Further Definition of “Swap,” “Security-Based Swap,” and “Security-Based Swap Agreement”; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping

AGENCY:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Joint final rule; interpretations; request for comment on an interpretation.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with section 712(a)(8), section 712(d)(1), sections 712(d)(2)(B) and (C), sections 721(b) and (c), and section 761(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) (collectively, “Commissions”), in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”), are jointly adopting new rules and interpretations under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to further define the terms “swap,” “security-based swap,” and “security-based swap agreement” (collectively, “Product Definitions”); regarding “mixed swaps;” and governing books and records with respect to “security-based swap agreements.” The CFTC requests comment on its interpretation concerning forwards with embedded volumetric optionality, contained in Section II.B.2.(b)(ii) of this release.

DATES:

Effective date: October 12, 2012.

Compliance date: The applicable compliance dates are discussed in the section of the release titled “IX. Effective Date and Implementation”.

Comment date: Comments on the interpretation regarding forwards with embedded volumetric optionality must be received on or before October 12, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by RIN number 3038-AD46, by any of the following methods:

• CFTC Web Site: via its Comments Online process: http://comments.cftc.gov . Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.
• Mail: Address to David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail above.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

All comments must be submitted in English or, if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov . You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the CFTC to consider information that is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the CFTC's Regulations.

The CFTC reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the interpretation will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

CFTC: Julian E. Hammar, Assistant General Counsel, at 202-418-5118, jhammar@cftc.gov, Lee Ann Duffy, Assistant General Counsel, at 202-418-6763, lduffy@cftc.gov; Mark Fajfar, Assistant General Counsel, at 202-418-6636, mfajfar@cftc.gov, or David E. Aron, Counsel, at 202-418-6621, daron@cftc.gov, Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; SEC: Donna M. Chambers, Special Counsel, at 202-551-5870, or John Guidroz, Attorney-Adviser, at 202-551-5870, Division of Trading and Markets, or Andrew Schoeffler, Special Counsel, at 202-551-3860, Office of Capital Markets Trends, Division of Corporation Finance, or Wenchi Hu, Senior Special Counsel, at 202-551-5870, Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Scope of Definitions of Swap and Security-Based Swap

A. Introduction

B. Rules and Interpretations Regarding Certain Transactions outside the Scope of the Definitions of the Terms “Swap” and “Security-Based Swap”

1. Insurance Products

(a) Types of Insurance Products

(b) Providers of Insurance Products

(c) Grandfather Provision for Existing Insurance Transactions

(d) Alternative Tests

(e) “Safe Harbor”

(f) Applicability of Insurance Exclusion to Security-Based Swaps

(g) Guarantees

2. The Forward Contract Exclusion

(a) Forward Contracts in Nonfinancial Commodities

(i) Forward Exclusion From the Swap and Future Delivery Definitions

(ii) Nonfinancial Commodities

(iii) Environmental Commodities

(iv) Physical Exchange Transactions

(v) Fuel Delivery Agreements

(vi) Cleared/Exchange-Traded Forwards

(b) Commodity Options and Commodity Options Embedded in Forward Contracts

(i) Commodity Options

(ii) Commodity Options Embedded in Forward Contracts

(iii) Certain Physical Commercial Agreements, Contracts or Transactions

(iv) Effect of Interpretation on Certain Agreements, Contracts and Transactions

(v) Liquidated Damages Provisions

(c) Security Forwards

3. Consumer and Commercial Agreements, Contracts, and Transactions

C. Final Rules and Interpretations Regarding Certain Transactions Within the Scope of the Definitions of the Terms “Swap” and “Security-Based Swap”

1. In General

2. Foreign Exchange Products

(a) Foreign Exchange Products Subject to the Secretary's Swap Determination: Foreign Exchange Forwards and Foreign Exchange Swaps

(b) Foreign Exchange Products Not Subject to the Secretary's Swap Determination

(i) Foreign Currency Options

(ii) Non-Deliverable Forward Contracts Involving Foreign Exchange

(iii) Currency Swaps and Cross-Currency Swaps

(c) Interpretation Regarding Foreign Exchange Spot Transactions

(d) Retail Foreign Currency Options

3. Forward Rate Agreements

4. Combinations and Permutations of, or Options on, Swaps and Security-Based Swaps

5. Contracts for Differences

D. Certain Interpretive Issues

1. Agreements, Contracts, or Transactions That May Be Called, or Documented Using Form Contracts Typically Used for, Swaps or Security-Based Swaps

2. Transactions in Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators

III. The Relationship Between the Swap Definition and the Security-Based Swap Definition

A. Introduction

B. Title VII Instruments Based on Interest Rates, Other Monetary Rates, and Yields

1. Title VII Instruments Based on Interest Rates or Other Monetary Rates That Are Swaps

2. Title VII Instruments Based on Yields

3. Title VII Instruments Based on Government Debt Obligations

C. Total Return Swaps

D. Security-Based Swaps Based on a Single Security or Loan and Single-Name Credit Default Swaps

E. Title VII Instruments Based on Futures Contracts

F. Use of Certain Terms and Conditions in Title VII Instruments

G. The Term “Narrow-Based Security Index” in the Security-Based Swap Definition

1. Introduction

2. Applicability of the Statutory Narrow-Based Security Index Definition and Past Guidance of the Commissions to Title VII Instruments

3. Narrow-Based Security Index Criteria for Index Credit Default Swaps

(a) In General

(b) Rules Regarding the Definitions of “Issuers of Securities in a Narrow-Based Security Index” and “Narrow-Based Security Index” for Index Credit Default Swaps

(i) Number and Concentration Percentages of Reference Entities or Securities

(ii) Affiliation of Reference Entities and Issuers of Securities With Respect to Number and Concentration Criteria

(iii) Public Information Availability Regarding Reference Entities and Securities

(iv) Affiliation of Reference Entities and Issuers of Securities With Respect to Certain Criteria of the Public Information Availability Test

(v) Application of the Public Information Availability Requirements to Indexes Compiled by a Third-Party Index Provider

(vi) Treatment of Indexes Including Reference Entities That Are Issuers of Exempted Securities or Including Exempted Securities

4. Security Indexes

5. Evaluation of Title VII Instruments on Security Indexes That Move From Broad-Based to Narrow-Based or Narrow-Based to Broad-Based

(a) In General

(b) Title VII Instruments on Security Indexes Traded on Designated Contract Markets, Swap Execution Facilities, Foreign Boards of Trade, Security-Based Swap Execution Facilities, and National Securities Exchanges

H. Method of Settlement of Index CDS

I. Security-Based Swaps as Securities Under the Exchange Act and Securities Act

IV. Mixed Swaps

A. Scope of the Category of Mixed Swap

B. Regulation of Mixed Swaps

1. Introduction

2. Bilateral Uncleared Mixed Swaps Entered Into by Dually-Registered Dealers or Major Participants

3. Regulatory Treatment for Other Mixed Swaps

V. Security-Based Swap Agreements

A. Introduction

B. Swaps That Are Security-Based Swap Agreements

C. Books and Records Requirements for Security-Based Swap Agreements

VI. Process for Requesting Interpretations of the Characterization of a Title VII Instrument

VII. Anti-Evasion

A. CFTC Anti-Evasion Rules

1. CFTC's Anti-Evasion Authority

(a) Statutory Basis for the Anti-Evasion Rules

2. Final Rules

(a) Rule 1.3(xxx)(6)

(b) Rule 1.6

(c) Interpretation on the Final Rules

3. Interpretation Contained in the Proposing Release

(a) Business Purpose Test

(b) Fraud, Deceit or Unlawful Activity

B. SEC Position Regarding Anti-Evasion Rules

VIII. Miscellaneous Issues

A. Distinguishing Futures and Options From Swaps

B. Transactions Entered Into by Foreign Central Banks, Foreign Sovereigns, International Financial Institutions, and Similar Entities

C. Definition of the Terms “Swap” and “Security-Based Swap” as Used in the Securities Act

IX. Effective Date and Implementation

X. Administrative Law Matters—CEA Revisions

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Costs and Benefits Considerations

XI. Administrative Law Matters—Exchange Act Revisions

A. Economic Analysis

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

XII. Statutory Basis and Rule Text

I. Backbround

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law. Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act (“Title VII”) established a comprehensive new regulatory framework for swaps and security-based swaps. The legislation was enacted, among other reasons, to reduce risk, increase transparency, and promote market integrity within the financial system, including by: (i) Providing for the registration and comprehensive regulation of swap dealers, security-based swap dealers, major swap participants, and major security-based swap participants; (ii) imposing clearing and trade execution requirements on swaps and security-based swaps, subject to certain exceptions; (iii) creating rigorous recordkeeping and real-time reporting regimes; and (iv) enhancing the rulemaking and enforcement authorities of the Commissions with respect to, among others, all registered entities and intermediaries subject to the Commissions' oversight.

Section 712(d)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Commissions, in consultation with the Board, shall jointly further define the terms “swap,” “security-based swap,” and “security-based swap agreement” (“SBSA”). Section 712(a)(8) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides further that the Commissions shall jointly prescribe such regulations regarding “mixed swaps” as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of Title VII. In addition, sections 721(b) and 761(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act provide that the Commissions may adopt rules to further define terms included in subtitles A and B, respectively, of Title VII, and sections 721(c) and 761(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act provide the Commissions with authority to define the terms “swap” and “security-based swap,” as well as the terms “swap dealer,” “major swap participant,” “security-based swap dealer,” and “major security-based swap participant,” to include transactions and entities that have been structured to evade the requirements of subtitles A and B, respectively, of Title VII.

Section 712(d)(2)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Commissions, in consultation with the Board, to jointly adopt rules governing books and records requirements for SBSAs by persons registered as swap data repositories (“SDRs”) under the CEA, including uniform rules that specify the data elements that shall be collected and maintained by each SDR. Similarly, section 712(d)(2)(C) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Commissions, in consultation with the Board, to jointly adopt rules governing books and records for SBSAs, including daily trading records, for swap dealers, major swap participants, security-based swap dealers, and security-based swap participants.

Under the comprehensive framework for regulating swaps and security-based swaps established in Title VII, the CFTC is given regulatory authority over swaps, the SEC is given regulatory authority over security-based swaps, and the Commissions shall jointly prescribe such regulations regarding mixed swaps as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of Title VII. In addition, the SEC is given antifraud authority over, and access to information from, certain CFTC-regulated entities regarding SBSAs, which are a type of swap related to securities over which the CFTC is given regulatory authority.

To assist the Commissions in further defining the Product Definitions (as well as certain other definitions) and in prescribing regulations regarding mixed swaps as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of Title VII, the Commissions published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) in the Federal Register on August 20, 2010. The comment period for the ANPR closed on September 20, 2010. The Commissions received comments addressing the Product Definitions and/or mixed swaps in response to the ANPR, as well as comments in response to the Commissions' informal solicitations, from a wide range of commenters. Taking into account comments received on the ANPR, the Commissions published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on May 23, 2011. The comment period for the Proposing Release closed on July 22, 2011. Together, the Commissions received approximately 86 written comment letters in response to the Proposing Release.

The Commissions have reviewed and considered the comments received, and the staffs of the Commissions have met with many market participants and other interested parties to discuss the definitions. Moreover, the Commissions' staffs have consulted extensively with each other as required by sections 712(a)(1) and (2) of the Dodd-Frank Act and have consulted with staff of the Board as required by section 712(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Based on this review and consultation, the Commissions are adopting rules and interpretations regarding, among other things: (i) The regulatory treatment of insurance products; (ii) the exclusion of forward contracts from the swap and security-based swap definitions; (iii) the regulatory treatment of certain consumer and commercial contracts; (iv) the regulatory treatment of certain foreign-exchange related and other instruments; (v) swaps and security-based swaps involving interest rates (or other monetary rates) and yields; (vi) total return swaps (“TRS”); (vii) Title VII instruments based on futures contracts; (viii) the application of the definition of “narrow-based security index” in distinguishing between certain swaps and security-based swaps, including credit default swaps (“CDS”) and index CDS; and (ix) the specification of certain swaps and security-based swaps that are, and are not, mixed swaps. In addition, the Commissions are adopting rules: (i) To clarify that there will not be additional books and records requirements applicable to SBSAs other than those required for swaps; (ii) providing a mechanism for requesting the Commissions to interpret whether a particular type of agreement, contract, or transaction (or class of agreements, contracts, or transactions) is a swap, security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap); and (iii) providing a mechanism for evaluating the applicability of certain regulatory requirements to particular mixed swaps. Finally, the CFTC is adopting rules to implement the anti-evasion authority provided in the Dodd-Frank Act.

Overall Economic Considerations

The Commissions are sensitive to the costs and benefits of their rules. In considering the adoption of the Product Definitions, the Commissions have been mindful of the costs and benefits associated with these rules, which provide fundamental building blocks for the Title VII regulatory regime. There are costs, as well as benefits, arising from subjecting certain agreements, contracts, or transactions to the regulatory regime of Title VII. Additionally, there are costs that parties will incur to assess whether certain agreements, contracts, or transactions are indeed subject to the Title VII regulatory regime, and, if so, the costs to assess whether such Title VII instrument is subject to the regulatory regime of the SEC or the CFTC.

Title VII created a jurisdictional division between the CFTC and SEC. The costs and benefits flowing from an agreement, contract, or transaction being subject to the regulatory regime of the CFTC or the SEC may be impacted by similarities and differences in the Commissions' regulatory programs for swaps and security-based swaps. Title VII calls on the SEC and the CFTC to consult and coordinate for the purposes of assuring regulatory consistency and comparability to the extent possible. Title VII also calls on the agencies to treat functionally or economically similar products or entities in a similar manner, but does not require identical rules. Although the Commissions may differ on certain rulemakings, as the relevant products, entities and markets are different, the Commissions believe that, as the CFTC and SEC regulatory regimes share a statutory basis in Title VII, the costs and benefits of their respective regimes should be broadly similar and complementary.

In acknowledging the economic consequences of the final rules, the Commissions recognize that the Product Definitions do not themselves establish the scope or nature of those substantive requirements or their related costs and benefits. In determining the appropriate scope of these rules, the Commissions consider the types of agreement, contract, or transaction that should be regulated as a swap, security-based swap, or mixed swap under Title VII in light of the purposes of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Commissions have sought to further define the terms “swap,” “security-based swap,” and “mixed swap” to include agreements, contracts, and transactions only to the extent that capturing these agreements, contracts, and transactions is necessary and appropriate given the purposes of Title VII, and to exclude agreements, contracts, and transactions to the extent that the regulation of such agreements, contracts, and transactions does not serve the statutory purposes of Title VII, so as not to impose unnecessary burdens for agreements, contracts, and transactions whose regulation may not be necessary or appropriate to further the purposes of Title VII.

II. Scope of Definitions of Swap and Security-Based Swap

A. Introduction

Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act applies to a wide variety of agreements, contracts, and transactions classified as swaps or security-based swaps. The statute lists these agreements, contracts, and transactions in the definition of the term “swap.” The statutory definition of the term “swap” also has various exclusions, rules of construction, and other provisions for the interpretation of the definition. One of the exclusions to the definition of the term “swap” is for security-based swaps. The term “security-based swap,” in turn, is defined as an agreement, contract, or transaction that is a “swap” (without regard to the exclusion from that definition for security-based swaps) and that also has certain characteristics specified in the statute. Thus, the statutory definition of the term “swap” also determines the scope of agreements, contracts, and transactions that could be security-based swaps.

The statutory definitions of the terms “swap” and “security-based swap” are detailed and comprehensive, and the Commissions believe that extensive “further definition” of the terms by rule is not necessary. Nevertheless, the definitions could be read to include certain types of agreements, contracts, and transactions that previously have not been considered swaps or security-based swaps, and nothing in the legislative history of the Dodd-Frank Act appears to suggest that Congress intended such agreements, contracts, or transactions to be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps under Title VII. The Commissions thus believe that it is important to further clarify the treatment under the definitions of certain types of agreements, contracts, and transactions, such as insurance products and certain consumer and commercial contracts.

In addition, commenters also raised questions regarding, and the Commissions believe that it is important to clarify: (i) The exclusion for forward contracts from the definitions of the terms “swap” and “security-based swap;” and (ii) the status of certain commodity-related products (including various foreign exchange products and forward rate agreements) under the definitions of the terms “swap” and “security-based swap.” Finally, the Commissions are providing interpretations related to the definitions.

B. Rules and Interpretations Regarding Certain Transactions Outside the Scope of the Definitions of the Terms “Swap” and “Security-Based Swap”

1. Insurance Products

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.” As stated in the Proposing Release, the Commissions do not interpret this clause to mean that products historically treated as insurance products should be included within the swap or security-based swap definitions. The Commissions are aware of nothing in Title VII to suggest that Congress intended for traditional insurance products to be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps. Moreover, the fact that swaps and insurance products are subject to different regulatory regimes is reflected in section 722(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act which, in new section 12(h) of the CEA, provides that a swap “shall not be considered to be insurance” and “may not be regulated as an insurance contract under the law of any State.” Accordingly, the Commissions believe that state or Federally regulated insurance products that are provided by persons that are subject to state or Federal insurance supervision, that otherwise could fall within the definitions should not be considered swaps or security-based swaps so long as they satisfy the requirements of the Insurance Safe Harbor (as defined below). At the same time, however, the Commissions are concerned that certain agreements, contracts, or transactions that are swaps or security-based swaps might be characterized as insurance products to evade the regulatory regime under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Accordingly, the Commissions are adopting final rules that (i) clarify that certain agreements, contracts, or transactions that satisfy the requirements of the Insurance Safe Harbor will not be considered to be swaps or security-based swaps, and (ii) provide an Insurance Grandfather exclusion from the swap and security-based swap definitions for any agreement, contract, or transaction entered into on or before the effective date of the Product Definitions, provided that, when the parties entered into such agreement, contract, or transaction, it was provided in accordance with the Provider Test (as defined below), including a requirement that an agreement, contract or transaction that is provided in accordance with the first prong of the Provider Test must be regulated as insurance under applicable state law or the laws of the United States.

The final rules contain four subparts: The first subpart addresses the agreement, contract, or transaction; the second subpart addresses the person providing that agreement, contract, or transaction; the third subpart includes a list of traditional insurance products that do not have to meet the requirements set out in the first subpart; and the fourth subpart contains the Insurance Grandfather exclusion (as defined below).

More specifically, with respect to the first subpart, the Commissions are adopting paragraph (i)(A) of rule 1.3(xxx)(4) under the CEA and paragraph (a)(1) of rule 3a69-1 under the Exchange Act (the “Product Test”) as proposed, with certain modifications to respond to commenters' concerns. As adopted, the Product Test provides that the terms “swap” and “security-based swap” will not include an agreement, contract, or transaction that, by its terms or by law, as a condition of performance:

• Requires the beneficiary of the agreement, contract, or transaction to have an insurable interest that is the subject of the agreement, contract, or transaction and thereby carry the risk of loss with respect to that interest continuously throughout the duration of the agreement, contract, or transaction;
• Requires that loss to occur and be proved, and that any payment or indemnification therefor be limited to the value of the insurable interest;
• Is not traded, separately from the insured interest, on an organized market or over the counter; and
• With respect to financial guaranty insurance only, in the event of payment default or insolvency of the obligor, any acceleration of payments under the policy is at the sole discretion of the insurer.

The Commissions are also adopting paragraph (i)(B) of rule 1.3(xxx)(4) under the CEA and paragraph (a)(2) of rule 3a69-1 under the Exchange Act (the “Provider Test”) as proposed, with certain modifications to respond to commenters' concerns. As adopted, the Provider Test requires that an agreement, contract, or transaction that satisfies the Product Test must be provided:

• By a person that is subject to supervision by the insurance commissioner (or similar official or agency) of any state or by the United States or an agency or instrumentality thereof, and such agreement, contract, or transaction is regulated as insurance under applicable state law or the laws of the United States (the “first prong”);

• (i) Directly or indirectly by the United States, any state or any of their respective agencies or instrumentalities, or (ii) pursuant to a statutorily authorized program thereof ((i) and (ii) together, the “second prong”); or
• In the case of reinsurance only by a person to another person that satisfies the Provider Test, provided that:

(i) Such person is not prohibited by applicable state law or the laws of the United States from offering such agreement, contract, or transaction to such person that satisfies the Provider Test;

(ii) The agreement, contract, or transaction to be reinsured satisfies the Product Test or is one of the Enumerated Products (as defined below); and

(iii) Except as otherwise permitted under applicable state law, the total amount reimbursable by all reinsurers for such agreement, contract, or transaction may not exceed the claims or losses paid by the cedant ((i), (ii), and (iii), collectively, the “third prong”); or

• In the case of non-admitted insurance by a person who:

(i) Is located outside of the United States and listed on the Quarterly Listing of Alien Insurers as maintained by the International Insurers Department of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners; or

(ii) Meets the eligibility criteria for non-admitted insurers under applicable state law ((i) and (ii) together, the “fourth prong”).

In response to commenters' requests that the Commissions codify the proposed interpretation regarding certain enumerated types of traditional insurance products in the final rules, the Commissions are also adopting paragraph (i)(C) of rule 1.3(xxx)(4) under the CEA and paragraph (a)(3) of rule 3a69-1 under the Exchange Act. In addition, in response to comments, the Commissions are expanding and revising the enumerated types of traditional insurance products. As adopted, the rule provides that the terms “swap” and “security-based swap” will not include an agreement, contract, or transaction that is provided in accordance with the Provider Test and is any one of the following (collectively, “Enumerated Products”): Surety bonds; fidelity bonds; life insurance; health insurance; long-term care insurance; title insurance; property and casualty insurance; annuities; disability insurance; insurance against default on individual residential mortgages (commonly known as private mortgage insurance, as distinguished from financial guaranty of mortgage pools); and reinsurance (including retrocession) of any of the foregoing. The Commissions note that the inclusion of reinsurance (including retrocession) as an Enumerated Product is meant to apply to traditional reinsurance and retrocession contracts. Specifically, traditional reinsurance and retrocession contracts that reinsure risks ceded under traditional insurance products included in the Enumerated Product list and provided in accordance with the Provider test do not fall within the swap or security-based swap definitions. An agreement, contract, or transaction that is labeled as “reinsurance” or “retrocession”, but is executed as a swap or security-based swap or otherwise is structured to evade Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, would not satisfy the Insurance Safe Harbor, and would be a swap or security-based swap.

In order for an agreement, contract, or transaction to qualify under the final rules as an insurance product that would not be a swap or security-based swap: (i) The agreement, contract, or transaction must satisfy the criteria in the Product Test or be one of the Enumerated Products and (ii) the person providing the agreement, contract or transaction must satisfy one prong of the Provider Test. The fact that an agreement, contract, or transaction satisfies the Product Test or is one of the Enumerated Products does not exclude it from the swap or security-based swap definitions if it is not provided by a person that satisfies the Provider Test; nor does the fact that a product is provided by a person that satisfies the Provider Test exclude the product from the swap or security-based swap definitions if the agreement, contract, or transaction does not satisfy the criteria set forth in the Product Test or is not one of the Enumerated Products.

Further, in response to commenters' concerns, the Commissions are confirming that the Product Test, the Provider Test and the Enumerated Products represent a non-exclusive safe harbor. None of the Product Test, the Provider Test, or the Enumerated Products (collectively, the “Insurance Safe Harbor”) implies or presumes that an agreement, contract, or transaction that does not meet any of their respective requirements is a swap or security-based swap. Such an agreement, contract, or transaction will require further analysis of the applicable facts and circumstances, including the form and substance of such agreement, contract, or transaction, to determine whether it is insurance, and thus not a swap or security-based swap.

However, future market conditions or other developments may prompt the Commissions to reconsider whether a particular product that satisfies the requirements of the Insurance Safe Harbor should instead fall within the swap or security-based swap definition. Because a determination that such a product is a swap or security-based swap could potentially have an unsettling effect on the domestic insurance or financial markets, the Commissions would only consider making a determination that such a product is a swap or security-based swap through a rulemaking process that would provide market participants with an opportunity to comment.

(a) Types of Insurance Products

Final Rules

Product Test

The Commissions are adopting the Product Test as proposed, with certain modifications to respond to commenters' concerns. The Product Test sets forth four criteria for an agreement, contract, or transaction to be considered insurance. First, the final rules require that the beneficiary have an “insurable interest” underlying the agreement, contract, or transaction and thereby carry the risk of loss with respect to that interest continuously throughout the duration of the agreement, contract, or transaction. The requirement that the beneficiary be at risk of loss (which could be an adverse financial, economic, or commercial consequence) with respect to the interest that is the subject of the agreement, contract, or transaction continuously throughout the duration of the agreement, contract, or transaction will ensure that an insurance contract beneficiary has a stake in the interest on which the agreement, contract, or transaction is written. Similarly, the requirement that the beneficiary have the insurable interest continuously throughout the duration of the agreement, contract, or transaction is designed to ensure that payment on the insurance product is inextricably connected to both the beneficiary and the interest on which the insurance product is written. In contrast to insurance, a credit default swap (“CDS”) (which may be a swap or a security-based swap) does not require the purchaser of protection to hold any underlying obligation issued by the reference entity on which the CDS is written. One commenter identified the existence of an insurable interest as a material element to the existence of an insurance contract. Because neither swaps nor security-based swaps require the presence of an insurable interest at all (although an insurable interest may sometimes be present coincidentally), the Commissions continue to believe that whether an insurable interest is present continuously throughout the duration of the agreement, contract, or transaction is a meaningful way to distinguish insurance from swaps and security-based swaps.

Second, the requirement that a loss occur and be proved similarly ensures that the beneficiary has a stake in the insurable interest that is the subject of the agreement, contract, or transaction. If the beneficiary can demonstrate loss, that loss would “trigger” performance by the insurer on the agreement, contract, or transaction such that, by making payment, the insurer is indemnifying the beneficiary for such loss. In addition, limiting any payment or indemnification to the value of the insurable interest aids in distinguishing swaps and security-based swaps (where there is no such limit) from insurance.

Third, the final rules require that the insurance product not be traded, separately from the insured interest, on an organized market or over the counter. As the Commissions observed in the Proposing Release, with limited exceptions, insurance products traditionally have not been entered into on or subject to the rules of an organized exchange nor traded in secondary market transactions (i.e., they are not traded on an organized market or over the counter). While swaps and security-based swaps also generally have not been tradable at will in secondary market transactions (i.e., on an organized market or over the counter) without counterparty consent, the Commissions understand that all or part of swaps and security-based swaps are novated or assigned to third parties, usually pursuant to industry standard terms and documents. In response to commenter concerns, the Commissions are clarifying when assignments of insurance contracts and trading on “insurances exchanges” do not constitute trading the contract separately from the related insurable interest, and thus would not violate the Product Test. The Commissions do not interpret the assignment of an insurance contract as described by commenters to be “trading” as that term is used in the Product Test. Nor do the Commissions find that the examples of exchanges offered by commenters, such as Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “exchanges,” are exchanges as that term is used in the Product Test, e.g., a national securities exchange or designated contract market. Mandated insurance exchanges are more like marketplaces for the purchase of insurance, and there is no trading of insurance policies separately from the insured interest on these insurance exchanges. Thus, the assignment of an insurance contract as permitted or required by state law, or the purchase or assignment of an insurance contract on an insurance exchange or otherwise, does not constitute trading an agreement, contract, or transaction separately from the insured interest and would not violate the trading restriction in the Product Test. For the foregoing reasons as clarified, the Commissions continue to believe that lack of trading separately from the insured interest is a feature of insurance that is useful in distinguishing insurance from swaps and security-based swaps.

Fourth, the final rules provide that in the case of financial guaranty insurance policies, also known as bond insurance or bond wraps, any acceleration of payment under the policy must be at the sole discretion of the provider of the financial guaranty insurance policy in order to satisfy the Product Test. Although such products can be economically similar to products such as CDS, they have certain key characteristics that distinguish them from swaps and security-based swaps. For example, under a financial guaranty policy, the insurer typically is required to make timely payment of any shortfalls in the payment of scheduled interest to the holders of the underlying guaranteed obligation. Also, for particular bonds that are covered by a financial guaranty policy, the indenture, related documentation, and/or the financial guaranty policy will provide that a default in payment of principal or interest on the underlying bond will not result in acceleration of the obligation of the insurer to make payment of the full amount of principal on the underlying guaranteed obligation unless the insurer, in its sole discretion, opts to make payment of principal prior to the final scheduled maturity date of the underlying guaranteed obligation. Conversely, under a CDS, a protection seller frequently is required to make payment of the relevant settlement amount to the protection buyer upon demand by the protection buyer after any credit event involving the issuer.

As noted in the Proposing Release, the Commissions do not believe that financial guaranty policies, in general, should be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps. However, because of the close economic similarity of financial guaranty insurance policies guaranteeing payment on debt securities to CDS, in addition to the criteria noted above with respect to insurance generally, the final rules require that, in order to satisfy the Product Test, financial guaranty policies also must satisfy the requirement that they not permit the beneficiary of the policy to accelerate the payment of any principal due on the debt securities. This requirement further distinguishes financial guaranty policies from CDS because, as discussed above, the latter generally requires payment of the relevant settlement amount on the CDS after demand by the protection buyer.

Finally, in response to comments, the Commissions are clarifying that reinsurance and retrocession transactions fall within the scope of the Product Test. The Commissions find that these transactions have insurable interests, as the Commissions interpret such interests in this context, if they have issued insurance policies covering the risks that they wish to insure (and reinsure). Moreover, the Commissions find that retrocession transactions are encompassed within the Product Test and the Provider Test because retrocession is reinsurance of reinsurance (provided the retrocession satisfies the other requirements of both tests). In addition, reinsurance (including retrocession) of certain types of insurance products is included in the list of Enumerated Products.

Requiring all of the criteria in the Product Test will help to limit the application of the final rules to agreements, contracts, and transactions that are appropriately regulated as insurance, and help to assure that agreements, contracts, and transactions appropriately subject to the regulatory regime under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act are regulated as swaps or security-based swaps. As a result, the Commissions believe that these requirements will help prevent the final rules from being used to circumvent the applicability of the swap and security-based swap regulatory regimes under Title VII.

Enumerated Products

In the Proposing Release, the Commissions proposed an interpretation that certain enumerated types of insurance products would be outside the scope of the statutory definitions of swap and security-based swap under the Dodd-Frank Act if provided in accordance with the Provider Test and regulated as insurance. Based on comments received, the Commissions are adding three products to the list of products as proposed (fidelity bonds, disability insurance and insurance against default on individual residential mortgages), adding reinsurance (including retrocession) of any of the traditional insurance products included in the list, deleting a requirement applicable to annuities, and codifying the Enumerated Products in the final rules. The revised list of Enumerated Products is: Surety bonds, fidelity bonds, life insurance, health insurance, long-term care insurance, title insurance, property and casualty insurance, annuities, disability insurance, insurance against default on individual residential mortgages (commonly known as private mortgage insurance, as distinguished from financial guaranty of mortgage pools), and reinsurance (including retrocession) of any of the foregoing. The Commissions believe that the Enumerated Products, as traditional insurance products, are not the types of agreements, contracts, or transactions that Congress intended to subject to the regulatory regime for swaps and security-based swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act. Codifying the Enumerated Products in the final rules appropriately places traditional insurance products outside the scope of the swap and security-based swap definition so long as such Enumerated Products are provided in accordance with the Provider Test, including a requirement that an Enumerated Product that is provided in accordance with the first prong of the Provider Test must be regulated as insurance under applicable state law or the laws of the United States.

Comments

Insurable Interest

Six commenters objected to the requirement in the Product Test that the beneficiary have an insurable interest continuously throughout the duration of the contract. These commenters noted that, under state law, an insurable interest may not always be required to be present continuously throughout the duration of the policy. For example, commenters noted that life insurance may only require an insurable interest at the time the policy is executed; and some property and casualty or liability insurance may only require an insurable interest at the time a loss occurs. Commenters also noted that annuities and health insurance do not require the existence of an insurable interest at all. Another commenter suggested that the Commissions modify the Product Test to indicate that annuities would not need to satisfy the “insurable interest” component, or to use terminology other than insurable interest to make clear that annuities are not swaps.

As discussed above, the Commissions are retaining the insurable interest requirement of the Product Test. The Commissions continue to believe that this requirement is a useful tool to distinguish insurance from swaps and security-based swaps, because swaps and security-based swaps do not require the presence of an insurable interest (or require either counterparty to bear any risk of loss) at any time during the term of the agreement, contract, or transaction. While the Commissions acknowledge commenters who argued that products such as life insurance, property and casualty insurance, and annuities may fail the Product Test because of the insurable interest requirement, the Commissions do not interpret any such failure to mean that life insurance, property and casualty insurance, and annuities are not insurance products. To the contrary, as discussed above, these products are included in the list of Enumerated Products that are excluded from the swap and security-based swap definitions so long as they are provided in accordance with the Provider Test. If a life insurance, property and casualty insurance, or annuity is provided in accordance with the Provider Test, such product is not a swap or security-based swap, whether or not an insurable interest is present at all times during the term of the contract.

Indemnification for Loss

Five commenters objected to the requirement in the Product Test that a loss occur and be proven, and that any payment be limited to the value of the insurable interest, because payment under many insurance products may not be directly based upon actual losses incurred. Two commenters argued that annuities do not provide indemnification for loss and that life insurance products are not constrained by the value of the insurable interest. Another argued that many insurance policies pay fixed amounts upon the occurrence of a loss without a requirement that the loss be tied to the value of an insurable interest. Disability insurance and long-term care insurance are other products that commenters indicate would not be able to satisfy this requirement of the Product Test.

As discussed above, the Commissions are retaining the requirement in the Product Test that a loss occur and be proven and that any payment for such loss be limited to the value of the insurable interest. The Commissions continue to believe that this requirement is a useful tool to distinguish insurance from swaps and security-based swaps, because payments under swaps and security-based swaps may be required when neither party incurs a loss, nor is the amount of payment limited by any such loss. While the Commissions acknowledge commenters who identified various products that may fail this part of the Product Test, the Commissions do not interpret any such failure to mean that products such as annuities, disability insurance, and long-term care insurance are not insurance products. To the contrary, as discussed above, these products are included in the list of Enumerated Products that are excluded from the swap and security-based swap definitions so long as they are provided in accordance with the Provider Test. If long-term care insurance, disability insurance, or an annuity is provided in accordance with the Provider Test, such product is not a swap or a security-based swap, whether or not a loss occurs, is proven, or indemnification for loss is limited to the value of the insurable interest.

Not Traded Separately

Six commenters stated that the proposed requirement that the agreement, contract, or transaction not be traded, separately from the insured interest, on an organized market or over the counter, is not an effective criterion in determining whether a product is insurance. According to commenters, this criterion is ineffective and should be deleted from the Product Test because many conventional insurance products, such as annuities, are assignable (and therefore tradable), which may violate the trading restriction. Two commenters observed that the trading of insurance policies has already occurred and is expected to increase. One commenter stated that a number of states have “insurance exchanges” that sell reinsurance and excess or surplus lines, and that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires states or the Federal government to establish health benefit “insurance exchanges” through which insurers will sell health insurance to individuals and small groups. One commenter recommended that the trading restriction apply only to trading by the policyholder or beneficiary of an insurance policy.

The Commissions are retaining the requirement in the Product Test that the agreement, contract, or transaction not be traded separately from the insured interest, on an organized market or over the counter, and as discussed above have provided a clarification regarding assignments and trading on insurance exchanges. The Commissions continue to believe that using this criterion is an effective way to distinguish insurance from swaps and security-based swaps because swaps and security-based swaps are traded on organized markets and over the counter.

As stated above, the Commissions do not interpret the assignment of an insurance contract as described by commenters to be “trading” as that term is used in the Product Test. Nor do the Commissions find that the examples of exchanges offered by commenters, such as Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “exchanges,” are exchanges as that term is used in the Product Test, e.g., a national securities exchange or designated contract market. Mandated insurance exchanges are more like marketplaces for the purchase of insurance, and there is no trading of insurance policies separately from the insured interest on these insurance exchanges. Thus, the assignment of an insurance contract as permitted or required by state law, or the purchase or assignment of an insurance contract on an insurance exchange or otherwise, does not constitute trading an agreement, contract, or transaction separately from the insured interest and would not violate the trading restriction in the Product Test.

Acceleration

Three commenters believed that the proposed requirement that, in the event of payment default or insolvency of the obligor, any acceleration of payments under a financial guaranty insurance policy be at the sole discretion of the insurer, is not an effective criterion in determining whether financial guaranty insurance falls outside the swap and security-based swap definitions and should be deleted from the Product Test. However, one commenter supported its inclusion, observing that the proposed requirement is “firmly based on substantive business realities.” Two commenters believed that the acceleration of payments requirement is not useful in distinguishing between financial guaranty insurance and swaps or security-based swaps because it is designed to protect financial guaranty insurers from insolvency. They noted that the criterion is a regulatory requirement imposed by state insurance commissioners that is subject to change, and that a state could not change this regulatory requirement without converting the financial guaranty policy into a swap or security-based swap. One commenter stated that the acceleration of payments criterion has been the subject of significant analysis and interpretation by state insurance regulators, and including the requirement in the rules could result in conflicting interpretations and additional legal uncertainty. This commenter also stated that this uncertainty will impose significant burdens on financial guaranty insurers that insure municipal bonds.

The Commissions are retaining the requirement that acceleration be at the sole option of the provider of the financial guaranty insurance policy in the Product Test. In response to commenter concerns, the Commissions are clarifying that they plan to interpret the acceleration limitation in accordance with applicable state law to the extent that it does not contradict the Commissions' rules, interpretations and/or guidance regarding what is a swap or security-based swap. The Commissions continue to believe that, for purposes of further defining swaps and security-based swaps, this criterion is useful to distinguish between financial guaranty insurance on the one hand, and swaps and security-based swaps, such as CDS, on the other because, as discussed above, the latter generally requires payment of the relevant settlement amount on the CDS after demand by the protection buyer.

Enumerated Products

The Commissions proposed an interpretation that certain enumerated types of insurance products would be outside the scope of the statutory definitions of swap and security-based swap. Several commenters stated that the list of enumerated insurance products should be codified in order to enhance legal certainty. In particular, one commenter stated that it is important for the Commissions to codify the interpretation because the traditional insurance products included in the enumerated list may not satisfy the Product Test. The commenter also expressed concern that insurance companies and state insurance regulators would face the possibility that the Commissions could revise or withdraw the interpretation in the future, with or without undergoing a formal rulemaking process. As noted above, in response to commenters' concerns, the Commissions are codifying the Enumerated Products in the final rules.

