Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities

1See Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Public Law 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). 2See The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 37 RIN 3038–AD18 Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CFTC’’) is adopting new rules, guidance, and acceptable practices to implement certain statutory provisions enacted by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’). The final rules, guidance, and acceptable practices, which apply to the registration and operation of a new type of regulated entity named a swap execution facility (‘‘SEF’’), implement the Dodd-Frank Act’s new statutory framework that, among other requirements, adds a new section 5h to the Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’ or ‘‘Act’’) concerning the registration and operation of SEFs, and adds a new
section 2(h)(8) to the CEA concerning
the execution of swaps on SEFs.
DATES: The rules will become effective August 5, 2013, with the exception of regulation 37.3(b)(5) (17 CFR 37.3(b)(5)), which shall become effective August 5, 2015. Compliance date: October 2, 2013, except that: (a) From August 5, 2013 until October 2, 2014 market participants may comply with the minimum market participant requirement in regulation 37.9(a)(3) (17 CFR 37.9(a)(3)) by transmitting a request for a quote to no less than two market participants; and (b) each affected entity shall comply with the warning letter requirement in regulation 37.206(f) (17 CFR 37.206(f)) no later than August 5, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amir Zaidi, Special Counsel, 202–418– 6770, azaidi@cftc.gov, Alexis Hall-Bugg, Special Counsel, 202–418–6711, ahallbugg@cftc.gov, or David Van Wagner, Chief Counsel, 202–418–5481, dvanwagner@cftc.gov, Division of Market Oversight; Michael Penick, Senior Economist, 202–418–5279, mpenick@cftc.gov, or Sayee Srinivasan, Research Analyst, 202–418–5309, ssrinivasan@cftc.gov, Office of the Chief Economist, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Swaps and Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act B. SEF Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
II. Part 37 of the Commission’s Regulations—
Final Rules
A. Adoption of Regulations, Guidance, and Acceptable Practices B. General Regulations (Subpart A)

1. § 37.1—Scope
2. § 37.2—Applicable Provisions
3. § 37.3—Requirements for Registration
4. § 37.4—Procedures for Listing Products
   and Implementing Rules
5. § 37.5—Information Relating to Swap
   Execution Facility Compliance
6. § 37.6—Enforceability
7. § 37.7—Prohibited Use of Data Collected
   for Regulatory Purposes
8. § 37.8—Boards of Trade Operating Both
   a Designated Contract Market and a Swap Execution Facility
9. § 37.9—Permitted Execution Methods
10. § 37.10—Swaps Made Available for
    Trading
11. § 37.11—Identification of Non-Cleared
    Swaps or Swaps Not Made Available To Trade
    C. Regulations, Guidance, and Acceptable
    Practices for Compliance With the Core Principles
12. Subpart B—Core Principle 1
    (Compliance With Core Principles)
13. Subpart C—Core Principle 2
    (Compliance With Rules) (a) § 37.200—Core Principle 2— Compliance With Rules (b) § 37.201—Operation of Swap Execution Facility and Compliance With Rules (c) § 37.202—Access Requirements (d) § 37.203—Rule Enforcement Program (e) § 37.204—Regulatory Services Provided by a Third Party (f) § 37.205—Audit Trail (g) § 37.206—Disciplinary Procedures and Sanctions (h) § 37.207—Swaps Subject to Mandatory Clearing
14. Subpart D—Core Principle 3 (Swaps Not
    Readily Susceptible to Manipulation)
15. Subpart E—Core Principle 4 (Monitoring
    of Trading and Trade Processing) (a) § 37.401—General Requirements (b) § 37.402—Additional Requirements for Physical-Delivery Swaps (c) § 37.403—Additional Requirements for Cash-Settled Swaps (d) § 37.404—Ability To Obtain Information (e) § 37.405—Risk Controls for Trading (f) § 37.406—Trade Reconstruction (g) § 37.407—Additional Rules Required
16. Subpart F—Core Principle 5 (Ability To
    Obtain Information)
    (a) § 37.501—Establish and Enforce Rules (b) § 37.502—Collection of Information (c) § 37.503—Provide Information to the Commission (d) § 37.504—Information-Sharing Agreements
17. Subpart G—Core Principle 6 (Position
    Limits or Accountability)
18. Subpart H—Core Principle 7 (Financial
    Integrity of Transactions) (a) § 37.701—Mandatory Clearing (b) § 37.702—General Financial Integrity (c) § 37.703—Monitoring for Financial Soundness
19. Subpart I—Core Principle 8 (Emergency
    Authority)
    (a) § 37.801—Additional Sources for Compliance
20. Subpart J—Core Principle 9 (Timely
    Publication of Trading Information)
21. Subpart K—Core Principle 10
    (Recordkeeping and Reporting)
22. Subpart L—Core Principle 11 (Antitrust
    Considerations)
23. Subpart M—Core Principle 12
    (Conflicts of Interest)
24. Subpart N—Core Principle 13
    (Financial Resources)
    (a) § 37.1301—General Requirements (b) § 37.1302—Types of Financial Resources (c) § 37.1303—Computation of Financial Resource Requirement (d) § 37.1304—Valuation of Financial Resources (e) § 37.1305—Liquidity of Financial Resources (f) § 37.1306—Reporting Requirements
25. Subpart O—Core Principle 14 (System
    Safeguards)
    (a) § 37.1401—Requirements
26. Subpart P—Core Principle 15
    (Designation of Chief Compliance Officer) (a) § 37.1501—Chief Compliance Officer
    III. Related Matters
    A. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Cost Benefit Considerations
27. Introduction
28. SEF Market Structure
29. Registration
30. Recordkeeping and Reporting
31. Compliance
32. Monitoring and Surveillance
33. Financial Resources
34. Emergency Operations and System
    Safeguards
    IV. List of Commenters
    V. Text of Final Regulations, Guidance, and
    Acceptable Practices
    I. Background
    A. Swaps and Title VII of the Dodd￾Frank Act Historically, swaps have traded in over-the-counter (‘‘OTC’’) markets, rather than on regulated exchanges given their exemption from regulation.1 The OTC swaps market is less transparent than exchange-traded futures and securities markets. This lack of transparency was a major contributor to the 2008 financial crisis because regulators and market participants lacked visibility to identify and assess the implications of swaps market exposures and counterparty relationships.2 As a result, on July 21,

the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States (Official Government Edition), at 299, 352, 363–364, 386, 621 n. 56 (2011), available at http://fcic￾static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/ fcic_final_report_full.pdf. The Commission has acknowledged, however, that the benefits of enhanced market transparency are not boundless, particularly in swap markets with limited liquidity. See Procedures to Establish Appropriate Minimum Block Sizes for Large Notional Off-Facility Swaps and Block Trades, 77 FR 15460, 15466 (proposed Mar. 15, 2012). In implementing these regulations, the Commission has taken into account the benefits and concerns related to market transparency. 3 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 4Pursuant to section 701 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Title VII may be cited as the ‘‘Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010.’’ 5 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. 6See Financial Stability Board, Implementing OTC Derivatives Market Reforms, at 41 (Oct. 25, 2010), available at http://www.financialstability board.org/publications/r_101025.pdf; Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, Transparency of Structured Finance Products Final Report, at 17, 21 (Jul. 2010), available at http://www.iosco.org/ library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD326.pdf. 7See CEA section 5h, as enacted by section 733 of the Dodd-Frank Act; 7 U.S.C. 7b–3. This regulatory framework includes: (i) Registration, operation, and compliance requirements for SEFs and (ii) fifteen core principles. Applicants and registered SEFs are required to comply with the core principles as a condition of obtaining and maintaining their registration as a SEF. 8CEA section 5h(a)(1), as enacted by section 733 of the Dodd-Frank Act; 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(a)(1). 9CEA section 1a(50), as amended by section 721 of the Dodd-Frank Act; 7 U.S.C. 1a(50). 10CEA section 2(h)(8), as amended by section 723 of the Dodd-Frank Act; 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(8). 11CEA section 5h, as enacted by section 733 of the Dodd-Frank Act; 7 U.S.C. 7b–3. 12CEA section 5h(f)(1); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(1). 13Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR 1214 (proposed Jan. 7, 2011). 14 Id. at 1238. 15 Id. at 1241. 16CEA section 1a(50); 7 U.S.C. 1a(50). 17CEA section 5h(f); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f). 18The goals of section 733 of the Dodd-Frank Act are to promote the trading of swaps on SEFs and to promote pre-trade price transparency in the swaps market. CEA section 5h(e); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(e). 19Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1241. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22By ‘‘in conjunction with the SEF’s minimum trading functionality,’’ the Commission means that the SEF NPRM required a SEF to offer the minimum trading functionality, and if that SEF also offered an RFQ System, it was required to communicate any bids or offers resting on the minimum trading functionality to
the RFQ requester along with the responsive quotes. See the discussion below regarding ‘‘Taken Into Account and Communicated’’ Language in the RFQ System Definition under § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)—Request for Quote System in the preamble for further details. 23Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1220. 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act,3 which tasked the Commission with overseeing a large portion of the U.S. swaps market. Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act 4 amended the CEA 5 to establish a comprehensive new regulatory framework for swaps and security-based swaps (‘‘SB-swaps’’). A key goal of the Dodd-Frank Act is to bring greater pre￾trade and post-trade transparency to the swaps market. Pre-trade transparency with respect to the swaps market refers to making information about a swap available to the market, including bid (offers to buy) and offer (offers to sell) prices, quantity available at those prices, and other relevant information before the execution of a transaction. Such transparency lowers costs for investors, consumers, and businesses; lowers the risks of the swaps market to the economy; and enhances market integrity to protect market participants and the public. The Dodd-Frank Act also ensures that a broader universe of market participants receive pricing and volume information by providing such information upon the completion of every swap transaction (i.e., post-trade transparency).6 By requiring the trading of swaps on SEFs and designated contract markets (‘‘DCMs’’), all market participants will benefit from viewing the prices of available bids and offers and from having access to transparent and competitive trading systems or platforms. In addition to facilitating greater transparency and trading of swaps on SEFs, Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework, including registration, operation, and compliance requirements for SEFs.7 For example, section 733 of the Dodd-Frank Act sets forth a broad registration provision that requires any person who operates a facility for the trading of swaps to register as a SEF or as a DCM.8 In addition, section 721 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the CEA to define SEF as a trading platform where multiple participants have the ability to execute swaps by accepting bids and offers made by multiple participants in the platform.9 Furthermore, section 723 of the Dodd￾Frank Act set forth a trade execution requirement, which states that swap transactions subject to the clearing requirement must be executed on a DCM or SEF, unless no DCM or SEF makes the swap available to trade or for swap transactions subject to the clearing exception under CEA section 2(h)(7).10
Section 733 of the Dodd-Frank Act
provided that to be registered and maintain registration, a SEF must comply with fifteen enumerated core principles and any requirement that the Commission may impose by rule or regulation.11 B. SEF Notice of Proposed Rulemaking The Dodd-Frank Act amended the CEA to provide that, under new section 5h, the Commission may in its discretion determine by rule or regulation the manner in which SEFs comply with the core principles.12 In consideration of both the novel nature of SEFs and its experience in overseeing DCMs’ compliance with core principles, the Commission carefully assessed which SEF core principles would benefit from regulations, providing legal certainty and clarity to the marketplace, and which core principles would benefit from guidance or acceptable practices, where flexibility is more appropriate. Based on that evaluation, on January 7, 2011, the Commission proposed a combination of regulations, guidance, and acceptable practices for the registration, oversight, and regulation of SEFs (‘‘SEF NPRM’’).13 The SEF NPRM provided, among other requirements, the following:
(1) Procedures for temporary and full SEF registration.14 (2) A minimum trading functionality requirement that all SEFs must offer,15 which took into account the SEF definition,16 the core principles applicable to SEFs,17 and the goals provided in section 733 of the Dodd￾Frank Act.18 The minimum trading functionality required a SEF to provide a centralized electronic trading screen upon which any market participant can post both executable and non￾executable bids and offers that are transparent to all other market participants of the SEF.19 For a trader who has the ability to execute against its customer’s order or to execute two customers’ orders against each other, the SEF NPRM also required the trader be subject to a 15 second time delay between the entry of those two orders.20 In addition, the proposal allowed a Request for Quote (‘‘RFQ’’) System 21 that operates in conjunction with the SEF’s minimum trading functionality.22 Finally, the SEF NPRM stated that a SEF may offer other functionalities in conjunction with the minimum trading functionality, as long as those functionalities meet the SEF definition and comply with the core principles.23 (3) The classification of swap transactions into two categories:
Required Transactions (i.e., transactions subject to the trade execution mandate under section 2(h)(8) of the CEA and not block trades) and Permitted Transactions (i.e., transactions not

24 Id. at 1241.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 1241–1253, 1256–1258.
28Reopening and Extension of Comment Periods for Rulemakings Implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 76 FR 25274 (May 4, 2011). The Commission extended the applicable comment periods to provide the public an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed new regulatory framework. The Commission also opened an additional comment period, which ended on June 10, 2011, to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the Commission’s phased implementation of the Act, as amended, including its implementation of section 733 of Dodd-Frank Act. Joint Public Roundtable on Issues Related to the Schedule for Implementing Final Rules for Swaps and Security-Based Swaps Under the Dodd￾Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 76 FR 23221 (Apr. 26, 2011). 29The Commission also held two roundtables touching on issues related to the SEF NPRM: (1) ‘‘Available to Trade’’ Provision for Swap Execution Facilities and Designated Contract Markets; and (2) Proposed Regulations Implementing Core Principle 9 for Designated Contract Markets. Transcripts are available through the Commission’s Web site at http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/2012Events/ index.htm. 30A list of the full names and abbreviations of commenters to the SEF NPRM is included in
section IV at the end of this release. The
Commission notes that many commenters submitted more than one comment letter. Additionally, all comment letters that pertain to the SEF NPRM, including those from the additional comment periods related to implementation of the final Dodd-Frank rules, are contained in the SEF rulemaking comment file and are available through the Commission’s Web site at http:// comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ CommentList.aspx?id=955. 31Meeting summaries are available through the Commission’s Web site at http://comments.cftc.gov/ PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=955. 32Registration and Regulation of Security-Based Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR 10948 (proposed Feb. 28, 2011). 33 15 U.S.C. 8302(a)(1). 34Tradeweb Comment Letter at 3–4 (Jun. 3, 2011); Reuters Comment Letter 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 10–11 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 10–11 (Mar. 8, 2011). 35Registration and Regulation of Security-Based Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 10950. subject to the clearing and trade execution mandates, illiquid or bespoke swaps, or block trades).24 Under the SEF NPRM, Required Transactions were required to be executed on the minimum trading functionality, an Order Book meeting the minimum trading functionality, or an RFQ System (in conjunction with the minimum trading functionality).25 The SEF NPRM also allowed a SEF to provide additional methods of execution for Permitted Transactions, including Voice-Based Systems.26 (4) Regulations, guidance, and acceptable practices to implement the 15 core principles specified in section 5h(f) of the Act.27 The initial comment period for the SEF NPRM ended on March 8, 2011. Subsequently, the Commission reopened the comment period until June 3, 2011, as part of its global extension of comment periods for various rulemakings implementing the Dodd￾Frank Act.28 After the second comment period ended, the Commission continued to accept and consider late comments, which it did until April 30,
2013.29 The Commission received
approximately 107 comment letters on the SEF NPRM from members of the public.30 The Chairman and Commissioners, as well as the Commission staff, participated in numerous meetings with representatives of single dealer platforms, interdealer brokers, DCMs, trade associations, OTC market participants, potential SEF applicants, and other interested parties.31 In addition, the Commission consulted with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’) and international regulators on numerous occasions.
II. Part 37 of the Commission’s
Regulations—Final Rules A. Adoption of Regulations, Guidance, and Acceptable Practices In this final rulemaking, the Commission is adopting many of the proposed regulations that each SEF must meet in order to comply with
section 5h of the CEA, both initially
upon registration and on an ongoing basis, and related guidance, and acceptable practices. As a result of the written comments received and dialogue and meetings with the public, the Commission has revised or eliminated a number of regulations that were proposed in the SEF NPRM, and in a number of instances, has codified guidance and/or acceptable practices in lieu of the proposed regulations. In determining the scope and content of the final SEF regulations, the Commission has carefully considered the costs and benefits for each rule with particular attention to the public comments. Additionally, the Commission has taken into account the concerns raised by commenters regarding the potential effects of specific rules on SEFs offering different swap contracts and trading systems or platforms and the importance of the statutory differences between SEFs and DCMs. The Commission addresses these issues below in its discussion of specific rule provisions. The Commission also notes that the SEC has proposed rules related to security-based SEFs (‘‘SB–SEFs’’) as required under section 763 of the Dodd￾Frank Act (‘‘SB–SEF NPRM’’).32 Section 712(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act states that before commencing any rulemaking regarding swap execution facilities, the Commission ‘‘shall consult and coordinate to the extent possible with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the prudential regulators for the purposes of assuring regulatory consistency and comparability . . . .’’ 33 The Commission has also received several comments stating that the Commission and the SEC should harmonize their rules as much as possible.34 The Commission has coordinated with the SEC to harmonize the SEF and SB–SEF requirements to the extent possible and has taken into consideration the comments for greater harmonization between the SEF and SB–SEF regulations. However, there may be appropriate differences in the approach that each agency may take regarding the regulation of SEFs and SB–SEFs. Cognizant of the different products and markets regulated by the SEC and the Commission, the SEC recognized in its SB–SEF NPRM that there may be differences in the approach that each agency may take regarding the regulation of SEFs and SB–SEFs.35 Similarly, the Commission is mindful that swaps may also trade on DCMs. Thus, in addition to its efforts to coordinate its approach with the SB– SEF regulations, the Commission also seeks, where possible, to harmonize the final SEF regulations with the DCM regulations in order to minimize regulatory differences between SEFs and DCMs in those instances where Congress enacted similar core principles for the two types of registered entities. In addition, some differences in the agencies’ regulatory oversight regimes may be attributed to the fact that, unlike the SEC that is only responsible for overseeing trading in SB-swaps, such as single-name securities and narrow￾based security indexes, the Commission is charged with the oversight of swaps trading over a
broad range of asset categories. Consequently, the Commission has taken into account the varied characteristics of those underlying commodities in formulating the regulatory responsibilities of SEFs. In the preamble sections below, the Commission responds to the substantive comments submitted in response to the SEF NPRM. The Commission reviewed and considered all comments in adopting this final rulemaking. Further, the final regulations include a number of technical revisions and non￾substantive changes to the proposed rule text intended to clarify certain provisions, standardize terminology

36Subparts B through P begin with a regulation containing the language of the core principle in the Act. 37The Commission has removed the phrase ‘‘has been registered’’ from proposed § 37.1 because a SEF that has been registered is the same as a SEF that is registered. 38Adaptation of Regulations to Incorporate Swaps, 77 FR 66288 (Nov. 2, 2012). The Commission may promulgate a second phase of conforming changes to its regulations once more rules relating to swaps are finalized. 39The term ‘‘contract market’’ used in § 1.60 of the Commission’s regulations should be interpreted to include a SEF for purposes of applying the requirements of § 1.60 to a SEF. 17 CFR 1.60. 40The term ‘‘exchange’’ used in part 9 of the Commission’s regulations should be interpreted to include a SEF for purposes of applying the requirements of part 9 to a SEF. 17 CFR part 9. 41The Commission is renaming the title of this
section from ‘‘Requirements for Registration’’ to
‘‘Requirements and Procedures for Registration’’ to provide greater clarity. The Commission is also restructuring the order of § 37.3 to provide clarity. 42Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1219. 43 Id. 44 Id. 45CEA section 5h(a)(1) states that ‘‘[n]o person may operate a facility for the trading or processing of swaps unless the facility is registered as a swap execution facility or designated contract market. . . .’’ 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(a)(1). 46Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1219. 47 Id. at 1221–22. CEA sections 2(h)(7) and 2(h)(8); 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(7) and 2(h)(8). See discussion below under § 37.10—Swaps Made Available for Trading in the preamble for further details regarding this process. 48 Id. at 1222. 49CEA section 5h(a)(1) states that ‘‘[n]o person may operate a facility for the trading or processing of swaps unless the facility is registered as a swap execution facility or designated contract market. . . .’’ 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(a)(1). UBS Comment Letter at 1–2 (May 18, 2012); UBS Comment Letter at 2–3 (Nov. 2, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 2 (Jun. 3, 2011); Deutsche Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Bloomberg Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); State Street Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011). 50UBS Comment Letter at 1 (May 18, 2012). The Commission notes that UBS submitted 2 comment letters on May 18, 2012. within this part 37, conform terminology to that used in other parts of the Commission’s regulations, and more precisely state regulatory standards and requirements. For example, a minimum trading functionality requirement was in proposed § 37.9, which has been moved to the registration section under final § 37.3 to clarify that this functionality is required in order to register as a SEF. The final regulations will become effective 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register. B. General Regulations (Subpart A) The regulations in this final rulemaking are codified in subparts A through P under part 37 of the Commission’s regulations. The general regulations consisting of §§ 37.1 through
37.9 are codified in subpart A, and the
regulations applicable to each of the 15 core principles are codified in subparts B through P, respectively.36

1. § 37.1—Scope
   Proposed § 37.1 provided that part 37 applies to entities that are registered SEFs, have been registered SEFs, or are applying to become registered SEFs. The proposed rule also stated that part 37 does not restrict the eligibility of SEFs to operate under the provisions of parts 38 or 49 of this chapter. (a) Commission Determination The Commission received no comments on this section and is adopting the provision as proposed.37
2. § 37.2—Applicable Provisions
   Proposed § 37.2 listed the Commission regulations that, in addition to part 37, will be applicable to SEFs, including regulations that have been codified and are proposed to be codified upon the Commission’s finalization of the rulemakings implemented pursuant to the Dodd￾Frank Act. (a) Commission Determination Although it received no comments on this section, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.2 to generally state that SEFs shall comply with, in addition to
   part 37, all applicable Commission
   regulations, and to only cite those specific provisions whose applicability to SEFs may not be apparent. The Commission notes that a separate rulemaking adopted conforming changes to existing regulations to clarify the pre-Dodd Frank provisions applicable to SEFs.38 There are, however, certain existing regulations that will apply to SEFs that the separate rulemaking did not address. Accordingly, for clarity purposes, the Commission is specifically stating that § 1.60 39 and part 9 40 of its regulations will apply to SEFs. These revisions will eliminate the need for the Commission to continually update § 37.2 when new regulations with which SEFs must comply are codified.
3. § 37.3—Requirements for
   Registration 41
   Proposed § 37.3 established, among other procedures, application procedures for temporary and full registration of new SEFs, and procedures for the transfer of a registration. To assist prospective SEF applicants, the SEF NPRM included under appendix A to part 37 an application form titled Form SEF. Form SEF included information that an applicant would be required to provide to the Commission in order for the Commission to make a determination regarding the applicant’s request for SEF registration. With respect to which entities must register as a SEF, the SEF NPRM stated that in order for an entity to meet the SEF definition and satisfy the SEF registration requirements, multiple parties must have the ability to execute or trade swaps by accepting bids and offers made by multiple participants.42 In this regard, the SEF NPRM stated that one-to-one voice services and single dealer platforms do not satisfy the SEF definition because multiple participants do not have the ability to execute or trade swaps with multiple participants.43 In addition, the SEF NPRM stated that entities that operate exclusively as swap processors do not meet the SEF definition and should not be required to register.44 Although the SEF NPRM stated that the registration provision in CEA section 5h(a)(1) could be read to require the registration of entities that solely engage in trade processing,45 it stated that such entities do not meet the SEF definition and should not be required to register as SEFs because: (1) They do not provide the ability to execute or trade a swap as required by the SEF definition; and (2) the SEF definition does not include the term ‘‘process.’’ 46 The SEF NPRM also noted that CEA
   section 2(h)(8) requires that transactions
   involving swaps subject to the clearing requirement be executed on a DCM or SEF, unless no DCM or SEF makes such swaps available to trade or such swaps qualify for the clearing exception under CEA section 2(h)(7).47 In this regard, the SEF NPRM stated that market participants may desire to avail themselves of the benefits of trading on SEFs for swaps that are not subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade execution requirement, but it also acknowledged that such swaps are not required to be executed on a SEF or DCM.48 (a) Requirements for Registration (1) Summary of Comments Several commenters asserted that the proposed rule is ambiguous as to who must register as a SEF as required under CEA section 5h(a)(1) and requested clarification.49 For example, UBS stated that the Commission should clarify that ‘‘the SEF registration requirement in [CEA section 5h(a)(1)] only applies to platforms that meet the SEF definition.’’ 50 In addition, Barclays

51Barclays Comment Letter at 2 (Jun. 3, 2011). 52Bloomberg Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 53AFR Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011). JP Morgan also commented that it agrees with the Commission that a single dealer platform cannot qualify as a SEF because it fails to satisfy the ‘‘multiple to multiple’’ language in the SEF definition. JP Morgan Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 54 IECA Comment Letter at 3 (May 24, 2011). 55Nodal Comment Letter at 2–3 (Jun. 3, 2011); Nodal Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 8, 2011). Nodal also expressed support for blind auction platforms in its comment letter to the Second Amendment to July 14, 2011 Order for Swap Regulation Notice of Proposed Amendment, 77 FR 28819 (proposed May 16, 2012). 56Nodal Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 57 Id. 58 Id. at 2. 59UBS Comment Letter at 1 (May 18, 2012); Meeting with UBS dated Mar. 27, 2012; Meeting with Bloomberg dated Jan. 18, 2012. See also UBS Comment Letter at 1 (Nov. 2, 2011). 60Meeting with UBS dated Mar. 27, 2012. See also UBS Comment Letter at 1 (Nov. 2, 2011). 61Meeting with UBS dated Mar. 27, 2012. 62Meeting with ICAP and TriOptima dated Sep. 6, 2012; Meeting with ICAP dated Aug. 29, 2012; Meeting with ICE dated Jul. 25, 2012; WMBAA Comment Letter at 3 (Jul. 18, 2011); ICAP Comment Letter at 2 (Jul. 7, 2011); TriOptima Comment Letter at 1 (Mar. 8, 2011). 63TriOptima Comment Letter at 2, 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 64 Id. at 2. The service does not place any constraints on the number of positions or risk tolerances of prospective participants. Id. 65 Id. at 3. 66 Id. 67 Id. 68 Id. 69 Id. 70 Id. 71Meeting with ICAP dated Aug. 29, 2012; ICAP Comment Letter at 1, 4 (Jul. 7, 2011). 72Meeting with ICAP dated Aug. 29, 2012; ICAP Comment Letter at 4 (Jul. 7, 2011). 73 Id. 74 Id. The service does not place any constraints on the number of positions or risk tolerances of prospective participants. Id. 75 Id. commented that the language of CEA
section 5h(a)(1) should not be read
broadly to require SEF registration for any platform or system that executes or processes swaps to the extent it is deemed to be a ‘‘facility’’ without considering whether such swaps are or are not subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade execution mandate.51 Similarly, Bloomberg noted the broad language under the CEA section 5h(a)(1) registration requirement, and stated that if Congress intended that all swaps be traded on a SEF or DCM, then the trade execution mandate under CEA section 2(h)(8) would be unnecessary.52 The Commission also received comments and specific requests for a Commission determination as to whether certain business models or services must register as a SEF, including one-to-many platforms, blind auction platforms, aggregation services or portals, portfolio compression services, risk mitigation services, and swap processing services. (i) One-to-Many Systems or Platforms AFR opined that single dealer or one￾to-many platforms do not meet the SEF definition in CEA section 1a(50), which refers to a system in which multiple parties have the ability to execute or trade swaps by accepting bids or offers from multiple participants.53 Similarly, IECA stated that SEFs should operate in a way that publicly reveals market prices, and that preserving the ‘‘one-to￾one’’ pricing model of existing dealer systems is inconsistent with the SEF definition.54 (ii) Blind Auction Systems or Platforms Nodal commented that a blind auction platform should be able to register as a SEF.55 Nodal contended that its blind auction platform meets the SEF definition because multiple participants have the ability to execute swap transactions by accepting bids and offers made by multiple participants albeit without the pre-trade posting of bids or offers.56 Nodal explained that its platform allows participants to submit firm bids and offers without the disclosure of the terms of those bids and offers to other participants, and that the auction algorithmically processes the bids and offers to match participants efficiently.57 Nodal further explained that auction volume is awarded to participants at the same price and at a price equal to or better than the participants’ auction order.58 (iii) Aggregation Services or Portals UBS and Bloomberg requested clarification whether aggregator services are required to register as SEFs.59 UBS stated that an aggregator service will provide customers with the ability to access the best available liquidity and pricing on multiple SEFs through the aggregator’s screen so that customers will not have to connect to each SEF individually.60 UBS stated that an aggregator service should not be required to register as a SEF because the transaction is executed on the relevant SEF’s platform.61 (iv) Services Facilitating Portfolio Compression and Risk Mitigation Transactions Several commenters sought clarification that portfolio compression and risk mitigation services are not required to register as SEFs.62 According to TriOptima,
its portfolio compression service provides a netting mechanism that reduces the outstanding trade count and outstanding gross notional value of swaps in participants’ portfolios by terminating or modifying existing trades.63 Specifically, TriOptima stated that prospective participants may sign up for a scheduled compression cycle and the participants must provide detailed data about their respective portfolios and risk tolerances.64 Other than to update mark￾to-market values shortly before the compression cycle is run, prospective participants have no further input into the compression process, which is entirely controlled by the compression algorithm.65 On a specified date, TriOptima runs the compression cycle, which produces a set of proposed transactions for each participant.66 The proposed transactions, if effected, would terminate or modify participants’ existing trades in order to reduce the outstanding trade count and outstanding gross notional value of swaps in the participants’ portfolios.67 Each participant receives only details of the proposed compression transactions to which it is a party, but all of the compression transactions must be accepted in order for the particular compression cycle to occur.68 If a single participant declines to agree to the proposed compression transactions, then the entire compression cycle fails and the pre-compression swap transactions remain in effect.69 TriOptima contended that such services do not perform the role of a trade execution venue so they should not be regulated as a SEF.70 ICAP stated that its bulk risk mitigation service assists market participants in managing their risk exposures by identifying offsetting risk requirements and executing new offsetting trades among those participants.71 Specifically, ICAP stated that its risk mitigation service sets the curve and price for all trades based on a survey of market making entities, such as banks, or other entities that are willing to provide quotes, as well as price quotes on DCMs.72 All prospective participants in a particular risk mitigation run are first shown the curve and prices for transactions along the curve.73 Subsequently, the prospective participants provide ICAP with data about any of their positions of their choosing and their acceptable risk tolerances.74 ICAP then runs a proprietary algorithm, which produces a set of proposed transactions for each participant.75 The proposed transactions, if effected, would result in new trades for the participants that enable them to manage their exposures to market, credit, or other sources of

76 Id.
77 Id.
78 Id.
79 ICAP Comment Letter at 2 (Jan. 16, 2013); ICAP Comment Letter at 4 (Jul. 7, 2011). 80MarkitSERV Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 81MarkitSERV Comment Letter at 1–2 (Jun. 3, 2011). 82 Id. at 3–4. 83 Id. at 5. 84CEA section 5h(a)(1) states that ‘‘[n]o person may operate a facility for the trading or processing of swaps unless the facility is registered as a swap execution facility or as a designated contract market. . . .’’ 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(a)(1). 85See Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1219 (explaining that entities that operate exclusively as swap processors do not meet the SEF definition and should not be required to register as a SEF despite the broad language in the CEA section 5h(a)(1) registration provision). 86CEA section 1a(50); 7 U.S.C. 1a(50). The Commission notes that the Secretary of the Treasury issued a written determination pursuant to CEA sections 1a(47)(E) and 1b that foreign exchange swaps and foreign exchange forwards should not be regulated as swaps under the CEA, and therefore should be exempted from the definition of the term ‘‘swap’’ under the CEA. See Determination of Foreign Exchange Swaps and Foreign Exchange Forwards Under the Commodity Exchange Act, 77 FR 69694 (Nov. 20, 2012). Accordingly, if a facility offers a trading system or platform solely for the execution or trading of foreign exchange swaps or foreign exchange forwards, then the facility would not be required to register as a SEF. 87The Commission is adding this new provision to § 37.3(a)(1). As a result, proposed § 37.3(a) is adopted as § 37.3(b), proposed § 37.3(b) is adopted as § 37.3(c), proposed § 37.3(c) is adopted as § 37.3(d), proposed § 37.3(d) is adopted as § 37.3(e), proposed § 37.3(e) is adopted as § 37.3(f), and proposed § 37.3(f) is adopted as § 37.3(g). The SEF NPRM stated that certain entities such as one-to-one voice services and single-dealer platforms do not provide the ability for participants to conduct multiple-to-multiple execution or trading because they limit the provision of liquidity to a single liquidity provider. Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1219. 88The Commission notes that it is not tying the registration requirement in CEA section 5h(a)(1) to the trade execution requirement in CEA section 2(h)(8), such that only facilities trading swaps subject to the trade execution requirement would be required to register as a SEF. Therefore, a facility would be required to register as a SEF if it operates in a manner that meets the SEF definition even though it only executes or trades swaps that are not subject to the trade execution mandate. The Commission also notes that transactions involving swaps on SEFs that are subject to the trade execution mandate are considered to be ‘‘Required Transactions’’ under part 37 of the Commission’s regulations, whereas ‘‘Permitted Transactions’’ are transactions not involving swaps that are subject to the
trade execution mandate. As discussed further below, the regulatory obligations which pertain to Permitted Transactions differ from, and are somewhat less rigorous than, those for Required Transactions. See discussion below regarding Permitted Transactions under § 37.9(a)(1)(iv)— Required Transactions and § 37.9(a)(1)(v)— Permitted Transactions in the preamble. See also Process for a Designated Contract Market or Swap Execution Facility To Make a Swap Available To Trade, 76 FR 77728 (proposed Dec. 14, 2011) (discussing the process by which a swap is determined to be subject to the trade execution requirement in CEA section 2(h)(8)). 89Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1222. 90CEA section 5h(d)(2); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(d)(2). risk.76 All transactions must be accepted in order for a particular risk mitigation run to occur.77 If a single participant declines to agree to the proposed risk mitigation transactions, then the entire risk mitigation run fails and the existing swap transactions remain in effect.78 While its bulk risk mitigation services result in market participants entering into new trades, ICAP commented that such services do not meet the SEF definition because they do not permit participants to trade in real-time, negotiate price, or initiate directional trades.79 (v) Swap Processing Services In its first comment letter, MarkitSERV agreed with the SEF NPRM that entities operating exclusively as swap processors should not have to register as SEFs because they only provide post-execution services that facilitate clearing and settlement, not services relating to the execution of swaps.80 However, in a subsequent comment letter, after the SEC’s proposed rule that would require certain providers of post-trade services to register with the SEC as clearing agencies, MarkitSERV recommended that the Commission regulate entities that perform the confirmation and processing of swaps.81 While MarkitSERV acknowledged that the SEC’s authority under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to regulate swap processors as a clearing agency has no parallel in the CEA, MarkitSERV recommended that the Commission register such entities to avoid unnecessarily inconsistent regulations.82 MarkitSERV recommended that the Commission require swap processors to register as a sub-category of SEFs because CEA
section 5h(a)(1) references the
processing of swaps.83
(2) Commission Determination In response to commenters’ requests for clarification regarding the registration requirement, the Commission is clarifying how it interprets the broad registration provision in section 5h(a)(1) of the Act in coordination with the specific requirements for a SEF’s structure found in section 1a(50) of the Act and the trade execution requirement in section 2(h)(8) of the Act. As noted in the SEF NPRM, the Commission views the CEA
section 5h(a)(1) registration
requirement 84 as applying only to facilities that meet the SEF definition in CEA section 1a(50).85 Section 1a(50) of the Act defines a SEF as ‘‘a trading system or platform in which multiple participants have the ability to execute or trade swaps by accepting bids and offers made by multiple participants in the facility or system, through any means of interstate commerce, including any trading facility, that—(A) Facilitates the execution of swaps between persons; and (B) is not a designated contract market.’’ 86 Accordingly, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.3 to clarify the scope of the registration requirement, which states that ‘‘[a]ny person operating a facility that offers a trading system or platform in which more than one market participant has the ability to execute or trade swaps with more than one other market participant on the system or platform shall register the facility as a swap execution facility under this part 37 or as a designated contract market under
part 38 of this chapter.’’ 87
The Commission also clarifies that swap transactions that are not subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade execution requirement may be executed on either a registered SEF (i.e., a facility that meets the SEF definition) or an alternative entity that is not required to register as a SEF (e.g., see one-to-many system or platform discussion below).88 This clarification is consistent with the Commission’s acknowledgement in the SEF NPRM that swap transactions that are not subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade execution requirement would not have to be executed on a registered SEF.89 The Commission believes that its interpretation of the registration provision in CEA section 5h(a)(1) is consistent with the statute and helps further the goals provided in CEA
section 5h, which are to promote the
trading of swaps on SEFs and to promote pre-trade price transparency in the swaps market. Although the registration provision is written in broad language and could be read to require the registration of any facility for the trading or processing of swaps, the Commission notes that other statutory provisions appear to narrow the registration requirement. For example, the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade execution requirement and CEA section 5h(d)(2), which states that ‘‘[f]or all swaps that are not required to be executed through a swap execution facility . . . such trades may be executed through any other available means of interstate commerce[,]’’ 90 when read together, contemplate alternative entities that are not required to register as SEFs and may execute those swaps that are not

91The Commission notes that entities seeking guidance concerning their SEF registration obligations may request such further guidance from the Division of Market Oversight (‘‘DMO’’). 92Transactions in swaps that are subject to the clearing requirement in CEA section 2(h)(1) and ‘‘made available to trade’’ would be subject to the trade execution requirement. See CEA sections 2(h)(1) and 2(h)(8); 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(1) and 2(h)(8). See also Process for a Designated Contract Market or Swap Execution Facility To Make a Swap Available To Trade, 76 FR 77728 (proposed Dec. 14, 2011) (discussing the process by which a swap is determined to be subject to the trade execution requirement in CEA section 2(h)(8)). The trade execution requirement provides an exception to the requirement for swap transactions subject to the clearing exception under CEA section 2(h)(7). 93The Commission notes that footnote 423 below classifies aggregator platforms as a type of independent software vendor (‘‘ISV’’). Therefore, other types of ISVs would not have to register as a SEF if they only provide their users with the ability to access multiple SEFs, but do not provide for execution or trading of swaps. See discussion below regarding ISVs under § 37.202(a)—Impartial Access by Members and Market Participants in the preamble. 94For example, some aggregation services may provide their users with a portal to multiple SEFs and also execute swap transactions between their multiple users. These services would have to register as a SEF under section 5h(a)(1) of the Act. The Commission notes that if other types of ISVs provide a system or platform whereby more than one participant has the ability to execute or trade swaps with more than one other participant on the system or platform, then they would also have to register as a SEF under section 5h(a)(1) of the Act. See discussion below regarding ISVs under § 37.202(a)—Impartial Access by Members and Market Participants in the preamble. 95Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 77 FR 55904, 55932 (Sep. 11, 2012). 96 Id. at 55960. 97The Commission notes, however, that transactions in swaps that are subject to the trade execution mandate, under CEA section 2(h)(8), must be executed on a DCM or SEF and, accordingly, may not be executed on a portfolio compression service (unless no DCM or SEF makes the swap available to trade or the swap transaction is excepted or exempted from clearing under CEA
section 2(h)(7) or as otherwise provided by the
Commission). required to be executed on a SEF (i.e., those swaps that are not subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade execution requirement). The Commission is interpreting the CEA section 5h(a)(1) registration provision in a manner that is consistent with the SEF definition in CEA section 1a(50), the trade execution requirement in CEA section 2(h)(8), and CEA section 5h(d)(2), as discussed above. The following discussion is not intended to comprehensively cover which entities are required to register as a SEF. Whether a particular entity falls within the scope of CEA section 5h(a)(1) depends on all of the relevant facts and circumstances of the entity’s operations. The Commission is mindful that any rule attempting to capture all of the possible configurations of facilities that provide for the execution or trading of swaps may be or become over-inclusive or under-inclusive in light of technological changes and the ever evolving swaps market.91 However, in response to commenters’ requests, the Commission is providing examples of how it would interpret the CEA section 5h(a)(1) registration requirement with respect to certain categories of better understood facilities. (i) One-to-Many Systems or Platforms The Commission continues to believe that a one-to-many system or platform on which the sponsoring entity is the counterparty to all swap contracts executed through the system or platform would not meet the SEF definition in
section 1a(50) of the Act and, therefore,
would not be required to register as a SEF under section 5h(a)(1) of the Act. In the Commission’s view, such a system or platform does not meet the SEF definition because it limits the provision of liquidity to a single liquidity provider (i.e., the sponsoring entity). Accordingly, market participants do not have the ability to conduct multiple-to-multiple execution or trading on such a trading system or platform. The Commission notes, however, that transactions in swaps that are subject to the trade execution mandate, under CEA section 2(h)(8), must be executed on a DCM or SEF and, accordingly, may not be executed on a one-to-many system or platform.92 (ii) Blind Auction Systems or Platforms The Commission understands from commenters that a blind auction system or platform, as described above, allows market participants to submit firm bids and offers without disclosure of the terms of those bids and offers to other participants. Such bids and offers are matched through a pre-determined algorithm. The Commission believes that an entity that provides such a blind auction system or platform would meet the SEF definition in CEA section 1a(50) because more than one market participant has the ability to execute or trade swaps with more than one other market participant on the system or platform. Accordingly, an entity that provides such a blind auction system or platform would have to register as a SEF under section 5h(a)(1) of the Act. (iii) Aggregation Services or Portals The Commission understands that certain entities may seek to provide their users with the ability to access multiple SEFs and the market participants thereon, but do not provide for execution on their aggregation services as execution occurs on one of those individual SEFs. The Commission believes that an entity that provides such an aggregation service would not meet the SEF definition in CEA section 1a(50) because it is only providing a portal through which its users may access multiple SEFs and swaps are not executed or traded through the service. Accordingly, an entity that provides such an aggregation service or portal would not have to register as a SEF under section 5h(a)(1) of the Act.93 However, the Commission notes that to the extent that an aggregation service or portal itself provides a trading system or platform whereby more than one market participant has the ability to execute or trade swaps with more than one other market participant on the system or platform, the aggregation service would be required to register as a SEF.94 (iv) Services Facilitating Portfolio Compression and Risk Mitigation Transactions The Commission notes that portfolio compression services provide a netting mechanism that reduces the outstanding trade count and outstanding gross notional value of swaps in two or more swap counterparties’ portfolios.95 To achieve this result, a portfolio compression service, for example, may wholly terminate or change the notional value of some or all of the
swaps submitted by the counterparties for inclusion in the portfolio compression exercise and, depending on the methodology employed, replace the terminated swaps with other swaps whose combined notional value (or some other measure of risk) is less than the combined notional value (or some other measure of risk) of the terminated swaps in the compression exercise.96 The swap counterparties’ risk profiles are not materially changed as a result of the portfolio compression exercise. The Commission does not believe that a portfolio compression service, as described above, provides for the execution or trading of swap transactions between counterparties because the compression service is providing a netting mechanism whereby the outstanding trade count and outstanding gross notional value of swaps in two or more swap counterparties’ portfolios are reduced. Therefore, an entity providing such a portfolio compression service would not meet the SEF definition in section 1a(50) of the Act and would not have to register as a SEF under section 5h(a)(1) of the Act.97 The Commission understands from commenters that certain entities provide

98The Commission also notes that ICAP’s Web sites for its Reset and ReMatch risk mitigation services support the notion that these services are executing trades between counterparties. ICAP’s Reset Web site states that ‘‘[t]he new RESET matching engine allows for unilateral matching with hedging. No longer is it necessary to have an offsetting position for each trade to be executed.’’ See http://www.reset.net/aboutus.php. A press
article regarding ReMatch states that ‘‘ReMatch
addresses the problem of minimal or no exit liquidity . . . [by] enabling market participants to exit positions that they may otherwise have been unable to.’’ See http://www.icap.com/news-events/ in-the-news/news/2011/rematch-expands-service￾into-us-financials.aspx. 99CEA section 5h(e); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(e). 100Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1219. 101Reuters Comment Letter at 3–4 (Dec. 12, 2011); Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 8–9 (Apr. 5, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 4, 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011). Commissioner Sommers’ dissent to the SEF NPRM. See Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1259. 102Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1259. 103 Id. 104 Id. 105Reuters Comment Letter at 3–4 (Dec. 12, 2011); Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 8 (Apr. 5, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 7–8 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 32–33 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011). risk mitigation services, as described above, that operate to assist market participants in managing their exposures to market, credit, and other sources of risk. These risk mitigation services may redistribute or mitigate market participants’ risks, but they do not provide a netting mechanism. To redistribute or mitigate risk, a risk mitigation service, for example, may allow market participants to identify elements of risk in their respective portfolios and to submit information about these risks to the service. The risk mitigation service may set the prices for all points along the maturity or credit curve for all trades and the service’s proprietary algorithm produces a set of proposed transactions for each participant. If all participants accept the proposed transactions, then the new trades are executed. In the Commission’s view, such an entity would meet the SEF definition in CEA section 1a(50) because more than one market participant has the ability to execute swaps with more than one other market participant on the system or platform.98 In response to ICAP’s comment that such services do not meet the SEF definition because they do not permit participants to trade in real-time, negotiate price, or initiate directional trades, the Commission notes that the SEF definition does not require any of these stated characteristics. As noted above, the outcome of a successful risk mitigation run is the execution of new trades between multiple participants at prices accepted by those multiple participants. Additionally, the Commission notes that there are alternative avenues to managing the same risks that risk mitigation services manage, including bringing the risk mitigating orders to the open market. For instance, a market
participant could assess the various risk elements in its portfolio using appropriate tools, and then decide on a set of trades to mitigate these risks. The market participant could choose to execute these trades through a risk mitigation service, a SEF, or a DCM. In fact, in the DCM context, market participants execute such risk mitigating trades on the DCM and not through a separate non-DCM service. As such, risk mitigation services are providing an alternative avenue to execute certain swap transactions between counterparties. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the confluence of trading interests from a diverse range of motivations (e.g., risk mitigating and risk taking trades) brings depth to the marketplace and helps to build liquid markets. If the Commission did not require these risk mitigation services to register as SEFs, then market participants would be able to execute certain swap transactions away from the SEF, which would hurt liquidity and also the trading of swaps on SEFs. This would contradict one of the goals in
section 5h of the Act, which is to
promote the trading of swaps on SEFs.99 For the reasons mentioned above, the Commission believes that an entity that provides such a risk mitigation service would have to register as a SEF under
section 5h(a)(1) of the Act. However, the
Commission notes that such entities may not have to register as a SEF if they only provide the analytical services that produce the proposed risk mitigation transactions and the execution of those transactions occurs elsewhere and, in particular, the execution of those transactions that are subject to the trade execution mandate occurs on a SEF. (v) Swap Processing Services As noted in the SEF NPRM, entities that solely engage in trade processing would not meet the SEF definition in CEA section 1a(50) because they do not provide the ability to execute or trade a swap as required by the definition. Accordingly, swap processing services would not have to register as a SEF under CEA section 5h(a)(1). Consistent with this distinction, the Commission declines to create a sub-category of SEFs for processing services that would be subject to some limited subset of SEF core principles as requested by MarkitSERV. Finally, the Commission notes that platforms seeking guidance concerning the SEF registration obligations and its application to their particular operations may request informal guidance from the Division of Market Oversight (‘‘DMO’’). (b) § 37.9(b)(2)—Minimum Trading Functionality (Final § 37.3(a)(2)) To further clarify what functionalities a SEF must provide if it is required to register as a SEF, as opposed to what functionalities trigger the registration requirement, the Commission is moving proposed § 37.9(b)(2) to final § 37.3(a)(2). As discussed in the SEF NPRM, an entity that must register as a SEF under CEA section 5h(a)(1) must ensure that its operations comply with the minimum trading functionality requirement.100 The minimum trading functionality requirement in proposed § 37.9(b)(2) provided that an applicant seeking registration as a SEF must, at a minimum, offer trading services to facilitate Required Transactions by providing market participants with the ability to post both firm and indicative quotes on a centralized electronic screen accessible to all market participants who have access to the SEF. (1) Summary of Comments Several commenters stated that the minimum trading functionality is similar to an order book, which is not required by the SEF definition.101 In this regard, Commissioner Sommers offered a dissent to the SEF NPRM, which was published as Appendix 3 to that notice.102 Commissioner Sommers’ dissent asserted that the minimum trading functionality requirement is not mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act.103 In addition, Commissioner Sommers’ dissent argued for a broader interpretation of the terms ‘‘trading system’’ and ‘‘platform,’’ which are included in the statutory SEF definition so that SEFs can offer a broader model for executing swaps.104 Many commenters also stated that the SEF definition only requires that the facility provide multiple participants with the ‘‘ability’’ to execute or trade swaps by accepting bids and offers made by ‘‘multiple participants’’ and, thus, the definition does not require making bids or
offers transparent to the entire market but rather to multiple participants.105 Better Markets commented that the Commission’s minimum trading

106Better Markets Comment Letter at 6–7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 107 Id. 108Nodal Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); ICE Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 109Nodal Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); ICE Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 110Tradeweb Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 111Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1219. 112The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.9(b)(2) to § 37.3(a)(2). 113CEA section 1a(50); 7 U.S.C. 1a(50). In section 5h(e) of the Act, Congress provided a ‘‘rule of construction’’ to guide the Commission’s interpretation of certain SEF provisions (stating that the goals of section 5h of the Act are to ‘‘promote the trading of swaps on [SEFs] and to promote pre￾trade price transparency in the swaps market’’). 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(e). 114Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1219. 115See discussion below under § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)— Request for Quote System in the preamble. 116See discussion below under § 37.9(b)(1) and (b)(4)—Execution Methods for Required Transactions in the preamble. Section 13.2 will allow the Commission to consider if a broader model for executing on SEFs, consistent with the suggestion in Commissioner Sommers’ dissent, would be appropriate on a case-by-case basis, in conformance with the CEA and the Commission’s regulations. Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1259. 117See discussion below under § 37.9(b)(1) and (b)(4)—Execution Methods for Required Transactions in the preamble. 118See § 37.9(c)(2). 119CEA section 1a(50); 7 U.S.C. 1a(50). 120The term ‘‘electronic trading facility’’ means ‘‘a trading facility that—(A) operates by means of an electronic or telecommunications network; and (B) maintains an automated audit trail of bids, offers, and the matching of orders or the execution of transactions on the facility.’’ CEA section 1a(16); 7 U.S.C. 1a(16). The Commission notes that, under
section 1a(16) of the Act, the term ‘‘electronic
trading facility’’ incorporates the definition of ‘‘trading facility’’ as that term is defined under
section 1a(51) of the Act.
121The term ‘‘trading facility’’ means ‘‘a person or group of persons that constitutes, maintains, or provides a physical or electronic facility or system in which multiple participants have the ability to execute or trade agreements, contracts, or transactions—(i) by accepting bids or offers made by other participants that are open to multiple participants in the facility or system; or (ii) through the interaction of multiple bids or multiple offers within a system with a pre-determined non￾discretionary automated trade matching and execution algorithm.’’ CEA section 1a(51)(A); 7 U.S.C. 1a(51)(A). functionality requirement is an overly broad interpretation of the SEF definition because it allows a SEF to be almost any type of system or platform.106 Therefore, it recommended that the Commission narrowly interpret the multiple participant to multiple participant requirement so that the scope of acceptable execution methods has rational boundaries.107 Several commenters expressed concern about the requirement to post indicative quotes.108 Nodal and other commenters expressed concern that indicative quotes could be used for manipulative purposes.109 Tradeweb commented that, under the proposal, SEFs operating an anonymous order book system would be required to offer indicative quotes due to the minimum trading functionality requirement, which would not be suitable for anonymous order book marketplaces.110 (2) Commission Determination The Commission reiterates its view in the SEF NPRM that an entity that must register as a SEF under CEA section 5h(a)(1) must ensure that its operations comply with the minimum trading functionality requirement.111 The Commission reaffirms that an acceptable SEF system or platform must provide at least a minimum functionality to allow market participants the ability to make executable bids and offers, and to display them to all other market participants on the SEF. The Commission is adopting a revised version of proposed § 37.9(b)(2), which now requires a SEF to provide an Order Book as defined in final § 37.3(a)(3) (i.e., an electronic trading facility, a trading facility, or a trading system or platform in which all market participants have the ability to enter multiple bids and offers, observe or receive bids and offers, and transact on such bids and offers) because, as noted by several commenters, the proposed minimum trading functionality description is similar to the proposed definition of an Order Book.112 In response to comments, like the one provided by Commissioner Sommers, that an order book is not required by the SEF definition, the Commission believes that an Order Book, as defined in final § 37.3(a)(3), is consistent with the SEF definition and promotes the goals provided in section 733 of the Dodd￾Frank Act.113 This interpretation is also consistent with the SEF NPRM, as the Commission noted that it took into account these requirements when proposing the minimum trading functionality requirement.114 The
Commission notes, however, that the final regulations provide SEFs with additional flexibility in the execution methods for Required Transactions by allowing SEFs to offer an RFQ System in conjunction with an Order Book, as described below, to permit market participants to access multiple market participants, but not necessarily the entire market.115 The Commission also notes that a SEF may petition the Commission under § 13.2 of the Commission’s regulations to amend its regulations to include additional execution methods for Required Transactions.116 The final regulations further allow a SEF to utilize ‘‘any means of interstate commerce’’ in providing the execution methods in § 37.9(a)(2)(i)(A) or (B) (i.e., an Order Book or an RFQ System that operates in conjunction with an Order Book, as described below).117 The Commission also notes that a SEF may provide any method of execution for Permitted Transactions.118 By allowing SEFs to offer additional methods of execution, and permitting flexible means for executing swaps through these methods of execution, as discussed below, the Commission is effectuating the Congressional direction to allow multiple participants to execute swaps by accepting bids and offers made by multiple participants through any means of interstate commerce.119 The Commission notes that a DCM must operate as a trading facility and in conjunction with that trading facility is also permitted to utilize additional execution methods; however, those additional execution methods are limited by the requirements set forth in DCM Core Principle 9, for which there is no identical core principle for SEFs. Finally, given the changes to the minimum trading functionality requirement, the Commission notes that SEFs are not required to offer indicative quote functionality. The Commission agrees with commenters that indicative quotes would not be appropriate for certain trading systems or platforms complying with the Order Book definition in final § 37.3(a)(3) (e.g., central limit order books facilitating only anonymous trading). (c) § 37.9(a)(1)(i)—Order Book (Final § 37.3(a)(3)) The Commission is also moving proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(i) to final § 37.3(a)(3) given the relocation of, and changes to, the minimum trading functionality section as discussed above. Proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(i) defined the term ‘‘Order Book’’ to mean: (A) An electronic trading facility, as that term is defined in section 1a(16) of the Act; 120 (B) a trading facility, as that term is defined in section 1a(51) of the Act; 121 (C) a trading system or platform in which all market participants in the trading system or platform can enter multiple bids and offers, observe bids and offers entered by other market participants, and choose to transact on such bids and offers; or (D) any such

