Document ID: SEC-2017-1342-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Applications: DTCC Data Repository (U.S.), LLC; Registration as a Security-Based Swap Data Repository
Posted Date: 2017-08-09T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37276-37282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16715]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81302; File No. SBSDR-2016-02]

Security-Based Swap Data Repositories; DTCC Data Repository 
(U.S.), LLC; Notice of Filing of Amended Application for Registration 
as a Security-Based Swap Data Repository

August 3, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On April 28, 2017, DTCC Data Repository, LLC (``DDR'') filed with 
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') 
an amended application pursuant to Section 13(n)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Exchange Act Rule 13n-1 
thereunder,\2\ seeking registration as a security-based swap data 
repository (``SDR'') for security-based swap (``SBS'') transactions in 
the equity, credit, and interest rate \3\ derivatives asset classes 
(``Amended Form SDR'').\4\ DDR filed its initial application with the 
Commission (``Initial Form SDR'') on April 6, 2016, as amended on April 
25, 2016, and notice thereof was published in the Federal Register on 
July 7, 2016, to solicit comment from interested persons.\5\ The 
Commission received five comment letters to date on DDR's Initial Form 
SDR.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(n)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.13n-1.
    \3\ DDR seeks to include in its application the ``interest 
rates'' asset class based on feedback from potential DDR 
participants who have identified certain types of transactions which 
will be reported through the interest rate infrastructure within the 
industry and that the industry participants have identified as 
falling under the definition of a SBS. The Commission notes that 
DDR's application is for registration as a SBS data repository, 
which the Exchange Act defines as a ``person that collects and 
maintains information or records with respect to transactions or 
positions in, or the terms and conditions of, security-based swaps 
entered into by third parties for the purpose of providing a 
centralized recordkeeping facility for security-based swaps.'' 15 
U.S.C. 78c(a)(75).
    \4\ DDR filed its Amended Form SDR, including the exhibits 
thereto, electronically with the Commission. The descriptions set 
forth in this notice regarding the structure and operations of DDR 
have been derived, excerpted, and/or summarized from information in 
DDR's Amended Form SDR application, which outlines the applicant's 
policies and procedures designed to address its statutory and 
regulatory obligations as an SDR registered with the Commission. 
DDR's Amended Form SDR and non-confidential exhibits thereto are 
available on https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=dtcc&owner=exclude&action=getcompany. In addition, the 
public may access copies of these materials in redlined form on the 
Commission's Web site at: https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2017/34-81302.pdf. DDR's Form SDR application also constitutes an 
application for registration as a securities information processor. 
See Exchange Act Release No. 74246 (Feb. 11, 2015), 80 FR 14438, 
14458 (Mar. 19, 2015) (``SDR Adopting Release'').
    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 78216 (June 30, 2016), 81 FR 
44379 (July 7, 2016) (``DDR Notice Release'').
    \6\ See letters from Jennifer S. Choi, Associate General 
Counsel, Investment Company Institute (August 5, 2016); Tara Kruse, 
Director, Co-Head of Data, Reporting and FpML, International Swaps 
and Derivatives Association, Inc. (August 8, 2016); Andrew Rogers, 
Director and Global Head of Reference Data, IHS Markit (Aug. 8, 
2016); Katherine Delp, DDR Business Manager, DTCC Data Repository 
(U.S.) LLC (September 1, 2016); Timothy W. Cameron, Asset Management 
Group--Head, and Laura Martin, Asset Management Group--Managing 
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and 
Financial Markets Association (August 5, 2016. Copies of all comment 
letters are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sbsdr-2016-01/sbsdr201601.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DDR submitted its Amended Form SDR with both technical and 
substantive changes, including, but not limited to, revisions to 
several important policies and procedures. DDR's Amended Form SDR 
described herein includes \7\ substantive amendments to DDR's policies 
and procedures relating to fees and fee policies, calculation of 
positions, resolution of disputes, termination and disciplinary 
procedures, access to and use of data, and compliance with Regulation 
SBSR. The Commission seeks comment from interested parties on the 
Amended Form SDR, the changes discussed in this notice, as well as any 
other changes DDR made in its Amended Form SDR, and is publishing DDR's 
revisions in its Amended Form SDR with a 21-day comment period.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DDR is amending, replacing or eliminating a number of its 
exhibits not discussed in this notice. Please see Amended Form SDR 
to view all changes to DDR's Amended Form SDR, available at https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=dtcc&owner=exclude&action=getcompany and https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2017/34-81302.pdf.
    \8\ The Commission intends to address any comments received for 
this notice, as well as those comments previously submitted 
regarding the Initial Form SDR, when the Commission makes a 
determination of whether to register DDR as an SDR pursuant to Rule 
13n-1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. SDR Registration, Duties and Core Principles, and Regulation SBSR

    Section 763(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act of 2010 added Section 13(n) to the Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), which makes it ``unlawful for any 
person, unless registered with the Commission, directly or indirectly, 
to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate 
commerce to perform the function of a security-based SDR.'' To be 
registered and maintain registration, each SDR must comply with certain 
requirements and ``core principles'' described in Section 13(n) as well 
as any requirement that the Commission may impose by rule or 
regulation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Act Rules 13n-1 through 13n-12 (``SDR Rules''), establish 
the procedures and Form SDR by which an SDR shall register with the 
Commission and certain ``duties and core principles'' to which an SDR 
must adhere.\10\ Among other requirements, the SDR Rules require an SDR 
to collect and maintain complete and accurate SBS data and make such 
data available to the Commission and other authorities so that relevant 
authorities will be better able to monitor the buildup and 
concentration of risk exposure in the SBS market.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.13n-1 through 13n-12. See also SDR Adopting 
Release, 80 FR 14438.
    \11\ See id. at 14450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concurrent with the Commission's adoption of the SDR rules, the 
Commission adopted,\12\ and later amended,\13\ Exchange Act Rules 900 
to 909 (``Regulation SBSR''),\14\ which, among other things, provide 
for the reporting of SBS trade data to registered SDRs, and the public 
dissemination of SBS transaction, volume, and pricing information by 
registered SDRs. In addition, Regulation SBSR requires each registered 
SDR to register with the Commission as a securities information 
processor (``SIP'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74244 (Feb. 11, 
2015), 80 FR 14563 (Mar. 19, 2015).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78321 (July 14, 
2016), 81 FR 53546 (Aug. 12, 2016).
    \14\ See 17 CFR 242.900 to 242.909; see also Exchange Act 
Release No. 74244 (Feb. 11, 2015), 80 FR 14563 (Mar. 19, 2015) 
(``Regulation SBSR Adopting Release'').
    \15\ See Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Standard for Granting SDR Registration