One commenter further argued that the enumerated types of insurance products included in the list should not have to additionally satisfy the requirements that the person offering such product be a U.S. domiciled insurer and that the product be regulated in the U.S. as insurance. The commenter argued that this additional requirement would result in the Insurance Safe Harbor not applying to traditional insurance products offered by insurers domiciled outside of the U.S. or by insurers that are not organized as insurance companies. The Commissions are retaining the requirement that the Enumerated Products be provided in accordance with the Provider Test. The Commissions also note that, in response to commenters' concerns, the Commissions have revised the first prong of the Provider Test so that it is not limited to insurance companies or to entities that are domiciled in the U.S. A product that need not satisfy the Product Test must be provided in accordance with the Provider Test, including a requirement that products provided in accordance with the first prong of the Provider Test must be regulated as insurance.

Five commenters addressed the treatment of annuities in the proposed interpretive guidance, with all recommending that all annuities be excluded from the swap and security-based definitions regardless of their status under the tax laws. In response to the comments, the Commissions are eliminating the proposed requirement that annuities comply with section 72 of the Internal Revenue Code in order to qualify as an Enumerated Product. The Commissions are persuaded that the proposed reference to the Internal Revenue Code is unnecessarily limiting and does not help to distinguish insurance from swaps and security-based swaps.

Other commenters suggested adding other products to the list of enumerated types of insurance products, with one suggesting that the Commissions' interpretation cover all transactions currently reportable as insurance in the provider's regulatory and financial reports under a state's or a foreign jurisdiction's insurance laws. One commenter noted that the list of enumerated types of insurance products does not include other state-regulated products such as service contracts, that may not satisfy the Product Test. In response to requests to expand the list of enumerated products, the Commissions are adding fidelity bonds, disability insurance, and insurance against default on individual residential mortgages (commonly known as private mortgage insurance, as distinguished from financial guaranty of mortgage pools) to the list of Enumerated Products. The Commissions agree that these are traditional insurance products, and thus their inclusion in the list of Enumerated Products is appropriate. The Commissions have also added reinsurance (including retrocession) of any of the traditional insurance products to the list of Enumerated Products. However, the Commissions decline at this time to expand the list of Enumerated Products to include other types of contracts such as, guaranteed investment contracts (“GICs”), synthetic GICs, funding agreements, structured settlements, deposit administration contracts, immediate participation guaranty contracts, industry loss warrants, and catastrophe bonds. These products do not receive the benefit of state insurance guaranty funds; their providers are not limited to insurance companies. The Commissions received little detail on sales of these other products, and do not believe it is appropriate to determine whether particular complex, novel or still evolving products are swaps or security-based swaps in the context of a general definitional rulemaking. Rather these products should be considered in a facts and circumstances analysis. With respect to GICs, the Commissions have published a request for comment regarding the study of stable value contracts.

Reliance on State Law Concepts

Two commenters noted that the Product Test relies on concepts derived from state law, such as “insurable interest” and “indemnification for loss,” which do not have uniform definitions. This would require the Commissions to analyze state insurance law, as well as to determine which state law should apply. One of these commenters also requested that such concepts be applied consistently with the historical interpretation by the applicable state.

State law differences regarding these concepts should not impede the ability of market participants from interpreting or applying the final rules to distinguishing between insurance and swaps or security-based swaps, and thus the Commissions are retaining these concepts in the Product Test. The Commissions intend to interpret these concepts consistently with the existing and developing laws of the relevant state(s) governing the agreement, contract, or transaction in question. However, the Commissions note their authority to diverge from state law if the Commissions become aware of evasive conduct.

Inclusion of Reinsurance and Retrocession Transactions

Several commenters suggested that the Commissions amend the Product Test to explicitly address reinsurance and retrocession (i.e., reinsurance of reinsurance) transactions.

In response to these comments, the Commissions are clarifying that reinsurance and retrocession transactions may fall within the Insurance Safe Harbor, thus, it is unnecessary for the Product Test to be modified as suggested by these commenters. In addition, the Commissions have modified the final rules to include reinsurance (including retrocession) of certain types of insurance products in the list of Enumerated Products. Reinsurance or retrocession of these Enumerated Products will fall within the Insurance Safe Harbor so long as such reinsurance or retrocession is provided in accordance with the Provider Test.

Payment Based on the Price, Rate, or Level of a Financial Instrument

In the Proposing Release, the Commissions requested comment on whether, in order for an agreement, contract, or transaction to be considered insurance under the Product Test, the Commissions should require that payment not be based on the price, rate, or level of a financial instrument, asset, or interest or any commodity. The Commissions also requested comment on whether variable annuity contracts (where the income is subject to tax treatment under section 72 of the Internal Revenue Code) and variable life insurance should be excepted from such a requirement, if adopted.

Eight commenters stated that it is inappropriate to include such a requirement in the final rules because a number of traditional insurance products would not satisfy the requirement and suggested that the Commissions should instead consider whether the agreement, contract, or transaction transfers risk and argued that such a requirement is not a useful marker for distinguishing insurance from swaps and security-based swaps. Several commenters also believed that the addition to the Product Test of the criterion that payment not be based on the price, rate, or level of a financial instrument, asset, or interest or any commodity would contribute to greater legal uncertainty.

Two commenters agreed that such a requirement should be included in the final rules. One commenter argued that any insurance instrument that provides for payment based on the price, rate, or level of a financial instrument, asset, or interest in any commodity is in substance a swap or security-based, regardless of its label, and should be regulated as such. One of these commenters further recommended that the Commissions exclude annuity and variable universal life insurance from this requirement because these products were investments with some minimal level of life insurance cover or investment guarantee rider on top.

The Commissions are not adopting an additional requirement for the Product Test that payment not be based on the price, rate, or level of a financial instrument, asset, or interest or any commodity because the Commissions find the requirement to be unsuitable for distinguishing insurance from swaps and security-based swaps. While the provision might work for property and casualty insurance, as many commenters noted, it is not an effective distinction for a number of other traditional insurance products.

Accounting Standards

In the Proposing Release, the Commissions requested comment on whether the proposed rules relating to insurance should include a provision related to whether a product is recognized at fair value on an ongoing basis with changes in fair value reflected in earnings under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Three commenters argued that the proposed rules should not include a provision that an insurance product is recognized at fair value under generally accepted accounting principles. One commenter argued that the determinants of what is an insurance product should be the existence of an insurable interest, transfer of risk, and indemnification of covered loss. Another argued that factoring accounting standards into the analysis of whether a product is a swap or insurance will introduce unnecessary complexity in most cases but that the examination of accounting standards would be useful in cases where the classification of a product as insurance or swap is unclear.

After considering these comments, the Commissions are not including a reference to accounting standards in the Product Test.

(b) Providers of Insurance Products

Under the first prong of the Provider Test, the agreement, contract, or transaction must be provided by a person that is subject to supervision by the insurance commissioner (or similar official or agency) of any state or by the United States. In addition, such agreement, contract, or transaction also must be regulated as insurance under applicable state law or the laws of the United States.

The Commissions have revised the first prong of the Provider Test from the proposal. As proposed, the first prong of the Provider Test could only be satisfied by a company that was organized as an insurance company whose primary and predominant business activity was the writing of insurance or the reinsuring of risks underwritten by insurance companies. The Commissions have revised this prong of the Provider Test to address commenters' concerns that the proposed rules would exclude insurers that were not organized as “insurance companies,” as well as insurers that were domiciled outside of the United States. As adopted, the first prong of the Provider Test can be satisfied by any person that is subject to state or Federal insurance supervision, regardless of that person's corporate structure or domicile. The Commissions understand that, with the exception of non-admitted insurers, foreign insurers are subject to supervision in the states in which they offer insurance products. The treatment of non-admitted insurers is addressed in the fourth prong of the Provider Test.

The Commissions believe that the requirement that the agreement, contract, or transaction be provided by a person that is subject to state or Federal insurance supervision should help prevent regulatory gaps that otherwise might exist between insurance regulation and the regulation of swaps and security-based swaps by ensuring that products provided by persons that are not subject to state or Federal insurance supervision are not able to be offered by persons that avoid regulation under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act as well.

The first prong of the Provider Test also requires that the agreement, contract, or transaction being provided is “regulated as insurance” under applicable state law or the laws of the United States. As stated in the Proposing Release, the purpose of this requirement is that an agreement, contract, or transaction that satisfies the other conditions of the final rules must be subject to regulatory oversight as an insurance product. The Commissions believe that this condition will help prevent products that are not regulated as insurance in the states in which they are offered, and that are swaps or security-based swaps, from being characterized as insurance products in order to evade the regulatory regime under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. As noted by commenters, the Commissions recognize that the “regulated as insurance” limitation means that it is possible that a particular product that may not be regulated as insurance in a particular state may not qualify for the Insurance Safe Harbor.

As stated in the Proposing Release, the Commissions believe that it is appropriate to exclude, from regulation under Title VII, insurance that is issued by the United States or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or pursuant to a statutorily authorized program thereof, from regulation as swaps or security-based swaps. Such insurance includes, for example, Federal insurance of funds held in banks, savings associations, and credit unions; catastrophic crop insurance; flood insurance; Federal insurance of certain pension obligations; and terrorism risk insurance. At the request of commenters, the Commissions are persuaded that it is also appropriate to provide a similar exclusion to insurance that is issued by a state or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or pursuant to a statutorily authorized program thereof. Accordingly, the Commissions have revised the second prong of the Provider Test to provide that products meeting the Product Test are excluded from the swap and security-based swap definitions if they are provided (i) directly or indirectly by the Federal government or a state or (ii) pursuant to a statutorily authorized program of either.

As stated in the Proposing Release, the Commissions believe that where an agreement, contract, or transaction qualifies for the safe harbor and therefore is considered insurance excluded from the swap and security-based swap definitions, the lawful reinsurance of that agreement, contract, or transaction similarly should be excluded. Accordingly, the Commissions are adopting the third prong of the Provider Test as proposed, with certain modifications, to provide that an agreement, contract, or transaction of reinsurance will be excluded from the swap and security-based swap definitions, provided that: (i) The person offering such reinsurance is not prohibited by applicable state law or the laws of the United States from offering such reinsurance to a person that satisfies the Provider Test; (ii) the agreement, contract, or transaction to be reinsured meets the requirements under the Product Test or is one of the Enumerated Products; and (iii) except as otherwise permitted under applicable state law, the total amount reimbursable by all reinsurers for such insurance product cannot exceed the claims or losses paid by the cedant.

In response to commenters' concerns, the Commissions have revised the third prong of the Provider Test from that contained in the Proposing Release. As adopted, the third prong of the Provider Test encompasses all reinsurers wherever incorporated or organized, and not just those based outside of the United States. The Commissions also have revised the third prong of the Provider Test to clarify that the total amount reimbursable by all reinsurers may not exceed the claims or losses paid by the cedant, unless otherwise permitted by applicable state law. It is not the Commissions' intent to impose requirements that conflict with state law regarding the calculation of amounts reimbursable under reinsurance contracts.

The Commissions have added a fourth prong to the Provider Test to address commenters' concerns that the proposed Provider Test excluded entities issuing insurance products on a non-admitted basis through surplus lines brokers. Non-admitted insurance is typically property and casualty insurance that is permitted to be placed through a surplus lines broker by an insurer that is not licensed to do business in the state where the product is offered. In practice, a provider of non-admitted insurance may not satisfy the first prong of the Provider Test because it may not be subject to state or Federal insurance supervision. The Commissions understand that non-admitted insurance plays a very important role in the insurance marketplace. In addition, Congress has explicitly recognized non-admitted insurance products as insurance and specified that a state cannot prohibit certain types of entities from offering non-admitted insurance products. Because Congress recognized that certain persons qualify as non-admitted insurers, the Commissions find that it is appropriate to add the fourth prong to the Provider Test.

A person will qualify under the fourth prong of the Provider Test if it satisfies any one of the following two requirements:

• It is located outside of the United States and listed on the Quarterly Listing of Alien Insurers that is compiled and maintained by the International Insurers Department of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners; or

• It meets the eligibility criteria for non-admitted insurers under applicable state law.

Comments

General

The Commissions received ten comment letters that addressed the Provider Test. A few commenters recommended that the Commissions retract the Provider Test. These commenters argued that if a product is subject to regulation as insurance in the United States, the regulated status of the insurer is irrelevant. The Commissions are retaining the Provider Test with modifications as discussed above. The Commissions believe that insurance products should fall outside the swap or security-based swap definitions only if they are offered by persons subject to state or Federal insurance supervision or by certain reinsurers. The Provider Test will help to prevent products that are swaps or security-based swaps from being characterized as insurance in order to evade the regulatory regime under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. Other commenters suggested various modifications to the Provider Test and those comments are discussed in more detail below.

“Insurance Company” Limitation

Several commenters recommended that the Commissions expand the first prong of the Provider Test so that it is not limited to “insurance companies,” but to all insurers because not all insurers are organized as “insurance companies,” to accommodate insurers and reinsurers that are domiciled outside of the United States, and to cover domestic and foreign insurance companies and other entities that issue insurance products on a non-admitted basis through surplus lines brokers.

The Commissions have revised the first prong of the Provider Test to remove the “insurance company” limitation and to clarify that any person that is subject to state or Federal insurance supervision will qualify under the first prong of the Provider Test. As noted above, the Commissions also believe that this revision should address commenters' concerns that the proposed rules could have excluded some foreign insurers since the revised test does not require that a person be domiciled in the United States; it only requires that the person be subject to state or Federal insurance supervision.

Several commenters suggested that the proposed Provider Test would permit an insurer that is not organized as an insurance company to evade state insurance oversight by deliberately failing the exemption for insurance products (that is, by issuing a contract that would fail the proposed rules because it would not be issued by an insurance company). These commenters were concerned that if a product were to be considered a swap merely because it was not issued by an insurance company, this would render the regulation of such products outside of the scope of state insurance laws due to the Federal preemption of swaps regulation. Commenters noted that a likely consequence of this preemption would be that the same product would be subject to substantially different regulation within a state's jurisdiction based solely on the nature of the issuing person.

The Commissions have revised the first prong of Provider Test to address commenters' concerns that providers of insurance products could evade state insurance regulation by intentionally failing the Provider Test, i.e., marketing the insurance products as swaps or security-based swaps in order to avoid state insurance supervision. As adopted, any person that provides insurance products (and therefore should be subject to state or Federal insurance supervision) must, in fact, be subject to state or Federal insurance supervision in order to satisfy the first prong of the Provider Test. Persons that are organized as insurance companies or whose business activity is predominantly insurance or reinsurance, but who are not in fact subject to state or Federal insurance supervision, would not satisfy the first prong of the Provider Test.

Finally, as discussed below, the Commissions have added a fourth prong to the Provider Test to provide relief for persons that provide insurance products on a non-admitted basis through surplus lines brokers.

“Regulated as Insurance” Limitation

Two commenters recommended that the Commissions remove the provision in the first prong of the Provider Test that states “and such agreement, contract, or transaction is regulated as insurance under the laws of such state or of the United States.” These commenters argued that the provision should be deleted because it was redundant with the Product Test and may exclude certain reinsurers and non-admitted insurers, as well as products that may not be specifically “regulated as insurance” in all states.

The Commissions have retained the requirement in the first prong of the Provider Test that an insurance product must be regulated as insurance, but have revised the provision to clarify that an insurance product must be regulated as insurance under applicable state law or the laws of the United States. As discussed above, the Commissions believe that this condition will help prevent products that are not regulated as insurance and are swaps or security-based swaps from being characterized as insurance products in order to evade the regulatory regime under the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Commissions have received conflicting comments regarding whether surety bonds are currently offered by persons who do not satisfy the Provider Test, in particular the “regulated as insurance” requirement. If a person who does not satisfy the Provider Test sells a surety bond incidental to other business activity and is not subject to state or Federal insurance supervision, it does not mean that such surety bond is a swap or security-based swap. The surety bond may not satisfy the Insurance Safe Harbor, but it would be subject to a facts and circumstances analysis. Similarly, one commenter indicated that title insurance is not always subject to state insurance regulation. Title insurance sold in a state that does not regulate title insurance as insurance would be in the list of Enumerated Products but would not satisfy the Provider Test and, thus would not qualify for the Insurance Safe Harbor. However, this does not mean that title insurance sold in a state that does not regulate title insurance as insurance is a swap or security-based swap. The title insurance may not satisfy the Insurance Safe Harbor, but it would be subject to a facts and circumstances analysis. The Commissions anticipate that many factors would militate against a determination that such a surety bond or title insurance that fails the Provider Test, because it cannot meet the “regulated as insurance” requirement, is a swap or security-based swap rather than insurance.

The Commissions agree that the inclusion of the “regulated as insurance” requirement in the first prong of the Provider Test will have the effect of causing non-admitted insurance products to fall within the swap and security-based swap definitions. In response to commenters' concerns about the ability of non-admitted insurers to qualify under the Provider Test, the Commissions have added a fourth prong to the Provider Test to address providers of non-admitted insurance products.

Providers of Reinsurance

Several commenters recommended that the Commissions expand the third prong of the Provider Test to include domestic reinsurers. One commenter requested that the Commissions remove the third prong of the Provider Test from the final rules because it appears to prohibit a reinsurer from offering a product in a state where it is permitted if any other state prohibits that product. Two commenters requested revisions to the portion of the third prong of the Provider Test that addresses a cedant's reimbursable losses. One commenter argued this portion of the third prong of the Provider Test may conflict with the state-based insurance receivership law.

As noted above, the Commissions have revised the third prong of the Provider Test to remove the limitation that a reinsurance provider has to be located outside of the United States, and thereby address commenters' concerns that domestic reinsurers would not qualify under the reinsurance prong. In addition, in response to commenters' concerns, the Commissions have clarified the third prong of the Provider Test so that it does not prohibit a reinsurer from offering a product in a state where it is permitted, even if that product is prohibited in another state, and have revised the portion of the third prong of the Provider Test that addresses a cedant's reimbursable losses to make it subject to applicable state law so that it does not conflict with state-based insurance receivership law.

(c) Grandfather Provision for Existing Insurance Transactions

In the Proposing Release, the Commissions asked whether the proposed rules should include a provision similar to section 302(c)(1) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that any product regulated as insurance before the date the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law and provided in accordance with the Provider Test would be considered insurance and not fall within the swap or security-based swap definitions.

In response to comments, the Commissions are adding a new paragraph (ii) to rule 1.3(xxx)(4) under the CEA and new paragraph (b) to rule 3a69-1 under the Exchange Act that provides that an agreement, contract, or transaction entered into on or before the effective date of the Product Definitions will be considered insurance and not fall within the swap and security-based swap definitions, provided that, at such time it was entered into, such agreement, contract, or transaction was provided in accordance with the Provider Test (the “Insurance Grandfather”).

As stated in the Proposing Release, the Commissions are aware of nothing in Title VII to suggest that Congress intended for traditional insurance products to be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps. The Commissions have designed the Insurance Safe Harbor to provide greater assurance to market participants that traditional insurance products that were regulated as insurance prior to the Dodd-Frank Act will fall outside the swap and security-based swap definitions. Nevertheless, after considering comments received, the Commissions believe that it is appropriate to adopt the Insurance Grandfather in order to assure market participants that those agreements, contracts, or transactions that meet the conditions set out in the Insurance Grandfather will not fall within the swap or security-based swap definitions.

In order to qualify for the Insurance Grandfather an agreement, contract, or transaction must meet two requirements. First, it must be entered into on or before the effective date of the Product Definitions. The Commissions are linking the Insurance Grandfather to the effective date of the Product Definitions, rather than the date that the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law, in order to avoid unnecessary market disruption. Second, such agreement, contract, or transaction must be provided in accordance with the Provider Test. In other words, the provider must be subject to state or Federal insurance supervision or be a non-admitted insurer or a reinsurer that satisfies the conditions for non-admitted insurers and reinsurers that are set out in the Provider Test. The Commissions note that an agreement, contract or transaction that is provided in accordance with the first prong of the Provider Test must also be regulated as insurance under applicable state law or the laws of the United States.

By adopting the Insurance Grandfather and the Insurance Safe Harbor, the Commissions are excluding agreements, contracts, and transactions for which the Commissions have found no evidence that Congress intended them to be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps, and are providing greater certainty regarding the treatment of agreements, contracts, and transactions currently regulated as insurance.

Comments

Four commenters addressed whether the final rules should include a grandfather provision that would exclude certain insurance products from the swap or security-based swap definitions. Two commenters suggested that a grandfather provision for all products that were regulated as insurance before the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law would be appropriate, stating that it would reduce confusion and uncertainty in applying the swap and security-based swap definitions to products that are traditionally regulated as insurance while addressing the Commissions' stated concern that products might be structured as insurance products to evade Dodd-Frank Act requirements. These commenters also stated that it is necessary to add an effective date-based grandfather provision to the final rule providing that any contract or transaction subject to state insurance regulation and entered into prior to any final rules necessary to implement Title VII, including the Product Definitions, are not swaps or security-based swaps. These commenters noted that a grandfather provision based on effective date of all the Title VII rules was needed to address product development and variation that occurred between the date the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted and the effective date of the rules mandated under that statute.

The Commissions believe that the combination of the Insurance Grandfather along with the Insurance Safe Harbor provides market participants with increased legal certainty with respect to existing agreements, contracts, transactions, and products. In addition, the fact that the Commissions are linking the Insurance Grandfather to the effective date of the Product Definitions, rather than the date that the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law, takes into account product development and innovation that may have occurred between the date the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law at the effective date of the Product Definitions. Further, the Commissions believe that a grandfather provision that would exclude all products regulated as insurance before the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law, as recommended by some commenters, is unnecessary because non-grandfathered regulated insurance transactions generally should fall within the Insurance Safe Harbor. The Commissions believe that market participants could be incentivized to use such a broader grandfather provision to create new swap or security-based swap products with characteristics similar to those of existing categories of regulated insurance contracts for the purpose of evading the Dodd-Frank Act regulatory regime. The Commissions also believe that a broader grandfather provision would be contrary to the explicit direction of sections 722(b) and 767 of the Dodd-Frank Act which provide that swaps and security-based swaps may not be regulated as insurance contracts by any state.

One commenter argued that the Provider Test should not apply to grandfathered contracts. The commenter stated that it should be enough that the product is regulated as insurance. As described above, the grandfather provision will apply only to agreements, contracts, and transactions that are entered into prior to the effective date of the Product Definitions if they were provided in accordance with the Provider Test, including a requirement that an agreement, contract or transaction that is provided in accordance with the first prong of the Provider Test must be regulated as insurance under applicable State law or the laws of the United States. As the Commissions discussed in the Proposing Release, and above in describing the Provider Test, the Commissions believe the requirement that the agreement, contract, or transaction be provided in accordance with the Provider Test should help ensure that persons who are not subject to state or Federal insurance supervision are not able to avoid the oversight provided for under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act.

(d) Alternative Tests

A number of commenters proposed that the Commissions adopt alternative tests to distinguish insurance from swaps and security-based swaps. After considering each of these alternatives, the Commissions are not adopting them.

Several commenters suggested that the sole test for determining whether an agreement, contract, or transaction is insurance should be whether it is subject to regulation as insurance by the insurance commissioner of the applicable state(s). The Commissions find this alternative to be unworkable because it does not provide a sufficient means to distinguish agreements, contracts and transactions that are insurance from those that are swaps or security-based swaps. Section 712(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Commissions to “further define” the terms swap and security-based swap. Neither swaps nor security-based swaps may be regulated as insurance contracts under the laws of any state. While insurance contracts have long been subject to state regulation, swaps and security-based swaps were largely unregulated. Since the Dodd-Frank Act created a new regulatory regime for swaps and specifically provides that “swaps may not be regulated as an insurance contract under the law of any state, the Commissions believe that it is important to have a test that distinguishes insurance from swaps and security-based swaps without relying entirely on the regulatory environment prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Product Test is an important element of the Insurance Safe Harbor.

Several commenters suggested an approach in which insurance products that qualify for the exclusion contained in section 3(a)(8) of the Securities Act would be excluded from the swap definition. One commenter argued that “Section 3(a)(8) has long been recognized as the definitive provision as to where Congress intends to separate securities products that are subject to SEC regulation from `insurance' and `annuity' products that are to be left to state insurance regulation” and that the section 3(a)(8) criteria are well understood and have a long history of interpretation by the SEC and the courts. Other commenters suggest that because section 3(a)(8) includes both a product and a provider requirement, if the Commissions include it in their final rules, it should be a requirement separate from the Product Test and the Provider Test, and should extend to insurance products that are securities.

While the Commissions agree that the section 3(a)(8) criteria have a long history of interpretations by the SEC and the courts, the Commissions find that it is inappropriate to apply the section 3(a)(8) criteria in this context. Although section 3(a)(8) contains some conditions applicable to insurance providers that are similar to the prongs of the Provider Test, it does not contain any conditions that are similar to the prongs of the Product Test. Moreover, section 3(a)(8) provides an exclusion from the Securities Act and the CFTC has no jurisdiction under the Federal securities laws. Congress directed both agencies to further define the terms “swap” and “security-based swap.” As such, the Commissions find that it is more appropriate to have a standalone rule that incorporates features that distinguish insurance products from swaps and security-based swaps and over which both Commissions will have joint interpretative authority.

One commenter suggested yet another approach, recommending that insurance be defined as an agreement, contract, or transaction that by its terms:

• Exists for a specified period of time;
• Where the party (the “insured”) to the contract promises to make one or more payments such as money, goods or services;
• In exchange for another party's promise to provide a benefit of pecuniary value for the loss, damage, injury, or impairment of an identified interest of the insured as a result of the occurrence of a specified event or contingency outside of the parties' control; and
• Where such payment is related to a loss occurring as a result of a contingency or specified event.

The Commissions do not find this alternative preferable to the Commissions' proposal for two reasons. First, the requirements of a specified term and the promise to make payments are present in both insurance products and in agreements, contracts, or transactions that are swaps or security-based swaps and therefore do not help to distinguish between them. A test based solely on these requirements, then, could be over-inclusive and exclude from the Dodd-Frank Act regulatory regime agreements, contracts, and transactions that have not traditionally been considered insurance. Further, the third and fourth requirements of this alternative test collapse into the Product Test's requirement that the loss must occur and be proved, and any payment or indemnification therefor must be limited to the value of the insurable interest.

One commenter suggested a three-part test in lieu of the Product and Provider Tests. Under this test, the terms “swap” and “security-based swap” would exclude any agreement, contract, or transaction that:

• Is issued by a person who is or is required to be organized as an insurance company and subject to state insurance regulation;
• Is the type of contract issued by insurance companies; and
• Is not of the type that the Commissions determine to regulate.

This commenter stated that its approach does not contain a definition of insurance, and believes that is preferable to the Commissions' approach, which it believes creates legal uncertainty because any attempted definition of insurance has the potential to be over- or under- inclusive. As discussed above, the Commissions' rules and interpretations are not intended to define insurance. Rather, they provide a safe harbor for certain types of traditional insurance products by reference to factors that may be used to distinguish insurance from swaps and security-based swaps, and a list of products that do not have to satisfy a portion of the safe harbor factors. Agreements, contracts, and transactions that do not qualify for the Insurance Safe Harbor may or may not be insurance, depending upon the facts and circumstances regarding such agreements, contracts and transactions. The Commissions find the first two requirements of the commenter's three-part test to be tautologous, and the third provides no greater certainty than the Commissions' facts and circumstances approach. In addition, the Commissions find that this alternative test could exclude from the Dodd-Frank Act regulatory regime agreements, contracts, and transactions that have not traditionally been considered insurance.

Another commenter proposed different approaches for existing products and new products. Specifically, if an existing type of agreement, contract or transaction is currently reportable as insurance in the provider's regulatory and financial reports under a state or foreign jurisdiction's insurance laws, then that agreement, contract, or transaction would be insurance rather than a swap or security-based swap. On the other hand, for new products, if this approach were inconclusive, this commenter recommended that the Commissions use the Product Test of the Commissions' rules only. As discussed above, rather than treating existing products and new products differently, the Commissions are providing “grandfather” protection for agreements, contracts, and transactions entered into prior to the effective date of the Products Definitions. Moreover, this commenter's test would eliminate the Provider Test for new products, which the Commissions believe is important to help prevent products that are swaps or security-based swaps from being characterized as insurance.

In sum, the Commissions find that each of the alternatives proposed by commenters could exclude from the Dodd-Frank Act regulatory regime agreements, contracts, and transactions that have not historically been considered insurance, and that should, in appropriate circumstances, be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps. Accordingly, the Commissions do not find these alternatives to be appropriate for delineating the scope of the Insurance Safe Harbor from the swap and security-based swap definitions.

(e) “Safe Harbor”

Five commenters recommended that the Product Test, the Provider Test, and related interpretations should be structured as a “safe harbor” so that they do not raise any presumption or inference that products that do not meet the Product Test, Provider Test and related interpretations are necessarily swaps or security-based swaps. One commenter suggested that this safe harbor approach could be modeled after Rule 151 under the Securities Act.

As discussed above, the Commissions do not intend to create a presumption that agreements, contracts, or transactions that do not fall within the Insurance Safe Harbor are necessarily swaps or security-based swaps. As stated above, the Commissions are instead adopting final rules that clarify that certain agreements, contracts, or transactions meeting the requirements of a non-exclusive “safe harbor” established by such rules will not be considered to be swaps or security-based swaps. An agreement, contract, or transaction that does not fall within the Insurance Safe Harbor will require further analysis of the applicable facts and circumstances to determine whether it is insurance, and thus not a swap or security-based swap.

(f) Applicability of Insurance Exclusion to Security-Based Swaps

Four commenters expressed concerns that the proposed rules were unclear in their application to both swaps and security-based swaps. These commenters argued that the proposed rules do not directly exclude insurance products from the term “security-based swap” because the rules explicitly state that “[t]he term `swap' does not include” the products that meet the Product and Provider Tests, but do not make the same statement as to the term “security-based swap.”

The Commissions have revised rule 1.3(xxx)(4) under the CEA and rule 3a69-1 under the Exchange Act to clarify that the exclusion contained therein applies to both swaps and security-based swaps.

(g) Guarantees

In the Proposing Release, the Commissions requested comment on whether insurance of an agreement, contract, or transaction that falls within the swap or security-based swap definitions should itself be included in the swap or security-based swap definition. The Commissions also requested comment on whether the Commissions should provide guidance as to whether swap or security-based swap guarantees offered by non-insurance companies should be considered swaps or security-based swaps.

Guarantees of Swaps.

No commenter identified any product that insures swaps (that are not security-based swaps or mixed swaps) other than financial guaranty insurance. The CFTC finds that insurance of an agreement, contract, or transaction that falls within the swap definition (and is not a security-based swap or mixed swap) is functionally or economically similar to a guarantee of a swap (that is not a security-based swap or mixed swap) offered by a non-insurance company. Therefore, the CFTC is treating financial guaranty insurance of swaps (that are not security-based swaps or mixed swaps) the same way it is treating all other guarantees of swaps (that are not security-based swaps or mixed swaps), as discussed below.

The CFTC is persuaded that when a swap has the benefit of a guarantee, the guarantee is an integral part of that swap. The CFTC finds that a guarantee of a swap (that is not a security-based swap or mixed swap) is a term of that swap that affects the price or pricing attributes of that swap. When a swap counterparty typically provides a guarantee as credit support for its swap obligations, the market will not trade with that counterparty at the same price, on the same terms, or at all without the guarantee. The guarantor's resources are added to the analysis of the swap; if the guarantor is financially more capable than the swap counterparty, the analysis of the swap becomes more dependent on the creditworthiness of the guarantor. Therefore, the CFTC is interpreting the term “swap” (that is not a security-based swap or mixed swap) to include a guarantee of such swap, to the extent that a counterparty to a swap position would have recourse to the guarantor in connection with the position. The CFTC anticipates that a “full recourse” guarantee would have a greater effect on the price of a swap than a “limited” or “partial recourse” guarantee; nevertheless, the CFTC is determining that the presence of any guarantee with recourse, no matter how robust, is price forming and an integral part of a guaranteed swap.

The CFTC's interpretation of the term “swap” to include guarantees of swaps does not limit or otherwise affect in any way the relief provided by the Insurance Grandfather. In a separate release, the CFTC will address the practical implications of interpreting the term “swap” to include guarantees of swaps (the “separate CFTC release”).

Comments

Three commenters provided comments regarding the treatment of guarantees. Two commenters opposed treating insurance or guarantees of swaps as swaps. Suggesting that the products are not economically similar, one commented that insurance wraps of swaps do not “necessarily replicate the economics of the underlying swap, and only following default could the wrap provider end up with the same payment obligations as a wrapped defaulting swap counterparty.” This commenter also stated that the non-insurance guarantees are not swaps because the result of most guarantees is that the guarantor is responsible for monetary claims against the defaulting party, which in this commenter's view is a different obligation than the arrangement provided by the underlying swap itself.

One commenter supported treating financial guaranty insurance of a swap or security-based swap as itself a swap or a security-based swap. This commenter argued that financial guaranty insurance of a swap or security-based swap transfers the risk of counterparty non-performance to the guarantor, making it an embedded and essential feature of the insured swap or security-based swap. This commenter further argued that the value of such swap or security-based swap is largely determined by the likelihood that the proceeds from the financial guaranty insurance policy will be available if the counterparty does not meet its obligations. This commenter maintained that financial guaranty insurance of swaps and security-based swaps serves a very similar function to credit default swaps in hedging counterparty default risk.

The CFTC is persuaded that when a swap (that is not a security-based swap or mixed swap) has the benefit of a guarantee, the guarantee and related guaranteed swap must be analyzed together. The events surrounding the failure of AIG Financial Products (“AIGFP”) highlight how guarantees can cause major risks to flow to the guarantor. The CFTC finds that the regulation of swaps and the risk exposures associated with them, which is an essential concern of the Dodd-Frank Act, would be less effective if the CFTC did not interpret the term “swap” to include a guarantee of a swap.

Two commenters cautioned against unnecessary and duplicative regulation. One commented that, because the underlying swap, and the parties to it, will be regulated and reported to the extent required by Title VII, there is no need for regulation of non-insurance guarantees. The other commented that an insurance policy on a swap would be subject to state regulation; without addressing non-insurance guarantees, this commenter stated that additional Federal regulation would be duplicative. The CFTC disagrees with these arguments. As stated above, the CFTC is treating financial guaranty insurance of swaps and all other guarantees of swaps in a similar manner because they are functionally or economically similar products. If a guarantee of a swap is not treated as an integral part of the underlying swap, price forming terms of swaps and the risk exposures associated with the guarantees may remain hidden from regulators and may not be regulated appropriately. Moreover, treating guarantees of swaps as part of the underlying swaps ensures that the CFTC will be able to take appropriate action if, after evaluating information collected with respect to the guarantees and the underlying swaps, such guarantees of swaps are revealed to pose particular problems in connection with the swaps markets. In the separate CFTC release, the CFTC will clarify the limited practical effects of the CFTC's interpretation, which should address concerns regarding duplicative regulation.

One commenter also argued that regulating financial guaranty of swaps as swaps would cause monoline insurers to withdraw from the market, which could adversely affect the U.S. and international public finance, infrastructure and structured finance markets, given that insuring a related swap often is integral to the insurance of municipal bonds and other securities. The CFTC finds this argument unpersuasive. The CFTC understands that the 2008 global financial crisis severely affected most monolines and only one remains active in U.S. municipal markets. Thus, it appears that the monolines have, for the most part, already exited these markets. In addition, as stated above, the CFTC will clarify in the separate CFTC release the limited practical effects of the CFTC's interpretation, which should address these concerns.

Guarantees of Security-Based Swaps

The SEC believes that a guarantee of an obligation under a security-based swap, including financial guaranty insurance of a security-based swap, is not a separate security-based swap. Further, the SEC is not adopting an interpretation that a guarantee of a security-based swap is part of the security-based swap. Instead, the SEC will consider requiring, as part of its rulemaking relating to the reporting of security-based swaps, the reporting of information about any guarantees and the guarantors of obligations under security-based swaps in connection with the reporting of the security-based swap transaction itself. In addition, the SEC will consider issues involving cross-border guarantees of security-based swaps in a separate release addressing the cross-border application of Title VII. The SEC notes that security-based swaps are included in the definition of “security” contained in the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. Under the Securities Act, a guarantee of a security also is a “security.” Therefore, a guarantee of a security-based swap is a security subject to Federal securities law regulation.

2. The Forward Contract Exclusion

As the Commissions explained in the Proposing Release, the definitions of the terms “swap” and “security-based swap” do not include forward contracts. These definitions exclude “any sale of a nonfinancial commodity or security for deferred shipment or delivery, so long as the transaction is intended to be physically settled.” The Commissions provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding the applicability of the exclusion from the swap and security-based swap definition for forward contracts with respect to nonfinancial commodities and securities. The Commissions are restating this interpretation as set forth in the Proposing Release with certain modifications in response to commenters.

(a) Forward Contracts in Nonfinancial Commodities

The CFTC provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding the forward contract exclusion for nonfinancial commodities and is restating this interpretation with certain modifications in response to commenters. These clarifications include that the CFTC will interpret the forward contract exclusion consistent with the entire body of CFTC precedent. The CFTC is also clarifying what “commercial participant” means under the “Brent Interpretation.” In addition, while the CFTC is withdrawing its 1993 “Energy Exemption” as proposed, it is clarifying that certain alternative delivery procedures will not disqualify a transaction from the forward contract exclusion. In response to comments, the CFTC is providing a new interpretation regarding book-out documentation, as well as additional factors that may be considered in its “facts and circumstances” analysis of whether a particular contract is a forward.

(i) Forward Exclusion From the Swap and Future Delivery Definitions

(A) Consistent Interpretation

The wording of the forward contract exclusion from the swap definition with respect to nonfinancial commodities is similar, but not identical, to the forward exclusion from the definition of the term “future delivery” that applies to futures contracts, which excludes “any sale of any cash commodity for deferred shipment or delivery.”

In the Proposing Release, the CFTC proposed an interpretation clarifying the scope of the exclusion of forward contracts for nonfinancial commodities from the swap definition and from the “future delivery” definition in a number of respects. After considering the comments received, the CFTC is restating substantially all of its interpretation regarding these forward exclusions set forth in the Proposing Release, but with several clarifications in response to commenters.

