pension funds, private funds, sovereign entities and non-financial
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ See Exchange Act Release No. 72472 (Jun. 25, 2014), 79 FR
47278, 47293 (Aug. 12, 2014) (``Cross-Border Definitions Adopting
Release''). All data in this section cites updated data from the
Proposing Release. See Proposing Release, 80 FR at 55196-202.
    \152\ These 1,957 transacting agents represent over 10,000
accounts representing principal risk holders. See Proposing Release,
80 FR 55199, note 158.
    As noted above, the data provided to the Commission by DTCC-TIW
includes only transactions that either include at least one U.S.-
domiciled counterparty or reference a U.S. entity or security.
Therefore, any entity that is not domiciled in the U.S., never
trades with a U.S.-domiciled entity and never buys or sells
protection on a U.S. reference entity or security would not be
included in this analysis.
    \153\ For the purpose of this analysis, the ISDA-recognized
dealers are those identified by ISDA as a recognized dealer in any
year during the relevant period. Dealers are only included in the
ISDA-recognized dealer category during the calendar year in which
they are so identified. The complete list of ISDA recognized dealers
during the applicable period was: JP Morgan Chase NA (and Bear
Stearns), Morgan Stanley, Bank of America NA (and Merrill Lynch),
Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank AG, Barclays Capital, Citigroup, UBS,
Credit Suisse AG, RBS Group, BNP Paribas, HSBC Bank, Lehman
Brothers, Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale, Credit
Agricole, Wells Fargo, and Nomura. See ISDA, Operations Benchmarking
Surveys, available at: http://www2.isda.org/functional-areas/research/surveys/operations-benchmarking-surveys.

Table 1--The Number of Transacting Agents in the Single-Name CDS Market by Counterparty Type and the Fraction of
     Total Trading Activity, From November 2006 Through December 2015, Represented by Each Counterparty Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Transaction
                       Transacting agents                             Number          Percent       share  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment Advisers.............................................           1,499            76.6            12.2
--SEC registered................................................             603            30.8             8.1
Banks...........................................................             253            12.9             3.6
Pension Funds...................................................              29             1.5             0.1
Insurance Companies.............................................              39             2.0             0.2
ISDA-Recognized Dealers.........................................              17             0.9            83.7
Other...........................................................             120             6.1             0.2
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           1,957             100             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the security-based swap market is global in nature,
approximately 60 percent of the transaction volume reflected in DTCC-
TIW data during the 2008-2015 period included at least one U.S.-
domiciled entity (see Figure 1). Moreover, 48 percent of the single-
name CDS transactions that include at least one U.S.-domiciled
counterparty or a U.S. reference entity or security were between U.S.-
domiciled entities and foreign-domiciled counterparties.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02SE16.006

    The fraction of new accounts with transaction activity that are
domiciled in the United States fell through the 2008-2015 period.
Figure 2 below is a chart of: (1) The percentage of new accounts with a
domicile in the United States,\154\ (2) the percentage of new accounts
with a domicile outside the United States, and (3) the percentage of
new accounts that are domiciled outside the United States but managed
by a U.S. entity, foreign accounts that include new accounts of a
foreign branch of a

U.S. bank, and new accounts of a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. entity.
Over time, a greater share of accounts entering DTCC-TIW data either
have had a foreign domicile or have had a foreign domicile while being
managed by a U.S. person. The increase in foreign accounts may reflect
an increase in participation by foreign accountholders, and the
increase in foreign accounts managed by U.S. persons may reflect the
flexibility with which market participants can restructure their market
participation in response to regulatory intervention, competitive
pressures and other factors. There are, however, alternative
explanations for the shifts in new account domicile in Figure 2.
Changes in the domicile of new accounts through time may reflect
improvements in reporting by market participants to DTCC-TIW.
Additionally, because the data include only accounts that are domiciled
in the United States, transact with U.S.-domiciled counterparties or
transact in single-name CDS with U.S. reference entities or securities,
changes in the domicile of new accounts may reflect increased
transaction activity between U.S. and non-U.S. counterparties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ The domicile classifications in DTCC-TIW are based on the
market participants' own reporting and have not been verified by
Commission staff. Prior to enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, account
holders did not formally report their domicile to DTCC-TIW because
there was no systematic requirement to do so. After enactment of the
Dodd-Frank Act, DTCC-TIW has collected the registered office
location of the account. This information is self-reported on a
voluntary basis. It is possible that some market participants may
misclassify their domicile status because the databases in DTCC-TIW
do not assign a unique legal entity identifier to each separate
entity. It is also possible that the domicile classifications may
not correspond precisely to the definition of ``U.S. person'' under
the rules defined in Exchange Act rule 3a71-3(a)(4), 17 CFR
240.3a71-3(a)(4). Notwithstanding these limitations, the Commission
believes that the cross-border and foreign activity demonstrates the
nature of the single-name CDS market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that cross-border rules related to regulatory reporting and
public dissemination of security-based swap transactions depend on,
among other things, the U.S.-person status of the counterparties.\155\
The analyses behind Figures 1 and 2 show that the security-based swap
market is global, with an increasing share of the market characterized
by cross-border trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See note 132, supra.
    \156\ Following publication of the Warehouse Trust Guidance on
CDS data access, DTCC-TIW surveyed market participants, asking for
the physical address associated with each of their accounts (i.e.,
where the account is organized as a legal entity). This is
designated the registered office location by DTCC-TIW. When an
account does not report a registered office location, we have
assumed that the settlement country reported by the investment
adviser or parent entity to the fund or account is the place of
domicile. This treatment assumes that the registered office location
reflects the place of domicile for the fund or account.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02SE16.007

b. Security-Based Swap Data Repositories
    No security-based swap data repositories are currently registered
with the Commission.\157\ The Commission is aware of one entity in the
market (i.e., DTCC-TIW) that has been accepting voluntary reports of
single-name and index CDS transactions. In 2015, DTCC-TIW received
approximately 2.5 million records of single-name CDS transactions, of
which approximately 798,000 were price-forming transactions.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ ICE Trade Vault, LLC (``ICE Trade Vault'') and DTCC Data
Repository (U.S.) LLC (``DDR'') filed with the Commission Form SDRs
seeking registration as a security-based swap data repository under
Section 13(n) of the Exchange Act and the Commission's rules
promulgated thereunder. See Notice of Filing of Application for
Registration as a Security-Based Swap Data Repository, Release No.
77699 (Apr. 22, 2016), 81 FR 25475 (Apr. 28, 2016) and Notice of
Filing of Application for Registration as a Security-Based Swap Data
Repository, Release No. 78216 (Jun. 30, 2016), 81 FR 44379 (July 7,
2016).
    \158\ Price-forming CDS transactions include new transactions,
assignments, modifications to increase the notional amounts of
previously executed transactions and terminations of previously
executed transactions. Transactions terminated or entered into in
connection with a compression exercise, and expiration of contracts
at maturity, are not considered price-forming and are therefore
excluded, as are replacement trades and all bookkeeping-related
trades.