    To be registered with the Commission as an SDR and maintain such 
registration, an SDR is required (absent an exemption) to comply with 
the requirements and core principles described in Exchange Act Section 
13(n), as well as with any requirements that the Commission adopts by 
rule or

[[Page 37277]]

regulation.\16\ Exchange Act Rule 13n-1(c)(3) provides that the 
Commission shall grant the registration of an SDR if it finds that the 
SDR is so organized, and has the capacity, to be able to (i) assure the 
prompt, accurate, and reliable performance of its functions as an SDR; 
(ii) comply with any applicable provisions of the securities laws and 
the rules and regulations thereunder; and (iii) carry out its functions 
in a manner consistent with the purposes of Section 13(n) of the 
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.\17\ The 
Commission shall deny registration of an SDR if it does not make any 
such finding.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Exchange Act Section 13(n)(3), 15 U.S.C. 78m(n)(3).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.13n-1(c)(3).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether an applicant meets the criteria set forth in 
Exchange Act Rule 13n-1(c), the Commission will consider the 
information the applicant includes on its Form SDR, as well as any 
additional information obtained from the applicant. For example, Form 
SDR requires an applicant to provide a list of the asset class(es) for 
which the applicant is collecting and maintaining data or for which it 
proposes to collect and maintain data, a description of the functions 
that it performs or proposes to perform, general information regarding 
its business organization, and contact information.\19\ This, and other 
information reflected on the Form SDR, will assist the Commission in 
understanding the basis for registration as well as the SDR applicant's 
overall business structure, financial condition, track record in 
providing access to its services and data, technological reliability, 
and policies and procedures to comply with its statutory and regulatory 
obligations.\20\ Furthermore, the information requested in Form SDR 
will enable the Commission to assess whether the SDR applicant would be 
so organized, and have the capacity to comply with the applicable 
provisions of federal securities laws and the rules and regulations 
thereunder, and ultimately whether to grant or deny an application for 
registration.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14459.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ See SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14458-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. DDR's Amended Form SDR

    As discussed in more detail below, in its Amended Form SDR, DDR 
filed a number of amendments to the following provisions.

A. User Fee Schedule and Policies

    Section 13(n)(7)(A) of the Exchange Act provides that an SDR shall 
not (i) adopt any rule or take any action that results in any 
unreasonable restraint of trade; or (ii) impose any material anti-
competitive burden on the trading, clearing or reporting of 
transactions.\22\ Exchange Act Rule 13n-4(c)(1)(i) requires each SDR to 
ensure that any dues, fees, or other charges that it imposes, and any 
discounts or rebates that it offers, are fair and reasonable and not 
unreasonably discriminatory.\23\ The rule also requires such dues, 
fees, other charges, discounts, or rebates to be applied consistently 
across all similarly situated users of the SDR's services.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 7 U.S.C. 24a-(f)(1)(A), (B).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.13n-3(c)(1)(i). See also SDR Adopting Release, 
80 FR at 14479.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR revises its fees in Exhibit M and 
provides additional information about the policies associated with 
DDR's fees and the assessment of its fees in both Exhibit M and Exhibit 
GG3 ``Guide to Security-Based Swap Data Repository Process'' 
(``Guide''). The revisions to the fees detailed in Exhibit M consist of 
four substantive changes.
    First, DDR states that it is eliminating the ``Variable Monthly 
Maintenance Fee'' and establishing a new monthly ``Position Maintenance 
Fee.'' This monthly fee will be imposed on a party who has signed a DDR 
user agreement (herein referred to as ``User'') based on the aggregate 
number of positions open on any day during the month.\25\ Derivatives 
clearing organizations, as defined in Section 1(a)(15) of the Commodity 
Exchange Act \26\ (``Clearer''), are not considered a User for purposes 
of the position maintenance fee. The following applies to Position 
Maintenance Fees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For examples of DDR's application of the position 
maintenance fee, see DDR's Amended Form SDR, Exhibit M, Annex A.
    \26\ 7 U.S.C. 1(a)(15).

     There are no Position Maintenance Fees for less than 
five hundred (500) aggregate positions during any month, which shall 
be determined in the aggregate for entities billed on the same 
invoice;
     For a position count of five hundred (500) or more 
aggregate positions during any month, which shall be determined in 
the aggregate for entities billed on the same invoice, the 
applicable Position Maintenance Fees shall apply; and
     Position Maintenance Fees shall be based on the 
position count during the month even if liquidated prior to month 
end.

Responsibility for Position Maintenance Fees is as follows:

     For Cleared Positions, the non-Clearer counterparty 
shall be responsible for Position Maintenance Fees. As used herein, 
``Cleared Position'' means a position where a Clearer is a 
counterparty;
     For a position submitted by a swap execution facility 
(``SEF'') or designated contract market (``DCM''), the User, who is 
not the SEF or DCM, for whom or on behalf of whom the trade is 
submitted shall be responsible for Position Maintenance Fees; and
     For all other positions submitted by, for or on behalf 
of a User where the submission specifies a ``reporting obligation 
value of SEC,'' \27\ the User shall be responsible for Position 
Maintenance Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ We understand that DDR uses the term ``reporting obligation 
value of SEC'' to refer to the field that DDR requires Users to 
complete to identify that the trade is being submitted to DDR 
pursuant to Regulation SBSR.