The CFTC is restating from the Proposing Release that the forward exclusion for nonfinancial commodities in the swap definition will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the CFTC's historical interpretation of the existing forward exclusion with respect to futures contracts, consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act's legislative history. In addition, in response to a commenter, the CFTC is clarifying that the entire body of CFTC precedent regarding forwards should apply to the forward exclusions from the swap and future delivery definitions.

The CFTC's historical interpretation has been that forward contracts with respect to nonfinancial commodities are “commercial merchandising transactions.” The primary purpose of a forward contract is to transfer ownership of the commodity and not to transfer solely its price risk. As the CFTC has noted and reaffirms today:

The underlying postulate of the [forward] exclusion is that the [CEA's] regulatory scheme for futures trading simply should not apply to private commercial merchandising transactions which create enforceable obligations to deliver but in which delivery is deferred for reasons of commercial convenience or necessity.

As noted in the Proposing Release, because a forward contract is a commercial merchandising transaction, intent to deliver historically has been an element of the CFTC's analysis of whether a particular contract is a forward contract. In assessing the parties' expectations or intent regarding delivery, the CFTC consistently has applied a “facts and circumstances” test. Therefore, the CFTC reads the “intended to be physically settled” language in the swap definition with respect to nonfinancial commodities to reflect a directive that intent to deliver a physical commodity be a part of the analysis of whether a given contract is a forward contract or a swap, just as it is a part of the CFTC's analysis of whether a given contract is a forward contract or a futures contract.

(B) Brent Interpretation

In this interpretation, the CFTC is restating, with certain clarifications in response to commenters, its interpretation from the Proposing Release that the principles underlying the CFTC's “Brent Interpretation” regarding book-outs developed in connection with the forward exclusion from futures apply to the forward exclusion from the swap definition as well. Book-out transactions meeting the requirements specified in the Brent Interpretation that are effectuated through a subsequent, separately negotiated agreement qualify for the safe harbor under the forward exclusions.

As was noted in the Proposing Release, the issue of book-outs first arose in 1990 in the Brent Interpretation because the parties to the crude oil contracts in that case could individually negotiate cancellation agreements, or “book-outs,” with other parties. In describing these transactions, the CFTC stated:

It is noteworthy that while such [book-out] agreements may extinguish a party's delivery obligation, they are separate, individually negotiated, new agreements, there is no obligation or arrangement to enter into such agreements, they are not provided for by the terms of the contracts as initially entered into, and any party that is in a position in a distribution chain that provides for the opportunity to book-out with another party or parties in the chain is nevertheless entitled to require delivery of the commodity to be made through it, as required under the contracts.

Thus, in the scenario at issue in the Brent Interpretation, the contracts created a binding obligation to make or take delivery without providing any right to offset, cancel, or settle on a payment-of-differences basis. The “parties enter[ed] into such contracts with the recognition that they may be required to make or take delivery.”

On these facts, the Brent Interpretation concluded that the contracts were forward contracts, not futures contracts:

Under these circumstances, the [CFTC] is of the view that transactions of this type which are entered into between commercial participants in connection with their business, which create specific delivery obligations that impose substantial economic risks of a commercial nature to these participants, but which may involve, in certain circumstances, string or chain deliveries of the type described * * * are within the scope of the [forward contract] exclusion from the [CFTC's] regulatory jurisdiction.

Although the CFTC did not expressly discuss intent to deliver, the Brent Interpretation concluded that transactions retained their character as commercial merchandising transactions, notwithstanding the practice of terminating commercial parties' delivery obligations through “book-outs” as described. At any point in the chain, one of the parties could refuse to enter into a new contract to book-out the transaction and, instead, insist upon delivery pursuant to the parties' obligations under their contract.

The CFTC also is clarifying that commercial market participants that regularly make or take delivery of the referenced commodity in the ordinary course of their business meet the commercial participant standard of the Brent Interpretation. The CFTC notes that the Brent Interpretation applies to “commercial participants in connection with their business.” The CFTC intends that the interpretation in this release be consistent with the Brent Interpretation, and accordingly is adding “commercial” before “market participants” in this final interpretation. Such entities qualify for the forward exclusion from both the future delivery and swap definitions for their forward transactions in nonfinancial commodities under the Brent Interpretation even if they enter into a subsequent transaction to “book out” the contract rather than make or take delivery. Intent to make or take delivery can be inferred from the binding delivery obligation for the commodity referenced in the contract and the fact that the parties to the contract do, in fact, regularly make or take delivery of the referenced commodity in the ordinary course of their business.

Further, in this final interpretation, the CFTC clarifies, in response to a comment received, that an investment vehicle taking delivery of gold as part of its investment strategy would not be engaging in a commercial activity within the meaning of the Brent Interpretation. By contrast, were the investment vehicle, for example, to own a gold mine and sell the output of the gold mine for forward delivery, or own a chain of jewelry stores that produces its own jewelry from raw materials and purchase a supply of gold from another entity's gold mine in order to provide raw materials for its jewelry stores, such contracts could qualify as forward contracts under the Brent Interpretation—provided that such contracts otherwise satisfy the terms thereof.

In sum, the CFTC is interpreting the term “commercial” in the context of the Brent Interpretation in the same way it has done since 1990: “related to the business of a producer, processor, fabricator, refiner or merchandiser.” While a market participant need not be solely engaged in “commercial” activity to be a “commercial market participant” within the meaning of the Brent Interpretation under this interpretation, the business activity in which it makes or takes delivery must be commercial activity for it to be a commercial market participant. A hedge fund's investment activity is not commercial activity within the CFTC's longstanding view of the Brent Interpretation.

In addition, the CFTC is expanding the Brent Interpretation, which applied only to oil, to all nonfinancial commodities, as proposed. As a result, book-outs are permissible (where the conditions of the Brent Interpretation are satisfied) for all nonfinancial commodities with respect to the exclusions from the definition of the term “swap” and the definition of the term “future delivery” under the CEA.

(C) Withdrawal of the Energy Exemption

Because the CFTC has expanded the Brent Interpretation to nonfinancial commodities in this final interpretation, the CFTC also has determined to withdraw the Energy Exemption as proposed. In response to comments received, the CFTC is clarifying that certain alternative delivery procedures discussed in the Energy Exemption will not disqualify a transaction from the Brent Interpretation safe harbor.

In the Proposing Release, the CFTC proposed to withdraw the Energy Exemption, which, among other things, expanded the Brent Interpretation to energy commodities other than oil, on the basis that the exemption was no longer necessary in light of the extension of the Brent Interpretation to nonfinancial commodities. The Energy Exemption, like the Brent Interpretation, requires binding delivery obligations at the outset, with no right to cash settle or offset transactions. Each requires that book-outs be undertaken pursuant to a subsequent, separately negotiated agreement.

As discussed above, the CFTC is extending the Brent Interpretation to the swap definition and applying it to all nonfinancial commodities for both the swap and future delivery definitions, but is withdrawing the Energy Exemption. With regard to netting agreements that were expressly permitted by the Energy Exemption, the CFTC clarifies that a physical netting agreement (such as, for example, the Edison Electric Institute Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement) that contains a provision contemplating the reduction to a net delivery amount of future, unintentionally offsetting delivery obligations, is consistent with the intent of the book out provision in the Brent Interpretation—provided that the parties had a bona fide intent, when entering into the transactions, to make or take delivery (as applicable) of the commodity covered by those transactions.

The CFTC also has determined that, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the Energy Exemption, a failure to deliver as a result of the exercise by a party of a “bona fide termination right” does not render an otherwise binding delivery obligation as non-binding. In the Energy Exemption, the CFTC provided the following examples of bona fide termination rights: force majeure provisions and termination rights triggered by events of default, such as counterparty insolvency, default or other inability to perform. The CFTC confirms that market participants who otherwise qualify for the forward exclusion may continue to rely on the bona fide termination right concept as set forth in this interpretation, although, as was stated in the Energy Exemption, such right must be bona fide and not for the purpose of evasion. In this regard, the CFTC further clarifies, consistent with the Energy Exemption, that a bona fide termination right must be triggered by something not expected by the parties at the time the contract is entered into.

The Energy Exemption also discussed a number of methods by which parties to energy contracts settle their obligations, including: The seller's passage of title and the buyer's payment and acceptance of the underlying commodity; taking delivery of the commodity in some instances and in others instead passing title to another intermediate purchaser in a chain; and physically exchanging (i.e., delivering) one quality, grade or type of physical commodity for another quality, grade or type of physical commodity. The CFTC clarifies that these settlement methods generally are not inconsistent with the Brent Interpretation.

(D) Book-Out Documentation

The CFTC has taken into consideration comments regarding the documentation of book-outs. Under the Brent Interpretation, what is relevant is that the book out occur through a subsequent, separately negotiated agreement. While the CFTC is sensitive to existing recordkeeping practices for book-outs, in order to prevent abuse of the safe harbor, the CFTC clarifies that in the event of an oral agreement, such agreement must be followed in a commercially reasonable timeframe by a confirmation in some type of written or electronic form.

(E) Minimum Contract Size and Other Contextual Factors

In the Proposing Release, the CFTC requested comment about potentially imposing additional conditions (such as, for example, a minimum contract size) in order for a transaction to qualify as a forward contract under the Brent Interpretation with respect to the future delivery and swap definitions. The CFTC has determined that a minimum contract size should not be required in order for a contract to qualify as a forward contract under the Brent Interpretation. However, as suggested by a commenter, the CFTC may consider contract size as a contextual factor in determining whether a particular contract is a forward. Moreover, the CFTC may consider other contextual factors when determining whether a contract qualifies as a forward, such as a demonstrable commercial need for the product, the underlying purpose of the contract (e.g. whether the purpose of the claimed forward was to sell physical commodities, hedge risk, or speculate), the regular practices of the commercial entity with respect to its general commercial business and its forward and swap transactions more specifically, or whether the absence of physical settlement is based on a change in commercial circumstances. These contextual factors are consistent with the CFTC's historical facts-and-circumstances approach to the forward contract exclusion outside of the Brent Interpretation safe harbor.

Comments

Several commenters believed that the CFTC should codify its proposed interpretation regarding the Brent Interpretation in rule text to provide greater legal certainty. One commenter further commented that the Dodd-Frank Act's legislative history expressly directed the CFTC to clarify through rulemaking that the nonfinancial commodity forward contract exclusion from the swap definition is intended to be consistent with the forward contract exclusion from the term “future delivery.” The commenter also stated its view that the interpretation as proposed does not provide notice to the electricity industry as to how to determine whether a nonfinancial commodity agreement is a swap or a nonfinancial commodity forward contract, nor as to which factors the CFTC would consider in distinguishing between swaps and nonfinancial forward contracts. Moreover, another commenter suggested that the CFTC should include in regulatory text a representative, non-exhaustive list of the kinds of contracts that are excluded from the swap definition.

The CFTC has determined not to codify its interpretation in rule text. The CFTC has never codified its prior interpretations of the forward contract exclusion with respect to the future delivery definition as a rule or regulation; thus, providing an interpretation is consistent with the manner in which the CFTC has interpreted the forward exclusion in the past, which in turn is consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act legislative history. Moreover, Congress did not direct the CFTC to write rules regarding the forward exclusion. The Dodd-Lincoln letter, cited by a commenter in support of its argument, “encourages” the CFTC to clarify the forward exclusion “through rulemaking” in the generic sense of that term (i.e., through the rulemaking process of notice and comment), not specifically through rule text. Similarly, the CFTC is not providing in rule text a representative list of contracts in nonfinancial commodities that are excluded from the swap definition as forwards.

The CFTC believes that its interpretation provides sufficient clarity with respect to the forward contract exclusion from the swap and future delivery definitions. The CFTC also believes that the interpretation provides sufficient notice to the public regarding how the forward exclusions from the swap and future delivery definitions will be interpreted. As noted above, the CFTC's historical approach to the forward contract exclusion from the future delivery definition developed on a case-by-case basis, not by rule.

Commenters generally supported applying the Brent Interpretation to the forward exclusion from the swap definition and expanding it to all nonfinancial commodities for purposes of the forward exclusion from both the definitions of the terms “future delivery” and “swap.” However, in addition to the requests for clarification to which the CFTC has responded in its final interpretation provided above, commenters raise other requests for clarification. One commenter, for example, believed that the CFTC's adjudicatory decisions in Grain Land and Wright should be construed to have expanded the Brent Interpretation's safe harbor. This commenter stated its view that in Grain Land, the CFTC recognized that cancellation provisions or an option to roll the delivery date within flexible hedge-to-arrive contracts did not render the transactions futures contracts, as opposed to forwards. As such, this commenter believed this case may be at odds with the literal terms of the Brent Interpretation regarding book-outs, which required that, to be a forward contract, any cancellation of delivery must be effected through a subsequent, separately negotiated agreement. The commenter argued that cases subsequent to the Brent Interpretation, such as Grain Land and Wright, recognized the need for flexibility and innovation in the commercial merchandising transactions that are eligible for the forward exclusion. Therefore, this commenter requested that the CFTC consider the body of forward contract precedent as a whole and extend the Brent Interpretation's safe harbor to situations like those presented in Grain Land, notwithstanding the absence of a subsequent, separately-negotiated agreement.

While, as noted above, the CFTC has clarified that the entire body of its precedent applies to its interpretation of the forward exclusion for nonfinancial commodities in the swap definition, the CFTC does not believe that there is a conflict between the Brent Interpretation and the Grain Land or Wright cases. In Grain Land, the CFTC concluded that the fact that a contract includes a termination right, standing alone, is not determinative of whether the contract is a forward. Rather, as the CFTC has always interpreted the forward exclusion, it looks to the facts and circumstances of the transaction. Similarly in Wright, which cited Grain Land with approval, the CFTC stated that “[i]n assessing the parties' expectations or intent regarding delivery, the Commission applies a `facts and circumstances' test rather than a bright-line test focused on the contract's terms * * * .” In contrast, the Brent Interpretation is a safe harbor that assures commercial parties that book-out their contracts through a subsequent, separately negotiated agreement that their contracts will not fall out of the forward exclusion. The CFTC's conclusion that application of its facts-and-circumstances approach demonstrated that the particular contracts at issue in Grain Land and Wright were forwards did not expand the scope of the safe harbor afforded by the Brent Interpretation.

Several commenters suggested that the Energy Exemption should not be withdrawn. One commenter noted that the Energy Exemption, along with the Brent Interpretation, should inform the CFTC's interpretation of the forward exclusion. Another commenter believed that the Energy Exemption appears entirely consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act and should be included in the rules as a non-exclusive exemption to ensure continued clarity. A third commenter requested clarification that revoking the Energy Exemption will not harm market participants, stating that the Proposing Release did not sufficiently explain the rationale for withdrawing the Energy Exemption or the possible consequences for energy market participants. This commenter sought confirmation that, despite the withdrawal of the Energy Exemption, market participants will be permitted to rely on the Brent Interpretation, as expanded by the Energy Exemption, particularly as it relates to alternative delivery procedures. This commenter expressed concern that by withdrawing the Energy Exemption, the CFTC would be revoking the ability of market participants to rely on pre-transaction netting agreements to offset physical delivery obligations as an alternative to separately negotiating book-outs after entering into the transactions. As discussed above, the CFTC has determined to withdraw the Energy Exemption as proposed, but has provided certain clarifications to address commenters' concerns.

One commenter suggested the deletion of “commercial merchandising transaction” as a descriptive term in the interpretation. Although recognizing its provenance from the Brent Interpretation, this commenter believed that the phrase was anachronistic at that time, and that it is misleading and narrow in the current evolving commercial environment. Contrary to this commenter's suggestion, the CFTC has determined to retain the phrase “commercial merchandising transaction” in its final interpretation regarding forward contracts. The CFTC characterized forward transactions in this manner in the Brent Interpretation, as well as in its subsequent adjudications. Courts also have characterized forwards as commercial merchandising transactions or cited the CFTC's characterization with approval. Accordingly, the CFTC believes that “commercial merchandising transaction” continues to be an accurate descriptive term for characterizing forward transactions.

Another commenter requested that the CFTC clarify that a subsequent, separately-negotiated agreement to effectuate a book-out under the Brent Interpretation may be oral or written. This commenter noted that the pace at which certain energy markets transact and the frequency with which book-outs may sometimes occur, makes formal written documentation of all book-outs impracticable. The CFTC has provided an interpretation above regarding the documentation of book-outs in response to this commenter's concerns.

(ii) Nonfinancial Commodities

In response to commenters, the CFTC is providing an interpretation regarding the scope of the term “nonfinancial commodity” in the forward exclusion from the swap definition.

The CFTC interprets the term “nonfinancial commodity” to mean a commodity that can be physically delivered and that is an exempt commodity or an agricultural commodity. Unlike excluded commodities, which generally are financial, exempt and agricultural commodities by their nature generally are nonfinancial. The requirement that the commodity be able to be physically delivered is designed to prevent market participants from relying on the forward exclusion to enter into swaps based on indexes of exempt or agricultural commodities outside of the Dodd-Frank Act and settling them in cash, which would be inconsistent with the historical limitation of the forward exclusion to commercial merchandising transactions. However, to the extent that a transaction is intended to be physically settled, otherwise meets the terms of the forward contract exclusion and uses an index merely to determine the price to be paid for the nonfinancial commodity intended to be delivered, the transaction may qualify for the forward exclusion from the swap definition.

In addition, the CFTC is providing an interpretation that an intangible commodity (that is not an excluded commodity) which can be physically delivered qualifies as a nonfinancial commodity if ownership of the commodity can be conveyed in some manner and the commodity can be consumed. One example of an intangible nonfinancial commodity that qualifies under this interpretation, as discussed in greater detail below, is an environmental commodity, such as an emission allowance, that can be physically delivered and consumed (e.g., by emitting the amount of pollutant specified in the allowance). The interpretation provided herein recognizes that transactions in intangible commodities can, in appropriate circumstances, qualify as forwards, while setting forth certain conditions to assure that the forward exclusion may not be abused with respect to intangible commodities.

Comments

Several commenters believed that the CFTC should provide an interpretation regarding the meaning of the term “nonfinancial commodity” to provide clarity to market participants on the applicability of the forward exclusion. The CFTC is providing the interpretation discussed above to address these commenters' concerns but, contrary to one commenter's request, declines to adopt a regulation.

(iii) Environmental Commodities

The Commissions requested comment on whether environmental commodities should fall within the forward exclusion from the swap definition and, if so, subject to what parameters. In response to commenters, the CFTC is providing an interpretation regarding the circumstances under which agreements, contracts or transactions in environmental commodities will satisfy the forward exclusion from the swap definition. The CFTC did not propose a definition of the term “environmental commodity” in the Proposing Release and is not doing so in this release. The CFTC believes it is not necessary to define the term “environmental commodity” because any intangible commodity—environmental or otherwise—that satisfies the terms of the interpretation provided herein is a nonfinancial commodity, and thus an agreement, contract or transaction in such a commodity is eligible for the forward exclusion from the swap definition. The forward exclusion from the swap definition does not apply to commodities themselves, but to certain types of agreements, contracts or transactions in a specified type of commodity (i.e., a “nonfinancial” commodity). Environmental commodities that meet the interpretation regarding nonfinancial commodities discussed in subsection (ii) above are nonfinancial commodities and, therefore, a sale for deferred shipment or delivery in such a commodity, so long as the transaction is intended to be physically settled, may qualify for the forward exclusion from the swap definition.

The intangible nature of environmental, or other, commodities does not disqualify contracts based on such commodities from the forward exclusion from the swap definition, notwithstanding that the core of the forward exclusion is intent to deliver the underlying commodity. As commenters noted, securities are intangible (with the exception of the rare certificated security) and yet they are expressly permitted by CEA section 1a(47)(B)(ii) to be the subject of the forward exclusion; this reflects recognition by Congress that the forward exclusion can apply to intangible commodities.

The CFTC understands that market participants often engage in environmental commodity transactions in order to transfer ownership of the environmental commodity (and not solely price risk), so that the buyer can consume the commodity in order to comply with the terms of mandatory or voluntary environmental programs. Those two features—ownership transfer and consumption—distinguish such environmental commodity transactions from other types of intangible commodity transactions that cannot be delivered, such as temperatures and interest rates. The ownership transfer and consumption features render such environmental commodity transactions similar to tangible commodity transactions that clearly can be delivered, such as wheat and gold.

For such transactions, in addition to the factors discussed above, intent to deliver is readily determinable, delivery failures generally result from frustration of the parties' intentions, and cash-settlement is insufficient because delivery of the commodity is necessary for compliance purposes. For the foregoing reasons, environmental commodities can be nonfinancial commodities that can be delivered through electronic settlement or contractual attestation. Therefore, an agreement, contract or transaction in an environmental commodity may qualify for the forward exclusion from the swap definition if the transaction is intended to be physically settled.

Comments

Several commenters responded to the Commission's request for comment regarding the applicability of the forward exclusion from the swap definition for agreements, contracts and transactions in environmental commodities.

Most commenters responding to the Commissions' request for comment concerning the appropriate treatment of agreements, contracts or transactions in environmental commodities asserted that emission allowances, carbon offsets/credits, or RECs should be able to qualify for the forward exclusion from the swap definition. In support of this view, several commenters explained that the settlement process for environmental commodity transactions generally involves “the transfer of title via a tracking system, registry or contractual attestation, in exchange for a cash payment.” One commenter stated that this form of settlement demonstrates that the lack of physical existence of a commodity is not relevant to whether a transaction in the commodity physically settles for purposes of the forward exclusion. Another commenter contended that title transfer constitutes physical delivery because the settlement results in the environmental commodity being consumed to meet an environmental obligation or goal, which occurs through “retirement” of the environmental commodity. Other commenters compared the settlement of a transaction in an environmental commodity through an electronic registry system to a warehouse receipt that represents title to a physical commodity.

A few commenters also analogized environmental commodities to securities, which (with the exception of certificated securities) are intangible. Some commenters, for example, asserted that the language of the forward exclusion from the swap definition means that non-physical items can be physically settled because the exclusion, which references securities, “implies that securities—which lack a strict physical existence—may be physically settled.”

Some commenters assured the Commissions that applying the forward exclusion to transactions in environmental commodities would not permit transactions that should be subject to the swap regulatory regime to fall outside it. One commenter submitted that intent to deliver with respect to environmental commodities will be readily determinable. Another commenter contended that: environmental commodity contracts almost universally require delivery and that failure to do so is an event of default; to the best of its knowledge, it is rare for such a contract to include the right to unilaterally terminate an agreement under a pre-arranged contractual provision permitting financial settlement; and defaults generally are the result of something frustrating parties' intentions. Still other commenters distinguished environmental commodities from other intangible commodities, such as the nonfinancial commodities (such as interest rates and temperatures) that the CFTC referred to in its Adaptation Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, because RECs and emissions allowances or offsets can be physically transferred from one account to another, whereas “it is not possible to move and physically transfer an interest rate or a temperature reading.”

As discussed above, the CFTC has addressed the foregoing concerns of commenters by providing an interpretation that agreements, contracts and transactions in environmental commodities may qualify for the forward exclusion from the swap definition.

One commenter stated its view that the forward exclusion from the swap definition should not be available for carbon transactions because they should be standardized and conducted on open, transparent and regulated exchanges. This commenter acknowledged the possibility that carbon transactions can be physically settled (as the statute requires of excluded forward contracts) but argued that, in light of the fact that there is no cost associated with making or taking delivery of carbon, there is no cost to store it, and there is no delay in delivering it, a forward exclusion for carbon transactions may allow financial speculators to escape regulation otherwise required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The CFTC believes that if a transaction satisfies the terms of the statutory exclusion, the CFTC lacks the authority to deprive the transaction of the exclusion, absent evasion.

One commenter stated that “[i]n the solar industry, RECs are often traded by an individual consumer as an assignment of a right owned by that consumer.” This commenter also advised that many individual consumers transact forward contracts through solar REC (“SREC”) aggregators at a fixed price. The CFTC notes that a transaction entered into by a consumer cannot be a forward transaction, and accordingly should not be the subject of an interpretation of the forward exclusion.

One commenter takes the position that, because EPA emission allowances are issued in transactions with the EPA, only resales of such allowances (secondary market transactions) could be swaps because the EPA's initial issuance of allowances would be excluded from the swap definition under CEA section 1a(47)(B)(ix). The CFTC declines to address the commenter's legal conclusion regarding the application of CEA section 1a(47)(B)(ix), but agrees that an emission allowance created by the EPA is a nonfinancial commodity and that agreements, contracts and transactions in such allowances may fall within the forward exclusion from the swap definition.

(iv) Physical Exchange Transactions

The Commissions received a comment letter seeking clarification that physical exchange transactions are forward contracts excluded from the swap definition. As described by the commenter, physical exchange transactions involve “a gas utility entering into a transaction with another gas utility or other market participant to take delivery of natural gas at one delivery point in exchange for the same quantity of gas to be delivered at an alternative delivery point * * * for the primary purpose of transferring ownership of the physical commodity in order to rationalize the delivery of physical supplies to where they are needed” at a price “generally reflecting the difference in value at the delivery points.” This commenter stated that “exchange transactions create binding obligations on each party to make and take delivery of physical commodities [, i]n essence constituting paired forward contracts that are intended to go to physical delivery.” The commenter added that, to the extent an exchange transaction payment is based on an index price, such pricing is not severable from the physical exchange.

The CFTC interprets the exchange transactions described by the commenter, to the extent they are for deferred delivery, as examples of transactions in nonfinancial commodities that are within the forward exclusion from the definition of the terms “swap” and “future delivery.” Based on the information supplied by the commenter, they are commercial merchandising transactions, the primary purpose of which is to transfer ownership of natural gas between two parties who intend to physically settle such transactions. That exchange transactions may involve, in addition to gas deliveries at two separate delivery points, a cash payment by one party to the other reflecting the difference in value of the gas at different delivery points, or that such payment may be based on an index, does not necessarily affect the nature of the transactions as forward transactions. For an exchange transaction to fall within the forward exclusion, though, the parties to the transaction must intend for the transaction to be physically settled, and the exchange transaction must satisfy all applicable interpretations set forth herein, including that relating to book-outs.

(v) Fuel Delivery Agreements

The CFTC understands that fuel delivery agreements can generally be described as agreements whereby two or more parties agree to divide the cost of acquiring fuel for generation facilities based on some formula or factors, which can include, for example, their respective financial contributions to developing the source of the fuel (e.g., a natural gas field). One example of a fuel delivery agreement could involve a joint power agency providing to a municipal utility a long-term supply of natural gas from a natural gas project developed by the joint power agency and other entities to provide fuel for, among others, the joint power agency's and the municipal utility's natural gas-fired electric generating facilities. The municipal utility would pay the joint power agency through direct capital contributions to the entity formed to develop the natural gas project for the cost of developing it. In addition, the municipal utility would pay the joint power agency a monthly fee for the natural gas supplied from the natural gas project. The monthly fee would be composed of an operating cost fee component, an interstate pipeline transportation cost fee component and an operating reserve cost fee component. The municipal utility's natural gas-fired electric generating facility would be used to supply a portion of its expected retail electric load.

Such agreements are forward transactions if they otherwise meet the interpretation set forth in this release regarding the forward exclusions (e.g., no optionality other than as permitted by the interpretation). Monthly or other fees that are not in the nature of option premiums do not convert the transactions from forwards to options. Because the transactions as described above do not appear to exhibit optionality as to delivery, and no other aspect of the transactions as described above seem to exhibit optionality, the fees would not seem to resemble option premiums.

(vi) Cleared/Exchange-Traded Forwards

In the Proposing Release, the Commissions requested comment regarding whether forwards executed on trading platforms should fall within the forward exclusion from the swap definition and, if so, subject to what parameters. One commenter requested that the CFTC adopt a non-exclusive safe harbor providing that exchange-traded contracts with respect to which more than 50 percent of contracts, on average on a rolling three-month basis, go to delivery and where 100 percent of the counterparties are commercial counterparties, are neither futures nor swaps (“50/100 Forward Safe Harbor”). This commenter further requested that the CFTC provide an appropriate transition period once those thresholds are breached. This commenter contended that two hallmarks of the exchange-traded forward markets, which it characterized as “a relatively new development,” are that the participants generally are commercials and a high percentage of contracts go to delivery, notwithstanding netting of delivery obligations. This commenter added that, while parties to such contracts intend to go to delivery when they enter into them, their delivery needs may change as time passes.

The CFTC declines to address this request for the 50/100 Forward Safe Harbor, which raises policy issues that are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Should the CFTC consider the implications of the requested 50/100 Forward Safe Harbor, including possible additional conditions for relief, it would be appropriate for the CFTC to obtain further comment from the public on this discrete proposal. For the same reasons, the CFTC declines to address at this time the comment requesting that the CFTC take the view that cleared forwards between commercial participants fall within the scope of the forward contract exclusion.

(b) Commodity Options and Commodity Options Embedded in Forward Contracts

(i) Commodity Options

The CFTC noted in the Proposing Release that the statutory swap definition explicitly provides that commodity options are swaps, that it had proposed revisions to its existing options rules in parts 32 and 33 of its regulations with respect to the treatment of commodity options under the Dodd-Frank Act, and that it had requested comment on those proposed revisions in that rulemaking proceeding. Accordingly, the CFTC did not propose an additional interpretation in the Proposing Release with respect to commodity options.

The CFTC reaffirms that commodity options are swaps under the statutory swap definition, and is not providing an additional interpretation regarding commodity options in this release. The CFTC recently addressed commodity options in the context of a separate final rulemaking and interim final rulemaking, under its plenary options authority in CEA section 4c(b). There, the CFTC adopted a modified trade option exemption, and has invited public comment on the interim final rules.

Comments

Several commenters in response to the Proposing Release argued that commodity options should not be regulated as swaps. In general, these commenters believed that commodity options should qualify for the forward exclusion from the swap definition, emphasizing similarities between commodity options and forward contracts on nonfinancial commodities.

The CFTC is not providing an interpretation that commodity options qualify as forward contracts in nonfinancial commodities. Such an approach would be contrary to the plain language of the statutory swap definition, which explicitly provides that commodity options are swaps. This approach also would be a departure from the CFTC's and its staff's longstanding interpretation of the forward exclusion with respect to the term “future delivery,” which the CFTC has determined above to apply to the forward exclusion from the swap definition as well. Further, the CFTC notes that it has recently issued final and interim final rules adopting a modified version of the CFTC's existing trade option exemption.

(ii) Commodity Options Embedded in Forward Contracts

The CFTC is restating the interpretation regarding forwards with embedded options from the Proposing Release, but with certain modifications based on comments received. The CFTC is providing additional interpretations regarding forwards with embedded volumetric optionality, optionality in the form of evergreen and renewal provisions, and optionality with respect to delivery points and delivery dates.

As was noted in the Proposing Release, the question of the application of the forward exclusion from the swap definition with respect to nonfinancial commodities, where commodity options are embedded in forward contracts (including embedded options to cash settle such contracts), is similar to that arising under the CEA's existing forward contract exclusion from the definition of the term “future delivery.” The CFTC's Office of General Counsel addressed forward contracts that contained embedded options in the 1985 CFTC OGC Interpretation, which recently was adhered to by the CFTC in its adjudicatory Order in the Wright case. While both were issued prior to the effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC believes that, as was stated in the Proposing Release, it is appropriate to apply this interpretation to the treatment of forward contracts in nonfinancial commodities that contain embedded options under the Dodd-Frank Act.

In Wright, the CFTC stated that it traditionally has engaged in a two-step analysis of “embedded options” in which the first step focuses on whether the option operates on the price or the delivery term of the forward contract and the second step focuses on secondary trading. As was stated in the Proposing Release, these same principles can be applied with respect to the forward contract exclusion from the swap definition for nonfinancial commodities in the Dodd-Frank Act, too. Utilizing these principles, the CFTC is providing a final interpretation that a forward contract that contains an embedded commodity option or options will be considered an excluded nonfinancial commodity forward contract (and not a swap) if the embedded option(s):

1. May be used to adjust the forward contract price, but do not undermine the overall nature of the contract as a forward contract;

2. Do not target the delivery term, so that the predominant feature of the contract is actual delivery; and

3. Cannot be severed and marketed separately from the overall forward contract in which they are embedded.

In evaluating whether an agreement, contract, or transaction qualifies for the forward contract exclusions from the swap definition for nonfinancial commodities, the CFTC will look to the specific facts and circumstances of the transaction as a whole to evaluate whether any embedded optionality operates on the price or delivery term of the contract, and whether an embedded commodity option is marketed or traded separately from the underlying contract. Such an approach will help assure that commodity options that should be regulated as swaps do not circumvent the protections established in the Dodd-Frank Act through the forward contract exclusion for nonfinancial commodities instead.

The CFTC also is providing an interpretation, in response to commenters, with respect to forwards with embedded volumetric optionality. Several commenters asserted that agreements, contracts, and transactions that contain embedded “volumetric options,” and that otherwise satisfy the terms of the forward exclusions, should qualify as excluded forwards, notwithstanding their embedded optionality. The CFTC believes that agreements, contracts, and transactions with embedded volumetric optionality may satisfy the forward exclusions from the swap and future delivery definitions under certain circumstances. Accordingly, the CFTC is providing an interpretation that an agreement, contract, or transaction falls within the forward exclusion from the swap and future delivery definitions, notwithstanding that it contains embedded volumetric optionality, when:

1. The embedded optionality does not undermine the overall nature of the agreement, contract, or transaction as a forward contract;

2. The predominant feature of the agreement, contract, or transaction is actual delivery;

3. The embedded optionality cannot be severed and marketed separately from the overall agreement, contract, or transaction in which it is embedded;

4. The seller of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the agreement, contract, or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality intends, at the time it enters into the agreement, contract, or transaction to deliver the underlying nonfinancial commodity if the optionality is exercised;

5. The buyer of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the agreement, contract or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality intends, at the time it enters into the agreement, contract, or transaction, to take delivery of the underlying nonfinancial commodity if it exercises the embedded volumetric optionality;

6. Both parties are commercial parties; and

7. The exercise or non-exercise of the embedded volumetric optionality is based primarily on physical factors, or regulatory requirements, that are outside the control of the parties and are influencing demand for, or supply of, the nonfinancial commodity.

The first two elements of the interpretation for embedded volumetric optionality, which mirror the CFTC's historical embedded option interpretation discussed above, have been modified to reflect that embedded volumetric optionality relates to delivery rather than price. As noted above, the predominant feature of a forward contract is a binding, albeit deferred, delivery obligation. It is essential that any embedded option in a forward contract as to volume must not undermine a forward contract's overall purpose. The CFTC recognizes that the nature of commercial operations are such that supply and demand requirements cannot always be accurately predicted and that forward contracts that allow for some optionality as to the amount of a nonfinancial commodity actually delivered offer a great deal of value to commercial participants. Where an agreement, contract, or transaction requires delivery of a non-nominal volume of a nonfinancial commodity, even if an embedded volumetric option is exercised, the CFTC believes that the predominant feature of the contract, notwithstanding the embedded volumetric optionality, is actual delivery. This is the case in many forward contracts that have an embedded option that allows a party to buy or sell an additional amount of a commodity beyond the fixed amount called for in the underlying forward contract. For instance, a forward contract could call for the delivery of 10,000 bushels of wheat and include an option for an additional 5,000 bushels of wheat.

The third element is substantially the same as the third element of the interpretation above with respect to commodity options embedded in forward contracts generally.

The fourth and fifth elements are designed to ensure that both parties intend to make or take delivery (as applicable), subject to the relevant physical factors or regulatory requirements, which may lead the parties to deliver more or less than originally intended. This distinguishes a forward contract from a commodity option, where only the option seller must at all times be prepared to deliver during the term of the option. The sixth element is intended to ensure that the interpretation is not abused by market participants not engaged in a commercial business involving the nonfinancial commodity underlying the embedded volumetric optionality.

The seventh element is based on comments stating that parties to agreements, contracts, and transactions with embedded volumetric optionality intend to make or take delivery (as applicable) of a commodity, and that it is merely the volume of a commodity that would be required to be delivered if the option is exercised, that varies. It is designed to ensure that the volumetric optionality is primarily driven by physical factors or regulatory requirements that influence supply and demand and that are outside the parties' control, and that the optionality is a commercially reasonable way to address uncertainty associated with those factors. Element seven must be interpreted with the other elements set forth here. For instance, even if the optionality is consistent with element seven, such optionality cannot undermine the overall nature of the contract as a forward contract as discussed above.

As discussed in the interpretation regarding forwards with embedded optionality discussed above, in evaluating whether an agreement, contract or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality qualifies for the forward exclusions, the CFTC will look to the relevant facts and circumstances of the transaction as a whole to evaluate whether the transaction qualifies for the forward exclusions from the definitions of the terms “swap” and “future delivery.”

The CFTC is providing further interpretations to explain how it would treat some of the specific contracts described in the comment letters. According to one commenter, a “full requirements contract” can be described as a “contract where the seller agrees to provide all requirements for a specific customer's location or delivery point.” According to another commenter, “[a] full requirements contract * * * is a well-established concept in contract law” and “[i]n a requirements contract, the purchaser * * * deals exclusively with one supplier.” This commenter added that, while the amount of commodity delivered can vary, it is based on an objective need and that the Uniform Commercial Code imposes on the buyer “an obligation to act in good faith with respect to the varying amount that is called for delivery.” Based upon this description, the CFTC believes that a going commercial concern with an exclusive supply contract has no option but to get its supply requirements met through that exclusive supplier consistent with the terms of the contract. Any instance where nominal or zero delivery occurred would have to be because the commercial requirements changed or did not materialize. Furthermore, any variability in delivery amounts under the contract appears to be driven directly by the buyer's commercial requirements and is not dependent upon the exercise of any commodity option by the contracting parties.

Accordingly, full requirements contracts, as described above, appear not to contain embedded volumetric options. Therefore, a full requirements contract may qualify for the forward exclusion under the same facts and circumstances analysis applicable to all other agreements, contracts, and transactions that might be forwards. The same analysis would apply to an output contract satisfying the terms of this interpretation.

With respect to capacity contracts, transmission (or transportation) services agreements, and tolling agreements, the CFTC understands that: (i) Capacity contracts are generally products designed to ensure that sufficient physical generation capacity is available to meet the needs of an electrical system; (ii) transmission (or transportation) services agreements are generally agreements for the use of electricity transmission lines (or gas pipelines) that allow a power generator to transmit electricity (or gas supplier to transport gas) to a specific location; and (iii) tolling agreements, as described by commenters, provide a purchaser the right to the capacity, energy, ancillary services and any other product derived from a specified generating unit, all based upon a delivered fuel price and agreed heat rate.

