordkeeping 

obligations under § 18.05, and therefore 

maintain books and records in a 

consistent format; and (b) promote the 

Commission’s surveillance and 

investigatory functions to better deter 

price manipulation and other 

disruptions of market integrity. 

List of Subjects 

17 CFR Part 15 

Brokers, Commodity futures, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

17 CFR Part 17 

Brokers, Commodity futures, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

17 CFR Part 18 

Commodity futures, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69230 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

17 CFR Part 20 

Physical commodity swaps, Swap 

dealers, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission amends 17 CFR 

parts 15, 17, 18, and 20 as follows: 

PART 15—REPORTS—GENERAL 

PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 15 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2, 5, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 6i, 

6k, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a, 9, 12a, 19, and 21, as 

amended by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 

Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 

■ 2. Amend § 15.00 by revising 

paragraph (q) and adding paragraphs (t) 

through (dd) to read as follows: 

§ 15.00 Definitions of terms used in parts 

15 to 19, and 21 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

(q) Reporting market means a 

designated contract market or a 

registered entity under section 1a(40) of 

the Act. 

* * * * * 

(t) Control means to actually direct, by 

power of attorney or otherwise, the 

trading of a special account or a 

consolidated account. A special account 

or a consolidated account may have 

more than one controller. 

(u) Reportable trading volume means 

contract trading volume that meets or 

exceeds the level specified in § 15.04. 

(v) Omnibus account means any 

trading account that one futures 

commission merchant, clearing member 

or foreign broker carries for another and 

in which the transactions of multiple 

individual accounts are combined. The 

identities of the holders of the 

individual accounts are not generally 

known or disclosed to the carrying firm. 

(w) Omnibus account originator 

means any futures commission 

merchant, clearing member or foreign 

broker that executes trades for one or 

more customers via one or more 

accounts that are part of an omnibus 

account carried by another futures 

commission merchant, clearing member 

or foreign broker. 

(x) Volume threshold account means 

any trading account that carries 

reportable trading volume on or subject 

to the rules of a reporting market that is 

a board of trade designated as a contract 

market under section 5 of the Act or a 

swap execution facility registered under 

section 5h of the Act. 

(y) Omnibus volume threshold 

account means any trading account that, 

on an omnibus basis, carries reportable 

trading volume on or subject to the rules 

of a reporting market that is a board of 

trade designated as a contract market 

under section 5 of the Act or a swap 

execution facility registered under 

section 5h of the Act. 

(z) Omnibus reportable sub-account 

means any trading sub-account of an 

omnibus volume threshold account, 

which sub-account executes reportable 

trading volume on an omnibus basis. 

Omnibus reportable sub-account also 

means any trading account that is itself 

an omnibus account, executes 

reportable trading volume, and is a subaccount of another omnibus reportable 

sub-account. 

(aa) Reportable sub-account means 

any trading sub-account of an omnibus 

volume threshold account or omnibus 

reportable sub-account, which subaccount executes reportable trading 

volume. 

(bb) Trading account controller 

means, for reports specified in § 17.01(a) 

of this chapter, a natural person who by 

power of attorney or otherwise actually 

directs the trading of a trading account. 

A trading account may have more than 

one controller. 

(cc) Volume threshold account 

controller means a natural person who 

by power of attorney or otherwise 

actually directs the trading of a volume 

threshold account. A volume threshold 

account may have more than one 

controller. 

(dd) Reportable sub-account 

controller means a natural person who 

by power of attorney or otherwise 

actually directs the trading of a 

reportable sub-account. A reportable 

sub-account may have more than one 

controller. 

■ 3. In § 15.01, revise paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 15.01 Persons required to report. 

* * * * * 

(c) As specified in part 18 of this 

chapter: 

(1) Traders who own, hold, or control 

reportable positions; 

(2) Volume threshold account 

controllers; 

(3) Persons who own volume 

threshold accounts; 

(4) Reportable sub-account 

controllers; and 

(5) Persons who own reportable subaccounts. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Revise § 15.02 to read as follows: 

§ 15.02 Reporting forms. 

Forms on which to report may be 

obtained from any office of the 

Commission or via the Internet (http:// 

www.cftc.gov). Forms to be used for the 

filing of reports follow, and persons 

required to file these forms may be 

determined by referring to the rule 

listed in the column opposite the form 

number. 

Form No. Title Rule 

40 ....................... Statement of Reporting Trader ............................................................................................................................... 18.04 

101 ..................... Positions of Special Accounts ................................................................................................................................. 17.00 

102 ..................... Identification of Special Accounts, Volume Threshold Accounts, and Consolidated Accounts ............................. 17.01 

204 ..................... Cash Positions of Grain Traders (including Oilseeds and Products) ..................................................................... 19.00 

304 ..................... Cash Positions of Cotton Traders ........................................................................................................................... 19.00 

71 ....................... Identification of Omnibus Accounts and Sub-accounts .......................................................................................... 17.01 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control numbers 3038– 

0007, 3038–0009, and 3038–0103.) 

■ 5. Add § 15.04 to read as follows: 

§ 15.04 Reportable trading volume level. 

The volume quantity for the purpose 

of reports filed under parts 17 and 18 of 

this chapter is trading volume of 50 or 

more contracts, during a single trading 

day, on a single reporting market that is 

a board of trade designated as a contract 

market under section 5 of the Act or a 

swap execution facility registered under 

section 5h of the Act, in all instruments 

that such reporting market designates 

with the same product identifier 

(including purchases and sales, and 

inclusive of all expiration months). 

PART 17—REPORTS BY REPORTING 

MARKETS, FUTURES COMMISSION 

MERCHANTS, CLEARING MEMBERS, 

AND FOREIGN BROKERS 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 17 is 

revised to read as follows: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69231 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2, 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f, 6g, 6i, 

6t, 7, 7a, and 12a, as amended by Title VII 

of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111–203, 

124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 

■ 7. In § 17.00, revise paragraph 

(g)(2)(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 17.00 Information to be furnished by 

futures commission merchants, clearing 

members and foreign brokers. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) Account Number. A unique 

identifier assigned by the reporting firm 

to each special account. The field is zero 

filled with the account number rightjustified. Assignment of the account 

number is subject to the provisions of 

paragraph (b) of this section and 

appendix A of this part (Form 102). 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Revise § 17.01 to read as follows: 

§ 17.01 Identification of special accounts, 

volume threshold accounts, and omnibus 

accounts. 

(a) Identification of special accounts. 

When a special account is reported for 

the first time, the futures commission 

merchant, clearing member, or foreign 

broker shall identify the special account 

to the Commission on Form 102, in 

accordance with the form instructions 

and as specified in § 17.02(b). 

(b) Identification of volume threshold 

accounts. Each clearing member shall 

identify and report its volume threshold 

accounts to the Commission on Form 

102, in accordance with the form 

instructions and as specified in 

§ 17.02(c). 

(c) Identification of omnibus accounts 

and sub-accounts. Each originator of an 

omnibus volume threshold account 

identified in Form 102 or an omnibus 

reportable sub-account identified in 

Form 71 shall, after a special call upon 

such originator by the Commission or its 

designee, file with the Commission an 

‘‘Identification of Omnibus Accounts 

and Sub-Accounts’’ on Form 71, to be 

completed in accordance with the 

instructions thereto, at such time and 

place as directed in the call. 