    Second, DDR is eliminating the ``Monthly Access Fee'' and 
establishing a new annual ``Account Management Fee.'' This annual fee 
of $1,200.00 will replace the Monthly Access Fee of $200.00 ($2,400.00 
annualized) and will apply to all account holders, excluding regulators 
and Clearers. The Account Management Fee is in addition to, and not in 
place of, applicable Position Maintenance Fees and will not serve to 
reduce in any way the amount of the Position Maintenance Fees.
    Third, Users will now have the option to elect to enter into a 
three-year commitment (``Long Term Commitment''), which reduces the 
applicable position maintenance fee and account management fee by 10 
percent, exclusive of tax, for a three-year period following the Long 
Term Commitment election. If the Long Term Commitment is ``improperly'' 
terminated prior to the end of the applicable Long Term Commitment 
period, the User will be subject to an early termination fee equal to: 
(a) The difference between the total amount of fees due after 
application of the Long Term Commitment incentive and the total amount 
of fees that would have been due during the applicable portion of the 
Long Term Commitment period had no incentive been provided (``Total 
Incentive Provided''); plus (b) the greater of 5 percent of the Total 
Incentive Provided or $500.00.
    Finally, DDR is establishing a late fee. In the event all or any 
undisputed portion of the a User's invoice becomes ninety days or more 
past due, the User will be subject to a late fee equal to 5% of the 
past due balance. The late fee will continue to be assessed on a 
monthly basis until the full amount of the past due balance is paid.
    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR also adds a new description to the 
Guide to provide further detail on User fees.\28\ DDR states that all 
account holders, excluding regulators and Clearers, will

[[Page 37278]]

be subject to an annual Account Management Fee, regardless of whether 
they are a reporting side or party (``Reporting Party'') or non-
reporting side or counterparty (``Non-Reporting Counterparty''). This 
fee is assessed at the organization level. Accordingly, a fund manager 
or corporate parent with several funds or subsidiary entities on-
boarded under its organization as subaccounts will owe one account 
management fee. Alternatively, each fund or entity could be setup with 
its own billing profile and account (i.e., not a subaccount). In this 
case, DDR explains, each fund or entity, as the account holder for its 
own account, will be charged the account management fee. In addition to 
the Account Management Fee, a party who has signed a DDR user 
agreement, excluding regulators and Clearers, may be subject to 
Position Maintenance Fees. Further, a party that is not on-boarded with 
DDR is not subject to any DDR fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ DDR provides a fee schedule for DDR Users on its Web site 
at http://www.dtcc.com/derivatives-services/global-trade-repository/gtr-us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Policies and Procedures for Calculation of Positions

    Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(2) requires an SDR to establish, 
maintain, and enforce written policies reasonably designed to calculate 
positions for all persons with open security-based swaps for which the 
SDR maintains records.\29\ Position information is important to 
regulators for risk, enforcement, and examinations purposes, and can be 
useful to counterparties in evaluating their own risk.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.13n-5(b)(2).
    \30\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63347 (Nov. 19, 2010), 75 FR 
77306 (Dec. 10, 2010), corrected at 75 FR 79320 (Dec. 20, 2010) and 
76 FR 2287 (Jan. 13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR's Guide provides an updated 
description of how it calculates positions for open SBS. In order to 
calculate Positions, DDR states that it requires reporting parties to 
provide all necessary information in order to establish the trade state 
for a specific swap (``Trade State''). Upon request, based on the data 
attributes available in DDR's databases, DDR is able to utilize the 
Trade States to allow for the calculation of specific positions based 
on one or more of the following attributes: (i) Underlying instrument, 
index, or reference entity; (ii) counterparty; (iii) asset class; (iv) 
long risk of the underlying instrument, index, or reference entity; and 
(v) short risk of the underlying instrument, index, or reference 
entity.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See also Rule 13n-5(a)(2) defining ``position'' as the 
gross and net notional amounts of open SBS attributes, including, 
but not limited to, the (i) underlying instrument, index or 
reference entity; (ii) counterparty; (iii) asset class; (iv) long 
risk of the underlying instrument, index or reference entity; and 
(v) short risk of the underlying instrument, index, or reference 
entity. 17 CFR 240.13n-5(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Policies and Procedures Regarding Denial of a User Application, 
Restrictions on Use and Assessment of Costs, and Certain ``Disciplinary 
Actions''