Such agreements, contracts and transactions, may have features that will satisfy the “forwards with embedded volumetric optionality” interpretation discussed above, or, like full requirements contracts, may not contain embedded volumetric options and may satisfy other portions of the forward interpretations herein. For example, according to one commenter, the delivery obligations in some tolling agreements are not optional which is indicative that the predominant feature of such tolling agreements is actual delivery. It is also possible, based on descriptions provided to the CFTC, that tolling agreements could fit within the interpretation concerning certain physical agreements, contracts, or transactions, or other interpretations herein.

Some commenters focused on forwards with embedded volumetric optionality in the natural gas industry. For example, one commenter stated that “peaking supply” natural gas contracts do not render delivery optional. Although the purchaser has the option to specify when and if the quantity of gas will be delivered on any given day, this commenter asserted that there is no cash settlement alternative. If the purchaser does not exercise the right to purchase, then the right is terminated. The seller under the transaction must deliver the entire quantity of gas that the purchaser specifies, or pay liquidated damages. Moreover, the option is not severable and cannot be marketed separately from the supply agreement itself. Similarly, another commenter said that there is no ability to sever an embedded option from a natural gas forward contract. Moreover, it stated that the ability for a gas purchaser to specify a quantity of gas for a certain day is not to encourage speculative activity; rather, it is because the exact quantity of gas to be needed on that future day is unknown, and many gas purchasers have weather-dependent needs that cannot accurately be predicted in advance.

Depending on the relevant facts and circumstances, these types of agreements, contracts, and transactions—capacity contracts, transmission (or transportation) services agreements, tolling agreements, and peaking supply contracts—may satisfy the elements of the “forwards with embedded volumetric options” interpretation set forth above, or may satisfy other portions of this interpretation. If they do, they would fall within the forward exclusions from the swap and future delivery definitions.

In addition, the CFTC is providing an interpretation in response to a comment that contracts with evergreen or extension terms should be considered forwards. The CFTC is clarifying that an extension term in a commercial contract, such as a renewal term in a five year power purchase agreement (which, due to the renewal, would require additional deliveries), is not an option on the delivery term within the meaning of the CFTC's interpretation, and consequently would not render such a contract ineligible for the forward exclusions from the definitions of the terms “swap” and “future delivery.” Similarly, an evergreen provision, which automatically renews a contract (and, as such, would require additional deliveries) absent the parties affirmatively terminating it, would not render such a contract ineligible for the forward exclusions from the swap or future delivery definitions. When the Proposing Release stated that a forward contract containing an embedded option that does not “target the delivery term” is an excluded forward contract, it meant that the embedded option does not affect the delivery amount.

Also, in response to a commenter, the CFTC clarifies that embedded optionality as to delivery points and delivery dates will not cause a transaction that otherwise qualifies as a forward contract to be considered a swap. The CFTC emphasizes, however, that delivery must occur at some delivery point and on some date, or the lack of delivery must be due to the transaction being booked out or otherwise be consistent with the CFTC's interpretation regarding the forward exclusions from the swap and future delivery definitions.

Comments

Commenters generally supported the CFTC's proposed interpretation regarding forwards with embedded options, but many believed that it should be modified or expanded. As noted above, several commenters believed that forward contracts with embedded options that contain optionality as to the quantity/volume of the nonfinancial commodity to be delivered should qualify as forwards, and that the CFTC's proposed interpretation (which only mentions price optionality) should be modified accordingly. In this regard, several commenters focused on forwards with embedded volumetric options in the natural gas industry. One commenter noted that, although the 1985 CFTC OGC Interpretation distinguishes forward contracts from trade options, it is based on a limited number of agricultural contract examples, so additional guidance is needed, particularly in light of the wide range of cash market and commercial merchandising contracting practices in which delivery terms and amounts vary.

In addition, another commenter requested more generally that any embedded option (for example, price, quantity, delivery point, delivery date, contract term) that does not permit a unilateral election of financial settlement based upon the value change in an underlying cash market should not render the contract a swap.

As discussed above, the CFTC has provided an additional interpretation with respect to forwards with embedded volumetric options to address commenters' concerns. The CFTC also has provided an interpretation above, regarding price optionality, optionality with respect to delivery points and delivery dates specifically in response to this commenter, and optionality as to certain contract terms (such as evergreen and renewal provisions) to address particular concerns raised by commenters. The CFTC declines to adopt a more expansive approach with respect to “any” embedded option.

One commenter requested that an option to purchase or sell a physical commodity, whether embedded in a forward contract or stand alone, should either (i) fall within the statutory forward exclusion from the swap definition, or (ii) alternatively, if deemed by the CFTC to be a swap, should be exempt from the swap definition pursuant to a modified trade option exemption pursuant to CEA section 4c(b). The CFTC has modified its proposed interpretation regarding forwards with embedded options as discussed above; contracts with embedded options that are swaps under this final interpretation may nevertheless qualify for the modified trade option exemption recently adopted by the CFTC and discussed above.

Another commenter urged the CFTC to broadly exempt commercial forward contracting from swap regulation by generally excluding from the swap definition any forward contract with embedded optionality between end users “whose primary purpose is consistent with that of an `end user', and in which any embedded option is directly related to `end use.' ” The CFTC believes that this interpretation is vague and overbroad, and declines to adopt it.

Another commenter believed that the CFTC's “facts and circumstances” approach to forwards with embedded options does not provide the legal certainty required by nonfinancial entities engaging in commercial contracts in the normal course of business. This commenter further argued that many option-like contract terms could be determined to “target the delivery term” under a facts and circumstances analysis.

The CFTC has long applied a facts-and-circumstances approach to the forward exclusion, including with respect to forwards with embedded options, and thus it is an approach with which market participants are familiar. That approach balances the need for legal certainty against the risk of providing opportunities for evasion. The CFTC's additional interpretation noted above, including clarification about the meaning of the phrase “target the delivery term,” and forwards with embedded volumetric optionality, provides enhanced legal certainty in response to the commenter's concerns.

Request for Comment

The CFTC's interpretation regarding forwards with volumetric options is an interpretation of the CFTC and may be relied upon by market participants. However, the CFTC believes that it would benefit from public comment about its interpretation, and therefore requests public comment on all aspects of its interpretation regarding forwards with embedded volumetric options, and on the following questions:

1. Are the elements set forth in the interpretation to distinguish forwards with embedded volumetric optionality from commodity options appropriate? Why or why not?

2. Are there additional elements that would be appropriate? Please describe and provide support for why such elements would serve to distinguish forwards with embedded volumetric optionality from commodity options.

3. Is the seventh element that, to ensure that an agreement, contract, or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality is a forward and not an option, the volumetric optionality is based primarily on physical factors, or regulatory requirements, that are outside the control of the parties and are influencing demand for, or supply of, the nonfinancial commodity, necessary and appropriate? Why or why not? Is the statement of this element sufficiently clear and unambiguous? If not, what adjustments would be appropriate?

4. Are there circumstances where volumetric optionality is based on other factors? Please describe. Would such factors, if made a part of the interpretation, serve to distinguish forwards with embedded volumetric optionality from commodity options? If so, how?

5. Does the interpretation provide sufficient guidance as to whether agreements, contracts, or transactions with embedded volumetric optionality permitting a nominal amount, or no amount, of a nonfinancial commodity to be delivered are forwards or options, viewing the agreements, contracts, or transactions as a whole, if they satisfy the seven elements of the interpretation? Why or why not? Does this interpretation encourage evasion, or do the seven elements sufficiently distinguish forwards from agreements, contracts, and transactions that may evade commodity options regulation?

6. Is the interpretation sufficiently clear with respect to capacity contracts, transmission (or transportation) services agreements, peaking supply contracts, or tolling agreements? Why or why not? Do capacity contracts, transmission (or transportation) services agreements, peaking supply contracts, or tolling agreements generally have features that satisfy the forwards with volumetric options interpretation included in this release? If so, which ones? If not, why not? Could these types of agreements, contracts, and transactions qualify for the forward exclusions under other parts of the interpretation set forth above? Are there material differences in the structure, operation, or economic effect of these types of agreements, contracts, and transactions as compared to full requirements contracts that are relevant to whether such agreements, contracts, and transactions are options under the CEA? Please explain. If so, what are the material differences?

7. Do the agreements, contracts, and transactions listed in question No. 6 above have embedded optionality in the first instance? Based on descriptions by commenters, it appears that they may have a binding obligation for delivery, but have no set amount specified for delivery. Instead, delivery (including the possibility of nominal or zero delivery) is determined by the terms and conditions contained within the agreement, contract, or transaction (including, for example, the satisfaction of a condition precedent to delivery, such as a commodity price or temperature reaching a level specified in the agreement, contract, or transaction). That is, the variation in delivery is not driven by the exercise of embedded optionality by the parties. Do the agreements, contracts, and transactions listed in question No. 6 exhibit these kinds of characteristics? If so, should the CFTC consider them in some manner other than its forward interpretation? Why or why not?

(iii) Certain Physical Commercial Agreements, Contracts or Transactions

The CFTC is providing an interpretation in response to comments regarding certain physical commercial agreements for the supply and consumption of energy that provide flexibility, such as tolls on power plants, transportation agreements on natural gas pipelines, and natural gas storage agreements. Commenters recognized that these types of agreements, contracts or transactions may have option-like features, but analogized them to leases and concluded that they were forwards rather than swaps. One commenter, for example, characterized taking power produced pursuant to a physical tolling agreement—which can involve one party thereto providing fuel for a generation plant and having the exclusive right to take the power produced by that plant from the fuel provided—thus, in effect, “renting” the plant to the extent the plant is used to produce power from the fuel provided—as more akin to a lease than to an option.

The CFTC will interpret an agreement, contract or transaction not to be an option if the following three elements are satisfied: (1) The subject of the agreement, contract or transaction is usage of a specified facility or part thereof rather than the purchase or sale of the commodity that is to be created, transported, processed or stored using the specified facility; (2) the agreement, contract or transaction grants the buyer the exclusive use of the specified facility or part thereof during its term, and provides for an unconditional obligation on the part of the seller to grant the buyer the exclusive use of the specified facility or part thereof; and (3) the payment for the use of the specified facility or part thereof represents a payment for its use rather than the option to use it. In such agreements, contracts and transactions, while there is optionality as to whether the person uses the specified facility, the person's right to do so is legally established, does not depend upon any further exercise of an option and merely represents a decision to use that for which the lessor already has paid. In this context, the CFTC would not consider actions such as scheduling electricity transmission, gas transportation or injection of gas into storage to be exercising an option if all three elements of the interpretation above are satisfied. As with the interpretation regarding forwards with embedded options generally, discussed above, in evaluating whether flexible physical commercial agreements that meet the 3-part test qualify for the forward exclusions, the CFTC will look to the specific facts and circumstances of the agreement, contract or transaction as a whole to evaluate whether the agreement, contract or transaction qualifies for the forward exclusions from the definitions of “swap” and “future delivery.”

However, in the alternative, if the right to use the specified facility is only obtained via the payment of a demand charge or reservation fee, and the exercise of the right (or use of the specified facility or part thereof) entails the further payment of actual storage fees, usage fees, rents, or other analogous service charges not included in the demand charge or reservation fee, such agreement, contract or transaction is a commodity option subject to the swap definition.

Comments

Two commenters addressed “lease-like” physical agreements, contracts or transactions. One of these commenters asserted that there are many physical commercial agreements for the supply and consumption of energy that effectively provide leases on flexible energy assets, such as tolls on power plants, transportation agreements on natural gas pipelines and natural gas storage agreements. According to this commenter, these assets have the capability to be turned on and off to meet fluctuating demand due to weather and other factors; physical contracts around these assets transfer that delivery flexibility to the contract holder. The commenter believed that these types of commercial arrangements should not be considered commodity options, but rather should be excluded forwards. The other commenter described tolling agreements as having the characteristics of a lease, in that the purchasing entity obtains the exclusive right to the use of the power plant during the term of the agreement. This commenter asserted that such agreements should not be considered commodity options, but rather forwards because the obligations are not contingent. The CFTC is providing the above interpretation that these types of agreements, contracts and transactions are not commodity options if the above conditions are satisfied, but may qualify for the forward exclusions under the facts and circumstances, in response to these commenters' concerns.

(iv) Effect of Interpretation on Certain Agreements, Contracts and Transactions

In the Proposing Release, the CFTC requested comment regarding how its proposed interpretation concerning the forward contract exclusion would affect full requirements contracts, reserve sharing agreements, tolling agreements, energy management agreements and ancillary services. The CFTC asked whether such agreements, contracts or transactions have optionality as to delivery and, if so, whether they, or any other agreement, contract or transaction in a nonfinancial commodity, should be excluded from the swap definition.

Commenters generally believed that such types of agreements, contracts and transactions, although they may contain delivery optionality, should be considered forwards rather than swaps or commodity options. By contrast, one commenter believed that traded power markets involve many types of contracts that are actually exchanges of cash flows based on referenced values and that have no relevant characteristics of physical delivery.

With the exception of energy management agreements, which are discussed below, the interpretations that the CFTC has already provided above may apply to such types of agreements, contracts and transactions. Specifically, to the extent that such types of agreements, contracts and transactions are forwards with embedded volumetric options, the CFTC has provided an additional interpretation in section II.B.2.b(iii) above. To the extent such types of agreements, contracts or transactions are physical commercial agreements, contracts or transactions discussed in section II.B.2.b(iii), supra, the CFTC has provided an interpretation in that section. To the extent such types of agreements, contracts and transactions are considered commodity options, the CFTC has addressed commodity options under the separate rulemaking establishing a modified trade option exemption. And to the extent that such types of agreements, contracts, and transactions, such as ancillary services, occur in Regional Transmission Organizations or Independent System Operators, or entered into between entities described in section 201(f) of the Federal Power Act, they may be addressed through the public interest waiver process in CEA section 4(c)(6).

With regard to Energy Management Agreements (“EMAs”), in general, commenters expressed the view that EMAs are forwards, and not swaps, although they did not provide analysis to support that conclusion. They also did not provide a working definition of EMAs. The CFTC understands that EMAs can cover a number of services and transactions, which can include spot, forward and swap transactions. EMAs can include services such as: (i) Acting as a financial intermediary by substituting one party's credit and liquidity for those of a less credit worthy owner of illiquid energy producing assets (i.e. the other party to the EMA) to facilitate the owner's purchase of fuel and sale of power; (ii) providing market information to assist the owner in developing and refining a risk-management plan for the plant; and (iii) procuring fuel, arranging delivery and storage, selling excess power not needed to serve load for another party. The entity carrying out these activities may receive a portion of the revenue generated from such activities as compensation for its efforts. Because commenters did not provide a working definition of EMAs, the CFTC cannot state categorically that EMAs are or are not swaps. However, if the fuel acquisition, sales of excess generation and any other transactions executed under the auspices of an EMA are not swaps, nothing about the fact that the transactions are executed as a result of or pursuant to an EMA transforms the transactions into swaps. For example, if one party hires another party to enter into spot or forward transactions on its behalf, the fact that their relationship is governed by an EMA does not render those transactions swaps. Conversely, were swaps to be executed by one party on behalf of another party as a result of, or pursuant to, an EMA, the parties thereto would need to consider their respective roles thereunder (e.g. principal versus agent) and whether commodity trading advisor, introducing broker, futures commission merchant, or other registration or other elements of the Dodd-Frank Act regime were implicated. At a minimum, the fact that a swap was executed would implicate reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

(v) Liquidated Damages Provisions

The Commissions also received several comments discussing contractual liquidated damages provisions. The CFTC is clarifying that the presence, in an agreement, contract, or transaction involving physical settlement of a nonfinancial commodity, of a liquidated damages provision (which may be referred to by another name, such as a “cover costs” or “cover damages” provision) does not necessarily render such an agreement, contract, or transaction ineligible for the forward exclusion. Such a provision in an agreement, contract, or transaction is consistent with the use of the forward exclusion, provided that the parties intend the transaction to be physically settled. However, liquidated damages provisions can be used to mask a lack of intent to deliver. In light of the possibility for evasion of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC will continue to utilize its historical facts-and-circumstances approach in determining whether the parties to a particular agreement, contract, or transaction with a liquidated damage provision have the requisite intent to deliver.

Comments

One commenter notes that a commercial merchandising arrangement involving a nonfinancial commodity may provide that the remedy for a failure to make or take delivery is the payment of a market-rate replacement price, a payment on a performance guaranty, or “cover damages” to compensate the non-breaching party for the failure of the other party to fulfill its contractual obligations. Such a contractual damages or remedy provision, this commenter contended, is not analogous to a financial settlement option in a trading instrument. This commenter further asserted that one party or the other may be unable to perform, or excused or prevented for commercial reasons from performing, its contractual obligations to make or take delivery of a nonfinancial commodity, and therefore may be liable to the other party for a monetary payment, calculated in accordance with the contract.

Another commenter noted that physically settled gas contracts, including peaking contracts (both for daily and monthly supply), bullet day contracts and weather contracts, use the NAESB Base Contract, which does not provide for financial settlement other than a liquidated damages provision, which would compensate a utility for its cost of obtaining alternative supply at the prevailing market price if the seller fails to deliver. This commenter stated its view that the seller has no real opportunity to arbitrage its obligation to deliver based on changes in price, and the purchaser has no incentive to fail to take delivery of its specified quantities of gas, because they are needed for the physical operations of its system.

The CFTC generally agrees with these comments regarding liquidated damages provisions, and has provided the final interpretation described above to address them.

(c) Security Forwards

As the Commissions stated in the Proposing Release, the Commissions believe it is appropriate to address how the exclusions from the swap and security-based swap definitions apply to security forwards and other purchases and sales of securities. The Commissions are restating the interpretation set out in the Proposing Release without modification.

The Dodd-Frank Act excludes purchases and sales of securities from the swap and security-based swap definitions in a number of different clauses. Under these exclusions, purchases and sales of securities on a fixed or contingent basis and sales of securities for deferred shipment or delivery that are intended to be physically delivered are explicitly excluded from the swap and security-based swap definitions. The exclusion from the swap and security-based swap definitions of a sale of a security for deferred shipment or delivery involves an agreement to purchase one or more securities, or groups or indexes of securities, at a future date at a certain price.

As with other purchases and sales of securities, security forwards are excluded from the swap and security-based swap definitions. The sale of the security in this case occurs at the time the forward contract is entered into with the performance of the contract deferred or delayed. If such agreement, contract, or transaction is intended to be physically settled, the Commissions believe it would be within the security forward exclusion and therefore outside the swap and security-based swap definitions. Moreover, as a purchase or sale of a security, the Commissions believe it also would be within the exclusions for the purchase or sale of one or more securities on a fixed basis (or, depending on its terms, a contingent basis) and, therefore, outside the swap and security-based swap definitions.

In the Proposing Release, the Commissions provided the following specific interpretation in the context of forward sales of mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) guaranteed or sold by the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), and the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”). The Commissions are restating their interpretation regarding such forward sales.

MBS guaranteed or sold by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae are eligible to be sold in the “To-Be-Announced” (“TBA”) market, which is essentially a forward or delayed delivery market. The TBA market has been described as one that “allows mortgage lenders essentially to sell the loans they intend to fund even before the loans are closed.” In the TBA market, the lender enters into a forward contract to sell MBS and agrees to deliver MBS on the settlement date in the future. The specific MBS that will be delivered in the future may not yet be created at the time the forward contract is entered into. In a TBA transaction, the seller and the buyer agree to five terms before entering into the transaction: (i) The type of security, which will usually be a certain type of MBS guaranteed or sold by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae and the type of mortgage underlying the MBS; (ii) the coupon or interest rate; (iii) the face value (the total dollar amount of MBS the purchaser wishes to purchase); (iv) the price; and (v) the settlement date. The purchaser will contract to acquire a specified dollar amount of MBS, which may be satisfied when the seller delivers one or more MBS pools at settlement.

The Commissions are confirming that such forward sales of MBS in the TBA market would fall within the exclusion for sales of securities on a deferred settlement or delivery basis even though the precise MBS are not in existence at the time the forward MBS sale is entered into. Moreover, as the purchase or sale of a security, the Commissions also are confirming that such forward sales of MBS in the TBA market would fall within the exclusions for the purchase or sale of one or more securities on a fixed basis (or, depending on its terms, a contingent basis) and therefore would fall outside the swap and security-based swap definitions.

Comments

The Commissions received two comments on the interpretation regarding security forwards. One commenter recommended that the Commissions codify in the text of the final rules the interpretation regarding forward sales of MBS in the TBA market. The Commissions are not codifying the interpretation because codification will create a bright-line test. The Commissions note that the analysis as to whether any product falls within the exclusion for sales of securities on a deferred settlement or delivery basis requires flexibility, including the consideration of applicable facts and circumstances. Because the interpretation regarding forward sales of MBS in the TBA market is based on particular facts and circumstances, the Commissions do not believe that a bright-line test is appropriate.

Another commenter suggested that the Commissions narrow the exclusion for contracts for the purchase and sale of securities for subsequent delivery as applied to security-based swaps because parties can use the formal characterization of a delivery contract for securities to disguise a transaction that is substantively a security-based swap. This commenter was concerned because this commenter believes that the securities subject to such a delivery obligation are often easily convertible into cash, which facilitates cash settlement without actual delivery. As such, this commenter suggested that the Commissions should provide a test for determining whether parties have a bona fide intent to deliver. This commenter recommended that such test should prohibit cash settlement options in contracts for subsequent delivery and should not consider a party that frequently unwinds physical positions with cash settlements using side agreements as having the requisite intent to deliver. The Commissions are not providing a test at this time for determining whether parties have a bona fide intent to deliver because the analysis as to whether sales of securities for deferred shipment or delivery are intended to be physically delivered is a facts and circumstances determination and a bright-line test will not allow for the flexibility needed in such analysis. Further, the Commissions note that the purchase and sale of a security occurs at the time the forward contract is entered into.

3. Consumer and Commercial Agreements, Contracts, and Transactions

The Commissions noted in the Proposing Release that “[c]onsumers enter into various types of agreements, contracts, and transactions as part of their household and personal lives that may have attributes that could be viewed as falling within the swap or security-based swap definition. Similarly, businesses and other entities, whether or not for profit, also enter into agreements, contracts, and transactions as part of their operations relating to, among other things, acquisitions or sales of property (tangible and intangible), provisions of services, employment of individuals, and other matters that could be viewed as falling within the definitions.”

Commenters on the ANPR pointed out a number of areas in which a broad reading of the swap and security-based swap definitions could cover certain consumer and commercial arrangements that historically have not been considered swaps or security-based swaps. Examples of such instruments cited by those commenters included evidences of indebtedness with a variable rate of interest; commercial contracts containing acceleration, escalation, or indexation clauses; agreements to acquire personal property or real property, or to obtain mortgages; employment, lease, and service agreements, including those that contain contingent payment arrangements; and consumer mortgage and utility rate caps.

The Commissions also stated in the Proposing Release that they “do not believe that Congress intended to include these types of customary consumer and commercial agreements, contracts, or transactions in the swap or security-based swap definition, to limit the types of persons that can enter into or engage in them, or to otherwise to subject these agreements, contracts, or transactions to the regulatory scheme for swaps and security-based swaps.”

Accordingly, the Commissions proposed an interpretation in the Proposing Release to assist consumers and commercial and non-profit entities in understanding whether certain agreements, contracts, or transactions that they enter into would be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps. The Commissions are adopting the interpretation set out in the Proposing Release with certain modifications in response to commenters.

With respect to consumers, the Commissions have determined that the types of agreements, contracts, or transactions that will not be considered swaps or security-based swaps when entered into by consumers (natural persons) as principals (or by their agents) primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, include:

• Agreements, contracts, or transactions to acquire or lease real or personal property, to obtain a mortgage, to provide personal services, or to sell or assign rights owned by such consumer (such as intellectual property rights);
• Agreements, contracts, or transactions to purchase products or services for personal, family or household purposes at a fixed price or a capped or collared price, at a future date or over a certain time period (such as agreements to purchase for personal use or consumption nonfinancial energy commodities, including agreements to purchase home heating fuel or agreements involving residential fuel storage, in either case, where the consumer takes delivery of and uses the fuel, and the counterparty is a merchant that delivers in the service area where the consumer resides);

• Agreements, contracts, or transactions that provide for an interest rate cap or lock on a consumer loan or mortgage, where the benefit of the rate cap or lock is realized only if the loan or mortgage is made to the consumer;
• Consumer loans or mortgages with variable rates of interest or embedded interest rate options, including such loans with provisions for the rates to change upon certain events related to the consumer, such as a higher rate of interest following a default;

• Service agreements, contracts, or transactions that are consumer product warranties, extended service plans, or buyer protection plans, such as those purchased with major appliances and electronics;

• Consumer options to acquire, lease, or sell real or personal property, such as options to lease apartments or purchase rugs and paintings, and purchases made through consumer layaway plans;

• Consumer agreements, contracts, or transactions where, by law or regulation, the consumer may cancel the transaction without legal cause; and

• Consumer guarantees of credit card debt, automobile loans, and mortgages of a friend or relative.

The Commissions have included in the interpretation above several additional examples of consumer arrangements that the Commissions do not consider to be swaps or security-based swaps. These additional examples have been included in response to commenters and the Commissions' determination that such additional examples would assist consumers in identifying other agreements, contracts, or transactions that they enter into that would not be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps.

The types of commercial agreements, contracts, or transactions that involve customary business arrangements (whether or not involving a for-profit entity) and will not be considered swaps or security-based swaps under this interpretation include:

• Employment contracts and retirement benefit arrangements;
• Sales, servicing, or distribution arrangements;
• Agreements, contracts, or transactions for the purpose of effecting a business combination transaction;

• The purchase, sale, lease, or transfer of real property, intellectual property, equipment, or inventory;
• Warehouse lending arrangements in connection with building an inventory of assets in anticipation of a securitization of such assets (such as in a securitization of mortgages, student loans, or receivables);

• Mortgage or mortgage purchase commitments, or sales of installment loan agreements or contracts or receivables;
• Fixed or variable interest rate commercial loans or mortgages entered into by banks and non-banks, including the following:

• Fixed or variable interest rate commercial loans or mortgages entered into by the Farm Credit System institutions and Federal Home Loan Banks;
• Fixed or variable interest rate commercial loans or mortgages with embedded interest rate locks, caps, or floors, provided that such embedded interest rate locks, caps, or floors are included for the sole purpose of providing a lock, cap, or floor on the interest rate on such loan or mortgage and do not include additional provisions that would provide exposure to enhanced or inverse performance, or other risks unrelated to the interest rate risk being addressed;
• Fixed or variable interest rate commercial loans or mortgages with embedded interest rate options, including such loans or mortgages that contain provisions causing the interest rate to change upon certain events related to the borrower, such as a higher rate of interest following a default, provided that such embedded interest rate options do not include additional provisions that would provide exposure to enhanced or inverse performance, or other risks unrelated to the primary reason the embedded interest rate option is included; and
• Commercial agreements, contracts, and transactions (including, but not limited to, leases, service contracts, and employment agreements) containing escalation clauses linked to an underlying commodity such as an interest rate or consumer price index.

In response to commenters, the Commissions have included in the interpretation above several additional examples of commercial arrangements that the Commissions do not consider to be swaps or security-based swaps.

The Commissions intend for this interpretation to enable consumers to engage in transactions relating to their households and personal or family activities without concern that such arrangements would be considered swaps or security-based swaps. Similarly, with respect to commercial business arrangements, this interpretation should allow commercial and non-profit entities to continue to operate their businesses and operations without significant disruption and provide that the swap and security-based swap definitions are not read to include commercial and non-profit operations that historically have not been considered to involve swaps or security-based swaps.

The types of agreements, contracts, and transactions discussed above are not intended to be exhaustive of the customary consumer or commercial arrangements that should not be considered to be swaps or security-based swaps. There may be other, similar types of agreements, contracts, and transactions that also should not be considered to be swaps or security-based swaps. In determining whether similar types of agreements, contracts, and transactions entered into by consumers or commercial entities are swaps or security-based swaps, the Commissions intend to consider the characteristics and factors that are common to the consumer and commercial transactions listed above:

• They do not contain payment obligations, whether or not contingent, that are severable from the agreement, contract, or transaction;
• They are not traded on an organized market or over-the-counter; and
• In the case of consumer arrangements, they:

—Involve an asset of which the consumer is the owner or beneficiary, or that the consumer is purchasing, or they involve a service provided, or to be provided, by or to the consumer, or

• In the case of commercial arrangements, they are entered into:

—By commercial or non-profit entities as principals (or by their agents) to serve an independent commercial, business, or non-profit purpose, and

—Other than for speculative, hedging, or investment purposes.

Two of the key components reflected in these characteristics that distinguish these agreements, contracts, and transactions from swaps and security-based swaps are that: (i) The payment provisions of the agreement, contract, or transaction are not severable; and (ii) the agreement, contract, or transaction is not traded on an organized market or over-the-counter, and therefore such agreement, contract, or transaction does not involve risk-shifting arrangements with financial entities, as would be the case for swaps and security-based swaps. In response to commenters, the Commissions clarify that merely because an agreement, contract, or transaction is assignable does not mean that it is “traded” or that the agreement, contract, or transaction is a swap or security-based swap. An assignment of a contractual obligation must be analyzed to assure that the result is not to sever the payment obligations.

This interpretation is not intended to be the exclusive means for consumers and commercial or non-profit entities to determine whether their agreements, contracts, or transactions fall within the swap or security-based swap definition. If there is a type of agreement, contract, or transaction that is not enumerated above, or does not have all the characteristics and factors that are listed above (including new types of agreements, contracts, or transactions that may be developed in the future), the agreement, contract, or transaction will be evaluated based on its particular facts and circumstances. Parties to such an agreement, contract or transaction may also seek an interpretation from the Commissions as to whether the agreement, contract or transaction is a swap or security-based swap.

Comments

Eleven commenters provided comments on the proposed interpretation set forth in the Proposing Release regarding consumer and commercial arrangements. While most commenters supported the proposed interpretation, these commenters suggested certain changes.

Four commenters recommended that the Commissions codify the proposed interpretation regarding consumer and commercial arrangements. The Commissions are not codifying the interpretation. The interpretation is intended to provide guidance to assist consumers and commercial and non-profit entities in evaluating whether certain arrangements that they enter into will be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps. The interpretation is intended to allow the flexibility necessary, including the consideration of the applicable facts and circumstances by the Commissions, in evaluating consumer and commercial arrangements to ascertain whether they may be swaps or security-based swaps. The representative characteristics and factors taken together are indicators that a consumer or commercial arrangement is not a swap or security-based swap and the Commissions have provided specific examples demonstrating how these characteristics and factors apply to some common types of consumer and commercial arrangements. However, as the interpretation is not intended to be a bright-line test for determining whether a particular consumer or commercial arrangement is a swap or security-based swap, if the particular arrangement does not meet all of the identified characteristics and factors, the arrangement will be evaluated based on its particular facts and circumstances.

One commenter was concerned that the interpretation itself implicitly suggests that many types of consumer and commercial arrangements could be swaps, although none of these arrangements historically has been considered a swap. The Commissions do not intend to suggest that many types of consumer and commercial arrangements that historically have not been considered swaps are within the swap or security-based swap definitions. The Commissions provided the interpretation in response to comments received on the ANPR. Commenters on the ANPR identified areas in which a broad reading of the swap and security-based swap definitions could cover certain consumer and commercial arrangements that historically have not been considered swaps or security-based swaps. The Commissions believe it is appropriate to provide the interpretation to allow consumers and commercial and non-profit entities to engage in such transactions without concern that such arrangements would be considered swaps or security-based swaps.

One commenter requested that the Commissions remove the term “customary” from the description of consumer and commercial arrangements in the interpretation. The Commissions note that the use of the term “customary” was not intended to limit the interpretation, but rather was used to describe certain types of arrangements that consumers and businesses may normally or generally enter into. The Commissions also note that the term “customary” is itself not a separate representative characteristic or factor for purposes of the interpretation.

This commenter also requested that specific examples of consumer and commercial arrangements that are not swaps or security-based swaps include “any other similar agreements, contracts, or transactions.” The specific examples are not intended to be an exhaustive list and the Commissions do not believe that it is necessary to include a general catchall provision. The interpretation also includes a list of representative characteristics and factors to be used to analyze other consumer and commercial arrangements.

Several commenters suggested additional examples of consumer and commercial arrangements that the Commissions should not consider to be swaps or security-based swaps. One commenter suggested that the Commissions should expand the example of “consumer agreements, contracts, or transactions to purchase products or services at a fixed price or a capped or collared price, at a future date or over a certain time period (such as agreements to purchase home heating fuel)” to include all nonfinancial energy commodities in the parenthetical example. The Commissions have modified the identified consumer example to include all nonfinancial energy commodities. The parenthetical example was not intended to be limited to agreements to purchase home heating fuel.

One commenter suggested that the Commissions should include as an additional example residential fuel storage contracts. The Commissions agree that these arrangements should not be considered swaps or security-based swaps, provided that they are residential fuel storage contracts where the consumer takes delivery of and consumes the fuel, and the counterparty is a merchant (or agent of a merchant) that delivers in the service area where the consumer's residence is located. Although the consumer may not immediately consume the fuel contracted for, because it will ultimately consume the fuel for personal, family, or household purposes, such a transaction is a type of customary consumer transaction excluded from the swap and security-based swap definitions.

Three commenters requested clarification that commercial loans and mortgages would fall within the interpretation regardless of whether entered into by a bank or non-bank. Two of these commenters were concerned that the specific example was limited to commercial loans and mortgages entered into by non-banks and did not address commercial loans and mortgages entered into by financial institutions that are banks but whose loans and mortgages do not qualify as identified banking products. The Commissions are revising the example to clarify that it includes fixed or variable interest rate commercial loans or mortgages entered into by both banks and non-banks, including such loans and mortgages entered into by the Farm Credit System institutions and Federal Home Loan Banks. The Commissions understand that the CEA does not apply to, and the CFTC may not exercise regulatory authority over, and the definitions of the terms “security-based swap” and “security-based swap agreement” do not include, any fixed or variable interest rate commercial loan or mortgage entered into by a bank that is an identified banking product. However, loans and mortgages provided by certain banks may not qualify as identified banking products because those banks do not satisfy the definition of “bank” for purposes of the “identified banking products” definition. According to commenters, while this definition of “bank” includes insured depository institutions, certain foreign banks, credit unions, institutions regulated by the Federal Reserve and trust companies, it does not include certain other financial institutions that provide commercial loans or mortgages, such as government-sponsored enterprises (including the Federal Home Loan Banks) and certain cooperatives (including the Farm Credit System institutions).

Three commenters suggested that the Commissions should include as additional examples commercial rate lock agreements and commercial loans with interest rate caps, floors, or options. The Commissions agree that these arrangements should not be considered swaps or security-based swaps, provided that the interest rate locks, caps, or floors, or interest rate options are embedded in the commercial loans or mortgages and not entered into separately from the commercial loans and mortgages, and are including these arrangements as examples in the interpretation. However, the Commissions are limiting the interpretation to embedded interest rate locks, caps, or floors, and interest rate options because interest rate locks, caps, or floors, or interest rate options that are entered into separately from the commercial loans and mortgages fall within the swap definition. In order to further distinguish these arrangements from swaps and security-based swaps, the interpretation provides the following: (i) The embedded interest rate lock, cap, or floor must be included for the sole purpose of providing a lock, cap, or floor on the interest rate on such loan or mortgage and may not include additional provisions that would provide exposure to enhanced or inverse performance, or other risks unrelated to the interest rate risk being addressed, and (ii) the embedded interest rate option may not include additional provisions that would provide exposure to leverage, inverse performance, or other risks unrelated to the primary reason the embedded interest rate option is included in the commercial loan or mortgage.

Four commenters suggested additional examples of commercial arrangements that relate to nonfinancial energy commodities. These arrangements are more appropriately addressed in the context of the forward contract exclusion for nonfinancial commodities or the trade option exemption.

One commenter supported the representative characteristics and factors the Commissions set forth to distinguish consumer and commercial arrangements from swaps and security-based swaps. Two commenters were concerned with certain of these characteristics and factors because these commenters believed that such characteristics and factors are common in a wide variety of consumer and commercial arrangements. Both commenters suggested that the Commissions remove “for other than speculative, hedging or investment purposes” from the interpretation because many of the types of transactions listed as examples may be undertaken for speculative, hedging or investment purposes and because all commercial merchandising transactions are “risk-shifting” of commercial obligations and risks, and “hedge” the enterprise's commercial risks. The Commissions are not revising the interpretation to remove or otherwise modify this representative characteristic and factor. The Commissions believe that commercial arrangements undertaken for speculative, hedging or investment purposes may be a swap or a security-based swap depending on the particular facts and circumstances of the arrangement.

One of these commenters also suggested the Commissions remove “do not contain payment obligations that are severable” from the interpretation because assignment of rights and delegation of obligations are common in a wide variety of consumer and commercial transactions. The Commissions are not revising the interpretation to remove or otherwise modify this representative characteristic and factor. The Commissions believe that the severability of payment obligations could be indicative of a consumer or commercial arrangement that may be a swap or a security-based swap depending on the particular facts and circumstances of the arrangement because the severability of payment obligations could be indicative of an instrument that is merely an exchange of payments, such as is the case with swaps and security-based swaps.

One of these commenters also suggested that the Commissions remove “not traded on an organized market or over the counter” from the interpretation because many of the types of contracts listed as examples are assignable and frequently assigned or traded. The other commenter did not suggest removing this factor, but requested that the factor be modified to provide that the arrangement is not traded on a “registered entity” in order not to include transactions on organized wholesale electricity markets. The Commissions are not revising the interpretation to remove or otherwise modify this representative characteristic and factor. The Commissions believe that the trading of an instrument on an organized market or over the counter could be indicative of a consumer or commercial arrangement that may be a swap or a security-based swap depending on the particular facts and circumstances of the arrangement. However, as noted above, the Commissions are clarifying that merely because an arrangement is assignable does not mean that it is “traded” or that the arrangement is a swap or security-based swap. An assignment of a contractual obligation must be analyzed to assure that the result is not to sever the payment obligations.

Further, as noted above, the representative characteristics and factors are not intended to be a bright-line test for determining whether a particular consumer or commercial arrangement is a swap or security-based swap. These representative characteristics and factors taken together are indicators that a consumer or commercial arrangement is not a swap or security-based swap. These representative characteristics and factors also do not imply or presume that a consumer or commercial arrangement that does not meet all of these characteristics and factors is a swap or security-based swap. As noted above, if a particular arrangement does not meet all of these characteristics and factors, the parties will need to evaluate the arrangement based on the particular facts and circumstances. Moreover, as noted above, if there is a type of consumer or commercial arrangement that does not meet all of these characteristics and factors, a party to the arrangement can seek an interpretation from the Commissions as to whether the arrangement is outside the scope of the swap and security-based swap definitions.

