60-day FRN

77728

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Docket No. 11–ASO–38.’’ The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned
to the commenter.
All communications received before
the specified closing date for comments
will be considered before taking action
on the proposed rule. The proposal
contained in this notice may be changed
in light of the comments received. A
report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be
filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can
also be accessed through the FAA’s web
page at http://www.faa.gov/
airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/
publications/airspace_amendments/.
You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments
received and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Office (see the
ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays. An informal docket
may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the
Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 350, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
Persons interested in being placed on
a mailing list for future NPRMs should
contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking,
(202) 267–9677, to request a copy of
Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking distribution
System, which describes the application
procedure.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

The Proposal
The FAA is considering an
amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend
Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Columbia,
SC, by removing Corporate Airport from
the airspace designation and would
establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface
to support new standard instrument
approach procedures developed at
Lexington County Airport at Pelion,
Pelion, SC, formerly Corporate Airport.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary
due to the design of new arrival
procedures, and for continued safety
and management of IFR operations at
the airport. The geographic coordinates
also would be adjusted to coincide with
the FAAs aeronautical database.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Dec 13, 2011

Jkt 226001

Class E airspace designations are
published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011,
and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class E airspace designation
listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this
proposed rule, when promulgated,
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator.
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the
agency’s authority. This proposed
rulemaking is promulgated under the
authority described in Subtitle VII, Part,
A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use
of airspace necessary to ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This proposed regulation is
within the scope of that authority as it
would amend Class E airspace at
Columbia, SC and establish Class E
airspace at Lexington County Airport at
Pelion, Pelion, SC.
Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1

[Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
dated August 9, 2011, effective
September 15, 2011, is amended as
follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface of the earth.

*

*

*

*

*

ASO SC E5 Columbia, SC [Amended]
Columbia Metropolitan Airport, SC
(Lat. 33°56′20″ N., long. 81°07′10″ W.)
Columbia Owens Downtown Airport
(Lat. 33°58′14″ N., long. 80°59′43″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 10-mile radius
of Columbia Metropolitan Airport and within
a 6.5-mile radius of Columbia Owens
Downtown Airport.

*

*

*

*

*

ASO SC E5 Pelion, SC [New]
Lexington County Airport at Pelion, Pelion,
SC
(Lat. 33°47′41″ N., long. 81°14′45″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile
radius of the Lexington County Airport at
Pelion.
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on
December 5, 2011.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern
Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011–32041 Filed 12–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
17 CFR Parts 37 and 38
RIN 3038–AD18

Process for a Designated Contract
Market or Swap Execution Facility To
Make a Swap Available To Trade
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Further notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:

The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is
proposing regulations that establish a
process for a designated contract market
(‘‘DCM’’) or swap execution facility
(‘‘SEF’’) to make a swap ‘‘available to
trade’’ as set forth in new Section 2(h)(8)
of the Commodity Exchange Act
(‘‘CEA’’) pursuant to Section 723 of the

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM

14DEP1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank
Act’’). Only comments pertaining to the
regulations proposed in this document
will be considered as part of this further
notice of proposed rulemaking
(‘‘Notice’’).
DATES: Submit comments on or before
February 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN number 3038–AD18
and Process for a Designated Contract
Market or Swap Execution Facility to
Make a Swap Available to Trade, by any
of the following methods:
• Agency Web site, via its Comments
Online process at http://
comments.cftc.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
through the Web site.
• Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary of
the Commission, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20581.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as
mail above.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Please submit your comments using
only one method.
All comments must be submitted in
English, or if not, accompanied by an
English translation. Comments will be
posted as received to http://
www.cftc.gov. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. If you wish the
Commission to consider information
that may be exempt from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act,
a petition for confidential treatment of
the exempt information may be
submitted according to the established
procedures in § 145.9 of the
Commission’s regulations, 17 CFR
145.9.
The Commission reserves the right,
but shall have no obligation, to review,
pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or
remove any or all of your submission
from www.cftc.gov that it may deem to
be inappropriate for publication, such as
obscene language. All submissions that
have been redacted or removed that
contain comments on the merits of the
rulemaking will be retained in the
public comment file and will be
considered as required under the
Administrative Procedure Act and other
applicable laws, and may be accessible
under the Freedom of Information Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bella Rozenberg, Associate Director,
Division of Market Oversight (‘‘DMO’’),
(202) 418–5119, [email protected],
Amir Zaidi, Special Counsel, DMO,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Dec 13, 2011

Jkt 226001

(202) 418–6770, [email protected], or
Nhan Nguyen, Attorney Advisor, DMO,
(202) 418–5932, [email protected],
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC
20581.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Dodd-Frank Act 1 requires that
swap transactions subject to the clearing
requirement 2 must be executed on a
DCM or SEF,3 subject to certain
exceptions. Under Section 2(h)(8)(B) of
the CEA, the exceptions to the trade
execution requirement are if no board of
trade 4 or SEF ‘‘makes the swap
available to trade’’ or the related
transaction is subject to the clearing
exception under Section 2(h)(7) (i.e., the
end-user exception).5
On January 7, 2011, the Commission
published proposed rules, guidance,
and acceptable practices (‘‘SEF NPRM’’)
to implement certain statutory
provisions for SEFs enacted by Title VII
of the Dodd-Frank Act.6 In the SEF
NPRM, the Commission proposed,
among other rules, § 37.10 related to
implementation of the available to trade
provision under Section 2(h)(8) of the
CEA.7 Proposed § 37.10 requires each
SEF to conduct an annual review and
1 See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124
Stat. 1376 (2010).
2 Section 723(a)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act
amended the CEA to add a clearing requirement.
This clearing requirement, under new Section
2(h)(1)(A) of the CEA, provides that ‘‘[i]t shall be
unlawful for any person to engage in a swap unless
that person submits such swap for clearing to a
derivatives clearing organization that is registered
under this Act or a derivatives clearing organization
that is exempt from registration under this Act if the
swap is required to be cleared.’’
3 Section 723(a)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act
amended the CEA to add a trade execution
requirement. This trade execution requirement,
under new Section 2(h)(8)(A) of the CEA, provides
that with respect to transactions involving swaps
subject to the clearing requirement of Section
2(h)(1), ‘‘counterparties shall (i) execute the
transaction on a board of trade designated as a
contract market under section 5; or (ii) execute the
transaction on a swap execution facility registered
under 5h or a swap execution facility that is exempt
from registration under section 5h(f) of this Act.’’
4 The logical interpretation of the phrase ‘‘board
of trade’’ in Section 2(h)(8)(B) means a board of
trade designated as a contract market given such
reference in Section 2(h)(8)(A).
5 Section 2(h)(7) of the CEA provides an
exception to the clearing requirement (‘‘the enduser exception’’) if one of the counterparties to a
swap (i) is not a financial entity, (ii) is using the
swap to hedge or mitigate commercial risk, and (iii)
notifies the Commission how it generally meets its
financial obligations associated with entering into
a non-cleared swap.
6 Core Principles and Other Requirements for
Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR 1214 (Jan. 7,
2011).
7 76 FR at 1241.

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

77729

assessment of whether it has made a
swap available for trading and to
provide a report to the Commission
regarding its assessment.8 In its review
and assessment, the SEF may consider
the frequency of transactions, open
interest, and any other factor requested
by the Commission.9 Proposed § 37.10
also requires that all SEFs are required
to treat a swap as made available for
trading, if at least one SEF has made the
same or an economically equivalent
swap available for trading.10
The SEF NPRM sought general public
comment regarding the meaning of the
phrase ‘‘made available for trading.’’ 11
The Commission also asked for
comment on two specific questions:
(1) Whether SEFs should consider the
number of market participants trading a
particular swap, and, if so, whether
there should be a required minimum
number of participants (e.g., two or
three participants); and (2) whether
SEFs should consider any other factors
or processes to make the determination
that swaps are made available for
trading.12 The Commission received 26
comments on the proposed ‘‘available to
trade’’ process.13 The Commission has
considered these comments, which are
discussed below in the next section, in
developing this Notice.
On December 22, 2010, the
Commission also published proposed
rules, guidance, and acceptable
practices (‘‘DCM NPRM’’) to implement
certain statutory provisions for DCMs
enacted by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank
Act.14 The DCM NPRM did not establish
any obligation for DCMs under Section
2(h)(8) of the CEA, but it did establish
certain swap reporting obligations.15
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 76 FR at 1222. Comments on all aspects of the
SEF NPRM were due by March 8, 2011. On May 4,
2011, the Commission reopened the SEF NPRM’s
comment period through June 3, 2011, as part of the
global extension of comment periods for various
rulemakings implementing the Dodd-Frank Act to
allow the public additional time to comment on the
proposed new regulatory framework for swaps. See
Reopening and Extension of Comment Periods for
Rulemakings Implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 76 FR
25274 (May 4, 2011).
12 76 FR at 1222.
13 These comments are available at http://
comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/
CommentList.aspx?id=955.
14 Core Principles and Other Requirements for
Designated Contract Markets, 75 FR 80572 (Dec. 22,
2010).
15 See e.g., proposed Sections 38.8, 38.10, and
38.451. Core Principles and Other Requirements for
Designated Contract Markets, 75 FR 80572 (Dec. 22,
2010).