    As part of its Amended Form SDR, DDR is modifying Section 10 of 
Exhibit HH2,\32\ DDR's Rulebook (``Rulebook''), to address the denial 
of a User application; the restriction of use of DDR's systems and 
assessment of certain costs; and procedures for certain ``disciplinary 
actions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In its Initial Form SDR, DDR filed Exhibit HH1 as its 
Rulebook. In its Amended Form SDR, DDR has deleted Exhibit HH1 and 
filed its Rulebook as Exhibit HH2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Denial of User Application (Notification to the Commission Under 
Section 11A of the Exchange Act)
    Rule 909 of Regulation SBSR requires each registered SDR to 
register as a SIP, \33\ and as such, Exchange Act Section 
11A(b)(5),\34\ the provision governing access to services of a SIP, 
also governs denials of access to services by an SDR.\35\ Section 
11A(b)(5) provides that if any SIP prohibits or limits any person in 
respect of access to services offered, directly or indirectly, the SIP 
shall promptly file notice with the Commission.\36\ Accordingly, an SDR 
must promptly notify the Commission if it prohibits or limits access to 
any of its services to any person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 242.909.
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(b)(5).
    \35\ See 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(b)(5). See also SDR Adopting Release, 
80 FR at 14482.
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Section 10.2.1 of DDR's revised Rulebook, DDR supplements its 
discussion in this section of the Initial Form SDR by providing that in 
the case of a denial of an application to become a User, DDR will 
furnish the Commission with notice of the denial in such form and 
containing such information as prescribed by the Commission (``SIP 
Denial Notice''). Further, DDR states that such notice will be subject 
to review by the Commission on its own motion, or upon application by 
the denied application pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange Act. If 
the Commission does not dismiss the proceeding to review the SIP Denial 
Notice or if the Commission by order sets aside the SIP Denial Notice 
and requires DDR to permit the applicant access to all or any SDR 
services offered by DDR as a SIP, then DDR will comply with such order 
or will take such further action as may be afforded DDR under 
applicable law. Further, DDR states the written statement setting forth 
the grounds for the application denial determination will inform the 
applicant of its right to request a DDR hearing pursuant to DDR's Rule 
10.2.1.1.
2. Restrictions on Use and Assessment of Costs \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ DDR renamed Rule 10.4 from ``Sanctions from Disciplinary 
Proceedings'' to ``Other Disciplinary Actions'' and renamed Rule 
10.4.1 from ``Imposition of Sanctions'' to ``Restriction of Use and 
Costs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR also revises Section 10.4.1(a) of its 
Rulebook to provide that DDR's ``Senior Officer'' \38\ and CCO may 
temporarily deny access to or otherwise impose restrictions on the use 
of the DDR system on a User, or take such other actions as DDR deems 
reasonably necessary to protect its systems and other Users for any one 
of the following reasons: (i) A violation of DDR rules (including 
failure to pay fees when due); (ii) any neglect or refusal by the User 
to comply with any applicable order or direction of DDR; or (iii) any 
error, delay or other conduct that materially and adversely affects the 
operations of DDR. The reasons underlying a disciplinary action 
enumerated in Section 10.4.1(a) remain unchanged from DDR's Initial 
Form SDR. DDR further revises Section 10.4.1(a) to add that in addition 
to the limits to the activities, functions, or operations imposed on 
Users in the event of an occurrence of a Subject Event, and in addition 
to any other action taken by DDR, DDR may assess the User with all 
costs incurred by DDR in connection with the Subject Event and may 
apply any deterrent charges that DDR deems necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ DDR made a number of conforming changes throughout several 
exhibits to replace the chief executive officer position with a 
``senior officer'' position. See, among others, Exhibit F of DDR's 
Amended Form SDR. The term ``senior officer'' is defined under 
Exchange Act Rule 13n-11(b)(8) as the chief executive officer or 
other equivalent officer. 17 CFR 240.13n-11(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Procedures for ``Disciplinary Proceedings''
    In Section 10.4.2(a) of its Rulebook, DDR provides additional 
clarification on its procedures for disciplinary actions taken pursuant 
to Rule 10.4.1. The amended text states that before any disciplinary 
action is taken under Section 10.4.1, DDR will furnish the User with a 
concise written statement of the ``charges.'' However, DDR adds, no 
prior written statement shall be required to be provided if the action 
is being taken by DDR is in response to protecting the security of 
data, the DDR system or other Users. In those circumstances, a written 
statement shall

[[Page 37279]]

``promptly'' follow the DDR action. The other provisions of Section 
10.4.2 remain unchanged.

D. Access To and Use of Data

    Exchange Act Sections 13(n)(5)(G) and (H) conditionally require 
SDRs to make SBS data available to certain named authorities and other 
persons that the Commission has deemed to be appropriate. In 2016, the 
Commission adopted Exchange Act Rules 13n-4(b)(9), (b)(10) and (d) to 
implement this data access requirement.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Exchange Act Release No. 78716 (Aug. 29, 2016), 81 FR 
60585 (Sep. 2, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Access to U.S. Data by Regulators
    In addition to renaming this section to ``Access to Data by Other 
Regulators and Entities'' in its Amended Form SDR, DDR amends Section 
6.5 of its Rulebook \40\ to require that any entity authorized by 
applicable law to receive access to data held by DDR shall: (a) Have 
entered into a memorandum of understanding, as required under 
applicable law, (b) file a request for access with DDR, wherein the 
entity specifically describes the data sought and certifies in a manner 
acceptable to DDR that the entity is acting within the scope of its 
jurisdiction and confidentiality agreement, and (c) provide any 
additional information required by DDR to fulfill the request.\41\ 
Section 6.5.1 further states that DDR will provide access to the 
requested security-based swap data (or swap data), following notice to 
the Designated Regulator and the satisfaction of the requirements of 
Section 6.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ In its Initial Form SDR, DDR included the discussion of 
regulator access to data in Section 6.5 of Exhibit HH1. However, in 
its Amended Form SDR, DDR has retitled Exhibit HH1 as Exhibit HH2.
    \41\ See Rulebook, Section 6.5. The term ``applicable law'' is 
defined in DDR's Rulebook, Section 12, as any and all applicable 
laws and regulations, judicial orders and decisions and rules, 
regulations, interpretations and protocols, as amended from time to 
time in a jurisdiction in which DDR is registered, designated, 
recognized or otherwise licensed as a trade repository.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Denial of Access to Data
    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR adds new Section 6.7 of its Rulebook 
to describe the process by which DDR may deny access to data requested 
pursuant to Section 6.2 through 6.6, the provisions that describe 
access by designated regulators (Section 6.2), DDR use of SBS data 
information (Section 6.3), access by third party service providers 
(Section 6.4), access by ``other'' regulators (Section 6.5), and access 
to systems and data generally (Section 6.6). DDR states in new Section 
6.7 that the party making the request for access to data pursuant to 
Section 6.2 through 6.6 of the Rulebook shall be notified of the 
grounds for the denial and as such, is responsible to address the 
issues identified in the denial notice and resubmit the application in 
accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 6 of Exhibit HH2.