(d) Exclusively self-cleared contracts. 

Unless determined otherwise by the 

Commission, reporting markets that list 

exclusively self-cleared contracts shall 

meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, as they apply to 

trading in such contracts by all clearing 

members, on behalf of all clearing 

members. 

(e) Special call provision. Upon a call 

by the Commission or its designee, the 

reports required to be filed by futures 

commission merchants, clearing 

members, foreign brokers, and reporting 

markets under paragraphs (a) through 

(d) of this section shall be submitted 

within 24 hours of the Commission or 

its designee’s request in accordance 

with the instructions accompanying the 

request. 

■ 9. Amend § 17.02 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (b) and 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 17.02 Form, manner and time of filing 

reports. 

Unless otherwise instructed by the 

Commission or its designee, the reports 

required to be filed by reporting 

markets, futures commission merchants, 

clearing members, and foreign brokers 

under §§ 17.00 and 17.01 shall be filed 

as specified in paragraphs (a) through 

(c) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(b) Section 17.01(a) reports. For data 

submitted pursuant to § 17.01(a) on 

Form 102: 

(1) Form of submission. Form 102 

must be submitted to the Commission in 

the form and manner provided on 

www.cftc.gov. 

(2) Time of submission. For each 

account that becomes reportable as a 

special account, the futures commission 

merchant, clearing member, or foreign 

broker, as appropriate, shall submit a 

Form 102 to the Commission, in 

accordance with the instructions 

thereto, and in the manner specified by 

the Commission or its designee. Such 

form shall be submitted in accordance 

with the instructions and schedule set 

forth in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of 

this section: 

(i) The applicable reporting party 

shall submit a completed Form 102 to 

the Commission no later than 9 a.m. on 

the business day following the date on 

which the special account becomes 

reportable, or on such other date as 

directed by special call of the 

Commission or its designee, and as 

periodically required thereafter by 

paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section. 

Such form shall include all required 

information, including the names of the 

owner(s) and controller(s) of each 

trading account that is not an omnibus 

account, and that comprises a special 

account reported on the form, provided 

that, with respect to such owners(s) and 

controller(s), information other than the 

names of such parties may be reported 

in accordance with the instructions and 

schedule set forth in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) 

of this section. Unless otherwise 

specified by the Commission or its 

designee, the stated time is eastern time 

for information concerning markets 

located in that time zone, and central 

time for information concerning all 

other markets. 

(ii) With respect to the owner(s) and 

controller(s) of each trading account that 

is not an omnibus account, and that 

comprises a special account reported on 

Form 102, information other than the 

names of such parties must be provided 

on Form 102 no later than 9 a.m. on the 

third business day following the date on 

which the special account becomes 

reportable, or on such other date as 

directed by special call of the 

Commission or its designee, and as 

periodically required thereafter by 

paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section. 

Unless otherwise specified by the 

Commission or its designee, the stated 

time is eastern time for information 

concerning markets located in that time 

zone, and central time for information 

concerning all other markets. 

(3) Change updates. If any change 

causes the information filed by a futures 

commission merchant, clearing member, 

or foreign broker on a Form 102 for a 

special account to no longer be accurate, 

then such futures commission 

merchant, clearing member, or foreign 

broker shall file an updated Form 102 

with the Commission in accordance 

with the instructions and schedule set 

forth in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of 

this section, or on such other date as 

directed by special call of the 

Commission, provided that, a futures 

commission merchant, clearing member, 

or foreign broker may stop providing 

change updates for a Form 102 that it 

has submitted to the Commission for 

any special account upon notifying the 

Commission or its designee that the 

account in question is no longer 

reportable as a special account and has 

not been reportable as a special account 

for the past six months. 

(4) Refresh updates. For Special 

Accounts—Starting on a date specified 

by the Commission or its designee and 

at the end of each annual increment 

thereafter (or such other date specified 

by the Commission or its designee that 

is equal to or greater than six months), 

each futures commission merchant, 

clearing member, or foreign broker shall 

resubmit every Form 102 that it has 

submitted to the Commission for each of 

its special accounts, provided that, a 

futures commission merchant, clearing 

member, or foreign broker may stop 

providing refresh updates for a Form 

102 that it has submitted to the 

Commission for any special account 

upon notifying the Commission or its 

designee that the account in question is 

no longer reportable as a special account 

and has not been reportable as a special 

account for the past six months. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69232 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(c) Section 17.01(b) reports. For data 

submitted pursuant to § 17.01(b) on 

Form 102: 

(1) Form of submission. Form 102 

must be submitted to the Commission in 

the form and manner provided on 

www.cftc.gov. 

(2) Time of submission. For each 

account that becomes reportable as a 

volume threshold account, the clearing 

member shall submit a Form 102 to the 

Commission, in accordance with the 

instructions thereto, and in the manner 

specified by the Commission or its 

designee. Such form shall be submitted 

in accordance with the instructions and 

schedule set forth in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) 

and (ii) of this section: 

(i) The clearing member shall submit 

a completed Form 102 to the 

Commission no later than 9 a.m. on the 

business day following the date on 

which the volume threshold account 

becomes reportable, or on such other 

date as directed by special call of the 

Commission or its designee, and as 

periodically required thereafter by 

paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section. 

Such form shall include all required 

information, including the names of the 

owner(s) and controller(s) of each 

volume threshold account reported on 

the form that is not an omnibus account, 

provided that, with respect to such 

owners(s) and controller(s), information 

other than the names of such parties 

may be reported in accordance with the 

instructions and schedule set forth in 

paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section. 

Unless otherwise specified by the 

Commission or its designee, the stated 

time is eastern time for information 

concerning markets located in that time 

zone, and central time for information 

concerning all other markets. 

(ii) With respect to the owner(s) and 

controller(s) of each volume threshold 

account reported on Form 102 that is 

not an omnibus account, information 

other than the names of such parties 

must be provided on Form 102 no later 

than 9 a.m. on the third business day 

following the date on which the volume 

threshold account becomes reportable, 

or on such other date as directed by 

special call of the Commission or its 

designee, and as periodically required 

thereafter by paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of 

this section. Unless otherwise specified 

by the Commission or its designee, the 

stated time is eastern time for 

information concerning markets located 

in that time zone, and central time for 

information concerning all other 

markets. 

(3) Change updates. If any change 

causes the information filed by a 

clearing member on a Form 102 for a 

volume threshold account to no longer 

be accurate, then such clearing member 

shall file an updated Form 102 with the 

Commission in accordance with the 

instructions and schedule set forth in 

paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, or on such other date as 

directed by special call of the 

Commission, provided that, a clearing 

member may stop providing Form 102 

change updates for a volume threshold 

account upon notifying the Commission 

or its designee that the volume 

threshold account executed no trades in 

any product in the past six months on 

the reporting market at which the 

volume threshold account reached the 

reportable trading volume level. 

(4) Refresh updates. For Volume 

Threshold Accounts—Starting on a date 

specified by the Commission or its 

designee and at the end of each annual 

increment thereafter (or such other date 

specified by the Commission or its 

designee that is equal to or greater than 

six months), each clearing member shall 

resubmit every Form 102 that it has 

submitted to the Commission for each of 

its volume threshold accounts, provided 

that, a clearing member may stop 

providing refresh updates for a Form 

102 that it has submitted to the 

Commission for any volume threshold 

account upon notifying the Commission 

or its designee that the volume 

threshold account executed no trades in 

any product in the past six months on 

the reporting market at which the 

volume threshold account reached the 

reportable trading volume level. 