E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM

14DEP1

77730

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules

II. Notice
A. Introduction
In this Notice, the Commission is
proposing regulations to establish a
process for a DCM or SEF to make a
swap ‘‘available to trade’’ under Section
2(h)(8) of the CEA.16 The proposed
regulations would be included in
proposed parts 37 and 38 of the
Commission’s regulations to implement
the available to trade provision in
Section 2(h)(8) of the CEA.
B. Process for a Designated Contract
Market or Swap Execution Facility To
Make a Swap Available To Trade Under
Section 2(h)(8) of the CEA
1. Procedure To Make a Swap Available
to Trade—Proposed §§ 37.10(a) and
38.12(a)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

a. Comments Regarding Available To
Trade Process
A key theme to emerge from the SEF
NPRM comments is that the
Commission should establish a process
for determining when a swap is
available to trade that includes greater
Commission involvement.17 For
example, one commenter suggested that
a SEF certify to the Commission those
swaps that qualify as available to trade
and that, following a public notice and
comment period, the Commission
confirm (or reject) the SEF’s
certification.18 Similarly, another
commenter recommended that a SEF
submit to the Commission those swaps
it determines to be available to trade
and that the Commission review the
submission and provide at least a thirtyday public comment period regarding
its decision.19 Another commenter
encouraged the Commission to institute
a process through which market
participants could petition the
16 Sections 5(d)(1) and 5h(f)(1) of the CEA require
DCMs and SEFs, respectively, to comply with any
requirement that the Commission may impose by
rule or regulation pursuant to Section 8a(5) of the
CEA, 7 U.S.C. 12a(5), which authorizes the
Commission to promulgate such regulations as, in
the judgment of the Commission, are reasonably
necessary to effectuate any of the provisions or to
accomplish any of the purposes of the CEA. In
addition, Section 721(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act
provides the Commission with authority to adopt
rules to define ‘‘[any] term included in an
amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act * * *
made by [the Dodd-Frank Act].’’
17 E.g., Letter from Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, on behalf of certain dealers,
dated Apr. 5, 2011 at 18–19; Letter from Kevin
Gould, Markit, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 3; Letter from
Andrew Ertel, Evolution Markets Inc., dated Mar. 8,
2011 at 9; Letter from Wholesale Market Brokers’
Association, Americas, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 17–18.
18 Letter from Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, on behalf of certain dealers,
dated Apr. 5, 2011 at 19.
19 Letter from Kevin Gould, Markit, dated Mar. 8,
2011 at 3.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Dec 13, 2011

Jkt 226001

Commission to review the
appropriateness of a SEF’s
determination that a swap is available to
trade.20
Some commenters requested that the
Commission determine whether a
particular swap is available to trade 21
while other commenters requested that
SEFs make this determination.22 Many
commenters that supported a
Commission determination noted that
SEFs may have incentives to
prematurely make certain swaps
available to trade in order to mandate
trading in these instruments on or
through SEFs.23 The commenters that
supported a SEF determination stated
that SEFs should have some discretion
whether a swap is made available to
trade.24
In light of these comments and the
fact that the DCM NPRM did not
establish any obligation for DCMs under
Section 2(h)(8) of the CEA, the
Commission has determined to issue
this Notice.
b. Rule Submission Filing Procedure—
Proposed §§ 37.10(a) and 38.12(a)
Proposed §§ 37.10(a) and 38.12(a) set
forth the filing procedure that SEFs and
DCMs would utilize in order to
demonstrate that a swap is available to
trade. Under this proposed procedure, a
DCM or SEF would initially determine
20 Letter from Andrew Ertel, Evolution Markets
Inc., dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 9.
21 E.g., Letter from Craig Donohue, CME Group
Inc., dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 10; Letter from Patrick
Durkin, Barclays Capital, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 11;
Letter from Kevin Budd and Todd Lurie, MetLife,
dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 4; Letter from Richard McVey,
MarketAxess Corporation, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 27;
Letter from Timothy Cameron, Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association Asset
Management Group, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 11; Letter
from Richard Whiting, Financial Services
Roundtable, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 8; Letter from R.
Martin Chavez, Goldman, Sachs & Co., dated Mar.
8, 2011 at 3; Letter from Warren Davis, Sutherland
Asbill & Brennan LLP, on behalf of the Federal
Home Loan Banks, dated Jun. 3, 2011 at 14; Letter
from Wayne Pestone, FX Alliance Inc., dated Nov.
4, 2011 at 9–10.
22 E.g., Letter from Wholesale Market Brokers’
Association, Americas, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 17–18;
Letter from Lee Olesky and Douglas Friedman,
Tradeweb Markets LLC, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 8–
9; Letter from Coalition for Derivatives End-Users,
dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 7–8.
23 E.g., Letter from Craig Donohue, CME Group
Inc., dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 10; Letter from Patrick
Durkin, Barclays Capital, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 11;
Letter from Kevin Budd and Todd Lurie, MetLife,
dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 4; Letter from Timothy
Cameron, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association Asset Management Group, dated Mar.
8, 2011 at 11; Letter from Wayne Pestone, FX
Alliance Inc., dated Nov. 4, 2011 at 9–10.
24 E.g., Letter from Wholesale Market Brokers’
Association, Americas, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 17–18;
Letter from Lee Olesky and Douglas Friedman,
Tradeweb Markets LLC, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 8–
9; Letter from Coalition for Derivatives End-Users,
dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 7–8.

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

that a swap is available to trade. The
Commission views such determination
as a trading protocol issued by a DCM
or SEF. Such trading protocol falls
under the definition of a rule under
§ 40.1 of the Commission’s
regulations.25 Therefore, pursuant to
Section 5c(c) of the CEA, DCMs and
SEFs would be required as ‘‘registered
entities’’ 26 to submit make available to
trade determinations to the
Commission, either for approval or selfcertification, pursuant to the filing
procedures of part 40 of the
Commission’s regulations.27
Specifically, under this proposal, a
DCM or SEF would be required to
submit its determination that a swap is
available to trade under § 40.5 or § 40.6
of the Commission’s regulations. Under
§ 40.5, a registered entity may request
Commission approval of a new rule
prior to its implementation.28 Section
40.5(a) requires, among other things,29
that a registered entity that requests
Commission prior approval provide an
explanation and analysis of that
25 Section 40.1(i) defines rule as ‘‘any
constitutional provision, article of incorporation,
bylaw, rule, regulation, resolution, interpretation,
stated policy, advisory, terms and conditions,
trading protocol, agreement or instrument
corresponding thereto, including those that
authorize a response or establish standards for
responding to a specific emergency, and any
amendment or addition thereto or repeal thereof,
made or issued by a registered entity or by the
governing board thereof or any committee thereof,
in whatever form adopted.’’
26 The term ‘‘registered entity’’ is defined in the
CEA to include both DCMs and SEFs. See Section
1a(40) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 1a(40).
27 See Sections 40.5 and 40.6 and Provisions
Common to Registered Entities, 76 FR 44776 (Jul.
27, 2011). The Commission notes that the proposed
procedures to make a swap available to trade are
different than the procedures to list a swap for
trading. A DCM or SEF may list a swap for trading
by complying with the certification or approval
procedures under §§ 40.2 or 40.3 of the
Commission’s regulations. Under the certification
procedures of § 40.2, a DCM or SEF may list a
product on the business day following the
Commission’s receipt of the submission, if received
by the open of business. Under the approval
procedures of § 40.3, a product is deemed approved
by the Commission 45 days after receipt by the
Commission or at the conclusion of an extended
review period. A DCM or SEF may list the
submitted product at that time. The Commission
notes, however, the mere listing or trading of a
swap on a DCM or SEF would not mean that the
swap is available to trade within the meaning of
Section 2(h)(8) of the CEA. The Commission further
notes that a DCM or SEF must submit an available
to trade filing at the same time or after submitting
a filing under Sections 40.2 or 40.3.
28 Section 40.5(a).
29 E.g., Section 40.5(a)(6) requires a registered
entity to post notice and a copy of the rule
submission on its Web site, Section 40.5(a)(7)
requires a registered entity to provide additional
information which may be beneficial to the
Commission in analyzing a new rule, and Section
40.5(a)(8) requires a registered entity to provide in
the rule submission a brief explanation of any
substantive opposing views.