E. Certain Policies and Procedures Related to Compliance With 
Regulation SBSR

    As part of its Amended Form SDR, DDR revises several aspects of its 
application that relate to compliance with Regulation SBSR. As 
discussed below, DDR provides additional detail to clarify how it 
intends to support the reporting of SBS information and the manner in 
which it will publicly disseminate SBS transaction, volume, and pricing 
information.
1. Policies and Procedures for Reporting SBS Transactions
    Rule 907 of Regulation SBSR requires an SDR to establish and make 
publicly available certain policies and procedures, which include the 
specific data elements that must be reported, acceptable data formats, 
and the procedures for reporting life cycle events and error 
corrections.\42\ As discussed below, DDR expands the discussion in the 
Guide and Rulebook related to the reporting of SBS transactions, 
including historical SBS, SBS that have been submitted to clearing, and 
the reporting of life cycle events and error corrections. DDR also 
provides further detail on its policies and procedures related to UIC 
reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 240.907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the revisions in the Guide and Rulebook, DDR also 
revises Exhibits GG2, GG4, and GG6, which contain data fields, required 
formats and validations for the data Users must submit. In its revised 
Exhibits GG2, GG4, and GG6, DDR provides additional information on 
acceptable data value formats and validation rules. DDR continues to 
require separate messages for public dissemination (``PPD Messages'') 
and for updating the position record. In its Guide, DDR also requires 
that PPD Messages be sent at the same time as position messages (i.e., 
Primary Economic Terms (``PET''), Confirmation, and/or Snapshot 
messages). For more information on the content of Exhibits GG2, GG4, 
and GG6, interested persons may review those exhibits.
a. Policies and Procedures for Reporting Historical SBS
    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR expands the discussion in its Guide 
related to the reporting of historical SBS to clarify how Users must 
report such transactions. The Guide now states that Users must specify 
a transaction as ``historical,'' \43\ ``historical expired,'' \44\ or 
``backload,'' \45\ when applicable. DDR states in its Guide that it 
will apply relaxed validation standards to these three categories of 
trades and provides additional detail on these validation standards in 
Exhibits GG2, GG4 and GG6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ DDR's Guide describes ``Historical'' SBS as ``Transitional 
SBS executed after July 21, 2010 but Expired or Terminated before 
Compliance Date.'' For reporting transitional security-based swaps 
that have expired or terminated before the compliance date for 
Regulation SBSR, users are required to specify ``historical'' as the 
transaction type when submitting the trade record.
    \44\ DDR's Guide describes ``Historical Expired'' SBS as ``Pre-
enactment SBS executed before July 21, 2010 but Expired or 
Terminated before Compliance Date.'' For reporting pre-enactment 
security-based swaps that have expired or terminated before the 
compliance date for Regulation SBSR, users are required to specify 
``historical expired'' as the transaction type when submitting the 
trade record.
    \45\ DDR's Guide describes ``Backload'' SBS as ``Pre-enactment 
SBS or Transitional SBS in Existence on or after Compliance Date 
(post-compliance).'' For reporting pre-enactment or transitional 
security-based swaps in existence on or after the compliance date 
for Regulation SBSR, users are required to specify ``backload'' as 
the transaction type when submitting the trade record.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Policies and Procedures for SBS Submitted to Clearing
    DDR includes new information on how it will process trades 
submitted for clearing in its revised Guide, including how clearing 
agencies must report whether an ``alpha transaction'' \46\ has been 
accepted or rejected for clearing. The Guide now states the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ In the agency model for clearing, which is the predominant 
clearing model in the United States, a swap that is submitted to 
clearing is typically referred to as an ``alpha.'' If such a swap is 
accepted by a clearing agency, it is terminated and replaced with 
two new swaps, the ``beta'' and ``gamma.''

    DDR requires each User to indicate whether a trade will be 
submitted for clearing. Once a trade has been accepted for clearing, 
the clearing agency will send an ``exit'' message for the alpha. DDR 
views a clearing agency's exit message as the acceptance message of 
the trade for clearing. The exit message removes the alpha trade in 
deference to the beta and gamma trades. If an alpha trade is 
rejected for clearing, DDR requires the clearing agency to send DDR 
a ``rejection'' message. The rejection message will not modify the 
trade that was rejected for clearing by exiting or changing the 
terms of that trade. The reporting party is responsible for exiting 
or amending a trade that is rejected for clearing. Both acceptance 
and rejection messages will be rejected by the

[[Page 37280]]

DDR System if the alpha has not already been accepted and processed 
by DDR. This provides a control to ensure reporting is occurring in 
the order that is required e.g., a rejection message will not be 
processed prior to the processing of the alpha message.
c. Policies and Procedures for Reporting Life Cycle Events and 
Correcting Errors
    In its revised Guide, DDR clarifies how Users must submit life 
cycle events versus how Users submit error corrections, providing 
examples for both submission types. The new examples in the Guide 
provide that, for reporting life cycle events, Users specify a ``New'' 
action type and an ``Amendment'' transaction type, \47\ whereas for 
submitting error corrections Users must specify a ``Modify'' action 
type with a ``Trade'' transaction type in their message to DDR.\48\ As 
previously noted, trades subject to public dissemination require two 
reports: A PPD Message and a position message. Accordingly, reporting 
life cycle events or submitting error corrections also may require two 
reports to ensure that the information disseminated publicly is 
consistent with position information.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ DDR's revised Guide also states that Users must report a 
novation, partial termination, exit, or new trade using the ``New'' 
action type.
    \48\ DDR's revised Guide also states that Users must report 
cancelations using the Modify action type.
    \49\ As stated in its Guide and Section 1.3 of its Rulebook, DDR 
requires Users to review their daily reports to identify any errors 
on the trade details or missing information and promptly correct 
such error or provide such missing information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Applying, Identifying and Establishing Certain Flags
    Exchange Act Rule 907(a)(4) requires an SDR to have policies and 
procedures for identifying and establishing flags to denote 
characteristics or circumstances associated with the execution or 
reporting of an SBS that could, in the SDR's reasonable estimation, 
cause a person without knowledge of these characteristic(s) or 
circumstance(s), to receive a distorted view of the market and for 
applying and directing users to apply such flags, as applicable.\50\ In 
its Amended Form SDR, DDR expands the list of flags Users may submit in 
Exhibits GG2, GG4 and GG6.\51\ In addition, DDR outlines its policies 
and procedures for identifying the need for and establishing new flags 
in the Guide:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 17 CFR 240.907(a)(4).
    \51\ Interested persons should refer to Exhibits GG2, GG4, and 
GG6 for further information about flags.