122Better Markets Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 123The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(i) to § 37.3(a)(3). The Commission is revising the definition in proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(i)(C) by replacing the word ‘‘can’’ with the phrase ‘‘have the ability to’’ and deleting the words ‘‘choose to.’’ The Commission is also adding the words ‘‘or receive’’ after the word ‘‘observe’’ so that the definition is technology neutral. See ‘‘Through Any Means of Interstate Commerce’’ Language in the SEF Definition discussion below under §§ 37.9(b)(1) and (b)(4)—Execution Methods for Required Transactions in the preamble for further details. 124See discussion below under § 37.9(b)(1) and (b)(4)—Execution Methods for Required Transactions in the preamble. 125The Commission is renaming the title of this
section from ‘‘Application Procedures’’ to
‘‘Procedures for Full Registration’’ to provide greater clarity. 126Proposed Form SEF, as set forth in proposed
appendix A to part 37, was to be used for initial
or temporary registration as a SEF as well as for any amendments to an applicant’s status otherwise not required to be submitted under part 40 of the Commission’s regulations. 127See Registration and Regulation of Security￾Based Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR 10948 (proposed Feb. 28, 2011). Tradeweb Comment Letter at 3–4 (Jun. 3, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 20–21 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 14 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 10–11 (Mar. 8, 2011); Reuters Comment Letter at 3– 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 128MarketAxess Comment Letter at 20–21 (Mar. 8, 2011). 129WMBAA Comment Letter at 14 (Mar. 8, 2011). 130Tradeweb Comment Letter at 13 (Mar. 8, 2011). 131MarketAxess Comment Letter at 29 (Mar. 8, 2011). 132The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.3(a) to § 37.3(b) and making several non￾substantive revisions to this provision and Form SEF for clarity. The Commission is also moving proposed § 37.3(a)(7) regarding delegated authority to the Director of DMO to § 37.3(h). 133CEA section 5h(g); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(g). 134The Commission notes that subsequent modifications to a SEF’s modes of execution or any additional SEF modes of execution would constitute rules; therefore, the SEF must submit such rules to the Commission for review pursuant to the procedures under part 40 of the Commission’s regulations. 135The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.3(a)(6) to § 37.3(b)(3). 136Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1238. other trading system or platform as may be determined by the Commission. (1) Summary of Comments Better Markets commented that the definition of an ‘‘order book’’ should specify that SEF systems must operate pursuant to a best price, first-in-time trade matching algorithm.122 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting the rule as proposed, subject to the modification described below.123 The Commission notes that the Dodd-Frank Act does not mandate that the Commission specify or require a particular trade-matching algorithm for modes of execution provided by SEFs. Therefore, a SEF has the discretion to use a matching algorithm such as a price-time, price￾size-time, or pro-rata allocation, provided, however, that such matching algorithm is published in the SEF’s rulebook and submitted to the Commission for review and approval as
part of the registration application. The
Commission is eliminating proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(i)(D) because, as discussed in § 37.9 below, a SEF may petition the Commission under § 13.2 to amend § 37.9(a)(2) to include additional execution methods for Required Transactions.124 (d) § 37.3(a)—Application Procedures 125 Proposed § 37.3(a) set forth the application and approval procedures for the registration of new SEFs. The proposed rule required a SEF applicant to apply to the Commission by electronically filing the proposed Form SEF.126 The proposed rule also provided that the Commission would either approve or deny the application or, if deemed appropriate, register the applicant as a SEF subject to conditions. (1) Summary of Comments The Commission received several comments encouraging the harmonization of the registration procedures for SEFs with the SEC’s registration procedures for SB–SEFs.127 In this regard, MarketAxess recommended that the Commission allow an SEC-registered SB–SEF to notice register with the Commission.128 WMBAA recommended that the Commission and the SEC adopt a common application form, which would provide for a smoother, timelier transition to the new regulatory regime.129 Tradeweb requested that the Commission confirm that SEF applicants do not need to file separate applications for each mode of execution that it will offer to participants, provided that the application clearly identifies the different features of the separate marketplaces and that each feature is in compliance with the rules.130 Additionally, MarketAxess requested clarification that the Commission does not intend proposed § 37.3(a)(6) to require amendments to Form SEF after the Commission approves an application.131 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.3(a) and Form SEF as proposed, subject to certain modifications discussed below.132 The Commission notes that there is no CEA provision which provides for SEF notice registration for SB–SEFs. The Commission does note, however, that section 5h(g) of the Act provides that the Commission ‘‘may exempt’’ a SEF from registration if the facility is subject to comparable, comprehensive supervision and regulation by the SEC, a prudential regulator, or the appropriate governmental authorities in the home country of the facility.133 The Commission observes that the SEC and other regulators have not implemented comparable, comprehensive supervision and regulation to the Commission’s SEF regulatory scheme at this time. The Commission also observes that, it must comprehensively review and understand a SEF’s proposed trading models and operations, which will facilitate trading for a more diverse universe of financial instruments and underlying commodities than SB–SEFs. Therefore, at this time, the Commission is not allowing for exempt SEFs. In response to Tradeweb’s comment about separate applications, the Commission clarifies that a SEF applicant does not need to file separate applications for each mode of execution that it will offer to
market participants, but its application, as noted in Exhibit Q to Form SEF, must describe each mode of execution offered.134 Additionally, in response to MarketAxess’s comment about amendments to Form SEF after the Commission registers a SEF, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.3(a)(6) 135 and Form SEF to clarify that an amended Form SEF is required for a SEF applicant amending a pending application for registration or for a SEF requesting an amendment to its order of registration. Otherwise, once registered, a SEF must file any amendments to Form SEF as a submission under part 40 of the Commission’s regulations or as specified by the Commission (e.g., by filing quarterly financial resources reports pursuant to § 37.1306 or by filing an amended Form SEF). As stated in the SEF NPRM, the Commission clarifies that if any information contained in Form SEF is or becomes inaccurate for any reason, even after a SEF is registered, the SEF must promptly make the appropriate corrections with the Commission.136 The Commission is adding final § 37.3(b)(5) to the rule text that requires the Commission to review an application for registration as a SEF pursuant to the 180-day timeframe and procedures specified in CEA section

137CEA section 6(a); 7 U.S.C. 8(a). The Commission notes that under CEA section 6(a), if the Commission notifies an applicant that its application is materially incomplete and specifies the deficiencies in the application, the running of the 180-day period is stayed from the time of such notification. The Commission also notes that if an applicant does not provide a complete Form SEF as provided for under § 37.3(b)(1)(i), the Commission will notify the applicant, pursuant to § 37.3(b)(4), that its application will not be deemed to have been submitted for purposes of the Commission’s review. By ‘‘complete’’ Form SEF, the Commission means that the SEF applicant provides appropriately responsive answers to each of the informational and exhibit items set forth in Form SEF. The Commission notes that if the application is not deemed to have been submitted for purposes of the Commission’s review, then the 180-day review period (when effective) will not have commenced. 138The Commission is renaming the title of this
section from ‘‘Temporary Grandfather Relief from
Registration’’ to ‘‘Temporary Registration’’ to provide greater clarity. 139MarketAxess Comment Letter at 16 (Mar. 8, 2011). 140MarketAxess Comment Letter at 16–17 (Mar. 8, 2011); MFA Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 141MarketAxess Comment Letter at 16–17 (Mar. 8, 2011). 142MarketAxess Comment Letter at 4 (Jun. 3, 2011); Bloomberg Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 3, 2011); State Street Comment Letter at 6–7 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 14–15 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 13 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 17–19 (Mar. 8, 2011). 143Bloomberg Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 3, 2011). 144MarketAxess Comment Letter at 17–19 (Mar. 8, 2011). 145Phoenix Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 7, 2011). 146MarketAxess Comment Letter at 20 (Mar. 8, 2011). 147CME Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011). 6(a).137 This section will be effective for SEF applicants who submit their applications for registration as a SEF on or after two years from the effective date of part 37. The Commission is adopting this provision so that SEF applicants are treated comparably to DCM applicants who currently are subject to the 180-day Commission review period under CEA
section 6(a). Although Congress did not
impose a 180-day review period for SEFs, the Commission believes that harmonization of the review periods for DCM and SEF applicants is appropriate given the fact that both are registered entities for the trading of swaps. The Commission also believes that this requirement will provide greater certainty for SEF applicants regarding the time period for the Commission’s review of their applications. Finally, the Commission is clarifying the standard upon which the Commission will grant or deny registration. Proposed § 37.3(a)(1) stated that ‘‘[t]he Commission shall approve or deny the application or, if deemed appropriate, register the applicant as a swap execution facility subject to conditions.’’ In addition, proposed § 37.3(a)(2) stated that ‘‘[t]he application must include information sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the core principles specified in Section 5h of the Act.’’ Consistent with these provisions, the Commission is clarifying in final § 37.3(b)(6) that: (i) The Commission will issue an order granting registration upon a Commission determination, in its own discretion, that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the Act and the Commission’s regulations applicable to swap execution facilities; (ii) if deemed appropriate, the Commission may issue an order granting registration subject to conditions; and (iii) the Commission may issue an order denying registration upon a Commission determination, in its own discretion, that the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the Act and the Commission’s regulations applicable to swap execution facilities. (e) § 37.3(b)—Temporary Grandfather Relief From Registration 138 Proposed § 37.3(b) provided that an applicant for SEF registration may request that the Commission grant the applicant temporary grandfather relief from the registration requirement. The temporary relief would allow the applicant to continue operating during the pending application review process. Under the proposed rule, to receive temporary relief, the applicant was required to provide the following information to the Commission: (1) An application for SEF registration submitted in compliance with proposed § 37.3(a); (2) a notification of its interest in operating under the temporary relief; (3) transaction data substantiating that swaps have been traded and continue to be traded on the applicant’s trading system or platform at the time of its application submission; and (4) a certification that the applicant believes that it will meet the requirements of part 37 of the Commission’s regulations when it operates under temporary relief. Under proposed § 37.3(b)(2), an applicant’s grant of temporary relief would expire on the earlier of: (1) The date that the Commission grants or denies SEF registration; or (2) the date that the Commission rescinds the temporary relief. Proposed § 37.3(b)(3) contained a sunset date for the temporary relief provision of 365 days following the effective date of the final SEF
regulations. Finally, the Commission proposed that the SEF rules, which include the requirements for temporary relief, would be effective 90 days after their publication in the Federal Register. (1) Summary of Comments (i) Comments on Temporary Grandfather Relief MarketAxess commented that the phrase ‘‘temporary grandfather relief’’ is ambiguous and recommended that the Commission rename ‘‘temporary grandfather relief’’ to ‘‘temporary registration.’’ 139 With respect to the substance of this provision, some commenters expressed concern that the existing trading activity requirement in proposed § 37.3(b)(1)(ii) would prevent new entities from qualifying for temporary relief.140 In this regard, MarketAxess recommended that the Commission revise proposed § 37.3(b)(1)(ii) to permit SEF applicants, as an alternative to providing transaction data, to provide materials substantiating that the applicant’s system is operational and therefore could facilitate trading in listed swaps upon receiving temporary registration from the Commission.141 Further, several commenters recommended alternative certification standards under proposed § 37.3(b)(1)(iii).142 Bloomberg, for example, recommended that SEFs be required to certify only that they have implemented rules ‘‘reasonably designed to ensure’’ compliance with
part 37.143 Similarly, MarketAxess
recommended a more flexible certification requirement because compliance with certain core principles will need to await the build-out functionality of third-party regulatory service providers.144 In addition, Phoenix commented that to avoid any market disruptions, the Commission should permit SEF applicants to operate under temporary relief while awaiting a Commission determination to either grant or deny the temporary relief request.145 MarketAxess also noted that the Commission should not ‘‘tie its own hands’’ by imposing a fixed one-year post-effective time period for reviewing SEF applications.146 (ii) Comments on DCM Eligibility CME commented that if a DCM has listed cleared swaps prior to the adoption of the final rules, then there is no reason to exclude them from applying for temporary relief.147 NYSE Liffe recommended that temporary relief remain available to DCMs either as long as it is available to SEF applicants or on an ongoing basis so that a DCM required under DCM Core Principle 9 to delist a futures contract at any point in the future would be allowed to seek

148NYSE Liffe Comment Letter at 3–4 (Sep. 2, 2011). 149AIMA Comment Letter at 3 (Jun. 10, 2011); Nodal Comment Letter at 3–5 (Jun. 3, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 4–5 (Jun. 3, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 6 (Jun. 3, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 19 (Mar. 8, 2011); NFA Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 12–13 (Mar. 8, 2011); ICAP Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Nodal Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 150Nodal Comment Letter at 4 (Jun. 3, 2011); Nodal Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 151MarketAxess Comment Letter at 19 (Mar. 8, 2011); NFA Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 152SDMA Comment Letter at 12 (Mar. 8, 2011). 153The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.3(b) to § 37.3(c) and making several non￾substantive revisions for clarity. 154Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1216. 155The applicant must comply with all of the requirements in final § 37.3(b)(1)(i) and must submit a temporary registration notice to the Commission to qualify for temporary registration. See Final § 37.3(c)(1) of the Commission’s regulations. 156The Commission notes that certain entities may continue to operate under current exemptions while their SEF applications are pending, as long as the entities submit a complete application (i.e., the SEF applicant provides substantive answers to each of the informational and exhibit items set forth in Form SEF) and temporary registration notice before the effective date of the final SEF regulations. See CFTC No-Action Letter 12–48 (Dec. 11, 2012). 157See discussion below regarding swap dealer and major swap participant provisional registration rules. 158The Commission is delegating to the Director of DMO, upon consultation with the General Counsel, the authority to issue a notice granting or denying temporary registration. See Final § 37.3(h) of the Commission’s regulations. 159This provision is contained in final § 37.3(c)(2) of the Commission’s regulations. This rule also states that in no case may an applicant begin operating as a temporarily registered SEF until the effective date of the SEF regulations. temporary relief from registration as a SEF.148 (iii) Comments on 90-Day Effective Date of Regulations Some commenters recommended a longer time period for the effective date of the final regulations to provide applicants with additional time to implement the large number of changes required.149 Nodal commented that the short effective date will disadvantage smaller exchanges because its supporting external parties will likely prioritize compliance obligations in order to be responsive to the largest exchanges first.150 MarketAxess and NFA recommended that the Commission provide SEF applicants 180 days after adoption of the final rules to comply with the final SEF regulations in light of forthcoming operational challenges.151 However, SDMA supported the 90-day effective date and urged the Commission to be vigilant in preventing
further delays that undermine the realization of the goals of the Dodd-Frank Act.152 (2) Commission Determination (i) Temporary Grandfather Relief The Commission agrees with MarketAxess that ‘‘temporary registration’’ is more accurate than ‘‘temporary grandfather relief’’ and is accordingly making such change. Additionally, based on the comments, the Commission is adopting proposed § 37.3(b) as final § 37.3(c) subject to a number of modifications.153 The Commission further agrees with MarketAxess and other commenters that the trading activity requirement as proposed in § 37.3(b)(1)(ii) may limit temporary registration to incumbent platforms. Therefore, the Commission is eliminating the trading activity requirement and will permit all SEF applicants to apply for temporary registration if they meet the requirements under final § 37.3(c)(1). The Commission views the revised temporary registration provision as promoting competition between SEFs by providing fair opportunities for new entities to establish trading operations in competition with incumbents. The Commission is deleting the certification requirement under proposed § 37.3(b)(1)(iii) because it is unnecessary. The Commission notes, as stated in the SEF NPRM, that once a SEF applicant is granted temporary registration it must comply with all provisions of the Act and the Commission’s regulations that are applicable to SEFs.154 The Commission is revising the temporary registration provisions to clarify in final § 37.3(c)(1) that a SEF applicant may apply for temporary registration if it submits a complete Form SEF and a temporary registration notice.155 The Commission is also revising the temporary registration provisions to require a SEF applicant that is already operating a swaps-trading platform, in reliance upon either an exemption granted by the Commission or some form of no-action relief granted by the Commission staff, to include in the temporary registration notice a certification that it is operating pursuant to such exemption or no-action relief. The Commission also clarifies that a SEF applicant may submit such temporary registration application after the final SEF regulations are published in the Federal Register until the termination of the temporary registration provision pursuant to final § 37.3(c)(5).156 Pursuant to final § 37.3(c)(1), the Commission notes that it will grant a SEF applicant temporary registration upon a Commission determination that the applicant has provided a complete Form SEF as part of its registration application and submitted a notification requesting that the Commission grant temporary registration. If an applicant has not met these requirements, the Commission may deny its request for temporary registration. By ‘‘complete’’ Form SEF, the Commission means that the SEF applicant provides appropriately responsive answers to each of the informational and exhibit items set forth in Form SEF. The Commission notes that it will review a SEF applicant’s Form
SEF to ensure that it is complete, and will not conduct any substantive review of the form before granting or denying temporary registration. The Commission notes that this temporary registration process is similar to the notice registration process followed by the Commission in the context of other types of registrations.157 The Commission will review SEF applicants’ submissions on a rolling basis and the Commission will issue notices either granting or denying temporary registration.158 The Commission believes that providing a clear and streamlined path to temporary registration will minimize the potential for regulatory arbitrage, ensure a level playing field, and promote competition among SEFs. The Commission stresses that a grant of temporary registration does not mean that the Commission has determined that a SEF applicant is fully compliant with the Act and Commission regulations, nor does it guarantee that a SEF applicant will eventually be granted full SEF registration. After granting a SEF applicant temporary registration, the Commission will review the applicant’s application to assess whether the applicant is fully compliant with the requirements of the Act and the Commission’s regulations applicable to SEFs. During such assessment, the Commission may request from the SEF applicant additional information in order to make a determination whether to issue a final order of registration. The Commission is also revising the temporary registration provisions to clarify in final § 37.3(c)(2) that an applicant cannot operate as a SEF under temporary registration until the applicant receives a notice from the Commission or the Commission staff granting temporary registration.159 In response to Phoenix’s comment about a SEF operating while its temporary registration is pending, the Commission does not believe that a SEF applicant should be allowed to operate as a SEF

160Registration of Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 77 FR 2613 (Jan. 19, 2012). 161This provision is contained in final § 37.3(c)(5) of the Commission’s regulations. 162This provision is contained in final § 37.3(c)(6) of the Commission’s regulations. 163See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985). 164This scenario is not limited to a prospective SEF that is already operating a swaps-trading platform in reliance on a Commission staff relief letter. As noted above, all SEF applicants may apply for temporary registration if they meet the requirements under final § 37.3(c)(1). under temporary registration before the Commission has had a chance to review the application to ensure that it is complete. The Commission’s review is especially merited given the Commission’s decision to permit temporary registration of entities that have not previously traded swaps. The Commission believes that permitting entities to operate as temporarily registered SEFs, notwithstanding the lack of a substantive review of the SEF’s application by the Commission, is not a novel concept and has been followed by the Commission in other contexts where it is important to allow entities to quickly reach the market, before an extensive Commission review. For instance, under the Commission’s swap dealer and major swap participant registration rules, provisional registration is granted upon the filing of an application and documentation demonstrating compliance or the ability to comply with the CEA section 4s requirements in effect on such date— and not after review and approval of the documentation by the National Futures Association (‘‘NFA’’), as the Commission’s delegee.160 On and after the date on which NFA confirms that the applicant has demonstrated its initial compliance with the applicable requirements, the provisional registration of the applicant ceases and the applicant becomes registered as an SD or an MSP, as the case may be. The Commission envisions the SEF temporary registration process as operating in a similar fashion, with the Commission reviewing each application for completeness alone before granting temporary registration. Subsequently, and concurrent with the temporarily registered SEF’s early operations, the Commission would conduct a comprehensive review of the application for compliance with all applicable SEF requirements. The Commission is revising proposed § 37.3(b)(2) regarding the expiration of temporary registration to remove the ability of the Commission to rescind temporary registration. The Commission notes that the SEF NPRM did not provide a standard for the Commission to rescind temporary registration. Instead, in final § 37.3(c)(3), the Commission may rely on its ability to deny full registration, which will also cause temporary registration to expire. Therefore, the Commission believes that the ability to rescind temporary registration is unnecessary. The Commission is extending the 365- day sunset provision for temporary registration
to two years from the effective date of these regulations in final § 37.3(c)(5).161 Given that the projected number of temporary SEF registrations may exceed 20 and the resource constraints faced by the Commission, the Commission may not be able to complete its registration reviews, enable SEFs to remedy any identified deficiencies, and ultimately grant or deny full registration for all of the SEF applicants within the proposed 365-day period. Extending the temporary registration provision will provide the Commission with adequate time to review the SEF registration applications while ensuring that SEFs can continue their operations under temporary registration, without interruption, until the Commission decides on their application for full registration. The Commission is also revising final § 37.3(c)(5) to state that the temporary registration provision will not terminate for an applicant who applies for temporary registration before the termination of the temporary registration provision and has not been granted or denied registration under § 37.3(b)(6) by the time of the termination of the temporary registration provision. In addition, final § 37.3(c)(5) states that such an applicant may operate as a SEF under temporary registration upon receipt of a notice from the Commission granting temporary registration until the Commission grants or denies full registration pursuant to § 37.3(b)(6). On the termination date of the temporary registration provision, the Commission will review such applicant’s application pursuant to the 180-day Commission review period and procedures in § 37.3(b)(5). These revisions will ensure that a temporarily registered SEF who does not have a full registration in place by the time the temporary registration provision terminates will not have to stop operating on such termination date. (ii) DCM Eligibility The Commission is withdrawing proposed § 37.3(b)(1)(ii) regarding the existing trading activity requirement so an operational DCM that seeks to create a new SEF would be able to qualify for temporary SEF registration. In consideration of NYSE Liffe’s comment that temporary SEF registration for an existing DCM should not be subject to the sunset provision, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.3(b) in final § 37.3(c)(6) to allow for such an exemption.162 The Commission notes that a DCM is subject to a higher regulatory standard than a SEF such that a non-dormant DCM who seeks to create a new SEF in order to transfer one or more of its contracts should be able to meet many of the SEF requirements. Therefore, the Commission believes that, on an ongoing basis, an operational DCM that also seeks to register as a SEF in order to transfer one or more of its contracts (whether the transfer of the contract is motivated by DCM Core Principle 9 or another reason) may request SEF temporary registration. (iii) 90-Day Effective Date of Regulations The Commission is shortening the proposed 90-day effective date to 60 days
subsequent to publication in the Federal Register. In consideration of the comments received and the availability of the Commission staff resources, the Commission has determined to use its discretion to establish alternative dates for the commencement of its enforcement of regulatory provisions and is setting a general compliance date of 120 days subsequent to Federal Register publication.163 With this use of an effective date and compliance date, a prospective SEF that is already operating a swaps-trading platform in reliance on a Commission staff relief letter (e.g., CFTC No-Action Letter 12–
48) could submit a SEF application and
receive temporary registration before
part 37’s effective date so that it might
begin operating as a SEF upon that effective date.164 Alternatively, if such a prospective SEF took additional time to prepare its SEF application, it would have the option of forestalling the submission of its application until after the effective date, so long as it submitted its SEF application by the compliance date. The Commission believes that this combination of a 60-day effective date and a 120-day compliance date subsequent to Federal Register publication for prospective SEF applicants establishes a transition period that appropriately balances the Commission’s need to provide regulatory certainty to potential applicants through issuance of final SEF regulations and the Commission’s statutory directives to both promote fair

165Section 3(b) of the Act lists the promotion of ‘‘fair competition among boards of trade, other markets, and market participants’’ as a purpose of the Act. 7 U.S.C. 5(b). 166Section 5h(e) of the Act lists the promotion of ‘‘the trading of swaps on swap executive facilities’’ as one goal of the Act. 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(e). 167The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.3(c) to § 37.3(d) and making several non￾substantive revisions for clarity. 168The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.3(d) to § 37.3(e) and making several non￾substantive revisions for clarity. 169The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.3(e) to § 37.3(f) and making several non￾substantive revisions for clarity. 170The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.3(f) to § 37.3(g) and making several non￾substantive revisions for clarity. 171CEA section 15(b) requires the Commission to take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the objectives of the Act, as well as the policies and purposes of the Act. 7 U.S.C. 19(b). 172WMBAA Comment Letter at 15–16 (Mar. 8, 2011). 173 Id. 174CME Comment Letter at 10, 13 (Feb. 22, 2011). CME also provided its comments to the rulemaking titled Provisions Common to Registered Entities, 76 FR 44776 (Jul. 27, 2011). In addition, rather than repeat its comments that pertain to both the DCM and SEF NPRMs, CME incorporated its entire DCM rulemaking comment letter dated Feb. 22, 2011 as Exhibit A to its SEF comment letter dated Mar. 8,
2011. The Commission notes these comments by
referencing the Feb. 22, 2011 date of CME’s DCM comment letter. The Commission is also changing CME’s reference to ‘‘DCM’’ to ‘‘SEF’’ for these comments. 175MarketAxess Comment Letter at 19 (Mar. 8, 2011). Tradeweb similarly commented that a SEF applicant should be able to introduce new products while it is operating under temporary relief. Tradeweb Comment Letter at 13 (Mar. 8, 2011). 176 17 CFR part 40. 177CEA section 5c(c); 7 U.S.C. 7a–2(c). 178See Provisions Common to Registered Entities, 76 FR 44776 (Jul. 27, 2011). 179See generally Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1217 (explaining the proposed ten percent threshold). competition between swaps trading venues 165 and promote the trading of swaps on SEFs.166 The new transition period ensures swaps market continuity, preserves competition between swaps trading venues, and facilitates the orderly restructuring of the swaps market in compliance with the Act and regulations thereunder. The Commission believes that the 60-day effective date and the 120-day compliance date approach will provide prospective SEF applicants with sufficient time to comply with the final regulations and, if they choose, to prepare an application for temporary registration. (f) § 37.3(c)—Reinstatement of Dormant Registration Proposed § 37.3(c) provided procedures for a dormant SEF to reinstate its registration. The Commission received no comments on this section and is adopting § 37.3(c) as proposed.167 (g) § 37.3(d)—Request for Transfer of Registration Proposed § 37.3(d) provided procedures that a SEF must follow when seeking to transfer its registration from its current legal entity to a new legal entity as a result of a corporate event. The Commission received no comments on this section and is adopting § 37.3(d) as proposed.168 (h) § 37.3(e)—Request for Withdrawal of Application for Registration Proposed § 37.3(e) provided that a SEF applicant may withdraw its application for registration. The Commission received no comments on this section and is adopting § 37.3(e) as proposed.169 (i) § 37.3(f)—Request for Vacation of Registration Proposed § 37.3(f) provided that a SEF may vacate its registration. The Commission received no comments on this section and is adopting § 37.3(f) as proposed.170
4. § 37.4—Procedures for Listing
Products and Implementing Rules Proposed § 37.4 detailed the approval and self-certification procedures under
part 40 of the Commission’s regulations
that SEF applicants and SEFs must follow to submit its products and rules to the Commission. Proposed § 37.4 also provided that a SEF may request that the Commission consider, under the provisions of section 15(b) of the Act,171 any of the SEF’s rules or policies. (a) Summary of Comments WMBAA commented that SEFs should not be required to seek Commission approval for their products and rules.172 WMBAA recommended that SEFs be allowed to submit to the Commission a simple self-certification that they complied with the applicable requirements.173 CME stated that the proposed procedures for listing products would increase the burdens associated with new product submissions and rule changes and would create new and costly bureaucratic inefficiencies, competitive disadvantages in the global marketplace, and impediments to innovation.174 MarketAxess recommended that the Commission revise proposed § 37.4 to clarify that temporarily registered SEFs may list swaps through the Commission’s approval or self￾certification procedures.175 (b) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting proposed § 37.4 subject to certain modifications. The Commission is removing many of the details from the proposed rule, which are already contained in part 40 of the Commission’s regulations, and is instead referring SEFs to part 40.176 The Commission is also removing the CEA
section 15(b) consideration provision
because, when reviewing any SEF rule, the Commission is already required to take into consideration the provisions under section 15(b) of the Act. In response to WMBAA’s comments that SEFs should not be required to seek Commission approval of their products and rules, the Commission notes that a SEF is a registered entity under the Act and pursuant to section 5c(c) of the Act, registered entities must submit product terms and conditions and rules to the Commission for approval or under self￾certification procedures.177 In addition, the Commission notes that CME’s comments were addressed in the part 40 rulemaking and are outside the scope of this rulemaking.178 The Commission also clarifies that temporarily registered SEFs may list swaps or submit rules through the Commission’s approval or self-certification procedures under part 40 of this chapter, and that the timelines under those procedures shall apply.
5. § 37.5—Information Relating to Swap
Execution Facility Compliance Proposed § 37.5(a) required a SEF to file with the Commission information related to its business as a SEF as specified in the Commission’s request. Proposed § 37.5(b) required a SEF to file with the Commission a written demonstration of compliance with the core principles. Proposed § 37.5(d) delegated the Commission’s authority to seek information as set forth in § 37.5(b) to the Director of DMO or such other employee as the Director may designate. Proposed § 37.5(c) required a SEF to file with the Commission a notice of the transfer of ten percent or more of its equity no later than the business day following the date on which the SEF enters into a firm obligation to transfer the equity interest.179 The proposed rule also required that the notification include any relevant agreement and a representation from the SEF that it meets all of the requirements of section 5h of the Act and Commission regulations adopted thereunder. Additionally, the proposed rule

180CME Comment Letter at 13 (Feb. 22, 2011). 181 Id. 182MarketAxess Comment Letter at 29 (Mar. 8, 2011). 183Better Markets Comment Letter at 21–22 (Mar. 8, 2011). 184The Commission is removing the reference to ‘‘information relating to data entry and trade details’’ in proposed § 37.5(a) because it is unnecessary. The rule text is broad enough to encompass such information as it states that, upon the Commission’s request, a SEF shall file with the Commission information related to its business as a SEF. 185The Commission interprets ‘‘firm obligation’’ to mean when a SEF enters into a letter of intent or any other document that demonstrates a SEF’s firm intent to transfer its equity interest as described in § 37.5(c). required the SEF to notify the Commission of the consummation of the transaction on the day on which it occurs. Furthermore, the proposed rule required that, upon the transfer of the equity interest, the SEF certify, no later than two business days following the date on which the change in ownership occurs, that the SEF meets all of the requirements of section 5h of the Act and Commission regulations adopted thereunder. (a) Summary of Comments The Commission did not receive any comments on proposed § 37.5(a), (b), or (d). The Commission did, however, receive comments on the equity interest transfer provisions in proposed § 37.5(c). CME commented that the submissions required to be simultaneously filed with the initial notification of an equity interest transfer do not lend themselves to preparation within the 24-hour time frame proposed in the rules.180 CME further commented that the representation of compliance with the requirements of CEA section 5h and the Commission’s regulations adopted thereunder would be more appropriate if required upon consummation of the equity interest transfer, rather than with the initial notification.181 MarketAxess commented that public companies should not have to file a notice of an equity interest transfer because the ownership structure of a public company does not implicate the control and influence concerns raised by the Commission in its proposal, and shareholders are already obligated under the SEC’s regulations to report threshold acquisitions of equity interests within ten days of such an acquisition.182 Lastly, Better Markets recognized the important implications of transferring control in a regulated marketplace and it recommended that the Commission lower the transfer threshold for reporting to five percent as similarly required by the SEC for public equity transfers.183 (b) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.5(a), (b), and (d) as proposed subject to certain non-substantive clarifications.184 The Commission is adopting proposed § 37.5(c) with certain revisions discussed below. The Commission is revising § 37.5(c) to provide that a SEF must submit to the Commission a notification of each transaction involving the transfer of fifty percent or more of the equity interest
in the SEF, and that such notification must be provided at the earliest possible time, but in no event later than the open of the business day that is ten business days following the date in which the SEF enters into a firm obligation 185 to transfer the equity interest. However, in all cases, the Commission notes that a SEF must provide the Commission staff with sufficient time, prior to consummating the equity interest transfer, to review and consider the implications of the change in ownership, including whether the change in ownership will adversely impact the operations of the SEF or the SEF’s ability to comply with the core principles and the Commission’s regulations thereunder. The Commission acknowledges CME’s concern regarding the one business day time period for filing the supporting documents with the equity interest transfer notification. Thus, in addition to extending the time period to up to ten business days for a SEF to file notification with the Commission, the Commission is revising the rule to eliminate the requirement that specific documents be provided with the notification. Rather, the Commission is revising the rule text to clarify that upon receiving a notification of the equity interest transfer, the Commission may request appropriate documentation pursuant to its authority under § 37.5 of the Commission’s regulations. For example, such documentation may include, but is not limited to: (i) Relevant agreement(s), including any preliminary agreements (not including draft documents); (ii) associated changes to relevant corporate documents; (iii) a chart outlining any new ownership or corporate or organizational structure, if available; and (iv) a brief description of the purpose and any impact of the equity interest transfer. The Commission is deleting the requirement for a SEF to provide a representation of compliance with
section 5h of the Act and the
Commission regulations thereunder with the equity interest transfer notification, as requested by CME. The Commission agrees with CME that this requirement is more appropriate upon consummation of the equity interest transfer, rather than with the initial notification. Therefore, the Commission is maintaining the certification requirement upon consummation of the equity interest transfer as proposed in the SEF NPRM. With respect to the other comments, the Commission believes that the notice requirements should not be limited to privately-held companies as the Commission’s objective is to ensure that equity transfers do not negatively impact the operations of registered entities. The Commission must oversee and ensure the continued compliance of all SEFs with the core principles and the Commission’s regulations. In order to fulfill its oversight obligations, and to ensure that SEFs maintain compliance with their self-regulatory obligations, the Commission must receive a notice of an equity interest transfer. The Commission acknowledges the suggestion by Better Markets to lower the equity interest transfer threshold to five percent; however, the Commission believes that the revisions to § 37.5(c) will still allow the Commission to fulfill its oversight obligations, while reducing the costs for SEFs to comply with the equity interest transfer requirements. Finally, the Commission is revising the rule to remind SEFs that if any aspect of an equity interest transfer requires the SEF to file a rule as defined in part 40 of the Commission regulations, then the SEF must comply with the rule submission requirements of section 5c(c) of the CEA and part 40 of this chapter, and all other applicable Commission regulations.
6. § 37.6—Enforceability
Section 37.6 is intended to provide
market participants who execute swap transactions on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF with legal certainty with respect to such transactions. In that regard, proposed § 37.6(a) established that any transaction entered into, on, or pursuant to the rules of a SEF cannot be voided, rescinded, or held unenforceable as a result of: (1) The SEF violating any provision of section 5h of the CEA or part 37; (2) any Commission proceeding to alter or supplement a rule, term, or condition under section 8a(7) of the CEA or to declare an emergency under section 8a(9) of the CEA; or (3) any other proceeding the effect of which is to alter or supplement a specific term or condition or trading rule or procedure, or require a registered

186The Commission proposed § 37.6(b) to facilitate the process contemplated by the confirmation definition. A swap ‘‘confirmation’’ is defined as the consummation (electronically or otherwise) of legally binding documentation (electronic or otherwise) that memorializes the agreement of the counterparties to all of the terms of a swap. A confirmation must be in writing (whether electronic or otherwise) and must legally supersede any previous agreement (electronically or otherwise). 17 CFR 45.1; Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 77 FR 2136, 2197 (Jan. 13, 2012). 187MarketAxess Comment Letter at 28–29 (Mar. 8, 2011). Proposed § 45.3 required that for all transactions executed on a SEF, regardless of whether the swap was cleared, the SEF would be responsible for reporting to a swap data repository only the primary economic terms of the transaction in its possession at the time of execution, and that reporting of confirmation data consisting of all terms of the transaction would be the responsibility of either the derivatives clearing organization (if cleared) or one of the counterparties (if uncleared). Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 75 FR 76574, 76580–81 (proposed Dec. 8, 2010). As adopted by the Commission, however, § 45.3 requires a SEF to report both the primary economic terms data as well as all confirmation data consisting of all transaction terms for each swap executed on or pursuant to the rules of the SEF as soon as technologically practicable after execution of the swap. 17 CFR 45.3; Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 77 FR 2136, 2199 (Jan. 13, 2012). 188MarketAxess Comment Letter at 29 (Mar. 8, 2011). 189MarkitSERV Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 190 Id. MarkitSERV also expressed concern that the SEF NPRM is conflating the concepts of confirmation and affirmation with the audit trail requirements in proposed § 37.205. For example, MarkitSERV sought clarification regarding the SEF NPRM’s statement that ‘‘[v]oice transactions must be entered into some form of electronic affirmation system immediately upon execution.’’ Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1221. Given the audit trail requirement in proposed § 37.205(b)(1), which states that SEFs that ‘‘permit intermediation must require that all orders or requests for quotes received by phone that are executable be immediately entered into the trading system or platform[,]’’ MarkitSERV recommended that the Commission use the term ‘‘electronic processing system’’ instead of ‘‘electronic affirmation system’’ because audit trail records and affirmation are different concepts. Id. at 1244. MarkitSERV Comment Letter at 4, 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). ABC/CIEBA also sought clarification as to whether SEFs must enter Permitted Transactions into an affirmation system, and if so, ABC/CIEBA noted that the SEF NPRM is inconsistent with other rules. ABC/CIEBA Comment Letter at 7–8 (Mar. 8, 2011). The Commission
notes that the final SEF rules do not require the use of an ‘‘electronic affirmation system.’’ The Commission also clarifies that confirmation and the creation of an audit trail in § 37.205 are two separate and distinct requirements. In addition, the Commission notes that § 37.205(b) merely establishes the requirement that SEFs must capture audit trail data for regulatory purposes and does not address affirmation, confirmation, or the public reporting or dissemination of such data. 191Energy Working Group Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 192 Id. 193The Commission is making certain non￾substantive revisions to § 37.6(a) for clarity. 194Part 45 requires a SEF to report all confirmation data and all primary economic terms data as defined in part 23 and § 45.1 of the Commission’s regulations for each swap executed on or pursuant to the rules of the SEF as soon as technologically practicable after execution of the swap. 17 CFR 45.3; Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 77 FR 2136, 2199 (Jan. 13, 2012). Part 45 defines confirmation data as ‘‘all of the terms of a swap matched and agreed upon by the counterparties in confirming the swap.’’ Id. at 2197. 195The Commission notes that swap trading relationship documentation is not required for swaps cleared by a derivatives clearing organization. See § 23.504(a)(1) of the Commission’s regulations. The Commission also notes that the commenters’ concerns are most relevant to those transactions that are truly bespoke, not subject to the clearing mandate, and not voluntarily cleared. There is no reason why a SEF’s written confirmation terms cannot incorporate by reference the privately negotiated terms of a freestanding master agreement for these types of transactions, provided that the master agreement is submitted to the SEF ahead of execution and the counterparties ensure that nothing in the confirmation terms contradict the standardized terms intended to be incorporated from the master agreement. See also Real-Time Public Reporting of Swap Transaction Data, 77 FR 1182, 1193 (Jan. 9, 2012) (discussing confirmation and incorporating documents by reference). SEF to adopt a specific term or condition, trading rule or procedure, or to take or refrain from taking a specific action. Proposed § 37.6(b) required that all transactions executed on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF include written documentation memorializing all terms of the swap transaction, the legal effect of which is to supersede any previous agreement between the counterparties. The proposed rule also required that the confirmation of all terms of the transaction take place at the same time as execution.186 (a) Summary of Comments Three commenters addressed the practicality of a SEF confirming all terms of a transaction at the same time as execution. MarketAxess recommended that a SEF be responsible for confirming only the swap creation data in its possession at the time of execution, consistent with the Commission’s approach in
its proposed
part 45 regulations.187 MarketAxess also
requested that the Commission clarify that SEFs are only responsible for producing a confirmation for swaps entered into on, and not just pursuant to the rules of, a SEF.188 MarkitSERV stated that when counterparties choose to execute a swap on a SEF that is not subject to the clearing mandate and not submitted for clearing to a clearinghouse, the parties will require a long-term credit relationship to be in place, often memorialized in an ISDA Master Agreement.189 MarkitSERV further stated that the confirmation terms provided by a SEF may not be able to accommodate the specificity of such a master agreement, thus making the SEF’s confirmation inadequate for purposes of complying with the Commission’s regulations.190 Similarly, the Energy Working Group expressed concern over the provision’s requirement that the SEF’s confirmation supersede any previous agreement between the transacting parties, noting that this language appears to prevent a master agreement from operating between counterparties transacting on a SEF.191 The Energy Working Group also stated that confirmation cannot take place at the same time as execution because they are two distinct steps in the swap transaction process.192 (b) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.6(a) as proposed.193 The Commission is also adopting § 37.6(b) as proposed subject to the two revisions discussed below. Although the comments received regarding proposed § 37.6(b) did not cite ambiguity in the SEF NPRM regarding a SEF’s affirmative duty to provide confirmation documentation to counterparties, the Commission has determined to revise § 37.6(b) to state explicitly that a ‘‘swap execution facility shall provide each counterparty’’ with written documentation of all terms of the transaction to serve as confirmation of such transaction. In response to MarketAxess’s comments, the Commission notes that § 37.6(b) is consistent with the requirement in final
part 45 of the Commission’s regulations
that a SEF report confirmation data consisting of all terms of a transaction to a swap data repository (‘‘SDR’’) for each swap executed on or pursuant to the rules of the SEF.194 With regard to the specific comments received about the role of master agreements in the written confirmation provided by a SEF, the Commission has determined that counterparties choosing to execute a transaction not submitted for clearing on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF must have all terms, including possible long-term credit support arrangements, agreed to no later than execution, such that the SEF can provide a written confirmation inclusive of those terms at the time of execution and report complete, non-duplicative, and non-contradictory data to an SDR as soon as technologically practicable after execution.195 This requirement, as mentioned above, is necessary to provide market participants who execute swap transactions on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF with legal certainty with respect to such transactions, and to promote the Commission’s policy goal of achieving ‘‘straight-through processing’’ of swap

196The OTC Derivatives Supervisors’ Group, a collaboration of market participant leadership headed by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, recognized the potential of electronic trading to facilitate the objectives of straight-through processing in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. See Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, and Portfolio Compression Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 75 FR 81519, 81521–22 (proposed Dec. 28, 2010) (noting that ‘‘[t]imely and accurate confirmation of transactions is critical for all downstream operational and risk management processes, including the correct calculation of cash flows and discharge of settlement obligations as well as accurate measurement of counterparty credit exposures.’’). 197See CEA section 5h(e); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(e) (stating that the goal of this section is to promote pre-trade price transparency in the swaps market). While straight-through processing may not be as relevant to credit risk associated with transactions executed on or pursuant to the rules of a SEF but not submitted for clearing, the data and real-time reporting requirements already finalized by the Commission mandate reporting by the SEF of all swap transaction terms ‘‘as soon as technologically practicable’’ in order to effectuate the statutory mandate of post-trade price transparency. See 17 CFR 43.3(b)(1) (real-time reporting); 17 CFR 45.3(a)(1) (swap data recordkeeping and reporting requirements). This allowance of a slight timing delay, however, is meant to account for ‘‘the prevalence, implementation and use of technology by comparable market participants,’’ and not post￾execution confirmation of other terms such as credit agreements for uncleared swaps. See, e.g., 17 CFR 43.2; Real-Time Public Reporting of Swap Transaction Data, 77 FR 1182, 1191 (Jan. 9, 2012) (discussing the definition of ‘‘as soon as technologically practicable’’). 198See 17 CFR 1.35; Customer Clearing Documentation, Timing of Acceptance for Clearing, and Clearing Member Risk Management, 77 FR 21278, 21286–287, 306 (Apr. 9, 2012); Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 77 FR 55904, 55923 (Sep. 11, 2012) for further details. 199Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1218 n. 34. 200MarketAxess Comment Letter at 31 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); ICE Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 14 (Feb. 22, 2011). 201CME Comment Letter at 14 (Feb. 22, 2011). 202MarketAxess Comment Letter at 31 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011). 203CME Comment Letter at 14 (Feb. 22, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 31 (Mar. 8, 2011). 204FSR Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011). 205SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 15–16 (Mar. 8, 2011). 206Freddie Mac Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 207WMBAA Comment Letter at 17 (Mar. 8,
2011). transactions in order to facilitate orderly markets, whether bilateral or facility traded.196 Furthermore, the Commission believes that credit-support arrangements for uncleared transactions can impact the ultimate price of a swap, and thus should be agreed to no later than the time of trade execution in order to promote the statutory goal of pre￾trade price transparency.197 Finally, in response to the Energy Working Group’s comment that confirmation cannot take place at the same time as execution, the Commission is revising § 37.6(b) to state that ‘‘. . . specific customer identifiers for accounts included in bunched orders involving swaps need not be included in confirmations provided by a swap execution facility if the applicable requirements of § 1.35(b)(5) of this
chapter are met.’’ The Commission
acknowledges that for bunched orders the post-execution allocation of trades is required for confirmation. The above revisions to § 37.6 are consistent with Commission regulation 1.35(b)(5) and provide sufficient time for the post￾execution allocation of bunched orders, but allow SEFs to meet the requirement that confirmation takes place at the same time as execution.198
7. § 37.7—Prohibited Use of Data
Collected for Regulatory Purposes Proposed § 37.7 prohibited a SEF from using for commercial purposes proprietary data or personal information that it obtains from or on behalf of any person for regulatory purposes. The purpose of this provision was to protect customer privacy and prevent a SEF from using such information to advance its commercial interests.199 (a) Summary of Comments Several commenters recommended that the Commission adopt a more flexible approach toward the use of data collected for regulatory purposes.200 CME, for example, stated that a SEF should be allowed to use information that is provided for both regulatory and non-regulatory purposes for commercial purposes, as long as transparent rules or policies are in place.201 Some commenters believed that commercial use should be allowed, provided that market participants’ identities are protected 202 or prior consent is obtained.203 For example, FSR believed that commercial use should be allowed for aggregate data as long as the sources of the information are not revealed.204 However, SIFMA AMG stated that, given the broad authority under the proposed rules for SEFs to acquire information, the term ‘‘proprietary data’’ is too narrow to adequately protect market participants from improper disclosure.205 Freddie Mac requested that the Commission strengthen the proposed rule to additionally prohibit any SEF from asserting ownership rights over the trading information of any transacting party.206 Finally, WMBAA requested that the Commission clarify the meaning of ‘‘proprietary data or personal information,’’ and recommended limiting the rule to information obtained outside the ordinary course of trade execution and related to market surveillance activities.207 (b) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.7 as proposed, subject to certain modifications. In response to the commenters, the Commission is modifying the proposed rule to allow SEFs to use proprietary data or personal information for business or marketing purposes if the person from whom it collects or receives such information clearly consents to the use of its information in such manner. The Commission is also revising the proposed rule to prohibit a SEF from conditioning access to its facility based upon such consent. The Commission believes that the consent requirement will protect persons by allowing them to first weigh the benefits and consequences of allowing a SEF to make commercial use of their information. In response to CME’s comment about information provided for both regulatory and non-regulatory purposes, the Commission notes that a SEF may use information that it receives for both regulatory and non-regulatory purposes for business or marketing purposes if the source of the information clearly consents to the use in such a manner. In response to comments about the definition of ‘‘proprietary data and personal information,’’ the Commission declines to adopt a further definition and is
maintaining a flexible approach. However, the Commission notes that some examples of proprietary data and personal information would include information that separately discloses business transactions, market positions, or trade secrets. The Commission recommends that SEFs define these terms in their rulebooks, which will be subject to Commission review during the SEF registration process.
8. § 37.8—Boards of Trade Operating
Both a Designated Contract Market and a Swap Execution Facility Proposed § 37.8(a) required that a board of trade that operates a DCM and also intends to operate a SEF must separately register the SEF under part 37, and on an ongoing basis, comply with the core principles under section 5h of the Act and the part 37 regulations issued thereunder. Proposed § 37.8(b) implemented CEA section 5h(c) by requiring a board of trade that operates both a DCM and SEF and uses the same electronic trade execution system for executing and trading swaps on both registered entities to clearly identify to market participants for each swap

208CEA section 5h(c); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(c). 209CME Comment Letter at 14 (Feb. 22, 2011). 210 Id. 211The Commission notes that only eligible contract participants may execute a swap on a SEF so a board of trade that operates both a DCM and a SEF must ensure that its SEF does not allow for non-eligible contract participant trading on the SEF. See CEA section 2(e); 7 U.S.C. 2(e). 212The Commission notes that it is not replacing the term ‘‘board of trade’’ in § 37.8(b) with the term ‘‘entity’’ as in § 37.8(a) because in § 37.8(b) only a board of trade would be able to use the same electronic trade execution system for executing and trading swaps on the DCM and on the SEF (i.e., a trading facility). The Commission also notes that § 37.8(b) implements CEA section 5h(c), which uses the term ‘‘board of trade.’’ 213The Commission is renaming the title of this
section from ‘‘Permitted Execution Methods’’ to
‘‘Methods of Execution for Required and Permitted Transactions’’ to provide greater clarity. 214By ‘‘in conjunction with the SEF’s minimum trading functionality,’’ the Commission means that the SEF NPRM required a SEF to offer the minimum trading functionality, and if that SEF also offered an RFQ System, it was required to communicate any bids or offers resting on the minimum trading functionality to the RFQ requester along with the responsive quotes. See the discussion below regarding ‘‘Taken Into Account and Communicated’’ Language in the RFQ System Definition under § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)—Request for Quote System in the preamble for further details. 215Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1220. 216Additionally, WMBAA commented that the distinction between Required Transactions and Permitted Transactions is not required or authorized by the CEA. WMBAA Comment Letter at 6–7 (Mar. 8, 2011). In this regard, the Commission notes that the CEA sets out specific trading requirements for swaps that are subject to the trade execution mandate. See CEA sections 2(h)(1) and 2(h)(8); 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(1) and 2(h)(8). To meet these statutory requirements, final § 37.9(a)(1) defines these swaps as Required Transactions and provides specific methods of execution for such swaps. To distinguish these swaps from other swaps that are not subject to the trade execution mandate, the Commission defines such swaps in final § 37.9(c)(1) as Permitted Transactions and allows these swaps to be voluntarily traded on a SEF by using any method of execution. See discussion below regarding execution methods for Required and Permitted Transactions under § 37.9(b)(1) and (b)(4)—Execution Methods for Required Transactions and § 37.9(c)—Execution Methods for Permitted Transactions in the preamble. 217MarketAxess Comment Letter at 32 (Mar. 8, 2011). Similarly, ISDA/SIFMA and the Energy Working Group requested clarity regarding the definition of Permitted Transactions. ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); Energy Working Group Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 218Freddie Mac Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). Similarly, MFA recommended that the Commission expand the definition of Permitted Transactions to include other transactions, such as exchanges for physical, exchanges for swaps, and linked or packaged transactions. MFA Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011). The Commission interprets MFA’s comment to be a request that the Commission create through rulemaking an Continued whether the execution or trading of such swaps is taking place on the DCM or the SEF.208 (a) Summary of Comments CME stated that the rules of a DCM and SEF would clearly identify, as necessary, the trade platform upon which a swap was being executed, rendering the requirements of proposed § 37.8 unnecessary.209 CME requested that the Commission clarify whether proposed § 37.8 created additional substantive obligations on the part of DCMs and SEFs given that market
participants often interface with electronic platforms via proprietary or third-party front end systems not under the control of DCMs or SEFs.210 (b) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.8(a) as proposed, subject to one revision. Proposed § 37.8(a) only addressed the SEF registration and compliance of a board of trade that already operates a DCM and intends to operate a SEF. To address all situations regarding DCM and SEF registration and compliance, the Commission is revising § 37.8(a) to apply to ‘‘[a]n entity that intends to operate both a [DCM] and a [SEF].’’ The rule requires the entity to separately register the DCM and SEF pursuant to
part 38 and part 37 of the Commission’s
regulations, respectively, and to comply with the applicable core principles and regulations. As to CME’s comments regarding § 37.8(b), the Commission clarifies that it would not be sufficient for a board of trade that operates both a DCM and a SEF to simply have rules that identify whether a transaction is being executed on the DCM or the SEF. The Commission notes that section 5h(c) of the Act clearly requires a board of trade that operates both a DCM and a SEF to identify to market participants whether each swap is being executed on the DCM or the SEF.211 Accordingly, a consolidated DCM/SEF trading screen must identify whether the execution is occurring on the DCM or the SEF, irrespective of how proprietary or third￾party front end systems eventually present that data to market participants.212
9. § 37.9—Permitted Execution
Methods 213
As mentioned above, the SEF NPRM required a SEF to offer a minimum trading functionality (i.e., a centralized electronic trading screen upon which any market participant can post both firm and indicative bids and offers that are transparent to all other market participants of the SEF). The SEF NPRM provided that Required Transactions (i.e., transactions subject to the trade execution mandate under section 2(h)(8) of the CEA and not block trades) must be executed through the SEF’s minimum trading functionality, Order Book meeting the minimum trading functionality, or RFQ System that operates in conjunction with the SEF’s minimum trading functionality.214 The SEF NPRM made it clear that for Required Transactions, pre-trade transparency must be met.215 The SEF NPRM also allowed a SEF to provide additional execution methods for Permitted Transactions (i.e., transactions not subject to the clearing and trade execution mandates, illiquid or bespoke swaps, and block trades), including Voice-Based System. The Commission is restructuring the order of the rule text in § 37.9 and this corresponding preamble discussion to provide clarity. Despite the order of other preamble sections, which generally follows the order of the SEF NPRM, the Commission’s preamble discussion of § 37.9 generally follows the order of the restructured rule text. Additionally, as discussed above in the registration section, the Commission is moving the minimum trading functionality and Order Book sections from proposed § 37.9 to final § 37.3. (a) § 37.9(a)(1)(iv)—Required Transactions and § 37.9(a)(1)(v)— Permitted Transactions Proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(iv) defined Required Transactions as transactions that are subject to the execution requirements under the Act and are made available for trading pursuant to § 37.10, and are not block trades. Proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(v) defined Permitted Transactions as transactions that meet any of the following requirements: (A) Are block trades; (B) are not swaps subject to the Act’s clearing and execution requirements; or (C) are illiquid or bespoke swaps. (1) Summary of Comments Several commenters recommended revisions to the definition of Permitted Transactions.216 To ensure that there are no gaps between the definitions of Required Transactions and Permitted Transactions, MarketAxess recommended that the proposed definition of Permitted Transactions in § 37.9(a)(1)(v) be revised to include all transactions that are not Required Transactions as defined in proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(iv).217 Freddie Mac recommended that the Commission revise the proposed definition of Permitted Transactions to incorporate hedging transactions by any end-user (i.e., non-dealer) counterparty.218

exception to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade execution requirement similar to the centralized market trading exception established by DCM Core Principle 9 for certain exchange of futures for related positions. See CEA section 5(d)(9); 7 U.S.C. 7(d)(9); see also Regulation of Noncompetitive Transactions Executed on or Subject to the Rules of a Contract Market, 63 FR 3708 (Jan. 26, 1998). The Commission notes that while DCM Core Principle 9 does permit certain exceptions to the centralized market trading requirements, such exceptions are all premised on there being some ‘‘bona fide business purpose’’ for the exception. MFA does not offer a specific bona fide business purpose for any of its three suggested off-exchange exceptions, nor is the Commission aware of any. In addition, MFA does not explain why an exchange of swaps for swaps transaction, where each leg of the transaction can presumably be executed on a SEF, needs to be executed off-exchange. The Commission observes that should swaps based on physical commodities become subject to the trade execution mandate, there might be some bona fide business purpose for executing exchanges of swaps for physicals transactions. However, the market participants who are most likely to engage in such transactions are also likely to be eligible for the end-user exception in CEA section 2(h)(7). As an initial matter, the Commission observes that swaps based on physical commodities may be subject to the trade execution requirement if the Commission determines that they are subject to the clearing requirement under CEA
section 2(h)(1) and part 50 of the Commission’s
regulations. Should the circumstances arise where the Commission is determining whether physical commodity swaps should become subject to the clearing requirement and there are parties who seek to engage in exchanges of swaps for physicals transactions that are not eligible for the end-user exception, the Commission could at that time entertain requests to permit a trade execution requirement exception for swaps that are components of such exchanges of swaps for physicals transactions. However, for the above reason, the Commission believes that a broad exception for such off-exchange transactions in the absence of bona fide business purposes could undermine the trade execution requirement by allowing market participants to execute swaps subject to the trade execution requirement bilaterally rather than on a SEF or DCM. 219Coalition Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011). 220 ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); GFI Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 221 ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011). 222Tradeweb Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 223 GFI Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 224The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(iv) to § 37.9(a)(1). Several commenters requested clarification from the Commission whether inter-affiliate trades would be subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade execution requirement. JP Morgan Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 3, 2011); Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 20–21 (Apr. 5, 2011); Coalition Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011). See Clearing Exemption for Swaps Between Certain Affiliated Entities, 77 FR 50425 (proposed Aug. 21, 2012) for further details. 225The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(v) to § 37.9(c)(1). 226See CEA section 2(h)(8) trade execution requirement discussion above under § 37.3— Requirements for Registration; see also discussion below under § 37.9(c)—Execution Methods for Permitted Transactions. 227Section 43.2 of the Commission’s regulations states that ‘‘block trade’’ means a publicly reportable swap transaction that: (1) Involves a swap that is listed on a registered SEF or DCM; (2) Occurs away from the registered SEF’s or DCM’s trading system or platform and is executed pursuant to the registered SEF’s or DCM’s rules and procedures; (3) Has a notional or principal amount at or above the appropriate minimum block size applicable to such swap; and (4) Is reported subject to the rules and procedures of the registered SEF or DCM and the rules described in this part, including the appropriate time delay requirements set forth in § 43.5 of this part. 17 CFR 43.2. 228 Id. 229The Commission notes that the execution methods for Required Transactions in final § 37.9(a)(2) excludes block trades. 230Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 10 (Apr. 5, 2011); Goldman Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 7–8 (Mar 8, 2011);
SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011). Additionally, the Coalition commented that the Commission should define illiquid or bespoke transactions to include typical end-user trades.219 Several commenters also commented on the reference to block trades in the definition of Permitted Transactions.220 ISDA/SIFMA commented that the definition of block trade in part 43 of the Commission’s regulations should apply to blocks executed on a SEF.221 Tradeweb sought confirmation that block size trades in swaps that are required to be cleared and made available to trade would not be subject to the minimum trading requirements for Required Transactions, but would be required to be reported to and processed through a SEF in a manner prescribed by the SEF.222 Similarly, GFI requested the Commission to confirm that block transactions must be effected on a SEF, but may be subject to special rules.223 (2) Commission Determination To ensure that there is consistency in the definitions, and in response to MarketAxess’s comment, the Commission is: (1) Revising the definition of Required Transaction to mean any transaction involving a swap that is subject to the trade execution requirement in section 2(h)(8) of the Act 224; and (2) revising the definition of Permitted Transaction to mean any transaction not involving a swap that is subject to the trade execution requirement in section 2(h)(8) of the Act.225 The Commission is not revising the definition of Permitted Transaction to explicitly include ‘‘hedging transactions involving end-users’’ or ‘‘typical end-user’’ transactions because the Commission’s revisions to the definition of Permitted Transaction are consistent with the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade execution requirement.226 With respect to the treatment of block transactions, the Commission notes that the definition of block trade in part 43 of the Commission’s regulations applies to such transactions involving swaps that are listed on a SEF.227 The Commission also notes that the definition of block trade states, in part, that block trades occur away from the registered SEF’s or DCM’s trading system or platform and is executed pursuant to the registered SEF’s or DCM’s rules and procedures.228 As such, block trades are not subject to the execution methods for Required Transactions and Permitted Transactions in final § 37.9(a)(2) and § 37.9(c)(2), respectively.229 (b) § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)—Request for Quote System Proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)(A) defined an RFQ System as a trading system or platform in which a market participant must transmit a request for quote to buy or sell a specific instrument to no less than five market participants in the trading system or platform, to which all such market participants may respond. Under the proposed rule, any bids or offers resting on the trading system or platform pertaining to the same instrument must be taken into account and communicated to the requester along with the responsive quotes. In addition, proposed §
37.9(a)(1)(ii)(B) defined an RFQ System as a trading system or platform in which multiple market participants can both: (1) View real-time electronic streaming quotes, both firm and indicative, from multiple potential counterparties on a centralized electronic screen; and (2) have the option to complete a transaction by: (i) Accepting a firm streaming quote, or (ii) transmitting a request for quote to no less than five market participants, based upon an indicative streaming quote, taking into account any resting bids or offers that have been communicated to the requester along with any responsive quotes. Finally, proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)(C) provided that an RFQ System means any such other trading system or platform as may be determined by the Commission. (1) Summary of Comments (i) Comments on RFQ System Definition and Transmission to Five Market Participants In general, some commenters stated that the Commission’s definition of an RFQ System imposes rigid requirements that are not supported by the SEF definition.230 Other commenters stated that the defined RFQ System preserves ‘‘the single-dealer status quo,’’ threatens to diminish the transparency and efficiency of the regulated swaps