■ 10. Revise § 17.03 to read as follows: 

§ 17.03 Delegation of authority to the 

Director of the Office of Data and 

Technology or the Director of the Division 

of Market Oversight. 

The Commission hereby delegates, 

until the Commission orders otherwise, 

the authority set forth in the paragraphs 

below to either the Director of the Office 

of Data and Technology or the Director 

of the Division of Market Oversight, as 

indicated below, to be exercised by such 

Director or by such other employee or 

employees of such Director as 

designated from time to time by such 

Director. The Director of the Office of 

Data and Technology or the Director of 

the Division of Market Oversight may 

submit to the Commission for its 

consideration any matter which has 

been delegated to such Director in this 

paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph 

prohibits the Commission, at its 

election, from exercising the authority 

delegated in this paragraph. 

(a) Pursuant to § 17.00(a) and (h), the 

authority shall be designated to the 

Director of the Office of Data and 

Technology to determine whether 

futures commission merchants, clearing 

members and foreign brokers can report 

the information required under 

§ 17.00(a) and (h) on series ‘01 forms or 

using some other format upon a 

determination that such person is 

unable to report the information using 

the format, coding structure or 

electronic data transmission procedures 

otherwise required. 

(b) Pursuant to § 17.02, the authority 

shall be designated to the Director of the 

Office of Data and Technology to 

instruct or approve the time at which 

the information required under §§ 17.00 

and 17.01(a) and (b) must be submitted 

by futures commission merchants, 

clearing members and foreign brokers 

provided that such persons are unable 

to meet the requirements set forth in 

§ 17.02. 

(c) Pursuant to § 17.01, the authority 

shall be designated to the Director of the 

Office of Data and Technology to 

determine whether to permit an 

authorized representative of a firm filing 

the Form 102 or person filing the Form 

71 to use a means of authenticating the 

report other than by signing the Form 

102 or Form 71 and, if so, to determine 

the alternative means of authentication 

that shall be used. 

(d) Pursuant to § 17.00(a), the 

authority shall be designated to the 

Director of the Office of Data and 

Technology to approve a format and 

coding structure other than that set forth 

in § 17.00(g). 

(e) Pursuant to § 17.01(c), the 

authority shall be designated to the 

Director of the Office of Data and 

Technology to make special calls on 

omnibus volume threshold account 

originators and omnibus reportable subaccount originators for information as 

set forth in § 17.01(c). 

(f) Pursuant to § 17.02(b)(4), the 

authority shall be designated to the 

Director of the Division of Market 

Oversight to determine the date on 

which each futures commission 

merchant, clearing member, or foreign 

broker shall update or otherwise 

resubmit every Form 102 that it has 

submitted to the Commission for each of 

its special accounts. 

(g) Pursuant to § 17.02(c)(4), the 

authority shall be designated to the 

Director of the Division of Market 

Oversight to determine the date on 

which each clearing member shall 

update or otherwise resubmit every 

Form 102 that it has submitted to the 

Commission for each of its volume 

threshold accounts. 

■ 11. Add appendix A to part 17 to read 

as follows: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69233 

Appendix A to Part 17—Form 102 

Note: This Appendix is a representation of 

the final reporting form, which will be 

submitted in an electronic format pursuant to 

the rules in part 17, either via the 

Commission’s web portal or via XML-based, 

secure FTP transmission. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.003</GPH>
69234 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69235 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.005</GPH>
69236 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69237 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.007</GPH>
69238 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69239 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.009</GPH>
69240 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69241 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.011</GPH>
69242 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69243 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.013</GPH>
69244 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69245 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.015</GPH>
69246 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69247 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.017</GPH>
69248 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69249 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.019</GPH>
69250 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69251 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.021</GPH>
69252 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–C 

■ 12. Add appendix B to part 17 to read 

as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 17—Form 71 

Note: This Appendix is a representation of 

the final reporting form, which will be 

submitted in an electronic format pursuant to 

the rules in Part 17, either via the 

Commission’s web portal or via XML-based, 

secure FTP transmission. 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69253 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.023</GPH>
69254 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69255 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.025</GPH>
69256 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69257 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.027</GPH>
69258 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69259 

PART 18—REPORTS BY TRADERS 

■ 13. The authority citation for part 18 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2, 4, 5, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 

6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 6t, 12a, and 19, as amended 

by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 

111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 

■ 14. Revise § 18.04 to read as follows: 

§ 18.04 Statement of reporting trader. 

(a) Every trader who owns, holds, or 

controls a reportable futures and option 

position shall after a special call upon 

such trader by the Commission or its 

designee file with the Commission a 

‘‘Statement of Reporting Trader’’ on the 

Form 40, to be completed in accordance 

with the instructions thereto, at such 

time and place as directed in the call. 

(b) Every volume threshold account 

controller, person who owns a volume 

threshold account, reportable subaccount controller, and person who 

owns a reportable sub-account shall 

after a special call upon such person by 

the Commission or its designee file with 

the Commission a ‘‘Statement of 

Reporting Trader’’ on the Form 40, to be 

completed in accordance with the 

instructions thereto, at such time and 

place as directed in the call. 

■ 15. Amend § 18.05 to revise 

introductory paragraph (a), and 

paragraphs (b) and (c), to read as 

follows: 

§ 18.05 Maintenance of books and records. 

(a) Every volume threshold account 

controller; person who owns a volume 

threshold account; reportable subaccount controller; person who owns a 

reportable sub-account; and trader who 

owns, holds, or controls a reportable 

futures or option position shall keep 

books and records showing all details 

concerning all positions and 

transactions in the commodity or swap: 

* * * * * 

(b) Every such volume threshold 

account controller; person who owns a 

volume threshold account; reportable 

sub-account controller; person who 

owns a reportable sub-account; and 

trader who owns, holds, or controls a 

reportable futures or option position 

shall also keep books and records 

showing all details concerning all 

positions and transactions in the cash 

commodity or swap, its products and 

byproducts, and all commercial 

activities that it hedges in the futures, 

option, or swap contract in which it is 

reportable. 

(c) Every volume threshold account 

controller; person who owns a volume 

threshold account; reportable subaccount controller; person who owns a 

reportable sub-account; and trader who 

owns, holds, or controls a reportable 

futures or option position shall upon 

request furnish to the Commission any 

pertinent information concerning such 

positions, transactions, or activities in a 

form acceptable to the Commission. 

■ 16. Add appendix A to part 18 to read 

as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 18—Form 40 

Note: This Appendix is a representation of 

the final reporting form, which will be 

submitted in an electronic format pursuant to 

the rules in Part 18, either via the 

Commission’s web portal or via XML-based, 

secure FTP transmission. 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.029</GPH>
69260 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3As used in this document, ‘‘Form 40’’ may refer 

to either a Form 40—Statement of Reporting Trader 

or a 40S Filing, as appropriate, and as the context 

may require. 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

General Instructions 

Who Must File a Form 40—17 CFR 18.04(a) 

requires every person who owns or controls 

a reportable position to file a Form 40— 

Statement of Reporting Trader with the 

Commission. 17 CFR 18.04(b) requires every 

volume threshold account controller, person 

who owns a volume threshold account, 

reportable sub-account controller, and person 

who owns a reportable sub-account to file a 

Form 40—Statement of Reporting Trader 

with the Commission. 17 CFR 20.5 requires 

every person subject to books or records 

under 17 CFR 20.6 to file a 40S filing 3 with 

the Commission. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER18NO13.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69261 

4Please provide a direct number, without any 

telephone extension. Non-U.S. respondents should 

also provide the applicable international area code. 