E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM

14DEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

proposed rule and its compliance with
applicable provisions of the CEA,
including core principles, and the
Commission’s regulations thereunder.30
This explanation and analysis would
detail the manner in which the SEF or
DCM considered the factors under
proposed §§ 37.10(b) or 38.12(b).
Sections 40.5(c) and (d) provide the
Commission a 45-day review period,
which may be extended for an
additional 45 days in specified
circumstances.31 At any time during its
review, the Commission may notify the
registered entity that it will not, or is
unable to, approve a rule because it is
inconsistent or appears to be
inconsistent with the CEA or the
Commission’s regulations.32
Similar to the approval procedures
under § 40.5, if a registered entity
chooses to submit its available to trade
determination under the certification
procedures of § 40.6, then the registered
entity must provide to the Commission
an explanation and analysis of the
proposed rule and a certification that
the rule complies with the CEA and the
Commission’s regulations thereunder.33
As in § 40.5, the explanation and
analysis would detail the manner in
which the SEF or DCM considered the
factors under proposed §§ 37.10(b) or
38.12(b). Sections 40.6(b) and (c)
provide the Commission 10 business
days to review a rule before it is deemed
certified and can be made effective,
unless the Commission issues a stay of
the certification for additional 90 days
from the date of notification to the
registered entity.34 If the Commission
issues a stay of certification, then it
30 Section 40.5(a)(5). This provision also requires,
if applicable, a description of the anticipated
benefits to market participants or others, any
potential anticompetitive effects on market
participants or others, and how the rule fits into the
registered entity’s framework of self-regulation.
31 Sections 40.5(c) and (d). In determining
whether to extend the review period, the
Commission will consider whether the proposed
rule raises novel or complex issues, the submission
is incomplete, or the requestor does not respond
completely to Commission questions in a timely
manner. Section 40.5(d)(1).
32 Section 40.5(e).
33 Section 40.6(a). Section 40.6(a)(2) requires a
registered entity to post notice and a copy of the
rule submission on its Web site, Section
40.6(a)(7)(vi) requires a registered entity to provide
in the rule submission a brief explanation of any
substantive opposing views, and Section 40.6(a)(8)
requires a registered entity to provide, if requested
by Commission staff, additional evidence,
information, or data that may be beneficial to the
Commission in conducting due diligence of the
filing.
34 Sections 40.6(b) and (c). In determining
whether to stay a certification, the Commission will
consider whether the rule presents novel or
complex issues, is accompanied by inadequate
explanation, or is potentially inconsistent with the
CEA. Section 40.6(c)(1).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Dec 13, 2011

Jkt 226001

must provide a 30-day public comment
period for the proposed rule.35 During a
stay period, the Commission may notify
the registered entity that it objects to the
proposed certification on the grounds
that the proposed rule is inconsistent
with the CEA or the Commission’s
regulations.36
Under this Notice, if the Commission
either approves a DCM’s or SEF’s rule
providing that a swap is available to
trade or permits a certified available to
trade filing to become effective, then the
swap involved would be deemed
available to trade.37 If that swap also is
subject to the clearing requirement,
pursuant to CEA Section 2(h)(8), the
swap must be executed pursuant to the
rules of a DCM or SEF.38 Under this
Notice, until such time, the swap is not
subject to the CEA Section 2(h)(8) trade
execution requirement.
The Commission views the proposed
procedure for DCMs and SEFs to make
a swap available to trade as a balanced
approach whereby a DCM or SEF—the
facilities that may be most familiar with
the trading of these swaps—has
responsibility to make a swap available
to trade, while the Commission has a
role in reviewing such determination.
Additionally, this proposed procedure
is responsive to comments that the
Commission should establish a process
for DCMs and SEFs to make a swap
available to trade, with Commission
involvement in the determination. The
Commission notes that as it gains
experience with its oversight of swaps
markets, it may decide, in its discretion,
to determine that a swap is available to
trade.

35 Section

40.6(c)(2).
40.6(c)(3).
37 See proposed §§ 37.10(c) and 38.12(c). Under
these sections, if a SEF or DCM makes a swap
available to trade, all other SEFs and DCMs listing
or offering for trading such swap and/or any
economically equivalent swap, shall make those
swaps available to trade for purposes of the trade
execution requirement. The Commission notes that
if a DCM or SEF makes a swap available to trade,
these proposed provisions would not require other
DCMs and SEFs to list or offer that swap, or an
economically equivalent swap, for trading.
38 See Swap Transaction Compliance and
Implementation Schedule: Clearing and Trade
Execution Requirements under Section 2(h) of the
CEA, 76 FR 58186 (Sep. 20, 2011), for the time
frame in which a swap would be subject to the trade
execution requirement. The Commission notes that
the available to trade determination may precede
the clearing requirement and vice versa; however,
the trade execution requirement would not be in
effect until the clearing requirement takes effect.
36 Section

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

77731

2. Factors To Consider To Make a Swap
Available To Trade—Proposed
§§ 37.10(b) and 38.12(b)
a. Comments Regarding Factors To
Consider
Many commenters to the SEF NPRM
supported a liquidity requirement for a
determination that a swap is available to
trade.39 One commenter, for example,
stated that ‘‘Congress intended for the
Commission[] to establish a higher
liquidity threshold for mandatory
execution than for mandatory clearing,
and that a swap is not ‘available to
trade’ merely because it is listed on a
DCM/exchange or SEF.’’ 40 However,
other commenters said that a minimum
level of liquidity should not be required
for a determination that a swap is
available to trade.41 One commenter
noted that a determination that a swap
is available to trade should apply to
each swap that is subject to the clearing
requirement and that the determination
should not require a minimum level of
trading activity.42
Many commenters also recommended
specific liquidity factors that a SEF
should consider in determining whether
a swap is available to trade such as trade
frequency and average transaction size,
bid/offer spreads, number and types of
market participants, and volume.43
Some commenters further suggested that
the Commission set mandatory objective
and transparent liquidity factors based
upon an empirical analysis of swap
39 E.g., Letter from Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, on behalf of certain dealers,
dated Apr. 5, 2011 at 18; Letter from Kevin Gould,
Markit, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 2; Letter from Jeremy
Barnum and Don Thompson, J.P. Morgan, dated
Mar. 8, 2011 at 9; Letter from Robert Pickel and
Kenneth Bentsen, International Swaps and
Derivatives Association and Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association, dated Mar. 8, 2011
at 8; Letter from R. Martin Chavez, Goldman, Sachs
& Co., dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 3; Letter from Craig
Donohue, CME Group Inc., dated Mar. 8, 2011 at
9.
40 Letter from Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, on behalf of certain dealers,
dated Apr. 5, 2011 at 18.
41 Letter from Dennis Kelleher, Better Markets,
Inc., dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 10–11; Letter from
Wholesale Market Brokers’ Association, Americas,
dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 17–18; Letter from Ian K.
Shepherd, Alice Corporation, dated May 31, 2011
at 7.
42 Letter from Dennis Kelleher, Better Markets,
Inc., dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 10–11.
43 E.g., Letter from Kevin Gould, Markit, dated
Mar. 8, 2011 at 2; Letter from Craig Donohue, CME
Group Inc., dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 10; Letter from
John Gidman, Association of Institutional Investors,
dated Jun. 10, 2011 at 3; Letter from Mark
Vonderheide and Robert Creamer, Geneva Energy
Markets, LLC, dated Jul. 29, 2011 at 2; Meeting
between Commission staff and Evolution Markets
and Ogilvy Government Relations, dated Jan. 19,
2011.

