[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12555-12558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05413]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


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

[[Page 12555]]



COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 1, 3, 23, 37, 43, 45, 46, and 170

RIN 3038-AE27


Initial Response to District Court Remand Order in Securities 
Industry and Financial Markets Association, et al. v. United States 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Supplementation of rulemaking preambles and request for 
comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This release is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's 
(``Commission'' or ``CFTC'') initial response to the order of the 
United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Securities 
Industry and Financial Markets Association, et al. v. United States 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission remanding eight swaps-related 
rulemakings to the Commission to address what the court held to be 
inadequacies in the Commission's consideration of costs and benefits, 
or its explanation of its consideration of costs and benefits, in those 
rulemakings. In this release, the Commission: supplements the preambles 
to the remanded rulemakings by clarifying that the costs and benefits 
identified therein applied both to domestic swaps activities and 
activities outside the United States that are subject to the 
Commission's swaps rules by operation of section 2(i) of the Commodity 
Exchange Act (``CEA''); and solicits comments on whether there are 
cross-border costs or benefits associated with the remanded rules that 
differ from those associated with activities within the United States. 
Following its review of the comments, the Commission will publish a 
further response to the District Court remand order which would include 
any supplementation of or changes to its consideration of the costs and 
benefits of the relevant rules as set forth in the rule preambles. The 
Commission will also consider whether to amend any of these rules in 
light of information developed in this process.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AE27, by any 
of the following methods:
    <bullet> Agency Web site: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.
    <bullet> Mail: Send to Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the 
Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 
Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Please submit your comments using only one of these methods.
    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied 
by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to 
www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make 
available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information 
that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of 
Information Act (``FOIA''), a petition for confidential treatment of 
the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures 
established in Sec.  145.9 of the Commission's regulations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 145.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to 
review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your 
submission from www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for 
publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been 
redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the 
rulemaking will be retained in the public comment file and will be 
considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other 
applicable laws, and may be accessible under the FOIA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Schwartz, Deputy General Counsel, 
(202) 418-5958, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#addfdecec5daccdfd9d7edcecbd9ce83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b696878736c7a696f615b787d6f78357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>; Martin White, Assistant General 
Counsel, (202) 418-5129, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#28455f40415c4d684b4e5c4b064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e68b918e8f9283a685809285c8818990">[email protected]</span></a>; or Kavita Kumar Puri, 
Counsel, (202) 418-5291, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#056e7570776c45666371662b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6902191c1b00290a0f1d0a470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>, in the Office of the General 
Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 
1151 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview

    This release is the Commission's initial response to the order of 
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, et al. v. United 
States Commodity Futures Trading Commission, No. 13-1916 (PLF) (D.D.C. 
September 16, 2014) \2\ (``SIFMA v. CFTC'') remanding eight swaps-
related rulemakings to the Commission to address what the court held to 
be inadequacies in the Commission's explanation of its consideration of 
costs and benefits in those rulemakings. The eight remanded rulemakings 
are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ --F. Supp. 3d--, 2014 WL 4629567 (``Op.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Real-Time Public Reporting of Swap Transactions Data \3\ (``Real-
Time Reporting Rule'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 77 FR 1182 (January 9, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements \4\ (``SDR 
Reporting Rule'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 77 FR 2136 (January 13, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Registration of Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants \5\ 
(``Swap Entity Registration Rule'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 77 FR 2613 (January 19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant Recordkeeping, Reporting, 
and Duties Rules; Futures Commission Merchant and Introducing Broker 
Conflict of Interest Rules; and Chief Compliance Officer Rules for Swap 
Dealers, Major Swap Participants, and Futures Commission Merchants \6\ 
(``Daily Trading Records,'' ``Risk Management,'' and ``Chief Compliance 
Officer'' Rules)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 77 FR 20128 (April 3, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further Definition of ``Swap Dealer,'' ``Security-Based Swap 
Dealer,'' ``Major Swap Participant,'' ``Major Security-Based Swap 
Participant,'' and ``Eligible Contract Participant'' \7\ (``Entity 
Definition Rule'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 77 FR 30596 (May 23, 2012).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 12556]]

    Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements: Pre-Enactment 
and Transition Swaps \8\ (``Historical SDR Reporting Rule'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 77 FR 35200 (June 12, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Confirmations, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and 
Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers 
and Major Swap Participants \9\ (``Portfolio Reconciliation Rule'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 77 FR 55904 (September 11, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution 
Facilities \10\ (``SEF Registration Rule'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 78 FR 33476 (June 4, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court directed the Commission to address explicitly whether the 
costs and benefits the Commission identified in those rulemakings apply 
to activities outside the United States, and to address any differences 
that may exist. In this release, the Commission takes two actions:
    First, the Commission supplements the preambles to the eight 
remanded rulemakings by clarifying that, unless otherwise specified, 
the costs and benefits identified therein addressed both domestic swaps 
activities and overseas swaps activities subject to the Commission's 
jurisdiction by operation of CEA section 2(i).\11\ In considering those 
costs and benefits, the Commission considered all evidence in the 
record, regardless of whether the evidence pertained to activities in 
the United States or overseas. The rule preambles, including the 
Commission's discussions of costs and benefits, reflect the 
Commission's understanding that the swaps market operates across 
borders, that some regulated activity would occur overseas, and that 
Congress expressly provided that the Commission's swaps regulations 
would apply to activities outside the United States to the extent of 
CEA section 2(i). As with other variations in the universe of covered 
swaps activities, where the record evidence contained no information 
indicating a material difference in costs and benefits based on the 
geographic locus of swaps activities, the Commission addressed its 
consideration of costs and benefits of the rules to all swaps 
activities to which the rules apply. In the small number of instances 
where commenters raised issues specific to overseas activities or 
provided data about those activities, the Commission addressed those 
issues and data.\12\ Consistent with this approach, and subject to the 
limitations of the information available in the rulemaking records, the 
costs and benefits identified in the rule preambles applied to all 
covered activity within the Commission's jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 7 U.S.C. 2(i).
    \12\ See infra n.52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Commission is soliciting comments on whether there are 
costs or benefits of the remanded rules as applied to business 
activities outside the United States that differ from those of the 
rules as applied to activities within the United States. Following its 
review of the comments, the Commission will publish a further response 
to the District Court remand order which would include any 
supplementation of, or changes to, its consideration of the costs and 
benefits of the rules as set forth in the rule preambles. The 
Commission will also consider proposing changes to the rules based on 
information developed in this process and other relevant 
considerations.

II. Background

A. The District Court Litigation and Decision

    On December 4, 2013, three trade associations sued the Commission 
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 
challenging, on various grounds, the Commission's Interpretive Guidance 
and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance with Certain Swap Regulations 
\13\ (``Cross-Border Guidance'') as well as the extraterritorial 
application of fourteen of the rules promulgated by the Commission to 
implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act \14\ regarding swaps.\15\ The fourteen 
challenged rules were promulgated by the Commission in twelve 
rulemakings.\16\ On September 16, 2014, the court issued a decision, 
granting summary judgment to the Commission on most issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 78 FR 45292 (July 26, 2013).
    \14\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.
    \15\ Op. at *1, *5. The plaintiffs were the Securities Industry 
and Financial Markets Association, the International Swaps and 
Derivatives Association, and the Institute of International Bankers. 
Op. at *1.
    \16\ See Op. at *5. Three of the fourteen challenged rules, 
informally identified by the court as the ``Daily Trading Records,'' 
``Risk Management,'' and ``Chief Compliance Officer'' Rules, were 
promulgated as part of a single rulemaking. Id.

    The court summarized the case by observing,
    The majority of plaintiffs' claims fail because Congress has 
clearly indicated that the swaps provisions within Title VII of the 
Dodd-Frank Act--including any rules or regulations prescribed by the 
CFTC--apply extraterritorially whenever the jurisdictional nexus in 
7 U.S.C. 2(i) is satisfied. In this regard, plaintiffs' challenges 
to the extraterritorial application of the Title VII Rules merely 
seek to delay the inevitable.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Op. at *42.