Residential Exchange Program

One commenter requested that the CFTC further define the term “swap” to exclude consumer benefits under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (“Northwest Power Act”) and transactions under the “Residential Exchange Program” (“REP”). According to this commenter, the REP was established by Congress “[t]o extend the benefits of low cost Federal System hydro power to residential and small farm electric power consumers throughout the Pacific Northwest Region.” Based on the commenter's description, REP transactions do not appear to be among the types of transactions historically considered swaps or security-based swaps. Although the REP transactions described by the commenter share some features with spread options (e.g., they settle in cash based on the difference between two price sources), in both swaps and security-based swaps, each party assumes market risk. By contrast, neither party assumes or hedges risk in an REP transaction. Instead, the Commissions view an REP transaction essentially as a subsidy provided to residential and small farm utility customers. Accordingly, the Commissions do not consider the REP transactions described by the commenter to be swaps or security-based swaps.

Loan Participations

The Commissions provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding the treatment of loan participations. The Commissions are restating the interpretation set out in the Proposing Release with certain modifications in response to commenters.

Loan participations arise when a lender transfers or offers a participation in the economic risks and benefits of all or a portion of a loan or commitment it has entered into with a borrower to another party as an alternative or precursor to assigning to such person the loan or commitment or an interest in the loan or commitment. The Commissions understand that two types of loan participations exist in the market today, LSTA-style participations and LMA-style participations. LSTA-style participations transfer a beneficial ownership interest in the underlying loan or commitment to the participant. LMA-style participations do not transfer a beneficial ownership interest in the underlying loan or commitment to the participant, but rather create a debtor-creditor relationship between the grantor and the participant under which a future beneficial ownership interest is conveyed.

Depending on the facts and circumstances, a loan participation may be a security under the Federal securities laws and, as such, the loan participation would be excluded from the swap definition as the purchase and sale of a security on a fixed or contingent basis. In addition, depending on the facts and circumstances, a loan participation may be an identified banking product and, as such, would be excluded from CFTC jurisdiction and from the security-based swap and security-based swap agreement definitions.

The Commissions believe it is important to provide further guidance as to the other circumstances in which certain loan participations would not fall within the swap and security-based swap definitions. Consistent with the proposal, the Commissions do not interpret the swap and security-based swap definitions to include loan participations that reflect an ownership interest in the underlying loan or commitment. The Commissions believe that for a loan participation to not be considered a swap or security-based swap, the loan participation must represent a current or future direct or indirect ownership interest in the loan or commitment that is the subject of the loan participation.

In evaluating whether the loan participation represents such an ownership interest, the Commissions believe the following characteristics should be present:

• The grantor of the loan participation is a lender under, or a participant or sub-participant in, the loan or commitment that is the subject of the loan participation.
• The aggregate participation in the loan or commitment that is the subject of the loan participation does not exceed the principal amount of such loan or commitment. Further, the loan participation does not grant, in the aggregate, to the participant in such loan participation a greater interest than the grantor holds in the loan or commitment that is the subject of the loan participation.
• The entire purchase price for the loan participation is paid in full when acquired and not financed. The Commissions believe a purchase price would not be paid in full if the grantor of the loan participation extends financing to the participant or if such participant levers its purchase, including by posting collateral to secure a future payment obligation.
• The loan participation provides the participant all of the economic benefit and risk of the whole or part of the loan or commitment that is the subject of the loan participation.

These characteristics, which were identified by commenters, are intended to distinguish loan participations from swaps and security-based swaps based on loans. The first characteristic above addresses the ownership of the underlying loan or commitment. Swaps and security-based swaps may be created using a synthetic or derivative structure that does not require ownership of the underlying loan. The second characteristic above addresses the ratio of the participation to the underlying loan or commitment. Swaps and security-based swaps based on loans may involve synthetic exposure to a loan that is a multiple of the principal amount. The third characteristic above addresses leverage in the financing of a loan participation. Leverage could be indicative of an instrument that is merely an exchange of payments and not a transfer of the ownership of the underlying loan or commitment, such as may be the case with a swap or security-based swap. The fourth characteristic above addresses the level of participation in the economic benefits and risks of the underlying loan or commitment. This characteristic is indicative of ownership when analyzed with the other characteristics and, as noted above, swaps and security-based swaps may be created using a synthetic or derivative structure that does not require ownership of the underlying loan.

The Commissions agree with commenters that the loan participation does not have to be a “true participation,” as the Commissions had stated in their interpretation in the Proposing Release, in order for the loan participation to fall outside the swap and security-based swap definitions. The Commissions note that the “true participation” analysis is used to determine whether a transaction has resulted in the underlying assets being legally isolated from a transferor's creditors for U.S. bankruptcy law purposes. This analysis is unrelated to and does not inform whether a loan participation is a swap or security-based swap. This analysis also may be subject to varying interpretations. Further, the Commissions understand that this analysis could result in certain loan participations that reflect an ownership interest in the underlying loan or commitment being included in the swap and security-based swap definitions, which the Commissions do not intend.

Rather, as noted above, the Commissions believe that the analysis as to whether a loan participation is outside the swap and security-based swap definitions should be based on whether the loan participation reflects an ownership interest in the underlying loan or commitment. The Commissions understand that the characteristics noted above are indicative, based on comments received, of whether a loan participation represents such an ownership interest. Further, in response to commenters, the Commissions are clarifying that the interpretation applies to loan participations that are entered into both with respect to outstanding loans and with respect to a lender's commitments to lend and fund letters of credit (e.g., under a revolving credit facility).

The Commissions believe that the interpretation will prevent disruption in the syndicated loan market for loan participations. Loan participations facilitate a lender's diversification of its portfolio holdings, provide a key component of the efficient settlement process, and enhance liquidity in the global syndicated loan market. The interpretation will enable this market to continue operating as it did prior to the enactment of Title VII.

Comments

Commenters supported the interpretation that certain loan participations should not be included in the swap and security-based swaps definitions. Commenters agreed with the proposal that a loan participation should represent a current and future direct or indirect ownership interest in the loan or commitment that is the subject of the loan participation. However, commenters disagreed with the proposal that a loan participation should be required to be a “true participation” in order for the loan participation to fall outside the swap and security-based swap definitions because LMA-style participations do not represent a beneficial ownership in the underlying loan or commitment such that they would be considered a true participation. Commenters requested that the Commissions remove this factor and instead recognize additional factors. The Commissions agree that a loan participation does not have to be a true participation in order for the loan participation to fall outside the swap and security-based swap definitions and are revising the interpretation as noted above.

One commenter also indicated that loan participations are entered into both with respect to outstanding loans and with respect to a lender's commitments to lend and fund letters of credit (e.g., under a revolving credit facility). This commenter requested that the Commissions revise the proposed interpretation to reflect both outstanding loans and a lender's commitments. The Commissions agree and are revising the interpretation to reflect both outstanding loans and loan commitments as noted above.

C. Final Rules and Interpretations Regarding Certain Transactions Within the Scope of the Definitions of the Terms “Swap” and “Security-Based Swap”

1. In General

In light of provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that specifically address certain foreign exchange products, the Commissions in the Proposing Release proposed rules to clarify the status of products such as foreign exchange forwards, foreign exchange swaps, foreign exchange options, non-deliverable forwards involving foreign exchange (“NDFs”), and cross-currency swaps. The Commissions also proposed a rule to clarify the status of forward rate agreements and provided interpretations regarding: (i) Combinations and permutations of, or options on, swaps or security-based swaps; and (ii) contracts for differences (“CFDs”).

The Commissions are adopting the rules as proposed without modification and are restating the interpretations provided in the Proposing Release without modification. In addition, the Commissions are providing additional interpretations regarding foreign exchange spot transactions and retail foreign currency options.

As adopted, rule 1.3(xxx)(2) under the CEA and rule 3a69-2 under the Exchange Act explicitly define the term “swap” to include certain foreign exchange-related products and forward rate agreements unless such products are excluded by the statutory exclusions in subparagraph (B) of the swap definition. In adopting these rules, the Commissions do not mean to suggest that the list of agreements, contracts, and transactions set forth in rule 1.3(xxx)(2) under the CEA and rule 3a69-2(b) under the Exchange Act is an exclusive list.

2. Foreign Exchange Products

(a) Foreign Exchange Products Subject to the Secretary's Swap Determination: Foreign Exchange Forwards and Foreign Exchange Swaps

The CEA, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, provides that “foreign exchange forwards” and “foreign exchange swaps” shall be considered swaps under the swap definition unless the Secretary of the Treasury (“Secretary”) issues a written determination that either foreign exchange swaps, foreign exchange forwards, or both: (i) Should not be regulated as swaps; and (ii) are not structured to evade the Dodd-Frank Act in violation of any rule promulgated by the CFTC pursuant to section 721(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act. A foreign exchange forward is defined in the CEA as “a transaction that solely involves the exchange of two different currencies on a specific future date at a fixed rate agreed upon on the inception of the contract covering the exchange.” A foreign exchange swap, in turn, is defined as “a transaction that solely involves an exchange of 2 different currencies on a specific date at a fixed rate that is agreed upon on the inception of the contract covering the exchange; and a reverse exchange of the 2 currencies described in subparagraph (A) at a later date and at a fixed rate that is agreed upon on the inception of the contract covering the exchange.”

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, if foreign exchange forwards or foreign exchange swaps are no longer considered swaps due to a determination by the Secretary, nevertheless, certain provisions of the CEA added by the Dodd-Frank Act would continue to apply to such transactions. Specifically, those transactions still would be subject to certain requirements for reporting swaps, and swap dealers and major swap participants engaging in such transactions still would be subject to certain business conduct standards.

The Commissions are adopting the rules as proposed to explicitly define by rule the term “swap” to include foreign exchange forwards and foreign exchange swaps (as those terms are defined in the CEA), in order to include in one rule the definitions of those terms and the related regulatory authority with respect to foreign exchange forwards and foreign exchange swaps. The final rules incorporate the provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that foreign exchange forwards and foreign exchange swaps will no longer be considered swaps if the Secretary issues the written determination described above to exempt such products from the swap definition. The final rules also reflect the continuing applicability of certain reporting requirements and business conduct standards in the event that the Secretary makes such a determination.

Comments

Two commenters recommended that the Commissions defer action on defining foreign exchange swaps and foreign exchange forwards in their regulations until the Secretary has made his final determination about whether to exempt them. One commenter believed that finalizing the Commissions' proposal prior to the Secretary's final determination would be “premature.” The other commenter believed that the industry will be “better positioned” to assess the need to clarify the scope of the swap definition with respect to foreign exchange derivatives after the Secretary has made his determination. The Commissions understand that, if the final rules are effective before the Secretary issues a written determination, market participants entering into foreign exchange forwards and foreign exchange swaps might incur costs in order to comply with the requirements of the CEA (as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act) that could be rendered unnecessary if the Secretary subsequently were to issue a written determination to exempt. The Commissions, however, believe the final rules are necessary because in the event the Secretary issues a written determination to exempt, certain reporting requirements and business conduct standards will continue to apply to the exempted instruments, and the final rules set forth those requirements that will continue to apply.

Further, the Commissions do not believe that adopting the rules is premature, as the Secretary may issue a determination at any time, and the Secretary's authority to do so is independent of the Commissions' authority to issue these rules to further define the term “swap.” The Commissions' final rules are consistent with this statutory framework by specifically providing that, in the event a determination to exempt is issued, foreign exchange swaps and foreign exchange forwards will not be considered swaps, and will be subject only to those CEA requirements that are specified in the statute. As such, the final rules accommodate the possibility of (rather than the certainty of) an exemptive determination made by the Secretary.

Moreover, commenters provided no support for the assertion that the situation would be awkward for market participants because options on foreign exchange forwards and foreign exchange swaps will be swaps, regardless of whether the Secretary determines to exempt the underlying transactions from the swap definition. The Commissions note that Congress drew the distinction in the statute between foreign currency options and foreign exchange forwards and foreign exchange swaps. The Commissions conclude that adopting these final rules would not contribute to a lack of clarity or consistency for market participants, regardless of any determination the Secretary makes.

(b) Foreign Exchange Products Not Subject to the Secretary's Swap Determination

The Commissions are adopting rules as proposed stating that a determination by the Secretary that foreign exchange forwards or foreign exchange swaps, or both, should not be regulated as swaps would not affect certain other products involving foreign currency, such as foreign currency options, NDFs, currency swaps and cross-currency swaps. The rules explicitly define the term “swap” to include such products, irrespective of whether the Secretary makes a determination to exempt foreign exchange forwards or foreign exchange swaps from the swap definition.

(i) Foreign Currency Options

As discussed above, the statutory swap definition includes options, and it expressly enumerates foreign currency options. It encompasses any agreement, contract, or transaction that is a put, call, cap, floor, collar, or similar option of any kind that is for the purchase or sale, or based on the value, of 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. Foreign exchange options traded on a national securities exchange (“NSE”), however, are securities under the Federal securities laws and not swaps or security-based swaps.

Any determination by the Secretary, discussed above, that foreign exchange forwards or foreign exchange swaps should not be regulated as swaps would not impact foreign currency options because a foreign currency option is neither a foreign exchange swap nor a foreign exchange forward, as those terms are defined in the CEA. The Commissions did not receive any comments either on the proposed rule further defining the term “swap” to include foreign currency options or the proposed rule clarifying that foreign currency options are not subject to the Secretary's determination to exempt foreign exchange swaps and foreign exchange forwards. Consequently, the Commissions are adopting rules to explicitly define the term “swap” to include foreign currency options (other than foreign currency options traded on an NSE). The rules also state that foreign currency options are not foreign exchange forwards or foreign exchange swaps under the CEA.

(ii) Non-Deliverable Forward Contracts Involving Foreign Exchange

As explained by the Commissions in the Proposing Release, an NDF generally is similar to a forward foreign exchange contract, except that at maturity the NDF does not require physical delivery of currencies; rather, the contract typically is settled in a reserve currency, such as U.S. dollars. One of the currencies involved in the transaction, usually an emerging market currency, may be subject to capital controls or similar restrictions, and is therefore said to be “nondeliverable.” If the spot market exchange rate on the settlement date is greater (in foreign currency per dollar terms) than the previously agreed forward exchange rate, the party to the contract that is long the nondeliverable (e.g. emerging market) currency must pay its counterparty the difference between the contracted forward price and the spot market rate, multiplied by the notional amount.

NDFs are not expressly enumerated in the swap definition, but as was stated in the Proposing Release, they satisfy clause (A)(iii) of the swap definition because they provide for a future (executory) payment based on an exchange rate, which is an “interest or other rate[ ]” within the meaning of clause (A)(iii). Each party to an NDF transfers to its counterparty the risk of the exchange rate moving against the counterparty, thus satisfying the requirement that there be a transfer of financial risk associated with a future change in rate. This financial risk transfer in the context of an NDF is not accompanied by a transfer of an ownership interest in any asset or liability. Thus, an NDF is a swap under clause (A)(iii) of the swap definition.

Moreover, the Commissions have determined that NDFs do not meet the definitions of “foreign exchange forward” or “foreign exchange swap” set forth in the CEA. NDFs do not involve an “exchange” of two different currencies (an element of the definition of both a foreign exchange forward and a foreign exchange swap); instead, they are settled by payment in one currency (usually U.S. dollars).

Notwithstanding their “forward” label, NDFs also do not fall within the forward contract exclusion of the swap definition because currency is outside the scope of the forward contract exclusion for nonfinancial commodities. Nor have NDFs traditionally been considered commercial merchandising transactions. Rather, as the Commissions observed in the Proposing Release, NDF markets appear to be driven in large part by speculation and hedging, which features are more characteristic of swap markets than forward markets.

Comments

Commenters who addressed the nature of NDFs believed that NDFs should not be considered swaps, but rather should be categorized as foreign exchange forwards. In general, commenters maintained that NDFs are functionally and economically equivalent to foreign exchange forwards, and therefore should be treated in the same manner for regulatory purposes. In support of this view, commenters made several arguments, including that both NDFs and foreign exchange forwards require the same net value to be transferred between counterparties; the purpose for using them is the same—to cover foreign currency exchange risk; both are typically short term transactions; and both may be cleared by CLS Bank.

In addition, commenters believed that not treating NDFs as foreign exchange forwards or foreign exchange swaps would be contrary to both domestic and international market practices. As specific examples, commenters noted that NDFs typically are traded as part of a bank's or broker's foreign exchange desk; the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has described an NDF in a 1998 publication as an instrument “similar to an outright forward,” except that there is no physical delivery or transfer of the local currency; the Bank for International Settlements (“BIS”) categorizes NDFs in its “outright forward” category; various European regulations do not distinguish between the two transaction types; standard foreign exchange trading documentation includes both net- and physically-settled foreign exchange transactions in general definitions of foreign exchange transactions; and special rules under the U.S. tax code apply equally to physically settled and cash settled foreign exchange forwards.

Commenters also raised potential negative consequences to certain U.S. market participants if NDFs are not considered to be foreign exchange forwards. For example, one commenter argued that treating NDFs as swaps will put U.S. corporations doing business in emerging markets at a disadvantage relative to U.S. corporations doing business solely in developed markets. This commenter stated that NDFs are widely used by U.S. corporations that do business in emerging markets to hedge their exposure to the currencies of those markets, and that regulating NDFs as swaps would significantly increase the cost of hedging those exposures.

With respect to the Commissions' legal conclusion that NDFs are not foreign exchange forwards, and thus are not subject to the Secretary's determination, one commenter stated that the Commissions' reading of the definition of the term “foreign exchange forward” as not including NDFs is “too restrictive.” In this regard, this commenter believed that the term “exchange” should be read to include “the economic exchange that occurs in net settlement rather than being narrowly read as the physical `exchange' of two different currencies.”

One commenter, in contrast, agreed with the Commissions' interpretation that NDFs are not encompassed within the definition of the term “foreign exchange forward.” This commenter requested, though, that the CFTC exempt NDFs from the swap definition, using its exemptive authority under section 4(c) of the CEA.

While commenters raised a number of objections to the Commissions' proposal to define NDFs as swaps, these objections primarily raise policy arguments. No commenter has provided a persuasive, alternative interpretation of the statute's plain language in the definition of the term “foreign exchange forward” to overcome the Commissions' conclusion that, under the CEA, NDFs are swaps, not foreign exchange forwards.

One commenter believed that the Commissions' interpretation of “exchange of 2 different currencies” as used in the foreign exchange forward definition is too restrictive, and that the phrase should be read broadly to mean an economic exchange of value in addition to physical exchange; the Commissions believe that this contention is misplaced. This commenter essentially asks the Commissions to interpret the statutory language to mean an exchange of foreign currencies themselves, as well as an exchange based on the value of such currencies. However, only the word “exchange” appears in the relevant definitions, reinforcing the conclusion that Congress intended the definition of “foreign exchange forward” to be distinct from other types of transactions covered by the definition of “swap” in the CEA. Moreover, the language of each definition emphasizes that these transactions may “solely” involve an exchange. The ordinary meaning of the verb “exchange” is to “barter” or “part with, give or transfer for an equivalent,” i.e., each party is both giving to and receiving from the other party. This does not occur under an NDF, in which only a single party makes a payment.

Elsewhere in the CEA, Congress used explicit language that potentially could provide support for a broader interpretation of the type advocated by this commenter, but such language is absent from the definition of the term “foreign exchange forward.” For example, section 2(a)(1)(C)(ii) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the CFTC over “contracts of sale for future delivery of a group or index of securities (or any interest therein or based upon the value thereof) [that meet certain requirements]”. If the phrase “exchange of 2 different currencies” had been intended to include economic exchanges of value, as suggested by this commenter, that phrase would have included language similar to “based on the value thereof” to indicate that other mechanisms of transferring value may occur in these particular types of transactions. Instead, as noted above, Congress limited the scope of each of these particular transactions by using the words “solely involves the exchange of 2 different currencies”. The Commissions conclude that the use of the word “solely” provides further support for the Commissions' interpretation that exchange means an actual interchange of the 2 different currencies involved in the transaction.

(iii) Currency Swaps and Cross-Currency Swaps

A currency swap and a cross-currency swap each generally can be described as a swap in which the fixed legs or floating legs based on various interest rates are exchanged in different currencies. Such swaps can be used to reduce borrowing costs, to hedge currency exposure, and to create synthetic assets and are viewed as an important tool, given that they can be used to hedge currency and interest rate risk in a single transaction.

Currency swaps and cross-currency swaps are not foreign exchange swaps as defined in the CEA because, although they may involve an exchange of foreign currencies, they also require contingent or variable payments in different currencies. Because the CEA defines a foreign exchange swap as a swap that “solely” involves an initial exchange of currencies and a reversal thereof at a later date, subject to certain parameters, currency swaps and cross-currency swaps would not be foreign exchange swaps. Similarly, currency swaps and cross-currency swaps are not foreign exchange forwards because foreign exchange forwards “solely” involve an initial exchange of currencies, subject to certain parameters, while currency swaps and cross-currency swaps contain additional elements, as discussed above.

Currency swaps are expressly enumerated in the statutory definition of the term “swap.” Cross-currency swaps, however, are not. Accordingly, based on the foregoing considerations, the Commissions are adopting rules explicitly defining the term “swap” to include cross-currency swaps. The rules also state that neither currency swaps nor cross-currency swaps are foreign exchange forwards or foreign exchange swaps as those terms are defined in the CEA. The Commissions did not receive any comments either on the rule further defining the term “swap” to include cross-currency swaps or the rule clarifying that cross-currency swaps and currency swaps are not subject to the Secretary's determination to exempt foreign exchange swaps and foreign exchange forwards.

(c) Interpretation Regarding Foreign Exchange Spot Transactions

The CEA generally does not confer regulatory jurisdiction on the CFTC with respect to spot transactions. In the context of foreign currency, spot transactions typically settle within two business days after the trade date (“T+2”). The accepted market practice of a two-day settlement for spot foreign currency transactions has been recognized by the CFTC and the courts.

The Commissions recognize that the new foreign exchange forward definition in the CEA, which was added by the Dodd-Frank Act and which applies to an exchange of two different currencies “on a specific future date,” could be read to apply to any foreign exchange transaction that does not settle on the same day. Such a reading could render most foreign exchange spot transactions foreign exchange forwards under the CEA; as a result, such transactions would be subject to the CEA reporting and business conduct standards requirements applicable to foreign exchange forwards even if the Secretary determines to exempt foreign exchange forwards from the definition of “swap.” The Commissions do not believe that Congress intended, solely with respect to foreign exchange transactions, to extend the reach of the CEA to transactions that historically have been considered spot transactions. At the same time, however, the Commissions do not want to enable market participants simply to label as “spot” foreign exchange transactions that regularly settle after the relevant foreign exchange spot market settlement deadline, or with respect to which the parties intentionally delay settlement, both of which would be properly categorized as foreign exchange forwards, or CEA section 2(c)(2) transactions (discussed separately below), in order to avoid applicable foreign exchange regulatory requirements.

Accordingly, the Commissions are providing an interpretation that a bona fide foreign exchange spot transaction, i.e., a foreign exchange transaction that is settled on the customary timeline of the relevant spot market, is not within the definition of the term “swap.” In general, a foreign exchange transaction will be considered a bona fide spot transaction if it settles via an actual delivery of the relevant currencies within two business days. In certain circumstances, however, a foreign exchange transaction with a longer settlement period concluding with the actual delivery of the relevant currencies may be considered a bona fide spot transaction depending on the customary timeline of the relevant market. In particular, as discussed below, the Commissions will consider a foreign exchange transaction that is entered into solely to effect the purchase or sale of a foreign security to be a bona fide spot transaction where certain conditions are met.

The CFTC will consider the following to be a bona fide spot foreign exchange transaction: An agreement, contract or transaction for the purchase or sale of an amount of foreign currency equal to the price of a foreign security with respect to which (i) the security and related foreign currency transactions are executed contemporaneously in order to effect delivery by the relevant securities settlement deadline and (ii) actual delivery of the foreign security and foreign currency occurs by such deadline (such transaction, a “Securities Conversion Transaction”). For Securities Conversion Transactions, the CFTC will consider the relevant foreign exchange spot market settlement deadline to be the same as the securities settlement deadline. As noted above, while the CFTC will look at the relevant facts and circumstances, it does not expect that an unintentional settlement failure or delay for operational reasons or due to a market disruption will undermine the character of a bona fide spot foreign exchange transaction as such.

The CFTC also will interpret a Securities Conversion Transaction as not leveraged, margined or financed within the meaning of section 2(c)(2)(C) of the CEA. While it is possible to view the fact that the buyer of a currency in such a transaction does not pay for the currency until it is delivered as leverage (in that the buyer puts nothing down until taking delivery, thus achieving 100% leverage) or a financing arrangement, the CFTC does not interpret it as such for purposes of CEA section 2(c)(2)(C). Congress recognized that settlement of bona fide spot foreign exchange transactions typically takes two days. The fact that Congress expressly excluded these types of bona fide spot foreign exchange transactions does not mean that Congress intended to subject Security Conversion Transactions to regulation under the retail foreign exchange regime. For the foregoing reasons, the CFTC will interpret a Securities Conversion Transaction as not leveraged, margined or financed within the meaning of section 2(c)(2)(C) of the CEA.

Comments

One commenter requested clarification regarding the status of foreign exchange spot transactions. This commenter recommended that the Commissions clarify that foreign exchange spot transactions, which this commenter defined as “transactions of one currency into another that settle within a customary settlement cycle,” are neither foreign exchange forwards nor swaps. Another commenter indicated that the customary settlement cycle for purchases of most non-U.S. denominated securities is “T+3” (in some securities markets, such as South Africa, the settlement cycle can take up to seven days), and requires the buyer to pay for the foreign securities in the relevant foreign currency. Typically, according to this commenter, a broker-dealer or bank custodian acting on behalf of the buyer or seller will enter into a foreign currency transaction to settle on a T+3 basis (or the relevant settlement period) as well. Timing the foreign exchange transaction to settle at the same time as the securities transaction benefits the customer by reducing his or her exposure to currency risk on the securities transaction between trade date and settlement date. The Commissions have provided the interpretation described above regarding the interplay between the foreign exchange forward definition, the meaning of “leveraged, margined or financed” under section 2(c)(2)(C) of the CEA, and bona fide foreign exchange spot transactions to address these commenters' concerns.

(d) Retail Foreign Currency Options

The CFTC is providing an interpretation regarding the status of retail foreign currency options that are described in section 2(c)(2)(B) of the CEA. As noted above, the Commissions proposed to include foreign currency options generally within the definition of the term “swap,” subject to the statutory exclusions in subparagraph (B) of the definition. The statutory exclusions from the swap definition encompass transactions described in sections 2(c)(2)(C) and (D) of the CEA, but not those in section 2(c)(2)(B) of the CEA. Section 2(c)(2)(B) of the CEA applies to futures, options on futures and options on foreign currency (other than foreign currency options executed or traded on a national securities exchange), and permits such transactions to be entered into with counterparties who are not ECPs on an off-exchange basis by certain enumerated regulated entities. No issue arises with respect to futures or options on futures in foreign currency that are covered by section 2(c)(2)(B) of the CEA, because they are expressly excluded from the statutory swap definition. Commodity options, including options on foreign currency, however, are not excluded from the swap definition (other than foreign currency options executed or traded on a national securities exchange).

The CFTC notes that, in further defining the term “swap” to include foreign currency options, the Proposing Release stated that the proposal was not intended to address, and had no bearing on, the CFTC's jurisdiction over foreign currency options in other contexts, specifically citing section 2(c)(2)(B) of the CEA. Nonetheless, the CFTC acknowledges the ambiguity in the statute regarding the status of off-exchange foreign currency options with non-ECPs that are subject to section 2(c)(2)(B) of the CEA. While foreign currency options are swaps, they also are subject to section 2(c)(2)(B) of the CEA when entered into off-exchange with non-ECPs, and there is no statutory exclusion from the swap definition for section 2(c)(2)(B) transactions. If foreign currency options were deemed to be swaps, then, pursuant to section 2(e) of the CEA, as added by the Dodd-Frank Act, they could not be entered into by non-ECP counterparties, except on a DCM. This would render the provisions of section 2(c)(2)(B) of the CEA, permitting off-exchange foreign currency options with non-ECPs by enumerated regulated entities, a nullity.

The CFTC believes that Congress did not intend the swap definition to overrule and effectively repeal another provision of the CEA in such an oblique fashion. Nor is there anything in the legislative history of the Dodd-Frank Act to suggest a congressional intent to prohibit only one type of off-exchange foreign currency transaction with non-ECPs (out of the three types of off-exchange foreign currency transactions with non-ECPs that are addressed in CEA section 2(c)(2)(B)). The omission of section 2(c)(2)(B) of the CEA from the exclusions set forth in the statutory swap definition appears to be a scrivener's error. Accordingly, the CFTC is applying the exclusion from the swap definition to foreign currency options described in CEA section 2(c)(2)(B).

3. Forward Rate Agreements

The Commissions are adopting rules as proposed to explicitly define the term “swap” to include forward rate agreements (“FRAs”). The Commissions did not receive any comments on the proposed rules regarding the inclusion of FRAs in the swap definition.

In general, an FRA is an over-the-counter contract for a single cash payment, due on the settlement date of a trade, based on a spot rate (determined pursuant to a method agreed upon by the parties) and a pre-specified forward rate. The single cash payment is equal to the product of the present value (discounted from a specified future date to the settlement date of the trade) of the difference between the forward rate and the spot rate on the settlement date multiplied by the notional amount. The notional amount itself is not exchanged.

An FRA provides for the future (executory) payment based on the transfer of interest rate risk between the parties as opposed to transferring an ownership interest in any asset or liability. Thus, the Commissions believe that an FRA satisfies clause (A)(iii) of the swap definition.

Notwithstanding their “forward” label, FRAs do not fall within the forward contract exclusion from the swap definition. FRAs do not involve nonfinancial commodities and thus are outside the scope of the forward contract exclusion. Nor is an FRA a commercial merchandising transaction, as there is no physical product to be delivered in an FRA. Accordingly, the Commissions believe that the forward contract exclusion from the swap definition for nonfinancial commodities does not apply to FRAs.

Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commissions are adopting rules to provide greater clarity by explicitly defining the term “swap” to include FRAs. As with the foreign exchange-related products discussed above, the final rules provide that FRAs are not swaps if they fall within one of the exclusions set forth in subparagraph (B) of the swap definition.

4. Combinations and Permutations of, or Options on, Swaps and Security-Based Swaps

Clause (A)(vi) of the swap definition provides that “any combination or permutation of, or option on, any agreement, contract, or transaction described in any of clauses (i) through (v)” of the definition is a swap. The Commissions provided an interpretation regarding clause (A)(vi) in the Proposing Release. The Commissions received no comments on the interpretation provided in the Proposing Release regarding combinations and permutations of, or options on, swaps and security-based swaps and are restating their interpretation of clause (A)(vi) of the swap definition with one technical correction and one clarification.

Clause (A)(vi) means, for example, that an option on a swap or security-based swap (commonly known as a “swaption”) would itself be a swap or security-based swap, respectively. The Commissions also interpret clause (A)(vi) to mean that a “forward swap” would itself be a swap or security-based swap, respectively. By listing examples here, the Commissions do not intend to limit the broad language of clause (A)(vi) of the swap definition, which is designed to capture those agreements, contracts and transactions that are not expressly enumerated in the CEA swap definition but that nevertheless are swaps.

5. Contracts for Differences

As the Proposing Release notes, the Commissions have received inquiries over the years regarding the treatment of CFDs under the CEA and the Federal securities laws. A CFD generally is an agreement to exchange the difference in value of an underlying asset between the time at which a CFD position is established and the time at which it is terminated. If the value increases, the seller pays the buyer the difference; if the value decreases, the buyer pays the seller the difference. CFDs can be traded on a number of products, including treasuries, foreign exchange rates, commodities, equities, and stock indexes. Equity CFDs closely mimic the purchase of actual shares. The buyer of an equity CFD receives cash dividends and participates in stock splits. In the case of a long position, a dividend adjustment is credited to the client's account. In the case of a short position, a dividend adjustment is debited from the client's account. CFDs generally are traded over-the-counter (though they also are traded on the Australian Securities Exchange) in a number of countries outside the United States.

The Commissions provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding the treatment of CFDs. The Commissions are restating the interpretation set out in the Proposing Release without modification.

CFDs, unless otherwise excluded, fall within the scope of the swap or security-based swap definition, as applicable. Whether a CFD is a swap or security-based swap will depend on the underlying product of that particular CFD transaction. Because CFDs are highly variable and a CFD can contain a variety of elements that would affect its characterization, the Commissions believe that market participants will need to analyze the features of the underlying product of any particular CFD in order to determine whether it is a swap or a security-based swap. The Commissions are not adopting rules or additional interpretations at this time regarding CFDs.

Comments

Two commenters requested that the Commissions clarify that non-deliverable forward contracts are not CFDs. These commenters requested that the Commissions determine that NDFs involving foreign exchange are not swaps. Given that the Commissions are defining NDFs as swaps and that CFDs involving foreign currency also would be swaps, there is no need to distinguish NDFs involving foreign exchange from CFDs involving foreign exchange.

D. Certain Interpretive Issues

1. Agreements, Contracts, or Transactions That May Be Called, or Documented Using Form Contracts Typically Used for, Swaps or Security-Based Swaps

The Commissions are restating the interpretation provided in the Proposing Release regarding agreements, contracts, or transactions that may be called, or documented using form contracts typically used for, swaps or security-based swaps with one modification in response to a commenter.

As was noted in the Proposing Release, individuals and companies may generally use the term “swap” to refer to certain of their agreements, contracts, or transactions. For example, they may use the term “swap” to refer to an agreement to exchange real or personal property between the parties or to refer to an agreement for two companies that produce fungible products and with delivery obligations in different locations to perform each other's delivery obligations instead of their own. However, the name or label that the parties use to refer to a particular agreement, contract, or transaction is not determinative of whether it is a swap or security-based swap.

It is not dispositive that the agreement, contract, or transaction is documented using an industry standard form agreement that is typically used for swaps and security-based swaps, but it may be a relevant factor. The key question is whether the agreement, contract, or transaction falls within the statutory definitions of the term “swap” or “security-based swap” (as further defined and interpreted pursuant to the final rules and interpretations herein) based on its terms and other characteristics. Even if one effect of an agreement is to reduce the risk faced by the parties (for example, the “swap” of physical delivery obligations described above may reduce the risk of non-delivery), the agreement would not be a swap or security-based swap unless it otherwise meets one of those statutory definitions, as further defined by the Commissions. If the agreement, contract, or transaction satisfies the swap or security-based swap definitions, the fact that the parties refer to it by another name would not take it outside the Dodd-Frank Act regulatory regime. Conversely, if an agreement, contract, or transaction is not a swap or security-based swap, as those terms are defined in the CEA and the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, the fact that the parties refer to it, or document it, as a swap or security-based swap will not subject that agreement, contract, or transaction to regulation as a swap or a security-based swap.

Comments

The Commissions requested comment regarding what agreements, contracts, or transactions that are not swaps or security-based swaps are documented using industry standard form agreements that are typically used for swaps and security-based swaps, and asked for examples thereof and details regarding their documentation, including why industry standard form agreements typically used for swaps and security-based swaps are used. One commenter stated its view that documentation can be a relevant factor in determining whether an agreement, contract or transaction is a swap or security-based swap. The Commissions are persuaded by the commenter and are modifying the interpretation to clarify that in determining whether an agreement, contract or transaction is a swap or security-based swap, documentation may be a relevant (but not dispositive) factor.

2. Transactions in Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators

The CFTC declines to address the status of transactions in Regional Transmission Organizations (“RTOs”) and Independent System Operators (“ISOs”), including financial transmission rights (“FTRs”) and ancillary services, within this joint definitional rulemaking. As was noted in the Proposing Release, section 722 of the Dodd-Frank Act specifically addresses certain instruments and transactions regulated by FERC that also may be subject to CFTC jurisdiction. Section 722(f) added CEA section 4(c)(6), which provides that, if the CFTC determines that an exemption for FERC-regulated instruments or other specified electricity transactions would be in accordance with the public interest, then the CFTC shall exempt such instruments or transactions from the requirements of the CEA. Given that specific statutory directive, the treatment of these FERC-regulated instruments and transactions should be considered under the standards and procedures specified in section 722 of the Dodd-Frank Act for a public interest waiver, rather than through this joint rulemaking to further define the terms “swap” and “security-based swap.”

The CFTC notes that it has been engaged in discussions with a number of RTOs and ISOs regarding the possibility of a petition seeking an exemption pursuant to CEA section 4(c)(6) for certain RTO and ISO transactions. The CFTC also notes that the status of some RTO and ISO transactions may have been addressed in the interpretation above regarding embedded options and the forward exclusion from the swap definition, and/or indirectly through the CFTC's recent interim final rulemaking relating to trade options.

Comments

The CFTC received a number of comments discussing transactions in RTOs and ISOs. These commenters argued that the CFTC should further define the term “swap” to exclude transactions executed or traded on RTOs and ISOs. One commenter argued that the CEA section 4(c)(6) exemptive approach will leave regulatory ambiguity for market participants, since the CFTC might not grant an exemption, later revoke an existing exemption, grant a partial or conditional exemption, or limit an exemption to existing products. This commenter also noted that FERC has complete regulatory authority over RTOs and ISOs and their transactions, and that Congress expected the CFTC and FERC to avoid duplicative, unnecessary regulation. Another commenter argued that the CFTC should exclude RTO and ISO transactions in the same manner as insurance has been excluded. A third commenter stated that RTO and ISO transactions are commercial merchandising transactions and thus forwards or, alternatively, that defining them as swaps is inconsistent with the text, goals, and purpose of the Dodd-Frank Act.

By contrast, one commenter asserted that FTRs are in substance swaps and should be regulated as such.