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

    The CFTC has provisionally registered four swap data
repositories.\159\ These swap data repositories are: BSDR LLC, Chicago
Mercantile Exchange Inc., DDR, and ICE Trade Vault. The Commission
believes that some or all of these entities will likely register with
the Commission as security-based swap data repositories and that other
persons may seek to register with both the CFTC and the Commission as
swap data repositories and security-based swap data repositories,
respectively.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ CFTC rule 49.3(b) provides for provisional registration of
a swap data repository. 17 CFR 49.3(b).
    \160\ For the purpose of estimating PRA related costs, the
number of security-based swap data repositories is estimated to be
as high as ten. See part V.C, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Efforts to regulate the swap and security-based swap markets are
underway not only in the United States, but also abroad. Consistent
with the call of the G20 leaders for global improvements in the
functioning, transparency and regulatory oversight of OTC derivatives
markets,\161\ substantial progress has been made in establishing the
trade repository infrastructure to support the reporting of OTC
derivatives transactions.\162\ Currently, multiple trade repositories
operate, or are undergoing approval processes to do so, in a number of
different jurisdictions.\163\ Combined with the fact that the
requirements for trade reporting differ across jurisdictions, the
result is that security-based swap data is fragmented across many
locations, stored in a variety of formats, and subject to many
different rules for authorities' access. Authorities will be able to
obtain a comprehensive and accurate view of the global OTC derivatives
markets to the extent that means exist to aggregate data in these trade
repositories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ See note 139, supra, and accompanying text.
    \162\ See OTC Derivatives Market Reforms: Tenth Progress Report
on Implementation (Nov. 2015), available at: http://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/OTC-Derivatives-10th-Progress-Report.pdf.
    \163\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Economic Costs and Benefits, Including Impact on Efficiency,
Competition and Capital Formation

    As discussed above, the security-based swap market to date largely
has developed as an opaque OTC market with limited dissemination of
transaction-level price and volume information.\164\ Accordingly, the
Commission envisions that registered security-based swap data
repositories, by maintaining security-based swap transaction data and
positions, will become an essential part of the infrastructure of the
market in part by providing the data to relevant authorities in
accordance with their regulatory mandate, or legal responsibility or
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ See part VI.B.1, supra (addressing limited information
currently available to market participants and regulators).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In finalizing these rules to implement the Exchange Act data access
requirement, the Commission has attempted to balance different goals.
On the one hand, the Commission believes that these rules will
facilitate the sharing of information held by repositories with
relevant authorities, which should assist those authorities in acting
in accordance with their regulatory mandate, or legal responsibility or
authority. At the same time, although regulatory access raises
important issues regarding the confidentiality of the information, the
Commission believes that the rules should appropriately reduce the risk
of breaching the confidentiality of the data by providing for a
reasonable assurance that confidentiality will be maintained before
access is granted.
    Additionally, we note that the magnitude of the costs and benefits
of these rules depend in part on the type of access granted to relevant
authorities. Ongoing, unrestricted direct electronic access by relevant
authorities may be most beneficial in terms of facilitating efficient
access to data necessary for those authorities to act in accordance
with their regulatory mandate, or legal responsibility or authority,
but at the cost of increasing the risk of improper disclosure of
confidential information. Restricting each relevant authority's access
to only that data consistent with that authority's regulatory mandate,
or legal responsibility or authority, reduces the quantity of data that
could become subject to improper disclosure. On the other hand,
restricting a relevant authority's access to data may make it more
difficult for it to effectively act in accordance with its regulatory
mandate or legal responsibility or authority.
    The potential economic effects stemming from the final rules can be
grouped into several categories. In this section, we first discuss the
general costs and benefits of the final rules, including the benefits
of reducing data fragmentation, data duplication and enhancing
regulatory oversight, as well as the risks associated with potential
breaches of data confidentiality. Next, we discuss the effects of the
rules on efficiency, competition and capital formation. Finally, we
discuss specific costs and benefits linked to the final rules.
1. General Costs and Benefits
    As discussed above, the final rules would implement the statutory
provisions that require a security-based swap data repository to
disclose information to certain relevant authorities. Access under the
final rules would be conditioned upon the authority entering into an
MOU or other arrangement with the Commission addressing the
confidentiality of the information provided.
a. Benefits
    The final rules should facilitate access to security-based swap
transaction and position data by entities that require such information
to fulfill their regulatory mandate or legal responsibility or
authority. Market participants accordingly should benefit from relevant
domestic authorities other than the Commission having access to the
data necessary to fulfill their responsibilities. In particular, such
access could help promote stability in the security-based swap market
particularly during periods of market turmoil,\165\ and thus could
indirectly contribute to improved stability in related financial
markets, including equity and bond markets.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ See Proposing Release, 80 FR 55202, note 171.
    \166\ See Darrell Duffie, Ada Li, and Theo Lubke, Policy
Perspectives of OTC Derivatives Market Infrastructure, Federal
Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report No. 424, dated January 2010,
as revised March 2010 (``Transparency can have a calming influence
on trading patterns at the onset of a potential financial crisis,
and thus act as a source of market stability to a wider range of
markets, including those for equities and bonds.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as noted in part II.C.1, the Commission anticipates, when
making a determination concerning a relevant authority's access to
security-based swap data, considering whether the relevant authority
agrees to provide the Commission and other U.S. authorities with
reciprocal assistance in matters within their jurisdiction. Allowing
non-U.S. authorities access to security-based swap data held by
registered security-based swap data repositories may be expected to
help facilitate the Commission's own ability to access data held by
repositories outside the United States.\167\ Accordingly, to the extent
the Commission obtains such access, the rules further may be expected
to assist the Commission in fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities,
including by detecting market manipulation, fraud and other market
abuses by providing the Commission with greater access to global
security-based swap information.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See note 133 supra, and accompanying text.
    \168\ See Proposing Release, 80 FR 55203, note 174.