E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM

14DEP1

77732

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules

trading data.44 One commenter stated
that the Commission should undertake
empirical analyses of swap market
liquidity to set specific quantitative
thresholds for metrics, such as
minimum average daily trading volume
and number of transactions.45 Another
commenter asserted that objective
measures for determining when a swap
is available to trade will provide for a
consistent and meaningful
assessment.46
b. Factors To Consider—Proposed
§§ 37.10(b) and 38.12(b)
Proposed §§ 37.10(b) and 38.12(b)
state that, to make a swap available to
trade, for purposes of Section 2(h)(8) of
the CEA, a SEF or DCM shall consider,
as appropriate, the following factors
with respect to such swap: (1) Whether
there are ready and willing buyers and
sellers; (2) The frequency or size of
transactions on SEFs, DCMs, or of
bilateral transactions; (3) The trading
volume on SEFs, DCMs, or of bilateral
transactions; (4) The number and types
of market participants; (5) The bid/ask
spread; (6) The usual number of resting
firm or indicative bids and offers; (7)
Whether a SEF’s trading system or
platform or a DCM’s trading facility will
support trading in the swap; or (8) Any
other factor that the SEF or DCM may
consider relevant.47 No single factor
would be dispositive, as the DCM or
SEF may consider any one factor or
several factors to make a swap available
to trade. The Commission notes that, as
the swaps markets evolve and the
Commission gains experience with
overseeing these markets, it may
consider setting objective factors based
upon an empirical analysis of swap
trading data in a future rulemaking.
3. Economically Equivalent Swap—
Proposed §§ 37.10(c) and 38.12(c)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

44 E.g., Letter from Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, on behalf of certain dealers,
dated Apr. 5, 2011 at 18; Letter from Ben
Macdonald, Bloomberg L.P., dated Jun. 3, 2011 at
3; Letter from Stuart Kaswell, Managed Funds
Association, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 3–4; Letter from
American Benefits Council and Committee on
Investment of Employee Benefit Assets, dated Mar.
8, 2011 at 4–5.
45 Letter from Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, on behalf of certain dealers,
dated Apr. 5, 2011 at 18.
46 Letter from Ben Macdonald, Bloomberg L.P.,
dated Jun. 3, 2011 at 3.
47 As noted above, the mere listing or trading of
a swap on a DCM or SEF does not mean that the
swap is available to trade.

Jkt 226001

FR 1241.
from Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, on behalf of certain dealers,
dated Apr. 5, 2011 at 19; Letter from Robert Pickel
and Kenneth Bentsen, International Swaps and
Derivatives Association and Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association, dated Mar. 8, 2011
at 9; Letter from Wholesale Market Brokers’
Association, Americas, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 18;
Letter from Richard Whiting, Financial Services
Roundtable, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 7; Letter from
Patrick Durkin, Barclays Capital, dated Mar. 8, 2011
at 11.
50 Letter from Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, on behalf of certain dealers,
dated Apr. 5, 2011 at 19; Letter from Robert Pickel
and Kenneth Bentsen, International Swaps and
Derivatives Association and Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association, dated Mar. 8, 2011
at 9; Letter from Patrick Durkin, Barclays Capital,
dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 11.
51 Letter from Richard Whiting, Financial
Services Roundtable, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 7.
52 Letter from Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, on behalf of certain dealers,
dated Apr. 5, 2011 at 19.
49 Letter

In the SEF NPRM, the Commission
proposed that all SEFs are required to
treat a swap as ‘‘made available for

17:51 Dec 13, 2011

b. Economically Equivalent Swap—
Proposed §§ 37.10(c) and 38.12(c)
Under proposed §§ 37.10(c)(1) and
38.12(c)(1), upon a determination that a
swap is available to trade, all other SEFs
and DCMs listing or offering for trading
such swap and/or any economically
equivalent swap, must make those
swaps available to trade for purposes of
the trade execution requirement set
forth in Section 2(h)(8) of the CEA. The
Commission notes that if a DCM or SEF
makes a swap available to trade, these
proposed provisions would not require
other DCMs and SEFs to list or offer that
swap, or an economically equivalent
swap, for trading.
In this Notice, the Commission is
proposing a definition for the term
48 76

a. Comments Regarding Economically
Equivalent Swaps

VerDate Mar<15>2010

trading,’’ if at least one SEF has made
the same or an economically equivalent
swap available for trading.48 Many
commenters to the SEF NPRM requested
that the Commission clarify the term
economically equivalent swap and some
commenters provided recommendations
as to how it should be defined.49 Several
commenters recommended a stringent
fungibility test to determine whether a
particular swap is economically
equivalent to one made available to
trade on another SEF, such that a
derivatives clearing organization
(‘‘DCO’’) would recognize the swaps as
mutually off-settable without residual
market risk.50 Another commenter
suggested that only identical swaps
should be made available to trade.51
Furthermore, one commenter cautioned
that without a stringent fungibility test
there may be unintended consequences,
including unduly concentrating trading
volume on a single SEF or preventing
participants from entering into
customized swaps in the same general
swap category.52

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

‘‘economically equivalent swap.’’
Proposed §§ 37.10(c)(2) and 38.12(c)(2)
define the term ‘‘economically
equivalent swap’’ as a swap that the SEF
or DCM determines to be economically
equivalent with another swap after
consideration of each swap’s material
pricing terms.
4. Annual Review of Available To Trade
Determinations—Proposed §§ 37.10(d)
and 38.12(d)
a. Comments Regarding Annual Review
Several commenters to the SEF NPRM
supported a Commission review
requirement for swaps that have been
determined to be available to trade.53
One commenter asserted that SEF
available to trade determinations should
be revisited and reconsidered because
the liquidity of swaps can experience
significant changes over time and can
dry up completely in some
circumstances.54 Similarly, another
commenter stated that SEFs should
revisit available to trade determinations
on a quarterly basis because the level of
liquidity for a swap can vary
significantly over time.55
b. Annual Review—Proposed
§§ 37.10(d) and 38.12(d)
The Commission is proposing to
retain the annual review and assessment
requirement set forth in the SEF NPRM
and also require that DCMs perform an
annual review and assessment. Regular
reviews help ensure that DCMs and
SEFs routinely evaluate whether swaps
previously determined to be available to
trade should continue to be treated in
that manner. Thus, in conducting this
review and assessment, the proposal
would require a SEF or DCM to consider
the factors in §§ 37.10(b) or 38.12(b),
respectively. The Commission would
also encourage DCMs and SEFs, in
conducting this review and assessment,
to evaluate their swaps that have not
been determined to be available to trade
and to submit them to the Commission
as appropriate. Upon completion of the
annual review, a DCM or SEF would be
required to provide electronically to the
Commission a report of such review and
assessment, including any supporting
information or data, no later than 30
days after its fiscal year end.
53 E.g., Letter from Kevin Gould, Markit, dated
Mar. 8, 2011 at 2; Letter from Dexter Senft, Morgan
Stanley, dated Mar. 2, 2011 at 4; Letter from Stuart
Kaswell, Managed Funds Association, dated Mar. 8,
2011 at 4; Letter from Edward Rosen, Cleary
Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, on behalf of certain
dealers, dated Apr. 5, 2011 at 18–19.
54 Letter from Kevin Gould, Markit, dated Mar. 8,
2011 at 2.
55 Letter from Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, on behalf of certain dealers,
dated Apr. 5, 2011 at 18–19.