Two commenters supported the CFTC's use of its section 722(f) authority to exempt FERC-regulated transactions and other transactions in RTOs or ISOs. As discussed above, section 722(f) of the Dodd-Frank Act added new section 4(c)(6) to the CEA specifically addressing how the CFTC should approach certain instruments and transactions regulated by FERC that also may be subject to CFTC jurisdiction. The CFTC continues to believe, as was stated in the Proposing Release, that such an approach is the more appropriate means of considering issues relating to the instruments and transactions specified in CEA section 4(c)(6). One commenter's argument that the CEA section 4(c)(6) exemptive approach will cause regulatory ambiguity is not a convincing basis on which to forego a process specifically designated by Congress for the issue at hand. The CFTC also believes that the ability to tailor exemptive relief, after notice and public comment, to the complex issues presented by transactions on RTOs and ISOs, is further reason to favor such an approach over the more general directive to further define the terms “swap” and “security-based swap” that is the subject of this rulemaking.

In response to one commenter's contentions that FERC has complete regulatory authority over RTOs and ISOs and their transactions, and that Congress expected the CFTC and FERC to avoid duplicative, unnecessary regulation, the CFTC notes that Congress addressed this issue not by excluding RTO and ISO transactions from the comprehensive regime for swap regulation, but rather by enacting the exemptive process in CEA section 4(c)(6).

And in response to another commenter's contention that the CFTC should exclude RTO and ISO transactions in the same manner as insurance has been excluded, the CFTC notes that Congress provided neither an exemptive process equivalent to CEA section 4(c)(6) for insurance, nor an energy market-equivalent to the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

As noted above, FERC staff opines that defining RTO and ISO transactions as swaps would be inconsistent with the text, goals, and purpose of the Dodd-Frank Act. The CFTC can consider concerns of the sort expressed by FERC staff in connection with any petition for a CEA section 4(c)(6) exemption that may be submitted to the CFTC. Interested parties on all sides of the issue would receive an opportunity to comment on the scope and other aspects of any proposed exemptive relief at that time.

III. The Relationship Between the Swap Definition and the Security-Based Swap Definition

A. Introduction

Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act defines the term “swap” under the CEA, and also defines the term “security-based swap” under the Exchange Act. Pursuant to the regulatory framework established in Title VII, the CFTC has regulatory authority over swaps and the SEC has regulatory authority over security-based swaps. The Commissions are further defining the terms “swap” and “security-based swap” to clarify whether particular agreements, contracts, or transactions are swaps or security-based swaps based on characteristics including the specific terms and conditions of the instrument and the nature of, among other things, the prices, rates, securities, indexes, or commodities upon which the instrument is based.

Because the discussion below is focused on whether particular agreements, contracts, or transactions are swaps or security-based swaps, the Commissions use the term “Title VII instrument” in this release to refer to any agreement, contract, or transaction that is included in either the definition of the term “swap” or the definition of the term “security-based swap.” Thus, the term “Title VII instrument” is synonymous with “swap or security-based swap.”

The determination of whether a Title VII instrument is either a swap or a security-based swap should be made based on the facts and circumstances relating to the Title VII instrument prior to execution, but no later than when the parties offer to enter into the Title VII instrument. If the Title VII instrument itself is not amended, modified, or otherwise adjusted during its term by the parties, its characterization as a swap or security-based swap will not change during its duration because of any changes that may occur to the factors affecting its character as a swap or security-based swap.

Classifying a Title VII instrument as a swap or security-based swap is straightforward for most instruments. However, the Commissions provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release to clarify the classification of swaps and security-based swaps in certain areas and to provide an interpretation regarding the use of certain terms and conditions in Title VII instruments. The Commissions are restating the interpretation set out in the Proposing Release with certain modifications to the interpretation regarding TRS.

B. Title VII Instruments Based on Interest Rates, Other Monetary Rates, and Yields

Parties frequently use Title VII instruments to manage risks related to, or to speculate on, changes in interest rates, other monetary rates or amounts, or the return on various types of assets. Broadly speaking, Title VII instruments based on interest or other monetary rates would be swaps, whereas Title VII instruments based on the yield or value of a single security, loan, or narrow-based security index would be security-based swaps. However, market participants and financial professionals sometimes use the terms “rate” and “yield” in different ways. The Commissions proposed an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding whether Title VII instruments that are based on interest rates, other monetary rates, or yields would be swaps or security-based swaps and are restating the interpretation, but with a modification to the list of examples of reference rates to include certain secured lending rates under money market rates. The Commissions find that this interpretation is an appropriate way to address Title VII instruments based on interest rates, other monetary rates, or yields and is designed to reduce costs associated with determining whether such instruments are swaps or security-based swaps.

1. Title VII Instruments Based on Interest Rates or Other Monetary Rates That Are Swaps

The Commissions believe that when payments exchanged under a Title VII instrument are based solely on the levels of certain interest rates or other monetary rates that are not themselves based on one or more securities, the instrument would be a swap and not a security-based swap. Often swaps on interest rates or other monetary rates require the parties to make payments based on the comparison of a specified floating rate (such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”)) to a fixed rate of interest agreed upon by the parties. A rate swap also may require payments based on the differences between two floating rates, or it may require that the parties make such payments when any agreed-upon events with respect to interest rates or other monetary rates occur (such as when a specified interest rate crosses a threshold, or when the spread between two such rates reaches a certain point). The rates referenced for the parties' obligations are varied, and examples of such rates include the following:

Interbank Offered Rates: An average of rates charged by a group of banks for lending money to each other or other banks over various periods of time, and other similar interbank rates, including, but not limited to, LIBOR (regardless of currency); the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (“Euribor”); the Canadian Dealer Offered Rate (“CDOR”); and the Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (“TIBOR”);

Money Market Rates: A rate established or determined based on actual lending or money market transactions, including, but not limited to, the Federal Funds Effective Rate; the Euro Overnight Index Average (“EONIA” or “EURONIA”) (which is the weighted average of overnight unsecured lending transactions in the Euro-area interbank market); the EONIA Swap Index; the Eurepo (the rate at which, at 11.00 a.m. Brussels time, one bank offers, in the euro-zone and worldwide, funds in euro to another bank if in exchange the former receives from the latter the best collateral within the most actively-traded European repo market); the Australian dollar RBA 30 Interbank Overnight Cash Rate; the Canadian Overnight Repo Rate Average (“CORRA”); The Depository Trust Clearing Corporation's General Collateral Finance (“GCF”) Repo Index (an average of repo rates collateralized by U.S. Treasury and certain other securities); the Mexican interbank equilibrium interest rate (“TIIE”); the NZD Official Cash Rate; the Sterling Overnight Interbank Average Rate (“SONIA”) (which is the weighted average of unsecured overnight cash transactions brokered in London by the Wholesale Markets Brokers' Association (“WMBA”)); the Repurchase Overnight Index Average Rate (“RONIA”) (which is the weighted average rate of all secured overnight cash transactions brokered in London by WMBA); the Swiss Average Rate Overnight (“SARON”); the Tokyo Overnight Average Rate (“TONAR”) (which is based on uncollateralized overnight average call rates for interbank lending); and the Tokyo Repo Rate (average repo rate of active Japanese repo market participants).

Government Target Rates: A rate established or determined based on guidance established by a central bank including, but not limited to, the Federal Reserve discount rate, the Bank of England base rate and policy rate, the Canada Bank rate, and the Bank of Japan policy rate (also known as the Mutan rate);

General Lending Rates: A general rate used for lending money, including, but not limited to, a prime rate, rate in the commercial paper market, or any similar rate provided that it is not based on any security, loan, or group or index of securities;

Indexes: A rate derived from an index of any of the foregoing or following rates, averages, or indexes, including but not limited to a constant maturity rate (U.S. Treasury and certain other rates), the interest rate swap rates published by the Federal Reserve in its “H.15 Selected Interest Rates” publication, the ISDAFIX rates, the ICAP Fixings, a constant maturity swap, or a rate generated as an average (geometric, arithmetic, or otherwise) of any of the foregoing, such as overnight index swaps (“OIS”)—provided that such rates are not based on a specific security, loan, or narrow-based group or index of securities;

Other Monetary Rates: A monetary rate including, but not limited to, the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”), the rate of change in the money supply, or an economic rate such as a payroll index; and

Other: The volatility, variance, rate of change of (or the spread, correlation or difference between), or index based on any of the foregoing rates or averages of such rates, such as forward spread agreements, references used to calculate the variable payments in index amortizing swaps (whereby the notional principal amount of the agreement is amortized according to the movement of an underlying rate), or correlation swaps and basis swaps, including but not limited to, the “TED spread” and the spread or correlation between LIBOR and an OIS.

As discussed above, the Commissions believe that when payments under a Title VII instrument are based solely on any of the foregoing, such Title VII instrument would be a swap.

Comments

Two commenters believed that constant maturity swaps always should be treated as swaps, rather than mixed swaps, because they generally are viewed by market participants as rates trades instead of trades on securities. According to the commenters, the “bulk” of constant maturity swaps are based on exempted securities, but the commenters noted that the constant maturity leg may be based on a number of different rates or yields, including, among other things, U.S. Treasury yields, Treasury auction rates, yields on debt of foreign governments, and debt related to indices of mortgage-backed securities. As discussed above, the Commissions are adopting the interpretation as proposed. The statutory language of the swap and security-based swap definitions explicitly states that a Title VII instrument that is based on a non-exempted security should be a security-based swap and not a swap.

2. Title VII Instruments Based on Yields

The Commissions proposed an interpretation in the Proposing Release clarifying the status of Title VII instruments in which one of the underlying references of the instrument is a “yield.” The Commissions received no comments on the interpretation set out in the Proposing Release regarding Title VII instruments based on yields and are restating the interpretation without modification. In cases when a “yield” is calculated based on the price or changes in price of a debt security, loan, or narrow-based security index, it is another way of expressing the price or value of a debt security, loan, or narrow-based security index. For example, debt securities often are quoted and traded on a yield basis rather than on a dollar price, where the yield relates to a specific date, such as the date of maturity of the debt security (i.e., yield to maturity) or the date upon which the debt security may be redeemed or called by the issuer (e.g., yield to first whole issue call).

Except in the case of certain exempted securities, when one of the underlying references of the Title VII instrument is the “yield” of a debt security, loan, or narrow-based security index in the sense where the term “yield” is used as a proxy for the price or value of the debt security loan, or narrow-based security index, the Title VII instrument would be a security-based swap. And, as a result, in cases where the underlying reference is a point on a “yield curve” generated from the different “yields” on debt securities in a narrow-based security index (e.g., a constant maturity yield or rate), the Title VII instrument would be a security-based swap. However, where certain exempted securities, such as U.S. Treasury securities, are the only underlying reference of a Title VII instrument involving securities, the Title VII instrument would be a swap. Title VII instruments based on exempted securities are discussed further below.

The above interpretation would not apply in cases where the “yield” referenced in a Title VII instrument is not based on a debt security, loan, or narrow-based security index of debt securities but rather is being used to reference an interest rate or monetary rate as outlined above in subsection one of this section. In these cases, this “yield” reference would be considered equivalent to a reference to an interest rate or monetary rate and the Title VII instrument would be, under the interpretation in this section, a swap (or mixed swap depending on other references in the instrument).

3. Title VII Instruments Based on Government Debt Obligations

The Commissions provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding instances in which the underlying reference of the Title VII instrument is a government debt obligation. The Commissions received no comments on the interpretation provided regarding instances in which the underlying reference of the Title VII instrument is a government debt obligation and are restating such interpretation without modification.

The security-based swap definition specifically excludes any agreement, contract, or transaction that meets the definition of a security-based swap only because it “references, is based upon, or settles through the transfer, delivery, or receipt of an exempted security under [section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act], as in effect on the date of enactment of the Futures Trading Act of 1982 (other than any municipal security as defined in [section 3(a)(29) of the Exchange Act] * * *), unless such agreement, contract, or transaction is of the character of, or is commonly known in the trade as, a put, call, or other option.”

As a result of this exclusion in the security-based swap definition for “exempted securities,” if the only underlying reference of a Title VII instrument involving securities is, for example, the price of a U.S. Treasury security and the instrument does not have any other underlying reference involving securities, then the instrument would be a swap. Similarly, if the Title VII instrument is based on the “yield” of a U.S. Treasury security and does not have any other underlying reference involving securities, then the instrument also would be a swap, regardless of whether the term “yield” is a proxy for the price of the security.

Foreign government securities, by contrast, were not “exempted securities” as of the date of enactment of the Futures Trading Act of 1982 and thus do not explicitly fall within this exclusion from the security-based swap definition. Therefore, if the underlying reference of the Title VII instrument is the price, value, or “yield” (where “yield” is a proxy for price or value) of a foreign government security, or a point on a yield curve derived from a narrow-based security index composed of foreign government securities, then the instrument is a security-based swap.

C. Total Return Swaps

The Commissions are restating the interpretation regarding TRS set out in the Proposing Release with certain changes with respect to quanto and compo equity TRS and loan TRS based on two or more loans, and to reflect that TRS can overlie reference items other than securities, loans, and indexes of securities or loans. The Commissions find that this interpretation is an appropriate way to address TRS and is designed to reduce the cost associated with determining whether a TRS is a swap or a security-based swap.

As was described in the Proposing Release, a TRS is a Title VII instrument in which one counterparty, the seller of the TRS, makes a payment that is based on the price appreciation and income from an underlying security or security index. A TRS also can overlie a single loan, two or more loans and other underliers. The other counterparty, the buyer of the TRS, makes a financing payment that is often based on a variable interest rate, such as LIBOR (or other interbank offered rate or money market rate, as described above), as well as a payment based on the price depreciation of the underlying reference. The “total return” consists of the price appreciation or depreciation, plus any interest or income payments. Accordingly, where a TRS is based on a single security or loan, or a narrow-based security index, the TRS would be a security-based swap.

In addition, the Commissions are providing a final interpretation providing that, generally, the use of a variable interest rate in the TRS buyer's payment obligations to the seller is incidental to the purpose of, and the risk that the counterparties assume in, entering into the TRS, because such payments are a form of financing reflecting the seller's (typically a security-based swap dealer) cost of financing the position or a related hedge, allowing the TRS buyer to receive payments based on the price appreciation and income of a security or security index without purchasing the security or security index. As stated in the Proposing Release, the Commissions believe that when such interest rate payments act merely as a financing component in a TRS, or in any other security-based swap, the inclusion of such interest rate terms would not cause the TRS to be characterized as a mixed swap. Financing terms may also involve adding or subtracting a spread to or from the financing rate, or calculating the financing rate in a currency other than that of the underlying reference security or security index.

However, where such payments incorporate additional elements that create additional interest rate or currency exposures that are unrelated to the financing of the security-based swap, or otherwise shift or limit risks that are related to the financing of the security-based swap, those additional elements may cause the security-based swap to be a mixed swap. For example, where the counterparties embed interest-rate optionality (e.g., a cap, collar, call, or put) into the terms of a security-based swap in a manner designed to shift or limit interest rate exposure, the inclusion of these terms would cause the TRS to be both a swap and a security-based swap (i.e., a mixed swap). Similarly, if a TRS is also based on non-security-based components (such as the price of oil, or a currency), the TRS would also be a mixed swap.

The Commissions also are providing an additional interpretation regarding a quanto equity swap, in response to comments raised by one commenter, and for illustrative purposes, a similar but contrasting product, a compo equity swap. A quanto equity swap, which “can provide a U.S. investor with currency-protected exposure to a non-U.S. equity index by translating the percentage equity return in the currency of such non-U.S. equity index into U.S. dollars,” can be described as:

An equity swap in which [(1)] the underlying is denominated in a currency (the foreign currency) other than that in which the equity swap is denominated (the domestic currency) * * * [and (2) t]he final value of the underlying is denominated in the foreign currency and is converted into the domestic currency using the exchange rate prevailing at inception[,] result[ing in] the investor * * * not [being] exposed to currency risk.

While a quanto equity swap, therefore, effectively “exposes the dealer on the foreign leg of the correlation product to a variable notional principal amount that changes whenever the exchange rate or the foreign index fluctuates,” such exposure results from the choice of hedges for the quanto equity swap, not from the cash flows of the quanto equity swap itself. Thus, that exposure could be viewed as created in the seller by the act of entering into the quanto equity swap, rather than as a transfer between the parties, as is required by the third prong of the statutory swap definition. Consequently, the dealer's exchange rate exposure could be seen as incidental to the securities exposure desired by the party initiating the quanto equity swap.

The Commissions view a quanto equity swap as a security-based swap, and not a mixed swap, where (i) the purpose of the quanto equity swap is to transfer exposure to the return of a security or security index without transferring exposure to any currency or exchange rate risk; and (ii) any exchange rate or currency risk exposure incurred by the dealer due to a difference in the currency denomination of the quanto equity swap and of the underlying security or security index is incidental to the quanto equity swap and arises from the instrument(s) the dealer chooses to use to hedge the quanto equity swap and is not a direct result of any expected payment obligations by either party under the quanto equity swap.

By contrast, in a compo equity swap, the parties assume exposure to, and the total return is calculated based on, both the performance of specified foreign stocks and the change in the relevant exchange rate. Because the counterparty initiating a transaction can choose to avoid currency exposure by entering into a quanto equity swap, the currency exposure obtained via a compo equity swap is not incidental to the equity exposure for purposes of determining mixed swap status. In fact, investors seeking synthetic exposure to foreign securities via a TRS may also be seeking exposure to the exchange rate between the currencies, as evidenced by the fact that a number of mutual funds exist in both hedged and unhedged versions to provide investors exposure to the same foreign securities with or without the attendant currency exposure. Consequently, a compo equity swap is a mixed swap.

In response to comments, the Commissions also are providing an interpretation with respect to the treatment of loan TRS (“LTRS”) on two or more loans. As noted above, the second prong of the security-based swap definition includes a swap that is based on “a single security or loan, including any interest therein or on the value thereof.” Thus, an LTRS based on a single loan, as mentioned above, is a security-based swap. The Commissions believe, however, that an LTRS based on two or more non-security loans are swaps, and not security-based swaps. An LTRS on a group or index of such non-security loans is not covered by the first prong of the security-based swap definition—swaps based on a narrow-based security index—because the definition of the term “narrow-based security index” in both the CEA and the Exchange Act only applies to securities, and not to non-security loans. An LTRS, moreover, is not covered by the third prong of the security-based swap definition because it is based on the total return of such loans, and not events related thereto. Accordingly, an LTRS on two or more loans that are non-security loans is a swap and not a security-based swap.

Comments

The Commissions received three comments with respect to the interpretation provided on TRS in the Proposing Release. One of these commenters addressed the Commissions' interpretation on security-based TRS. The other two commenters requested that the Commissions clarify the treatment of LTRS on two or more loans.

One commenter asserted that the terms of a TRS that create interest rate or currency exposures incidental to the primary purpose of the TRS should not cause a transaction that otherwise would be deemed to be a security-based swap to be characterized as a mixed swap. This commenter agreed with the Commissions that the scope of the mixed swap category of Title VII instruments is intended to be narrow and that, when variable interest rates are used for financing purposes incidental to counterparties' purposes, and risks assumed, in entering into a TRS, the TRS is a security-based swap and not a mixed swap.

This commenter also opined that the Commissions' interpretation that “where such payments incorporate additional elements that create additional interest rate or currency exposures * * * unrelated to the financing of the [TRS], or otherwise shift or limit risks that are related to the financing of the [TRS], those additional elements may cause the [TRS] to be a mixed swap” could be seen as requiring a quantitative analysis to determine whether a reference to interest rates or currencies in a TRS is solely for financing purposes or creates additional exposure that might be construed as extending beyond those purposes.

The Commissions are clarifying that a quantitative analysis is not necessarily required in order to determine whether a TRS is a mixed swap. Any analysis, quantitative or qualitative, clearly demonstrating the nature of a payment (solely financing-related, unrelated to financing or a combination of the two) can suffice.

The Commissions also are clarifying that market participants are not necessarily required to compare their financing rates to market financing rates in order to determine whether the financing leg of a TRS is merely a financing leg or is sufficient to render the TRS a mixed swap. Because a number of factors can influence how a particular TRS is structured, the Commissions cannot provide an interpretation applicable to all situations. If the financing leg of a TRS reflects the dealer's financing costs on a one-to-one basis, the Commissions would view such leg as a financing leg. Adding a spread would not alter that conclusion if the spread is consistent with the dealer's course of dealing generally, with respect to a particular type of TRS or with respect to a particular counterparty. The Commissions believe that this would be the case even if the spread is “off-market,” if the deviance from a market spread is explained by factors unique to the dealer (e.g., the dealer has high financing costs), to the TRS (e.g., the underlying securities are highly illiquid, so financing them is more costly than would be reflected in a “typical” market spread for other TRS) or to then-current market conditions (e.g., a share repurchase might make shares harder for a dealer to procure in order to hedge its obligations under a TRS to pay its counterparty the capital appreciation of a security, resulting in higher financing costs due to the decrease in shares outstanding, assuming demand for the shares does not change). If the spread is designed to provide exposure to an underlying reference other than securities, however, rather than to reflect financing costs, such a TRS is a mixed swap.

Market participants are better positioned than are the Commissions to determine what analysis, and what supporting information and materials, best establish whether the nature of a particular payment reflects financing costs alone, or something more. Moreover, the Commissions expect that a dealer would know if the purpose of the payment(s) in question is to cover its cost of financing a position or a related hedge. In such cases, a detailed analysis should not be necessary.

One commenter noted the nature of quanto equity swaps as TRS and maintained that such a transaction “is equivalent to a financing of a long position in the underlying non-U.S. equity index[]” and that the currency protection is incidental to the financing element, which is the primary purpose of the TRS. As discussed above, the Commissions have provided a final interpretation regarding the appropriate classification of Title VII instruments that are quanto equity swaps and compo equity swaps.

Two commenters requested that the Commissions clarify the status of LTRS on two or more loans. Both commenters stated that while the statutory definition of the term “security-based swap” provides that swaps based on a single loan are security-based swaps, it does not explicitly provide whether swaps on indexes of loans are security-based swaps. They requested clarification regarding the treatment of loan based swaps, including both LTRS and loan index credit default swaps.

The Commissions have provided the final interpretation discussed above regarding LTRS based on two or more loans that are not securities. The Commissions acknowledge that this interpretation results in different treatment for an LTRS on two non-security loans (a swap), as opposed to a Title VII instrument based on two securities (a security-based swap). This result, however, is dictated by the statute.

D. Security-Based Swaps Based on a Single Security or Loan and Single-Name Credit Default Swaps

The Commissions provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding security-based swaps based on a single security or loan and single-name CDS and are restating such interpretation with certain modifications in response to commenters. The second prong of the statutory security-based swap definition includes a swap that is based on “a single security or loan, including any interest therein or on the value thereof.” The Commissions believe that under this prong of the security-based swap definition, a single-name CDS that is based on a single reference obligation would be a security-based swap because it would be based on a single security or loan (or any interest therein or on the value thereof).

In addition, the third prong of the security-based swap definition includes a swap that is based on the occurrence of an event relating to a “single issuer of a security,” provided that such event “directly affects the financial statements, financial condition, or financial obligations of the issuer.” This provision applies generally to event-triggered swap contracts. With respect to a CDS, such events could include, for example, the bankruptcy of an issuer, a default on one of an issuer's debt securities, or the default on a non-security loan of an issuer.

The Commissions believe that if the payout on a CDS on a single issuer of a security is triggered by the occurrence of an event relating to that issuer, the CDS is a security-based swap under the third prong of the statutory security-based swap definition.

In relation to aggregations of transactions under a single ISDA Master Agreement, the Commissions are revising the example that was included in the Proposing Release referring to single-name CDS to clarify that the interpretation regarding aggregations of transactions is non-exclusive and thus not limited to either CDS or single-reference instruments.

The Commissions believe that each transaction under an ISDA Master Agreement would need to be analyzed to determine whether it is a swap or security-based swap. For example, the Commissions believe that a number of Title VII instruments that are executed at the same time and that are documented under one ISDA Master Agreement, but in which a separate confirmation is sent for each instrument, should be treated as an aggregation of such Title VII instruments, each of which must be analyzed separately under the swap and security-based swap definitions. The Commissions believe that, as a practical and economic matter, each such Title VII instrument would be a separate and independent transaction. Thus, such an aggregation of Title VII instruments would not constitute a Title VII instrument based on one “index or group” under the security-based swap definition but instead would constitute multiple Title VII instruments. The Commissions find that this interpretation is an appropriate way to address CDS, TRS or other Title VII instruments referencing a single security or loan or entity that is documented under a Master Agreement or Master Confirmation and is designed to reduce the cost associated with determining whether such instruments are swaps or security-based swaps.

Comments

The Commissions received two comments regarding the interpretation regarding aggregation of Title VII instruments under a single ISDA Master Agreement. One commenter requested that the Commissions clarify that the interpretation applies to other types of instruments, such as TRS, in addition to CDS. The commenter also stated that the interpretation should be helpful with respect to use of a “Master Confirmation” structure, which the commenter described as use of general terms in a “Master Confirmation” that apply to a number of instruments with separate underlying references but for which a separate “Supplemental Confirmation” is sent for each separate component.

A second commenter agreed with the Commissions' interpretation that a number of single-name CDS that are executed at the same time and that are documented under one ISDA Master Agreement, but in which a separate confirmation is sent for each CDS, should not be treated as a single index CDS and stated that this approach is consistent with market practice.

As discussed above, in response to comments the Commissions are expanding the example so it is clear that it applies beyond just CDS.

E. Title VII Instruments Based on Futures Contracts

The Commissions proposed an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding the treatment, generally, of swaps based on futures contracts. The Commissions are restating the interpretation they provided in the Proposing Release without modification. The Commissions also discussed in the Proposing Release the unique circumstance involving certain futures contracts on foreign government debt securities and requested comment as to how Title VII instruments on these futures contracts should be treated. In response to commenters, the Commissions are adopting a rule regarding the treatment of Title VII instruments on certain futures contracts on foreign government debt securities.

A Title VII instrument that is based on a futures contract will either be a swap or a security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap), depending on the nature of the futures contract, including the underlying reference of the futures contract. Thus, a Title VII instrument where the underlying reference is a security future is a security-based swap. In general, a Title VII instrument where the underlying reference is a futures contract that is not a security future is a swap. As the Commissions noted in the Proposing Release, Title VII instruments involving certain futures contracts on foreign government debt securities present a unique circumstance, which is discussed below.

Rule 3a12-8 under the Exchange Act exempts certain foreign government debt securities, for purposes only of the offer, sale, or confirmation of sale of futures contracts on such foreign government debt securities, from all provisions of the Exchange Act which by their terms do not apply to an “exempted security,” subject to certain conditions. To date, the SEC has enumerated within rule 3a12-8 the debt securities of 21 foreign governments solely for purposes of futures trading (“21 enumerated foreign governments”).

The Commissions recognize that as a result of rule 3a12-8, futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments that satisfy the conditions of rule 3a12-8 are subject to the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction and are not considered security futures. As a result, applying the interpretation above to a Title VII instrument that is based on a futures contract on the debt securities of these 21 enumerated foreign governments would mean that the Title VII instrument would be a swap. The Commissions note, however, that the conditions in rule 3a12-8 were established specifically for purposes of the offer and sale of “qualifying foreign futures contracts” (as defined in rule 3a12-8) on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments, not Title VII instruments based on futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated governments. Further, the Commissions note that the Dodd-Frank Act did not exclude swaps on foreign government debt securities generally from the definition of the term “security-based swap.” Accordingly, a Title VII instrument that is based directly on foreign government debt securities, including those of the 21 enumerated governments, is a security-based swap or a swap under the same analysis as any other Title VII instruments based on securities.

The Commissions indicated in the Proposing Release that they would evaluate whether Title VII instruments based on futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments that satisfy the conditions of rule 3a12-8 should be characterized as swaps, security-based swaps, or mixed swaps. In response to commenters, the Commissions are adopting rule 1.3(bbbb) under the CEA and rule 3a68-5 under the Exchange Act, which address the treatment of these Title VII instruments.

The final rules provide that a Title VII instrument that is based on or references a qualifying foreign futures contract on the debt securities of one or more of the 21 enumerated foreign governments is a swap and not a security-based swap, provided that the Title VII instrument satisfies the following conditions:

• The futures contract on which the Title VII instrument is based or that is referenced is a qualifying foreign futures contract (as defined in rule 3a12-8) on the debt securities of any one or more of the 21 enumerated foreign governments that satisfies the conditions of rule 3a12-8;

• The Title VII instrument is traded on or through a board of trade (as defined in section 1a(6) of the CEA);
• The debt securities on which the qualifying foreign futures contract is based or referenced and any security used to determine the cash settlement amount pursuant to the fourth condition below are not covered by an effective registration statement under the Securities Act or the subject of any American depositary receipt covered by an effective registration statement under the Securities Act;
• The Title VII instrument may only be cash settled; and
• The Title VII instrument is not entered into by the issuer of the securities upon which the qualifying foreign futures contract is based or referenced (including any security used to determine the cash payment due on settlement of such Title VII instrument), an affiliate (as defined in the Securities Act and the rules and regulations thereunder) of the issuer, or an underwriter with respect to such securities.

Under the first condition, the final rules provide that the futures contract on which the Title VII instrument is based or referenced must be a qualifying foreign futures contract that satisfies the conditions of rule 3a12-8 and may only be based on the debt of any one or more of the enumerated 21 foreign governments. If the conditions of rule 3a12-8 are not satisfied, then there cannot be a qualifying foreign futures contract, the futures contract is a security future, and a swap on such a security future is a security-based swap.

The second condition of the final rules provides that the Title VII instrument on the qualifying foreign futures contract must itself be traded on or through a board of trade because a qualifying foreign futures contract on the debt securities of one or more of the 21 enumerated foreign governments itself is required to be traded on a board of trade. The Commissions believe that swaps on such futures contracts should be traded subject to rules applicable to such futures contracts themselves.

The third condition of the final rules provides that the debt securities on which the qualifying foreign futures contract is based or referenced and any security used to determine the cash settlement amount pursuant to the fourth condition cannot be registered under the Securities Act or be the subject of any American depositary receipt registered under the Securities Act. This condition is intended to prevent circumvention of registration and disclosure requirements of the Securities Act applicable to foreign government issuances of their securities. This condition is similar to a condition included in rule 3a12-8.

The fourth condition of the final rules provides that the Title VII instrument must be cash settled. Although, as the Commissions recognize, rule 3a12-8 permits a qualifying foreign futures contract to be physically settled so long as delivery is outside the United States, any of its possessions or territories, in the context of Title VII instruments, only cash settled Title VII instruments based on qualifying foreign futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments will be considered swaps. The Commissions believe that this condition is appropriate in order to provide consistent treatment of Title VII instruments based on qualifying foreign futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments with the Commissions' treatment of swaps and security-based swaps generally.

The fifth condition of the final rules provides that for a Title VII instrument to be a swap under such rules, it cannot be entered into by the issuer of the securities upon which the qualifying foreign futures contract is based or referenced (including any security used to determine the cash payment due on settlement of such Title VII instrument), an affiliate of the issuer, or an underwriter of the issuer's securities. The Commissions have included this condition to address the concerns raised by the SEC in the Proposing Release that the characterization of a Title VII instrument that is based on a futures contract on the debt securities of one of the 21 enumerated foreign governments may affect Federal securities law provisions relating to the distribution of the securities upon which the Title VII instrument is based or referenced.

The Dodd-Frank Act included provisions that would not permit issuers, affiliates of issuers, or underwriters to use security-based swaps to offer or sell the issuers' securities underlying a security-based swap without complying with the requirements of the Securities Act. This provision applies regardless of whether the Title VII instrument allows the parties to physically settle any such security-based swap. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act provided that any offer or sale of security-based swaps to non-ECPs would have to be registered under the Securities Act. For example, if a Title VII instrument that is based on a futures contract on the debt securities of one of the 21 enumerated foreign governments is characterized as a swap, and not a security-based swap, then the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act enacted to ensure that there could not be offers and sales of securities made without compliance with the Securities Act, either by issuers, their affiliates, or underwriters or to non-ECPs, would not apply to such swap transactions.

Only those Title VII instruments that are based on qualifying foreign futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments and that satisfy these five conditions will be swaps, not security-based swaps. The Commissions note that the final rules are intended to provide consistent treatment (other than with respect to method of settlement) of qualifying foreign futures contracts and Title VII instruments based on qualifying foreign futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments. The Commissions understand that many of the qualifying foreign futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments trade with substantial volume through foreign trading venues under the conditions set forth in rule 3a12-8 and permitting swaps on such futures contracts subject to similar conditions would not raise concerns that such swaps could be used to circumvent the conditions of rule 3a12-8 and the Federal securities laws concerns that such conditions are intended to protect. Further, providing consistent treatment for qualifying foreign futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments and Title VII instruments based on futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments will allow trading of these instruments through designated contract markets on which such futures are listed.

The Commissions recognize that the rules may result in a different characterization of a Title VII instrument that is based directly on a foreign government debt security and one that is based on a qualifying foreign futures contract on a debt security of one of the 21 enumerated foreign governments. However, the Commissions note that this is the case today (i.e., different treatments) with respect to other instruments subject to CFTC regulation and/or SEC regulation, such as futures on broad-based security indexes and futures on a single security or narrow-based security index.

Comments

Commenters did not address the interpretation as it applied to Title VII instruments based on futures contracts generally. Two commenters addressed Title VII instruments based on futures contracts on debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments. Both commenters requested that the Commissions treat these Title VII instruments as swaps. The Commissions agree that these instruments should be treated as swaps under certain conditions and, therefore, are adopting rule 1.3(bbbb) under the CEA and rule 3a68-5 under the Exchange Act as discussed above to treat Title VII instruments based on qualifying foreign futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments as swaps, provided such Title VII instruments satisfy certain conditions.

F. Use of Certain Terms and Conditions in Title VII Instruments

The Commissions provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding the use of certain fixed terms in Title VII instruments and are restating that interpretation without modification. The Commissions are aware that market participants' setting of certain fixed terms or conditions of Title VII instruments may be informed by the value or level of a security, rate, or other commodity at the time of the execution of the instrument. The Commissions believe that, in evaluating whether a Title VII instrument with such a fixed term or condition is a swap or security-based swap, the nature of the security, rate, or other commodity that informed the setting of such fixed term or condition should not itself impact the determination of whether the Title VII instrument is a swap or a security-based swap, provided that the fixed term or condition is set at the time of execution and the value or level of that fixed term or condition may not vary over the life of the Title VII instrument.

For example, a Title VII instrument, such as an interest rate swap, in which floating payments based on three-month LIBOR are exchanged for fixed rate payments of five percent would be a swap, and not a security-based swap, even if the five percent fixed rate was informed by, or quoted based on, the yield of a security, provided that the five percent fixed rate was set at the time of execution and may not vary over the life of the Title VII instrument. Another example would be where a private sector or government borrower that issues a five-year, amortizing $100 million debt security with a semi-annual coupon of LIBOR plus 250 basis points also, at the same time, chooses to enter into a five-year interest rate swap on $100 million notional in which this same borrower, using the same amortization schedule as the debt security, receives semi-annual payments of LIBOR plus 250 basis points in exchange for five percent fixed rate payments. The fact that the specific terms of the interest rate swap (e.g., five-year, LIBOR plus 250 basis points, $100 million notional, fixed amortization schedule) were set at the time of execution to match related terms of a debt security does not cause the interest rate swap to become a security-based swap. However, if the interest rate swap contained additional terms that were in fact contingent on a characteristic of the debt security that may change in the future, such as an adjustment to future interest rate swap payments based on the future price or yield of the debt security, then this Title VII instrument would be a security-based swap that would be a mixed swap.

Comments

One commenter agreed with the Commissions' interpretation generally, but believed that the Commissions should broaden the interpretation to allow a swap to reflect “resets,” or changes in the referenced characteristic of a security, where those “resets” or changes are “intended to effect a purpose other than transmitting the risk of changes in the characteristic itself,” without causing a Title VII instrument that is not a security-based swap to become a security-based swap.

The Commissions are not expanding the interpretation to allow “resets” of a fixed rate derived from a security. The interpretation is consistent with the statutory swap and security-based swap definitions. The Commissions believe that a Title VII instrument based on a rate that follows a security, and that may “reset” or change in the future based on changes in that security, is a security-based swap. Further, any amendment or modification of a material term of a Title VII instrument would result in a new Title VII instrument and a corresponding reassessment of the instrument's status as either a swap or a security-based swap.

G. The Term “Narrow-Based Security Index” in the Security-Based Swap Definition

1. Introduction

As noted above, a Title VII instrument in which the underlying reference of the instrument is a “narrow-based security index” is a security-based swap subject to regulation by the SEC, whereas a Title VII instrument in which the underlying reference of the instrument is a security index that is not a narrow-based security index (i.e., the index is broad-based) is a swap subject to regulation by the CFTC. The Commissions proposed an interpretation and rules regarding usage of the term “narrow-based security index” in the security-based swap definition, including:

• The existing criteria for determining whether a security index is a narrow-based security index and the applicability of past guidance of the Commissions regarding those criteria to Title VII instruments;
• New criteria for determining whether a CDS where the underlying reference is a group or index of entities or obligations of entities (typically referred to as an “index CDS”) is based on an index that is a narrow-based security index;
• The meaning of the term “index”;
• Rules governing the tolerance period for Title VII instruments on security indexes traded on DCMs, SEFs, foreign boards of trade (“FBOTs”), security-based SEFs, or NSEs, where the security index temporarily moves from broad-based to narrow-based or from narrow-based to broad-based; and
• Rules governing the grace period for Title VII instruments on security indexes traded on DCMs, SEFs, FBOTs, security-based SEFs, or NSEs, where the security index moves from broad-based to narrow-based or from narrow-based to broad-based and the move is not temporary.

As discussed below, the Commissions are restating the interpretation set forth in the Proposing Release with certain further clarifications and adopting the rules as proposed with certain modifications.

2. Applicability of the Statutory Narrow-Based Security Index Definition and Past Guidance of the Commissions to Title VII Instruments

The Commissions provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding the applicability of the statutory definition of the term “narrow-based security index” and past guidance of the Commissions relating to such term to Title VII instruments. The Commissions are restating the interpretation set out in the Proposing Release without modification.

As defined in the CEA and Exchange Act, an index is a narrow-based security index if, among other things, it meets any one of the following four criteria:

• It has nine or fewer component securities;
• A component security comprises more than 30 percent of the index's weighting;
• The five highest weighted component securities in the aggregate comprise more than 60 percent of the index's weighting; or
• The lowest weighted component securities comprising, in the aggregate, 25 percent of the index's weighting have an aggregate dollar value of average daily trading volume of less than $50,000,000 (or in the case of an index with more than 15 component securities, $30,000,000), except that if there are two or more securities with equal weighting that could be included in the calculation of the lowest weighted component securities comprising, in the aggregate, 25 percent of the index's weighting, such securities shall be ranked from lowest to highest dollar value of average daily trading volume and shall be included in the calculation based on their ranking starting with the lowest ranked security.