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

    The ability of other relevant authorities to access data held in
trade repositories registered with the Commission, as well as the
ability of the Commission to access data held in repositories
registered with other regulators, may be especially crucial during
times of market turmoil. Increased data sharing should provide the
Commission and other relevant authorities more-complete information to
monitor risk exposures taken by individual entities and exposures
connected to particular reference entities, and should promote global
stability through enhanced regulatory transparency. Security-based swap
data repositories registered with the Commission are required to retain
complete records of security-based swap transactions and maintain the
integrity of those records.\169\ Based on discussions with other
regulators, the Commission believes repositories registered with other
authorities are likely to have analogous requirements with respect to
the data maintained at the repositories. As a result, rules and
practices to facilitate regulatory access to those records in line with
the recipient authorities' regulatory mandate, or legal responsibility
or authority, are designed to help position the Commission and other
authorities to: Detect market manipulation, fraud and other market
abuses; monitor the financial responsibility and soundness of market
participants; perform market surveillance and macroprudential
supervision; resolve issues and positions after an institution fails;
monitor compliance with relevant regulatory requirements; and respond
to market turmoil.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See Proposing Release, 80 FR 55293, note 175.
    \170\ See Proposing Release, 80 FR 55203, note 176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, improving the availability of data regarding the
security-based swap market should give the Commission and other
relevant authorities improved insight into how regulations are
affecting, or may affect, the market. This may be expected to help
increase regulatory effectiveness by allowing the Commission and other
regulators to better craft regulation to achieve desired goals.
    In addition, the Commission believes that providing relevant
foreign authorities with access to data maintained by repositories may
help reduce costs to market participants by reducing the potential for
duplicative security-based swap transaction reporting requirements in
multiple jurisdictions. The Commission notes that relevant foreign
authorities have imposed their own reporting requirements on market
participants within their jurisdictions.\171\ Given the global nature
of the security-based swap market and the large number of cross-border
transactions, the Commission recognizes that it is likely that such
transactions are or may become subject to the reporting requirements of
at least two jurisdictions.\172\ However, the Commission believes that
if relevant authorities are able to access security-based swap data in
trade repositories outside their jurisdiction, such as repositories
registered with the Commission, as needed, then relevant authorities
may be more inclined to permit market participants involved in such
transactions to fulfill their reporting requirements by reporting the
transactions to a single trade repository.\173\ If market participants
can satisfy their reporting requirements by reporting transactions to a
single trade repository rather than to separate trade repositories in
each applicable jurisdiction, their compliance costs may be reduced.
Similarly, to the extent that security-based swap data repositories
provide additional ancillary services,\174\ if market participants
choose to make use of such services, they would likely find such
services that make use of all of their data held in a single trade
repository more useful than services that are applied only to a portion
of that market participant's transactions. Ancillary services applied
to only a portion of a participant's transactions could result if data
were divided across multiple repositories as a result of regulations
requiring participants to report data to separate trade repositories in
each applicable jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ For example, EU law requires that counterparties to
derivatives contracts report the details of the contract to a trade
repository, registered or recognized in accordance with EU law, no
later than the working day following the conclusion, modification or
termination of the contract. See EMIR art. 9; see also EC Delegated
Regulation no. 148/2013 (regulatory technical standards implementing
the reporting requirement).
    \172\ For example, as noted above, market data regarding single-
name CDS transactions involving U.S.-domiciled counterparties and/or
U.S.-domiciled reference entities indicates that 12 percent of such
transactions involve two U.S.-domiciled counterparties, while 48
percent involve a U.S.-domiciled counterparty and a foreign-
domiciled counterparty. See note 130, supra, and accompanying text.
    \173\ For example, EU law anticipates the possibility that
market participants may be able to satisfy their EU reporting
obligations by reporting to a trade repository established in a
third country, so long as that repository has been recognized by
ESMA. See EMIR art. 77; see also Regulation SBSR, rule 908(c)
(providing that to the extent that the Commission has issued a
substituted compliance order/determination, compliance with Title
VII regulatory reporting and public dissemination requirements may
be satisfied by compliance with the comparable rules of a foreign
jurisdiction).
    \174\ See Proposing Release, 80 FR 55204, note 181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Costs

    The Commission believes that although there are benefits to
security-based swap data repositories providing access to relevant
authorities to data maintained by the repositories, such access will
likely involve certain costs and potential risks. For example, the
Commission expects that repositories will maintain data that are
proprietary and highly sensitive \175\ and that are subject to strict
privacy requirements.\176\ Extending access to such data to anyone,
including relevant authorities, increases the risk that the
confidentiality of the data maintained by repositories may not be
preserved.\177\ A relevant authority's inability to protect the
confidentiality of data maintained by repositories could erode market
participants' confidence in the integrity of the security-based swap
market and increase the overall risks associated with trading.\178\ As
we discuss below, this may ultimately lead to reduced trading activity
and liquidity in the market, hindering price discovery and impeding the
capital formation process.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ See SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14504.
    \176\ See Exchange Act section 13(n)(5)(F), 15 U.S.C.
78m(n)(5)(F) (requiring an SDR to maintain the privacy of security-
based swap transaction information); Exchange Act rules 13n-4(b)(8)
and 13n-9 (implementing Exchange Act section 13(n)(5)(F)).
    \177\ See Proposing Release, 80 FR 55204, note 184.
    \178\ For example, should it become generally known by market
participants that a particular dealer had taken a large position in
order to facilitate a trade by a customer and was likely to take
offsetting positions to reduce its exposure, other market
participants may seek to take positions in advance of the dealer
attempting to take its offsetting positions.
    \179\ See Proposing Release, 80 FR 55204, note 186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To help mitigate these risks and potential costs to market
participants, the Exchange Act and the final data access rules impose
certain conditions on relevant authorities' access to data maintained
by repositories.\180\ In part, the Exchange Act and these final rules
limit the authorities that may access data maintained by a security-
based swap data repository to a specific list of domestic authorities
and other persons, including foreign authorities, determined by the
Commission to be appropriate,\181\ and further require that