231 IECA Comment Letter at 3 (May 24, 2011); Mallers et al. Comment Letter at 3–5 (Mar. 21, 2011); AFR Comment Letter at 4, 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). The Mallers et al. comment letter represents the view of a number of high frequency trading firms:
Allston Trading, LLC, Atlantic Trading USA LLC, Bluefin Trading LLC, Chopper Trading LLC, DRW Holdings, LLC, Eagle Seven, LLC, Endeavor Trading, LLC, GETCO, Hard Eight Futures, LLC, HTG Capital Partners, IMC Financial Markets, Infinium Capital Management LLC, Kottke Associates, LLC, Liger Investments Limited, Marquette Partners, LP, Nico Holdings LLC, Optiver US LLC, Quantlab Financial, LLC, RGM Advisors, LLC, Traditum Group LLC, WH Trading, and XR Trading LLC. 232Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1221. The Commission asked, ‘‘[i]n light of the ‘multiple participant to multiple participant’ requirement, the Commission has proposed that requests for quotes be requested of at least five possible respondents. Is this the appropriate minimum number of respondents that the Commission should require to potentially interact with a request for quote? If not, what is an appropriate minimum number? Some pre-proposal commenters have suggested that market participants should transmit a request for quote to ‘more than one’ market participant. The Commission is interested in receiving public comment on this matter.’’ Id. 233 Id. 234Representative Garrett et al. Comment Letter at 1 (Apr. 5, 2013); Eaton Vance Comment Letter at 2 (Feb. 17, 2012); Reuters Comment Letter at 6 (Dec. 12, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 3, 2011); Traccr Limited Comment Letter at 2 (Jun. 3, 2011); FHLB Comment Letter at 12–13 (Jun. 3, 2011); AII Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 2, 2011); Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 11 (Apr. 5, 2011); JP Morgan Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Bloomberg Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 8–9 (Mar. 8, 2011); Reuters Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); BlackRock Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); MFA Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); MetLife Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 5– 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); Deutsche Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 31 (Mar. 8, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); ABC/CIEBA Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Global FX Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); TruMarx Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Coalition Comment Letter at 5–7 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011); Morgan Stanley Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 2, 2011); CanDeal Comment Letter at 2–3 (Feb. 25, 2011). The Commission notes that some commenters in addressing this provision used the term ‘‘liquidity providers’’ to refer to the minimum number of ‘‘market participants’’ that must receive RFQs. See, e.g., Tradeweb Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 3, 2011); AII Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 2, 2011); Bloomberg Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). The
Commission clarifies that the proposed five market participant requirement did not imply any requirement that the requested market participants operate in any particular manner, such as one that regularly provides liquidity or makes markets in the particular swap. 235Eaton Vance Comment Letter at 2 (Feb. 17, 2012); JP Morgan Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 8, 2011); BlackRock Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011); MetLife Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Global FX Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Morgan Stanley Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 2, 2011); CanDeal Comment Letter at 2–3 (Feb. 25, 2011). 236Tradeweb Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 3, 2011); Traccr Limited Comment Letter at 2 (Jun. 3, 2011); FHLB Comment Letter at 12 (Jun. 3, 2011); JP Morgan Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 8, 2011); BlackRock Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); MetLife Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); CanDeal Comment Letter at 2–3 (Feb. 25, 2011). 237Tradeweb Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 3, 2011); MetLife Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 238BlackRock Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 239FHLB Comment Letter at 12 (Jun. 3, 2011); AII Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 2, 2011); Bloomberg Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 8–9 (Mar. 8, 2011); BlackRock Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011); MetLife Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); ABC/CIEBA Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Global FX Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Coalition Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Morgan Stanley Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 2, 2011). 240FHLB Comment Letter at 12 (Jun. 3, 2011); AII Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 2, 2011); Bloomberg Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 8–9 (Mar. 8, 2011); MetLife Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Global FX Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Coalition Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Morgan Stanley Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 2, 2011). 241FHLB Comment Letter at 12 (Jun. 3, 2011); AII Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 2, 2011); Bloomberg Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 8–9 (Mar. 8, 2011); BlackRock Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011); MetLife Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); ABC/CIEBA Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Global FX Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Coalition Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Morgan Stanley Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 2, 2011). 242Registration and Regulation of Security-Based Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR 10948 (proposed Feb. 28, 2011). 243Reuters Comment Letter at 6 (Dec. 12, 2011); Traccr Limited
Comment Letter at 2 (Jun. 3, 2011); AII Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 2, 2011); Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 11 (Apr. 5, 2011); JP Morgan Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); Reuters Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); MetLife Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); Deutsche Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 31 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Global FX Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Goldman Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011); TruMarx Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 244Morgan Stanley Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 2, 2011). 245MetLife Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 246Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1259. 247 IECA Comment Letter at 3 (May 24, 2011); Mallers et al. Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 21, 2011); Better Markets Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); AFR Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011). market, and is inconsistent with the Dodd-Frank Act.231 As noted above, § 37.9(a)(1)(ii) of the SEF NPRM contained a requirement that a market participant transmit an RFQ to no less than five market participants. In the SEF NPRM, the Commission specifically asked for public comment on whether five is the appropriate minimum number of respondents that the Commission should require to potentially interact with a request for quote.232 The Commission also asked for public comment on the appropriate minimum number, if not five.233 The Commission received the following comments regarding the five market participant requirement and has responded to those comments below. Several commenters objected to the requirement in proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(ii) that a market participant transmit an RFQ to no less than five market participants.234 The commenters raised various concerns with this requirement, including the potential for increased trading costs,235 decreased liquidity,236 decreased transparency,237 and breaking trades into smaller sizes.238 Several commenters specifically noted that the five market participant requirement may result in increased spreads for participants because non-executing market participants in the RFQ could ‘‘front run’’ the transaction in anticipation of the executing market participant’s forthcoming and offsetting transactions.239 Many of these commenters additionally noted that these risks would be most pronounced in illiquid swaps or large-sized trades (i.e., transactions approaching the block trade threshold).240 As a result, many of the commenters noted that it will be difficult and costly to enter into hedging transactions.241 In this regard, some commenters noted that the SEC’s SB–SEF proposal 242 permitted RFQs to be transmitted to one or more SEF participant(s).243 Morgan Stanley commented that, given the impact of signaling transactions to multiple market participants, as trade size grows,
participants may receive better execution if their RFQs are transmitted to fewer than five participants.244 Similarly, MetLife commented that participants should have the flexibility to determine the appropriate number of respondents for a particular trade, which could vary based on the size and liquidity of the trade.245 Additionally, Commissioner Sommers’ dissent suggested an alternative approach to RFQ Systems that would permit a market participant to transmit an RFQ to ‘‘more than one’’ potential counterparty.246 Other commenters, however, stated that an RFQ should be transmitted to all participants on the SEF.247 Mallers et al. stated that participants would not be disadvantaged by disclosing an RFQ to the entire market for transactions below

248Mallers et al. Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 21, 2011). 249 Id. 250SDMA Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). See also Better Markets Comment Letter at 2 (Apr. 12,
2013) and Allston et al. Comment Letter at 1 (Feb.
28, 2013).
251SDMA Comment Letter at 5 (Feb. 28, 2013); SDMA Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 252Tradeweb Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 3, 2011); JP Morgan Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 9–10 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 253FXall Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 254 ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 33 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 255 JP Morgan Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 256Reuters Comment Letter at 1 (Jun. 13, 2012); Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 12–14 (Apr. 5, 2011); JP Morgan Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 9–10 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); MetLife Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 32 (Mar. 8, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); ABC/CIEBA Comment Letter at 6–7 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 3–4; Evolution Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 257 JP Morgan Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); MetLife Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 32 (Mar. 8, 2011); ABC/CIEBA Comment Letter at 6–7 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011); Evolution Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 258 ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011). 259FXall Comment Letter at 9–10 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011). FSR also commented that the provider of the resting bid should not be provided with information about the identity of the RFQ requester. FSR Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 260AFR Comment Letter at 3 (Feb. 27, 2013); AFR Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); Better Markets Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011). 261AFR Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 262Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 14 (Apr. 5, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 32 (Mar. 8, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 7–8 (Mar. 8, 2011); State Street Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011); Deutsche Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 263Tradeweb Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); State Street Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011); Deutsche Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 264FSR Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 265Tradeweb Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011). 266FSR Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 267State Street Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 268The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(ii) to § 37.9(a)(3). 269Core Principles and Other Requirements for
Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1220–21. the block trade threshold, which would not move the market.248 In their view, the five market participant requirement would allow a participant to conduct semi-private deals with a few favored participants to the exclusion of other market participants, which would ultimately decrease liquidity and create a substantial barrier to entry to the swaps market.249 On the other hand, SDMA supported the five market participant requirement.250 In its view, this requirement promotes price discovery and liquidity, whereas the single market participant model facilitates abusive trading practices, such as pre-arranged trading and ‘‘painting the screen’’ (i.e., posting of non-competitive quotes to confuse the market).251 (ii) Comments on ‘‘Taken Into Account and Communicated’’ Language in the RFQ System Definition Some commenters recommended that the Commission delete the requirement that resting orders be ‘‘taken into account and communicated’’ to the RFQ requester.252 FXall and Barclays stated that this requirement is not necessary because the RFQ requester already has the ability to view the resting orders on the SEF’s minimum trading functionality or Order Book.253 Several commenters stated that this requirement is mandating that SEFs offer RFQ systems in conjunction with the SEF’s minimum trading functionality, which is not required.254 Similarly, JP Morgan stated that the resting order functionality is not mandated by the statute.255 Several commenters requested clarification regarding the interaction between resting bids and offers and the RFQ system.256 Some commenters thought that the ‘‘taken into account and communicated’’ language should mean that a SEF must only communicate to the RFQ requester the resting bids and offers, and that the RFQ requester has sole discretion to either respond to, or ignore, these resting bids and offers.257 ISDA/SIFMA and SIFMA AMG requested clarification that the resting bids and offers do not include indicative prices.258 Several commenters also stated that SEFs should not be required to inform the providers of resting bids and offers of the RFQs; otherwise, the RFQ system would be subject to market abuse by opportunistic third parties seeking market information, and the requirement would open up RFQs beyond the minimum number of participants.259 (iii) Comments on RFQ Disclosure Issues AFR and Better Markets stated that SEFs should be required to disclose RFQ responses to all market participants.260 For example, AFR commented that responses to RFQs should be made transparent to all market participants prior to trade execution, which would serve the statutory goal of pre-trade price transparency and would increase price competition.261 Several commenters objected to the recommendation by AFR and Better Markets.262 Some of these commenters noted that such a requirement could raise the same information leakage concerns as with the five market participant requirement.263 FSR
commented that market participants receiving the RFQ should have relevant information about the identity of the RFQ requester.264 However, Tradeweb commented that the Commission should not impose a specific requirement that the identity of the RFQ requester be disclosed or anonymous.265 FSR also stated that SEFs should not be required to publish RFQs until after the trade has been completed, and then only as part of aggregated disclosures.266 Finally, State Street requested that the Commission clarify that an RFQ System is not required to provide functionality to make RFQs visible to the entire market, although it may voluntarily choose to do so.267 (2) Commission Determination Based on the comments, the Commission is adopting proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(ii) as final § 37.9(a)(3), subject to a number of modifications discussed below.268 (i) RFQ System Definition and Transmission to Five Market Participants The Commission is adopting the definition of RFQ System in proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)(A), subject to certain modifications described below. As explained in the SEF NPRM, the Commission believes that an RFQ System, as defined in § 37.9, operating in conjunction with a SEF’s minimum trading functionality (i.e., Order Book) is consistent with the SEF definition and promotes the goals provided in
section 733 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
which are to: (1) Promote the trading of swaps on SEFs and (2) promote pre￾trade price transparency in the swaps market.269 The Commission notes that the RFQ System definition requires SEFs to provide market participants the ability to access multiple market participants, but not necessarily the entire market, in conformance with the SEF definition. The Commission agrees with SDMA that the proposed five market

270The Commission notes that a SEF market participant may send an RFQ to the entire market. See id. at 1220 and discussion below. The Commission also notes that there are generally two distinct differences between the requirements finalized in this release and the RFQ-type functionality offered by DCMs. First, RFQ functionality used by DCMs disseminates RFQs to all market participants. Second, the responses to the RFQs take the form of executable bids or offers that are entered into the DCM’s order book or other centralized market, such that orders from any market participant, not just the one submitting the RFQ, can be matched against such responsive bids or offers. Although the Commission considered a minimum RFQ-to-all requirement similar to the current practice in DCMs, given that swaps tend to be less standardized than futures, the Commission believes that rules pertaining to the execution methods for SEFs should provide appropriate flexibility for market participants trading swaps. The Commission notes that the less restrictive minimum market participant requirement established by part 37 reflects the more flexible statutory provisions for SEFs as compared to DCMs. 271The Commission clarifies that the three market participant requirement does not imply any requirement that the requested market participants operate in any particular manner, such as a requirement that such participants be dedicated liquidity providers or market makers in the particular swap. The RFQ requester may send the RFQ to any three market participants on the RFQ system, subject to the affiliate prohibition discussed below. See supra footnote 234 for further details. 272The Commission notes that ‘‘affiliate’’ means:
(i) One party, directly or indirectly, holds a majority ownership interest in the other party, and the party that holds the majority interest in the other party reports its financial statements on a consolidated basis under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or International Financial Reporting Standards, and such consolidated financial statements include the financial results of the majority-owned party; or (ii) a third party, directly or indirectly, holds a majority ownership interest in both parties, and the third party reports its financial statements on a consolidated basis under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or International Financial Reporting Standards, and such consolidated financial statements include the financial results of both of the parties. A party or third party directly or indirectly holds a majority ownership interest if it directly or indirectly holds a majority of the equity securities of an entity, or the right to receive upon dissolution, or the contribution of, a majority of the capital of a partnership. See Commission regulation 50.52. 273Tradeweb Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 274The Commission understands that such provisions are in place to accommodate various operational and other reasons that could cause a market participant to not comply with the quoting obligations. participant requirement would promote pre-trade price transparency, as the RFQ requester would be required to solicit executable orders, on a pre-trade basis, from a larger group of potential responders.270 A broader group of potential responders, in turn, encourages price competition between the potential responders to the RFQ and may provide a more reliable assessment of market value than SEF functionality that would permit a market participant to rely on a quote from a single RFQ requestee. The Commission nevertheless recognizes commenters’ concerns about the proposed five market participant requirement, such as the potential for increased trading costs and information leakage to the non-executing market participants in the RFQ. To address these concerns, while still complying with the multiple-to-multiple requirement in the statutory SEF definition and promoting the goals of pre-trade price transparency and trading of swaps on SEFs provided in section 733 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission is requiring that a market participant transmit an RFQ to no less than two market participants during a phase-in compliance period and, subsequent to that period, to no less than three market participants.271 The Commission believes, as noted above, that sending an RFQ to a greater number of market participants increases the potential for price competition among responders and provides a more reliable assessment of market value. The Commission also believes that the three market participant requirement, with the two market participant phase-in period, appropriately balances the benefits of pre-trade price transparency and the information
leakage concerns raised by commenters. The revision from five to three minimum market participants will also provide market participants with greater flexibility in sending RFQs for Required Transactions, while still complying with the statutory SEF definition and promoting pre-trade price transparency. The Commission has also determined to clarify that the market participants required for inclusion in an RFQ in all cases may not be affiliated with or controlled by the RFQ requester and may not be affiliated with or controlled by each other, and is revising final § 37.9(a)(3) to clarify this point.272 For an RFQ requester to send an RFQ to another entity who is affiliated with or controlled by the RFQ requester is inconsistent with the purpose of requiring that RFQs be sent to more than one market participant, as explained both in the SEF NPRM and this release. The Commission notes that if an RFQ is transmitted to one non-affiliate and two affiliates of the requester or if an RFQ is transmitted to three requestees who are affiliates of each other, then the policy objective of promoting the goal of pre-trade price transparency and complying with the multiple-to￾multiple requirement in the SEF definition could be undermined. The Commission is also concerned that such an outcome could disincentivize entities from responding to an RFQ, which would reduce price competition and liquidity. The Commission believes, moreover, that the three market participant requirement is consistent with current market practice where, in certain markets, many market participants already choose to send an RFQ to multiple market participants. Tradeweb, for example, noted that in its experience in the U.S. Treasuries market, market participants on average send an RFQ to three market participants.273 In addition, the Commission understands that many pension and other managed funds with fiduciary obligations routinely obtain quotes from at least three market participants in certain securities markets. The Commission believes that the three market participant requirement, with the two market participant transition period, supports a common industry practice of querying multiple market participants, while still complying with the statutory SEF definition and promoting the goals provided in section 733 of the Dodd￾Frank Act. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the three minimum market participant requirement heightens the probability that multiple participants will respond to an RFQ and, thus, will facilitate the pricing improvements attendant to competition among RFQ responders. The Commission is aware of numerous legal, business, and technological issues that could prevent a market participant from responding to a specific RFQ. The Commission notes, for example, that DCM market maker programs often require participants to quote two-sided markets for 75 to 85 percent of the trading day.274 Therefore, a participant in the market maker program may not provide quotes for a
portion of the trading day. While there is no guarantee that even a minimum market participant requirement will ensure that multiple responses are available for all RFQs, it increases the probability that the goal of pre-trade price transparency is achieved and that a competitive market exists for all market participants. Finally, the Commission believes that setting the minimum RFQ requirement at a uniform number for all Required Transactions in all asset classes provides regulatory and market efficiencies and is appropriate for the SEF market structure at this particular time. SEFs and market participants will benefit from a clear and uniform standard that would not require them to be subject to different minimum RFQ requirements, and to monitor compliance with such requirements, for every swap or class of swaps subject to

275The Commission notes that the affiliate prohibition in § 37.9(a)(3) applies during the interim RFQ-to-2 period. 276Registration and Regulation of Security-Based Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 10953–54, 10971–74. 277 Id. 278To the extent such risks potentially exist for Required Transactions, the reduction of the minimum market participant requirement from the proposed five will help mitigate this risk. 279Clearing Requirement Determination Under
Section 2(h) of the CEA, 77 FR 74284 (Dec. 13,
2012); Process for a Designated Contract Market or Swap Execution Facility To Make a Swap Available To Trade, 76 FR 77728 (proposed Dec. 14, 2011). 280Clearing Requirement Determination Under
Section 2(h) of the CEA, 77 FR 74284. The
Commission notes that these swaps already went through a Commission determination process that included a five factor review, including a liquidity review. Id. ISDA, in its letter requesting interpretive relief regarding the obligation to provide a pre-trade mid-market mark, recognized that many of the swaps that the Commission has determined are required to be cleared under CEA section 2(h)(1) are ‘‘highly-liquid, exhibit narrow bid-ask spreads and are widely quoted by SD/MSPs in the marketplace . . . ’’ ISDA Comment Letter at 2 (Nov. 30, 2012). 281The Commission recognizes that not all swap dealers will be active in all Required Transactions. The Commission also notes that of the 77 currently registered swap dealers, 35 swap dealers are not affiliated with any other swap dealers. 282See definition of block trade in § 43.2 of the Commission’s regulations. 283Similarly, as noted below, SEFs are not required to display responses to an RFQ to anyone but the RFQ requester. 284The Commission is also deleting the catch-all RFQ definition in proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)(C) as it is unnecessary. As discussed below, a SEF may petition the Commission under § 13.2 to amend § 37.9(a)(2) to include additional execution methods for Required Transactions. See discussion below under § 37.9(b)(1) and (b)(4)—Execution Methods for Required Transactions in the preamble. the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade execution requirement. For the reasons discussed above, at this time, the Commission believes that the three market participant requirement implements the multiple￾to-multiple requirement in the statutory SEF definition and will create an appropriate level of pre-trade price transparency for Required Transactions (i.e., transactions involving swaps that are subject to the trade execution mandate of section 2(h)(8) of the CEA) for market participants initiating RFQs. However, the Commission is also aware of the fact that a phased implementation of this requirement will assist market participants and prospective SEFs to make an efficient transition from the swap industry’s current market structure to the more transparent execution framework set forth in these final rules. Therefore, to provide market participants, SEFs, and the swaps industry with time to adapt to the new SEF regime, the Commission is phasing￾in the three market participant requirement. From the effective date of the final SEF regulations until one year from the compliance date of these final regulations, a market participant transmitting an RFQ for Required Transactions under § 37.9(a)(2) must still comply with the RFQ definition in § 37.9(a)(3), but may transmit the quote to no less than two market participants.275 Some comments expressed support for the SEC’s SB–SEF proposal, which allows for one-to-one RFQs. If the Commission eliminated the multiple market participant requirement and instead permitted RFQ requesters to send RFQs to a single market participant, then the
multiple￾participant-to-multiple-participant requirement in the SEF definition and the pre-trade price transparency goal would be undermined. In this regard, the Commission notes that while the SEC’s SB–SEF proposal allows for one￾to-one RFQs, it proposed to fulfill the multiple to multiple requirement by mandating full order interaction or best execution for RFQs.276 Under the SEC’s SB–SEF proposal, an RFQ requester must execute against the best priced orders of any size within and across a SEF’s modes of execution, a requirement that the Commission is not recommending at this time.277 The Commission notes that some commenters expressed concerns about the risks with respect to information leakage for illiquid swaps or large-size trades, and the potential risk of a winner’s curse for the market participant whose quote is accepted by the RFQ requester. According to the commenters, the other market participants in the RFQ will be aware of the RFQ, and some or all of those participants will attempt to front-run the trades by the winning responder to hedge or layoff the risk from the RFQ transaction.278 With respect to commenters’ concerns about the potential winner’s curse for illiquid swaps, the Commission clarifies that the minimum market participant requirement only applies to RFQ Systems for Required Transactions (i.e., transactions involving swaps that are subject to the trade execution mandate of section 2(h)(8) of the CEA); such swaps generally should be more liquid than swaps that are not subject to the trade execution mandate because they are subject to the clearing mandate of
section 2(h)(1) of the CEA and are made
available to trade.279 In this regard, the Commission notes that the interest rate swaps and credit default swaps that the Commission has determined are required to be cleared under CEA
section 2(h)(1) (and are likely to be
subject to the trade execution mandate of CEA section 2(h)(8)) are some of the most liquid swaps.280 The Commission also notes that 77 swap dealers have registered with the Commission and nearly all of them make markets in such swaps.281 Further, SEFs may offer RFQ systems without the three market participant requirement for Permitted Transactions (i.e., transactions not involving swaps that are subject to the trade execution mandate of section 2(h)(8) of the CEA). With respect to commenters’ concerns about the potential winner’s curse for large-sized trades, the Commission notes that block trades would not be subject to the execution methods for Required Transactions, including the three market participant requirement.282 Therefore, excluding block trades from the execution methods for Required Transactions will address the potential risk of a winner’s curse for such trades. The Commission also clarifies that SEFs are not required to display a requester’s RFQ to market participants not participating in the RFQ.283 The Commission believes, in response to commenters’ concerns about increased trading costs, that an increased number of participants receiving and responding to RFQs will tighten the bid-ask spreads, and result in lower transaction costs for market participants. The Commission notes that the relationship between spreads and the industry practice for the minimum number of RFQ recipients will vary across swaps and over time. Further, the Commission believes that as SEFs compete to grow their swaps trading volumes and deliver improved liquidity and lower transaction costs for their customers, the final rules in this release will provide them with the flexibility to experiment with different minimum numbers of recipients that is higher than the minimum articulated in this regulation. The final RFQ requirement will provide some protection to RFQ requesters that at least a minimum number of market participants will receive their RFQs, and thus increase the likelihood of receiving multiple, competitive quotes. Finally, the Commission is deleting the additional definition of RFQ System in proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)(B) because it is unnecessary.284 A SEF that chooses to offer an RFQ System to facilitate Required Transactions is required to offer the RFQ System in conjunction with the SEF’s Order Book, which would encompass the requirements in proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)(B)(1) and

285See discussion below under § 37.9(b)(1) and (b)(4)—Execution Methods for Required Transactions in the preamble. As noted above in the registration section, a SEF is not required to offer indicative quotes. 286 Id. 287The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)(A) to § 37.9(a)(3). The Commission notes that after the RFQ responses and resting bids or offers on the Order Book are communicated to the RFQ requester, the RFQ requester may make a counter request or order as long as it is submitted to 3 market participants, whether it be to the same 3 market participants as the original RFQ request, 3 different market participants, or some combination of both. 288Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1220 (stating that market participants may desire to interact with a limited number of market participants (i.e., fewer than the entire market) and are permitted to do so under the proposal). 289 Id. 290 Id. 291 Id. at 1219–20. 292 Id. 293 Id. at 1220. (2)(i).285 Additionally, a market participant is already required to send an RFQ to three market participants, which would also be the case if it is based upon an indicative quote as stated in proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)(B)(2)(ii).286 (ii) ‘‘Taken Into Account and Communicated’’ Language in the RFQ System Definition To address commenters’ concern that the SEF NPRM was ambiguous with respect to the communication requirement, the Commission is modifying the definition of RFQ System in proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)(A) to state that a SEF must provide the RFQ requester: (1) With any firm resting bid or offer in the same instrument from any of the SEF’s Order Books at the same time as the first responsive bid or offer is received by the RFQ requester and (2) with the ability to execute against such firm resting bids or offers along with the responsive orders.287 For example, a market participant transmits an RFQ to three market participants to buy a US $1 million notional 10-year fixed-to￾floating US$ LIBOR interest rate swap. Any firm offer resting on the SEF’s Order Book for a 10-year fixed-to￾floating US$ LIBOR interest rate swap must be transmitted to the RFQ requester at the same time that the first responsive offer is received by the RFQ requester. The SEF must provide the RFQ requester with the ability to lift the firm offers and execute against any of the responsive orders. The final rule requires that SEFs communicate any resting bid or offer pertaining to the same instrument back to the RFQ requester, while the requester retains the discretion to decide whether to execute against the resting bids or offers or responsive orders. Similar to the three market participant requirement, the Commission believes that the communication requirement promotes pre-trade price transparency and the trading of swaps on SEFs, as the RFQ requester will have the ability to access competitive quotes and quote providers will be able to have their quotes viewed by the RFQ
requester. The Commission also clarifies that the resting bids and offers being communicated are not required to include indicative prices, to the extent that indicative prices are facilitated by the Order Book, and that SEFs are not required to inform the providers of the resting bids and offers on the Order Book of the RFQs. (iii) RFQ Disclosure Issues The Commission is clarifying that SEFs are not required to disclose responses to RFQs to all market participants. While the Commission understands that the RFQ functionality offered by some DCMs disseminates responses to RFQs to all market participants, it also notes that the less restrictive disclosure requirement for SEFs reflects the more flexible statutory provisions for SEFs as compared to DCMs. As noted in the SEF NPRM, a market participant may access fewer market participants than the entire market in certain situations.288 In response to FSR’s and Tradeweb’s comments about the identity of the RFQ requester, the Commission clarifies that it is not imposing a specific requirement that the identity of the RFQ requester be disclosed or anonymous. The Commission is also not providing a specific requirement regarding the publishing of the ‘‘request’’ for a quote and notes that SEFs must comply with all reporting obligations as required in the Act and Commission’s regulations. Finally, as noted in the SEF NPRM, acceptable RFQ Systems must permit RFQ requesters the option to make an RFQ visible to the entire market.289 (iv) Other RFQ Issues As noted in the SEF NPRM, an acceptable RFQ System may allow for a transaction to be consummated if the original request to five potential counterparties receives fewer than five responses.290 Although the Commission received no comment letters on this issue, some commenters in meetings asked the Commission to clarify the amount of time required to elapse before the RFQ requester can execute against the responsive quotes since fewer than five responses may be received. As such, the Commission is modifying the RFQ System definition in final § 37.9(a)(3) to state that a SEF must ensure that its trading protocols provide each of its market participants with equal priority in receiving requests for quotes and in transmitting and displaying for execution responsive orders. The SEF does not need to establish a minimum latency or specific period of time for the transmission of responsive orders, provided that the SEF’s rulebook and prohibition on transmission and display priorities are appropriately designed to prevent market participants from seeking to avoid the three market participant requirement. A SEF’s RFQ System and rulebook must account for this prohibition. (c) § 37.9(a)(1)(iii)—Voice-Based System Proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(iii) defined Voice-Based System as a trading system or platform in which a market participant executes or trades a Permitted Transaction using a telephonic line or other voice-based service. (1) Commission Determination The Commission did not
receive any comments on the definition of Voice￾Based System. However, the Commission is deleting the definition of Voice-Based System in proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(iii) given its decision below to allow SEFs to provide any execution method for Permitted Transactions. (d) §§ 37.9(b)(1) and (b)(4)—Execution Methods for Required Transactions Proposed § 37.9(b)(1) stated that Required Transactions may be executed on an Order Book or an RFQ System. As noted in the SEF NPRM, a SEF must offer the minimum trading functionality in proposed § 37.9(b)(2) (i.e., a centralized electronic screen with the ability to post both firm and indicative quotes visible to all market participants).291 Therefore, the SEF NPRM provided that Required Transactions must be executed through the SEF’s minimum trading functionality, Order Book that meets the minimum trading functionality, or RFQ System that operates in conjunction with the minimum trading functionality.292 The SEF NPRM made it clear that for Required Transactions, pre-trade transparency must be met.293 Additionally, proposed § 37.9(b)(4) stated that the Commission may, in its discretion, require a SEF to offer a different trading method for a particular swap. For Required Transactions, the SEF NPRM did not provide for a specific

294 Id. at 1221.
295 Id.
296 Id.
297 Id. at 1220.
298 Id.
299 Id.
300Mallers et al. Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 21, 2011); Better Markets Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); AFR Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). Similarly, SDMA supports the sole use of order books for certain products. SDMA Comment Letter at 2 (Apr. 30, 2013). 301Mallers et al. Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 21, 2011). 302Tradeweb Comment Letter at 4 (Jun. 3, 2011); SDMA Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011); Deutsche Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); MFA Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); MetLife Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011); Bloomberg Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011); BlackRock Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 303SDMA Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011). 304Nodal Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 305 Id. at 2–3; Nodal Comment Letter at 3 (Jun. 3, 2011). 306See discussion above under § 37.3— Requirements for Registration in the preamble for a description of Nodal’s blind auction. 307Nodal Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011). 308Representative Scott Garrett Comment Letter at 1 (Feb. 27, 2013); WMBAA Comment Letter at 2– 3 (Jul. 18, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 6–8 (Jun. 3, 2011); Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 15 (Apr. 5, 2011); JP Morgan Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 4–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); ICAP Comment Letter at 3, 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 7–8 (Mar. 8, 2011). 309 JP Morgan Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 310WMBAA Comment Letter at 2 (Jul. 18, 2011). 311WMBAA Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 312Meetings with ICAP dated Mar. 21, 2012, Mar. 9, 2012, Feb. 16, 2012, Feb. 14, 2012; Meetings with GFI dated Mar. 14, 2012, Feb. 16, 2012; Meeting with WMBAA dated Feb. 16, 2012; ICAP Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 313Meetings with GFI dated Mar. 14, 2012, Feb. 16, 2012. 314 Id. 315 Id. 316Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 10 (Apr. 5, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SFMA Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 33 (Mar. 8, 2011). 317MarketAxess Comment Letter at 33 (Mar. 8, 2011). 318 Id. 319Tradeweb Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). execution method incorporating voice. The proposal stated that trading systems or platforms facilitating the execution of Required Transactions via voice exclusively are not multiple participant to multiple participant and do not provide for pre-trade price transparency.294 However, the SEF NPRM noted that, while not acceptable as the sole method of execution for Required Transactions, voice would be appropriate under certain circumstances such as for a market participant to communicate an order to a SEF’s employee or for a SEF’s employee to assist a market participant in executing a trade.295 The SEF NPRM stated that the core principles and the Commission’s regulations would fully apply to such communications, including, but not limited to, transparency, audit trail,
impartial access, and standards for RFQs.296 Although the SEF NPRM did not provide for a specific execution method incorporating voice for Required Transactions, it did contemplate the possibility of certain functionalities that operate in conjunction with the SEF’s minimum trading functionality.297 In this regard, the SEF NPRM stated that, in addition to the SEF’s minimum trading functionality, a SEF may offer other functionalities that provide multiple participants with the ability to access multiple participants, but not necessarily the entire market, if the market participant so chooses.298 The SEF NPRM noted that certain defined RFQ Systems or other systems that meet the SEF definition and comply with the core principles applicable to SEFs may qualify.299 (1) Summary of Comments (i) Comments on Execution Methods for Required Transactions Some commenters supported the use of order books for Required Transactions.300 For example, Mallers et al. contended that a central order book market structure for all Required Transactions provides the most accurate valuation of the market, reduces systemic risks, and results in better prices.301 Other commenters supported the use of order book structures and RFQ models for Required Transactions.302 SDMA, for example, stated that all cleared swaps should be executed through a central limit order book or an RFQ System.303 Nodal recommended that the Commission explicitly include blind auctions as an acceptable method of execution for Required Transactions.304 Nodal commented 305 that pre-trade transparency for Required Transactions should not apply to blind auctions.306 Nodal articulated its view that the twin goals of pre-trade transparency and promoting on-exchange trading of swaps on SEFs should be balanced against each other, instead of being read in conjunction with one another.307 (ii) Comments on ‘‘Through Any Means of Interstate Commerce’’ Language in the SEF Definition Given the phrase ‘‘through any means of interstate commerce’’ in the CEA
section 1a(50) SEF definition, many
commenters supported the use of multiple methods of execution, such as voice, for Required Transactions on a SEF.308 JP Morgan, for example, stated that the SEF NPRM assumes that SEFs will always be electronic platforms, which it contended, appears to directly contradict the phrase ‘‘through any means of interstate commerce’’ in the SEF definition.309 According to WMBAA, the phrase ‘‘through any means of interstate commerce’’ in the SEF definition supports multiple methods of execution for Required Transactions on a SEF, including a combination of voice and electronic systems.310 In this regard, WMBAA stated that the Commission should allow any execution method for Required Transactions as long as it meets the multiple participant to multiple participant requirement in the SEF definition and the other statutory requirements for SEFs.311 Furthermore, some members of the industry requested that the Commission clarify in the final rules whether ‘‘work￾up’’ sessions would be considered an acceptable method of execution for Required Transactions.312 GFI explained one example of a work-up session where, after a trade is executed on an order book, one of the counterparties to the trade may wish to buy or sell additional quantities of the same instrument at the previously executed price.313 In this case, the parties initiate a work-up session to execute such additional quantity.314 After the initial counterparty exercises its right of first refusal, other market participants may also join in the trade at the previously executed price.315 (iii) Comments on Liquidity-Based Execution Mandates Several commenters stated that the Dodd-Frank Act does not require certain methods of trading, such as an order book, based upon the amount of trading activity in a particular instrument.316 MarketAxess contended that nothing in the Dodd-Frank Act supports the requirement in proposed § 37.9(b)(4) that methods of execution on a SEF should be based upon characteristics of a particular swap.317 MarketAxess stated that such a requirement would create uncertainty regarding a SEF’s operational structure 318 and, according to Tradeweb, would likely decrease the trading activity and liquidity of those swaps subject to the requirement.319 On the other hand, AFR contended that mandatorily cleared swaps meeting a certain level of trading activity should

320AFR Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 321The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.9(b)(1) to § 37.9(a)(2). 322See 17 CFR 13.2 for further details. This will allow the Commission to consider if a broader model for executing on SEFs, consistent with the suggestion in Commissioner Sommers’ dissent, would be appropriate on a case-by-case basis, in conformance with the CEA and the Commission’s regulations. Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1259. 323See proposed § 37.9(a)(1)(i)(D) and § 37.9(a)(1)(ii)(C). 324CEA section 5h(e); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(e) (emphasis added). 325Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1220. 326The Commission notes below that pre-trade transparency can help promote the trading of swaps on SEFs. See the Introduction section of the Cost Benefit Considerations section for further details. 327The Commission further notes that this determination does not accept Nodal’s assertion that ‘‘this type of blind auction trading platform is permissible on DCMs.’’ See Nodal Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 328The Commission interprets the phrase ‘‘through any means of interstate commerce’’ in CEA § 1a(50) to allow a SEF to utilize a variety of means of execution or communication, including, but not limited to, telephones, internet communications, and electronic transmissions. Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., 318 U.S. 125, 129– 30 (1943) (in general, ‘‘instrument’’ of interstate commerce is to be interpreted broadly); United States v. Barlow, 568 F.3d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 2009) (‘‘It is beyond debate that internet and email are facilities or means of interstate commerce.’’); United States v. Weathers, 169 F.3d 336, 341 (6th Cir.
2000) (‘‘It is generally well established that
telephones, even when used intrastate, constitute instrumentalities of interstate commerce.’’); SEC v. Solucorp Indus., 274 F.Supp.2d 379, 419 (S.D.N.Y.
2003) (defendants ‘‘used the means and
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including, among other things, the mails and wires, including the Internet, news wires and telephone lines’’ to commit securities fraud). While the Commission’s interpretation of ‘‘any means of interstate commerce’’ allows a SEF to utilize a wide variety of execution or communication means, all SEFs, regardless of the execution or communication means they employ, must comply with all of the substantive SEF requirements, including, but not limited to, requirements that pertain to execution. For example, a SEF using the telephone to execute Required Transactions must satisfy the execution requirements set forth in § 37.9(a)(2)(i)(A) or (B). only be traded through order book systems.320 (2) Commission Determination (i) Execution Methods for Required Transactions The Commission is revising proposed § 37.9(b)(1) as final § 37.9(a)(2) to clarify that each Required Transaction that is not a block trade as defined in § 43.2 of the Commission’s regulations shall be executed on a SEF in accordance with one of the following methods of execution: (1) An Order Book as defined in § 37.3(a)(3) or (2) an RFQ System, as defined in § 37.9(a)(3), that operates in conjunction with an Order Book.321 As explained in this final rulemaking, the Commission believes that these execution methods are consistent with the SEF definition and promote the goals provided in section 733 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Commission notes, however, that a SEF may petition the Commission under § 13.2 of the Commission’s regulations to amend § 37.9(a)(2) to include additional execution methods.322 This ability of SEFs to petition the Commission replaces similar provisions in the SEF NPRM that were included in the Order Book and RFQ System definitions and provides SEFs with additional flexibility as existing execution methods evolve or new methods are developed.323 In keeping with the statutory instruction that the Dodd-Frank Act goal of SEFs is to both ‘‘promote the trading of swaps on swap execution facilities and to promote pre-trade price transparency in the swaps market’’ 324 (emphasis added), the Commission is reaffirming its view articulated in the SEF NPRM that these goals can be achieved for Required Transactions by providing for the execution of such transactions on trading systems or platforms that allow market participants to post bids and offers or accept bids and offers that are transparent to the entire market.325 Promoting trading on a SEF should not result in eliminating the need to provide some degree of pre￾trade transparency. Therefore, even when recognizing the importance of promoting the trading of swaps on SEFs, some degree of pre-trade transparency must be met for Required Transactions.326 As a result, the Commission is declining to accept Nodal’s recommendation to explicitly include blind auctions as an acceptable method of execution for Required Transactions under this rulemaking.327 (ii) ‘‘Through Any Means of Interstate
Commerce’’ Language in the SEF Definition In consideration of the comments regarding possible limitations on how the Commission interprets the phrase ‘‘through any means of interstate commerce’’ in the SEF definition, the Commission is revising the final rule text to clarify that in providing either one of the execution methods for Required Transactions in § 37.9(a)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this final rulemaking (i.e., Order Book or RFQ System that operates in conjunction with an Order Book), a SEF may for purposes of execution and communication use ‘‘any means of interstate commerce,’’ including, but not limited to, the mail, internet, email, and telephone, provided that the chosen execution method satisfies the requirements provided in § 37.3(a)(3) for Order Books or in § 37.9(a)(3) for Request for Quote Systems.328 With this use of the phrase ‘‘any means of interstate commerce,’’ the Commission is not limiting the means of execution or communication that a SEF may utilize in implementing the required execution methods for Required Transactions in § 37.9(a)(2)(i)(A) or (B), provided that the chosen execution method satisfies the requirements provided in § 37.3(a)(3) for Order Books or in § 37.9(a)(3) for Request for Quote Systems. In this regard, the Commission notes that as the swaps market evolves, SEFs may develop new means of execution or communication for use in implementing the required execution methods. Although the Commission notes that its regulations are technology neutral given the ‘‘any means of interstate commerce’’ language, it also emphasizes that, regardless of the means of interstate commerce utilized, a SEF must comply with the Act and the Commission’s regulations, including the § 37.9 execution method, impartial access, audit trail, and surveillance requirements. Furthermore, all transactions on the SEF must comply with the SEF’s rules. For example, to meet the RFQ System definition for Required Transactions, a SEF must satisfy all of the following functions, and in doing so, all or some of these functions may be performed over the telephone: (1) Receiving a request from a market participant to execute a trade, (2) submitting that request to at least 3 market participants in accordance with the RFQ System definition, (3) communicating the RFQ responses and resting bids or offers on the Order Book to the RFQ requester, and (4) executing the transaction. The Commission notes that regardless of the means of interstate commerce utilized, including the telephone, the SEF must submit the transaction into its system or platform so that the SEF is able to comply with the Act and the Commission’s regulations, including audit trail, clearing, and reporting requirements. Given the different means of interstate commerce that a SEF may utilize for purposes of communication and execution in implementing the execution methods for Required Transactions in § 37.9(a)(2)(i)(A) or (B), the Commission notes that it must evaluate each system or
platform to determine whether it meets the requirements of § 37.9(a)(2). The Commission, in order to provide further clarity regarding the means of

329See final § 37.9(a)(3) and the preamble for details regarding the communication of the resting bids or offers on the Order Book to the RFQ requester. 330The Commission notes that a work-up transaction does not qualify as a block trade even if an individual market participant’s transactions as
part of the work-up transaction has a notional or
principal amount at or above the appropriate minimum block size applicable to such swap. The Commission believes that the concepts of work-up transactions and block trades are mutually exclusive. Block trades are executed pursuant to a SEF’s rules, but negotiated and executed off of the SEF’s trading platform. A work-up transaction is conducted on a SEF’s trading platform. See block trade definition in § 43.2 of the Commission’s regulations; see also Rules Prohibiting the Aggregation of Orders To Satisfy Minimum Block Sizes or Cap Size Requirements, and Establishing Eligibility Requirements for Parties to Block Trades, 77 FR 38229 (proposed Jun. 27, 2012). Accordingly, each individual transaction that is part of the work￾up transaction must be reported as it occurs pursuant to the SEF’s reporting obligations. 331These resting bids or offers would be included at the work-up session price. The Commission notes that ‘‘equal to or better than the work-up session price’’ means any resting bids that are equal to or greater than the work-up price or any resting offers that are equal to or less than the work-up price. 332 Id. 333Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1220. 334Mallers et al. Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 21, 2011); SDMA Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). interstate commerce that a SEF may utilize in order to satisfy the execution methods for Required Transactions in § 37.9(a)(2), is providing the following example, which the Commission intends to be instructive, though not comprehensive. The Commission emphasizes that the following example should not be construed as bright-line rules:

• RFQ System example—a market
  participant calls an employee of the SEF with a request for a quote to buy or sell a swap subject to the trade execution requirement in CEA section 2(h)(8). The SEF employee disseminates the request for a quote to no less than three market participants on the SEF (directly or through other SEF employees or both) by telephone, email, instant messaging, squawk box, some other means of communication, or some combination thereof. Based on the responses of these market participants, the SEF employee communicates the responsive bids or offers and the resting bids or offers on the SEF’s Order Book 329 to the RFQ requester by one of the above referenced means of communication. The RFQ requester communicates acceptance of one of the bids or offers to the SEF employee by one of the above referenced means of communication. The SEF employee informs those two market participants by one of the above referenced means of communication that the swap transaction is executed. The SEF employee enters the transaction into the SEF’s system or platform so that the SEF is able to comply with the Act and the Commission’s regulations, including audit trail, clearing, and reporting requirements. The Commission views this example as demonstrating acceptable uses of different means of interstate commerce while meeting the RFQ System method of execution in § 37.9(a)(2). In response to commenters, the Commission will generally allow work￾up sessions if such trading protocols are utilized after a transaction is executed on the SEF’s Order Book or RFQ System.330 The Commission, in order to provide further clarity regarding work￾up sessions, is providing the following two examples, which the Commission intends to be instructive, though not comprehensive. The Commission notes that the following examples are two types of work-up session that may be acceptable:
• After two counterparties execute a
  transaction on a SEF’s Order Book, the SEF may establish a short time period for a work-up session. The SEF must open up the work-up session to all market participants so that they may trade an additional quantity of the same instrument at the same price previously executed by the initial counterparties. In addition, any resting bids or offers on the SEF’s Order Book equal to or better than the work-up session price must be included in the work-up session.331 The SEF may provide the initial counterparties execution priority in the work-up session.
• After two counterparties execute a
  transaction on a SEF’s RFQ System, the SEF may establish a short time period for a work-up session. The SEF must open up the work-up session to all market participants so that they may trade an additional quantity of the same instrument at the same price previously executed by the initial counterparties. In addition, any resting bids or offers on the SEF’s Order Book equal to or better than the work-up session price must be included in the work-up session.332 The SEF may provide the initial counterparties execution priority in the work-up session. The SEF must have rules governing the operation of any work-up mechanism, including the length of the session, any priorities accorded the counterparties to the transaction that triggered the work-up session, and the handling of any orders submitted during the session that are not executed. A SEF must also have systems or procedures in place to ensure that a work-up session is accessible by, and work-up session information (e.g., the work-up session’s trade price and ongoing volume) is available to, all market participants. The Commission believes that, if properly conducted, work-up sessions may enhance price discovery and foster liquidity. The Commission believes that a work￾up session would be a trading protocol and, thus, constitute a rule under § 40.1 of the Commission’s regulations. Any such rule or amendment thereto must be codified and included in a SEF’s rulebook in accordance with the rule review or approval procedures of part 40 of the Commission’s regulations or during the SEF application process. Additionally, all transactions executed through a work-up session must comply with the SEF’s rules. The Commission staff will provide informal guidance to SEF applicants on whether such work￾up sessions are in compliance with the Act and the Commission’s regulations. (iii) Liquidity-Based Execution Mandates The Commission is deleting proposed § 37.9(b)(4). Given the incipience of the regulated swaps market, at this time, the Commission is not imposing a requirement for specific methods of execution for Required Transactions based upon the amount of trading activity in such transactions. (e) § 37.9(b)(3)—Time Delay Requirement Proposed § 37.9(b)(3) stated that SEFs must require that traders who have the ability to execute against a customer’s order or to execute two customers against each other be subject to a 15- second timing delay between the entry of the two orders, such that one side of the potential transaction is disclosed and made available to other market participants before the second side of the potential transaction (whether for the trader’s own account or for a second customer) is submitted for execution. The SEF NPRM stated that this requirement will provide other market participants the opportunity to join in the trade.333 (1) Summary of Comments SDMA and Mallers et al. supported the proposed 15-second delay requirement as necessary to increase price transparency and market
  integrity.334 Mallers et al. stated that the 15-second rule provides a meaningful opportunity for other SEF participants to execute against the individual sides of the cross transaction, and that such crossing delays have been successfully

335Mallers et al. Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 21, 2011). 336WMBAA Comment Letter at 3 (Jul. 18, 2011); FHLB Comment Letter at 13 (Jun. 3, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 9 (Jun. 3, 2011); Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 15–16 (Apr. 5, 2011); BlackRock Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Global FX Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011); JP Morgan Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); Evolution Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); TruMarx Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); Deutsche Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); FCC Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011); Phoenix Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 7, 2011). 337WMBAA Comment Letter at 3 (Jul. 18, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 9 (Jun. 3, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011); Deutsche Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); MFA Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011). 338FHLB Comment Letter at 13 (Jun. 3, 2011); BlackRock Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 7–8 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); FCC Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011). 339Freddie Mac Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 340WMBAA Comment Letter at 9 (Jun. 3, 2011); BlackRock Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); MFA Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); Phoenix Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 7, 2011). 341ABC/CIEBA Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011). 342 Id. at 10. 343Reuters Comment Letter at 5 (Dec. 12, 2011); Goldman Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/ SIFMA Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011); MFA Comment Letter at 8–9 (Mar. 8, 2011). 344 Goldman Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 345FXall Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011). 346Reuters Comment Letter at 5 (Dec. 12, 2011); Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 15–16 (Apr. 5, 2011); Goldman Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Global FX Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 347SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 348Better Markets Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011). 349WMBAA Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 6–7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 350WMBAA Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 351SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011). 352The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.9(b)(3) to § 37.9(b)(1). 353The Commission clarifies that the exposure of ‘‘orders’’ subject to the 15 second time delay into the Order Book in final § 37.9(b)(1) means exposure of the price, size, and other terms of the orders. 354The Commission also notes that the time delay requirement is similar to certain timing delays for cross trades applicable to futures transactions executed on DCMs where one side of a potential transaction (i.e., price, size, and other terms) is exposed to the market for a certain period
of time before the second side of the potential transaction is submitted for execution. See, e.g., NYMEX rule 533, which provides for a 5-second delay for futures and a 15-second delay for options, available at http://www.cmegroup.com/rulebook/NYMEX/1/ 5.pdf. 355See, e.g., CME Rule 539.C Pre-Execution Communications Regarding Globex Trades, available at http://www.cmegroup.com/rulebook/ CME/I/5/39.html (setting forth rules regarding pre￾execution communications in the DCM context). implemented in the futures markets.335 However, several commenters objected to the 15-second delay requirement.336 Some commenters stated that there is no statutory authority for the timing delay requirement.337 Commenters also stated that the timing delay will increase prices and expose traders to market risk.338 Freddie Mac, for example, stated that liquidity providers may increase prices to account for anticipated market movements.339 Some commenters also noted that the timing delay requirement may lead to unwillingness on the part of dealers to provide liquidity because they will not know whether they will ultimately serve as their customers’ principal counterparty or merely as their executing agent.340 ABC/CIEBA commented that the proposed rule is unclear as to what limitations, if any, apply to pre￾execution communications.341 ABC/ CIEBA recommended that the Commission revise the proposed rule to permit pre-execution communications between counterparties as long as parties comply with the requirement to execute the trade on the SEF.342 Several commenters recommended that the Commission provide flexibility with respect to the time period of the timing delay.343 Goldman recommended that the Commission, in consultation with market participants and SEFs, set the delay at 1–3 seconds depending on the complexity of the product.344 FXall stated that each SEF should be able to decide upon the appropriate delay, taking into account the particular characteristics of that market.345 Several commenters requested clarification that the 15-second delay requirement only applies to SEFs that operate an Order Book and not an RFQ System.346 In this regard, SIFMA AMG commented that the timing delay should not apply to an RFQ System because firm quotes transmitted in response to an RFQ would already be exposed to the market.347 However, Better Markets contended that the requirement should apply to responsive orders in RFQ systems.348 Finally, some commenters requested that the Commission clarify the term ‘‘trader’’ in the proposed rule.349 WMBAA stated that it is not clear whether the term ‘‘trader’’ refers to a counterparty, broker, or another entity.350 SIFMA AMG noted that the timing delay should not apply to asset managers executing trades on behalf of their clients.351 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting the time delay requirement for Required Transactions in proposed § 37.9(b)(3) as final § 37.9(b)(1), subject to the modifications described below.352 The
Commission clarifies that the purpose of the time delay requirement is to ensure a minimum level of pre-trade price transparency for Required Transactions on a SEF’s Order Book by allowing other market participants the opportunity to join or participate in a trade where a broker or dealer engages in some form of pre-arrangement or pre-negotiation of a transaction and then attempts, through the SEF’s Order Book, to either internalize the order by executing opposite a customer or cross two customer orders.353 In addition to ensuring a minimum level of pre-trade price transparency, the Commission believes that the time delay requirement will incentivize competition between market participants.354 The Commission is revising proposed § 37.9(b)(3) to clarify the purpose of the time delay requirement as described above. In response to ABC/CEIBA’s comment about any limitations on pre-execution communications, the Commission notes that a SEF that allows pre-execution communications must adopt rules regarding such communications that have been certified to or approved by the Commission.355 The Commission also notes that orders that result from pre-execution communications would be subject to the time delay requirement in the final rule text. The Commission notes that pre-execution communications are communications between market participants for the purpose of discerning interest in the execution of a transaction prior to the exposure of the market participants’ orders (i.e., price, size, and other terms) to the market. Any communication that involves discussion of the size, side of market, or price of an order, or a potentially forthcoming order, constitutes a pre-execution communication. The Commission acknowledges commenters’ concerns that the time delay requirement should take into account a product’s characteristics. Therefore, the Commission believes that the 15-second time delay requirement should serve as a default time delay. The Commission is revising the rule to allow SEFs to adjust the time period of the delay, based upon liquidity or other product-specific considerations as stated in final § 37.9(b)(2). The Commission notes that such adjustments and accompanying justifications, as well as any establishment of a 15-second time delay requirement at a SEF, must be submitted

356For example, a futures commission merchant or other market participant acting in the role of a broker who has the ability to execute against its customer’s order or to execute two of its customers’ orders against each other would be subject to the time delay requirement. 357The SEF NPRM stated that pre-trade price transparency is not required for Permitted Transactions. Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1220. 358SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011). 359 Id. 360Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 19–20 (Apr. 5, 2011); Deutsche Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011); Global FX Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011); Barclays Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011); ABC/CIEBA Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 361The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.9(c)(1) to § 37.9(c)(2). 362This section does not apply to those entities that do not have to register as a SEF. As noted above in the registration section, swap transactions that are not subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade execution requirement would not have to be executed on a registered SEF. 363CEA sections 2(h)(7) and 2(h)(8); 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(7) and 2(h)(8). 364Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1241. 365Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, 75 FR 80572 (proposed Dec. 22, 2010). for the Commission’s review pursuant to the procedures described in part 40 of the Commission’s regulations. The Commission is clarifying that the 15-second time delay requirement is not applicable to trades that are executed through an RFQ System. As noted above, the purpose of the time delay requirement is to ensure a minimum level of pre-trade price transparency for Required Transactions on a SEF’s Order Book. The Commission notes that an RFQ System already provides pre-trade price transparency to the RFQ requester and that a dealer attempting to cross or internalize trades through an RFQ System would be subject to such pre￾trade price transparency. As such, the Commission is revising the rule text to clarify that the 15-second time delay requirement only applies to a SEF’s Order Book. Finally, the Commission is replacing the term ‘‘traders’’ in proposed § 37.9(b)(3) with the phrase ‘‘brokers or dealers.’’ The Commission intended the provision to apply only to brokers or dealers attempting to internalize or cross trades through a SEF’s Order Book and acknowledges that the proposal was unclear with respect to the meaning of the term ‘‘traders.’’ 356 In response to SIFMA AMG’s concern, the Commission does not have sufficient information at this time to make a determination whether asset managers executing trades on behalf of their clients would be subject to the time delay requirement. The Commission staff will work with SEFs to determine if the time delay requirement applies to asset managers or other market participants. (f) § 37.9(c)—Execution Methods for
Permitted Transactions Proposed § 37.9(c)(1) provided that Permitted Transactions may be executed by an Order Book, RFQ System, a Voice￾Based System, or any such other system for trading as may be permitted by the Commission. In addition, proposed § 37.9(c)(2) stated that a registered SEF may submit a request to the Commission to offer trading services to facilitate Permitted Transactions, and that when doing so, the SEF must certify its compliance with § 37.11 (Identification of non-cleared swaps or swaps not made available to trade). As noted in the SEF NPRM, market participants would not be required to utilize the minimum trading functionality in § 37.9(b) to execute Permitted Transactions.357 (1) Summary of Comments SIFMA AMG stated that the Commission should not limit the execution modalities available to market participants who execute Permitted Transactions on a SEF.358 SIFMA AMG also stated that no statutory basis exists for regulatory execution requirements for Permitted Transactions.359 Additionally, several commenters stated that the Commission should not prescribe execution methods for swaps executed off a SEF.360 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is revising proposed § 37.9(c)(1) to state that a SEF may offer any method of execution for each Permitted Transaction.361 The Commission agrees that it should not limit the execution methods that are available to market participants or require market participants to utilize certain execution methods for Permitted Transactions, which are not required to be executed on a SEF. The Commission clarifies, however, that, in accordance with the minimum trading functionality requirement in final § 37.3(a)(2), a SEF must offer an Order Book for Permitted Transactions. The Commission further clarifies that a market participant has the option to utilize the Order Book or any other method of execution that a SEF provides for Permitted Transactions. Additionally, the Commission clarifies that this section only applies to Permitted Transactions listed or traded on a SEF, and that this
section does not apply to transactions
not listed or traded on a SEF.362 Finally, the Commission is deleting proposed § 37.9(c)(2) given the deletion to proposed § 37.11 as described below. (g) Future Review Consistent with the Commission’s practice of reviewing and monitoring its regulatory programs, the Commission directs the Commission staff to conduct a general review of SEFs’ experience with the execution methods prescribed in Commission regulations 37.3(a)(2) (minimum trading functionality), 37.3(a)(3) (Order Book), and 37.9 (execution methods for Required and Permitted Transactions and time delay requirement for Required Transactions). If appropriate, the review should include any Commission staff recommendations regarding possible modifications to Commission regulations 37.3(a)(2), 37.3(a)(3), or 37.9 that are consistent with the Act (e.g., a recommendation to modify the minimum number of RFQ requestees required by the RFQ definition, including whether a trading protocol in which the minimum number of RFQ requestees differed by swap class or another category would be appropriate). The Commission staff’s review should be completed within four years of the effective date of these final SEF regulations, within which time the Commission believes that staff will have gained sufficient experience and will have three years’ worth of data with respect to the execution methods.
10. § 37.10—Swaps Made Available for
Trading
The Dodd-Frank Act added section 2(h)(8) of the CEA to require that transactions involving swaps subject to the clearing requirement must be executed either on a DCM or SEF, unless no DCM 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).363 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to require SEFs to conduct annual assessments and to submit reports to the Commission regarding whether it has made a swap available to trade.364 In the DCM notice of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’),365 the Commission did not establish any obligation for DCMs under
section 2(h)(8) of the Act. After
reviewing the SEF NPRM comments regarding the proposed available to trade process, and in light of the fact that the DCM NPRM did not establish any obligation for DCMs under section

366Process for a Designated Contract Market or Swap Execution Facility To Make a Swap Available To Trade, 76 FR 77728 (proposed Dec. 14, 2011). 367MarketAxess Comment Letter at 33–34 (Mar. 8, 2011). 368 Id. at 34. 369CEA section 5h(f)(1)(A); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(1)(A). 370CEA section 5h(f)(1)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(1)(B). 371CEA section 5h(f)(2)(A); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(A). 372CEA section 5h(f)(2)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(B). This section also requires a SEF to provide market participants with impartial access to the market and to capture information that may be used in establishing whether rule violations have occurred. 373CEA section 5h(f)(2)(C); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(C). 374CEA section 5h(f)(2)(D); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(D). 375FXall Comment Letter at 3–4, 11 (Mar. 8, 2011); State Street Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); ICE Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 18 (Mar. 8, 2011). 376FXall Comment Letter at 3–4, 11 (Mar. 8, 2011); State Street Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 377 Id. 378 ICE Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011). 379Reuters Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 3–4, 11 (Mar. 8, 2011); ICE Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011); State Street Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 380WMBAA Comment Letter at 18 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 34 (Mar. 8, 2011); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 14–15 (Mar. 8, 2011). 2(h)(8) of the CEA, the Commission determined to separately issue a further notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a process for a DCM or SEF to make a swap available to trade under
section 2(h)(8) of the Act.366 The
Commission may implement the available to trade provision in a separate rulemaking.
11. § 37.11—Identification of Non￾Cleared Swaps or Swaps Not Made
Available to Trade
Proposed § 37.11 required a SEF that chooses to offer swaps: (1) Not subject to the clearing mandate under section 2(h) of the Act, (2) that are subject to the end-user exception from the clearing mandate under section 2(h)(7) of the Act, or (3) that have not been made available to trade pursuant to § 37.10 of the Commission’s regulations to clearly identify to market participants that the particular swap is to be executed bilaterally between the parties pursuant to one of the applicable exemptions from execution and clearing. (a) Summary of Comments MarketAxess expressed concern that proposed § 37.11 could be read to require that all transactions described in the provision must only be executed bilaterally, and not on a SEF.367 To address this concern, MarketAxess requested the Commission clarify that § 37.11 requires a SEF choosing to facilitate Permitted Transactions to identify to market participants why the particular swap is a Permitted Transaction (i.e., falls under one of the three categories described in the provision).368 (b) Commission Determination The Commission believes that proposed § 37.11 is unnecessary and therefore is deleting it in its entirety. Market participants should have sufficient notice of the swaps subject to the clearing and trade execution requirements. Therefore, in conjunction with the definitions contained in part 37 as adopted, market participants will know which swaps are Required Transactions and which swaps are Permitted Transactions, and thus the execution methods deemed acceptable for each.
C. Regulations, Guidance, and
Acceptable Practices for Compliance With the Core Principles As noted above, this final part 37 rulemaking establishes the relevant regulations, guidance, and acceptable practices applicable to the 15 core principles that SEFs are required to comply with initially and on a continuing basis as part of the conditions of registration. The regulations applicable to the 15 core principles are set out in separate subparts B through P to part 37, which includes a codification within each subpart of the statutory language of the respective core principle. The guidance and acceptable practices are set out in
appendix B to part 37.