Major holdings by the court regarding the cross-border application of 
the Commission's swaps rules included the following:
    1. The Commission's Cross-Border Guidance is not subject to 
judicial review because it is in part a non-binding general statement 
of policy and in part an interpretive rule, neither of which is subject 
to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Op. at *34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Section 2(i) of the CEA is a self-effectuating provision that 
makes Commission swaps rules apply to business activities outside the 
United States to the extent they meet the test set forth in the 
statutory language.\19\ No Commission rulemaking is needed to make 
swaps rules extend to the geographic reach established by Congress in 
this provision.\20\ Thus, the Commission's substantive rules regarding 
swaps do not need to specify their international scope since that was 
done by statute.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Op. at *34. Section 2(i), 7 U.S.C. 2(i), provides that the 
provisions of this Act relating to swaps that were enacted by the 
Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010 (including 
any rule prescribed or regulation promulgated under that Act), shall 
not apply to activities outside the United States unless those 
activities--(1) have a direct and significant connection with 
activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States; or (2) 
contravene such rules or regulations as the Commission may prescribe 
or promulgate as are necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion 
of any provision of this Act that was enacted by the Wall Street 
Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010.
    Section 2(i)(2), regarding anti-evasion rules, was not at issue 
in the SIFMA v. CFTC litigation.
    \20\ Op. at *33 (``As already noted, Section 2(i) provides the 
authority--without implementing regulations, see infra Section 
III.A--to enforce the Title VII Rules extraterritorially whenever 
activities'' meet the test set forth in the statute).
    \21\ Op. at *36-*37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Because Congress determined that the Commission's swaps rules 
apply to certain overseas activities and established the test for 
determining when the rules would apply to those activities, the 
Commission was not tasked with reconsidering the costs and benefits of 
those legislative decisions.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Op. at *38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Because section 2(i) establishes the extraterritorial scope of 
the Commission's swaps rules, the Commission can enforce those rules 
overseas relying on that provision. However, to the extent that it may 
be useful to develop a more refined interpretation of how section 2(i) 
applies in particular circumstances, the Commission has discretion to 
address

[[Page 12557]]

those interpretive issues via either rulemaking or case-by-case 
adjudication.\23\ Whichever choice it makes, the Commission is not 
required to define the precise scope of section 2(i) each time it 
promulgates a substantive swaps rule; it can address issues of the 
scope of section 2(i) as they arise.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Op. at *35.
    \24\ Op. at *36-*37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these principles, the court held that the rules challenged 
by the plaintiffs apply to swaps activities outside the United States 
to the extent specified by section 2(i).\25\ The court also held that, 
even though some commenters asked the Commission to address the 
geographical scope of the rules, the Commission reasonably determined 
not to address issues of geographical scope in these particular 
proceedings and to simply rely on the statute (i.e., section 2(i)) to 
define the rules' application to activities outside the United 
States.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Op. at *35.
    \26\ Op. at *36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, the court further held that, in the preambles 
for ten of the challenged rules, promulgated as part of eight 
rulemakings,\27\ the Commission should have, but did not, state whether 
the costs and benefits identified in the rule preambles applied not 
only to domestic swaps activities, but also to swaps activities outside 
the United States.\28\ The eight remanded rulemakings are listed above. 
Specifically, the court held that the Commission should have discussed 
whether and to what extent the costs and benefits as to overseas 
activity may differ from those related to domestic application of the 
rules.\29\ On that basis, the court described the rules as 
``inadequately explained.'' \30\ It stated, however, that it was 
``willing to assume for now'' that the issue was ``one of form and not 
of substance.'' \31\ It also held that this perceived shortcoming was 
``not so serious as to favor vacatur'' of the rules.\32\ The court 
further reasoned that vacatur of these rules would ``produce a bevy of 
disruptive consequences,'' in part because ``after vacatur, U.S.-based 
swap dealers would be able to avoid Title VII regulations by engaging 
in transactions through their foreign subsidiaries and affiliates, even 
if the transactions' risk remained with the U.S.-based corporation.'' 
\33\ Based on its analysis of the statute and rules, the court 
determined that there ``exists at least a serious possibility'' that 
the affected rules would remain unchanged as a result of proceedings on 
remand to elaborate on the geographic element of the identified costs 
and benefits.\34\ The court therefore remanded without vacatur the 
eight rulemakings encompassing the rules in question for the Commission 
to better explain its position on whether the costs and benefits 
identified in the rule preambles applied to overseas activities, and to 
explain any relevant differences.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As noted above, three of the rules at issue were 
promulgated as part of a single rulemaking.
    \28\ Although the Commission believes that it was sufficiently 
clear that the discussion of costs and benefits in the rule 
preambles applied to all swaps activity within the Commission's 
jurisdiction unless otherwise specified, the Commission has declined 
to appeal the district court's ruling. Thus, the court's remand 
order is final and binding on the Commission.
    \29\ Op. at *39-*40.
    \30\ Op. at *40, *42.
    \31\ Op. at *41 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Op. at *41, *42-43. The plaintiffs' challenge to the 
``Trade Execution Rule,'' Process for a Designated Contract Market 
or Swap Execution Facility to Make a Swap Available to Trade, Swap 
Transaction Compliance and Implementation Schedule, and Trade 
Execution Requirement Under the Commodity Exchange Act, 78 FR 33606 
(June 4, 2013), was dismissed for lack of standing. Op. at *23. For 
three other rules--the ``Large Trader Reporting Rule,'' Large Trader 
Reporting for Physical Commodity Swaps, 76 FR 43851 (July 22, 2011); 
the ``Straight-Through Processing Rule,'' Customer Clearing 
Documentation, Timing of Acceptance for Clearing, and Clearing 
Member Risk Management, 77 FR 21278 (April 9, 2012); and the 
``Clearing Determination Rule,'' Clearing Requirement Determination 
Under Section 2(h) of the CEA, 77 FR 74284 (December 13, 2012)--the 
court granted summary judgment to the Commission without reaching 
the merits because the plaintiffs did not identify comments 
submitted to the Commission during the rulemaking proceedings that 
raised issues regarding the extraterritorial applications of these 
rules or the associated costs and benefits. Op. at *36 n.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The District Court's Rulings on Consideration of Costs and Benefits