a repository notify the Commission when the repository receives an
authority's initial request for data maintained by the repository.\182\
Restricting access to security-based swap data available to relevant
authorities should reduce the risk of unauthorized disclosure,
misappropriation or misuse of security-based swap data because each
relevant authority will only have access to information within its
regulatory mandate, or legal responsibility or authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ Exchange Act sections 13(n)(5)(G) and (H), 15 U.S.C.
78m(n)(5)(G) and (H); see also Exchange Act rules 13n-4(b)(9)
(implementing Exchange Act section 13(n)(5)(G)) and 13n-4(b)(10)
(implementing Exchange Act section 13(n)(5)(H)).
    \181\ As discussed above in part II.C, the Commission
anticipates that such determinations may be conditioned, in part, by
specifying the scope of a relevant authority's access to data, and
may limit this access to reflect the relevant authority's regulatory
mandate or legal responsibility or authority.
    \182\ See Exchange Act section 13(n)(5)(G), 15 U.S.C.
78m(n)(5)(G); Exchange Act rule 13n-4(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rules further require that, before a repository shares
security-based swap information with a relevant authority, there must
be an arrangement (in the form of an MOU or otherwise) between the
Commission and the relevant authority that addresses the
confidentiality of the security-based swap information provided. The
arrangement should reduce the likelihood of confidential trade or
position data being inadvertently made public.
2. Effects on Efficiency, Competition and Capital Formation
    The final rules described in this release are intended to
facilitate access for relevant authorities to data stored in
repositories registered with the Commission and therefore affect such
repositories, but do not directly affect security-based swap market
participants. As discussed below, access by relevant authorities to
security-based swap data could indirectly affect market participants
through the benefits that accrue from the relevant authorities'
improved ability to fulfill their regulatory mandate or legal
responsibility or authority as well as the potential impact of
disclosure of confidential data. However, because these rules will
condition access to security-based swap data on the agreement of the
relevant authorities to protect the confidentiality of the data, the
Commission expects these rules to have little effect on the structure
or operations of the security-based swap market. Therefore, the
Commission believes that effects of the final rules on efficiency,
competition and capital formation will be small.\183\ Nevertheless,
there are some potential effects, particularly with respect to
efficiency and capital formation, which flow from efficient collection
and aggregation of security-based swap data. We describe these effects
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ See part VI.C.1.b supra for a discussion of the potential
impact on capital formation of inadequate data confidentiality
protections. The Commission believes that its approach balances the
need for data confidentiality and the need for regulatory
transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In part VI.B of this release, the Commission describes the baseline
used to evaluate the economic impact of the final rules, including the
impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. In particular,
the Commission notes that the security-based swap data currently
available from DTCC-TIW is the result of a voluntary reporting system
and access to that data is made consistent with guidelines published by
the ODRF.
    Under the voluntary reporting regime, CDS transaction data
involving counterparties and reference entities from most jurisdictions
is reported to a single entity, DTCC-TIW. DTCC-TIW, using the ODRF
guidelines, then allows relevant authorities, including the Commission,
to obtain data necessary to carry out their respective authorities and
responsibilities with respect to OTC derivatives and the regulated
entities that use derivatives.\184\ As various regulators implement
reporting rules within their jurisdictions, counterparties within those
jurisdictions may or may not continue to report to DTCC-TIW. As a
result, the ability of the Commission and other relevant authorities to
obtain the data required consistent with their regulatory mandate, or
legal responsibility or authority, may require the ability to access
data held in a trade repository outside of their own jurisdictions.
That is, because the market is global and interconnected, effective
regulatory monitoring of the security-based swap market may require
regulators to have access to information on the global market,
particularly during times of market turmoil. The data access rules
should facilitate access of relevant authorities other than the
Commission to security-based swap data held in repositories, and may
indirectly facilitate Commission access to data held by trade
repositories registered with regulators other than the Commission. To
the extent that the final data access rules facilitate the ability of
repositories to collect security-based swap information involving
counterparties across multiple jurisdictions, there may be benefits in
terms of efficient collection and aggregation of security-based swap
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ See note 140, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that the final data access provisions increase the
quantity of transaction and position information available to
regulatory authorities about the security-based swap market, the
ability of the Commission and other relevant authorities to respond in
an appropriate and timely manner to market developments could enhance
investor protection through improved detection, and facilitate the
investigation of fraud and other market abuses. Moreover, as noted
above, we do not anticipate that the final rules will directly affect
market participants, and such enhancements in investor protections may
decrease the risks and indirect costs of trading and could therefore
encourage greater participation in the security-based swap market for a
wider range of entities seeking to engage in a broad range of hedging
and trading activities.\185\ While increased participation is a
possible outcome of the Commission's transparency initiatives,
including these rules, relative to the level of participation in this
market if these initiatives were not undertaken, the Commission
believes that the benefits that flow from improved detection,
facilitating the investigation of fraud and other market abuses and
more-efficient data aggregation are the more direct benefits of the
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ Indirect trading costs refer to costs other than direct
transaction costs. Front running costs described above provide an
example of indirect trading costs. In the context of investor
protection, the risk of fraud represents a cost of trading in a
market with few investor protections or safeguards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the improvement in the quantity of data available to
regulatory authorities, including the Commission, should improve their
ability to monitor concentrations of risk exposures and evaluate risks
to financial stability and could promote the overall stability in the
capital markets.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ See note 166, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aside from the effects that the final data access rules may have on
regulatory oversight and market participation, the Commission expects
the rules potentially to affect how SDRs are structured. In particular,
the data access rules could reduce the potential for SDRs to be
established along purely jurisdictional lines. That is, effective data
sharing may reduce the need for repositories to be established along
jurisdictional lines, reducing the likelihood that a single security-
based swap transaction must be reported to multiple swap-data
repositories. As noted previously by the Commission, due to high fixed
costs and increasing economies of scale, the total cost of providing
trade repository services to the market for security-based swaps may be
lower if the total number of repositories is not increased due to a
regulatory environment that results in