E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM

14DEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules
5. Notice to the Public of Available To
Trade Determinations
a. Comments Regarding Notice to the
Public
Some commenters to the SEF NPRM
requested that the Commission provide
notice to market participants that a
swap is available to trade.56 One
commenter, for example, suggested that
the Commission provide public notice
that a swap will be deemed available to
trade and on which platform(s).57
Another commenter stated that
‘‘[w]ithout a notification system, market
participants may not know to cease
over-the-counter transactions in these
swaps, stifling compliance with
applicable rules.’’ 58
b. Public Notice
In consideration of the comments
received, the Commission notes that
there is a process for notifying the
public that a DCM or SEF has made a
swap available to trade. Sections 40.5
and 40.6 of the Commission’s
regulations require DCMs and SEFs to
post a notice and a copy of rule
submissions on their Web site
concurrent with the filing of the
submissions with the Commission.59
The Commission, consistent with
current practice, will also post DCM and
SEF rule submission filings on its Web
site. The Commission is currently
assessing the feasibility of posting
notices of all swaps that are determined
to be available to trade on an easily
accessible page on its Web site.
6. Effective Date of Available To Trade
Determinations
a. Comments Regarding Effective Date
Commenters to the SEF NPRM
requested a waiting period before the
effective date of the available to trade
determinations or before imposing the
trade execution requirement under CEA
Section 2(h)(8) so that other SEFs have
adequate time to list or offer the swap
or any economically equivalent swap for
trading.60 These commenters stated that

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

56 E.g.,

Letter from Dexter Senft, Morgan Stanley,
dated Mar. 2, 2011 at 4; Letter from Timothy
Cameron, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association Asset Management Group, dated Mar.
8, 2011 at 12; Letter from Wayne Pestone, FX
Alliance Inc., dated Nov. 4, 2011 at 9–10.
57 Letter from Dexter Senft, Morgan Stanley, dated
Mar. 2, 2011 at 4.
58 Letter from Timothy Cameron, Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association Asset
Management Group, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 12.
59 See Sections 40.5(a)(6) and 40.6(a)(2).
60 Letter from Kevin Budd and Todd Lurie,
MetLife, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 4; Letter from Dexter
Senft, Morgan Stanley, dated Mar. 2, 2011 at 4;
Letter from Stuart Kaswell, Managed Funds
Association, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 3. Some of these
commenters requested that the Commission

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Dec 13, 2011

Jkt 226001

a reasonable waiting period will
promote competition among SEFs by
reducing a SEF’s first-mover
advantage.61 For example, the waiting
period would allow other SEFs
additional time to build the required
connectivity.62 A waiting period would
also allow market participants the
opportunity to make any related
technological and trading strategy
amendments.63
b. Effective Date
In response to commenters who
requested a waiting period before the
effective date of a determination that a
swap is available to trade or before
imposing the trade execution
requirement under CEA Section 2(h)(8),
the Commission has issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking that proposes a
schedule to phase in compliance with
the trade execution requirement under
CEA Section 2(h)(8).64 Under that
proposed rulemaking, a swap
transaction shall be subject to the CEA
Section 2(h)(8) trade execution
requirement upon the later of the
following: (1) the applicable deadline
established under the compliance
schedule for the clearing requirement or
(2) 30 days after the swap is first made
available to trade on either a SEF or
DCM.65
C. Comment Requested
The Commission requests and will
consider comments only on proposed
regulations §§ 37.10 and 38.12. The
Commission may consider alternatives
to the proposed regulations and is
requesting comment on the following
questions:
• Should the Commission allow a
SEF or DCM to submit its available to
trade determination with respect to a
group, category, type, or class of swaps
based on the factors in §§ 37.10(b) or
38.12(b)? How should the Commission
define group, category, type, or class of
swaps?
establish a waiting period after the available to
trade determination and before the trade execution
requirement becomes effective.
61 Letter from Kevin Budd and Todd Lurie,
MetLife, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 4; Letter from Dexter
Senft, Morgan Stanley, dated Mar. 2, 2011 at 4;
Letter from Stuart Kaswell, Managed Funds
Association, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 3.
62 Letter from Stuart Kaswell, Managed Funds
Association, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 3.
63 Letter from Kevin Budd and Todd Lurie,
MetLife, dated Mar. 8, 2011 at 4.
64 See Swap Transaction Compliance and
Implementation Schedule: Clearing and Trade
Execution Requirements under Section 2(h) of the
CEA, 76 FR 58186 (Sep. 20, 2011). Comments to
this notice of proposed rulemaking were due by
November 4, 2011.
65 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

77733

• Is the Commission’s proposed
approach in §§ 37.10(b) and 38.12(b)
regarding the determination that a swap
is available to trade appropriate? If not,
what approach is appropriate and why?
Should a SEF or DCM consider total
open interest and notional outstanding
for similar tenors in §§ 37.10(b) and
38.12(b)?
• In evaluating the factors under
proposed §§ 37.10(b) and 38.12(b),
should the Commission allow a SEF or
DCM to consider the same swap or an
economically equivalent swap on
another SEF or DCM? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of such
an approach? Should a SEF or DCM
consider the amount of activity in the
same swap or an economically
equivalent swap available primarily or
solely in bilateral transactions?
• Should the Commission allow a
SEF or DCM to submit an available to
trade determination under §§ 37.10(a) or
38.12(a), if such SEF or DCM does not
itself list the subject swap for trading?
If so, in evaluating the factors under
§§ 37.10(b) or 38.12(b), should the
Commission allow the SEF or DCM to
consider the same swap or an
economically equivalent swap on
another SEF or DCM? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of such
an approach? Should a SEF or DCM
consider the amount of activity in the
same swap or an economically
equivalent swap available primarily or
solely in bilateral transactions?
• When a DCM or SEF makes a swap
available to trade, should all other
DCMs and SEFs listing or offering for
trading such swap and/or any
economically equivalent swap be
required to make those swaps available
to trade? What would be the economic
impact on those DCMs and SEFs that
would be required to make same swaps
and/or economically equivalent swaps
available to trade?
• If a SEF or DCM is required to make
an economically equivalent swap
available to trade, should that SEF or
DCM be required to submit, under part
40 procedures, its reasoning for
deciding that a certain swap is or is not
economically equivalent to another
swap? Should a SEF or DCM be required
to consider the factors under §§ 37.10(b)
or 38.12(b)? Should a SEF or DCM be
able to use the factors under §§ 37.10(b)
or 38.12(b) to submit to the Commission
for consideration that an economically
equivalent swap should not be subject
to the requirement under §§ 37.10(c)(1)
or 38.12(c)(1)? Should a DCM or SEF
provide the Commission notice that an
economically equivalent swap has been
made available to trade? If so, should
the Commission provide notice to the

E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM

14DEP1

77734

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules

public? If so, how? How would market
participants conducting bilateral
transactions know that an economically
equivalent swap has been made
available to trade?
• Is the Commission’s proposed
definition of the term ‘‘economically
equivalent swap’’ appropriate? If not,
how should the Commission revise the
definition as applicable to proposed
§§ 37.10 and 38.12 and why? Are there
other factors that the Commission
should consider when defining the term
economically equivalent swap? Should
the Commission require that DCMs and
SEFs consider specific material pricing
terms? If so, what terms and why? For
instance, should DCMs and SEFs
consider same tenor or same underlying
instrument? Should the Commission or
DCMs and SEFs make the determination
of which swaps are economically
equivalent?
• Is the Commission’s proposal that
DCMs and SEFs conduct reviews and
assessments appropriate? If not, what is
appropriate and why?
• Should the Commission specify a
process whereby a swap that has been
determined to be available to trade may
be determined to no longer be available
to trade? If so, should the Commission
use the rule submission procedure
under part 40 for this process and why?
Please explain the details of this
approach, including who would make
the determination that a swap is no
longer available to trade. Should such a
determination apply to all DCMs and
SEFs universally or should it only apply
to the particular DCM or SEF that seeks
to no longer make a swap available to
trade? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of such approach? If the
Commission should not specify a
process to no longer make a swap
available to trade, please explain why.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

III. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(‘‘RFA’’) requires that agencies consider
whether the rules they propose will
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
and, if so, provide a regulatory
flexibility analysis respecting the
impact.66 The Commission previously
determined that DCMs and SEFs are not
‘‘small entities’’ for purposes of the
RFA.67 In determining that these
registered entities are not ‘‘small
entities,’’ the Commission reasoned that
66 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.
17 CFR part 40 Provisions Common to
Registered Entities, 75 FR 67282 (Nov. 2, 2010); see
also 47 FR 18618, 18619 (Apr. 30, 1982) and 66 FR
45604, 45609 (Aug. 29, 2001).
67 See