When to file—A reporting trader must file 

a Form 40 on call by the Commission or its 

designee. 

Where to file—The Form 40 should be 

submitted (a) via the CFTC’s web-based Form 

40 submission process at www.cftc.gov, (b) 

via a secure FTP data feed to the 

Commission, or (c) as otherwise instructed by 

the Commission or its designee. If electronic 

submission attempts fail, the reporting trader 

shall contact the Commission at 

techsupport@cftc.gov for further technical 

support. 

When to update—A reporting trader 

required to complete a Form 40 will be under 

a continuing obligation, per direction in the 

special call, to update and maintain the 

accuracy of the information it provides. 

Reporting traders can update this information 

by either visiting the CFTC’s web-based Form 

40 portal to review, verify, and/or update 

their information, or by submitting updated 

information via FTP. 

Signature—Each Form 40 submitted to the 

Commission must be signed or otherwise 

authenticated by either (1) the reporting 

trader submitting the form or (2) an 

individual that is duly authorized by the 

reporting trader to provide the information 

and representations contained in the form. 

What to File—All reporting traders that are 

filing a Form 40 pursuant to either 17 CFR 

18.04(a) (i.e. reportable position reporting 

traders) or 17 CFR 20.5 (i.e. swaps books and 

records reporting traders) must complete all 

questions. All reporting traders that are filing 

a Form 40 pursuant to 17 CFR 18.04(b) (i.e. 

volume threshold account controllers, 

persons who own a volume threshold 

account, reportable sub-account controllers, 

and persons who own a reportable subaccount reporting trader) must complete all 

questions unless they are natural persons. 

Reporting traders that are filing a Form 40 

pursuant to 17 CFR 18.04(b) who are natural 

persons shall mark not applicable for 

questions 7 and 8. 

Please be advised that pursuant to 5 CFR 

1320.5(b)(2)(i), you are not required to 

respond to this collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

Table of Contents 

1. General information for Reporting Trader 

2. Contact Information for Individual 

Responsible for Trading Activities 

3. Contact Information for Individual 

Responsible for Risk Management 

Operations 

4. Contact information for Individual 

Responsible for Information on the Form 

40 

5. Omnibus Account Identification 

6. Foreign Government Affiliation 

7. Non-Domestic Entity Indicator 

8. Ownership Structure (Parent/Parents) 

9. Ownership Structure (Subsidiary/

Subsidiaries) 

10. Control of Reporting Trader’s Trading 

Activities by Others 

11. Control of Other’s Trading Activities by 

Reporting Trader 

12. Other Parties Influencing Trading of 

Reporting Trader 

13. Trading Subject to Express or Implied 

Agreement 

14. Commodity Index Trading Indicator 

15. Swap Dealer Identification 

16. Major Swap Participant Identification 

17. Business Sectors, Subsectors and 

Occupation 

18. Commodities Being Traded in Derivative 

Markets 

19. Business Purpose for Trading in 

Derivative Markets 

20. Signature/Authentication, Name, and 

Date 

Acknowledgement of Definitions 

Before proceeding with your submission, 

please check this box to indicate that you 

have read the definitions for the following 

terms—as they are used in the Form 40: b 

Commodity (or commodities)—generally, 

all goods and articles (except onions and 

motion picture box office receipts, or any 

index, measure, value, or data related to such 

receipts), and all services, rights, and 

interests (except motion picture box office 

receipts, or any index, measure, value, or 

data related to such receipts) in which 

contracts for future delivery are presently or 

in the future dealt in (see 7 U.S.C. 1a(9)). 

Commodity Index Trading (‘‘CIT’’)— 

means: 

a. An investment strategy that consists of 

investing in an instrument (e.g., a commodity 

index fund, exchange-traded fund for 

commodities, or exchange-traded note for 

commodities) that enters into one or more 

derivative contracts to track the performance 

of a published index that is based on the 

price of one or more commodities, or 

commodities in combination with other 

securities; or 

b. An investment strategy that consists of 

entering into one or more derivative contracts 

to track the performance of a published index 

that is based on the price of one or more 

commodities, or commodities in combination 

with other securities. 

Control—as used in this Form, ‘‘control’’ 

means to actually direct, by power of 

attorney or otherwise, the trading of a special 

account or a consolidated account. A special 

account or a consolidated account may have 

more than one controller. 

Derivatives—futures, options on futures, 

and swaps. 

Omnibus volume threshold account— 

means any trading account that, on an 

omnibus basis, carries reportable trading 

volume on or subject to the rules of a 

reporting market that is a board of trade 

designated as a contract market under section 

5 of the Act or a swap execution facility 

registered under section 5h of the Act. 

Parent—for purposes of Form 40, a person 

is a parent of a reporting trader if it has a 

direct or indirect controlling interest in the 

reporting trader; and a person has a 

controlling interest if such person has the 

ability to control the reporting trader through 

the ownership of voting equity, by contract, 

or otherwise. 

Person—an individual, association, 

partnership, corporation, trust, or 

government agency and/or department. 

Reportable sub-account—means any 

trading sub-account of an omnibus volume 

threshold account or omnibus reportable subaccount, which sub-account executes 

reportable trading volume. 

Reportable sub-account controller—means 

a natural person who by power of attorney 

or otherwise actually directs the trading of a 

reportable sub-account. A reportable subaccount may have more than one controller. 

Reportable trading volume—means 

contract trading volume that meets or 

exceeds the level specified in 17 CFR 15.04. 

Reporting trader—a person who must file 

a Form 40, whether pursuant to 17 CFR 

18.04(a), 17 CFR 18.04(b), or 17 CFR 20.05. 

Subsidiary—for purposes of Form 40, a 

person is a subsidiary of a reporting trader if 

the reporting trader has a direct or indirect 

controlling interest in the person; and a 

reporting trader has a controlling interest if 

such reporting trader has the ability to 

control the person through the ownership of 

voting equity, by contract, or otherwise. 

Volume threshold account—means any 

trading account that carries reportable 

trading volume on or subject to the rules of 

a reporting market that is a board of trade 

designated as a contract market under section 

5 of the Act or a swap execution facility 

registered under section 5h of the Act. 

Volume threshold account controller— 

means a natural person who by power of 

attorney or otherwise actually directs the 

trading of a volume threshold account. A 

volume threshold account may have more 

than one controller. 

CFTC Form 40 

General Information for Reporting Trader: 

For question 1, please provide the name, 

contact information and other requested 

information regarding the reporting trader. If 

the reporting trader is an individual, provide 

their full legal name and the name of the 

reporting trader’s employer. 

1. Indicate whether the reporting trader is 

a legal entity or a natural person: 

Legal entity: b 

Natural person: b 

Name of Reporting Trader 

Street Address 

City 

State 

Country 

Zip/Postal Code 

Phone Number 4

Email Address 

Web site 

NFA ID (if any) 

Legal Entity Identifier (if any) 

Name of Employer 

Employer NFA ID (if any) 

Employer Legal Entity Identifier (if any) 

Contact Information 

For questions 2, 3, and 4, provide the name 

and contact information as requested. 