1. Subpart B—Core Principle 1
   (Compliance With Core Principles) Core Principle 1 requires a SEF to comply with the core principles set forth in CEA section 5h(f) and any requirement that the Commission may impose by rule or regulation pursuant to CEA section 8a(5) as a condition of obtaining and maintaining registration as a SEF.369 Additionally, Core Principle 1 provides a SEF with reasonable discretion in establishing the manner in which it complies with the core principles unless the Commission determines otherwise by rule or regulation.370 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 1 in proposed § 37.100, and adopts that rule as proposed.
2. Subpart C—Core Principle 2
   (Compliance With Rules) (a) § 37.200—Core Principle 2— Compliance With Rules Core Principle 2 requires a SEF to establish and enforce compliance with its rules, including the terms and conditions of the swaps traded or processed on or through the SEF and any limitations on access to the SEF.371 It also requires a SEF to establish and enforce trading, trade processing, and participation rules that will deter abuses and have the capacity to detect, investigate, and enforce those rules.372 A SEF must also establish rules governing the operation of the facility, including rules specifying trading procedures to be used in entering and executing orders traded or posted on the facility, including block trades.373 Finally, Core Principle 2 requires a SEF to provide by its rules that when a swap dealer or major swap participant enters into or facilitates a swap that is subject to the mandatory clearing requirement of section 2(h) of the Act, the swap dealer or major swap participant is responsible for complying with the mandatory trading requirement under
   section 2(h)(8) of the Act.374 In the SEF
   NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 2 in proposed § 37.200, and adopts that rule as proposed. (1) Summary of Comments Some commenters expressed general concerns regarding the proposed rules under Core Principle 2.375 FXall and State Street believed that the proposed rules under Core Principle 2 would require a SEF to act as a de facto self￾regulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’) and impose burdens that would impede the growth of the swaps market.376 These commenters also noted that the proposed requirements were too similar to the regulations applicable to DCMs, which would place SEFs at a disadvantage compared to DCMs given that SEFs will operate in a competitive environment while DCMs operate in a monopolistic environment.377 ICE urged the Commission to limit its prescriptive rulemaking to issues that it believes require specific, binding rules.378 In this regard, several commenters recommended that the Commission adopt greater flexibility in implementing Core Principle 2.379 Some commenters recommended limiting the scope of the proposed rules under Core Principle 2.380 Specifically, WMBAA argued that SEFs may not be able to satisfy all of the requirements of the proposed rules given that SEFs cannot be held responsible for what

381WMBAA Comment Letter at 18 (Mar. 8, 2011). 382FXall Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011). 383SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 14–15 (Mar. 8, 2011). 384 Id. 385See Adaptation of Regulations to Incorporate Swaps, 77 FR 66288 (Nov. 2, 2012). Section 1.3(ee) states that a self-regulatory organization ‘‘means a contract market (as defined in § 1.3(h)), a swap execution facility (as defined in § 1.3(rrrr)), or a registered futures association under section 17 of the Act.’’ Id. at 66318. 386CEA section 1a(34) defines ‘‘member’’ as ‘‘an individual, association, partnership, corporation, or trust—(A) owning or holding membership in, or admitted to membership representation on, the registered entity . . . or (B) having trading privileges on the registered entity. . . .’’ 7 U.S.C. 1a(34). 387The Commission notes that § 37.201(a) codifies CEA section 5h(f)(2)(C). 7 U.S.C. 7b– 3(f)(2)(C). 388The Commission notes that § 37.201(b) codifies certain sections of CEA section 5h(f)(2). 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2). 389MarketAxess Comment Letter at 34 (Mar. 8, 2011). 390The Commission notes that under § 37.1501(d), a duty of the Chief Compliance Officer is to establish and administer written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Act and the rules of the Commission. 391The Commission notes that under § 37.1501(d), a duty of the Chief Compliance Officer is to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act and the rules of the Commission, and to establish and administer a compliance manual designed to promote compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 392See WMBAA Comment Letter at 2 (Feb. 15,
2013) (explaining that employees of a SEF provide
services such as disseminating bids and offers, helping to understand market conditions, and executing transactions between counterparties). 393Commission regulation 1.59(d). happens on a competitor’s platform.381 Similarly, FXall believed that SEFs would not have the requisite market data to conduct meaningful compliance oversight.382 SIFMA AMG believed that the Commission’s vague use of the terms ‘‘members,’’ ‘‘market participants,’’ and ‘‘participants’’ could potentially subject dealers’ customers, and thus asset managers and their clients, to ‘‘onerous’’ requirements of multiple SEFs.383 Therefore, SIFMA AMG requested clarification that a SEF’s rules would only regulate entities that actually execute transactions on the SEF.384 (2) Commission Determination In response to comments by FXall and State Street about treating SEFs as SROs, the Commission notes that like DCMs, it views SEFs as SROs and amended the Commission’s regulations to include them as SROs.385 Treating a SEF as an SRO is consistent with a SEF’s self￾regulatory obligations pursuant to CEA
section 5h(f). Therefore, where
appropriate, the Commission is adopting surveillance, audit trail, investigation, enforcement, and other requirements for SEFs. In response to commenters’ concerns that the proposed requirements were similar to the regulations applicable to DCMs, the Commission believes that adopting similar requirements for both types of entities is warranted given the similar statutory self-regulatory obligations for both types of entities. Given that both DCMs and SEFs, regardless of whether they are new or existing entities, are required to fulfill similar self-regulatory functions, the Commission does not believe that this approach will adversely affect competition between DCMs and SEFs. In response to commenters’ requests for less prescriptive rules and greater flexibility in applying the rules, the Commission is moving various provisions of the proposed rules to guidance and eliminating other provisions, as discussed below. The provisions that are adopted as final rules reflect the Commission’s opinion of what is required, at a minimum, for any SEF to comply with the core principles. SEFs may take any additional steps necessary, beyond the requirements of the rules, to satisfy statutory obligations. In response to WMBAA’s and FXall’s comments regarding certain limitations faced by SEFs in terms of oversight, the Commission recognizes the limitations faced by SEFs with respect to position monitoring, cross-market surveillance, and rule enforcement and addresses them in the context of comments received below. In response to SIFMA AMG’s comment about the ambiguous use of terms, the Commission clarifies that ‘‘market participant’’ when used with respect to a SEF means a person that directly or indirectly effects transactions on the SEF. This includes persons with trading privileges on the SEF and persons whose trades are intermediated. The Commission also clarifies that ‘‘member’’ has the meaning set forth in CEA section 1a(34).386 (b) § 37.201—Operation of Swap Execution Facility and Compliance With Rules Proposed § 37.201(a) required a SEF to establish rules governing the operation of the SEF, including rules specifying trading procedures for entering and executing orders traded or posted on the SEF, including block trades.387 Proposed § 37.201(b) further required a SEF to establish and impartially enforce compliance with its rules, including, but not limited to: (1) The terms and conditions of any swaps traded or processed on or through the SEF; (2) access to the SEF; (3) trade practice rules; (4) audit trail requirements; (5) disciplinary rules; and (6) mandatory clearing requirements.388 (1) Summary of Comments MarketAxess recommended that the Commission withdraw proposed § 37.201(b)(6), which required a SEF to adopt and enforce mandatory clearing requirements, on the basis that clearing of a swap occurs outside of a SEF’s main responsibility to facilitate the transaction.389 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.201 as proposed,
subject to two modifications. To address the comment by MarketAxess, the Commission notes that proposed § 37.201(b)(6) contained a drafting error, and therefore is replacing the term ‘‘mandatory clearing’’ with ‘‘mandatory trading.’’ The Commission also notes that the citation to ‘‘part 45’’ in proposed § 37.201(a) should instead cite to ‘‘part 43.’’ Therefore, the Commission is modifying the final rule to include these technical changes. Additionally, the Commission notes that a SEF must establish and enforce rules for its employees. These rules must be reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Act and the rules of the Commission.390 Towards that end, the Commission also notes that a SEF must have systems in place reasonably designed to ensure that its employees are operating in accordance with the SEF’s rules.391 For example, a SEF that is utilizing an RFQ System in conjunction with an Order Book for Required Transactions must establish rules specifying order handling procedures for its employees who receive and execute orders over the telephone, email, instant messaging, squawk box, some other method of communication, or some combination thereof so that the employees may comply with the RFQ System requirements as specified in final § 37.9(a)(3).392 Furthermore, the Commission notes that a SEF’s employees have certain obligations under the Commission’s existing regulations. For example, under § 1.59, a SEF’s employees are prohibited from disclosing for any purpose inconsistent with the performance of its official duties any material, non-public information obtained through special access related to the performance of its duties.393 Finally, the Commission notes that under § 1.2 of the Commission’s regulations, a SEF is liable for the acts, omissions, or failures of its employees

394Commission regulation 1.2. 395CEA section 5h(f)(2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(i); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(i). 396The Commission is renaming the title of this
section from ‘‘Impartial Access by Members and
Market Participants’’ to ‘‘Impartial Access to Markets and Market Services’’ to provide greater clarity. 397Reuters Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); Goldman Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011). 398 ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011). 399 JP Morgan Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011). 400 Id. 401 Id. 402Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 17 (Apr. 5, 2011). 403MarketAxess Comment Letter at 23–24 (Mar. 8, 2011). 404Tradeweb Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011). 405Mallers et al. Comment Letter at 2–3 (Mar. 21, 2011). 406 Id. at 3. 407SDMA Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 408UBS Comment Letter II at 1 (May 18, 2012). UBS submitted two comment letters on May 18,
2012. The Commission is referencing UBS’s
comment letter regarding impartial access as ‘‘UBS Comment Letter II.’’ 409MarketAxess Comment Letter at 24 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 19 (Mar. 8, 2011). 410MarketAxess Comment Letter at 25 (Mar. 8, 2011). 411WMBAA Comment Letter at 19 (Mar. 8, 2011). 412See Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1222 n. 53 (providing examples of ISVs). 413Meeting with Bloomberg dated Jan. 18, 2012. 414 Id. 415MarketAxess Comment Letter at 25 (Mar. 8, 2011). 416 Id. 417Better Markets Comment Letter at 11–12 (Mar. 8, 2011). 418MarketAxess Comment Letter at 25 (Mar. 8, 2011). acting within the scope of their employment.394 (c) § 37.202—Access Requirements Proposed § 37.202 addressed Core Principle 2’s requirements that SEFs provide market participants with impartial access to the market and that SEFs adopt and enforce rules with respect to any limitations placed on access to the SEF.395 (1) § 37.202(a)—Impartial Access by Members and Market Participants 396 Proposed § 37.202(a) required that a SEF provide any eligible contract participant (‘‘ECP’’) and any independent software vendor (‘‘ISV’’) with impartial access to its market(s) and market services (including any indicative quote screens or any similar pricing data displays), providing: (1) Access criteria that are impartial, transparent, and applied in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner; (2) a process for confirming ECP status prior to being granted access to the SEF; and (3) comparable fees for participants receiving comparable access to, or services from, the SEF. (i) Summary of Comments Several commenters sought clarification that SEFs would be permitted to use their own reasonable discretion to determine individual access criteria, provided that the criteria are impartial, transparent, and applied in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.397 In this regard, ISDA/SIFMA commented that a SEF should be able to limit access to its trading systems or platforms to certain types of market participants in order to maintain the financial integrity and operational safety of the trading platform.398 JP Morgan also stated that a SEF should be able to limit access to certain types of market participants such as swap dealers.399 JP Morgan commented, however, that the SEF NPRM’s preamble language about financial and operational soundness is problematic because it would not allow SEFs to limit access to certain types of market participants.400 This could disrupt business models such as that of inter-dealer brokers whose model is intimately tied to the idea of serving as an intermediary to wholesale liquidity providers.401 Similarly, Rosen et al. recommended that SEFs should be able to use selective access criteria such as objective minimum capital or credit requirements or limits on participation to objective classes of sophisticated market participants.402 MarketAxess commented that the meaning of the term ‘‘impartial’’ is unclear and recommended that the Commission
revise proposed § 37.202(a)(1) as follows: ‘‘Criteria that are transparent and objective and are applied in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner[.]’’ 403 Tradeweb noted that, because it offers multiple marketplaces, its access criteria may reasonably differ for each mode of execution and within one mode of execution given that each market will offer different services and may have different types of participants.404 Mallers et al. supported the impartial access requirement and its purpose of preventing a SEF’s owners or operators from using discriminatory access requirements as a competitive tool against certain participants.405 Mallers et al. stated that impartial access is a prerequisite to having an open market in which ECPs can compete on a level playing field, and that the participation of additional liquidity providers will improve the pricing and efficiency of the market and reduce systemic risk.406 SDMA also supported the impartial access requirement and stated that the ability to obtain intellectual property licenses and the amount of royalties for intellectual property licenses should be fair and not used to create anticompetitive advantages for a particular SEF or group of market participants.407 UBS requested that the Commission clarify in the final rulemaking that SEFs may not exclude or discriminate against participants providing agency services solely as a result of engaging in these activities.408 MarketAxess and WMBAA stated that a SEF should be able to restrict access to ISVs because the Dodd-Frank Act does not require SEFs to provide ISVs with impartial access.409 MarketAxess further commented that the Commission must permit a SEF to restrict access to an ISV who would use such direct access to provide a competitive advantage to another SEF or DCM.410 Similarly, WMBAA stated that SEFs could qualify as ISVs in order to seek access to competitors’ trading systems or platforms, which would defeat the existing structure of competitive sources of liquidity.411 Bloomberg commented that the SEF NPRM’s characterization of ISV is too broad; 412 therefore, an ISV may be able to replicate the services of a SEF without having to register as a SEF.413 Bloomberg also requested that the Commission clarify that a user of an ISV service must be a participant of a SEF in order to access the SEF’s data and/or to execute swap transactions on that SEF.414 Under proposed § 37.202(a)(2), MarketAxess recommended that SEFs be permitted to rely on a written or electronically signed representation by a participant seeking access to the SEF regarding its status as an ECP.415 MarketAxess stated that SEFs may then adopt rules to require that the participant notify the SEF immediately of any change to its status after the participant makes the representation.416 Better Markets commented that proposed § 37.202(a)(3) should make clear that any form of preferential access to a SEF through fee arrangements should not be allowed because it would defeat the goal of
impartial access.417 However, MarketAxess stated that SEFs should be able to provide their market participants with volume discounts and other pricing arrangements as long as such discounts and arrangements are based upon objective criteria that are applied uniformly.418 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.202(a) as proposed, subject to the

419The Commission is also making certain non￾substantive clarifications to the rule. 420CEA sections 5h(f)(2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(i); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(i). 421 In this regard, the Commission is clarifying in response to UBS’s comment that a SEF may not exclude or discriminate against a market participant providing agency services subject to any limitation on such services contained in this final rulemaking. 422CEA section 5h(f)(2)(B)(i); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(B)(i). WMBAA also commented that ISVs should comply with a SEF’s rules, the SEF core principles, and the oversight or supervision by the SEF in the same manner as a market participant. WMBAA Comment Letter at 19 (Mar. 8, 2011). The Commission disagrees with WMBAA’s comment because ISVs provide market participants with greater options to access SEFs and ISVs are not executing swaps on a SEF as are market participants. Therefore, the Commission believes that ISVs should not be subject to the same requirements as market participants. 423The Commission notes that examples of independent software vendors include: smart order routers, trading software companies that develop front-end trading applications, and aggregator platforms. Smart order routing generally involves scanning of the market for the best-displayed price and then routing orders to that market for execution. Software that serves as a front-end trading application is typically used by traders to input orders, monitor quotations, and view a record of the transactions completed during a trading session. As noted above in the registration section, aggregator platforms generally provide a portal to market participants so that they can access multiple SEFs, but do not provide for execution as execution remains on SEFs. Aggregator platforms may also provide access to news and analytics. The Commission believes that transparency and trading efficiency would be enhanced as a result of innovations in this field for market services. For instance, certain providers of market services with access to multiple trading systems or platforms could provide consolidated transaction data from such trading systems or platforms to market participants. 424See Aggregation Services or Portals discussion above under § 37.3—Requirements for Registration in the preamble. The Commission notes that footnote 423 above classifies aggregator platforms as a type of ISV so the discussion in this section regarding ISVs also applies to aggregator platforms. 425The Commission notes, however, that the user of an ISV may not need to have been granted access to the SEF if the ISV is only providing a composite quote or top level quote for multiple SEFs. 426The Commission is replacing the term ‘‘participant’’ in proposed § 37.202(a)(2) with the term ‘‘eligible contract participant’’ in final § 37.202(a)(2) because the term ‘‘participant’’ was not defined in the SEF NPRM and the revised term more clearly communicates the persons to whom this rule applies. In
this regard, the Commission notes that, prior to granting a person access to its facility, a SEF must obtain confirmation from the person of its ECP status. 427For example, the Commission notes that a customer of a futures commission merchant must be an ECP and a customer of a broker must be an ECP. modifications discussed below.419 The Commission does not believe that the statute allows a SEF to adopt rules that limit access as requested by ISDA/ SIFMA, JP Morgan, and Rosen et al. The statutory language of Core Principle 2 requires that SEFs establish and enforce participation rules, including means to provide market participants with impartial access to the market, and that SEFs adopt and enforce rules with respect to any limitations they place on access (emphasis added).420 As stated in the SEF NPRM, the Commission reiterates that the purpose of the impartial access requirements is to prevent a SEF’s owners or operators from using discriminatory access requirements as a competitive tool against certain ECPs or ISVs. The Commission also agrees with Mallers et al. who stated that the impartial access requirement allows ECPs to compete on a level playing field, and that the participation of additional liquidity providers will improve the pricing and efficiency of the market and reduce systemic risk. As such, the Commission believes that access to a SEF should be determined, for example, based on a SEF’s impartial evaluation of an applicant’s disciplinary history and financial and operational soundness against objective, pre-established criteria. As one example of such criteria, any ECP should be able to demonstrate financial soundness either by showing that it is a clearing member of a derivatives clearing organization (‘‘DCO’’) that clears products traded on that SEF or by showing that it has clearing arrangements in place with such a clearing member. In this regard, the Commission believes that the impartial access requirement of Core Principle 2 does not allow a SEF to limit access to its trading systems or platforms to certain types of ECPs or ISVs as requested by some commenters.421 The Commission notes that the rule states ‘‘impartial’’ criteria and not ‘‘selective’’ criteria as recommended by some commenters. The Commission is using the term ‘‘impartial’’ as intended in the statute. ‘‘Impartial’’ should be interpreted in the ordinary sense of the word: fair, unbiased, and unprejudiced. Subject to these requirements, a SEF may use its own reasonable discretion to determine its access criteria, provided that the criteria are impartial, transparent and applied in a fair and non-discriminatory manner, and are not anti-competitive. In response to Tradeweb’s comment about different access criteria for different markets, the Commission notes that a SEF may establish different access criteria for each of its markets. Core Principle 2 does not specify whether impartial access criteria must be the same for all of a SEF’s markets or may differ for
each market. Therefore, the Commission believes that it is within its discretion to allow a SEF to establish different access criteria for each of its markets. However, the Commission reiterates that the access criteria must be impartial and must not be used as a competitive tool against certain ECPs or ISVs. The Commission also reiterates that each similarly situated group of ECPs and ISVs must be treated similarly. In response to MarketAxess’s and WMBAA’s comments regarding ISVs, the Commission notes that Congress required SEFs to establish participation rules, including means to provide market participants with impartial access to the market.422 The Commission believes that ISVs 423 provide market participants with additional opportunities to access SEFs and that, similar to ECPs, SEFs should apply impartial criteria in a fair and non-discriminatory manner when deciding whether or not to grant an ISV access. In response to MarketAxess’s and WMBAA’s comments regarding ISVs providing a competitive advantage to other SEFs, the Commission notes that SEFs may set rules for ISVs so they do not misuse data, for example, by providing the data to another SEF for purely competitive reasons to the exclusion of market participants. The Commission also notes that SEFs may charge fees to ISVs based on the access or services they receive from the SEF. In response to Bloomberg’s comments, the Commission agrees that ISVs should not be able to replicate the services of a SEF without having to register as a SEF. The Commission notes that an ISV that merely provides a service to SEFs will not, merely because it provides such a service, be deemed to be a SEF as defined in CEA section 1a(50). However, pursuant to the registration requirements in final § 37.3(a), if an ISV offers a trading system or platform in which more than one market participant has the ability to execute or trade swaps with more than one other market participant on that system or platform, then the ISV has to register as a SEF.424 The Commission also notes that the user of an ISV must have been granted access by a SEF in order to access that SEF’s data and/or to execute a swap transaction on that SEF through the ISV.425 The Commission notes that under § 37.202(a)(2), a SEF that is determining whether to grant an ECP access to its facilities may rely on a signed representation of its ECP status.426 By not prescribing a process, the Commission is providing SEFs with flexibility and discretion on how to meet this requirement. The Commission also notes that for SEFs that permit intermediation, customers of ECPs must also be ECPs.427 In this regard, a SEF must obtain a signed representation

428The Commission is replacing the term ‘‘participant’’ in proposed § 37.202(a)(3) with the terms ‘‘eligible contract participants’’ and ‘‘independent software vendors’’ in final § 37.202(a)(3) because the term ‘‘participant’’ was not defined in the SEF NPRM and the revised terms more clearly communicates the persons to whom this rule applies. 429CME Comment Letter at 17 (Feb. 22, 2011). 430 Id. at 16. 431 Id. 432 Id. 433 Id. 434Bloomberg Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 435 Id. 436WMBAA Comment Letter at 19 (Mar. 8, 2011). 437 Id. 438CEA section 5h(f)(2)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(B). 439The Commission is making certain non￾substantive clarifications to the rule. 440For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission notes that this rule applies to the SEF’s members and market participants. 441CEA section 5h(f)(2)(A)(ii); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(A)(ii). 442The Commission notes that § 37.203 codifies CEA section 5h(f)(2)(B). 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(B). from an intermediary that its customers are ECPs. To address comments submitted in connection with proposed § 37.202(a)(3) regarding fees, the Commission clarifies that § 37.202(a)(3) neither sets nor limits the fees that SEFs may charge. A SEF may establish different categories of ECPs or ISVs seeking access to, or services from, the SEF, but may not discriminate with respect to fees within a particular category.428 The Commission notes that § 37.202(a)(3) is not designed to be a rigid requirement that fails to take into account legitimate business justifications for offering different fees to different categories of entities seeking access to the SEF. For example, a SEF may consider the services it receives from members such as market making services when it determines its fee structure. (2) § 37.202(b)—Jurisdiction Proposed § 37.202(b) required that prior to granting any ECP access to its facilities, a SEF must require that the ECP consents to its jurisdiction. (i) Summary of Comments CME recommended that the Commission withdraw the proposed rule.429 CME contended that requiring clearing firms to obtain every customer’s consent to the regulatory jurisdiction of each SEF would be costly.430 Moreover, CME commented that even if such consent were obtained, the proposed rule would be entirely ineffective in achieving the Commission’s desired outcome.431 CME explained that if a non-member, who had consented to the SEF’s jurisdiction under the proposed rule, committed a rule violation and subsequently elected not to cooperate in the investigation or disciplinary process, the SEF’s only recourse would be to deny the non-member access and, if appropriate, refer the matter to the Commission.432 CME further explained that a SEF’s enforcement options, and the regulatory outcomes, do not change based on whether or not there is a record of the non-member consenting to jurisdiction, but rather depend on whether the non-member chooses to participate in the SEF’s investigative and disciplinary processes.433 Similarly, Bloomberg
requested that the Commission clarify that proposed § 37.202(b) would only apply to a SEF’s members and not customers of members whose orders are executed on a SEF.434 Bloomberg stated that, rather than subject all market participants to a SEF’s jurisdiction, it would be sufficient and more practical for each SEF member to provide to the SEF specific information about its customers.435 WMBAA noted that a SEF may only exercise jurisdiction over a market participant with respect to its own rules and that the SEF’s ultimate sanction would be to ban a market participant from its trading system or platform.436 WMBAA also stated that prohibiting a market participant from trading on one particular SEF has little utility because a market participant could continue to execute swaps on other SEFs.437 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.202(b) as proposed. While acknowledging the comments described above, the Commission believes that § 37.202(b) codifies jurisdictional requirements necessary to effectuate the statutory mandate of Core Principle 2 that a SEF shall have the capacity to detect, investigate, and enforce rules of the SEF.438 In the Commission’s view, jurisdiction must be established by a SEF prior to granting eligible contract participants access to its markets in order to effectively investigate and sanction persons that violate SEF rules. In particular, a SEF should not be in the position of asking market participants to voluntarily submit to its jurisdiction and cooperate in investigatory proceedings after a potential rule violation has been found. Similarly, market participants should have advanced notice that their trading practices are subject to the rules of a SEF, including rules that require cooperating in investigatory and disciplinary processes. For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission clarifies that the scope of § 37.202(b) is not limited to members. To the contrary, all members and market participants of a SEF, as defined above under § 37.200, are within the scope of § 37.202(b). In response to CME’s and WMBAA’s comments, the Commission notes that a SEF’s ultimate recourse against a market participant is to deny such market participant access to the SEF and, if appropriate, refer the market participant to the Commission. The Commission has the authority to issue broader sanctions for market participants who commit SEF rule violations that also violate the CEA and Commission regulations. Therefore, the Commission expects that a SEF would not only sanction market participants as appropriate, but also refer matters to the Commission for additional action when necessary. The Commission does not agree that this action absolves SEFs from their responsibility to establish jurisdiction over members and market participants. (3) § 37.202(c)—Limitations on Access Proposed § 37.202(c) required a SEF to establish and impartially enforce rules governing any decision to allow, deny, suspend, or permanently bar
participants’ access to the SEF, including when such decisions are made as part of a disciplinary or emergency action taken by the SEF. (i) Commission Determination Although no comments were received on § 37.202(c), the Commission is adopting the proposed rule subject to one modification.439 The Commission is replacing the term ‘‘participant’’ with ‘‘eligible contract participant’’ because the term ‘‘participant’’ was not defined in the SEF NPRM and the revised term more clearly communicates the persons to whom this rule applies.440 The Commission notes that § 37.202(c) implements Core Principle 2’s requirement regarding limitations on access to the SEF.441 (d) § 37.203—Rule Enforcement Program Proposed § 37.203 required a SEF to establish and enforce trading, trade processing, and participation rules that will deter abuses and have the capacity to detect, investigate, and enforce those rules.442 (1) § 37.203(a)—Abusive Trading Practices Prohibited Proposed § 37.203(a) required a SEF to prohibit certain abusive trading practices, including front-running, wash trading, pre-arranged trading, fraudulent

443Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1223 n.61.
Section 747 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended CEA
section 4c(a) to make it unlawful for any person to
engage in any trading, practice, or conduct on or subject to the rules of a registered entity that—(A) violates bids or offers; (B) demonstrates intentional or reckless disregard for the orderly execution of transactions during the closing period; or (C) is, is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, spoofing (bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution). See Antidisruptive Practices Authority, 76 FR 14943 (proposed Mar. 18, 2011) for proposed interpretive guidance on these three new statutory provisions of CEA section 4c(a)(5). 444ABC/CIEBA Comment Letter at 9 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 17–18 (Feb. 22, 2011). 445CME Comment Letter at 17 (Feb. 22, 2011). 446 Id. at 17–18. 447WMBAA Comment Letter at 20 (Mar. 8, 2011). 448 Id. 449Better Markets Comment Letter at 13–17 (Mar. 8, 2011). 450Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1223. 451Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, 77 FR 36612, 36626 (Jun. 19, 2012). 452See Final § 37.203(a) in the Commission’s regulations. 453CEA section 5h(f)(2); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2). 454Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1223. trading, money passes, and any other trading practices that the SEF deems to be abusive. The proposed rule further obligated a SEF to ‘‘prohibit any other manipulative or disruptive trading practices prohibited by the Act or by the Commission pursuant to Commission regulations.’’ SEFs permitting intermediation were required to prohibit additional trading practices, such as trading ahead of customer orders, trading against customer orders, accommodation trading, and improper cross trading. As explained in the SEF NPRM, prohibited trading practices include those proscribed by section 747 of the Dodd-Frank Act.443 (i) Summary of Comments CME and ABC/CIEBA commented that the proposed rule is problematic because it enumerated prohibited trade practices without specifically defining them.444 CME stated that SEFs should have reasonable discretion to establish rules appropriate to their markets that are consistent with the CEA and that satisfy the core principles.445 CME questioned, in particular, how to interpret the proposed prohibition on pre-arranged trading with respect to rules that allow for block trading, exchange for related position transactions, and pre-execution communications subject to specified conditions.446 WMBAA contended that the enumerated abusive trading practices appear more commonly in markets with retail participants, and therefore are more likely to occur on a DCM rather than a SEF.447 Accordingly, WMBAA recommended that the Commission include in the final rule abusive trading practices that are more likely to occur on a SEF.448 Finally, Better Markets recommended that the Commission expand its list of prohibited trade practices to ban certain high-frequency trading practices, including exploiting a
large quantity or block trade, price spraying (which it views as a form of front-running), rebate harvesting, and layering the market (which it analogizes to spoofing).449 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting proposed § 37.203(a), subject to one modification described below. In response to CME’s and ABC/CIEBA’s comments regarding the perceived vagueness of the enumerated trading practices, the Commission notes that the enumerated abusive trading practices reflect the trading practices that are typically accepted as prohibited conduct by regulators and derivatives exchanges in the industry. In the SEF NPRM, the Commission stated that the proposed prohibited trading practices are a compilation of abusive trading practices that DCMs already prohibit.450 The Commission also noted in the final DCM rulemaking that the prohibited trading practices are typically already prohibited in DCM rulebooks.451 Although the Commission believes, as noted by CME, that a SEF should have reasonable discretion to establish rules for its markets, the Commission believes, at a minimum, that a SEF must prohibit the abusive trading practices identified in the rule. In response to CME’s comment about how to interpret the prohibition on pre￾arranged trading with respect to rules that allow for block trading and other types of trading, the Commission is amending proposed § 37.203(a) to clarify that a SEF must prohibit pre￾arranged trading, except for block trades permitted under part 43 of the Commission’s regulations or other types of transactions certified to or approved by the Commission pursuant to the procedures under part 40 of the Commission’s regulations. This change clarifies that these types of transactions will not be subject to the prohibition on pre-arranged trading. The Commission also clarifies, as discussed above under the time delay requirement, that the prohibition on pre-arranged trading does not limit pre-execution communications between market participants, subject to the rules of the SEF. Accordingly, SEFs that permit pre￾execution communications must establish and enforce rules relating to such communications. In response to WMBAA’s comment that the enumerated abusive trading practices are more suited to DCMs rather than SEFs, the Commission believes that similar prohibitions are necessary to promote consistent protection for all market participants across the swaps market. Therefore, the Commission believes that the enumerated abusive trading practices should be prohibited by DCMs and SEFs. The Commission notes that requiring SEFs to proscribe trading practices which are prohibited by the Act and Commission regulations does not create any additional obligations beyond the existing statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to all SEFs. The Commission agrees with WMBAA and Better Markets that other abusive trading practices may exist. In this regard, § 37.203(a) provides a non￾exhaustive, non-exclusive list. The regulations
adopted in this final release provide a SEF with reasonable discretion to establish rules that prohibit additional abusive trading practices. Additionally, not only must a SEF prohibit any other trading practices that a SEF deems abusive,452 it must also establish and enforce rules that will deter abuses under statutory Core Principle 2.453 Therefore, if a SEF identifies additional abusive trading practices that are likely to occur on its trading systems and platforms, then the SEF is required, by statute and Commission regulation, to prohibit such abusive trading practices. The Commission anticipates that as SEFs gain experience with exchange-listed swaps, it may periodically revisit the list of prohibited abusive trading practices under § 37.203(a). (2) § 37.203(b)—Capacity to Detect and Investigate Rule Violations Proposed § 37.203(b) required a SEF to have arrangements and resources for effective rule enforcement, which included a SEF’s authority to collect information and examine books and records of SEF members and market participants. As discussed in the preamble to the SEF NPRM, the Commission believes that a SEF can best administer its compliance and rule enforcement obligations by having the ability to reach the books and records of all market participants.454 Proposed § 37.203(b) also required a SEF’s arrangements and resources to facilitate

455FXall Comment Letter at 11–12 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 18 (Feb. 22, 2011). 456CME Comment Letter at 18 (Feb. 22, 2011). 457 Id. 458FXall Comment Letter at 11–12 (Mar. 8, 2011). 459 Id. 460WMBAA Comment Letter at 21 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 35 (Mar. 8, 2011). 461WMBAA Comment Letter at 21 (Mar. 8, 2011). 462 Id. 463MarketAxess Comment Letter at 35 (Mar. 8, 2011). 464 Id. 465 Id. 466The Commission is making certain non￾substantive clarifications to proposed § 37.203(c)(1). The Commission is also renumbering proposed § 37.203(c)(1) to § 37.203(c). the direct supervision of the market and the analysis of data collected to determine whether a rule violation has occurred. (i) Summary of Comments FXall and CME requested that the Commission clarify the provision in proposed § 37.203(b) that requires a SEF to have the authority to examine the books and records of its members and market participants.455 Specifically, CME expressed concern that the proposed rule would subject non￾registered market participants to recordkeeping requirements that currently apply only to member, registrants, and direct access clients of its platform, which it does not believe would be effective.456 CME also commented that the proposed rule does not detail which books, records, and information a SEF must be able to obtain from its non-member market participants.457 FXall expressed concern that the requirement for a SEF to have the authority to examine the books and records of its members and market participants could be interpreted to require a SEF to conduct a full regulatory examination program.458 FXall, therefore, recommended that the Commission clarify that this requirement only applies as may be necessary for a SEF to investigate a specific potential rule violation that the SEF has detected in the ordinary course of its trade practice surveillance routine or has otherwise been brought to its attention.459 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.203(b) as proposed, subject to the following modification. To address CME’s concerns about the scope of proposed § 37.203(b), the Commission is replacing the term ‘‘market participant’’ with ‘‘persons under investigation.’’ The Commission recognizes that using the term ‘‘market participant’’ could significantly increase the regulatory responsibilities for SEFs. Thus, the Commission clarifies that § 37.203(b) places upon a SEF an affirmative obligation to have the authority to examine books and records from its members and from any persons under investigation for effective enforcement of its rules. The Commission also notes that the books and records collected by the SEF should encompass all information and documents that are necessary to detect and prosecute rule violations. In response to FXall’s comment, the Commission clarifies that the requirement for a SEF to have the authority to examine books and records does not require a SEF to conduct a full regulatory examination
program. However, the Commission notes that in addition to the SEF’s obligations pursuant to § 37.203(b), the audit trail requirements in § 37.205(c)(2) require a SEF to establish a program for effective enforcement of its audit trail and recordkeeping requirements, which would require the examination of books and records. (3) § 37.203(c)—Compliance Staff and Resources Proposed § 37.203(c)(1) provided that a SEF must establish and maintain sufficient compliance staff and resources to conduct a number of enumerated tasks, such as audit trail reviews, trade practice surveillance, market surveillance, and real-time monitoring. Proposed § 37.203(c)(2) required a SEF to continually monitor the size and workload of its compliance staff and, on at least an annual basis, formally evaluate the need to increase its compliance staff and resources. The proposed rule also set forth certain factors that a SEF should consider in determining the appropriate level of compliance staff and resources. (i) Summary of Comments Two commenters sought clarification regarding a SEF’s compliance resources.460 WMBAA requested that the Commission clarify whether the resources and staff of a compliance department may be shared with affiliates or between multiple SEFs, and if so, how these shared resources would be considered in meeting the requirements for sufficient compliance staff and resources.461 WMBAA also requested clarification as to whether a SEF could consider its third party service provider’s resources and staff for purposes of evaluating the adequacy of its compliance staff and resources.462 MarketAxess believed that the process by which a SEF must conduct a formal evaluation of its compliance resources was unclear.463 MarketAxess also noted that while the findings of such an evaluation could result in the need to increase a SEF’s compliance staff and resources, it could also result in a decrease.464 Accordingly, MarketAxess suggested that the Commission remove the term ‘‘formally’’ and clarify that the evaluation of compliance resources could result in either an increase or decrease in compliance staff and resources.465 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.203(c) as proposed, subject to one modification discussed below.466 The Commission agrees in part with WMBAA’s recommendation that some SEF compliance staff can be shared among affiliated entities under the appropriate circumstances. However, such arrangements would require prior review by the Commission staff and appropriate legal documentation between the affiliated entities with respect to any shared staff (e.g., secondment or regulatory services agreements that define responsibilities; establish decision-trees for matters of regulatory consequence; and provide for exclusive authority and responsibility by each SEF with respect to matters on its markets). The Commission also emphasizes that any sharing of compliance staff does not diminish each SEF’s obligation to maintain
sufficient staff to meet its own regulatory needs. The Commission believes that compliance resources may not be shared between non-affiliated SEFs given potential conflict issues. However, the Commission recognizes that a SEF may provide regulatory services to a non￾affiliated SEF pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Commission believes that a SEF may take into consideration the staff and resources of its regulatory service provider when evaluating the sufficiency of its own compliance staff. Regardless of whether a SEF utilizes a regulatory service provider or shares its compliance staff with an affiliate, the Commission emphasizes that the SEF must maintain sufficient internal compliance staff to oversee the quality and effectiveness of the regulatory services provided and to make certain regulatory decisions, as required by § 37.204. Finally, the Commission is deleting proposed § 37.203(c)(2), which required that a SEF monitor the size and workload of its compliance staff on a continuous basis and, on at least an annual basis, formally evaluate the need to increase its compliance resources and

467CME Comment Letter at 19–20 (Feb. 22, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 21 (Mar. 8, 2011). 468CME Comment Letter at 19–20 (Feb. 22, 2011). 469 Id. at 20. 470WMBAA Comment Letter at 21 (Mar. 8, 2011). 471Better Markets Comment Letter at 18 (Mar. 8, 2011). 472CEA section 5h(f)(2)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(B). 473See discussion below regarding high￾frequency trading under § 37.401—General Requirements in the preamble. staff. The Commission believes that the obligation that a SEF monitor the adequacy of its compliance staff and resources are implicit in proposed § 37.203(c)(1). The final rule provides greater flexibility to SEFs in determining their approach to monitoring their compliance resources. (4) § 37.203(d)—Automated Trade Surveillance System Proposed § 37.203(d) required a SEF to maintain an automated trade surveillance system capable of detecting and investigating potential trade practice violations. The proposed rule also required that an acceptable automated trade surveillance system must have the capability to generate alerts on a trade date plus one day (T+1) basis to assist staff in detecting potential violations. The automated trade surveillance system, among other requirements, must maintain all trade and order data, including order modifications and cancellations, and must have the capability to compute, retain, and compare trading statistics; compute trade gains and losses; and reconstruct the sequence of trading activity. (i) Summary of Comments CME and WMBAA expressed concern about the capabilities required of an automated trade surveillance system under the proposed rule.467 Specifically, CME stated that it has been unable to design an automated surveillance system that automates the actual investigation of potential trade practice violations.468 CME also challenged the use of what it deemed as ‘‘broad and ambiguous’’ terms to describe the required capabilities of such a system, and recommended that the Commission consider applying a more flexible, core principles-based approach to implementing the requirement.469 WMBAA argued that it would be impossible to create an automated trade surveillance system with the capabilities described in the proposed rule without knowledge of a participant’s complete trading activity, including trading activity that takes place on other SEFs.470 Better Markets recommended that data recorded by an automated trade surveillance system be time-stamped at intervals consistent with the capabilities of high-frequency traders that will transact on SEFs.471 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting proposed § 37.203(d), subject to two modifications discussed below. First, the Commission is moving the requirement that an automated trade surveillance system maintain all data reflecting the details of each order entered into the trading system to final § 37.205(b). The Commission believes that § 37.205(b) is a more logical place in the Commission’s rules to address this aspect of a SEF’s
automated surveillance system because it also specifies the requirements for a SEF’s audit trail program, including a history of all orders and trades. Second, the Commission is deleting the word ‘‘investigating’’ from proposed § 37.203(d) to remove any confusion, as noted by CME. The Commission notes, in response to CME’s comment, that the final rules do not require a SEF’s automated trade surveillance system to conduct the actual investigations. The Commission believes that the actual investigation would be carried out by a SEF’s compliance staff with the assistance of automated surveillance tools. In response to CME’s comment pertaining to the breadth of the rule, the Commission believes that effective surveillance of trading markets requires that a SEF maintain an automated trade surveillance system capable of detecting trade practice violations to assist compliance staff in analyzing large data sets and investigating patterns of conduct that may go otherwise unnoticed. The Commission also believes that the analytical tools enumerated in the rule are a necessary component of an effective trade surveillance system. This rule, as modified, therefore fulfills the statutory requirement of Core Principle 2 by assisting the SEF in detecting, investigating, and enforcing trading rules that will deter abuses.472 The Commission acknowledges the inter-SEF surveillance limitations expressed by WMBAA. The Commission notes that the purpose of § 37.203(d) is to ensure that a SEF’s compliance staff has the necessary tools to detect, analyze, and investigate potential trade practice violations on the SEF’s trading systems or platforms; it does not obligate a SEF to establish a cross-market trade practice surveillance program. Although the Commission acknowledges the merits of the recommendation by Better Markets to include time stamps at intervals consistent with the capabilities of high￾frequency traders, the Commission does not believe that it is necessary to modify § 37.203(d) to address this concern. As discussed in § 37.401 below, there are efforts underway both within and outside of the Commission to define and develop approaches for better monitoring of high-frequency and algorithmic trading.473 However, while the rule does not specify the granularity of time-stamped data, a SEF’s automated trade surveillance system should have the ability to readily determine the sequence in which orders are entered. This reflects the Commission’s belief that an automated trade surveillance system should time-stamp data with the granularity necessary to conduct effective surveillance of all trade-related activity, including high-frequency trading, while leaving the details of the system to the SEF. The Commission notes that the accurate time-stamping of data is particularly important for SEFs that use an RFQ System, including an RFQ System with a voice component. For such SEFs, the accurate time-stamping of both their Order Book and RFQ System activity is critical
for ensuring both that the SEF itself has a robust surveillance system and that the Commission is able to monitor the SEF’s adherence to part 37’s Order Book-RFQ System integration requirements. (5) § 37.203(e)—Real-Time Market Monitoring Proposed § 37.203(e) required a SEF to conduct real-time market monitoring of all trading activity on its electronic trading platform to ensure orderly trading and to identify market or system anomalies. The proposed rule further required a SEF to have the authority to adjust prices and cancel trades when needed to mitigate ‘‘market disrupting events’’ caused by platform malfunctions or errors in orders submitted by market participants. In addition, proposed § 37.203(e) required that any trade price adjustments or trade cancellations be transparent to the market and subject to standards that are clear, fair, and publicly available. (i) Summary of Comments CME stated that the proposed standards would be difficult for any SEF to reasonably meet because they require

474CME Comment Letter at 21 (Feb. 22, 2011). 475 Id. at 20–21. 476WMBAA Comment Letter at 21 (Mar. 8, 2011). 477SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 14 (Mar. 8, 2011); ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 13 (Mar. 8, 2011). 478SIFMA AMG Comment Letter at 14 (Mar. 8, 2011). 479 Id. 480 ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 13 (Mar. 8, 2011). 481Better Markets Comment Letter at 18 (Mar. 8, 2011). 482CEA section 5h(f)(2)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(B). 483Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1224. 484 Id. at 1223–24. 485 Id. at 1224. 486See discussion below regarding high￾frequency trading under § 37.401—General Requirements in the preamble. monitoring of all trading activity on a platform to ensure orderly trading.474 CME also reiterated its belief that the proposed rules are overly prescriptive and recommended that the Commission provide application guidance instead of a rule.475 WMBAA requested clarification that a SEF’s obligation to conduct real-time market monitoring does not include the requirement to conduct automated trade surveillance under § 37.203(d).476 Two commenters opined on the requirement for a SEF to modify or cancel a swap transaction.477 SIFMA AMG argued that a SEF should not be able to modify or cancel a swap transaction under any circumstances without the express consent of the counterparties.478 SIFMA AMG also stated that if counterparties consent to an adjustment, then clearing entities, executing brokers, DCMs, and middleware platforms should also make the appropriate adjustment.479 ISDA/ SIFMA recommended that the Commission adopt a uniform standard for ‘‘market disrupting events.’’ 480 Better Markets stated that a SEF’s obligation to conduct real-time market monitoring should include monitoring orders and cancellations that are time￾stamped at intervals consistent with the capabilities of high-frequency traders to identify abusive high frequency trading strategies.481 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting proposed § 37.203(e), subject to one modification. The Commission agrees with CME that real-time market monitoring cannot ‘‘ensure’’ orderly trading at all times, but the Commission believes that such monitoring must identify disorderly trading when it occurs. Accordingly, the Commission is modifying proposed § 37.203(e) to require a SEF to conduct real-time market monitoring ‘‘to identify disorderly trading,’’ instead of ‘‘to ensure orderly trading.’’ In response to CME’s comment that the rule is overly prescriptive, the Commission believes that § 37.203(e) grants a SEF the flexibility to determine the best way to conduct real-time market monitoring so that it can effectively monitor its markets. The Commission also believes that the rule correctly mandates that a SEF conduct real-time market monitoring of all trading activity that occurs on its system or platform in order to detect disorderly trading and market or system anomalies, and take appropriate regulatory action. The Commission
believes that this rule fulfills the statutory requirement of Core Principle 2, which requires a SEF to have the capacity to detect, investigate, and enforce trading rules that will deter abuses.482 In response to WMBAA’s comment, the Commission clarifies that a SEF’s obligation to conduct real-time market monitoring does not encompass the automated trade surveillance requirement in § 37.203(d). The Commission notes that while real-time market monitoring and trade practice surveillance are both self-regulatory functions assigned to all SEFs, these functions are generally independent and serve different purposes. As discussed in the SEF NPRM, market monitoring is conducted on a real-time basis so that a SEF can take mitigating action against any market or system anomalies on its trading system or platform.483 Trade practice surveillance, on the other hand, involves reconstructing and analyzing order, trade, and other data post￾execution to identify potential violations and anomalies found in trade data.484 Further, as noted in the SEF NPRM, the automated trade surveillance system typically differs from the system used to conduct real-time market monitoring.485 The Commission disagrees with SIFMA AMG’s comment that a SEF should not be able to modify or cancel a swap transaction under any circumstances without the express consent of the counterparties. The Commission believes that a SEF should have the authority to modify or cancel a swap transaction without the consent of the counterparties under certain limited circumstances. For example, a SEF should be able to cancel a trade when such trade was executed due to a technological error on the part of the SEF. Further, the Commission believes that the rule’s requirement that any modifications or cancellations by the SEF be transparent to the market and subject to standards that are clear, fair, and publicly available will provide protection to counterparties. The Commission also acknowledges the validity of SIFMA AMG’s concern that any adjustment to a swap transaction should also be reflected by entities involved in the clearing and processing of the swap. However, since imposing such a requirement on entities involved in the clearing and processing of swaps is outside the scope of this SEF rulemaking, the Commission declines to address this issue in these final rules. The Commission also rejects ISDA/ SIFMA’s recommendation to define the term ‘‘market disrupting events,’’ as it does not believe that a rule definition could reasonably capture the universe of potentially market disrupting events. The Commission notes that industry definitions for terms such as ‘‘market disrupting events’’ generally only establish a process or framework for counterparties and other third parties to determine whether such an event has occurred and can be subject to challenge, resulting in delayed determinations with limited utility for effective trade monitoring. Although the Commission believes that coordination among
SEFs regarding market disrupting events may be appropriate, and encourages SEFs to do so, the Commission is not defining ‘‘market disrupting events’’ at this time. The Commission may provide examples at a later time once it gains further knowledge regarding the types of market disrupting events that are likely to occur on a SEF. In response to the comment by Better Markets about high-frequency trading, the Commission declines to modify proposed § 37.203(e) to include concepts related specifically to high￾frequency trading at this time.486 The Commission believes that a SEF’s real￾time market monitoring system should be structured to conduct effective market monitoring for all order and trade types, including, but not limited to, high frequency trading. (6) § 37.203(f)—Investigations and Investigation Reports Proposed § 37.203(f) required a SEF to establish procedures for conducting investigations, provided timelines for completing such investigations, detailed the requirements of an investigation report, and provided for warning letters. (i) § 37.203(f)(1)—Procedures Proposed § 37.203(f)(1) required a SEF to have procedures that require its compliance staff to conduct investigations of possible rule

487CME Comment Letter at 21 (Feb. 22, 2011). 488 Id. 489 Id. 490MarketAxess Comment Letter at 35 (Mar. 8, 2011). 491 Id. at 35–36. 492CME Comment Letter at 21 (Feb. 22, 2011). 493 Id. at 21–22. 494 ICE Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 22, 35 (Feb. 22, 2011). 495CME Comment Letter at 35 (Feb. 22, 2011). 496 ICE Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 497CME Comment Letter at 22 (Feb. 22, 2011). 498 Id. 499MarketAxess Comment Letter at 36 (Mar. 8, 2011). violations. The proposed rule required that an investigation be commenced upon the Commission staff’s request or upon discovery of information by the SEF indicating a possible basis for finding that a violation has occurred or will occur. (A) Summary of Comments CME argued that the proposed rule diminishes a SEF’s discretion to determine the matters that warrant a formal investigation because at the time of discovery or upon receipt of information, and before any review has occurred, there will always be ‘‘a possible basis’’ that a violation has occurred or will occur.487 CME agreed that formal written referrals from the Commission, law enforcement authorities, other regulatory agencies, or other SROs should result in a formal investigation in every instance.488 However, CME contended that a SEF should have reasonable discretion to determine how it responds to complaints, leads, and other types of referrals, including the discretion to follow-up with a less formal inquiry in certain situations.489 MarketAxess expressed concern that the proposed rule is not clear as to whether a SEF can contract its investigations to its regulatory service provider.490 MarketAxess recommended that the Commission modify the proposed rule by replacing ‘‘compliance staff’’ with ‘‘swap execution facility’’ to clarify that a regulatory service provider that is responsible for a SEF’s rule enforcement program can conduct investigations on behalf of the SEF.491 (B) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.203(f)(1) as proposed, subject to certain modifications described below. The Commission confirms that in certain circumstances a SEF should have reasonable discretion regarding whether or not to open an investigation, as noted by CME. Accordingly, the Commission is amending proposed § 37.203(f)(1) to provide that an investigation must be commenced by the SEF upon the receipt of a request from Commission staff or upon the discovery or receipt of information that indicates a ‘‘reasonable basis’’ for finding that a violation may have occurred or will occur. In response to MarketAxess’s comment that the proposed rule is unclear, the Commission confirms that a SEF may contract with a regulatory service provider, as provided for under § 37.204, whose staff may perform the functions assigned to a SEF’s compliance staff under this rule. In this regard, the Commission also notes that the SEF must maintain sufficient internal compliance staff to oversee the quality and effectiveness of the
regulatory services provided on its behalf, and to make certain regulatory decisions, as required by § 37.204. (ii) § 37.203(f)(2)—Timeliness Under proposed § 37.203(f)(2), the Commission required that investigations be completed in a timely manner, defined as 12 months after an investigation is opened, absent enumerated mitigating circumstances. (A) Summary of Comments CME generally supported the proposed rule, but recommended that the list of possible mitigating circumstances also include the domicile of the subjects and cooperative enforcement matters since the SEF may not have independent control over the pace of the investigation.492 CME also requested that the Commission clarify that the twelve month period for completing an investigation referenced in proposed § 37.203(f)(2) is separate from the time period necessary to prosecute an investigation.493 (B) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.203(f)(2) as proposed. The Commission believes that a 12-month period to complete an investigation is appropriate and timely. Although the Commission agrees with CME that additional mitigating factors could justifiably contribute to a delay in completing an investigation within a 12- month period, the Commission notes that the factors included in the proposed rule were not intended to be an exhaustive list of mitigating circumstances. In the Commission’s view, the factors listed in the proposed rule represent some of the more common examples that could delay completion of an investigation within the 12-month period. The Commission also confirms that § 37.203(f)(2) only applies to the investigation phase of a matter, and is separate from the time period necessary to prosecute an investigation. (iii) § 37.203(f)(3)—Investigation Reports When a Reasonable Basis Exists for Finding a Violation Proposed § 37.203(f)(3) required a SEF’s compliance staff to submit an investigation report for disciplinary action any time staff determined that a reasonable basis existed for finding a rule violation. The proposed rule also enumerated the items that must be included in the investigation report, including the market participant’s disciplinary history. (A) Summary of Comments CME and ICE commented on the requirement that a respondent’s disciplinary history be included in the investigation report that is submitted to a Review Panel.494 CME asserted that a respondent’s disciplinary history would only be relevant if a prior offense is an element of proof for the potential rule violation under review.495 ICE commented that only substantive violations in the respondent’s history would be relevant to the Review Panel’s deliberations.496 CME commented that rule violations can range from very minor to egregious and not every rule violation merits formal disciplinary action.497 CME argued that warning letters are sufficient to address minor rule violations, rather than the issuance of a formal investigatory report.498 MarketAxess stated that the proposed
rule does not specify to whom the investigation reports must be submitted, and recommended that the reports be submitted to the SEF’s Chief Compliance Officer, consistent with Core Principle 15.499 (B) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.203(f)(3) as proposed, subject to one modification. The Commission agrees with CME and ICE that a respondent’s disciplinary history is not always relevant to the determination of whether the respondent has committed a further violation of a SEF’s rules. Accordingly, the Commission is removing this requirement from the final rule. The Commission notes, however, that all disciplinary sanctions, including sanctions imposed pursuant to an accepted settlement offer, must take into account the respondent’s disciplinary history.