    The district court remanded the eight rulemakings ``for further 
proceedings consistent with the Opinion issued this same day.'' \36\ 
The court's opinion included a number of holdings and observations that 
provide guidance as to the actions the Commission must take on remand 
with respect to the consideration of the costs and benefits of the 
extraterritorial application of the rules in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Op. at *43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The court held that, because Congress made the determination 
that the swaps rules apply overseas to the extent specified in section 
2(i), CEA section 15(a) does not require the Commission to consider 
whether it is necessary or desirable for particular rules to apply to 
overseas activities as specified in section 2(i).\37\ Indeed, the court 
explained, the Commission cannot, based on a consideration of costs and 
benefits, second-guess Congress's decision that swaps rules apply to 
certain overseas activities.\38\ As a result, the court stated that 
``the only issues necessarily before the CFTC on remand would be the 
substance of the Title VII rules, not the scope of those Rules' 
extraterritorial applications under 7 U.S.C. 2(i).'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Op. at *38.
    \38\ Op. at *39; see also id. at *41 n.35.
    \39\ Op. at *41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. At the same time, the court held that, in considering costs and 
benefits of the substantive regulatory choices it makes when 
promulgating a swaps rule, the Commission is required to take into 
consideration the fact that the rule, by statute, will apply to certain 
overseas activity.\40\ Thus, the Commission's consideration of costs 
and benefits of the application of the rule must encompass both foreign 
and domestic business activities.\41\ The court held that the 
Commission failed to meet this requirement because, the court stated, 
in the cost-benefit discussions for the rules at issue the Commission 
did not give explicit consideration to costs and benefits specific to 
overseas activities.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Op. at *39.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The court held that the Commission has discretion either to 
consider costs and benefits of the international application of swaps 
rules separately from domestic application or to evaluate them 
together, ``so long as the cost-benefit analysis makes clear that the 
CFTC reasonably considered both.'' \43\ The district court found that, 
at the time the rules at issue in the litigation were promulgated, 
foreign swaps regulations were still under development so that costs of 
possible duplicative regulation were hypothetical and did not have to 
be considered.\44\ The court noted that this fact raised the 
possibility that the costs and benefits of the rules' extraterritorial 
application ``were essentially identical to those of the Rules' 
domestic applications'' so that the Commission ``functionally 
considered the extraterritorial costs and benefits'' of the rules ``by 
considering the Rules' domestic costs and benefits.'' \45\ However, the 
court concluded that it did not need to address that possibility 
because the cost-benefit discussions in the rule preambles gave ``no 
indication'' that this

[[Page 12558]]

was so.\46\ The court further noted that foreign swaps regulations 
passed since the promulgation of the rules at issue in the litigation 
``may now raise issues of duplicative regulatory burdens'' but that 
``the CFTC may well conclude that its policy of substituted compliance 
largely negates these costs.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Op. at *40.
    \44\ Op. at *39.
    \45\ Op. at *40.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Op. at *41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Finally, the court noted that ``[p]laintiffs raise no complaints 
regarding the CFTC's evaluation of the general, often unquantifiable, 
benefits and costs of the domestic application of the Title VII 
Rules.'' \48\ As a result, the court held, ``[o]n remand, the CFTC 
would only need to make explicit which of those benefits and costs 
similarly apply to the Rules' extraterritorial applications.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Op. at *41.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Supplement to Preambles of Remanded Rulemakings Regarding the 
Scope of the Commission's Consideration of Costs and Benefits