2. Individual to contact regarding the 

derivatives trading of the reporting trader 

(this individual should be able to answer 

specific questions about the reporting trader’s 

trading activity when contacted by 

Commission staff): 

Check here if this individual has the same 

contact information as that of the reporting 

trader. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69262 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

5Please provide a direct number, without any 

telephone extension. Non-U.S. respondents should 

also provide the applicable international area code. 

6Please provide a direct number, without any 

telephone extension. Non-U.S. respondents should 

also provide the applicable international area code. 

7Please provide a direct number, without any 

telephone extension. Non-U.S. respondents should 

also provide the applicable international area code. 

8Please provide a direct number, without any 

telephone extension. Non-U.S. respondents should 

also provide the applicable international area code. 

9The Web site and NFA ID requested in this 

question are only required to be reported to the 

extent the respondent has this information available 

in its records. Respondents are not required to poll 

customers or other parties for the Web site and NFA 

ID if this information has not been previously 

collected. 

10Please provide a direct number, without any 

telephone extension. Non-U.S. respondents should 

also provide the applicable international area code. 

11The Web site and NFA ID requested in this 

question are only required to be reported to the 

extent the respondent has this information available 

in its records. Respondents are not required to poll 

customers or other parties for the Web site and NFA 

ID if this information has not been previously 

collected. 

Name 

Street Address 

City 

State 

Country 

Zip/Postal Code 

Phone Number 5

Email Address 

NFA ID (if any) 

3. Individual to contact regarding the risk 

management operations of the reporting 

trader (this individual should be able to 

answer specific questions about the reporting 

trader’s risk management operations, 

including account margining, when 

contacted by Commission staff): 

Check here if this individual has the same 

contact information as that of the reporting 

trader. 

Name 

Street Address 

City 

State 

Country 

Zip/Postal Code 

Phone Number 6

Email Address 

NFA ID (if any) 

4. Individual responsible for the 

information on the Form 40 (this individual 

should be able to verify, clarify, and explain 

the answers submitted by a reporting trader 

on the Form 40): 

Check here if this individual has the same 

contact information as that of the reporting 

trader. 

Name 

Street Address 

City 

State 

Country 

Zip/Postal Code 

Phone Number 7

Email Address 

NFA ID (if any) 

Omnibus Account Identification 

For question 5, indicate whether the 

reporting trader has a customer omnibus 

account with a futures commission merchant, 

clearing member, or foreign broker (NOTE: 

For the purpose of this question, an omnibus 

account is an account that one futures 

commission merchant, clearing member or 

foreign broker carries for another in which 

the transactions of multiple individual 

accounts are combined. The identities of the 

holders of the individual accounts are not 

generally known or disclosed to the carrying 

firm. In addition, the Commission has 

traditionally identified omnibus accounts as 

either house or customer omnibus accounts. 

House omnibus accounts exclusively contain 

the proprietary accounts of the omnibus 

account originator. Customer omnibus 

accounts contain the accounts of customers 

of the omnibus account originator. It is the 

obligation of the omnibus account originator 

to correctly identify the omnibus account 

type to the reporting entity): 

5. Does the reporting trader have a 

customer omnibus account with a futures 

commission merchant, clearing member, or 

foreign broker? YES/NO 

IF YES, Give the name(s) of the futures 

commission merchant, clearing member, or 

foreign broker carrying the account(s) of the 

reporting trader. 

Foreign Government Affiliation 

For question 6, please complete the 

following (NOTE: For the purpose of this 

question, affiliation can include, but is not 

limited to, a situation (1) where the foreign 

government directly or indirectly controls the 

reporting trader’s assets, operations, and/or 

derivatives trading, or (2) where the reporting 

trader operates as a direct or indirect 

subsidiary of a foreign government, its 

agencies or departments, or any investment 

program of the foreign government): 

6. Is the reporting trader directly or 

indirectly affiliated with a government other 

than that of the United States? YES/NO 

IF YES, give the name of the 

government(s). 

IF YES, explain the nature of the affiliation 

between the reporting trader and the 

government(s) listed above. 

Non-Domestic Entity Indicator 

For question 7, if the Reporting Trader is 

a legal entity, please complete the following. 

7. Is the reporting trader organized under 

the laws of a country other than the United 

States? YES/NO 

IF YES, give the name of the country or 

countries under whose laws the reporting 

trader is organized. 

Ownership Structure of the Reporting Trader 

For questions 8 and 9, provide the 

requested ownership information only as 

applicable. 

If the Reporting Trader is a commodity 

pool, also provide the requested information 

in questions 8i, 8ii, and 8iii. If the Reporting 

Trader is reporting commodity pools in 

which it has an ownership interest, also 

provide the requested information in 

questions 9i, 9ii, and 9iii. 

8. List all the parents of the reporting 

trader (including the immediate parent and 

any parent(s) of its parent) and, separately, 

all persons that have a 10 percent or greater 

ownership interest in the reporting trader 

(commodity pool investors are deemed to 

have an ownership interest in the pool). For 

each such parent or 10 percent or greater 

owner include the following information: 

Indicate whether the party identified below 

is a legal entity or a natural person: 

Legal entity: b 

Natural person: b 

Name 

Street Address 

City 

State 

Country 

Zip/Postal Code 

Phone Number 8

Web site 9

Email Address 

NFA ID (if any) 

Legal Entity Identifier (if any) 

Parent Company/10% Owner/or Both 

Indicator 

8i. For each person identified in question 

8 that is a limited partner, shareholder, or 

other similar type of pool participant, 

indicate if they are a principal or affiliate of 

the operator of the commodity pool. 

Principal/Affiliate Indicator 

8ii. For each person identified in question 

8 that is a limited partner, shareholder, or 

other similar type of pool participant, 

indicate if they are also a commodity pool 

operator of the pool. 

Commodity Pool Operator Indicator 

8iii. For each person identified in question 

8 that is a limited partner, shareholder, or 

other similar type of pool participant and 

where the operator of the commodity pool is 

exempt from registration under § 4.13 of the 

Commission’s regulations, indicate if that 

person has an ownership or equity interest of 

25 percent or greater in the commodity pool. 

25% Ownership Indicator 

9. List all the subsidiaries of the reporting 

trader (including the immediate subsidiary 

and any subsidiaries of those subsidiaries) 

and, separately, all persons in which the 

reporting trader has a 10 percent or greater 

ownership interest (including a 10 percent or 

greater interest in a commodity pool(s)). Only 

list subsidiaries and persons that engage in 

derivatives trading. For each such subsidiary 

and/or person include the following 

information: 

Indicate whether the party identified below 

is a legal entity or a natural person: 

Legal entity: b 

Natural person: b 

Name 

Street Address 

City 

State 

Country 

Zip/Postal Code 

Phone Number 10

Web site 11

Email Address 

NFA ID (if any) 

Legal Entity Identifier (if any) 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69263 

12Please provide a direct number, without any 

telephone extension. Non-U.S. respondents should 

also provide the applicable international area code. 

13The Web site and NFA ID requested in this 

question are only required to be reported to the 

extent the respondent has this information available 

in its records. Respondents are not required to poll 

customers or other parties for the Web site and NFA 

ID if this information has not been previously 

collected. 