500The Commission notes that a SEF’s issuance of a warning letter for the violation of a SEF rule neither precludes the Commission from taking an enforcement action against the recipient of the warning letter based upon the same underlying conduct, nor does it provide a defense against any such Commission enforcement action. 501CME Comment Letter at 21 (Feb. 22, 2011). 502 Id. 503Similar to § 37.203(f)(3), the Commission notes that a SEF’s compliance staff should submit all completed investigation reports to the member or members of the SEF’s compliance department responsible for reviewing such reports and determining the next steps to take. 504 ICE Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 22 (Feb. 22, 2011). 505CME Comment Letter at 22 (Feb. 22, 2011). 506 Id. 507 ICE Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 508MarketAxess Comment Letter at 36 (Mar. 8, 2011). 509For purposes of this rule, the Commission does not consider a ‘‘reminder letter’’ or such other similar letter to be any different than a warning letter. 510Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1224. 511 Id. The Commission confirms, as recommended by CME, that ‘‘minor transgressions’’ can be addressed by a SEF’s compliance staff with the issuance of warning letters as discussed below in § 37.203(f)(5). However, as further discussed below in § 37.203(f)(5), no more than one warning letter may be issued to the same person or entity found to have committed the same rule violation more than once within a rolling 12-month period.500 Finally, the Commission clarifies that a SEF’s compliance staff should submit all completed investigation reports to the member or members of the SEF’s compliance department responsible for reviewing such reports and determining the next steps in the process, such as whether to refer the matter to the SEF’s disciplinary panel or authorized compliance staff under § 37.206(c). (iv) § 37.203(f)(4)—Investigation Reports When No Reasonable Basis Exists for Finding a Violation Proposed § 37.203(f)(4) required compliance staff to prepare an investigation report upon concluding an investigation and determining that no reasonable basis exists for finding a rule violation. If the investigation report recommended that a disciplinary panel should issue a warning letter, then the investigation report must also include a copy of the warning letter and the market participant’s disciplinary history, including copies of warning letters. (A) Summary of Comments CME noted that its Market Regulation Department currently has the authority to administratively close a case and issue a warning letter without disciplinary committee approval.501 Accordingly, CME recommended that the Commission amend the proposed rule to reflect that a SEF will also have such authority.502 (B) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.203(f)(4) as proposed, subject to one modification.503 The Commission is eliminating the provision that
discussed the concept of warning letters because the Commission does not believe that a SEF would need to limit the number of warning letters that can be issued when a rule violation has not been found. The Commission notes, however, that this modification does not impact the limitation on the number of warning letters that may be issued by a disciplinary panel or by compliance staff to the same person or entity for the same violation committed more than once in a rolling 12-month period when a rule violation has been found. The Commission clarifies, in response to CME’s comment, that a SEF may authorize its compliance staff to close a case administratively and issue a warning letter without disciplinary panel approval when a reasonable basis does not exist for finding a rule violation. (v) § 37.203(f)(5)—Warning Letters Proposed § 37.203(f)(5) provided that a SEF may authorize its compliance staff to issue a warning letter or to recommend that a disciplinary committee issue a warning letter. The proposed rule also prohibited a SEF from issuing more than one warning letter to the same person or entity for the same potential violation during a rolling 12-month period. (A) Summary of Comments Some commenters opposed the proposed limitation on the number of warning letters issued during a rolling 12-month period.504 CME contended that the rule does not consider important factors that are relevant to a SEF when evaluating potential sanctions in a disciplinary matter.505 CME believed that the SEF should have discretion to determine the appropriate actions in all cases based on the ‘‘totality of the circumstances.’’ 506 ICE stated that this limitation would discourage self-reporting of violations because of the lack of discretion in a resulting penalty assessment.507 MarketAxess requested that the Commission adopt a more uniform approach with respect to warning letters, permitting them to be issued as a sanction or an indication of a finding of a violation in all SEF contexts.508 (B) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting proposed § 37.203(f)(5), subject to certain modifications, including converting a portion of the rule to guidance in appendix B to part 37. The Commission is maintaining in the final rule the limitation on the number of warning letters issued. The Commission acknowledges the comments from CME and ICE concerning the issuance of warning letters, but believes that to ensure that warning letters serve as effective deterrents and to preserve the value of disciplinary sanctions, no more than one warning letter may be issued to the same person or entity found to have committed the same rule violation more than once within a rolling 12-month period.509 As discussed in the SEF NPRM, while a warning letter may be appropriate for a first-time violation, the Commission does not believe that more than one warning letter in a rolling 12- month period for the same violation is ever appropriate.510 Further, a policy of issuing repeated
warning letters, rather than issuing meaningful sanctions, to market participants who repeatedly violate the same rules reduces the effectiveness of a SEF’s rule enforcement program.511 However, in response to commenters’ concerns, the Commission is narrowing the application of this rule to warning letters that contain an affirmative finding that a rule violation has occurred. Therefore, the Commission is removing the provision in the proposed rule that a warning letter issued in accordance with this section is not a penalty or an indication that a finding of a violation has been made. To remain consistent with the modifications to proposed § 37.203(f)(3) and (f)(4), the Commission is also deleting the proposed requirement that investigation reports required by paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) of this section must include a copy of the warning letter issued by compliance staff. As noted above, the Commission agrees with CME’s comment that minor transgressions can be addressed by a SEF’s compliance staff issuing a warning letter. Accordingly, in order to provide a SEF with flexibility in this regard, the Commission is moving this provision of the rule to the guidance in
appendix B to part 37. The text of the
guidance provides that the rules of a SEF may authorize its compliance staff to issue a warning letter to a person or entity under investigation or to

512The Commission is renaming the title of this
section from ‘‘Use of Third-Party Provider
Permitted’’ to ‘‘Use of Regulatory Service Provider Permitted’’ to provide greater clarity. 513MarketAxess Comment Letter at 14–15 (Mar. 8, 2011); Reuters Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); Bloomberg Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011); NFA Comment Letter at 1 (Mar. 8, 2011). 514MarketAxess Comment Letter at 15 (Mar. 8, 2011). 515 Id. 516Parity Energy Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 25, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 22 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 12 (Mar. 8, 2011). 517WMBAA Comment Letter at 22 (Mar. 8, 2011). 518MarketAxess Comment Letter at 15 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011). 519Tradeweb Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011). 520See, e.g., discussion under § 37.203(d)— Automated Trade Surveillance System and Core Principle 6—Position Limits or Accountability in the preamble. 521The Commission notes that other core principles, such as Core Principle 4, and the Commission’s regulations thereunder may require SEFs to conduct certain cross-market monitoring. 522The Commission is renaming the title of this
section from ‘‘Duty to Supervise Third Party’’ to
‘‘Duty to Supervise Regulatory Service Provider’’ to provide greater clarity. recommend that a disciplinary panel take such action. (7) § 37.203(g)—Additional Rules Required Proposed § 37.203(g) required a SEF to adopt and enforce any additional rules that it believes are necessary to comply with the requirements of § 37.203. (i) Commission Determination The Commission did not receive any comments on proposed § 37.203(g); however, the Commission is moving this rule to the guidance in appendix B to part 37. The Commission believes that this requirement is already implicit in Core Principle 2 and need not be addressed separately as a final rule. Additionally, moving proposed § 37.203(g) to guidance provides SEFs with added flexibility in adopting additional rules that it believes are necessary to comply with the rules related to Core Principle 2. Consistent with this determination, the Commission is replacing proposed § 37.203(g) with final § 37.203(g) (titled ‘‘Additional sources for compliance’’) that simply permits SEFs to rely upon the guidance in appendix B to part 37 to demonstrate to the Commission compliance with § 37.203. (e) § 37.204—Regulatory Services Provided by a Third Party (1) § 37.204(a)—Use of Third-Party Provider Permitted 512 Proposed § 37.204(a) allowed a SEF to contract with a registered futures association or another registered entity to assist in complying with the SEF core principles, as approved by the Commission. The proposed rule also stated that a SEF that elects to use the services of a regulatory service provider must ensure that such provider has the capacity and resources to provide timely and effective regulatory services. The proposed rule further stated that a SEF will at all times remain responsible for the performance of any regulatory services received, for compliance with the SEF’s obligations under the Act and Commission regulations, and for the regulatory service provider’s performance on its behalf. (i) Summary of Comments Commenters generally supported the Commission’s proposal to allow third parties to provide regulatory services.513 However, MarketAxess argued that the Commission should permit an entity that is not a registered futures association or another registered entity with the Commission to perform regulatory services on behalf of a SEF, such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (‘‘FINRA’’).514 In the alternative, MarketAxess recommended that the Commission should permit SEFs, if desired, to form a joint venture to create a special regulatory service provider for SEFs that would not be a registered entity.515 Similarly, several commenters supported a centralized, common regulatory organization (‘‘CRO’’) that would facilitate compliance with SEF core principles.516 In this regard, WMBAA stated that a CRO would establish a uniform SEF standard of conduct, streamline the Commission’s evaluation of each SEF registration application, and conduct effective surveillance of fungible swap
products trading on multiple SEFs.517 MarketAxess and Tradeweb requested clarification on how the Commission will assess and approve regulatory service providers.518 In this regard, Tradeweb commented that SEFs should have flexibility in contracting with third party service providers, so long as the SEF uses reasonable diligence and acts in a manner consistent with market practice.519 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.204(a) as proposed, subject to two modifications. In response to MarketAxess’s comment about non￾registered entities performing regulatory services, the Commission is revising the proposed rule to allow FINRA to assist SEFs in complying with the core principles. The Commission notes that FINRA has provided similar regulatory services for the securities industry for many years and may serve as a self￾regulatory organization for SB–SEFs. Therefore, the Commission believes that allowing FINRA to serve as a regulatory service provider for SEFs is appropriate because FINRA is likely to have the qualifications, capacity, and resources to provide timely and effective regulatory services for SEFs. The Commission recognizes the concerns that WMBAA and others have with respect to SEFs conducting market￾wide surveillance activities. As discussed elsewhere in this final rulemaking,520 an individual SEF may have limited ability to monitor trading activities across markets since individual swaps may be listed on multiple SEFs (as well as any DCMs listing swaps). The Commission clarifies that a SEF (or a regulatory service provider on a SEF’s behalf), under Core Principle 2 and the Commission’s regulations thereunder, is only responsible for surveillance and rule enforcement of the SEF’s systems and platforms, and Core Principle 2 does not impose a cross-market surveillance requirement on a SEF.521 Therefore, the final rules do not require the use of a single industry-wide CRO to assist SEFs with cross-market surveillance. While not requiring it, the final rules also do not prohibit the use of a single industry￾wide CRO. In response to MarketAxess’s and Tradeweb’s comments regarding the Commission’s assessment and approval of regulatory service providers, the Commission notes that it will assess and approve the use of such service providers during the full registration process. The Commission also notes that Exhibit N to Form SEF requests executed or executable copies of any agreements with regulatory service providers. Finally, the Commission is modifying § 37.204(a) to make clear that a SEF may use the services of a regulatory service provider for the provision of services to assist the SEF in complying with ‘‘the Act and Commission regulations thereunder’’ rather than simply the SEF core principles as stated in proposed § 37.204(a). The modification aligns the rule text with what the Commission has always intended to be the range of a SEF’s self-regulatory obligations. (2) § 37.204(b)—Duty To Supervise Third Party
522 Proposed § 37.204(b) required that a SEF maintain sufficient compliance staff to supervise any services performed by

523NFA Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 18–19 (Feb. 22, 2011). 524NFA Comment Letter at 2 (Mar. 8, 2011). 525CME Comment Letter at 19 (Feb. 22, 2011). 526 Id. at 18–19. 527 Id. at 19. 528The Commission is making certain non￾substantive clarifications to § 37.204(b). 529CME Comment Letter at 19 (Feb. 22, 2011). 530 Id. 531CEA section 5h(f)(2)(B)(ii); 7 U.S.C. 7b– 3(f)(2)(B)(ii). 532WMBAA Comment Letter at 22–23 (Mar. 8, 2011). a regulatory service provider. The proposed rule also required that the SEF hold regular meetings with its regulatory service provider to discuss current work and other matters of regulatory concern, as well as conduct periodic reviews of the adequacy and effectiveness of services provided on its behalf. In addition, proposed § 37.204(b) required a SEF to carefully document the reviews and make them available to the Commission upon request. (i) Summary of Comments Two commenters recommended that the Commission adopt a more flexible rule with respect to a SEF’s duty to supervise its regulatory service provider.523 In this regard, NFA recommended that the Commission provide flexibility to a SEF and its regulatory service provider to mutually determine the necessary process for a SEF to supervise its regulatory service provider.524 CME recommended that the Commission move the rule to guidance or acceptable practices.525 In particular, CME pointed to the requirements that a SEF conduct periodic reviews of the services provided and hold regular meetings with the regulatory service provider to discuss ongoing investigations, trading patterns, market participants, and any other matters of regulatory concern.526 CME stated that ‘‘[w]hile it may well be that it is constructive for the [SEF] to hold regular meetings with its service provider and ‘discuss market participants,’ the core principle should stand on its own and the [SEF] should have the flexibility to determine how best to demonstrate compliance with the core principle.’’ 527 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.204(b) as proposed.528 The Commission acknowledges the commenters’ desire for a flexible approach, but notes that a SEF that elects to use a regulatory service provider remains responsible for the regulatory services received and for compliance with the Act and Commission regulations. The SEF therefore must properly supervise the quality and effectiveness of the regulatory services provided on its behalf. The Commission believes that proper supervision will require that a SEF have complete and timely knowledge of relevant work performed by the SEF’s regulatory service provider on its behalf. The Commission also believes that this knowledge can only be acquired through periodic reviews and regular meetings required under § 37.204(b). (3) § 37.204(c)—Regulatory Decisions Required From the SEF Proposed § 37.204(c) required a SEF that utilizes a regulatory service provider to retain exclusive authority over all
substantive decisions made by its regulatory service provider, including the cancellation of trades, issuance of disciplinary charges, denials of access to the trading platform for disciplinary reasons, and any decision to open an investigation into a possible rule violation. Further, the proposed rule required a SEF to document any instance where its actions differed from those recommended by its regulatory service provider. (i) Summary of Comments CME objected to the idea that all decisions concerning the cancellation of trades remain in the exclusive authority of the SEF.529 CME contended that a SEF may be better served by granting such authority to a regulatory service provider because such decisions require prompt decision-making.530 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.204(c) as proposed, subject to two modifications. First, the Commission is removing the requirement that a decision to open an investigation reside exclusively with the SEF. The final rule grants a SEF the latitude to determine whether investigations will be opened by the SEF, by its regulatory service provider, or some combination of the two. The Commission believes that opening investigations is an administrative task and does not necessarily imply the threat of formal disciplinary action or sanctions against a market participant. Second, the Commission is amending the rule to clarify that when a SEF documents instances when its actions differ from those recommended by its regulatory service provider, the SEF must include the reasons for the course of action recommended by the regulatory service provider and the reasons why the SEF chose a different course of action. The Commission disagrees with CME’s comment concerning the ‘‘cancellation of trades’’ and believes that a SEF must retain exclusive authority in this regard. Cancelling trades is an important exercise of a SEF’s authority over its markets and market participants. Cancelled trades may have meaningful economic consequences to the swap counterparties involved in the transaction, and may be the subject of contention between the counterparties if they do not both agree to the cancellation. The Commission emphasizes that permanent, consequential decisions must remain with the SEF. (f) § 37.205—Audit Trail Proposed § 37.205 implements Core Principle 2’s requirement that SEFs capture information that may be used in establishing whether rule violations have occurred.531 Accordingly, proposed § 37.205 required a SEF to establish procedures to capture and retain information that may be used in establishing whether rule violations have occurred. The proposed rule, along with its subparts, established the requirements of an acceptable audit trail program and the enforcement of such program. (1) § 37.205(a)—Audit Trail Required Proposed § 37.205(a) required a SEF to capture and retain all audit trail data so that the SEF has the ability to detect, investigate, and prevent customer and market abuses.
The proposed rule also provided that the audit trail data must be sufficient to reconstruct all transactions within a reasonable period of time and to provide evidence of any rule violations that may have occurred. Proposed § 37.205(a) further provided that the audit trail must permit the SEF to track a customer order from the time of receipt through fill, allocation, or other disposition, and must include both order and trade data. (i) Summary of Comments WMBAA requested that the Commission establish a common format for audit trail data to ensure consistency among all SEFs and to make the information easier for the Commission to use and review when investigating customer and market abuses.532 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.205(a) as proposed, subject to the

533The Commission is making certain non￾substantive clarifications to § 37.205(a). 534CEA section 5h(f)(2)(B)(ii); 7 U.S.C. 7b– 3(f)(2)(B)(ii). 535WMBAA Comment Letter at 23 (Mar. 8, 2011). 536 Id. 537Better Markets Comment Letter at 18 (Mar. 8, 2011). 538CEA section 5h(f)(2)(B)(ii); 7 U.S.C. 7b– 3(f)(2)(B)(ii). modifications described below.533 The Commission believes that the requirement that SEFs capture and retain all audit trial data is essential to ensuring that SEFs can capture information to establish whether rule violations have occurred, as required by Core Principle 2.534 Additionally, the creation and retention of a comprehensive audit trail will enable SEFs to properly reconstruct any and all market and trading events and to conduct a thorough forensic review of all market information. The Commission believes that the ability to reconstruct markets in such a manner is a fundamental element of a SEF’s surveillance and rule enforcement programs. Consistent with these principles, the Commission is modifying § 37.205(a) to clarify that the audit trail data must be sufficient to reconstruct trades and sufficient to reconstruct indications of interest, requests for quotes, and orders within a reasonable period of time. Both the proposed and final rules in § 37.205(a) require that a SEF ‘‘capture and retain all audit trail data necessary to detect, investigate, and prevent customer and market abuses’’ (emphasis added). The Commission notes that information required to detect abuses may in some cases include all communications between market participants and a SEF’s trading system or platform. The Commission also notes that a SEF’s obligation to capture in its audit trail all data necessary to detect, investigate, and prevent customer and market abuses is not altered by the nature of the trading system or platform that a SEF may choose to utilize, including a system or platform that, for example, utilizes the telephone. For example, an acceptable audit trail for a SEF with a telephone component should include communications between the SEF’s employees and their customers, as well as any communications between employees as they work customer indications of interest, requests for quotes, orders, and trades. An acceptable audit trail must capture the totality of communications (including, but not limited to, telephone, instant messaging, email, written records, and electronic communications within a trading system or platform) that could be necessary to detect, investigate, and prevent customer and market abuses, as required by both proposed and final § 37.205(a). The Commission believes that WMBAA’s suggestion to establish a common format for audit trail data may provide some value for SEFs that wish to coordinate and establish such a standard. However, the intent of the final rules is to require that a SEF establish and maintain an effective audit trail program, not to dictate the method or form for maintaining such information. Importantly,
the rule, by not being prescriptive, provides SEFs with flexibility to determine the manner and the technology necessary and appropriate to meet the requirements. The Commission notes, nevertheless, that staff from the Commission’s Office of Data and Technology will coordinate with SEFs to establish standards for the submission of audit trail data to the Commission. (2) § 37.205(b)—Elements of an Acceptable Audit Trail Program Proposed § 37.205(b)(1) required a SEF’s audit trail to include original source documents, on which trade execution information was originally recorded, as well as records for customer orders, whether or not they were filled. The proposed rule also required that a SEF that permits intermediation must require all executable orders or RFQs received over the telephone to be immediately entered into the trading system or platform. Proposed § 37.205(b)(2) required that a SEF’s audit trail program include a transaction history database and specified the trade information required to be included in the database. Proposed § 37.205(b)(3) required the audit trail program to also have electronic analysis capability for the transaction history database. Proposed § 37.205(b)(4) required the audit trail program to include the ability to safely store all audit trail data and to retain it in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements of SEF Core Principle 10 and its associated regulations. (i) Summary of Comments WMBAA commented that the requirement for records to be retained for customer orders should not apply to indications of interest because it would extend beyond the Commission’s statutory authority and the audit trail requirements currently in place in other financial markets, and would be unnecessarily costly and burdensome.535 WMBAA also commented that the audit trail requirements must permit the retention of relevant information through various modes because SEFs may operate trade execution platforms ‘‘through any means of interstate commerce.’’ 536 Better Markets commented that audit trail records, such as records of customers’ orders and their disposition, must be time-stamped at intervals that are consistent with the capabilities of high-frequency traders that use SEFs.537 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting proposed § 37.205(b), subject to the modifications discussed below. The Commission is clarifying that ‘‘time of trade execution’’ must be included in the data points of an acceptable audit trail, and is noting this clarification in final § 37.205(b)(1). The Commission is also revising proposed § 37.205(b)(2) to specify that a transaction history database must include a history of ‘‘all indications of interest, requests for quotes, orders, and trades entered into a [SEF’s] trading system or platform, including all order modifications and cancellations.’’ Further, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.205(b)(3) to specifically state that a SEF’s electronic analysis capability must provide it with
the ‘‘ability to reconstruct indications of interest, requests for quotes, orders, and trades, and identify possible trading violations.’’ The revisions to § 37.205(b)(2) and (b)(3), subject to the additions of the indications of interest and requests for quotes language, reflect regulatory requirements previously proposed as part of § 37.203(d), but, as noted above, the Commission is moving these requirements to final § 37.205(b). Additionally, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.205(b)(2) by replacing the customer type indicators listed in the proposed rule with the term ‘‘customer type indicator code.’’ In response to WMBAA’s comment regarding indications of interest, the Commission believes that retaining information about indications of interest provides another important detail of an audit trail, just as information of filled, unfilled, or cancelled orders provides important information for the SEF. This information enables a SEF to fulfill its statutory duty under Core Principle 2, which requires a SEF to capture information that may be used in establishing whether rule violations have occurred.538 Absent this information, SEFs would be limited in their ability to monitor their markets and to detect, investigate, and prevent customer and market abuses and trading

539See discussion above regarding Minimum Trading Functionality under § 37.3—Requirements for Registration in the preamble. 540The Commission notes, as stated above under § 37.203(d)—Automated Trade Surveillance System in the preamble, that the accurate time stamping of data is particularly important for SEFs that use an RFQ System, including an RFQ System with a voice component. For such SEFs, the accurate time stamping of both their Order Book and RFQ System activity is critical for ensuring both that the SEF itself has a robust audit trail system and that the Commission is able to monitor the SEF’s adherence to part 37’s Order Book-RFQ System integration requirements. rule violations. However, as discussed above, the Commission has removed the requirement for SEFs to offer indicative quote functionality, which should reduce the costs of complying with the audit trail requirements.539 In response to WMBAA’s comment about the flexibility of audit trail requirements to accommodate various methods of execution, the Commission notes that proposed § 37.205(b) did not discriminate based on the method of execution. Given the Commission’s clarification that a SEF may utilize any means of interstate commerce in providing the execution methods in § 37.9(a)(2)(i)(A) or (B), the Commission emphasizes that no matter how an indication of interest, request for quote, or order is communicated or a trade is executed, an audit trail that satisfies the requirements set forth in § 37.205 must be created. The Commission is also making certain conforming changes to § 37.205(b)(1) to harmonize its provisions with the Commission’s determination that a SEF may utilize any means of interstate commerce in providing the execution methods in § 37.9(a)(2)(i)(A) or (B). First, the Commission is adding ‘‘indications of interest’’ to the items that must be immediately captured in the audit trail pursuant to § 37.205(b)(1). Second, while proposed § 37.205(b)(1) required that all executable orders or requests for quotes ‘‘be immediately entered into the trading system or platform,’’ § 37.205(b)(1) as adopted requires that such information be immediately ‘‘captured in the audit trail.’’ This approach more accurately reflects the intent of § 37.205, whose purpose is to ensure an adequate audit trail, rather than to address the operation of a SEF’s trading system or platform. Accordingly, the final rules in § 37.205(b)(1) include conforming changes that remove the reference in proposed § 37.205(b)(1) to orders or requests for quotes ‘‘that are executable,’’ and also remove the qualification that a SEF’s obligation to capture information in the audit trail is dependent on whether the SEF permits intermediation. Finally, the final rules remove the additional audit trail requirement in proposed § 37.205(b)(1) for orders and requests for quotes that cannot be immediately entered into the trading system or platform. These clarifications are consistent with the Commission’s intention in
§ 37.205(a) that a SEF’s audit trail ‘‘capture and retain all audit trail data necessary to detect, investigate, and prevent customer and market abuses.’’ It is the Commission’s intent throughout § 37.205 to ensure that all SEFs’ audit trails are equally comprehensive and effective regardless of the means of interstate commerce that a SEF may provide to meet the execution methods in § 37.9(a)(2)(i)(A) or (B). Although § 37.205 sets forth a unified set of audit trail requirements for all methods of execution, the Commission notes that a SEF, for example, that utilizes the telephone as a means of interstate commerce in providing the execution methods in § 37.9(a)(2)(i)(A) or (B) may comply with the audit trail requirements by utilizing different technologies than a SEF that does not utilize the telephone. For example, the Commission believes that a SEF that utilizes the telephone may comply with the audit trail requirements in § 37.205(a) for oral communications by recording all such communications that relate to swap transactions, and all communications that may subsequently result in swap transactions. Such recordings must allow for reconstruction of communications between the SEF and its customers; reconstruction of internal and external communications involving SEF employees who are ascertaining or providing indications of interest, requests for quotes, or orders; reconstruction of executed transactions; provide evidence of any rule violations; track a customer’s order; and capture order and trade data as required under § 37.205(a). The Commission also believes that a SEF that utilizes the telephone may comply with the original source document requirement in § 37.205(b)(1) for oral communications by retaining each recording’s original media. By storing the recordings in a digital database and supplementing it with additional data as necessary, the Commission believes that a SEF that utilizes the telephone may comply with the transaction history database requirement in § 37.205(b)(2) for oral communications. Additionally, the Commission believes that a SEF that utilizes the telephone may comply with the electronic analysis capability in § 37.205(b)(3) for oral communications by ensuring that its digital database of recordings is capable of being searched and analyzed. The Commission notes, however, that § 37.205(b) does not establish an affirmative requirement to create recordings of oral communications if the audit trail requirements are met through other methods. The discussion above regarding the applicability of audit trail requirements to SEFs that utilize the telephone in providing the execution methods in § 37.9(a)(2) applies equally to SEFs that use non-telephonic means of communication (e.g., instant messaging or email). In all cases, the operative requirement is to capture in the audit trail and the transaction history database the totality of communications that could be necessary to detect, investigate, and prevent customer and
market abuses. The Commission acknowledges the comment by Better Markets regarding time-stamping audit trail records at intervals that are consistent with the capabilities of high-frequency traders. While the audit trail rules do not specify the granularity of time-stamped data, the Commission believes that the audit trail rules adopted herein, particularly the requirements that a SEF retain and maintain all data necessary to permit it to reconstruct trading, will help to ensure that audit trail records are time￾stamped with the granularity necessary to reconstruct trades and investigate possible trading violations, including for high-frequency trading.540 (3) § 37.205(c)—Enforcement of Audit Trail Requirements Proposed § 37.205(c)(1) required that a SEF conduct reviews, at least annually, of its members and market participants to verify their compliance with the SEF’s audit trail and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed § 37.205(c)(1) also set forth minimum review criteria. Proposed § 37.205(c)(2) required that a SEF develop a program for effective enforcement of its audit trail and recordkeeping requirements, including a requirement that a SEF levy meaningful sanctions when deficiencies are found. Proposed § 37.205(c)(2) also stated that sanctions may not include more than one warning letter for the same violation within a rolling twelve￾month period. (i) Summary of Comments Some commenters stated that annual audits are unnecessary and unduly

541Tradeweb Comment Letter at 6 (Jun. 3, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 22 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 33 (Feb. 22, 2011). 542CME Comment Letter at 33 (Feb. 22, 2011). 543MarketAxess Comment Letter at 22 (Mar. 8, 2011). 544Tradeweb Comment Letter at 6 (Jun. 3, 2011). 545See, e.g., discussion above under § 37.203(f)(5)—Warning Letters in the preamble. 546Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, 77 FR at 36704. 547CEA section 5h(f)(2)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(B). 548MarketAxess Comment Letter at 23 (Mar. 8, 2011); ABC/CIEBA Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 12 (Mar. 8, 2011); ICAP Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); State Street Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 549FXall Comment Letter at 12 (Mar. 8, 2011). 550MarketAxess Comment Letter at 23 (Mar. 8, 2011), WMBAA Comment Letter at 24 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 12 (Mar. 8, 2011). 551FXall Comment Letter at 12 (Mar. 8, 2011); ICAP Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Reuters Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 23 (Mar. 8, 2011); State Street Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 552Tradeweb Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011). Parity Energy also commented that the proposed disciplinary rules will impose unnecessary costs and create unnecessary duplication and the possibility of conflicting rules. Parity Energy Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 25, 2011). 553CEA section 5h(f)(2)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(B). 554The Commission is also revising § 37.206 to include the term ‘‘member’’ in addition to the term ‘‘market participant’’ in order to provide greater detail and clarity. The Commission notes, as described above in § 37.200, that the term ‘‘market participant’’ encompasses SEF ‘‘members.’’ burdensome.541 CME commented that annual audits of all SEF market participants would be costly and unproductive, and should instead apply at the clearing firm level.542 MarketAxess recommended that the Commission require a single entity or self-regulatory organization, such as FINRA or NFA, to conduct the audit of each SEF market participant.543 Tradeweb commented that the proposed annual audit review requirement is not required of DCMs and, as such, should not be required of SEFs.544 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.205(c) as proposed, subject to certain modifications as discussed below. The Commission disagrees with commenters who assert that the annual audit review requirement is unnecessary, unduly burdensome, costly, and unproductive. Through its experience with DCMs and DCOs, the Commission has learned that sampling￾based reviews of audit trail and recordkeeping requirements are inadequate to ensure compliance with audit trail rules. The Commission believes that the requirements under § 37.205(c) are necessary to ensure that SEFs have accurate and consistent access to all data needed to reconstruct all transactions in their markets and to provide evidence of customer and market
abuses. Absent reliable audit trail data, a SEF’s ability to detect or investigate customer or market abuses may be severely diminished. However, in response to commenters’ concerns that the rule is burdensome, the Commission is narrowing the scope of the proposed rule by removing the reference to ‘‘market participants’’ and instead stating that the annual audit review requirement only applies to members and those persons and firms that are subject to the SEF’s recordkeeping rules. As a result of this revision, the Commission declines to adopt CME’s recommendation to require annual audit trail reviews only at the clearing firm level. The Commission is maintaining proposed § 37.205(c)(2) as a rule to ensure that SEFs impose meaningful sanctions for violations of audit trail and recordkeeping rules. However, the Commission is revising the rule to clarify that the limit on warning letters only applies where a SEF’s compliance staff finds an actual rule violation, rather than just the suspicion of a violation. This change is consistent with the revisions in other sections discussing warning letters.545 In response to MarketAxess’s recommendation that a single entity conduct the audit of each SEF market participant, the Commission believes that a SEF can monitor market participants on its own platform without relying upon a single cross￾market self-regulatory organization. However, a SEF may use a regulatory service provider pursuant to § 37.204 to assist it in complying with the requirements under § 37.205(c). In response to Tradeweb’s comment that the annual audit review requirement is not required of DCMs, the Commission notes that it adopted a similar requirement for DCMs under § 38.553 of the Commission’s regulations, to apply to all members and persons and firms subject to the DCM’s recordkeeping rules.546 The Commission believes that similar requirements are appropriate because, as noted above, SEFs, like DCMs, must have accurate and consistent access to all data needed to reconstruct all transactions in their markets, including indications of interest, requests for quotes, orders, and trades, and to detect, investigate, and prevent customer and market abuses. (g) § 37.206—Disciplinary Procedures and Sanctions (1) § 37.206—Disciplinary Procedures and Sanctions Proposed § 37.206 addressed SEF Core Principle 2’s requirement that SEFs establish and enforce trading, trade processing, and participation rules to deter abuse, and have the capacity to investigate and enforce such abuses.547 Proposed § 37.206 provided that SEFs must establish trading, trade processing, and participation rules that will deter abuses and have the capacity to enforce such rules through prompt and effective disciplinary action. (i) Summary of Comments Some commenters generally stated that the proposed disciplinary procedures go beyond the statute and intent of Congress.548 In this regard, FXall stated that, unlike DCMs, retail customers will not be participants on SEFs;
therefore, the same level of protection afforded to DCM participants is not required for SEFs.549 Some commenters recommended that the proposed disciplinary procedures should be streamlined through the use of a staff summary fine program.550 Some commenters also requested that SEFs be granted greater flexibility to establish their own disciplinary procedures.551 Tradeweb stated that the proposed disciplinary procedures would impose significant costs on SEFs and should be contracted to a central, third-party self-regulatory organization.552 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission’s evaluation of public comments with respect to proposed § 37.206 is based on its understanding that a SEF’s obligation to establish adequate disciplinary rules is implicit in the statutory language of Core Principle 2, which requires, in
part, that a SEF establish and enforce
trading, trade processing, and participation rules to deter abuse and have the capacity to investigate and enforce such rules.553 The Commission also takes note of public comments requesting greater flexibility in the application of SEF disciplinary rules. Accordingly, consistent with both its statutory mandate and its evaluation of the public comments received, the Commission is adopting elements of § 37.206 as proposed, while also moving to guidance or eliminating other parts of the proposed rules.554 The Commission believes that the specific disciplinary rules retained in the final rules are those that are essential to the promotion of market integrity by ensuring that SEF markets are free of fraud or abuse, and also helping to provide basic procedural fairness for SEF disciplinary

555Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1225 n. 73. 556The Commission also believes that guidance is more appropriate for the SEF disciplinary procedures because the SEF core principles do not have a parallel to DCM Core Principle 13, which specifically discusses disciplinary procedures. 557See Adaptation of Regulations to Incorporate Swaps, 77 FR 66288 (Nov. 2, 2012). Section 1.3(ee) states that a self-regulatory organization ‘‘means a contract market (as defined in § 1.3(h)), a swap execution facility (as defined in § 1.3(rrrr)), or a registered futures association under section 17 of the Act.’’ Id. at 66318. 558Section 40.9(c)(3)(ii), as proposed, in the separate release titled Requirements for Derivatives Clearing Organizations, Designated Contract Markets, and Swap Execution Facilities Regarding the Mitigation of Conflicts of Interest, provided that ‘‘Each Disciplinary Panel shall include at least one person who would not be disqualified from serving as a Public Director by § 1.3(ccc)(1)(i)–(vi) and (2) of this chapter (a ‘‘Public Participant’’). Such Public Participant shall chair each Disciplinary Panel. In addition, any registered entity specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section shall adopt rules that would, at a minimum: (A) Further preclude any group or class of participants from dominating or exercising disproportionate influence on a Disciplinary Panel and (B) Prohibit any member of a Disciplinary Panel from participating in deliberations or voting on any matter in which the member has a financial interest.’’ 75 FR 63732, 63752 (proposed Oct. 18, 2010). 559MetLife Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 560CME Comment Letter at 35 (Feb. 22, 2011). respondents. While the SEF NPRM noted that the SEF disciplinary procedures parallel those for DCMs,555 the Commission has determined that the level of protection offered by the proposed rules was more appropriate for markets that include retail participants, in contrast to SEFs, whose participants are limited to ECPs.556 Consequently, the Commission is moving to guidance numerous procedural protections set forth in the proposed rules that are more tailored to retail participants, including the requirements relating to the issuance of a notice of charges, and a respondent’s right to representation, right to answer charges, and right to request a hearing. The remaining final rules provide an essential framework that the Commission believes adequately ensures the effectiveness of a SEF’s disciplinary program. Accordingly, the Commission is maintaining the proposed disciplinary rules that represent the most critical components of a disciplinary program, including the requirements that a SEF: (1) Establish disciplinary panels that meet certain composition requirements; (2) levy meaningful disciplinary sanctions to deter recidivism; and (3) issue no more than one warning letter per rolling 12- month period for the same violation by the same respondent.
The Commission believes that with these modifications, § 37.206 strikes the appropriate balance between providing the flexibility requested by the commenters and ensuring that SEFs comply with their statutory obligation under Core Principle 2. Some commenters recommended that the proposed disciplinary procedures should be streamlined through the use of a summary fine program. The Commission believes that, while summary fines may be appropriate for some disciplinary matters, such as recordkeeping violations, many disciplinary matters are dynamic and require the balancing of multiple unique facts and circumstances, which cannot be addressed through a summary fine program. Therefore, the Commission declines to adopt a summary fine program in lieu of disciplinary procedures. In response to Tradeweb’s comment about contracting out certain aspects of a SEF’s disciplinary functions to a central third-party, the Commission notes that it views SEFs as SROs,557 with all the attendant self-regulatory responsibilities to establish and enforce rules necessary to promote market integrity and the protection of market participants. Such responsibilities include the adherence to, and maintenance of, disciplinary procedures. The Commission notes that a SEF may utilize the services of a third￾party regulatory service provider for assistance in performing its self￾regulatory functions, as provided for in § 37.204. (2) § 37.206(a)—Enforcement Staff Proposed § 37.206(a) required that a SEF establish and maintain sufficient enforcement staff and resources to effectively and promptly prosecute possible rule violations within the SEF’s jurisdiction. Proposed § 37.206(a) also required a SEF to monitor the size and workload of its enforcement staff annually. In addition, proposed § 37.206(a) included provisions to ensure the independence of the enforcement staff and to help promote disciplinary procedures that are free of potential conflicts of interest. (i) Commission Determination In response to the general comments requesting greater flexibility regarding disciplinary procedures, the Commission is moving all of the requirements of proposed § 37.206(a) to guidance, except for the critical requirement that a SEF maintain sufficient enforcement staff and resources. The Commission believes that sufficient enforcement staff and resources are essential to the effective performance of a SEF’s disciplinary program and are necessary to comply with Core Principle 2. Without a sufficient enforcement staff and resources, a SEF would be unable to promptly investigate and adjudicate potential rule violations and deter future violations. To maintain consistency with the revisions to proposed § 37.203(c)(2), the Commission is deleting from the rule the reference that a SEF monitor the size and workload of its enforcement staff annually to provide greater flexibility to SEFs in determining their approach to monitoring their enforcement resources. Nonetheless, the Commission believes
that a SEF’s obligation to monitor its enforcement staff and resources is implicit in the requirement to maintain adequate enforcement staff and resources. (3) § 37.206(b)—Disciplinary Panels Proposed § 37.206(b)(1) required a SEF to establish one or more Review Panels and one or more Hearing Panels. The composition of both panels was required to meet the composition requirements of proposed § 40.9(c)(3)(ii) 558 and could not include any members of the SEF’s compliance staff or any person involved in adjudicating any other stage of the same proceeding. Proposed § 37.206(b)(2) provided that a Review Panel must be responsible for determining whether a reasonable basis exists for finding a violation of SEF rules and for authorizing the issuance of a notice of charges. If a notice of charges is issued, proposed § 37.206(b)(3) provided that a Hearing Panel must be responsible for adjudicating the matter and issuing sanctions. (i) Summary of Comments MetLife supported the proposed rule and agreed that SEFs should maintain a clear separation between disciplinary bodies that recommend the issuance of charges and those responsible for adjudicating matters.559 CME stated that the Commission should not require a prescriptive approach to disciplinary panels, as SEFs may develop structures that clearly satisfy the objective of the core principle, but that may not precisely comply with the rule text.560 CME illustrated two practices it believed may be precluded by the text of proposed § 37.206(b): (1) CME’s Market Regulation staff determines whether certain non-egregious rule violations merit referral to a Review Panel and they issue warning letters on an administrative basis; and (2) CME’s hearing panel adjudicates a disciplinary case prior to the issuance of charges

561 Id.
562The Commission notes that it is replacing specific panel names (i.e., Review Panel and Hearing Panel) with a generic reference to the ‘‘disciplinary panel’’ throughout part 37. 563CME Comment Letter at 35 (Feb. 22, 2011). 564 Id. While the Commission largely agrees with CME’s comment, the Commission directs interested parties to § 37.203(f) for a further discussion of the required components of investigation reports. 565As mentioned above, the Commission is moving paragraph (3) of proposed § 37.206(c) to the text of proposed § 37.206(d) that will now be included as guidance. 566CME Comment Letter at 35 (Feb. 22, 2011). pursuant to a supported settlement agreement.561 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.206(b) as proposed, subject to certain modifications described below. The Commission considered commenters’ views and believes that the proposed rule can be modified to provide additional flexibility without diminishing its purpose. Accordingly, final § 37.206(b) will require SEFs to have one or more disciplinary panels, without imposing a specific requirement for SEFs to maintain a Review Panel and a Hearing Panel.562 However, even under this single-panel approach, individuals who determine to issue charges in a particular disciplinary matter may not also adjudicate the matter. Therefore, final § 37.206(b) permits flexibility in the structure of SEFs’ disciplinary bodies, but not in the basic prohibition, supported by MetLife, against vesting the same individuals with the authority to both issue and adjudicate charges in the same matter. The modifications reflected in final § 37.206(b), together with the revisions made to the text of proposed § 37.206(d) that will now be included as guidance, as discussed below, provide additional flexibility by permitting SEFs to rely on their authorized compliance staff, rather than on a disciplinary panel, to issue disciplinary charges. However, the Commission notes that the adjudication of charges must still be performed by a disciplinary panel. Finally, the Commission is adopting the composition and conflicts requirements for disciplinary panels with one modification, by replacing the reference to § 40.9(c)(3)(ii) with a reference to the more general ‘‘part 40 of this chapter’’ to accommodate any re￾enumeration that may occur with respect to proposed § 40.9(c)(3)(ii). (4) § 37.206(c)—Review of Investigation Report Proposed § 37.206(c) required a Review Panel to promptly review an investigation report received pursuant to proposed § 37.203(f)(3), and to take one of the following actions within 30 days of receipt: (1) Promptly direct compliance staff to conduct further investigation if the Review Panel determined that additional investigation or evidence was needed, (2) direct that no further action be taken if the Review Panel determined that no reasonable basis existed for finding a violation or that prosecution was unwarranted, or (3) direct that the person or entity alleged to
have committed a violation be served with a notice of charges if the Review Panel determined that a reasonable basis existed for finding a violation and adjudication was warranted. (i) Summary of Comments CME agreed that an investigation report should include the subject’s disciplinary history; however, CME disagreed with the requirement in proposed § 37.203(f) that the disciplinary history be included in the version of the investigation report sent to the Review Panel.563 CME believed that the disciplinary history should not be considered by the Review Panel at all when determining whether to issue formal charges, arguing that a participant’s disciplinary history is not relevant to the consideration of whether it committed a further violation of SEF rules.564 (ii) Commission Determination In response to the general comments requesting greater flexibility, the Commission is eliminating all of proposed § 37.206(c) except for paragraph (3) of the proposed rule. In addition, the Commission is adding language to paragraph (3) to provide SEFs with the flexibility to allow authorized compliance staff to review an investigation report and determine whether a notice of charges should be issued in a particular matter. The Commission is also revising the text of paragraph (3) to follow the single-panel approach provided for in § 37.206(b). Proposed § 37.206(c)(3), with the revisions described above, is being incorporated into proposed § 37.206(d). As described below, all of proposed § 37.206(d) is being moved to the guidance in appendix B to part 37. (5) § 37.206(d)—Notice of Charges Proposed § 37.206(d) described the minimally acceptable contents of a notice of charges issued by a Review Panel. Specifically, proposed § 37.206(d) provided that a notice of charges must adequately state the acts, conduct, or practices in which the respondent is alleged to have engaged; state the rule(s) alleged to have been violated; advise the respondent that he is entitled, upon request, to a hearing on the charges; and prescribe the period within which a hearing may be requested. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of the proposed rule permitted a SEF to adopt rules providing that: (1) The failure to request a hearing within the time prescribed in the notice, except for good cause, may be deemed a waiver of the right to a hearing; and (2) the failure to answer or expressly deny a charge may be deemed to be an admission of such charge. (i) Commission Determination Although no comments were received on proposed § 37.206(d), the Commission believes that it can provide SEFs with additional flexibility by moving the entire rule to the guidance in appendix B to part 37.565 Moreover, since paragraphs (1) and (2) of proposed § 37.206(d) allowed, but did not require, a SEF to issue rules regarding failures to request a hearing and expressly answer or deny a charge, the Commission believes that the language in these paragraphs is better suited as guidance rather than a rule. (6) §
37.206(e)—Right to Representation Proposed § 37.206(e) provided for a respondent’s right, upon receiving a notice of charges, to be represented by legal counsel or any other representative of its choosing in all succeeding stages of the disciplinary process. (i) Summary of Comments CME commented that this rule should be limited to avoid conflicts of interest in representation and, accordingly, requested that the rule be revised to clarify that a respondent may not be represented by: (1) A member of the SEF’s disciplinary committees; (2) a member of the SEF’s Board of Directors; (3) an employee of the SEF; or (4) a person substantially related to the underlying investigation, such as a material witness or other respondent.566 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is moving proposed § 37.206(e) in its entirety to the guidance in appendix B to part 37, subject to the following modification. The Commission is amending the language to incorporate CME’s recommendation. The guidance states that upon being served with a notice of charges, a respondent should have the right to be represented by legal counsel or any other representative of its choosing in all succeeding stages of the disciplinary process, except by any

567These aspects were that: (1) The answer must be in writing and include a statement that the respondent admits, denies, or does not have and is unable to obtain sufficient information to admit or deny each allegation; (2) failure to file an answer on a timely basis shall be deemed an admission of all allegations in the notice of charges; and (3) failure in an answer to deny expressly a charge shall be deemed to be an admission of such charge. 568The Commission notes that the text that will now be included as guidance is being modified to reflect the single-panel approach adopted in § 37.206(b), replacing specific panel names with a generic reference to the ‘‘disciplinary panel.’’ 569The Commission is revising the proposed rule to reflect the single-panel approach adopted in § 37.206(b), replacing specific panel names with a generic reference to the ‘‘disciplinary panel.’’ The Commission is also removing the references to proposed §§ 37.206(g) and (j) given that the Commission is moving proposed § 37.206(g) to guidance, and either eliminating or moving certain provisions of proposed § 37.206(j) to guidance. 570The Commission notes that the text that will now be included as guidance is being modified to reflect the single-panel approach adopted in § 37.206(b), replacing specific panel names with a generic reference to the ‘‘disciplinary panel.’’ member of the SEF’s board of directors or disciplinary panel, any employee of the SEF, or any person substantially related to the underlying investigations, such as a material witness or respondent. The Commission believes that this revision appropriately addresses the conflicts of interest noted by CME. (7) § 37.206(f)—Answer to Charges Proposed § 37.206(f) required that a respondent be given a reasonable period of time to file an answer to a notice of charges. The proposed rule also provided that the rules of a SEF may prescribe certain aspects of the answer, which were enumerated in paragraphs (1) through (3).567 (i) Commission Determination Although no comments were received on proposed § 37.206(f), the Commission is moving the entire rule to the guidance in appendix B to part 37, with certain modifications, in order to provide SEFs with greater flexibility to adopt their own disciplinary procedures. The Commission is also condensing the guidance by replacing paragraphs (1) through (3) with language making clear that any rules adopted by a SEF governing the requirements and timeliness of a respondent’s answer to a notice of charges should be ‘‘fair, equitable, and publicly available.’’ (8) § 37.206(g)—Admission or Failure To Deny Charges Proposed § 37.206(g) provided that a SEF may adopt rules whereby a respondent who admits or fails to deny any of the charges alleged in the notice of charges may be found by the Hearing Panel to have committed the violations charged. If a SEF adopted such rules, paragraphs (1) through (3) of the proposed rule provided that: (1) The Hearing Panel must impose a sanction
for each violation found to have been committed; (2) the Hearing Panel must promptly notify the respondent in writing of any sanction to be imposed and advise the respondent that it may request a hearing on such sanction within a specified period of time; and (3) the rules of the SEF may provide that if the respondent fails to request a hearing within the period of time specified in the notice, then the respondent will be deemed to have accepted the sanction. (i) Commission Determination Although the Commission did not receive comments on proposed § 37.206(g), the Commission is moving the entire rule, with certain modifications, to the guidance in
appendix B to part 37.568 Given that
proposed § 37.206(g) allowed, but did not require, a SEF to issue rules regarding a respondent’s admission or failure to deny charges, the Commission believes that the proposed rule is better suited as guidance rather than a rule. The Commission also believes that adopting the proposed rule as guidance, rather than a rule, will provide SEFs greater flexibility in administering their obligations, consistent with the general comments seeking the same. Furthermore, the Commission is modifying the text of proposed § 37.206(g)(2) that will now be included as guidance to clarify that a respondent may request a hearing ‘‘within the period of time, which should be stated in the notice.’’ (9) § 37.206(h)—Denial of Charges and Right to Hearing Proposed § 37.206(h) required that in every instance where a respondent has requested a hearing on a charge that is denied, or on a sanction set by the Hearing Panel pursuant to proposed § 37.206(g), the respondent must be given the opportunity for a hearing in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 37.206(j). Proposed § 37.206(h) also gave SEFs the option to adopt rules that provided, except for good cause, the hearing must be concerned only with those charges denied and/or sanctions set by the Hearing Panel under proposed § 37.206(g) for which a hearing has been requested. (i) Commission Determination The Commission received no comments on proposed § 37.206(h), but is moving the entire rule, with certain modifications, to the guidance in
appendix B to part 37.569 In order to
provide SEFs with further flexibility, even within the guidance, the Commission is also removing the proposed rule’s reference to a SEF’s ability to limit hearings to only those charges denied and/or sanctions set by the Hearing Panel under proposed § 37.206(g) for which a hearing has been requested. (10) § 37.206(i)—Settlement Offers Proposed § 37.206(i) provided the procedures that a SEF must follow if it permits the use of settlements to resolve disciplinary cases. Paragraph (1) of the proposed rule stated that the rules of a SEF may permit a respondent to submit a written offer of settlement any time after the investigation report is completed. The proposed rule also permitted the disciplinary panel presiding over the matter to accept the offer of settlement, but prohibited the panel from altering the terms of the offer unless the respondent agreed. In addition, paragraph (2) of the proposed rule provided that the rules of the SEF may allow a disciplinary panel to permit the respondent to accept a sanction without admitting or denying the rule violations upon which the sanction is based. Paragraph (3) of the proposed rule stated that a disciplinary panel accepting a settlement offer must issue a written decision specifying the rule violations it has reason to believe were committed, and any sanction imposed, including any order of restitution where customer harm has been demonstrated. Paragraph (3) also provided that if an offer of settlement is accepted without the agreement of a SEF’s enforcement staff, then the decision must adequately support the Hearing Panel’s acceptance of the settlement. Finally, paragraph (4) of the proposed rule allowed a respondent to withdraw his or her offer of settlement at any time before final acceptance by a disciplinary panel. If an offer is withdrawn after submission, or is rejected by a disciplinary panel, the respondent must not be deemed to have made any admissions by reason of the offer of settlement and must not be otherwise prejudiced by having submitted the offer of settlement. (i) Commission Determination Although the Commission received no comments on proposed § 37.206(i), the Commission is moving the entire rule, with certain modifications, to the guidance in appendix B to part 37.570