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Dec 13, 2011

Jkt 226001

it designates a contract market or
registers a SEF only if the entity meets
a number of specific criteria, including
the expenditure of sufficient resources
to establish and maintain an adequate
self-regulatory program.68 Because
DCMs and SEFs are required to
demonstrate compliance with Core
Principles, including principles
concerning the maintenance or
expenditure of financial resources, the
Commission previously determined that
SEFs, like DCMs, are not ‘‘small
entities’’ for the purposes of the RFA.
Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf
of the Commission, hereby certifies
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the
proposed rules will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Commission invites public
comment on this determination.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act
(‘‘PRA’’) 69 imposes certain
requirements on federal agencies in
connection with conducting or
sponsoring any collection of
information as defined by the PRA. The
Commission may not conduct or
sponsor, and a registered entity is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) control number.
This proposed rulemaking will result in
new collection of information
requirements within the meaning of the
PRA. The Commission therefore is
submitting this proposal to OMB for
review in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. The title for
the collection of information is ‘‘Parts
37 and 38—Process for a Swap
Execution Facility or Designated
Contract Market to Make a Swap
Available to Trade.’’ The OMB has not
yet assigned this collection a control
number.
Many of the responses to this new
collection of information are mandatory.
The Commission protects proprietary
information according to the Freedom of
Information Act and 17 CFR part 145,
‘‘Commission Records and
Information.’’ In addition, Section
8(a)(1) of the CEA strictly prohibits the
Commission, unless specifically
authorized by the CEA, from making
public ‘‘data and information that
would separately disclose the business
transactions or market positions of any
person and trade secrets or names of
68 See, e.g., Core Principle 2 applicable to DCMs
under Section 735 of the Dodd-Frank Act and Core
Principle 2 applicable to SEFs under Section 733
of the Dodd-Frank Act.
69 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

customers.’’ 70 The Commission is also
required to protect certain information
contained in a government system of
records according to the Privacy Act of
1974.71
1. Information Provided by Reporting
Entities/Persons
The proposed regulations require
SEFs and DCMs to collect and submit to
the Commission information concerning
available to trade determinations
pursuant to §§ 37.10 and 38.12. For
instance, SEFs and DCMs must submit
available to trade determinations to the
Commission as rules under part 40
pursuant to proposed §§ 37.10(a) and
38.12(a). SEFs and DCMs must also
submit annual reports to the
Commission pursuant to proposed
§§ 37.10(d) and 38.12(d).
The Commission has estimated the
final information collection burdens on
DCMs and SEFs below. These estimates
account for the following: (1) The
number of respondents; and (2) the
average hours required to produce each
response. The Commission estimates
that 50 registered entities will be
required to file rule submissions and
annual reports.
SEFs and DCMs must submit
available to trade determinations to the
Commission as rules under part 40
pursuant to proposed §§ 37.10(a) and
38.12(a). The Commission previously
estimated the hourly burdens for DCMs
and SEFs to comply with part 40. While
the Commission has no way of knowing
the exact hourly burden upon a
registered entity prior to
implementation of the regulations
governing that registered entity, the
Commission estimates that the burden
for a SEF or DCM under proposed
§§ 37.10(a) and 38.12(a) will be similar
to the previously estimated hours of
burden under part 40—2.00 hours.
However, the Commission notes that
DCMs and SEFs would have to review
certain factors and data (if applicable) to
make a swap available to trade so these
submissions may take additional time.
Therefore, the Commission estimates
that the hourly burden for a SEF or DCM
under proposed §§ 37.10(a) and 38.12(a)
will be as follows:
Estimated number of respondents: 50.
Estimated average hours per response:
8.00.
The Commission recognizes that
DCMs and SEFs may submit several rule
submission filings per year. At this time,
it is not feasible to estimate the number
of rule submission filings per year, on
average, per DCM or SEF as the number
70 7
71 5

E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM

U.S.C. 12(a)(1).
U.S.C. 552a.

14DEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

of swap contracts that will be traded on
a DCM or SEF and the number of those
swaps that a DCM or SEF will determine
to make available to trade is presently
unknown.
Proposed §§ 37.10(d) and 38.12(d)
require SEFs and DCMs to submit
annual reports, including any
supporting information and data, to the
Commission of their review and
assessment of the swaps they made
available to trade. The Commission
previously estimated the number of
filings and the hourly burdens for
submissions by each DCO regarding
swaps that they plan to accept for
clearing under Section 39.5.72 The
Commission estimated that each DCO
will submit to the Commission one
filing annually for the swaps that they
plan to accept for clearing. While the
Commission has no way of knowing the
exact hourly burden upon a registered
entity prior to implementation of the
regulations governing that registered
entity, the Commission estimates that
the burden for a SEF or DCM under
proposed §§ 37.10(d) and 38.12(d) will
be similar to the previously estimated
hours of burden under Section 39.5—
40.00 hours. The Commission estimates
the burden for SEFs and DCMs under
proposed §§ 37.10(d) and 38.12(d) as
follows:
Estimated number of respondents: 50.
Annual responses by each
respondent: 1.
Estimated average hours per response:
40.
Aggregate annual reporting burden
hours (for all respondents): 2,000.
The Commission invites public
comment on the accuracy of its estimate
of the collection requirements that
would result from the proposed
regulations.
2. Information Collection Comments
The Commission invites the public
and other federal agencies to comment
on the information collection
requirements proposed in this Notice.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the
Commission solicits comments to: (1)
Evaluate whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Commission, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) evaluate the
accuracy of the estimated burden of the
proposed information collection
requirements, including the degree to
which the methodology and the
assumptions that the Commission
employed were valid; (3) determine
72 See Process for Review of Swaps for Mandatory
Clearing, 76 FR 44464 (Jul. 26, 2011).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Dec 13, 2011

Jkt 226001

whether there are ways to enhance the
quality, utility, or clarity of the
information proposed to be collected;
and (4) minimize the burden of the
proposed collections of information on
DCMs and SEFs, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological information collection
techniques, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
The public and other federal agencies
may submit comments directly to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, by fax at (202) 395–6566
or by email at
[email protected]. Please
provide the Commission with a copy of
submitted comments so that they can be
summarized and addressed in the final
rule. Refer to the Addresses section of
this Notice for comment submission
instructions to the Commission. A copy
of the supporting statements for the
collections of information discussed
above may be obtained by visiting
RegInfo.gov. OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the collection of
information between 30 and 60 days
after publication of this release.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best
assured of receiving full consideration if
OMB (and the Commission) receives it
within 30 days of publication of this
Notice. Nothing in the foregoing affects
the deadline enumerated above for
public comment to the Commission on
the proposed regulations.
C. Consideration of Costs and Benefits
In this section, the Commission
addresses the costs and benefits of its
proposed regulations and also considers
the five broad areas of market and
public concern under Section 15(a) of
the CEA73 within the context of the
proposed regulations.
In this Notice, the Commission
considers the costs and benefits that
result from the regulations proposed
herein; these costs and benefits are in
addition to the costs and benefits
associated with the SEF NPRM as
previously proposed. In other words,
the Commission is only considering the
discrete costs and benefits of the
regulations specifically proposed in this
Notice. To this end, the Commission
solicits comments only on the costs and
benefits of the proposed requirements
herein; only comments pertaining to
these cost and benefit issues will be
considered as part of this Notice.
1. Costs of Proposed Regulations
The Commission anticipates that the
proposed regulations will result in some
73 7

PO 00000

U.S.C. 19(a).

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

77735

additional operational and monitoring
costs to DCMs and SEFs. The
Commission requests commenters
provide quantitative estimates of the
additional costs and benefits to DCMs
and SEFs from this Notice.
Under these proposed regulations,
DCMs and SEFs may incur additional
costs in undertaking evaluations of
whether a swap is available to trade and
submitting to the Commission their
determinations with respect to such
swaps as rule submission filings
pursuant to the procedures under part
40 of the Commission’s regulations.
Proposed §§ 37.10(b) and 38.12(b)
require SEFs and DCMs to consider
certain factors to make a swap available
to trade. Proposed §§ 37.10(a) and
38.12(a) require SEFs and DCMs to
submit to the Commission their
determinations with respect to those
swaps that they make available to trade
as a rule pursuant to the procedures
under part 40 of the Commission’s
regulations.
The above-described assessment and
submission may be performed internally
by one compliance personnel of the
DCM or SEF. The Commission estimates
that it would take the compliance
personnel approximately eight hours, on
average, to assess and submit the
available to trade determination per rule
submission filing. The compliance
personnel would have to, for example,
consider factors to make a swap
available to trade and write a cover
submission to the Commission,
including a description of the swap or
swaps that are covered and an
explanation and analysis of the
available to trade determination. The
Commission notes that this is a general
estimate and that it is difficult to
determine with reasonable precision the
number of hours involved given the
novelty of this available to trade
process. The Commission estimates the
cost per hour for one compliance
personnel to be $43.25 per hour.74
Therefore, the Commission estimates
that it would cost each DCM and SEF an
additional $346.00 per rule submission
filing to comply with the proposed
requirements.
Certain additional factors may affect
the cost estimates noted above. For
example, swaps with complex terms
and conditions or requests for
74 See Report on Management & Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry 2010, Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association at 4
(Sep. 2010). The report lists the average total annual
compensation for a compliance specialist
(intermediate) as $59,878. The Commission
estimated the personnel’s hourly cost by assuming
an 1,800 hour work year and by multiplying by 1.3
to account for overhead and other benefits.