14Please provide a direct number, without any 

telephone extension. Non-U.S. respondents should 

also provide the applicable international area code. 

15The Web site and NFA ID requested in this 

question are only required to be reported to the 

extent the respondent has this information available 

in its records. Respondents are not required to poll 

customers or other parties for the Web site and NFA 

ID if this information has not been previously 

collected. 

16Please provide a direct number, without any 

telephone extension. Non-U.S. respondents should 

also provide the applicable international area code. 

17The Web site and NFA ID requested in this 

question are only required to be reported to the 

extent the respondent has this information available 

in its records. Respondents are not required to poll 

customers or other parties for the Web site and NFA 

ID if this information has not been previously 

collected. 

18Please provide a direct number, without any 

telephone extension. Non-U.S. respondents should 

also provide the applicable international area code. 

19The Web site and NFA ID requested in this 

question are only required to be reported to the 

extent the respondent has this information available 

in its records. Respondents are not required to poll 

customers or other parties for the Web site and NFA 

ID if this information has not been previously 

collected. 

Subsidiary/10% Ownership/or Both 

Indicator 

9i. For each person identified in question 

9 that is a commodity pool and for which you 

are a limited partner, shareholder or other 

similar type of pool participant, indicate if 

you are a principal or affiliate of the operator 

of the commodity pool. 

Principal/Affiliate Indicator 

9ii. For each person identified in question 

9 that is a commodity pool and for which you 

are a limited partner, shareholder or other 

similar type of pool participant, indicate if 

you are the commodity pool operator for the 

pool. 

Commodity Pool Operator Indicator 

9iii. For each person identified in question 

9 that is a commodity pool and for which you 

are a limited partner, shareholder or other 

similar type of pool participant and for 

which the operator of the commodity pool is 

exempt from registration under § 4.13 of the 

Commission’s regulations, indicate if you 

have an ownership or equity interest of 25 

percent or greater in the commodity pool. 

25% Ownership Indicator 

Control of Trading 

For questions 10, 11, 12, and 13 provide 

the requested control information only as 

applicable. 

10. List all persons outside of the reporting 

trader that control some or all of the 

derivatives trading of the reporting trader 

(including persons that may have been 

previously identified as a parent, above): 

Indicate whether the party identified below 

is a legal entity or a natural person: 

Legal entity: b 

Natural person: b 

Name 

Street Address 

City 

State 

Country 

Zip/Postal Code 

Phone Number 12

Web site 13

Email Address 

NFA ID (if any) 

Legal Entity Identifier (if any) 

Some/All Indicator 

11. List all persons for which the reporting 

trader controls some or all of the derivatives 

trading (including persons that may have 

been previously identified as a subsidiary, 

above): 

Indicate whether the party identified below 

is a legal entity or a natural person: 

Legal entity: b 

Natural person: b 

Name 

Street Address 

City 

State 

Country 

Zip/Postal Code 

Phone Number 14

Web site 15

Email Address 

NFA ID (if any) 

Legal Entity Identifier (if any) 

Some/All Indicator 

12. List any other person(s) that directly or 

indirectly influence, or exercise authority 

over, some or all of the trading of the 

reporting trader, but who do not exercise 

‘‘control’’ as defined in this Form: Indicate 

whether the party identified below is a legal 

entity or a natural person: 

Legal entity: b 

Natural person: b 

Name 

Street Address 

City 

State 

Country 

Zip/Postal Code 

Phone Number 16

Web site 17

Email Address 

NFA ID (if any) 

Legal Entity Identifier (if any) 

Some/All Indicator 

13. Is some or all of the derivatives trading 

of the reporting trader subject to an express 

or implied agreement or understanding with 

any other person(s) not addressed in 

questions 10, 11, or 12, above? YES/NO 

If yes, provide the following information: 

Indicate whether the party identified below 

is a legal entity or a natural person: 

Legal entity: b 

Natural person: b 

Name 

Street Address 

City 

State 

Country 

Zip/Postal Code 

Phone Number 18

Web site 19

Email Address 

NFA ID (if any) 

Legal Entity Identifier (if any) 

Some/All Indicator 

Commodity Index Trading Indicator 

For question 14, please answer the 

following: 

14i. Is the reporting trader engaged in 

commodity index trading as defined in 

paragraph (a) of the definition of CIT above? 

YES/NO 

14ii. Is the reporting trader engaged in 

commodity index trading as defined in 

paragraph (b) of the definition of CIT above? 

YES/NO 

a. If the reporting trader is engaged in CIT 

(as defined in paragraph (b)) with respect to 

one or more commodities or commodity 

groups appearing on Supplemental List II, 

indicate whether the reporting trader is, in 

the aggregate, pursuing long exposure or 

short exposure with respect to such 

commodities or commodity groups. It is not 

necessary to respond to this question with 

respect to CIT that tracks the performance of 

multiple unrelated commodities or 

commodity groups (e.g., an investment in an 

exchange-traded fund that tracks the 

performance of an index representing 

commodities spanning multiple commodity 

groups). 

14iii. If the reporting trader is currently 

engaged in commodity index trading as 

defined in paragraphs (a) or (b) of the CIT 

definition above, indicate the month and year 

on which the reporting trader first became 

engaged in commodity index trading. 

Swaps Participation Indicators 

For questions 15 and 16, please indicate if 

the reporting trader meets the specified 

definition: 

15. Is the reporting trader a Swap Dealer, 

as defined in § 1.3(ppp) of regulations under 

the Commodity Exchange Act? YES/NO 

16. Is the reporting trader a Major Swap 

Participant, as defined in § 1.3(qqq) of 

regulations under the Commodity Exchange 

Act? YES/NO 

Nature of Business and of Derivatives 

Trading Activities 

For questions 17, 18, and 19 provide the 

requested information only as applicable. 

17. Select all business sectors and 

subsectors that pertain to the business 

activities or occupation of the reporting 

trader. If more than one business subsector is 

selected, indicate which business subsector 

primarily describes the nature of the 

reporting trader’s business. 

Choose From Supplemental List I 

18. Select all commodity groups and 

individual commodities that the reporting 

trader presently trades or expects to trade in 

the near future in derivative markets. 

Choose From Supplemental List II 

19. For each selected individual 

commodity identified in question 18, 

indicate the business purpose(s) for which 

the reporting trader uses derivative markets. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69264 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

If the reporting trader has more than one 

business purpose for trading in an individual 

commodity, also indicate the predominant 

business purpose. 

Choose From Supplemental List III 

Signature/Authentication, Name, and Date 

20. Please sign/authenticate the Form 40 

prior to submitting. 

Signature/Electronic Authentication: 

b By checking this box and submitting this 

form (or by clicking ‘‘submit,’’ ‘‘send,’’ or any 

other analogous transmission command if 

transmitting electronically), I certify that I am 

duly authorized by the reporting trader 

identified below to provide the information 

and representations submitted on this Form 

40, and that the information and 

representations are true and correct. 