    Prior to the dissemination of a SBS that is newly required to be 
reported, DDR will ascertain if a new flag is necessary by 
considering, among other things, identifying characteristic(s) of a 
security-based swap, or circumstances associated with the execution 
or reporting of the security-based swap, that could, in the fair and 
reasonable estimation of the registered security-based swap data 
repository, cause a person without knowledge of these 
characteristic(s) or circumstance(s), to receive a distorted view of 
the market. DDR then will determine whether to establish flags to 
denote such characteristic(s) or circumstance(s) and will direct 
participants that report security-based swaps to apply such flags, 
as appropriate, in their reports to the registered security-based 
swap data repository.
3. Unique Identification Codes
    Rule 903 of Regulation SBSR requires a registered SDR to use Unique 
Identification Codes (``UICs'').\52\ The following UICs are 
specifically required by Regulation SBSR: Counterparty ID, product ID, 
transaction ID, broker ID, execution agent ID, branch ID, trading desk 
ID, trader ID, platform ID, and ultimate parent ID.\53\ Rule 903(b) of 
Regulation SBSR provides that a registered SDR may permit required data 
elements to be reported using codes if the information necessary to 
interpret such codes is widely available to users on a non-fee 
basis.\54\ DDR's Guide provides additional detail with respect to 
assigning and reporting certain UICs. DDR's Guide now states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 17 CFR 240.903.
    \53\ See 17 CFR 240.900 (defining UIC as ``a unique 
identification code assigned to a person, unit of a person, product, 
or transaction'' and further defining those items for which a UIC is 
to be assigned).
    \54\ 17 CFR 240.903(b).

    As prescribed by regulation and the DDR Rulebook, all market 
participants must provide identifier information in the manner and 
form requested by DDR. It shall be the responsibility of each 
Reporting Party to maintain, or cause the relevant Market 
Participant to maintain, the identifiers described below (including, 
but not limited to an internal mapping of static data) and to ensure 
they are current and accurate. Users are required to notify DDR of 
any changes to information they provided through the on-boarding 
process, including but not limited to identifiers and any relevant 
internal mapping of static data. Upon the written request of DDR, a 
Reporting Party must promptly provide such identifier information, 
including any internal mapping, in the manner and form requested by 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDR.

    Regarding transaction ID, the Guide now states that DDR endorses 
the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures of the 
International Organization of Securities Commissions (``CPMI-IOSCO'') 
guidance for a global unique transaction identifier and that firms are 
required to provide this when reporting transaction IDs to DDR, rather 
than creating their own transaction IDs as the Guide previously 
provided.
    With respect to product ID, the Guide now states that ``DDR accepts 
a taxonomy on a product classification system'' utilizing proprietary 
identifiers that include Committee on Uniform Security Identification 
Procedures (CUSIP) numbers,\55\ International Securities Identification 
Numbering (ISIN) codes,\56\ and Markit Reference Entity Database (RED) 
codes.\57\ DDR further states the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ CUSIP numbers are nine character alphanumeric codes that 
uniquely identify securities. The CUSIP system is owned by the 
American Bankers Association and managed by Standard & Poor's. See 
https://www.cusip.com/cusip/about-cgs-identifiers.htm.
    \56\ ISIN codes are twelve character alphanumeric codes that 
uniquely identify securities. In the U.S., ISIN codes are extended 
versions of CUSIP numbers. See http://www.isin.org/about/.
    \57\ Markit RED codes ``are standard identifiers that are used 
to link the legal relationship between reference entities that trade 
in the credit default swap market and their associated reference 
obligations, known as ``pairs''.'' Markit RED codes use a six 
character alphanumeric code to identify a reference entity and a 
nine character code to identify the pair. See http://www.isda.org/c_and_a/pdf/CreditDerivProcessFAQs.pdf. See also http://www.markit.com/Product/Reference-Data-CDS.

    DDR will rely on the above referenced classification systems 
until such time as an internationally recognized standard-setting 
system is recognized by the SEC. DDR requires information sufficient 
to identify the data and calculate price as required by Applicable 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation or the data must be flagged as a customized swap.

    Regarding parent and affiliate information, DDR amends Section 
4.2.3.2 of its Rulebook to allow non-Users to report ultimate parent 
and affiliate information by emailing such information to DDR. However, 
DDR states that ``this is not a preferred submission method because 
information provided by email does not have the protections and 
validations'' as a submission by an on-boarded User, further explaining 
that non-Users cannot directly verify the accuracy of the information 
submitted to DDR without onboarding. In Section 4.2.3.2 of its Rulebook 
DDR describes the process for submission of parent and affiliate 
information for non-Users as follows:

    A Non-User may provide its Ultimate Parent ID, Affiliate ID and 
an email contact directly to DDR by emailing such information to 
DDR-Onboarding@dtcc.com. The subject line of the email must state 
``Non-User SEC Requirements''. The body of the email must state the 
Non-User's legal name, email contact information, ``Ultimate Parent 
ID--[insert LEI]'' and ``Affiliate ID [insert one LEI for each 
affiliate]''. The Non-User is responsible for ensuring the continued 
accuracy of this information. DDR will not verify the accuracy of 
the information provided by the Non-User. DDR may use the email 
contact information to contact the Non-User as described below. All 
Non-User information provided pursuant to this