The first three criteria apply to the number and concentration of the “component securities” in the index. The fourth criterion applies to the average daily trading volume of an index's “component securities.”

This statutory narrow-based security index definition focuses on indexes composed of equity securities and certain aspects of the definition, in particular the evaluation of average daily trading volume, are designed to take into account the trading patterns of individual stocks. However, the Commissions, pursuant to authority granted in the CEA and the Exchange Act, previously have extended the definition to other categories of indexes but modified the definition to take into account the characteristics of those other categories. Specifically, the Commissions have previously provided guidance regarding the application of the narrow-based security index definition to futures contracts on volatility indexes and debt security indexes. Today, then, there exists guidance for determining what constitutes a narrow-based security index.

Volatility indexes are indexes composed of index options. The Commissions issued a joint order in 2004 to define when a volatility index is not a narrow-based security index. Under this joint order, a volatility index is not a narrow-based security index if the index meets all of the following criteria:

• The index measures the magnitude of changes (as calculated in accordance with the order) in the level of an underlying index that is not a narrow-based security index pursuant to the statutory criteria for equity indexes discussed above;
• The index has more than nine component securities, all of which are options on the underlying index;
• No component security of the index comprises more than 30 percent of the index's weighting;
• The five highest weighted component securities of the index in the aggregate do not comprise more than 60 percent of the index's weighting;
• The average daily trading volume of the lowest weighted component securities in the underlying index (those comprising, in the aggregate, 25 percent of the underlying index's weighting) have a dollar value of more than $50,000,000 (or $30,000,000 in the case of an underlying index with 15 or more component securities), except if there are 2 or more securities with equal weighting that could be included in the calculation of the lowest weighted component securities comprising, in the aggregate, 25 percent of the underlying index's weighting, such securities shall be ranked from lowest to highest dollar value of average daily trading volume and shall be included in the calculation based on their ranking starting with the lowest ranked security;
• Options on the underlying index are listed and traded on an NSE registered under section 6(a) of the Exchange Act; and

• The aggregate average daily trading volume in options on the underlying index is at least 10,000 contracts calculated as of the preceding 6 full calendar months.

With regard to debt security indexes, the Commissions issued joint rules in 2006 (“July 2006 Debt Index Rules”) to define when an index of debt securities is not a narrow-based security index. The first three criteria of that definition are similar to the statutory definition for equities and the order regarding volatility indexes in that a debt security index would not be narrow-based if:

• It is comprised of more than nine debt securities that are issued by more than nine non-affiliated issuers;
• The securities of any issuer included in the index do not comprise more than 30 percent of the index's weighting; and
• The securities of any five non-affiliated issuers in the index do not comprise more than 60 percent of the index's weighting.

In the July 2006 Debt Index Rules, instead of the statutory average daily trading volume test, however, the Commissions adopted a public information availability requirement. Under this requirement, assuming the aforementioned number and concentration criteria were satisfied, a debt security index would not be a narrow-based security index if the debt securities or the issuers of debt securities in the index met any one of the following criteria:

• The issuer of the debt security is required to file reports pursuant to section 13 or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

• The issuer of the debt security has a worldwide market value of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more;
• The issuer of the debt security has outstanding securities that are notes, bonds, debentures, or evidence of indebtedness having a total remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion;
• The security is an exempted security as defined in section 3(a)(12) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules promulgated thereunder; or

• The issuer of the security is a government of a foreign country or a political subdivision of a foreign country.

In the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress included the term “narrow-based security index” in the security-based swap definition, and thus the statutory definition of the term “narrow-based security index” also applies in distinguishing swaps (on security indexes that are not narrow-based, also known as “broad-based”) and security-based swaps (on narrow-based security indexes). The Commissions have determined that their prior guidance with respect to what constitutes a narrow-based security index in the context of volatility indexes and debt security indexes applies in determining whether a Title VII instrument is a swap or a security-based swap, except as the rules the Commissions are adopting provide for other treatment with respect to index CDS as discussed below.

To make clear that the Commissions are applying the prior guidance and rules to Title VII instruments, the Commissions are adopting rules to further define the term “narrow-based security index” in the security-based swap definition. Under paragraph (1) of rule 1.3(yyy) under the CEA and paragraph (a) of rule 3a68-3 under the Exchange Act, for purposes of the security-based swap definition, the term “narrow-based security index” has the same meaning as the statutory definition set forth in section 1a(35) of the CEA and section 3(a)(55) of the Exchange Act, and the rules, regulations, and orders issued by the Commissions relating to such definition. As a result, except as the rules the Commissions are adopting provide for other treatment with respect to index CDS as discussed below, market participants generally may use the Commissions' past guidance in determining whether certain Title VII instruments based on a security index are swaps or security-based swaps.

The Commissions also are providing an interpretation and adopting additional rules establishing criteria for indexes composed of securities, loans, or issuers of securities referenced by an index CDS. The interpretation and rules also address the definition of an “index” and the treatment of broad-based security indexes that become narrow-based and narrow-based indexes that become broad-based, including rule provisions regarding tolerance and grace periods for swaps on security indexes that are traded on CFTC-regulated trading platforms and security-based swaps on security indexes that are traded on SEC-regulated trading platforms. These rules and interpretation are discussed below.

3. Narrow-Based Security Index Criteria for Index Credit Default Swaps

(a) In General

The Commissions provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding the narrow-based security index criteria for index CDS and are restating it without modification. While the Commissions understand that the underlying reference for most cleared CDS is a single entity or an index of entities rather than a single security or an index of securities, the underlying reference for CDS also could be a single security or an index of securities. A CDS where the underlying reference is a single entity (i.e., a single-name CDS), a single obligation of a single entity (e.g., a CDS on a specific bond, loan, or asset-backed security, or any tranche or series of any bond, loan, or asset-backed security), or an index CDS where the underlying reference is a narrow-based security index or the issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index is a security-based swap. An index CDS where the underlying reference is not a narrow-based security index or the issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index (i.e., a broad-based index) is a swap.

The statutory definition of the term “narrow-based security index,” as explained above, was designed with the U.S. equity markets in mind. Thus, the statutory definition is not necessarily appropriate for determining whether an index underlying an index CDS is broad or narrow-based. Nor is the guidance that the Commissions have previously issued with respect to the narrow-based security index definition discussed above necessarily appropriate, because that guidance was designed to address and was uniquely tailored to the characteristics of volatility indexes and debt security indexes in the context of futures. Accordingly, the Commissions are clarifying that the guidance that the Commissions have previously issued with respect to the narrow-based security index definition discussed above does not apply to index CDS. Instead, the Commissions are adopting rules as discussed below that include separate criteria for determining whether an index underlying an index CDS is a narrow-based security index.

The Commissions are further defining the term “security-based swap,” and the use of the term “narrow-based security index” within that definition, to modify the criteria applied in the context of index CDS in assessing whether the index is a narrow-based security index. The third prong of the security-based swap definition includes a Title VII instrument based on the occurrence of an event relating to the “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index,” provided that such event directly affects the “financial statements, financial condition, or financial obligations of the issuer.” The first prong of the security-based swap definition includes a Title VII instrument that is based on a narrow-based security-index. Because the third prong of the security-based swap definition relates to issuers of securities, while the first prong of such definition relates to securities, the Commissions are further defining both the term “narrow-based security index” and the term “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” in the context of the security-based swap definition as applied to index CDS. The Commissions believe it is important to further define both terms in order to assure consistent analysis of index CDS. While the wording of the two definitions as adopted differs slightly, the Commissions expect that they will yield the same substantive results in distinguishing narrow-based and broad-based index CDS.

(b) Rules Regarding the Definitions of “Issuers of Securities in a Narrow-Based Security Index” and “Narrow-Based Security Index” for Index Credit Default Swaps

The Commissions proposed rules to further define the terms “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” and “narrow-based security index” in order to provide appropriate criteria for determining whether an index composed of issuers of securities referenced by an index CDS and an index composed of securities referenced by an index CDS are narrow-based security indexes. The Commissions are adopting rules 1.3(zzz) and 1.3(aaaa) under the CEA and rules 3a68-1a and 3a68-1b under the Exchange Act as proposed with certain modifications.

In formulating the criteria in the final rules, and consistent with the guidance and rules the Commissions have previously issued and adopted regarding narrow-based security indexes in the context of security futures, the Commissions believe that there should be public information available about a predominant percentage of the reference entities included in the index, or, in the case of an index CDS on an index of securities, about the issuers of the securities or the securities underlying the index, in order to reduce the likelihood that non-narrow-based indexes referenced in index CDS or the component securities or issuers of securities in that index would be readily susceptible to manipulation, as well as to help prevent the misuse of material non-public information through the use of CDS based on such indexes.

To satisfy these objectives, the Commissions are adopting rules that are based on the criteria developed for debt indexes discussed above but that tailor these criteria to address index CDS. These criteria are included solely for the purpose of defining the terms “narrow-based security index” and “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” in the first and third prongs of the security-based swap definition with respect to index CDS and will not affect any other interpretation or use of the term “narrow-based security index” or any other provision of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CEA, or the Exchange Act.

Further, in response to commenters, the Commissions are clarifying that if an index CDS is based on an index of loans that are not securities, an event relating to a loan in the index, such as a default on a loan, is an event “relating to” the borrower. To the extent that the borrower is an issuer of securities, the index CDS based on such index of loans will be analyzed under the third prong of the security-based swap definition in the same manner as any other index CDS.

Comments

The Commissions received two general comments requesting that the proposed rules further defining the terms “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” and “narrow-based security index” be simplified. One commenter believed that the rules were exceedingly complicated. Another commenter thought that the criteria should allow transactions to be readily and transparently classifiable as a swap or security-based swap. The commenters did not provide analysis supporting their comments or recommend language changes.

The Commissions are adopting the rules regarding index CDS essentially as proposed with certain modifications to address commenters' concerns. While the final rules contain a number of elements that are similar or identical to elements contained in the statutory narrow-based security index definition, in order to enable the narrow-based security index definition to apply appropriately to index CDS, the final rules contain some alternative tests to those set forth in the statutory definition.

The Commissions also recognize the diversity of Title VII instruments. While the final rules for index CDS are based on the July 2006 Debt Index Rules, the substantive differences between the final rules in the index CDS and the equity or debt security contexts are intended to reflect the particular characteristics of the CDS marketplace, in which, for example, index components may be entities (issuers of securities) as well as specific equity and debt securities.

The Commissions also received three comments requesting clarification regarding the applicability of the index CDS rules to CDS based on indexes of loans. One commenter noted that the Commissions did not address in the Proposing Release the question of whether an index composed exclusively of loans should be treated as a narrow-based security index. This commenter noted that because the first and third prongs of the statutory security-based swap definition do not explicitly reference loans, the statutory definition does not expressly categorize Title VII instruments based on more than one loan, or contingent on events that occur with respect to more than one loan borrower, unless such borrowers are also “issuers of securities.” Based on this commenter's view of the statutory definition, this commenter requested that the Commissions clarify the treatment of indexes composed exclusively of loans. Another commenter provided similar comments and also requested clarification regarding the treatment of CDS based on indexes of loans. A third commenter stated its view that the third prong of the statutory security-based swap definition implies that Title VII instruments on a basket of loans are security-based swaps if the lenders would satisfy the criteria for issuers of a “narrow-based security index” and encouraged the Commissions to clarify this issue. The Commissions agree with commenters that an index CDS based on an index of loans that are not securities is analyzed under the third prong of the statutory security-based swap definition and, therefore, are clarifying the treatment of these Title VII instruments above.

(i) Number and Concentration Percentages of Reference Entities or Securities

The Commissions believe that the first three criteria of the debt security index test (which are based on the statutory narrow-based security index definition) discussed above (i.e., the number and concentration weighting requirements) are appropriate to apply to index CDS, whether CDS on indexes of securities or indexes of issuers of securities. Accordingly, the Commissions are adopting the first three criteria of rule 1.3(zzz) under the CEA and rule 3a68-1a under the Exchange Act as proposed with certain modifications in response to commenters' concerns. These rules contain the same number and concentration criteria as proposed, but modify the method of calculating affiliation among issuers and reference entities in response to commenters. Further, in response to commenters, the Commissions are providing an additional interpretation with respect to the application of these criteria to two particular types of CDS, commonly known as “nth-to-default CDS” and “tranched CDS.”

The first three criteria provide that, for purposes of determining whether an index CDS is a security-based swap under section 3(a)(68)(A)(ii)(III) of the Exchange Act, the term “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” includes issuers of securities identified in an index (including an index referencing loan borrowers) in which:

• Number: There are nine or fewer non-affiliated issuers of securities that are reference entities included in the index, provided that an issuer of securities shall not be deemed a reference entity included in the index unless (i) a credit event with respect to such reference entity would result in a payment by the credit protection seller to the credit protection buyer under the index CDS based on the related notional amount allocated to such reference entity; or (ii) the fact of such credit event or the calculation in accordance with clause (i) above of the amount owed with respect to such credit event is taken into account in determining whether to make any future payments under the index CDS with respect to any future credit events;
• Single Component Concentration: The effective notional amount allocated to any reference entity included in the index comprises more than 30 percent of the index's weighting; or
• Largest Five Component Concentration: The effective notional amount allocated to any five non-affiliated reference entities included in the index comprises more than 60 percent of the index's weighting.

Similarly, the Commissions are adopting as proposed the first three criteria of rule 1.3(aaaa) under the CEA and rule 3a68-1b under the Exchange Act. These three criteria provide that, for purposes of determining whether an index CDS is a security-based swap under section 3(a)(68)(A)(ii)(I) of the Exchange Act, the term “narrow-based security index” includes an index in which essentially the same criteria apply, substituting securities for issuers. Under these criteria, the term “narrow-based security index” would mean an index in which:

• Number: There are nine or fewer securities, or securities that are issued by nine or fewer non-affiliated issuers, included in the index, provided that a security shall not be deemed a component of the index unless (i) a credit event with respect to the issuer of such security or a credit event with respect to such security would result in a payment by the credit protection seller to the credit protection buyer under the index CDS based on the related notional amount allocated to such security, or (ii) the fact of such credit event or the calculation in accordance with clause (i) above of the amount owed with respect to such credit event is taken into account in determining whether to make any future payments under the index CDS with respect to any future credit events;
• Single Component Concentration: The effective notional amount allocated to the securities of any issuer included in the index comprises more than 30 percent of the index's weighting; or
• Largest Five Component Concentration: The effective notional amount allocated to the securities of any five non-affiliated issuers included in the index comprises more than 60 percent of the index's weighting.

Thus, the applicability of the final rules depends on conditions relating to the number of non-affiliated reference entities or issuers of securities, or securities issued by non-affiliated issuers, as applicable, included in an index and the weighting of notional amounts allocated to the reference entities or securities included in the index, as applicable. These first three criteria of the final rules evaluate the number and concentration of the reference entities or securities included in the index, as applicable, and ensure that an index with a small number of reference entities, issuers, or securities or concentrated in only a few reference entities, issuers, or securities is narrow-based, and thus where such index is the underlying reference of an index CDS, the index CDS is a security-based swap. Further, as more fully described below, the final rules provide that a reference entity or issuer of securities included in an index and any of that reference entity's or issuer's affiliated entities (as defined in the final rules) that also are included in the index are aggregated for purposes of determining whether the number and concentration criteria are met.

Specifically, the final rules provide that an index meeting any one of certain identified conditions would be a narrow-based security index. The first condition in paragraph (1)(i)(A) of rule 1.3(zzz) under the CEA and paragraph (a)(1)(i) of rule 3a68-1a under the Exchange Act is that there are nine or fewer non-affiliated issuers of securities that are reference entities in the index. An issuer of securities counts toward this total only if a credit event with respect to such entity would result in a payment by the credit protection seller to the credit protection buyer under the index CDS based on the notional amount allocated to such entity, or if the fact of such a credit event or the calculation of the payment with respect to such credit event is taken into account when determining whether to make any future payments under the index CDS with respect to any future credit events.

Similarly, the first condition in paragraph (1)(i)(A) of rule 1.3(aaaa) under the CEA and paragraph (a)(1)(i) of rule 3a68-1b under the Exchange Act provides that a security counts toward the total number of securities in the index only if a credit event with respect to such security, or the issuer of such security, would result in a payment by the credit protection seller to the credit protection buyer under the index CDS based on the notional amount allocated to such security, or if the fact of such a credit event or the calculation of the payment with respect to such credit event is taken into account when determining whether to make any future payments under the index CDS with respect to any future credit events.

These provisions are intended to ensure that an index concentrated in a few reference entities or securities, or a few reference entities that are affiliated (as defined in the final rules) or a few securities issued by issuers that are affiliated, are within the narrow-based security index definition. These provisions also are intended to ensure that an entity is not counted as a reference entity included in the index, and a security is not counted as a security included in the index, unless a credit event with respect to the entity, issuer, or security affects payout under a CDS on the index.

Further, as this condition is in the alternative (i.e., either there must be a credit event resulting in a payment under the index CDS or a credit event is considered in determining future CDS payments), the tests encompass all index CDS. For example, and in response to a commenter, the test would cover an nth-to-default CDS, in which default with respect to a specified component of an index (such as the first default or fifth default) triggers the CDS payment, even if the CDS payment is not made with respect to such particular credit event. As another example, and in response to another commenter, the test applies to a tranched CDS if the payments are made on only a tranche, or portion, of the potential aggregate notional amount of the CDS (often expressed as a percentage range of the total notional amount of the CDS) because the CDS payment takes into account a credit event with respect to an index component, even if the credit event itself does not result in such a payment.

The second condition, in paragraphs (1)(i)(B) of rules 1.3(zzz) and 1.3(aaaa) under the CEA and paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) of rules 3a68-1a and 3a68-1b under the Exchange Act, is that the effective notional amount allocated to any reference entity or security of any issuer included in the index comprises more than 30 percent of the index's weighting.

The third condition, in paragraphs (1)(i)(C) of rules 1.3(zzz) and 1.3(aaaa) under the CEA and paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) of rules 3a68-1a and 3a68-1b under the Exchange Act, is that the effective notional amount allocated to any five non-affiliated reference entities, or to the securities of any five non-affiliated issuers, included in the index comprises more than 60 percent of the index's weighting.

Given that Congress determined that these concentration percentages are appropriate to characterize an index as a narrow-based security index, and the Commissions have determined they are appropriate for debt security indexes in the security futures context, the Commissions believe that these concentration percentages are appropriate to apply to the notional amount allocated to reference entities and securities in order to apply similar standards to indexes that are the underlying references of index CDS. Moreover, with respect to both the number and concentration criteria, the markets have had experience with these criteria with respect to futures on equity indexes, volatility indexes, and debt security indexes.

Comments

One commenter expressed its view that the Commissions should increase the percentage test in the largest five component concentration. The Commissions are adopting the number and concentration criteria as proposed. The statutory definition of the term “security-based swap” references the definition of the term “narrow-based security index” contained in the Exchange Act and the CEA, which includes the same number and concentration percentages as the Commissions are adopting in this release. The Commissions are not modifying the statutory definition to change the percentages. The statutory definition included the concentration percentages, which the Commissions understand are intended to assure that a security index could not be used as a surrogate for the underlying securities in order to avoid application of the Federal securities laws. The Commissions also previously determined to retain these statutory percentages in connection with rules relating to debt security indexes in the security futures context. The Commissions believe that these percentages are similarly appropriate to apply to indexes on which index CDS are based. Moreover, with respect to the number and concentration criteria, as these are in the statutory definition of the term “narrow-based security index” applicable to security futures, market participants have experience in analyzing indexes, including equity, volatility and debt security indexes, to determine compliance with these criteria. As discussed below, though, the Commissions are modifying the affiliation definition used in analyzing the number and concentration criteria for an index.

Two commenters requested clarification regarding nth-to-default CDS, stating their view that such CDS should be treated as security-based swaps to reflect their single-entity triggers. Two commenters requested clarification regarding tranched index CDS, including whether the CDS would be classified based on the underlying index. As discussed above, the Commissions are providing an interpretation on the applicability of the first three criteria of the rules to nth-to-default CDS and tranched CDS. As noted above, the Commissions believe the rules encompass all index CDS, regardless of the type or payment structure, such as whether there is a single-entity payment based on credit events of other index components or whether the payment is based on a specific entity.

(ii) Affiliation of Reference Entities and Issuers of Securities With Respect to Number and Concentration Criteria

The Commissions are adopting the affiliation definition that applies when calculating the number and concentration criteria with certain modifications from the proposal to address commenters' concerns. The final rules provide that the terms “reference entity included in the index” and “issuer of the security included in the index” include a single reference entity or issuer of securities included in an index, respectively, or a group of affiliated reference entities or issuers included in an index, respectively. For purposes of the rules, affiliated reference entities or issuers of securities included in an index or securities included in an index issued by affiliated issuers will be counted together for determining whether the number and concentration criteria are met. However, with respect to asset-backed securities, the final rules provide that each reference entity or issuer of securities included in an index that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security is considered a separate reference entity or issuer, as applicable, and will not be considered affiliated with other reference entities or issuers of securities included in the index.

The final rules provide that a reference entity or issuer of securities included in an index is affiliated with another reference entity or issuer of securities included in the index if it controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, that other reference entity or issuer. The final rules define control, solely for purposes of this affiliation definition, to mean ownership of more than 50 percent of a reference entity's or issuer's equity or the ability to direct the voting of more than 50 percent of a reference entity's or issuer's voting equity. The affiliation definition in the final rules differs from the definition included in the proposal, which provided for a control threshold of 20 percent ownership. This change is based on the Commissions' consideration of comments received. By using a more than 50 percent (i.e., majority ownership) test rather than a 20 percent ownership test for the control threshold, there is a greater likelihood that there will be an alignment of economic interests of the affiliated entities that is sufficient to aggregate reference entities or issuers of securities included in an index for purposes of the number and concentration criteria.

As the affiliation definition is applied to the number criterion, affiliated reference entities or issuers of securities included in an index will be viewed as a single reference entity or issuer of securities to determine whether there are nine or fewer non-affiliated reference entities included in the index or securities that are issued by nine or fewer non-affiliated issuers. Similarly, as the affiliation definition is applied to the concentration criteria, the notional amounts allocated to affiliated reference entities included in an index or the securities issued by a group of affiliated issuers of securities included in an index must be aggregated to determine the level of concentration of the components of the index for purposes of the 30-percent and 60-percent concentration criteria.

Comments

Three commenters requested that the Commissions revise the affiliation definition that applies when calculating the number and concentration criteria to increase the control threshold from 20 percent ownership to majority ownership. These commenters noted that majority ownership is consistent with current market practice, including the definition of affiliate included in the 2003 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions. One commenter also stated its belief that affiliated entities should only be aggregated where the reference entities' credit risks are substantially similar and credit decisions are made by the same group of individuals. This commenter stated its view that 20 percent ownership is too low and that majority ownership is necessary for credit risk and credit decisions to be aligned enough as to warrant collapsing two issuers into one for purposes of the number and concentration criteria.

As stated above, the Commissions are modifying the affiliation definition that applies when calculating the number and concentration criteria in response to commenters to use an affiliation test based on majority ownership. Based on commenters' letters, the Commissions understand that the current standard CDS documentation and the current approach used by certain index providers for index CDS with respect to the inclusion of affiliated entities in the same index use majority ownership rather than 20 percent ownership to determine affiliation. The Commissions are persuaded by commenters that, in the case of index CDS only it is more appropriate to use majority ownership because majority-owned entities are more likely to have their economic interests aligned and be viewed by the market as part of a group. The Commissions believe that revising the affiliation definition in this manner for purposes of calculating the number and concentration criteria responds to commenters' concerns that the percentage control threshold may inadvertently include entities that are not viewed as part of a group. Thus, as revised, the affiliation definition will include only those reference entities or issuers included in an index that satisfy the more than 50 percent (i.e., majority ownership) control threshold. The Commissions believe that determining affiliation in this manner for purposes of calculating the number and concentration criteria responds to the commenters' concerns.

The Commissions also believe that the modified affiliation definition addresses commenters' concerns noted above that the rules further defining the terms “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” and “narrow-based security index” should be simplified. The modified affiliation definition enables market participants to make an affiliation determination for purposes of calculating the number and concentration criteria by measuring the more than 50 percent (i.e., majority ownership) control threshold.

(iii) Public Information Availability Regarding Reference Entities and Securities

In addition to the number and concentration criteria, the debt security index test also includes, as discussed above, a public information availability test. The public information availability test is intended as the substitute for the average daily trading volume (“ADTV”) provision in the statutory narrow-based security index definition. An ADTV test is designed to take into account the trading of individual stocks and, because Exchange Act registration of the security being traded is a listing standard for equity securities, the issuer of the security being traded must be subject to the reporting requirements under the Exchange Act. Based on the provisions of the statutory ADTV test, the Commissions have determined that the ADTV test is not useful for purposes of determining the status of the index on which the index CDS is based because index CDS most commonly reference entities, which do not “trade,” or debt instruments, which commonly are not listed, and, therefore, do not have a significant trading volume. However, the underlying rationale of such provision, that there is sufficient trading in the securities and therefore public information and market following of the issuer of the securities, applies to index CDS.

In general, if an index is not narrow-based under the number and concentration criteria, it will be narrow-based if one of the reference entities or securities included in the index fails to meet at least one of the criteria in the public information availability test. This test was designed to reduce the likelihood that broad-based debt security indexes or the component securities or issuers of securities in that index would be readily susceptible to manipulation. The fourth condition in the index CDS rules sets out a similar public information availability test that is intended solely for purposes of determining whether an index underlying a CDS is narrow-based. The Commissions are adopting the public information availability test essentially as proposed with certain modifications to address commenters' concerns, including modifications to the definition of affiliation for purposes of satisfying certain criteria of the public information availability test.

The Commissions are adopting final rules under which an index CDS will be considered narrow-based (except as discussed below) if a reference entity or security included in the index does not meet any of the following criteria:

• The reference entity or the issuer of the security included in the index is required to file reports pursuant to the Exchange Act or the regulations thereunder;
• The reference entity or the issuer of the security included in the index is eligible to rely on the exemption provided in rule 12g3-2(b) under the Exchange Act;

• The reference entity or the issuer of the security included in the index has a worldwide market value of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more;

• The reference entity or the issuer of the security included in the index (other than a reference entity or an issuer of the security included in the index that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security as defined in section 3(a)(77) of the Exchange Act ) has outstanding notes, bonds, debentures, loans, or evidences of indebtedness (other than revolving credit facilities) having a total remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion;

• The reference entity included in the index is an issuer of an exempted security, or the security included in the index is an exempted security, each as defined in section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder (except a municipal security);

• The reference entity or the issuer of the security included in the index is a government of a foreign country or a political subdivision of a foreign country; or
• If the reference entity or the issuer of the security included in the index is an issuing entity of asset-backed securities as defined in section 3(a)(77) of the Exchange Act, such asset-backed security was issued in a transaction registered under the Securities Act and has publicly available distribution reports.

However, so long as the effective notional amounts allocated to reference entities or securities included in the index that satisfy the public information availability test comprise at least 80 percent of the index's weighting, failure by a reference entity or security included in the index to satisfy the public information availability test will be disregarded if the effective notional amounts allocated to that reference entity or security comprise less than five percent of the index's weighting. In this situation, the public information availability test for purposes of the index would be satisfied.

The determination as to whether an index CDS is narrow-based is conditioned on the likelihood that information about a predominant percentage of the reference entities or securities included in the index is publicly available. For example, a reference entity or an issuer of securities included in the index that is required to file reports pursuant to the Exchange Act or the regulations thereunder makes regular and public disclosure through those filings. Moreover, a reference entity or an issuer of securities included in the index that does not file reports with the SEC but that is eligible to rely on the exemption in rule 12g3-2(b) under the Exchange Act (i.e., foreign private issuers) is required to make certain types of financial information publicly available in English on its Web site or through an electronic information delivery system generally available to the public in its primary trading markets.

The Commissions believe that other reference entities or issuers of securities included in the index that do not file reports with the SEC, but that have worldwide equity market capitalization of $700 million or more, have at least $1 billion in outstanding debt obligations (other than in the case of issuing entities of asset-backed securities), issue exempted securities (other than municipal securities), or are foreign sovereign entities either are required to or are otherwise sufficiently likely, solely for purposes of the “narrow-based security-index” and “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” definitions, to have public information available about them.

In response to commenters, the Commissions are modifying the outstanding debt threshold criterion in the public information availability test to include any indebtedness, including loans, so long as such indebtedness is not a revolving credit facility. The Commissions believe that expanding the definition of indebtedness to include loans (other than revolving credit) for purposes of the debt threshold determination is consistent with the view that entities that have significant outstanding indebtedness likely will have public information available about them.

As more fully described below, for purposes of satisfying one of these issuer eligibility criteria, the final rules provide that a reference entity or an issuer of securities included in an index may rely upon the status of an affiliated entity as an Exchange Act reporting company or foreign private issuer or may aggregate the worldwide equity market capitalization or outstanding indebtedness of an affiliated entity, regardless of whether such affiliated entity itself or its securities are included in the index.

In the case of indexes including asset-backed securities, or reference entities that are issuing entities of asset-backed securities, information about the reference entity or issuing entity of the asset-backed security will not alone be sufficient and, consequently, the rules provide that the public information availability test will be satisfied only if certain information also is available about the asset-backed securities. An issuing entity (whether or not a reference entity) of asset-backed securities will meet the public information availability test if such asset-backed securities were issued in a transaction for which the asset-backed securities issued (which includes all tranches) were registered under the Securities Act and distribution reports about such asset-backed securities are publicly available. In response to commenters, the Commissions note that distribution reports, which sometimes are referred to as servicer reports, delivered to the trustee or security holders, as the case may be, are filed with the SEC on Form 10-D. In addition, because of the lack of public information regarding many asset-backed securities, despite the size of the outstanding amount of securities, the rules do not permit such reference entities and issuers to satisfy the public information availability test by having at least $1 billion in outstanding indebtedness. Characterizing an index with reference entities or securities for which public information is not likely to be available as narrow-based, and thus index CDS where the underlying references or securities are such indexes as security-based swaps, should help to ensure that the index cannot be used to circumvent the Federal securities laws, including those relating to Securities Act compliance and the antifraud, antimanipulation and insider trading prohibitions with respect to the index components or the securities of the reference entities.

As noted above, if an index is not narrow-based under the number and concentration criteria, it will be narrow-based if one of the reference entities or securities included in the index fails to meet at least one of the criteria in the public information availability test. However, even if one or more of the reference entities or securities included in the index fail the public information availability test, the final rules provide that the index will not be considered “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” or a “narrow-based security index,” so long as the applicable reference entity or security that fails the test represents less than five percent of the index's weighting, and so long as reference entities or securities comprising at least 80 percent of the index's weighting satisfy the public information availability test.

An index that includes a very small proportion of reference entities or securities that do not satisfy the public information availability test will be treated as a broad-based security index if the other elements of the definition, including the five percent and 80 percent thresholds, are satisfied prior to execution, but no later than when the parties offer to enter into the index CDS. The five-percent weighting threshold is designed to provide that reference entities or securities not satisfying the public information availability test comprise only a very small portion of the index, and the 80-percent weighting threshold is designed to provide that a predominant percentage of the reference entities or securities in the index satisfy the public information availability test. As a result, these thresholds provide market participants with flexibility in constructing an index. The Commissions believe that these thresholds are appropriate and that providing such flexibility is not likely to increase the likelihood that an index that satisfies these provisions or the component securities or issuers of securities in that index would be readily susceptible to manipulation or that there would be misuse of material non-public information about the component securities or issuers of securities in that index through the use of CDS based on such indexes.

The final rules also provide that, for index CDS entered into solely between ECPs, there are alternative means to satisfy the public information availability test. Under the final rules, solely for index CDS entered into between ECPs, an index will be considered narrow-based if a reference entity or security included in the index does not meet (i) any of the criteria enumerated above or (ii) any of the following criteria:

• The reference entity or the issuer of the security included in the index (other than a reference entity or issuer included in the index that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security) makes available to the public or otherwise makes available to such ECP information about such reference entity or issuer pursuant to rule 144A(d)(4) under the Securities Act;

• Financial information about the reference entity or the issuer of the security included in the index (other than a reference entity or issuer included in the index that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security) is otherwise publicly available; or
• In the case of an asset-backed security included in the index, or a reference entity included in the index that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security, information of the type and level included in public distribution reports for similar asset-backed securities is publicly available about both the reference entity or issuing entity and the asset-backed security.

As more fully described below, for purposes of satisfying either the rule 144A information criterion or the financial information otherwise publicly available criterion, the final rules provide that a reference entity or an issuer of securities included in an index may look to an affiliated entity to determine whether it satisfies one of these criterion, regardless of whether such affiliated entity itself or its securities are included in the index.

In response to commenters, the Commissions are revising the rule 144A information criterion of the public information availability test applicable to index CDS entered into solely between ECPs to clarify that the rule 144A information must either be made publicly available or otherwise made available to the ECP. In addition, the Commissions are clarifying that financial information about the reference entity or the issuer of the security may otherwise be publicly available through an issuer's Web site, through public filings with other regulators or exchanges, or through other electronic means. This method of satisfying the public information availability test does not specify the precise method by which financial information must be available.

As with other index CDS, with respect to index CDS entered into solely with ECPs, if the percentage of the effective notional amounts allocated to reference entities or securities satisfying this expanded public information availability test comprise at least 80 percent of the index's weighting, then a reference entity or security included in the index that fails to satisfy the alternative public information test criteria will be disregarded so long as the effective notional amount allocated to that reference entity or security comprises less than five percent of the index's weighting.

Comments

The Commissions received a number of general and specific comments regarding the public information availability test.

A number of commenters believed that the public information availability test should not be included in the final rules for various reasons, including the potential disparate treatment between products based on indexes due to changes in index components, the impact of the migration of indexes from narrow-based to broad-based and vice-versa, and assertions that the test was not needed due to the types of participants engaged in swap and security-based swap transactions. One commenter suggested replacing the public information availability test with a volume trading test.

The Commissions are adopting the public information availability test as proposed with certain modifications described above. As discussed above, the public information availability test is intended as the substitute for the ADTV provision in the statutory narrow-based security index definition, which the Dodd-Frank Act included as the method for determining whether index CDS are swaps or security-based swaps. Based on the reasons discussed above, the Commissions have retained the public information availability test as the underlying rationale of such provision, that there is sufficient trading in the securities and therefore public information and market following of the issuer of the securities, applies to index CDS. Accordingly, the Commissions believe that there should be public information available about a predominant percentage of the reference entities or issuers of securities underlying the index in order to prevent circumvention of other provisions of the Federal securities laws through the use of CDS based on such indexes, to reduce the likelihood that the index, the component securities, or the named issuers of securities in the index could be readily susceptible to manipulation, and to prevent the misuse of material non-public information about such an index, the component securities, or the reference entities.

The Commissions understand that the characterization of an index underlying a CDS as broad-based or narrow-based may change because of changes to the index, such as addition or removal of components, or changes regarding the specific components of the index, such as a decrease in the amount of outstanding common equity for a component. However, these types of changes are contemplated by the statutory narrow-based security index definition, which the Dodd-Frank Act used to establish whether index CDS are swaps or security-based swaps. Moreover, the Commissions have provided that the determination of whether a Title VII instrument is a swap, security-based swap or mixed swap is made prior to execution, but no later than when the parties offer to enter into the Title VII instrument, and does not change if a security index underlying such instrument subsequently migrates from broad to narrow (or vice versa) during its life. Accordingly, even if the public information availability test would cause indexes underlying index CDS to migrate as suggested by a commenter, that will not affect the classification of outstanding index CDS entered into prior to such migration. However, if an amendment or change is made to such outstanding index CDS that would cause it to be a new purchase or sale of such index CDS, that could affect the classification of such outstanding index CDS. Further, as is true for other products using the narrow-based security index definition, the Commissions also believe that the effects of changes to an index underlying a CDS traded on an organized platform are addressed through the tolerance period and grace period rules the Commissions are adopting, which rules are based on tolerance period and grace period rules for security futures to which the statutory narrow-based security index definition applies.

The Commissions are not adopting a volume-based test based on the trading of the CDS or the trading of the index, either as a replacement for the public information availability test or as an alternative means of satisfying it, as one commenter suggested. The Commissions believe that using a volume-based test based on the trading of the CDS or the trading of the index would not work in the index CDS context because the character of the index CDS would have to be determined before any trading volume could exist and, therefore, the index CDS would fail a volume-based test. The Commissions also believe that a volume-based test based either on the CDS components of the index or the index itself would not be an appropriate substitute for or an alternative to a public information availability test with respect to the referenced entity, issuer of securities, or underlying security because such a volume-based test would not provide transparency on such underlying entities, issuers of securities or securities.

The Commissions believe that the public information availability test in the index CDS rules allows more flexibility with respect to the types of components included in indexes underlying index CDS. For many indexes, such as bespoke indexes, trading volume for CDS on individual components may not be significant even though the index component would otherwise have no trouble satisfying one of the criteria of the public information availability test. The public information availability test in the index CDS rules also is very similar to the test in the rules for debt security indexes, which, as noted above, apply in the context of Title VII instruments, thus providing a consistent set of rules under which index compilers and market participants can analyze the characterization of CDS.

One commenter also had concerns regarding specific types of indexes and specific types of index components, including the applicability of the public information availability test to indexes of loans or borrowers. As discussed above, however, the Commissions believe that index CDS based on indexes of loans or borrowers should be analyzed under the third prong of the statutory security-based swap definition in the same manner as any other index CDS. Although this commenter noted such indexes may include a higher proportion of “private” borrowers (those borrowers who are not public reporting companies or that do not register offerings of their securities) and thus may themselves not satisfy any of the criteria for the public information availability test, the Commissions believe that the information tests of the rule as modified will address these concerns. The modified rule will add loans to the categories of instruments to be aggregated for purposes of the outstanding indebtedness criterion and, as discussed below, will aggregate outstanding indebtedness of affiliates. As a result of these modifications, the Commissions believe that the indexes the commenter was concerned about may be more likely to satisfy the public information availability test.