Reporting Trader Authorized Representative 

(Name and Position): 

llllllllll (Name) 

llllllllll (Position) 

Submitted on behalf of: 

lllll (Reporting Trader Name) 

Date of Submission: 

llllllllll 

Supplemental List I: List of Business Sectors 

and Subsectors 

Business Sector 

Subsector 

Agriculture and Forestry 

Oilseed Farming 

Grain Farming 

Fruit and Tree Nut Farming 

Other Crop Farming (Specify) 

Cattle Ranching and Farming 

Hog and Pig Farming 

Poultry and Egg Production 

Sheep and Goat Farming 

Other Animal Production 

Forestry, Logging, or Timber Production 

Cooperative 

Other (Specify) 

Mining, Oil and Natural Gas Extraction 

Oil Exploration/Production 

Natural Gas Exploration/Production 

Coal Mining 

Precious Metal Mining 

Non-Precious Metal Mining 

Other (Specify) 

Utilities 

Utility/Cooperative 

Electric Power Generation 

Local Distribution Company 

Natural Gas Distribution 

Other (Specify) 

Construction 

Building Construction 

Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 

Other (Specify) 

Manufacturing, Refining and Processing 

Animal Food Manufacturing 

Grain Milling 

Oilseed Milling 

Sugar and Confectionery Product 

Manufacturing 

Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and 

Specialty Food Manufacturing 

Dairy Product Manufacturing 

Animal Slaughtering and Processing 

Bakeries 

Other Food Manufacturing 

Beverage Manufacturing Textile Mills 

Textile Product Mills 

Apparel Manufacturing 

Wood Product Manufacturing 

Paper Manufacturing 

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills 

Petroleum and Coal Products 

Manufacturing 

Renewable Fuels Manufacturing 

Petrochemical/Chemical Manufacturing 

Plastics and Rubber Products 

Manufacturing 

Natural Gas Processing 

Precious Metal Processor/Smelter 

Non-Precious Metal Processor 

Metals Fabricator 

Other (Specify) 

Wholesale Trade 

Lumber and Other Construction Materials 

Merchant Wholesalers 

Metal and Mineral Merchant Dealer 

Grocery and Related Product Merchant 

Wholesaler 

Farm Product Raw Material Merchant 

Wholesalers 

Chemical and Allied Products Merchant 

Wholesalers 

Petroleum and Petroleum Products 

Merchant Wholesalers 

Natural Gas, Power Marketer 

Importer/Exporter (specify commodities) 

Other (Specify) 

Retail Trade 

Building Materials and Supplies Dealers 

Food and Beverage Stores 

Jeweler/Precious Metals Retailer 

Vehicle Fuel Retailer/Convenience Store 

Operator 

Fuel Dealers 

Other (Specify) 

Transportation and Warehousing 

Air Transport 

Trucking 

Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil 

Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas 

Farm Product Warehousing and Storage 

Energy Distributor (warehousing, storage) 

Other (Specify) 

End User (NOTE: May not be the only/

primary subsector selected) 

Metals End User (Construction Co., Brass 

Mill, Steel Mill) 

Emissions End User (Factory, Industrial 

Cos.) 

Petroleum End User (Airline Cos. 

Municipalities, Industrial Cos., Trucking 

Cos.) 

Information 

Other (Specify) 

Financial Institutions and Investment 

Management 

Dealers and Financial Intermediaries 

Broker/Dealer 

Bank Holding Company 

Investment/Merchant Bank 

Non-US Commercial Bank 

US Commercial Bank 

Swaps/Derivatives Dealer 

Universal Bank 

Asset/Investment/Fund Management: 

Asset/Investment Manager 

Institutional Clients 

Retail Clients 

Managed Accounts and Pools (CTAs, 

CPOs, etc.) 

Institutional Clients 

Retail Clients 

College Endowment, Trust, Foundation 

Fund of Hedge Funds 

Hedge Fund 

Mutual Fund 

Pension Fund 

Private Wealth Management 

Private Bank 

Exchange Traded Fund Issuer 

Exchange Traded Note Issuer 

Government Financial Institution: 

Central Bank 

Sovereign Wealth Fund 

Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) 

Other Governmental Entity (Specify) 

Other Financial or Trading Entities: 

Arbitrageur 

Individual Trader/Investor 

Floor Broker 

Floor Trader 

Market Maker 

Proprietary Trader 

Corporate Treasury 

Mortgage Originator 

Savings Bank 

Credit Union 

Insurance Company 

Other (Specify) 

Real Estate 

Other (Specify) 

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 

Performing Arts Companies 

Promoters of Performing Arts 

Agents and Managers for Artists and 

Entertainers 

Independent Artists, Writers, Performers 

Other (Specify) 

Accommodation and Food Services 

Food Services 

Other (Specify) 

Public Administration 

Administration of Environmental Quality 

Programs 

Administration of Economic Programs 

Other (Specify) 

Supplemental List II: Commodity Groups 

and Individual Commodities 

Commodity Group 

Individual Commodity 

GRAINS 

OATS 

WHEAT 

CORN 

RICE 

LIVESTOCK/MEAT PRODUCTS 

LIVE CATTLE 

PORK BELLIES 

FEEDER CATTLE 

LEAN HOGS 

DAIRY PRODUCTS 

MILK 

BUTTER 

CHEESE 

OILSEED AND PRODUCTS 

SOYBEAN OIL 

SOYBEAN MEAL 

SOYBEANS 

FIBER 

COTTON 

FOODSTUFFS/SOFTS 

COFFEE 

FROZEN CONCENTRATED ORANGE 

JUICE 

SUGAR 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69265 

COCOA 

OTHER AGRICULTURAL 

REAL ESTATE 

CURRENCY 

EQUITIES AND EQUITY INDICIES 

INTEREST RATES 

TREASURY COMPLEX 

OTHER INTEREST RATE PRODUCTS 

OTHER FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS 

PETROLEUM AND PRODUCTS 

JET FUEL 

ETHANOL 

BIODIESEL 

FUEL OIL 

HEATING OIL 

GASOLINE 

NAPHTHA 

CRUDE OIL 

DIESEL 

NATURAL GAS AND PRODUCTS 

NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS 

NATURAL GAS 

ELECTRICITY AND SOURCES 

COAL 

ELECTRICITY 

URANIUM 

PRECIOUS METALS 

PALLADIUM 

PLATINUM 

SILVER 

GOLD 

BASE METALS 

STEEL 

COPPER 

WOOD PRODUCTS 

LUMBER 

PULP 

CHEMICALS 

PLASTICS 

EMISSIONS 

WEATHER 

OTHER (SPECIFY) 

Supplemental List III: Business Purposes of 

Commodity Derivatives Trading 

Business Purpose 

Definition 

Example 

Offsetting Cash or Spot Market Input Price 

Risk 

Using derivative markets for commodities 

that are direct inputs or purchases for your 

business so as to offset price risk associated 

with your purchase of these inputs. 

E.g. You are a grain processor, so you use 

wheat futures to offset the price risk 

incidental to your cash purchases of wheat. 

Offsetting Cash or Spot Market Output Price 

Risk 

Using derivative markets for commodities 

that are direct outputs or sales of your 

business so as to offset price risk associated 

with your sale of these outputs. 

E.g. You are a gasoline refiner, so you use 

gasoline futures to offset price risk associated 

with your production of gasoline. 

Offsetting Other Cash or Spot Market Price 

Risks (Cross Price Risk) 

Using derivative markets for a commodity 

that is not a direct input or output of your 

business, but which has significant price 

correlations with the direct inputs or outputs 

of your business. 