[[Page 37281]]

paragraph will not be included in the automated DDR System, but will 
be provided to the SEC upon request.
4. Reporting Missing UIC Information and Missing UIC Reports
    Rule 906(a) of Regulation SBSR requires SDRs to identify any SBS 
reported to it for which the SDR does not have the counterparty ID and 
(if applicable) the broker ID, branch ID, execution agent ID, trading 
desk ID, and trader ID of each direct counterparty.\58\ Once a day, 
SDRs are required to send a report to each participant of the SDR or, 
if applicable, an execution agent, identifying, for each SBS to which 
that participant is a counterparty, the SBS for which the SDR is 
missing UIC information.\59\ DDR amends Section 4.2.3.3 of its Rulebook 
to clarify that Users will be sent a position report, which can be used 
to identify missing UICs, via their DDR account portal or direct 
computer-to-computer secure file transfer protocol (SFTP) link. DDR 
also explains that it will attempt to send missing UIC reports to a 
non-User's email address not only if it is available in the static data 
maintained by the DTCC trade repositories but also if it has been 
provided to DDR at its specified email address, DDR-Onboarding@dtcc.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See 17 CFR 240.906(a).
    \59\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Policies and Procedures for Conducting Public Dissemination of SBS 
Data
    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR provides a new exhibit, GG7 
(``Dissemination FAQs''), which describes how DDR intends to conduct 
its public dissemination of SBS trade data, including what fields will 
be publicly disseminated. For more information on the contents of the 
Dissemination FAQs, interested persons may review the exhibit.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning DDR's Amended Form SDR, including whether DDR has 
satisfied the requirements for registration as an SDR. Commenters are 
requested, to the extent possible, to provide empirical data and other 
factual support for their views. As detailed below, the Commission 
seeks comment on a number of issues, including whether certain policies 
and procedures are ``reasonably designed,'' which may involve, among 
other things, being sufficiently detailed. In addition, the Commission 
seeks comment on the following:

    1. Exchange Act Rule 13n-4(c)(1)(i) requires that each SDR 
ensure that any dues, fees, or other charges imposed by, and any 
discounts or rebates offered by, a SDR are fair and reasonable and 
not unreasonably discriminatory. The rule also requires such dues, 
fees, other charges, discounts, or rebates to be applied 
consistently across all similarly situated users of the SDR's 
services. Please provide your views as to whether DDR's revised 
approach to proposed dues, fees, or other charges, discounts or 
rebates and the process for setting dues, fees, or other charges, 
discounts or rebates are fair and reasonable and not unreasonably 
discriminatory. In particular, please provide your views on whether 
the Long Term Commitment arrangement (providing for a 10 percent 
reduction in the Position Maintenance and Account Management Fee) 
and charging the Account Management Fee on an ``organizational 
level'' is fair and reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory. 
Considering that SDR fees constitute a potential cost of trading 
security-based swaps, please also provide your views as to whether 
the proposed fees will affect market participants' incentives to 
engage in security-based swap transactions given that fees incurred 
by users of DDR could be passed on to non-users. Please also provide 
your views as to whether the structure and level of the proposed 
fees will influence current market practice and structure in the 
security-based swap market, particularly in respect of mode of 
execution (i.e., platform-based versus over-the-counter) and post-
trade processing (i.e., clearance and settlement).
    2. Further, does the revised approach provide enough clarity to 
determine the applicable fees for all types of market participants? 
For example, does the definition of Clearer, currently defined as a 
DCO in DDR's Exhibit M, adequately contemplate all potential 
entities that may in the future fill this role, such as a clearing 
agency, as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(23) of the Exchange 
Act? What impact do commenters believe the structure and level of 
the proposed fees will have on market participants' ability to 
comply with the reporting requirements of Regulation SBSR? In 
particular, what impact do commenters believe the proposed fees will 
have on those participants that are not Security-Based Swap Dealers 
or Major Security-Based Swap Participants (as defined in Section 3 
of the Exchange Act)?
    3. Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(2) requires an SDR to establish, 
maintain, and enforce written policies reasonably designed to 
calculate positions for all persons with open security-based swaps 
for which the SDR maintains records. Please provide your views on 
whether DDR's policies and procedures are reasonably designed to 
calculate such positions. Do commenters believe that methodology 
would result in complete and accurate positions? What changes, if 
any, should be made?
    4. Exchange Act Rule 13n-4(c)(1)(iv) requires that each SDR 
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures 
reasonably designed to review any prohibition or limitation of any 
person with respect to access to services offered, directly or 
indirectly, or data maintained by the SDR and to grant such person 
access to such services or data if such person has been 
discriminated against unfairly. Please provide your views as to 
whether DDR's revised policies and procedures are reasonably 
designed to provide a mechanism for Users to effectively address 
resolution of disputes, termination and ``disciplinary'' issues. In 
particular, please provide your view on DDR's disciplinary policies 
and procedures as it relates to the following circumstances: (i) To 
the denial of a User application, (ii) restrictions on the use and 
assessment of certain costs, and (iii) procedures for disciplinary 
actions, as set forth in Section 10 of DDR's Rulebook.
    5. Exchange Act Sections 13(n)(5)(G) and (H) and Exchange Act 
Rules 13n-4(b)(9), (b)(10) and (d) conditionally require SDRs to 
make SBS data available to certain authorities. Please provide your 
views regarding the proposed approach of DDR's Amended Form SDR to 
that data access requirement. Among other matters, commenters may 
wish to address the part of the proposal that would condition access 
on authorities certifying that they are acting within the scope of 
their jurisdiction (as well as certifying consistency with an 
applicable memorandum of understanding). What, if any, changes 
should be made?
    6. Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(3) requires every SDR to 
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures 
reasonably designed to ensure that the transaction data and 
positions that it maintains are complete and accurate. Please 
provide your views as to whether DDR's revised policies and 
procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that the transaction 
data and positions that it maintains are complete and accurate, as 
required by Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(3). What, if any, changes 
should be made?
    7. Regulation SBSR imposes duties on various market participants 
to report SBS transaction information to a registered SDR. Please 
provide your views as to whether the revised DDR application and the 
associated policies and procedures provide sufficient information to 
participants, as defined by Rule 900(u) of Regulation SBSR, about 
how they would discharge these regulatory duties when reporting to 
DDR. If applicable, please describe in detail what additional 
information you believe is necessary to allow a participant to 
satisfy any reporting obligation that it might incur under 
Regulation SBSR.
    8. Rule 901(c) of Regulation SBSR requires reporting of product 
ID, if available, in lieu of various data elements for standardized 
contracts. Please provide your views as to whether the product 
taxonomy proposed by DDR is sufficiently precise to identify a 
``product,'' as defined in Rule 900(aa) of Regulation SBSR, so as to 
distinguish between standard and custom versions of all types of SBS 
contracts. Further, do commenters believe that market participants 
would benefit from the disclosure of product IDs available for use 
on DDR?
    9. Rule 903(b) of Regulation SBSR requires in part that an SDR 
may permit required data