E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM

14DEP1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

77736

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules

additional information or questions
from Commission staff regarding the
available to trade determination may
result in higher costs.
The Commission also recognizes that
DCMs and SEFs may submit several rule
submission filings per year. At this time,
it is not feasible to estimate the number
of rule submission filings per year per
DCM or SEF as the number of swap
contracts that will be traded on a DCM
or SEF and the number of those swaps
that a DCM or SEF will determine to
make available to trade is presently
unknown.
Under proposed §§ 37.10(c) or
38.12(c), if a SEF or DCM makes a swap
available to trade, all SEFs and DCMs
listing or offering such swap and/or any
economically equivalent swap, shall
make those swaps available to trade for
purposes of Section 2(h)(8) of the CEA.
Further, such contracts may not be
traded on a bilateral basis. In order to
comply with this requirement, DCMs,
SEFs, and market participants would
have to monitor and identify those
contracts that are either the same or
economically equivalent to that swap
made available to trade. At this time, it
is not feasible to estimate the number of
hours involved given the novelty of the
available to trade process.
The Commission seeks comment on
all aspects of the cost estimates
provided above. Specifically, the
Commission seeks comment on the
period of time, the number and type of
personnel, and the cost estimates for
DCMs and SEFs to comply with the
assessment process as described above.
The Commission also seeks comment on
the number of hours per year, on
average, that a SEF or DCM will spend
monitoring and evaluating swap
contracts in order to comply with
proposed §§ 37.10(c) and 38.12(c).
Proposed § 38.12(d) would require
DCMs to incur additional costs to
conduct an annual review and
assessment of each swap it has made
available to trade and submit its review
and assessment to the Commission.75
This assessment may be performed
internally by one compliance personnel
of the DCM. The Commission estimates
that it would take the compliance
personnel approximately 40 hours, on
average, to conduct this review and
assessment. The Commission notes that
this is a general estimate and that it is
difficult to determine with reasonable
precision the number of hours involved
given the novelty of this process. As
noted above, the Commission estimates
the cost per hour for one compliance
75 The SEF NPRM imposed a review and
assessment process for SEFs.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Dec 13, 2011

Jkt 226001

personnel to be $43.25 per hour.
Therefore, the Commission estimates
that it would cost each DCM an
additional $1,730.00 per review to
comply with the proposed
requirements.
2. Benefits of Proposed Regulations
The proposed regulations are
expected to provide needed certainty for
DCMs, SEFs, and market participants for
the available to trade process. The
proposed regulations, for example, set
forth the procedure to make a swap
available to trade, the factors to consider
in making a swap available to trade, and
visibility into which swaps are available
to trade. Additionally, the proposed
regulations are expected to promote the
trading of swaps on DCMs and SEFs and
promote competition among these
entities. DCMs and SEFs, who may be
most familiar with the trading of swaps,
would make swaps available to trade
based on factors specified by the
Commission. DCMs and SEFs have
discretion to consider any one factor or
several factors to make a swap available
to trade. These aspects of the proposed
regulations are intended to facilitate
DCMs and SEFs to make swaps
available to trade, which is expected to
promote the trading of swaps on DCMs
and SEFs and competition among these
entities. Finally, the proposed
regulations are expected to promote
price discovery because those swaps
that DCMs and SEFs make available to
trade would effectively be subject to the
trade execution requirement, which
would require them to trade solely on
DCMs and SEFs.
The Commission seeks comment on
all aspects of the benefits of its proposed
regulations in this Notice.
3. Section 15(a) Discussion
Section 15(a) of the CEA 76 requires
the Commission to consider the costs
and benefits of its action before
promulgating a regulation under the
CEA. Section 15(a) of the CEA specifies
that the costs and benefits shall be
evaluated in light of five broad areas of
market and public concern: (a)
Protection of market participants and
the public; (b) efficiency,
competitiveness and financial integrity
of futures markets; (c) price discovery;
(d) sound risk management practices;
and (e) other public interest
considerations. The Commission may in
its discretion give greater weight to any
one of the five enumerated areas and
could in its discretion determine that,
notwithstanding its costs, a particular
regulation is necessary or appropriate to
76 7

PO 00000

U.S.C. 19(a).

Frm 00010

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

protect the public interest or to
effectuate any of the provisions or
accomplish any of the purposes of the
CEA.77
a. Protection of Market Participants and
the Public
The proposed regulations are
intended to provide certainty for DCMs,
SEFs, and market participants for the
available to trade process. Under the
proposed regulations, a SEF or DCM
must consider certain factors specified
by the Commission under Sections
37.10(b) or 38.12(b), respectively, to
make a swap available to trade. A DCM
or SEF must also submit available to
trade determinations to the
Commission, either for approval or
under certification procedures, pursuant
to the rule filing procedures of part 40
of the Commission’s regulations. Part 40
also requires DCMs and SEFs to post a
notice and a copy of rule submissions
on their Web site concurrent with the
filing of the submissions with the
Commission. The Commission,
consistent with current practice, will
also post DCM and SEF rule submission
filings on its Web site. Therefore, under
the proposed regulations, DCMs, SEFs,
and market participants would know
the factors to consider in making a swap
available to trade, the procedure to
make a swap available to trade, and the
swaps that are available to trade, which
provides certainty to the available to
trade process. This certainty also
promotes the protection of market
participants by ensuring that there is
transparency in the available to trade
process.
The proposed regulations are also
expected to promote the protection of
market participants and the public by
providing for Commission review and
oversight and public participation.
Under the proposed regulations, the
Commission would either approve or
review the DCM’s or SEF’s available to
trade determination. To facilitate this
approval or review, the proposed
regulations require DCMs and SEFs to
provide the Commission with a brief
explanation of any substantive opposing
views in rule filings and, if the
Commission extends the rule review
period under the self-certification
procedure, then there will be a 30-day
public comment period. These aspects
of the proposed regulations are expected
to provide appropriate oversight, and
may increase the transparency, of DCM
and SEF available to trade
77 See, e.g., Fisherman’s Doc Co-op., Inc v. Brown,
75 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 1996); Center for Auto Safety
v. Peck, 751 F.2d 1336 (DC Cir. 1985) (noting that
an agency has discretion to weigh factors in
undertaking cost-benefit analysis).

E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM

14DEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules
determinations. This oversight and
transparency is expected to increase the
likelihood that all important issues will
be identified and weighed by the
Commission, which may protect market
participants and the public.
b. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and
Financial Integrity of the Markets
The proposed regulations are
expected to promote the trading of
swaps on DCMs and SEFs and promote
competition among these entities. DCMs
and SEFs, who may be most familiar
with the trading of swaps, would make
swaps available to trade based on factors
specified by the Commission. DCMs and
SEFs would have discretion to consider
any one factor or several factors to make
a swap available to trade. These aspects
of the proposed regulations are intended
to facilitate DCMs and SEFs to make
swaps available to trade, which is
expected to promote the trading of
swaps on DCMs and SEFs and
competition among these entities.
Additionally, the requirement that
DCMs and SEFs must make the same
swap and any economically equivalent
swap available to trade may increase the
number of swaps trading on DCMs and
SEFs, which is expected to promote the
trading of swaps on DCMs and SEFs.
c. Price Discovery
As mentioned above, the proposed
regulations are expected to promote the
trading of swaps on DCMs and SEFs.
Those swaps that DCMs and SEFs make
available to trade could be subject to the
trade execution requirement. These
swaps would be required to trade solely
on DCMs and SEFs, which would
promote price discovery.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

d. Sound Risk Management Practices
The proposed regulations are not
expected to affect sound risk
management practices.
e. Other Public Interest Considerations
The proposed regulations are not
expected to affect public interest
considerations other than those
identified above.
The Commission specifically invites
public comment on its application of
the criteria contained in Section 15(a) of
the CEA and further invites interested
parties to submit any data, quantitative
or qualitative, that they may have
concerning the costs and benefits of the
proposed regulations.
List of Subjects
17 CFR Part 37
Registered entities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Swap
execution facilities, Swaps.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Dec 13, 2011

Jkt 226001

17 CFR Part 38
Designated contract markets,
Registered entities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Swaps.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend 17 CFR parts 37 and 38 as
follows:
PART 37—SWAP EXECUTION
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 37
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6c, 7, 7a–
2, 7b–3 and 12a, as amended by Titles VII
and VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L.
111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

2. The heading of part 37 is revised
to read as set forth above.
3. Add new § 37.10 to read as follows:
§ 37.10 Process for a swap execution
facility to make a swap available to trade.