571CME Comment Letter at 36 (Feb. 22, 2011). 572The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.206(j) to § 37.206(c). The Commission is also revising the proposed rule to reflect the single-panel approach adopted in § 37.206(b), replacing specific panel names with a generic reference to the ‘‘disciplinary panel.’’ The Commission is also revising the reference to § 37.206(l) in proposed § 37.206(j)(1)(vi) given that it is moving proposed § 37.206(l) to guidance. 573The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.206(k) to § 37.206(d). The Commission is also revising the reference to § 37.206(j) in proposed § 37.206(k) given that the Commission has either eliminated or moved to guidance many of the provisions of proposed § 37.206(j). The Commission is also revising the proposed rule to reflect the single-panel approach adopted in § 37.206(b), replacing specific panel names with a generic reference to the ‘‘disciplinary panel.’’ 574The Commission notes that the reference to § 40.9(c)(iv) in the proposed rule was a technical error. Instead, proposed § 37.206(l) should have referenced the composition requirements of an appellate panel outlined in proposed § 40.9(c)(3)(iii). However, to accommodate any re￾enumeration that may occur with respect to proposed § 40.9(c)(3)(iii), the Commission is replacing the mistaken reference to § 40.9(c)(iv) with a more general reference to part 40 in the guidance text. See Requirements for Derivatives Clearing Organizations, Designated Contract Markets, and Swap Execution Facilities Regarding the Mitigation of Conflicts of Interest, 75 FR 63732, 63752 (proposed Oct. 18, 2010). The Commission is also revising the reference to § 37.206(k) in proposed § 37.206(l)(4) to § 37.206(d) given the renumbering in § 37.206. Finally, the Commission is revising the proposed rule to reflect the single￾panel approach adopted in § 37.206(b), replacing specific panel names with a generic reference to the ‘‘disciplinary panel.’’ The Commission believes that adopting the proposed rule as guidance, rather than a rule, will provide SEFs greater flexibility in administering their obligations, consistent with the general comments seeking the same. Furthermore, the Commission is revising the guidance text to make it consistent with its modifications to the customer restitution provisions adopted below with respect to proposed § 37.206(n). (11) § 37.206(j)—Hearings Proposed § 37.206(j) required a SEF to adopt rules that provide certain minimum procedural safeguards for any hearing conducted pursuant to a notice of charges. In general, proposed §§ 37.206(j)(1)(i) through (j)(1)(vii) required the following: (i) A fair hearing; (ii) authority for a respondent to examine evidence relied on by enforcement staff in presenting the charges; (iii) the SEF’s enforcement and compliance staffs to be parties to the hearing and the enforcement staff to present its case on the charges and sanctions; (iv) the respondent to be entitled to appear personally at the
hearing, to cross-examine and call witnesses, and to present evidence; (v) the SEF to require persons within its jurisdiction who are called as witnesses to participate in the hearing and produce evidence; (vi) a copy of the hearing be made and be a part of the record of the proceeding if the respondent requested the hearing; and (vii) the rules of the SEF may provide that the cost of transcribing the record be borne by the respondent in certain circumstances. Additionally, proposed § 37.206(j)(2) specified that the rules of the SEF may provide that a sanction be summarily imposed upon any person within its jurisdiction whose actions impede the progress of a hearing. (i) Summary of Comments CME recommended that proposed § 37.206(j)(1)(ii) be revised so that a respondent may not access protected attorney work product, attorney-client communications, and investigative work product (e.g., investigation and exception reports).571 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is partially adopting proposed § 37.206(j), and is either eliminating or moving to guidance the remaining portion of the rule. The Commission is maintaining as a rule the provisions requiring the following: (1) Hearings must be fair; and (2) if a respondent requested a hearing, a copy of the hearing be made and be a part of the record of the proceeding.572 The Commission is eliminating proposed § 37.206(j)(1)(vii), a discretionary rule that in certain cases allowed for the cost of transcribing the record of the hearing to be borne by the respondent. The Commission is moving the remainder of proposed § 37.206(j) to the guidance in
appendix B to part 37. The Commission
believes that these revisions are appropriate given commenters’ requests for greater flexibility to establish their own disciplinary procedures. The Commission agrees with CME’s comment that a SEF should be permitted to withhold certain documents from a respondent in certain circumstances. Therefore, the Commission is revising the text of proposed § 37.206(j)(1)(ii), which will now be included in guidance, to provide that a SEF may withhold documents that: (i) Are privileged or constitute attorney work product; (ii) were prepared by an employee of the SEF but will not be offered in evidence in the disciplinary proceedings; (iii) may disclose a technique or guideline used in examinations, investigations, or enforcement proceedings; or (iv) disclose the identity of a confidential source. (12) § 37.206(k)—Decisions Proposed § 37.206(k) required a Hearing Panel, promptly following a hearing conducted in accordance with proposed § 37.206(j), to render a written decision based upon the weight of the evidence and to provide a copy to the respondent. Paragraphs (1) through (6) detailed the items to be included in the decision. (i) Commission Determination The Commission received no comments on proposed § 37.206(k) and is adopting the rule as proposed with certain non-substantive clarifications.573 (13) § 37.206(l)—Right to Appeal Proposed § 37.206(l) provided the procedures that a SEF must follow in the event that the SEF’s rules permit an appeal. For SEFs that permit appeals, the language in paragraphs (1) through (4) of proposed § 37.206(l) generally required the SEF to: (1) Establish an appellate panel; (2) ensure that the appellate panel composition is consistent with § 40.9(c)(iv) and not include any members of the SEF’s compliance staff or any person involved in adjudicating any other stage of the same proceeding; (3) conduct the appeal solely on the record before the Hearing Panel, except for good cause shown; and (4) issue a written decision of the board of appeals and provide a copy to the respondent. (i) Commission Determination Although the Commission received no comments on proposed § 37.206(l), the Commission is moving the entire rule to the guidance in appendix B to part
37.574 Given that proposed § 37.206(l)
allowed, but did not require, a SEF to issue rules regarding a respondent’s right to appeal, the Commission believes that the proposed rule is better suited as guidance rather than a rule. The Commission also believes that adopting the proposed rule as guidance, rather than a rule, will provide SEFs greater flexibility in administering their obligations, consistent with the general comments seeking the same. (14) § 37.206(m)—Final Decisions Proposed § 37.206(m) required that each SEF establish rules setting forth when a decision rendered under § 37.206 will become the final decision of the SEF. (i) Commission Determination Although the Commission received no comments on proposed § 37.206(m), the Commission is moving the entire rule to

575WMBAA Comment Letter at 23 (Mar. 8, 2011). 576 Id. 577 Id. at 24. 578The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.206(n) to § 37.206(e). 579The Commission notes that commenters to the DCM rulemaking requested this change and, after considering the comments, the Commission believes that this revision should also be applicable to SEFs. Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, 77 FR at 36654– 55. 580Section 37.2 states that a SEF shall comply with part 9 of the Commission’s regulations. 581NFA’s Background Affiliation Status Information Center database is available at http:// www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/. 582CME Comment Letter at 36 (Feb. 22, 2011). 583MarketAxess Comment Letter at 36 (Mar. 8, 2011). 584The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.206(o) to § 37.206(f). The Commission is also retitling this section as ‘‘Warning letters.’’ 585For purposes of this rule, the Commission does not consider a ‘‘reminder letter’’ or such other similar letter to be any different than a warning letter. 586See Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1224. the guidance in appendix B to part 37. The Commission believes that adopting the proposed rule as guidance rather than a rule provides a SEF with additional flexibility to establish disciplinary procedures to meet its obligations pursuant to Core Principle 2. (15) § 37.206(n)—Disciplinary Sanctions Proposed § 37.206(n) required that disciplinary sanctions imposed by a SEF must be commensurate with the violations committed and must be clearly sufficient to deter recidivism or similar violations by other market participants. In addition, the proposed rule required that a SEF take into account a respondent’s disciplinary history when evaluating appropriate sanctions. The proposed rule further required that in the event of demonstrated customer harm, any disciplinary sanction must include full customer restitution. (i) Summary of Comments WMBAA recommended that any limitation of a market participant’s access to a SEF imposed in response to a rule violation should be recognized and enforced consistently among all SEFs.575 WMBAA also recommended that any disciplinary sanction imposed by a SEF should be published and made available to market participants.576 Such requirements, WMBAA argued, are necessary in order to prevent market participants from gaming the system and maintaining access to markets after violations.577 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting proposed § 37.206(n), subject to certain modifications.578 The Commission is revising proposed § 37.206(n) to clarify that a respondent’s disciplinary history should be taken into account in all sanction determinations, including sanctions imposed pursuant to an accepted settlement offer. Furthermore, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.206(n) so that it does not require customer restitution if the amount of restitution or the recipient cannot be reasonably
determined.579 The Commission acknowledges WMBAA’s comment that disciplinary sanctions may not be recognized and enforced consistently across SEFs. However, each SEF is a distinct entity with its own rulebook and set of disciplinary procedures. Therefore, each SEF must determine the sanctions that are appropriate for its own market and thus the same conduct may result in different sanctions at different SEFs. The Commission does not believe that such sanction variation supports the mandatory recognition of sanctions across SEFs. However, if a SEF believes that it is important to recognize and enforce sanctions against market participants imposed by other SEFs or DCMs, then the SEF may implement appropriate rules. The Commission agrees with WMBAA that any disciplinary sanction imposed by a SEF should be published and made available to market participants. Commission Regulation 9.11(a) requires that ‘‘[w]henever an exchange decision pursuant to which a disciplinary action or access denial action is to be imposed has become final, the exchange must, within thirty days thereafter, provide written notice of such action to . . . the Commission . . . .’’ 580 The Commission has issued guidance that an exchange may comply with § 9.11(a) by transmitting or delivering the notice to NFA to be included in NFA’s Background Affiliation Status Information Center database, which is available to the public online.581 The Commission also notes that a SEF may adopt rules regarding the publishing of disciplinary sanctions imposed by the SEF. (16) § 37.206(o)—Summary Fines for Violations of Rules Regarding Timely Submission of Records Proposed § 37.206(o) permitted a SEF to adopt a summary fine schedule for violations of rules relating to the timely submission of accurate records required for clearing or verifying each day’s transactions. Under the proposed rule, a SEF may permit its compliance staff to summarily impose minor sanctions against persons within the SEF’s jurisdiction for violating such rules. The proposed rule made clear that a SEF’s summary fine schedule must not permit more than one warning letter in a rolling 12-month period for the same violation before sanctions are imposed and must provide for progressively larger fines for recurring violations. (i) Summary of Comments CME objected to the restriction of one warning letter per rolling 12-month period.582 MarketAxess also requested that the Commission adopt a uniform approach with respect to warning letters, either permitting warning letters as a sanction or an indication of a finding of a violation in all SEF contexts.583 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is partially adopting proposed § 37.206(o) and is converting the remaining portion of the rule to guidance in appendix B to part 37.584 The Commission is maintaining as a rule the provision in the proposed rule that prohibits a SEF from issuing more than one warning letter per rolling 12- month period for the same violation. As discussed
above, the Commission believes that in order to ensure that warning letters serve as effective deterrents, and to preserve the value of disciplinary sanctions, no more than one warning letter may be issued to the same person or entity found to have committed the same rule violation within a rolling 12-month period.585 While a warning letter may be appropriate for a first-time violation, the Commission does not believe that more than one warning letter in a rolling 12- month period for the same violation is ever appropriate.586 However, in response to MarketAxess’s comment, the Commission is narrowing the application of this rule to warning letters that contain an affirmative finding that a rule violation has occurred. Additionally, in order to provide flexibility, the compliance date of this rule will be one year from the effective date of the final SEF rules so that persons and entities may adapt to the new SEF regime. The Commission is converting the remainder of proposed § 37.206(o) to guidance in appendix B to
part 37 because the proposed rule
allowed, but did not require, a SEF to adopt a summary fine schedule. (17) § 37.206(p)—Emergency Disciplinary Actions Proposed § 37.206(p) provided that a SEF may impose a sanction, including

587The Commission notes that, pursuant to § 9.11 and § 37.2, SEFs must provide the Commission with notice of any disciplinary actions that they take, including emergency disciplinary actions. 588The Commission is also revising the reference to § 37.206(j) in proposed § 37.206(p)(ii) given that the Commission has either eliminated or moved to guidance many of the provisions of proposed § 37.206(j). 589The Commission notes that this paragraph’s numbering is due to the renumbering of § 37.206. 590FXall Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011). 591MarketAxess Comment Letter at 34 (Mar. 8, 2011). 592 Id. 593WMBAA Comment Letter at 24 (Mar. 8, 2011). 594CEA section 5h(f)(2)(D); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(2)(D). 595CEA section 5h(f)(3); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(3). 596The Commission notes that in Argus’s joint DCM and SEF rulemaking comment letter dated Feb. 22, 2011, it commented on Core Principle 3 and specifically, the Commission’s guidance in
appendix C to part 38—Demonstration of
Compliance That a Contract is Not Readily Susceptible to Manipulation. The Commission has addressed Argus’s comments in the DCM final rulemaking, Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, 77 FR at 36633–34. The Commission also notes that in CME’s SEF rulemaking comment letter dated Mar. 8, 2011 and DCM rulemaking comment letter dated Feb. 22, 2011, it commented on the Commission’s guidance in appendix C to part 38. The Commission has also addressed CME’s comments in the DCM final rulemaking, Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, 77 FR at 36632–34. 597Reuters Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 598 GFI Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 599 Id. at 5. 600CEA section 5h(f)(3); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(3). a suspension, or take other summary action against a person or entity subject to its jurisdiction upon a reasonable belief that such immediate action is necessary to protect the best interest of the marketplace. The proposed rule also provided that any emergency action taken by the SEF must be in accordance with certain procedural safeguards as enumerated in the proposed rule.587 (i) Commission Determination Although the Commission received no comments on proposed § 37.206(p), the Commission is moving the entire rule to the guidance in appendix B to part 37 because it is a discretionary rule.588 The Commission also believes that adopting the proposed rule as guidance, rather than a rule, will provide SEFs greater flexibility in administering their obligations, consistent with the general comments seeking the same. The Commission is also codifying new § 37.206(g) 589 (titled ‘‘Additional sources for compliance’’) that permits SEFs to refer to the guidance and/or acceptable practices in appendix B to
part 37 to demonstrate to the
Commission compliance with the requirements of § 37.206. (h) § 37.207—Swaps Subject to Mandatory Clearing Proposed § 37.207 required that a SEF provide rules that when a swap dealer or major swap participant enters into or facilitates a swap transaction subject to the mandatory clearing requirement under section 2(h) of the Act, the swap dealer or major swap participant shall be responsible for complying with the mandatory trading requirement under
section 2(h)(8) of the Act.
(1) Summary of Comments FXall stated that proposed § 37.207 could be read to require a SEF to be responsible for policing the conduct of swap dealers and major swap participants generally, and not only with respect to their trading on such SEF.590 In this regard, MarketAxess stated that a SEF’s obligation to require swap dealers and major swap participants to comply with the mandatory trading requirement should only extend to swaps that are executed pursuant to its own rules.591 MarketAxess also noted that proposed § 37.207 is identical to proposed § 37.200(d) and therefore is unnecessary.592 WMBAA commented that there is no statutory basis to impose the requirement in proposed § 37.207.593 (2) Commission Determination The Commission agrees with MarketAxess that proposed § 37.207 is identical to § 37.200(d) and is therefore eliminating proposed § 37.207. In response to WMBAA’s comment, the Commission notes that § 37.200(d) recites the statutory text of Core Principle 2 and thus provides the statutory basis for codification of the statutory text as a regulation.594 To address FXall’s and MarketAxess’s concerns, the Commission clarifies that a SEF’s rules pursuant to § 37.200(d) need only apply to swaps executed on or pursuant to the rules of that SEF.
3. Subpart D—Core Principle 3 (Swaps
Not Readily Susceptible to Manipulation) Core Principle 3 requires that a SEF permit trading only in swaps that are not readily susceptible to manipulation.595 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 3 in proposed § 37.300, and adopts that rule as proposed. To demonstrate to the Commission compliance with Core Principle 3, proposed § 37.301 required a SEF to submit new swap contracts in advance to the Commission pursuant to part 40 of the Commission’s regulations, and provide to the Commission the information required under appendix C to part 38. The Commission also proposed guidance for compliance with Core Principle 3 under appendix B to
part 37, which noted the importance of
the reference price for a swap contract. The guidance also stated that Core Principle 3 requires that the reference price used by a swap not be readily susceptible to manipulation. (a) Summary of Comments 596 Reuters generally supported Core Principle 3, and the requirement that SEFs should have in place appropriate systems and controls to identify and manage situations where the market or individual swap contract may be susceptible to manipulation or fraud.597 GFI commented that once the Commission has declared a swap subject to mandatory clearing, a SEF should not be required to ensure that the contract is not readily susceptible to manipulation since such activity would be redundant.598 According to GFI, the Commission would not make a swap subject to mandatory clearing unless it believed that the swap is not subject to manipulation.599 (b) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.301 as proposed, subject to certain modifications for clarity. The Commission is deleting from the rule the references to prior approval or self￾certification for new product submissions under part 40 of the Commission’s regulations because those details are covered under § 37.4 and part
40. The Commission is also adding to
the rule a reference to the guidance and/ or acceptable practices in appendix B to
part 37. This reference was
inadvertently omitted from the SEF NPRM. In response to GFI’s comments, the Commission notes that section 5h of the Act requires that a SEF permit trading only in swaps that are not readily susceptible to manipulation.600 The Commission notes that this is a separate and distinct requirement for a SEF to comply with, as opposed to the Commission determination as to whether a swap is subject to mandatory clearing. The Commission does not have the authority under CEA section 4(c)(1) to exempt SEFs from complying with the core principles. The Commission notes that the requirement that a SEF permit trading in swaps that are not readily susceptible to manipulation requires a SEF to be responsible for the terms and conditions of the swap contracts which trade on its facility. To meet this requirement, the

601CEA section 5h(f)(4); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(4). 602 Id. 603Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1227. 604Bloomberg Comment Letter 3–4 (Jun. 3, 2011); Parity Energy Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 25, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 22 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 25 (Mar. 8, 2011). 605Tradeweb Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011). 606WMBAA Comment Letter at 25 (Mar. 8, 2011). 607 Id. 608CME Comment Letter at 24 (Feb. 22, 2011). 609 ICE Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 610 ICE Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 24 (Feb. 22, 2011). 611 ICE Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 8, 2011). 612CME Comment Letter at 24 (Feb. 22, 2011). 613 Id. at 25. 614 Id. 615 Id. 616 Id. guidance includes items that a SEF should consider in developing swap contract terms and conditions for both physical delivery and cash-settled contracts. The Commission recognizes that a SEF may permit trading in a wide range of swaps, some standardized and others customized and complex. The Commission staff is available to consult with SEFs should questions arise regarding the information that SEFs should submit to the Commission to satisfy the requirements of Core Principle 3, especially for the SEF’s more customized and complex swap contracts. The Commission will take into account these considerations when determining whether a SEF satisfies the requirements of Core Principle 3.
4. Subpart E—Core Principle 4
(Monitoring of Trading and Trade Processing) Under Core Principle 4, a SEF must establish and enforce rules or terms and conditions defining, or specifications detailing trading procedures to be used in entering and executing orders traded on or through the facilities of the SEF and procedures for trade processing of swaps on or through the facilities of the SEF.601 Core Principle 4 also requires a SEF to monitor trading in swaps to prevent manipulation, price distortion, and disruptions of the delivery or cash settlement process through surveillance, compliance, and disciplinary practices and procedures, including methods for conducting real-time monitoring of trading and comprehensive and accurate trade reconstructions.602 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 4 in proposed § 37.400, and adopts that rule as proposed. As discussed above under Core Principle 3, the Commission recognizes that a SEF may permit trading in a wide range of swaps, some standardized and others customized and complex. The Commission staff is available to consult with SEFs should questions arise regarding how to satisfy the requirements of Core Principle 4, especially for the SEF’s more customized and complex swap contracts. The Commission will take into account these considerations when determining whether a SEF satisfies the requirements of Core Principle 4. (a) § 37.401—General Requirements Proposed § 37.401(a) required a SEF to collect and evaluate data on individual traders’ market activity on an ongoing basis in order to detect and prevent manipulation, price distortions and, where possible, disruptions of the delivery or cash-settlement process. Proposed § 37.401(b) required a SEF to monitor and evaluate general market data in order to detect and prevent manipulative activity that would result in the failure of the market price to reflect the normal forces of supply and demand. Proposed § 37.401(c) required a SEF to have the capacity to conduct real-time monitoring of trading and comprehensive and accurate trade reconstruction. Further, the proposed rule required that intraday trade monitoring must include the capacity to detect abnormal price movements, unusual trading volumes, impairments to market liquidity, and position-limit violations. Finally, proposed § 37.401(d) required a SEF to have either manual processes or automated alerts that are effective in detecting and preventing trading abuses. The Commission noted in the SEF NPRM preamble that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a SEF to monitor for market disruptions in markets with high transaction volume and a large number of trades unless the SEF installed automated trading alerts.603 (1) Summary of Comments Several commenters sought clarification that proposed § 37.401 limits a SEF’s oversight of market participant activity to its own SEF.604 Tradeweb, for example, commented that a SEF cannot ensure that a marketplace other than its own has not
been manipulated to affect the SEF’s swaps because the SEF will not have enough information about the other marketplaces.605 WMBAA requested that the Commission clarify what it means by ‘‘individual traders’’ and ‘‘market activity’’ in proposed § 37.401(a).606 WMBAA also sought clarification regarding what constitutes ‘‘general market data’’ in proposed § 37.401(b).607 CME commented that the Commission’s requirements for real￾time monitoring in proposed § 37.401(c) are overly broad, and stated that requiring real-time monitoring capabilities across every instrument for vague terms such as ‘‘abnormal price movements,’’ ‘‘unusual trading volumes,’’ and ‘‘impairments to market liquidity’’ does not provide a SEF with sufficient clarity with respect to what specific capabilities satisfy the standard.608 Similarly, ICE requested that the Commission delete the phrase ‘‘impairments to market liquidity’’ from the rule, arguing that the wording is vague and has no foundation in the core principle.609 ICE and CME also expressed concern regarding the real-time monitoring of position limits.610 ICE stated that real￾time monitoring of position limits may be flawed given that option deltas change throughout the day, the destination of allocated and give-up transactions are not immediately known, and off-exchange transactions may not be reported in real-time.611 CME stated that effective real-time monitoring of position limits is challenging given that the identical contract will frequently trade in multiple competitive venues.612 In response to the Commission’s questions in the SEF NPRM regarding high frequency trading, CME raised concerns over the absence of a definition for high frequency trading, which CME claimed can include many different trading strategies.613 CME questioned whether the Commission had unique concerns about high frequency traders, and further remarked that the Commission has not articulated what purpose would be served by singling out high frequency trading for special monitoring.614 CME stated, however, that it has the capability to monitor the messaging frequency of participants in their markets and can quickly and easily identify which participants generate high messaging traffic.615 With respect to the ability of automated trading systems to detect and flag high frequency trading anomalies, CME commented that it is unclear what specific types of anomalies would be uniquely of concern in the context of a high frequency trader as opposed to any other type of trader.616 CME noted that its systems were designed to identify anomalies or transaction patterns that violate their rules or might otherwise be

617 Id.
618The Commission is moving proposed § 37.401(d) to the guidance in appendix B to part 37 and moving the ‘‘trade reconstruction’’ language in proposed § 37.401(c) to final § 37.401(d). 619CEA section 5h(f)(4)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(4)(B). 620Refer to the guidance under Core Principle 4 in appendix B to part 37 for examples of methods for monitoring market activity beyond a SEF’s own market. 621See discussion below under § 37.403— Additional Requirements for Cash-Settled Swaps and § 37.404—Ability To Obtain Information in the preamble. 622See, e.g., ‘‘Recommendations on Pre-Trade Practices for Trading Firms, Clearing Firms and Exchanges involved in Direct Market Access,’’ Pre￾Trade Functionality Subcommittee of the CFTC’s Technology Advisory Committee (Mar. 1, 2011) (‘‘TAC Subcommittee Recommendations’’), available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/ public/@swaps/documents/dfsubmission/ tacpresentation030111_ptfs2.pdf. The Commission notes that the subcommittee report was submitted to the TAC and made available for public comment, but no final action has been taken by the full committee. 623See UK Government Office for Science, Foresight Project, The Future of Computer Trading in Financial Markets (working paper), available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/foresight/our-work/projects/ current-projects/computer-trading/working-paper. 624CME Comment Letter at 25 (Feb. 22, 2011). 625Parity Energy Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 25, 2011). indicative of some other risk to the orderly functioning of the markets.617 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.401 as proposed, subject to certain modifications, including converting portions of the rule to guidance in
appendix B to part 37.618
To address commenters’ concerns whether § 37.401 requires a SEF to monitor market activity beyond its own market, the Commission notes that the Act requires a SEF to monitor trading in swaps to prevent manipulation, price distortion, and disruptions of the delivery or cash settlement process.619 Given this statutory requirement, there are certain instances where a SEF must monitor market activity beyond its own market.620 As noted below, a SEF must assess whether trading in a third-party index or instrument used as a reference price or the underlying commodity for its listed swaps is being used to affect prices on its market.621 The Commission, however, provides flexibility to SEFs by not prescribing in the regulations the specific methods for monitoring. To provide additional flexibility, in instances where a SEF can demonstrate to the Commission that trading activity off the SEF’s facility is not relevant to threats of manipulation, distortion, or disruption for trading conducted on its own facility, then the SEF may limit monitoring to trading activity on its own facility. In response to WMBAA’s concerns regarding the clarification of certain terms in § 37.401(a), the Commission is revising the rule text to change the term ‘‘individual traders’’ to ‘‘market participants’’ as ‘‘individual traders’’ was meant to apply to a SEF’s market participants. The Commission also clarifies that ‘‘market activity’’ means its market participants’ ‘‘trading’’ activity. In § 37.401(b), ‘‘general market data’’ means that a SEF shall monitor and evaluate general market conditions related to its swaps. For example, a SEF must monitor the pricing of the underlying commodity or a third-party index or instrument used as a reference price for its swaps as compared to the prices on its markets. The Commission is also revising the rule to clarify that: (a) Real-time monitoring is to detect and, when necessary, resolve abnormalities; and (b) reconstructing trading activity is to detect instances or threats of manipulation, price distortion, and disruptions. In the guidance, the Commission is clarifying that monitoring of trading activity in listed swaps should be designed to prevent manipulation, price distortion, and disruptions. The Commission believes that SEFs should have rules in place that allow it to intervene to prevent or reduce market disruptions given such requirement in Core Principle 4. The Commission also notes that once a threatened or actual disruption is detected, the SEF should take steps to prevent the disruption or reduce its severity. In the guidance, the Commission is also clarifying what activities should be included in real-time monitoring as compared to what activities may be done on a T+1 basis. The Commission believes that monitoring of price movements and trading volumes in order to detect, and when necessary, resolve abnormalities should be accomplished in real time in order to achieve, as much as possible, the statute’s emphasis on
preventive actions. It is acceptable, however, to have a program that detects instances or threats of manipulation, price distortion, and disruptions on at least a T+1 basis, incorporating any additional data that is available on such T+1 basis, including trade reconstruction data. The Commission notes that it dropped the requirements for a SEF to monitor for ‘‘impairments to market liquidity’’ and ‘‘position limit violations’’ given commenters’ concerns about the difficulty of such monitoring. The Commission is moving to guidance the requirement to have automated alerts in proposed § 37.401(d). The Commission believes that automated trading alerts, preferably in real time, are the most effective means of detecting market anomalies. However, a SEF may demonstrate that its manual processes are effective. As for the Commission’s inquiry in the SEF NPRM about requiring additional monitoring of high frequency trading, the Commission believes that a SEF should be capable of monitoring all types of trading that may occur on its facility, including trading that may be characterized as ‘‘high frequency.’’ The Commission has decided not to implement, at this time, further rules pertaining to the monitoring of high frequency trading. The Commission is encouraged that there are efforts underway both within and outside of the Commission, to define and develop approaches for better monitoring of high-frequency and algorithmic trading. This is particularly evident from recent work done at the request of the Commission’s Technology Advisory Committee (‘‘TAC’’).622 Further, the United Kingdom government’s Foresight Project also commissioned a recently released report on the future of computer trading in financial markets, which aims to assess the risks and benefits of automated buying and selling.623 These efforts may assist the Commission’s further development of a regulatory framework for high frequency trading activities. (b) § 37.402—Additional Requirements for Physical-Delivery Swaps Proposed § 37.402 required, for physical-delivery swaps, that a SEF monitor each swap’s terms and conditions, monitor the adequacy of deliverable supplies, assess whether supplies are available to those making physical delivery and saleable by those taking delivery, and monitor the ownership of deliverable supplies. Proposed § 37.402 also required that a SEF address any conditions that are causing price distortions or market disruptions. (1) Summary of Comments CME commented that proposed § 37.402 should be an acceptable practice instead of a prescriptive rule.624 Parity Energy commented that in a market where numerous SEFs permit trading in identical swaps, requiring each SEF to monitor the adequacy, size, and ownership of deliverable supply as well as the delivery locations and commodity characteristics is duplicative, unmanageable, and creates the risk of conflicting conclusions.625

626The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.402(a)(1) and (a)(2) to § 37.402(a) and (b), respectively. The Commission is deleting or moving to guidance proposed § 37.402(a)(3), (a)(4), and (b). 627Proposed § 37.402(a)(2) is now final § 37.402(b). 628Argus Comment Letter at 6 (Feb. 22, 2011). 629 Id. 630 Id. at 7. 631Parity Energy Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 25, 2011); ICE Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011); Nodal Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011). 632 ICE Comment Letter at 4–5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 633CME Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011). 634 Id. 635 Id. 636Nodal Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 637The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.403(a)(1) and (a)(2) to § 37.403(a), (b), and (c). The Commission is moving proposed § 37.403(b) to § 37.404(a). 638CEA section 5h(f)(4)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(4)(B). 639Final § 37.403(a) was proposed § 37.403(a)(1). 640Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1228. 641The Commission is renumbering proposed § 37.403(a)(2) to § 37.403(b). (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.402 as proposed, subject to certain modifications, including converting portions of the rule to guidance in
appendix B to part 37.626 In response to
comments and to provide SEFs with greater flexibility, the Commission is revising the requirement in proposed § 37.402(a)(2) 627 so that SEFs only have to monitor the ‘‘availability’’ of the commodity supply instead of monitoring whether the supply is ‘‘adequate.’’ The Commission is also removing from proposed § 37.402 the requirements that SEFs monitor specific details of the supply, marketing, and ownership of the commodity to be physically delivered. Instead, appendix B to part 37 lists guidance for monitoring conditions that may cause a physical-delivery swap to become susceptible to price manipulation or distortion, including monitoring the general availability of the commodity specified by the swap, the commodity’s general characteristics, the delivery locations, and, if available, information on the size and ownership of deliverable supplies. Moving these specific details to guidance will provide SEFs with additional flexibility in meeting their monitoring obligations associated with physical-delivery swaps. (c) § 37.403—Additional Requirements for Cash-Settled Swaps Proposed § 37.403(a) required, for cash-settled swaps, that a SEF monitor:
(a) The availability and pricing of the commodity making up the index to which the swap is settled and; (b) the continued appropriateness of the methodology for deriving the index for SEFs that compute their own indices. Where a swap is settled by reference to the price of an instrument traded in another venue, proposed § 37.403(b) required that the SEF either have an information sharing agreement with the other venue or be able to independently determine that positions or trading in the reference instrument are not being manipulated to affect positions or trading in its swap. (1) Summary of Comments Argus expressed concern regarding the requirement in proposed § 37.403(a)(1) for a SEF to monitor the availability and pricing of the commodity making up the index to which the swap will be settled, particularly where an index price is published based upon transactions that are executed off the SEF.628 Argus noted that if a SEF is required to perform this monitoring function, a SEF may choose not to list the swap and market participants would not have a hedging instrument.629 Argus also commented that the cost to monitor transactions that are executed off of the SEF could be prohibitive.630 Several commenters expressed concern about the requirement in proposed § 37.403(b) that a SEF have an information sharing agreement with, or monitor positions or trading in, another venue when a swap listed on the SEF is settled by reference to the price of an instrument traded on another venue.631 ICE stated that the proposal places an undue burden on SEFs to monitor positions held at other trading venues, and that this requirement would be more efficiently facilitated by a central regulatory body such as the Commission.632 Similarly, CME stated that the Commission is uniquely situated to add regulatory value to the industry by reviewing for potential cross-venue rule violations because the Commission is the central repository for position information delivered to it on a daily basis in a common format across all venues.633 CME asserted that the SEF NPRM’s proposed alternative of requiring SEFs and their customers to report information that the Commission already receives or will be receiving is an onerous burden.634 CME further asserted that the SEF NPRM’s other proposed alternative, that the SEF enter into an information-sharing agreement with the other venue, will result in additional costs to both entities and that it may not be practical or prudent for a SEF to enter into such an agreement with the other venue.635 Finally, Nodal stated that a SEF that is a party to an industry agreement such as the International Information Sharing Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement should satisfy the information sharing requirement in the proposed rule by virtue of such agreement.636 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.403 as proposed, subject to certain modifications, including converting portions of the rule to guidance in
appendix B to part 37.637 The Act
requires SEFs to monitor trading in swaps to prevent disruptions of the cash settlement process.638 However, in response to Argus’s comment about the costs of proposed § 37.403(a)(1), the Commission has removed from the rule the requirement that a SEF monitor the availability and pricing of the commodity making up the index to which the swap will be settled. Section 37.403(a) 639 now requires that a SEF monitor the pricing of the reference price used to determine cash flows or settlement. The Commission believes that SEFs must monitor the pricing of the reference price in order to comply with Core Principle 4’s requirement to prevent manipulation, price distortion, and disruptions of the cash settlement process. As noted in the SEF NPRM, market participants may have incentives to disrupt or manipulate reference prices for cash-settled swaps.640 Although no comments were received on proposed § 37.403(a)(2),641 the Commission is revising the rule so that the requirement for monitoring the continued appropriateness of the methodology for deriving the reference price only applies when the reference price is formulated and computed by the SEF. In order to reduce the burden on SEFs, the Commission is clarifying in new § 37.403(c) that when the reference price relies on a third-party index or instrument, including an index or instrument traded on another venue, the SEF must only monitor the ‘‘continued appropriateness’’ of the index or instrument as opposed to specifically monitoring the ‘‘continued appropriateness of the methodology’’ for deriving the index. To provide SEFs with greater flexibility, the Commission is moving the other requirements for monitoring in proposed § 37.403(a)(2) to the guidance in appendix B to part 37. Specifically, the guidance notes that if a SEF computes its own reference price, it should promptly amend any methodologies or impose new methodologies as necessary to resolve threats of disruption or distortions. For

642CEA section 5h(f)(4)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(4)(B). 643CME Comment Letter at 26 (Feb. 22, 2011). 644WMBAA Comment Letter at 26 (Mar. 8, 2011). 645The Commission is changing the phrase ‘‘traders in its swaps’’ to ‘‘its market participants’’ to provide clarity. 646The Commission notes that this requirement is now in § 37.404(a). 647The Commission notes that this requirement is now in § 37.404(b). 648CEA section 5h(f)(4)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(4)(B). 649See, e.g., comments below under Core Principle 6—Position Limits or Accountability in the preamble. 650Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1228. 651 Id. reference prices that rely upon a third￾party index or instrument, the Commission notes in the guidance that the SEF should conduct due diligence to ensure that the reference price is not susceptible to manipulation. With respect to commenters’ concerns about the requirement in proposed § 37.403(b) for a SEF to have an information-sharing agreement with, or monitor positions or trading in, another venue when a swap listed on the SEF is settled by reference to the price of an instrument traded on another venue, the Commission notes that the Act requires SEFs to monitor trading in swaps to prevent disruptions of the cash settlement process.642 Given this statutory requirement, the Commission believes that a SEF must have access to sufficient information to determine whether trading in the instrument or index used as a reference price for its listed swaps is being used to affect prices on its market. The Commission is adopting this general requirement, but is moving it to § 37.404 where it more logically belongs. Although, as CME noted, the Commission does obtain certain position information in the large-trader reporting systems for swaps, the Commission may not routinely obtain such position information, including where a SEF’s swap settles to the price of a non-U.S. index or instrument. However, in response to ICE’s and CME’s concerns and to reduce the burden on SEFs, the Commission is removing from the rule text the requirement for SEFs to assess ‘‘positions’’ and is moving it to the guidance in appendix B to part 37. The Commission is also moving to the guidance the specific methods for a SEF to obtain information to assess whether trading in the reference market is being used to affect prices on its market. The guidance also allows SEFs to limit such information gathering to market participants that conduct substantial trading on its facility. (d) § 37.404—Ability To Obtain Information Proposed § 37.404(a) provided that a SEF must have rules that require traders in its swaps to keep and make available records of their activity in underlying commodities and related derivatives markets and swaps. Proposed § 37.404(b) required that a SEF with customers trading through intermediaries have a large-trader reporting system or other means to obtain position information. (1) Summary of Comments CME commented that the
Commission should specify in acceptable practices the types of records that traders are required to keep under proposed § 37.404(a).643 WMBAA commented that the requirement for a SEF to force traders to maintain trading and financial records is not required under the CEA.644 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.404 as proposed, subject to certain modifications, including providing guidance in appendix B to part 37.645 As noted above in the discussion of § 37.403, the Commission is moving to § 37.404 the requirement for a SEF to assess whether trading in swaps listed on its market, in the index or instrument used as a reference price, or in the underlying commodity for its swaps is being used to affect prices in its market.646 With respect to CME’s and WMBAA’s comments on proposed § 37.404(a),647 the Commission disagrees that this rule is unnecessary or that the requirements should instead be codified as acceptable practices. Core Principle 4 requires a SEF to monitor trading in swaps to prevent manipulation, price distortion, and disruptions.648 In its experience regulating the futures market, the Commission has found market participants’ records to be an invaluable tool in its surveillance efforts, and believes that a SEF should have direct access to such information in order to discharge its obligations under the SEF core principles, including Core Principle 4. However, the Commission notes that in the guidance for this rule, a SEF may limit the application of this requirement to those market participants who conduct substantial trading activity on its facility, which is consistent with the Commission’s similar requirements that large traders keep records for futures trading under § 18.05 and for swaps trading under § 20.6 of the Commission’s regulations. The Commission also notes that the requirement for market participants to keep such records is sound commercial practice, and that market participants are likely already maintaining such trading records. In response to CME’s comment, the Commission notes that the nature of records covered varies with the type of market and a market participant’s involvement, but would generally include purchases, sales, ownership, production, processing, and use of swaps, the underlying commodity, and other derivatives that have some relationship to, or effect on, the market participant’s trading in the listed swap. The Commission is also deleting the requirements under proposed § 37.404(b) and replacing it, in the guidance, with a more general requirement for a SEF to demonstrate that it can obtain position and trading information directly from market participants or, if not available from them, through information-sharing agreements. Moreover, the guidance for this rule allows a SEF to limit the acquisition of such information to those market participants who conduct substantial trading on its facility. The Commission is making this change in response to commenters’ concerns, as noted
in other sections, about obtaining position information because a SEF will not have the capability to monitor trading activities conducted on other trading venues.649 (e) § 37.405—Risk Controls for Trading Proposed § 37.405 required that a SEF have risk controls to reduce the potential risk of market disruptions, including, but not limited to, market restrictions that pause or halt trading in market conditions prescribed by the SEF. Additionally, the rule provided that where a SEF’s swap is linked to, or a substitute for, other swaps on the SEF or on other trading venues, including where a swap is based on the level of an equity index, such risk controls must be coordinated with those on the similar markets or trading venues, to the extent possible. The preamble of the SEF NPRM recognized that pauses and halts are only one category of risk controls, and that additional controls may be necessary to further reduce the potential for market disruptions.650 The SEF NPRM preamble specifically listed several risk controls that the Commission believed may be appropriate, including price collars or bands, maximum order size limits, stop loss order protections, kill buttons, and any others that may be suggested by commenters.651

652 ICE Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 27 (Feb. 22, 2011). 653CME Comment Letter at 27 (Feb. 22, 2011). 654 ICE Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 655 Id. 656SDMA Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 657 Id. at 6. 658 Id. See TAC Subcommittee Recommendations (Mar. 1, 2011). The report recommended several pre-trade risk controls for implementation at the exchange level, which were largely consistent with the pre-trade controls listed in the preamble to the SEF NPRM. 659CME Comment Letter at 26 (Feb. 22, 2011). 660 Id. 661 Id. 662Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1228. 663TAC Subcommittee Recommendations (Mar. 1, 2011). 664The preamble to the SEF NPRM specifically mentioned daily price limits, order size limits, trading pauses, stop logic functionality, among others. Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1228. 665TAC Subcommittee Recommendations at 4–5 (Mar. 1, 2011). The TAC discussed this report’s findings at its meeting on March 1, 2011. See Transcript of Third Meeting of Technology Advisory Committee (Mar. 1, 2011) available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/ @newsroom/documents/file/ tac_030111_transcript.pdf. 666TAC Subcommittee Recommendations at 4 (Mar. 1, 2011). 667CEA section 5h(f)(4)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(4)(B). 668CME Comment Letter at 27 (Feb. 22, 2011). (1) Summary of Comments Several commenters asserted that a SEF should have some discretion to determine the specific risk controls that are implemented within its markets.652 CME commented that the marketplace would benefit from some standardization of the types of pre-trade risk controls employed by SEFs and other trading venues, and expressed support for an acceptable practices framework that includes pre-trade quantity limits, price banding, and messaging throttles, but argued that the specific parameters of such controls should be determined by each SEF.653 ICE recommended that the Commission take a flexible approach to risk controls so as not to hinder innovation in developing new mechanisms to prevent market disruptions.654 ICE did, however, recommend that the Commission expressly require a SEF to have pre-trade risk controls or checks, which are especially important in thinly traded markets where RFQs are more common.655 SDMA supported the requirement in proposed § 37.405, but noted that the rule should include pre-trade and post￾trade risk control requirements that are uniform across the market.656 SDMA noted that a uniform approach would create a much needed single regulatory approach to risk management across the derivatives market, enhance market integrity, and decrease systemic risk.657 SDMA agreed with the best practices for pre-trade and post-trade risk controls as noted in the Pre-Trade Functionality Subcommittee of the CFTC TAC’s Recommendations on Pre-Trade Practices for Trading Firms, Clearing Firms and
Exchanges involved in Direct Market Access.658 Finally, CME objected to the requirement to coordinate risk controls.659 CME stated that a SEF should retain the flexibility to determine and implement risk controls that it believes are necessary to protect the integrity of its markets.660 CME recommended that the Commission work constructively with registered entities to facilitate coordination.661 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting proposed § 37.405, subject to certain modifications, including converting a portion of the rule to the guidance in
appendix B to part 37. As stated in the
SEF NPRM, the Commission believes that pauses and halts are effective risk management tools that must be implemented by a SEF to facilitate orderly markets.662 Automated risk control mechanisms, including pauses and halts, have proven to be effective and necessary in preventing market disruptions in the futures market and, therefore, will remain as part of the rule. As noted by SDMA, the Pre-Trade Functionality Subcommittee of the TAC issued a report that recommended the implementation of several trade risk controls at the exchange level.663 The controls recommended in the Subcommittee report were consistent, in large part, with the trade controls referenced in the preamble to the SEF NPRM, and which are being adopted in the guidance in appendix B to part
37.664 The TAC accepted the
Subcommittee report, which specifically recommended that exchanges implement pre-trade limits on order size, price collars around the current price, intraday position limits (of a type that represent financial risk to the clearing member), message throttles, and clear error-trade and order￾cancellation policies.665 The Subcommittee report also noted that ‘‘[s]ome measure of standardization of pre-trade risk controls at the exchange level is the cheapest, most effective and most robust path to addressing the Commission’s concern [for preserving market integrity].’’ 666 The Commission believes that the implementation of specific types of other risk controls is generally desirable, but also recognizes that such risk controls should be adapted to the unique characteristics of the markets to which they apply. A SEF implementing any such additional risk controls should consider the balance between avoiding a market disruption while not impeding a market’s price discovery function. Controls that unduly restrict a market’s ability to respond to legitimate market events will interfere with price discovery. Accordingly, consistent with many of the comments on this subject, the Commission is enumerating specific types of risk controls, in addition to pauses and halts, that a SEF may implement in the guidance rather than in the rule, in order to provide a SEF with greater discretion to select among the enumerated risk controls, or to create new risk controls that meet the unique characteristics of its markets. A SEF will also have discretion in determining the parameters for the selected controls. Additionally, in response to CME’s concern about the requirement to coordinate risk controls, the Commission is moving this language from proposed § 37.405 to the guidance. Specifically, a SEF with a swap that is fungible with, linked to, or a substitute for other swaps on the SEF or on other trading venues, should, to the extent practicable, coordinate its risk controls with any similar controls placed on those other swaps. The guidance also states that if a SEF’s swap is based on the level of an equity index, such risk controls should, to the extent practicable, be coordinated with any similar controls placed on national security exchanges. (f) § 37.406—Trade Reconstruction Under Core Principle 4, Congress required that a SEF have the ability to comprehensively and accurately reconstruct all trading on its facility.667 Proposed § 37.406 set forth this requirement, including the requirement that audit-trail data and reconstructions be made available to the Commission in a form, manner, and time as determined by the Commission. (1) Summary of Comments CME commented that audit trail data is extremely detailed and voluminous and that SEFs should be given adequate time to prepare the trading data before it is supplied to the Commission.668 In this regard, CME recommended that the wording ‘‘in a form, manner, and time as determined by the Commission’’ be

669 Id.
670CEA section 5h(f)(5); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(5). 671CEA section 5h(f)(5)(A); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(5)(A). 672WMBAA Comment Letter at 26 (Mar. 8, 2011). 673 Id. 674 Id. 675MarketAxess Comment Letter at 37 (Mar. 8, 2011). 676The Commission is changing the terms ‘‘participants’’ and ‘‘traders’’ to ‘‘market participants’’ to provide clarity. 677CEA section 5h(f)(4)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(4)(B). 678CEA section 5h(f)(5)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(5)(B). replaced with ‘‘such reasonable time as determined by the Commission.’’ 669 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is revising the rule so that a SEF shall be required to make audit trail data and reconstructions available to the Commission ‘‘in a form, manner, and time that is acceptable to the Commission.’’ The Commission notes that it will work with SEFs to provide them with adequate time to supply such information to the Commission. (g) § 37.407—Additional Rules Required Proposed § 37.407 required a SEF to adopt and enforce any additional rules that it believes are necessary to comply with the requirements of subpart E of
part 37.
(1) Commission Determination Although the Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed rule, the Commission is revising the rule to state that applicants and SEFs may refer to the guidance and/or acceptable practices in appendix B to part 37 to demonstrate to the Commission compliance with the requirements of
section 37.400. The Commission is also
moving proposed § 37.407 to new § 37.408, titled ‘‘Additional sources for compliance.’’ In new § 37.407, titled ‘‘Regulatory service provider,’’ the Commission is clarifying that a SEF can comply with the regulations in subpart E through a dedicated regulatory department or by contracting with a regulatory service provider pursuant to § 37.204.
5. Subpart F—Core Principle 5 (Ability
To Obtain Information)
Core Principle 5 requires a SEF to: (a) Establish and enforce rules that will allow the facility to obtain any necessary information to perform any of the functions described in section 5h of the Act, (b) provide the information to the Commission on request, and (c) have the capacity to carry out international information-sharing agreements as the Commission may require.670 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 5 in proposed § 37.500, and adopts that rule as proposed. (a) § 37.501—Establish and Enforce Rules Proposed § 37.501 required a SEF to establish and enforce rules that will allow the SEF to have the ability and authority to obtain sufficient information to allow it to fully perform its operational, risk management, governance, and regulatory functions and any requirements under part 37, including the capacity to carry out international information-sharing agreements as the Commission may require. (1) Commission Determination The Commission received no comments on proposed § 37.501 and is adopting the rule as proposed. The Commission believes that § 37.501 appropriately implements the requirement in Core Principle 5 for a SEF to establish and enforce rules that will allow the SEF to obtain any necessary information to perform any of its functions described in section 5h of the Act.671 (b) § 37.502—Collection of Information Proposed § 37.502 required a SEF to have rules that allow it to collect information on a routine basis, allow for the collection of non-routine data from its participants, and allow for its examination of books and records kept by the traders on its facility. (1) Summary of Comments WMBAA commented that aside from participants who contractually agree to provide information, a SEF does not possess the legal authority to obtain such information.672 Additionally, WMBAA stated that the burden to collect information should be placed upon counterparties.673 In the alternative, WMBAA stated that the Commission should require a SEF and its participants to enter into third party service provider agreements for the collection of the required information.674 MarketAxess commented that it is not clear what is meant by ‘‘non-routine data’’ in proposed § 37.502 and that the rule should make clear that a SEF is only required to collect and maintain participant information that is directly related to such participants’ activity conducted pursuant to the SEF’s rules.675 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.502 as proposed.676 In response to WMBAA’s and MarketAxess’s comments, the Commission notes that Core Principle 5 requires a SEF to establish and enforce rules that will allow it to obtain any necessary information to perform any of its functions described in section 5h of the Act. The Act and the Commission’s regulations provide a SEF with the legal authority to collect such information. As mentioned in § 37.204 above, a SEF may contract with a regulatory service
provider to perform regulatory services on behalf of a SEF. Thus, a SEF may enter into a third party regulatory service provider agreement for the collection of information under § 37.502. Additionally, as mentioned in § 37.404 above, the Act requires SEFs to monitor trading in swaps to prevent manipulation, price distortion, and disruptions through surveillance, compliance, and disciplinary practices and procedures.677 The Commission believes that market participant records are a valuable tool in conducting an effective surveillance program; thus, a SEF should have direct access to such information in order to discharge its obligations under the core principles. The Commission notes that market participants are likely maintaining trading records as part of sound business practices so requiring SEFs to have rules that allow them to access such information should not present a burden. To address MarketAxess’s comment about ‘‘non-routine data,’’ the Commission clarifies that ‘‘non-routine data’’ means the collection of data on an ad-hoc basis, such as data that may be collected during an investigation. (c) § 37.503—Provide Information to the Commission Proposed § 37.503 required a SEF to provide information in its possession to the Commission upon request, in a form and manner that the Commission approves. (1) Commission Determination The Commission received no comments on proposed § 37.503 and is adopting the rule as proposed. The Commission believes that § 37.503 appropriately implements the requirement in Core Principle 5 for a SEF to provide information to the Commission on request.678 (d) § 37.504—Information-Sharing Agreements Proposed § 37.504 required a SEF to share information with other regulatory organizations, data repositories, and reporting services as required by the

679WMBAA Comment Letter at 27 (Mar. 8, 2011). 680 Id. 681CEA section 5h(f)(6); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(6). 682 Id. 683Bloomberg Comment Letter at 3–4 (Jun. 3, 2011); Alice Comment Letter at 5 (May 31, 2011); Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 22 (Apr. 5, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 27 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011); Reuters Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Phoenix Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 7, 2011). 684WMBAA Comment Letter at 2 (Apr. 11, 2013); Bloomberg Comment Letter at 3–4 (Jun. 3, 2011); Rosen et al. Comment Letter at 22 (Apr. 5, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 27 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011); Phoenix Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 7, 2011). 685Phoenix Comment Letter at 3–4 (Mar. 7, 2011). 686WMBAA Comment Letter at 27 (Mar. 8, 2011). 687Reuters Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Phoenix Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 7, 2011). 688Alice Comment Letter at 5 (May 31, 2011). 689Phoenix Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 7, 2011). 690Tradeweb Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011). 691See Position Limits for Derivatives, 76 FR 4752 (proposed Jan. 26, 2011). 692Part 150 of the Commission’s regulations contains the current position limits regime. Commission or as otherwise necessary and appropriate to fulfill its self￾regulatory and reporting responsibilities. The proposed rule also stated that appropriate information￾sharing agreements can be established with such entities or the Commission can act in conjunction with the SEF to carry out such information sharing. (1) Summary of Comments WMBAA commented that the proposed rule could be interpreted to require a SEF to share information with its competitors, unless the information is disseminated by a neutral third party pursuant to a services agreement.679 WMBAA also requested clarification regarding the circumstances in which the Commission would determine to carry out information sharing itself, as opposed to a SEF entering into information-sharing agreements with the relevant entity.680 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.504 as proposed, subject to one modification. The Commission is revising the rule to change the term ‘‘reporting services’’ to ‘‘third party data reporting services.’’ The Commission clarifies that the term ‘‘reporting services’’ was meant to refer to independent third parties that would provide trading data on a public basis and was not meant to include competitor SEFs. To address WMBAA’s comment about information sharing, the Commission clarifies that a SEF may work with the Commission to fulfill its information sharing requirements in the absence of agreements with SDRs, regulatory bodies, or third party data reporting services. Given that each SEF is unique, a particular SEF would need to contact the Commission to discuss how the information sharing requirements could be fulfilled.
6. Subpart G—Core Principle 6 (Position
Limits or Accountability) Core Principle 6 requires that a SEF adopt for each swap, as is necessary and appropriate, position limits or position accountability to reduce the potential threat of market manipulation or congestion.681 In addition, Core Principle 6 requires that for any contract that is subject to a federal position limit under CEA section 4a(a), the SEF set its position limits at a level no higher than the position limitation established by the Commission and monitor positions established on or through the SEF for compliance with the limit set by the Commission and the limit, if any, set by the SEF.682 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 6 in proposed § 37.600, and adopts that rule as proposed. Proposed § 37.601 repeated the requirements in § 37.600 and required that SEFs establish position limits in accordance with the requirements set forth in part 151 of the Commission’s regulations. (a) Summary of Comments Several commenters stated that SEFs will have difficulty enforcing position limitations.683 Many of these commenters noted that SEFs will lack knowledge of a market participant’s activity on other venues, and that will prevent a SEF from being able to calculate the true position of a market participant.684 In this regard, Phoenix stated that market participants will be allowed to trade on multiple SEFs so any one SEF’s information concerning a market participant’s position will be virtually meaningless, as the market participant may sell a large position on one SEF and simultaneously buy the same amount of the instrument on another SEF.685 WMBAA recommended that a common regulatory organization or third party regulatory service provider monitor position limits because they will have the capability to ensure coordinated oversight of the trading activity on multiple SEFs and the ability to implement disciplinary action if needed.686 Reuters and Phoenix recommended that the Commission or its designee monitor position limits.687 Alice recommended that, for cleared swaps, DCOs maintain position limits, and when a swap is cleared by multiple DCOs, one DCO would be the primary for a given participant and the other DCOs would report positions to that DCO.688 Despite the concerns raised by other commenters, Phoenix noted that, if required, a SEF can monitor position limits of market participants based upon the trading activity that takes place only on the SEF’s platform.689 Tradeweb also requested confirmation from the Commission that a SEF must only monitor its market participants’ position limits or positions in particular instruments with respect to positions entered into on its own platforms.690 (b) Commission Determination In response to commenters concerns about monitoring position limits, the Commission is removing the requirements in § 37.601. Instead, final § 37.601 states that until such time that compliance is required under part 151 of this chapter,691 a SEF may refer to
the guidance and/or acceptable practices in
appendix B to part 37 to demonstrate to
the Commission compliance with the requirements of § 37.600. The guidance provides a SEF with reasonable discretion to comply with § 37.600, including considering part 150 of the Commission’s regulations.692 The guidance also states that for Required Transactions as defined in § 37.9, a SEF may demonstrate compliance with § 37.600 by setting and enforcing position limitations or position accountability levels only with respect to trading on the SEF’s own market. For example, a SEF could satisfy the position accountability requirement by setting up a compliance program that continuously monitors the trading activity of its market participants and has procedures in place for remedying any violations of position levels. For Permitted Transactions as defined in § 37.9, a SEF may demonstrate compliance with § 37.600 by setting and enforcing position accountability levels or sending the Commission a list of Permitted Transactions traded on the SEF. Therefore, a SEF is not required to monitor its market participants’ activity on other venues with respect to monitoring position limits. In response to comments that a common regulatory organization or the Commission should monitor position limits, the Commission notes that Core Principle 6 places the responsibility on a SEF to adopt and monitor position limits. The Dodd-Frank Act does not mandate that a common regulatory organization or the Commission monitor position limits. The Dodd-Frank Act also does not provide the Commission with the authority to exempt a SEF from

693CEA section 5h(f)(7); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(7). 694The Commission is renaming the title of this
section from ‘‘Mandatory Clearing’’ to ‘‘Required
Clearing’’ to be consistent with terminology used in the CEA and the Commission’s regulations. 695 ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 13 (Mar. 8, 2011). 696 Id. 697MarketAxess Comment Letter at 38 (Mar. 8, 2011). 698CEA section 5b(h); 7 U.S.C. 7a–1(h). 699 Id. 700The Commission will address any necessary revisions to part 37 at such time as it determines to exercise its discretionary authority to exempt DCOs from certain DCO registration requirements. For example, if exempt DCOs are limited to clearing for only certain types of market participants, then the Commission will take action to ensure that SEF market participants have impartial access to swap clearing through registered DCOs. certain core principles. Therefore, the Commission is providing a SEF with flexibility to adopt and monitor position limits as described above.
7. Subpart H—Core Principle 7
(Financial Integrity of Transactions) Core Principle 7 requires a SEF to establish and enforce rules and procedures for ensuring the financial integrity of swaps entered on or through the facilities of the SEF, including the clearance and settlement of the swaps pursuant to section 2(h)(1) of the Act.693 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 7 in proposed § 37.700, and adopts that rule as proposed. (a) § 37.701—Mandatory Clearing 694 Proposed § 37.701 required transactions executed on or through a SEF to be cleared through a Commission registered DCO unless the transaction is excepted from clearing under section 2(h)(7) of the Act or the swap is not subject to the clearing requirement under section 2(h)(1) of the Act. (1) Summary of Comments ISDA/SIFMA commented that section 2(h)(1) of the CEA provides that swaps subject to the clearing requirement must be submitted for clearing to a registered DCO or a DCO that is exempt from registration; however, proposed § 37.701 requires that transactions executed through a SEF be cleared only through a Commission-registered DCO.695 ISDA/ SIFMA recommended that the rule be amended to permit the use of exempt DCOs.696 MarketAxess recommended that proposed § 37.701 be revised to permit a SEF to rely on a representation from an end-user that it qualifies for the
section 2(h)(7) exemption.697
(2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.701 as proposed, subject to certain revisions. The Commission is modifying § 37.701 to state that ‘‘[t]ransactions executed on or through the swap execution facility that are required to be cleared under
section 2(h)(1)(A) of the Act or are
voluntarily cleared by the counterparties shall be cleared through a Commission-registered derivatives clearing organization, or a derivatives clearing organization that the Commission has determined is exempt from registration.’’ The Commission is deleting proposed § 37.701(a), which referred to the end-user exception under CEA section 2(h)(7) because, as modified, the final rule text clarifies that any swaps that are required to be cleared or that are voluntarily cleared must be cleared through a registered DCO, or a DCO that the Commission has determined is exempt from registration. The Commission notes that swaps that are subject to the clearing requirement must be submitted for clearing, except where the swap may be eligible for an exception or exemption from the clearing requirement pursuant to either the exception provided under section 2(h)(7) of the Act and § 50.50 of the Commission’s regulations, or an exemption provided under part 50 of the Commission’s regulations. The rule also provides that counterparties that elect to clear a swap that is not required to be cleared may do so voluntarily through a Commission-registered DCO, or a DCO that the Commission has determined is exempt from registration. In response to ISDA/SIFMA’s recommendation that the rule be amended to permit the use of exempt DCOs, the Commission is mindful that CEA section 2(h)(1) provides that swaps subject to the clearing requirement must be submitted for clearing to a registered DCO or a DCO that is exempt from registration under the Act. The Commission further notes that under CEA section 5b(h), the Commission has discretionary authority to exempt DCOs, conditionally or unconditionally, from the applicable DCO registration requirements.698 Specifically, section 5b(h) of the Act provides that ‘‘[t]he Commission may exempt, conditionally or unconditionally, a derivatives clearing organization from registration under this section for the clearing of swaps if the Commission determines that the [DCO] is subject to comparable, comprehensive supervision and regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission or the appropriate government authorities in the home country of the organization.’’ 699 Thus, the Commission has discretion to exempt from registration DCOs that, at a minimum, are subject to comparable and comprehensive supervision by another regulator. The Commission notes that it has not yet exercised its discretionary authority to exempt DCOs from registration. Notwithstanding that there are no exempt DCOs at this time, the Commission has determined to revise the rule text as suggested by ISDA/ SIFMA. If the Commission determines to exercise its authority to exempt DCOs from applicable registration requirements, the Commission would likely address, among other things, the conditions and limitations applicable to clearing swaps for customers subject to
section 4d(f) of the Act.700
Until such time as the Commission determines to exercise its authority to exempt DCOs from the applicable registration requirement, SEFs must route all swaps through registered DCOs, which are the appropriate entities to perform the clearing functions under CEA section 2(h)(1) at this time. Registered DCOs are subject to the CEA, the Commission’s regulations, and its regulatory programs. Among other things, registered DCOs are supervised for compliance with the Commission’s regulations, and subjected to ongoing risk surveillance and regular examinations. In consideration of MarketAxess’s comment that a SEF should be able to rely on a representation from an end￾user that it qualifies for the CEA section 2(h)(7) exception, the Commission clarifies that a SEF is not obligated to make any determinations with respect to applicability of the exceptions to the clearing requirement. (b) § 37.702—General Financial Integrity Proposed § 37.702(a) required a SEF to provide for the financial integrity of its transactions by establishing minimum financial standards for its members. At a minimum, a SEF would have to ensure that its members meet the definition of ‘‘eligible contract participant’’ under CEA section 1(a)(18). Proposed § 37.702(b) required a SEF, for transactions cleared by a DCO, to have the capacity to route transactions to the DCO in a manner acceptable to the DCO for purposes of ongoing risk management. In proposed § 37.702(c), for transactions that are not cleared by a DCO, a SEF must require members to demonstrate that they: (1) Have entered into credit arrangement documentation for the transaction, (2) have the ability to exchange collateral, and (3) meet any credit filters that the SEF may adopt. Proposed § 37.702(d) required a SEF to implement any additional safeguards