trade repositories being established along jurisdictional lines.\187\
To the extent that the final rules result in fewer repositories that
potentially compete across jurisdictional lines, cost savings realized
by fewer repositories operating on a larger scale could result in
reduced fees, with the subsequent cost to market participants to comply
with reporting requirements being lower. At the same time, the
Commission acknowledges that fewer repositories operating on a larger
scale could result in those repositories having the ability to take
advantage of the reduced level of competition to charge higher prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ See Proposing Release, 80 FR 55205, note 197.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, multiple security-based swap data repositories with
duplication of reporting requirements for cross-border transactions
increase data fragmentation and data duplication, both of which
increase the potential for difficulties in data aggregation. To the
extent that the data access rules facilitate the establishment of SDRs
that accept transactions from multiple jurisdictions, there may be
benefits in terms of efficient collection and aggregation of security-
based swap data. To the extent that these rules allow relevant
authorities to have better access to the data necessary to form a more
complete picture of the security-based swap market--including
information regarding risk exposures and asset valuations--these rules
should help the Commission and other relevant authorities perform their
oversight functions in a more effective manner.
    However, while reducing the likelihood of having multiple SDRs
established along jurisdictional lines would resolve many of the
challenges involved in aggregating security-based swap data, there may
be costs associated with having fewer repositories. In particular, the
existence of multiple repositories may reduce operational risks, such
as the risk that a catastrophic event or the failure of a repository
leaves no repositories to which transactions can be reported, impeding
the ability of the Commission and relevant authorities to obtain
information about the security-based swap market.
    Finally, as we noted above, a relevant authority's inability to
protect the privacy of data maintained by repositories could erode
market participants' confidence in the integrity of the security-based
swap market. More specifically, confidentiality breaches, including the
risk that trading strategies may no longer be anonymous due to a
breach, may increase the overall risks associated with trading or
decrease the profits realized by certain traders. Increased risks or
decreased profits may reduce incentives to participate in the security-
based swap markets which may lead to reduced trading activity and
liquidity in the market. Depending on the extent of confidentiality
breaches, as well as the extent to which such breaches lead to market
exits, disclosures of confidential information could hinder price
discovery and impede the capital formation process.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ See Proposing Release, 80 FR 55206, note 199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Additional Costs and Benefits of Specific Rules
    Apart from the general costs and benefits associated with the
structure of the Exchange Act data access provisions and implementing
rules, certain discrete aspects of the final rules and related
interpretation raise additional issues related to economic costs and
benefits.
a. Benefits
i. Determination of Recipient Authorities
    The Commission is adopting an approach to determining whether an
authority, other than those expressly identified in the Exchange Act
and the implementing rules,\189\ should be provided access to data
maintained by SDRs. The Commission believes that this approach has the
benefit of appropriately limiting relevant authorities' access to data
maintained by repositories to protect the confidentiality of the
data.\190\ The Commission expects that relevant authorities from a
number of jurisdictions may seek to obtain a determination by the
Commission that they may appropriately have access to repository data.
Each of these jurisdictions may have a distinct approach to
supervision, regulation or oversight of its financial markets or market
participants and to the protection of proprietary and other
confidential information. The Commission believes that the approach of
the final rule--which among other things would consider whether an
authority has an interest in access to security-based swap data based
on the relevant authority's regulatory mandate or legal responsibility
or authority, whether there is an MOU or other arrangement between the
Commission and the relevant authority that addresses the
confidentiality of the security-based swap data provided to the
authority, and whether information accessed by the applicable authority
would be subject to robust confidentiality safeguards \191\--
appropriately condition an authority's ability to access data on the
confidentiality protections the authority will afford that data. This
focus further would be strengthened by the Commission's ability to
revoke its determination where necessary, including, for example, if a
relevant authority fails to keep such data confidential.\192\ This
approach should increase market participants' confidence that their
confidential trade data will be protected, reducing perceived risks of
transacting in security-based swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ See parts II.A-B supra for a discussion of specific
authorities included in the implementing rules.
    \190\ See Proposing Release, 80 FR 55206, note 201.
    \191\ See part II.C.1, supra.
    \192\ See part II.C, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that its approach in determining the
appropriate relevant authorities would reduce the potential for
fragmentation and duplication of security-based swap data among trade
repositories by facilitating mutual access to the data. Narrower
approaches such as allowing regulatory access to security-based swap
data only to those entities specifically identified in the Exchange Act
\193\ may increase fragmentation and duplication, and hence increase
the difficulty in consolidating and interpreting security-based swap
market data from repositories, potentially reducing the general
economic benefits discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ See Exchange Act section 3(a)(74), 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Commission believes that its approach in
conditioning access to security-based swap data held in SDRs by
requiring there to be in effect an arrangement between the Commission
and the authority in the form of a MOU or other arrangement would
promote the intended benefits of access by relevant authorities to data
maintained by SDRs. Under this approach, rather than requiring
regulatory authorities to negotiate confidentiality agreements with
multiple SDRs, a single MOU or other arrangement between the Commission
and the relevant authority can serve as the confidentiality agreement
that will satisfy the requirement for a written agreement stating that
the relevant authority will abide by the confidentiality requirements
described in section 24 of the Exchange Act relating to the security-
based swap data. The Commission routinely negotiates MOUs or other
arrangements with relevant authorities to secure mutual assistance or
for other purposes, and the Commission believes that this approach

