43968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 75 FR 41775 (July 19, 2010). 

2On July 2, 2009, prior to the publication of the 

OCR NPRM, the Commission published an 

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(‘‘Advanced Notice’’). In the Advanced Notice the 

Commission proposed to collect certain ownership, 

control, and related information for all trading 

accounts active on U.S. futures exchanges. See 74 

FR 31642 (July 2, 2009). 

3The comment period deadline was extended 

from September 17, 2010 to October 7, 2010 in 

order to give interested parties time to prepare 

comments on matters discussed at the roundtable 

meeting. See 75 FR 54801 (September 9, 2010). 

4 75 FR 54802 (September 9, 2010). 

5On December 23, 2010 and March 22, 2011, the 

Commission received supplemental comment 

letters from the Futures Industry Association 

(‘‘FIA’’). All OCR NPRM comment letters, 

supplemental comment letters, ex parte 

communications summaries, and a transcript of the 

public roundtable are available at: http:// 

comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ 

CommentList.aspx?id=755. 

6CME Group Inc. comment letter on behalf of 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. (collectively ‘‘CME’’) dated October 

7, 2010 at 3. 

7FIA Comment Letter dated October 7, 2010 at 

15. 

8See CME Comment Letter dated October 7, 2010 

at 4 and FIA Comment Letter dated October 7, 2010 

at 7. See generally FIA Supplemental Comment 

Letter dated December 23, 2010 and FIA 

Supplemental Comment Letter dated March 22, 

2011. 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 16 

RIN 3038–AC63 

Account Ownership and Control 

Report; Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: 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 exchanges and 

other reporting entities (‘‘OCR NPRM’’). 

After considering all comments received 

in response to the OCR NPRM, the 

Commission is withdrawing the OCR 

NPRM and instead pursuing the 

collection of account ownership and 

control information through a separate 

proposed rulemaking published today 

elsewhere in the notice section of the 

Federal Register. 

DATES: Effective July 26, 2012, the 

proposed rule published July 19, 2010, 

at 75 FR 41775, is withdrawn. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sebastian Pujol Schott, Associate 

Director, at 202–418–5641 or 

sps@cftc.gov; or Cody J. Alvarez, 

Attorney Advisor, at 202–418–5404 or 

calvarez@cftc.gov; Division of Market 

Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 

20581. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

19, 2010, the Commission published the 

OCR NPRM,1 which provided for the 

collection of trading account 

information via an account ownership 

and control report (‘‘OCR’’).2 In 

addition, the OCR NPRM sought public 

comment and provided for a public 

roundtable meeting during the 60-day 

comment period.3 The staff-led public 

roundtable was held September 16, 

2010.4

The Commission received eight 

comment letters from fourteen 

interested parties in response to the 

OCR NPRM and the public roundtable.5

A number of commenters raised 

concerns regarding the costs they were 

likely to incur as a result of the OCR. 

For example, designated contract market 

group stated in its comment letter that 

‘‘the Commission’s proposed OCR will 

result in very substantial capital and 

human resource costs being incurred by 

all [r]eporting [e]ntities on a one-time 

and on-going basis.’’ 6 Many 

commenters argued that certain OCR 

data points would be difficult to collect. 

For example, an industry association 

representing numerous large futures 

commission merchants (‘‘FCMs’’) stated 

that FCMs would have difficulty 

providing date of birth information 

because ‘‘[a]n FCM generally does not 

record the date of birth of a customer or 

account controller.’’ 7 Many comment 

letters also included alternative 

recommendations for proceeding with 

the development of the OCR.8

In light of the comments received and 

the Commission’s intention to collect 

trading account ownership and control 

information through a separate 

proposed rulemaking, the Commission 

has determined to withdraw the OCR 

NPRM. Concurrent with this 

withdrawal, the Commission is 

publishing elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register a separate proposed 

rule that incorporates many of the OCR 

NPRM comments. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 27, 

2012 by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16178 Filed 7–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘Notice’’). 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or 

‘‘CFTC’’) is proposing new rules and 

related forms to enhance its 

identification of futures and swap 

market participants. The proposed rules 

would leverage the Commission’s 

existing 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 proposed rules 

also incorporate a revised approach to 

the Commission’s previous initiative to 

collect ownership and control 

information, through a dedicated 

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

for trading accounts active on reporting 

markets that are designated contract 

markets or swap execution facilities. 

The Commission welcomes public 

comment on all aspects of its proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN number 3038–AD31, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Agency Web site, via its Comments 

Online process: http:// 

comments.cftc.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

through the Web site. 

• Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary of 

the Commission, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. 

• Courier: Same as mail above. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Please submit your comments using 

only one method. 

All comments must be submitted in 

English, or if not, accompanied by an 

English translation. Comments will be 

posted as received to http:// 

www.cftc.gov. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. If you wish the CFTC 

to consider information that you believe 

is exempt from disclosure under the 

Freedom of Information Act, a petition 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43969 

1 17 CFR 145.9. 

2 17 CFR parts 15 through 21. The rule proposals 

contained in this Notice generally relate to parts 15, 

17, 18 and 20 of the Commission’s regulations. 

3 ‘‘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). 

4A ‘‘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].’’ 

5A ‘‘special account’’ is defined in § 15.00(r) as 

‘‘any commodity futures or option account in which 

there is a reportable position.’’ 

6See Commission, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking: Ownership and Control Report, 75 FR 

41775 (July 19, 2010) (‘‘OCR NPRM’’). 

7As discussed in further detail below, the 

Commission is withdrawing the OCR NPRM 

contemporaneously with the publication of this 

Notice in the Federal Register. 8 ‘‘Reporting market’’ is defined in existing 

§ 15.00(q) as ‘‘a designated contract market, 

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

unless determined otherwise by the Commission [a 

derivatives transaction execution facility].’’ By way 

of this Notice, the Commission proposes to revise 

§ 15.00(q) to define reporting market as a 

‘‘designated contract market or a registered entity 

under § 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 VI(A) and IX. 

9See section VII, below. 

10As explained below, Form 102B incorporates 

the previously proposed OCR. 

for confidential treatment of the exempt 

information may be submitted according 

to the procedures established in § 145.9 

of the CFTC’s regulations.1

The CFTC reserves the right, but shall 

have no obligation, to review, prescreen, filter, redact, refuse, or remove 

any or all of your submission from 

http://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 this 

Notice 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 

Freedom of Information Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sebastian Pujol Schott, Associate 

Director, Division of Market Oversight 

(‘‘DMO’’), at 202–418–5641 or 

sps@cftc.gov; Cody J. Alvarez, Attorney 

Advisor, DMO, at 202–418–5404 or 

calvarez@cftc.gov; Mark Schlegel, 

Attorney Advisor, DMO, at 202–418– 

5055 or mschlegel@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: 

I. Introduction 

A. Background 

B. Benefits Derived From the Proposed 

Rules 

II. Statutory Framework for Position 

Reporting and Trader and Account 

Identification 

III. Existing and Previously Proposed Trader 

and Account Identification Programs 

A. Futures Large Trader Reporting— 

Existing Forms 102 and 40 

i. Identification of Special Accounts— 

Existing Form 102 

ii. Statement of Reporting Trader—Existing 

Form 40 

B. Large Trader Reporting for Physical 

Commodity Swaps—102S and 40S 

Filings 

C. Proposed OCR 

i. OCR Advanced Notice 

ii. OCR NPRM 

iii. OCR NPRM Comment Summary 

IV. Forms 

A. Position Triggered 102 

i. Special Accounts and Reportable 

Positions 

ii. 102A Form Requirements 

iii. Timing of 102A Reporting 

iv. 102A Change Updates and Refresh 

Updates 

B. Volume Triggered 102 

i. 102B Form Requirements 

ii. Timing of 102B Reporting 

iii. 102B Change Updates and Refresh 

Updates 

C. 102S 

i. 102S Form Requirements 

ii. 102S Change Updates and Refresh 

Updates 

D. Form 71 

E. New Form 40 

V. Data Submission Standards and 

Procedures 

VI. Review and Summary of Regulatory 

Changes To Implement New and 

Amended Forms 

A. Part 15 

B. Part 17 

C. Part 18 

D. Part 20 

VII. Questions and Request for Comment 

VIII. Related Matters 

A. Cost Benefit Considerations 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

i. Overview 

ii. Information to be Provided 

iii. Reporting and Recordkeeping Burdens 

iv. Comments on Information Collection 

Proposed Rules 

Annex—Forms 102, 40 and 71 

I. Introduction 

A. Background 

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.2 The reporting rules are 

currently structured to collect 

information with respect to positions in 

‘‘open contracts,’’ 3 including: (1) 

Information necessary to identify 

persons who hold or control ‘‘reportable 

positions’’ 4 in open contracts (via 

existing Form 40); and (2) information 

necessary to identify ‘‘special 

accounts’’ 5 (via existing Form 102). In 

this Notice, the Commission is 

proposing certain amendments to the 

existing reporting rules and forms as 

they pertain to positions in open 

contracts. In addition, the Commission 

is proposing a revised approach to the 

OCR, which previously had been 

proposed 6 as a separate data 

collection.7 Specifically, the 

Commission proposes to expand 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 8 that is a registered 

entity under §§ 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. Volume threshold accounts 

associated with DCMs and SEFs would 

be required to be reported by clearing 

members, as indicated in section IX 

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. However, 

the Commission also notes that the 

proposed rules generally reflect the 

Commission’s knowledge and 

experience with trading practices and 

structures on DCMs. As a result, the 

Commission specifically requests public 

comment throughout this Notice on any 

revisions to the proposed rules that may 

be required to adequately address the 

identification and reporting of volume 

threshold accounts associated with 

SEFs.9

The proposed amendments to the 

reporting rules and forms would achieve 

three primary purposes. First, they 

would broaden the utility of existing 

Form 102 through a new, expanded 

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—the former OCR component—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’’); 10 and 

section 102S for the submission of 102S 

filings for swap counterparty and 

customer consolidated accounts with 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

11As 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’’) would be collected by the 

Commission (via Form 71) directly from originating 

firms. 

12See 17 CFR 20.5(a) and (b), the 102S and 40S 

filing requirements, discussed in greater detail 

below. 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’’). 

13For example, in November 2011, the 

Commission received an average of 7.4 million 

trade records per day from electronic trading on 

DCMs. 

14For example, in November 2011, the 

Commission received an average of 617,000 

position records per day from reporting firms and 

exchanges. 

15 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. 

16 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. In addition, CEA § 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). Also, pursuant to the purposes 

enumerated in CEA § 3(b), 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). 

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

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

proposed amendments would enhance 

the Commission’s surveillance and large 

trader reporting programs for futures, 

options on futures, and swaps by 

clarifying which accounts are required 

to be reported on Form 102A; 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’’); 11 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, the proposed 

amendments would provide for the 

electronic submission of Forms 102, 40, 

and 71. 

B. Benefits Derived From the Proposed 

Rules 

The proposed rules would enhance 

the Commission’s existing 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 existing Forms 

102 and 40, and introducing a new 

information collection for omnibus 

volume threshold accounts in New 

Form 71. The rules would also help 

implement the 102S and 40S filing 

requirements recently adopted in 

connection with the Commission’s part 

20 rules addressing large trader 

reporting for physical commodity swaps 

(discussed below).12 In the aggregate, 

the proposed rules would help the 

Commission to better deter and prevent 

market manipulation; deter and detect 

abusive or disruptive trading practices; 

and better perform risk-based 

monitoring and surveillance between 

related accounts. Ultimately, the 

proposed rules would 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. 

The proposed rules respond, in part, 

to the increased dispersion and opacity 

of trading in U.S. futures markets as 

they continue to transition from 

localized, open-outcry venues to global 

electronic platforms. While electronic 

trading has conferred important 

informational benefits upon regulators, 

the concomitant increases in trading 

volumes, products offered, and trader 

dispersion have created equally 

important regulatory challenges. 

Effective market surveillance now 

requires automated analysis and pattern 

and anomaly detection involving 

millions of daily trade records 13 and 

hundreds of thousands of position 

records 14 present in the surveillance 

data sets received daily by the 

Commission.15

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 openoutcry, electronically, or noncompetitively. 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. 

Effective market surveillance requires 

that surveillance data sets received by 

the Commission be sufficiently 

comprehensive and contain sufficient 

identified reference points to uncover 

relationships where none appear to exist 

and to analyze information based on 

flexible criteria. The collection of 

additional trader identification and 

market participant data on the forms 

proposed in this Notice would help the 

Commission to better satisfy these data 

requirements. For example, elements of 

the proposed data collection would 

enable the Commission to link ISS data 

(which includes large traders’ names, 

but not their trading account numbers) 

to TSS data (which includes trading 

account numbers but not names). 

The information proposed to be 

collected would also help the 

Commission to better identify and 

categorize individual trading accounts 

and market participants that triggered 

position or volume-based reporting 

thresholds. For example, New Form 

102A would, among other changes, 

require reporting firms to identify the 

constituent trading accounts of each 

reported special account. In this 

manner, New Form 102A would ensure 

a new level of interoperability between 

the Commission’s large trader data and 

its trade data, and would permit 

Commission surveillance staff to 

quickly reconstruct trading for any 

special account. New Form 102B would, 

for the first time, require identification 

of trading accounts based solely on their 

gross trading volume. This new 

information collection would 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 would facilitate 

Commission efforts to deter and detect 

attempted market disruptions that may 

occur even in the absence of large open 

positions. Finally, the automated 

collection of such information via 

electronic forms, rather than through adhoc, manual processes, would permit 

both the Commission and market 

participants to administer the reporting 

programs and related work more 

efficiently and effectively. Additional 

information on the forms addressed by 

this Notice is provided below. 

II. Statutory Framework for Position 

Reporting and Trader and Account 

Identification 

The Commission’s existing reporting 

rules, and those proposed herein, are 

primarily implemented and/or proposed 

by the Commission pursuant to the 

authority of sections 4a, 4c(b), 4g, and 

4i of the Act.16 Section 4a of the Act 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43971 

17 7 U.S.C. 6a. 

18 7 U.S.C. 6c(b). 

19 7 U.S.C. 6g(a). 

20See supra section I(B) for a discussion of the 

trade data transmitted daily to the Commission by 

registered entities. 

21 7 U.S.C. 6i. 

22See 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./ 

LawRegulation/OTCDERIVATIVES/index.htm. 

23Pursuant to § 701 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Title 

VII may be cited as the ‘‘Wall Street Transparency 

and Accountability Act of 2010.’’ 

24See generally, http://www.cftc.gov/ 

LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/index.htm. 

25As 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. 

See supra note 12. 

26 17 CFR 17.00. 

27 17 CFR 15.03(b). 

28 17 CFR 17.00(g). 

29 17 CFR 17.01. 

30Current Form 102 is titled Identification of 

Special Accounts. 17 CFR 15.02. 

31 17 CFR 17.02(b). 

32 17 CFR 17.01. 

33 17 CFR 17.01(a) through (f). 

permits the Commission to set and 

enforce speculative position limits, and 

to approve exchange-set position 

limits.17 Section 4c(b) gives the 

Commission plenary authority to 

regulate transactions that involve 

commodity options.18 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 its proprietary and customer 

transactions and positions in 

commodities for future delivery on any 

board of trade in the United States or 

elsewhere.19 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.20 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.21

Collectively, these CEA provisions 

warrant the maintenance of an effective 

and rigorous system of market and 

financial surveillance. 

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’’).22

Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act 23

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 real-time reporting 

regimes; and (4) enhancing the 

Commission’s rulemaking and 

enforcement authority with respect to, 

among others, all registered entities and 

intermediaries subject to the 

Commission’s oversight. 

As part of the Commission’s 

rulemaking program implementing the 

Dodd-Frank Act,24 the rule changes 

proposed herein also include swapsrelated considerations in connection 

with the Commission’s new large trader 

reporting rules for swaps.25 New CEA 

section 4t authorized the Commission to 

establish a large trader reporting system 

for significant price discovery function 

swaps; accordingly, the swaps-related 

considerations in the rules proposed 

herein also rely in part on the 

Commission’s authority in CEA section 

4t. 

III. Existing and Previously Proposed 

Trader and Account Identification 

Programs 

A. Futures Large Trader Reporting— 

Existing Forms 102 and 40 

Existing § 17.00, in part 17 of the 

Commission’s regulations, forms the 

basis of the Commission’s large trader 

reporting program.26 It requires each 

FCM, clearing member, and foreign 

broker to submit a daily report to the 

Commission for each commodity futures 

or option account it carries that has a 

reportable position (called a ‘‘special 

account’’). Such ‘‘§ 17.00 position 

reports’’ must 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).27 The daily report 

is sent to the Commission as a single 

data file from each reporting FCM, 

clearing member, and foreign broker 

pursuant to technical specifications 

identified in § 17.00(g).28 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— 

Existing 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, existing 

§ 17.01 29 requires the FCM, clearing 

member, or foreign broker to separately 

identify such special accounts to the 

Commission on Form 102 and provide 

certain information with respect to each 

special account.30 Pursuant to existing 

§ 17.02(b),31 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 existing § 17.01 32 includes both the 

requirement to submit the form as well 

as 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. Forms are generally 

transmitted to the Commission via 

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 form 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) through (f),33 require the 

reporting firm to provide the following: 

a special account number; the name, 

address, and other identification 

information for the owner (if also the 

controller), 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 firm submitting the 

Form 102. 

Based on the Commission’s 

experience in receiving, processing, and 

reviewing Form 102 submissions, and as 

discussed below in the context of the 

rules proposed herein, the Commission 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43972 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

34 17 CFR 18.04. 

35See supra note 12. 

36See 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/ 

ltrguidebook120711.pdf (hereafter, ‘‘Swaps Large 

Trader Guidebook’’). 

37 17 CFR 20.5(a). 

38 17 CFR 20.5(b) and 20.6. 

39See supra note 36. 

40As explained in the Swaps Large Trader 

Guidebook, acceptable part 20 data records include 

‘‘customer,’’ ‘‘agent,’’ ‘‘principal,’’ and 

‘‘counterparty’’ records. Clearing firms and swap 

dealers submitting 102S filings would be expected 

to classify principal and counterparty consolidated 

accounts as counterparty accounts on Form 102S, 

and to classify customer consolidated accounts as 

customer accounts. Agent data records would not 

require a 102S filing. 

has determined that the existing Form 

102 questions would benefit from 

revisions designed to: (1) Provide more 

meaningful information to the 

Commission and (2) clarify for reporting 

firms the traders, accounts, and 

information required to be provided on 

Form 102. In addition, the Commission 

is also proposing (as discussed below) 

that the New Form 102 submission 

process be modernized to facilitate 

electronic submission so that both the 

Commission and market participants 

may benefit from the efficiencies of 

automation. 

ii. Statement of Reporting Trader— 

Existing Form 40 

For each trader holding or controlling 

a reportable position (generally, persons 

identified on Form 102), § 18.04 

requires that, after a special call of the 

Commission, such trader file with the 

Commission a ‘‘Statement of Reporting 

Trader’’ on existing Form 40 at such 

time and place as directed in the call.34

The Form 40 is most commonly 

submitted to the Commission via paper 

submission, email submission, or 

facsimile. When submitted in a timely 

and accurate manner, Form 40 

submissions provide the Commission 

with basic information about each 

reportable trader in its markets. 

As with existing § 17.01 and Form 

102, existing § 18.04 also specifically 

identifies the data fields required in a 

Form 40 filing. Generally, § 18.04 and 

Form 40 require every reporting trader 

to provide or indicate the following: 

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 or owners 

that are foreign governments. 

Individuals completing existing Form 

40 must also provide or indicate the 

following, 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 nonindividuals/non-partnerships/non-joint 

tenants completing existing Form 40 

must also provide or indicate the 

following, as applicable: A U.S. entity 

indication, and if not a U.S. entity, an 

indication of where 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 

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, 

receiving, processing, and reviewing 

Form 40 submissions, the Commission 

has determined that the existing Form 

40 questions could benefit from 

revisions designed to: (1) Provide more 

meaningful information to the 

Commission and (2) clarify for reporting 

traders the specific information required 

to be provided on Form 40. In addition, 

the Commission is also proposing, as 

discussed below, that the New Form 40 

submission process be modernized to 

facilitate Web-based electronic form 

submission and achieve the efficiencies 

(for both the Commission and market 

participants) associated with using a 

single Web-based submission format. 

B. Large Trader Reporting for Physical 

Commodity Swaps—102S and 40S 

Filings 

As noted above, the Commission 

recently adopted rules pertaining to 

swaps large trader reporting as new part 

20 of the Commission’s regulations.35 In 

addition to establishing a position-based 

reporting scheme for swaps,36 the rules 

also require two trader identification 

filings—102S and 40S. For swap 

counterparties with reportable positions 

(as set forth in part 20), the 102S and 

40S filings generally serve an analogous 

function to that served by the existing 

Form 102 and Form 40 for futures and 

option traders. 

Specifically, pursuant to § 20.5(a), 

102S filings must be filed by a part 20 

reporting entity (a clearing firm or a 

swap dealer) 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.’’ 37 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.38

Building on the approach of this 

Notice to modernizing Form 102 and 

Form 40 submissions, the rules 

proposed herein would also provide for 

the electronic submission of both 102S 

and 40S filings. In order to provide 

clarity for market participants 

submitting these filings, the proposed 

rules also include provisions indicating 

the specific information required to be 

provided in each of these filings. In 

addition, the information requested in 

proposed Form 102S reflects 

considerations developed in the Swaps 

Large Trader Guidebook for compliance 

with part 20.39 For example, in addition 

to requiring information on 

counterparty consolidated accounts, as 

described above, proposed 102S would 

also collect information on ‘‘customer’’ 

consolidated accounts.40 Form 102S 

would also ask reporting firms to 

distinguish between ‘‘house’’ and 

‘‘customer’’ consolidated accounts. 

C. Proposed OCR 

In addition to existing trader and 

account identification filings 

summarized above, the Commission 

recently proposed to collect ownership 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43973 

41See Commission, Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking: Ownership and Control Report, 74 FR 

31642 (July 2, 2009). 

42See OCR NPRM supra note 6. 

43The OCR Advanced Notice noted that ‘‘most 

reporting entities will be designated contract 

markets, but they could be any registered entity that 

provides trade data to the Commission on a regular 

basis.’’ See OCR Advanced Notice supra note 41 at 

31642. 

44The OCR NPRM provided that reporting 

entities would include DCMs, derivatives 

transaction execution facilities, and exempt 

commercial markets with significant price 

discovery contracts. In addition, the OCR NPRM 

provided that should the Commission adopt the 

proposed rule, it would also collect ownership and 

control information from foreign boards of trade 

operating in the U.S. pursuant to staff direct access 

no-action letters, if such letters are conditioned on 

the regular reporting of trade data to the 

Commission. In the OCR NPRM, the Commission 

also noted that if given appropriate authority it 

would consider collecting OCR data for over-thecounter and exchange-traded swap transactions. See 

OCR NPRM supra note 6 at 41782. 

45The OCR NPRM provided that the OCR be 

submitted weekly, in Financial Information 

eXchange Markup Language (‘‘FIXML’’) via secure 

file transfer protocol (‘‘SFTP’’). See OCR NPRM 

supra note 6 at 41784. 

46The comment period deadline was extended 

from September 17, 2010 to October 7, 2010 in 

order to give interested parties time to prepare 

comments on matters discussed at the public 

roundtable. See 75 FR 54801 (September 9, 2010). 

47Panelists included representatives from: CME 

Group Inc.; ICE Futures U.S.; Kansas City Board of 

Trade; Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP; Millburn 

Ridgefield Corporation; National Introducing 

Brokers Association; NYSE Liffe U.S.; State Street 

Global Markets; Woodfield Fund Administration 

LLC; and an industry consultant. 

48All OCR NPRM comment letters (‘‘CL’’), 

supplemental comment letters (‘‘supplemental 

CL’’), ex parte communications summaries, and a 

transcript of the public roundtable are available 

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

comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ 

CommentList.aspx?id=755. OCR NPRM comment 

letters were received from: (1) Air Transport 

Association of America, Inc. on September 17, 2010 

(‘‘CL–ATA’’); (2) CME Group Inc. on behalf of 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. (collectively ‘‘CME’’) on October 7, 

2010 (‘‘CL–CME’’); (3) Darrell Cutshaw on 

September 13, 2010 (‘‘CL–DCT’’); (4) Futures 

Industry Association on October 7, 2010 (‘‘CL– 

FIA’’); (5) IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., ICE 

Futures Europe, and ICE Futures U.S., Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘ICE’’) on October 7, 2010 (‘‘CL–ICE’’); 

(6) International Assets Holding Corporation and 

FCStone, LLC on October 7, 2010 (‘‘CL–FCS’’); (7) 

Kansas City Board of Trade on October 7, 2010 

(‘‘CL–KCBT’’); and (8) OneChicago, LLC on 

September 27, 2010 (‘‘CL–OCX’’). OCR NPRM 

supplemental comment letters were received from: 

(1) FIA on December 23, 2010 (‘‘Supplemental CL– 

FIA I’’); and (2) FIA on March 22, 2011 

(‘‘Supplemental CL–FIA II’’). 

49CL–ICE supra note 48 at 1. 

50CL–FIA supra note 48 at 2. 

51CL–ATA supra note 48 at 1. 

52 Id. 

53CL–KCBT supra note 48 at 1. 

and control information for all trading 

accounts active on U.S. futures 

exchanges and other trading venues. 

The Commission proposed to collect 

such information via an account 

ownership and control report (‘‘OCR’’) 

submitted periodically by reporting 

entities that would primarily be DCMs. 

The Commission published an 

Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘OCR Advanced Notice’’ 

or ‘‘Advanced Notice’’) 41 soliciting 

public comment on the OCR in 2009, 

and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(‘‘OCR NPRM’’) in 2010.42 Both notices 

are described in greater detail below. 

i. OCR Advanced Notice 

In the OCR Advanced Notice, the 

Commission sought public comment on 

the concept of an OCR submitted 

periodically to the Commission by 

DCMs and other trading-venue reporting 

entities.43 As the Commission explained 

in the Advanced Notice, the OCR was 

designed to enhance market 

transparency, leverage the 

Commission’s existing surveillance 

systems, and foster synergies between 

its market surveillance, trade practice, 

enforcement, and economic research 

programs. The OCR Advanced Notice 

provided a detailed explanation of the 

Commission’s need and intended uses 

for ownership and control information. 

The Commission invited all interested 

parties to submit general comments 

regarding the Advanced Notice within a 

45-day comment window. The 

Commission received a total of twelve 

comment letters from sixteen interested 

parties. 

ii. OCR NPRM 

After carefully considering comments 

received in response to the OCR 

Advanced Notice, the Commission 

published its OCR NPRM, which was 

substantively similar to the Advanced 

Notice. Like the Advanced Notice, the 

OCR NPRM also provided for the 

collection of information through an 

OCR submitted to the Commission by 

trading-venue reporting entities.44 For 

each trading account, reporting entities 

were to collect and transmit specific 

OCR data points, including: the trading 

account number; the names and 

addresses of the account’s owners and 

controllers; the owners’ and controllers’ 

date of birth; the special account 

number, if one had been assigned; an 

indication of whether the account was 

a reportable account pursuant to large 

trader thresholds; and other relevant 

information. The Commission 

understood that, to compile their OCRs, 

reporting entities would need to collect 

information from FCMs and introducing 

brokers (‘‘IBs’’) in possession of the 

underlying data required by the OCR. 

Consequently, much of the OCR’s 

burden would have fallen on FCMs, IBs, 

and any other market participants 

providing data to the reporting entities. 

The OCR NPRM also proposed the form, 

manner, and frequency of OCR 

transmission by reporting entities.45

The OCR NPRM sought public 

comment and provided for a 60-day 

comment period. Commission staff also 

led a public roundtable to facilitate inperson discussion between Commission 

staff and interested parties.46 The staffled public roundtable was held on 

September 16, 2010, and consisted of 

fifteen panelists.47 By the close of the 

OCR NPRM comment period, the 

Commission received eight comment 

letters from fourteen interested 

parties.48 Many of the comments 

presented by roundtable panelists raised 

the same issues as those raised by the 

comment letters responding to the 

Advanced Notice and the OCR NPRM. 

iii. OCR NPRM Comment Summary 

A number of commenters found merit 

in the proposed OCR. For example, 

IntercontinentalExchange, ICE Futures 

Europe, and ICE Futures U.S. 

collectively stated that they 

‘‘recognize[d] the value in collecting 

information regarding the identity of the 

owners and controllers of accounts that 

actively trade on reporting entities, and 

therefore suppor[t] the Commission’s 

initiative to collect certain OCR 

information.’’ 49 Similarly, the Futures 

Industry Association (‘‘FIA’’) 

commented that it ‘‘supports the 

underlying purposes of the proposed 

OCR.’’ 50 The Air Transport Association 

of America (‘‘ATA’’) ‘‘agree[d] that the 

proposed [OCR] will provide 

information the Commission needs to 

ensure that the U.S. futures markets 

accurately reflect supply and demand 

forces for products traded, and to ensure 

that the futures markets are not tainted 

by fraud, abuse or excessive 

speculation.’’ 51 The ATA further stated 

that, ‘‘the OCR is critical to the 

Commission’s ability to fulfill these 

responsibilities in a dynamic and 

evolving marketplace that has embraced 

new technologies.’’ 52 Finally, the 

Kansas City Board of Trade commented 

that ‘‘Exchange Compliance staffs will 

benefit greatly from the wealth of 

information at their disposal regarding 

the identity of market participants and 

the relationships that exist among 

them.’’ 53

Commenters also suggested possible 

modifications to the OCR as described 

in the OCR NPRM. Commenters 

recommended that the Commission 

utilize an updated and automated Form 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43974 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

54See CL–CME supra note 48 at 6, CL–OCX supra 

note 49 at 2, and Supplemental CL–FIA I supra note 

49 at 2 of Appendix A. 

55See CL–CME supra note 48 at 5, CL–FIA supra 

note 49 at 8, CL–ICE supra note 49 at 2, and CL– 

KCBT supra note 49 at 4. 

56See CL–ICE supra note 48 at 4, CL–FIA supra 

note 49 at 7, and Supplemental CL–FIA I supra note 

49 at 2 of Appendix A. 

57See CL–KCBT supra note 48 at 2. 

58See generally Supplemental CL–FIA I supra 

note 48 and Supplemental CL–FIA II supra note 48. 

59 Id. 

60Supplemental CL–FIA I supra note 48 at 5 of 

Appendix A. 

61 17 CFR 15.00(r). 62 17 CFR 15.00(p)(1) and 15.03. 63 17 CFR 17.00(b) and 150.4. In this regard, the 

Commission notes that upon the compliance date 

for part 151 of the Commission’s regulations, the 

aggregation rules in § 150.4 will be superseded by 

those in § 151.7. The compliance date for part 151 

is 60 days after the term ‘‘swap’’ is further defined 

pursuant to § 721 of the Dodd-Frank Act (i.e., 60 

days after the further definition of ‘‘swap’’ as 

adopted by the Commission and the Securities 

Exchange Commission is published in the Federal 

Register). See Commission, Position Limits for 

Futures and Swaps, 76 FR 71626, 71632 (November 

18, 2011). 64See supra section I(B). 

102 to collect OCR data 54; collaborate 

with industry representatives to design 

the OCR55; require the reporting of only 

those accounts that exceed certain 

volume thresholds 56; and require that 

the Commission receive OCRs directly 

from clearing FCMs rather than from 

DCMs and other trading venues.57 In a 

series of supplemental comment letters, 

the FIA (working with a group of FCMs, 

U.S. exchanges and other experts 

(‘‘Working Group’’)) provided a 

‘‘Proposed OCR Alternative’’ that 

expanded upon comments made by FIA 

and its members in response to the 

Advanced Notice, the OCR NPRM, and 

the public roundtable.58 The Working 

Group’s Proposed OCR Alternative 

addressed, among other things, the OCR 

data points to be collected, the sources 

and flow of OCR data, and industry 

costs arising from the Commission’s 

proposed OCR versus the costs 

associated with the Working Group’s 

Proposed OCR Alternative.59

Specifically, the Working Group 

estimated that the Proposed OCR 

Alternative ‘‘would result in an average 

first-year cost saving of approximately 

$18.8 million’’ when compared with the 

Commission’s proposed OCR.60 The 

Commission found merit in many of the 

commenters’ recommendations and has 

incorporated several of these 

recommendations in the proposed rules. 

For example, as further described 

below, the proposed rules would require 

OCR data submissions directly from 

clearing FCMs, and OCR data would 

only be required for those trading 

accounts that exceed a specified volume 

threshold. Also, in concurrence with the 

suggestions of commenters and as more 

fully described below, the Commission 

anticipates collaborating with reporting 

entities and other interested participants 

to develop the data format and 

submission process. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this Notice, the Commission is issuing 

a separate notice that serves to formally 

withdraw the OCR NPRM and to alert 

the public to the rulemaking proposed 

herein. 

IV. Forms 

As noted above, this proposed 

rulemaking addresses three forms—New 

Form 102, New Form 71, and New Form 

40. New Form 102 is proposed as a 

multi-function form, since the 

requirement to submit New Form 102 

can arise from one of three separate 

triggers. The data required to be 

submitted on a New Form 102 is 

determined by the underlying triggering 

mechanism. A discussion of the three 

New Form 102 triggering mechanisms, 

the related sections of the form, and the 

information required to be provided in 

each section, follows. New Form 71 is 

proposed as a tool to be used, at the 

Commission’s discretion, to learn more 

about certain volume threshold 

accounts identified as omnibus accounts 

on New Form 102B. New Form 40 

would continue to serve its traditional 

purpose as a tool to be used, at the 

Commission’s discretion, to learn more 

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. 

A. Position Triggered 102 

i. Special Accounts and Reportable 

Positions 

New Form 102A is the section of New 

Form 102 that would serve a function 

most analogous to existing 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 existing § 15.00(r), and means 

any commodity futures or option 

account in which there is a reportable 

position.61 For the purposes of part 17, 

reportable position is defined in existing 

§ 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 existing 

§ 15.03.62 These proposed rules would 

not amend the definition of either 

special account or reportable position. 

The Commission notes that under 

existing regulations (e.g., § 17.00(b), 

citing § 150.4),63 reporting firms are 

required to separately aggregate the 

positions of common owners and those 

of common controllers for the purpose 

of identifying special accounts on a 

Form 102. By way of this proposed 

rulemaking, the Commission reiterates 

that 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. 

ii. 102A Form Requirements 

As compared to existing Form 102, 

the data fields in 102A would 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, as proposed, would also 

require reporting firms that are clearing 

members to identify the trading 

accounts that comprise a position-based 

special account and to provide 

ownership and control information, as 

well as TCR trading account numbers, 

for those trading accounts.64 To clarify, 

‘‘trading accounts that comprise a 

position-based special account’’ would 

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. The Commission’s objective in 

requiring reporting firms that are 

clearing members 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. The Commission specifically 

requests comment on this definition of 

‘‘trading accounts that comprise the 

special account.’’ The Commission 

welcomes proposals for alternative 

definitions that would still permit it to 

achieve the objective identified above. 

The Commission also requests public 

comment regarding whether Form 102S 

filings, discussed below, should require 

the identification of trading accounts 

that comprise a consolidated account in 

the same manner that Form 102A would 

require the identification of trading 

accounts that comprise a special 

account. 

The Commission notes that the 

requirement in 102A to identify a 

trading account number for trading 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43975 

65See supra section I(B) for a discussion of the 

TCR. 

66See supra section I(A) for an explanation of the 

reporting markets relevant to 102B filings, and infra 

sections VI(A) and IX and note 82 for proposed 

amendments to the definition of ‘‘reporting 

market.’’ 67The proposed 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 majority of 

trading volume, while minimizing the proposed 

regulations’ impact on low-volume accounts whose 

trading activity does not warrant inclusion in the 

proposed reporting and identification regime. Based 

on the sample data set used in the Commission’s 

analysis, the proposed RTVL would result in the 

reporting and identification of approximately onethird 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 proposed RTVL 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. The Commission notes that any 

amendments it may make to the RTVL as it pertains 

to SEFs may be designed to ensure that the RTVL 

for SEFs achieves a similar level of identification 

as the RTVL for DCMs, i.e., identifying a substantial 

majority of the volume in a substantial majority of 

products while minimizing the impact on SEF 

accounts whose trading activity is too low to merit 

inclusion in the reporting and identification regime. 

accounts that comprise a special 

account would only be a relevant/ 

applicable data field for clearing 

members identifying trading accounts 

that comprise a special account. Based 

on comments received in response to 

the OCR NPRM, it is the Commission’s 

understanding that non-clearing FCMs, 

foreign brokers, and omnibus account 

originators (collectively, ‘‘non-clearing 

entities’’) would generally not have the 

ability to match/identify a trading 

account number for their customers or 

sub-accounts (hereafter, ‘‘sub-accounts’’) 

on the TCR.65

Notwithstanding these limitations, 

under this proposed rulemaking nonclearing entities would continue to be 

required to submit a 102A for their 

customers/sub-accounts that, if carried 

directly with a clearing member, would 

otherwise be required to be reported as 

a position-based special account. 

Existing Form 102 requires the reporting 

of such special accounts, and New Form 

102A would not change that 

requirement. 

Form 102A would 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 

would 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. Form 102A 

also requires that reporting firms 

indicate whether any trading account 

identified on 102A has been granted 

direct market access (‘‘DMA’’) to the 

trade matching system of the relevant 

reporting market. The proposed 

definition of ‘‘DMA’’ appears in section 

IX below. Finally, 102A requires any 

reporting firm that indicates on 102A 

that it is a foreign broker to identify its 

U.S. FCM. 

iii. Timing of 102A Reporting 

Pursuant to the proposed regulatory 

revisions discussed below, this 

rulemaking would require 102A 

submissions no later than the 

submission of the corresponding 

§ 17.00(a) position report for a special 

account. That is, the 102A for any 

particular special account would be due 

at the same time as the special account’s 

reportable position is first sent to the 

Commission. The proposed rule text 

also includes an ‘‘on-call’’ provision, 

which would require a 102A to be 

submitted on such other date as directed 

by special call of the Commission. 

iv. 102A Change Updates and Refresh 

Updates 

The proposed rules provide that if any 

change causes the information filed on 

a 102A for a special account to no 

longer be accurate, that an updated 

102A shall be filed with the 

Commission no later than 9:00 a.m. 

eastern time 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, 

proposed § 17.02(b) requires that, 

starting on a date specified by the 

Commission or its designee and at the 

end of each six month increment 

thereafter (or such later date specified 

by the Commission or its designee), 

each FCM, clearing member, or foreign 

broker resubmit every 102A that it has 

submitted to the Commission for each of 

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

As with the 102B, discussed below, the 

goal of the refresh update provision is 

to establish discreet points in time 

where all 102A data is considered 

accurate and reliable. The Commission 

is proposing the refresh update 

provision in an effort to maintain 

accurate 102A 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 § 17.02(b) include 

the following 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 that the account in 

question is no longer reportable as a 

special account. 

B. Volume Triggered 102 

New Form 102B of New Form 102 

provides a new volume-based reporting 

structure not found in existing 102. As 

background, the Commission received 

several comments in response to the 

OCR NPRM that suggested the 

Commission should only require the 

reporting of those trading accounts 

whose trading activity exceeded a 

volume threshold, thereby limiting the 

total number of reportable accounts, 

reducing reporting costs, and preventing 

the reporting of non-significant 

accounts. The Commission considered 

the comments it received regarding the 

establishment of volume thresholds for 

the OCR, and has modified its approach 

accordingly in this Notice. While 

existing 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 

accounts, as defined below in proposed 

§ 15.00(y), are trading accounts that 

execute, or receive via allocation or 

give-up, reportable trading volume on or 

subject to the rules of a reporting 

market, that is a DCM or an SEF.66 The 

reportable trading volume level 

(‘‘RTVL’’) is defined in proposed § 15.04 

as 50 or more contracts in all 

instruments that a DCM or SEF 

designates with the same product 

identifier (including purchases and 

sales, and inclusive of all expiration 

months).67 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. The Commission 

requests public comment as to whether 

any final rule adopted by the 

Commission should raise, lower or 

maintain the proposed RTVL. The 

Commission also requests public 

comment regarding the suitability of the 

proposed RTVL, as defined in proposed 

§ 15.04, to volume threshold accounts 

associated with SEFs, and whether any 

changes are required to make the 

proposed RTVL suitable for volume 

threshold accounts associated with 

SEFs. Additional requests for public 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43976 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

68See supra section I(B). 

69Business days are Monday through Friday 

calendar days that are not Federal holidays. For 

example, if an account becomes a volume threshold 

account on a Friday, it must be reported to the 

Commission by 9:00 on Monday (the next business 

day). 70 17 CFR 20.5(a). 

comment with respect to the RTVL as 

currently proposed are in section VII, 

below. 

i. 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 by the Commission 

from SEFs, and to link the volume 

threshold account to transaction records 

in the Commission’s surveillance 

databases.68 The data points will also 

assist the Commission in fulfilling its 

surveillance responsibilities. 

Second, and as with 102A, 102B 

requires that clearing members indicate, 

in response to question 3, whether the 

volume threshold account has been 

granted DMA to the trade matching 

system of the relevant reporting market. 

Third, 102B requires that clearing 

members provide, in response to 

question 4, the volume threshold 

account’s associated special account 

number, if applicable. In the case of 

DCMs, 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. 

Fourth, 102B requires that clearing 

members indicate, in response to 

question 5, 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 

5 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 

number, among other information). 

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 proposed in this Notice and 

described below. 

Fifth, 102B requires clearing members 

to provide information, in response to 

question 6, 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 6 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 7, sufficient to 

uniquely identify and contact each 

volume threshold account controller of 

an account that is not an omnibus 

account. Pursuant to proposed 

§ 15.00(dd), a volume threshold account 

controller must be a natural person. The 

requested information includes the 

account controller’s name, address, 

phone number and job title, together 

with the name of the controller’s 

employer and other identifying 

information. 

The Commission requests public 

comment regarding the suitability of 

Form 102B to volume threshold 

accounts associated with SEFs. The 

Commission also requests comment 

regarding how Form 102B should be 

amended, if at all, to heighten its 

suitability with respect to SEFs. 

ii. Timing of 102B Reporting 

In order to identify its volume 

threshold accounts and make a timely 

submission of 102B, a clearing firm 

must tabulate the gross trading activity 

of each account on its books. Once a 

volume threshold account is identified, 

proposed § 17.02(c) requires that the 

clearing firm submit 102B to the 

Commission no later than 9:00 a.m. 

eastern time on the business day 

following the day on which the account 

in question became a volume threshold 

account.69

iii. 102B Change Updates and Refresh 

Updates 

Once a clearing firm has identified a 

volume threshold account on 102B, that 

clearing firm has an ongoing 

responsibility (under § 17.02(c)) to 

ensure the information reported on 

102B remains accurate. If the clearing 

firm becomes aware of any changes that 

cause the information reported on 102B 

to no longer be accurate, then an 

updated 102B must be filed no later 

than 9:00 a.m. on the business day after 

the clearing firm becomes aware of such 

change (‘‘change updates’’). 

In addition to change updates, 

proposed § 17.02(c) requires that, 

starting on a date specified by the 

Commission or its designee and at the 

end of each six month increment 

thereafter (or such later date specified 

by the Commission or its designee), 

each clearing member shall resubmit 

every Form 102B that it has submitted 

to the Commission for each of its 

volume threshold accounts (‘‘refresh 

updates’’). As with Form 102A, the 

Commission is proposing the refresh 

update provision in § 17.02(c) in an 

effort to maintain accurate 102B data 

and avoid the data drift which is often 

associated with long-term data 

collection efforts. The goal of the refresh 

update provision is to establish discrete 

points in time where all 102B data is 

considered accurate and reliable. 

Both the change update and refresh 

update provisions of § 17.02(c) include 

the following sunset provision: If, 

during the course of a six-month period, 

the subject volume threshold account 

executes no trades in any product on the 

reporting market at which the volume 

threshold account reached the 

reportable trading volume level, then 

the relevant clearing firm is no longer 

required to provide either change 

updates or refresh updates following the 

end of this six-month period. 

C. 102S 

i. 102S Form Requirements 

Section 102S of New Form 102 is 

proposed to formalize and facilitate the 

electronic submission of 102S filings as 

required in 17 CFR 20.5(a). As noted 

above, pursuant to § 20.5(a), 102S filings 

must be filed by a part 20 reporting 

entity (a clearing firm or a swap dealer) 

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.’’70 By 

including 102S in New Form 102, the 

proposed rules would enable the 

submission of futures and swaps large 

trade reporting via a single electronic 

submission, enable the Commission to 

integrate its analysis of the information 

provided on 102S filings with that 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43977 

71See Swaps Large Trader Guidebook at p. 21– 

23 and p. 88, Appendix D. See also supra note 25. 

72 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.’’ 

73The relevant trading date would be specified by 

Commission staff on Form 71 at the time the special 

call is made. 

provided on New Form 102A and New 

Form 102B submissions, and clarify for 

market participants the specific 

information and data fields that should 

be submitted in a 102S filing. As 

explained above, 102S would also 

incorporate considerations developed in 

the Swaps Large Trader Guidebook for 

compliance with part 20. The 

Commission is proposing that these 

rules replace the 102S submission 

procedure and guidance in the Swaps 

Large Trader Guidebook.71

The timing for submitting 102S filings 

would continue to be subject to existing 

§ 20.5(a)(3).72 The Commission 

specifically requests comment on its 

proposal to retain § 20.5(a)(3) as the 

timing requirement for submitting 102S 

filings on New Form 102. 

ii. 102S Change Updates and Refresh 

Updates 

Section 20.5(a)(4) of the proposed 

rules provide that, if any change causes 

the information filed on a 102S for a 

consolidated account to no longer be 

accurate, an updated 102S shall be filed 

with the Commission no later than 9:00 

a.m. eastern time 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, 

proposed § 20.5(a)(5) requires that, 

starting on a date specified by the 

Commission or its designee and at the 

end of each six month increment 

thereafter (or such later date specified 

by the Commission or its designee), 

each clearing member or swap dealer 

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 

the following 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 that the 

account in question is no longer 

reportable as a consolidated account. 

D. Form 71 

Proposed, New Form 71 

(‘‘Identification of Omnibus Accounts 

and Sub-Accounts’’) would be sent to 

omnibus account originating firms, at 

the discretion of Commission staff, in 

the event that a volume threshold 

account is identified as a customer 

omnibus account on Form 102B. The 

relevant account number and reporting 

market listed on the 102B will be 

provided on Form 71. Recipients of a 

Form 71 would 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.73 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 sub-account’’), then the 

originating firm would 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 (and a New Form 40) would 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 at the discretion of 

Commission staff 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 would collect with respect 

to a non-omnibus volume threshold 

account identified on 102B. The key 

data points proposed 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 

required to provide information 

sufficient to identify and contact the 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43978 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

74Staff-led public roundtables are included here 

only as a possible means by which the Commission 

may choose to receive public comments. The 

Commission has not yet determined whether any 

such roundtable(s) will be held in connection with 

this Notice. 

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). 

The Commission requests public 

comment regarding the suitability of 

Form 71 to omnibus volume threshold 

accounts and omnibus reportable subaccounts associated with SEFs. The 

Commission also requests comment 

regarding how Form 71 should be 

amended, if at all, to heighten its utility 

with respect to SEFs. 

E. New Form 40 

This Notice proposes a revised Form 

40 that would be required to be 

completed, on special call of the 

Commission, by individuals, persons, 

and other entities identified on any of 

102A, 102B, 102S, and Form 71. As 

proposed herein, New Form 40, still 

referred to as the ‘‘Statement of 

Reporting Trader,’’ would continue to 

serve the function traditionally met by 

existing Form 40 by providing the 

Commission with basic contact and 

trading activity information about those 

persons and entities identified in the 

Commission’s New Form 102 program. 

New Form 40 would also be the vehicle 

through which market participants 

subject to 17 CFR 20.5(b) submit their 

40S filings. As part of its 

implementation plan related to this 

proposal, and described in more detail 

below, the Commission is proposing to 

develop a Web-based portal through 

which market participates would 

complete, submit, and (when necessary) 

update their New Form 40—thereby 

curing much of the inefficiency, 

inaccuracy, and uncertainty associated 

with the current paper or facsimile 

based submission process. 

Specifically, as proposed herein, New 

Form 40 (whether completed as a New 

Form 40 or as a 40S filing) would be 

required to be completed on call, as 

directed by Commission staff. Because 

the proposal anticipates a Web-based 

portal and user profile system, those 

entities required to complete a New 

Form 40 would also be under a 

continuing obligation, per direction in 

the special call, to update and maintain 

the accuracy of their profile information 

by periodically visiting the online New 

Form 40 portal to review, verify, and/or 

update their information. 

Generally, New Form 40 would 

request basic information 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 entity’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; and 

various 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. The Commission specifically 

requests comment on the 

appropriateness of these definitions and 

whether the definitions should be 

changed in any way. 

New Form 40 would also require 

reporting traders who engage in 

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

defined in the new form, to identify 

themselves to the Commission. 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. 

An example of CIT described in 

clause (a) is the strategy of purchasing 

shares in an exchange-traded fund (ETF) 

that purchases futures contracts based 

on the amount of funds contributed by 

investors. It is typical for an ETF for 

commodities to track the performance of 

a widely cited commodity benchmark. 

An example of CIT described in clause 

(b) is the strategy of an investor entering 

into a total-return swap with a 

counterparty. The counterparty would 

agree to pay the investor the total return 

on (e.g.) a commodity index, and would 

hedge the swap by buying futures 

contracts. 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 (see question 

14ii(a) in New Form 40). 

The Commission requests public 

comment regarding the definition of CIT 

in New Form 40. The Commission also 

requests comment on whether the 

definition captures all forms of CIT 

present in the market, or if not, how the 

definition should be modified. Finally, 

the Commission requests comment 

regarding question 14ii(a) in New Form 

40, and whether it will adequately 

capture reporting traders’ exposure in 

the commodities in which they engage 

in CIT. 

V. Data Submission Standards and 

Procedures 

During the comment period, the 

Commission anticipates that its data and 

technology staff will work with market 

participants and potential reporting 

entities to address potential information 

technology standards to be associated 

with the proposed rules. The 

Commission encourages interested 

parties to share information directly or 

through any industry working groups 

wishing to provide technical input 

pertaining to relevant data fields, 

formats, and submission requirements. 

The Commission may receive 

information through comment letters 

submitted according to the instructions 

above or through on-the-record meetings 

with industry participants, including 

staff-led public roundtables.74 The 

Commission anticipates that this 

process may also include staff visits to 

market participant facilities in order to 

observe onsite demonstrations of 

existing and potential technology 

capabilities, operation processes, and, 

more generally, to gain more direct 

knowledge and understanding of what 

an implementation effort will require. 

Based on information gathered during 

the comment period, the Commission 

will direct its data and technology staff 

to develop data requirements so that the 

Commission can identify and define a 

data submission standard for each 

submission type (e.g., an XML data feed) 

in preparation for the implementation of 

any final rules that follow from this 

Notice. 

Specifically, the Commission 

anticipates creating a secure internet 

portal with the proposed electronic New 

Form 102, New Form 40, and New Form 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43979 

75For a recent example of a similar undertaking, 

see the Swaps Large Trader Guidebook, linked 

supra at note 36. 76 17 CFR 15.00, 15.01, 15.04, 15.00(q) and 15.02. 

71 for beta testing in the event that this 

Notice ultimately results in final rules. 

Industry participants would be 

encouraged to review, test, and 

comment on the portal and online form 

capabilities. Where appropriate, the 

Commission may direct its staff to work 

with international data standards 

authorities to officiate the defined 

standards. As part of the completion of 

the data standards and online forms, the 

Commission plans on publishing a data 

compliance guidebook with detailed 

submission instructions.75

It is envisioned that once the rule is 

effective and all technology at the CFTC 

is in place, the following capabilities 

will be available: 

FCMs (including clearing members), 

foreign brokers, or swap dealers that 

trigger a position or volume based 

reporting obligation will generate the 

appropriate 102A, 102B, or 102S 

standard file and send it to the 

Commission via secure file transfer 

protocol (‘‘FTP’’). The Commission will 

provide the necessary FTP IP address, 

login, and password and will coordinate 

with the reporting entity to set up the 

secure FTP protocol handlers. 

Additionally, the Commission may 

provide file converters (such as CSV-toXML) to simplify the data standard 

compliance requirements for the 

industry. Alternatively, the 102A, 102B 

and 102S data may be submitted 

through an electronic version of the 

form which would be available on the 

Commission’s secure Web site portal. 

New accounts identified on the New 

Form 102 by the reporting entity will be 

evaluated by Commission staff to 

determine next step actions (i.e., 

requesting a New Form 40 or New Form 

71). If it is determined that a New Form 

40 or New Form 71 should be sent to an 

account identified on a New Form 102 

submission, the Commission would 

contact the named account (generally 

via email, using the email address 

provided on the New Form 102) to 

request and provide instructions for the 

appropriate CFTC form. The 

instructions would include a Web site 

address, login, and password to access 

the specific form needed. The named 

account may be required to submit a 

completed online form upon receiving 

the request. 

Depending on the information 

provided in the Form 71, additional 

reportable sub-accounts named in the 

form may be asked to complete a New 

Form 40 or Form 71 using the same 

process described above. 

Finally, the Commission proposes 

that any final rules resulting from this 

Notice include separate ‘‘effective’’ and 

‘‘compliance’’ dates. The effective date 

of any final rule would begin 60 days 

after such rule’s publication in the 

Federal Register. The Commission 

proposes that any compliance date, 

however, would be delayed by an 

additional 90 days (for a total of 150 

days after a final rule’s publication in 

the Federal Register). Upon reaching 

the effective date of any final rule, 

market participants and reporting 

entities should be prepared to begin 

working with the Commission’s data 

and technology staff to test and 

implement any information technology 

standards or systems associated with the 

final rules. Such cooperation would 

include providing all test data or form 

filings requested by the Commission’s 

data and technology staff, in the form 

and manner requested by staff. In the 

absence of any further relief by the 

Commission, all market participants and 

reporting entities subject to final rules 

would be expected to be in full 

compliance by the compliance date, 

including having submitted complete 

and accurate filings using one of the two 

submission methods specified above. 

The Commission seeks public comment 

on the proposed schedule and 

procedures for the effective date and 

compliance date of any final rule 

resulting from this Notice. 

VI. Review and Summary of Regulatory 

Changes To Implement New and 

Amended Forms 

To implement the new and amended 

forms described above, the Commission 

proposes to revise parts 15, 17, 18, and 

20 of its regulations as follows. 

A. Part 15 

Existing part 15 enumerates certain 

defined terms and other provisions 

applicable to parts 15 through 19 and 21 

of the Commission’s regulations. The 

Commission proposes to amend part 15 

to effectuate the enhanced market 

participant and account identification 

regime proposed in this Notice, 

including new Forms 102B and 71. 

Specifically, the Commission proposes 

to do the following: Codify twelve new 

defined terms in § 15.00; update the list 

of ‘‘persons required to report’’ in 

§ 15.01 to include persons identified on 

New Forms 102B and 71; revise § 15.04 

to provide the ‘‘reportable trading 

volume level’’ for volume threshold 

accounts and other new account types; 

and make conforming changes in 

§§ 15.00(q) and 15.02.76 The proposed 

amendments to part 15 are summarized 

below. 

New Forms 102 and 71 would require 

the identification of a number of 

account types not currently addressed 

in the Commission’s regulations. 

Accordingly, the Commission proposes 

to introduce the following new defined 

terms in § 15.00: 

• § 15.00(w). Omnibus account, 

meaning 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; 

• § 15.00(x). Omnibus account 

originator, meaning 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; 

• § 15.00(y). Volume threshold 

account, meaning 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 

§ 5 of the Act or a swap execution 

facility registered under § 5h of the Act; 

• § 15.00(z). Omnibus volume 

threshold account, meaning 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 § 5 of the Act or 

a swap execution facility registered 

under § 5h of the Act; 

• § 15.00(aa). Omnibus reportable 

sub-account, meaning any trading subaccount 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 sub-account of another 

omnibus reportable sub-account; and 

• § 15.00(bb). Reportable subaccount, meaning any trading subaccount of an omnibus volume 

threshold account or omnibus 

reportable sub-account, which subaccount executes reportable trading 

volume. 

Volume threshold accounts, omnibus 

volume threshold accounts, omnibus 

reportable sub-accounts, and reportable 

sub-accounts all reflect accounts that 

execute (or receives via allocation or 

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

Accordingly, the Commission proposes 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43980 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

77Section 15.04 of part 15 is currently reserved. 

78The proposed definition of ‘‘control’’ in § 15.00 

is based upon the definition of ‘‘controlled 

account’’ in § 1.3(j) of part 1. 

79The proposed definitions also specify that 

volume threshold accounts and reportable subaccounts may have more than one controller. 

80 17 CFR 15.01(c). 

81 17 CFR 15.00(q) and 15.02. The Dodd-Frank 

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

definition of ‘‘registered entity’’ previously found in 

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

Commission proposes to revise existing § 15.00(q) 

so that it cites to § 1a(40) for the definition of 

registered entity. The Commission proposes to also 

revise existing § 15.00(q) by removing the 

provision’s reference to DTEFs, a category of 

regulated markets that was eliminated by § 734 of 

the Dodd-Frank Act. 

to codify a new § 15.00(u) that defines 

reportable trading volume as contract 

trading volume that meets or exceeds 

the level specified in proposed § 15.04. 

Section 15.04, in turn, would provide 

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 § 5 of the Act or 

a swap execution facility registered 

under § 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).77

Notably, § 15.04 addresses trading 

volume, not open positions, and would 

require 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. In this regard, 

the Commission observes that if a 

reporting market utilizes the same 

identifier to designate both the openoutcry and electronically-traded 

variants of a product, then a clearing 

firm reporting on Form 102B should 

sum a trading account’s activity in both 

the open-outcry and electronic venues 

to determine whether such trading 

account has reached the reportable 

trading volume. Similarly, if a reporting 

market uses the same identifier to 

designate the futures, options and swaps 

variants of a product, then a trading 

account’s activity in futures, options 

and swaps in such product should be 

summed to determine whether the 

trading account has reached the 

reportable trading volume. Conversely, 

if a reporting market utilizes different 

product identifiers in these 

circumstances, then a clearing firm 

reporting on Form 102B should not sum 

a trading account’s activity across 

venues or across futures, options and 

swaps. The Commission anticipates that 

its proposed approach, which relies on 

reporting markets’ existing product 

identification practices, would be less 

burdensome than an approach which 

requires aggregation of the same product 

when traded under different identifiers. 

The Commission specifically requests 

public comment on its proposed 

account-type definitions in § 15.00, and 

on its definition of reportable trading 

volume in § 15.04. 

The Commission also proposes to add 

‘‘control’’ to the list of defined terms in 

§ 15.00.78 The Commission’s proposed 

definition, which would apply only to 

special accounts (New Form 102A) and 

consolidated accounts (Form 102S), 

would be codified in § 15.00(t), and 

would define control as ‘‘to actually 

direct, by power of attorney or 

otherwise, the trading of a special 

account or a consolidated account.’’ The 

proposed definition specifies that 

special accounts and consolidated 

accounts may have more than one 

controller. The Commission notes that 

the proposed definition of ‘‘control’’ 

would apply solely for the purpose of 

satisfying the reporting obligations 

under parts 15 through 19 and 21 of this 

chapter. The proposed definition would 

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) would not be 

altered by the definition of ‘‘control’’ 

proposed in § 15.00(t). 

The Commission also proposes 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, the proposed definitions 

in § 15.00(cc), 15.00(dd), and 15.00(ee) 

define 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), 

15.00(dd), and 15.00(ee) would be 

relevant to the submission of New 

Forms 102A (trading accounts), 102B 

(volume threshold accounts), and 71 

(reportable sub-accounts), 

respectively.79 The Commission 

specifically requests public comment on 

its proposed definition of control in 

§ 15.00(t), and on its proposed 

definitions of ‘‘trading account 

controller,’’ ‘‘volume threshold account 

controller’’ and ‘‘reportable sub-account 

controller’’ in § 15.00(cc), (dd) and (ee). 

Finally, the Commission proposes to 

define direct market access (‘‘DMA’’) in 

a new § 15.00(v). The Commission 

proposes to define 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. 

The introduction of new account and 

controller types in New Forms 102A, 

102B, and 71 would result in a 

corresponding expansion in the 

categories of persons required to 

provide New Form 40 reports. 

Accordingly, the Commission proposes 

to amend § 15.01(c), which currently 

requires Form 40 reports only from 

persons who hold or control reportable 

positions.80 The proposed rules would 

expand § 15.01(c) to require 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 subaccount controllers (identified via New 

Form 71); and persons who own 

reportable sub-accounts (identified via 

New Form 71). 

Other proposed amendments to part 

15 include: A revision to the definition 

of ‘‘reporting market’’ in existing 

§ 15.00(q) to replace the provision’s 

cross-reference to § 1a(29) of the Act 

with a cross-reference to § 1a(40); a 

further revision to existing § 15.00(q) to 

remove the provision’s reference to 

derivatives transaction execution 

facilities (‘‘DTEFs’’); and the 

amendment of existing § 15.02, which 

contains a list of the forms contained in 

parts 15 through 19, and 21.81 Section 

15.02 would be revised to reflect the 

proposed introduction of new Form 71, 

the renaming of Form 102, and the new 

OMB control number that would be 

created by this rulemaking. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43981 

82 17 CFR 17.01, 17.02 and 17.03. 

83 17 CFR 17.01. 

84See supra section IV(B) and infra section IX. 

85See supra section IV(D) and infra section IX. 

86 17 CFR 17.01(g). 

87The Commission’s special call authority with 

respect to special accounts is currently found in 

§ 17.02(b)(1), which the Commission proposes to 

strike, as explained below. 

88 17 CFR 17.02(b). 

89 17 CFR 17.00(g)(2)(iii). 

90 17 CFR 17.00(c) and 17.01(a). 

B. Part 17 

The Commission is proposing a 

number of substantive, conforming and 

administrative amendments to §§ 17.01, 

17.02, and 17.03 of part 17,82 and is also 

proposing new §§ 17.02(c), 17.03(e), 

17.03(f), and 17.03(g). The proposed 

amendments and new provisions 

address: the identification of special 

accounts, volume threshold accounts, 

and omnibus volume threshold 

accounts (§ 17.01); the form, manner, 

and time of New Form 102A and 102B 

filings (§ 17.02(b) and 17.02(c), 

respectively); and the delegation of 

related authorities from the Commission 

to the Director of the Division of Market 

Oversight (‘‘DMO’’) or the Director of 

the Office of Data and Technology 

(‘‘ODT’’) (§ 17.03). 

i. Substantive Proposed Amendments to 

§ 17.01 

Existing § 17.01 83 requires reporting 

entities (i.e., FCMs, clearing members, 

foreign brokers, and contract markets 

that list exclusively self-cleared 

contracts) to identify special accounts 

on existing Form 102, to provide for 

each special account the information 

required by paragraphs (a)–(f), and to 

comply with other requirements in 

paragraphs (g)–(h). The Commission 

proposes to amend § 17.01 by replacing 

all of its existing provisions with the 

provisions described below. 

First, the Commission proposes to 

codify a new § 17.01(a) that would 

require reporting entities to identify 

special accounts on New Form 102A 

(‘‘§ 17.01(a) reports’’), and would also 

refer reporting entities directly to the 

new form for the required data points. 

Second, the Commission proposes to 

introduce a new § 17.01(b) that would 

subject volume threshold accounts to an 

account identification regime 

comparable to the position-based regime 

already existing for special accounts.84

Proposed Section 17.01(b) would 

specifically require clearing firms to 

identify volume threshold accounts on 

New Form 102B (‘‘§ 17.01(b) reports’’). 

Similarly, the Commission proposes to 

introduce a new § 17.01(c) that would 

subject omnibus accounts to their own 

volume-based account identification 

regime.85 Proposed § 17.01(c) would 

require the originator of an omnibus 

volume threshold account (or the 

originator of an omnibus reportable subaccount within such account) to file 

New Form 71 ‘‘Identification of 

Omnibus Accounts and Sub-Accounts’’ 

upon special call by the Commission or 

its designee. 

The fourth substantive amendment 

proposed for § 17.01 would codify a 

new § 17.01(d). Proposed § 17.01(d) 

would require 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 

existing § 17.01(g) 86 with respect to 

special accounts, but also incorporates 

the new volume threshold accounts 

proposed herein. Finally, the 

Commission proposes 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 subaccounts.87 Responses to special calls 

would be due within 24 hours. 

ii. Substantive Proposed Amendments 

to § 17.02(b); New §§ 17.02(c), 17.03(e), 

17.03(f) and 17.03(g) 

Section 17.02(b) 88 currently 

addresses the form, manner, and 

completion date requirements of 

existing 102 filings. Specifically, 

§ 17.02(b)(1) requires reporting entities 

to submit existing Form 102 upon 

special call by the Commission; in the 

absence of a special call, § 17.02(b)(2) 

requires reporting entities to submit 

existing Form 102 within three business 

days of the first day that a special 

account is reported to the Commission. 

The Commission proposes to replace 

both provisions as described below. 

First, as explained above, the 

Commission proposes to strike existing 

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

requirements to proposed § 17.01(e). 

Second, the Commission proposes to 

strike existing § 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) would 

direct reporting entities to the 

Commission’s Web site (www.cftc.gov) 

for detailed instructions on the Form 

102A filing process. Proposed 

§ 17.02(b)(2)–(4) would address the 

completion date requirements of initial 

Form 102A submissions, 102A change 

updates, and 102A refresh updates, 

respectively. The proposed timing 

requirements appurtenant to initial 

102A filings and the change and refresh 

updates are discussed in detail in 

section IV(A), above. 

To address New Form 102B filings for 

volume threshold accounts, the 

Commission proposes to codify a new 

§ 17.02(c). Proposed § 17.02(c) would 

follow a structure similar to that of 

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

directing reporting entities to 

www.cftc.gov for detailed instructions 

on the Form 102B filing process, and 

proposed § 17.02(c)(2) through (4) 

addressing the timing of initial Form 

102B filings, 102B change updates, and 

102B refresh updates, respectively. The 

proposed timing requirements 

appurtenant to initial 102B filings and 

change and refresh updates are 

discussed in detail in section IV(B), 

above. 

Finally, the Commission also 

proposes to codify a new § 17.03(e) that 

would provide the Director of ODT with 

delegated authority to make special calls 

to solicit information from omnibus 

volume threshold account originators 

and omnibus reportable sub-account 

originators on New Form 71. The 

Commission also proposes to codify (a) 

a new § 17.03(f) that would provide 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 would provide 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. 

iii. Conforming and Administrative 

Amendments to Part 17 

The Commission is proposing a 

number of conforming and 

administrative amendments to part 17. 

First, the Commission proposes to revise 

§ 17.00(g)(2)(iii), which defines the 

‘‘account number’’ field for position 

reports.89 The proposed revisions would 

eliminate the provision’s crossreferences to § 17.00(c), which is 

reserved, and to existing § 17.01(a), 

which the Commission proposes to 

strike.90 Section 17.00(g)(2)(iii) would 

incorporate a new cross-reference to 

New Form 102. 

Second, the Commission proposes to 

revise existing § 17.03(a), which grants 

the Director of DMO the authority to 

determine whether FCMs, clearing 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43982 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

91 17 CFR 17.03(a). 

92 17 CFR 17.03(b). 

93 17 CFR 17.01. 

94 17 CFR 17.01(g). 

95 17 CFR 17.03(c). 

96 17 CFR 17.01(f). 

97 17 CFR 17.03(d) and 17.00(g). 

98 17 CFR 18.04(a) through (c). 

99 17 CFR 18.05. 

100 17 CFR 20.5. 

101 17 CFR 20.5(a)(3). See supra section III(B). 

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.91

More specifically, § 17.03(a) would be 

revised to grant such authority to the 

Director of ODT, rather than the Director 

of DMO. 

Third, the Commission proposes to 

revise existing § 17.03(b), which grants 

the Director of DMO the authority to 

approve the late submission of position 

reports and Form 102.92 Section 

§ 17.03(b) would be revised to grant 

such authority to the Director of ODT, 

rather than the Director of DMO. Section 

17.03(b) would be further revised to: (i) 

Replace the provision’s cross-reference 

to § 17.01,93 which the Commission 

proposes to strike, with cross-references 

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

(ii) eliminate the provision’s crossreference to existing § 17.01(g),94 which 

the Commission also proposes to strike. 

Fourth, the Commission proposes to 

revise existing § 17.03(c), which grants 

the Director of DMO the authority to 

permit reporting entities filing Form 102 

to authenticate it through a means other 

than signing the form.95 Section 17.03(c) 

would be revised to grant such authority 

to the Director of ODT, rather than the 

Director of DMO. Section 17.03(c) 

would be further revised to replace the 

provision’s existing cross-reference to 

§ 17.01(f),96 which the Commission 

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

address New Form 71. 

Finally, the Commission proposes to 

revise existing § 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).97

Section 17.03(d) would be revised to 

grant such authority to the Director of 

ODT, rather than the Director of DMO. 

C. Part 18 

Existing § 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 existing § 18.04(a) thorugh 

(c).98 The Commission proposes to 

amend § 18.04 by striking all of its 

existing provisions and replacing them 

as described below. 

First, and consistent with its approach 

to New Form 102, the Commission 

proposes to transition existing § 18.04(a) 

through (c)’s detailed form content 

requirements from the regulatory text to 

New Form 40. Second, the Commission 

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

as with existing § 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 

proposes 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. 

Existing § 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.99 In addition, 

existing § 18.05 requires that the trader 

furnish the Commission with 

information concerning such positions 

upon request. The Commission 

proposes 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. 

D. Part 20 

As with Forms 102 and 40, the 

Commission proposes to transfer the list 

of data points required in Form 102S 

data point from the relevant regulatory 

text (i.e., § 20.5) 100 to the form itself. 

More specifically, the Commission 

proposes 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 entity 

shall submit a 102S filing (‘‘initial 102S 

filing’’). The timing for submitting 

initial 102S filings would continue to be 

subject to existing § 20.5(a)(3).101

Finally, the Commission proposes to 

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

require change and refresh updates for 

Form 102S in the same manner as they 

are required for Form 102A. The 

Commission is also proposing a 

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

eliminate the existing instructions with 

respect to updating 102S filings. 

VII. Questions and Request for 

Comment 

The Commission requests public 

comment on the proposed forms and 

regulations described in this Notice, and 

welcomes specific alternatives to the 

regulatory text proposed to be 

implemented and the data points 

proposed to be collected herein. In 

addition to this general request for 

comments, the Commission specifically 

requests public comment on the 

questions below. 

1. With respect to DCMs, the 

Commission requests public comment 

regarding the RTVL proposed in § 15.04, 

which is: 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 

§ 5 of the Act or a swap execution 

facility registered under § 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). If the RTVL or parameters 

proposed in § 15.04 (e.g., a RTVL 

measured in ‘‘contracts’’ and set at 50 

contracts; a reliance on ‘‘product 

identifiers;’’ or the reference to 

‘‘expiration months’’) are inadequate 

with respect to DCMs, then the 

Commission requests public comment 

regarding how the RTVL or such 

parameters should be revised in any 

final rule arising from this Notice. See 

section IV(B), above, and section IX, 

below. 

2. The Commission requests public 

comment as to whether it should retain 

§ 20.5(a)(3) as the timing requirement 

for submitting initial 102S filings on 

New Form 102. See section IV(C), above. 

3. The Commission requests public 

comment on the proposed change and 

refresh updates for 102A, 102B, and 

102S filings, including comments with 

respect to the timing, frequency, and 

contents of such updates. See section 

IX, below. 

4. The Commission requests public 

comment as to the appropriateness of 

the definitions of ‘‘parent’’ and 

‘‘subsidiary’’ in New Form 40, and 

whether these definitions should be 

changed in any way. See section IV(E), 

above. 

5. The Commission requests public 

comment regarding the definition of 

‘‘commodity index trading’’ (CIT) in 

New Form 40. The Commission also 

requests comment on whether the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43983 

102 17 CFR 16.02. 

definition captures all forms of CIT 

present in the market, or if not, how the 

definition should be modified. Finally, 

the Commission requests comment 

regarding question 14ii(a) in New Form 

40, and whether it will adequately 

capture reporting traders’ exposure in 

the commodities in which they engage 

in CIT. See section IV(E), above. 

6. The Commission requests public 

comment on the schedule and 

procedures proposed in section V above 

for the effective date and compliance 

date of any final rule resulting from this 

Notice. 

a. With respect to trading accounts 

associated with a DCM or a SEF that is 

not yet registered on the effective date 

or the compliance date proposed in 

section V, should the effective date or 

the compliance date for the reporting of 

such trading accounts be delayed for a 

certain period? If so, how long should 

the effective date or compliance date be 

delayed? 

7. The Commission requests public 

comment on whether it should codify a 

definition of ‘‘trading account’’ in 

§ 15.00 of the Commission’s regulations. 

‘‘Trading accounts’’ refers to accounts 

identified by a reporting market in daily 

transaction-level TCRs submitted to the 

Commission pursuant to § 16.02 or any 

similar reports received from a SEF.102

If commenters recommend that the 

Commission codify a definition of 

‘‘trading account’’ in § 15.00, then the 

Commission requests that commenters 

offer a proposed definition, provided 

that such definition does not reference 

tags, Party Roles, or other specific data 

fields in the TCR. The Commission also 

requests public comment regarding the 

applicability of the proposed trading 

account concept to SEFs, including any 

alternatives to trading account that 

should be used with respect to SEFs. 

8. The Commission requests public 

comment on its proposal to require that 

reporting firms that are clearing 

members identify, on Form 102A, the 

trading accounts that comprise a special 

account, and provide ownership and 

control information and TCR trading 

account numbers for such trading 

accounts. The Commission also requests 

public comment on the three factors 

offered in this Notice to determine 

whether a trading account comprises 

part of a special account. See section 

IV(A)(ii), above. 

9. The Commission requests public 

comment on whether ‘‘trading 

account(s) that comprise a special 

account’’ should be a defined term in 

§ 15.00 of the Commission’s regulations, 

and how such definition should differ 

from the three factors discussed in this 

preamble, if at all. See section IV(A)(ii), 

above. 

10. The Commission intends that the 

definition of ‘‘volume threshold 

account’’ captures all possible categories 

of accounts with reportable trading 

volume, including give-ups and other 

instances in which trades do not 

‘execute’ on a DCM or SEF (e.g., block 

trades). The Commission requests 

public comment regarding whether the 

proposed definition of ‘‘volume 

threshold account’’ achieves this 

purpose, and if not, how the definition 

should be revised. See section IX, 

below. 

11. The definition of ‘‘omnibus 

reportable sub-account’’ captures ‘‘any 

trading sub-account, which sub-account 

executes reportable trading volume on 

an omnibus basis,’’ while the definition 

of ‘‘reportable sub-account’’ captures 

‘‘any trading sub-account, which subaccount executes reportable trading 

volume’’ (emphasis added). See section 

IX, below. Is the reference to ‘executing’ 

reportable trading volume the 

appropriate terminology in this context? 

Would it be preferable to refer instead 

to a sub-account that ‘‘receives via 

allocation or give-up’’ reportable trading 

volume? Is another terminology more 

appropriate? 