    The Commission hereby clarifies that it considered costs and 
benefits based on the understanding that the swaps market functions 
internationally, with many transactions involving U.S. firms taking 
place across international boundaries; with leading industry members 
typically conducting operations both within and outside the United 
States; and with industry members commonly following substantially 
similar business practices wherever located. The Commission considered 
all evidence in the record, and in the absence of evidence indicating 
differences in costs and benefits between foreign and domestic swaps 
activities, the Commission did not find occasion to characterize 
explicitly the identified costs and benefits as foreign or domestic. 
Thus, where the Commission did not specifically refer to matters of 
location, its discussion of costs and benefits referred to the effects 
of its rules on all business activity subject to its regulations, 
whether by virtue of the activity's physical location in the United 
States or by virtue of the activity's connection with or effect on U.S. 
commerce under section 2(i).\50\ In the language of the district court, 
the Commission ``functionally considered the extraterritorial costs and 
benefits,'' \51\ and this was because the evidence in the record did 
not suggest that differences existed, with certain limited exceptions 
that the Commission addressed.\52\ For example, as the district court 
found, at the time of the promulgation of the rules at issue, foreign 
swaps regulations generally were still being developed so any costs 
associated with potentially duplicative or inconsistent regulations 
remained hypothetical.\53\ Thus, as the court noted, the plaintiffs in 
SIFMA v. CFTC did not ``identify any specific data that the CFTC failed 
to take into account.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The statement in the text reflects the Commission's 
approach in its consideration of costs and benefits for all of its 
Dodd-Frank rules, unless otherwise specified for a particular issue 
or issues in a particular rulemaking.
    \51\ Op. at *40.
    \52\ See, e.g., Portfolio Reconciliation Rule, 77 FR at 55945-
46, 55948-49 & nn.79, 84, 98, 108 (considering ISDA data regarding 
U.S. and foreign firms, and factoring in European proposals); Risk 
Management Rule, 77 FR at 20177 n.104 (relying on UK FSA study); 
Swaps Entity Registration Rule, 77 FR at 2624-25 (stating in 
response to comments that Commission ``does not believe that 
foreign-based Swaps Entities will bear higher costs associated with 
the registration process'' and giving explanation); SDR Reporting 
Rule, 77 FR at 2192 (considering costs and benefits of swap 
identifiers, including in cross-border activities).
    \53\ Op. at *39.
    \54\ Op. at *39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Request for Comments

    As noted above, the district court stated that, on remand, the 
Commission ``would only need to make explicit'' which of the costs and 
benefits identified in the rule preambles ``similarly apply to the 
Rules' extraterritorial applications.'' \55\ In order to assist the 
Commission in determining whether any further consideration or 
explanation--beyond that contained in the original rule preambles and 
this release--is needed to respond to this mandate, the Commission 
requests comments on the following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Op. at *41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Are there any benefits or costs that the Commission identified 
in any of the rule preambles that do not apply, or apply to a different 
extent, to the relevant rule's extraterritorial applications?
    2. Are there any costs or benefits that are unique to one or more 
of the rules' extraterritorial applications? If so, please specify how.
    3. Put another way, are the types of costs and benefits that arise 
from the extraterritorial application of any of the rules different 
from those that arise from the domestic application? If so, how and to 
what extent?
    4. If significant differences exist in the costs and benefits of 
the extraterritorial and domestic application of one or more of the 
rules, what are the implications of those differences for the 
substantive requirements of the rule or rules?
    Comments should specify, in the header of the comment, the 
particular rule or rules that they address. The Commission requests 
that comments focus on information and analysis specifically relevant 
to the inquiry specified by the district court's remand order. 
Consistent with the district court's holding that the Commission is not 
required to address the issue of what the geographical scope of its 
rules should be in the challenged rulemakings,\56\ the purpose of this 
request for comments is to further consider the cross-border costs and 
benefits of the substance of the rules, not to initiate a process to 
address the rules' cross-border scope, which, as the district court 
held, is prescribed by section 2(i).\57\ The Commission further 
requests that commenters supply the Commission with relevant data to 
support their comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Op. at *36-*37.
    \57\ However, as it has done in the past, the Commission will 
continue to consider the proper interpretation and application of 
section 2(i) in particular circumstances.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 4, 2015, by the Commission.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.

    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendix to Initial Response to District Court Remand Order in 
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, et al. v. United 
States Commodity Futures Trading Commission--Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Wetjen, Bowen, 
and Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the 
negative.

[FR Doc. 2015-05413 Filed 3-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6351-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>