E.g. You manufacture ethanol which is 

used as an additive in and competitor for 

gasoline as a combustive fuel. While you 

neither directly consume nor produce 

gasoline, you may find that the price you 

receive for your ethanol product is highly 

correlated with the price of gasoline, and 

therefore you reduce ethanol price risk by 

using gasoline futures contracts. 

Other Physical Risk Management Strategies 

Managing other price risks incidental to 

the operation of your business or physical 

assets through the use of commodity 

derivative markets. 

E.g. You are a manufacturer with 

significant international sales, so you use 

foreign currency futures to offset risks 

associated with changes in the 

competitiveness of your exports and 

therefore the value of your physical assets 

such as production plants, land, machinery, 

etc. 

Client Futures/Options on Futures Trading 

Fulfilling customer/client desire for 

portfolio diversification or exposure to 

various asset classes through your activity as 

a Commodity Pool Operator, Commodity 

Trading Advisor, or other similar role. 

E.g. You collect funds and execute trading 

strategies through the use of futures/options 

on futures markets at the expressed intent 

and for the sole benefit of clients. 

Managing Client Swaps Exposure 

Reducing risk stemming from holding or 

executing swaps contracts on behalf of 

clients or customers through the use of 

futures/options on futures markets. 

E.g. You sell crude oil swaps to a client 

and agree to accept the risk inherent in the 

index price. You offset this risk through 

purchases of crude oil futures, in effect 

transferring price risk from the client to 

another market participant. 

Making Markets/Providing Liquidity 

Engaging in derivatives transactions to 

assume risk and help transfer ownership of 

derivative positions from one market 

participant to another, realizing the bid-ask 

spread as the return. 

E.g. You accept risk by buying and selling 

futures/options on futures contracts so that 

other traders can move into and out of 

positions when they wish. You then find 

other traders willing to take the other side of 

those transactions. 

Arbitrage 

Using derivative markets as part of a 

strategy designed to realize risk-free profit 

from pricing anomalies. 

E.g. You realize that the wheat futures 

contract is trading at a discount (even after 

considering storage, transport, etc.) relative to 

the wheat cash price, and therefore find it 

profitable to purchase the wheat futures 

contract, take delivery, and then resell the 

wheat in the cash market for a risk-free profit. 

Establishing Price Exposure 

Using derivative markets as a way to 

express your belief in the future movement 

of market prices. This strategy does not 

involve offsetting risks incidental to your 

business, but instead involves directional 

trading. 

E.g. You conduct research and believe that 

crude oil prices are due to rise, so you take 

long futures positions in crude oil to profit 

from your predictions. 

Financial Asset Management 

Using derivatives to diversify, rebalance, or 

otherwise allocate financial assets so that 

risks to the value of the investment portfolio 

are reduced. This strategy is used by entities 

such as pension funds and endowments to 

manage overall risk to their financial 

portfolios. 

E.g. You hold Treasury bonds as a 

component of your investment portfolio, and 

use futures contracts to reduce overall 

portfolio risk that would result from falling 

bond prices. 

Managing Proprietary Swaps Exposure 

Reducing risk stemming from your 

proprietary holding or execution of swaps 

contracts through the use of futures/options 

on futures markets. 

E.g. You trade interest rate swaps as part 

of your business or investment strategy, and 

offset some of the risk inherent in those 

swaps through your use of Eurodollar futures 

markets. 

Other: Specify 

List and explain your business purpose if 

the above categories do not adequately 

describe the reason you trade in a particular 

commodity derivative market. 

PART 20—LARGE TRADER 

REPORTING FOR PHYSICAL 

COMMODITY SWAPS 

■ 17. The authority citation for part 20 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6c, 6f, 

6g, 6t, 12a, 19, as amended by Title VII of the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111–203, 

124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 

■ 18. Amend § 20.5 to: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2); 

and 

■ b. Add paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) 

The revisions and additions to read as 

follows: 

§ 20.5 Series S filings. 

(a) * * * 

(1) When a counterparty consolidated 

account first becomes reportable, the 

reporting entity shall submit a 102S 

filing, in accordance with the form 

instructions and as specified in this 

section. 

(2) A reporting entity may submit a 

102S filing only once for each 

counterparty, even if such persons at 

various times have multiple reportable 

positions in the same or different paired 

swaps or swaptions. 

* * * * * 

(4) Change updates. If any change 

causes the information filed by a 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69266 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

clearing member or swap dealer on a 

Form 102 for a consolidated account to 

no longer be accurate, then such 

clearing member or swap dealer shall 

file an updated Form 102 with the 

Commission no later than 9 a.m. on the 

business day after such change occurs, 

or on such other date as directed by 

special call of the Commission, 

provided that, a clearing member or 

swap dealer may stop providing change 

updates for a Form 102 that it has 

submitted to the Commission for any 

consolidated account upon notifying the 

Commission or its designee that the 

account in question is no longer 

reportable as a consolidated account 

and has not been reportable as a 

consolidated account for the past six 

months. Unless otherwise specified by 

the Commission or its designee, the 

stated time is eastern time for 

information concerning markets located 

in that time zone, and central time for 

information concerning all other 

markets. 

(5) Refresh updates. For Consolidated 

Accounts—Starting on a date specified 

by the Commission or its designee and 

at the end of each annual increment 

thereafter (or such other date specified 

by the Commission or its designee that 

is equal to or greater than six months), 

each clearing member or swap dealer 

shall resubmit every Form 102 that it 

has submitted to the Commission for 

each of its consolidated accounts, 

provided that, a clearing member or 

swap dealer may stop providing refresh 

updates for a Form 102 that it has 

submitted to the Commission for any 

consolidated account upon notifying the 

Commission or its designee that the 

account in question is no longer 

reportable as a consolidated account 

and has not been reportable as a 

consolidated account for the past six 

months. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 5, 

2013, by the Commission. 

Melissa D. Jurgens, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Note: The following appendices will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendices to Ownership and Control 

Reports, Forms 102/102S, 40/40S, and 

71—Commission Voting Summary and 

Statement of Chairman 

Appendix 1—Commission Voting 

Summary 

On this matter, Chairman Gensler and 

Commissioners Chilton, O’Malia, and Wetjen 

voted in the affirmative; no Commissioner 

voted in the negative. 

Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman 

Gary Gensler 

I support the final rule on ownership and 

control reporting as it provides the 

Commission with greater detail on both who 

owns accounts and who controls accounts in 

the futures, options on futures, and swaps 

markets. 

The reforms require, for the first time, that 

accounts which trade more than a certain 

volume in a day have to disclose who owns 

or controls them. Previously, the Commission 

only had a window into the ownership of 

those accounts that had large positions at the 

end of the day. This new information is 

critical in today’s world of high frequency 

trading, as many accounts trade often 

throughout the day but end the day without 

reportable positions. Thus, with these 

reforms, the Commission will get additional 

tools to oversee the markets’ largest day 

traders and high frequency traders. 

There is also flexibility built into the rule 

such that if some of the required information 

on accounts has already been reported 

through a legal entity identifier, the market 

participant does not have to submit it twice. 

Further this rule modernizes the reporting 

by requiring electronic submission of 

information, rather than by mailing or faxing 

forms. 

These reforms enhance the Commission’s 

ability to oversee the markets, as well as 

detect market manipulation and abusive or 

disruptive trading practices. 

[FR Doc. 2013–26789 Filed 11–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES