Vol. 81 Monday, 

No. 123 June 27, 2016 

Part III 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

17 CFR Part 45 

Amendments to Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

for Cleared Swaps; Final Rule 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41736 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 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/DoddFrankAct/index.htm. 

2 7 U.S.C. 1, et seq. 

3 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(13)(G). 

4See also 7 U.S.C. 1a(40)(E), 1a(48). 

5Regulations governing core principles and 

registration requirements for, and the duties of, 

SDRs are the subject of part 49 of this chapter. 

6 7 U.S.C. 24a(b). 

7 7 U.S.C. 24a(b)(1)(A). 

8 7 U.S.C. 24a(b)(3). 

9See Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements, Final Rule, 77 FR 2136 (Jan. 13, 

2012). 

10See 17 CFR 45.1 (defining ‘‘required swap 

creation data’’ as all primary economic terms data 

for a swap in the swap asset class in question, and 

all confirmation data for the swap.). ‘‘Primary 

economic terms data’’ is defined as all of the data 

elements necessary to fully report all of the primary 

economic terms of a swap in the swap asset class 

of the swap in question, while ‘‘confirmation data’’ 

is defined as all of the terms of a swap matched and 

agreed upon by the counterparties in confirming the 

swap. Id. For cleared swaps, confirmation data also 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 45 

RIN 3038–AE12 

Amendments to Swap Data 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements for Cleared Swaps 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or 

‘‘CFTC’’) is adopting final regulations 

relating to swap data reporting in 

connection with cleared swaps for swap 

data repositories (‘‘SDRs’’), derivatives 

clearing organizations (‘‘DCOs’’), 

designated contract markets (‘‘DCMs’’), 

swap execution facilities (‘‘SEFs’’), swap 

dealers (‘‘SDs’’), major swap 

participants (‘‘MSPs’’), and swap 

counterparties who are neither SDs nor 

MSPs. Commodity Exchange Act 

(‘‘CEA’’ or ‘‘Act’’) provisions relating to 

swap data recordkeeping and reporting 

were added by the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’). These 

regulations adopt without change 

revisions to the Commission regulations 

as proposed in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) issued August 

31, 2015. These revisions clarify 

regulations to clearly delineate the swap 

data reporting requirements associated 

with each of the swaps involved in a 

cleared swap transaction. Additionally, 

these revisions leave the choice of SDR 

for each swap in a cleared swap 

transaction to the entity submitting the 

first report on such swap. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 27, 

2016 except for the removal of 

§ 45.4(b)(2)(ii) which is effective June 

27, 2016. 

Compliance Date: The compliance 

date for all revisions and additions to 

part 45 of the Commission’s regulations 

under this final rule is December 27, 

2016. Until such date, all existing 

reporting obligations under part 45 

(other than those contained in removed 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of § 45.4), including 

existing obligations on reporting 

continuation data on original swaps and 

creation and continuation data on 

clearing swaps, shall remain in effect. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Bucsa, Deputy Director, Division 

of Market Oversight, 202–418–5435, 

dbucsa@cftc.gov; Andrew Ridenour, 

Special Counsel, Division of Market 

Oversight, 202–418–5438, aridenour@

cftc.gov; Owen J. Kopon, AttorneyAdvisor, Division of Market Oversight, 

202–418–5360, okopon@cftc.gov; 

Benjamin DeMaria, Special Counsel, 

Division of Market Oversight, 202–418– 

5988, bdemaria@cftc.gov; Aaron 

Brodsky, Special Counsel, Division of 

Market Oversight, 202–418–5349, 

abrodsky@cftc.gov; or Esen Onur, 

Economist, Office of the Chief 

Economist, 202–418–6146, eonur@

cftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Introduction 

B. Statutory Authority 

C. Regulatory History—Final Part 45 

Rulemaking 

D. Consultation With Other U.S. Financial 

Regulators 

E. Summary of Proposed Revisions and 

Additions to Part 45 

II. Revised and New Regulations 

A. Definitions—Amendments to § 45.1 

B. Swap Data Reporting: Creation Data— 

Amendments to § 45.3 

C. Swap Data Reporting: Continuation 

Data—Amendments to § 45.4 

D. Unique Swap Identifiers—Amendments 

to § 45.5 

E. Determination of Which Counterparty 

Must Report—Amendments to § 45.8 

F. Reporting to a Single Swap Data 

Repository—Amendments to § 45.10 

G. Examples of Cleared Swap Reporting 

Workflows Under the Adopted Revisions 

H. Primary Economic Terms Data— 

Amendments to Appendix 1 to Part 45— 

Tables of Minimum Primary Economic 

Terms 

III. Related Matters 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Cost-Benefit Considerations 

D. Antitrust Considerations 

IV. Compliance Dates 

I. Background 

A. Introduction 

On July 21, 2010, President Obama 

signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act.1

Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act 

amended the CEA 2 to establish a 

comprehensive new regulatory 

framework for swaps and security-based 

swaps. The legislation was enacted to 

reduce systemic risk, increase 

transparency, and promote market 

integrity within the financial system by, 

among other things: Providing for the 

registration and comprehensive 

regulation of SDs and MSPs; imposing 

clearing and trade execution 

requirements on standardized derivative 

products; creating rigorous 

recordkeeping and data reporting 

regimes with respect to swaps, 

including real time reporting; and 

enhancing the Commission’s 

rulemaking and enforcement authorities 

with respect to, among others, all 

registered entities, intermediaries, and 

swap counterparties subject to the 

Commission’s oversight. 

B. Statutory Authority 

To enhance transparency, promote 

standardization, and reduce systemic 

risk, section 727 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

added to the CEA section 2(a)(13)(G),3

which requires all swaps, whether 

cleared or uncleared, to be reported to 

SDRs.4 SDRs are registered entities 

created by section 728 of the DoddFrank Act to collect and maintain data 

related to swap transactions as 

prescribed by the Commission, and to 

make such data available to the 

Commission and other regulators.5

Section 21(b) of the CEA,6 added by 

section 728 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 

directs the Commission to prescribe 

standards for swap data recordkeeping 

and reporting, which are to apply to 

both registered entities and 

counterparties involved with swaps,7

and which are to be comparable to 

standards for clearing organizations in 

connection with their clearing of 

swaps.8

C. Regulatory History—Final Part 45 

Rulemaking 

On December 20, 2011, the 

Commission adopted part 45 of the 

Commission’s regulations (‘‘Final Part 

45 Rulemaking’’).9 Part 45 implements 

the requirements of section 21 of the 

CEA by setting forth the manner and 

content of reporting to SDRs, and 

requires electronic reporting both when 

a swap is initially executed, referred to 

as ‘‘creation’’ data,10 and over the course 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41737 

includes the internal identifiers assigned by the 

automated systems of the DCO to the two 

transactions resulting from novation to the clearing 

house. Id. See also 17 CFR 45.3. 

11See 17 CFR 45.1 (defining ‘‘required swap 

continuation data’’ as all of the data elements that 

must be reported during the existence of a swap to 

ensure that all data concerning the swap in the 

swap data repository remains current and accurate, 

and includes all changes to the primary economic 

terms of the swap occurring during the existence of 

the swap). See also 17 CFR 45.4. 

12See 17 CFR 45.3(a), 45.3(b), 45.3(c), and 

45.3(d). 

13See Press Release, CFTC to Form an 

Interdivisional Working Group to Review 

Regulatory Reporting (Jan. 21, 2014), available at 

http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/

pr6837-14. 

14See Review of Swap Data Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements, Request for Comment, 79 

FR 16689 (Mar. 26, 2014). The IDWG Request for 

Comment was referred to simply as the ‘‘Request for 

Comment’’ in the NPRM. The Commission has 

changed the short form citation for that document 

in the final release to distinguish it from the 

subsequent request for comment related to draft 

technical specifications, referenced throughout this 

release. 

15 79 FR 16689, 16694. 

16The comment file for responses to the IDWG 

Request for Comment is available at http://

comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/

CommentList.aspx?id=1484. Commenters 

responding to the IDWG Request for Comment 

included: The American Gas Association, May 27, 

2014; American Petroleum Institute, May 27, 2014; 

Americans for Financial Reform, May 27, 2014 

(‘‘AFR’’); Australian Bankers’ Association, May 27, 

2014 (‘‘ABA’’); Better Markets, Inc., May 27, 2014, 

(‘‘Better Markets’’); B&F Capital Markets, Inc., May 

27, 2014; CME Group, May 27, 2014 (‘‘CME’’); 

Coalition for Derivatives End-Users, May 27, 2014 

(‘‘CDEU’’); Coalition of Physical Energy Companies, 

May 27, 2014; Commercial Energy Working Group, 

May 27, 2014 (‘‘CEWG’’); Commodity Markets 

Council, May 27, 2014 (‘‘CMC’’); The Depository 

Trust & Clearing Corporation, May 27, 2014 

(‘‘DTCC’’); EDF Trading North America, LLC, May 

27, 2014; Edison Electric Institute, May 27, 2014 

(‘‘EEI’’); Financial InterGroup Holdings Ltd, May 

27, 2014; Financial Services Roundtable (‘‘FSR’’), 

May 27, 2014; Fix Trading Community, May 27, 

2014; The Global Foreign Exchange Division of the 

Global Financial Markets Association, May 27, 2014 

(‘‘GFMA’’); HSBC, May 27, 2014; Interactive Data 

Corporation, May 27, 2014; ICE Trade Vault, LLC, 

May 27, 2014 (‘‘ITV’’); International Energy Credit 

Association, May 27, 2014; International Swaps and 

Derivatives Association, Inc., May 23, 2014 

(‘‘ISDA’’); Japanese Bankers Association, May 27, 

2014 (‘‘JBA’’); Just Energy Group Inc., May 27, 2014; 

LCH.Clearnet Group Limited, May 29, 2014 

(‘‘LCH’’); Managed Funds Association, May 27, 

2014 (‘‘MFA’’); Markit, May 27, 2014; Natural Gas 

Supply Association, May 27, 2014 (‘‘NGSA’’); NFP 

Electric Associations (National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association, American Public Power 

Association, and Large Public Power Council), May 

27, 2014 (‘‘NFPEA’’); OTC Clearing Hong Kong 

Limited, May 27, 2014 (‘‘OTC Hong Kong’’); 

Securities Industry and Financial Markets 

Association Asset Management Group, May 27, 

2014 (‘‘SIFMA’’); SWIFT, May 27, 2014; Swiss Re, 

May 27, 2014; Thomson Reuters (SEF) LLC, May 27, 

2014 (‘‘TR SEF’’); and TriOptima, May 27, 2014. 

Discussions of comments on reporting of cleared 

swaps received in response to the IDWG Request for 

Comment are included in the preamble to the 

NPRM. 

17See Amendments to Swap Data Recordkeeping 

and Reporting Requirements for Cleared Swaps, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 52544 (Aug. 

31, 2015). 

18The comment file for responses to the NPRM 

is available at http://comments.cftc.gov/

PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1614. 

Commenters to the NPRM included: Better Markets, 

October 30, 2015; CME, October 30, 2015; COPE, 

October 30, 2015; CEWG, October 30, 2015; CMC, 

October 30, 2015; DTCC, October 30, 2015; EEI/

EPSA, October 30, 2015; Eurex Clearing AG 

(‘‘Eurex’’); FSR, October 30, 2015; ITV, October 30, 

2015; ISDA, October 30, 2015; JBA, October 30, 

2015; LCH, October 30, 2015; MFA and Alternative 

Investment Management Association (‘‘AIMA’’), 

October 30, 2015; Markit, October 30, 2015; and 

North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc., October 

30, 2015 (‘‘Nadex’’). 

19Unless otherwise noted, references to 

‘‘commenters’’ throughout this release refer to those 

who submitted comment letters to the NPRM. 

20See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6) (requiring a DCO that 

clears swaps to have rules providing that, upon 

acceptance of a swap by the DCO for clearing: (i) 

The original swap is extinguished; (ii) the original 

swap is replaced by an equal and opposite swap 

between the [DCO] and each clearing member 

acting as principal for a house trading or acting as 

agent for a customer trade). The Commission 

reaffirmed its position regarding the composition of 

a cleared swap in a statement regarding Chicago 

Mercantile Exchange (‘‘CME’’) Rule 1001. See 

Statement of the Commission on the Approval of 

CME Rule 1001 (Mar. 6, 2013), at 6, available at 

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

newsroom/documents/file/

statementofthecommission.pdf. 

of the swap’s existence, referred to as 

‘‘continuation’’ data.11 Additionally, 

part 45 sets forth varying reporting 

timeframes depending on the type of 

reporting, counterparty, execution, or 

product.12

As part of the Commission’s ongoing 

efforts to improve swap transaction data 

quality and to improve the 

Commission’s ability to utilize the data 

for regulatory purposes, Commission 

staff has continued to evaluate issues in 

connection with reporting under part 

45, including those related to cleared 

swaps in particular. To this end, 

Commission staff formed an 

interdivisional staff working group 

(‘‘IDWG’’) to identify, and to 

recommend resolutions to, reporting 

challenges associated with certain 

swaps transaction data recordkeeping 

and reporting provisions, including the 

provisions adopted in the Final Part 45 

Rulemaking.13

Based in large part on those efforts, 

the Commission published a request for 

comment on a variety of swap data 

reporting and recordkeeping provisions 

to help determine how such provisions 

were being applied, and to determine 

whether or what clarifications or 

enhancements to these provisions may 

be appropriate (the ‘‘IDWG Request for 

Comment’’).14 One of the subjects of the 

IDWG Request for Comment was the 

reporting of cleared swaps, and, in 

particular, the manner in which the 

swap data reporting rules should 

address cleared swaps.15 After 

considering the comments submitted in 

response to the IDWG Request for 

Comment relating to the reporting of 

cleared swaps,16 the Commission issued 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the 

‘‘NPRM’’) in which it proposed changes 

to part 45 as they relate to the reporting 

of cleared swaps transactions.17 In 

response to the NPRM, the Commission 

received 17 comments letters addressing 

its proposed revisions to part 45.18 This 

release will address the comments 

received on specific aspects of the 

NPRM, and on specific issues raised in 

the IDWG Request for Comment, in 

connection with explaining each of the 

amended regulations adopted herein.19

The swap data reporting framework 

adopted in the original Final Part 45 

Rulemaking was largely based on the 

mechanisms for the trading and 

execution of uncleared swaps. Under 

such a regime, swap data reporting was 

premised upon the existence of one 

continuous swap for reporting and data 

representation purposes. The 

Commission has since had additional 

opportunities to consult with industry 

and has observed how the part 45 

regulations function in practice with 

respect to swaps that are cleared, 

including how the implementation of 

part 45 interacts with the 

implementation of part 39 of the 

Commission’s regulations, which 

contains provisions applicable to DCOs. 

In particular, § 39.12(b)(6) provides 

that upon acceptance of a swap by a 

DCO for clearing, that original swap is 

extinguished and replaced by equal and 

opposite swaps, with the DCO as the 

counterparty to each resulting swap.20

The original swap that is extinguished 

upon acceptance for clearing is 

commonly referred to by market 

participants as the ‘‘alpha’’ swap and 

the equal and opposite swaps that 

replace the original swap are commonly 

referred to as ‘‘beta’’ and ‘‘gamma’’ 

swaps. The process of extinguishing the 

‘‘alpha’’ swap and creating the ‘‘beta’’ 

and ‘‘gamma’’ swaps is generally 

referred to as a novation. The 

Commission has observed that certain 

provisions of part 45 could better 

accommodate the cleared swap 

framework set forth in § 39.12(b)(6). The 

new regulations in this release are 

intended to provide clarity to swap 

counterparties and registered entities of 

their part 45 reporting obligations with 

respect to the swaps involved in a 

cleared swap transaction. These 

amendments and new regulations are 

also intended to improve the efficiency 

of data collection and maintenance 

associated with the reporting of the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41738 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

21 80 FR 52544, 52545–46. 

22See Regulation SBSR—Reporting and 

Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, 

80 FR 14740 (Mar. 19, 2015). 

23The Commission is also amending the part 45 

authority citation to replace a reference to 7 U.S.C. 

24 with a reference to 7 U.S.C. 24a. 24See Better Markets Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

25See COPE Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

26See COPE Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. In response 

to COPE’s request for clarification, the Commission 

notes that under the final rule being adopted, a nonSD/MSP would likely have no reporting obligations 

on a swap executed on a SEF or DCM that is 

intended to be cleared at the time of execution. 

However, the original swap reporting counterparty 

as determined by the reporting hierarchy under 

§ 45.8 could have obligations to report any 

amendments or modifications of PET data fields, as 

well as any continuation data on a swap between 

the execution of the swap and its acceptance for 

clearing, such as a novation, allocation or 

termination. In such circumstances, the reporting 

counterparty on the original swap would have a 

reporting obligation under either § 45.3 or § 45.4, 

respectively. Separately, end-users may also have 

obligations to correct errors or omissions discovered 

in swap data for which the end-user is the reporting 

counterparty pursuant to § 45.14(a), or to notify the 

reporting counterparty of such errors or omissions 

if the end-user is not the reporting counterparty 

pursuant to § 45.14(b). 

27 7 U.S.C. 1a(9). 

28 7 U.S.C. 7a–1(a). 

29See 80 FR 52544, 52547. 

swaps involved in a cleared swap 

transaction. 

D. Consultation With Other U.S. 

Financial Regulators 

In developing these rules, 

Commission staff has engaged in 

extensive consultations with other U.S. 

financial regulators, including the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘SEC’’), the Federal Reserve Board of 

Governors, the Federal Housing Finance 

Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, Office of Comptroller of 

the Currency, and the Farm Credit 

Administration. As noted in the 

NPRM,21 the Commission endeavored to 

harmonize the regulations in this release 

with the approach proposed by the SEC 

in its release proposing certain new 

rules and rule amendments to 

Regulation SBSR—Reporting and 

Dissemination of Security-Based Swap 

Information (‘‘Regulation SBSR’’).22

E. Summary of Revisions and Additions 

to Part 45 

The Commission is making revisions 

and additions to §§ 45.1, 45.3, 45.4, 

45.5, 45.8, 45.10, and appendix 1 to part 

45 in order to provide clarity to swap 

counterparties as well as to registered 

entities regarding their respective part 

45 reporting obligations in connection 

with each of the swaps involved in a 

cleared swap transaction.23 The 

Commission is adopting the following 

amendments, each of which is 

discussed in greater detail in Section II 

of this release: 

• Amendments to § 45.1 revise the 

definition of ‘‘derivatives clearing 

organization’’ to update a crossreference and to clarify that the 

definition covers only registered DCOs. 

Revised § 45.1 also adds new definitions 

for ‘‘original swaps’’ and ‘‘clearing 

swaps.’’ These terms are used 

throughout amended part 45 to help 

clarify reporting obligations for the 

swaps involved in a cleared swap 

transaction. 

• Amendments to § 45.3 modify and 

clarify DCO creation data reporting 

obligations for swaps that result from 

the clearing process; establish which 

entity has the obligation to choose the 

SDR to which creation data is reported; 

eliminate confirmation data reporting 

obligations for swaps that are intended 

to be submitted to a DCO for clearing at 

the time of execution; and make 

conforming changes. 

• Amendments to § 45.4 modify and 

clarify continuation data reporting 

obligations for original swaps, including 

the obligation of a clearing DCO to 

report original swap terminations to the 

SDR to which the original swap was 

reported; modify and clarify the 

obligation to report data providing for 

the linking of original and clearing 

swaps and the original and clearing 

swap SDRs; remove the requirement for 

SD/MSP reporting counterparties to 

report daily valuation data for cleared 

swaps; and make conforming changes. 

• Amendments to § 45.5 set forth a 

DCO’s obligations to create, transmit, 

and use unique swap identifiers 

(‘‘USIs’’) to identify clearing swaps. 

• Amendments to § 45.8 provide that 

the DCO will be the reporting 

counterparty for clearing swaps. 

• Amendments to § 45.10 provide 

that all swap data for a given clearing 

swap, and all swap data for each 

clearing swap that replaces a particular 

original swap (and each equal and 

offsetting clearing swap that is created 

upon execution of the same transaction 

and that does not replace an original 

swap), must be reported to a single SDR. 

Amendments also make conforming 

changes. 

• Amendments to appendix 1 modify 

certain existing primary economic term 

(‘‘PET’’) data fields and certain 

explanatory notes in the Comment 

sections for existing PET data fields, and 

add several new PET data fields to 

account for the clarifications provided 

in this release for the reporting of 

clearing swaps. 

II. Revised and New Regulations 

Throughout Section II of this release, 

the Commission will discuss each 

amendment and the related comments. 

The Commission is also including 

several examples to demonstrate how 

cleared swap reporting workflows 

would function under the new 

regulations. 

The Commission received some 

general comments on the proposed 

amendments to part 45 relating to data 

quality. Better Markets was generally 

supportive of the proposals, and 

commented that the NPRM integrated 

many of the technical public comments 

on the concept release to address the 

small but important fixes on reporting of 

cleared swap transactions.24 COPE was 

also generally supportive of the NPRM 

on the ‘‘guiding principal’’ that endusers should not be unduly burdened by 

the Commission’s swap reporting 

regulations.25 COPE requested that the 

Commission clarify that, under the 

proposed amendments, end-users would 

not have reporting obligations on swaps 

executed pursuant to the rules of a SEF 

or DCM and then cleared by a DCO.26

A. Definitions—Amendments to § 45.1 

1. Existing § 45.1 

Existing § 45.1 defines ‘‘derivatives 

clearing organization’’ for purposes of 

part 45 by cross-referencing section 

1a(9) of the CEA 27 and any Commission 

regulations implementing that section, 

including but not limited to § 39.5. 

Existing § 45.1 does not include 

definitions of either ‘‘original swap’’ or 

‘‘clearing swap.’’ 

2. Proposed Amendments and 

Additions to § 45.1 

i. ‘‘Derivatives Clearing Organization’’ 

The Commission proposed to revise 

the definition of ‘‘derivatives clearing 

organization’’ in § 45.1 so that it crossreferences the definition provided in 

§ 1.3(d) of the Commission’s regulations 

and so that it explicitly refers to a DCO 

registered with the Commission under 

section 5b(a) of the CEA.28 This 

modification redefines a ‘‘derivatives 

clearing organization’’ for purposes of 

part 45 to mean a derivatives clearing 

organization, as defined by § 1.3(d) of 

this chapter, that is registered with the 

Commission.29

ii. ‘‘Original Swap’’ and ‘‘Clearing 

Swap’’ 

The Commission proposed to add 

definitions of ‘‘original swap’’ and 

‘‘clearing swap’’ to part 45 so that the 

part 45 reporting rules will be more 

consistent with the regulations 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41739 

30See 80 FR 52544, 52547. 

31See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3; FSR Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 5. 

32See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3. 

33See Id. at 3. 

34See LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

35See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

36See LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

37See CFTC Letter No. 15–51 (Sept. 18, 2015). 

38 ISDA also commented that it is not clear 

whether the associated clearing swaps are publicly 

reportable swap transactions for Part 43 purposes. 

See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

39See EEI/EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

40As of the date of this final release, the 

Commission has issued DCO Exemptive Orders to 

ASX Clear (Futures) Pty Ltd. (‘‘ASX’’), Japan 

Securities Clearing Corp., Korea Exchange Inc., and 

OTC Clear Hong Kong Ltd. (‘‘OTC Clear’’). The 

Commission amended ASX’s DCO Exemptive Order 

on January 28, 2016 to require ASX to report the 

termination of any swap accepted for clearing by 

ASX to the SDR to which the original swap was 

reported. 

41The Commission also notes ISDA’s comment 

concerning entities that are in the process of 

registering as a DCO. Because there is no temporary 

or provisional registration of DCOs, such entities 

should not be entering into swaps that must be 

reported under part 45 without full registration. 

42The Commission has noted LCH’s request for 

guidance concerning reporting clearing swaps 

under the principal model of clearing more 

commonly used outside of the United States. The 

Commission declines to include such guidance at 

this time, but would note that this issue of reporting 

principal versus agency model clearing swaps is 

under consideration as part of the Technical 

Specifications Request for Comment issued by the 

Commission’s Office of Data and Technology and 

the Division of Market Oversight on December 22, 

2015 relating to draft technical specifications for 

certain swap data elements (‘‘Technical 

Specifications Request for Comment’’). See Draft 

Technical Specifications for Certain Swap Data 

Elements, Request for Comment (Dec. 22, 2015), 

available at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/

@newsroom/documents/file/

specificationsswapdata122215.pdf. 

43For example, in the preamble to the part 39 

adopting release, the Commission noted that ‘‘open 

offer’’ systems are acceptable under § 39.12(b)(6), 

stating that: Effectively, under an open offer system 

there is no ‘‘original’’ swap between executing 

parties that needs to be novated; the swap that is 

created upon execution is between the DCO and the 

clearing member, acting either as principal or agent. 

Derivatives Clearing Organization General 

Provisions and Core Principles, Final Rule 76 FR 

69334, 69361 (Nov. 8, 2011). 

applicable to DCOs set forth in 

§ 39.12(b)(6).30

The Commission proposed to define 

‘‘original swap’’ as a swap that has been 

accepted for clearing by a derivatives 

clearing organization and ‘‘clearing 

swap’’ as a swap created pursuant to the 

rules of a derivatives clearing 

organization that has a derivatives 

clearing organization as a counterparty, 

including any swap that replaces an 

original swap that was extinguished 

upon acceptance of such original swap 

by the derivatives clearing organization 

for clearing. 

As noted above, while original swaps 

are commonly referred to as ‘‘alpha’’ 

swaps and while the equal and opposite 

swaps that replace the original swap are 

commonly referred to as ‘‘beta’’ and 

‘‘gamma’’ swaps, the Commission will 

use the proposed defined terms 

‘‘original swap’’ and ‘‘clearing swap’’ 

throughout this section of the release. 

3. Comments 

The Commission received comments 

on the proposed definitions from a 

variety of market participants. Many 

commenters were supportive of the 

proposed amendments to the definitions 

and the clarification that they provide. 

Other commenters supported 

clarification of the definitions, but 

suggested further modifications to the 

proposed definitions. 

i. Derivatives Clearing Organization 

Both ISDA and FSR commented that 

the proposed definition of ‘‘derivatives 

clearing organization’’ should be 

expanded to include derivatives 

clearing organizations that are exempt 

from registering with the Commission.31

These commenters suggested that the 

reporting obligations should apply to 

the central counterparty regardless of 

whether that counterparty is registered 

with the Commission. ISDA also 

commented that the reporting 

obligations should apply to those 

derivatives clearing organizations that 

are currently in the process of 

registering with the Commission.32

ii. Clearing Swap 

With respect to the proposed 

definition of ‘‘clearing swap,’’ ISDA 

reiterated its comment that the 

definition should include all swaps that 

are cleared through registered 

derivatives clearing organizations as 

well as those that are cleared through 

derivatives clearing organizations that 

are in the process of registering or are 

exempt from registration.33 LCH 

commented that the definition of 

clearing swap is incomplete as it may 

not capture cleared trades between a 

clearing member and its client in a 

principal clearing model, because the 

DCO is not a party to that transaction.34

iii. Original Swap 

Regarding the definition of ‘‘original 

swap,’’ ISDA commented that it is 

supportive of the proposed definition 

and agrees that swaps submitted for 

clearing should be classified as original 

swaps.35 LCH commented that the 

definition of original swap is 

sufficiently clear and complete.36 ISDA 

requested clarification on guidance 

issued by the Commission’s Divisions of 

Clearing and Risk and Market 

Oversight,37 specifically as to whether 

there is an original swap associated with 

CDS Clearing-Related Swaps that are 

created through a firm or forced trade 

process.38 EEI/EPSA sought clarification 

from the Commission that the definition 

of original swap includes both offfacility swaps that are submitted for 

clearing, rejected, then resubmitted and 

accepted for clearing, and swaps that are 

not intended to be cleared when 

executed but are cleared at some point 

subsequent to execution.39

4. Final Rule 

Having reviewed all relevant 

comments, the Commission has 

determined to adopt the definitions as 

proposed in the NPRM. The 

Commission has noted the comments 

received from market participants on 

the limitation of ‘‘derivatives clearing 

organization’’ to DCOs registered with 

the Commission. The Commission notes 

that, as of the date of this release, it has 

granted exemptive relief to four nonU.S. central counterparties from 

registering as a DCO with the 

Commission, under section 5b(h) of the 

CEA, pursuant to Commission Orders 

(‘‘DCO Exemptive Orders’’).40 The DCO 

Exemptive Orders include reporting 

obligations that are consistent with 

those imposed on registered DCOs 

under amended part 45.41 Therefore, the 

Commission believes that it is sufficient 

for the obligations on derivatives 

clearing organizations in part 45 to 

apply only to registered DCOs and, as a 

result, the definition of ‘‘derivatives 

clearing organization’’ under amended 

regulation 45.1 will cover only 

registered DCOs, as proposed. 

The Commission notes general 

support for the definition of ‘‘clearing 

swap.’’ The Commission notes that the 

newly-defined term ‘‘clearing swap’’ 

would include any swap to which the 

DCO is a counterparty, regardless of 

whether such swap is replacing an 

original swap.42 While a cleared swap 

transaction generally comprises an 

original swap that is terminated upon 

novation and the equal and opposite 

swaps that replace it, the Commission is 

aware of certain circumstances in which 

a cleared swap transaction may not 

involve the replacement of an original 

swap.43 Accordingly, the revised 

definition of ‘‘clearing swap’’ is 

intended to encompass: (1) Swaps to 

which the DCO is a counterparty and 

that replace an original swap (i.e., swaps 

commonly known as betas and gammas) 

and (2) all other swaps to which the 

DCO is a counterparty (even if such 

swap does not replace an original swap). 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41740 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

44See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; LCH Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

45CFTC Letter No. 15–51 (Sept. 18, 2015). 

46See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6). Clearing swaps would 

not be executed on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF 

or DCM as such swaps are created pursuant to the 

rules of a DCO. 

47See 17 CFR 45.3(a)(2), (b)(2), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), 

and (d)(2). 

48See 17 CFR 45.3(b)(1), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(i), and 

(d)(1). 

49See 80 FR 52544, 52548. 

50See 80 FR 52544, 52548–49. 

51The Commission proposed adding § 45.8(i), 

which establishes the DCO as the reporting 

counterparty for all clearing swaps. This change is 

discussed in greater detail in Section II.E. of this 

release. The Commission also proposed conforming 

amendments to § 45.4(b)(1) and (2) to add the 

phrase ‘‘as reporting counterparty’’ after 

‘‘derivatives clearing organization’’ to make clear 

that the DCO will be the reporting counterparty for 

purposes of those provisions. See Section II.C. 

52 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(13)(G). 

The Commission also notes the broad 

support for the newly-defined term 

‘‘original swap.’’ 44 In addressing ISDA’s 

request for clarification on firm or 

forced trades at the DCO, the 

Commission notes that guidance from 

its Divisions of Clearing and Risk and 

Market Oversight states that swaps 

arising out of a DCO’s firm or forced 

trade process would constitute ‘‘clearing 

swaps.’’ 45 The Divisions’ guidance also 

states that DCOs should be the reporting 

counterparty of such swaps. 

The proposed definition of original 

swap will provide clarity with respect to 

certain continuation data reporting 

requirements for such swaps by tying 

such obligations to a specific point in 

time in the life of a swap that is either 

intended to be submitted to a DCO for 

clearing at the time of execution, or that 

is not intended to be cleared at the time 

of execution but is later submitted to a 

DCO for clearing. The Commission 

notes that under the proposed 

definition, a swap that is submitted to 

a DCO for clearing can become an 

original swap by virtue of the DCO’s 

acceptance of such swap for clearing, 

irrespective of: (1) Whether such swap 

is executed on or pursuant to the rules 

of a SEF or DCM or off-facility; (2) 

whether or not such swap is subject to 

the clearing requirement; and (3) 

whether such swap is intended to be 

cleared at the time of execution or not 

intended to be cleared at the time of 

execution, but subsequently submitted 

to a DCO for clearing.46

In addressing EEI/EPSA’s comment 

on whether the term ‘‘original swaps’’ 

would include off-facility swaps 

rejected and then resubmitted for 

clearing, or swaps not intended to be 

cleared at execution but subsequently 

submitted for clearing, the Commission 

notes that a swap becomes an ‘‘original 

swap’’ once it is accepted for clearing by 

a DCO. The definition would apply 

regardless of whether the swap had 

previously been rejected for clearing, or 

whether it was not intended to be 

cleared at the time of execution. 

B. Swap Data Reporting: Creation 

Data—Amendments to § 45.3 

1. Existing § 45.3 

Regulation 45.3 requires reporting to 

an SDR of two types of ‘‘creation data’’ 

generated in connection with a swap’s 

creation: ‘‘primary economic terms 

data’’ (‘‘PET data’’) and ‘‘confirmation 

data.’’ Additionally, § 45.3 governs what 

creation data must be reported, who 

must report it, and deadlines for its 

reporting. 

The swap data reporting requirements 

under § 45.3 concerning both PET data 

and confirmation data differ for 

reporting counterparties and entities 

depending on whether the swap is 

executed on or pursuant to the rules of 

a SEF or DCM (§ 45.3(a)), is subject to 

mandatory clearing and executed offfacility (§ 45.3(b)), or is not subject to 

mandatory clearing and executed offfacility (§ 45.3(c) and (d)). Regulation 

45.3 also addresses specific creation 

data reporting requirements in 

circumstances where a swap is accepted 

for clearing by a DCO,47 including the 

excusal of the reporting counterparty 

from reporting creation data in certain 

circumstances.48

2. Proposed Amendments to § 45.3 

As noted above, the Commission has 

observed how the part 45 regulations 

function in practice with respect to 

swaps that are cleared. While CEA 

section 2(a)(13)(G) requires each swap 

(whether cleared or uncleared) to be 

reported to a registered SDR, the 

Commission believes that the interplay 

between the § 45.3 reporting 

requirements applicable to SEFs, DCMs 

and reporting counterparties, and the 

reporting requirements applicable to 

DCOs, should be clarified in the context 

of a cleared swap transaction. 

Accordingly, the Commission proposed 

several amendments to § 45.3 to better 

delineate the creation data reporting 

requirements associated with each swap 

involved in a cleared swap transaction. 

i. Proposed Revised References to 

Clearing Requirement Exceptions and 

Exemptions 

References to the end-user exception 

to the swap clearing requirement set 

forth in section 2(h)(7) of the CEA are 

included in existing §§ 45.3 and 45.8. 

Following the publication of the Final 

Part 45 Rulemaking, the Commission 

codified the end-user exception in 

§ 50.50 and published two exemptions 

to the swap clearing requirement: The 

inter-affiliate exemption in § 50.52, and 

the financial cooperative exemption in 

§ 50.51. Therefore, the Commission 

proposed revisions to the introductory 

language of § 45.3, §§ 45.3(b)–(d), and 

45.8(h)(1)(vi) to reflect that exceptions 

to, and exemptions from, the clearing 

requirement are now codified in part 50 

of the Commission’s regulations.49

ii. Proposed Addition of § 45.3(e)— 

Clearing Swaps 

Paragraphs (a)–(d) of § 45.3 govern 

creation data reporting in connection 

with swaps executed on or pursuant to 

the rules of a SEF or DCM and for offfacility swaps, but do not separately 

address creation data reporting for 

swaps created through the clearing 

process by a DCO (i.e., clearing swaps). 

Accordingly, the Commission proposed 

renumbering existing paragraph (e) 

(Allocations) of § 45.3 as paragraph (f), 

and adding new paragraph (e) to § 45.3, 

which will exclusively govern creation 

data reporting requirements for clearing 

swaps. The Commission also proposed 

revising the introductory language of 

§ 45.3 to clarify that paragraphs (a)–(d) 

apply to all swaps except clearing 

swaps, while paragraph (e) applies to 

clearing swaps.50 The Commission did 

not propose to change the existing 

requirements for who reports creation 

data for those swaps that become 

original swaps. Creation data for such 

swaps will continue to be reported by 

the reporting counterparty, as 

determined pursuant to § 45.8, or by the 

SEF/DCM in the case of on-facility 

swaps. 

Under the proposed revisions to 

§ 45.3(e), a DCO would be required as 

reporting counterparty under new 

§ 45.8(i) 51 to report all required swap 

creation data for each clearing swap, 

either as soon as technologically 

practicable after an original swap is 

accepted by the DCO for clearing (in the 

event that the clearing swap replaced an 

original swap), or as soon as 

technologically practicable after 

execution of a clearing swap (in the 

event that the clearing swap does not 

replace an original swap). Additionally, 

under the proposed revisions to 

§ 45.3(e), required swap creation data 

for clearing swaps must be provided to 

a registered SDR electronically by the 

DCO and must include all PET data and 

all confirmation data for each clearing 

swap. 

As noted above, CEA section 

2(a)(13)(G) 52 requires each swap 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41741 

53Swaps created by a DCO under § 39.12(b)(6) are 

a type of clearing swap as defined in this release, 

and thus could not be executed on or pursuant to 

the rules of a SEF or DCM. Additionally, a DCO 

would not report creation data for a swap that was 

executed on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF or 

DCM, or for an off-facility swap that is submitted 

to the DCO for clearing, because, under § 45.3(a)– 

(d), the SEF/DCM or reporting counterparty would 

be responsible for reporting creation data for such 

swaps after execution. Under the revisions to § 45.3, 

a DCO will not have creation data reporting 

obligations for swaps that are not clearing swaps. 

The Commission notes that the revisions to § 45.3 

in this release are consistent with the prior no 

action relief and guidance issued by Commission 

staff relating to firm or forced trades at DCOs. See 

CFTC Letter No. 15–51 (Sept. 18, 2015); CFTC NoAction Letter No. 14–119 (Sept. 29, 2014). 

54The Commission is also renumbering 

§ 45.3(a)(1) as § 45.3(a). 

55See 80 FR 52544, 52548–49. 

56See 80 FR 52544, 52549. 

57See 80 FR 52544, 52549–50. 

58The Commission also proposed renumbering 

§ 45.3 paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) as paragraphs (g), 

(h), and (i), respectively. 

59See 80 FR 52544, 52550. 

60See 80 FR 52544, 52550. 

61Regulation 45.3(j) generally reflects the 

language included in the preamble to the original 

Final Part 45 Rulemaking, which provides that the 

SEF or DCM would select the SDR for platformexecuted swaps, and the reporting counterparty 

would choose the SDR for off-facility swaps. See 77 

FR 2136, 2146 (Jan. 13, 2012). Under the new rule, 

the DCO will have the obligation to choose the SDR 

for clearing swaps. 

62Revisions to § 45.10 are discussed in Section 

II.F below. As will be discussed in Section II.F 

below, by operation of § 45.10, DCOs will be 

obligated to report all required continuation data for 

original swaps to the registered SDR (as selected by 

the SEF, DCM, or reporting counterparty pursuant 

to proposed § 45.3(j)) to which required creation 

data for the swap was reported pursuant to 

§§ 45.3(a)–(d). 

63See Proposed § 45.10. See also Section II.F.2, 

infra. 

64 Id. 

65 Id. 

(whether cleared or uncleared) to be 

reported to a registered SDR. Proposed 

revisions to paragraphs (a)–(d) and new 

paragraph (e) of § 45.3 will thus cover 

creation data reporting requirements for 

all swaps: Revised § 45.3(a) applies to 

each swap executed on or pursuant to 

the rules of a SEF or DCM, revised 

§ 45.3(b)–(d) applies to ‘‘all off-facility 

swaps,’’ and proposed new § 45.3(e) 

would apply to clearing swaps. The 

proposed amendments to § 45.3(a)–(d) 

would thus exclude clearing swaps. 

Under the proposed amendments to 

§ 45.3, a SEF/DCM or counterparty other 

than the DCO will not have swap data 

reporting obligations with respect to 

clearing swaps. Additionally, revised 

§ 45.3(a)–(d) will govern the creation 

data reporting requirements for swaps, 

including swaps commonly known as 

‘‘alpha’’ swaps, regardless of whether 

they later become original swaps by 

virtue of their acceptance for clearing.53

iii. Proposed Removal of Provisions 

As noted above, several provisions of 

existing § 45.3 impose certain creation 

data reporting requirements on a DCO in 

circumstances where a swap is accepted 

for clearing by a DCO. To ensure 

consistency with § 39.12(b)(6), the 

Commission proposed to remove these 

creation data reporting provisions 

(current §§ 45.3(a)(2),54 (b)(2), (c)(1)(ii), 

(c)(2)(ii), and (d)(2)), and replacing them 

with new proposed § 45.3(e), as 

described above.55

Additionally, the Commission 

proposed to remove portions of 

§§ 45.3(b)(1), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(i), and 

(d)(1).56 Previously, where both a DCO 

and reporting counterparty had 

obligations under § 45.3 for reporting 

creation data for the same swap, the 

reporting counterparty would be 

excused from reporting creation data if 

the swap is accepted for clearing before 

any PET data is reported by the 

reporting counterparty. Under the 

proposed regulation, these excusal 

provisions are no longer necessary 

because the proposed rules require 

DCOs to report creation data only for 

clearing swaps, and not for swaps 

accepted for clearing (i.e., original 

swaps). 

iv. Proposed Removal of Certain 

Confirmation Data Reporting 

Requirements 

Existing §§ 45.3(a)–(d) requires the 

SEF/DCM (under § 45.3(a)) or the 

reporting counterparty (under 

§§ 45.3(b)–(d)) to report both PET and 

confirmation data in order to comply 

with creation data reporting obligations. 

The Commission believes that the 

confirmation data requirements for 

clearing swaps in new § 45.3(e) will 

provide the Commission with a 

sufficient representation of the 

confirmation data for a cleared swap 

transaction, because the original swap is 

extinguished upon acceptance for 

clearing and replaced by equal and 

opposite clearing swaps. 

Accordingly, for swaps that are 

intended to be submitted to a DCO for 

clearing at the time of execution, the 

Commission proposed to amend 

§§ 45.3(a), (b), (c)(1)(iii), (c)(2)(iii), and 

(d)(2) to remove the existing 

confirmation data reporting 

requirements.57

v. Proposed Revisions to § 45.3(f)— 

Allocations 

The Commission proposed 

renumbering existing § 45.3(e), which 

governs creation data reporting for 

swaps involving allocation, as 

§ 45.3(f).58 The Commission also 

proposed replacing the phrase ‘‘original 

swap transaction’’ in §§ 45.3(f)(2) and 

45.8(h)(1)(vii)(D), and in the PET data 

tables found in appendix 1 to part 45, 

with ‘‘initial swap transaction’’ to avoid 

confusion with the term ‘‘original 

swap,’’ which is defined in § 45.1.59

vi. Proposed Addition of § 45.3(j): 

Choice of SDR 

The Commission proposed adding 

§ 45.3(j) in order to explicitly establish 

which entity has the obligation to 

choose the SDR to which the required 

swap creation data is reported.60 New 

§ 45.3(j) provides that: For swaps 

executed on or pursuant to the rules of 

a SEF or DCM (including swaps that 

may later become original swaps), the 

SEF or DCM has the obligation to 

choose the SDR; for all other swaps 

(including off-facility swaps and/or 

clearing swaps) the reporting 

counterparty (as determined in § 45.8) 

will have the obligation to choose the 

SDR.61

Under the proposed addition of 

§ 45.3(j) and the proposed revisions to 

§ 45.10,62 the entity with the obligation 

to report the initial required swap 

creation data will select the SDR to 

which all subsequent swap creation and 

continuation data for that swap will be 

reported by choosing the SDR to which 

such initial required swap creation data 

is reported. Thereafter, all required 

swap creation data and all required 

swap continuation data for a given swap 

will be reported to the same SDR used 

by the registered entity or 

counterparty.63

Finally, the Commission notes that it 

is aware of certain situations wherein 

SEFs, DCMs and reporting 

counterparties for off-facility swap 

transactions may report the part 43 data 

for a swap to an SDR prior to reporting 

the part 45 required creation data for the 

same swap. In such situations, the 

registered entity or reporting 

counterparty has effectively chosen the 

SDR for the swap prior to submitting the 

part 45 data, since, pursuant to revisions 

to § 45.10 adopted in this release, all 

swap data reported pursuant to parts 43 

and 45 for a given swap is required to 

be reported to a single SDR.64 For 

example, if a swap is executed on or 

pursuant to the rules of SEF A, and SEF 

A immediately upon execution reports 

the part 43 data to SDR B, prior to 

reporting part 45 data, SEF A has 

effectively chosen SDR B as the SDR for 

all required creation data for the swap, 

because revised § 45.10 requires that all 

part 43 and 45 swap data for a given 

swap must be reported to a single 

SDR.65 Accordingly, in this example, 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41742 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

66See 80 FR 52544, 52550. 

67FSR requested that the Commission codify no 

action relief issued by the Division of Clearing and 

Risk and the Division of Market Oversight on April 

5, 2013, providing relief to non-SD/MSPs from 

reporting requirements for swaps between whollyowned affiliates. See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 

5 (referencing CFTC No-Action Letter No. 13–09 

(Apr. 5, 2013)). This request is beyond the scope of 

the NPRM and will not be addressed in this release. 

68See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; CMC Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 2; ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 

4; LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; DTCC Oct. 30, 

2015 Letter, at 3. 

69See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; CMC Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

70 ISDA also commented that currently not all 

DCOs report clearing swaps in a consistent manner 

in instances where an affiliate of a clearing member 

enters into a swap that is subsequently cleared 

through its affiliated clearing member. ISDA 

suggested that the Commission make clear that the 

submission of a swap for clearing should not result 

in a change in the name of the counterparty that is 

reported to an SDR and that the report submitted 

by the DCO for the clearing swap has to reflect the 

relevant affiliate and not the clearing member as the 

legal counterparty to the clearing swap with the 

derivatives clearing organization. See ISDA Oct. 30, 

2015 Letter, at 12. While noting this comment, the 

Commission declines to address this as beyond the 

scope of the NPRM. 

71See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4; DTCC Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 3 (distinguishing between 

reporting obligations and the ability to select the 

SDR to which data related to clearing swaps is 

reported); LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

72See CME Oct. 30 2015 Letter, at 3. 

73See Markit Oct. 30 2015 Letter, at 5. 

74See LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

75See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; ISDA Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 4; EEI/EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, 

at 3. 

76See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

77See Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3. 

78See e.g., CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3; CMC 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3; AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter, at 6; CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

79See CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

80See CMC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

81See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. 

82See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4; LCH Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 2; Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 

4. 

83 See LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

84See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. 

85 ISDA also commented in support of the 

Commission’s proposal to remove the provisions in 

§ 45.3 that excused a reporting counterparty from 

reporting creation data for a swap accepted for 

clearing before the primary economic terms 

reporting deadline. See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, 

at 4. 

part 45 required creation data must be 

reported to SDR B. 

vii. Proposed Removal of Expired 

Compliance Date References 

The Commission proposed to remove 

the references to the expired compliance 

dates in §§ 45.3(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), 

(b)(2)(ii), (c)(1)(i)(A), (c)(1)(i)(B), 

(c)(2)(i)(A), (c)(2)(i)(B), (d)(1), and (d)(3), 

and in the introductory language to 

§ 45.3.66 These references to phase-in 

compliance dates are no longer 

necessary as they have expired. 

3. Comments 

The Commission received a number 

of comments in response to its proposed 

revisions to § 45.3. Many of these 

comments focused on the proposed 

reporting of creation data associated 

with clearing swaps and related 

reporting obligations concerning 

original swaps. Other comments 

addressed the new choice of SDR 

provision set out in § 45.3(j). And, 

finally, some commenters discussed the 

new clearing swaps rules in the context 

of principal model clearing.67

i. Creation Data Reporting for Clearing 

Swaps 

With respect to the reporting of 

clearing swaps, commenters generally 

supported the Commission’s proposal to 

require DCOs to report creation data for 

clearing swaps.68 FSR and CMC agreed 

that the DCO is in the best position to 

report creation data for clearing 

swaps.69 ISDA,70 DTCC, and LCH also 

noted support for requiring DCOs to 

report data for clearing swaps.71 CME 

likewise supported the requirement for 

DCOs to report creation data for clearing 

swaps, recommending that the DCO be 

assigned all reporting obligations for 

original and clearing swaps.72 Markit 

recommended an alternative approach 

whereby the reporting counterparty to 

the original swap would be permitted to 

choose whether it reports creation data 

for the clearing swaps, while allowing 

the reporting counterparty to delegate 

the reporting responsibilities to a 

DCO.73

LCH requested that the Commission 

change references to ‘‘execution of a 

clearing swap’’ in proposed § 45.3(e) to 

‘‘creation of a clearing swap’’ in order to 

more clearly address compression 

events. LCH also suggested crossreferencing re-numbered § 45.3(f) to new 

§ 45.3(e), to cover situations where 

block trades are allocated postclearing.74

ii. Removal of Confirmation Data 

Reporting Requirements for Intended To 

Be Cleared Swaps 

With respect to swaps that become 

original swaps, commenters were 

generally supportive of the 

Commission’s proposal to eliminate the 

requirement for reporting confirmation 

data on intended to be cleared swaps.75

FSR commented that the reporting of 

confirmation data for clearing swaps 

should provide sufficient confirmation 

data for a cleared swap transaction.76

Markit, on the other hand, commented 

that eliminating the requirement for 

reporting confirmation data for swaps 

that are intended to be cleared, while 

still maintaining the requirement to 

report primary economic terms data, 

will not benefit reporting workflows and 

that there is little incremental cost to 

report confirmation data as reporting 

systems are set up to capture that 

information already.77

iii. Creation Data Reporting for Swaps 

That Become Original Swaps 

While the proposed amendments to 

part 45, aside from the removal of the 

excusal provisions noted above, do not 

change creation data reporting 

requirements for swaps that become 

original swaps, several commenters 

commented on which entity should be 

responsible for reporting creation data 

for swaps that will become original 

swaps. Some commenters suggested that 

if reporting of creation data for swaps 

that become original swaps continues, 

the DCO, rather than the reporting 

counterparty, should be responsible for 

reporting the creation data for that 

swap.78 CME commented that assigning 

all the reporting obligations for original 

and clearing swaps to the DCO is a 

better and simpler way to address alpha 

swap reporting, and would eliminate 

the need to reconcile original and 

clearing swaps across SDRs.79 CMC 

similarly commented that DCOs are best 

positioned to report on swaps that they 

accept or reject for clearing and should 

assume all reporting obligations for 

cleared swaps, including all reporting of 

swaps that are intended to be cleared.80

AIMA likewise suggested that if the 

Commission continues to require the 

reporting of original swaps, assigning 

the reporting obligations to the DCO 

will remove reporting burdens and the 

risk of data fragmentation across 

SDRs.81

Other commenters recommended that 

the Commission continue requiring the 

reporting counterparty to report creation 

data for those swaps that will become 

original swaps.82 LCH commented that 

the reporting counterparty should 

always be a party to the transaction and 

therefore, in the case of a swap that will 

become an original swap, the DCO 

would not be better suited than the SEF, 

DCM, or reporting counterparty to 

report the creation data.83 Eurex 

suggested that assigning the reporting 

obligation of original swap creation data 

to the DCO may present a timeliness 

issue depending on when the DCO 

receives the necessary information from 

the counterparties.84 ISDA likewise 

agreed that the obligation to report 

swaps that become original swaps 

should remain with the reporting 

counterparty for that swap.85

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41743 

86See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–6; EEI/

EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter, at 2. 

87See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

88See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4 (noting that 

reporting original swap creation data to one SDR 

and reporting clearing swap data to a different SDR 

may undermine data quality for the Commission’s 

supervisory purposes). 

89See EEI/EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

90See NPRM, 80 FR 52544, 52549 at nn. 37–39 

(citing DTCC May 27, 2014 Letter at 17–18; AFR 

May 27, 2014 Letter at 5; Markit May 27, 2014 

Letter at 25; TR SEF May 27, 2014 Letter at 10). 

91See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; LCH Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 2; ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 

4. 

92See CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 1–2; LedgerX 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 1. 

93See CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3. 

94 See DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

95See id. at 4. 

96See id. at 7. 

97 See id. 

98See Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5. 

99See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4–5; JBA Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 1. 

100See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4–5. 

101 See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 9; see also 

FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5. 

102The Commission has made one nonsubstantive conforming change to final § 45.3(b), 

changing the phrase ‘‘exception or exemption from 

the clearing requirement’’ to ‘‘exception to, or 

exemption from, the clearing requirement,’’ to make 

this provision consistent with other uses of the 

phrase throughout § 45.3. 

103See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; CMC Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 2; ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 

4; DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; LCH Oct. 30, 

2015 Letter, at 2. 

Some commenters suggested that the 

reporting of any creation data for swaps 

that will become original swaps is 

unnecessary.86 AIMA commented that 

eliminating reporting for swaps that are 

intended to be cleared at the time of 

execution will significantly reduce 

complexity in the reporting regime and 

streamline the reported data.87 AIMA 

also commented that the Commission’s 

proposed reporting approach for 

original swaps will not reduce data 

fragmentation.88 Similarly, EEI/EPSA 

suggested that there is little to no benefit 

to original swap reporting for swaps that 

are intended to be cleared at the time of 

execution and that counterparties 

should not be required to report any 

creation data for such swaps.89 Other 

commenters, in response to the IDWG 

Request for Comment, supported the 

continued reporting of creation data for 

swaps that will become original 

swaps.90

iv. Choice of SDR Provisions 

The Commission received a number 

of comments on its proposal regarding 

the selection of the SDR to which the 

required swap creation data should be 

reported. Some commenters were 

supportive of the Commission’s 

proposed addition of § 45.3(j) and 

proposed modifications to § 45.10 

relating to the choice of the SDR for a 

particular swap. As discussed below, 

other commenters suggested 

modifications to the Commission’s 

proposal and changes to the manner in 

which the SDR is selected for a 

particular swap. 

With respect to clearing swaps, 

commenters were divided as to which 

entity should have the ability to select 

the SDR. FSR, LCH, and ISDA all 

supported allowing the DCO to select 

the SDR for purposes of reporting 

creation data for clearing swaps, as the 

DCO has the sole obligation to report 

clearing swaps.91 CME and LedgerX 

similarly supported the proposal to 

allow DCOs to select the SDR for 

clearing swaps.92 CME supports the 

Commission’s proposal to assign all 

clearing swap reporting obligations, and 

the right to select the SDR to which it 

reports, to the DCO. CME also 

recommended that the Commission 

assign all original swap reporting 

obligations, and associated SDR 

selection rights, to the DCO, which 

would, in CME’s opinion, ensure that all 

data for a cleared swap transaction is 

housed in the same SDR, thereby 

avoiding data fragmentation.93

Other commenters suggested that the 

reporting counterparty to the swap that 

becomes the original swap should select 

the SDR to which the clearing swaps are 

reported. DTCC commented that the 

DCO for a clearing swap should have 

the obligation to report the clearing 

swap to the SDR selected by the 

reporting counterparty to the swap that 

became the original swap, or selected by 

the SEF or DCM for on-facility swaps.94

DTCC commented that this ‘‘single SDR 

approach’’ would be vital for providing 

a full audit trail and the ability to 

efficiently aggregate data.95 DTCC also 

commented that allowing the DCO to 

select the SDR for clearing swaps creates 

a competition problem due to vertically 

integrated SDRs and DCOs.96 DTCC 

explained that permitting a DCO to 

report to an affiliated SDR when the 

original swap data had been reported to 

another SDR, allows DCOs to bundle 

services and further entrenches DCOs’ 

vertical integration of trade execution, 

clearing, and data reporting.97 Markit 

recommended that the Commission 

allow the reporting counterparty to the 

swap that becomes the original swap to 

select the SDR to which the clearing 

swap is reported, while also allowing 

that reporting counterparty to delegate 

the selection of the swap data repository 

to the DCO. Markit commented that this 

counterparty choice approach would 

result in a more competitive DCO 

marketplace.98

Other commenters suggested that, for 

on-facility swaps that are not cleared by 

a DCO, the party responsible for 

reporting continuation data for the swap 

should not be bound by the SEF or 

DCM’s choice of SDR for the reporting 

of creation data.99 ISDA commented that 

in such cases the selection of the SDR 

should not be assigned to the entity that 

has the first obligation to report, but 

rather should be assigned to the entity 

that has the longest, recurring, or most 

frequent obligation to report.100

v. Reporting of Principal Model Cleared 

Swaps 

Finally, a few comments focused on 

swaps that are cleared through a 

principal, rather than agency, model. 

Eurex commented that it is not clear 

under the proposal which entity is to be 

reported as the counterparty to the DCO 

with regard to a clearing swap in the 

principal model.101

4. Final Rule 

The Commission has considered the 

comments that it received in response to 

the proposed changes to § 45.3. As 

discussed above, some of the proposed 

changes to § 45.3 received widespread 

support among commenters, while other 

proposed changes received both support 

and objection from commenters. The 

Commission has decided to adopt the 

changes to § 45.3 as proposed in the 

NPRM for the following reasons.102

i. Creation Data Reporting for Clearing 

Swaps 

As discussed above, the Commission’s 

proposal to require DCOs to report 

creation data for clearing swaps 

received support from commenters.103

The Commission agrees with these 

commenters that the DCO is in the best 

position to report creation data for 

clearing swaps. As for Markit’s 

proposed counterparty choice 

alternative, the Commission recognizes 

the flexibility that Markit’s proposal 

could offer parties to the clearing swap. 

However, the Commission believes 

Markit’s proposal would likely result in 

additional complexity in the reporting 

process and could obscure, to the 

Commission, which entity has the 

ultimate responsibility for reporting the 

clearing swap. After considering the 

comments received, the Commission 

continues to believe that the DCO is the 

entity with the easiest and quickest 

access to full information with respect 

to PET data and confirmation data for 

clearing swaps. Commission regulation 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41744 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

104See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6). 

105The Commission notes that this change only 

impacts certain confirmation data reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements in § 45.3, and does not 

alter existing obligations to generate or exchange 

confirmations under other Commission regulations. 

106See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; ISDA Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 4; EEI/EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, 

at 3. 

107See Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3. 

108See 80 FR 52544, 52548. 

109See NPRM, 80 FR 52544, 52549, nn. 37–39 

(citing DTCC May 27, 2014 Letter at 17–18; AFR 

May 27, 2014 Letter at 5; Markit May 27, 2014 

Letter at 25; TR SEF May 27, 2014 Letter at 10). 

110See Regulation SBSR, 80 FR 14740. 111See CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3; CMC 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3; AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter, at 6; CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

112See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4; LCH Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 2; Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 

4. 

§ 39.12(b)(6) requires DCOs to have 

rules providing that, upon acceptance of 

a swap by the DCO for clearing, the 

original swap is extinguished and 

replaced by an equal and opposite swap 

between the DCO and each clearing 

member acting as either principal for a 

house trade or agent for a customer 

trade.104 Because the DCO must replace 

an original swap with clearing swaps 

when accepting the original swap for 

clearing, the Commission believes that 

the DCO should be the entity that 

reports creation data for clearing swaps, 

and adopts its proposal to require DCOs 

to report creation data for clearing 

swaps. 

The Commission notes LCH’s 

comments that, when establishing the 

timing requirement for reporting 

clearing swaps that do not replace 

original swaps in § 45.3(e), the term 

‘‘creation of a clearing swap’’ may better 

capture compression events than 

‘‘execution of a clearing swap.’’ The 

Commission believes that the phrase 

‘‘execution of a clearing swap,’’ for 

purposes of part 45, is sufficiently clear 

to cover reporting obligations for all 

clearing swaps that do not replace 

original swaps. The Commission also 

believes that the adopted reporting 

requirements for clearing swaps would 

cover post-clearing allocations of block 

trades raised by LCH. If a block trade is 

allocated after clearing, then any 

allocations of that block would have a 

DCO as one counterparty. Thus, such 

post-allocation swaps would be clearing 

swaps and must be reported by the DCO 

pursuant to § 45.3(e). 

ii. Removal of Confirmation Data 

Reporting Requirements for Intended To 

Be Cleared Swaps 

Under the new rules, SEFs/DCMs and 

reporting counterparties will continue 

to be required to report PET data as part 

of their creation data reporting, but will 

be required to report confirmation data 

only for swaps that, at the time of 

execution, are not intended to be 

submitted to a DCO for clearing. For 

swaps that, at the time of execution, are 

intended to be submitted to a DCO for 

clearing, SEFs/DCMs and reporting 

counterparties will not be required to 

report confirmation data. If the swap is 

accepted for clearing by a DCO, the DCO 

will be required to report confirmation 

data for the clearing swaps pursuant to 

proposed § 45.3(e).105

With respect to swaps that will 

become original swaps, the Commission 

received widespread support of the 

proposed elimination of the requirement 

to report confirmation data associated 

with these swaps.106 One commenter 

did suggest that there is little 

incremental cost to continuing to 

require reporting of confirmation data 

for swaps that will become original 

swaps.107 However, the Commission 

continues to believe that the 

confirmation data requirements for 

clearing swaps provide the Commission 

with a sufficient representation of the 

confirmation data for a cleared swap 

transaction, as the original swap is 

extinguished upon acceptance for 

clearing and replaced by equal and 

opposite clearing swaps. Accordingly, 

the Commission is adopting its proposal 

to remove the confirmation data 

reporting requirement for swaps that are 

intended to be cleared at the time of 

execution. 

iii. Creation Data Reporting for Swaps 

That Become Original Swaps 

With the exception of the removal of 

excusal provisions, the Commission has 

not proposed to change the existing 

requirement to report creation data for 

swaps that will become original swaps. 

As noted in the NPRM, CEA section 

2(a)(13)(G) requires each swap, whether 

cleared or uncleared, to be reported to 

a registered SDR.108 The Commission 

did, however, receive some comments 

urging the Commission to eliminate the 

existing requirement to report swaps 

that will become original swaps. The 

Commission also received, in response 

to the IDWG Request for Comment, 

comments in support of continued 

reporting of creation data for swaps that 

will become original swaps.109

Having reviewed the comments 

regarding reporting of swaps that 

become original swaps, the Commission 

continues to interpret CEA section 

2(a)(13)(G) as requiring all swaps to be 

reported, which would include swaps 

that become original swaps as distinct 

swaps from resulting clearing swaps 

under § 39.12(b)(6). Further, the 

Commission continues to believe that 

original swaps contain essential 

information regarding the origins of 

cleared swap transactions for market 

surveillance and audit-trail purposes, 

including but not limited to the identity 

of the original counterparties, the 

execution venue, and the timestamp of 

the original transaction between the 

original counterparties. Such essential 

information could not be easily 

determined if only resulting clearing 

swaps were to be reported. The 

Commission’s ability to trace the history 

of a cleared swap transaction from 

execution between the original 

counterparties to clearing novation 

relies on this information. The 

Commission also notes that the 

continued reporting of swaps that 

become original swaps is consistent 

with the SEC’s proposed Regulation 

SBSR—Reporting and Dissemination of 

Security-Based Swap Information.110

Finally, the continued reporting of 

original swaps, including original swap 

terminations, will aid the Commission’s 

ability to analyze cleared swap activity 

and review swap activity for compliance 

with the clearing requirement. For these 

reasons the Commission, in this final 

rule, continues to require reporting of 

swaps that will become original swaps. 

The Commission received divided 

comments as to which entity should be 

responsible for reporting creation data 

for those swaps that will become 

original swaps. Some commenters 

suggested that the DCO should be the 

reporting counterparty,111 while other 

commenters recommended that the 

reporting counterparty report creation 

data for those swaps that will become 

original swaps.112 After careful 

consideration of the comments received 

on this issue, the Commission believes 

that the creation data reporting 

requirements for those swaps that will 

become original swaps should remain as 

they currently exist, aside from the 

removal of excusal provisions noted 

above. The Commission recognizes that 

reporting counterparties and registered 

entities have invested substantial time 

and resources to report swaps (both 

cleared and not cleared) to SDRs and 

that DCOs have invested substantial 

resources to report clearing swaps. The 

Commission believes that maintaining 

the existing requirement for the 

reporting counterparty, rather than for 

the DCO, to report creation data of the 

swap that will become an original swap 

will help to prevent disruption of 

established industry workflows. The 

Commission also continues to believe 

that the SEF/DCM or reporting 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41745 

113See 77 FR 2136, 2149. 

114See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. 

115See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; LCH Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 2; ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 

4; CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3 (CME also 

suggested that the DCO select the SDR to which 

original swaps are reported); LedgerX Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter, at 1. 

116See DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; Markit 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5 (Markit also suggested the 

counterparty have the option to delegate the 

selection of the SDR to the DCO). 

117See Final Part 45 Rulemaking, 77 FR 2136, 

2158. 

118See supra, n. 26, discussing reporting 

obligations for counterparties to cleared, on-facility 

swaps. 

119See NPRM, 80 FR 52544, 52550. 

counterparty has the easiest and fastest 

access to initial creation data for swaps 

that become original swaps. 

As discussed in its Final Part 45 

Rulemaking, the Commission believes 

that requiring all swaps that become 

original swaps to be reported only to 

SDRs chosen by the DCO of the 

resulting clearing swaps could create an 

uneven playing field between DCO 

affiliated SDRs and non-DCO affiliated 

SDRs.113 Likewise, if the reporting 

counterparty or SEF/DCM were to report 

creation data, or select the SDR to which 

such data is reported, an SDR in which 

swap dealers have an ownership interest 

may obtain a dominant market position. 

This Final Rule avoids injecting the 

Commission into a market decision by 

maintaining the requirement that 

creation data for swaps that become 

original swaps is reported by the 

reporting counterparty for that swap, or 

the SEF/DCM, and the resulting clearing 

swaps are reported by the DCO. 

The Commission acknowledges the 

data fragmentation concerns raised by 

those that recommend DCOs report 

original swap creation data, however, 

the Commission also recognizes that 

requiring the DCOs, rather than the 

original reporting counterparty, to 

report original swap creation data may 

also present challenges. For example, 

Eurex noted that there could be a 

timeliness issue depending on when the 

DCO receives necessary information 

from counterparties to report creation 

data.114 The Commission also is 

concerned that, should DCOs report 

original swaps, potential delays in 

clearing could delay real-time swaps 

reporting pursuant to part 43. The 

Commission believes that accurate and 

timely reporting of the required data 

fields by all parties, in particular the 

clearing swap PET fields and data 

elements specific to terminations of 

original swaps, will alleviate data 

fragmentation concerns for those 

situations where the original swap and 

clearing swaps are reported to different 

SDRs. 

iv. Choice of SDR Provisions 

The Commission received a variety of 

comments on its proposed addition of 

§ 45.3(j) and modifications to § 45.10 

regarding the choice of the SDR for a 

particular swap. With respect to clearing 

swaps, some commenters recommended 

that the DCO should select the SDR,115

while other commenters suggested the 

reporting counterparty to the original 

swap should select the SDR to which 

the clearing swap must be reported.116

The Commission has considered these 

comments and continues to believe, as 

discussed above, that placing the 

obligation to choose the SDR on the 

registered entity or counterparty that is 

required to first report the required 

swap creation data, rather than on 

another entity, will result in more 

efficient data reporting. Allowing the 

first entity to report data on a swap to 

choose the SDR will allow reporting 

entities to select an SDR to which they 

have established connections; giving 

another entity the ability to choose the 

SDR could require the first reporting 

entities to connect to multiple SDRs. 

The Commission also believes allowing 

the first reporting registered entity or 

counterparty to choose the SDR will 

also promote competition among SDRs 

to provide SDR services to a broad array 

of reporting entities. 

Requiring this method of SDR 

selection also avoids inserting anyone 

other than a party to the swap (or 

facility where the transaction is 

executed) into the decision as to how a 

registered entity or counterparty fulfills 

its regulatory obligation to report initial 

required swap creation data. As with the 

‘‘first-touch’’ approach taken with 

respect to the creation of USIs in part 

45,117 the Commission believes that the 

entity with the first reporting obligation 

should select the SDR for that report. 

The Commission believes that this 

method of SDR selection will avoid 

delays in real-time reporting for part 43 

purposes. If DCOs were to select the 

SDR for an original swap, the DCO 

would not be in a position to make such 

selection until after a swap was 

accepted for clearing. Any delays in 

clearing would translate into delays in 

reporting for both part 43 real-time 

reporting and part 45 reporting. 

The registered entity or counterparty 

that is required to report a swap 

pursuant to § 45.8 may select an SDR to 

which its technological systems are 

most suited or to which it already has 

an established relationship, providing 

for the efficient and accurate reporting 

of swap data. The Commission notes 

that this Final Rule does not prohibit a 

registered entity or counterparty from 

choosing an SDR based on consideration 

of market preference or other factors, 

however, the obligation to choose the 

SDR will rest solely with the registered 

entity or counterparty set forth in 

amended § 45.8. The Commission 

recognizes that this may result in 

original swaps and clearing swaps being 

reported to different SDRs, however, the 

Commission believes that the required 

data fields, such as original swap USI 

included in clearing swap reporting, 

and clearing swap USIs included in 

original swap reporting, will allow the 

Commission to efficiently and 

accurately link data across SDRs and 

perform its regulatory mandate. 

The Commission has also noted 

ISDA’s proposed alternative that the 

entity with the ‘‘longest, recurring, or 

most frequent obligation to report’’ be 

given choice of SDR. In particular, ISDA 

expressed concern that market 

participants would be required, due to 

the made available to trade mandate, to 

trade certain swaps at a particular SEF, 

and therefore be required to report to 

that SEF’s chosen SDR. However, the 

Commission notes that any swaps made 

available to trade would be subject to 

the clearing mandate. As discussed 

above, counterparties to cleared, onfacility swaps would likely have no 

reporting obligations.118 Therefore, the 

concern raised by ISDA would not 

likely impact a large percentage of onfacility swaps. Moreover, ISDA notes 

that its proposed alternative would 

require amending various other 

provisions in part 45, including 

assignment of reporting counterparty 

designation and USI creation. 

Additionally, the Commission notes that 

the ‘‘longest, recurring, or most frequent 

obligation to report’’ may be difficult to 

determine at the outset of a swap, 

creating potential confusion as to who 

could select the SDR. Because amended 

§ 45.3(j) codifies current industry 

practice,119 the Commission believes the 

choice of SDR provisions adopted in 

this final rule create the least disruption 

in the market while achieving the goal 

of consistent and timely swaps 

reporting. 

v. Reporting of Principal Model Clearing 

Swaps 

The Commission has noted comments 

from Eurex on reporting of clearing 

swaps under the principal clearing 

model. The Commission is aware of 

issues surrounding the reporting of 

principal model clearing swaps, but is 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41746 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

120 ‘‘Required swap continuation data’’ is defined 

in § 45.1 and includes ‘‘life cycle event data’’ or 

‘‘state data’’ (depending on which reporting method 

is used) and ‘‘valuation data.’’ Each of these data 

types is defined in § 45.1. ‘‘Life cycle event data’’ 

means all of the data elements necessary to fully 

report any life cycle event. ‘‘State data’’ means all 

of the data elements necessary to provide a 

snapshot view, on a daily basis of all of the primary 

economic terms of a swap. ‘‘Valuation data’’ means 

all of the data elements necessary to fully describe 

the daily mark of the transaction, pursuant to CEA 

section 4s(h)(3)(B)(iii), and to § 23.431 if applicable. 

17 CFR 45.1. 

121See 80 FR 52544, 52551. 

122See 80 FR 52544, 52551. 

123See 80 FR 52544, 52551–52. 

124This proposal would codify certain no-action 

letters issued by the Commission’s Division of 

Market Oversight. See CFTC No-Action Letter No. 

12–55 (Dec. 17, 2012); CFTC No-Action Letter No. 

13–34 (Jun. 26, 2013); and CFTC No-Action Letter 

No. 14–90 (Jun. 30, 2014). Staff no-action relief from 

the requirements of § 45.4(b)(2)(ii) has been in effect 

since the initial compliance date for part 45 

reporting. 

125See 80 FR 52544, 52552. 

126As discussed above, under the proposed 

revisions to §§ 45.3(a)–(d), a SEF/DCM or reporting 

counterparty would be required to report creation 

data for all swaps except clearing swaps (including 

for swaps that later become original swaps by virtue 

of their acceptance for clearing by a DCO). See 

Section II.B.4., supra. See also §§ 45.10 (a)–(c) 

(providing that all required swap continuation data 

reported for a swap must be reported to the same 

SDR to which required swap creation data was first 

reported pursuant to § 45.3). The Commission notes 

that pursuant to existing regulation § 45.13, each 

reporting entity and/or counterparty is required to 

use the facilities, methods, or data standards 

provided or required by the SDR to which the entity 

or counterparty reports the data. 17 CFR 45.13. 

127SDR regulation § 49.10(a) provides that an 

SDR shall accept and promptly record all swap data 

in its selected asset class and other regulatory 

information that is required to be reported pursuant 

to part 45 and part 43 by DCMs, DCOs, SEFs, SDs, 

MSPs and/or non-swap dealer/non-major swap 

participant counterparties. Section 49.10(a)(1) 

further provides that for purposes of accepting all 

swap data as required by part 45 and part 43, the 

registered SDR shall adopt policies and procedures, 

including technological protocols, which provide 

for electronic connectivity between the SDR and 

DCMs, DCOs, SEFs, SDs, MSPs and/or certain other 

non-swap dealer/non-major swap participant 

counterparties who report such data. It further 

states that the technological protocols established 

by a SDR shall provide for the receipt of swap 

creation data, swap continuation data, real-time 

public reporting data, and all other data and 

information required to be reported to such SDR. 

Additionally, § 49.10(a)(1) provides that the SDR 

shall ensure that its mechanisms for swap data 

acceptance are reliable and secure. 17 CFR 49.10. 

The Commission also proposed conforming changes 

to the introductory language of § 45.3 and § 45.4 to 

make clear that all required swap creation and 

continuation data must be reported to the relevant 

SDR in the manner provided in § 45.13, and 

pursuant to § 49.10, which sets forth rules 

governing the acceptance and recording of such 

data. 

128See ITV May 27, 2014 Letter, at 4 (noting that 

failure to accept the termination message can 

produce inaccurate swap data due to double 

reporting and that the rejection of the termination 

message could distort notional amounts and market 

risks, and stating that amending the reporting rules 

to place the reporting obligation on the DCO for 

intended to be cleared swaps simplifies the 

reporting flows and places the responsibility on the 

party best-suited to accurately report cleared swap 

data). 

not providing further guidance at this 

time. 

C. Swap Data Reporting: Continuation 

Data—Amendments to § 45.4 

1. Existing § 45.4 

Regulation 45.4 governs the reporting 

of swap continuation data to an SDR 

during a swap’s existence through its 

final termination or expiration. This 

provision establishes the manner in 

which continuation data, including life 

cycle event data or state data, and 

valuation data,120 must be reported 

(§ 45.4(a)), and sets forth specific 

continuation data reporting 

requirements for both cleared (§ 45.4(b)) 

and uncleared (§ 45.4(c)) swaps. For 

cleared swaps, § 45.4(b) currently 

requires that life cycle event data or 

state data be reported by the DCO, and 

that valuation data be reported by both 

the DCO and by the reporting 

counterparty (if the reporting 

counterparty is an SD or MSP). 

For uncleared swaps, § 45.4(c) 

requires the reporting counterparty to 

report all required swap continuation 

data, including life cycle event data or 

state data, and valuation data. 

2. Proposed Amendments to § 45.4 

The Commission understands that 

§ 45.4 could be clarified regarding 

continuation data reporting 

responsibilities for each of the swaps 

involved in a cleared swap transaction. 

Accordingly, the Commission proposed 

several amendments to § 45.4 to better 

delineate the continuation data 

reporting requirements associated with 

each swap involved in a cleared swap 

transaction.121 In particular, the 

Commission proposed conforming 

changes to existing § 45.4(a), revisions 

to existing § 45.4(b) and to existing 

§ 45.4(c) (proposed to be renumbered as 

§ 45.4(d)), and the addition of new 

§ 45.4(c). Each proposed amendment is 

discussed in detail below. 

i. Proposed Conforming Changes to 

§ 45.4(a) 

The Commission proposed to revise 

the heading of § 45.4(a) to read 

‘‘Continuation data reporting method 

generally’’ to reflect that the 

continuation data reporting method 

requirements in § 45.4(a) apply to all 

swaps, regardless of asset class or 

whether the swap is an original swap, 

clearing swap or uncleared swap, 

whereas the continuation data reporting 

requirements in proposed § 45.4(b), (c), 

and (d) would apply to clearing swaps, 

original swaps, and uncleared swaps, 

respectively.122

ii. Proposed Revisions to § 45.4(b) 

Regulation 45.4(b) currently governs 

continuation data reporting obligations 

for ‘‘cleared swaps,’’ but does not 

distinguish among the different swaps 

involved in a cleared swap transaction 

(i.e. original and clearing swaps). The 

Commission thus proposed to revise the 

introductory language of § 45.4(b) to 

replace the terms ‘‘cleared swaps’’ and 

‘‘swaps cleared by a derivatives clearing 

organization,’’ which were not defined 

in the Final Part 45 Rulemaking, with 

the defined term ‘‘clearing swaps.’’ 123

The Commission proposed to remove 

existing § 45.4(b)(2)(ii), which requires a 

reporting counterparty that is an SD or 

MSP to report valuation data for cleared 

swaps daily, in addition to the valuation 

data that is required to be reported by 

the DCO pursuant to § 45.4(b)(2)(i). For 

clearing swaps, the DCO would be the 

only swap counterparty required to 

report continuation data, including 

valuation data.124

iii. Proposed Addition of § 45.4(c): 

Continuation Data Reporting for 

Original Swaps 

Existing § 45.4(c) governs 

continuation data reporting for 

uncleared swaps. The Commission 

proposed renumbering § 45.4(c) as 

§ 45.4(d) (for reasons discussed below), 

and proposed the addition of a new 

§ 45.4(c), which would set forth the 

continuation data reporting 

requirements for original swaps.125

Specifically, proposed § 45.4(c) would 

require a DCO to report all required 

continuation data for original swaps, 

including original swap terminations, to 

the original swap SDR pursuant to 

§ 45.3(a) through (d).126 As proposed, 

§ 45.4(c) would also reference the 

existing requirement that all 

continuation data must be reported in 

the manner provided in § 45.13(b), and 

that the SDR, in order to comply with 

§ 49.10, must also ‘‘accept and record’’ 

such data, including original swap 

terminations.127 The proposed addition 

of a reference to § 49.10 is consistent 

with an IDWG commenter’s request for 

clarification regarding the obligation of 

the SDR to accept and process the 

termination message from the DCO.128

As proposed, § 45.4(c)(1) would 

require a DCO to report all life cycle 

event data for an original swap on the 

same day that any life cycle event 

occurs, or to report all state data for the 

original swap, daily. 

The continuation data reporting 

requirements of proposed § 45.4(c) 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41747 

129See 80 FR 52544, 52552–53. 

130See 80 FR 52544, 52532–33. 

131See 80 FR 52544, 52553. 

132See 17 CFR 45.3(b)–(d) (creation data reporting 

requirements for off-facility swaps) and 17 CFR 

45.3(a) (creation data reporting requirements for 

swaps executed on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF 

or DCM). See also Section II.B.4.iii supra. 

133See 80 FR 52544, 52553. 

134The Commission did not receive any comment 

directly addressing the conforming changes to 

§ 45.4(a) or renumber and amended § 45.4(d). The 

Commission received a comment from FSR on 

continuation data for amortizing swaps. See FSR 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. Because the NPRM was 

limited to revisions of § 45.4 as it relates to clearing 

swaps, FSR’s request is beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

135See Markit May 27, 2014 Letter, at 10–11 

(arguing that the Commission might receive 

valuable information from valuations reported by 

counterparties). 

136See ABA May 27, 2014 Letter, at 2; CME May 

27, 2014 Letter, at 9–10; FSR May 27, 2014 Letter, 

at 2; ITV May 27, 2014 Letter, at 2, 10, 15; ISDA 

May 27, 2014 Letter, at 13–14; JBA May 27, 2014 

Letter, at 2–3; MFA May 27, 2014 Letter, at 2, 4; 

NGSA May 27, 2014 Letter, at 4–5; AIMA Oct. 30, 

2015 Letter, at 6; ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5; 

JBA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; FSR Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter, at 3. 

137See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. Eurex also 

stated that information on posted collateral could 

be a useful data point for the Commission, but the 

original counterparties would be in a better position 

than the DCO to report such information. Eurex also 

stated that DCOs could provide information on 

margin, but that such data would require more 

effort. 

138See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5. 

139See DTCC May 27, 2014 Letter, at 7 (stating 

that when an alpha swap is novated, the 

Commission should require a DCO to submit 

information about the beta and gamma swaps in 

addition to the termination notice for the alpha 

swap). 

140See DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 8. 

141See CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. See 

Section II.B.3, above, for discussion of CEWG’s and 

other commenters’ positions on reporting of 

creation data for an original swap. 

142See CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

143See CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

would apply to a swap that has been 

submitted to a DCO for clearing and that 

becomes an original swap by virtue of 

the DCO’s acceptance of such swap for 

clearing. The DCO’s continuation data 

reporting obligations for a swap to 

which it is not a counterparty (i.e., for 

swaps other than clearing swaps) will 

only be triggered if a swap is accepted 

for clearing (and thus becomes an 

original swap). If a swap is submitted to 

a DCO for clearing and is not accepted 

for clearing, then the DCO will not have 

continuation data reporting obligations 

for the swap, because the swap is not an 

original swap or a clearing swap. 

iv. Proposed Additional Continuation 

Data Fields To Be Reported by DCOs 

Proposed § 45.4(c) would require 

DCOs to report additional data fields 

when reporting continuation data on 

original swaps.129 These fields would be 

the LEI of the SDR to which the DCO 

reported clearing swaps replacing the 

original swap; the USI of the original 

swap being replaced; and the USIs of 

each clearing swap that is replacing the 

original swap. As discussed in the 

NPRM,130 the Commission proposed 

these additional data fields to enable the 

Commission to track the complete life of 

a cleared swap transaction. Inclusion of 

these data fields in continuation data on 

the original swap, taken in conjunction 

with existing requirements to reporting 

original swap information in reports 

clearing swaps, will aid the Commission 

in linking the original swap and all 

clearing swaps replacing it. 

v. Proposed Revisions to § 45.4(d) 

As mentioned above, the Commission 

proposed to renumber § 45.4(c) 

(Continuation data reporting for 

uncleared swaps) as § 45.4(d). The 

Commission also proposed to amend 

§ 45.4(d), which applies to all swaps 

that are not cleared by a derivatives 

clearing organization, to add the phrase 

‘‘including swaps executed on or 

pursuant to the rules of a swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market.’’131 This proposed change 

would clarify the existing requirement 

that reporting counterparties report all 

required swap continuation data for an 

uncleared swap, irrespective of whether 

the swap was executed off-facility (in 

which case the reporting counterparty 

must report required swap creation 

data), or whether the swap was executed 

on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF or 

DCM (in which case the SEF or DCM 

must report the required swap creation 

data).132

Finally, the Commission proposed to 

modify the introductory language to 

§ 45.4 and § 45.4(d)(1)(ii)(A) to remove 

outdated references to compliance dates 

that have already expired.133

3. Comments Received 

The Commission received numerous 

comments on its proposed revisions to 

§ 45.4.134 Below is a summary of 

comments for each of the primary 

revisions and additions to § 45.4. 

i. Comments on Proposed Revisions to 

§ 45.4(b) 

The proposed amendment to 

§ 45.4(b)(2), requiring only DCOs to 

submit valuation data for clearing 

swaps, was widely supported in the 

comment letters. Although one 

commenter contended that valuation 

data from SD/MSP swap counterparties 

is valuable information and that the 

Commission should require such 

information from SD/MSP 

counterparties for all swaps, cleared or 

uncleared,135 many commenters to the 

IDWG Request for Comment and NPRM 

stated that only the DCO should have 

the responsibility to report valuation 

data for cleared swaps, and that the 

Commission should eliminate the 

requirement for an SD or MSP to report 

valuation data for cleared swaps.136 One 

commenter noted that valuation data 

and mark-to-market value data provided 

by DCOs are sufficient for the 

Commission to understand clearing 

swap valuations, particularly because 

the DCO’s valuation method is the 

industry standard.137

ii. Comments on Proposed Revisions to 

§ 45.4(c) 

Commenters were split on support of 

proposed § 45.4(c), which would require 

the DCO to report continuation data on 

the original swaps once they are 

accepted for clearing to the SDR to 

which the original swap was originally 

reported. ISDA strongly supported the 

revision, stating that it would eliminate 

the issue of cleared ‘‘alpha’’ swaps that 

had not been terminated, which 

negatively affects data quality. ISDA 

commented that DCOs should be 

allowed to report continuation data as 

either lifecycle event data or state 

data.138 DTCC, in its response to the 

IDWG Request for Comment, also 

supported requiring DCOs to report 

terminations of original swaps.139

However, DTCC commented that some 

DCOs fail to submit termination of 

original swaps to DTCC according to 

DTCC’s technical standards.140 CEWG 

commented that DCOs were in the best 

position to report all data on original 

and clearing swaps, although it believes 

the original swap should not be 

reported.141

CME commented that under the 

proposed division of reporting 

obligations for original swaps and 

clearing swaps, DCOs are dependent on 

original swap counterparties providing 

sufficient information on the original 

swaps to fulfill reporting obligations on 

terminations of the original swap.142

CME noted that counterparties rarely 

provided this information, meaning that 

DCOs cannot effectively terminate 

original swaps. As an alternative, CME 

proposed that DCOs should be the 

reporting party for creation and 

continuation data for both original and 

clearing swaps.143

In contrast, some commenters 

recommended that the clearing member, 

and not the DCO, should report 

termination of the original swap to the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41748 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

144See OTC Hong Kong May 27, 2014 Letter, at 

2–3. OTC Hong Kong stated that requiring the 

original counterparty to report termination of the 

alpha would be more cost-effective because the 

original reporting counterparty is already required 

to report creation data and life cycle event data of 

such alpha to an SDR, and thus would already have 

in place a technical and operational interface with 

the SDR of its choice. The commenter also stated 

that imposing an additional requirement on a DCO 

to report termination of the alpha does not appear 

to increase or improve the quantity and quality of 

information already available to the Commission, 

and that the burden on DCOs of the additional 

reporting requirement appears to outweigh the 

benefits to the Commission. See also LCH May 29, 

2014 Letter, at 8 (stating that reporting entities 

should already report terminations under the 

obligation to report continuation data); LedgerX 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

145See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

146See LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

147See id. 

148See id. 

149Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4–5; LCH Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

150Eurex also suggested that reporting of 

terminations could be foregone entirely, as an 

original swap, by definition, has been accepted for 

clearing and ceases to exist. See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter, at 5. 

151 ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5. 

152 JBA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; see also LedgerX 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3 (commenting that 

termination of original swap should be reported as 

soon as technologically practicable, but 

commenting that reporting party of original swap 

should have obligation to report termination). 153Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. ISDA noted 

that bunched orders may be cleared either pre- or 

post-allocation, potentially creating multiple 

clearing swaps for a single original swap. See ISDA 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. ISDA commented that, 

where allocation is done after clearing, DCOs 

should report the USI of the pre-allocation swap as 

the ‘‘prior ISO’’ on clearing swaps for the 

allocations. Eurex commented that, in the event of 

default by a clearing member, it attempts to auction 

off the clearing swap. See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter, at 3. Eurex commented that it was unclear 

whether the novation of an auctioned clearing swap 

should be reported to the original swap SDR. 

154See DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 9. 

155See CME May 27, 2014 Letter, at 10 (‘‘The 

most effective and efficient method for achieving 

linkage for all such events that have a one-to-one 

relationship (i.e., assignment or exercise) or a oneto-many relationship (i.e., clearing, novation, 

allocation) is by the inclusion of a prior USI(s).)’’; 

DTCC letter appendix at 3 (stating that a new swap 

can generally be linked to an existing swaps 

through the use of a ‘‘prior USI’’ data field); ISDA 

May 23, 2014 Letter, at 11 (‘‘Related swaps sent to 

different SDRs can also be linked via use of the USI. 

. . .’’); Markit May 27, 2014 Letter, at 8 (arguing 

that the most effective method to establish a link 

between new and existing swaps is to store the USI 

of the original swap as a prior USI). 

156See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7; Eurex 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7; ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, 

at 7. ITV also commented on requirements for SDRs 

to transmit USIs to non-reporting counterparties for 

swaps between non-swap dealers or major swap 

participants, not executed on a DCM or SEF under 

existing Section 45.5(c)(2). ITV Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, 

at 4. Because the NPRM did not propose to amend 

§ 45.5(c)(2), this comment is beyond the scope of 

the proposed rule. 

157See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6; DTCC Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 8; Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, 

at 3. 

158See LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. 

159See CFTC Letter 15–38 (Jun. 12, 2015). 

SDR.144 Eurex stated that the clearing 

member would already have 

information on the original swap and a 

connection to the SDR where the 

original swap was reported, putting the 

original reporting party in the best 

position to report a termination.145 LCH 

commented that having the original 

reporting party report any continuation 

events would avoid reporting gaps on 

events occurring between creation and 

clearing.146 LCH commented that 

requiring DCOs to submit cancelations 

of original swaps would be inconsistent 

with reporting obligations under the 

European Markets Infrastructure 

Regulation (‘‘EMIR’’).147 LCH also 

commented that the choice of original 

swap SDR could become an eligibility 

criterion for clearing, and that DCOs 

could potentially reject swaps from 

clearing based on the original swap 

SDR.148 Eurex and LCH both noted that 

the requirement would force DCOs to 

connect to all registered SDRs and 

report terminations according to the 

technical requirements of each SDR.149

As an alternative, Eurex proposed that 

DCOs be allowed to select the SDR to 

which they report the termination of the 

original swap.150

Regarding timing of reporting 

continuation data for original swaps, 

ISDA supported the provision in new 

§ 45.4(c) allowing DCOs to report 

continuation data on original swaps 

daily and via either lifecycle event data 

or state data.151 The Japanese Bankers 

Association commented that original 

swaps should be terminated as soon as 

technologically practicable, to align 

reporting on clearing swaps with 

reporting on cleared futures transactions 

under § 1.74.152 Eurex commented that 

terminations were the only lifecycle 

events for original swaps that would 

need to be reported as continuation 

data.153

DTCC requested that the Commission 

offer guidance on how SDRs, DCOs, and 

any other affected entities should 

address previously reported cleared 

swaps for which the original swap had 

not been terminated.154

iii. Comments on Proposed Additional 

Continuation Data Fields To Be 

Reported by DCOs 

Several commenters asserted that the 

most cost-effective method for 

establishing a link between the original 

swaps and the swaps that replace the 

original swap upon acceptance for 

clearing is to include the USI of the 

original swap as a prior USI for the beta 

and gamma swaps.155 Several 

commenters to the IDWG Request for 

Comment supported the concept of 

requiring that the DCO provide USIs for 

clearing swaps to the counterparties to 

those swaps under proposed Section 

45.5(d)(2).156 ISDA, DTCC and Markit 

generally supported the requirement 

that DCOs include the USI of the 

original swap when reporting clearing 

swaps, but objected to requiring 

additional fields linking original and 

clearing swaps as redundant.157 LCH 

suggested that there should be a 

standardized format for reporting 

terminations of original swaps that must 

be accepted by all SDRs.158

4. Final Rule Text 

Having considered the comments 

received, the Commission has decided 

to adopt the amendments to § 45.4 as 

proposed. 

i. Conforming Changes to § 45.4(a) 

Receiving no comments on the 

conforming changes to § 45.4(a), the 

Commission adopts these changes as 

proposed. The changes clarify that the 

standards for reporting continuation 

data in § 45.4(a) apply to all 

continuation events regardless of asset 

class or whether the swap is uncleared, 

an original swap, or a clearing swap. 

ii. Revisions to § 45.4(b) 

The Commission notes support among 

market participants for the amendment 

to § 45.4 removing the requirement that 

SDs and MSPs report valuation data for 

clearing swaps. The Commission adopts 

this revision, codifying existing noaction relief,159 as proposed. 

iii. Addition of § 45.4(c)—Continuation 

Data Reporting for Original Swaps 

The Commission notes the different 

opinions offered by commenters on the 

proposed addition of § 45.4(c), which 

would require DCOs to report 

continuation data, including 

terminations, of original swaps. The 

Commission has considered the 

alternative approaches to reporting 

original swap terminations that were 

proposed by commenters, such as 

requiring original swap reporting parties 

to report terminations; requiring DCOs 

to report both original and clearing 

swaps; and allowing DCOs to select the 

SDR for original swap terminations. The 

Commission believes that its proposed 

method best incorporates existing 

industry practice, whereby DCOs 

generally report clearing swaps as well 

as submitting termination messages on 

original swaps, thereby limiting 

additional costs. It may be more 

burdensome for the counterparties to 

the original swaps to report 

terminations because they would have 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41749 

160See supra, n. 26, for discussion of reporting 

obligations for on-facility cleared swaps. 

161The Commission notes that the approach 

adopted could generate some degree of data 

fragmentation, as reports on the original swaps may 

be housed at a different SDR from reports on its 

clearing swaps. However, the Commission believes 

this issue can be overcome for its regulatory 

purposes—namely risk analysis and market 

surveillance—if the Commission is able to pull 

accurate data on individual swaps from each of the 

registered SDRs. Moreover, accurate reporting of 

original swap USIs and SDR identities in clearing 

swaps reporting, and accurate clearing swaps USIs 

and SDR identities in original swaps terminations, 

would allow for easy tracking of the lifecycle of a 

cleared swap transaction. 

162See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6). Through its rules, the 

DCO determines whether or not a swap that is 

submitted for clearing becomes an original swap. 

163The Commission has also considered LCH’s 

comment that EMIR puts the original swap 

termination obligation on the original swap parties. 

Placing reporting obligations on one party under 

CFTC regulations, and on another party under 

EMIR, would not create a direct conflict as both 

parties would be able to satisfy their respective 

regulatory obligations. The Commission recognizes 

that this situation could result in two termination 

messages for the same original swap, but this 

should not have a negative impact on the quality 

of SDR data. 

164See existing §§ 45.5(a)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(iii), & 

(c)(2)(ii) (requiring the entity that created the USI 

to transmit the USI of a swap to the DCO, if any, 

to which the swap is submitted for clearing, as part 

of the required swap creation data transmitted to 

the derivatives clearing organization for clearing 

purposes). Proposed revisions to § 45.5 are 

described in Section II.D of this release. 

165For instance, inclusion of the USI of the 

original swap in DCO continuation data reporting 

will permit the SDR receiving such continuation 

data to associate data regarding a life cycle event 

such as termination with the existing data 

maintained for the swap. This will help ensure that 

data in the SDR remains current and accurate and 

will enable the Commission and other regulators to 

ascertain whether a swap remains in existence or 

Continued 

to receive messages from the DCO 

confirming that the original swap was 

accepted for clearing, then translate that 

message from the DCO into a 

termination message to the SDR. This 

may be particularly burdensome for 

commercial end-users executing swaps 

on SEFs or DCMs who might otherwise 

have no reporting obligations and who 

may not have the infrastructure in place 

to report as quickly or as efficiently as 

DCOs.160

On the other hand, requiring DCOs to 

report creation and continuation data 

for both original and clearing swaps 

could slow the reporting of original 

swaps for part 43 and part 45 purposes. 

DCOs would need to receive messages 

from the counterparties, or from the SEF 

or DCM where executed on-facility, 

with all information necessary to report 

the swap that becomes an original swap. 

The DCO would then need to transmit 

such information to the SDR of its 

choice. Introducing an extra step in 

reporting would inherently slow 

reporting, which must be done as soon 

as technologically practicable 

particularly for transparency reasons. At 

the same time, requiring DCOs to report 

original swaps for part 43 and part 45 

purposes would require DCOs to obtain 

information beyond what would be 

needed for clearing purposes, thus 

increasing the burden on DCOs. 

Finally, the Commission has 

considered the alternative proposal that 

DCOs be allowed to report an original 

swap termination to an SDR other than 

that where the original swap was 

reported. Adoption of this alternative 

approach could result in significant data 

fragmentation, as data on a single swap 

could be housed at more than one SDR. 

Additionally, this alternative approach 

would render useless any position 

reports generated by an SDR, as the SDR 

(or market participant accessing its own 

data on an SDR) could not determine if 

the swaps it housed are still in effect, 

thereby removing a potential validation 

tool for market participants.161

Having considered these alternatives 

as suggested by commenters, the 

Commission has determined to adopt 

the amendments to § 45.4 as it has 

proposed. The Commission believes that 

DCOs are in the best position to report 

the termination of an original swap 

because the DCO, through the clearing 

process, has all information needed to 

report such terminations. By virtue of its 

decision to accept a swap for clearing 

and to extinguish the swap upon 

acceptance,162 a DCO will be the first 

entity to know that clearing occurred 

and that the original swap should be 

terminated, putting the DCO in the best 

position to report terminations quickly. 

DCOs can build original swap 

terminations into their systems 

architecture, allowing for fast, 

consistent, and accurate 

terminations.163

DCOs will also have all information 

needed to terminate the original swap 

based on the swap submitted for 

clearing. Data required for such 

termination messages would either be 

generated by the DCO itself (such as 

clearing swap USIs and clearing swap 

SDR LEIs) or could be included in any 

message submitting a swap for clearing 

(such as the USI of the original swap 

and the LEI of the original swap SDR). 

While CME commented that clearing 

members have not consistently included 

original swap USI and LEI of the 

original swap SDR in messages 

transmitted to the DCO for clearing, the 

Commission notes that DCOs could 

require their clearing members to 

provide such information. As proposed, 

§ 45.4(c) would require DCOs to report 

these fields. DCOs must obtain the 

relevant information from their clearing 

members. 

iv. Addition of Continuation Data Fields 

To Be Reported by DCOs 

The Commission has considered the 

comments opposing the creation of 

required continuation data fields to be 

reported by DCOs for original swaps. 

The Commission has also considered 

ISDA’s comment regarding the potential 

redundancy of having USIs of clearing 

swaps transmitted in the termination 

message for the original swap, as well as 

having the USI of the original swap in 

the creation data for the clearing swaps. 

The Commission believes that 

reporting the clearing swaps USIs as 

continuation data for the original swap 

is an efficient mechanism for linking 

clearing swaps to the original swap that 

they replace and should be used for this 

purpose. New § 45.4(c)(2) will thus 

require DCOs to include the following 

additional enumerated data elements 

when reporting continuation data for 

original swaps pursuant to proposed 

§ 45.4(c)(1): (i) The legal entity identifier 

(‘‘LEI’’) of the SDR to which each 

clearing swap for a particular original 

swap was reported by the DCO pursuant 

to new § 45.3(e); (ii) the USI of the 

original swap that was replaced by the 

clearing swaps; 164 and (iii) the USI for 

the clearing swaps that replace the 

original swap. 

As adopted, these data fields will 

enable the DCO to fulfill its 

continuation data reporting obligations, 

enable the SDR to maintain the accuracy 

and completeness of swap transaction 

data, enable the Commission to track the 

life of a cleared swap transaction, and 

enable the Commission to monitor 

compliance with the clearing mandate. 

In particular, inclusion within an 

original swap termination message the 

LEI of the clearing swap SDR will 

permit the Commission and other 

regulators to ascertain the SDR where 

the clearing swaps associated with a 

particular original swap reside, which 

will enable the Commission and other 

regulators to review and more 

effectively associate data available at 

multiple SDRs in circumstances where 

the reporting entity or counterparty 

selects one SDR for the original swap 

and the DCO selects a different SDR for 

the clearing swaps under § 45.3. 

Inclusion of the original swap’s USI is 

necessary to enable the original swap 

SDR to associate continuation data 

reported by the DCO with the initial 

creation data reported by a SEF/DCM or 

reporting counterparty pursuant to 

§ 45.3(a) through (d).165 These data will 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41750 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

has been extinguished upon acceptance for clearing 

by a DCO. 

166See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6). Part 45 currently 

requires all swap data and information reported to 

and maintained by an SDR regarding a given swap 

to be ‘‘current and accurate’’ and to include ‘‘all 

changes’’ to a swap. See 17 CFR 45.4(a). 

167See 17 CFR 45.5(a)–(c). 

168See, e.g., 17 CFR 45.5(a)(1)(i), (b)(1)(i) and 

(c)(1)(i) (the data component of a USI commonly 

referred to as a namespace is the unique 

alphanumeric code assigned to the registered entity 

responsible for generating the USI for the purpose 

of identifying such registered entity with respect to 

USI creation). 

169The Commission also proposes conforming 

amendments to renumber existing § 45.5(e) as 

§ 45.5(f). 

170See 80 FR 52544, 52554. 

171See, e.g., 17 CFR 45.5(a), 45.5(c). 

172See 80 FR 52544, 52554. 

173See 80 FR 52544, 52554. 

174 ITV requested that the Commission remove 

the obligation for SDRs, when a swap is executed 

allow SDRs to validate termination 

messages reported by DCOs by ensuring 

that the termination message has the 

same USI as the original report. 

Similarly, in the case of clearing swaps 

that replace an original swap, inclusion 

of the USIs of the clearing swaps will 

permit the Commission and other 

regulators to identify the specific 

clearing swaps that replaced an original 

swap, thereby presenting a full history 

of the cleared swap transaction. 

Together, the revisions to § 45.4(b) 

and the addition of § 45.4(c) will require 

the reporting of continuation data for 

original swaps and clearing swaps. 

Accordingly, the Commission expects 

that records of original swaps that have 

been terminated would include the USIs 

for the clearing swaps that replaced the 

original swap and the LEI of the clearing 

swap SDR, such that review of an 

original swap would permit the 

identification of the resulting clearing 

swaps and the SDR where they resides. 

These provisions will reflect the 

regulations applicable to DCOs outlined 

in part 39 of the Commission’s 

regulations and will clearly delineate 

the continuation data reporting 

obligations associated with each swap 

involved in a cleared swap 

transaction.166

The Commission is mindful of LCH’s 

suggestion that there be an industrywide standard for original swap 

termination messages and DTCC’s 

comment that termination reports often 

do not comply with SDR specifications. 

To help DCOs comply with the 

requirements of amended § 45.4, the 

Commission encourages DCOs and 

SDRs to develop an industry-wide 

standard for original swap termination 

messages. The Commission anticipates 

that original swap termination messages 

could be standardized given the limited 

number of data elements that must be 

transmitted, such as clearing swap USIs, 

DCO LEIs, and clearing swap SDR LEIs. 

Standardization also would alleviate 

LCH’s concern that the original swap’s 

SDR would become a factor in 

determining whether a swap was 

eligible for clearing. 

The Commission has also considered 

conflicting comments on whether 

original swap terminations should be 

reported at the end of the day or as soon 

as technologically practicable. The 

Commission has determined to adopt 

the amendment as proposed and require 

reporting original swap terminations at 

the end of the day, as this would be 

consistent with reporting other types of 

continuation data under § 45.4. 

v. Revisions to § 45.4(d) 

The Commission received no 

comments on the proposed revisions to 

§ 45.4(d), and is adopting those revision 

as proposed. 

D. Unique Swap Identifiers— 

Amendments to Section 45.5 

1. Existing § 45.5 

Existing § 45.5 requires that each 

swap subject to the Commission’s 

jurisdiction be identified in all 

recordkeeping and all swap data 

reporting by the use of a USI. The rule 

establishes different requirements for 

the creation and transmission of USIs 

depending on whether the swap is 

executed on a SEF or DCM (§ 45.5(a)), 

executed off-facility with an SD or MSP 

reporting counterparty (§ 45.5(b)), or 

executed off-facility with a non-SD/MSP 

reporting counterparty (§ 45.5(c)). 

Existing § 45.5 provides that for swaps 

executed on a SEF or DCM, the SEF or 

DCM creates the USI, and for swaps not 

executed on a SEF or DCM, the USI is 

created by an SD or MSP reporting 

counterparty, or by the SDR if the 

reporting counterparty is not an SD or 

MSP.167

With the exception of swaps with a 

non-SD/MSP reporting counterparty, the 

existing rule generally requires USI 

creation and transmission to be carried 

out by the entity or counterparty 

required to report all required swap 

creation data for the swap. Existing 

§ 45.5 thus does not distinguish between 

original and clearing swaps, does not 

provide USI creation and transmission 

requirements specifically for DCOs, and 

consequently does not provide for the 

issuance to DCOs of a USI ‘‘namespace,’’ 

which is one of two component parts of 

a USI.168

The Commission understands that, in 

practice, SEFs/DCMs and reporting 

counterparties, or SDRs in the case of 

non-SD/MSP reporting counterparties, 

generate and assign USIs for swaps that 

would become original swaps under the 

proposed rules, and that DCOs generate 

and assign USIs to swaps that would 

qualify as clearing swaps in connection 

with reporting required swap creation 

data for clearing swaps to SDRs. 

2. Proposed Amendments to § 45.5 

The Commission proposed to 

renumber existing § 45.5(d) as § 45.5(e), 

and to create a new § 45.5(d) that would 

set forth requirements regarding the 

creation and transmission of USIs for 

clearing swaps.169

As proposed, § 45.5(d)(1) would 

require a DCO to generate and assign a 

USI for each clearing swap upon, or as 

soon as technologically practicable after, 

acceptance of an original swap by the 

DCO for clearing (or execution of a 

clearing swap that does not replace an 

original swap), and prior to reporting 

the required swap creation data for each 

clearing swap.170 Proposed § 45.5(d)(1) 

would also require that the USI for each 

clearing swap consist of two data 

components: A unique alphanumeric 

code assigned to the DCO by the 

Commission for the purpose of 

identifying the DCO with respect to USI 

creation, and an alphanumeric code 

generated and assigned to that clearing 

swap by the automated systems of the 

DCO. These proposed USI creation 

requirements and data components for 

DCOs and clearing swaps are consistent 

with those currently required by part 45 

for other registered entities such as 

SEFs, DCMs, and SDRs.171

As proposed, § 45.5(d)(2) would 

require a DCO to transmit the USI for a 

clearing swap electronically to the SDR 

to which the DCO reports required swap 

creation data for the clearing swap, as 

part of that report, and to the DCO’s 

counterparty with respect to that 

clearing swap, as soon as 

technologically practicable after either 

acceptance of the original swap by the 

DCO for clearing or execution of a 

clearing swap that does not replace an 

original swap.172

Finally, the Commission proposed to 

amend §§ 45.5(a), 45.8(f), and 45.10(a) to 

incorporate the language ‘‘or pursuant to 

the rules of’’ to the phrase ‘‘swaps 

executed on a swap execution facility or 

designated contract market’’ to make 

clear that those provisions currently 

apply to all swaps executed on or 

pursuant to the rules of a SEF or 

DCM.173

3. Comments Received 

The Commission received several 

comments regarding its proposed 

amendments to § 45.5.174 All comments 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41751 

between two non-SD/MSPs and the SDR is 

obligated to create the USI, to transmit the USI to 

the counterparties. ITV commented that this could 

create obligations for SDRs to transmit information 

to parties not enrolled with the SDR. The 

Commission has noted this comment, but it is 

beyond the scope of the NPRM. 

175See ITV Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3 (but noting 

that generation of the USI for a clearing swap by 

the SDR would slow acceptance of swaps in the 

clearing process); ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7 

(also suggesting that the Commission require the 

namespace component of USIs for each DCO be 

made publicly available); AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter, at 7. 

176See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. 

177See id. 

178See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. 

179See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. 

180See Final Part 45 Rulemaking, 77 FR 2136, 

2158 (Jan. 13, 2012). The Commission’s approach 

with respect to SEFs, DCMs, SDs, MSPs, and SDRs 

was designed to foster efficiency by taking 

advantage of the technological sophistication and 

capabilities of such entities, while ensuring that a 

swap is identified by a USI from its inception. 

181See 80 FR 52544, 52554–55. 182See, infra, Section II.H.1.i. 

183See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. 184See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7. 185See EEI/EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. 186See ITV Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4 and 6. 187 ITV also commented that it believes 

counterparties should be permit to select the 

reporting party for a swap when both counterparties 

are non-SD/MSPs, regardless of financial entity 

status or U.S. person status. See ITV Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter, at 4. 188See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7. 

received were supportive of the 

amendment to § 45.5(d)(1), which 

requires DCOs to generate USIs for 

clearing swaps.175

FSR requested that the Commission 

adopt ISDA best practices for 

identifying international swaps, 

including allowing for the use of a USI 

as a unique transaction identifier 

(‘‘UTI’’) for reporting swaps in other 

jurisdictions.176 FSR commented that 

adopting the ISDA best practice 

concerning USIs would avoid potential 

double-counting when an international 

swap is reported to two separate SDRs 

in two jurisdictions.177

ISDA commented that, in principal 

model clearing, the DCO should ensure 

that both the DCO’s clearing member 

and the ultimate counterparty (if not the 

clearing member) receive the clearing 

swap USIs.178 ISDA further noted that 

the current Orders of Exemption issued 

to foreign DCOs do not include an 

obligation for those exempt DCOs to 

generate the USIs for reportable clearing 

swaps.179

4. Final Rule Text of § 45.5 

Having considered the comments 

relating to the purpose and scope of the 

proposed amendments to § 45.5, the 

Commission is adopting amended § 45.5 

as proposed. The proposed § 45.5(d) 

provisions that would govern creation 

and assignment of USIs by the DCO 

with respect to clearing swaps would be 

consistent with the Commission’s ‘‘firsttouch’’ approach to USI creation for 

SEFs, DCMs, SDs, MSPs, and SDRs.180

The Commission notes ISDA’s request 

for guidance on whether DCOs must 

ensure, in the principal clearing mode, 

that the ultimate counterparty (when 

not the clearing member) receive the 

USI of the clearing swaps. As noted 

above, the Commission is aware of 

various issues relating to reporting of 

principal model clearing but will not 

offer further guidance at this time. The 

Commission notes ISDA’s comment that 

the current Orders of Exemption for 

foreign DCOs do not include a 

requirement that the DCO generate USIs 

for reportable clearing swaps. Finally, 

the Commission notes FSR’s request for 

the Commission to align the use of USIs 

and UTIs for reporting international 

swaps. While the Commission declines 

to address the issue in this release as it 

is beyond the scope of the NPRM, the 

Commission is cognizant of the need to 

harmonize reporting across jurisdictions 

and will continue to work with other 

regulators to address this and other 

issues. 

E. Determination of Which Counterparty 

Must Report—Amendments to § 45.8 

1. Existing § 45.8 

Existing § 45.8 sets forth a hierarchy 

under which the reporting counterparty 

for a particular swap depends on the 

nature of the counterparties involved in 

the transaction. Regulation 45.8 assigns 

a reporting counterparty for off-facility 

swaps, for which the reporting 

counterparty must report all required 

swap creation data, as well as for swaps 

executed on or pursuant to the rules of 

a SEF or DCM, for which the SEF or 

DCM must report all required swap 

creation data. 

2. Proposed Amendments to § 45.8 

The Commission proposed to add 

paragraph (i) to § 45.8 in order to 

explicitly provide that the DCO will be 

the reporting counterparty for clearing 

swaps.181 The Commission also 

proposed to amend the introductory 

language of § 45.8 to make clear that the 

reporting counterparty for all swaps 

except clearing swaps will be made as 

provided in paragraphs (a) through (h) 

of § 45.8, while the reporting 

counterparty for clearing swaps will be 

made as provided in paragraph (i) of 

§ 45.8. The Commission further 

proposed to remove the language ‘‘if 

available’’ from § 45.8(h)(1)(i) to ensure 

consistency with proposed changes to 

appendix 1 to part 45. As discussed 

below in addressing changes to the PET 

data fields in appendix 1, the ‘‘if 

available’’ language was only relevant 

prior to availability of the LEI system.182

The Commission proposed to further 

amend § 45.8 to remove part of 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (f)(1) and to 

remove part of paragraph (h)(2) and all 

of paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii), which 

require SEFs to notify counterparties to 

a swap if it cannot determine who 

would be the reporting counterparty. 

Finally, the Commission proposed 

conforming changes to explanatory 

notes in the PET data tables in appendix 

1 to part 45 that reference the situation 

described in § 45.8(h)(2). 

3. Comments Received 

The Commission received six 

comments in connection with its 

proposed amendments to § 45.8. One 

commenter supported proposed § 45.8(i) 

as it would promote efficiency in 

reporting by explicitly designating the 

DCO as the reporting party for clearing 

swaps.183

ISDA noted a potential inconsistency 

between reporting obligations under 

parts 43 and 45 for clearing swaps, as 

DCOs are not included in the hierarchy 

under § 43.3 for determining reporting 

party of real-time reporting.184 ISDA 

suggested that this could result in 

duplicative reporting obligations for 

DCOs and clearing members in 

situations where a clearing swap does 

not replace an original swap. 

EEI/EPSA requested that the 

Commission not remove, as proposed, 

the provisions in §§ 45.8(d)(1) and (f)(1), 

which currently require the 

counterparties to select the reporting 

party, where the swap is executed on a 

SEF or DCM and both counterparties 

have the same SD, MSP or financial 

entity status.185 The commenter 

requested that the provisions be left in 

place because the proposed rule did not 

set out how the reporting party would 

be determined. ITV argued that the 

reporting hierarchy in existing §§ 45.8(c) 

and (e), when applied to uncleared 

swaps between end-users, particularly 

in the commodity asset class, can 

preclude end-users from negotiating 

between themselves who the reporting 

party would be.186 This may result in 

the selection of a reporting party who 

has less technical infrastructure than the 

non-reporting counterparty.187 ISDA 

recommended that the Commission 

encourage SEFs to adopt the ISDA asset 

class tie-breaker logic (the ‘‘ISDA RCP’’) 

for determining reporting party for onSEF swaps.188

Two commenters noted that, with the 

addition of proposed § 45.8(i) 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41752 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

189See EEI/EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4; CMC 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

190 17 CFR 43.3(a)(3). 

191See 80 FR 52544, 52555. 

192See 17 CFR 45.10(a). 

193See 17 CFR 45.10(b) 

194See 17 CFR 45.10(c). 

195See 80 FR 52544, 52555–56. 

196The Commission also proposed to repeat the 

language ‘‘Off-facility swaps with a swap dealer or 

major swap participant reporting counterparty’’ 

from the title of § 45.10(b) in the body of that 

regulation to make clear that the requirement 

pertains to off-facility swaps with an SD or MSP. 

197The Commission also proposed conforming 

amendments to § 45.10 to renumber paragraph 

(b)(3) as (b)(2), paragraph (c)(3) as (c)(2), and 

paragraph (c)(4) as (c)(3). The Commission also 

proposed to remove a reference to § 45.10(c)(2) from 

existing § 45.10(c)(4) because the Commission 

proposed to remove § 45.10(c)(2). 

198See Section II.B.2.ii, supra. 

199See 80 FR 52544, 52555–56. 

200See 80 FR 52544, 52555–56. 

201The Commission notes that proposed 

§ 45.10(d)(3) would require any equal and opposite 

clearing swaps, including those resulting from the 

operation of § 39.12(b)(6) of the Commission’s 

regulations, to be reported to a single SDR, 

regardless of whether such clearing swaps replaced 

an original swap. 

addressing the reporting of clearing 

swaps, the phrase ‘‘or is cleared by a 

derivatives clearing organization’’ in 

§ 45.8(f) would become inapplicable.189

The commenters recommended that the 

Commission remove this clause from 

existing § 45.8(f). 

4. Final Rule Text of § 45.8 

For the reasons expressed more fully 

below, the Commission has decided to 

adopt the amendments to § 45.8 as 

proposed. 

The Commission has considered 

ISDA’s comment that the inclusion of 

DCOs in the part 45 reporting hierarchy 

could create inconsistencies between 

part 43 and part 45 reporting obligations 

for clearing swaps that do not replace 

original swaps. Existing § 43.3(a)(3) sets 

out the reporting hierarchy for real-time 

reporting of off-facility swaps. DCOs are 

not included in this hierarchy, but the 

hierarchy is applicable unless otherwise 

agreed to by the parties prior to the 

execution of the publicly reportable 

swap transaction.190 To the extent that 

clearing swaps are reportable events 

under part 43, the Commission notes 

that DCOs and their clearing members 

could agree that the DCO should be the 

reporting party for part 43 purposes 

pursuant to the ‘‘unless otherwise 

agreed’’ clause of § 43.3(a)(3). It is only 

if the DCO and its clearing member did 

not so agree would the clearing member 

have part 43 reporting obligations for 

some clearing swaps pursuant to the 

reporting hierarchy under § 43.3. The 

Commission therefore declines in this 

rule release to include DCOs in the part 

43 real-time reporting hierarchy. 

The Commission has also considered 

comments from EEI/EPSA and ITV 

regarding the removal of provisions in 

§§ 45.8(d)(1) and (f)(1) governing the 

selection of reporting parties for swaps 

executed on SEFs and DCMs. As was 

explained in the preamble to the NPRM, 

the Commission proposed to remove 

these provisions to help preserve 

parties’ anonymity on SEFs and DCMs, 

in particular for swaps cleared through 

a straight-through-processing 

mechanism.191 SEFs have adopted 

various formulas to determine who will 

be the reporting party when both 

counterparties have the same SD, MSP, 

financial entity, and U.S. Person status. 

These formulas will ensure that 

reporting parties are selected 

consistently. Therefore, the Commission 

is adopting amendments to §§ 45.9(d)(1) 

and (f)(1) as proposed. In addressing 

ISDA’s comment regarding the ISDA 

RCP, the Commission declines to adopt 

or impose any particular formula at this 

time for selecting the reporting party, 

instead leaving such determinations to 

the SEFs. 

The Commission has also considered 

EEI/EPSA’s and CMC’s comments 

regarding the continued inclusion of the 

phrase ‘‘or is cleared by a derivatives 

clearing organization’’ in § 45.8(f). The 

Commission notes that existing § 45.8(f) 

addresses reporting hierarchy for certain 

categories of reportable swaps executed 

between two non-U.S. Persons; one 

category of such reportable swaps is a 

swap cleared through a DCO. The 

Commission notes that the swap 

‘‘cleared by a derivatives clearing 

organization’’ in this provision relates to 

the original swap between the original 

counterparties, and not the clearing 

swaps with the DCO. The Commission 

is adopting § 45.8(f) as proposed, with 

the continued inclusion of the phrase 

‘‘cleared by a derivatives clearing 

organization.’’ 

F. Reporting to a Single Swap Data 

Repository—Amendments to § 45.10 

1. Existing § 45.10 

Existing § 45.10 requires ‘‘all swap 

data for a given swap’’ to be reported to 

a single SDR, which must be the same 

SDR to which creation data for that 

swap is first reported. The time and 

manner in which such data must be 

reported to a single SDR depends on 

whether the swap is executed on a SEF 

or DCM,192 executed off-facility with an 

SD/MSP reporting counterparty,193 or 

executed off-facility with a non-SD/MSP 

reporting counterparty.194 Currently, 

§ 45.10(b) and (c) also provide 

circumstances in which a reporting 

counterparty is excused from reporting 

PET data to an SDR because the swap 

is accepted for clearing by a DCO before 

the applicable reporting deadline. 

2. Proposed Amendments to § 45.10 

In order to further clarify that ‘‘all 

swap data for a given swap’’ 

encompasses all swap data required to 

be reported pursuant to parts 43 and 45 

of the Commission’s regulations, the 

Commission proposed to add language 

to this effect to paragraphs (a) through 

(c) and to the introductory language of 

§ 45.10.195 This proposed additional 

language would clarify the existing 

requirement that registered entities and 

reporting counterparties must provide 

all swap data required under parts 43 

and 45 to a single SDR for a given 

swap.196

The Commission also proposed to 

remove § 45.10(b)(2) and (c)(2),197

which are no longer applicable because 

they reference provisions in § 45.3(b)(1), 

(c)(1)(i), and (c)(2)(i) that, as discussed 

above, the Commission proposed to 

remove.198

Additionally, the Commission 

proposed to add new § 45.10(d), which 

would govern clearing swaps and would 

establish explicit requirements that 

DCOs report all required swap creation 

data and all required swap continuation 

data for each clearing swap to a single 

SDR.199 Specifically, proposed 

§ 45.10(d)(1) would require a DCO to 

report all required swap creation data 

for a particular clearing swap to a single 

SDR. As proposed, § 45.10(d)(1) would 

also require the DCO to transmit the LEI 

of the SDR to which it reported the 

required swap creation data for each 

clearing swap to the counterparty of 

each clearing swap, as soon as 

technologically practicable after either 

acceptance of the original swap by the 

DCO for clearing or execution of a 

clearing swap that does not replace an 

original swap.200

As proposed, § 45.10(d)(2) would 

require a DCO to report all required 

swap creation data and all required 

swap continuation data for a particular 

clearing swap to the same SDR that 

received the initial swap creation data 

for the clearing swap required by 

§ 45.10(d)(1). In the event there are two 

or more clearing swaps that replace a 

particular original swap, and in the 

event there are equal and opposite 

clearing swaps that are created upon 

execution of the same transaction and 

that do not replace an original swap, 

proposed § 45.10(d)(3) would require 

the DCO to report all required swap 

creation and continuation data for each 

such clearing swap to a single SDR.201

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41753 

202See 80 FR 52556. 

203See id. 

204See 80 FR 52544, 52556. 

205Pursuant to proposed § 45.10(a)(2), (b)(2), and 

(c)(3), continuation data for original swaps must be 

reported to the SDR where the first report of 

required swap creation data was made for the swap. 

206Pursuant to existing § 45.13(b), the DCO shall 

use the facilities, methods, or data standards 

provided or required by SDR A. 17 CFR 45.13(b). 

207The Commission notes that pursuant to 

proposed §§ 45.10(a)–(d), the DCO in this example 

could select an SDR other than SDR A. 

208An additional comment letter addressed the 

issue of ‘‘portability’’ of swaps reporting between 

SDRs. See ITV Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3–4. The 

portability issue is beyond the scope of the NPRM. 

209See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7. 

210See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 8. 

211 Id. 

212 Id. 

213See DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. 

214See, e.g., Final Part 45 Rulemaking, 77 FR 

2136, 2139 (‘‘To avoid fragmentation of data for a 

given swap across multiple SDRs, the [Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking] [for part 45] would require 

that all data for a particular swap must be reported 

to the same SDR.’’); at 2143 (‘‘First, in order to 

prevent fragmentation of data for a single swap 

across multiple SDRs, which would seriously 

impair the ability of the Commission and other 

regulators to view or aggregate all of the data 

concerning the swap, the proposed rule provided 

that, once an initial data report concerning a swap 

is made to an SDR, all data reported for that swap 

thereafter must be reported to the same SDR.’’); and 

at 2168 (‘‘The Commission believes the important 

regulatory purposes of the Dodd-Frank Act would 

be frustrated, and that regulators’ ability to see 

necessary information concerning swaps could be 

impeded, if data concerning a given swap was 

spread over multiple SDRs.’’). 

Accordingly, all required creation and 

continuation data for all clearing swaps 

that can be traced back to the same 

original swap (and for all equal and 

opposite clearing swaps that are created 

upon execution of the same transaction 

but that do not replace an original swap) 

will be reported to a single SDR. 

The Commission noted in its proposal 

that by operation of proposed new 

§ 45.8(i) and (j) and proposed § 45.3(e), 

there may be scenarios in which the 

SEF/DCM or reporting counterparty 

reports required swap creation data for 

the swap that became the original swap 

to one SDR, and the DCO reports 

required swap creation data for the 

clearing swaps that replace the original 

swap to a different SDR.202 The 

Commission proposed to require that all 

swap data for the clearing swaps that 

can be traced back to the same original 

swap be reported to the same SDR, but 

did not require that the clearing swaps 

be reported to the same SDR as the 

original swap.203

The Commission included in the 

NPRM the following example to 

illustrate the application of proposed 

§ 45.10: 204

Swap 1 is intended to be submitted to 

a DCO for clearing and executed on or 

pursuant to the rules of a SEF. The SEF 

reports all required creation data for 

such swap to registered SDR A pursuant 

to § 45.3(a), which was selected by the 

SEF pursuant to proposed § 45.3(j)(1), 

and submits the swap to the DCO for 

clearing. Upon acceptance of Swap 1 for 

clearing, the DCO extinguishes Swap 1 

and replaces it with Swap 2 and Swap 

3, both of which are clearing swaps. 

Swap 1 is now an original swap. 

Proposed § 45.4(c) would require the 

DCO to report the termination of Swap 

1 to SDR A,205 reflecting that Swap 1, 

now an original swap, has been 

terminated through clearing 

novation.206 The DCO would also report 

all required swap creation data for 

clearing Swap 2 to a single SDR of its 

choice (say, for example, SDR B) 

pursuant to proposed §§ 45.3(e) and 

(j)(2), and 45.10(d).207 Similarly, the 

DCO would be required to report all 

required swap creation data for clearing 

Swap 3 to a single SDR, in this case SDR 

B. Pursuant to proposed § 45.10(d)(3), 

the DCO would be required to report all 

required swap creation data for clearing 

Swap 2 and clearing Swap 3 to the same 

SDR (SDR B) because Swap 2 and Swap 

3 replaced Swap 1. Thereafter, proposed 

§ 45.10(d)(2) would require the DCO to 

report all required swap creation data 

and continuation data to the SDR where 

the first report of required swap creation 

data for both clearing Swap 2 and 

clearing Swap 3 was made (SDR B). 

3. Comments Received 

The Commission received three 

comments addressing its proposed 

amendments to § 45.10.208 AIMA 

supported the Commission’s proposal 

clarifying that the DCO is obligated to 

report creation and continuation data 

for clearing swaps to a single SDR.209

ISDA opposed the requirement in 

proposed § 45.10(d)(1) that a DCO 

transmit to the counterparties of 

clearing swaps the LEI of the SDR to 

which the clearing swaps were 

reported.210 ISDA doubted the value of 

such information for the clearing swap 

counterparties, and opined that 

counterparties are unlikely to build 

mechanisms to retain such information 

on a transactional basis.211 ISDA also 

noted that a DCO would be separately 

required to send a termination of the 

original swap to the original swap’s 

SDR, and this report would include the 

LEI of the SDR to which the clearing 

swaps are reported, making a report of 

such data to the counterparties 

redundant.212

DTCC opposed the provision in 

proposed § 45.10(d)(1) that would allow 

a DCO to select the SDR for reporting 

clearing swaps, instead arguing that 

clearing swaps should be reported to the 

same SDR as the original swap.213 DTCC 

argued that such reporting would create 

data fragmentation between the original 

swap and related clearing swaps. 

4. Final Rule Text of § 45.10 

Having considered all of the 

comments relating to the purpose and 

scope of the proposed amendments to 

§ 45.10, including amendments to 

§§ 45.10(a) through (c) and new 

§ 45.10(d), the Commission is adopting 

amended § 45.10 as proposed. The 

requirements for DCOs demonstrated in 

the above example and contained in 

proposed § 45.10(d)(1) and (2) are 

consistent with the existing 

requirements for SEFs, DCMs, and other 

reporting counterparties under current 

§ 45.10. By requiring that all swap data 

for each clearing swap be reported to a 

single SDR, proposed §§ 45.10(d)(1) and 

(2) further the Commission’s stated 

purpose in creating § 45.10, and part 45 

generally, of reducing fragmentation of 

data for a given swap across multiple 

SDRs.214

The proposed requirement in 

§§ 45.10(d)(3) that the DCO report to a 

single SDR all swap data for each 

clearing swap that can be traced back to 

the same original swap also supports the 

goal of avoiding fragmentation of swap 

data. Though clearing swaps are new 

individual swaps, all clearing swaps 

that issue from the same original swap 

are component parts of a cleared swap 

transaction. Fragmentation among 

clearing swaps would needlessly impair 

the ability of the Commission and other 

regulators to view or aggregate all the 

data concerning the related clearing 

swaps. 

While proposed § 45.10 ensures that 

each swap comprising a cleared swap 

transaction is reported to a single SDR, 

the Commission notes DTCC’s 

comments on data fragmentation where 

original swaps are reported to different 

SDRs than their resulting clearing 

swaps. However, as long as DCOs 

properly identify the original swap’s 

USI and SDR in reports on clearing 

swaps, and report clearing swaps’ USIs 

and SDR in terminations of the original 

swaps, the Commission believes it will 

be able to reconcile those transactions 

when performing risk and other 

analysis. As discussed in Section 

II.C.4.iii above, the Commission has 

considered various alternatives to the 

adopted rules. The Commission believes 

that the adopted amendments will 

provide the Commission with the 

information it needs to perform its 

regulatory obligations while minimizing 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41754 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

215Modifications to appendix 1 would require 

that PET data include the original swap USI and all 

data categories and fields applicable to clearing 

swaps. See infra, Section II.H.3. 

216See 17 CFR 45.13(b). 

217The Commission notes that the amended 

§ 45.4(c)(2)(i) requirement that the DCO include the 

LEI of the SDR to which all required swap creation 

data for each clearing swap was reported by the 

DCO applies whether or not swap data for the 

original and clearing swaps is reported to the same 

SDR or to different SDRs. The Commission expects 

that this information will be useful for regulators 

with respect to their review of data pertaining to 

cleared swap transactions, and to SDRs with respect 

to their processing of swap data received, even 

when the original and clearing swaps reside in the 

same SDR. 

218While the DCO would have no additional 

continuation data reporting requirement with 

respect to the original swap after reporting the 

termination upon acceptance for clearing, the DCO 

remains obligated under § 45.14 to correct errors 

and omissions in the data reported by the DCO, 

including the termination notice. For example, if a 

swap is submitted to, and accepted by, a DCO for 

clearing, the DCO would report the termination 

notice of the original swap to the SDR to which the 

creation data for the original swap was reported. 

After submission of the termination notice to the 

SDR, if the DCO should become aware of an error 

or omission in the termination notice, the DCO is 

required, pursuant to § 45.14, to correct any errors 

and omissions in the data so reported as soon as 

is technologically practicable after discovery of 

such errors or omissions. Likewise, all reporting 

entities and swap counterparties also remain 

obligated under § 45.14 to correct errors and 

omissions in all data reported by or on behalf of 

each entity and swap counterparty to an SDR. 

219Pursuant to § 45.14(b), if a counterparty to a 

swap that is not the reporting counterparty as 

determined by § 45.8 discovers any error or 

omission with respect to the continuation data, 

including termination notice of the original swap, 

such non-reporting counterparty is required to 

notify the DCO of each such error or omission. 

220Pursuant to § 45.3(j)(2), the DCO could have 

selected SDR B. 

costs to market participants, SDRs, and 

DCOs. 

In response to ISDA’s comment that 

counterparties were unlikely to build 

mechanisms to retain information on 

the SDR to which clearing swaps were 

reported, the Commission believes that 

all swaps counterparties should be 

aware of the SDR to which their swaps 

are reported. The Commission notes that 

under existing § 45.14(b) non-reporting 

parties to swaps have obligations to 

correct any errors or omissions in swaps 

data of which they become aware. 

G. Examples of Cleared Swap Reporting 

Workflows Under the Adopted Revisions 

The following examples demonstrate 

the manner in which the adopted 

revisions and additions to part 45 rules 

would operate in hypothetical scenarios 

involving: (1) An off-facility swap not 

subject to the clearing requirement with 

an SD/MSP reporting counterparty; and 

(2) a swap executed on or pursuant to 

the rules of a SEF or DCM. All 

references to part 45 appearing in the 

following examples refer to the rules as 

adopted in this release. These examples 

are provided only for illustrative 

purposes to demonstrate the 

applicability of certain rules adopted in 

this release in hypothetical scenarios. 

The examples are not intended to 

dictate any aspect of compliance, 

reporting or other related processes and 

are not intended to cover all possible 

reporting circumstances. 

1. Off-Facility Swap Not Subject to the 

Clearing Requirement With SD/MSP 

Reporting Counterparty 

An off-facility swap that is not subject 

to the clearing requirement is executed 

with an SD reporting counterparty. The 

SD generates and assigns a USI for the 

swap pursuant to § 45.5(b) and reports 

all required swap creation data for the 

swap to SDR A pursuant to § 45.3(c). 

The SD submits the swap to a DCO for 

clearing and, pursuant to § 45.10(b), 

transmits to the DCO, at the time the 

swap is submitted for clearing, the 

identity of SDR A and the USI for the 

swap. 

The DCO accepts the swap for 

clearing, extinguishing it and replacing 

it with clearing swaps; the swap that 

was submitted for clearing is now an 

original swap. The DCO generates and 

assigns a USI to each clearing swap 

pursuant to § 45.5(d) and, pursuant to 

§ 45.3(e), reports all required swap 

creation data for the clearing swaps, 

including the original swap USI and all 

additional data fields applicable to 

clearing swaps,215 to SDR B, which the 

DCO in this example selected pursuant 

to § 45.3(j)(2). 

Pursuant to § 45.4(c), the DCO would 

report continuation data for the original 

swap, including the original swap 

termination notice, to SDR A using 

either the life cycle or state data 

methods, and using the facilities, 

methods, or data standards provided or 

required by SDR A.216 In addition to all 

other necessary continuation data, 

original swap continuation data 

reported by the DCO, including the 

original swap termination notice, would 

also include: The LEI of SDR B (the SDR 

to which creation data for each clearing 

swap that replaced the particular 

original swap was reported); 217 the USI 

of the original swap as transmitted to 

the DCO by the SD at the time the swap 

was submitted for clearing; and the USI 

for each clearing swap. 

The DCO would also transmit to each 

counterparty to the clearing swaps, as 

soon as technologically practicable after 

acceptance for clearing, the USI of each 

clearing swap pursuant to § 45.5(d)(2) 

and the LEI of the SDR to which the 

clearing swap was reported pursuant to 

§ 45.10(d)(1). 

The DCO would have no further 

continuation data reporting obligations 

with respect to the original swap 

thereafter. However, the Commission 

notes that pursuant to § 45.14, registered 

entities and counterparties required to 

report swap data to an SDR must report 

any known errors and omissions in the 

data reported.218 Additionally, nonreporting counterparties are required to 

notify the reporting counterparty of 

such errors or omissions.219 Finally, 

pursuant to § 49.10(a), SDR A would be 

required to accept and record any 

original swap continuation data, 

including the original swap termination. 

2. Swaps Executed on or Pursuant to the 

Rules of a SEF or DCM 

A swap is executed on or pursuant to 

the rules of a SEF or DCM. The SEF/

DCM generates and assigns a USI for the 

swap pursuant to § 45.5(a) and reports 

all required swap creation data to SDR 

A pursuant to § 45.3(a). The SEF/DCM 

submits the swap to a DCO for clearing 

and, pursuant to § 45.10(a), transmits to 

the DCO, at the time the swap is 

submitted for clearing, the identity of 

SDR A and the USI for the swap. 

The DCO accepts the swap for 

clearing, extinguishing it and replacing 

it with clearing swaps; the swap that 

was submitted for clearing is now an 

original swap. Under §§ 45.5(d) and 

45.3(e), the DCO would generate and 

assign a USI to each clearing swap and 

report all required swap creation data, 

including the original swap USI and all 

additional data fields applicable to 

clearing swaps, for the clearing swaps to 

registered SDR A, which, in this 

example, the DCO selected pursuant to 

§ 45.3(j)(2).220

Pursuant to § 45.4(c), the DCO would 

report continuation data for the original 

swap, including the original swap 

termination notice, to SDR A using 

either the life cycle or state data 

methods, and using the facilities, 

methods, or data standards provided or 

required by SDR A. Such continuation 

data would include the LEI of SDR A 

(the SDR to which creation data for each 

clearing swap that replaced the 

particular original swap was reported), 

the USI of the original swap as 

transmitted to the DCO by the SEF/DCM 

at the time the swap was submitted for 

clearing, and the USI for each clearing 

swap. 

The DCO would also transmit to each 

counterparty to the clearing swaps, as 

soon as technologically practicable after 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41755 

221See notes 220–221, supra. 

222The Commission also proposes to revise each 

of the data categories and fields that reference the 

clearing requirement exception in CEA section 

2(h)(7) to reflect that exceptions to, and exemptions 

from, the clearing requirement, including the 

clearing requirement exception in CEA section 

2(h)(7), are set forth under part 50 of the 

Commission’s regulations. Additionally, the 

Commission is making non-substantive edits to the 

following fields in Exhibits A–D: Asset class; For a 

multi-asset class swap, an indication of the primary 

asset class; For a multi-asset class swap, an 

indication of the secondary asset class(es); and to 

the Clearing member client account field in Exhibits 

C and D. 

223See 80 FR 52544, 52558. 

224These include the following fields in Exhibits 

A–D: The Legal Entity Identifier of the reporting 

counterparty; If the swap will be allocated, or is a 

post-allocation swap, the Legal Entity Identifier of 

the agent; The Legal Entity Identifier of the nonreporting party; Clearing venue; The identity of the 

counterparty electing an exception or exemption to 

the clearing requirement under Part 50 of this 

chapter (formerly The identity of the counterparty 

electing the clearing requirement exception in CEA 

section 2(h)(7)); Exhibit A: An indication of the 

counterparty purchasing protection; An indication 

of the counterparty selling protection; Information 

identifying the reference entity; Exhibit D: Buyer, 

Seller. 

225The explanatory notes discussing a situation 

where no CFTC designated LEI is yet available are 

no longer applicable. See generally Order Extending 

the Designation of the Provider of Legal Entity 

Identifiers To Be Used in Recordkeeping and Swap 

Data Reporting Pursuant to the Commission’s 

Regulations, 80 FR 44078 (Jul. 24, 2015). 

226See, generally, Procedures To Establish 

Appropriate Minimum Block Sizes for Large 

Notional Off-Facility Swaps and Block Trades, 

Final Rule, 78 FR 32866 (May 31, 2013). 

227See 80 FR 52544, 52558–59. 

228See 80 FR 52544, 52559. 

acceptance for clearing, the USI of each 

clearing swap pursuant to § 45.5(d)(2) 

and the LEI of the SDR to which the 

clearing swap was reported pursuant to 

§ 45.10(d)(1). 

The DCO would have no further 

continuation data reporting obligations 

with respect to the original swap 

thereafter. However, the Commission 

notes that pursuant to § 45.14, registered 

entities and counterparties required to 

report swap data to an SDR must report 

any known errors and omissions in the 

data reported. Additionally, nonreporting counterparties are also 

required to notify the reporting 

counterparty of such errors or 

omissions.221 Finally, pursuant to 

§ 49.10(a), SDR A would be required to 

accept and record the original swap 

termination. 

H. Primary Economic Terms Data— 

Amendments to Appendix 1 to Part 

45—Tables of Minimum Primary 

Economic Terms 

The Commission’s existing lists of 

minimum primary economic terms for 

swaps in each swap asset class are 

found in tables in Exhibits A–D of 

appendix 1 to part 45. Those tables 

include data elements that reflect 

generic economic terms and conditions 

common to most standardized products. 

They reflect the fact that PET data 

captures a swap’s basic nature and 

essential economic terms, and are 

provided in order to ensure to the extent 

possible that all such essential terms, 

where applicable, are included when 

required primary economic terms are 

reported for each swap. 

1. Proposed Amendments and 

Additions to Primary Economic Data 

Fields 

The Commission proposed the 

following revisions to Exhibits A–D of 

appendix 1, each of which is discussed 

in greater detail below: (1) 

Modifications to existing PET data 

fields; (2) the addition of three new PET 

data fields applicable to all reporting 

entities for all swaps; and (3) the 

addition of a number of new data fields 

that must be reported by DCOs for 

clearing swaps.222

i. Proposed Modifications to Existing 

PET Data Fields 

The Commission proposed clarifying 

and conforming changes and minor 

corrective modifications to the 

following existing PET data fields: 223

• The Unique Swap Identifier for the 

swap—The Commission proposed to 

remove the explanatory note in the 

Comment section to this data field in 

Exhibits A–D. The explanatory note is 

no longer necessary because under 

proposed § 45.5(d), the DCO would 

create the USI for each clearing swap. 

• PET data fields that utilize a 

LEI 224—The Commission proposed 

conforming changes to the Comment 

sections to data fields in Exhibits A–D 

that utilize the LEI to reflect that the 

CFTC has designated an LEI system 225

and to reflect that a substitute identifier 

may be reported for natural person swap 

counterparties. 

• If no CFTC-approved LEI for the 

non-reporting counterparty is yet 

available, the internal identifier for the 

non-reporting counterparty used by the 

swap data repository—The Commission 

proposed to remove this data field in 

each of the Exhibits. As noted above, the 

CFTC has designated an LEI, and these 

PET data fields are no longer applicable. 

• For a mixed swap reported to two 

non-dually-registered swap data 

repositories, the identity of the other 

swap data repository (if any) to which 

the swap is or will be reported—The 

Commission proposed to add an 

explanatory note to the Comment 

section for this data field in Exhibits A– 

D providing that the field value is the 

LEI of the other SDR to which the swap 

is or will be reported. 

• Block trade indicator—The 

Commission proposed to modify the 

Comment section to this data field in 

Exhibits A–D to reflect that the CFTC 

has issued a final rulemaking regarding 

Procedures To Establish Appropriate 

Minimum Block Sizes for Large Notional 

Off-Facility Swaps and Block Trades.226

• Execution venue—The Commission 

proposed to modify the explanatory 

note in the Comment section to this data 

field in Exhibits A–D to reflect that the 

CFTC has designated an LEI system and 

to require the reporting of only the LEI 

of the SEF or DCM for swaps executed 

on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF or 

DCM. 

• Clearing indicator—The 

Commission proposed modifications to 

the explanatory note in the Comment 

section to this data field in Exhibits A– 

D to provide for the reporting of a Yes/ 

No indication of whether the swap will 

be submitted for clearing to a DCO. 

• Clearing venue—The Commission 

proposed modifications to the Comment 

section of this data field in Exhibits A– 

D to provide for the reporting of only 

the LEI of the derivatives clearing 

organization. 

ii. Proposed Addition of New PET Data 

Fields Applicable to All Reporting 

Entities for All Swaps 

The Commission proposed to add to 

Exhibits A–D the following new PET 

fields which would be applicable to all 

reporting entities for all swaps: 227

• Asset class—This data field would 

provide the specific asset class for the 

swap. Field values: Credit, equity, FX, 

interest rates and other commodities. 

• An indication of whether the 

reporting counterparty is a derivatives 

clearing organization with respect to the 

swap. 

• Clearing exception or exemption 

type—This field would provide the type 

of clearing exception or exemption 

being claimed. Field values: End user, 

Inter-affiliate or Cooperative. 

iii. Proposed Addition of New PET Data 

Fields Applicable to DCOs for Clearing 

Swaps 

The Commission also proposed to 

modify Exhibits A–D in order to add 

new PET fields specifically to be 

reported by DCOs for clearing swaps.228

The proposed data fields that must be 

reported by DCOs for clearing swaps 

include the following: 

• Clearing swap USIs—This data field 

would provide the USI for each clearing 

swap that replaces the original swap, 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41756 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

229See also §§ 45.10(a)(1), (b)(1)(iii), (b)(2)(ii), 

(c)(1)(iii), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(3) (requiring entities 

with reporting obligations to transmit to the DCO 

for swaps submitted for clearing ‘‘the identity of the 

swap data repository to which required swap 

creation data is reported’’ and the USI for the swap). 

230 Id. 

231See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 8. 

232See JBA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3. 

233See JBA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

234See LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. 

235See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 9–10. 

236See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 11. 

237See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 8. 

238See LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. 

239 DTCC also commented on the proposed PET 

field for ‘‘Clearing swap USIs,’’ ‘‘Original swap 

USIs,’’ and ‘‘Original swap SDRs.’’ See DTCC Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 8–9. These comments are 

addressed in the discussions on proposed revisions 

to §§ 45.5 and 45.8, supra Sections II.D and II.E. 

240See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 8. 

241See id. at 9. 

242See id., at 8. 

243See id. at 8. 

244See id. at 8. 

245See id. at 8. 

246See id. at 9. 

247See id. at 9. 

248The Commission has also noted ITV’s 

comment requesting the addition of an indicator 

that a swap was part of a package transaction. See 

ITV Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. While this comment 

is beyond the scope of the NPRM, the Commission 

would note that the Technical Specifications 

Request for Comment solicits input on this topic. 

249See CMC May 27, 2014 Letter, at 3 

(recommending that the Commission reduce the 

number and complexity of data fields required to 

improve data reporting); CME letter at 17–19 

(providing recommendations on modification for 

specific data fields and arguing against requiring 

certain additional reporting); DTCC May 27, 2014 

Letter, at 3, appendix at 15 (suggesting that the 

Commission consider whether requiring fewer data 

elements would better enable the Commission and 

other regulators to fulfill their regulatory 

obligations); International Energy Credit 

Association May 27, 2014 Letter, at 5–6 (arguing 

that existing swap data reporting requirements do 

not need to be expanded and that data reporting 

would be improved by reducing the current 

reporting burden); Swiss Re May 27, 2014 Letter, at 

5 (describing reporting difficulties for specific data 

fields). 

other than the USI for which the PET 

data is currently being reported. 

• Original swap USI—This data field 

would provide the USI for the original 

swap that was replaced by clearing 

swaps.229

• Original swap SDR—This data field 

would provide the LEI of the SDR to 

which the original swap was 

reported.230

• Clearing member LEI—This data 

field would provide the LEI of the 

clearing member. 

• Clearing member client account— 

This data field would provide the 

account number for the client, if 

applicable, of the clearing member. 

• Origin (house or customer)—This 

data field would provide information 

regarding whether the clearing member 

acted as principal for a house trade or 

agent for a customer trade. 

• Clearing receipt timestamp—This 

data field would provide the date and 

time at which the DCO received the 

original swap that was submitted for 

clearing. 

• Clearing acceptance timestamp— 

This data field would provide the date 

and time at which the DCO accepted the 

original swap that was submitted for 

clearing. 

3. Comments Received 

i. General Comments 

Eurex commented that there are no 

additional fields for clearing swaps 

beyond those proposed which are 

necessary to understand a clearing swap 

or the mechanics of the clearing 

process.231 JBA cautioned that the 

definitions used in the markets are not 

always consistent with those proposed 

by the NPRM, which places a significant 

burden on small-sized market 

participants.232 JBA also noted potential 

difficulties in reporting hybrid 

instruments because swaps with 

multiple underlying assets may have 

their own market conventions that do 

not fall under the categories in the 

proposed rules.233

Several commenters addressed how 

PET data fields can operate in the 

context of agency and principal clearing 

models. LCH recommended that the 

Commission require a PET data field 

indicating if a swap is cleared following 

an agency or principal model.234 ISDA 

recommended combining the ‘‘Clearing 

indicator’’ and ‘‘Origin (house or 

customer)’’ fields into a single 

‘‘Cleared’’ field with four possible 

values—not cleared, intended to be 

cleared, cleared (principal), and cleared 

(agency).235 ISDA commented that the 

current reporting system results in 

DCOs reporting principal cleared trades 

in a manner designed for agency 

clearing model. ISDA commented that 

this is at odds with European Union 

requirements and may result in data 

reported to multiple jurisdictions that is 

not reconcilable.236 Eurex commented 

that, in the principal model, the DCO 

may not know the identity of the 

clearing member’s client; if the DCO is 

required to report that client’s identity, 

it would be necessary for anyone trading 

part 45 reportable swaps to possess an 

LEI.237

LCH commented that the ‘‘Original 

swap USI,’’ ‘‘Original swap SDR,’’ and 

‘‘Clearing member client account’’ PET 

fields for clearing swaps should only be 

required ‘‘if applicable.’’ 238

ii. Comments on Specific Proposed PET 

Fields 239

ISDA supported the proposed 

modification of the clearing venue and 

execution venue PET fields to require 

the submission of an LEI for such 

venues.240 ISDA also supported the 

addition of the ‘‘Asset class’’ PET data 

field for all swaps.241 ISDA also 

commented on the removal of internal 

counterparty identifiers as a valid 

submission for various counterparty 

identification fields, noting that not all 

global regulators require swap 

counterparties to obtain LEIs.242 ISDA 

requested that the Commission continue 

to work with global regulators to ensure 

uniform adoption of the LEI standard 

across jurisdictions. 

ISDA commented that the PET field 

for ‘‘Block trade indicator’’ should be 

removed rather than amended because 

block trade status only affects part 43 

reporting.243 ISDA questioned the value 

that block trade status would provide 

the Commission when evaluating swap 

data.244 Further, block trade status may 

change over the life of a swap and there 

is no guidance in part 43 or part 45 on 

how to deal with such changes.245

Finally, ISDA commented on the 

proposed ‘‘Clearing exception or 

exemption type’’ PET field, which 

would require the reporting party to 

identify the clearing exception or 

exemption exercised for a particular 

swap.246 ISDA commented that it could 

be challenging and costly for firms to 

implement this change, while providing 

duplicative information because 

exemption elections must already be 

provided to SDRs.247 ISDA 

recommended that the ‘‘Clearing 

exception or exemption type’’ PET field 

acceptable values be limited to ‘‘interaffiliate’’ and ‘‘other,’’ because interaffiliate trades can be identified under 

existing reporting standards. 

4. Final Rule Text 

Having considered the comments 

provided in response to the NPRM, the 

Commission is adopting the revisions to 

Appendix 1 of part 45 as proposed.248

In response to the IDWG Request for 

Comment, some commenters argued 

that the Commission should not require 

additional data fields for reporting and 

should reduce the number of fields 

currently required.249 The Commission 

explained in the NPRM that the 

proposed modifications to existing PET 

data fields will add clarity to the current 

reporting requirements. In regards to the 

additional fields, the NPRM explained 

that the new fields will require the 

reporting of information that is essential 

to the efficient operation of reporting of 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41757 

250See 80 FR 52544, 52559. 

251See 80 FR 52544, 52559. 

252See Draft Technical Specifications for Certain 

Swap Data Elements, Request for Comment (Dec. 

22, 2015), available at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/

groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/

specificationsswapdata122215.pdf. (‘‘Technical 

Specifications Request for Comment’’). 

253As noted above, in addition to the end-user 

exception to the swap clearing requirement set forth 

in section 2(h)(7) of the CEA and codified in part 

50 of the Commission’s regulations, the 

Commission has published two exemptions to the 

swap clearing requirement: The inter-affiliate 

exemption (§ 50.52) and the financial cooperative 

exemption (§ 50.51). 

254See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

255 47 FR 18618, 18618–21, Apr. 30, 1982. 

256 Id. 

257 66 FR 45604, 45609, Aug. 29, 2001. 

258Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (‘‘Part 45 NPRM’’) 

75 FR 76574, 76595 (Dec. 8, 2010) (discussing why 

SDRs, SEFs, SDs, and MSPs should not be 

considered small entities). 

259Final Part 45 Rulemaking, 77 FR 2136, 2170– 

71 (discussion for non-SD/MSP counterparties); 

Part 45 NPRM, 75 FR 76574, 76595 (discussion for 

non-SD/MSP counterparties). 

260See 44 U.S.C. 3501. 

261See 44 U.S.C. 3502. 

the swaps involved in a cleared swap 

transaction.250

Regarding the proposed PET fields for 

clearing swaps, as noted in the NPRM, 

the Commission believes such data 

elements would more accurately capture 

the additional, unique features of 

clearing swaps that are not relevant to 

uncleared swaps.251 The Commission 

has noted the number of comments 

addressing the issue of reporting swaps 

cleared under the principal, as opposed 

to agency, model of clearing. In 

particular, the Commission has 

reviewed ISDA’s comment on 

combining the ‘‘Clearing indicator’’ and 

‘‘Origin (house or customer)’’ fields. 

While the Commission is adopting those 

fields as proposed, the Commission 

would note that in the Technical 

Specifications Request for Comment, the 

Commission solicited input on a 

potential data element indicating agency 

versus principal clearing model, and on 

reporting package transactions.252

The Commission notes LCH’s 

comment that certain PET data elements 

should only be reported ‘‘if applicable.’’ 

The Commission notes that appendix 1 

to part 45 states that reporting parties 

should ‘‘[e]nter N/A for fields that are 

not applicable,’’ which is repeated in 

the header to every column in appendix 

1. To ensure that reported swap data is 

complete, the Commission would 

reiterate that any PET data field that is 

not applicable to a particular swap 

should be marked ‘‘N/A’’ and not left 

blank. Otherwise, the Commission 

cannot determine if a field is 

inapplicable or if an applicable data 

element is missing. 

The Commission declines to remove 

the ‘‘Block trade indicator’’ as requested 

by ISDA because this indicator is 

necessary for a proper review of market 

activity for surveillance and 

enforcement purposes. The Commission 

would note that block trade status is 

most relevant for part 43 real-time 

reporting purposes. Therefore, in 

response to ISDA’s request for guidance, 

the Commission would note that a 

swap’s block trade status should be 

determined as of the time of execution; 

subsequent changes to notional amounts 

should not impact whether the swap 

met the block trade threshold originally. 

As for the ‘‘Clearing exception or 

exemption type’’ PET field, the 

Commission has noted ISDA’s comment 

that this field may be difficult to 

implement. However, the Commission 

believes that additional PET fields 

indicating clearing exception and 

exemption type are necessary for the 

Commission to track compliance with 

Commission regulation § 50.50. While 

reporting counterparties are required 

under existing § 50.50(b) to provide 

clearing exemption election forms with 

SDRs, the existing swaps data reporting 

rules do not require that the reporting 

counterparty indicate that such clearing 

exemption was elected for a particular 

swap. Without such information 

provided as part of transaction-specific 

swaps data, the Commission is unable to 

determine which counterparties are 

relying on an exemption and how often 

such elections are being made.253 This 

additional PET field will aid the 

Commission in tracking compliance 

with the clearing mandate by providing 

transaction specific information on why 

certain swaps were uncleared. 

The asset class data field will assist 

the Commission in identifying the asset 

class for swaps reported to registered 

SDRs pursuant to part 45. The 

indication of whether the reporting 

counterparty is a DCO with respect to 

the swap data field is consistent with 

proposed § 45.8(i), which designates the 

DCO as the reporting counterparty for 

clearing swaps, and the existing PET 

data fields that require certain 

information related to the registration 

status of the counterparties to be 

included in PET data reporting. 

III. Related Matters 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) requires federal agencies, in 

promulgating rules, to consider the 

impact of those rules on small 

entities.254 The rules proposed herein 

will have a direct effect on SDRs, DCOs, 

SEFs, DCMs, SDs, MSPs, and non-SD/

MSP counterparties who are 

counterparties to one or more swaps and 

subject to the Commission’s 

jurisdiction. The Commission has 

previously established certain 

definitions of ‘‘small entities’’ to be used 

by the Commission in evaluating the 

impact of its rules on small entities in 

accordance with the RFA.255 The 

Commission has previously determined 

that DCMs 256 and DCOs 257 are not 

small entities for the purpose of the 

RFA. The Commission has also 

previously proposed that SDRs, SEFs, 

SDs, and MSPs should not be 

considered to be small entities.258

The Final Part 45 Rulemaking and 

preceding proposal discussed how 

certain non-SD/MSP counterparties 

could be considered small entities in 

certain limited situations, but 

concluded that part 45 does not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.259 The 

modifications to part 45 adopted herein 

do not affect that conclusion, or the 

reasoning behind it, and therefore the 

Commission does not believe that these 

adopted rules will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. To the extent 

that this rulemaking has any significant 

impact on small entities, it removes 

some reporting obligations by explicitly 

putting the obligation to terminate 

original swaps on DCOs accepting those 

swaps. 

Therefore, the Chairman, on behalf of 

the Commission, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), hereby certifies that the adopted 

rules will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. (‘‘PRA’’) are, among other things, 

to minimize the paperwork burden to 

the private sector, to ensure that any 

collection of information by a 

government agency is put to the greatest 

possible uses, and to minimize 

duplicative information collections 

across the government.260 The PRA 

applies to all information, regardless of 

form or format, whenever the 

government is obtaining, causing to be 

obtained, or soliciting information, and 

includes required disclosure to third 

parties or the public, of facts or 

opinions, when the information 

collection calls for answers to identical 

questions posed to, or identical 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

imposed on, ten or more persons.261 The 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41758 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

262See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(1). 

263The NPRM improperly cited information 

collection 3038–0089, rather than 3038–0096, as the 

collection relating to swaps reporting under part 45. 

However, the NPRM’s discussion of what 

information is collected and the burden estimates 

for swaps reporting under part 45 correctly 

described collection 3038–0096, which is the basis 

of this PRA discussion. 

264See Information Collection 3038–0070; see 

also 77 FR 2136, 2174. (‘‘The Commission notes, 

however, that these burdens should not be 

considered additional to the costs of compliance 

with part 43, because the basic data reporting 

technology, processes, and personnel hours and 

expertise needed to fulfill the requirements of part 

43 encompass both the data stream necessary for 

real-time public reporting and the creation data 

stream necessary for regulatory reporting.’’). 

265The Commission issued a notice of intent to 

renew information collection 3038–0096 on August 

7, 2015. See Notice of Intent to Renew Collection 

3038–0096, 80 FR 47477 (Aug. 7, 2015). The 

Commission received no comments on this notice 

of intent to renew. The comment file is available at 

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

CommentList.aspx?id=1608. The Office of 

Management and Budget approved without change 

the renewal of this information collection on 

December 21, 2015. 

266Supporting documentation for the renewal of 

information collection 3038–0096 is available at 

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201508-3038-002. 

267 ‘‘Creation data’’ under § 45.3 includes all PET 

data fields listed in appendix 1 to part 45, as well 

as all ‘‘confirmation data,’’ which includes all terms 

of the swap matched and agreed upon by the 

parties. ‘‘Continuation data’’ reporting under § 45.4 

requires a reporting entity to ensure that all data on 

a swap is kept current and accurate, including any 

changes to primary economic terms. 

268 In addition, FSR requested that the 

Commission promulgate rules to standardize data 

elements. See FSR Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. While 

this comment would relate to the burden of 

reporting for part 45 purposes, it is beyond the 

scope of the NPRM. The Commission would note 

Commission staff’s efforts in connection with the 

Technical Specifications Request for Comment, 

discussed in n. 42. The Commission also received 

some comments suggesting that the Commission not 

require the reporting of intended-to-be-cleared 

original swaps, or require DCOs to report such 

swaps. See, e.g., CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2– 

3; CMC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. While not 

requiring such reporting would reduce the burden 

on original swap reporting entities, the NPRM and 

adopted amendments to part 45 do not change the 

existing requirement to report such swaps. 

Therefore, this comment is beyond the scope of the 

NPRM. See, supra, Section II.B.4.iii. 

269 ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 9. 

270See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5. 

271See e.g., Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5, 9; 

LedgerX Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; LCH Oct. 30, 

2015 Letter, at 3. The Commission notes that 

another commenter stated that ‘‘DCOs have already 

made connections with the major CFTC-registered 

SDRs.’’ (DTCC Oct. 30, 2015, Letter at 5). 

272 7 U.S.C. 19(a). 

PRA requirements have been 

determined to include not only 

mandatory but also voluntary 

information collections, and include 

both written and oral 

communications.262 Under 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 from the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’). The OMB control 

number for the information collection 

associated with part 45 swaps reporting 

is 3038–0096.263 Because reporting 

entities under part 45 would also be 

required to report swaps pursuant to 

part 43, where applicable, some of the 

burden associated with swaps reporting 

under part 45 is covered in the 

information collection covering realtime swaps reporting pursuant to part 

43.264

The Commission intends to amend 

existing collection 3038–0096 to 

account for adjustments to reporting 

entities’ swaps data reporting systems 

necessitated by this release. Information 

collection 3038–0096 265 includes an 

estimate of burden hours and costs 

associated with various requirements of 

part 45 swaps reporting and 

recordkeeping,266 including the 

reporting of creation data under § 45.3 

and continuation data under § 45.4,267

the maintenance of an internal order 

management system (‘‘OMS’’), and 

personnel needed to maintain a 

compliance program in support of an 

OMS system. The intended amendment 

to the collection will add an estimate for 

the burden associated (a) with changing 

reporting systems to comply with 

changes to the required data to be 

reported under § 45.3 and § 45.4, and (b) 

with requirements that DCOs potentially 

connect to all registered SDRs. The 

Commission will be filing to update this 

information collection with OMB prior 

to the effective date of this release. This 

update will be publicly noticed and 

made available for comment in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission received several 

comments on the costs associated with 

part 45 swaps reporting that could 

implicate PRA burdens.268 Regarding 

the addition of PET fields applicable to 

all swaps, ISDA commented that the 

PET field for ‘‘clearing exception or 

exemption type’’ would be ‘‘very 

challenging and costly’’ to 

implement.269 However, neither ISDA 

nor any other commenter provided 

information quantifying the cost to 

update reporting systems to account for 

the modified and additional PET fields. 

As discussed more extensively in 

Section III.C.9, the information required 

to be reported in the modified ‘‘clearing 

exception or exemption type’’ is also 

already in the possession of the 

reporting entity; changes to reporting 

systems required to report this field 

would involve adding a known piece of 

information to the message reported to 

an SDR. Regarding new PET fields for 

clearing swaps, Eurex commented that 

DCOs would need to collect data from 

the original swap counterparties or 

trading venue to be able to report these 

fields.270 The information required to 

report these PET fields is either 

generated by the DCO itself (such as 

clearing swap USI, clearing member LEI, 

clearing member internal identifier, 

house/customer account flag, and 

receipt and clearing timestamps) or 

should be included in the clearing 

member’s submission of a swap to the 

DCO for clearing (such as the original 

swap USI and original swap SDR). 

While the Commission believes that 

reporting entities already possess 

information required to report the added 

and amended PET fields, the 

Commission intends to amend 

collection 3038–0096 to account for 

changes that reporting entities must 

make to their reporting systems to 

comply with these new and amended 

fields. 

Some commenters raised concerns 

that requiring DCOs to report 

continuation data for original swaps to 

the SDR to which the original swap was 

reported could increase costs for DCOs 

as they may need to connect to SDRs to 

which they do not currently have a 

connection.271 The Commission 

understands that DCOs already may 

report terminations to the original SDR, 

and to the extent these reporting 

systems are already implemented the 

new rules will not introduce additional 

costs for these DCOs. Moreover, the 

costs of additional SDR connections that 

may not yet be in place are addressed 

by the Commission more fully below at 

III.C.5. However, the Commission 

recognizes that requiring DCOs to 

potentially connect to more than one 

SDR in order to report continuation data 

for original swaps may require an 

update to the existing information 

collection 3038–0096. The Commission 

will be filing to update this information 

collection with OMB prior to the 

effective date of this release. This 

update will be publicly noticed and 

made available for comment in the 

Federal Register. 

C. Cost-Benefit Considerations 

1. Introduction 

Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the 

Commission to consider the costs and 

benefits of its actions before 

promulgating a regulation under the 

CEA or issuing certain orders.272

Section 15(a) further specifies that the 

costs and benefits shall be evaluated in 

light of five broad areas of market and 

public concern: (1) Protection of market 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41759 

273See 77 FR 2136. 

274Section 45.1 defines ‘‘required swap creation 

data’’ as primary economic terms data and 

confirmation data. Section 45.1 defines ‘‘primary 

economic terms data’’ as all of the data elements 

necessary to fully report all of the primary 

economic terms of a swap in the swap asset class 

of the swap in question and defines ‘‘confirmation 

data’’ as all of the terms of a swap matched and 

agreed upon by the counterparties in confirming the 

swap. 17 CFR 45.1. For cleared swaps, confirmation 

data also includes the internal identifiers assigned 

by the automated systems of the derivatives clearing 

organization to the two transactions resulting from 

novation to the clearing house. Id. 

275The SEC proposed certain new rules and rule 

amendments to Regulation SBSR governing 

reporting in the context of security-based swaps. 

See Regulation SBSR—Reporting and 

Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, 

80 FR 14740 (Mar. 19, 2015). 

276See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6) (requiring a DCO that 

clears swaps to have rules providing that, upon 

acceptance of a swap by the [DCO] for clearing: (i) 

The original swap is extinguished; (ii) the original 

swap is replaced by an equal and opposite swap 

between the [DCO] and each clearing member 

acting as principal for a house trading or acting as 

agent for a customer trade). Subsequent to adoption 

of the Final Part 45 Rulemaking, the Commission 

affirmed that the multi-swap framework 

(comprising separate and unique original and 

resulting swaps) should apply for part 45 reporting 

purposes. See Statement of the Commission on the 

Approval of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Rule 

1001 (Mar. 6, 2013), at 6, available at: http://

www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/

documents/file/statementofthecommission.pdf. 

277The Commission also notes that a single swap 

reporting framework for cleared swaps, as opposed 

to a multi-swap framework like the one 

contemplated by § 39.12(b)(6), would likely not be 

consistent with the approach proposed by the SEC 

in its release proposing certain new rules and rule 

amendments to Regulation SBSR. See Regulation 

SBSR—Reporting and Dissemination of SecurityBased Swap Information, 80 FR 14740 (Mar. 19, 

2015). The Commission discusses the benefits 

associated with harmonizing its approach with that 

of other regulators later in this release. 

278While the above reflects the Commission’s 

general understanding of industry practice with 

respect to the reporting of component parts of a 

cleared swap transaction, the Commission does not 

possess complete information regarding certain 

details and nuances of the reporting practices of 

different registered entities and reporting 

counterparties. For instance, in some cases, the 

Commission generally does not possess sufficient 

information to ascertain the period of time between 

the DCO’s acceptance of an alpha swap for clearing 

and the DCO’s report of creation data for beta and 

gamma swaps. The Commission posed questions 

eliciting specific details or nuances of industry 

practice that are likely to have cost/benefit 

implications in the relevant sections of the NPRM. 

participants and the public; (2) 

efficiency, competitiveness, and 

financial integrity of futures markets; (3) 

price discovery; (4) sound risk 

management practices; and (5) other 

public interest considerations. The 

Commission considers the costs and 

benefits resulting from its discretionary 

determinations with respect to the 

section 15(a) factors. 

The Commission is amending and 

making additions to §§ 45.1, 45.3, 45.4, 

45.5, 45.8, 45.10, and appendix 1 to part 

45 in order to provide clarity to 

counterparties to a swap and registered 

entities regarding their part 45 reporting 

obligations with respect to cleared swap 

transactions and to improve the 

efficiency of data collection and 

maintenance associated with the 

reporting of the swaps involved in a 

cleared swap transaction. The final rule 

adopts revisions to part 45 as proposed 

in the NPRM. 

2. Background 

The swap data reporting framework 

adopted in the Final Part 45 

Rulemaking 273 was largely based on the 

mechanisms for the trading and 

execution of uncleared swaps. The plain 

language of the existing part 45 rules 

presumes the existence of a single, 

continuous swap both prior to and after 

acceptance of a swap for clearing by a 

DCO. Under that framework, registered 

entities and counterparties would each 

report data with respect to a single swap 

when such swap is initially executed, 

referred to as ‘‘creation data,’’ and over 

the course of the swap’s existence, 

referred to as ‘‘continuation data.’’ 274

The Commission has since had 

additional opportunities to consult with 

industry and with other regulators, 

including the SEC,275 and to observe 

how the part 45 regulations function in 

practice with respect to swaps that are 

cleared, including how the 

implementation of part 45 interacts with 

the implementation of part 39 of the 

Commission’s regulations, which 

contains provisions applicable to DCOs. 

In particular, § 39.12(b)(6) provides 

that upon acceptance of a swap by a 

DCO for clearing, the original swap is 

extinguished and replaced by equal and 

opposite swaps, with the DCO as the 

counterparty to each such swap.276 The 

original swap that is extinguished upon 

acceptance for clearing is commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘alpha’’ swap and the 

equal and opposite swaps that replace 

the original swap are commonly referred 

to as ‘‘beta’’ and ‘‘gamma’’ swaps. The 

Commission is of the view that the 

existing part 45 regulations should be 

amended to better accommodate the 

multi-swap framework of § 39.12(b)(6) 

by explicitly addressing beta and 

gamma swaps as distinct swaps for 

purposes of part 45 reporting.277

The existing part 45 regulations do 

not explicitly address the reporting of 

‘‘alpha,’’ ‘‘beta,’’ and ‘‘gamma’’ swaps; 

however, industry practice has evolved 

to address such reporting. The 

Commission understands that market 

participants generally report part 45 

data for cleared swap transactions in 

conformance with the framework 

described in § 39.12(b)(6), where 

separate swaps (alphas, betas, and 

gammas) are represented individually in 

reported swap data. The Commission 

understands that under existing market 

practice: SEFs, DCMs and reporting 

counterparties generally report required 

swap creation data for alpha swaps to 

the SDR of their choice; DCOs that 

accept alpha swaps for clearing 

generally report required swap creation 

data for the beta and gamma swaps that 

result from clearing novation of the 

alpha swap to the SDR of their choice 

(which may be different than the SDR to 

which the alpha swap was reported); 

such DCOs do not in all cases include 

the USI of the alpha swap in creation 

data reported for the beta and gamma 

swaps; and that DCOs may 

inconsistently report, and SDRs may 

inconsistently accept and process, alpha 

swap terminations.278

The gaps between the existing part 45 

regulations, § 39.12(b)(6), and certain 

industry practices, including those 

outlined above, have likely contributed 

to a lack of certainty regarding the 

applicability of the part 45 regulations 

to beta and gamma swaps, including 

which registered entity or counterparty 

is required to report creation data and/ 

or continuation data for such swaps, 

and the manner in which such swaps 

must be reported. The Commission 

understands that this uncertainty 

presents compliance challenges for 

registered entities and reporting 

counterparties. 

Additionally, the lack of clarity 

regarding existing part 45 obligations 

with respect to beta and gamma swaps 

has impacted the accuracy, quality, and 

usefulness of data that is reported for 

cleared swaps. For instance, 

inconsistent DCO reporting of alpha 

swap USIs in creation data for beta and 

gamma swaps hinders the Commission’s 

ability to trace the history of a cleared 

swap transaction from execution 

between the original counterparties to 

clearing novation. Even in cases where 

the Commission can ascertain the USI of 

a specific alpha swap that was replaced 

by beta and gamma swaps, SDR data 

available to the Commission at times 

misleadingly shows some alpha swaps 

as remaining open between the original 

counterparties, when in actuality such 

swaps have been extinguished through 

clearing novation. The inability to 

determine whether an alpha swap has 

been terminated impedes the 

Commission’s ability to analyze cleared 

swap activity and to review swap 

activity for compliance with the clearing 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41760 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

279Commission staff recently noted difficulty in 

evaluating the proper de minimis level of activity 

for swap dealer registration under Commission 

regulation 1.3(ggg), in part due to difficulties 

linking alpha swaps with resulting beta and gamma 

swaps. See Swap Dealer De Minimis Exception 

Preliminary Report (Nov. 18, 2015), at 13–14, 

available at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/

@swaps/documents/file/dfreport_sddeminis_

1115.pdf. In the report, Staff noted that the 

finalization and implementation of this final rule 

release for reporting of cleared swaps should help 

to mitigate this issue going forward. 

280See Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements, Final Rule, 77 FR 2136 (Jan. 13, 

2012). 281As described in detail throughout Section II of 

this final release, the Commission is also adopting 

a number of non-substantive, conforming rule 

amendments in this release, such as renumbering 

certain provisions and modifying the wording of 

existing provisions to ensure consistency with the 

wording in newly proposed definitions. Nonsubstantive amendments of this nature will not be 

discussed in the cost-benefit portion of this final 

release. 

282See IDWG Request for Comment, 79 FR 16689 

(Mar. 26, 2014); NPRM, 80 FR 52544, 52570 (Aug. 

31, 2015). 

283 7 U.S.C. 2(i). Section 2(i)(1) makes the swaps 

provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, and Commission 

regulations promulgated under those provisions, 

applicable to activities outside the United States 

that ‘‘have a direct and significant connection 

activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United 

States;’’ while section 2(i)(2) makes them applicable 

to activities outside the United States that 

contravene Commission rules promulgated to 

prevent evasion of Dodd-Frank. Application of 

section 2(i)(1) to the existing part 45 regulations 

with respect to SDs/MSPs and non-SD/non-MSP 

counterparties is discussed in the Commission’s 

non-binding Interpretive Guidance and Policy 

Statement Regarding Compliance With Certain 

Swap Regulations, 78 FR 45292 (July 26, 2013). 

284See 17 CFR 45.1 (defining ‘‘International 

swap’’ to mean a swap required by U.S. law and the 

law of another jurisdiction to be reported both to 

a swap data repository and to a different trade 

repository registered with the other jurisdiction.); 

see also 17 CFR 45.3(h) (prescribing requirements 

with respect to international swaps). 

requirement.279 If alpha swaps have 

been terminated, yet appear to remain 

open, then a risk of double counting 

swap notional exposures can result, 

which would impede the Commission’s 

ability to analyze and study swaps 

market activity using accurate 

information. The inability to link the 

different swaps in a cleared swap 

transaction also impedes the 

Commission’s ability to assess 

exposures of market participants in the 

uncleared and cleared swaps markets. 

Additionally, certain creation data fields 

that are currently populated for beta and 

gamma swaps prove difficult to 

interpret by the Commission, and thus 

can result in inconsistencies in their 

application and reporting among alpha, 

beta, and gamma swaps, hindering the 

Commission’s ability to interpret and 

analyze data regarding beta and gamma 

swaps. 

The revisions and additions that are 

being adopted in this final rulemaking 

would amend part 45 to differentiate 

reporting requirements for cleared and 

uncleared swap transactions, and which 

explicitly address swap counterparty 

and registered entity reporting 

requirements for each component (e.g., 

alpha, beta, and gamma) of a cleared 

swap transaction. This rulemaking will 

remove uncertainty as to which 

counterparty to a swap is responsible for 

reporting creation data for each of the 

various components of a cleared swap 

transaction. The final rule makes clear 

whose obligation it is to report the 

termination of the original swap upon 

acceptance of a swap by a DCO for 

clearing. These additional details 

include where, when, and how to report 

the swap data pertaining to the 

establishment of the beta and gamma 

swaps and the reporting of the 

termination message to the SDR that 

originally received the swap data for the 

alpha swap. This final rule is also 

intended to improve the efficiency of 

data collection and maintenance 

associated with the reporting of the 

swaps involved in a cleared swap 

transaction and to improve the 

accuracy, quality, and usefulness of data 

that is reported for cleared swaps and 

alpha swaps that have been 

extinguished due to clearing novation. 

The Commission believes that the 

baseline for this consideration of costs 

and benefits is generally the existing 

part 45 regulations, which were adopted 

in 2011.280 However, as described 

above, in certain circumstances, 

industry practice has been informed by 

certain provisions of part 39 and by 

subsequent industry developments, and 

thus does not necessarily reflect the 

plain language of the existing part 45 

regulations. In those circumstances, the 

baseline for this consideration of costs 

and benefits will be industry practice. 

The following consideration of costs 

and benefits is organized according to 

the rules and rule amendments put forth 

in this final rulemaking. For each rule, 

the Commission summarizes the 

amendments 281 and identifies and 

discusses the costs and benefits 

attributable to them, including a 

discussion of the commenters’ 

suggestions with regards to the costs 

and benefits of the amendments present 

in the IDWG Request for Comment and 

the NPRM.282 The Commission then 

considers the costs and benefits of 

certain alternatives to the rules put forth 

in this final rulemaking, as well as the 

costs and benefits of all of the rules 

jointly in light of the five public interest 

considerations set out in section 15(a) of 

the CEA. 

The Commission notes that this 

consideration of costs and benefits is 

based on the understanding that the 

swaps market functions internationally, 

with many transactions involving U.S. 

firms taking place across international 

boundaries, with some Commission 

registrants being organized outside of 

the United States, with leading industry 

members typically conducting 

operations both within and outside the 

United States, and with industry 

members commonly following 

substantially similar business practices 

wherever located. Where the 

Commission does not specifically refer 

to matters of location, the below 

discussion of costs and benefits refers to 

the effects of the proposed rules on all 

swaps activity subject to the amended 

regulations, whether by virtue of the 

activity’s physical location in the 

United States or by virtue of the 

activity’s connection with or effect on 

U.S. commerce under CEA section 

2(i).283 The Commission also notes that 

the existing part 45 regulations 

generally contemplate situations where 

a swap may be required to be reported 

pursuant to U.S. law and the law of 

another jurisdiction.284

3. Definitions—Amendments to § 45.1 

The adopted amendments to § 45.1 

revise the definition of ‘‘derivatives 

clearing organization’’ for purposes of 

part 45 to update a reference to an 

existing definition of ‘‘derivatives 

clearing organization’’ and make clear 

that part 45 applies to DCOs registered 

with the Commission. The adopted 

amendments to § 45.1 will also add new 

definitions for ‘‘original swaps’’ (swaps 

that have been accepted for clearing by 

a DCO, commonly referred to as ‘‘alpha’’ 

swaps) and ‘‘clearing swaps’’ (swaps 

created pursuant to the rules of a DCO 

that have a DCO as a counterparty, 

including, but not limited to, any swap 

that replaces an original swap that was 

extinguished upon acceptance for 

clearing, commonly referred to as ‘‘beta’’ 

and ‘‘gamma’’ swaps). 

The terms original swap and clearing 

swaps will be used throughout amended 

part 45 to help clarify reporting 

obligations for each swap involved in a 

cleared swap transaction. Likewise, the 

Commission will use the defined terms 

‘‘original swaps’’ and ‘‘clearing swaps’’ 

throughout this consideration of costs 

and benefits. Given that these terms are 

a product of this release and are not yet 

part of industry nomenclature, the 

Commission will also use the terms 

‘‘alpha, beta, and gamma’’ throughout 

this consideration of costs and benefits 

when discussing existing industry 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41761 

285The Commission determined to utilize the 

proposed to be defined terms ‘‘original swap’’ and 

‘‘clearing swaps’’ in this release rather than the 

industry terms ‘‘alpha, beta, and gamma’’ because 

while a cleared-swap transaction generally 

comprises an original swap that is terminated upon 

novation and the equal and opposite swaps that 

replace it, the Commission is aware of certain 

circumstances in which a clearing swap may not 

involve the replacement of an original swap (e.g., 

an open offer swap, as discussed earlier in this 

release). See supra, Section II.A. 

286The Commission acknowledges that the 

alternative approaches to the reporting of cleared 

swap transactions separately discussed in Section 

III.C.10, Consideration of Alternatives, later in this 

release could also provide these benefits for 

registered entities and swap counterparties. 

However, for the reasons explained in that section, 

the Commission is of the view that the proposed 

approach is more consistent with industry practice 

than the alternatives. 

287Section 45.1 defines ‘‘required swap creation 

data’’ as primary economic terms data and 

confirmation data. Section 45.1 defines ‘‘primary 

economic terms data’’ as all of the data elements 

necessary to fully report all of the primary 

economic terms of a swap in the swap asset class 

of the swap in question and defines ‘‘confirmation 

data’’ as all of the terms of a swap matched and 

agreed upon by the counterparties in confirming the 

swap. 17 CFR 45.1. For cleared swaps, confirmation 

data also includes the internal identifiers assigned 

by the automated systems of the derivatives clearing 

organization to the two transactions resulting from 

novation to the clearing house.’’ Id. 

288As discussed in greater detail below, adopted 

§ 45.8(i) will designate the DCO as the reporting 

counterparty for clearing swaps. 

289As noted earlier in this release, the amended 

definition of ‘‘clearing swap’’ is intended to 

encompass: (1) Swaps that replace an original swap 

and to which the DCO is a counterparty (i.e., swaps 

commonly known as betas and gammas) and (2) all 

other swaps to which the DCO is a counterparty 

(even if such swap does not replace an original 

swap). The Commission understands that there may 

be instances in which a clearing swap does not 

replace an original swap. For example, in the 

preamble to the part 39 adopting release, the 

Commission noted that ‘‘open offer’’ systems are 

acceptable under § 39.12(b)(6), stating that 

‘‘Effectively, under an open offer system there is no 

‘original’ swap between executing parties that needs 

to be novated; the swap that is created upon 

execution is between the DCO and the clearing 

member, acting either as principal or agent.’’). See 

Derivatives Clearing Organization General 

Provisions and Core Principles, Final Rule 76 FR 

69334, 69361 (Nov. 8, 2011). 

290Because the reporting counterparty or SEF/

DCM are currently required under Part 45 to report 

a swap that would become an original swap under 

this final release, there is no need to conduct a costbenefit consideration of this requirement. 

Alternatives to the current reporting approach for 

original swaps are discussed in the Consideration 

of Alternatives section, Section III.C.10, below. 

291See Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3. 

practice and when helpful for purposes 

of clarification.285

The Commission notes that 

commenters did not submit any 

comments relevant to the costs and 

benefits of the proposed amendments to 

§ 45.1. 

i. Costs 

The Commission does not anticipate 

that these definitions, in and of 

themselves, impose additional costs on 

DCOs or market participants. However, 

these definitions will be referenced in 

other proposed substantive provisions 

and the costs and benefits of those 

substantive requirements will be 

discussed in the relevant sections 

below. 

ii. Benefits 

As discussed earlier in this release, 

the plain language of the existing part 

45 regulations presumes the existence of 

one continuous swap and does not 

explicitly acknowledge distinct 

reporting requirements for the 

individual components (i.e., alphas, 

betas, and gammas) of a cleared swap 

transaction. However, industry practice 

is generally to report part 45 data for 

cleared swap transactions in 

conformance with the multi-swap 

framework described in § 39.12(b)(6) 

(i.e., to report alphas, betas, and gammas 

separately). The definitions of original 

and clearing swaps, along with the other 

revisions to part 45 covered in this 

release, will help align the part 45 

regulations with part 39 and with 

certain industry practices and will 

explicitly delineate the swap data 

reporting obligations associated with 

each of the swaps involved in a cleared 

swap transaction.286

4. Creation Data Reporting by DCOs— 

Amendments to § 45.3 

Existing § 45.3 requires reporting to 

an SDR of two types of ‘‘creation data’’ 

generated in connection with a swap’s 

creation: ‘‘primary economic terms 

data’’ and ‘‘confirmation data.’’ 287

Regulation 45.3 governs what creation 

data must be reported, who must report 

it, and deadlines for its reporting. 

Amended § 45.3(e) will govern 

creation data reporting requirements for 

swaps that fall under the proposed 

definition of clearing swaps. Amended 

§ 45.3(e) will also require a DCO, as 

reporting counterparty under adopted 

§ 45.8(i),288 to report all required swap 

creation data for each clearing swap as 

soon as technologically practicable after 

acceptance of an original swap by a 

DCO for clearing (in the event that the 

clearing swap replaces an original swap) 

or as soon as technologically practicable 

after execution of the clearing swap (in 

the event that the clearing swap does 

not replace an original swap).289

Swaps other than clearing swaps, 

including swaps that later become 

original swaps by virtue of their 

acceptance for clearing by a DCO, will 

continue to be reported as currently 

required under existing § 45.3(a)–(d). 

The Commission is thus following an 

approach to creation data reporting that 

will require reporting counterparties or 

SEFs/DCMs to report creation data for 

swaps commonly known as alpha 

swaps, and that will require DCOs to 

report creation data for swaps 

commonly known as beta and gamma 

swaps, and for any other swaps to 

which the DCO is a counterparty.290

With respect to confirmation data 

reporting, for swaps that are intended to 

be cleared at the time of execution, the 

Commission is amending § 45.3(a), (b), 

(c)(1)(iii), (c)(2)(iii), and (d)(2) to remove 

certain existing confirmation data 

reporting requirements. Under the 

modified rules, SEFs/DCMs and 

reporting counterparties will continue 

to be required to report PET data as part 

of their creation data reporting, but will 

not be required to report confirmation 

data for swaps that are intended to be 

submitted to a DCO for clearing at the 

time of execution. Instead, the DCO will 

be required to report confirmation data 

for clearing swaps pursuant to proposed 

§ 45.3(e). 

The Commission is also amending 

§ 45.3(j), which will provide that: for 

swaps executed on or pursuant to the 

rules of a SEF or DCM (including swaps 

that become original swaps), the SEF or 

DCM will have the obligation to choose 

the SDR for such swaps; for all other 

swaps (including for off-facility swaps 

and/or clearing swaps) the reporting 

counterparty (as determined under 

§ 45.8) will have the obligation to 

choose the SDR. 

The Commission has considered the 

letters sent by commenters to the costbenefit considerations of proposed 

amendments to § 45.3. Several 

comments were received on the 

elimination of the requirement for 

reporting confirmation data for swaps 

that are intended to be cleared. On the 

cost-benefit considerations front, Markit 

commented that eliminating the 

requirement for reporting confirmation 

data for swaps that are intended to be 

cleared, while still maintaining the 

requirement to report primary economic 

terms data, will not benefit reporting 

workflows and that there is little 

incremental cost to report confirmation 

data as reporting systems are set-up to 

capture that information already.291

With regards to eliminating the 

requirement for reporting confirmation 

data, the Commission acknowledges 

that there might be incremental cost 

savings due to the elimination of this 

requirement, as suggested by 

commenters. Nevertheless, the 

Commission believes that there is no 

cost associated with the elimination of 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41762 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

292See e.g., CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3; 

CMC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3; AIMA Oct. 30, 

2015 Letter, at 6; CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

293See CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

294See CMC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

295See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. 

296See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4; LCH Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 2; Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 

4. 

297See LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. 

298See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. 

299 ISDA also commented in support of the 

Commission’s proposal to remove the provisions in 

§ 45.3 that excused a reporting counterparty from 

reporting creation data for a swap accepted for 

clearing before the primary economic terms 

reporting deadline. See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, 

at 4. 

300See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–6; EEI/ 

EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter, at 2. 

301See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

302See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4 (noting 

that reporting original swap creation data to one 

SDR and reporting clearing swap data to a different 

SDR may undermine data quality for the 

Commission’s supervisory purposes). 

303See EEI/EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

304See e.g., Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4 

(suggesting there could be timeliness issue 

depending on when the DCO receives necessary 

information from counterparties to report creation 

data). 

305See Final Part 45 Rulemaking, 77 FR 2136, 

2158 (Jan. 13, 2012). 

this requirement and that confirmation 

data requirements for clearing swaps 

provide the Commission with a 

sufficient representation of the 

confirmation data for a cleared swap 

transaction. As a result, the Commission 

believes that there are benefits in the 

form of cost savings that need to be 

considered in the elimination of this 

requirement. 

Other commenters responded to the 

question of which entity should be 

responsible for reporting creation data 

for swaps that will become original 

swaps. Commenters were split on this 

question. Some commenters suggested 

that the DCO, rather than the reporting 

counterparty, should be responsible for 

reporting the creation data for that 

swap.292 CME commented that 

assigning all the reporting obligations 

for original and clearing swaps to the 

DCO is a better and simpler way to 

address alpha swap reporting, and will 

eliminate the need to reconcile original 

and clearing swaps across SDRs.293

CMC similarly commented that DCOs 

are in the best position to report on 

swaps that are accepted or rejected for 

clearing and should assume all 

reporting obligations for cleared swaps, 

including all reporting of swaps that are 

intended to be cleared.294 AIMA 

likewise suggested that if the 

Commission continues the reporting 

requirements associated with original 

swaps, assigning the reporting 

obligations to the DCOs will remove 

reporting burdens and the risk of data 

fragmentation across SDRs.295

Other commenters recommended that 

the Commission continue to require the 

reporting counterparty to report creation 

data for those swaps that will become 

original swaps.296 LCH commented that 

the reporting counterparty of a trade 

should always be a party to the 

transaction and therefore, in the case of 

a swap that will become an original 

swap, the DCO would not be better 

suited than the SEF, DCM, or reporting 

counterparty to report the creation 

data.297 Eurex suggested that assigning 

the reporting obligation of original swap 

creation data to the DCO may present a 

timeliness issue depending on when the 

DCO receives the necessary information 

from the counterparties.298 ISDA 

likewise agreed that the obligation to 

report swaps that become original swaps 

should remain with the reporting 

counterparty for that swap.299

Furthermore, certain commenters 

suggested that the reporting of any 

creation data for swaps that will become 

original swaps is unnecessary.300 AIMA 

commented that eliminating reporting 

for swaps that are intended to be cleared 

at the time of execution will 

significantly reduce complexity in the 

reporting regime and streamline the 

reported data.301 AIMA also commented 

that the proposed reporting approach for 

original swaps will not reduce data 

fragmentation.302 Similarly, EEI/EPSA 

suggested that there is little to no benefit 

to original swap reporting for swaps that 

are intended to be cleared at the time of 

execution and that counterparties 

should not be required to report any 

creation data for such swaps.303

While the NPRM did not propose 

changing the existing obligation to 

report swaps that become original 

swaps, and is therefore beyond the 

scope of the NPRM, the Commission 

continues to believe that original swaps 

contain essential information regarding 

the origins of cleared swap transactions 

for market surveillance and audit-trail 

purposes. The Commission’s ability to 

trace the history of a cleared swap 

transaction from execution between the 

original counterparties to clearing 

novation relies on this information and 

this is a significant benefit to the 

Commission in terms of understanding 

the market structure as well as for 

surveillance purposes. 

With respect to the issue of who 

reports creation data for those swaps 

that will become original swaps, the 

Commission believes that the 

requirement that the reporting 

counterparty report creation data for 

those swaps that will become original 

swaps should remain. The Commission 

believes there are significant benefits 

associated with maintaining established 

industry workflows. Reporting 

counterparties and registered entities 

have invested substantial time and 

resources to report swaps (both cleared 

and not cleared) to SDRs, and DCOs 

have invested substantial resources to 

report clearing swaps. The Commission 

believes it would be efficient to make 

use of this existing infrastructure and 

asking market participants to make 

changes to this established workflow 

might be costly. The Commission 

acknowledges the data fragmentation 

concerns raised by those that 

recommend DCOs report original swap 

creation data. However, the Commission 

also recognizes that requiring the DCOs, 

rather than the original reporting 

counterparty, to report original swap 

creation data may present challenges of 

its own.304 The Commission also 

believes that there are significant 

benefits associated with maintaining 

accurate and timely reporting of the 

required data fields and that this will 

outweigh data fragmentation concerns 

for those situations where the original 

swap and clearing swaps are reported to 

different SDRs. 

The Commission has considered 

arguments made by the commenters 

with respect to choice of SDR and 

believes that placing the obligation to 

choose the SDR on the registered entity 

or counterparty that is required to report 

the swap, rather than on another entity, 

will result in more efficient data 

reporting. Allowing the first entity to 

report data on a swap to choose the SDR 

will allow reporting entities to select an 

SDR to which they have established 

connections; giving another entity the 

ability to choose the SDR could require 

the first reporting entities to connect to 

multiple SDRs. The Commission also 

believes allowing the first reporting 

registered entity or counterparty to 

choose the SDR will also promote 

competition among SDRs to provide 

SDR services to a broad array of 

reporting entities. 

This method of SDR selection also 

avoids the insertion of any entity other 

than a party to the swap or facility 

where the transaction is executed, into 

the decision as to how a registered 

entity or counterparty fulfills its 

regulatory obligation to report initial 

required swap creation data. As with the 

‘‘first-touch’’ approach taken with 

respect to the creation of USIs in part 

45,305 the Commission believes that the 

entity with the first reporting obligation 

should select the SDR for that report. 

The Commission believes that such a 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41763 

306As noted in the NPRM, the part 45 regulations 

contemplate situations where a swap may be 

required to be reported pursuant to U.S. law and 

the law of another jurisdiction. See 80 FR 52544, 

52564 n. 138. 

307The Commission understands that the 

approach followed in this final release for the 

reporting of cleared swaps (e.g., requiring separate 

reporting of alphas, betas, and gammas) is largely 

consistent with the multi-swap approach adopted 

by a number of jurisdictions, including, for 

example, the European Union, Singapore, and 

Australia. 

308The Commission acknowledges several 

commenters at both the IDWG Request for Comment 

and NPRM stages who commented on the costs to 

reporting counterparties when reporting original 

swaps. See, e.g., CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6–7; 

CMC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2. However, the 

Commission has noted that the revisions to part 45 

adopted in this release do not change the existing 

obligation of those entities to report original swaps. 

Therefore, the costs currently incurred by such 

reporting counterparties are not a factor when 

considering the costs and benefits of the revisions 

adopted in this release. The Commission does 

discuss those costs in the Consideration of 

Alternatives, below at Section III.C.10. 

309The Commission acknowledges that the 

alternatives separately discussed in the 

Consideration of Alternatives section later in this 

release could also provide these benefits for 

registered entities and swap counterparties. 

However, for the reasons explained in that section, 

the Commission is of the view that the proposed 

approach is more consistent with industry practice 

than the alternatives. 

method of SDR selection will avoid 

delays in real-time reporting for part 43 

purposes. If DCOs were to select the 

SDR for an original swap, the DCO 

would not be in a position to make such 

selection until after a swap was 

accepted for clearing. Any delays in 

clearing would translate into delays in 

reporting for both part 43 real-time 

reporting and part 45 reporting. 

Additionally, the registered entity or 

counterparty that is required to report a 

swap pursuant to § 45.8 may select an 

SDR to which its technological systems 

are most suited or to which it already 

has an established relationship, 

providing for the efficient and accurate 

reporting of swap data. As a result, the 

Commission believes that amendments 

to § 45.3(j) simply codify existing 

practice and will not impose any 

additional connection costs for DCOs or 

SDRs. In addition, the Commission 

believes that allowing DCOs to choose 

the SDRs to which they report creation 

and continuation data is costminimizing for DCOs because it allows 

them to select the SDR which is most 

cost effective. 

i. Costs 

The Commission understands that 

under current industry practice, DCOs 

commonly report to SDRs creation data 

for swaps that would fall under the 

definition of clearing swaps. 

Accordingly, to the extent that DCOs 

already have been reporting in 

conformance with adopted § 45.3(e), the 

Commission does not expect the final 

rule to result in any additional costs. 

With respect to registered DCOs 

organized outside of the United States, 

its territories, and possessions, that are 

subject to supervision and regulation in 

a foreign jurisdiction, a home country 

trade reporting regulatory regime may 

require the DCO to report swap data to 

a trade repository in the home country 

jurisdiction. For clearing swaps that a 

DCO would be required to report both 

to a registered SDR pursuant to the 

amendments to part 45, and to a foreign 

trade repository pursuant to a home 

country trade reporting regulatory 

regime, the Commission acknowledged 

in the NPRM that a DCO could be 

expected to incur some additional costs 

in satisfying both its CFTC and home 

country reporting obligations, relative to 

a DCO that would only be subject to part 

45 reporting requirements. As also 

indicated in the NPRM, DCOs are not 

currently required to provide such cost 

information to the Commission, the 

Commission lacks access to the 

information needed to assess the 

magnitude of the costs relating to 

compliance with reporting obligations 

in multiple jurisdictions. In addition, 

the Commission did not receive any 

comments on, nor estimates of, the costs 

relating to compliance with reporting 

obligations in multiple jurisdictions. In 

terms of any potential costs, the 

Commission expects that industry 

technological innovations may 

effectively allow for satisfaction of swap 

data reporting requirements across more 

than one jurisdiction by means of a 

single data submission, and that a 

streamlined reporting process or other 

technology and operational 

enhancements could mitigate the cost of 

satisfying reporting requirements for 

swaps that may be required to be 

reported to a foreign trade repository 

under a home country regulatory regime 

as well as to a registered SDR pursuant 

to amendments to part 45.306

Additionally, the Commission 

anticipates that adopting an approach to 

the reporting of cleared swaps in the 

United States that is, to the extent 

possible, consistent with the approaches 

adopted in other jurisdictions may also 

minimize compliance costs for entities 

operating in multiple jurisdictions.307

The Commission also notes that any 

costs arising from reporting swap data 

with respect to more than one 

jurisdiction could already have been 

realized, to the extent that DCOs located 

outside the United States are already 

reporting swap data to a registered SDR 

in addition to reporting swap data to a 

trade repository pursuant to a home 

country regulatory regime. 

Finally, with respect to choice of SDR, 

the Commission believes that 

amendments to § 45.3(j) will not impose 

any additional costs because the 

amendments simply codify existing 

practice—the Commission understands 

that the workflows that apply the 

proposed choice of SDR obligations are 

already in place. 

The Commission believes that 

allowing DCOs to choose the SDRs to 

which they report creation and 

continuation data is cost-minimizing for 

DCOs because it allows them to select 

the SDR which is most cost effective. As 

discussed in greater detail below, the 

Commission anticipates that DCOs that 

have affiliated SDRs will continue their 

current practice of reporting clearing 

swaps to their affiliated SDRs.308

ii. Benefits 

Amended § 45.3(e) will explicitly 

articulate DCO part 45 reporting 

obligations with respect to clearing 

swaps (e.g., betas and gammas).309 As 

explained above, existing § 45.3 does 

not explicitly acknowledge distinct 

reporting requirements for swaps 

commonly known as alphas, betas, and 

gammas. The amendments explicitly 

delineate creation data reporting 

obligations for each component of a 

cleared swap transaction, which will 

improve the Commission’s ability to 

analyze data associated with such 

transactions. 

Requiring DCOs to report required 

swap creation data for clearing swaps to 

SDRs in the manner outlined in this 

release is expected to result in uniform 

protocols and consistent reporting of the 

individual components of a cleared 

swap transaction. The Commission 

believes that the adopted reporting 

framework for cleared swaps will result 

in more consistent reporting of all 

components of a cleared swap 

transaction, including linkages between 

the related swaps, thereby increasing 

the efficiency of the SDR data collection 

function and enhancing the 

Commission’s ability to utilize the data 

for regulatory purposes, including for 

systemic risk mitigation, market 

monitoring, and market abuse 

prevention. 

With respect to confirmation data 

reporting, the Commission anticipates 

that the removal of certain confirmation 

data reporting requirements will result 

in decreased costs for swap 

counterparties and/or registered entities 

that are currently gathering and 

conveying electronically the 

information necessary to report 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41764 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

310See CEWG May 27, 2014 Letter, at 4–5 (stating 

that reporting confirmation data in addition to PET 

data is highly redundant because confirmation data 

simply includes all of the PET data matched and 

agreed to by the counterparties); ISDA May 27, 2014 

Letter, at 6–8 (noting that ‘‘Confirmation data 

should not be required for an alpha trade that is 

intended for clearing at point of execution, whether 

due to the clearing mandate or bilateral agreement. 

Confirmation data for alpha swaps is not 

meaningful since they will be terminated and 

replaced with cleared swaps simultaneously or 

shortly after execution for which confirmation data 

will be reported by the DCO.’’). 

311The Commission notes that industry practice 

with respect to choice of SDR has likely been 

influenced in part by a variety of factors, including, 

among others, the Commission’s statement 

regarding CME Rule 1001. See Statement of the 

Commission on the Approval of CME Rule 1001 

(Mar. 6, 2013), at 6. The Commission notes that 

other DCOs have adopted similar rules. See, e.g., 

ICE Clear Credit Rule 211. 

312See, supra, n. 26, discussing reporting 

obligations for end-users trading on-facility cleared 

swaps. 

313Section 45.4(b) as effective prior to this rule 

release, required DCOs to report continuation data 

on all swaps cleared by the derivatives clearing 

organization, including life cycle event data or state 

data. 

confirmation data for swaps that are 

intended to be submitted to a DCO for 

clearing at the time of execution.310

With respect to the adopted rule 

allowing the removal of certain 

confirmation data reporting 

requirements for swaps that are 

intended to be submitted to a DCO for 

clearing at the time of execution, the 

Commission is of the view that the 

adopted confirmation data reporting 

requirements for clearing swaps should 

provide the necessary confirmation data 

with respect to cleared swap 

transactions. Given that the adopted 

rules will require the DCO to report 

confirmation data for clearing swaps, 

requiring an additional set of 

confirmation data reporting for the nowterminated original swap, in addition to 

PET data, would be duplicative and 

therefore unnecessary. 

Finally, with respect to choice of SDR, 

under adopted § 45.3(j), the party with 

the obligation to report the first data for 

a swap has the discretion to select the 

SDR of its choice. This can be an SDR 

with which the party already has a 

working relationship, an SDR which is, 

in the registered entity or reporting 

counterparty’s estimation, most costeffective, or an SDR that provides the 

best overall service and product. The 

Commission believes that this flexibility 

to select SDRs will minimize reporting 

errors and improve reporting 

efficiencies by allowing the reporting 

entity to select an SDR with which it 

has a connection and reporting systems 

in place. The Commission also believes 

this approach will foster competition 

between SDRs, as reporting entities such 

as SEFs/DCMs, SDs/MSPs, DCOs, and 

non-SD/MSPs can select the SDR to 

which they will report. Further, 

allowing the reporting entity to select 

the SDR will reduce costs, as reporting 

counterparties and registered entities 

(other than DCOs) should not have to 

establish a connection to more than one 

SDR unless they prefer to do so. The 

Commission understands that § 45.3(j) is 

consistent with industry practice,311

and thus that the benefits described 

above are already being realized. 

5. Continuation Data Reporting by 

DCOs—Adopted Amendments to § 45.4 

The Commission’s amendments to 

§ 45.4, which governs the reporting of 

swap continuation data to an SDR 

during a swap’s existence through its 

final termination or expiration, 

incorporate the distinction between 

original swaps and clearing swaps. The 

Commission is removing § 45.4(b)(2)(ii), 

which requires a reporting counterparty 

that is an SD or MSP to report valuation 

data for cleared swaps daily; instead, 

the DCO will be the only swap 

counterparty required to report swap 

continuation data, including valuation 

data, for clearing swaps. 

Notably, amended § 45.4(c) will 

require a DCO to report all required 

continuation data for original swaps, 

including original swap terminations, to 

the SDR to which such original swap 

was reported. Finally, adopted 

§ 45.4(c)(2) will require that 

continuation data reported by DCOs 

include the following data fields as life 

cycle event data or state data for original 

swaps pursuant to adopted § 45.4(c)(1): 

(i) The LEI of the SDR to which each 

clearing swap that replaced a particular 

original swap was reported by the DCO 

pursuant to new § 45.3(e); (ii) the USI of 

the original swap that was replaced by 

the clearing swaps; and (iii) the USIs for 

each of the clearing swaps that replace 

the original swap. 

The Commission has considered the 

costs and benefits raised by commenters 

on the proposed addition of § 45.4(c) 

and its requirement that DCOs report 

continuation data for original swaps, 

including terminations. The 

Commission believes that the adopted 

revisions to § 45.4(c) are broadly in line 

with existing industry practice, and set 

out specific obligations that will ensure 

continuation data is properly reported 

and reflected in the data that the 

Commission uses to fulfill its regulatory 

obligations. The Commission notes that 

it may be more burdensome for the 

counterparties to the original swaps, 

rather than the DCO, to report 

terminations, as the counterparty would 

have to receive a message from the DCO 

confirming that the original swap was 

accepted for clearing and then translate 

that message from the DCO into a 

termination message to the SDR. 

Particularly, this may be most 

burdensome to commercial end-users 

executing swaps on SEFs or DCMs who 

might otherwise have no reporting 

obligations and who may not have the 

infrastructure in place to report as 

quickly or as efficiently as DCOs.312 The 

Commission’s proposed rules largely 

avoid these costs for commercial endusers. 

i. Costs 

Existing § 45.4(b)(2) requires that both 

SDs/MSPs and DCOs report daily 

valuation data for cleared swaps. The 

removal of § 45.4(b)(2)(ii) will eliminate 

the existing valuation data reporting 

requirement for SDs/MSPs, leaving 

DCOs as the sole entity responsible for 

daily valuation data reporting. As DCOs 

are currently required to report 

valuation data for cleared swaps, they 

will not bear any additional costs as a 

result of this proposed amendment. 

While DCOs are currently required to 

report continuation data on ‘‘cleared 

swaps,’’ including terminations, to SDRs 

under existing § 45.4,313 the adopted 

rule clarifies reporting obligations as 

they relate to swaps that become 

original swaps. The Commission 

understands that DCOs frequently 

assume responsibility to report the 

termination of swaps that become alpha 

swaps, but that DCOs do not 

consistently report such alpha swap 

terminations or do not report them in 

the form required by the alpha swap 

SDR. Some DCOs that do not currently 

have connectivity to the SDR where the 

SEF/DCM or original counterparties first 

reported the swap will incur costs 

associated with establishing such 

connectivity. DCOs will also realize 

costs associated with the termination 

notice and submissions correcting 

previously erroneously reported or 

omitted data. However, DCO reporting 

of alpha swap terminations has not been 

uniform and may vary by DCO and SDR. 

The Commission is aware that, in some 

instances, DCOs currently report alpha 

swap terminations to the original SDR 

that received the original submission of 

the intended to be cleared swap. To the 

extent that DCOs have implemented 

systems to report alpha swap 

terminations to the original swap SDR, 

the amended rules thus will not 

introduce any new costs for those DCOs. 

The Commission received three 

comments concerning the costs and 

benefits of the proposed amendments to 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41765 

314See Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4–5; LCH 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3. 

315See OTC Hong Kong May 27, 2014 Letter, at 

2–3 (contending that setup, application 

development, and testing to interface with each 

SDR is likely to require at least 150 man-days, and 

that a more cost-effective framework would be to 

require the original counterparty to report 

termination of the alpha once it receives 

confirmation that the alpha has been accepted for 

clearing, and that the original counterparty would 

already have in place technical and operational 

interfaces with the SDR of its choice. The 

commenter also contended that the burden on 

DCOs of additional reporting outweighs the benefits 

to the CFTC). 

316See SIFMA Report, Management & 

Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 

2013 (October 2013), available at http://

www.sifma.org/research/item.aspx?id=8589940603. 

This estimate is based on the median total 

compensation for a Programmer (Code 1604) 

($91,050), on an hourly basis assuming 1,800 hours 

worked per year ($50.83) and an eight hour work 

day. 

317 ‘‘Required swap continuation data’’ is defined 

in § 45.1 and includes ‘‘life cycle event data’’ or 

‘‘state data’’ (depending on which reporting method 

is used) and ‘‘valuation data.’’ Each of these data 

types is defined in § 45.1. ‘‘Life cycle event data’’ 

means all of the data elements necessary to fully 

report any life cycle event. ‘‘State data’’ means all 

of the data elements necessary to provide a 

snapshot view, on a daily basis of all of the primary 

economic terms of a swap. 17 CFR 45.1. 

318See Swap Dealer De Minimis Exception 

Preliminary Report, (Nov. 18, 2015), at 13–14, 

available at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/

@swaps/documents/file/dfreport_sddeminis_

1115.pdf. 

319The Commission acknowledges that the 

alternatives separately discussed in the 

Consideration of Alternatives, Section III.C.10, 

could also provide these benefits for registered 

entities and swap counterparties. However, for the 

reasons explained in that section, the Commission 

is of the view that the proposed approach is 

superior to the alternatives. 

320As discussed earlier in this release, 

§ 39.12(b)(6) provides that upon acceptance of a 

swap by a DCO for clearing, the original swap is 

extinguished and replaced by equal and opposite 

swaps, with the DCO as the counterparty to each 

such swap. See 17 CFR 39.12(b)(6). 

321See CFTC No-Action Letter No. 12–55 (Dec. 

17, 2012); CFTC No-Action Letter No. 13–34 (Jun. 

26, 2013); CFTC No-Action Letter No. 14–90 (Jun. 

30, 2014); and CFTC No-Action Letter No.15–38 

(Jun. 15, 2015). Staff no-action relief from the 

requirements of § 45.4(b)(2)(ii) has been in effect 

since the initial compliance date for part 45 

reporting. 

§ 45.4 in two different contexts. In 

commenting on the NPRM, LCH and 

Eurex expressed concerns with the 

infrastructure required to have the DCO 

connected to every SDR chosen by the 

SD/MSP for which the DCO clears and 

report terminations according to the 

technical requirements of each SDR.314

Eurex specifically indicated that the 

cost of implementing the required 

infrastructure would have significant 

time and financial costs. In commenting 

on the IDWG Request for Comment, one 

foreign central counterparty now acting 

pursuant to a DCO Exemptive Order 

cited a specific cost for connecting to a 

new SDR as involving at least 150 mandays.315 Based on the most recent 

industry compensation reports, the 

median cost to a firm for 150 working 

days by a computer programmer in the 

finance industry would be $61,000 per 

DCO to SDR connection.316 Considering 

that each DCO must have a connection 

to at least one registered SDR currently 

to report beta and gamma swaps under 

current industry practice, and 

considering that there are only four 

registered SDRs, each DCO could be 

expected to incur at most $183,000 to 

connect to all registered SDRs. This cost 

would be reduced to the extent that the 

DCO has existing connections to more 

than one SDR or if it clears swaps for 

clearing members whose original swaps 

are reported to a limited number of 

SDRs. 

With respect to additional data fields, 

as discussed above, adopted § 45.4(c)(2) 

will add three data fields (the LEI of the 

SDR to which creation data for the 

clearing swaps was reported, the USI of 

the original swap, and USIs of the 

clearing swaps) to the life cycle event 

data or to state data reported by DCOs 

as continuation data for original 

swaps.317 All three of these data fields 

are either already in use or can be 

created by the SDR and reported by the 

DCO. While requiring the reporting of 

additional fields imposes costs, DCOs 

should already possess the information 

needed for these fields, and the 

Commission believes that the extra costs 

to DCOs associated with adopted 

§ 45.4(c)(2) would be minimal. The 

Commission requested relevant 

information and quantitative estimates 

regarding the costs associated with 

creating and using these fields but did 

not receive any. As discussed in Section 

II.C.4.iv above, the Commission would 

encourage SDRs and DCOs to 

standardize messages for terminating 

original swap, which should alleviate 

some of the burden on DCOs. 

ii. Benefits 

Adopted § 45.4(c) will ensure that 

data concerning original swaps remains 

current and accurate, allowing the 

Commission to ascertain whether an 

original swap was terminated through 

clearing novation. Original swap data 

that does not reflect the current state of 

the swap frustrates the use of swap data 

for regulatory purposes, including, but 

not limited to, assessing market 

exposures between counterparties and 

evaluating compliance with the clearing 

mandate.318 The Commission is of the 

view that, to the extent that DCOs’ 

current practices are not currently in 

conformance with the adopted rule, 

requiring the DCO to report 

continuation data for original swaps is 

the most efficient and effective method 

to ensure that data concerning original 

swaps remains current and accurate as 

the DCO, through its rules, determines 

when an original swap is terminated 

and thus has the quickest and easiest 

access to authoritative information 

concerning termination of the original 

swap. 

Adopted § 45.4(c) will ensure that 

part 45 explicitly addresses DCO part 45 

continuation data reporting obligations 

with respect to original swaps (i.e., 

alphas).319 Existing § 45.4(b), which 

addresses ‘‘continuation data reporting 

for cleared swaps,’’ requires DCOs to 

report continuation data for ‘‘all swaps 

cleared by a [DCO],’’ but does not 

explicitly address the multi-swap 

framework provided in § 39.12(b)(6).320

Therefore, uncertainty persists as to 

whether, under existing § 45.4(b) the 

DCO must report continuation data for 

the alpha, beta and gamma swaps. The 

inconsistent interpretation of this 

reporting requirement leads to 

substantial differences in reporting of 

cleared swaps and presents challenges 

for regulatory oversight. The 

continuation data reporting 

requirements adopted in this rule will 

make explicit that the DCO has the 

obligation to report continuation data 

for original swaps that have been 

terminated and the clearing swaps that 

replace a terminated original swap. 

The Commission believes that the 

removal of the requirement that SDs and 

MSPs report daily valuation data for 

cleared swaps from § 45.4(b)(2) can 

result in cost savings to the extent that 

any SDs and MSPs are not currently 

relying on no-action relief.321 In 

addition, because there are fewer DCOs 

than non-DCO reporting counterparties, 

placing the responsibility to report 

valuation data solely on the DCO will 

result in a more consistent and 

standardized valuation reporting 

scheme, as there would be a dramatic 

decrease in the number of potential 

valuation data submitters to SDRs. This 

will benefit SDRs, regulators, and the 

public because it would facilitate data 

aggregation and improve the 

Commission’s ability to analyze SDR 

data and to satisfy its risk and market 

oversight responsibilities, including 

measurement of the notional amount of 

outstanding swaps in the market. 

Adopted § 45.4(c)(2) will require 

DCOs to report three important 

continuation data fields for original 

swaps which will assist regulators in 

tracing the history of, and associating 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41766 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

322See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6. 

the individual swaps involved in, a 

cleared swap transaction, from 

execution of the original swap through 

the life of each clearing swap that 

replaces an original swap, regardless of 

the SDR(s) to which the original and 

clearing swaps are reported. The newly 

required continuation data elements to 

be reported by the DCOs for original 

swaps will ensure that original swap 

continuation data includes sufficient 

information to identify, by USI, any 

clearing swaps created from the same 

original swap, as well as the SDR where 

those clearing swaps reside. As such, 

the Commission expects that review of 

any particular swap in a registered SDR 

will include a listing of all other 

relevant USIs with respect to that swap 

(e.g., original swap and clearing swaps). 

The Commission believes that this 

requirement will help ensure the 

availability of information necessary to 

link original swaps and clearing swaps, 

even if those swaps are reported to 

different SDRs. The ability to link 

original and clearing swaps across 

multiple SDRs will decrease data 

fragmentation and will increase the 

ability of the Commission to accurately 

aggregate cleared swap data across 

various SDRs. As a result, adopted 

§ 45.4(c)(2) will improve the ease of use 

for cleared swaps data, which will 

enhance the Commission’s ability to 

perform its regulatory duties, including 

to protect market participants and the 

public. 

6. USI Creation by DCOs—§ 45.5(d) 

Existing § 45.5 requires that each 

swap subject to the Commission’s 

jurisdiction be identified in all swap 

recordkeeping and data reporting by a 

USI. The rule establishes different 

requirements for the creation and 

transmission of USIs depending on 

whether the swap is executed on a SEF 

or DCM or executed off-facility with or 

without an SD or MSP reporting 

counterparty. Existing § 45.5 also 

provides that for swaps executed on or 

pursuant to the rules of a SEF or DCM, 

the SEF or DCM creates the USI, and for 

swaps not executed on or pursuant to 

the rules of a SEF or DCM, the USI is 

created by an SD or MSP reporting 

counterparty, or by the SDR if the 

reporting counterparty is not an SD or 

MSP. 

Amended rule § 45.5(d) will require a 

DCO to generate and assign a USI for a 

clearing swap upon, or as soon as 

technologically practicable after, 

acceptance of an original swap by the 

DCO for clearing (in the event the 

clearing swap replaces an original swap) 

or execution of a clearing swap (in the 

event that the clearing swap does not 

replace an original swap), and prior to 

reporting the required swap creation 

data for the swap. Amended § 45.5(d) 

contains provisions governing creation 

and assignment of USIs by the DCO that 

are consistent with analogous 

provisions governing creation and 

assignment of USIs by SEFs, DCMs, SDs, 

MSPs, and SDRs. 

All comments received with respect 

to amended § 45.5(d) were supportive of 

the change and there were no comments 

with regards to the costs and benefits of 

this amendment. 

i. Costs 

The Commission believes that 

adopted § 45.5(d) is largely consistent 

with industry practice and will not 

result in any additional costs for DCOs. 

Any DCOs that will not be in complete 

conformance with the adopted rule may 

need to enhance their existing 

technological protocols in order to 

create USIs in house, but these marginal 

costs would likely be lower than the 

costs associated with obtaining a USI 

with a separate USI-creating entity. The 

Commission believes that creating USIs 

in-house, rather than with a different 

USI creating entity, is less costly for 

DCOs and the Commission did not 

receive any data on that comparison or 

on any other quantifiable cost structures 

associated with § 45.5(d). 

ii. Benefits 

As noted above, the existing part 45 

regulations do not explicitly address the 

assignment of USIs to swaps that fall 

within the adopted definition of 

clearing swaps. Explicitly requiring 

DCOs to generate, assign, and transmit 

USIs for clearing swaps will provide 

regulatory certainty with respect to the 

generation and assignment of USIs for 

clearing swaps. The adopted rule will 

also help ensure consistent and uniform 

USI creation and assignment for such 

swaps and will allow regulators to better 

identify and trace the swaps generally 

involved in cleared swap transactions, 

from execution of the original swap 

through the life of each clearing swap. 

7. Determination of the Reporting 

Counterparty for Clearing Swaps—§ 45.8 

Current § 45.8 establishes a hierarchy 

under which the reporting counterparty 

for a particular swap depends on the 

nature of the counterparties involved in 

the transaction. DCOs are not included 

in the existing § 45.8 hierarchy. The 

Commission is adopting § 45.8(i) in 

order to identify DCOs in the hierarchy 

as the reporting counterparty for 

clearing swaps. 

One commenter supported proposed 

§ 45.8(i) as it promoted efficiency in 

reporting by explicitly designating the 

DCO as the reporting party for clearing 

swaps.322 There were no other 

comments with respect to the costs and 

benefits of this amendment. 

i. Costs 

The Commission believes that the 

adopted amendments to § 45.8, in and of 

themselves, will not impose any 

additional costs on registered entities or 

reporting counterparties. The 

Commission believes that the rule 

simply reflects established reporting 

arrangements, which, to the 

Commission’s understanding, is for the 

DCO to submit data to the SDR for 

swaps that would fall within the 

definition of clearing swaps. 

ii. Benefits 

As noted above, clearing swaps are 

not explicitly acknowledged in existing 

§ 45.3, and DCOs are not identified as 

reporting counterparties in the reporting 

counterparty hierarchy of § 45.8. The 

Commission acknowledges the 

comment by AIMA that one benefit of 

proposed § 45.8(i) is that it improves 

efficiency in reporting by explicitly 

designating the DCO as the reporting 

party for clearing swaps. In addition, the 

Commission expects that modifications 

to the § 45.8 reporting counterparty 

hierarchy will eliminate ambiguity 

regarding which registered entity or 

swap counterparty is required to report 

required creation data for clearing 

swaps, explicitly delineating the nature 

and extent of DCO reporting obligations, 

and affording market participants and 

SDRs a more precise and accurate 

understanding of reporting obligations 

under part 45. 

8. Reporting to a Single Swap Data 

Repository—§ 45.10 

Existing § 45.10 requires that all swap 

data for a given swap must be reported 

to a single SDR, which must be the same 

SDR to which creation data for that 

swap is first reported. The time and 

manner in which such data must be 

reported to a single SDR depends on 

whether the swap is executed on a SEF 

or DCM or executed off-facility with or 

without an SD/MSP reporting 

counterparty. The Commission is 

amending § 45.10 to require DCOs to 

report all data for a particular clearing 

swap to a single SDR. Moreover, 

consistent with current industry 

practice, amended § 45.10(d)(3) will 

require the DCO to report all required 

swap creation data for each clearing 

swap that replaces a particular original 

swap (i.e., the beta and gamma that 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41767 

323One commenter cautioned that the definitions 

used in the markets are not always consistent with 

those proposed by the NPRM, which places a 

significant burden on small-sized market 

participants. See JBA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3. 

Because the only new fields either relate solely to 

clearing swap reporting (and therefore affect only 

DCOs), reference terms defined in the Regulations 

(such as ‘‘Asset class’’), or reference the application 

of certain provisions of the Regulations (such as 

‘‘Clearing Exception or Exemption Type’’), the 

Commission believes the terms in the new PET data 

fields are sufficiently clear to avoid any costs or 

burden cited by this commenter. 

324See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 9. 

replace a particular alpha) to a single 

SDR, such that all required creation data 

and all required continuation data for 

all clearing swaps that can be traced 

back to the same original swap will be 

reported to the same SDR (although not 

necessarily the same SDR as the original 

swap). 

i. Costs 

The Commission does not expect 

DCOs to incur any new costs associated 

with ensuring that clearing swap data is 

reported to a single SDR because the 

requirements of the adopted rule are, to 

the Commission’s understanding, 

consistent with current DCO reporting 

practice. 

ii. Benefits 

The Commission believes that the 

benefit of reporting data associated with 

each clearing swap to a single SDR is 

that all required creation data, all 

required continuation data for related 

clearing swaps and, by extension, USIs 

linking clearing swaps to the original 

swap, will be stored with the same SDR. 

This will minimize confusion on the 

part of SDRs and regulators regarding 

which swaps are still active and which 

ones have been terminated. The 

Commission notes that the benefits of 

reporting all data for clearing swaps to 

the same SDR are currently being 

realized, as it is current industry 

practice for DCOs to report swaps that 

will fall under the amended definition 

of clearing swaps in conformance with 

adopted § 45.10(d)(3). 

9. PET Data—Adopted Amendments to 

the Primary Economic Terms Data 

Tables 

The Commission’s current lists of 

minimum (required) primary economic 

terms for swaps in each swap asset class 

are found in tables in Exhibits A–D of 

appendix 1 to part 45. With this final 

release, the Commission has modified 

the descriptions of some PET fields 

applicable to all swaps, added some 

PET fields applicable to all swaps, and 

added some PET fields applicable only 

to clearing swaps. For PET fields 

applicable to clearing swaps, the 

Commission is adding several new data 

elements under the heading ‘‘Additional 

Data Categories and Fields for Clearing 

Swaps’’ to Exhibits A–D in order to 

more accurately capture the additional, 

unique features of clearing swaps that 

are not relevant to original swaps or 

uncleared swaps. The newly proposed 

data fields include: The USI for the 

clearing swap; the USI for the original 

swap; the SDR to which the original 

swap was reported; clearing member 

LEI, clearing member client account 

origin, house or customer account; 

clearing receipt timestamp; and clearing 

acceptance timestamp. 

As for PET field modifications and 

additions relevant for all swaps, the 

Commission is also adding several new 

required data elements, which will be 

applicable to all swaps, and making 

conforming changes to some existing 

data elements. The newly added fields 

include: Asset class, an indication of 

whether the reporting counterparty is a 

DCO with respect to the swap, and 

clearing exception or exemption types. 

The Commission has received various 

comments with respect to the proposed 

changes to the primary economic terms 

data but few that address the cost and 

benefits of the changes are summarized 

below.323 ISDA commented on the 

proposed ‘‘Clearing exception or 

exemption type’’ PET field, which 

would require the reporting party to 

identify the clearing exemption 

exercised for a particular swap.324 ISDA 

commented that it could be challenging 

and costly for firms to implement this 

change, while providing no new 

information because exception and 

exemption elections must already be 

provided to SDRs. Because existing 

reporting standards can identify interaffiliate trades, ISDA recommended that 

the ‘‘Clearing exception or exemption 

type’’ PET field acceptable values be 

limited to ‘‘inter-affiliate’’ and ‘‘other.’’ 

With respect to ISDA’s comment, SDs 

are already required already to submit to 

SDRs information on any clearing 

exception or exemption elections made 

by their counterparties pursuant to part 

50. The Commission believes that 

reporting information on clearing 

exception or exemption elections on a 

transactional basis, in the manner 

described in the proposed changes to 

the primary economic terms, should not 

substantially increase costs on reporting 

counterparties. 

i. Costs 

The Commission emphasizes that, as 

a result of the amendments to the PET 

data tables for clearing swaps, the newly 

added data fields for clearing swaps will 

be reported exclusively by DCOs. While 

there might be costs associated with 

reporting newly added data fields, the 

Commission believes that DCOs are 

better situated than swap counterparties 

to report the additional fields for 

clearing swaps without the substantial 

costs and operational burdens because 

DCOs already possess certain 

information, or other registered entities 

and swap counterparties are required to 

transmit the information to DCOs, 

regarding those fields. For example, the 

data necessary to report the adopted 

‘‘original swap SDR’’ field is currently 

required to be transmitted to the DCO 

under existing § 45.5, and the 

Commission understands that data 

required by the amended ‘‘clearing 

receipt timestamp’’ and ‘‘clearing 

acceptance timestamp’’ fields may 

already be generated and present in 

DCO systems—such DCOs would just 

have to transfer those timestamps to the 

reporting system for each clearing swap. 

Similarly, the Commission understands 

that house or customer account 

designations are already collected and 

maintained in relation to certain part 39 

reporting obligations. Hence, there will 

be no additional cost in collecting the 

information necessary to report the 

‘‘origin (house or customer)’’ field, and 

marginal costs might stem from 

conveying the information in part 45 

swap data reports. The Commission 

solicited comments on the extent to 

which DCOs may already possess the 

information required by the amended 

additional fields and the costs 

associated with obtaining and/or 

reporting such information but did not 

receive any comments or estimates on 

this topic. 

While the Commission requested the 

data needed to quantify the cost of the 

addition of three data fields applicable 

to all reporting entities (asset class, DCO 

indicator, and clearing exception or 

exemption type), the Commission did 

not receive any quantifiable estimates of 

costs associated with creating and using 

these fields from commenters. The 

Commission believes that the costs 

associated with these additional fields 

will not be substantial since the 

information necessary to report these 

data elements is likely to be readily 

available in connection with the 

execution of swaps, with some marginal 

costs stemming from the requirement to 

include the information in PET data 

reported to an SDR (to the extent that 

such information is not already 

reported). The Commission understands 

that in at least some cases, market 

practice is to report some of the 

information required by the proposed 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41768 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

325See TR SEF May 27, 2014 Letter, at 10; AFR 

May 27, 2014 Letter, at 5; Markit May 27, 2014 

Letter, at 25; and DTCC May 27, 2014 Letter, at 17– 

18. 326See AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–6; EEI/ 

EPSA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter. At 2; SIFMA May 27, 2014 Letter, at 4; 

CEWG May 27, 2014 Letter, at 15; CME May 27, 

2014 Letter, at 2–3 327See DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; DTCC 

May 27, 2014 Letter, at 2–3, appendix at 4, 21 

(arguing that the Commission should adopt a 

‘‘single SDR’’ rule to ensure that all of the data for 

a swap is available in one SDR); ISDA May 27, 2014 

Letter, at 44. 

328See CMC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3; CME 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3; AIMA Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter, at 6; CEWG Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3; CMC 

May 27, 2014 Letter, at 1, 3, 6; NFPEA May 27, 2014 

Letter, at 12; EEI/EPSA May 27, 2014 Letter, at 3, 

14; ITV May 27, 2014 Letter, at 3, 17; CEWG May 

27, 2014 Letter, at 16; CME May 27, 2014 Letter, at 

20; and NFP Electric Associations May 27, 2014 

Letter, at 4. 

329See ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4; LCH Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 2; Eurex Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 

4; LCH May 29, 2014 Letter, at 10. 

330The Commission highlighted the first four 

alternatives in its NPRM, and added the last two in 

light of comments provided in response to the 

NPRM. 

three new data fields applicable to all 

reporting entities for all swaps. 

ii. Benefits 

The Commission believes that the 

additions to the list of minimum 

primary economic terms will result in a 

variety of benefits. Clearing swap PET 

fields, such as USI for the original swap 

or the SDR to which the original swap 

was reported, can facilitate the 

monitoring of each original swap by 

SDRs and regulators. Clearing swap PET 

fields can also prevent potential doublecounting of swap transactions or 

notional amounts, thus improving the 

accuracy of SDR data for use by the 

Commission in such activities as 

evaluating swap dealer de minimis 

thresholds. Other proposed fields such 

as clearing member LEI or clearing 

member client account information will 

facilitate the Commission’s assessment 

of risk management of market 

participants, promoting the protection 

of the financial integrity of the markets 

and the protection of market 

participants and the public. 

The new PET fields for all swaps also 

will benefit the Commission in 

performing its regulatory obligations. 

The asset class data field will assist the 

Commission in determining the asset 

class for swaps reported to SDRs, 

enhancing the Commission’s ability to 

identify swaps activity in each asset 

class as well as the capability to use the 

data for regulatory purposes. The 

indication of whether the reporting 

counterparty is a DCO with respect to 

the swap data field will help the 

Commission monitor DCOs’ compliance 

with reporting of clearing swap data 

elements, and improve the 

Commission’s ability to analyze swap 

data relating to cleared swap 

transactions. The clearing exception or 

exemption types data field will enable 

the Commission to ascertain the specific 

exception or exemption from the 

clearing requirement that was elected 

and will assist in the evaluation of 

compliance with the clearing 

requirement, as well as assessing market 

activity in uncleared swaps. 

10. Consideration of Alternatives 

The Commission considered the costs 

and benefits of certain alternatives 

raised by commenters in response to the 

IDWG Request for Comment and the 

NPRM, including whether part 45 

should require intended to be cleared 

swaps (original swaps) to be reported to 

registered SDRs. Some commenters 

noted that reporting of alpha swaps is 

beneficial and should continue to be 

required,325 while other commenters 

contended that alpha swaps should not 

be required to be reported to an SDR 

and questioned the benefits of requiring 

the reporting of alpha swaps.326

Some commenters stated that the 

Commission should require clearing 

swaps to be reported to the same SDR 

as original swaps, so that the entire 

history of a swap would reside at the 

same SDR.327 A number of commenters 

suggested that part 45 should place 

swap data reporting obligations solely 

on DCOs, including with respect to 

swaps that are intended to be cleared at 

the time of execution and accepted for 

clearing by a DCO (swaps commonly 

known as ‘‘alpha’’ swaps) and swaps 

resulting from clearing (swaps 

commonly known as ‘‘beta’’ and 

‘‘gamma’’ swaps).328 However, other 

commenters noted that it would not be 

appropriate to require a DCO to report 

information related to the execution of 

an alpha swap.329

In light of these comments, the 

Commission considered the costs and 

benefits of six alternatives in 

comparison to the costs and benefits of 

the proposed rule: (1) Requiring original 

and clearing swaps to be reported to the 

same SDR chosen by the reporting 

counterparty or SEF/DCM; (2) requiring 

original and clearing swaps to be 

reported to the same SDR chosen by the 

DCO accepting the swap for clearing; (3) 

requiring only one report for each swap 

intended for clearing, that is, not 

requiring original (alpha) swaps to be 

reported separately from clearing swaps, 

with the SDR chosen by the reporting 

counterparty or SEF/DCM; (4) requiring 

only one report for each swap intended 

for clearing as in (3), but with the SDR 

chosen by the DCO accepting the swap 

for clearing; (5) requiring the DCO to 

report both the original swap and all 

resulting clearing swaps, to the SDR of 

its choosing; and (6) requiring the 

original swap reporting counterparty to 

report the creation and the termination 

of the original swap.330

The first two alternatives each require 

swaps that become original swaps and 

the resulting clearing swaps to be 

reported to the same SDR. If such swaps 

were reported to the same SDR, there 

would be no need for certain 

requirements in proposed § 45.4(c) that 

extra fields, such as clearing swap SDR, 

be included in the report to the SDR for 

the clearing swap to link the clearing 

swap to an original swap on a different 

SDR. Similarly, the need for certain 

clearing swap PET data fields, such as 

the identity of the original SDR, 

intended to be used for linking 

purposes, might not be necessary. This 

would reduce costs to the extent that 

certain PET data fields would not be 

required to link the original and clearing 

swaps. The first approach would require 

DCOs to connect to multiple SDRs to the 

same extent as the adopted rules. 

However, the second approach could 

require reporting counterparties or 

SEFs/DCMs to connect to multiple 

SDRs, which could increase costs for a 

larger number of market participants. 

Because the adopted rule more closely 

reflects current industry practice 

relative to the alternative, there would 

be some potentially significant one-time 

costs, including the costs of changes to 

existing systems, associated with 

changing practices to conform to the 

alternatives. Additionally, a substantial 

portion of aggregation costs for 

regulators, and, likely, market 

participants, arises from the current 

landscape, which includes multiple 

SDRs. The adopted requirements to link 

original and clearing swaps at multiple 

SDRs is a relatively minor burden 

compared with the existing burden on 

the Commission, and potentially other 

regulators, in reconciling swap data for 

a cleared swap transaction across 

multiple SDRs without data elements 

linking the original and clearing swaps. 

Additionally, costs associated with 

monitoring and aggregation would 

likely be mitigated by the continuation 

data fields of adopted § 45.4(c)(2), 

which would enable regulators to more 

effectively connect original swaps at one 

SDR with clearing swaps at another 

SDR. Also, as noted in Section II.B.4.iv, 

above, these options could also 

introduce delays in reporting under 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41769 

331The Commission requested comment on the 

extent to which SDRs compete on the basis of price 

or service and the extent to which SDRs are chosen 

on the basis of relationships with registered entities 

and reporting counterparties. Markit commented on 

DCOs using affiliated SDRs for reporting, which is 

addressed in the Antitrust Considerations, Section 

III.D, below. 

332See CME Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 6–7; CMC 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2–3. 

333See LCH Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2; Eurex Oct. 

30, 2015 Letter, at 4. 

334See Regulation SBSR—Reporting and 

Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, 

80 FR 14740 (Mar. 19, 2015). 

335The Commission’s understanding is that a 

number of jurisdictions, including the European 

Union, Singapore, and Australia, for example, also 

account for a multi-swap approach to the reporting 

of cleared swaps. 

both part 43 and part 45, which could 

undermine the price discovery function 

of real-time reporting. 

Regarding who would choose the 

single SDR, the SDR could be chosen by 

the reporting counterparty (or DCM or 

SEF) or by the DCO. Under either of the 

first two alternatives, one registered 

entity or counterparty’s choice of SDR 

would bind a second registered entity or 

counterparty to also report to that SDR, 

which could be an SDR that the second 

registered entity or counterparty would 

not otherwise select. Allowing the 

reporting counterparty or SEF/DCM to 

choose the SDR would enable the 

reporting party to choose the SDR with 

the best combination of prices and 

service, and thus may promote 

competition among SDRs. Allowing the 

DCO to choose the SDR for both original 

and clearing swaps would likely result 

in the DCO always choosing the same 

SDR, which may be the SDR that is 

affiliated with the DCO (that is, shares 

the same parent company). This would 

reduce costs for DCOs since they would 

need to maintain connectivity with only 

one SDR, but would limit the ability of 

SDRs to compete since DCOs could 

choose to report only to SDRs with 

which they are affiliated.331

Under the third and fourth 

alternatives, there would be no 

requirement to report intended to be 

cleared swaps (original swaps) 

separately from the resulting clearing 

swaps. Rather, there would only be one 

report for each cleared swap transaction. 

This would be a change from current 

swap market practice. As with the first 

two alternatives, the choice of SDR 

could be made by the reporting 

counterparty as determined under 

current § 45.8, or by the DCO as under 

adopted § 45.8(i). If there is only one 

report for each cleared swap transaction, 

there would be ongoing cost savings 

associated with the need to make fewer 

reports to SDRs. As with the first two 

alternatives, there would be no need for 

the requirement in adopted § 45.4(c) 

that extra fields, such as clearing swap 

SDR, be included in the report to the 

SDR to link the clearing swap to an 

original swap on a different SDR, and 

market participants and the Commission 

could access all information about a 

single cleared swap transaction at a 

single SDR. This would also reduce 

costs relative to the adopted rule. 

However, the benefits of separate 

reports for original and clearing swaps 

would be foregone and there may be a 

less complete record of the history of 

each cleared swap. Moreover, it would 

be more difficult for the Commission to 

determine the original counterparties, 

original execution time, and other vital 

information on the original swap for 

market surveillance or enforcement 

purposes. It may be possible to reclaim 

these benefits through requiring 

additional fields in each cleared swap 

report, although this would also 

increase costs and would require DCOs 

to receive and report information 

beyond what is otherwise required for 

clearing purposes. Additionally, 

because the adopted rule more closely 

reflects current industry practice 

relative to these alternatives, there 

would be some potentially significant 

one-time costs, including the costs of 

changes to existing systems, associated 

with changing practices to conform to 

the alternatives. The effects of who 

chooses the SDR are similar to the 

effects described for the first two 

alternatives. 

Under the fifth alternative, the DCO 

would report both the swap that 

becomes the original swap (including 

creation data and termination) and all 

clearing swaps resulting from clearing of 

the original swap. While one DCO and 

some end-users supported this 

alternative as simplifying work flows 

and reducing costs to original swaps 

counterparties,332 other DCOs opposed 

requiring DCOs to report original and 

clearing swaps because DCOs would not 

have all information required to report 

original swaps.333 While recognizing 

that this alternative could reduce costs 

for reporting counterparties, the 

Commission declined to adopt this 

alternative as DCOs would not have all 

information necessary to submit such 

reports. Further, the Commission 

declined to adopt this alternative 

because of negative impacts on the 

timeliness of reporting real-time pricing 

information under part 43. 

Finally, under the sixth alternative, 

the reporting counterparty to the 

original swap would be required to 

report the termination of that swap 

upon acceptance for clearing. As 

addressed above in the discussion of 

final § 45.4, the Commission believes 

that DCOs would be in a better position 

to report the termination of the original 

swap, and would have all information 

necessary to report such terminations. 

The Commission has determined not 

to adopt the alternatives listed above 

because the final rule is more consistent 

with current industry practice than such 

alternatives. The Commission 

understands that reporting 

counterparties and registered entities 

are already set up to report alpha swaps 

to registered SDRs (whether or not such 

swaps are intended to be cleared at the 

time of execution) and that DCOs are 

already set up to report beta and gamma 

swaps that result from acceptance of a 

swap for clearing, and have been 

making such reports. Accordingly, the 

industry has already incurred the costs 

of setting up a system for reporting 

cleared swap transactions to SDRs 

(including separate reports for swaps 

that would fall within the proposed 

definitions of original and clearing 

swaps). Changing this system to 

conform to an alternative rule would 

have certain costs to reporting entities. 

The Commission also believes that 

clarifying distinct reporting 

requirements in part 45 for alphas 

(swaps that become original swaps) and 

betas and gammas (clearing swaps that 

replace original swaps) presents a full 

history of each cleared swap transaction 

and permits the Commission and other 

regulators to identify and analyze each 

component part of such transactions. 

The Commission also continues to 

believe that placing the part 45 

reporting obligation on the counterparty 

or registered entity closest to the source 

of, and with the easiest and fastest 

access to, complete and accurate data 

regarding a swap fosters accuracy and 

completeness in swap data reporting. In 

light of these benefits, the Commission 

will maintain the current industry 

practice of separately reporting both 

alpha swaps (i.e., swaps that would 

become original swaps under the 

proposed rules) and beta and gamma 

swaps (i.e., clearing swaps as defined 

under the proposed rules). 

Additionally, the multi-swap 

reporting approach adopted in this rule 

is largely consistent with the approach 

proposed by the SEC in its release 

proposing certain new rules and rule 

amendments to Regulation SBSR,334 and 

is also largely consistent with the 

approach adopted by several foreign 

regulators.335 Given that the swaps 

market is global in nature, the 

Commission anticipates that adopting 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41770 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

336 77 FR 2136, 2188. 

337 Id. at 2189. 

338 Id. 

339As noted earlier in this release, the 

Commission’s understanding is that the DCO is the 

entity that should have the easiest and quickest 

access to full information with respect to PET data 

and confirmation data for clearing swaps, as well 

with respect to terminations of original swaps. 

340 77 FR 2136, 2189 (Jan. 13, 2012). 

341 Id. at 2189. 

342 Id. 

343 77 FR 2136, 2137. 

344 77 FR 2136, 2149. 

345 77 FR 2136, 2149. 

an approach to the reporting of cleared 

swaps in the United States that is 

consistent with the approaches adopted 

in other jurisdictions may minimize 

compliance costs for entities operating 

in multiple jurisdictions. 

11. Section 15(a) Factors 

Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the 

Commission to consider the effects of its 

actions in light of the following five 

factors: 

(1) Protection of market participants 

and the public. In the Final Part 45 

Rulemaking, the Commission stated that 

the data reporting requirements of part 

45 provided for protection of market 

participants and the public by providing 

regulatory agencies with a wealth of 

previously unavailable data in a unified 

format, greatly enhancing the ability of 

market and systemic risk regulators to 

perform their oversight and enforcement 

functions.336 The Commission believes 

that the adopted amendments outlined 

in this final release will enhance these 

protections by explicitly providing how 

and by whom each of the swaps 

involved in a cleared swap transaction 

should be reported. In particular, by 

requiring DCOs to electronically report 

the creation data and continuation data 

for clearing swaps, the Commission 

believes that data on all clearing swaps 

associated with a specific original swap 

will be aggregated at the same SDR, 

provided by a single entity and readily 

available for accurate and complete 

analysis. This will also allow the 

Commission and other regulators to 

access all data pertaining to related 

clearing swaps from a single SDR. These 

enhancements should allow for 

efficiencies in oversight and 

enforcement functions, resulting in 

improved protection of market 

participants and the public. 

(2) The efficiency, competitiveness 

and financial integrity of the markets. In 

the Final Part 45 Rulemaking, the 

Commission stated that the swap data 

reporting requirements of part 45 would 

enhance the financial integrity of swap 

markets.337 The Commission also stated 

that part 45’s streamlined reporting 

regime, including the counterparty 

hierarchy used to select the reporting 

counterparty, could be considered 

efficient in that it assigns greater 

reporting responsibility to more 

sophisticated entities more likely to be 

able to realize economies of scale and 

scope in reporting costs.338 The 

Commission believes that the 

amendments in this final release will 

further enhance this efficiency by 

requiring DCOs to report where they are 

the party best equipped to do so.339 In 

addition, by explicitly delineating 

reporting responsibilities associated 

with each component of a cleared swap 

transaction, the adopted rules should 

result in improved reliability and 

consistency of the swaps data reported, 

further enhancing the financial integrity 

of the swap markets. 

The rule confirming that the reporting 

counterparty or SEF/DCM has the right 

to choose the SDR for the original swap 

can promote competition among SDRs. 

However, the Commission also 

acknowledges that by allowing DCOs to 

choose the SDR to which they report, 

competition for SDR services can be 

impacted as a result of DCOs reporting 

to their affiliated SDR, that is, an SDR 

that shares the same parent company as 

the DCO. Any such impact on 

competition will be a consequence of 

business decisions designed to realize 

costs savings associated with the 

affiliations between DCOs and SDRs. 

The Commission notes that section 21 of 

the CEA permits a DCO to register as an 

SDR. 

(3) Price Discovery. In the Final Part 

45 Rulemaking, the Commission stated 

that the swap data reporting 

requirements of part 45 did not have a 

material effect on the price discovery 

process.340 The Commission believes 

that the adopted amendments also will 

not have a material effect on price 

discovery. 

(4) Risk Management. In the Final Part 

45 Rulemaking, the Commission stated 

that the data reporting requirements of 

part 45 did not have a material effect on 

sound risk management practices.341

The Commission believes that the 

adopted amendments also will not have 

a material effect on sound risk 

management practices. 

(5) Other Public Interest 

Considerations. In the Final Part 45 

Rulemaking, the Commission stated that 

the data reporting requirements will 

allow regulators to readily acquire and 

analyze market data, thus streamlining 

the surveillance process.342 The 

Commission preliminarily believes that 

the amendments outlined in this release 

will enhance this consideration by 

providing certainty about how and by 

whom each of the swaps involved in a 

cleared swap transaction should be 

reported. 

As noted earlier in this release, the 

multi-swap reporting approach 

proposed in this final release is largely 

consistent with the approaches 

proposed by the SEC and adopted by 

several foreign regulators. Given that the 

swaps market is global in nature, the 

Commission anticipates that adopting 

an approach that is consistent with the 

approaches adopted by other regulators 

may further other public interest 

considerations by reducing compliance 

costs for entities operating in multiple 

jurisdictions. 

D. Antitrust Considerations 

Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the 

Commission to take into consideration 

the public interest to be protected by the 

antitrust laws, and endeavor to take the 

least anticompetitive means of 

achieving the objectives of the CEA, in 

issuing any order or adopting any 

Commission rule or Regulation. The 

Commission evaluated the amendments 

to Part 45 in the context of 7 U.S.C. 

2(a)(13)(G) and 7 U.S.C. 24a, which 

were adopted by Congress as part of the 

Dodd-Frank Act. These provisions 

require each swap, whether cleared or 

uncleared, to be reported to a registered 

SDR. The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted 

to reduce systemic risk, increase 

transparency, and promote market 

integrity by, among other things, 

creating rigorous data reporting regimes 

with respect to swaps, including real 

time reporting.343 As noted in this 

release, the Commission has adopted 

these amendments to help ensure that 

cleared swaps transactions are reported 

to SDRs in a consistent and accurate 

way to allow the Commission to 

evaluate market risk and monitor for 

abusive trading practices. 

In the Final Part 45 Rulemaking, the 

Commission identified choice of SDR as 

one area of the rules that could 

potentially have an impact on 

competition.344 In that release, the 

Commission stated that the adopted rule 

governing who makes the initial 

creation data report and selects the SDR 

‘‘favors market competition, avoids 

injecting the Commission into a market 

decision, and leaves the choice of SDR 

to be influenced by market forces and 

possible market innovations.’’ 345

In the NPRM proposing amendments 

on cleared swap reporting, the 

Commission asked for comments on any 

anticompetitive impacts of the proposed 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41771 

346 80 FR 52571. 

347See Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 3–5; DTCC 

Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7. 

348See DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7. 

349See DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7. 

350See DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 7. 

351See Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. 

352See Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4. 

353See Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4–5. 

354See Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 5. 

355As discussed in section III.C.4. above, § 45.3(j) 

provides that the registered entity or counterparty 

required to report swap creation data has the choice 

of SDR when fulfilling its obligations under 

§§ 45.3(a)–(e). 

356As noted, DTCC has ownership and 

governance ties to a number of swap dealers. 

Additionally, some swap dealers in the DTCC 

ownership consortium have ownership and/or 

governance ties to certain SEFs. Accordingly, the 

Commission sees a strong incentive for swap 

dealers and swap dealer-affiliated SEFs to select 

DTCC as the SDR to the extent this part 45 

amendment grants them authority to do so. 

Conversely, the Commission foresees a strong 

likelihood that DCO’s that have affiliate SDRs, will 

select their respective SDR affiliates to the extent 

this part 45 amendment grants them authority to do 

so and doing so is consistent with their core 

principle obligations. As discussed below, the CME 

Group DCO currently has a rule providing that all 

swaps that it clears be reported to the CMEaffiliated SDR. 

cleared swaps reporting rules.346 In 

response to the NPRM, the Commission 

received two comments directly 

addressing competitive concerns. DTCC 

and Markit both commented that 

allowing a DCO to select the SDR for 

clearing swaps will impact competition 

as some DCOs have affiliated SDRs, 

which may allow DCOs to bundle 

clearing services with SDR services.347

DTCC commented that allowing the 

DCO to report to an affiliated SDR, 

particularly after the original swap has 

already been reported to a different 

SDR, will further entrench DCOs’ 

vertical integration in trade execution, 

clearing, and data reporting.348 DTCC 

argued that this would, in turn, increase 

barriers to entry for exchanges, 

clearinghouses, and independent SDRs 

that are unaffiliated with DCOs.349 As 

an alternative, DTCC proposed to grant 

the registered entity or reporting 

counterparty that is obligated to report 

the original swap the ability to select the 

SDR to which the clearing swaps must 

be reported by the DCO.350

Markit argued that allowing the DCO 

to select the SDR to which clearing 

swaps are reported would provide 

regulatory approval for anticompetitive 

tying of clearing and reporting 

services.351 Markit contrasted the 

current marketplace for clearing services 

with what existed in March 2013 when 

the Commission approved CME Rule 

1001, and alleged that concentration has 

increased since 2013.352 In support, 

Markit argued that one DCO—which is 

affiliated with an SDR—clears 87 

percent of global credit index swaps.353

As an alternative to the Commission’s 

proposal, Markit proposed that the 

reporting counterparty for an original 

swap be permitted, at its discretion, to 

both report the resulting clearing swaps 

and select the SDR to which the clearing 

swaps are reported. Under Markit’s 

proposal, the reporting counterparty to 

the original swap would also be 

permitted to delegate this reporting and 

SDR selection responsibility to the 

DCO.354

The Commission has taken into 

consideration the public interest to be 

protected by the antitrust laws, and 

endeavored to take the least 

anticompetitive means of achieving the 

objectives of the CEA in adopting this 

final rule. Having considered the 

comments raised by DTCC and Markit, 

the Commission believes that the 

amendments to part 45 concerning 

choice of SDR announced in this release 

meet this least-anticompetitive-means 

standard. 

The mix of entities reporting swaps to 

the various SDRs illustrates how the 

choice of SDR currently operates in the 

marketplace. Presently there are four 

registered SDRs to which swaps may be 

reported. Two of the SDRs (CME and 

ICE Trade Vault) are affiliated with 

DCOs and contain swaps data reported 

by those DCOs, as well as data reported 

by SEFs, SDs, and non-SD/MSP market 

participants. These SDRs receive swap 

data on uncleared swaps, as well as both 

the original swaps and clearing swaps 

from cleared swap transactions. One 

SDR (DTCC) is a subsidiary of a large 

financial services utility and has 

ownership and governance ties to a 

number of swap dealers. DTCC receives 

swap data from a number of those swap 

dealers, as well as SEFs, non-SD/MSP 

market participants, and at least one 

DCO. DTCC receives swaps reporting for 

a large number of uncleared swaps, as 

well as original swaps whose associated 

clearing swaps are reported at either 

DTCC or a DCO-affiliated SDR. The 

fourth SDR (Bloomberg) is corporately 

affiliated with a SEF and available to 

accept data from, among others, SEFs/

DCMs, DCOs, and reporting 

counterparties. Also relevant to this 

discussion, some SD/MSPs and SEFs 

report swaps to multiple SDRs. Some 

SDs and SEFs, even those with 

corporate affiliations or ownership links 

to SDRs, report some swaps to SDRs to 

which they have no such connections. 

The mix of swaps reported to each SDR 

(uncleared, original and clearing swaps) 

and the mix of reporting entities using 

each SDR are the result of market 

participants’ decisions on how to fulfill 

reporting obligations. 

Consumers of SDR services under 

these amendments are the entities with 

the first reporting obligation on a swap: 

SEFs/DCMs for uncleared or original 

swaps executed on-facility; reporting 

counterparties (primarily swap dealers, 

but also non-SD/MSP market 

participants) for uncleared or original 

swaps executed off-facility; and DCOs 

for clearing swaps. The amendments 

place the choice of SDR for each 

individual swap with the entity first 

required to report data on that swap. 

The amendments do not place the 

choice of SDR with a single entity or 

counterparty with respect to more than 

one swap. In other words, the choice of 

SDR will be made as to a particular 

swap when a registered entity or 

reporting counterparty that is required 

to report the swap makes the first report 

of all creation data on a particular 

swap.355 Because each reporting entity 

responsible for the first report of a swap 

would have its choice of SDR, the 

Commission does not believe that the 

amendments to Part 45 in this release 

will significantly impact the mix of 

swaps reported to each SDR and the mix 

of reporting entities using each SDR, as 

described above. 

In determining which entity may 

select the SDR for the original and 

separately for clearing swap 

components of a cleared swap 

transaction, the Commission considered 

three alternatives that potentially could 

achieve the objectives of the CEA: (a) 

Allowing the entity initially reporting 

an original swap to select the SDR for 

both the original and clearing swaps, by 

requiring clearing swaps to be reported 

to the same SDR as the original swaps 

they replace; (b) allowing the DCO to 

select the SDR for both the original and 

clearing swaps; or (c) allowing the entity 

first reporting a swap to select the SDR, 

specifically by allowing the original 

swap reporting entity to select the SDR 

for the original swap and the DCO to 

select the SDR for the clearing swaps. Of 

the three, the Commission considers its 

ultimate decision—option (c)—to be the 

least anticompetitive to satisfy its 

regulatory objectives. Both option (a) 

and (b) hold significant potential for a 

particular constituency group—namely 

swap dealers or DCOs, respectively— to 

assume an outsized role in shaping the 

evolving SDR landscape to favor the 

competitive interests of particular SDRs 

to which they have financial ties.356 In 

contrast, option (c) minimizes this 

potential by diffusing the SDR selection 

role across different categories of 

reporting entities. No reporting entity 

(such as an individual DCO) or group of 

similarly situated reporting entities 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41772 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

357 DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at, p. 7; see also, 

Markit Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 4 (‘‘proposed policy 

would provide regulatory approval for 

anticompetitive tying of clearing and regulatory 

reporting services’’). 

358CEA section 5b(c)(2)(N), 7 U.S.C.7a–1(c)(2)(N). 

DCO Core Principle N provides that unless 

necessary or appropriate to achieve the purposes of 

this Act, a derivatives clearing organization shall 

not—(i) adopt any rule or take any action that 

results in any unreasonable restraint of trade; or (ii) 

impose any material anticompetitive burden. 

359See CEA section 5b(c)(2)(A)(i), 7 U.S.C. 7a– 

1(c)(2)(A)(i); 17 CFR 39.10(a). 

360Currently, CME Rule 1001 provides that the 

CME Group DCO will report all swaps resulting 

from its clearing to the CME Group SDR. After 

consideration pursuant to section 5c(c)(5) of the 

CEA and Commission regulation 40.5, the 

Commission granted CME’s request for approval of 

Rule 1001 on March 6, 2013. See Statement of the 

Commission (‘‘Statement’’), available at http://

www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@newsroom/

documents/file/statementofthecommission.pdf. In 

granting the request for approval, the Commission 

determined, among other things, that under the 

then-current facts and circumstances Rule 1001 was 

not inconsistent with DCO Core Principle N. As the 

Statement expressly stated, however, the 

Commission’s determination was based on the 

‘‘present facts and circumstances,’’ and that ‘‘CME 

has a continuing obligation to implement its Rule 

1001 in a manner consistent with the Commission’s 

regulations and the DCO Core Principles, including 

Core Principle N, based on the relevant facts and 

circumstances as they may change over time.’’ 

Statement at 12. The Commission expects that 

DCOs will continue to monitor industry 

circumstances and amend their rules and conduct 

as necessary to remain in statutory and regulatory 

compliance as industry conditions evolve. More 

specifically in the context of compliance with Core 

Principle N, the Commission expects such ongoing 

monitoring to include attention to the competitive 

impact of DCO rules and conduct in appropriately 

defined relevant antitrust product and geographic 

markets, and assessment of whether particular DCO 

rules or conduct transgress antitrust laws, including 

Sherman Act sections 1 and 2, 15 U.S.C. 1 and 2. 

361See JBA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 2 (requesting 

delayed implementation); DTCC Oct. 30, 2015 

Letter, at 9 (requesting that all changes to PET fields 

be required prospectively only, and not for existing 

swaps; requesting implementation time of 6 

months); ISDA Oct. 30, 2015 Letter, at 12 

(requesting delayed implementation, but deferring 

to SDRs and DCOs on timeline for such 

implementation); LCH Oct.30, 2015 Letter, at 2 

(recommending at least 12 months for DCOs and 

SDRs to coordinate on solution for reporting). 

(such as SDs that have an ownership 

interest in an SDR) would be able to 

dictate where another reporting entity 

reports a swap. As a result, swaps 

reporting should not become 

concentrated in a single SDR associated 

with either DCOs or SDs. On the 

contrary, even assuming that all SDs 

choose to report all original and 

uncleared swaps to DTCC while ICE and 

CME report all clearing swaps to their 

affiliated SDRs, swaps reporting will be 

diffused across at least three SDRs. At 

the same time, the adopted amendments 

allow reporting entities to take 

advantage of costs savings and 

efficiencies by selecting an SDR with 

which the reporting entity has an 

existing relationship. 

In the context of this rulemaking, the 

Commission believes that the concerns 

of DTCC and Market are misdirected. 

The criticism of both commenters pivots 

on the fundamental view that ‘‘the 

proposed rule unnecessarily permits 

DCOs to bundle services’’ and that 

anticompetitive consequences flow from 

such bundling.357 The instant 

amendment, however, merely specifies 

who, in a particular circumstance, will 

select the SDR to which a particular 

swap will be reported; the amendment 

neither permits nor prohibits DCO/SDR 

bundling—it does not speak to the issue 

at all. To the extent that a particular 

DCO reports all of its swaps to a 

particular SDR (pursuant to a DCO rule 

or otherwise), it must do so consistent 

with its core principle obligations, 

including Core Principle N.358 This 

amendment does not alter or otherwise 

impact that obligation. DCO registration 

is contingent upon ongoing compliance 

with Core Principle N.359 Thus the 

question of whether a particular DCO 

may be restraining trade or imposing an 

anticompetitive burden through the 

manner in which it exercises its § 45.3(j) 

SDR-choice (including under a theory of 

anticompetitive tying) is properly 

addressed as a matter of DCO 

compliance with Core Principle N.360

IV. Compliance Dates 

Because some revisions and additions 

to part 45 create new reporting 

obligations or clarify existing reporting 

obligations, while some remove 

obligations presently covered by noaction or other relief, the Commission is 

adopting this release on a bifurcated 

basis. The deletion of former 

§ 45.4(b)(2)(ii), requiring that SD/MSP 

counterparties to clearing swaps report 

valuation data on those swaps, shall be 

effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Compliance with all other revisions 

and additions to part 45 adopted in this 

release shall be required one hundred 

and eighty (180) days after this release 

is published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission has noted comments 

on the need for market participants, 

SDRs, DCOs, and other affected parties 

to update systems to comply with the 

proposed changes to part 45.361

Therefore, the Commission is adopting 

the revisions and additions to part 45 

with compliance dates for new 

obligations that will provide sufficient 

time to update and test reporting 

systems. 

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 45 

Data recordkeeping requirements and 

data reporting requirements, Swaps. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission amends 17 CFR 

part 45 as set forth below: 

PART 45—SWAP DATA 

RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING 

REQUIREMENTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 45 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6r, 7, 7a–1, 7b–3, 12a, 

and 24a, as amended by Title VII of the Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

of 2010, Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 

(2010), unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 45.1 as follows: 

■ a. Add a definition for ‘‘clearing 

swap’’ in alphabetical order; 

■ b. Revise the definition of ‘‘derivatives 

clearing organization’’; and 

■ c. Add a definition for ‘‘original 

swap’’ in alphabetical order. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 45.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Clearing swap means a swap created 

pursuant to the rules of a derivatives 

clearing organization that has a 

derivatives clearing organization as a 

counterparty, including any swap that 

replaces an original swap that was 

extinguished upon acceptance of such 

original swap by the derivatives clearing 

organization for clearing. 

* * * * * 

Derivatives clearing organization 

means a derivatives clearing 

organization, as defined by § 1.3(d) of 

this chapter, that is registered with the 

Commission. 

* * * * * 

Original swap means a swap that has 

been accepted for clearing by a 

derivatives clearing organization. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 45.3 to read as follows: 

§ 45.3 Swap data reporting: Creation data. 

Registered entities and swap 

counterparties must report required 

swap creation data electronically to a 

swap data repository as set forth in this 

section and in the manner provided in 

§ 45.13(b). The rules governing 

acceptance and recording of such data 

by a swap data repository are set forth 

in § 49.10 of this chapter. The reporting 

obligations of swap counterparties with 

respect to swaps executed prior to the 

applicable compliance date and in 

existence on or after July 21, 2010, the 

date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank 

Act, are set forth in part 46 of this 

chapter. This section and § 45.4 

establish the general swap data 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41773 

reporting obligations of swap dealers, 

major swap participants, non-SD/MSP 

counterparties, swap execution 

facilities, designated contract markets, 

and derivatives clearing organizations to 

report swap data to a swap data 

repository. In addition to the reporting 

obligations set forth in this section and 

in § 45.4, registered entities and swap 

counterparties are subject to other 

reporting obligations set forth in this 

chapter, including, without limitation, 

the following: Swap dealers, major swap 

participants, and non-SD/MSP 

counterparties are also subject to the 

reporting obligations with respect to 

corporate affiliations reporting set forth 

in § 45.6; swap execution facilities, 

designated contract markets, swap 

dealers, major swap participants, and 

non-SD/MSP counterparties are subject 

to the reporting obligations with respect 

to real time reporting of swap data set 

forth in part 43 of this chapter; 

counterparties to a swap for which an 

exception to, or an exemption from, the 

clearing requirement has been elected 

under part 50 of this chapter are subject 

to the reporting obligations set forth in 

part 50 of this chapter; and, where 

applicable, swap dealers, major swap 

participants, and non-SD/MSP 

counterparties are subject to the 

reporting obligations with respect to 

large traders set forth in parts 17 and 18 

of this chapter. Paragraphs (a) through 

(d) of this section apply to all swaps 

except clearing swaps, while paragraph 

(e) applies only to clearing swaps. 

(a) Swaps executed on or pursuant to 

the rules of a swap execution facility or 

designated contract market. For each 

swap executed on or pursuant to the 

rules of a swap execution facility or 

designated contract market, the swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market must report all primary 

economic terms data for the swap, as 

defined in § 45.1, as soon as 

technologically practicable after 

execution of the swap. If the swap is not 

intended to be submitted to a 

derivatives clearing organization for 

clearing at the time of execution, the 

swap execution facility or designated 

contract market must report all 

confirmation data for the swap, as 

defined in § 45.1, as soon as 

technologically practicable after 

execution of the swap. 

(b) Off-facility swaps subject to the 

clearing requirement. For all off-facility 

swaps subject to the clearing 

requirement under part 50 of this 

chapter, except for those off-facility 

swaps for which an exception to, or 

exemption from, the clearing 

requirement has been elected under part 

50 of this chapter, and those off-facility 

swaps covered by CEA section 

2(a)(13)(C)(iv), required swap creation 

data must be reported as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(1) The reporting counterparty, as 

determined pursuant to § 45.8, must 

report all primary economic terms data 

for the swap, within the applicable 

reporting deadline set forth in paragraph 

(b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. 

(i) If the reporting counterparty is a 

swap dealer or a major swap participant, 

the reporting counterparty must report 

all primary economic terms data for the 

swap as soon as technologically 

practicable after execution, but no later 

than 15 minutes after execution. 

(ii) If the reporting counterparty is a 

non-SD/MSP counterparty, the reporting 

counterparty must report all primary 

economic terms data for the swap as 

soon as technologically practicable after 

execution, but no later than one 

business hour after execution. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) Off-facility swaps not subject to the 

clearing requirement, with a swap 

dealer or major swap participant 

reporting counterparty. For all offfacility swaps not subject to the clearing 

requirement under part 50 of this 

chapter, all off-facility swaps for which 

an exception to, or an exemption from, 

the clearing requirement has been 

elected under part 50 of this chapter, 

and all off-facility swaps covered by 

CEA section 2(a)(13)(C)(iv), for which a 

swap dealer or major swap participant 

is the reporting counterparty, required 

swap creation data must be reported as 

provided in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(1) Credit, equity, foreign exchange, 

and interest rate swaps. For each such 

credit swap, equity swap, foreign 

exchange instrument, or interest rate 

swap: 

(i) The reporting counterparty, as 

determined pursuant to § 45.8, must 

report all primary economic terms data 

for the swap, within the applicable 

reporting deadline set forth in paragraph 

(c)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section. 

(A) If the non-reporting counterparty 

is a swap dealer, a major swap 

participant, or a non-SD/MSP 

counterparty that is a financial entity as 

defined in CEA section 2(h)(7)(C), or if 

the non-reporting counterparty is a nonSD/MSP counterparty that is not a 

financial entity as defined in CEA 

section 2(h)(7)(C) and verification of 

primary economic terms occurs 

electronically, then the reporting 

counterparty must report all primary 

economic terms data for the swap as 

soon as technologically practicable after 

execution, but no later than 30 minutes 

after execution. 

(B) If the non-reporting counterparty 

is a non-SD/MSP counterparty that is 

not a financial entity as defined in CEA 

section 2(h)(7)(C), and if verification of 

primary economic terms does not occur 

electronically, then the reporting 

counterparty must report all primary 

economic terms data for the swap as 

soon as technologically practicable after 

execution, but no later than 30 minutes 

after execution. 

(ii) If the swap is not intended to be 

submitted to a derivatives clearing 

organization for clearing at the time of 

execution, the reporting counterparty 

must report all confirmation data for the 

swap, as defined in § 45.1, as soon as 

technologically practicable after 

confirmation, but no later than: 30 

minutes after confirmation if 

confirmation occurs electronically; or 24 

business hours after confirmation if 

confirmation does not occur 

electronically. 

(2) Other commodity swaps. For each 

such other commodity swap: 

(i) The reporting counterparty, as 

determined pursuant to § 45.8, must 

report all primary economic terms data 

for the swap, within the applicable 

reporting deadline set forth in paragraph 

(c)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section. 

(A) If the non-reporting counterparty 

is a swap dealer, a major swap 

participant, or a non-SD/MSP 

counterparty that is a financial entity as 

defined in CEA section 2(h)(7)(C), or if 

the non-reporting counterparty is a nonSD/MSP counterparty that is not a 

financial entity as defined in CEA 

section 2(h)(7)(C) and verification of 

primary economic terms occurs 

electronically, then the reporting 

counterparty must report all primary 

economic terms data for the swap as 

soon as technologically practicable after 

execution, but no later than two hours 

after execution. 

(B) If the non-reporting counterparty 

is a non-SD/MSP counterparty that is 

not a financial entity as defined in CEA 

section 2(h)(7)(C), and if verification of 

primary economic terms does not occur 

electronically, then the reporting 

counterparty must report all primary 

economic terms data for the swap as 

soon as technologically practicable after 

execution, but no later than two hours 

after execution. 

(ii) If the swap is not intended to be 

submitted to a derivatives clearing 

organization for clearing at the time of 

execution, the reporting counterparty 

must report all confirmation data for the 

swap, as defined in § 45.1, as soon as 

technologically practicable after 

confirmation, but no later than: 30 

Minutes after confirmation if 

confirmation occurs electronically; or 24 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41774 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

business hours after confirmation if 

confirmation does not occur 

electronically. 

(d) Off-facility swaps not subject to 

the clearing requirement, with a nonSD/MSP reporting counterparty. For all 

off-facility swaps not subject to the 

clearing requirement under part 50 of 

this chapter, all off-facility swaps for 

which an exception to, or an exemption 

from, the clearing requirement has been 

elected under part 50 of this chapter, 

and all off-facility swaps covered by 

CEA section 2(a)(13)(C)(iv), in all asset 

classes, for which a non-SD/MSP 

counterparty is the reporting 

counterparty, required swap creation 

data must be reported as provided in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(1) The reporting counterparty, as 

determined pursuant to § 45.8, must 

report all primary economic terms data 

for the swap, as soon as technologically 

practicable after execution, but no later 

than 24 business hours after execution. 

(2) If the swap is not intended to be 

submitted to a derivatives clearing 

organization for clearing at the time of 

execution, the reporting counterparty 

must report all confirmation data for the 

swap, as defined in § 45.1, as soon as 

technologically practicable after 

confirmation, but no later than 24 

business hours after confirmation. 

(e) Clearing swaps. As soon as 

technologically practicable after 

acceptance of an original swap by a 

derivatives clearing organization for 

clearing, or as soon as technologically 

practicable after execution of a clearing 

swap that does not replace an original 

swap, the derivatives clearing 

organization, as reporting counterparty, 

must report all required swap creation 

data for the clearing swap. Required 

swap creation data for clearing swaps 

must include all confirmation data and 

all primary economic terms data, as 

those terms are defined in § 45.1 and as 

included in appendix 1 to this part. 

(f) Allocations. For swaps involving 

allocation, required swap creation data 

shall be reported to a single swap data 

repository as follows. 

(1) Initial swap between reporting 

counterparty and agent. The initial 

swap transaction between the reporting 

counterparty and the agent shall be 

reported as required by § 45.3(a) through 

(d). A unique swap identifier for the 

initial swap transaction must be created 

as provided in § 45.5. 

(2) Post-allocation swaps—(i) Duties 

of the agent. In accordance with this 

section, the agent shall inform the 

reporting counterparty of the identities 

of the reporting counterparty’s actual 

counterparties resulting from allocation, 

as soon as technologically practicable 

after execution, but not later than eight 

business hours after execution. 

(ii) Duties of the reporting 

counterparty. The reporting 

counterparty must report all required 

swap creation data for each swap 

resulting from allocation to the same 

swap data repository to which the initial 

swap transaction is reported as soon as 

technologically practicable after it is 

informed by the agent of the identities 

of its actual counterparties. The 

reporting counterparty must create a 

unique swap identifier for each such 

swap as required in § 45.5. 

(iii) Duties of the swap data 

repository. The swap data repository to 

which the initial swap transaction and 

the post-allocation swaps are reported 

must map together the unique swap 

identifiers of the initial swap 

transaction and of each of the postallocation swaps. 

(g) Multi-asset swaps. For each multiasset swap, required swap creation data 

and required swap continuation data 

shall be reported to a single swap data 

repository that accepts swaps in the 

asset class treated as the primary asset 

class involved in the swap by the swap 

execution facility, designated contract 

market, or reporting counterparty 

making the first report of required swap 

creation data pursuant to this section. 

The registered entity or reporting 

counterparty making the first report of 

required swap creation data pursuant to 

this section shall report all primary 

economic terms for each asset class 

involved in the swap. 

(h) Mixed swaps. (1) For each mixed 

swap, required swap creation data and 

required swap continuation data shall 

be reported to a swap data repository 

registered with the Commission and to 

a security-based swap data repository 

registered with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission. This 

requirement may be satisfied by 

reporting the mixed swap to a swap data 

repository or security-based swap data 

repository registered with both 

Commissions. 

(2) The registered entity or reporting 

counterparty making the first report of 

required swap creation data pursuant to 

this section shall ensure that the same 

unique swap identifier is recorded for 

the swap in both the swap data 

repository and the security-based swap 

data repository. 

(i) International swaps. For each 

international swap, the reporting 

counterparty shall report as soon as 

practicable to the swap data repository 

the identity of the non-U.S. trade 

repository not registered with the 

Commission to which the swap is also 

reported and the swap identifier used by 

the non-U.S. trade repository to identify 

the swap. If necessary, the reporting 

counterparty shall obtain this 

information from the non-reporting 

counterparty. 

(j) Choice of SDR. The entity with the 

obligation to choose the swap data 

repository to which all required swap 

creation data for the swap is reported 

shall be the entity that is required to 

make the first report of all data pursuant 

to this section, as follows: 

(1) For swaps executed on or pursuant 

to the rules of a swap execution facility 

or designated contract market, the swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market shall choose the swap data 

repository; 

(2) For all other swaps, the reporting 

counterparty, as determined in § 45.8, 

shall choose the swap data repository. 

§ 45.4 [Amended] 

■ 4. Effective June 27, 2016, remove 

§ 45.4 (b)(2)(ii). 

■ 5. Effective July 27, 2016, revise § 45.4 

to read as follows: 

§ 45.4 Swap data reporting: Continuation 

data. 

Registered entities and swap 

counterparties must report required 

swap continuation data electronically to 

a swap data repository as set forth in 

this section and in the manner provided 

in § 45.13(b). The rules governing 

acceptance and recording of such data 

by a swap data repository are set forth 

in § 49.10 of this chapter. The reporting 

obligations of registered entities and 

swap counterparties with respect to 

swaps executed prior to the applicable 

compliance date and in existence on or 

after July 21, 2010, the date of 

enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, are 

set forth in part 46 of this chapter. This 

section and § 45.3 establish the general 

swap data reporting obligations of swap 

dealers, major swap participants, nonSD/MSP counterparties, swap execution 

facilities, designated contract markets, 

and derivatives clearing organizations to 

report swap data to a swap data 

repository. In addition to the reporting 

obligations set forth in this section and 

in § 45.3, registered entities and swap 

counterparties are subject to other 

reporting obligations set forth in this 

chapter, including, without limitation, 

the following: Swap dealers, major swap 

participants, and non-SD/MSP 

counterparties are also subject to the 

reporting obligations with respect to 

corporate affiliations reporting set forth 

in § 45.6; swap execution facilities, 

designated contract markets, swap 

dealers, major swap participants, and 

non-SD/MSP counterparties are subject 

to the reporting obligations with respect 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41775 

to real time reporting of swap data set 

forth in part 43 of this chapter; and, 

where applicable, swap dealers, major 

swap participants, and non-SD/MSP 

counterparties are subject to the 

reporting obligations with respect to 

large traders set forth in parts 17 and 18 

of this chapter. 

(a) Continuation data reporting 

method generally. For each swap, 

regardless of asset class, reporting 

counterparties and derivatives clearing 

organizations required to report swap 

continuation data must do so in a 

manner sufficient to ensure that all data 

in the swap data repository concerning 

the swap remains current and accurate, 

and includes all changes to the primary 

economic terms of the swap occurring 

during the existence of the swap. 

Reporting entities and counterparties 

fulfill this obligation by reporting either 

life cycle event data or state data for the 

swap within the applicable deadlines 

set forth in this section. Reporting 

counterparties and derivatives clearing 

organizations required to report swap 

continuation data for a swap may fulfill 

their obligation to report either life cycle 

event data or state data by reporting: 

(1) Life cycle event data to a swap 

data repository that accepts only life 

cycle event data reporting; 

(2) State data to a swap data 

repository that accepts only state data 

reporting; or 

(3) Either life cycle event data or state 

data to a swap data repository that 

accepts both life cycle event data and 

state data reporting. 

(b) Continuation data reporting for 

clearing swaps. For all clearing swaps, 

required continuation data must be 

reported as provided in this section. 

(1) Life cycle event data or state data 

reporting. The derivatives clearing 

organization, as reporting counterparty, 

must report to the swap data repository 

either: 

(i) All life cycle event data for the 

swap, reported on the same day that any 

life cycle event occurs with respect to 

the swap; or 

(ii) All state data for the swap, 

reported daily. 

(2) Valuation data reporting. 

Valuation data for the swap must be 

reported by the derivatives clearing 

organization, as reporting counterparty, 

daily. 

(c) Continuation data reporting for 

original swaps. For all original swaps, 

required continuation data, including 

terminations, must be reported to the 

swap data repository to which the swap 

that was accepted for clearing was 

reported pursuant to § 45.3(a) through 

(d) in the manner provided in § 45.13(b) 

and in this section, and must be 

accepted and recorded by such swap 

data repository as provided in § 49.10 of 

this chapter. 

(1) Life cycle event data or state data 

reporting. The derivatives clearing 

organization that accepted the swap for 

clearing must report to the swap data 

repository either: 

(i) All life cycle event data for the 

swap, reported on the same day that any 

life cycle event occurs with respect to 

the swap; or 

(ii) All state data for the swap, 

reported daily. 

(2) In addition to all other necessary 

continuation data fields, life cycle event 

data and state data must include all of 

the following: 

(i) The legal entity identifier of the 

swap data repository to which all 

required swap creation data for each 

clearing swap was reported by the 

derivatives clearing organization 

pursuant to § 45.3(e); 

(ii) The unique swap identifier of the 

original swap that was replaced by the 

clearing swaps; and 

(iii) The unique swap identifier of 

each clearing swap that replaces a 

particular original swap. 

(d) Continuation data reporting for 

uncleared swaps. For all swaps that are 

not cleared by a derivatives clearing 

organization, including swaps executed 

on or pursuant to the rules of a swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market, the reporting counterparty must 

report all required swap continuation 

data as provided in this section. 

(1) Life cycle event data or state data 

reporting. The reporting counterparty 

for the swap must report to the swap 

data repository either all life cycle event 

data for the swap or all state data for the 

swap, within the applicable deadline set 

forth in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) If the reporting counterparty is a 

swap dealer or major swap participant: 

(A) Life cycle event data must be 

reported on the same day that any life 

cycle event occurs, with the sole 

exception that life cycle event data 

relating to a corporate event of the nonreporting counterparty must be reported 

no later than the second business day 

after the day on which such event 

occurs. 

(B) State data must be reported daily. 

(ii) If the reporting counterparty is a 

non-SD/MSP counterparty: 

(A) Life cycle event data must be 

reported no later than the end of the 

first business day following the date of 

any life cycle event; with the sole 

exception that life cycle event data 

relating to a corporate event of the nonreporting counterparty must be reported 

no later than the end of the second 

business day following such event. 

(B) State data must be reported daily. 

(2) Valuation data reporting. 

Valuation data for the swap must be 

reported by the reporting counterparty 

for the swap as follows: 

(i) If the reporting counterparty is a 

swap dealer or major swap participant, 

the reporting counterparty must report 

all valuation data for the swap, daily. 

(ii) If the reporting counterparty is a 

non-SD/MSP counterparty, the reporting 

counterparty must report the current 

daily mark of the transaction as of the 

last day of each fiscal quarter. This 

report must be transmitted to the swap 

data repository within 30 calendar days 

of the end of each fiscal quarter. If a 

daily mark of the transaction is not 

available for the swap, the reporting 

counterparty satisfies this requirement 

by reporting the current valuation of the 

swap recorded on its books in 

accordance with applicable accounting 

standards. 

■ 6. Revise § 45.5 to read as follows: 

§ 45.5 Unique swap identifiers. 

Each swap subject to the jurisdiction 

of the Commission shall be identified in 

all recordkeeping and all swap data 

reporting pursuant to this part by the 

use of a unique swap identifier, which 

shall be created, transmitted, and used 

for each swap as provided in paragraphs 

(a) through (f) of this section. 

(a) Swaps executed on or pursuant to 

the rules of a swap execution facility or 

designated contract market. For each 

swap executed on or pursuant to the 

rules of a swap execution facility or 

designated contract market, the swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market shall create and transmit a 

unique swap identifier as provided in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Creation. The swap execution 

facility or designated contract market 

shall generate and assign a unique swap 

identifier at, or as soon as 

technologically practicable following, 

the time of execution of the swap, and 

prior to the reporting of required swap 

creation data. The unique swap 

identifier shall consist of a single data 

field that contains two components: 

(i) The unique alphanumeric code 

assigned to the swap execution facility 

or designated contract market by the 

Commission for the purpose of 

identifying the swap execution facility 

or designated contract market with 

respect to unique swap identifier 

creation; and 

(ii) An alphanumeric code generated 

and assigned to that swap by the 

automated systems of the swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41776 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

market, which shall be unique with 

respect to all such codes generated and 

assigned by that swap execution facility 

or designated contract market. 

(2) Transmission. The swap execution 

facility or designated contract market 

shall transmit the unique swap 

identifier electronically as follows: 

(i) To the swap data repository to 

which the swap execution facility or 

designated contract market reports 

required swap creation data for the 

swap, as part of that report; 

(ii) To each counterparty to the swap, 

as soon as technologically practicable 

after execution of the swap; 

(iii) To the derivatives clearing 

organization, if any, to which the swap 

is submitted for clearing, as part of the 

required swap creation data transmitted 

to the derivatives clearing organization 

for clearing purposes. 

(b) Off-facility swaps with a swap 

dealer or major swap participant 

reporting counterparty. For each offfacility swap where the reporting 

counterparty is a swap dealer or major 

swap participant, the reporting 

counterparty shall create and transmit a 

unique swap identifier as provided in 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Creation. The reporting 

counterparty shall generate and assign a 

unique swap identifier as soon as 

technologically practicable after 

execution of the swap and prior to both 

the reporting of required swap creation 

data and the transmission of data to a 

derivatives clearing organization if the 

swap is to be cleared. The unique swap 

identifier shall consist of a single data 

field that contains two components: 

(i) The unique alphanumeric code 

assigned to the swap dealer or major 

swap participant by the Commission at 

the time of its registration as such, for 

the purpose of identifying the swap 

dealer or major swap participant with 

respect to unique swap identifier 

creation; and 

(ii) An alphanumeric code generated 

and assigned to that swap by the 

automated systems of the swap dealer or 

major swap participant, which shall be 

unique with respect to all such codes 

generated and assigned by that swap 

dealer or major swap participant. 

(2) Transmission. The reporting 

counterparty shall transmit the unique 

swap identifier electronically as follows: 

(i) To the swap data repository to 

which the reporting counterparty 

reports required swap creation data for 

the swap, as part of that report; 

(ii) To the non-reporting counterparty 

to the swap, as soon as technologically 

practicable after execution of the swap; 

and 

(iii) To the derivatives clearing 

organization, if any, to which the swap 

is submitted for clearing, as part of the 

required swap creation data transmitted 

to the derivatives clearing organization 

for clearing purposes. 

(c) Off-facility swaps with a non-SD/ 

MSP reporting counterparty. For each 

off-facility swap for which the reporting 

counterparty is a non-SD/MSP 

counterparty, the swap data repository 

to which primary economic terms data 

is reported shall create and transmit a 

unique swap identifier as provided in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Creation. The swap data repository 

shall generate and assign a unique swap 

identifier as soon as technologically 

practicable following receipt of the first 

report of required swap creation data 

concerning the swap. The unique swap 

identifier shall consist of a single data 

field that contains two components: 

(i) The unique alphanumeric code 

assigned to the swap data repository by 

the Commission at the time of its 

registration as such, for the purpose of 

identifying the swap data repository 

with respect to unique swap identifier 

creation; and 

(ii) An alphanumeric code generated 

and assigned to that swap by the 

automated systems of the swap data 

repository, which shall be unique with 

respect to all such codes generated and 

assigned by that swap data repository. 

(2) Transmission. The swap data 

repository shall transmit the unique 

swap identifier electronically as follows: 

(i) To the counterparties to the swap, 

as soon as technologically practicable 

following creation of the unique swap 

identifier; and 

(ii) To the derivatives clearing 

organization, if any, to which the swap 

is submitted for clearing, as soon as 

technologically practicable following 

creation of the unique swap identifier. 

(d) Clearing swaps. For each clearing 

swap, the derivatives clearing 

organization that is a counterparty to 

such swap shall create and transmit a 

unique swap identifier as provided in 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Creation. The derivatives clearing 

organization shall generate and assign a 

unique swap identifier upon, or as soon 

as technologically practicable after, 

acceptance of an original swap by the 

derivatives clearing organization for 

clearing or execution of a clearing swap 

that does not replace an original swap, 

and prior to the reporting of required 

swap creation data for the clearing 

swap. The unique swap identifier shall 

consist of a single data field that 

contains two components: 

(i) The unique alphanumeric code 

assigned to the derivatives clearing 

organization by the Commission for the 

purpose of identifying the derivatives 

clearing organization with respect to 

unique swap identifier creation; and 

(ii) An alphanumeric code generated 

and assigned to that clearing swap by 

the automated systems of the derivatives 

clearing organization, which shall be 

unique with respect to all such codes 

generated and assigned by that 

derivatives clearing organization. 

(2) Transmission. The derivatives 

clearing organization shall transmit the 

unique swap identifier electronically as 

follows: 

(i) To the swap data repository to 

which the derivatives clearing 

organization reports required swap 

creation data for the clearing swap, as 

part of that report; and 

(ii) To its counterparty to the clearing 

swap, as soon as technologically 

practicable after acceptance of a swap 

by the derivatives clearing organization 

for clearing or execution of a clearing 

swap that does not replace an original 

swap. 

(e) Allocations. For swaps involving 

allocation, unique swap identifiers shall 

be created and transmitted as follows. 

(1) Initial swap between reporting 

counterparty and agent. The unique 

swap identifier for the initial swap 

transaction between the reporting 

counterparty and the agent shall be 

created as required by paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section, and shall be 

transmitted as follows: 

(i) If the unique swap identifier is 

created by a swap execution facility or 

designated contract market, the swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market must include the unique swap 

identifier in its swap creation data 

report to the swap data repository, and 

must transmit the unique identifier to 

the reporting counterparty and to the 

agent. 

(ii) If the unique swap identifier is 

created by the reporting counterparty, 

the reporting counterparty must include 

the unique swap identifier in its swap 

creation data report to the swap data 

repository, and must transmit the 

unique identifier to the agent. 

(2) Post-allocation swaps. The 

reporting counterparty must create a 

unique swap identifier for each of the 

individual swaps resulting from 

allocation, as soon as technologically 

practicable after it is informed by the 

agent of the identities of its actual 

counterparties, and must transmit each 

such unique swap identifier to: 

(i) The non-reporting counterparty for 

the swap in question. 

(ii) The agent. 

(iii) The derivatives clearing 

organization, if any, to which the swap 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41777 

is submitted for clearing, as part of the 

required swap creation data transmitted 

to the derivatives clearing organization 

for clearing purposes. 

(f) Use. Each registered entity or swap 

counterparty subject to the jurisdiction 

of the Commission shall include the 

unique swap identifier for a swap in all 

of its records and all of its swap data 

reporting concerning that swap, from 

the time it creates or receives the unique 

swap identifier as provided in this 

section, throughout the existence of the 

swap and for as long as any records are 

required by the CEA or Commission 

regulations to be kept by that registered 

entity or counterparty concerning the 

swap, regardless of any life cycle events 

or any changes to state data concerning 

the swap, including, without limitation, 

any changes with respect to the 

counterparties to or the ownership of 

the swap. This requirement shall not 

prohibit the use by a registered entity or 

swap counterparty in its own records of 

any additional identifier or identifiers 

internally generated by the automated 

systems of the registered entity or swap 

counterparty, or the reporting to a swap 

data repository, the Commission, or 

another regulator of such internally 

generated identifiers in addition to the 

reporting of the unique swap identifier. 

■ 7. Revise § 45.8 to read as follows: 

§ 45.8 Determination of which 

counterparty must report. 

The determination of which 

counterparty is the reporting 

counterparty for all swaps, except 

clearing swaps, shall be made as 

provided in paragraphs (a) through (h) 

of this section. The determination of 

which counterparty is the reporting 

counterparty for all clearing swaps shall 

be made as provided in paragraph (i) of 

this section. 

(a) If only one counterparty is a swap 

dealer, the swap dealer shall be the 

reporting counterparty. 

(b) If neither counterparty is a swap 

dealer, and only one counterparty is a 

major swap participant, the major swap 

participant shall be the reporting 

counterparty. 

(c) If both counterparties are non-SD/ 

MSP counterparties, and only one 

counterparty is a financial entity as 

defined in CEA section 2(h)(7)(C), the 

counterparty that is a financial entity 

shall be the reporting counterparty. 

(d) If both counterparties are swap 

dealers, or both counterparties are major 

swap participants, or both 

counterparties are non-SD/MSP 

counterparties that are financial entities 

as defined in CEA section 2(h)(7)(C), or 

both counterparties are non-SD/MSP 

counterparties and neither counterparty 

is a financial entity as defined in CEA 

section 2(h)(7)(C): 

(1) For a swap executed on or 

pursuant to the rules of a swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market, the counterparties shall agree 

which counterparty shall be the 

reporting counterparty. 

(2) For an off-facility swap, the 

counterparties shall agree as one term of 

their swap which counterparty shall be 

the reporting counterparty. 

(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this 

section, if both counterparties to a swap 

are non-SD/MSP counterparties and 

only one counterparty is a U.S. person, 

that counterparty shall be the reporting 

counterparty. 

(f) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section, if neither counterparty to a 

swap is a U.S. person, but the swap is 

executed on or pursuant to the rules of 

a swap execution facility or designated 

contract market or otherwise executed 

in the United States, or is cleared by a 

derivatives clearing organization: 

(1) For such a swap executed on or 

pursuant to the rules of a swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market, the counterparties shall agree 

which counterparty shall be the 

reporting counterparty. 

(2) For an off-facility swap, the 

counterparties shall agree as one term of 

their swap which counterparty shall be 

the reporting counterparty. 

(g) If a reporting counterparty selected 

pursuant to paragraphs (a) through (f) of 

this section ceases to be a counterparty 

to a swap due to an assignment or 

novation, the reporting counterparty for 

reporting of required swap continuation 

data following the assignment or 

novation shall be selected from the two 

current counterparties as provided in 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) If only one counterparty is a swap 

dealer, the swap dealer shall be the 

reporting counterparty and shall fulfill 

all counterparty reporting obligations. 

(2) If neither counterparty is a swap 

dealer, and only one counterparty is a 

major swap participant, the major swap 

participant shall be the reporting 

counterparty and shall fulfill all 

counterparty reporting obligations. 

(3) If both counterparties are non-SD/ 

MSP counterparties, and only one 

counterparty is a U.S. person, that 

counterparty shall be the reporting 

counterparty and shall fulfill all 

counterparty reporting obligations. 

(4) In all other cases, the counterparty 

that replaced the previous reporting 

counterparty by reason of the 

assignment or novation shall be the 

reporting counterparty, unless otherwise 

agreed by the counterparties. 

(h) For all swaps executed on or 

pursuant to the rules of a swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market, the rules of the swap execution 

facility or designated contract market 

must require each swap counterparty to 

provide sufficient information to the 

swap execution facility or designated 

contract market to enable the swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market to report all swap creation data 

as provided in this part. 

(1) To achieve this, the rules of the 

swap execution facility or designated 

contract market must require each 

market participant placing an order with 

respect to any swap traded on the swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market to include in the order, without 

limitation: 

(i) The legal entity identifier of the 

market participant placing the order. 

(ii) A yes/no indication of whether the 

market participant is a swap dealer with 

respect to the product with respect to 

which the order is placed. 

(iii) A yes/no indication of whether 

the market participant is a major swap 

participant with respect to the product 

with respect to which the order is 

placed. 

(iv) A yes/no indication of whether 

the market participant is a financial 

entity as defined in CEA section 

2(h)(7)(C). 

(v) A yes/no indication of whether the 

market participant is a U.S. person. 

(vi) If applicable, an indication that 

the market participant will elect an 

exception to, or an exemption from, the 

clearing requirement under part 50 of 

this chapter for any swap resulting from 

the order. 

(vii) If the swap will be allocated: 

(A) An indication that the swap will 

be allocated. 

(B) The legal entity identifier of the 

agent. 

(C) An indication of whether the swap 

is a post-allocation swap. 

(D) If the swap is a post-allocation 

swap, the unique swap identifier of the 

initial swap transaction between the 

reporting counterparty and the agent. 

(2) To achieve this, the swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market must use the information 

obtained pursuant to paragraph (h)(1) of 

this section to identify the counterparty 

that is the reporting counterparty 

pursuant to the CEA and this section. 

(i) Clearing swaps. Notwithstanding 

the provisions of paragraphs (a) through 

(h) of this section, if the swap is a 

clearing swap, the derivatives clearing 

organization that is a counterparty to 

such swap shall be the reporting 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41778 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

counterparty and shall fulfill all 

reporting counterparty obligations for 

such swap. 

■ 8. Revise § 45.10 to read as follows: 

§ 45.10 Reporting to a single swap data 

repository. 

All swap data for a given swap, which 

shall include all swap data required to 

be reported pursuant to parts 43 and 45 

of this chapter, must be reported to a 

single swap data repository, which shall 

be the swap data repository to which the 

first report of required swap creation 

data is made pursuant to this part. 

(a) Swaps executed on or pursuant to 

the rules of a swap execution facility or 

designated contract market. To ensure 

that all swap data, including all swap 

data required to be reported pursuant to 

parts 43 and 45 of this chapter, for a 

swap executed on or pursuant to the 

rules of a swap execution facility or 

designated contract market is reported 

to a single swap data repository: 

(1) The swap execution facility or 

designated contract market that reports 

required swap creation data as required 

by § 45.3 shall report all such data to a 

single swap data repository. As soon as 

technologically practicable after 

execution, the swap execution facility or 

designated contract market shall 

transmit to both counterparties to the 

swap, and to the derivatives clearing 

organization, if any, that will clear the 

swap, both: 

(i) The identity of the swap data 

repository to which required swap 

creation data is reported by the swap 

execution facility or designated contract 

market; and 

(ii) The unique swap identifier for the 

swap, created pursuant to § 45.5. 

(2) Thereafter, all required swap 

creation data and all required swap 

continuation data reported for the swap 

reported by any registered entity or 

counterparty shall be reported to that 

same swap data repository (or to its 

successor in the event that it ceases to 

operate, as provided in part 49 of this 

chapter). 

(b) Off-facility swaps with a swap 

dealer or major swap participant 

reporting counterparty. To ensure that 

all swap data, including all swap data 

required to be reported pursuant to parts 

43 and 45 of this chapter, for off-facility 

swaps with a swap dealer or major swap 

participant reporting counterparty is 

reported to a single swap data 

repository: 

(1) If the reporting counterparty 

reports primary economic terms data to 

a swap data repository as required by 

§ 45.3: 

(i) The reporting counterparty shall 

report primary economic terms data to 

a single swap data repository. 

(ii) As soon as technologically 

practicable after execution, but no later 

than as required pursuant to § 45.3, the 

reporting counterparty shall transmit to 

the other counterparty to the swap both 

the identity of the swap data repository 

to which primary economic terms data 

is reported by the reporting 

counterparty, and the unique swap 

identifier for the swap created pursuant 

to § 45.5. 

(iii) If the swap will be cleared, the 

reporting counterparty shall transmit to 

the derivatives clearing organization at 

the time the swap is submitted for 

clearing both the identity of the swap 

data repository to which primary 

economic terms data is reported by the 

reporting counterparty, and the unique 

swap identifier for the swap created 

pursuant to § 45.5. 

(2) Thereafter, all required swap 

creation data and all required swap 

continuation data reported for the swap, 

by any registered entity or counterparty, 

shall be reported to the swap data 

repository to which swap data has been 

reported pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) or 

(2) of this section (or to its successor in 

the event that it ceases to operate, as 

provided in part 49 of this chapter). 

(c) Off-facility swaps with a non-SD/ 

MSP reporting counterparty. To ensure 

that all swap data, including all swap 

data required to be reported pursuant to 

parts 43 and 45 of this chapter, for such 

swaps is reported to a single swap data 

repository: 

(1) If the reporting counterparty 

reports primary economic terms data to 

a swap data repository as required by 

§ 45.3: 

(i) The reporting counterparty shall 

report primary economic terms data to 

a single swap data repository. 

(ii) As soon as technologically 

practicable after execution, but no later 

than as required pursuant to § 45.3, the 

reporting counterparty shall transmit to 

the other counterparty to the swap the 

identity of the swap data repository to 

which primary economic terms data was 

reported by the reporting counterparty. 

(iii) If the swap will be cleared, the 

reporting counterparty shall transmit to 

the derivatives clearing organization at 

the time the swap is submitted for 

clearing the identity of the swap data 

repository to which primary economic 

terms data was reported by the reporting 

counterparty. 

(2) The swap data repository to which 

the swap is reported as provided in 

paragraph (c) of this section shall 

transmit the unique swap identifier 

created pursuant to § 45.5 to both 

counterparties and to the derivatives 

clearing organization, if any, as soon as 

technologically practicable after 

creation of the unique swap identifier. 

(3) Thereafter, all required swap 

creation data and all required swap 

continuation data reported for the swap, 

by any registered entity or counterparty, 

shall be reported to the swap data 

repository to which swap data has been 

reported pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section (or to its successor in the 

event that it ceases to operate, as 

provided in part 49 of this chapter). 

(d) Clearing swaps. To ensure that all 

swap data for a given clearing swap, and 

for clearing swaps that replace a 

particular original swap or that are 

created upon execution of the same 

transaction and that do not replace an 

original swap, is reported to a single 

swap data repository: 

(1) The derivatives clearing 

organization that is a counterparty to 

such clearing swap shall report all 

required swap creation data for that 

clearing swap to a single swap data 

repository. As soon as technologically 

practicable after acceptance of an 

original swap by a derivatives clearing 

organization for clearing or execution of 

a clearing swap that does not replace an 

original swap, the derivatives clearing 

organization shall transmit to the 

counterparty to each clearing swap the 

legal entity identifier of the swap data 

repository to which the derivatives 

clearing organization reported the 

required swap creation data for that 

clearing swap. 

(2) Thereafter, all required swap 

creation data and all required swap 

continuation data reported for that 

clearing swap shall be reported by the 

derivatives clearing organization to the 

swap data repository to which swap 

data has been reported pursuant to 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section (or to its 

successor in the event that it ceases to 

operate, as provided in part 49 of this 

chapter). 

(3) For clearing swaps that replace a 

particular original swap, and for equal 

and opposite clearing swaps that are 

created upon execution of the same 

transaction and that do not replace an 

original swap, the derivatives clearing 

organization shall report all required 

swap creation data and all required 

swap continuation data for such 

clearing swaps to a single swap data 

repository. 

■ 9. Revise Appendix 1 to part 45 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix 1 to Part 45—Tables of 

Minimum Primary Economic Terms 

Data 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41779 

EXHIBIT A—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—CREDIT SWAPS AND EQUITY SWAPS

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Data categories and fields for all swaps Comment 

Asset Class ............................................................................................... Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, other commodities. 

The Unique Swap Identifier for the swap ................................................. As provided in § 45.5. 

The Legal Entity Identifier of the reporting counterparty ......................... As provided in § 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a swap dealer 

with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a major swap 

participant with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

If the reporting counterparty is not a swap dealer or a major swap participant with respect to the swap, an indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a financial entity as defined in CEA section 

2(h)(7)(C).

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a derivatives 

clearing organization with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a U.S. person ..... Yes/No. 

An indication that the swap will be allocated ........................................... Yes/No. 

If the swap will be allocated, or is a post-allocation swap, the Legal Entity Identifier of the agent.As provided in § 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication that the swap is a post-allocation swap ............................. Yes/No. 

If the swap is a post-allocation swap, the unique swap identifier of the 

initial swap transaction between the reporting counterparty and the 

agent.

As provided in § 45.5. 

The Legal Entity Identifier of the non-reporting party .............................. As provided in § 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a swap dealer with respect to the swap.Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a major 

swap participant with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

If the non-reporting counterparty is not a swap dealer or a major swap 

participant with respect to the swap, an indication of whether the 

non-reporting counterparty is a financial entity as defined in CEA 

section 2(h)(7)(C).

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a U.S. person.Yes/No. 

The Unique Product Identifier assigned to the swap ............................... As provided in § 45.7. 

If no Unique Product Identifier is available for the swap because the 

swap is not sufficiently standardized, the taxonomic description of the 

swap pursuant to the CFTC-approved product classification system.

If no CFTC-approved UPI and product classification system is yet available, the internal product identifier or product description used by the 

swap data repository.

An indication that the swap is a multi-asset swap ................................... Field values: Yes, Not applicable. 

For a multi-asset class swap, an indication of the primary asset class .. Generally, the asset class traded by the desk trading the swap for the 

reporting counterparty. Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, 

other commodities. 

For a multi-asset class swap, an indication of the secondary asset 

class(es).

Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, other commodities. 

An indication that the swap is a mixed swap ........................................... Field values: Yes, Not applicable. 

For a mixed swap reported to two non-dually- registered swap data repositories, the identity of the other swap data repository (if any) to 

which the swap is or will be reported.

Field value: LEI of the other SDR to which the swap is or will be reported. 

An indication of the counterparty purchasing protection .......................... Field values: LEI, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication of the counterparty selling protection ................................. Field values: LEI, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

Information identifying the reference entity .............................................. The entity that is the subject of the protection being purchased and 

sold in the swap. Field values: LEI, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

Contract type ............................................................................................ E.g., swap, swaption, forward, option, basis swap, index swap, basket 

swap. 

Block trade indicator ................................................................................. Indication (Yes/No) of whether the swap qualifies as a block trade or 

large notional swap. 

Execution timestamp ................................................................................ The date and time of the trade, expressed using Coordinated Universal 

Time (‘‘UTC’’). 

Execution venue ....................................................................................... The swap execution facility or designated contract market on or pursuant to the rules of which the swap was executed. Field values: LEI of 

the swap execution facility or designated contract market, or ‘‘off-facility’’ if not so executed. 

Start date .................................................................................................. The date on which the swap starts or goes into effect. 

Maturity, termination or end date ............................................................. The date on which the swap expires. 

The price ................................................................................................... E.g., strike price, initial price, spread. 

The notional amount, and the currency in which the notional amount is 

expressed.

The amount and currency (or currencies) of any up-front payment 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41780 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT A—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—CREDIT SWAPS AND EQUITY SWAPS—Continued 

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Data categories and fields for all swaps Comment 

Payment frequency of the reporting counterparty .................................... A description of the payment stream of the reporting counterparty, e.g., 

coupon. 

Payment frequency of the non-reporting counterparty ............................ A description of the payment stream of the non-reporting counterparty, 

e.g., coupon. 

Timestamp for submission to swap data repository ................................ Time and date of submission to the swap data repository, expressed 

using UTC, as recorded by an automated system where available, or 

as recorded manually where an automated system is not available. 

Clearing indicator ...................................................................................... Yes/No indication of whether the swap will be submitted for clearing to 

a derivatives clearing organization. 

Clearing venue ......................................................................................... LEI of the derivatives clearing organization. 

If the swap will not be cleared, an indication of whether an exception 

to, or an exemption from, the clearing requirement has been elected 

with respect to the swap under part 50 of this chapter.

Yes/No. 

The identity of the counterparty electing an exception or exemption to 

the clearing requirement under part 50 of this chapter.

Field values: LEI, or substitute identifier for natural person. 

Clearing exception or exemption type ...................................................... The type of clearing exception or exemption being claimed. Field values: End user, Inter-affiliate or Cooperative. 

Indication of collateralization .................................................................... Is the swap collateralized, and if so to what extent? Field values: 

Uncollateralized, partially collateralized, one-way collateralized, fully 

collateralized. 

Any other term(s) of the swap matched or affirmed by the counterparties in verifying the swap.Use as many fields as required to report each such term. 

EXHIBIT A—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—CREDIT SWAPS AND EQUITY SWAPS

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Additional data categories and fields for clearing swaps Comment 

Clearing swap USIs .................................................................................. The USIs of each clearing swap that replaces the original swap that 

was submitted for clearing to the DCO, other than the USI for which 

the PET data is currently being reported (as ‘‘USI’’ field above). 

Original swap USI ..................................................................................... The USI of the original swap submitted for clearing to the DCO that is 

replaced by clearing swaps. 

Original swap SDR ................................................................................... LEI of SDR to which the original swap was reported. 

Clearing member LEI ............................................................................... LEI of Clearing member. 

Clearing member client account ............................................................... Clearing member client account number. 

Origin (house or customer) ...................................................................... An indication whether the clearing member acted as principal for a 

house trade or agent for a customer trade. 

Clearing receipt timestamp ....................................................................... The date and time at which the DCO received the original swap for 

clearing, expressed using UTC. 

Clearing acceptance timestamp ............................................................... The date and time at which the DCO accepted the original swap for 

clearing, expressed using UTC. 

EXHIBIT B—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS (OTHER THAN CROSSCURRENCY SWAPS) 

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Data fields for all swaps Comment 

Asset Class ............................................................................................... Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, other commodities. 

The Unique Swap Identifier for the swap ................................................. As provided in § 45.5. 

The Legal Entity Identifier of the reporting counterparty ......................... As provided in § 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a swap dealer 

with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a major swap 

participant with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

If the reporting counterparty is not a swap dealer or a major swap participant with respect to the swap, an indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a financial entity as defined in CEA section 

2(h)(7)(C).

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a derivatives 

clearing organization with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a U.S. person ..... Yes/No. 

An indication that the swap will be allocated ........................................... Yes/No. 

If the swap will be allocated, or is a post-allocation swap, the Legal Entity Identifier of the agent.As provided in § 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication that the swap is a post-allocation swap ............................. Yes/No. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41781 

EXHIBIT B—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS (OTHER THAN CROSSCURRENCY SWAPS)—Continued 

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Data fields for all swaps Comment 

If the swap is a post-allocation swap, the unique swap identifier of the 

initial swap transaction between the reporting counterparty and the 

agent.

As provided in § 45.5. 

The Legal Entity Identifier of the non-reporting party .............................. As provided in § 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a swap dealer with respect to the swap.Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a major 

swap participant with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

If the non-reporting counterparty is not a swap dealer or a major swap 

participant with respect to the swap, an indication of whether the 

non-reporting counterparty is a financial entity as defined in CEA 

section 2(h)(7)(C).

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a U.S. person.Yes/No. 

The Unique Product Identifier assigned to the swap ............................... As provided in § 45.7. 

If no Unique Product Identifier is available for the swap because the 

swap is not sufficiently standardized, the taxonomic description of the 

swap pursuant to the CFTC-approved product classification system.

If no CFTC-approved UPI and product classification system is yet available, the internal product identifier or product description used by the 

swap data repository.

An indication that the swap is a multi-asset swap ................................... Field values: Yes, Not applicable. 

For a multi-asset class swap, an indication of the primary asset class .. Generally, the asset class traded by the desk trading the swap for the 

reporting counterparty. Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, 

other commodities. 

For a multi-asset class swap, an indication of the secondary asset 

class(es).

Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, other commodities. 

An indication that the swap is a mixed swap ........................................... Field values: Yes, Not applicable. 

For a mixed swap reported to two non-dually-registered swap data repositories, the identity of the other swap data repository (if any) to 

which the swap is or will be reported.

Field value: LEI of the other SDR to which the swap is or will be reported. 

Contract type ............................................................................................ E.g., forward, non-deliverable forward (NDF), non- deliverable option 

(NDO), vanilla option, simple exotic option, complex exotic option. 

Block trade indicator ................................................................................. Indication (Yes/No) of whether the swap qualifies as a block trade or 

large notional swap. 

Execution timestamp ................................................................................ The date and time of the trade, expressed using Coordinated Universal 

Time (‘‘UTC’’). 

Execution venue ....................................................................................... The swap execution facility or designated contract market on or pursuant to the rules of which the swap was executed. Field values: LEI of 

the swap execution facility or designated contract market, or ‘‘off-facility’’ if not so executed. 

Currency 1 ................................................................................................ ISO code. 

Currency 2 ................................................................................................ ISO code. 

Notional amount 1 .................................................................................... For currency 1. 

Notional amount 2 .................................................................................... For currency 2. 

Exchange rate .......................................................................................... Contractual rate of exchange of the currencies. 

Delivery type ............................................................................................. Physical (deliverable) or cash (non-deliverable). 

Settlement or expiration date ................................................................... Settlement date, or for an option the contract expiration date. 

Timestamp for submission to swap data repository ................................ Time and date of submission to the swap data repository, expressed 

using Coordinated Universal Time (‘‘UTC’’), as recorded by an automated system where available, or as recorded manually where an 

automated system is not available. 

Clearing indicator ...................................................................................... Yes/No indication of whether the swap will be submitted for clearing to 

a derivatives clearing organization. 

Clearing venue ......................................................................................... LEI of the derivatives clearing organization. 

If the swap will not be cleared, an exception to, or an exemption from, 

the clearing requirement has been elected with respect to the swap 

under part 50 of this chapter.

Yes/No. 

The identity of the counterparty electing an exception or exemption to 

the clearing requirement under part 50 of this chapter.

Field values: LEI, or substitute identifier, for a natural person. 

Clearing exception or exemption type ...................................................... The type of clearing exception or exemption being claimed. Field values: End user, Inter-affiliate or Cooperative. 

Indication of collateralization .................................................................... Is the trade collateralized, and if so to what extent? Field values: 

Uncollateralized, partially collateralized, one-way collateralized, fully 

collateralized. 

Any other term(s) of the trade matched or affirmed by the counterparties in verifying the trade.E.g., for options, premium, premium currency, premium payment date; 

for non-deliverable trades, settlement currency, valuation (fixing) 

date; indication of the economic obligations of the counterparties. 

Use as many fields as required to report each such term. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41782 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT B—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS (OTHER THAN CROSSCURRENCY SWAPS) 

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Additional data categories and fields for clearing swaps Comment 

Clearing swap USIs .................................................................................. The USIs of each clearing swap that replaces the original swap that 

was submitted for clearing to the DCO, other than the USI for which 

the PET data is currently being reported (as ‘‘USI’’ field above). 

Original swap USI ..................................................................................... The USI of the original swap submitted for clearing to the DCO that is 

replaced by clearing swaps. 

Original swap SDR ................................................................................... LEI of SDR to which the original swap was reported. 

Clearing member LEI ............................................................................... LEI of Clearing member. 

Clearing member client account ............................................................... Clearing member client account number. 

Origin (house or customer) ...................................................................... An indication whether the clearing member acted as principal for a 

house trade or agent for a customer trade. 

Clearing receipt timestamp ....................................................................... The date and time at which the DCO received the original swap for 

clearing, expressed using UTC. 

Clearing acceptance timestamp ............................................................... The date and time at which the DCO accepted the original swap for 

clearing, expressed using UTC. 

EXHIBIT C—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—INTEREST RATE SWAPS (INCLUDING CROSS-CURRENCY SWAPS) 

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Data fields for all swaps Comment 

Asset Class ............................................................................................... Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, other commodities. 

The Unique Swap Identifier for the swap ................................................. As provided in § 45.5. 

The Legal Entity Identifier of the reporting counterparty ......................... As provided in § 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a swap dealer 

with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a major swap 

participant with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

If the reporting counterparty is not a swap dealer or a major swap participant with respect to the swap, an indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a financial entity as defined in CEA section 

2(h)(7)(C).

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a derivatives 

clearing organization with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a U.S. person ..... Yes/No. 

An indication that the swap will be allocated ........................................... Yes/No. 

If the swap will be allocated, or is a post-allocation swap, the Legal Entity Identifier of the agent.As provided in § 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication that the swap is a post-allocation swap ............................. Yes/No. 

If the swap is a post-allocation swap, the unique swap identifier of the 

initial swap transaction between the reporting counterparty and the 

agent.

As provided in § 45.5. 

The Legal Entity Identifier of the non-reporting counterparty .................. As provided in § 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a swap dealer with respect to the swap.Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a major 

swap participant with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

If the non-reporting counterparty is not a swap dealer or a major swap 

participant with respect to the swap, an indication of whether the 

non-reporting counterparty is a financial entity as defined in CEA 

section 2(h)(7)(C).

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a U.S. person.Yes/No. 

The Unique Product Identifier assigned to the swap ............................... As provided in § 45.7. 

If no Unique Product Identifier is available for the swap because the 

swap is not sufficiently standardized, the taxonomic description of the 

swap pursuant to the CFTC-approved product classification system.

If no CFTC-approved UPI and product classification system is yet available, the internal product identifier or product description used by the 

swap data repository.

An indication that the swap is a multi-asset swap ................................... Field values: Yes, Not applicable. 

For a multi-asset class swap, an indication of the primary asset class .. Generally, the asset class traded by the desk trading the swap for the 

reporting counterparty. Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, 

other commodities. 

For a multi-asset class swap, an indication of the secondary asset 

class(es).

Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, other commodities. 

An indication that the swap is a mixed swap ........................................... Field values: Yes, Not applicable. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41783 

EXHIBIT C—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—INTEREST RATE SWAPS (INCLUDING CROSS-CURRENCY

SWAPS)—Continued 

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Data fields for all swaps Comment 

For a mixed swap reported to two non-dually-registered swap data repositories, the identity of the other swap data repository (if any) to 

which the swap is or will be reported.

Field value: LEI of the other SDR to which the swap is or will be reported. 

Contract type ............................................................................................ E.g., swap, swaption, option, basis swap, index swap. 

Block trade indicator ................................................................................. Indication (Yes/No) of whether the swap qualifies as a block trade or 

large notional swap. 

Execution timestamp ................................................................................ The date and time of the trade, expressed using Coordinated Universal 

Time (‘‘UTC’’). 

Execution venue ....................................................................................... The swap execution facility or designated contract market on or pursuant to the rules of which the swap was executed. Field values: LEI of 

the swap execution facility or designated contract market, or ‘‘off-facility’’ if not so executed. 

Start date .................................................................................................. The date on which the swap starts or goes into effect. 

Maturity, termination or end date ............................................................. The date on which the swap expires or ends. 

Day count convention.

Notional amount (leg 1) ............................................................................ The current active notional amount. 

Notional currency (leg 1) .......................................................................... ISO code. 

Notional amount (leg 2) ............................................................................ The current active notional amount. 

Notional currency (leg 2) .......................................................................... ISO code. 

Payer (fixed rate) ...................................................................................... Is the reporting party a fixed rate payer? Yes/No/Not applicable. 

Payer (floating rate leg 1) ......................................................................... If two floating legs, the payer for leg 1. 

Payer (floating rate leg 2) ......................................................................... If two floating legs, the payer for leg 2. 

Direction .................................................................................................... For swaps: Whether the principal is paying or receiving the fixed rate. 

For float-to-float and fixed-to-fixed swaps: Indicate N/A. 

For non-swap instruments and swaptions: Indicate the instrument that 

was bought or sold. 

Option type ............................................................................................... E.g., put, call, straddle. 

Fixed rate.

Fixed rate day count fraction .................................................................... E.g., actual 360. 

Floating rate payment frequency.

Floating rate reset frequency.

Floating rate index name/rate period ....................................................... E.g., USD-Libor-BBA. 

Timestamp for submission to swap data repository ................................ Time and date of submission to the swap data repository, expressed 

using UTC, as recorded by an automated system where available, or 

as recorded manually where an automated system is not available. 

Clearing indicator ...................................................................................... Yes/No indication of whether the swap will be submitted for clearing to 

a derivatives clearing organization. 

Clearing venue ......................................................................................... LEI of the derivatives clearing organization. 

If the swap will not be cleared, an indication of whether an exception 

to, or an exemption from, the clearing requirement has been elected 

with respect to the swap under part 50 of this chapter.

Yes/No. 

The identity of the counterparty electing an exception or exemption to 

the clearing requirement under part 50 of this chapter.

Field values: LEI, or substitute identifier, for a natural person. 

Clearing exception or exemption type ...................................................... The type of clearing exception or exemption being claimed. Field values: End user, Inter-affiliate or Cooperative. 

Indication of collateralization .................................................................... Is the swap collateralized, and if so to what extent? Field values: 

Uncollateralized, partially collateralized, one-way collateralized, fully 

collateralized. 

Any other term(s) of the swap matched or affirmed by the counterparties in verifying the swap.E.g., early termination option clause. Use as many fields as required to 

report each such term. 

EXHIBIT C—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—INTEREST RATE SWAPS (INCLUDING CROSS-CURRENCY SWAPS) 

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Additional data categories and fields for clearing swaps Comment 

Clearing swap USIs .................................................................................. The USIs of each clearing swap that replaces the original swap that 

was submitted for clearing to the DCO, other than the USI for which 

the PET data is currently being reported (as ‘‘USI’’ field above). 

Original swap USI ..................................................................................... The USI of the original swap submitted for clearing to the DCO that is 

replaced by clearing swaps. 

Original swap SDR ................................................................................... LEI of SDR to which the original swap was reported. 

Clearing member LEI ............................................................................... LEI of Clearing member. 

Clearing member client account ............................................................... Clearing member client account number. 

Origin (house or customer) ...................................................................... An indication whether the clearing member acted as principal for a 

house trade or agent for a customer trade. 

Clearing receipt timestamp ....................................................................... The date and time at which the DCO received the original swap for 

clearing, expressed using UTC. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41784 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT C—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—INTEREST RATE SWAPS (INCLUDING CROSS-CURRENCY

SWAPS)—Continued 

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Additional data categories and fields for clearing swaps Comment 

Clearing acceptance timestamp ............................................................... The date and time at which the DCO accepted the original swap for 

clearing, expressed using UTC. 

EXHIBIT D—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—OTHER COMMODITY SWAPS

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Data field for all swaps Comment 

Asset Class ............................................................................................... Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, other commodities. 

The Unique Swap Identifier for the swap ................................................. As provided in § 45.5. 

The Legal Entity Identifier of the reporting counterparty ......................... As provided in § 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a swap dealer 

with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a major swap 

participant with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

If the reporting counterparty is not a swap dealer or a major swap participant with respect to the swap, an indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a financial entity as defined in CEA section 

2(h)(7)(C).

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a derivatives 

clearing organization with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the reporting counterparty is a U.S. person ..... Yes/No. 

An indication that the swap will be allocated ........................................... Yes/No. 

If the swap will be allocated, or is a post-allocation swap, the Legal Entity Identifier of the agent.As provided in § 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication that the swap is a post-allocation swap ............................. Yes/No. 

If the swap is a post-allocation swap, the unique swap identifier of the 

initial swap transaction between the reporting counterparty and the 

agent.

As provided in § 45.5. 

The Legal Entity Identifier of the non-reporting party .............................. As provided in § 45.6, or substitute identifier for a natural person. 

An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a swap dealer with respect to the swap.Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a major 

swap participant with respect to the swap.

Yes/No. 

If the non-reporting counterparty is not a swap dealer or a major swap 

participant with respect to the swap, an indication of whether the 

non-reporting counterparty is a financial entity as defined in CEA 

section 2(h)(7)(C).

Yes/No. 

An indication of whether the non-reporting counterparty is a U.S. person.Yes/No. 

The Unique Product Identifier assigned to the swap ............................... As provided in § 45.7. 

If no Unique Product Identifier is available for the swap because the 

swap is not sufficiently standardized, the taxonomic description of the 

swap pursuant to the CFTC-approved product classification system.

If no CFTC-approved UPI and product classification system is yet available, the internal product identifier or product description used by the 

swap data repository.

An indication that the swap is a multi-asset swap ................................... Field values: Yes, Not applicable. 

For a multi-asset class swap, an indication of the primary asset class .. Generally, the asset class traded by the desk trading the swap for the 

reporting counterparty. Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, 

other commodities. 

For a multi-asset class swap, an indication of the secondary asset 

class(es).

Field values: Credit, equity, FX, interest rates, other commodities. 

An indication that the swap is a mixed swap ........................................... Field values: Yes, Not applicable. 

For a mixed swap reported to two non-dually- registered swap data repositories, the identity of the other swap data repository (if any) to 

which the swap is or will be reported.

Field value: LEI of the other SDR to which the swap is or will be reported. 

Contract type ............................................................................................ E.g., swap, swaption, option, basis swap, index swap. 

Block trade indicator ................................................................................. Indication (Yes/No) of whether the swap qualifies as a ‘‘block trade’’ or 

‘‘large notional off-facility swap’’ as defined in part 43 of the CFTC’s 

regulations. 

Execution timestamp ................................................................................ The date and time of the trade, expressed using Coordinated Universal 

Time (‘‘UTC’’), as recorded by an automated system where available, or as recorded manually where an automated system is not 

available. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 41785 

EXHIBIT D—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—OTHER COMMODITY SWAPS—Continued 

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Data field for all swaps Comment 

Execution venue ....................................................................................... The swap execution facility or designated contract market on or pursuant to the rules of which the swap was executed. Field values: LEI of 

the swap execution facility or designated contract market, or ‘‘off-facility’’ if not so executed. 

Timestamp for submission to swap data repository ................................ Time and date of submission to the swap data repository, expressed 

using UTC, as recorded by an automated system where available, or 

as recorded manually where an automated system is not available. 

Start date .................................................................................................. The date on which the swap commences or goes into effect (e.g., in 

physical oil, the pricing start date). 

Maturity, termination, or end date ............................................................ The date on which the swap expires or ends (e.g., in physical oil, the 

pricing end date). 

Buyer ........................................................................................................ The counterparty purchasing the product: (E.g., the payer of the fixed 

price (for a swap), or the payer of the floating price on the underlying 

swap (for a put swaption), or the payer of the fixed price on the underlying swap (for a call swaption). Field values: LEI, if available, or 

substitute identifier, for a natural person. 

Seller ......................................................................................................... The counterparty offering the product: (E.g., the payer of the floating 

price (for a swap), the payer of the fixed price on the underlying 

swap (for a put swaption), or the payer of the floating price on the 

underlying swap (for a call swaption). Field values: LEI, or substitute 

identifier, for a natural person. 

Quantity unit ............................................................................................. The unit of measure applicable for the quantity on the swap. E.g., barrels, bushels, gallons, pounds, tons. 

Quantity .................................................................................................... The amount of the commodity (the number of quantity units) quoted on 

the swap. 

Quantity frequency ................................................................................... The rate at which the quantity is quoted on the swap. E.g., hourly, 

daily, weekly, monthly. 

Total quantity ............................................................................................ The quantity of the commodity for the entire term of the swap. 

Settlement method ................................................................................... Physical delivery or cash. 

Price .......................................................................................................... The price of the swap. For options, the strike price. 

Price unit ................................................................................................... The unit of measure applicable for the price of the swap. 

Price currency ........................................................................................... ISO code. 

Buyer pay index ........................................................................................ The published price as paid by the buyer (if applicable). For swaptions, 

applies to the underlying swap. 

Buyer pay averaging method ................................................................... The averaging method used to calculate the index of the buyer pay 

index. For swaptions, applies to the underlying swap. 

Seller pay index ........................................................................................ The published price as paid by the seller (if applicable). For swaptions, 

applies to the underlying swap. 

Seller pay averaging method ................................................................... The averaging method used to calculate the index of the seller pay 

index. For swaptions, applies to the underlying swap. 

Grade ........................................................................................................ If applicable, the grade of the commodity to be delivered, e.g., the 

grade of oil or refined product. 

Option type ............................................................................................... Descriptor for the type of option transaction. E.g., put, call, straddle. 

Option style ............................................................................................... E.g., American, European, European Daily, European Monthly, Asian. 

Option premium ........................................................................................ The total amount paid by the option buyer. 

Hours from through .................................................................................. For electric power, the hours of the day for which the swap is effective. 

Hours from through time zone ................................................................. For electric power, the time zone prevailing for the hours during which 

electricity is transmitted. 

Days of week ............................................................................................ For electric power, the profile applicable for the delivery of power. 

Load type .................................................................................................. For electric power, the load profile for the delivery of power. 

Clearing indicator ...................................................................................... Yes/No indication of whether the swap will be submitted for clearing to 

a derivatives clearing organization. 

Clearing venue ......................................................................................... LEI of the derivatives clearing organization. 

If the swap will not be cleared, an indication of whether an exception 

to, or an exemption from, the clearing requirement has been elected 

with respect to the swap under part 50 of this chapter.

Yes/No. 

The identity of the counterparty electing an exception or exemption to 

the clearing requirement under part 50 of this chapter.

Field values: LEI, or substitute identifier, for a natural person. 

Clearing exception or exemption type ...................................................... The type of clearing exception or exemption being claimed. Field values: End user, Inter-affiliate or Cooperative. 

Indication of collateralization .................................................................... Is the swap collateralized, and if so to what extent? Field values: 

Uncollateralized, partially collateralized, one-way collateralized, fully 

collateralized. 

Any other term(s) of the swap matched or affirmed by the counterparties in verifying the swap.Use as many fields as required to report each such term. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2

41786 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT D—MINIMUM PRIMARY ECONOMIC TERMS DATA—OTHER COMMODITY SWAPS

[Enter N/A for fields that are not applicable] 

Additional data categories and fields for clearing swaps Comment 

Clearing swap USIs .................................................................................. The USIs of each clearing swap that replaces the original swap that 

was submitted for clearing to the DCO, other than the USI for which 

the PET data is currently being reported (as ‘‘USI’’ field above). 

Original swap USI ..................................................................................... The USI of the original swap submitted for clearing to the DCO that is 

replaced by clearing swaps. 

Original swap SDR ................................................................................... LEI of SDR to which the original swap was reported. 

Clearing member LEI ............................................................................... LEI of Clearing member. 

Clearing member client account ............................................................... Clearing member client account number. 

Origin (house or customer) ...................................................................... An indication whether the clearing member acted as principal for a 

house trade or agent for a customer trade. 

Clearing receipt timestamp ....................................................................... The date and time at which the DCO received the original swap for 

clearing, expressed using UTC. 

Clearing acceptance timestamp ............................................................... The date and time at which the DCO accepted the original swap for 

clearing, expressed using UTC. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14, 

2016, by the Commission. 

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Note: The following appendices will 

not appear in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

Appendices to Amendments to Swap 

Data Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements for Cleared Swaps— 

Commission Voting Summary and 

Chairman’s Statement 

Appendix 1—Commission Voting 

Summary 

On this matter, Chairman Massad and 

Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo voted 

in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in 

the negative. 

Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman 

Timothy G. Massad 

Regular reporting of data on swaps is a key 

component of the swaps reforms that were 

agreed to by the G–20 leaders and codified 

in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act. Since taking office, 

a priority of mine has been to improve data 

quality and to simplify reporting obligations 

for market participants. I know that my 

fellow Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo 

share this goal. That is why I am very pleased 

that today, the Commission has acted 

unanimously to improve the process for 

reporting data on cleared swaps. 

This final rule will significantly enhance 

data quality and reduce reporting costs in a 

number of ways. It streamlines the reporting 

process to ensure there are not duplicate 

records of a swap, which can lead to double 

counting that can distort the data. It makes 

sure that accurate valuations of swaps are 

provided on an ongoing basis. And it 

eliminates some needless reporting 

requirements for swap dealers and major 

swap participants. This rule provides clarity 

and certainty in a number of areas, and will 

improve our ability to trace a swap through 

all phases of its lifecycle. Ultimately, it will 

provide us with a better picture of the swaps 

market, and enhance our ability to identify 

the buildup of risk that may pose a threat to 

the financial system. 

Today’s final rule reflects the largely 

positive feedback we received on our 

proposal, which was released in August, 

2015. We very much appreciate the input 

that market participants have given us. 

This effort is just one piece of our work to 

ensure accuracy and completeness in data 

reporting, to harmonize data standards, and 

to improve data quality, while avoiding 

excessive burdens and duplication. For 

example, our other efforts will include the 

development of technical specifications for 

the reporting of 120 priority data elements, 

which will lead to greater consistency and 

standardization in reporting. We are also 

leading international efforts on data 

harmonization, including the development of 

tools that will allow regulators to identify 

swaps and swap activity by product type and 

transaction type throughout the life of a 

swap. 

I thank CFTC staff for their hard work on 

this rule, as well as the market participants 

who took the time to provide us feedback. 

And I also thank my fellow Commissioners 

Bowen and Giancarlo for their careful 

consideration and unanimous support for 

this measure. 

[FR Doc. 2016–14414 Filed 6–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2