(a) Required submission. A swap
execution facility that makes a swap
available to trade in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section, shall
submit to the Commission its
determination with respect to such
swap pursuant to the procedures under
part 40 of this chapter.
(b) Factors to consider. To make a
swap available to trade, for purposes of
Section 2(h)(8) of the Commodity
Exchange Act, a swap execution facility
shall consider, as appropriate, the
following factors with respect to such
swap:
(1) Whether there are ready and
willing buyers and sellers;
(2) The frequency or size of
transactions on swap execution
facilities, designated contract markets,
or of bilateral transactions;
(3) The trading volume on swap
execution facilities, designated contract
markets, or of bilateral transactions;
(4) The number and types of market
participants;
(5) The bid/ask spread;
(6) The usual number of resting firm
or indicative bids and offers;
(7) Whether a swap execution
facility’s trading system or platform will
support trading in the swap; or
(8) Any other factor that the swap
execution facility may consider
relevant.
(c) Economically equivalent swap. (1)
Upon a determination that a swap is
available to trade, all other swap
execution facilities and designated
contract markets listing or offering for
trading such swap and/or any
economically equivalent swap, shall
make those swaps available to trade for
purposes of Section 2(h)(8) of the
Commodity Exchange Act.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

77737

(2) For purposes of this section, the
term ‘‘economically equivalent swap’’
means a swap that the swap execution
facility or designated contract market
determines to be economically
equivalent with another swap after
consideration of each swap’s material
pricing terms.
(d) Annual review. (1) A swap
execution facility shall conduct an
annual review and assessment of each
swap it has made available to trade to
determine whether or not each swap
should continue to be available to trade.
The annual review shall be conducted at
the swap execution facility’s fiscal year
end.
(2) When conducting its review and
assessment pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)
of this section, a swap execution facility
shall consider the factors specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) The swap execution facility shall
provide electronically to the
Commission a report of its review and
assessment, including any supporting
information or data, not more than 30
days after the swap execution facility’s
fiscal year end.
PART 38—DESIGNATED CONTRACT
MARKETS
4. The authority citation for part 38
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6c, 6d, 6e,
6f, 6g, 6i, 6j, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a–2, 7b, 7b–
1, 7b–3, 8, 9, 15, and 21, as amended by the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111–203,
124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

5. Add new § 38.12 to read as follows:
§ 38.12 Process for a designated contract
market to make a swap available to trade.

(a) Required submission. A designated
contract market that makes a swap
available to trade in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section, shall
submit to the Commission its
determination with respect to such
swap pursuant to the procedures under
part 40 of this chapter.
(b) Factors to consider. To make a
swap available to trade, for purposes of
Section 2(h)(8) of the Commodity
Exchange Act, a designated contract
market shall consider, as appropriate,
the following factors with respect to
such swap:
(1) Whether there are ready and
willing buyers and sellers;
(2) The frequency or size of
transactions on designated contract
markets, swap execution facilities, or of
bilateral transactions;
(3) The trading volume on designated
contract markets, swap execution
facilities, or of bilateral transactions;

E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM

14DEP1

77738

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(4) The number and types of market
participants;
(5) The bid/ask spread;
(6) The usual number of resting firm
or indicative bids and offers;
(7) Whether a designated contract
market’s trading facility will support
trading in the swap; or
(8) Any other factor that the
designated contract market may
consider relevant.
(c) Economically equivalent swap. (1)
Upon a determination that a swap is
available to trade, all other designated
contract markets and swap execution
facilities listing or offering for trading
such swap and/or any economically
equivalent swap, shall make those
swaps available to trade for purposes of
Section 2(h)(8) of the Commodity
Exchange Act.
(2) For purposes of this section, the
term ‘‘economically equivalent swap’’
means a swap that the designated
contract market or swap execution
facility determines to be economically
equivalent with another swap after
consideration of each swap’s material
pricing terms.
(d) Annual review. (1) A designated
contract market shall conduct an annual
review and assessment of each swap it
has made available to trade to determine
whether or not each swap should
continue to be available to trade. The
annual review shall be conducted at the
designated contract market’s fiscal year
end.
(2) When conducting its review and
assessment pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)
of this section, a designated contract
market shall consider the factors
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(3) The designated contract market
shall provide electronically to the
Commission a report of its review and
assessment, including any supporting
information or data, not more than 30
days after the designated contract
market’s fiscal year end.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 5,
2011, by the Commission.
David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

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

Appendices to Process for a Designated
Contract Market or Swap Execution
Facility To Make a Swap Available To
Trade—Commissioners Voting
Summary and Statements of
Commissioners
Appendix 1—Commissioners Voting
Summary
On this matter, Chairman Gensler and
Commissioners Chilton, O’Malia and Wetjen

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Dec 13, 2011

Jkt 226001

voted in the affirmative; Commissioner
Sommers voted in the negative.

Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman
Gary Gensler
I support the proposed rule to implement
a process for designated contract markets
(DCMs) and swap execution facilities (SEFs)
to make a swap ‘‘available to trade.’’ The
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act requires that swaps
subject to the clearing requirement be traded
on a DCM or SEF, unless no DCM or SEF
makes the swap available to trade or the
swap transaction is subject to the end-user
exception. This proposal will bring
transparency to the process for making a
swap available to trade on a DCM or SEF. It
also will provide appropriate oversight of the
process through Commodity Futures Trading
Commission review.
[FR Doc. 2011–31646 Filed 12–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

ARCHITECTURAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS
COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194
[Docket No. 2011–07]
RIN 3014–AA37

Telecommunications Act Accessibility
Guidelines; Electronic and Information
Technology Accessibility Standards
Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board.
ACTION: Notice of hearing.
AGENCY:

The Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board) will hold two
public hearings on its recent Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
update its Telecommunications Act
Accessibility Guidelines and its
Electronic and Information Technology
Accessibility Standards.
DATES: The hearings will be held on the
following dates:
1. January 11, 2012, 9 to Noon,
Washington, DC.
2. March 1, 2012, 1 to 3 p.m., San
Diego, CA.
ADDRESSES: The hearing locations are:
1. Washington, DC: Access Board
conference room, 1331 F Street NW.,
suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.
2. San Diego, CA: Manchester Grand
Hyatt Hotel, One Market Place, San
Diego, CA 92101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim
Creagan, Office of Technical and
Information Services, Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board, 1331 F Street NW., suite 1000,
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 9990

Washington, DC 20004–1111.
Telephone number: (202) 272–0016
(voice); (202) 272–0074 (TTY).
Electronic mail address:
[email protected].
On
December 8, 2011, the Access Board
published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register to continue the process of
updating its guidelines for
telecommunications equipment covered
by Section 255 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its
standards for electronic and information
technology covered by Section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of
1998. 76 FR 76640 (December 8, 2011).
The comment period for the advance
notice closes on March 7, 2012. The
Board will hold two public hearings
during the comment period. The first
hearing will be in Washington, DC in
the Access Board’s conference room at
1331 F Street NW., suite 800,
Washington, DC 20004. The second
hearing will be held in conjunction with
the 27th Annual International
Technology and Persons with
Disabilities Conference (CSUN
Conference) in San Diego, CA at the
Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel, One
Market Place, San Diego, CA 92101.
The hearing locations are accessible to
individuals with disabilities. Sign
language interpreters and real-time
captioning will be provided. For the
comfort of other participants, persons
attending the hearings are requested to
refrain from using perfume, cologne,
and other fragrances. To pre-register to
testify, please contact Kathy Johnson at
(202) 272–0041, (202) 272–0082 (TTY),
or [email protected]. More
information and any updates to the
hearings will be posted on the Access
Board’s Web site at http://www.accessboard.gov/508.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2011–32020 Filed 12–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150–01–P

E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM

14DEP1