[[Page 37282]]

elements to be reported using codes if the information necessary to 
interpret such codes is widely available to users on a non-fee 
basis. Notwithstanding this requirement, DDR has proposed to rely on 
proprietary classification systems such as CUSIP numbers, ISIN 
codes, and/or Markit RED codes to identify specific securities, 
reference entities, or reference obligations, which may subject 
market participants to fees and usage restrictions in contravention 
of Rule 903(b). Please provide your views as to whether the approach 
proposed by DDR would be an appropriate means of reporting that 
information, or whether use of those proprietary classification 
systems would unduly increase the cost of compliance with reporting 
information pursuant to Regulation SBSR or impair access to publicly 
disseminated data.
    10. Rule 901(d)(5) of Regulation SBSR requires reporting sides 
to report any additional data elements included in the agreement 
between the counterparties that are necessary to determine the 
market value of the transaction, to the extent not already provided. 
Please provide your views as to whether DDR has sufficiently 
explained how Users can satisfy this requirement and whether DDR's 
policies and procedures should include specific data categories 
necessary to determine the market value of a custom basket of 
securities that underlie an SBS (e.g. components and risk weights of 
the basket). What, if any, changes should be made? Why?
    11. Rule 901(e) of Regulation SBSR requires reporting sides to 
report life cycle events, and any adjustments due to life cycle 
events that results in a change to previously reported primary or 
secondary trade information. Please provide your views as to whether 
DDR has provided sufficient information in its Amended Form SDR to 
explain how a User would report life cycle events under Rule 901(e) 
of Regulation SBSR. Please describe any additional information that 
you feel is necessary. In addition, do commenters believe that DDR 
has provided sufficient information distinguishing the process of 
reporting of a life cycle event from the reporting of a correction 
to erroneous trade information? What changes, if any, should be 
made?
    12. Rule 907(a)(4) of Regulation SBSR requires an SDR to have 
policies and procedures for identifying and establishing flags to 
denote characteristics or circumstances associated with the 
execution or reporting of an SBS that could, in the SDR's reasonable 
estimation, cause a person without knowledge of these 
characteristic(s) or circumstance(s), to receive a distorted view of 
the market, and for applying and directing users to apply such 
flags, as applicable. Please provide your views as to whether DDR's 
revised policies and procedures for developing condition flags as 
required by Rule 907(a)(4) of Regulation SBSR are consistent with 
the goal of preventing market participants from receiving a 
distorted view of the market. Are there additional condition flags 
that you believe DDR should establish? If so, please describe such 
condition flags and explain why you believe that they are 
appropriate under Rule 907(a)(4).
    13. Please provide your views on whether DDR's proposed 
methodology regarding the processing of cleared trades is sufficient 
to prevent market participants from receiving a distorted view of 
the market in all cases. In particular, please provide your views as 
to whether DDR's process of only accepting clearing agency 
acceptance and rejection messages in the event that DDR receives 
such messages prior to the receipt of the corresponding alpha trade 
report from the reporting side is likely to present problems with 
alpha transactions lacking a corresponding disposition message. How, 
if at all, would this impact the completeness and accuracy of the 
SBS transaction data and positions?
    14. Rule 903(a) of Regulation SBSR provides, in relevant part, 
that if no system has been recognized by the Commission, or a 
recognized system has not assigned a UIC to a particular person, 
unit of a person, or product, the registered SDR shall assign a UIC 
to that person, unit of person, or product using its own 
methodology. Please provide your views as to whether the revised 
approach regarding UICs as described DDR's Amended Form SDR is 
appropriate in light of the requirements of Rule 903(a) of 
Regulation SBSR. Why or why not? In particular, please provide your 
views concerning the approach proposed by DDR for the creation and 
use of transaction IDs consistent with the CPMI-IOSCO guidance for a 
global unique transaction identifier. How, if at all, should this 
methodology be changed?
    15. Rule 906(a) of Regulation SBSR requires an SDR to send a 
daily report to each participant of that SDR (or the participant's 
execution agent), identifying, for each SBS to which that 
participant is a counterparty, any SBS for which the SDR lacks 
required UIC information. Please provide your views as to whether 
DDR's revised policies and procedures for satisfying the 
requirements of Rule 906(a) are appropriate. Why or why not? What 
changes, if any, should be made?
    16. Rule 907 of Regulation SBSR generally requires that an SDR 
have policies and procedures with respect to the reporting and 
dissemination of data. Please provide your views as to whether DDR 
has provided sufficient information in its Amended Form SDR 
(including through the publication of its new Exhibit GG7) to 
explain the manner in which DDR intends to publicly disseminate SBS 
transaction information under Rule 902 of Regulation SBSR. If not, 
what additional information do you think that DDR should provide 
about how it intends to effect public dissemination of SBS 
transactions?
    17. Please provide your views as to whether DDR's Amended Form 
SDR includes sufficient information about how an agent could report 
SBS transaction information to DDR on behalf of a principal (i.e., a 
person who has a duty under Regulation SBSR to report). Why or why 
not? If not, please describe any additional information that you 
believe is necessary.
    18. Please provide your views about DDR's policies and 
procedures for contacting counterparties who are not Users. What 
changes, if any, should be made?

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SBSDR-2016-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 
20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SBSDR-2016-02.

    To help the Commission process and review your comments more 
efficiently, please use only one method of submission. The Commission 
will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml).
    Copies of the Form SDR, all subsequent amendments, all written 
statements with respect to the Form SDR that are filed with the 
Commission, and all written communications relating to the Form SDR 
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be 
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the 
Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 
3:00 p.m.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission 
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You 
should submit only information that you wish to make available 
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SBSDR-2016-02 and 
should be submitted on or before August 30, 2017.

    By the Commission.

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16715 Filed 8-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P