12. With respect to SEFs, the 

Commission requests public comment 

regarding whether proposed § 15.04 

contains the appropriate parameters for 

defining a RTVL for volume threshold 

accounts associated with a SEF (e.g., a 

RTVL measured in ‘‘contracts’’ and set 

at 50 contracts; a reliance on ‘‘product 

identifiers;’’ or the reference to 

‘‘expiration months’’). If the RTVL or 

parameters proposed in § 15.04 are 

inadequate for SEFs, then the 

Commission requests public comment 

regarding how the RTVL or such 

parameters should be revised in any 

final rule arising from this Notice. If 

commenters propose alternative 

parameters for defining a RTVL for 

volume threshold accounts associated 

with SEFs (e.g., a parameter based on a 

notional value), please describe the 

proposed parameters in detail and 

indicate which products the parameters 

should apply to, in addition to other 

relevant criteria. The Commission also 

requests comment on the benchmarks 

that should be used to determine the 

RTVL for SEFs, including the 

percentage of trading accounts that 

should be identified and the percentage 

of products in which a given percentage 

of volume should be identified. In this 

regard, the Commission refers 

commenters to the proposed RTVL in 

the context of DCM trading accounts, 

products, and volume: an RTVL of 50 

would identify approximately 33 

percent of trading accounts, and at least 

85 percent of volume in approximately 

90 percent of products. The Commission 

may determine that any alternative 

RTVL for SEFs should achieve similar 

coverage. If commenters propose 

alternative parameters for defining a 

RTVL for volume threshold accounts 

associated with a SEF, please also 

describe any alternative benchmarks 

that are relevant to such parameters 

(e.g., what the reportable notional value 

for a particular product should be). See 

section IV(B) and note 68, above, and 

section IX, below. 

13. The Commission requests public 

comment regarding proposed 

§§ 17.01(b), 17.01(d), and 17.02(c)(2)– 

(4), which place certain 102B reporting 

obligations on clearing members. Do the 

proposed regulations require any 

revision to adequately address 102B 

filings with respect to volume threshold 

accounts associated with SEFs? If so, 

how should proposed §§ 17.01(b), 

17.01(d), and 17.02(c)(2)–(4) be 

amended? Should other reporting 

entities be considered, and if so, which 

ones? 

14. The Commission requests public 

comment regarding whether the 

proposed constructs of ‘‘trading 

account,’’ ‘‘volume threshold account,’’ 

‘‘omnibus volume threshold account,’’ 

and ‘‘omnibus reportable sub-account’’ 

are as applicable to SEFs as they are to 

trading on DCMs. See section IX, below. 

b. If these constructs are not 

applicable, then the Commission 

requests specific comments on the 

differences between trading practices 

and/or account structures at DCMs 

versus SEFs that would preclude their 

use with respect to SEFs. The 

Commission also requests specific 

comments on how these constructs 

should be amended or substituted so 

that they are usable with SEFs. For 

example, in the context of SEFs, should 

the construct of volume threshold 

accounts be modified to refer to 

reportable trading volume associated 

with a particular legal entity identifier, 

rather than reportable trading volume 

associated with a particular trading 

account? 

15. The Commission requests public 

comments on any defined terms or other 

provisions of the proposed rules that 

would require revision to accommodate 

the identification and reporting of 

volume threshold accounts, omnibus 

volume threshold accounts, and 

omnibus reportable sub-accounts 

associated with SEFs. 

a. For example, the Commission 

requests public comment regarding 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43984 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

103 7 U.S.C. 19(a). 

104 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. In addition, CEA § 8a(5) 

authorizes the Commission to promulgate such 

regulations that in its judgment are reasonably 

necessary to effectuate any provision of the Act or 

to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act. 7 

whether the omnibus account structure, 

as proposed, is relevant and appropriate 

to SEFs. More specifically, the 

Commission requests public comment 

with respect to proposed § 15.00(w) and 

15.00(x), which define omnibus account 

and omnibus account originator, 

respectively. The proposed definitions 

are based on market participants known 

to carry or originate omnibus accounts 

on DCMs. The Commission requests 

comment regarding whether other 

market participants should be included 

in proposed § 15.00(w) and 15.00(x) to 

account for market participants that may 

carry or originate omnibus accounts on 

SEFs. 

16. The Commission requests public 

comment as to whether Form 102S 

should require the reporting of trading 

accounts that comprise a consolidated 

account in the same manner that 

proposed 102A requires the reporting of 

trading accounts that comprise a special 

account. If not, why not? The 

Commission also requests public 

comment regarding: (1) Whether the 

three factors used to determine whether 

a trading account comprises a special 

account are equally applicable to 

consolidated accounts; (2) whether 

‘‘trading account(s) that comprise a 

consolidated account’’ should be a 

defined term in the Commission’s 

regulations; and (3) the appropriate 

definition of ‘‘trading account(s) that 

comprise a consolidated account.’’ See 

section IV(A)(ii), above. 

17. The Commission requests public 

comment as to whether New Forms 102 

(including, in particular, Form 102S), 

71, or 40 should be provided to swap 

data repositories (‘‘SDR’’) registered 

pursuant to part 49 of the Commission’s 

regulations to assist such SDRs in 

fulfilling any swaps data aggregation 

responsibilities assigned by the 

Commission. If not, then the 

Commission requests specific public 

comment regarding any reasons why the 

forms should not be provided to SDRs. 

a. If new Forms 102, 71, or 40 are 

provided to SDRs, should they be 

provided directly by reporting entities 

or by the Commission? The Commission 

specifically requests public comment 

regarding any reasons why the forms 

should not be provided to SDRs directly 

by reporting entities. 

b. The Commission requests public 

comment regarding any additional 

considerations relevant to the provision 

of New Forms 102, 71, or 40 to SDRs 

directly by reporting entities, including: 

i. the time, manner and format of 

submission to SDRs, including any 

necessary divergence from the time, 

manner, and format proposed herein for 

submission of the forms to the 

Commission; 

ii. additional data points that should 

be contained in the forms to heighten 

their utility in any data aggregation 

performed by SDRs; and 

iii. appropriate limitations on SDRs’ 

use of any information received in 

Forms 102, 71, or 40, other than for data 

aggregation purposes specified by the 

Commission. 

VIII. Related Matters 

A. Cost Benefit Considerations 

Section 15(a) 103 of the CEA requires 

the Commission to consider the costs 

and benefits of its actions before 

promulgating a regulation under the 

CEA or issuing an order. Section 15(a) 

further specifies that the costs and 

benefits shall 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. To the 

extent that these proposed regulations 

reflect the statutory requirements of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, they will not create 

costs and benefits beyond those 

resulting from Congress’s statutory 

mandates in the Dodd-Frank Act. 

However, to the extent that the 

proposed regulations reflect the 

Commission’s own determinations 

regarding implementation of the DoddFrank Act’s provisions, such 

Commission determinations may result 

in other costs and benefits. It is these 

other costs and benefits resulting from 

the Commission’s own determinations 

pursuant to and in accordance with the 

Dodd-Frank Act that the Commission 

considers with respect to the Section 

15(a) factors. 

The Commission requests comment 

on the costs and benefits associated 

with the Notice. As discussed below, 

the Commission has identified certain 

costs and benefits associated with the 

Notice and requests comment on all 

aspects of its proposed consideration of 

costs and benefits, including 

identification and assessment of any 

costs and benefits not discussed herein. 

In addition, the Commission requests 

that commenters provide data and any 

other information or statistics that the 

commenters relied on to reach any 

conclusions on the Commission’s 

proposed consideration of costs and 

benefits. 

The Commission notes that the cost 

estimates provided herein for New 

Forms 102A, 102B, 102S, 71, and 40 

reflect estimates of: (i) The costs 

associated with the reporting and 

identification of special and 

consolidated accounts for positions 

reported under parts 17 and 20, 

respectively, of the Commission’s 

regulations; and (ii) the costs associated 

with the reporting and identification of 

volume threshold accounts associated 

with DCMs and SEFs. Cost estimates for 

these forms are based on extrapolations 

from current forms and reports received 

from FCMs, IBs, and foreign brokers; 

reporting entities pursuant to part 20; 

and DCMs pursuant to § 16.02. 

The Commission understands that the 

costs and benefits of the proposed 

reporting regime for trading accounts, 

volume threshold accounts, omnibus 

volume threshold accounts, and 

omnibus reportable sub-accounts 

associated with SEFs may differ, 

possibly substantially, from the 

reporting regime for such accounts 

associated with DCMs. The Commission 

therefore requests specific quantitative 

estimates on the costs and benefits of 

Form 102B and 71 filings for volume 

threshold accounts, omnibus volume 

threshold accounts, omnibus reportable 

sub-accounts, and market participants 

associated with SEFs. 

More generally, the Commission has 

requested public comment, in section 

VII above, regarding the applicability of 

volume threshold accounts, omnibus 

volume threshold accounts, and 

omnibus reportable sub-accounts to 

SEFs. The Commission has also 

requested comment on the appropriate 

design of a reportable trading volume 

level for volume threshold accounts 

associated with SEFs, and on the 

appropriate reporting entities for 

volume threshold accounts associated 

with SEFs. 

Finally, the Commission requests 

comment, including specific 

quantitative estimates, on the costs and 

benefits of associated with the 

identification of trading accounts 

associated with consolidated accounts. 

i. Background 

a. Description of the Statutory Authority 

Pursuant to the authority of sections 

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

Commission is proposing these 

revisions and updates to its large trader 

reporting rules and forms.104 These CEA 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43985 

U.S.C. 12a(5). Also, pursuant to CEA § 3(b), 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). 

105See supra section II. 

106See supra section IV. 

107New Form 102 is partitioned into: section 

102A for the identification of position-based special 

accounts; section 102B for the collection of 

ownership and control information on individual 

trading accounts exceeding a volume-based 

reporting threshold; and section 102S for the 

submission of 102S filings for swap counterparty 

consolidated accounts with reportable positions. 

108See infra the detailed discussion of costs and 

burdens in section VIII(C), which has been prepared 

for the purpose of the Commission’s responsibilities 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

provisions, described more fully 

above,105 authorize the Commission to 

require reporting and recordkeeping 

from a wide range of market 

participants, including registered 

entities, FCMs, brokers, clearing 

members, swap dealers, and traders, 

engaging in transactions subject to the 

Commission’s jurisdiction. Collectively, 

these CEA provisions warrant the 

maintenance of an effective and 

vigorous system of market and financial 

surveillance. 

b. Prior Rules; Existing Forms 102 and 

40 

The existing rules and forms, 

described more fully above,106 require 

FCMs, clearing members, and foreign 

brokers to identify special account 

traders to the Commission on a Form 

102. On special call of the Commission, 

a Form 40 is then sent to each trader 

identified on a Form 102 submission, 

requiring the trader to provide the 

Commission with detailed contact 

information and to answer other 

questions designed to inquire into the 

nature of the trader’s market activity. In 

both instances, the Form 102 and Form 

40 are generally submitted on paper, via 

email, or via facsimile (i.e., via some 

manual submission process). The 

questions and data points on both 

existing forms only relate to the 

Commission’s existing position-based 

reporting rules. 

c. The Proposed Rules 

As described in the preamble above, 

the Commission is proposing 

amendments to the existing reporting 

rules and forms as they pertain to 

reportable positions in Commission 

regulated contracts. In addition, the 

Commission is proposing to expand the 

reporting rules and forms so that they 

may also be used to identify traders and 

trading accounts exceeding a volumebased reporting threshold, regardless of 

the resulting positions (i.e., ‘‘volume 

threshold accounts’’). Finally, the 

proposed amendments would provide 

for the electronic submission of New 

Forms 102, 40, and 71. 

ii. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed 

Rules 

The Commission’s consideration of 

costs and benefits begins with certain 

general considerations applicable to all 

forms, followed by specific discussions 

of the costs and benefits of: (1) New 

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

102S filings, (4) New Form 71, (5) New 

Form 40, and (6) 40S filings. 

As a general matter, the Commission 

considers the incremental costs and 

benefits of the proposed regulations and 

forms, those costs that are above the 

baseline that is the Commission’s 

existing regulations. As described in 

detail above, the proposed rule and form 

amendments would broaden the utility 

of existing forms.107 The proposed 

amendments would also enhance the 

Commission’s surveillance and large 

trader reporting programs for futures, 

options on futures, and swaps by 

clarifying which accounts are required 

to be reported on Form 102A; 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 in connection with omnibus 

volume threshold accounts reported on 

Form 102B, together with the reporting 

of certain reportable sub-accounts 

within such omnibus volume threshold 

accounts; updating Form 40; and 

integrating the submission of 102S and 

40S filings into the general Form 102 

and Form 40 reporting program. 

The Commission proposes that the 

costs the Notice would impose on 

market participants will vary depending 

on various factors, including the size 

and/or experience of the market 

participant; the scope (whether 

measured by position or volume) of the 

market participant’s trading activity; 

and the number of distinct customer or 

proprietary special accounts, volume 

threshold accounts, and other account 

types required to be reported by each 

market participant. Given the range of 

factors relative to the potential costs of 

the proposed rules, reporting parties 

may face costs associated with one, 

more than one, or, in some instances, all 

of the revised rules and forms. For 

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, the Commission has estimated the 

number of hours the average market 

participant would spend in connection 

with the information collection required 

by the Notice.108 Based on those burden 

hour estimates, and as further explained 

in the Paperwork Reduction Act 

discussion below, the Commission 

estimates that affected participants 

would incur the following approximate 

costs in (i) completing Forms 102A and 

102S and any resulting Form 40s, (ii) 

completing Forms 102B and 71 for 

volume threshold accounts associated 

with DCMs and SEFs and any resulting 

Form 40s, and (iii) complying with the 

books and records obligations arising 

from proposed § 18.05: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.000</GPH>
43986 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

109The estimated total 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 earlier in this section. The 

estimated total cost for each of New Form 102B, 

New Form 71 and New Form 40 in this chart 

represents the estimated total cost of completing 

Forms 102B and 71 for volume threshold accounts 

associated with DCMs and SEFs and any resulting 

Form 40s. 

110See supra section III(C)(ii)–(iii). 

111The Commission acknowledges that Form 71 

is a completely new form, and so it is not 

meaningful to contrast the costs of this new Form 

71 with the ‘‘existing reporting program.’’ However, 

Form 71 would, in effect, replace a portion of the 

Commission’s manual special call process. In that 

manner, providing for the automated submission of 

Form 71 does provide a much more efficient 

information gathering process for both the 

Commission and market participants, as compared 

the current efforts required to request and receive 

analogous information. 

112See infra section VIII(C) for a detailed review 

of burden and cost estimates been prepared for the 

purpose of the Commission’s responsibilities under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

The Commission’s CEA § 15(a) 

assessment of costs and benefits 

includes consideration of these 

estimated Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection costs, as well as 

the range of factors that may increase or 

decrease these estimates. 

In anticipation of a wide range of 

technological capabilities among 

reporting entities (again, varying based 

on the relative size and experience of a 

given reporting entity), the Commission 

is proposing an implementation 

program that would permit multiple 

submission methods for each form. By 

allowing reporting entities to select the 

submission method most suited to their 

existing capabilities and business 

model, reporting entities will be able to 

mitigate their own reporting costs. 

While the Commission expects that an 

entity with a relatively larger number of 

reporting obligations (whether for the 

reportable accounts of its customers, or 

its own reportable accounts), would 

incur larger total costs in complying 

with the proposed reporting rules and 

submitting the related forms than a 

smaller firm, the Commission 

anticipates that these larger absolute 

costs will be mitigated by lower unit 

costs, and the marginal expense of 

reporting each additional reportable 

account would likely diminish once the 

entity established its data collection and 

reporting infrastructure. For highvolume reporting entities, the 

Commission is proposing an 

implementation program, to be 

conducted in conjunction with input 

from commenters, which will permit 

electronic submission of the forms to 

the Commission via a defined data 

submission standard. This transition 

from manual to automated form 

submission should reduce costs for 

high-volume reporters on a per-account 

basis. 

In addition to evaluating these 

proposed rules based on the 

Commission’s experience and expertise 

in the derivatives markets, this Notice 

took into account comment letters by 

industry participants received in 

response to the OCR NPRM.110 In one 

such letter, the FIA offered a modified 

approach to the OCR reporting scheme 

proposed in the OCR NPRM, and offered 

cost estimates and projections for both 

the proposal contained in the OCR 

NPRM and the FIA alternative. FIA 

specifically expressed concerns about 

the implementation costs of the 

Commission’s proposal in the OCR 

NPRM, stating that it would require 

firms to, among other things, renegotiate all active customer agreements 

to require customers to provide and 

routinely update the necessary data 

points, build systems to enter the data, 

manually enter the data for each active 

account, put in place resources and 

processes to maintain the data, provide 

it to the reporting entity on a weekly 

basis, and monitor changes daily in 

order to update the database. In FIA’s 

quantification of costs, gathered from 

interviews with member institutions, 

FIA provided the following estimates in 

relation to the proposal in the OCR 

NPRM: 

Our sample of 12 firms represents 

approximately 16 percent of the 

approximately 70 FCMs that execute and 

clear customer accounts. These firms handle 

in excess of $83.8 billion of customer funds, 

or approximately 62 percent of customers’ 

segregated funds (as of July 31, 2010, 

according to monthly financial reports filed 

with the Commission). We found that the 

median firm would face total costs of roughly 

$18.8 million per firm, including 

implementation costs of roughly $13.4 

million, and ongoing costs of $2.6 million 

annually. On a per account basis, the median 

cost would be $623 per account. 

In comparison, FIA estimated that its 

alternative would result in significant 

first year cost savings, with additional, 

incremental savings following initial 

implementation. Accordingly, and in 

order to realize potential cost savings 

identified by FIA, the Commission has 

incorporated elements of the FIA’s 

alternative approach into this proposal. 

For example, this proposal incorporates 

FIA suggestions regarding setting a 

threshold for determining when a 

volume threshold account is reportable 

and integrating OCR reporting into the 

existing Form 102 process. As noted in 

the FIA letter, and as substantiated by 

a sample of their members, by 

incorporating these elements into this 

proposal, the Commission anticipates 

that the relative cost impact of these 

proposed rules should be significantly 

mitigated as compared to the relative 

cost impact of the proposal in the OCR 

NPRM. 

As stated above, the Commission 

anticipates potential additional cost 

savings (as compared to both the 

existing reporting program, as well as 

the OCR NRPM) will come through the 

proposed automated submission of 

Forms 102, 40, and 71; 111 and, to the 

extent practicable, the auto-population 

of previously gathered information. As 

noted in the FIA comment letter, ‘‘The 

end result of developing the alternative 

system could ultimately save the firms 

(and the Commission) significant time 

and money by automating the current 

manual process for filing out and 

submitting Form 102 information. * * * 

Once implemented, the average cost 

savings associated with automating the 

Form 102 was estimated to be $33,300 

per firm on an annual basis.’’ That is, 

electronic submission will allow for 

increased efficiency for both reporting 

firms and for the Commission. In 

addition, the proposed requirement that 

New Form 102 submissions be updated/ 

refreshed on a regular basis (as 

proposed, on a semi-annual schedule) 

would use the previous submission as a 

template, meaning that for the majority 

of accounts there should be little or no 

change to prior reported information, 

reducing both the update burden on 

firms and the risk of potential errors in 

the reporting process. 

The Commission proposes that 

infrastructure requirements for the 

revised Forms 40 and 102 and the 

additional Form 71 could be 

significant,112 but may be reduced in 

relationship to the ability of many firms 

to leverage existing systems to meet the 

requirements proposed herein. For 

example, reporting parties for New 

Form 102, which includes new sections 

102A, 102B, and 102S, can be FCMs, 

foreign brokers, clearing members, and 

swap dealers. Many of these entities 

will already have standard data 

maintenance systems (based on either 

their own internal recordkeeping 

process or current reporting obligations 

other than those proposed herein), and 

these current systems could be 

leveraged for reporting purposes. 

However, because some entities may not 

have current systems, or only a portion 

of the necessary infrastructure, the 

Commission is proposing a phase-in 

period for compliance with these 

proposed rules. This period is designed 

to give entities a window of time for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43987 

113See infra section VIII(C), which provides 

burden and costs estimates in the context of a range 

of underlying factors. 

114See infra section VIII(C), which provides 

burden and costs estimates related to two distinct 

submission methods. 

115See ‘‘Findings Regarding the Market Events of 

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

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

systems development and to mitigate 

the cost burdens otherwise associated 

with a short-run implementation and 

compliance schedule. 

a. New Form 102A 

(1) Costs 

New Form 102A is directly analogous 

to the existing Form 102 currently in 

use, identifying owners and controllers 

of special accounts with reportable 

positions (the other sections of the New 

Form 102 extend the Form to new 

categories of reportable traders). The 

requirement to submit a 102A remains 

the same as that for the current Form 

102: a special account can be a position 

at a reporting entity that is under 

common control, common ownership, 

or some combination of common control 

and common ownership. Because 

reportable special accounts would not 

be materially different under the 

proposed forms and regulations from 

special accounts as they now exist, the 

Commission believes the incremental 

cost of reporting due to account status 

should be minimal. However, by reemphasizing that entities must 

separately identify special accounts 

under common ownership and those 

under common control, the Commission 

may observe an increase in the number 

of special accounts to be identified at 

any given reporting entity. 

Although the definition of a special 

account will not change, the level of 

requested information per account will 

increase. Proposed Form 102A requests 

(as applicable) information not currently 

collected, such as owner and controller 

NFA ID, LEI, trading account numbers 

for trading accounts comprising the 

special account, and DMA status. The 

commission expects that (as noted by 

comment letters on the OCR NPRM) the 

majority of these data points already 

reside with reporting entities. 

Depending on the availability of this 

information, costs may be higher or 

lower than the estimated average burden 

of 102A submission.113

As noted above, the Commission 

anticipates that reporting for New Form 

102, including Form 102A, will be made 

primarily through XML data 

submissions. Form 102A reporting will 

be triggered once an account becomes a 

special account (an account ‘‘event’’) 

and updates will be required on at least 

a semi-annual basis. Standards for the 

data submission will be flexible, 

developed in conjunction with market 

participants’ and potential reporting 

entities’ input, and will take into 

consideration the diversity of reporting 

entities’ systems. Should this Notice 

lead to a final rule, the Commission will 

endeavor to provide flexibility in the 

required information technology 

systems and to avoid undue burdens for 

reporting entities, including those with 

relatively large or relatively small 

numbers of special accounts.114 The 

Commission specifically requests 

comment on the expected costs related 

to upgrading or obtaining systems to 

implement and comply with the 

reporting requirement under the 102A 

aspect of the proposal in this Notice. 

(2) Benefits 

As with costs associated with Form 

102A, the reporting benefit is mainly 

coincident with the benefits of the 

current reporting regime. However, 

additions to the form have been made to 

strengthen the robustness of the 

Commission’s regulatory surveillance 

capabilities. By collecting information 

like the trading account numbers 

comprising a special account, the 

Commission will be able to compare 

intra-day account activity with position 

data held over longer periods of time. 

This will enable further market 

transparency and enhanced market 

review over both macro and micro 

scales. Micro-structure analysis, the 

economic analysis of account activity on 

a highly disaggregated level (such as via 

individual transactions), was shown to 

be uniquely helpful in event studies 

such as the Flash Crash of 2010.115

System robustness is also 

strengthened with the regular update 

schedule required for all special 

accounts. Updates provide additional 

data verification, improving the 

accuracy of account information on a 

standard, and sufficiently frequent, 

schedule. As discussed, automated 

submission should mean that regular 

updates come at relatively minimal cost 

to those reporting. 

b. New Form 102B 

(1) Costs 

As noted above, the Commission has 

attempted to mitigate the cost to the 

ultimate reporting entities that provide 

OCR data for trading accounts (as 

compared to the proposal in the OCR 

NPRM), while retaining similar 

reporting benefits. One significant 

revision relevant to Form 102B is the 

introduction of a minimum reporting 

threshold of 50 contracts in a given 

product, for any given trading day on 

any given reporting market that is a 

DCM or a SEF, as the trigger for required 

reporting (as compared to no minimum 

threshold in the OCR NPRM). The 

Commission believes that this approach 

would provide sufficient data coverage 

and benefits, but at a noticeably reduced 

cost (again, as compared the proposal in 

the OCR NPRM). In this regard, the FIA 

comment letter in response to the OCR 

NPRM noted that: 

Most FCMs found that adopting a volume 

threshold of 250 contracts per week would 

decrease significantly the costs of 

implementing the alternative, by reducing 

the amount of data required to be processed 

and the associated cost of transmitting large 

amounts of data to the exchanges and the 

Commission. The average estimated cost of 

populating the OCR database using a volume 

threshold of 250 contracts per week is 

$1,783,750. In contrast, the estimated total 

cost for initially populating the OCR file 

based on a volume threshold that includes all 

accounts (referred to in our survey as option 

1) is $2,134,375. 

Even with this revision, proposed 

Form 102B does cover a market category 

not covered under the existing reporting 

program and so should be considered as 

an additional cost on any baseline. As 

with Form 102A, since reporting entities 

will likely have existing data feed 

capabilities, a subset of reporting firms 

will likely not require significant 

infrastructure development. In 

particular, the Commission notes that 

Form 102B reporting firms are limited to 

clearing member firms, typically among 

the more technologically-sophisticated 

participants in the derivatives industry. 

As with Form 102A, low-volume 

reporters may choose to submit forms 

semi-manually through a web-based 

portal, which will reduce start-up costs 

but increase costs of individual 

submissions. Also, as discussed below, 

the incremental number of additional 

accounts due to volume reporting may 

be large. This may translate to 

significant costs for those who choose a 

manual submission method. The 

Commission specifically requests 

comment on the expected costs related 

to upgrading or obtaining systems to 

implement and comply with the 

reporting requirement under the 102B 

aspect of the proposal in this Notice. 

(2) Benefits 

The addition of volume threshold 

accounts to the reporting structure will 

provide much needed information about 

a rapidly growing market segment, that 

of high volume but low end-of-day 

position traders. Many of these 

participants enter and exit a given 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43988 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

116See infra section VIII(C). 

market position intraday, and so are not 

identified under the current positionreporting regime. The current reporting 

regime, though it captures over 90 

percent of open interest in many 

markets, is not specifically designed to 

capture high-volume traders. The 

Commission anticipates that, with the 

introduction of volume threshold 

account reporting, New Form 102B 

would help provide trader identification 

for over 90 percent of market activity in 

many significant products, mirroring the 

current levels of position identification 

in the futures market. 

In addition to increasing the set of 

reporting entities on an absolute level, 

102B reporting is likely to increase the 

types of market participants identified 

to the Commission. For example, it is 

expected that volume threshold 

accounts would identify trade 

ownership and control for market 

participants such as high-frequency 

traders (HFTs) and other algorithmic 

systems; in highly-liquid markets, 

participants of this type can make up a 

meaningful percentage of market 

activity. However, due to the current 

structure of the reporting system, many 

participants in these categories do not 

qualify as reportable special accounts. 

The 102B would expand the 

Commission’s reporting program to 

include participant groups of this 

nature, and would also expand the 

reporting program to include trading 

accounts associated with SEFs. 

c. New Form 71 

(1) Costs 

Because the concept behind Form 71 

is being introduced for the first time in 

this Notice, all costs associated with 

Form 71 reporting are incremental. The 

form identifies the ownership and 

control structure of omnibus accounts, 

from the level of originator to that of 

sub-account owners and controllers, for 

volume threshold accounts that are 

omnibus accounts. The Commission 

plans to provide a web-based portal for 

submission and, potentially, an XML 

submission standard like New Form 

102. 

Because the structure of omnibus 

accounts is currently not known by the 

Commission, it cannot accurately 

quantify how many additional reports 

will be necessary due to the 

introduction of Form 71. However, the 

Commission has attempted to mitigate 

the cost of reporting, especially for 

larger institutions that may have a 

greater number of relevant accounts. 

Many of the data fields in Form 71 will 

be auto-populated with data provided to 

the Commission on an associated Form 

102B or Form 71. This auto-population 

will be included in the web-based 

system for the benefit of the reporting 

party, and is intended to help mitigate, 

as much as possible, the submission 

burden. The Commission specifically 

requests comment on the expected costs 

related to upgrading or obtaining 

systems to implement and comply with 

the reporting requirement under the 

Form 71 aspect of the proposal in this 

Notice. 

(2) Benefits 

Form 71 provides further granularity 

regarding the ownership hierarchy of 

omnibus accounts that are volume 

threshold accounts. Broad collection of 

omnibus account information can be 

used to aggregate and analyze all trading 

by an individual or trading entity, 

whether through a single account or 

through a number of accounts held with 

one or more intermediaries. In the 

absence of Form 71 information in 

connection with omnibus volume 

threshold accounts, the Commission 

would lose meaningful ownership and 

control information (and, therefore, 

usefulness of the 102B reports), 

including the structure of and 

dependence on intermediaries within a 

given market. 

d. 102S filings 

(1) Costs 

The increased relative cost of the 

102S filings required in this proposal, as 

compared to existing 102S filing 

requirements, should be minimal. This 

proposal does not amend or change the 

subset of traders for which swap dealers 

and clearing members will be required 

to submit 102S filings. However, by 

updating existing Form 102 to include 

102S filings and by creating a new 

submission framework for New Form 

102, entities submitting 102S filings 

may encounter costs similar to those 

encountered by entities filing New Form 

102 for other purposes (whether under 

102A or 102B). The Commission 

anticipates that many 102S filing 

entities will also be submitting New 

Form 102 in connection with their 

futures trading business. In addition, the 

Commission is proposing to work with 

potential filing entities during the 

comment period in order to achieve a 

102S filing submission process that 

leverages as much as possible off of the 

existing infrastructure and practice at 

reporting entities, including the 

resources that will be used for 

analogous futures filings. The 

Commission specifically requests 

comment on the expected costs related 

to upgrading or obtaining systems to 

implement and comply with the 

reporting requirement under the 102S 

aspect of the proposal in this Notice. 

(2) Benefits 

Form 102S, like 102B, is designed to 

expand the set of reporting entities 

beyond those of the current Form 102. 

The identification of accounts via 102S 

will provide trader information for 

participants in swaps. For the purposes 

of tracking aggregated position exposure 

in a product or commodity, or market 

activity of a specific trader, swap 

reporting significantly extends the 

Commission’s market surveillance 

capabilities. The inclusion of swap 

activity aligns with the recently 

finalized rules on real-time public and 

regulatory reporting of swap trades, and 

provides further transparency in what 

are currently often opaque and/or overthe-counter markets. As further changes 

arise in the commodity swap market, 

such as the introduction of SEFs, special 

account identification will allow 

universal market monitoring of activity 

across traditional futures exchanges and 

SEFs. This can provide quantifications 

of the balance of activity in a given 

product across different execution 

platforms and changes in this balance 

over time. In addition, disruptive 

market activity transferred across 

multiple trading facilities could now be 

more easily, and more quickly, 

identified with the information 

requested in 102S filings. 

e. New Form 40 

(1) Costs 

The proposed changes to Form 40 

extend the level of information collected 

about account ownership and the 

business practices of reporting traders. 

Given the new subsections of New Form 

102 (i.e., 102A, 102B, and 102S, as well 

as Form 71), the number of traders 

required to submit a Form 40 is likely 

to increase. As with existing Form 40, 

New Form 40 will be required from a 

wide range of market participants (from 

individual traders up to large financial 

institutions). Because of this wide range 

of form respondents, New Form 40, like 

Form 71, will be offered in a web-based 

format, and will be auto-populated with 

the related account information 

provided on the associated New Form 

102 or Form 71, as applicable. Because 

of the more detailed questions in New 

Form 40, as compared to existing Form 

40, the initial reporting burden per form 

is likely to increase beyond the estimate 

for the current form.116 However, 

necessary updates may occasion a 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43989 

reduced incremental burden, given the 

introduction of an electronic submission 

format through a portal that stores prior 

form submissions. The Commission 

specifically requests comment on the 

expected costs related to implementing 

and complying with the reporting 

requirement under the New Form 40 

aspect of the proposal in this Notice. 

(2) Benefits 

Through the expansion of Form 40, 

the Commission will have more detailed 

data on reporting traders, including 

information regarding reporting trader’s 

control relationships with other entities 

and other relationships with persons 

that influence or exercise authority over 

the trading of a reporting trader. This 

data set will include an expansion of the 

list of business purposes for futures and 

swaps activity and requests for detailed 

information about the business sector 

and physical commodity market 

participation of a given trader. 

Responses to these questions can 

provide a broader view concerning 

relationships and relative interest in 

related markets by business sector, and 

overlaps in activity across different 

product groups. It can also provide the 

Commission a check, or confirmation, to 

assess whether market activity matches 

the self-reported trading goals of a 

reporting trader. 

f. 40S filings 

(1) Costs 

The increased relative cost of the 40S 

filings in this proposal, as compared to 

existing 40S filing requirements, should 

be minimal. This proposal does not 

amend or change the subset of traders 

who will be required to submit 40S 

filings, and the existing 40S filings must 

be completed using existing Form 40. 

By updating existing Form 40 questions 

and providing for web-based form 

submission, the Commission does not 

anticipate any significant increase or 

change in costs related to the 40S filing 

provisions of this Notice. The 

Commission specifically requests 

comment on the expected costs related 

to implementing and complying with 

the reporting requirement under the 40S 

filing aspect of the proposal in this 

Notice. 

(2) Benefits 

Similar to the New Form 40 benefits 

discussion above, 40S filings under this 

proposal would provide the 

Commission with a broader view (as 

compared to existing Form 40 and 40S 

filings) concerning relative interest in 

related markets by business sector, and 

overlaps in activity across different 

product groups. It can also provide the 

agency a means to check that observed 

market activity matches the selfreported trading goals of the entity. 

iii. Section 15(a) Factors 

a. Protection of Market Participants and 

the Public 

Although potentially costly, the 

Commission proposes that the data 

collection under these rules and forms 

are necessary to assist the Commission 

in protecting market participants and 

the public by, inter alia: identifying as 

many accounts as feasible that are under 

common ownership or control; 

identifying trading accounts whose 

owners or controllers are also included 

in the Commission’s large trader 

reporting program or that demonstrate 

independently significant trading 

activity; and identifying the entities or 

persons which the Commission should 

contact if additional information is 

required, including the owner and 

controller, and related contact persons, 

for reported accounts and traders. 

The Commission proposes that 

revised Form 102 will protect market 

participants and the public by 

expanding data collection in three major 

areas: (1) By providing additional 

information regarding special accounts 

reported on 102A, including the trading 

accounts that comprise a special 

account; (2) by increasing the number of 

identified futures, options, and swaps 

accounts through the new volume 

threshold trigger in 102B; and (3) by 

identifying ownership and control 

information for a new market sector, 

that of swaps. 

The proposed rule will protect market 

participants and the public by 

permitting the Commission to integrate 

transactions (and associated trading 

accounts) identified on daily trade 

capture reports with special accounts 

holding reportable positions; identifying 

traders of all sizes whose open interest 

does not reach reportable levels, but 

whose intra-day trading reaches 

significant levels and may adversely 

affect markets during concentrated 

periods of intra-day trading; reducing 

the time-consuming process of 

requesting and awaiting information 

from outside the Commission to identify 

the entity associated with a given 

trading account number on a trade 

capture report and aggregating all 

identified entities that relate to a 

common owner; linking traders’ intraday transactions with their end-of-day 

special account positions; calculating 

how different categories of traders 

contribute to market-wide open interest; 

and categorizing market participants 

based on their actual trading behavior 

on a contract-by-contract basis, 

supplementing the self-reported 

classifications on Form 40. 

The proposed forms will be submitted 

in either an XML-based data feed or via 

a web-based submission. This modifies 

the process of form submission from the 

current manual systems at both the 

Commission and reporting entities. As 

compared to manual entry, automated 

systems should decrease the possibility 

of transcription error or errors in cross 

identification and reduce labor costs, 

aiding the accuracy and efficiency of 

agency market monitoring and 

enforcement. 

Additional identifiers, such as those 

requested in New Form 102, will also 

allow for data integrity checks within 

and between the Commission’s 

databases. For example, requests for 

NFA and LEI numbers provide 

independently assigned identifiers for 

ownership hierarchy verification. Also, 

New Form 40 information will be a 

direct check on much of the ownership 

and control information provided on 

New Form 102. In sum, the proposed 

rules would greatly increase the ability 

of the Commission to carry out its 

regulatory function and its protection of 

the public in an efficient manner. By 

leveraging available technology, these 

revisions should ultimately mitigate the 

long term cost to market participants of 

providing the requested information. 

b. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and 

Financial Integrity of the Markets 

Collecting ownership and control 

information for the identified market 

participants allows the Commission to 

aggregate positions for a specific 

underlying trader across multiple 

products and markets and to identify 

aggregate activity levels. This 

identification provides additional 

market transparency for regulators and a 

clearer quantification of risk within and 

across firms, aiding the surveillance and 

monitoring functions of the 

Commission. Thus, while done at a cost, 

as described above, it aids in 

monitoring, over longer periods of time, 

risk exposure by institution, market 

class, or asset class. The proposed forms 

also allow for easy identification of the 

individual, or individuals, to be 

contacted if additional transaction 

information is needed for further 

review. As noted in a comment letter 

from the Petroleum Marketers 

Association of America (PMAA) on the 

OCR NRPM, ‘‘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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43990 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

117See http://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/ 

IOSCOPD332.pdf. 118See http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/ 

Securities-Category2/ni_20110408_23–103_proelectronic-trading.pdf. 

119 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

120 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603, 604 and 605. 

121See 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); and 76 FR 71626 at 71680 (November 18, 

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

(clearing members). See also 5 U.S.C. 601(6) 

(natural persons are not entities for purposes of the 

RFA). 

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.’’ Similarly, the 

Air Transport Association (ATA) 

included a list of market and regulatory 

benefits of the ownership and control 

report, including allowing 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, 

helping staff link 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. 

Under the proposed rules, 

strengthened ties between end-of-day 

position and trade execution account 

registers received by the Commission 

can allow for a more accurate and 

timely accounting of market position by 

account. In addition, the increased 

depth of trader information allows for 

more robust research and analytics, 

encompassing a much greater segment 

of market volume traded on exchange 

platforms. The additional information 

could also aid in anticipating and/or 

monitoring market disruptions that can 

come at high costs to the investing and 

general public. 

c. Price Discovery 

The Commission does not anticipate 

that the proposed rules will have an 

impact on price discovery in markets 

regulated by the Commission. 

d. Sound Risk Management Procedures 

The expansion of both requested 

information and reportable accounts in 

the proposed forms requires firms to 

collect more information on each 

threshold account for appropriate risk 

monitoring. While the technology and 

personnel required for this collection 

will come at some cost to both market 

participants and the Commission, as 

described above, this collection of 

information is of benefit not just for 

regulatory oversight but for effective 

internal risk management at the level of 

the firm. Identification of account 

control and related contact information 

can provide timely responses to market 

disruptive events from multiple parties. 

It can also allow for prophylactic 

classification of market categories which 

could provide unique risks to market 

systems. 

One specific area for which enhanced 

monitoring may be of benefit is that of 

direct market access (DMA). Briefly, 

DMA allows a trading entity to submit 

orders directly to an exchange matching 

engine. It is anticipated that this 

decreased distance between trade entry 

and ultimate execution on the exchange 

may carry additional transaction risk. A 

recent IOSCO report 117 notes that direct 

market access could implicitly contain 

any of the following market risks: (1) A 

user may access markets outside of the 

infrastructure and/or control of market 

intermediaries, (2) there may be an 

incentive for intermediaries/customers 

to gain execution advantages based on 

the type and geographic location of their 

connectivity arrangements, and (3) 

algorithmic trading through automated 

systems may imply issues of capacity 

and the potential need for rationing 

bandwidth. Similarly, a CSA Report 

outlined the risks associated with 

dealers/exchanges providing DMA to 

clients/customers, including risks to 

market integrity and to related 

technological systems.118 The 

Commission feels it is useful, from both 

a market monitoring and analysis 

standpoint, to identify those accounts 

which have been provided with this 

enhanced trading capability. 

Highlighting potential concerns with 

market integrity, both at the firm and at 

the exchange level, will be aided by 

knowledge of non-intermediated access. 

e. Other Public Interest Considerations 

Form 40 now contains the relevant 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) categories to aid in 

business sector identification. The form 

includes two other selection lists: (1) 

Commodity groups and individual 

commodities (a classification defined by 

the CFTC) and (2) trading purposes that 

further detail the business practices of a 

reporting firm. These identifications can 

aid in analytical studies (developing 

categories of trading activity beyond 

those currently used by the agency), in 

cross-validation of trading intent, and in 

analysis of risk exposure across business 

sectors. 

In addition, and as discussed 

throughout this document, the move to 

electronic submission of the forms 

addressed by these proposed rules will 

increase efficiencies for both market 

participants and the Commission. 

Specifically, data will be more reliable, 

will be received and reviewed faster, 

and will be capable of being updated 

faster than in the current paper based 

submission process. By embracing 

available technology to carry out its 

surveillance and market monitoring 

functions in this manner, market 

participants and the public will benefit 

from a more efficient and effective 

Commission. 

The Commission specifically requests 

comment on its cost and benefit 

considerations of the proposed rules, as 

discussed above, and the proposed 

rule’s impact (or the relative impact of 

any alternative rules) on: (1) The 

protection of market participants and 

the public; (2) the efficiency, 

competitiveness, and financial integrity 

of the futures markets; (3) the market’s 

price discovery functions; (4) sound risk 

management practices; and (5) other 

public interest considerations. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

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.119 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).120

The rules proposed in this Notice 

would 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 

proposes rules or upon special call by 

the Commission. The Commission has 

previously determined that FCMs, 

clearing members, foreign brokers, swap 

dealers, and natural persons are not 

small entities for purposes of the 

RFA.121 Accordingly, the rules proposed 

in this Notice with respect to Forms 102 

and 71 would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

The proposed rules would also 

require certain reporting traders to 

complete and submit New Form 40 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43991 

122Small 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). 

123 17 CFR 18.05. 

124 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

125 7 U.S.C. 12(a)(1). 

126 17 CFR 17.01, 18.04 and 18.05. 

127 17 CFR 20.5. 

upon special call by the Commission. 

Some of these reporting traders may be 

‘‘small entities’’ under the RFA. In 2010, 

the Commission required approximately 

3,320 reporting traders to complete a 

Form 40, from a total population of 

approximately 10,000 reporting traders. 

Of these 3,320 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 this Notice 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.’’ 122

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 rules proposed in this Notice with 

respect to New Form 40 would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

New Form 40 would not be required on 

a routine and ongoing basis, but rather 

would 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 2010 the 

Commission made Form 40 requests to 

only 25% 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 would 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 would 

require reporting traders to provide only 

limited information to the Commission. 

The Commission estimates that a 

reporting trader would require only 3 

hours to complete a New Form 40. 

The rules proposed in this Notice 

regarding revised § 18.05 would 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 subaccount. 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 would 

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 

§ 18.05,123 and would 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 volume-based recordkeeping 

requirements of revised § 18.05, the 

Commission believes that this will not 

impose a significant economic burden, 

because this requirement would: (a) 

Ensure that (i) owners of volume 

threshold accounts and reportable subaccounts 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 market 

surveillance and investigatory functions 

to better deter price manipulation and 

other disruptions of market integrity. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

above, the Chairman, on behalf of the 

Commission, hereby certifies pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the rules 

proposed in this Notice would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Commission invites public 

comment on this determination. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

i. Overview 

The Paperwork Reduction Act 

(‘‘PRA’’) 124 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 proposed rulemaking 

would result in new collection of 

information requirements within the 

meaning of the PRA. The Commission is 

therefore submitting 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–NEW). If adopted, 

responses to this collection of 

information would be mandatory. The 

Commission would protect proprietary 

information in accordance with the 

Freedom of Information Act and 17 CFR 

part 145, ‘‘Commission Records and 

Information.’’ In addition, § 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.’’ 125 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 proposed rulemaking would 

create new information collection 

requirements via proposed §§ 17.01, 

18.04, 18.05, and 20.5. Currently, OMB 

control number 3038–0009 covers, 

among other things, the collection 

requirements arising from existing 

§§ 17.01, 18.04, and 18.05.126 Also, 

OMB control number 3038–0095 covers, 

among other things, the collection 

requirements arising from existing 

§ 20.5.127 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 proposed §§ 17.01, 18.04, 18.05, 

and 20.5 would be covered by 3038– 

NEW. Once the collections covered by 

control number 3038–NEW become 

operational, OMB control number 3038– 

0009 would no longer cover collection 

requirements arising from §§ 17.01, 

18.04, and 18.05. In addition, OMB 

control number 3038–0095 would no 

longer cover collection requirements 

arising from § 20.5. The remaining 

collection requirements covered by 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43992 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

128 17 CFR 15.00(r). 129See supra sections III(A) and IV(A) for a 

description of existing Form 102 and a comparison 

to New Form 102A. 130See supra section IV(B) for a description of 

New Form 102B. 131See supra section IV(D) for a description of 

New Form 71. 

132See supra sections III(A) and IV(E) for a 

description of existing Form 40 and a comparison 

to New Form 40. 

133 ‘‘Reporting entity,’’ ‘‘counterparty,’’ and 

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

of the Commission’s regulations. See supra sections 

III(B) and IV(C) for a description of 102S. 

134 17 CFR 20.5(b) and 20.6. See supra sections 

III(B) and IV(E) for a description of 40S. 

135 17 CFR 18.05. 

136The estimated total 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(A), above. The 

estimated total cost for each of New Form 102B, 

New Form 71 and New Form 40 in this chart 

represents the estimated total cost of completing 

Forms 102B and 71 for volume threshold accounts 

associated with DCMs and SEFs and any resulting 

Form 40s. 

3038–0009 and 3038–0095 would not be 

affected. 

ii. Information To Be Provided 

Proposed § 17.01 would result in the 

collection of information regarding the 

following types of accounts: (a) Special 

accounts (as defined in existing 

§ 15.00(r)); 128 and (b) volume threshold 

accounts, omnibus volume threshold 

accounts, and omnibus reportable subaccounts (each as defined in proposed 

§ 15.00). Specifically, proposed § 17.01 

would provide for the filing of New 

Form 102A, New Form 102B and New 

Form 71, as follows: 

1. Pursuant to proposed § 17.01(a), 

FCMs, clearing members, and foreign 

brokers would identify new special 

accounts to the Commission on New 

Form 102A; 129

2. Pursuant to proposed § 17.01(b), 

clearing members would identify 

volume threshold accounts to the 

Commission on New Form 102B; 130 and 

3. Pursuant to proposed § 17.01(c), 

omnibus volume threshold account 

originators and omnibus reportable subaccount originators would identify 

reportable sub-accounts to the 

Commission on New Form 71 when 

requested via a special call by the 

Commission or its designee.131

Additional reporting requirements 

would arise from proposed § 18.04, 

which would 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 subaccount controllers; and persons who 

own reportable sub-accounts. 

Specifically, proposed § 18.04 would 

provide for the filing of New Form 40, 

as follows: 

1. Pursuant to proposed § 18.04(a), a 

trader who owns, holds, or controls a 

reportable position would file New 

Form 40, when requested via a special 

call by the Commission or its designee; 

and 

2. Pursuant to proposed § 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 sub-account would file New 

Form 40 when requested via a special 

call by the Commission or its 

designee.132

Reporting requirements would also 

arise from proposed § 20.5(a), which 

would require all reporting entities to 

submit 102S filings for swap 

counterparty or customer consolidated 

accounts with reportable positions.133 In 

addition, existing § 20.5(b) requires 

every person subject to books or records 

under existing § 20.6 to complete a 40S 

filing after a special call upon such 

person by the Commission.134 However, 

existing § 20.5(b) also provides that a 

40S filing shall consist of the 

submission of Form 40. As discussed 

above, the proposed rules provide for 

the creation of New Form 40, which 

would expand and replace existing 

Form 40. Accordingly, the proposed 

rules would require additional 

information from 40S filers. 

In addition to the reporting 

requirements summarized above, 

proposed § 18.05 would impose 

recordkeeping requirements for: (1) 

Traders who own, hold, or control a 

reportable futures or option position; (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 reportable positions in futures 

contracts, to owners and controllers of 

accounts with reportable trading 

volume.135

iii. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Burdens 

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 proposed § 18.05: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43993 

137 17 CFR 18.04(a). 

138 17 CFR 18.04(b). 

139All 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 entity) by 

5 years, which results in an estimated annualized 

initial development burden of 52.8 hours per 

reporting entity. 52.8 hours plus 53 hours 

(annualized ongoing operation and maintenance 

costs per reporting entity) equals 106 hours per 

reporting entity. 

140The 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 $78.61 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 2010, 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’’ (30% weight); ‘‘compliance advisor 

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

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

141The $2,083,165 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 106 hours by 250 reporting entities 

(equals 26,500 hours) by $78.61 (equals $2,083,165). 

142All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

143The Commission believes that about 25% of 

special accounts reported on Form 102 have the 

same owner and controller. In such case, the 

reporting entity need only submit one New Form 

102. Accordingly, the annual number of New Form 

102A records would increase, as compared to 

current annual Form 102 submissions, only to the 

extent that the owner and the controller of a special 

account are different. 

144The $7,112,240 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 11 hours by 8,225 records (equals 

90,475 hours) by $78.61 (equals $7,112,240). 

Total reporting and recordkeeping 

costs for the proposed 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)); 137 (5) New Form 

40 (pursuant to 18.04(b)); 138 (6) the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of proposed § 18.05; (7) 

102S filings; and (8) 40S filings. 

However, 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 for 

the proposed rules are likely to be 

substantially lower than estimated. For 

example, many reporting firms filing 

New Form 102A would also file New 

Form 102B, and would be able to 

leverage systems and information 

necessary for filing one form to meet the 

requirements of the other. Accordingly, 

total reporting and recordkeeping costs 

are likely to be lower than the sum of 

the costs associated with each form 

individually, as the Commission has 

calculated herein. 

All burden estimates assume that 

information required by each form is 

generally available within the reporting 

entity; 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 

entity. 

a. Reporting Burdens 

Proposed § 17.01(a)—New Form 

102A: The Commission estimated the 

reporting burden associated with this 

proposed regulation by considering the 

two distinct filing methods that it will 

accommodate should a final rule be 

adopted. With two methods of 

submission, reporting entities (i.e., 

FCMs, clearing members, and foreign 

brokers) would 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. 

In general, the Commission believes that 

Method 1 would be more cost effective 

for reporting entities with a large 

number of filings, while Method 2 

would be more cost effective for 

reporting entities with a small number 

of filings. 

Method 1: This method assumes that 

each reporting entity would use an 

automated program to submit its New 

Form 102As via secure FTP. Each 

Method 1 submission would likely 

contain numerous 102A records. The 

Commission estimates that the total 

initial development burden would 

average 264 hours per reporting entity. 

The Commission also estimates that the 

highly automated nature of this option 

would 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 would not 

increase a reporting entity’s burden 

when using Method 1. The Commission 

further estimates that ongoing operation 

and maintenance costs would average 

53 hours per year no matter how many 

records are contained in a submission. 

The total Method 1 annualized 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance cost burden 

(total yearly costs) would equal 

approximately 106 hours per reporting 

entity.139

A recent assessment of Commission 

data collection efforts demonstrated that 

the Commission receives Form 102 

submissions from approximately 250 

reporting entities annually. The 

Commission anticipates that it would 

receive New Form 102A submissions 

from a similar number of reporting 

entities. Assuming all New Form 102A 

reporting entities utilize Method 1, the 

Commission estimates that the total 

annual industry burden for New Form 

102A would equal 26,500 hours. Using 

an estimated wage rate of $78.61 per 

hour,140 annual costs for 102A filings 

made pursuant to Method 1 are 

estimated at $2,083,165.141

Method 2: This method assumes that 

each reporting entity would complete 

and submit each New Form 102A online 

via a secure portal provided by the 

Commission. The Commission estimates 

that the total initial development 

burden would average 20 hours per New 

Form 102A record. The Commission 

also estimates that annual ongoing costs, 

which include change and refresh 

filings, would average 7 hours per year 

for each New Form 102A record. The 

estimated Method 2 total annualized 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance cost burden 

(total yearly cost) equals approximately 

11 hours per New Form 102A record.142

A recent assessment of Commission 

data collection efforts demonstrated that 

the Commission receives approximately 

4,700 Form 102 records annually. 

However, by reiterating that 

Commission regulations require 

reporting firms to separately aggregate 

positions by common ownership and by 

common control for the purpose of 

identifying and reporting special 

accounts, the Commission may observe 

an increase in the number of 102A 

filings. The Commission anticipates that 

the number of annual New Form 102A 

records may increase by 75% to 

8,225.143 Assuming each of the 8,225 

New Form 102A records are provided 

via Method 2, the Commission estimates 

that the total annual industry burden for 

New Form 102A would equal 90,475 

hours. Using an estimated wage rate of 

$78.61 per hour, annual costs for 102A 

filings made pursuant to Method 2 are 

estimated at $7,112,240.144

The Commission understands that 

providing filing options to the industry 

should lower costs relative to failing to 

provide such options. 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43994 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

145All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

146The 10,600 hour figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 106 hours (annualized development 

burden and ongoing operation and maintenance 

cost burden per reporting entity) by 100 reporting 

entities. 

147The 7,950 hour figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 106 hours (annualized development 

burden and ongoing operation and maintenance 

cost burden per reporting entity) by 75 reporting 

entities. 

148The $833,266 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 10,600 by $78.61, while the $624,950 

figure is arrived at by multiplying 7,950 by $78.61. 

149 Id. 

150The $108,953,460 figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 11 hours by 126,000 records (equals 

1,386,000 records) by $78.61 (equals $108,953,460). 

151The $53,624,991figure is arrived at by 

multiplying 11 hours by 62,015 records (equals 

682,165 records) by $78.61 (equals $53,624,991). 

methods discussed above, the 

Commission anticipates 102A filing 

costs to be no more than approximately 

$2,083,165 (Method 1), 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 entity. Reporting 

entities, given their own individualized 

needs, are assumed to make the most 

cost-effective choice for them, which 

may be any one of the two methods. 

Proposed § 17.01(b)—New Form 

102B: The Commission estimated the 

reporting burden associated with this 

proposed regulation by considering the 

two distinct filing methods that it will 

accommodate should a final rule be 

adopted. With two methods of 

submission, reporting entities (i.e., 

clearing members) 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. In general, the 

Commission believes that Method 1 

would be more cost effective for 

reporting entities with a large number of 

filings, while Method 2 would be more 

cost effective for reporting entities with 

a small number of filings. 

Method 1: This method assumes that 

each reporting entity would use an 

automated program to submit its 102B 

filings via secure FTP. Each Method 1 

submission would likely contain 

numerous 102B records. The 

Commission estimates that the total 

initial development burden should 

average 264 hours per reporting entity. 

The Commission also estimates that the 

highly automated nature of this option 

would 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 entity’s burden 

when using Method 1. The Commission 

further estimates that ongoing operation 

and maintenance costs would average 

53 hours per year no matter how many 

records are contained in a submission. 

The total Method 1 annualized 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance cost burden 

(total yearly costs) equals approximately 

106 hours per reporting entity.145

Because New Form 102B provides a 

new volume-based reporting structure 

not found in existing Form 102, the 

Commission is unable to refer to 

historical reporting statistics. Instead, 

the Commission estimated the number 

of New Form 102B reporting entities 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 would 

receive New Form 102B submissions 

from approximately 100 reporting 

entities annually. For volume threshold 

accounts associated with SEFs, the 

Commission anticipates that it would 

receive New Form 102B submissions 

from approximately 75 reporting entities 

annually. Assuming that all Form 102B 

reporting entities for volume threshold 

accounts associated with DCMs 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.146 Assuming that all Form 102B 

reporting entities for volume threshold 

accounts associated with SEFs 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.147

Using an estimated wage rate of $78.61 

per hour, annual costs for DCM-related 

102B filings made pursuant to Method 

1 are estimated at $833,266, while 

annual costs for SEF-related 102B filings 

made pursuant to Method 1 are 

estimated at $624,950.148 Collectively, 

annual costs for 102B filings made 

pursuant to Method 1 are estimated at 

$1,458,216. 

Method 2: This method assumes that 

each reporting entity would complete 

and submit each New Form 102B online 

via a secure portal provided by the 

Commission. The Commission estimates 

that the total initial development 

burden would average 20 hours per New 

Form 102B record. The Commission 

also estimates that annual ongoing costs, 

which include both change and refresh 

updates, would average 7 hours per year 

for each New Form 102B record. The 

estimated Method 2 total annualized 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance cost burden 

(total yearly cost) equals approximately 

11 hours per New Form 102B record.149

Because New Form 102B provides a 

new volume-based reporting structure 

not found in existing 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 

distinct volume threshold accounts 

across a sample of several contract 

markets, and then extrapolated the total 

number of volume threshold accounts 

across all markets. For volume threshold 

accounts associated with DCMs, the 

Commission anticipates that it would 

receive approximately 126,000 New 

Form 102B records annually. For 

volume threshold accounts associated 

with SEFs, the Commission anticipates 

that it would receive approximately 

62,015 New Form 102B records 

annually. Assuming each New Form 

102B record for a volume threshold 

account associated with a DCM 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. Assuming each 

New Form 102B record for a volume 

threshold account associated with a SEF 

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 $78.61 per hour, 

annual costs for DCM-related 102B 

filings made pursuant to Method 2 are 

estimated at $ 108,953,460,150 while 

annual costs for SEF-related 102B filings 

made pursuant to Method 2 are 

estimated at $53,624,991.151

Collectively, annual costs for 102B 

filings made pursuant to Method 2 are 

estimated at $162,578,451. 

The Commission understands that 

providing filing options to the industry 

should lower costs relative to failing to 

provide such options. Because of this, 

estimated total costs to the industry for 

102B 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 DCM and SEFrelated 102B filing costs to be no more 

than approximately $1,458,216 (Method 

1), the lower of the two estimated filing 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43995 

152The 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 unfeasible. 

153The Commission’s estimate of 3 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. 

154As discussed in the introduction to this 

section, 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 § 18.04(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 entity, 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. 

methods. In developing this estimate, 

the Commission does not make any 

assumptions about the behavior of an 

individual reporting entity. Reporting 

entities, given their own individualized 

needs, are assumed to make the most 

cost-effective choice for them, which 

may be any one of the two methods. 

Proposed § 17.01(c)—New Form 71: 

New Form 71 reporting entities (i.e., 

originators of omnibus volume 

threshold accounts or omnibus 

reportable sub-accounts) would, upon 

special call by the Commission or its 

designee, complete and submit New 

Form 71 online via a secure portal 

provided by the Commission. The 

Commission estimates that, on average, 

New Form 71 would create an annual 

reporting burden of 8 hours per filing. 

The Commission notes that New Form 

71 filings do not require change or 

refresh updates. Accordingly, the 

burdens and costs associated with such 

updates in the case of other forms 

proposed herein are not relevant to the 

calculation of burdens and costs for 

New Form 71 filings. The Commission 

also notes that it is likely to request the 

resubmission of New Form 71 filings 

annually. 

The number of New Form 71 filings 

per year would 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 existing Form 

102 omnibus special accounts and 

estimated that New Form 102B would 

capture a similar number of DCMrelated omnibus volume threshold 

accounts.152 Further, the Commission 

estimated that it would require a New 

Form 71 for every such omnibus volume 

threshold account. Commission records 

indicate 526 omnibus special accounts 

in 2010, and the Commission 

anticipates an equal number of DCMrelated omnibus volume threshold 

accounts. 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 directly estimate the number 

New Form 71 filings it might require. To 

estimate the number of SEF-related 

omnibus volume threshold accounts, 

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 184 SEF-related 

omnibus volume threshold accounts. 

Based on an estimated 526 DCM-related 

New Form 71 filings per year, the 

Commission estimates an aggregate 

reporting burden of 4,208 hours 

annually for such filings. Based on an 

estimated 184 SEF-related New Form 71 

filings per year, the Commission 

estimates an aggregate reporting burden 

of 1,472 hours annually for such filings. 

Using an estimated wage rate of $78.61 

per hour, annual costs for DCM-related 

New Form 71 filings are estimated at 

$330,791, while annual costs for SEFrelated New Form 71 filings are 

estimated at $115,714. Collectively, 

annual costs for New Form 71 filings are 

estimated at $446,505. 

Proposed § 18.04(a)—New Form 40: 

New Form 40 reporting entities arising 

from New Form 102A filings (i.e., 

special account owners and controllers) 

would, upon special call by the 

Commission, complete and submit New 

Form 40 online via a secure portal 

provided by the Commission. The 

Commission’s special call would 

typically be in the form of an email 

request that would contain a URL for 

the portal, and a unique login and 

password for access to the portal. 

The number of New Form 40 filings 

arising from New Form 102A filings 

would vary according to the number of 

special calls made by the Commission. 

An analysis of the Commission’s 

existing Form 40 practices demonstrates 

that the Commission makes 

approximately 3,000 special calls 

annually. However, as explained above, 

the Commission is reiterating that 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. The 

Commission anticipates that the number 

of special calls made annually as a 

result of New Form 102A filings may 

increase by 75 percent. The Commission 

estimates that New Form 40 would 

result in annual filings from 5,250 

reporting entities. 

The Commission estimates that each 

filing estimated above would require 3 

hours to complete,153 resulting in an 

estimated total annual reporting burden 

of 15,750 hours. Using an estimated 

wage rate of $78.61 per hour, annual 

costs for New Form 40 filings arising 

from New Form 102A filings are 

estimated at $1,238,108.154 Because the 

proposed rules anticipate a web-based 

portal and user profile system, those 

entities required to complete a New 

Form 40 would also be under a 

continuing obligation, per direction in 

the special call, to update and maintain 

the accuracy of their profile information 

by periodically visiting the online New 

Form 40 portal to review, verify, and/or 

update their information. However, the 

Commission believes that the time 

required to update information 

contained in New Form 40 using the 

online portal would be de minimis. 

Proposed § 18.04(b)—New Form 40: 

New Form 40 reporting entities arising 

from New Form 102B and New Form 71 

filings (i.e., volume threshold account 

controllers, persons who own volume 

threshold accounts, reportable subaccount controllers, and persons who 

own reportable sub-accounts) would, 

upon special call by the Commission, 

file New Form 40 online via a secure 

portal provided by the Commission. The 

Commission’s special call would 

typically be in the form of an email 

request that would contain a URL for 

the portal, and a unique login and 

password for access to the portal. 

The number of New Form 40 filings 

arising from volume threshold accounts 

and reportable sub-accounts would vary 

according to the number of special calls 

made by the Commission. An analysis 

of the Commission’s existing Form 40 

practices demonstrates that the 

Commission makes approximately 3,000 

special calls annually; however, such 

calls were made to special account 

owners and controllers identified via 

existing DCM-related Form 102. The 

Commission estimates there could be a 

much greater number of New Form 

102B and New Form 71 filings. As a 

result, the Commission estimates that 

the number of potential New Form 40 

reporting entities (arising from New 

Form 102B and New Form 71 filings) 

would increase as well. The 

Commission anticipates that it would 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43996 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

155As 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 entities are likely 

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

volume threshold accounts, but only one New Form 

40 would be required. 

156The Commission’s estimate of 3 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. 

157 17 CFR 18.05. 

158The Commission estimates that each response 

takes approximately 5 hours. Existing § 18.05 

therefore results in an annual reporting burden of 

approximately 2,700 hours. Using an estimated 

wage rate of $78.61 per hour, annual reporting costs 

in connection with existing § 18.05 are 

approximately $212,247. 

159Proposed § 18.05 would result in an additional 

annual reporting burden of approximately 30 hours. 

Using an estimated wage rate of $78.61 per hour, 

proposed § 18.05 would result in additional annual 

reporting costs of approximately $2,358. 

160 17 CFR 20.5(a)(3). 

161All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

162 17 CFR 20.5. 

163The Commission notes that this estimate for 

the number of 102S reporting entities is lower than 

the estimate provided in the Commission’s final 

rules for part 20. The lower estimate is based on the 

Commission’s experience with position reports 

pursuant to part 20 since the rules were made final. 

164All annualized development burden estimates 

are based on 5 year, straight line depreciation. 

receive approximately 12,000 DCMrelated New Form 40 filings annually 

arising from New Form 102B and 

approximately 1,550 SEF-related New 

Form 40 filings annually arising from 

New Form 102B, including filings 

arising from control of volume threshold 

accounts and filings arising from 

ownership of such accounts.155 Each 

filing is estimated to require 3 hours,156

resulting in an estimated total annual 

reporting burden of 36,000 hours for 

DCM-related New Form 40 filings and 

4,650 hours for SEF-related New Form 

40 filings. The Commission estimates 

that the time required to update 

information contained in New Form 40 

would be de minimis. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $78.61 per hour, 

annual costs for DCM-related New Form 

40 filings arising from volume threshold 

accounts and reportable sub-accounts 

are estimated at $2,829,960, while 

annual costs for SEF-related New Form 

40 filings arising from volume threshold 

accounts and reportable sub-accounts 

are estimated at $365,537. Collectively, 

annual costs for New Form 40 filings are 

estimated at $3,195,497. 

Proposed § 18.05: Existing § 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.157 In 

addition, existing § 18.05 requires that 

the trader furnish the Commission with 

information concerning such positions 

upon request. The Commission 

proposes to expand § 18.05 to also 

impose books and records requirements 

upon volume threshold account 

controllers and owners of volume 

threshold accounts, and upon reportable 

sub-account controllers and persons 

who own reportable sub-accounts. 

Proposed § 18.05 would likely result in 

an increased reporting burden, as 

compared to existing § 18.05. An 

analysis of the Commission’s special 

call practices demonstrates that, in 

connection with existing § 18.05, the 

Commission typically makes 12 special 

calls a month to approximately 45 

traders, resulting in a total of 540 

special calls.158 The Commission 

estimates that proposed § 18.05 would 

result in an additional six special calls 

to six different traders.159 In total, the 

Commission anticipates that it would 

make 546 special calls a year to 51 

respondents under § 18.05 and that each 

response would take approximately 5 

hours for a total aggregate annual 

reporting burden of 2,730 hours. Using 

an estimated wage rate of $78.61 per 

hour, annual reporting costs are 

estimated at $214,605. 

Proposed § 20.5(a)—102S Filing: The 

Commission estimated the reporting 

burden associated with proposed 

§ 20.5(a) by considering the two distinct 

filing methods that it will accommodate 

should a final rule be adopted. With two 

methods of submission, reporting 

entities (i.e., clearing members and 

swap dealers) 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. 

Method 1: This method assumes that 

each reporting entity would use an 

automated program to submit its 102Ss 

via secure FTP. Each Method 1 

submission would likely contain 

numerous 102S records. The 

Commission estimates that the total 

initial development burden would 

average 264 hours per reporting entity. 

The Commission also estimates that the 

highly automated nature of this option 

would 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 existing 

§ 20.5(a)(3),160 or any new submission 

procedures arising from the Swaps 

Large Trader Guidebook (i.e., frequency 

of 102S filing submission), would not 

increase a reporting entity’s burden 

when using Method 1. The Commission 

further estimates that ongoing operation 

and maintenance costs would average 

53 hours per year no matter how many 

records are contained in a submission. 

The total Method 1 annualized 

development burden and the ongoing 

operation and maintenance cost burden 

(total yearly costs) would equal 

approximately 106 hours per reporting 

entity.161

The 102S filing requirements in 

existing § 20.5 162 are nearly identical to 

the filing requirements proposed herein 

for 102S; accordingly, the Commission 

used its experience to date with 102S 

filings to estimate the number of 102S 

reporting entities. The Commission 

anticipates that it would receive 102S 

filings from approximately 75 163

reporting entities annually. Assuming 

102S reporting entities utilize Method 1, 

the Commission estimates that the total 

annual industry burden for 102S filing 

would equal 7,950 hours. Using an 

estimated wage rate of $78.61 per hour, 

annual costs for 102S filings are 

estimated at $624,950. 

Method 2: This method assumes that 

each reporting entity would complete 

and submit each New Form 102S online 

via a secure portal provided by the 

Commission. The Commission estimates 

that the total initial development 

burden would average 17 hours per 

102S record. The Commission also 

estimates that annual ongoing costs, 

including change and refresh updates, 

would average 7 hours per year for each 

102S record. The sum of the Method 2 

annualized development burden and the 

ongoing operation and maintenance cost 

burden (total yearly cost) equals 

approximately 10 hours per 102S 

record.164

Based on a recent assessment of 

expected 102S filings, the Commission 

anticipates that it would receive 

approximately 500 102S records 

annually. Assuming each of the 

estimated 500 102S records are 

provided via Method 2, the Commission 

estimates that the total annual industry 

burden for 102S filings would equal 

5,000 hours. Using an estimated wage 

rate of $78.61 per hour, annual costs for 

102S filings made pursuant to Method 

2 are estimated at $393,050. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43997 

165The proposed rulemaking does not include 

provisions to 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 proposed 

rulemaking does 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. 

166 17 CFR 20.6. 

167 17 CFR 20.5(b). 

168The Commission’s estimate of 3 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. 

169 17 CFR 18.05. 

methods discussed above, the 

Commission anticipates 102S filing 

costs to be no more than $393,050 

(Method 2), 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 entity. Reporting 

entities, given their own individualized 

needs, are assumed to make the most 

cost-effective choice for them, which 

may be either of the two methods. 

40S Filings: 165 Persons that are 

subject to books and records 

requirements under existing § 20.6 166

and receive a special call from the 

Commission, would file New Form 40 

via an online portal. The Commission’s 

special call would likely be in the form 

of an email request that would contain 

a URL for the portal, and a unique login 

and password for access to the portal. 

Existing § 20.5(b),167 which requires the 

40S filing, would not be altered by this 

proposed rulemaking; as a result, the 

Commission estimates that a similar 

number of persons would be required to 

submit a 40S filing. Accordingly, the 

Commission anticipates that it would 

receive 40S submissions from 

approximately 500 filers annually. Each 

response is estimated to require 3 

hours,168 resulting in an estimated total 

annual reporting burden of 1,500 hours. 

Time required to update information 

contained in 40S filings would be de 

minimis on average. Using an estimated 

wage rate of $78.61 per hour, annual 

costs are estimated at $117,915. 

b. Recordkeeping burdens: 

As discussed above, the Commission 

proposes to expand § 18.05 169 to also 

impose books and records requirements 

upon volume threshold account 

controllers and owners of volume 

threshold accounts reported on New 

Form 102B, and on reportable subaccount controllers and persons who 

own a reportable sub-account reported 

on New Form 71 (in addition to traders 

who hold or control reportable 

positions). As a result, proposed § 18.05 

would likely impose a recordkeeping 

burden on a larger number of persons 

than existing § 18.05. However, any 

additional persons subject to proposed 

§ 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 proposed 

regulation. Accordingly, the 

Commission believes that proposed 

§ 18.05 would not meaningfully increase 

recordkeeping burdens on persons 

brought under its scope. 

iv. Comments on Information Collection 

The Commission invites the public 

and other federal agencies to comment 

on any aspect of the reporting and 

recordkeeping burdens discussed above. 

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the 

Commission solicits comments in order 

to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Commission, including 

whether the information would have 

practical utility; (ii) evaluate the 

accuracy of the Commission’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information; (iii) determine whether 

there are ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (iv) mitigate the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are required to respond, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

Comments may be submitted directly 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, by fax at (202) 395– 

6566 or by email at 

OIRAsubmissions@omb.eop.gov. Please 

provide the Commission with a copy of 

submitted comments so that all 

comments can be summarized and 

addressed in the final regulation 

preamble. Refer to the ADDRESSES

section of this Notice for comment 

submission instructions to the 

Commission. A copy of the supporting 

statements for the collections of 

information discussed above may be 

obtained by visiting RegInfo.gov. OMB 

is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this Notice. 

Consequently, a comment to OMB is 

most assured of being fully effective if 

received by OMB (and the Commission) 

within 30 days after publication of this 

Notice. 

Proposed Rules 

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. 

17 CFR Part 20 

Physical commodity swaps, Swap 

dealers, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing and 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

the Act, as indicated herein, the 

Commission hereby proposes to amend 

chapter I of title 17 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations 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. In § 15.00, revise paragraph (q) and 

add paragraphs (t) through (ee) 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 § 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 of 

this part. 

(v) Direct Market Access (‘‘DMA’’) 

means 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. DMA 

can be provided directly by a DCM or 

SEF, or by a 3rd-party platform. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
43998 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(w) 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. 

(x) 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. 

(y) Volume threshold account means 

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 § 5 of the Act or a swap 

execution facility registered under § 5h 

of the Act. 

(z) Omnibus volume threshold 

account means 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 § 5 of the Act or a swap 

execution facility registered under § 5h 

of the Act. 

(aa) 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. 

(bb) 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. 

(cc) 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. 

(dd) 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. 

(ee) 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. Revise § 15.01 (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. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control numbers 3038–0007, 

3038–0009, and 3038–[NEW]) 

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: 

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. Revise § 17.00(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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43999 

filled with the account number rightjustified. Assignment of the account 

number is subject to the provisions of 

§ 17.00(b) and 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), (b), (c), 

and (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. In § 17.02, revise the introductory 

text and paragraph (b) and add 

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), (b), and 

(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 is a special account, the 

futures commission merchant, clearing 

member, or foreign broker, as 

appropriate, shall submit a completed 

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 no later than 

the corresponding § 17.00(a) report filed 

pursuant to instructions in § 17.02(a), or 

on such other date as directed by special 

call of the Commission or its designee, 

and as periodically required thereafter 

by § 17.02(b)(3) and (4). 

(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 no later than 9 

a.m. eastern time on the business day 

after such change occurs, 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 that the 

account in question is no longer 

reportable as a special account. 

(4) Refresh updates. For Special 

Accounts—Starting on a date specified 

by the Commission or its designee and 

at the end of each six month increment 

thereafter (or such later date specified 

by the Commission or its designee), 

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 that the 

account in question is no longer 

reportable as a special account. 

(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 is a volume threshold 

account, the clearing member shall 

submit a completed Form 102 to the 

Commission, in accordance with the 

instructions thereto, and in the manner 

specified by the Commission or its 

designee, no later than 9 a.m. eastern 

time on the business day following the 

day in which the account in question 

becomes a volume threshold account, or 

on such other date as directed by special 

call of the Commission or its designee, 

and as periodically required thereafter 

by § 17.02(c)(3) and (4). 

(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 no later than 9 a.m. eastern 

time on the business day after such 

clearing member is aware of such 

change, 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 

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 six 

month increment thereafter (or such 

later date specified by the Commission 

or its designee), 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 

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 section 17.03 to read as 

follows: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44000 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

§ 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. 

PART 18—REPORTS BY TRADERS 

11. 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). 

12. 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. 

13. In § 18.05 revise paragraph (a) 

introductory text 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 transaction 

in the commodity: 

* * * * * 

(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, its products and 

byproducts, and all commercial 

activities that it hedges in the futures or 

option 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. 

PART 20—LARGE TRADER 

REPORTING FOR PHYSICAL 

COMMODITY SWAPS 

14. 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). 

15. In § 20.5, revise paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (2) and add paragraphs (a)(4) and 

(5) 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, as set forth in Appendix A to part 

17, in accordance with the form 

instructions and as specified in this 

section, including § 20.5. 

(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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44001 

Commission no later than 9 a.m. eastern 

time 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 

that the account in question is no longer 

reportable as a consolidated account. 

(5) Refresh updates. For Consolidated 

Accounts—Starting on a date specified 

by the Commission or its designee and 

at the end of each six month increment 

thereafter (or such later date specified 

by the Commission or its designee), 

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 that the account in 

question is no longer reportable as a 

consolidated account. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 27, 

2012 by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Note: The following Annex will not appear 

in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

BILLING CODE P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44002 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44003 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.004</GPH>
44004 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44005 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.006</GPH>
44006 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44007 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.008</GPH>
44008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44009 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.010</GPH>
44010 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44011 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.012</GPH>
44012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44013 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.014</GPH>
44014 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44015 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.016</GPH>
44016 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44017 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.018</GPH>
44018 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44019 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.020</GPH>
44020 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44021 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.022</GPH>
44022 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44023 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.024</GPH>
44024 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.025</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44025 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.026</GPH>
44026 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44027 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.028</GPH>
44028 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44029 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.030</GPH>
44030 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44031 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.032</GPH>
44032 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44033 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.034</GPH>
44034 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.035</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44035 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.036</GPH>
44036 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.037</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44037 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.038</GPH>
44038 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.039</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44039 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.040</GPH>
44040 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.041</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44041 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.042</GPH>
44042 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.043</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44043 

[FR Doc. 2012–16180 Filed 7–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE C 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP26JY12.044</GPH>