701Bloomberg Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 702 Id. 703Reuters Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 704MarketAxess Comment Letter at 35 (Mar. 8, 2011). 705 Id. 706Energy Working Group Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 707MarketAxess Comment Letter at 37 (Mar. 8, 2011). 708Reuters Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 709 ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 13 (Mar. 8, 2011). 710ABC/CEIBA Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011). 711 Goldman Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 712 Id. 713 Id. 714The Commission notes that under § 37.202(a)(2), a SEF that permits intermediation must also obtain signed representations from intermediaries that their customers are ECPs. 715Customer Clearing Documentation, Timing of Acceptance for Clearing, and Clearing Member Risk Management, 77 FR 21278 (Apr. 9, 2012). 716Requirements for Processing, Clearing, and Transfer of Customer Positions, 76 FR 13101, 13109–10 (proposed Mar. 10, 2011). 717Customer Clearing Documentation, Timing of Acceptance for Clearing, and Clearing Member Risk Management, 77 FR at 21309. 718 Id. 719 Id. 720ABC/CEIBA Comment Letter at 11 (Mar. 8, 2011). that may be required by Commission regulations. (1) Summary of Comments Bloomberg commented, with respect to proposed § 37.702(a), that a SEF should be able to determine a market participant’s ability to meet any minimum financial standards by virtue of confirming that the participant has access to a DCO either as a member or through an intermediary.701 According to Bloomberg, it is not necessary to set separate, duplicative financial requirements at the SEF level that are redundant to the exhaustive financial requirements that will be associated with access to a DCO.702 With respect to proposed § 37.702(b), Reuters agreed that SEFs should assure the secure and prompt routing to a DCO for swap transactions subject to the clearing requirement.703 MarketAxess commented that SEFs should be able to send a trade to the DCO via an affirmation hub.704 Use of affirmation hubs, according to MarketAxess, would allow SEFs to enjoy lower costs and is preferred by its clients.705 The Commission received several comments with regard to proposed § 37.702(c). The Energy Working Group noted that proposed § 37.702(c) should be narrower in scope and that a SEF should be able to fulfill its obligation by ensuring that the counterparties have entered into bilateral credit support arrangements.706 MarketAxess wrote that a SEF is not in a position to determine whether members’ credit filters or exchanges of collateral are sufficient.707 Reuters noted that the existence of credit and/or collateral arrangements should be primarily a matter between the counterparties.708 ISDA/SIFMA commented that the Commission should not create new collateral requirements for end-users transacting through a SEF.709 ABC/ CIEBA commented that proposed § 37.702(c) would impose costly burdens on SEFs.710 Goldman noted that there are circumstances where a swap that is subject to the clearing
requirement may not be accepted for clearing for credit or other reasons.711 In such cases and depending on the SEF’s rules under Core Principle 7, parties that execute through the SEF either would face one another in an uncleared, bilateral transaction or would potentially owe amounts arising from the trade not being accepted for clearing.712 Therefore, Goldman recommended that parties should be able to learn the identities of their counterparty when transacting in cleared and uncleared swaps.713 (2) Commission Determination The Commission has considered the comments received and is adopting § 37.702(a) as proposed. In response to Bloomberg’s comment about setting financial requirements at the SEF level, the Commission disagrees that a SEF should be able to determine a member’s ability to meet any minimum financial standards by virtue of confirming that the member has access to a DCO. The Commission notes that a DCO only screens clearing members, and not customers, according to financial standards. Therefore, unless a SEF member is also a clearing member, the SEF will not be able to determine the member’s ability to meet any minimum financial standards by virtue of confirming that the member has access to a DCO. The Commission also notes that there is no affirmative obligation for a DCO to ensure that its members, customers, or counterparties are ECPs. Therefore, a SEF must ensure that its members qualify as ECPs and may rely on representations from its members to fulfill this requirement.714 Last year, the Commission adopted rules regarding the processing of cleared trades.715 In that rulemaking, the Commission proposed a new § 37.702(b) 716 and adopted a revised § 37.702(b) 717 regarding cleared swaps traded through a SEF. That final rule required a SEF to provide for the financial integrity of its transactions that are cleared by a DCO: (a) By ensuring that it has the capacity to route transactions to the DCO in a manner acceptable to the DCO for purposes of clearing; and (b) by coordinating with each DCO to which it submits transactions for clearing, in the development of rules and procedures to facilitate prompt and efficient transaction processing in accordance with the requirements of § 39.12(b)(7) of the Commission’s regulations.718 In response to MarketAxess’s comment about affirmation hubs, the Commission notes that § 37.702(b), as adopted in April 2012, requires a SEF to route a swap to a DCO in a manner acceptable to the DCO.719 If the DCO views the use of an affirmation hub as an acceptable means for routing the swap, the routing otherwise complies with § 37.702(b), and the trade is processed in accordance with the standards set forth in §§ 1.74, 39.12, 23.506, and 23.610 of the Commission’s regulations, then the use of an affirmation hub for routing a swap to a DCO for clearing would be permissible. In consideration of the comments with respect to uncleared swaps, the Commission is eliminating proposed § 37.702(c). The Commission
agrees with commenters that requiring SEFs to monitor the credit and collateral arrangements of parties transacting uncleared swaps goes beyond the scope of what should be expected of a SEF. To address Goldman’s comments requesting that the Commission mandate that a SEF’s rules require identification of the counterparties prior to a swap transaction, the Commission believes that a SEF should retain discretion in this regard. Finally, the Commission is deleting proposed § 37.702(d) as it is unnecessary because a SEF must already implement safeguards as required by Commission regulations. (c) § 37.703—Monitoring for Financial Soundness Proposed § 37.703 required a SEF to monitor its members’ compliance with the SEF’s minimum financial standards and routinely receive and promptly review financial and related information from its members. (1) Summary of Comments ABC/CIEBA commented that this requirement would create significant barriers to entry, stifle competition, and lead to higher transaction costs.720 FXall commented that like DCMs, SEFs should be permitted to delegate their financial surveillance functions to the

721FXall Comment Letter at 13 (Mar. 8, 2011). 722 Id. 723CEA section 5h(f)(8); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(8). 724The Commission notes that Commission regulation 40.6(a)(6)(i) provides that any SEF rule that establishes general standards or guidelines for taking emergency actions must be submitted to the Commission pursuant to regulation 40.6(a). Relatedly, Commission regulation 40.6(a)(6)(ii) provides particular emergency actions shall be filed with the Commission ‘‘prior to [its] implementation, or, if not practicable, . . . at the earlier possible time after implementation, but in no event more than twenty-four hours after implementation.’’ 725Bloomberg Comment Letter at 4 (Jun. 3, 2011); Bloomberg Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 28 (Mar. 8, 2011); Reuters Comment Letter at 7 (Mar.8, 2011). 726Bloomberg Comment Letter at 4 (Jun. 3, 2011); Bloomberg Comment Letter at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 727WMBAA Comment Letter at 28 (Mar. 8, 2011). 728Reuters Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 729CME Comment Letter at 28 (Feb. 22, 2011). 730 ISDA/SIFMA Comment Letter at 13 (Mar. 8, 2011). 731CEA section 5h(f)(8); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(8). 732CEA section 5h(f)(9); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(9). 733 Id. Joint Audit Committee to the extent that its members are registered with NFA.721 For non-NFA members, FXall recommended that SEFs be permitted to delegate financial surveillance obligations to the members’ primary financial regulator or otherwise outsource such duties to a third party service provider.722 (2) Commission Determination The Commission agrees with the commenters that burdensome financial surveillance obligations may lead to higher transaction costs. Therefore, in consideration of the comments, the Commission is revising § 37.703 to state that a SEF must monitor its members to ensure that they continue to qualify as ECPs. With regard to the comment requesting delegation of the proposed § 37.703 responsibilities to the Joint Audit Committee, the Commission notes that final § 37.703, as revised, obviates the need for any such delegation. Under final § 37.703, a SEF need only ensure that its members remain ECPs and may rely on representations from its members.
8. Subpart I—Core Principle 8
(Emergency Authority)
Core Principle 8 requires a SEF to adopt rules to provide for the exercise of emergency authority, in consultation or cooperation with the Commission, as is necessary and appropriate, including the authority to liquidate or transfer open positions in any swap or to suspend or curtail trading in a swap.723 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 8 in proposed § 37.800, and adopts that rule as proposed.724 (a) § 37.801—Additional Sources for Compliance Proposed § 37.801 referred applicants and SEFs to the guidance and/or acceptable practices in appendix B to
part 37 to demonstrate compliance with
Core Principle 8. The guidance reflected the Commission’s belief that the need for emergency action may also arise from related markets traded on other platforms and that there should be an increased emphasis on cross-market coordination of emergency actions. In that regard, the proposed guidance provided that, in consultation and cooperation with the Commission, a SEF should have the authority to intervene as necessary to maintain markets with fair and orderly trading and to prevent or address manipulation or disruptive trading practices, whether the need for intervention arises exclusively from the SEF’s market or as
part of a coordinated, cross-market
intervention. The proposed guidance also provided that in situations where a swap is traded on more than one platform, emergency action to liquidate or transfer open interest must be as directed, or agreed to, by the Commission or the Commission’s staff. The proposed guidance also clarified that the SEF should have rules that allow it to take market actions as may be directed by the Commission. In addition to providing for rules, procedures, and guidelines for emergency intervention, the guidance noted that SEFs should provide prompt notification and explanation to the Commission of the exercise of emergency authority, and that information on all regulatory actions carried out pursuant to a SEF’s emergency authority should be included in a timely submission of a certified rule. (1) Summary of Comments Several commenters expressed concern about a SEFs ability to liquidate or transfer open positions.725 Bloomberg stated that, because a SEF will not hold a participant’s swap positions, the Commission should only require that a SEF adopt rules requiring it to coordinate with a DCO to facilitate the liquidation or transfer of positions during an emergency.726 Similarly, WMBAA noted that a SEF will not maintain counterparty positions and thus it may not possess the ability to liquidate or transfer those positions.727 Reuters stated that liquidating open positions does not fall within a trading platform’s traditional role in the market.728 CME stated that SEFs must have the flexibility and independence necessary to address market emergencies.729 Alternatively, ISDA/SIFMA commented that the Core Principle 8 rules should adopt uniform standards and that those standards must consider the interaction between SEFs, DCMs, clearing organizations, swap data repositories, and other market-wide institutions.730 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.801 as proposed, with certain modifications to the guidance in appendix B to part
37. The Commission acknowledges
commenters concerns regarding a SEF’s ability to liquidate or transfer open positions; however, the statute requires a SEF to have the authority to liquidate or transfer open positions.731 The Commission expects that SEFs would establish such authority over open positions through their rules and/or participant agreements and that the exercise of any such authority would, consistent with the statute, be done in coordination with the Commission and relevant DCOs. The Commission is making slight revisions to the guidance to clarify that SEFs retain the authority to independently respond to emergencies in an effective and timely manner consistent with the nature of the emergency, as long as all such actions taken by the SEF are made in good faith to protect the integrity of the markets. The Commission believes that market emergencies can vary with the type of market and any number of unusual circumstances so SEFs need flexibility to carry out emergency actions. The Commission believes that the guidance strikes a reasonable balance between the need for flexibility and the need for standards in the case of coordinated cross-market intervention.
9. Subpart J—Core Principle 9 (Timely
Publication of Trading Information) Core Principle 9 requires a SEF to make public timely information on price, trading volume, and other trading data on swaps to the extent prescribed by the Commission.732 It also requires a SEF to have the capacity to electronically capture and transmit trade information for those transactions that occur on its facility.733 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 9 in proposed § 37.900. Proposed § 37.901 required that, for swaps traded on or through a SEF, the SEF report specified swap data as

734 17 CFR part 43; Real-Time Reporting of Swap Transaction Data, 77 FR 1182 (Jan. 9, 2012). 735 17 CFR part 45; Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 77 FR 2136 (Jan. 13, 2012). 736The Commission proposed certain revisions to § 16.01 in the DCM NPRM. See Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, 75 FR 80572 (proposed Dec. 22, 2010) for further details. 737Eris Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 8, 2011). 738 Id. 739MarketAxess Comment Letter at 39 (Mar. 8, 2011). 740The Commission notes that § 16.00 is applicable to a SEF only to the extent that such SEF has clearing members and lists options on physicals for trading. Section 16.01 is applicable to a SEF for all swaps and options traded thereon. Section 16.02 is applicable to a SEF only to the extent that such SEF lists options for trading. 741Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, 77 FR 36612, 36642 (Jun. 19, 2012). 742CEA section 5h(f)(10); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(10). 743MarketAxess Comment Letter at 39 (Mar. 8, 2011). 744CME Comment Letter at 38 (Feb. 22, 2011). 745See Registration and Regulation of Security￾Based Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 10982, 11063 (Proposed Rule 818(b) requires SB–SEFs to keep books and records ‘‘for a period of not less than five years, the first two years in an easily accessible place). Rule 17a–1(b) (240.17a–1(b) requires national securities exchanges, among others, to keep books and records for a period of not less than five years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, subject to a destruction and disposition provisions, which allows exchanges to destroy physical documents pursuant to an effective and approved plan regarding such destruction and transferring/indexing of such documents onto some recording medium.). 17 CFR 240.17a–1(b). 746CEA section 5h(f)(11); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(11). 747NGSA Comment Letter at 2 (Jun. 8, 2012). DTCC also raised this concern in its comment letter. DTCC Comment Letter at 3 (Jun. 10, 2011). provided under part 43 734 and part 45 735 of the Commission’s regulations and meet the requirements of part 16 of the Commission’s regulations. Proposed § 37.902 required a SEF to have the capacity to electronically capture trade information with respect to transactions executed on the facility. (a) Summary of Comments In response to the Commission’s questions in the SEF NPRM about end￾of-day price reporting for interest rate swaps and the Commission’s proposed revisions to § 16.01,736 Eris stated the following: (1) It is reasonable to require a market to report publicly each trade (including instrument, price, and volume) intra-day, as soon as the trade occurs; (2) daily open interest should be published publicly in a summary fashion and should be grouped in maturity buckets based on the remaining tenor of each instrument; (3) as to end-of-day pricing, a clearing house will settle contracts based upon a market-driven curve, and the methodology, as well as the inputs
and components, of the curve should be made transparent to the full trading community; and (4) the clearing house should publish the specific settlement value applied to each cleared swap in the daily mark-to-market process.737 Eris also stated that SEFs and DCMs should be held to the same reporting standard in this respect.738 MarketAxess commented that proposed § 37.900(b) and § 37.902 are duplicative and that proposed § 37.902 should be withdrawn.739 (b) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.900 and § 37.901 as proposed. The Commission acknowledges MarketAxess’s comment that § 37.902 is duplicative to § 37.900(b) and thus is withdrawing § 37.902. In response to Eris’s comment about the same reporting standards for SEFs and DCMs that list swaps, the Commission notes that a SEF, similar to a DCM, must meet the same requirements under part 16 of the Commission’s regulations for swaps reporting.740 The Commission also notes that it codified § 16.01 in the final DCM rulemaking, and in that rulemaking, the Commission states that it considered the proposed reporting standard put forth by Eris, but the Commission believes that the more detailed reporting obligations under § 16.01 are warranted at this time in light of the novelty of swaps trading on regulated exchanges.741
10. Subpart K—Core Principle 10
(Recordkeeping and Reporting) Core Principle 10 establishes recordkeeping and reporting requirements for SEFs.742 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 10 in proposed § 37.1000, and adopts that rule as proposed. Proposed § 37.1001 required a SEF to maintain records of all business activities, including a complete audit trail, investigatory files, and disciplinary files, in a form and manner acceptable to the Commission for at least five years in accordance with the requirements of section 1.31 and part 45 of this chapter. Proposed § 37.1002 required a SEF to report to the Commission such information that the Commission determines to be necessary or appropriate for it to perform its duties. Proposed § 37.1003 required a SEF to keep records relating to swaps defined in section 1a(47)(A)(v) of the CEA open to inspection and examination by the SEC. (a) Summary of Comments MarketAxess stated that a SEF should be permitted to use a regulatory service provider with respect to its recordkeeping and reporting requirements.743 CME commented that proposed § 37.1003 does not provide any guidance as to what records will need to be retained and for how long they must be retained.744 (b) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.1001 as proposed. The Commission is also withdrawing proposed § 37.1002 and § 37.1003 because they are repetitive of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of § 37.1000. In response to MarketAxess’s comment, the Commission notes that a SEF may utilize the services of a regulatory service provider pursuant to § 37.204 to assist the SEF in complying with its responsibilities under Core Principle 10. In response to CME’s comment, the Commission notes that in accordance with Core Principle 10 and § 1.31 of the Commission’s regulations, a SEF should retain ‘‘any’’ records relevant to swaps defined in section 1a(47)(A)(v) of the Act and that the SEF should leave such records open to inspection and examination for a period of five years. The Commission staff also consulted with representatives from the SEC, who confirmed that the SEC’s relevant recordkeeping requirements typically extend for a period of five years.745
11. Subpart L—Core Principle 11
(Antitrust Considerations) Core Principle 11 governs the antitrust obligations of SEFs.746 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 11 in proposed § 37.1100, and adopts that rule as proposed. Additionally, proposed § 37.1101 referred applicants and SEFs to the guidance in appendix B to part 37 for purposes of demonstrating compliance with proposed § 37.1100. (a) Summary of Comments NGSA commented that if SEFs are allowed to select the SDR to which SEF￾executed swaps are reported, there is a threat of anticompetitive tying of swap data reporting services from a particular SDR to the SEF’s services, which may harm competition among SDRs.747 Accordingly, NGSA recommended that the Commission amend the proposed rules to explicitly prohibit a SEF from tying the swap data reporting services of a particular SDR to the swap execution services provided by such SEF and from entering into an exclusive agreement

748NGSA Comment Letter at 5 (Jun. 8, 2012). 749CEA section 5h(f)(12); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(12). 750Requirements for Derivatives Clearing Organizations, Designated Contract Markets, and Swap Execution Facilities Regarding the Mitigation of Conflicts of Interest, 75 FR 63732 (proposed Oct. 18, 2010). 751CEA section 5h(f)(13); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(13). 752 Id. 753See Derivatives Clearing Organization General Provisions and Core Principles, 76 FR 69334 (Nov. 8, 2011). Commission regulation § 39.11 establishes requirements that a DCO will have to meet in order to comply with DCO Core Principle B (Financial Resources), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act. Amended Core Principle B requires a DCO to possess financial resources that, at a minimum, exceed the total amount that would enable the DCO to meet its financial obligations to its clearing members notwithstanding a default by the clearing member creating the largest financial exposure for the DCO in extreme but plausible conditions; and enable the DCO to cover its operating costs for a period of one year, as calculated on a rolling basis. 754Parity Energy Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 25, 2011). 755Phoenix Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 7, 2011). 756TruMarx Comment Letter at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 757 Id. 758SDMA Comment Letter at 12 (Mar. 8, 2011). 759 Id. 760The Commission is making a technical change due to the fact that the cross reference in § 37.1301(b) should include ‘‘of this chapter’’ at the end of the reference in order to comply with federal regulatory guidelines. Accordingly, the Commission is revising § 37.1301(b) to read: ‘‘An entity that operates as both a swap execution facility and a derivatives clearing organization shall also comply with the financial resources requirements of section
39.11 of this chapter.’’ The Commission is also
removing the phrase ‘‘or applicant for designation as such’’ from § 37.1301(c) because it is unnecessary. Section 37.3 and Form SEF read together make clear that an applicant must comply with the financial resources requirement. 761CEA section 5h(f)(13)(A); 7 U.S.C. 7b– 3(f)(13)(A). 762CEA section 5h(f)(13)(B); 7 U.S.C. 7b– 3(f)(13)(B). with any SDR to report all swaps to such SDR.748 (b) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.1101 and the corresponding guidance in appendix B to part 37 as proposed and declines to revise the proposed rules as NGSA recommends. The Commission notes that under Core Principle 11, SEFs may not adopt any rule or take any action that results in any unreasonable restraint of trade or impose any material anticompetitive burden on trading or clearing. The Commission believes that Core Principle 11 adequately addresses NGSA’s concern. The Commission also notes that it has not limited a SEF’s choice of DCOs. The Commission believes that SDRs and DCOs should be able to compete for a SEF’s business subject to the anticompetitive considerations under Core Principle 11. Additionally, the Commission notes that multiple SEFs are likely to trade the same swap contracts so market participants will be able to choose the appropriate SEF to trade swaps based on SDR and other considerations.
12. Subpart M—Core Principle 12
(Conflicts of Interest) Core Principle 12 governs conflicts of interest.749 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 12 in proposed § 37.1200, and adopts that rule as proposed. As noted in the SEF NPRM, the substantive regulations implementing Core Principle 12 were proposed in a separate release titled ‘‘Requirements for Derivatives Clearing Organizations, Designated Contract Markets, and Swap Execution Facilities Regarding the Mitigation of Conflicts of Interest.’’ 750 Until such time as the Commission may adopt the substantive rules implementing Core Principle 12, SEFs have reasonable discretion to comply with this core principle as stated in § 37.100.
13. Subpart N—Core Principle 13
(Financial Resources)
Core Principle 13 requires a SEF to have adequate financial, operational, and managerial resources to discharge each of its responsibilities.751 In particular, Core Principle 13 states that a SEF’s financial resources are considered to be adequate if the value of such resources exceeds the total amount that would enable the SEF to cover its operating costs for a period of at least one year, calculated on a rolling basis.752 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 13 in proposed § 37.1300, and adopts that rule as proposed. (a) § 37.1301—General Requirements Proposed § 37.1301 set forth the financial resources requirements for SEFs in order to implement Core Principle 13. Proposed § 37.1301(a) required a SEF to maintain financial resources sufficient to enable it to perform its functions in compliance with the SEF core principles. Proposed § 37.1301(b) required an entity operating as both a SEF and a DCO to comply with both the SEF financial resources requirements and the DCO financial resources requirements in § 39.11.753 Proposed § 37.1301(c) stated that financial resources would be considered sufficient if their value is at least equal to a total amount that would enable the SEF, or applicant for designation as such, to cover its operating costs for a period of at least one year, calculated on a rolling basis. (1) Summary of Comments Several commenters raised concerns about the financial resources requirement to cover one year of operating costs. Parity Energy recommended that the Commission interpret ‘‘operating costs of a swap execution facility for a 1-year period’’ to be the cost to the SEF of an orderly wind-down of operations, where the SEF is one of many execution avenues for standardized, cleared swaps and its failure would have minimal impact on market risk or stability.754 Phoenix recommended that because a SEF does not take or hold positions in any of the products traded on it, an orderly wind￾down of a SEF should take six months so SEFs should be required to maintain financial resources to cover six months of its operating costs.755 Similarly, TruMarx contended that SEFs should not have such stringent financial resources standards because a SEF is a trading platform and, therefore, will not carry on its books the risks of positions and trades executed on it.756 Rather, TruMarx stated that risk will be borne by the principals entering into the transactions, their clearing brokers, and clearing houses.757 Alternatively, SDMA noted that it would be disruptive to the market if a SEF went into bankruptcy.758 Therefore, it contended that 12 months of working capital is the absolute minimum amount of financial resources that SEFs should have, and recommend that the Commission require that SEFs have 18 months of working capital.759 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.1301 as proposed.760 To address the concerns about the financial resources requirement, the Commission
notes that Core Principle 13 requires each SEF to maintain adequate financial resources to discharge its responsibilities.761 In order to fulfill this responsibility, the core principle states that the financial resources of a SEF shall be considered to be adequate if the value of the financial resources exceeds the total amount that would enable the SEF to cover its operating costs for a period of one year, calculated on a rolling basis.762 In response to comments that Core Principle 13 should be interpreted to mean the cost to wind-down a SEF’s operations, the Commission notes that such an interpretation would require SEFs to have significantly less financial resources. The Commission believes that a SEF’s financial strength is vital to ensure that the SEF can discharge its

763Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1230. 764Phoenix Comment Letter at 5 (Mar. 7, 2011). 765 Id. 766CME Comment Letter at 37 (Feb. 22, 2011). 767Reuters Comment Letter at 8 (Mar. 8, 2011). 768The Commission is renaming the title of this
section from ‘‘Computation of Financial Resource
Requirement’’ to ‘‘Computation of Projected Operating Costs to Meet Financial Resource Requirement’’ to provide greater clarity. 769MarketAxess Comment Letter at 39 (Mar. 8, 2011). 770The Commission is revising the language of § 37.1303 for clarity. 771Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1231. 772A ‘‘haircut’’ is a deduction taken from the value of an asset to reserve for potential future adverse price movements in such asset. 773Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1231 n. 102. 774MarketAxess Comment Letter at 39 (Mar. 8, 2011). 775MarketAxess noted that § 37.1304 contains a typographical error as it mistakenly cross-references proposed § 37.701, which relates to the mandatory clearing requirement, instead of proposed § 37.1301. The Commission has made this technical change in the final rule. Additionally, the Commission is revising the language of § 37.1304 for clarity. core principle responsibilities in accordance with the CEA and that those costs are greater than the cost to wind￾down operations. Based on its experience regulating DCMs and DCOs, the Commission has learned that financial strength is vital to market continuity and the ability of an entity to withstand unpredictable market events, and believes that one year of operating expenses on a rolling basis is appropriate. For these reasons, the Commission also disagrees with TruMarx’s argument that SEFs should not have such stringent financial resources standards because they will not hold the risks of positions and trades. (b) § 37.1302—Types of Financial Resources Proposed § 37.1302 set forth the type of financial resources available to satisfy the requirements of proposed § 37.1301. The proposed rule stated that financial resources may include: (a) The SEF’s own capital; and (b) Any other financial resource deemed acceptable by the Commission. The Commission invited comment regarding particular financial resources to be included in the final regulation.763 (1) Summary of Comments Several commenters recommended that the Commission include specific examples of financial resources that might satisfy the requirement. Phoenix recommended that the Commission include in final § 37.1302 the following financial resources: assets of a parent company that wholly owns the SEF, and, subject to § 37.1304 (Valuation of financial resources), the SEF’s accounts receivable from SEF members.764 Phoenix contended that as long as the parent company has committed to guarantee the financial resource obligations of the SEF, those assets should be available to the SEF, and that amounts owed to a SEF by its customers are easily obtainable by a SEF.765 CME believed that Congress intended the term ‘‘financial resources’’ to be construed broadly and include anything of value at the SEF’s disposal, including operating revenues.766 Reuters recommended that assets of affiliated entities within a corporate group should be acceptable
types of financial resources.767 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is revising proposed § 37.1302(a) to state that a SEF’s own capital means its assets minus its liabilities calculated in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (‘‘GAAP’’). The Commission believes that if a particular financial resource is an asset under GAAP, then it is appropriate for inclusion in the calculation for this rule. If a particular financial resource is not an asset under GAAP, but based upon the facts and circumstances a SEF believes that the particular financial resource should be acceptable, the Commission staff will work with the SEF to determine whether such resource is acceptable. In this regard, the Commission is clarifying that the language in final § 37.1302(b) is intended to provide flexibility to both SEFs and the Commission in determining other acceptable types of financial resources on a case-by-case basis. Finally, the Commission notes that it may not have jurisdiction over a SEF’s parent company or its affiliates; therefore, the Commission cannot consider the parent company’s or affiliates’ financial resources in determining whether the SEF possesses adequate financial resources. (c) § 37.1303—Computation of Financial Resource Requirement 768 Proposed § 37.1303 required a SEF, each fiscal quarter, to make a reasonable calculation of its projected operating costs over a twelve-month period to determine the amount needed to meet the requirements of proposed § 37.1301. Proposed § 37.1303 provided SEFs with reasonable discretion to determine the methodology used to compute such projected operating costs. The proposed rule authorized the Commission to review the methodology and require changes as appropriate. (1) Summary of Comments MarketAxess noted that the proposed regulations do not prescribe specific methodologies for computing projected operating costs and recommended that the Commission provide a safe harbor for specific methodologies.769 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.1303 as proposed because it provides flexibility to both SEFs and the Commission regarding the calculation of projected operating costs.770 This flexibility would be limited if the Commission prescribed specific methodologies for computing projected operating costs in the rule text. In response to MarketAxess’s comment, the Commission notes that SEFs may work with the Commission staff to create an appropriate methodology for computing such operating costs. (d) § 37.1304—Valuation of Financial Resources Proposed § 37.1304 required a SEF, not less than quarterly, to compute the current market value of each financial resource used to meet its obligations under proposed § 37.1301. The proposed rule required SEFs to perform the valuation at other times as appropriate. As stated in the SEF NPRM, the rule is designed to address the need to update valuations in circumstances where there may have been material fluctuations in market
value that could impact a SEF’s ability to meet its obligations under proposed § 37.1301.771 The proposed rule required that, when valuing a financial resource, the SEF reduce the value, as appropriate, to reflect any market or credit risk specific to that particular resource (i.e., apply a haircut).772 The SEF NPRM stated that the Commission would permit SEFs to exercise discretion to determine applicable haircuts, which would be subject to Commission review and acceptance.773 (1) Summary of Comments MarketAxess commented that proposed § 37.1304 did not prescribe specific methodologies for valuing financial resources and recommended that the Commission provide a safe harbor for specific methodologies.774 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.1304 as proposed.775 As with

776Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1231. 777 Id. 778 Id. 779CME Comment Letter at 37 (Feb. 22, 2011). 780Phoenix Comment Letter at 4 (Mar. 7, 2011). 781Parity Energy Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 25, 2011). 782SDMA Comment Letter at 12 (Mar. 8, 2011). 783The Commission is renaming the title of this
section from ‘‘Reporting Requirements’’ to
‘‘Reporting to the Commission’’ to provide greater clarity. 784This filing deadline is consistent with the deadline imposed on FCMs for the filing of monthly financial reports. See 17 CFR 1.10(b) for further details. 785CME Comment Letter at 38 (Feb. 22, 2011). 786 Id. 787 Id. 788MarketAxess Comment Letter at 40 (Mar. 8, 2011). 789CME Comment Letter at 38 (Feb. 22, 2011). § 37.1303, § 37.1304 provides flexibility to both SEFs and the Commission regarding the valuation of financial resources. This flexibility would be limited if the Commission prescribed specific methodologies for valuing financial resources in the rule text. In response to MarketAxess’s comment, the Commission notes that SEFs may work with the Commission staff to create an appropriate methodology for valuing such financial resources. (e) § 37.1305—Liquidity of Financial Resources Proposed § 37.1305 required a SEF’s financial resources to include unencumbered, liquid financial assets (i.e., cash and/or highly liquid securities) equal to at least six months’ operating costs. As noted in the SEF NPRM, the Commission believes that the requirement to have six months’ worth of unencumbered, liquid financial assets would provide a SEF time to liquidate the remaining financial assets it would need to continue operating for the last six months of the required one-year period.776 The proposed rule stated that if any portion of such financial resources is not sufficiently liquid, the SEF may take into account a committed line of credit or similar facility to satisfy this requirement. As stated in the SEF NPRM, a SEF may only use a committed line of credit or similar facility to meet the liquidity requirements set forth in § 37.1305.777 Accordingly, the SEF NPRM stated that a committed line of credit or similar facility is not available to a SEF to satisfy the financial resources requirements of § 37.1301.778 (1) Summary of Comments Several commenters recommended alternate liquidity requirements to the six months of operating costs. CME commented that the liquidity measurement is only relevant in the context of winding-down operations, and claimed that a three-month period, rather than a six-month period, is a more accurate assessment of how long it would take for a SEF to wind down.779 Similarly, Phoenix recommended that a SEF be required to maintain liquid assets equal to three months of operating expenses.780 Parity Energy commented that the Commission should tailor financial requirements to a SEF’s size and market impact and recommended limiting the six month liquid asset requirement to only those SEFs whose failure could impact market stability.781 SDMA, however, recommended that the Commission require SEFs to have at least 12 months of unencumbered capital.782 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.1305 as proposed. The Commission views a six month period as appropriate for a wind down period and notes that commenters did not provide any support for alternative
time frames. In response to Parity Energy’s comment, the Commission notes that the purpose of the liquidity requirement is so that all SEFs have liquid financial assets to allow them to continue to operate and to wind down in an orderly fashion. Therefore, the Commission is not limiting the liquidity requirement to only those SEFs whose failure could impact market stability. In this regard, the Commission notes that the statutory financial resources requirements apply to all SEFs and are necessary to ensure core principle compliance. The statute does not distinguish SEFs’ financial resources based on their market impact. The Commission also notes that it is using the term ‘‘unencumbered’’ in § 37.1305 in the normal commercial sense to refer to assets that are not subject to a security interest or other adverse claims. By ‘‘committed line of credit or similar facility,’’ the Commission means a committed, irrevocable contractual obligation to provide funds on demand with preconditions limited to the execution of appropriate agreements. For example, a facility with a material adverse financial condition restriction would not be acceptable. The purpose of this requirement is for a SEF to have no impediments to accessing its line of credit at the time it needs liquidity. Further, SEFs are encouraged to periodically check their line of credit arrangements to confirm that no operational difficulties are present. (f) § 37.1306—Reporting Requirements 783 Proposed § 37.1306(a)(1) required that, at the end of each fiscal quarter, or at any time upon Commission request, a SEF report to the Commission: (i) The amount of financial resources necessary to meet the requirements of § 37.1301; and (ii) the value of each financial resource available to meet those requirements. Proposed § 37.1306(a)(2) required a SEF to provide the Commission with a financial statement, including balance sheet, income statement, and statement of cash flows of the SEF or of its parent company. Proposed § 37.1306(b) required calculations to be made on the last business day of the SEF’s fiscal quarter. Proposed § 37.1306(c) required a SEF to provide the Commission with sufficient documentation explaining the methodology it used to calculate its financial requirements and the basis for its valuation and liquidity determinations. The proposed rule also required the SEF to provide copies of any agreements establishing or amending a credit facility, insurance coverage, or any similar arrangement that evidences or otherwise supports its conclusions. Finally, proposed § 37.1306(d) required SEFs to file the report no later than 17 business days 784 from the end of its fiscal quarter but allowed SEFs to request an extension of time from the Commission. (1) Summary of Comments CME wrote that it would not be feasible for SEFs to comply with the proposed filing deadline of 17 business days from the end of a SEF’s fiscal quarter.785 CME recommended a reporting deadline of 40 calendar days after the
end of each fiscal quarter and 60 calendar days after the end of the fiscal year, which it noted is consistent with the SEC’s reporting requirements.786 CME also sought clarification that consolidated financial statements covering multiple registered entities satisfy the reporting requirements.787 MarketAxess stated that the proposed reporting requirements are unnecessary and burdensome, and recommended that the Commission allow a senior officer of the SEF to represent to the Commission that the SEF satisfies the financial resources requirements.788 Two commenters discussed disclosure of the reports. CME recommended that the Commission clarify that filings made in compliance with the proposed financial resources regulations are confidential.789

790SIMFA AMG Comment Letter at 13 (Mar. 8, 2011). 791The Commission is also making certain non￾substantive clarifications to § 37.1306. 792 17 CFR 145.9. 793CEA section 5h(f)(14); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(14). However, SIFMA AMG commented that SEFs should submit to the Commission and make available for public comment evidence demonstrating sufficient resources.790 (2) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.1306 as proposed, subject to certain amendments to the filing deadlines.791 The Commission agrees with CME that the proposed 17 business day filing deadline may be burdensome. In the final rule, the Commission is extending the 17 business day proposed filing deadline to 40 calendar days for the fiscal quarter reports and to 60 calendar days for the fiscal year-end report, which will also harmonize the filing deadlines with the SEC’s requirements for its Form 10–Q and Form 10–K. The Commission also clarifies that consolidated financial statements must disclose all relevant and appropriate figures such that a determination of the sufficiency of financial resources of a SEF can be made without additional requests for information from the entity. In such case, consolidated financial statements would comply with the reporting requirements. In response to MarketAxess’s comment that the reporting requirements are unnecessary and burdensome, the Commission believes that prudent financial management requires SEFs to prepare and review financial reports on a regular basis and expects that SEFs would regularly review their finances. In this regard, the Commission notes that because of the importance of this requirement, a mere representation by a senior officer is insufficient for verification that the SEF meets its financial obligations. The quarterly reporting required by § 37.1306 will adequately provide the Commission with assurance that a SEF satisfies its financial resources requirements. The Commission notes that DCMs and DCOs have similar financial resources reporting obligations and does not believe that SEFs should be treated differently. The Commission also believes that much of the information required by the reports should be readily available to a sophisticated organization, which the Commission expects would regularly account for its financial resources. As such, the Commission notes that the cost of submitting these reports to the Commission would be de minimis. The Commission further clarifies that it does not intend to make financial resources reports public. However, where such information is, in fact, confidential, the Commission encourages SEFs to submit a written request for confidential treatment of such filings under the Freedom of Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’), pursuant to the procedures established in section
145.9 of the Commission’s
regulations.792 The determination of whether to disclose or exempt such information in the context of a FOIA proceeding would be governed by the provisions of part 145 and any other relevant provision. Finally, the Commission is adding new § 37.1307 titled ‘‘Delegation of Authority’’ to the final SEF rules to delegate authority to the Director of DMO to perform certain functions that are reserved to the Commission under subpart N.
14. Subpart O—Core Principle 14
(System Safeguards)
Core Principle 14 pertains to the establishment of system safeguards and requires SEFs to: (1) Establish and maintain a program of risk analysis and oversight to identify and minimize sources of operational risk through the development of appropriate controls and procedures and the development of automated systems that are reliable, secure, and have adequate scalable capacity; (2) establish and maintain emergency procedures, backup facilities, and a plan for disaster recovery that allow for the timely recovery and resumption of operations and the fulfillment of the responsibilities and obligations of the SEF; and (3) periodically conduct tests to verify that backup resources are sufficient to ensure continued order processing and trade matching, price reporting, market surveillance, and maintenance of a comprehensive and accurate audit trail.793 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 14 in proposed § 37.1400, and adopts that rule as proposed. (a) § 37.1401—Requirements Proposed § 37.1401(a) required a SEF to: Establish and maintain a program of risk analysis and oversight; establish and maintain emergency procedures, backup facilities, and a plan for disaster recovery; and periodically conduct tests to verify that backup resources are sufficient. Proposed § 37.1401(b) required that a SEF’s program of risk analysis and oversight address six categories of risk analysis and oversight, including: Information security; business continuity-disaster recovery (‘‘BC–DR’’) planning and resources; capacity and performance planning; systems operations; systems development and quality assurance; and physical security and environmental controls. Proposed § 37.1401(c) suggested that a SEF follow generally accepted standards and best practices when addressing the categories of risk analysis and oversight. Proposed § 37.1401(d) and (e) also required each SEF to maintain a BC–DR plan, BC–DR resources, emergency procedures, and backup facilities sufficient to enable timely recovery and resumption of its operations and ongoing fulfillment of its responsibilities and obligations as a SEF following any disruption, either through sufficient infrastructure and personnel resources of its own or through sufficient contractual arrangements with other SEFs or disaster recovery service providers. If the Commission determines that a SEF is a critical financial market, then that SEF would be subject to more stringent requirements, set forth in § 40.9 of the Commission’s regulations. The proposed rule also required each SEF to notify the Commission staff of various system security-related events, including prompt notice of all electronic trading halts and systems malfunctions (proposed § 37.1401(f)(1)), cyber￾security incidents (proposed § 37.1401(f)(2)), and any activation of the SEF’s BC–DR plan (proposed § 37.1401(f)(3)). In addition, the proposed rule required each SEF to provide the Commission staff with timely advance
notice of all planned changes to automated systems that may impact the reliability, security, or adequate scalable capacity of such systems (proposed § 37.1401(g)(1)) and planned changes to programs of risk analysis and oversight (proposed § 37.1401(g)(2)). The proposed rule also required each SEF to provide relevant documents to the Commission (proposed § 37.1401(h)) and to conduct regular, periodic, objective testing and review of its automated systems (proposed § 37.1401(i)). Moreover, proposed § 37.1401(j) required each SEF, to the extent practicable, to coordinate its BC– DR plan with those of the market participants upon whom it depends to provide liquidity, to initiate coordinated testing of such plans, and to ensure that its BC–DR plan takes into account the BC–DR plans of relevant telecommunications, power, water, and

794CME Comment Letter at 36 (Feb. 22, 2011). 795 Id. 796 Id. at 37. 797 Id. 798 Id. 799MarketAxess Comment Letter at 40 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter at 28 (Mar. 8, 2011). 800Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1231. 801 Id. 802As a result of these changes, proposed section (b) is adopted as section (a), proposed section (d) is adopted as section (b), proposed section (e) is adopted as section (c), proposed section (f) is adopted as section (d), proposed section (g) is adopted as section (e), proposed section (h) is adopted as section (f), proposed section (i) is adopted as section (g), and proposed section (k) is adopted as section (h). 803Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery, 75 FR 42633 (proposed Jul. 22, 2010). The Commission notes that this rulemaking is not yet final. 804 Id. at 42639. 805 Id. at 42638–39. 806CEA section 5h(f)(15); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(15). 807 Id. 808 Id. 809 Id. other essential service providers. Finally, proposed § 37.1401(k) stated that part 46 of the Commission’s regulations governs the obligations of entities determined to be critical financial markets, with respect to maintenance and geographical dispersal of disaster recovery resources. (1) Summary of Comments CME objected to what it considers to be an overly broad requirement in proposed § 37.1401(f)(1) to notify the Commission staff promptly of all electronic trading halts and systems malfunctions.794 CME stated that the required reporting should be limited only to material system failures.795 CME also objected to proposed § 37.1401(g)(1), stating that the requirement that SEFs provide the Commission with timely advance notice of all planned changes to automated systems that may impact the reliability, security, or adequate scalable capacity of such systems is overly burdensome, and not cost effective.796 Additionally, CME stated that the proposed § 37.1401(g)(2) requirement that SEFs provide timely advance notice of all planned changes to their program of risk analysis and oversight is too broad and generally unnecessary.797 Finally, CME noted that it does not control, or generally have access to, the details of the disaster recovery plans of its major vendors.798 MarketAxess and WMBAA sought clarification of the criteria used to determine which SEFs are ‘‘critical financial markets,’’ as referenced in proposed § 37.1401(d).799 (2) Commission Determination As noted in the SEF NPRM, automated systems play a central and critical role in today’s electronic financial market environment, and the oversight of core principle compliance by SEFs with respect to automated systems is an essential part of effective oversight of swaps market.800 Advanced computer systems are fundamental to a SEF’s ability to meet its obligations and responsibilities under the core principles.801 Accordingly, the Commission is adopting § 37.1401 as proposed, subject to the modifications described below. Although the Commission did not receive
related comments, the Commission is eliminating proposed § 37.1401(a) because this paragraph is repetitious of proposed rule § 37.1400. The Commission is also moving the following portions of proposed § 37.1401 to the guidance in appendix B to part 37 because the rules as proposed provided SEFs with a degree of discretion: (1) Proposed § 37.1401(c) suggesting that a SEF follow generally accepted standards and best practices in addressing the categories of its risk analysis and oversight program; (2) the portion of proposed § 37.1401(i) suggesting that a SEF’s testing of its automated systems and BC–DR capabilities be conducted by qualified, independent professionals; and (3) proposed § 37.1401(j) suggesting that a SEF coordinate its BC–DR plan with those of others.802 Given that these proposed provisions provided SEFs with a degree of discretion, the Commission believes that they are better suited as guidance rather than rules, and as guidance, SEFs will have greater flexibility in administering their obligations. In response to CME’s comments, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.1401(f)(1) to provide that SEFs only need to promptly notify the Commission staff of all material system malfunctions. With respect to planned changes to automated systems or programs of risk analysis and oversight, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.1401(g) to require timely advance notification of all material changes to automated systems and to programs of risk analysis and oversight. The Commission believes that these revisions are appropriate because the scope of the proposed rules may have been too broad as CME noted. The Commission notes that proposed § 37.1401(j) does not require SEFs to control or have access to the details of the disaster recovery plans of its major vendors. Rather, the requirement in the proposed rule, which is being adopted as guidance, suggests coordination to the extent possible. In response to comments from WMBAA and MarketAxess, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.1401(d) to include a reference to
appendix E to part 40 of the
Commission’s regulations, which describes the Commission’s criteria for determining whether a SEF is a critical financial market.803 Appendix E to part 40 describes the evaluation and notification process for SEFs once designated as a critical financial market.804 With respect to the references to § 40.9 regarding critical financial markets in proposed § 37.1401(d) and 37.1401(k), the Commission notes that § 40.9, which was proposed in a separate rulemaking,805 is not yet final. However, SEFs deemed critical financial markets will be subject to the requirements set forth in § 40.9 upon its effective date. The Commission further notes that the reference to part 46 in proposed § 37.1401(k) was a technical error. Instead, the proposed rule should have referenced part 40. Accordingly, the Commission is replacing the mistaken reference to part 46 with a reference to part 40.
15. Subpart P—Core Principle 15
(Designation of Chief Compliance Officer) Core Principle 15 establishes the position and duties of chief compliance officer (‘‘CCO’’).806 Core Principle 15 also requires the CCO to design procedures to establish the handling, management response, remediation, retesting, and closing of noncompliance issues.807 The statute also requires a CCO to prepare and sign an annual compliance report that is filed with the Commission.808 In addition, Core Principle 15 requires the CCO to include in the report a certification that, under penalty of law, the report is accurate and complete.809 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission proposed to codify the statutory text of Core Principle 15 in proposed § 37.1500, and adopts that rule as proposed. (a) § 37.1501—Chief Compliance Officer Proposed § 37.1501 implemented the statutory provisions of Core Principle 15 and granted CCOs the authority necessary to fulfill their responsibilities. (1) § 37.1501(a)—Definition of Board of Directors Proposed § 37.1501(a) defined ‘‘board of directors’’ as the board of directors of

810See Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1232 (discussing the reasons for this requirement). 811 Id. 812WMBAA Comment Letter II at 2–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 14–15 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 5–6 (Feb. 7, 2011). WMBAA submitted two comment letters to the SEF rulemaking comment file on Mar. 8, 2011. The second comment letter referred to herein as ‘‘WMBAA Comment Letter II’’ only pertains to the SEF NPRM’s proposed CCO provisions. Additionally, rather than repeat its comments regarding the CCO provisions that pertain to both the DCO and SEF NPRMs, CME incorporated its entire DCO rulemaking comment letter regarding CCOs dated Feb. 7, 2011 as Exhibit B to its SEF comment letter dated Mar. 8, 2011. The Commission notes these comments by referencing the Feb. 7, 2011 date of CME’s DCO comment letter regarding CCOs. The Commission is also changing CME’s reference to ‘‘DCO’’ to ‘‘SEF’’ for these comments. 813WMBAA Comment Letter II at 2–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 14–15 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 5–6 (Feb. 7, 2011). 814WMBAA Comment Letter II at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); FXall Comment Letter at 14–15 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 6 (Feb. 7, 2011). 815WMBAA Comment Letter II at 6–7 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 27 (Mar. 8, 2011); ICE Comment Letter at 6–7 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 3 (Feb. 7, 2011). 816WMBAA Comment Letter II at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 817CME Comment Letter at 3 (Feb. 7, 2011). 818MarketAxess Comment Letter at 27 n. 31 (Mar. 8, 2011). 819Parity Energy Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 25, 2011). 820Tradeweb Comment Letter at 12 (Mar. 8, 2011); Better Markets Comment Letter at 19 (Mar. 8, 2011). 821Better Markets Comment Letter at 19 (Mar. 8, 2011). 822CEA sections 5h(f)(15)(B)(iii) and (v); 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(15)(B)(iii) and (v). 823Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1232, n. 103. a swap execution facility or for those swap execution facilities whose organizational structure does not include a board of directors, a body performing a function similar to a board of directors. (i) Commission Determination The Commission received no comments on § 37.1501(a) and is adopting the rule as proposed. (2) § 37.1501(b)—Designation and Qualifications of Chief Compliance Officer Proposed § 37.1501(b)(1) required a SEF to establish a CCO position and to designate an individual to serve in that capacity. Proposed § 37.1501(b)(1)(i) required that a SEF provide its CCO with the authority and resources to develop and enforce policies and procedures necessary to fulfill its statutory and regulatory duties. In addition, proposed § 37.1501(b)(1)(ii) provided that CCOs must have supervisory authority over all staff acting in furtherance of the CCO’s statutory, regulatory, and self-regulatory obligations. Proposed § 37.1501(b)(2) required that a CCO have the appropriate background and skills to fulfill the
responsibilities of the position. Proposed § 37.1501(b)(2)(i) prohibited anyone who would be disqualified from registration under CEA sections 8a(2) or 8a(3) from serving as a CCO.810 Proposed § 37.1501(b)(2)(ii) prohibited a CCO from being a member of the SEF’s legal department or its general counsel.811 (i) Summary of Comments Some commenters stated that by mandating that the CCO have the authority and resources to ‘‘enforce’’ a SEF’s policies and procedures, the proposed rules change the traditional role of a CCO and give the CCO authority that should be reserved for senior management.812 These commenters stated that the traditional and proper role of a CCO is to advise management on compliance issues and that management has the authority to enforce compliance policies and procedures.813 The commenters recommended that the Commission revise the proposed rules to give effect to the well-established and critical distinction between a CCO and management.814 Some commenters stated that the proposed rules should not prohibit a CCO from serving as the SEF’s general counsel or as a member of the SEF’s legal department.815 WMBAA noted that it is not uncommon for a company’s CCO to be its general counsel.816 Similarly, CME noted that many CCOs have certain other job responsibilities, most typically in related ‘‘control areas’’ such as the Legal Department or Internal Audit.817 Additionally, MarketAxess stated that this prohibition could prevent a smaller SEF from structuring its internal management in the most efficient manner.818 Parity Energy recommended that this requirement only apply to SEFs that could have a substantial impact on market risk and stability if they were to fail.819 However, Tradeweb and Better Markets expressed support for a dedicated CCO position independent of a SEF’s legal department.820 Better Markets also commented that in situations where there are a number of affiliated organizations, a single senior CCO should have overall responsibility for each affiliated and controlled entity, even if the individual entities have CCOs.821 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.1501(b) as proposed, subject to two modifications described below. In general, the Commission disagrees with the commenters who believe that a CCO’s function is solely to monitor and advise on compliance issues. These commenters do not provide any statutory support for this view and their position appears to conflict with the statutory responsibilities of a CCO as set forth in the Act. In particular, CEA
section 5h(f)(15)(B) requires a CCO to
‘‘resolve any conflicts of interest that may arise’’ and to ‘‘ensure compliance with this Act.’’ 822 These duties suggest that a CCO is intended to be more than just an advisor, and must have the appropriate authority to enforce policies and procedures related to his or her areas of responsibility. The Commission believes that such authority is particularly important for a SEF CCO, given the CCO’s responsibility in overseeing a SEF’s self-regulatory programs. However, to clarify the CCO’s supervisory authority, the Commission is amending proposed § 37.1501(b)(1)(ii) to state that ‘‘[t]he chief compliance officer shall have supervisory authority over all staff acting at the direction of the chief compliance officer’’ (emphasis added). This modification provides greater clarity as to the SEF staff that must be under the managerial oversight of a CCO by emphasizing that such staff includes persons necessary for SEFs to fulfill their self-regulatory obligations, including compliance staff (e.g., trade practice and market surveillance staff and enforcement staff). The Commission notes that other SEF staff are not captured by the requirements of § 37.1501(b)(1). The Commission is withdrawing proposed § 37.1501(b)(2)(ii), which prohibits the CCO from serving as a SEF’s general counsel or as a member of its legal department. In the SEF NPRM, the Commission noted that there is potentially a conflict of interest present if a CCO serves as a SEF’s general counsel or as a member of its legal department.823 However, the Commission has determined that the potential costs of hiring additional staff to satisfy the requirement in proposed § 37.1501(b)(2)(ii) may impose an excessive burden on SEFs, particularly smaller SEFs. Although the Commission is eliminating proposed § 37.1501(b)(2)(ii) from the final SEF rules, the Commission notes that a conflict of interest may compromise a CCO’s

824See Requirements for Derivatives Clearing Organizations, Designated Contract Markets, and Swap Execution Facilities Regarding the Mitigation of Conflicts of Interest, 75 FR 63732, 63747–48 (proposed Oct. 18, 2010). Proposed § 37.19(b) describes the role of the ROC. The Commission notes that this rule is not yet final. 825FXall Comment Letter at 14 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 12 n.8 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 2–3 (Feb. 7, 2011). 826FXall Comment Letter at 14 (Mar. 8, 2011). 827CME Comment Letter at 2–3 (Feb. 7, 2011). 828Tradeweb Comment Letter at 6 (Jun. 3, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 26 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter II at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 12 (Mar. 8, 2011). 829WMBAA Comment Letter II at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011). 830MarketAxess Comment Letter at 26 (Mar. 8, 2011). 831CME Comment Letter at 9 (Feb. 7, 2011). 832AFR Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011); Better Markets Comment Letter at 19–20 (Mar. 8, 2011). 833AFR Comment Letter at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 834 Id. 835Better Markets Comment Letter at 19–20 (Mar. 8, 2011). 836The Commission is making certain non￾substantive revisions to § 37.1501(c) for clarity. ability to effectively fulfill his or her responsibilities as a CCO, and that such conflicts may be more likely to arise when a CCO is also employed as the SEF’s general counsel or within its legal department. Therefore, the Commission expects that as soon as any conflict of interest becomes apparent, a SEF will immediately implement contingency measures. For example, a SEF may reassign the conflicted matter to an alternate employee who does not report to the CCO and who does not possess a conflict of interest. The Commission believes that a SEF’s Regulatory Oversight Committee (‘‘ROC’’) 824 should regularly monitor for potential conflicts of interest in its oversight of the CCO, and should be particularly involved in the oversight of any matter in which a CCO was recused. The Commission disagrees with the recommendation by Better Markets to require a single senior CCO to have responsibility over multiple affiliated registered entities, some of which would be required by the CEA and Commission regulations to have their own CCOs. Such a situation might cause unnecessary confusion and dilute CCO accountability at the individual entity level. Additionally, the Commission believes that the proposed rule is sufficient to manage instances where there are a number of affiliated organizations within a corporate family. In these instances, each SEF would be required to appoint its own CCO. (3) § 37.1501(c)—Appointment, Supervision, and Removal of Chief Compliance Officer Proposed § 37.1501(c)(1) required that a CCO’s appointment and compensation be approved by a majority of the SEF’s board of directors or its senior officer. Proposed § 37.1501(c)(1) also required a CCO to meet with the SEF’s board of directors at least annually and the ROC at least quarterly, and to provide any information
requested regarding the SEF’s regulatory program. In addition, proposed § 37.1501(c)(1) required a SEF to notify the Commission of the appointment of a new CCO within two business days of such appointment. Proposed § 37.1501(c)(2) required a CCO to report directly to the board of directors or to the senior officer of the SEF, at the SEF’s discretion. Proposed § 37.1501(c)(3) required approval of a majority of a SEF’s board of directors to remove a CCO. If a SEF does not have a board of directors, the proposed rule provided that the CCO may be removed by its senior officer. Proposed § 37.1501(c)(3) also required a SEF to notify the Commission of, and explain the reasons for, the departure of the CCO within two business days. In addition, proposed § 37.1501(c)(3) required a SEF to immediately appoint an interim CCO, to appoint a permanent CCO as soon as reasonably practicable, and to notify the Commission within two business days of appointing any new interim or permanent CCO. (i) Summary of Comments Some commenters requested that the Commission define the term ‘‘senior officer’’ and provided recommendations.825 FXall recommended that the Commission define the term ‘‘senior officer’’ to include the SEF’s president, chief executive officer, chief legal officer, or other officer with ultimate supervisory authority for the SEF entity.826 CME recommended that the term ‘‘senior officer’’ be defined to include the senior officer of a division that is engaged in SEF activities rather than the senior officer of a larger corporation.827 Commenters also requested that the Commission grant a SEF greater flexibility in determining how a CCO is appointed, compensated, supervised, and removed.828 In this regard, WMBAA stated that a CCO should be permitted to satisfy the statutory requirement of reporting to the board of directors or a senior officer by reporting to a ROC.829 MarketAxess commented that the proposed requirements for a majority of the board of directors to approve the appointment, compensation, and removal of the CCO go beyond the statutory mandate and would effectively place the CCO at the same level as the SEF’s senior officer.830 CME argued that each SEF should be given the flexibility to take additional steps beyond those required in the proposed rule, based on the SEF’s particular corporate structure, size, and complexity, to ensure an appropriate level of independence for its CCO.831 AFR and Better Markets recommended, however, that the rules for CCO’s appointment, compensation, supervision, and removal be strengthened.832 AFR recommended that CCOs be responsible only to a SEF’s ROC.833 It argued that CCO independence may only be ensured by vesting oversight of the position exclusively in public directors.834 Similarly, Better Markets recommended that decisions relating to a CCO’s designation, compensation, and termination should be the sole responsibility of the independent members of the board of directors.835 (ii) Commission Determination
The Commission is adopting § 37.1501(c) as proposed, subject to several modifications described below.836 In response to commenters’ requests to define the term ‘‘senior officer,’’ the Commission believes, based on the statutory language that requires a CCO to report directly to the ‘‘board or to the senior officer,’’ that ‘‘senior officer’’ would only include the most senior executive officer of the legal entity that is registered as a SEF. In response to the commenters’ requests for greater flexibility, the Commission believes that proposed § 37.1501(c) generally strikes the appropriate balance between flexibility and ensuring that a SEF’s CCO is insulated from day-to-day commercial pressures. The proposed rules provide a degree of flexibility by allowing a SEF’s board of directors or senior officer to appoint, set the compensation of, and supervise the CCO. The proposed rules also protect the CCO from undue influence by requiring that the board of directors or the senior officer (if the SEF does not have a board of directors) be responsible for removing the CCO and that the CCO meet with the board of directors at least annually and with the ROC at least quarterly. In response to CME’s comment about additional flexibility beyond the rules, the Commission notes that § 37.1501(c) sets forth minimum standards so a SEF may implement additional measures if it deems doing so necessary to insulate the CCO from undue influence. The Commission encourages SEFs to review and enact conflict mitigation procedures as appropriate for their specific

837Better Markets Comment Letter at 20 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 6 (Feb. 7, 2011). 838Better Markets Comment Letter at 19, 20 (Mar. 8, 2011). 839CME Comment Letter at 6 (Feb. 7, 2011). 840 Id. 841Tradeweb Comment Letter at 6–7 (Jun. 3, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter II at 5–6 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 26 (Mar. 8, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 12 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 4 (Feb. 7, 2011). 842Tradeweb Comment Letter at 6–7 (Jun. 3, 2011); Tradeweb Comment Letter at 12 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 4 (Feb. 7, 2011). 843CME Comment Letter at 6 (Feb. 7, 2011). 844 Id. 845WMBAA Comment Letter II at 6 (Mar. 8, 2011). 846The Commission notes that the preamble to the SEF NPRM already clarified this point. To provide additional clarity, the Commission is clarifying this point in the final rule by adding the word ‘‘including’’ before the list of enumerated conflicts of interest. See Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1233. corporate and/or organizational structure. However, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.1501(c) in six respects. First, the Commission is modifying proposed § 37.1501(c)(1) to more clearly state that the CCO is obligated to meet with the board of directors at least annually and with the ROC at least quarterly, even if the CCO was appointed by, or is supervised by, the senior officer of the facility. Second, to clarify a CCO’s duty to provide information to a SEF’s board of directors or ROC, the Commission is modifying proposed § 37.1501(c)(1) to state that ‘‘[t]he chief compliance officer shall provide any information regarding the swap execution facility’s self-regulatory program that is requested by the board of directors or the regulatory oversight committee’’ (emphasis added). Third, the Commission is eliminating the requirement in proposed § 37.1501(c)(1) that a CCO’s appointment and compensation require the approval of a majority of a SEF’s board of directors. The Commission believes that board of director approval is a sufficient requirement for appointment, and that a SEF should have appropriate discretion to determine the voting percentage necessary to appoint a CCO or determine salary. Fourth, the Commission is eliminating the requirement in proposed § 37.1501(c)(3) that a SEF explain the reason for the departure of a CCO within two business days. The Commission believes that the specific reason for the departure may be unnecessary in most instances. However, the Commission will have the opportunity to investigate the reason for the departure if it so desires because a SEF must notify the Commission of a CCO’s departure within two business days. Fifth, the Commission is eliminating the requirement in proposed § 37.1501(c)(3) that a SEF immediately appoint an interim CCO, and appoint a new permanent CCO as soon as reasonably practicable, upon the removal of a CCO. The Commission believes that the requirement to appoint a new CCO
is implicit in § 37.1501(b)(1), which requires that a SEF designate an individual to serve as CCO. Finally, the Commission is eliminating the requirement in proposed § 37.1501(c)(3) that a SEF notify the Commission within two business days of appointing a new CCO because this requirement is already included in § 37.1501(c)(1). (4) § 37.1501(d)—Duties of Chief Compliance Officer Proposed § 37.1501(d) generally listed the following CCO duties: (1) Overseeing and reviewing compliance with section 5h of the CEA and related Commission regulations; (2) in consultation with the board of directors or the senior officer, resolving any conflicts of interest that may arise; (3) establishing and administering written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the CEA and Commission regulations; (4) ensuring compliance with the CEA and Commission regulations relating to agreements, contracts, or transactions, and with Commission regulations issued under section 5h of the CEA; (5) establishing procedures for the remediation of noncompliance issues identified by the CCO; (6) establishing and following appropriate procedures for noncompliance issues; (7) establishing a compliance manual and administering a code of ethics; (8) supervising a SEF’s self-regulatory program; and (9) supervising the effectiveness and sufficiency of any regulatory services provided to the SEF. (i) Summary of Comments Better Markets and CME commented on proposed § 37.1501(d)(2) regarding conflicts of interest.837 Better Markets recommended that the Commission revise proposed § 37.1501(d)(2) to require a CCO to consult with both the independent members of the board of directors and the senior officer when resolving conflicts of interest, which are particularly contentious.838 CME requested that the Commission revise proposed § 37.1501(d)(2) to require a CCO to establish policies and procedures reasonably designed to resolve any conflicts of interest that may arise.839 Although CME conceded that the language in proposed § 37.1501(d)(2) mirrors the language in the Act, it believes that Congress did not intend for the CCO to resolve conflicts in the executive or managerial sense.840 Several commenters argued that proposed § 37.1501(d)(4), requiring a CCO to ‘‘ensure’’ compliance with the Act and Commission regulations, is an impracticable standard.841 Instead, many of these commenters recommended alternative language, which generally stated that the CCO put in place policies and procedures that reasonably ensure compliance with the Act and Commission regulations.842 CME also took issue with the requirement in proposed § 37.1501(d)(6), which requires a CCO to ‘‘follow’’ appropriate procedures for the handling, management response, remediation, retesting, and closing of noncompliance issues.843 CME requested that the Commission eliminate this requirement, which it believes is a function of senior management.844 Additionally, WMBAA recommended that the Commission
delete proposed § 37.1501(d)(8) and (d)(9), regarding the supervision of a SEF’s self-regulatory program and any regulatory service provider, because these functions should be the responsibility of management.845 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.1501(d) as proposed, subject to certain modifications described below. The Commission is revising proposed § 37.1501(d)(2) to clarify that the list of enumerated conflicts of interest is not exhaustive.846 The Commission is not adopting the recommendation by Better Markets to require the CCO to consult with both the independent members of the board of directors and the senior officer when resolving conflicts of interest. Considering the statutory provisions of CEA section 5h, the Commission believes that it is unnecessary to require the CCO to do so. However, the Commission notes that § 37.1501(d)(2) sets forth minimum standards so a SEF may institute higher standards, such as requiring its CCO to consult with both the independent members of the board of directors and the senior officer when resolving conflicts of interest. The Commission also declines to adopt CME’s recommendation regarding conflicts of interest. As CME acknowledged, the Commission is following the statutory language in its implementation of § 37.1501(d)(2). In response to commenters’ concerns about the requirement to ‘‘ensure’’ compliance in proposed § 37.1501(d)(4),

847See, e.g., Swap Data Repositories: Registration Standards, Duties and Core Principles, 76 FR 54538, 54584 (Sept. 1, 2011) (stating that the duties of an SDR’s CCO include ‘‘[t]aking reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act and Commission regulations . . .’’); Derivatives Clearing Organization General Provisions and Core Principles, 76 FR 69334, 69434 (Nov. 8, 2011) (stating that the duties of a DCO’s CCO include ‘‘[t]aking reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act and Commission regulations . . .’’). 848The Commission is renaming the title of this
section from ‘‘Annual Compliance Report Prepared
by Chief Compliance Officer’’ to ‘‘Preparation of Annual Compliance Report.’’ 849FXall Comment Letter at 16–17 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 7–8 (Feb. 7, 2011). 850FXall Comment Letter at 16 (Mar. 8, 2011). 851See id. for details regarding FXall’s proposed alternatives. 852FXall Comment Letter at 17 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 7 (Feb. 7, 2011). 853CME Comment Letter at 7–8 (Feb. 7, 2011). 854MarketAxess Comment Letter at 26 (Mar. 8, 2011). 855MarketAxess Comment Letter at 26 (Mar. 8, 2011); FSR Comment Letter at 10 (Mar. 8, 2011). 856 Id. 857FXall Comment Letter at 15 (Mar. 8, 2011); CME Comment Letter at 8 (Feb. 7, 2011). 858 In this regard, the Commission disagrees with CME’s recommendation regarding proposed § 37.1501(e)(5). the Commission is modifying the rule to state that the CCO shall take ‘‘reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act and the rules of the Commission.’’ The Commission understands that a single individual cannot guarantee compliance with the CEA and Commission regulations. The Commission believes that this modification is responsive to commenters’ concerns and is consistent with the final rules for other registered entities.847 The Commission is also removing the reference to ‘‘agreements, contracts, or transactions’’ in proposed § 37.1501(d)(4) to more closely follow the language in the Act. In making this modification, the Commission does not intend to modify any substantive obligations of the CCO with regard to agreements, contracts, or transactions to the extent that these documents implicate the Act or Commission regulations under the Act. In order to clarify differences between the SEF NPRM’s preamble and rule text regarding proposed § 37.1501(d)(7), the Commission is revising the rule to state that the CCO’s duties include ‘‘[e]stablishing and administering a compliance manual designed to promote compliance with the applicable laws, rules, and regulations . . .’’ (emphasis added). The Commission also disagrees with CME and WMBAA that the requirements in proposed § 37.1501(d)(6), (d)(8), and (d)(9) are functions of management. These provisions, as discussed above, require a CCO to establish and follow appropriate procedures regarding noncompliance issues, supervise the SEF’s self-regulatory program, and supervise the effectiveness and sufficiency of any regulatory service provider. As noted above, the Commission disagrees with the commenters who believe that a CCO’s function is solely to monitor and advise on compliance issues. Finally, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.1501(d)(9) to remove the references to ‘‘registered futures association’’ and ‘‘other registered entity’’ and, instead, adding a reference to ‘‘regulatory service provider’’ given the inclusion of FINRA as a regulatory service provider under § 37.204. (5) § 37.1501(e)—Annual Compliance Report Prepared by Chief Compliance Officer 848 Proposed § 37.1501(e) generally enumerated the following information that must be included
in the annual compliance report: (1) A description of the SEF’s written policies and procedures, including the code of ethics and conflicts of interest policies; (2) a detailed review of the SEF’s compliance with CEA section 5h and Commission regulations, which, among other requirements, identifies the policies and procedures that ensure compliance with the core principles; (3) a list of any material changes to the compliance policies and procedures since the last annual compliance report; (4) a description of staffing and resources set aside for the SEF’s compliance program; (5) a description of any material compliance matters, including instances of noncompliance; (6) any objections to the annual compliance report by those persons who have oversight responsibility for the CCO; and (7) a certification by the CCO that, to the best of his or her knowledge and reasonable belief, and under penalty of law, the annual compliance report is accurate and complete. (i) Summary of Comments FXall and CME asserted that the information required to be included in the annual compliance report is too detailed.849 FXall, for example, commented that the requirements for the annual compliance report go beyond those set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act and that producing the report will consume considerable resources.850 FXall proposed alternative requirements, which it believes would be more in-line with the requirements in the Dodd-Frank Act.851 With respect to the requirement in proposed § 37.1501(e)(2)(i) to identify policies and procedures that ‘‘ensure’’ compliance with the core principles, FXall and CME stated that policies and procedures cannot ‘‘ensure’’ or guaranty compliance, but can only be reasonably designed to result in compliance.852 CME also recommended that the requirement in proposed § 37.1501(e)(5) to describe any material compliance matters be revised to require the report to identify ‘‘any material non￾compliance issues that were not properly addressed.’’ 853 MarketAxess recommended that the Commission remove proposed § 37.1501(e)(6) because in its opinion other persons should be able to correct the CCO’s annual report.854 MarketAxess and FSR expressed their concern that the CCO’s certification of the annual compliance report in proposed § 37.1501(e)(7) may impose strict liability on a CCO where the report contains even a minor and insignificant error.855 These commenters recommended adding a materiality qualifier to the certification.856 Additionally, both FXall and CME recommended that the SEF’s senior officer, not the CCO, certify the accuracy of the annual compliance report.857 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.1501(e) as proposed, subject to certain modifications described below. The Commission disagrees with the comments from FXall and CME regarding the complexity and the burden of the annual compliance report. The annual compliance report is meant to provide the Commission with a detailed account of a SEF’s
compliance with the CEA and Commission regulations, as well as a detailed account of a SEF’s self-regulatory program. The Commission believes that the level of detail the proposed rules require, including the requirement that the annual report include a description of all noncompliance issues identified, is necessary to ensure that the Commission can determine the effectiveness of a SEF’s compliance and self-regulatory programs.858 However, in response to comments, the Commission is revising proposed § 37.1501(e)(2)(i) to require that the annual compliance report identify ‘‘the policies and procedures that are designed to ensure compliance with each subsection and core principle, including each duty specified in section 5h(f)(15)(B) of the Act . . .’’ (emphasis added). The Commission is also removing proposed § 37.1501(e)(6), which requires the annual compliance report to include any objections by

859As a result of this deletion, the Commission is adopting proposed § 37.1501(e)(7) as § 37.1501(e)(6). 860 If a SEF does not have a board of directors, then the senior officer of the SEF may append his or her own comments if desired. 861CEA section 5h(f)(15)(D); 7 U.S.C. 7b– 3(f)15)(D). 862The Commission is renaming the title of this
section from ‘‘Submission of Annual Compliance
Report by Chief Compliance Officer to the Commission’’ to ‘‘Submission of Annual Compliance Report.’’ 863 5 U.S.C. 552. 864 5 U.S.C. 552b(b). 865FXall Comment Letter at 17–18 (Mar. 8, 2011); WMBAA Comment Letter II at 7 (Mar. 8, 2011); MarketAxess Comment Letter at 26 (Mar. 8, 2011). 866 Id. 867Better Markets Comment Letter at 20 (Mar. 8, 2011). 868 Id. 869CME Comment Letter at 9 (Feb. 7, 2011). 870CEA section 5h(f)(15)(D)(ii); 7 U.S.C. 7b– 3(f)(15)(D)(ii). 871 17 CFR 145.9. those persons who oversee the CCO.859 The Commission believes that the board of directors 860 may append its own comments if desired, but the statutory text and the Commission’s implementing regulations do not require it. The Commission disagrees with the comments from MarketAxess and FSR regarding the inclusion of a materiality qualifier to the certification requirement. The Commission believes that the current certification sufficiently protects the CCO from being held strictly liable for any minor inaccuracies because it includes a ‘‘knowledge’’ and ‘‘reasonable belief’’ qualifier. The Commission also disagrees with CME’s and FXall’s comments to have the SEF’s CEO, instead of the CCO, certify the accuracy of the annual compliance report. While the CEA does not explicitly require that the CCO certify the report, it does require that the CCO ‘‘annually prepare and sign’’ the report, and that the report ‘‘include a certification that, under penalty of law, the compliance report is accurate and complete.’’ 861 The Commission believes that these two requirements read together provide sufficient basis for the CCO to certify that the report is accurate and complete. However, the Commission is modifying § 37.1501(e) to explicitly state that the CCO ‘‘sign’’ the annual compliance report in order to follow the statutory text more closely. (6) § 37.1501(f)—Submission of Annual Compliance Report by Chief Compliance Officer to the Commission 862 Proposed § 37.1501(f)(1) required, among other items, that the CCO provide the annual compliance report to the board of directors or the senior officer for review, prior to submission to the Commission. The proposed rule also stated that the board of directors or the senior officer may not require the CCO to make any changes to the report. Proposed § 37.1501(f)(2) required that the annual compliance report be electronically provided to the Commission not more than 60 days after the end of the SEF’s fiscal year. Proposed § 37.1501(f)(3) required the CCO to promptly file an amendment to an annual compliance report upon discovery of any material error or omission. Proposed § 37.1501(f)(4) allowed a SEF to request an extension of time to file its compliance report based on substantial, undue hardship. Finally, proposed § 37.1501(f)(5) stated that annual compliance reports will be treated as exempt from mandatory public disclosure for purposes of FOIA 863 and the Sunshine Act 864 and parts 145 and 147 of the Commission’s regulations. (i) Summary of
Comments Some commenters stated that proposed § 37.1501(f)(1) should be modified to allow the board of directors or the senior officer to make changes to the annual compliance report.865 These commenters generally argued that the CCO should be accountable to management and, by not permitting the board of directors or the senior officer to revise the report, the proposed rule undermines the authority of the board of directors.866 Better Markets recommended that the CCO should be required to present his or her finalized report to the board of directors and executive management prior to its submission.867 Better Markets further recommended that the independent directors and/or the Audit Committee, as well as the entire board of directors, review and approve the report or detail where and why it disagrees with any provision before submission to the Commission.868 With respect to proposed § 37.1501(f)(5), CME recommended that the Commission expressly state that annual compliance reports are confidential documents that are not subject to public disclosure by listing such reports as a specifically exempt item in Commission regulation 145.5.869 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.1501(f) as proposed, subject to two modifications described below. The Commission has determined not to adopt the commenters’ recommendation to allow the board of directors or the senior officer to make changes to the annual compliance report. The Commission believes that allowing the board of directors or the senior officer to make changes to the report would prevent the CCO from making a complete and accurate assessment of a SEF’s compliance program. The Commission has determined not to adopt the recommendation by Better Markets that the board of directors approve the annual compliance report or detail any disagreement. The Commission believes that requiring the board of directors to approve the report increases the risk that the CCO would be subject to undue influence by the board or by management. The Commission notes that the board of directors may include its own opinion of the annual compliance report if it disagrees with the CCO’s assessment. The Commission believes that the rule strikes the appropriate balance between ensuring that the board of directors cannot adversely influence the content of the annual compliance report and granting the board the opportunity to express its opinion of the report to the Commission. The Commission is revising proposed § 37.1501(f)(2) to clarify that a SEF shall submit its annual compliance report to the Commission concurrently with the SEF’s filing of its fourth fiscal quarter financial report pursuant to § 37.1306. The Commission is making this technical correction because CEA
section 5h(f)(15)(D)(ii) sets forth such a
requirement, which was inadvertently omitted from the proposed rules.870 Additionally, the Commission is withdrawing proposed § 37.1501(f)(5). The Commission acknowledges CME’s concern regarding the public release of annual compliance reports and clarifies that the Commission does not intend to make annual compliance reports public. However, where such information is, in fact, confidential, the Commission encourages SEFs to submit a written request for confidential treatment of such filings under FOIA, pursuant to the procedures established in section 145.9 of the Commission’s regulations.871 The determination of whether to disclose or exempt such information in the context of a FOIA proceeding would be governed by the provisions of part 145 and any other relevant provision. (7) § 37.1501(g)—Recordkeeping Proposed § 37.1501(g)(1) generally stated that a SEF must maintain the following records: (i) A copy of written policies and procedures adopted in furtherance of compliance with the Act and Commission regulations; (ii) copies

872MarketAxess Comment Letter at 27 (Mar. 8, 2011). 873 Id. 874The Commission is making certain non￾substantive clarifications to § 37.1501(g). In addition, the Commission is revising the citation to paragraphs ‘‘(d)(6) and (d)(7)’’ in proposed § 37.1501(g)(1)(ii) to cite to paragraphs ‘‘(d)(8) and (d)(9).’’ The Commission notes that this was a drafting error. 875Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1235. 876 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 877See 47 FR 18618–21 (Apr. 30, 1982). 878See 47 FR 18618, 18619 (Apr. 30, 1982) discussing DCMs; 66 FR 42256, 42268 (Aug. 10,
2001) discussing DTEFs, ECMs, and EBOTs; and 66
FR 45604, 45609 (Aug. 29, 2001) discussing DCOs. 879 Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 880Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1235. 881 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 882Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1236. 883 7 U.S.C. 12(a)(1). 884 5 U.S.C. 552a. 885Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1236. 886 Id. of all materials created in furtherance of the CCO’s duties listed in paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7) of proposed § 37.1501; (iii) copies of all materials in connection with the review and submission of the annual compliance report; and (iv) any records relevant to a SEF’s annual report. Proposed § 37.1501(g)(2) required a SEF to maintain these records in accordance with § 1.31 and part 45 of the Commission’s regulations. (i) Summary of Comments MarketAxess commented that the final rule should provide an exception for legally privileged materials.872 MarketAxess argued that it is unreasonable for the Commission to take the position that a CCO should not be able to receive privileged advice from counsel in an effort to comply with these new, complex, and uncertain rules.873 (ii) Commission Determination The Commission is adopting § 37.1501(g) as proposed.874 The Commission does not believe that § 37.1501(g) changes existing Commission policies regarding the assertion of attorney-client privilege by registrants. As stated in the SEF NPRM, the Commission designed § 37.1501(g) to ensure that the Commission staff would be able to obtain the necessary information to determine whether a SEF has complied with the CEA and applicable regulations.875 The Commission believes that proposed § 37.1501(g) properly accomplishes this goal. Finally, the Commission is adding new § 37.1501(h) titled ‘‘Delegation of authority’’ to the final SEF rules to delegate authority to the Director of DMO to grant or deny a swap execution facility’s request for an extension of time to file its annual compliance report under paragraph (f)(4) of § 37.1501.
III. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’) 876 requires federal agencies, in promulgating regulations, to consider the impact of those regulations on small entities. The regulations adopted herein will affect SEFs. The Commission has previously established certain definitions of ‘‘small entities’’ to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its regulations on small entities in accordance with the RFA.877 In addition, the Commission has previously determined that DCMs, derivatives transaction execution facilities (‘‘DTEFs’’), exempt commercial markets (‘‘ECMs’’), exempt boards of trade (‘‘EBOTs’’), and DCOs are not small entities for the purpose of the RFA.878 While SEFs are new entities to be regulated by the Commission pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act,879 in the SEF NPRM the Commission proposed that SEFs should not be considered as small entities for the purpose of the RFA for essentially the same reasons that DCMs and DCOs have previously been determined not to be small entities.880 The Commission received no comments on the impact of the rules contained herein on small entities. Therefore, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’) 881 imposes certain requirements on federal agencies in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number issued by the Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’). This final rulemaking contains new collection of information requirements within the meaning of the PRA. Accordingly, in connection with the SEF NPRM, the Commission submitted an information collection request, titled ‘‘Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities,’’ to OMB for its review and approval in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. Additionally, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission, in the SEF NPRM, requested comments from the public on the proposed information collection requirements in order to, among other items, evaluate the necessity of the proposed collections of information and minimize the burden of the information collection requirements on respondents.882 On April 28, 2011, OMB assigned control number 3038–0074 to this collection of information, but withheld final approval pending the Commission’s resubmission of the information collection, which includes a description of the comments received on the collection and the Commission’s responses thereto. The Commission has revised some of its proposed estimates of the number of mandatory responses in order to clarify the Commission’s original intent; otherwise, the proposed
burden hour estimates are being adopted as discussed herein. The Commission has submitted the revised information collection request to OMB for its review, which will be made available by OMB at http:// www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. As noted in the SEF NPRM, the Commission will protect 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 customers.’’ 883 The Commission is also required to protect certain information contained in a government system of records according to the Privacy Act of 1974.884

1. Proposed Collection of Information
   In the SEF NPRM, the Commission estimated that each SEF respondent would have an average annual reporting burden of 308 hours.885 In deriving this estimate, the Commission compared the reporting requirements for other entities that fall under the Commission’s regulatory oversight, such as an Exempt Commercial Market with a significant price discovery contract (‘‘SPDC ECM’’), a DTEF, and a DCM.886 Specifically, the Commission estimated that a SEF will have more reporting requirements than a SPDC ECM and a DTEF, but fewer

887 Id. SPDC ECMs were subject to 9 core principles, DTEFs were subject to 9 core principles, and DCMs are subject to 23 core principles. SEFs will be subject to 15 core principles. Id. at 1236 n. 124. 888 Id. at 1236. 889After passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and a switch to the core principles framework for DCMs, the Commission estimated that the recordkeeping and reporting obligations imposed by part 38 would total 300 burden hours per DCM. See A New Regulatory Framework for Trading Facilities, Intermediaries and Clearing Organizations, 66 FR 42256, 42268 (Aug. 10, 2001); 66 FR 14262, 14268 (proposed Mar. 9, 2001). In 2007, the Commission amended the acceptable practices in part 38 for minimizing conflicts of interest, estimating that the amendments would increase the information collection and reporting burden by an additional 70 hours per DCM. See Conflicts of Interest in Self￾Regulation and Self-Regulatory Organizations (‘‘SROs’’), 72 FR 6936, 6957 (Feb. 14, 2007); 71 FR 38740, 38748 (proposed Jul. 7, 2006). Most recently, the Commission adopted revisions to part 38 to implement the Dodd-Frank Act, estimating that the revisions would increase the information collection and reporting burden by an additional 70 hours per DCM. See Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, 77 FR 36612, 36662 (Jun. 19, 2012). The average for purposes of the initial burden hour estimate for SEFs averages both initial estimates for DCMs with the other most recent estimates. 890A New Regulatory Framework for Trading Facilities, Intermediaries and Clearing Organizations, 66 FR at 42268; 66 FR at 14268. 891Significant Price Discovery Contracts on Exempt Commercial Markets, 74 FR 12178, 12187 (Mar. 23, 2009); 73 FR 75888, 75902 (proposed Dec. 12, 2008). 892Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1236. For hourly reporting requirements, an average of 35 SEFs was used for calculation purposes. Id. at 1236 n. 125. 893 Id. at 1236. 894 In arriving at a wage rate for the hourly costs imposed, the Commission consulted the Management and Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry Report, published in 2010 by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA Report). The wage rate is a composite (blended) wage rate arrived at by averaging the mean annual salaries of an Assistant/ Associate General Counsel, an Assistant Compliance Director, a Senior Programmer, and a Senior Treasury/Cash Management Manager as published in the SIFMA Report and dividing that
figure by 2,000 annual work hours to arrive at the
hourly rate of $52.
895Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 76 FR at 1236. 896 Id. 897 308 average hours per respondent × 35 respondents = 10,780 total hours/year. Id. 898WMBAA Comment Letter at 14 (Mar. 8, 2011). 899MarketAxess Comment Letter at 20–21 (Mar. 8, 2011). 900CME Comment Letter at 10, 13 (Feb. 22, 2011). 901 Id. at 10. 902Provisions Common to Registered Entities, 76 FR 44776, 44789 (Jul. 27, 2011). The Commission also notes that the annual burden hour estimate for DCMs that was used to calculate the annual burden hour estimate for SEFs in this part 37 rulemaking did not include the recordkeeping and reporting hours accounted for in the part 40 rulemaking’s information collection estimate. Therefore, there is no double counting of hours for product and rule submissions. Furthermore, the Commission notes that, similar to the DCM rulemaking, many of the collection burdens associated with this part 37 Continued reporting requirements than a DCM (as most recently calculated).887 The Commission employed an average of its most recent hourly burdens for DCMs, DTEFs, and SPDC ECMs.888 Those hourly burdens provided in the SEF NPRM are noted below:
Current estimate of DCM’s annual burden: 440 hours per DCM 889 Initial estimate of DTEF’s annual burden: 200 hours per DTEF 890 Initial estimate of SPDC ECM’s annual burden: 233 hours per ECM 891 In the SEF NPRM, the Commission estimated that 30 to 40 SEFs will register with the Commission as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act.892 Therefore, the Commission estimated the annual aggregate hour burden for all respondents to be 10,780 hours.893 Based on an hourly rate of $52,894 the Commission estimated that respondents may expend up to $16,016 annually to comply with the proposed regulations.895 This would result in an aggregate cost across all SEF respondents of $560,560 per annum (35 respondents × $16,016).896 The SEF NPRM also provided the following summary of estimates:
Estimated number of respondents: 35 Annual responses by each respondent: 1 Total annual responses: 35 Quarterly responses by each respondent:
4
Total quarterly responses: 140 Estimated average hours per response:
308
Aggregate annual reporting hours burden: 10,780 897
2. Summary of Comments and
Commission Response
While no commenter directly addressed the proposed aggregate burden hour estimate, the Commission did receive comments related to the costs of various recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the proposed rules. (a) § 37.3—Requirements and Procedures for Registration WMBAA commented that the Commission could reduce the regulatory burden of the registration procedures by reconciling its Form SEF with the SEC’s registration form such that a potential SEF will have to fill out only one form.898 Similarly, MarketAxess stated that it is costly and inefficient for a SEF that is required to be registered by both the Commission and SEC to go through two full registration processes, and that the Commission instead should permit ‘‘notice’’ or ‘‘passport’’ registration of an SB–SEF already registered with the SEC.899 While the Commission acknowledges notice registration under
section 5h(g) of the Act, it notes that the
registration requirements for SEFs may differ from the registration requirements for SB–SEFs and thus the Commission must conduct an independent review of a SEF applicant’s registration application to ensure that the potential SEF’s proposed trading models and operations comply with the Commission’s requirements. Given such differing requirements, the Commission also notes that Form SEF may differ from the SEC’s registration form. With respect to temporary registration, the Commission has eliminated the requirement from the SEF NPRM that an applicant provide transaction data that substantiates that the execution or trading of swaps has occurred and continues to occur on the applicant’s trading system or platform at the time the applicant submits its temporary registration request. The Commission has also eliminated the certification requirement that an applicant believes that when it operates under temporary registration it will meet the requirements of part 37 of the Commission’s regulations. Instead, the Commission has revised the temporary registration provisions to require a SEF applicant that is already operating a swaps-trading platform, in reliance upon either an exemption granted by the Commission or some form of no￾action relief granted by the Commission staff, to include in the temporary registration notice a certification that it is operating pursuant to such exemption or no-action relief. The Commission believes that these revisions will not materially affect the proposed part 37 information collection estimate. (b) § 37.4—Procedures for Listing Products and Implementing Rules CME commented that the proposed product and rule certification process substantially increased the documentation burden, which in turn would increase the cost and amount of time it takes to list new products and implement new rules, with no corresponding benefit to the public.900 While CME cited the 8,300 additional aggregate hours that product and rule submissions were estimated to impose on all registered entities,901 the Commission notes that this figure was already accounted for in the Commission’s information collection estimate in the part 40 rulemaking titled ‘‘Provisions Common to Registered Entities.’’ 902 Therefore, the burden

rulemaking are covered by other existing or pending collections of information. Therefore, only those burdens that are not covered elsewhere are included in this collection of information. 903CME Comment Letter at 13 (Feb. 22, 2011). 904 Id. 905 Id. at 16. 906 Id. at 22. 907WMBAA Comment Letter at 23 (Mar. 8, 2011). 908 Id. at 26. 909FXall Comment Letter at 3 (Mar. 8, 2011). 910MarketAxess Comment Letter at 40 (Mar. 8, 2011). 911CME Comment Letter at 36–37 (Feb 22, 2011). associated with that information collection is not duplicated here. (c) § 37.5(c)—Equity Interest Transfers CME commented that the ‘‘level of immediacy’’ contemplated by the 24- hour timeframe for submitting agreements with the notification to the Commission of an equity interest transfer in proposed § 37.5(c) may be unrealistic.903 CME further commented that the representation of compliance with the requirements of CEA section 5h and the Commission’s regulations adopted thereunder would be more appropriate if required upon consummation of the equity interest transfer, rather than with the initial notification.904 In this final rulemaking, the Commission has revised proposed § 37.5(c) to remove references to specific documents that must be provided with the equity transfer notification, and instead provided that the Commission may request supporting documentation. The Commission has also revised the proposed rule to increase the threshold of when a SEF must file an equity interest transfer notification with the Commission from ten percent to fifty percent and has extended the time period for a SEF to file the notification to up to ten business days from one business day under the proposed rule. In addition, the Commission has deleted the requirement for a SEF to provide a representation of compliance with
section 5h of the Act and the
Commission regulations thereunder with the equity interest transfer notification, as requested by CME. The Commission notes that these revisions should slightly reduce the burden of the information collection requirements for those respondents who are not requested to provide supporting documentation. (d) § 37.202(b)—Jurisdiction CME stated that it would be costly for a SEF to obtain every customer’s consent to its regulatory jurisdiction as required by proposed § 37.202(b).905 As noted in the preamble, the Commission believes that jurisdiction must be established by a SEF prior to granting members and market participants access to its markets in order to effectuate the statutory mandate of Core Principle 2 that a SEF shall have the capacity to detect, investigate, and enforce rules of the SEF. The Commission notes that any information collection costs associated with this rule is covered by the Commission’s information collection estimate. (e) § 37.203(f)—Investigations and Investigation Reports CME stated that minor transgressions could be handled effectively through the issuance of a warning letter rather than a formal investigatory report.906 As explained in the preamble, the Commission clarifies that warning letters may be issued for minor transgressions; however, no more than one warning letter may be issued to the same person or entity found to have committed the same rule violation more than once within a rolling 12-month period. The Commission also clarifies that the limit on the number of warning letters is not applicable when a rule violation has not been found. The Commission believes that these clarifications will not materially affect the proposed part 37 information collection estimate. (f) § 37.205—Audit Trail WMBAA commented that the proposed audit trail requirement in § 37.205(b) to retain records of customer orders should not apply to indicative quotes because it would be burdensome and costly.907 As discussed in the preamble, the Commission believes that this requirement is necessary so that a SEF has a complete picture of all trading activity in order to carry out its statutory mandate to monitor its markets to detect abusive trading practices and trading rule violations. The Commission accounted for this recordkeeping requirement in the proposed burden hour estimate; therefore, the estimate remains unaffected. (g) § 37.404—Ability to Obtain Information WMBAA commented that the requirement for SEFs to mandate that traders maintain trading and financial records is not required under the Act.908 The Commission notes that market participants’ trading records are an invaluable tool in its surveillance efforts and believes that a SEF should have direct access to such information in order to discharge its obligations under the SEF core principles. However, as noted in the preamble, the Commission states in the guidance that SEFs may limit the application of this requirement to those market participants who conduct substantial
trading on their facility. The Commission notes that the requirement for market participants to keep such records is sound commercial practice, and that market participants are likely already maintaining such trading records; therefore, the Commission believes that the revision above will not materially affect the proposed part 37 information collection estimate. (h) § 37.703—Monitoring for Financial Soundness FXall commented that SEFs would be burdened by the ‘‘onerous financial surveillance obligations’’ of proposed § 37.703, which include the routine review of members’ financial records.909 The Commission agrees that burdensome financial surveillance obligations may lead to higher transaction costs; therefore, as discussed in the preamble, the Commission has revised the proposed rule to state that SEFs must monitor their market participants to ensure that they continue to qualify as ECPs. The Commission believes that this revision will not materially affect the proposed part 37 information collection estimate and is thus maintaining the estimate. (i) § 37.1306—Financial Resources Reporting to the Commission MarketAxess commented that the financial resources reporting requirements are unnecessary and burdensome and recommended that the Commission allow a senior officer of the SEF to represent to the Commission that it satisfies the financial resources requirements.910 The Commission disagrees with MarketAxess and, as discussed in the preamble, believes that much of the information required by the reports should be readily available to a SEF in the ordinary course of business. The Commission’s proposed burden hour estimate includes this reporting requirement. (j) § 37.1401—System Safeguards Requirements CME commented that the requirements to notify the Commission staff of all system security-related events and all planned changes to automated systems that may impact the reliability, security, or scalability of the systems are overly burdensome.911 As noted in the preamble, the Commission has revised the rule to only require notification of material system malfunctions and material planned system changes. While

912FXall Comment Letter at 16 (Mar. 8, 2011). 913Under § 37.1501, the SEF’s CCO is required to submit to the Commission annually a compliance report. 914Under § 37.1306, a SEF is required to submit to the Commission each fiscal quarter a report of its financial resources available to meet the financial resources requirements of Core Principle 13. 915 1 quarterly response × 4 quarters per year × 35 respondents. 916 308 average burden hours per respondent/5 responses total per year (1 annual response and 4 quarterly responses) = 61.6 average hours per response. 917 5 responses total per year × 61.6 average hours per response × 35 respondents. 918See supra footnote 894 for a discussion of the wage rate. The Commission has revised the wage rate to $54 per hour based on data from the 2011 SIFMA Report. 919While the Commission recognizes that some estimates cited in the following cost-benefit consideration section suggest that reporting and recordkeeping requirements may result in a much higher aggregate cost to SEFs and market participants, it notes that all of the estimates provided therein account for more than pure recordkeeping and reporting costs subject to the PRA. Therefore, the Commission has not considered those estimates for purposes of reaching its final burden hour estimate and aggregate cost projection. 920CEA section 15(a); 7 U.S.C. 19(a). A more complete explanation of this statutory requirement is provided below. See infra section 1(b) of this Cost Benefit Considerations section. Swaps, futures, and options are collectively referred to as derivatives— contracts used by market participants to hedge against the risk of a future change in prices, such as commodity prices, interest rates, and exchange rates. these revisions should decrease the regulatory burden imposed by the rule, the Commission believes that, given the infrequent nature of the information collection requirement as originally proposed, the effect of the revisions should be de minimis and therefore not affect the proposed burden hour estimate. (k) § 37.1501(e)—Preparation of Annual Compliance Report FXall commented that the information required by the proposed regulations to be included in the annual compliance report is too detailed and will be too costly to compile.912 The Commission is not persuaded by FXall’s comment, and notes that the annual compliance report is meant to be the primary tool by which the Commission can evaluate the effectiveness of a SEF’s compliance and self-regulatory programs, thus requiring a high level of detail. The Commission’s proposed burden hour estimate includes the annual compliance report requirement.
3. Final Burden Estimate
The final regulations require each respondent to file information with the Commission. For instance, SEF applicants must file registration applications with the Commission pursuant to § 37.3. SEFs must record, report, and disclose information related to prices, trading volume, and other trading data for swaps pursuant to Core Principles 9 and 10 (‘‘Timely Publication of Trading Information’’ and ‘‘Recordkeeping and Reporting’’). In general, the collections of information are required to demonstrate a SEF’s operational capability and are a tool by which both the SEF and the Commission can evaluate the effectiveness of a SEF’s self-regulatory programs. The mandatory information collections are contained in several of the general provisions being adopted in subpart A, as well as in certain regulations implementing Core Principles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15. Generally, the information collections covered in this final part 37 rulemaking are not covered in other existing collections or collections that are being established in connection with other Dodd-Frank rulemakings, and pertain to the following general categories of recordkeeping and reporting: registration; submissions related to material changes in the SEF’s operations or business structure; compliance; financial resources reports, and an annual report by the CCO related to the SEF’s performance of its self￾regulatory responsibilities. As discussed above, the methodology used to formulate the proposed estimate was an average of other registered entities. Due to the relatively low magnitude of changes made to the mandatory information collection provisions in this final part 37 rulemaking, the Commission has determined not to alter its proposed estimate of 308 hours per SEF respondent. By definition, averages are meant to serve as only a reference point; the Commission understands that due to both discretionary and mandatory requirements, some SEFs may go above the final estimate of 308 hours to complete mandatory information collection requirements, while others may stay below. The Commission is, however, adjusting the proposed estimate of annual and quarterly responses to clarify the Commission’s original intent. In this regard, the Commission is adding an estimated average hours per response number below, which is based on 5 responses per year (1 annual response and 4 quarterly responses) per respondent. Estimated number of respondents: 35 Annual responses by each respondent:
1 913
Total annual responses: 35 Quarterly responses by each respondent:
1 914
Total quarterly responses: 140 915 Estimated average hours per response:
62 916
Aggregate annual reporting hours burden: 10,780 Therefore, the Commission estimates that based on 35 registered SEFs, this final part 37 rulemaking will result in 10,780 information collection hours across all respondents.917
4. Aggregate Information Burden
The Commission concludes that new information collection 3038–0074 will result in each SEF respondent expending, on average, $16,632 annually based on an hourly wage rate of $54 to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this final
part 37 rulemaking.918 In aggregate, this
will result in a cost to all SEF respondents of $582,120 per annum based on 35 expected respondents. This aggregate cost estimate has been adjusted from the estimate in the SEF NPRM to account for updated wage rate data.919
C. Cost Benefit Considerations

1. Introduction
   Section 15(a) of the Commodity
   Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’ or ‘‘Act’’) mandates that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CFTC’’) consider the costs and benefits of the regulations that it is adopting in this rulemaking to implement the statutory requirements for the registration and operation of swap execution facilities (‘‘SEFs’’), a new type of regulated marketplace for the trading and execution of financial derivative contracts known as swaps.920 In considering the costs and benefits of the final SEF regulations, the Commission has grouped the same into the following categories—SEF Market Structure, Registration, Recordkeeping and Reporting, Compliance, Monitoring and Surveillance, Financial Resources and Integrity, and Emergency Operations and System Safeguards. Several preliminary matters, however, provide background for the Commission’s consideration of the costs and benefits of the rules adopted in this release. Discussed in this Introduction
   section, these preliminary matters are:
   (a) The circumstances and events that form the backdrop for the statutory requirements that this rulemaking implements; (b) the Commission’s statutory mandate to consider costs and benefits and its methodology for doing so; and (c) the estimated aggregate costs of forming and operating a SEF.

921See Dodd-Frank Act section 721(a)(21), adding CEA section 1a(47). 7 U.S.C. 1a(47). 922CEA section 1a(47)(A)(ii); 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(A)(ii). 923CEA section 1a(47)(A)(i) & (iv); 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(A)(i) & (iv). Futures are not within the definition of swap and remain separately subject to requirements of the CEA. See CEA section 1a(47)(B)(i); 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(B)(i). 924CEA section 1a(47)(A)(i) & (iii); 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(A)(i) & (iii). 925CEA section 1a(47)(A)(ii); 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(A)(ii). 926See Further Definition of ‘‘Swap,’’ ‘‘Security￾Based Swap,’’ and ‘‘Security-Based Swap Agreement’’; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, 77 FR 48208 (Aug. 13, 2012). 927The Commission notes that privately negotiated swap transactions between counterparties is only one method to execute or trade a swap transaction in the OTC market. Counterparties in the OTC market may execute or trade swap transactions through many trading methods such as order books, RFQ systems, or systems that incorporate electronic and voice components. 928Absent a centralized trading mechanism such as a limit order book, buyers and sellers ‘‘negotiated terms privately, often in ignorance of prices currently available from other potential counterparties and with limited knowledge of trades recently negotiated elsewhere in the market. OTC markets are thus said to be relatively opaque; investors are somewhat in the dark about the most attractive available terms and conditions and about whom to contact for attractive terms.’’ Darrell Duffie, Dark Markets: Asset Pricing and Information Transmission in Over-the-Counter Markets 1 (Princeton University Press) (2012). 929Asymmetric information exists when one party to a transaction has more or better information than the other. In the context of the swaps market, as dealers are always on one side of a large fraction of trades, it is highly likely that they will have better information on prevailing market conditions and valuations compared to their non-dealer counterparties. See Michael Fleming, John Jackson, Ada Li, Asani Sarkar & Patricia Zobel, ‘‘An Analysis of OTC Interest Rate Derivatives Transactions:
Implications for Public Reporting,’’ Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, No. 557, at 6 n. 14 (Mar. 2012), available at http:// www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/ sr557.pdf. Major derivatives dealer activity accounts for 89% of the total interest rate swap activity in notional terms. Id. 930CEA section 1a(18); 7 U.S.C. 1a(18). 931Under the CFMA, prior to the adoption of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, swaps based on exempt commodities—including energy and metals—could be traded among eligible contract participants without CFTC regulation, but certain CEA provisions against fraud and manipulation continued to apply to these markets. No statutory exclusions were provided for swaps on agricultural commodities by the CFMA, although they could be traded under certain regulatory exemptions provided by the CFTC prior to its enactment. Swaps based on securities were subject to certain SEC enforcement authorities, but the SEC was prohibited from prophylactic regulation of such swaps. See Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission majority found that the CFMA ‘‘effectively shielded OTC derivatives from virtually all regulation or oversight,’’ and ‘‘OTC derivatives markets boomed’’ in the law’s wake, increasing ‘‘more than sevenfold’’ after the CFMA was enacted. See The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States (Official Government Edition), at 48, 364 (2011) (hereinafter the ‘‘FCIC Report’’), available at http://www.gpo. gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf. 932Legislative history indicates that in enacting the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress recognized that OTC market opacity, combined with the availability of superior price information primarily to dealers, limited the ability of swaps customers ‘‘to shop for the best price or rate.’’ See Mark Jickling & Kathleen Ann Ruane, ‘‘The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Title VII, Derivatives,’’ Cong. Research Serv., R41398, at 7 (Aug. 30, 2010). See also S. Rep. No. 111–176, at 30 (2010) (‘‘Information on [OTC derivative contract] prices and quantities is opaque. . . . This can lead to inefficient pricing and risk assessment for derivatives users and leave regulators ill￾informed about risks building up throughout the financial system’’). Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, stated, ‘‘[a]t times [during the crisis], the complexity and diversity of derivatives instruments also posed (a) Background An appreciation of certain background elements is helpful to understand the costs and benefits of this rulemaking. These are: (i) The definition of the derivative financial transactions (i.e., swaps) that will be executed on SEFs; (ii) the execution and regulation of swaps prior to the Dodd-Frank Act; (iii) the
2008 financial crisis and the role of the over-the-counter (‘‘OTC’’) swaps market; (iv) the new regulatory regime to reform the swaps market in Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act; and, more specifically, (v) the role and purpose of SEFs within the Title VII regulatory regime. Each of these background elements is discussed below. (1) The Definition of a Swap Congress defined the term ‘‘swap’’ in the Dodd-Frank Act.921 The statutory definition of the term ‘‘swap’’ includes, in part, any agreement, contract, or transaction ‘‘that provides for any purchase, sale, payment, or delivery (other than a dividend on an equity security) that is dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of an event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence.’’ 922 The statutory definition, among other things, generally includes options (other than options on futures) as well as transactions that now or in the future are commonly known to the trade as swaps.923 The definition also articulates a broad range of underlying interests upon which a swap may be based: ‘‘1 or more interest or other rates, currencies, commodities, securities, instruments of indebtedness, indices, quantitative measures, or other financial or economic interests or property of any kind . . .’’ 924 or ‘‘the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of any event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence.’’ 925 In a joint rulemaking with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’), the Commission also adopted rules further defining the term ‘‘swap.’’ 926 (2) The Execution and Regulation of Swaps Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act Unlike futures contracts which are regulated by the Commission and are listed for trading on exchanges called designated contract markets (‘‘DCMs’’), swap transactions (excluding some exchange-traded options encompassed by the post-Dodd-Frank Act definition) evolved off-exchange—largely to provide customized solutions for unique risk management needs that exchange￾traded products addressed less effectively—lending themselves to the often used label of ‘‘OTC derivatives.’’ Accordingly, many swap transactions prior to the Dodd-Frank Act were negotiated privately OTC between counterparties.927 In these situations, only the counterparties knew that the swap transaction was taking place, and regulators and other market participants lacked access to pricing information during the negotiation phase (pre-trade) and after the agreement was consummated (post-trade). While centralized exchanges permit multiple market participants to compare, assess, accept, or reject bids (offers to buy) and asks (offers to sell), the privately negotiated OTC market provided little, if any, pre- or post-trade transparency.928 In a typical privately negotiated OTC swap transaction, a customer for a swap is likely to obtain a private quote from, and bilaterally negotiate
contract terms with, one of a small number of market￾making dealers. These dealers, often large financial institutions, may stand ready to take either a long position (if they want to buy) or a short position (if they want to sell), profiting from spreads (the difference between the bid and the offer price) and fees. Relative to their non-dealer (usually ‘‘buy-side’’) counterparties, these dealers enjoy asymmetric information advantages.929 The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (‘‘CFMA’’)—which largely excluded swaps transacted between ‘‘eligible contract participants’’ 930 from regulation under the CEA—reinforced this outcome.931 Swaps remained largely insulated from regulation prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act.932

problems. Financial firms sometimes found it quite difficult to fully assess their own net derivatives exposures or to communicate to counterparties and regulators the nature and extent of those exposures. The associated uncertainties helped fuel losses of confidence that contributed importantly to the liquidity problems I mentioned earlier. The recent legislation addresses these issues by requiring that derivatives contracts be traded on exchanges or other regulated trading facilities when possible and that they be centrally cleared.’’ ‘‘Too Big To Fail:
Expectations and Impact of Extraordinary Government Intervention and the Role of Systemic Risk in the Financial Crisis: Hearing Before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission,’’ 11 (Sep. 2,
2010) (statement of Ben Bernanke, Chairman, Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), available at http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/ cdn_media/fcic-testimony/2010-0902-Bernanke.pdf. 933The Bank for International Settlements, Quarterly Review, at A 131 (Sep. 2012), available at http://www.bis.org/statistics/otcder/dt1920a.pdf. 934The Bank for International Settlements, 79th Annual Report, at 23 (2009), available at http:// www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2009e2.pdf, for a broader discussion of the development of the crisis. 935S. Rep. No. 111–176, at 30 (2010). 936See Darrell Duffie, Ada Li & Theo Lubke, ‘‘Policy Perspectives on OTC Derivatives Market Infrastructure,’’ Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, No. 424, at 1 (Mar. 2010), available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/ staff_reports/sr424.pdf. 937See Section 733 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which adopted CEA section 5h regarding registration, operation, and compliance requirements for SEFs. 7 U.S.C. 7b–3. See also Section 723(a)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended CEA section 2(h) to add CEA section 2(h)(8) setting forth a trade execution requirement. 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(8). Similarly, the Dodd-Frank Act authorized the SEC to regulate security-based swaps. See Section 763 of the Dodd￾Frank Act, which amended the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to add section 3D of the Exchange Act, among other provisions. 938See FCIC Report at xxiv (listing uncontrolled leverage; lack of transparency, capital and collateral requirements; speculation; interconnection among firms; and concentrations of risk in the market as contributing factors). 939S. Rep. No. 111–176, at 92 (2010). 940See academic research discussed below. 941S. Rep. No. 111–176, at 34 (2010). 942 Id. at 33–34 (quoting former CFTC Chair Brooksley Born, the report states ‘‘ ‘[w]hile central clearing would mitigate counterparty risk, central clearing alone is not enough. . . . [e]xchange trading is also essential in order to provide price discovery, transparency, and meaningful regulatory oversight of trading and intermediaries.’ ’’). 943 Id. at 34 (quoting Stanford University Professor Darrel Duffie, ‘‘ ‘[t]he relative opaqueness of the OTC market implies that bid/ask spreads are in many cases not being set as competitively as they would be on exchanges. . . . [t]his entails a loss in market efficiency.’ ’’). From these beginnings, the unregulated swaps market has expanded exponentially over the last thirty years. According to the Bank for International Settlements (‘‘BIS’’), the global OTC derivatives market measures at over $647 trillion in notional size.933 (3) The 2008 Financial Crisis and the Role of the OTC Swaps Market In the fall of 2008, the United States experienced a financial crisis that led to millions of Americans losing their jobs, millions of families losing their homes, and thousands of small businesses closing their doors. The BIS characterized 2008 as a year that escalated for ‘‘what many had hoped would be merely . . . manageable market turmoil [to] a
full-fledged global crisis.’’ 934 Faced with what policy makers at the time perceived as a grave threat that without immediate and unprecedented government action U.S. and global credit markets would freeze, the federal government mounted an extraordinary intervention at great cost to the American taxpayer to buttress the stability of the U.S. financial system. While there were multiple causes of the financial crisis, unregulated swaps played an important role. Swaps contributed significantly to the interconnectedness between banks, investment banks, hedge funds, and other financial entities. As the swaps market grew, additional participation added risk to the already highly￾leveraged and interconnected market. Accordingly, swaps concentrated and heightened risks in the financial system and to the public. The crisis elevated concern among regulators that the opaque structure of the OTC swaps market and the consequent lack of information about swap prices and quantities would hinder efficient pricing, and that the lack of information about outstanding positions and exposures could ‘‘leave regulators ill-informed about the risks building up in the financial system. . . . Lack of transparency in the massive OTC market intensified systemic fears during the crisis about interrelated derivatives exposures from counterparty risk.’’ 935 As regulators did not have a clear view into how OTC derivatives were being used, they also feared that ‘‘the complexity and limited transparency of the market reinforced the potential for excessive risk￾taking. . . .’’ 936 (4) The New Regulatory Regime To Reform the Swaps Market in Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law. Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act established a comprehensive new regulatory framework for swaps and charged the Commission and the SEC with oversight of the more than $300 trillion domestic swaps market.937 The legislation was enacted, among other reasons, to promote market integrity within the financial system, reduce risk, and increase transparency, including by:
(i) Providing for the registration and comprehensive regulation of swap dealers and major swap participants; (ii) imposing clearing and trade execution requirements on swaps; (iii) creating a rigorous recordkeeping and real-time reporting regime; and (iv) enhancing the rulemaking and enforcement authority of the Commission with respect to, among others, all registered entities, including SEFs. These various elements work in concert to provide the Commission with a comprehensive view of the entire swaps market, furthering the Commission’s ability to monitor the market. Consistent with the view that the vulnerability of the OTC derivatives market during the financial crisis was not attributable to a single weakness, but a combination of several,938 Title VII does not provide for a single￾dimensional fix. Rather, it weaves together a multidimensional regulatory construct designed to ‘‘mitigate costs and risks to taxpayers and the financial system.’’ 939 (5) The Role and Purpose of SEFs Within the Title VII Regulatory Regime One of the most important goals of the Dodd-Frank Act is to bring transparency to the opaque OTC swaps market. It is generally accepted that when markets are open and transparent, prices are more competitive and markets are more efficient.940 The legislative history of the Dodd-Frank Act indicates that Congress viewed exchange trading as a mechanism to ‘‘provide pre- and post￾trade transparency for end users, market participants, and regulators.’’ 941 As such, exchange trading was intended as ‘‘a price transparency mechanism’’ that complements Title VII’s separate central clearing requirement to mitigate counterparty risk.942 Additionally, legislative history reveals a Congressional expectation that, over time, exchange trading of swaps would reduce transaction costs, enhance market efficiency, and counter the ability of dealers to extract economic rents from higher bid/ask spreads at the expense of other market participants.943 Consistent with this purpose, the Dodd-Frank Act amended the CEA to create SEFs, a new type of regulated marketplace, and promotes swap trading and execution on them. The statutory requirements for SEFs are similar to the requirements for the existing Commission-regulated futures market, which incorporates pre-trade and post￾trade transparency aspects not present in the OTC swaps market. SEFs will allow buyers and sellers to meet in an open, centralized marketplace, where prices are publicly available. As statutorily defined, a SEF is ‘‘a trading