is generally consistent with existing practice.
    The Commission further believes that negotiating a single such
agreement with the Commission will be less costly for the authority
requesting data than negotiating directly with each registered SDR.
This approach is intended to eliminate the need for each SDR to
negotiate as many as 300 confidentiality agreements with requesting
authorities. This approach would also avoid the difficulties that may
be expected to accompany an approach that requires SDRs to enter into
confidentiality agreements--particularly questions regarding the
parameters of an adequate confidentiality agreement, and the presence
of uneven and potentially inconsistent confidentiality protections
across SDRs and recipient entities.
ii. Notification Requirement
    The Commission is adopting an approach by which an SDR may satisfy
the notification requirement by notifying the Commission upon the
initial request for security-based swap data by a relevant authority
and maintaining records of the initial request and all subsequent
requests.\194\ The Commission estimates that approximately 300 relevant
authorities may make requests for data from security-based swap data
repositories.\195\ Based on the Commission's experience in making
requests for security-based swap data from trade repositories, the
Commission estimates that each relevant authority will access security-
based swap data held in SDRs using electronic access. Such access may
be to satisfy a narrow request concerning a specific counterparty or
reference entity or security, to create a summary statistic of trading
activity or outstanding notional or to satisfy a large request for
detailed transaction and position data. Requests may occur as seldom as
once per month if the relevant authority is downloading all data to
which it has access in order to analyze it on its own systems, or may
occur 100 or more times per month if multiple staff of the relevant
authority are making specific electronic requests concerning particular
counterparties or reference entities and associated positions or
transactions. Therefore, under the Commission's approach to
notification requirement compliance, the Commission estimates based on
staff experience that each repository would provide the Commission with
actual notice as many as 300 times, and that repositories cumulatively
would maintain records of as many as 360,000 subsequent data requests
per year.\196\ The final rule is expected to permit repositories to
respond to requests for data by relevant authorities more promptly and
at lower cost than if notification was required for each request for
data access, while helping to preserve the Commission's ability to
monitor whether the repository provides data to each relevant entity
consistent with the applicable conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ See Exchange Act rule 13n-4(d).
    \195\ See Exchange Act rules 13n-4(b)(9)(i)-(v) for a list of
prudential regulators that may request data maintained by SDRs from
SDRs. The Exchange Act also states that FSOC, the CFTC and the
Department of Justice may access security-based swap data. See parts
II.B.1, 2, supra. The rules further state that the OFR may access
security-based swap data. See parts II.B.1,2, supra. The Commission
also expects that certain self-regulatory organizations and
registered futures associations may request security-based swap data
from repositories. Therefore, the Commission estimates that up to
approximately 30 relevant authorities in the United States may seek
to access security-based swap data from repositories. The Commission
believes that most requests will come from authorities in G20
countries, and estimates that each of the G20 countries will also
have no more and likely fewer than 30 relevant authorities that may
request data from SDRs. Certain authorities from outside the G20
also may request data. Accounting for all of those entities, the
Commission estimates that there will likely be a total of no more
than 300 relevant domestic and foreign authorities that may request
security-based swap data from repositories.
    \196\ The annual estimate of 360,000 is calculated based on 300
recipient entities each making 100 requests per month cumulatively
across all repositories. The estimate of 100 requests per authority
is based on staff experience with similar data requests in other
contexts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's final rule also is designed to simplify a relevant
authority's direct access to security-based swap data needed in
connection with its regulatory mandate or legal responsibility or
authority, because a repository would not be required to provide the
Commission with actual notice of every request prior to providing
access to the requesting relevant authority.
iii. Use of Confidentiality Agreements Between the Commission and
Recipient Authorities
    The final rules in part would condition regulatory access on there
being an arrangement between the Commission and the recipient entity,
in the form of an MOU or otherwise, addressing the confidentiality of
the security-based swap information made available to the recipient.
These rules add that those arrangements shall be deemed to satisfy the
statutory requirement for a written confidentiality agreement.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ See Exchange Act rule 13n-4(b)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Commission believes that this approach
reflects an appropriate way to satisfy the interests associated with
the confidentiality condition. The benefits associated with this
approach include obviating the need for repositories to negotiate and
enter into multiple confidentiality agreements, avoiding difficulties
regarding the parameters of an adequate confidentiality agreement, and
avoiding uneven and potentially inconsistent confidentiality
protections. This approach also would build upon the Commission's
experience in negotiating such agreements.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See part II.F, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Costs
    The Commission recognizes that its approach to providing access to
relevant authorities other than the Commission to security-based swap
data held in repositories has the potential to involve certain costs
and risks.
    The relevant authorities requesting security-based swap data would
incur some costs in seeking a Commission order deeming the authority
appropriate to receive security-based swap data. These costs would
include the negotiation of an MOU or other arrangement to address the
confidentiality of the security-based swap information it seeks to
obtain and providing information to justify that the security-based
swap data relates to the entity's regulatory mandate or legal
responsibility or authority. As discussed above, the Commission
estimates that up to 300 entities potentially might enter into such
MOUs or other arrangements.\199\ Based on the Commission staff's
experience in negotiating MOUs that address regulatory cooperation, the
Commission estimates the cost to each relevant authority requesting
data associated with negotiating such an arrangement of approximately
$208,300 per entity for a total of $62,490,000.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ See part VI.C.3.a.ii, supra.
    \200\ These figures are based on 300 entities each requiring 500
personnel hours on average to negotiate an MOU or other arrangement.
See part V.D.1.a, supra. The cost per entity is 400 hours x attorney
at $386 per hour + 100 hours x deputy general counsel at $539 per
hour = $208,300, or a total of $62,490,000. We use salary figures
from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to account for an 1800-
hour year-week, multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm
size, employee benefits and overhead, and adjusted for inflation
using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, authorities that are not specified by the final rule
may request that the Commission determine them to be appropriate to
receive access to such security-based swap data. Given the relevant
information that the Commission would consider in connection with such
designations (apart from the MOU issues addressed

above)--including information regarding how the authority would be
expected to use the information, information regarding the authority's
regulatory mandate or legal responsibility or authority, and
information regarding reciprocal assistance--the Commission estimates
the cost associated with such a request to be approximately $15,440 per
requesting entity for a total of $4,632,000.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ These figures are based on roughly 300 entities (noting
that certain entities designated by statute or rule would not need
to prepare such requests) requiring 40 personnel hours to prepare a
request for access. See part V.D.1.b, supra. The cost per entity is
40 hours x attorney at $386 per hour = $15,440, or a total of
$4,632,000. We use salary figures from SIFMA's Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013, modified by
Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour year-week, multiplied
by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and
overhead, and adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index
(CPI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Security-based swap data repositories would incur some costs to
verify that an entity requesting data entered into the requisite
agreements concerning confidentiality with the Commission. The
Commission generally expects that such verification costs would be
minimal because information regarding such Commission arrangements
would generally be readily available.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ The Commission provides a list of MOUs and most other
arrangements on its public Web site, which are available at: http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_cooparrangements.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that the security-based swap data repository provides
the requested data through direct electronic means, the repository may
incur some cost in providing the requesting authority access to the
system that provides such access and setting data permissions to allow
access only to the information that relates to the authority's
regulatory mandate, or legal responsibility or authority. The
Commission believes most of the costs associated with providing such
access would be the fixed costs incurred in designing and building the
systems to provide the direct electronic access required by rules the
Commission adopted last year to address the registration process,
duties and core principles applicable to security-based swap data
repositories.\203\ The Commission believes the marginal cost of
providing access to an additional relevant authority and setting the
associated permissions is approximately $6,406.\204\ Based on an
estimated 300 entities requesting access to each of ten registered
SDRs, we estimate the total cost of connecting entities to SDRs to be
approximately $19,218,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ See Proposing Release, 80 FR at 55208, n. 222.
    \204\ This figure is based on the view that, for each recipient
requesting data, a repository would incur a 25-hour burden
associated with programming or otherwise inputting the relevant
parameters, encompassing 20 hours of programmer analyst time and
five hours of senior programmer time. The estimate also encompasses
one hour of attorney time in connection with each such recipient.
See part V.D.1.c, supra. The cost per entity is 20 hours x
programmer analyst at $224 per hour + 5 hours x senior programmer at
$308 per hour + 1 hour x attorney at $386 per hour = $6,406. We use
salary figures from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in
the Securities Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to
account for an 1800-hour year-week, multiplied by 5.35 to account
for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead, and adjusted
for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under the Commission's notification compliance rule,
SDRs would be required to notify the Commission of the initial request
for data but would not have to inform the Commission of all relevant
authorities' requests for data prior to a SDR fulfilling such requests.
Based on the estimate that approximately 300 relevant authorities may
make requests for data from security-based swap data repositories, the
Commission estimates that a repository would provide the Commission
with actual notice approximately 300 times.\205\ Moreover, based on the
estimate that ten persons may register with the Commission as
SDRs,\206\ this suggests that repositories in the aggregate would
provide the Commission with actual notice up to a total of 3,000 times.
The Commission estimates that the total cost of providing such notice
to be $57,900 per SDR for a total of $579,000 for all SDRs.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ See part VI.C.3.a.ii, supra.
    \206\ See note 105, supra, and accompanying text.
    \207\ These figures are based each of ten SDRs providing notice
for each of 300 requesting entities. See part V.D.1.d, supra. The
cost per SDR is 300 requesting entities x 0.5 hours x attorney at
$386 per hour = $57,900, or a total of $579,000. We use salary
figures from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to account
for an 1800-hour year-week, multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead, and adjusted for
inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the rule, SDRs would be required to maintain records of
subsequent requests.\208\ Not receiving actual notice of all requests
may impact the Commission's ability to track such requests, but the
Commission believes that the benefits of receiving actual notice of
each request would not justify the additional costs that repositories
would incur in providing such notices and the potential delay in
relevant authorities receiving data that they need to fulfill their
regulatory mandate, or legal responsibility or authority. At the same
time, providing notice of initial requests will help to preserve the
Commission's ability to monitor whether the repository provides data to
each relevant entity consistent with the applicable conditions. As
discussed above, the Commission estimates that the average initial
paperwork burden associated with maintaining certain records related to
data requests or access would be roughly 360 hours, and that the
annualized burden would be roughly 280 hours and $121,000 for each
repository.\209\ Assuming a maximum of ten security-based swap data
repositories, the estimated aggregate one-time dollar cost would be
roughly $1 million,\210\ and the estimated aggregate annualized dollar
cost would be roughly $1.21 million.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ See part V.D.1.d, supra. As noted above, existing rules
require SDRs to maintain copies of all documents they make or
receive in their course of business, including electronic documents.
See note 75, supra.
    \209\ See part V.D.1.d, supra.
    \210\ The Commission anticipates that a repository would assign
the associated responsibilities primarily to a compliance manager
and a senior systems analyst. The total estimated dollar cost would
be roughly $102,240 per repository, reflecting the cost of a
compliance manager at $288 per hour for 300 hours, and a senior
systems analyst at $264 per hour for 60 hours. Across the estimated
ten repositories, this equals $1,022,400.
    \211\ The Commission anticipates that a repository would assign
the associated responsibilities primarily to a compliance manager.
The total estimated dollar cost would be roughly $121,000 per
repository, reflecting $40,000 annualized information technology
costs, as well as a compliance manager at $288 per hour for 280
hours. Across the estimated ten repositories, this equals $1.21
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Alternatives

    The Commission considered a number of alternative approaches to
implementing the Exchange Act data access provisions, but, for the
reasons discussed below, is not adopting any of them.
1. Use of confidentiality arrangements directly between repositories
and recipients
    The Commission considered the alternative approach of permitting
confidentiality agreement between an SDR and the recipient of the
information to satisfy the confidentiality condition to the data access
requirement. The Commission believes, however, that the approach taken
in the final rules, which would instead make use of confidentiality
arrangements between the Commission and the recipients of the data,
would avoid difficulties such as questions regarding the parameters of
the confidentiality agreement, and the presence of uneven and
inconsistent confidentiality protections.\212\ This also would avoid
the need for SDRs to negotiate and

potentially enter into hundreds of confidentiality agreements, as under
the adopted approach such costs will be borne by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ See part II.A, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Notice of Individual Requests for Data Access
    Finally, the Commission considered requiring repositories to
provide notice to the Commission of all requests for data prior to
repositories fulfilling such requests, rather than the approach of
requiring such notice only of the first request from a particular
recipient, with the repository maintaining records of all subsequent
requests.\213\ The Commission believes that the benefits of receiving
actual notice for each request would not justify the additional costs
that would be imposed on repositories to provide such notice, and
providing notice of subsequent requests might not be feasible if data
is provided by direct electronic access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ See part II.D, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (``RFA'')
\214\ requires Federal agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the
impact of those rules on small entities. The Commission certified in
the proposing release, pursuant to Section 605(b) of the RFA,\215\ that
the proposed rule would not, if adopted, have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of ``small entities.'' The Commission
received no comments on this certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \215\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the RFA, a
small entity includes: (1) When used with reference to an ``issuer'' or
a ``person,'' other than an investment company, an ``issuer'' or
``person'' that, on the last day of its most recent fiscal year, had
total assets of $5 million or less; \216\ or (2) a broker-dealer with
total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than
$500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited
financial statements were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) under the
Exchange Act,\217\ or, if not required to file such statements, a
broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus subordinated
liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the last day of the preceding
fiscal year (or in the time that it has been in business, if shorter);
and is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person)
that is not a small business or small organization.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(a).
    \217\ 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d).
    \218\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(c).
    For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the definition
of ``small entity'' also encompasses ``small governmental
jurisdictions,'' which in relevant part means governments of locales
with a population of less than fifty thousand. 5 U.S.C. 601(5), (6).
Although the Commission anticipates that these final rules may be
expected to have an economic impact on various governmental entities
that access data pursuant to Dodd-Frank's data access provisions,
the Commission does not anticipate that any of those governmental
entities will be small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In initially proposing rules regarding the registration process,
duties and core principles applicable to SDRs, the Commission stated
that it preliminarily did not believe that any persons that would
register as repositories would be considered small entities.\219\ The
Commission further stated that it preliminarily believed that most, if
not all, SDRs would be part of large business entities with assets in
excess of $5 million and total capital in excess of $500,000, and, as a
result, the Commission certified that the proposed rules would not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and
requested comments on this certification.\220\ The Commission
reiterated that conclusion in adopting final rules generally addressing
repository registration, duties and core principles.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ See 75 FR at 77365.
    \220\ See id. (basing the conclusions on review of public
sources of financial information about the current repositories that
are providing services in the OTC derivatives market).
    \221\ See SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14549 (noting that the
Commission did not receive any comments that specifically addressed
whether the applicable rules would have a significant economic
impact on small entities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Proposing Release for these rule amendments, the Commission
stated that it continued to hold the view that any persons that would
register as SDRs would not be considered small entities. The Commission
accordingly certified that the proposed rules would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for purposes of the RFA.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ See Proposing Release, 80 FR at 55210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to believe that the entities that will register as SDRs
will not be small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that
the final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for purposes of the RFA.

Statutory Basis and Text of Final Rules

    Pursuant to the Exchange Act, and particularly sections 3(b),
13(n), and 23(a) thereof, 15 U.S.C. 78c(b), 78m(n), and 78w(a), and
section 752(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 15 U.S.C 8325, the Commission is
adopting amendments to rule 13n-4 under the Exchange Act by adding
paragraphs (b)(9), (b)(10), and (d) to that rule.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240

    Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.

Text of Final Rules

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission is amending
Title 17, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

0
1. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read, in part, as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f,
78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78o-4,
78o-10, 78p, 78q, 78q-1, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20,
80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, 7201 et seq., and
8302; 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(E); 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3); 18 U.S.C. 1350;
Pub. L. 111-203, 939A, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010); and Pub. L. 112-106,
sec. 503 and 602, 126 Stat. 326 (2012), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
2. Amend Sec.  240.13n-4 by removing the ``and'' after the semicolon in
paragraph (b)(8), and adding paragraphs (b)(9), (b)(10), and (d) to
read as follows:

Sec.  240.13n-4  Duties and core principles of security-based swap data
repository.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) On a confidential basis, pursuant to section 24 of the Act (15
U.S.C. 78x), upon request, and after notifying the Commission of the
request in a manner consistent with paragraph (d) of this section, make
available security-based swap data obtained by the security-based swap
data repository, including individual counterparty trade and position
data, to the following:
    (i) The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and any
Federal Reserve Bank;
    (ii) The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency;
    (iii) The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
    (iv) The Farm Credit Administration;
    (v) The Federal Housing Finance Agency;
    (vi) The Financial Stability Oversight Council;
    (vii) The Commodity Futures Trading Commission;
    (viii) The Department of Justice;

    (ix) The Office of Financial Research; and
    (x) Any other person that the Commission determines to be
appropriate, conditionally or unconditionally, by order, including, but
not limited to--
    (A) Foreign financial supervisors (including foreign futures
authorities);
    (B) Foreign central banks;
    (C) Foreign ministries; and
    (D) Other foreign authorities;
    (10) Before sharing information with any entity described in
paragraph (b)(9) of this section, there shall be in effect an
arrangement between the Commission and the entity (in the form of a
memorandum of understanding or otherwise) to address the
confidentiality of the security-based swap information made available
to the entity; this arrangement shall be deemed to satisfy the
requirement, set forth in section 13(n)(5)(H) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78m(n)(5)(H)), that the security-based swap data repository receive a
written agreement from the entity stating that the entity shall abide
by the confidentiality requirements described in section 24 of the Act
(15 U.S.C. 78x) relating to the information on security-based swap
transactions that is provided; and
* * * * *
    (d) Notification requirement compliance. To satisfy the
notification requirement of the data access provisions of paragraph
(b)(9) of this section, a security-based swap data repository shall
inform the Commission upon its receipt of the first request for
security-based swap data from a particular entity (which may include
any request to be provided ongoing online or electronic access to the
data), and the repository shall maintain records of all information
related to the initial and all subsequent requests for data access from
that entity, including records of all instances of online or electronic
access, and records of all data provided in connection with such
requests or access.
* * * * *

    Dated: August 29, 2016.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21137 Filed 9-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5423-5424]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-44-000]

Notice of Request for Confirmation or, in the Alternative,
Abbreviated Application for Amendment of Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity of Iroquois Gas Transmission, L.P.

    Take notice that on January 17, 2020, Iroquois Gas Transmission
System, L.P. (Iroquois) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC or Commission) a request for confirmation that
Iroquois' current and ongoing practices of monitoring its pipeline
right of way (ROW) satisfy the environmental condition that Iroquois
conduct a yearly walkover of its pipeline ROW that was incorporated by
reference in the Commission's 1990 order granting Iroquois' original
certificate to construct, own, and operate its interstate natural gas
pipeline system (1990 Certificate Order) in the alternative, Iroquois
requests that the Commission approve a limited amendment to Iroquois'
certificate granted in the 1990 Certificate Order to remove the
requirement that Iroquois perform and annual walkover of its pipeline
ROW (Amendment Application) all as more fully set forth in the request
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Iroquois requests that the Commission grant Iroquois' request (or
alternatively, issue a final order granting the Amendment Application)
by February 17, 2020.
    The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding the request or Amendment Application may be
directed to Kimberly A.E. Pritchard, Senior Counsel and Corporate
Secretary, Iroquois Pipeline Operating Company, One Corporate Drive,
Suite 600, Shelton, Connecticut 06484, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in
Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice
concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new Natural Gas Act
section 3 or section 7 proceeding.\1\ Persons desiring to become a
party to a certificate proceeding are to intervene in a timely manner.
If seeking to intervene out-of-time, the movant is required to ``show
good cause why the time limitation should be waived,'' and should
provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule
214(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC ] 61,167 at
] 50 (2018).
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.214(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comments Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 7, 2020.

    Dated: January 23, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01598 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 556]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4570-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4570-DR), dated October 16, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued December 23, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of October 16, 2020.

    Allen and Iberia Parishes for Individual Assistance (already
designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures
[Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program).
    Caldwell Parish for debris removal and emergency protective
measures [Categories A and B] (already designated for emergency
protective measures [Category B], limited to direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
    Beauregard Parish for debris removal [Category A] and permanent
work [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance
and emergency protective measures [Category B], including direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
    East Baton Rouge, Point Coupee, St. Mary, West Baton Rouge, and
Winn Parishes for debris removal [Category A] and permanent work
[Categories C-G] (already designated for emergency protective
measures [Category B], including direct federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program).
    Calcasieu, Lafayette, Rapides, St. Landry, St. Martin, and
Vermilion Parishes for permanent work [Categories C-G] (already
designated for Individual Assistance and debris removal and
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
    Allen, Iberia, and Grant Parishes for permanent work [Categories
C-G] (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective
measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance,
under the Public Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-29280 Filed 1-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P