One commenter agreed with including an outstanding debt threshold as a criterion in the public information availability test, but requested that the Commissions change this criterion to include loans that are not within the definition of security, as well as affiliate debt guaranteed by the issuer of securities or reference entity, and to reduce the required outstanding debt threshold from $1 billion to $100 million. As discussed above, the Commissions are revising the rules to expand the types of debt that are counted toward the $1 billion debt threshold to include any indebtedness, including loans, so long as such indebtedness is not a revolving credit facility. The Commissions have made no other changes to the $1 billion debt threshold.

The Commissions believe that the fact that an entity has guaranteed the obligations of another entity will not affect the likelihood that public information is available about either the borrower on the guaranteed obligation or on the guarantor entity. However, the Commissions note that they are providing an additional interpretation on the affiliation definition of the index CDS rules, including modifying the method of calculating affiliation, that should address this commenter's concerns regarding guaranteed affiliate debt. The Commissions also believe that the $1 billion debt threshold, which is the same amount as the outstanding debt threshold in the rules for debt security indexes, is set at the appropriate level to achieve the objective that such entities are likely to have public information available about them.

One commenter suggested that the proposed rule 144A information criterion of the public information availability test applicable to index CDS entered into solely between ECPs should be satisfied if the issuer made the rule 144A information available upon request to the public or to the ECP in question, rather than being required to provide the information. In response to this commenter, the Commissions are revising the rule 144A information criterion of the public information availability test applicable to index CDS entered into solely between ECPs to clarify that the rule 144A information must be made publicly available or otherwise made available to the ECP.

The Commissions received one comment regarding the criteria of the public information availability test that relate specifically to asset-backed securities. The commenter was concerned that the test for asset-backed securities underlying an index may be difficult to apply because all asset-backed securities underlying an index are not always registered under the Securities Act. This commenter also was concerned that the term “distribution reports” may not be the same as monthly service reports, which this commenter indicated are available through the deal trustee and/or the SEC Web site. This commenter also believed that it was unclear whether these monthly service reports would qualify as “distribution reports” for purposes of the public information availability test and whether information regarding Agency MBS pools, which are available on Agency Web sites, would be sufficient to satisfy the public information availability test. In addition, this commenter requested that the Commissions clarify that not all tranches of a transaction need to be registered under the Securities Act to satisfy the publicly available distribution report requirement.

The Commissions are adopting as proposed the provisions of the public information availability test applicable to indexes based on asset-backed securities. The Commissions note that there are two possible ways to satisfy the public information availability test for index CDS based on asset-backed securities or asset-backed issuers. For index CDS available to non-ECPs, all asset-backed securities in the index or of the issuer in the index must have been sold in registered offerings under the Securities Act and have publicly available distribution reports. The Commissions are clarifying that monthly service reports filed with the SEC will satisfy the requirement for publicly available distribution reports. However, for index CDS being sold only to ECPs, the public information availability test with respect to the index components is satisfied, regardless of whether the asset-backed securities have been sold in registered offerings under the Securities Act, if information of the type and level included in public distribution reports for similar asset-backed securities is publicly available about both the issuing entity and such asset-backed securities. The Commissions believe that requiring such information about the asset-backed securities and the assets in the pools underlying such asset-backed securities is consistent with existing disclosure requirements for asset-backed securities and existing practices of ABS issuers.

(iv) Affiliation of Reference Entities and Issuers of Securities With Respect to Certain Criteria of the Public Information Availability Test

The Commissions are adopting the affiliation definition that applies to certain criteria of the public information availability test with certain modifications from the proposals to address commenters' concerns. The Commissions are making modifications to this affiliation definition that are the same as the modifications the Commissions are making to the affiliation definition that applies when calculating the number and concentration criteria.

This affiliation definition applies for purposes of determining whether a reference entity or issuer of securities included in an index satisfies one of the following four criteria of the public information availability test: (i) The reference entity or issuer of the security included in the index is required to file reports pursuant to the Exchange Act or the regulations thereunder; (ii) the reference entity or issuer of the security included in the index is eligible to rely on the exemption provided in rule 12g3-2(b) under the Exchange Act for foreign private issuers; (iii) the reference entity or issuer of the security included in the index has a worldwide market value of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more; and (iv) the reference entity or issuer of the security included in the index has outstanding notes, bonds, debentures, loans, or evidences of indebtedness (other than revolving credit facilities) having a total remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion. This affiliation definition also applies for purposes of determining whether a reference entity or issuer of securities included in an index satisfies one of the following two criteria of the alternative public information availability test applicable to index CDS entered into solely between ECPs: (i) The reference entity or issuer of the security included in the index makes available rule 144A information; and (ii) financial information about the reference entity or issuer of the security included in the index is otherwise publicly available.

The final rules provide that the terms “reference entity included in the index” and “issuer of the security included in the index” include a single reference entity or issuer of securities included in an index, respectively, or a group of affiliated entities. For purposes of the rules, a reference entity or issuer of securities included in an index may rely upon an affiliated entity to satisfy certain criteria of the public information availability test. However, with respect to asset-backed securities, the final rules provide that each reference entity or issuer of securities included in an index that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security is considered a separate reference entity or issuer, as applicable, and will not be considered affiliated with any other entities.

The final rules provide that a reference entity or issuer of securities included in an index is affiliated with another entity if it controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, that other entity. The final rules define control, solely for purposes of this affiliation definition, to mean ownership of more than 50 percent of a reference entity's or issuer's equity or the ability to direct the voting of more than 50 percent of a reference entity's or issuer's voting equity. This revision is the same as the modification the Commissions are making to the affiliation definition that applies when calculating the number and concentration criteria, which is discussed above.

As the Commissions noted above, this change is based on the Commissions' consideration of comments received. By using a more than 50 percent (i.e., majority ownership) test rather than a 20 percent ownership test for the control threshold, there is a greater likelihood that there will be information available about the reference entity or issuer of securities included in the index because the market likely will view the affiliated entity and the reference entity or issuer of securities included in the index as a single company or economic entity. Accordingly, to the extent information regarding the affiliated entity is publicly available, there may be information regarding the reference entity or issuer of securities included in the index that also is publicly available. This modified control threshold will permit such reference entity or issuer of securities to rely upon an affiliated entity to satisfy one of the criteria of the public information availability test. Further, unlike the affiliation definition that applies when calculating the number and concentration criteria, the affiliation definition that applies to certain criteria of the public information availability test does not require that the affiliated entity or its securities be included in the index.

As the affiliation definition applies to the Exchange Act reporting company and foreign private issuer criteria of the public information availability test, a reference entity or an issuer of securities included in an index that itself is not required to file reports pursuant to the Exchange Act or the regulations thereunder or is not eligible to rely on the exemption provided in rule 12g3-2(b) under the Exchange Act for foreign private issuers may rely upon the status of an affiliated entity as an Exchange Act reporting company or foreign private issuer, regardless of whether that affiliated entity itself or its securities are included in the index, to satisfy one of these criteria. For example, a majority-owned subsidiary included in an index may rely upon the status of its parent, which may or may not be included in the index, to satisfy the issuer eligibility criteria if the parent is required to file reports under the Exchange Act or is a foreign private issuer.

Similarly, as the affiliation definition applies to the worldwide equity market capitalization and outstanding indebtedness criteria of the public information availability test, a reference entity or an issuer of securities included in an index that itself does not have a worldwide market value of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more or outstanding notes, bonds, debentures, loans, or evidences of indebtedness (other than revolving credit facilities) having a total remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion, may aggregate the worldwide equity market capitalization or outstanding indebtedness of an affiliated entity, regardless of whether that affiliated entity itself or its securities are included in the index, to satisfy one of these criteria. For example, a majority-owned subsidiary included in an index may aggregate the worldwide equity market capitalization or outstanding indebtedness of its parent and/or other affiliated entities, such as other majority-owned subsidiaries of the parent, to satisfy one of these criteria.

Finally, as the affiliation definition applies to the rule 144A information and financial information otherwise publicly available criteria of the alternative public information availability test applicable to index CDS entered into solely between ECPs, a reference entity or an issuer of securities included in an index that itself does not make available rule 144A information or does not have financial information otherwise publicly available may rely upon an affiliated entity, regardless of whether that affiliated entity itself or its securities are included in the index, to satisfy one of these criteria.

Comments

One commenter requested that the Commissions revise the affiliation definition that applies for purposes of the public information availability test to increase the threshold from 20 percent ownership to majority ownership. This commenter noted that majority ownership is consistent with current market practice, including the definition of affiliate included in the 2003 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions. This commenter also noted that the current approach with respect to the inclusion of affiliated entities in the same index uses majority ownership rather than 20 percent ownership to determine affiliation. This commenter also requested that the Commissions clarify the application of the affiliation definition to the public information availability test. Further, this commenter requested that the worldwide equity market capitalization criterion should include all affiliated entities because the reference entity included in the index may not be the member of a corporate group that issues public equity. Finally, this commenter was concerned that the outstanding indebtedness criterion would not include affiliate debt guaranteed by the reference entity or issuer of securities included in the index. Further, as noted above, another commenter was concerned that index CDS may include a higher proportion of “private” borrowers (those borrowers that are not public reporting companies or that do not register offerings of their securities) and thus may themselves not satisfy each of the criteria for the public information availability test.

The Commissions note the commenters' concerns. The Commissions are modifying the method of determining affiliation that applies for purposes of satisfying certain criteria of the public information availability test. The final rules provide that a reference entity or issuer of securities included in an index may rely upon an affiliated entity (meeting the more than 50 percent control threshold) to satisfy one of the criterion of the public information availability test. This modification is similar to the one the Commissions are making to the affiliation definition that applies for purposes of calculating the number and concentration criteria. As noted above, based on commenters' letters, the Commissions understand that the current standard CDS documentation and the current approach with respect to the inclusion of affiliated entities in the same index use majority ownership rather than 20 percent ownership to determine affiliation. The Commissions agree with commenters that in the case of index CDS only it is more appropriate to use a more than 50 percent (i.e., majority ownership) test rather than a 20 percent ownership test. The Commissions believe that because reference entities or issuers of securities included in an index may rely on an affiliated entity to help satisfy the public information availability test a threshold of majority ownership rather than 20 percent ownership will increase the likelihood that there is information available about the reference entity or issuer of securities included in the index. The Commissions believe that determining affiliation in this manner for purposes of the public availability of information test responds to the commenter's concerns.

Further, the Commissions are providing several illustrative examples of the way in which the affiliation definition works in the context of the public availability of information criteria to address the commenter's concerns regarding the application of the affiliation definition in that context. The Commissions also note that the final rules respond to the commenter's concerns regarding the applicability of the affiliation definition to the worldwide equity market capitalization criterion by providing that the worldwide market capitalization of an affiliate can be counted in determining whether the reference entity or issuer of securities included in the index meets the worldwide equity market capitalization criterion. Moreover, the Commissions note that the final rules respond to the commenter's concerns regarding affiliate debt by providing that indebtedness of an affiliate can be counted in determining whether the reference entity or issuer of securities included in the index meets the outstanding indebtedness criterion. Finally, the Commissions note that the affiliation definition as modified responds to the commenter's concerns regarding “private” borrowers because the modified affiliation definition will allow a reference entity or issuer of securities included in an index to consider the indebtedness, the outstanding equity, and the reporting status of an affiliate in determining whether the public information availability test is satisfied.

As noted above, the Commissions also believe that the modified affiliation definition responds to commenters' concerns noted above that the rules further defining the terms “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” and “narrow-based security index” should be simplified. The modified affiliation definition enables market participants to make an affiliation determination for purposes of the public information availability test criteria by measuring the more than 50 percent (i.e., majority ownership) control threshold.

(v) Application of the Public Information Availability Requirements to Indexes Compiled by a Third-Party Index Provider

The Commissions requested comment in the Proposing Release as to whether the public information availability test should apply to an index compiled by an index provider that is not a party to an index CDS (“third-party index provider”) that makes publicly available general information about the construction of the index, index rules, identity of components, and predetermined adjustments, and which index is referenced by an index CDS that is offered on or subject to the rules of a DCM or SEF, or by direct access in the U.S. from an FBOT that is registered with the CFTC. Two commenters stated that the presence of a third-party index provider would assure that sufficient information is available regarding the index CDS itself. Neither commenter provided any analysis to explain how or whether a third-party index provider would be able to provide information about the underlying securities or issuers of securities in the index. The Commissions are not revising the rules to exclude from the public information availability test any index compiled by a third-party index provider.

(vi) Treatment of Indexes Including Reference Entities That Are Issuers of Exempted Securities or Including Exempted Securities

The Commissions are adopting the rules regarding the treatment of indexes that include exempted securities or reference entities that are issuers of exempted securities as proposed without modification. The Commissions believe such treatment is consistent with the objective and intent of the statutory definition of the term “security-based swap,” as well as the approach taken in the context of security futures. Accordingly, paragraph (1)(ii) of rules 1.3(zzz) and 1.3(aaaa) under the CEA and paragraph (a)(2) of rules 3a68-1a and 3a68-1b under the Exchange Act provide that, in the case of an index that includes exempted securities, or reference entities that are issuers of exempted securities, in each case as defined as of the date of enactment of the Futures Trading Act of 1982 (other than municipal securities), such securities or reference entities are excluded from the index when determining whether the securities or reference entities in the index constitute a “narrow-based security index” or “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” under the rules.

Under paragraph (1)(ii) of rules 1.3(zzz) and 1.3(aaaa) under the CEA and paragraph (a)(2) of rules 3a68-1a and 3a68-1b) under the Exchange Act, an index composed solely of securities that are, or reference entities that are issuers of, exempted securities (other than municipal securities) will not be a “narrow-based security index” or an index composed of “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index.” In the case of an index where some, but not all, of the securities or reference entities are exempted securities (other than municipal securities) or issuers of exempted securities (other than municipal securities), the index will be a “narrow-based security index” or an index composed of “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” only if the index is narrow-based when the securities that are, or reference entities that are issuers of, exempted securities (other than municipal securities) are disregarded. The Commissions believe this approach should result in consistent treatment for indexes regardless of whether they include securities that are, or issuers of securities that are, exempted securities (other than municipal securities) while helping to ensure that exempted securities (other than municipal securities) and issuers of exempted securities (other than municipal securities) are not included in an index merely to make the index either broad-based or narrow-based under the rules.

4. Security Indexes

The Dodd-Frank Act defines the term “index” as “an index or group of securities, including any interest therein or based on the value thereof.” The Commissions provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding how to determine when a portfolio of securities is a narrow-based or broad-based security index, and the circumstances in which changes to the composition of a security index (including a portfolio of securities) underlying a Title VII instrument would affect the characterization of such Title VII instrument. The Commissions are restating the interpretation set forth in the Proposing Release with one clarification in response to a commenter. Specifically, the Commissions are clarifying what is meant by “predetermined” for purposes of whether criteria or a self-executing formula for adjusting the security index underlying a Title VII instrument qualify under the interpretation. The Commissions find that this interpretation is an appropriate way to address how to determine when a portfolio of securities is a narrow-based or broad-based security index, and the circumstances in which changes to the composition of a security index (including a portfolio of securities) underlying a Title VII instrument would affect the characterization of such Title VII instrument, and is designed to reduce costs associated with making such a determination.

A security index in most cases is designed to reflect the performance of a market or sector by reference to representative securities or interests in securities. There are several well-known security indexes established and maintained by recognized index providers currently in the market. However, instead of using these established indexes, market participants may enter into a Title VII instrument where the underlying reference of the Title VII instrument is a portfolio of securities selected by the counterparties or created by a third-party index provider at the behest of one or both counterparties. In some cases, the Title VII instrument may give one or both of the counterparties, either directly or indirectly (e.g., through an investment adviser or through the third-party index provider), discretionary authority to change the composition of the security portfolio, including, for example, by adding or removing securities in the security portfolio on an “at-will” basis during the term of the Title VII instrument. Where the counterparties, either directly or indirectly (e.g., through an investment adviser or through the third-party index provider), have this discretionary authority to change the composition or weighting of securities in a security portfolio, that security portfolio will be treated as a narrow-based security index, and therefore a Title VII instrument on that security portfolio is a security-based swap.

However, not all changes that occur to the composition or weighting of a security index underlying a Title VII instrument will always result in that security index being treated as a narrow-based security index. Many security indexes are constructed and maintained by an index provider pursuant to a published methodology. For instance, the various Standard Poor's security indexes are reconstituted and rebalanced as needed and on a periodic basis pursuant to published index criteria. Such indexes underlying a Title VII instrument would be broad-based or narrow-based depending on the composition and weighting of the underlying security index.

In addition, counterparties to a Title VII instrument frequently agree to use as the underlying reference of a Title VII instrument a security index based on predetermined criteria where the security index composition or weighting may change as a result of the occurrence of certain events specified in the Title VII instrument at execution, such as “succession events.” Counterparties to a Title VII instrument also may use a predetermined self-executing formula to make other changes to the composition or weighting of a security index underlying a Title VII instrument. In either of these situations, the composition of a security index may change pursuant to predetermined criteria or predetermined self-executing formulas without the Title VII instrument counterparties, their agents, or third-party index providers having any direct or indirect discretionary authority to change the security index.

In general, and by contrast to Title VII instruments in which the counterparties, either directly or indirectly (e.g., through an investment adviser or through the third-party index provider), have the discretion to change the composition or weighting of the referenced security index, where there is an underlying security index for which there are predetermined criteria or a predetermined self-executing formula for adjusting the security index that are not subject to change or modification through the life of the Title VII instrument and that are set forth in the Title VII instrument at execution (regardless of who establishes the criteria or formula), a Title VII instrument on such underlying security index is based on a broad-based or narrow-based security index, depending on the composition and weighting of the underlying security index. Subject to the interpretation discussed below regarding security indexes that may shift from being a narrow-based security index or broad-based security index during the life of an existing Title VII instrument, the characterization of a Title VII instrument based on a security index as either a swap or a security-based swap will depend on the characterization of the security index using the above interpretation.

The Commissions are clarifying in response to a commenter that, for purposes of this interpretation, criteria or a self-executing formula regarding composition of a security index underlying a Title VII instrument shall be considered “predetermined” if it is bilaterally agreed upon pre-trade by the parties to a transaction. In order to qualify under this interpretation, however, the Commissions reiterate that the “predetermined” criteria or self-executing formula, as described above, must not be subject to change or modification through the life of the Title VII instrument and must be set forth in the Title VII instrument at execution (regardless of who establishes the criteria or formula).

Comments

The Commissions requested comment on a number of issues regarding the interpretation contained in this section as it was proposed, including whether the terms “predetermined criteria” and “predetermined self-executing formula” are clear, and whether additional interpretations should be provided with respect to these terms. The Commissions received one comment on the interpretation provided in the Proposing Release, in which the commenter requested clarification that criteria affecting the composition of an index, when such criteria are agreed bilaterally, pre-trade, by the counterparties to a bespoke index trade, are “predetermined” for purposes of determining whether the index is treated as narrow-based or broad-based.

The Commissions are restating the interpretation set forth in the Proposing Release with one clarification in response to the commenter's concerns. As discussed above, the Commissions are providing that not all changes that occur to the composition or weighting of a security index underlying a Title VII instrument will result in that security index being treated as a narrow-based security index. Foremost among these examples is a security index that is constructed and maintained by an index provider pursuant to a published methodology. Changes to such an index pursuant to such a methodology are not the type of discretionary changes that will render an otherwise broad-based security index a narrow-based security index. The Commissions believe this clarification addresses the commenter's concerns.

5. Evaluation of Title VII Instruments on Security Indexes That Move from Broad-Based to Narrow-Based or Narrow-Based to Broad-Based

(a) In General

The determination of whether a Title VII instrument is a swap, a security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap), is made prior to execution, but no later than when the parties offer to enter into the Title VII instrument. If the security index underlying a Title VII instrument migrates from being broad-based to being narrow-based, or vice versa, during the life of a Title VII instrument, the characterization of that Title VII instrument will not change from its initial characterization regardless of whether the Title VII instrument was entered into bilaterally or was executed through a trade on or subject to the rules of a DCM, SEF, FBOT, security-based SEF, or NSE. For example, if two counterparties enter into a swap based on a broad-based security index, and three months into the life of the swap the security index underlying that Title VII instrument migrates from being broad-based to being narrow-based, the Title VII instrument will remain a swap for the duration of its life and will not be recharacterized as a security-based swap.

If the material terms of a Title VII instrument are amended or modified during its life based on an exercise of discretion and not through predetermined criteria or a predetermined self-executing formula, the Commissions view the amended or modified Title VII instrument as a new Title VII instrument. As a result, the characteristics of the underlying security index must be reassessed at the time of such an amendment or modification to determine whether the security index has migrated from broad-based to narrow-based, or vice versa. If the security index has migrated, then the characterization of the amended or modified Title VII instrument will be determined by evaluating the underlying security index at the time the Title VII instrument is amended or modified. Similarly, if a security index has migrated from broad-based to narrow-based, or vice versa, any new Title VII instrument based on that security index will be characterized pursuant to an evaluation of the underlying security index at the execution of that new Title VII instrument.

The Commissions provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding circumstances in which the character of a security index on which a Title VII instrument is based changes according to predetermined criteria or a predetermined self-executing formula set forth in the Title VII instrument (or in a related or other agreement entered into by the counterparties or a third-party index provider to the Title VII instrument) at execution. The Commissions are restating this interpretation with one clarification in response to a commenter.

Where at the time of execution such criteria or such formula would cause the underlying broad-based security index to become or assume the characteristics of a narrow-based security index or vice versa during the duration of the instrument, then the Title VII instrument based on such security index is a mixed swap during the entire life of the Title VII instrument. Although at certain points during the life of the Title VII instrument, the underlying security index would be broad-based and at other points the underlying security index would be narrow-based, regulating such a Title VII instrument as a mixed swap from the execution of the Title VII instrument and throughout its life reflects the appropriate characterization of a Title VII instrument based on a security index that migrates pursuant to predetermined criteria or a predetermined self-executing formula.

The Commissions are clarifying what is meant by whether the pre-determined criteria or pre-determined self-executing formula “would cause” the underlying broad-based security index to become or assume the characteristics of a narrow-based security index, or vice versa, as noted above in the interpretation. The Commissions believe that, unless the criteria or formula were intentionally designed to change the index from narrow to broad, or vice versa, Title VII instruments based on indexes that may, but will not necessarily, change from broad to narrow (or vice versa) under such criteria or formula should be considered swaps or security-based swaps, as appropriate, at execution and for the term thereof, and not mixed swaps. In such circumstances, it is not the case that the criteria or formula “would cause” the change within the meaning of the Commission's interpretation.

The Commissions believe that this interpretation regarding the use of predetermined criteria or a predetermined self-executing formula will prevent potential gaming of the Commissions' interpretation regarding security indexes, and prevent potential regulatory arbitrage based on the migration of a security index from broad-based to narrow-based, or vice versa. In particular, predetermined criteria and predetermined self-executing formulas can be constructed in ways that take into account the characteristics of a narrow-based security index and prevent a narrow-based security index from becoming broad-based, and vice versa.

Comments

The Commissions received two comments on the proposed interpretation in this section regarding the classification of Title VII Instruments based on security indexes that change from narrow-based to broad-based, or vice versa, under predetermined criteria or a predetermined self-executing formula, as mixed swaps. One commenter requested that the Commissions clarify that a Title VII instrument based on a security index that may, but will not necessarily, change from narrow-based to broad-based, or vice versa, under predetermined criteria or a predetermined self-executing formula should be characterized at execution as a swap or security-based swap, as applicable, and not as a mixed swap. This commenter believed that the Commissions' interpretation should capture as mixed swaps only those Title VII instruments on indexes that will change with certainty, and not those that might change given specific market circumstances. Moreover, this commenter believed that the Commissions' statement that a Title VII instrument on a security index governed by a pre-determined self-executing formula that “would cause” a change from broad to narrow, or narrow to broad, means that the change in character must be a certainty for the instrument to be classified as a mixed swap. The Commissions have clarified their interpretation in response to this commenter's concerns as discussed above.

Another commenter disagreed with the Commissions' proposed interpretation that transactions on indexes under predetermined criteria or a predetermined self-executing formula that would change from broad to narrow, or narrow to broad, should be classified as mixed swaps at inception. This commenter does not believe that regulatory arbitrage is such a significant concern in this context that would justify the challenges to market participants if these transactions were treated as mixed swaps subject to the dual regulatory authority of the Commissions.

The Commissions believe that regulatory arbitrage is a sufficient concern to justify mixed swap status and dual regulatory oversight for Title VII instruments where the index would change from broad to narrow, or narrow to broad, under the pre-determined criteria or predetermined self-executing formula. Counterparties that are concerned about regulatory burdens associated with mixed swap status can redesign their formula to avoid the result, or enter into another swap or security-based swap that is structured to achieve the same economic result without mixed swap status.

(b) Title VII Instruments on Security Indexes Traded on Designated Contract Markets, Swap Execution Facilities, Foreign Boards of Trade, Security-Based Swap Execution Facilities, and National Securities Exchanges

As was recognized in the Proposing Release, security indexes underlying Title VII instruments that are traded on DCMs, SEFs, FBOTs, security-based SEFs, or NSEs raise particular issues if an underlying security index migrates from broad-based to narrow-based, or vice versa. The Commissions are adopting as proposed their interpretation clarifying that the characterization of an exchange-traded Title VII instrument based on a security index at its execution will not change through the life of the Title VII instrument, regardless of whether the underlying security index migrates from broad-based to narrow-based, or vice versa. Accordingly, a market participant who enters into a swap on a broad-based security index traded on or subject to the rules of a DCM, SEF or FBOT that migrates from broad-based to narrow-based may hold that position until the swap's expiration without any change in regulatory responsibilities, requirements, or obligations; similarly, a market participant who enters into a security-based swap on a narrow-based security index traded on a security-based SEF or NSE that migrates from narrow-based to broad-based may hold that position until the security-based swap's expiration without any change in regulatory responsibilities, requirements, or obligations.

In addition, the Commissions are adopting, as proposed, final rules providing for tolerance and grace periods for Title VII instruments on security indexes that are traded on DCMs, SEFs, FBOTs, security-based SEFs and NSEs. As was noted in the Proposing Release, in the absence of any action by the Commissions, if a market participant wants to offset a swap or enter into a new swap on a DCM, SEF or FBOT where the underlying security index has migrated from broad-based to narrow-based, or to offset a security-based swap or enter into a new security-based swap on a security-based SEF or NSE where the underlying security index has migrated from narrow-based to broad-based, the participant would be prohibited from doing so. That is because swaps may trade only on DCMs, SEFs, and FBOTs, and security-based swaps may trade only on registered NSEs and security-based SEFs. The rules being adopted by the Commissions address how to treat Title VII instruments traded on trading platforms where the underlying security index migrates from broad-based to narrow-based or narrow-based to broad-based, so that market participants will know where such Title VII instruments may be traded and can avoid potential disruption of their ability to offset or enter into new Title VII instruments on trading platforms when such migration occurs.

As was noted in the Proposing Release, Congress and the Commissions addressed a similar issue in the context of security futures, where the security index on which a future is based may migrate from broad-based to narrow-based or vice versa. Congress provided in the definition of the term “narrow-based security index” in both the CEA and the Exchange Act for a tolerance period ensuring that, under certain conditions, a futures contract on a broad-based security index traded on a DCM may continue to trade, even when the index temporarily assumes characteristics that would render it a narrow-based security index under the statutory definition. In general, an index is subject to this tolerance period, and therefore is not a narrow-based security index, if: (i) A futures contract on the index traded on a DCM for at least 30 days as a futures contract on a broad-based security index before the index assumed the characteristics of a narrow-based security index; and (ii) the index does not retain the characteristics of a narrow-based security index for more than 45 business days over 3 consecutive calendar months. Pursuant to these statutory provisions, if the index becomes narrow-based for more than 45 business days over 3 consecutive calendar months, the index is excluded from the definition of the term “narrow-based security index” for the following 3 calendar months as a grace period.

The Commissions believe that a similar tolerance period should apply to swaps traded on DCMs, SEFs, and FBOTs and security-based swaps traded on security-based SEFs and NSEs. Accordingly, the Commissions are adopting the rules, as proposed, providing for tolerance periods for swaps that are traded on DCMs, SEFs, or FBOTs and for security-based swaps traded on security-based SEFs and NSEs.

The final rules provide that to be subject to the tolerance period, a security index underlying a swap executed on or subject to the rules of a DCM, SEF, or FBOT must not have been a narrow-based security index during the first 30 days of trading. If the index becomes narrow-based during the first 30 days of trading, the index must not have been a narrow-based security index during every trading day of the 6 full calendar months preceding a date no earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of trading of a swap on such index. If either of these alternatives is met, the index will not be a narrow-based security index if it has been a narrow-based security index for no more than 45 business days over 3 consecutive calendar months. These provisions apply solely for purposes of swaps traded on or subject to the rules of a DCM, SEF, or FBOT.

Similarly, the rules provide a tolerance period for security-based swaps traded on security-based SEFs or NSEs. To be subject to the tolerance period, a security index underlying a security-based swap executed on a security-based SEF or NSE must have been a narrow-based security index during the first 30 days of trading. If the index becomes broad-based during the first 30 days of trading, paragraph (3)(i)(B) of rule 1.3(yyy) under the CEA and paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of rule 3a68-3 under the Exchange Act provide that the index must have been a non-narrow-based (i.e., a broad-based) security index during every trading day of the 6 full calendar months preceding a date no earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of trading of a security-based swap on such index. If either of these alternatives is met, the index will be a narrow-based security index if it has been a security index that is not narrow-based for no more than 45 business days over 3 consecutive calendar months. These provisions apply solely for purposes of security-based swaps traded on security-based SEFs or NSEs.

In addition, the Commissions are adopting rules as proposed that, once the tolerance period under the rules has ended, there will be a grace period during which a Title VII instrument based on a security index that has migrated from broad-based to narrow-based, or vice versa, will be able to trade on the platform on which Title VII instruments based on such security index were trading before the security index migrated and can also, during such period, be cleared. The final rules provide for an additional three-month grace period applicable to a security index that becomes narrow-based for more than 45 business days over three consecutive calendar months, solely with respect to swaps that are traded on or subject to the rules of DCMs, SEFs, or FBOTs. During the grace period, such an index will not be considered a narrow-based security index. The rules apply the same grace period to a security-based swap on a security index that becomes broad-based for more than 45 business days over 3 consecutive calendar months, solely with respect to security-based swaps that are traded on a security-based SEF or NSE. During the grace period, such an index will not be considered a broad-based security index. As a result, this rule provides sufficient time for a Title VII instrument based on a migrated security index to satisfy listing and clearing requirements applicable to swaps or security-based swaps, as appropriate.

As was noted in the Proposing Release, there will be no overlap between the tolerance and the grace periods under the rules and no “re-triggering” of the tolerance period. For example, if a security index becomes narrow-based for more than 45 business days over 3 consecutive calendar months, solely with respect to swaps that are traded on or subject to the rules of DCMs, SEFs, or FBOTs, but as a result of the rules is not considered a narrow-based security index during the grace period, the tolerance period provisions will not apply, even if the security-index migrated temporarily during the grace period. After the grace period has ended, a security index will need to satisfy anew the requirements under the rules regarding the tolerance period in order to trigger a new tolerance period.

The rules will not result in the re-characterization of any outstanding Title VII instruments. In addition, the tolerance and grace periods as adopted will apply only to Title VII instruments that are traded on or subject to the rules of DCMs, SEFs, FBOTs, security-based SEFs, and NSEs.

Comments

The Commissions received one comment on the proposed rules described in this section. This commenter stated its view that extending the “grace period” from three months to six months would ease any disruption or dislocation associated with the delisting process with respect to an index that has migrated from broad to narrow, or narrow to broad, and that has failed the tolerance period. This commenter also stated its view that where an index CDS migrates, for entities operating both a SEF and a security-based SEF, such entities should be permitted to move the index from one platform to the other simply by providing a notice to the SEC and CFTC.

As discussed above, the Commissions are adopting the proposed rules without modification. The Commissions note that the three-month grace period applicable to security futures was mandated by Congress in that context, and the commenter has provided no data or evidence for its request that the Commissions diverge from that grace period and provide for a longer grace period with respect to swaps and security-based swaps. The Commissions believe that the three-month grace period is similarly appropriate to apply in the context of a Title VII instrument based on an index that has migrated to provide sufficient time to execute off-setting positions. With respect to the commenter's other suggestion that entities operating both a SEF and a security-based SEF should be able to move the index from one platform to another where an index CDS migrates simply by filing a notice with the SEC and CFTC, the Commissions do not believe that this proposal is within the scope of this rulemaking.

H. Method of Settlement of Index CDS

The method that the parties have chosen or use to settle an index CDS following the occurrence of a credit event under such index CDS also can affect whether such index CDS would be a swap, a security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap). The Commissions provided an interpretation in the Proposing Release regarding the method of settlement of index CDS and are restating the interpretation without modification. The Commissions find that this interpretation is an appropriate way to address index CDS with different settlement methods and is designed to reduce the cost associated with determining whether such an index CDS is a swap or a security-based swap.

If an index CDS that is not based on a narrow-based security index under the Commissions' rules includes a mandatory physical settlement provision that would require the delivery of, and therefore the purchase and sale of, a non-exempted security or a loan in the event of a credit event, such an index CDS is a mixed swap. Conversely, if an index CDS that is not based on a narrow-based security index under the Commissions' rules includes a mandatory cash settlement provision, such index CDS is a swap, and not a security-based swap or a mixed swap, even if the cash settlement were based on the value of a non-exempted security or a loan.

An index CDS that is not based on a narrow-based security index under the Commissions' rules and that provides for cash settlement in accordance with the 2009 ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees and Auction Settlement Supplement to the 2003 Definitions (the “Auction Supplement”) or with the 2009 ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees and Auction Settlement CDS Protocol (“Big Bang Protocol”) is a swap, and will not be considered a security-based swap or a mixed swap solely because the determination of the cash price to be paid is established through a securities or loan auction. In 2009, auction settlement, rather than physical settlement, became the default method of settlement for, among other types of CDS, index CDS on corporate issuers of securities. The amount of the cash settlement is determined through an auction triggered by the occurrence of a credit event. The Auction Supplement “hard wired” the mechanics of credit event auctions into the 2003 Definitions. The Commissions understand that the credit event auction process that is part of the ISDA terms works as follows.

Following the occurrence of a credit event under a CDS, a determinations committee (“DC”) established by ISDA, following a request by any party to a credit derivatives transaction that is subject to the Big Bang Protocol or Auction Supplement, will determine, among other matters: (i) Whether and when a credit event occurred; (ii) whether or not to hold an auction to enable market participants to settle those of their credit derivatives transactions covered by the auction; (iii) the list of deliverable obligations of the relevant reference entity; and (iv) the necessary auction specific terms. The credit event auction takes place in two parts. In the first part of the auction, dealers submit physical settlement requests, which are requests to buy or sell any of the deliverable obligations (based on the dealer's needs and those of its counterparties), and an initial market midpoint price is created based on dealers' initial bids and offers. Following the establishment of the initial market midpoint, the physical settlement requests are then calculated to determine the amount of open interest.

The aggregate amount of open interest is the basis for the second part of the auction. In the second part of the auction, dealers and investors can determine whether to submit limit orders and the levels of such limit orders. The limit orders, which are irrevocable, have a firm price in addition to size and whether it is a buy or sell order. The auction is conducted as a “dutch” auction, in which the open buy interests and open sell interests are matched. The final price of the auction is the last limit order used to match against the open interest. The final price in the auction is the cash price used for purposes of calculating the settlement payments in respect of the orders to buy and sell the deliverable obligations and it is also used to determine the cash settlement payment under the CDS.

Comments

One commenter believed that a mandatory physical settlement provision in an index CDS based on a broad-based security index should not transform a swap into a mixed swap because (i) the SEC would retain jurisdiction over a transfer of securities as part of such settlement and (ii) application of the interpretation would be difficult since many instruments contemplate physical settlement but have a cash settlement option, or vice versa.

As discussed above, the Commissions are restating the interpretation regarding mandatory physical settlement as provided in the Proposing Release. The Commissions' interpretation assures that the Federal securities laws apply to the offer and sale of the underlying securities at the time the index CDS is sold. The Commissions note the commenter's concerns but believe that as a result of the Commissions' understanding of the auction settlement process for index CDS, which is the primary method by which index CDS are settled and which addresses circumstances in which securities may be tendered in the auction process separate from the CDS settlement payment, it is not clear that there is in fact any significant number of circumstances in which such index CDS may be optionally physically settled. The Commissions note that this commenter did not elaborate on the circumstances in which the auction process would not apply.

I. Security-Based Swaps as Securities Under the Exchange Act and Securities Act

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, a security-based swap is defined as a “security” under the Exchange Act and Securities Act. As a result, security-based swaps are subject to the Exchange Act and the Securities Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

The SEC did not provide interpretations in the Proposing Release on the application of the Exchange Act and the Securities Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, to security-based swaps. However, the SEC solicited comment on whether additional interpretations may be necessary regarding the application of certain provisions of the Exchange Act and the Securities Act, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, to security-based swaps. The SEC did not receive any comments with respect to this issue in the context of this rulemaking and is not providing any interpretations in this release.

IV. Mixed Swaps

A. Scope of the Category of Mixed Swap

The category of mixed swap is described, in both the definition of the term “security-based swap” in the Exchange Act and the definition of the term “swap” in the CEA, as a security-based swap that is also based on the value of 1 or more interest or other rates, currencies, commodities, instruments of indebtedness, indices, quantitative measures, other financial or economic interest or property of any kind (other than a single security or a narrow-based security index), or the occurrence, non-occurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of an event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence (other than an event described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(III) [of section 3(a)(68) of the Exchange Act]).

A mixed swap, therefore, is both a security-based swap and a swap. As stated in the Proposing Release, the Commissions believe that the scope of mixed swaps is, and is intended to be, narrow. Title VII establishes robust and largely parallel regulatory regimes for both swaps and security-based swaps and directs the Commissions to jointly prescribe such regulations regarding mixed swaps as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Dodd-Frank Act. More generally, the Commissions believe the category of mixed swap was designed so that there would be no gaps in the regulation of swaps and security-based swaps. Therefore, in light of the statutory scheme created by the Dodd-Frank Act for swaps and security-based swaps, the Commissions believe the category of mixed swap covers only a small subset of Title VII instruments.

For example, a Title VII instrument in which the underlying references are the value of an oil corporation stock and the price of oil would be a mixed swap. Similarly, a Title VII instrument in which the underlying reference is a portfolio of both securities (assuming the portfolio is not an index or, if it is an index, that the index is narrow-based) and commodities would be a mixed swap. Mixed swaps also would include certain Title VII instruments called “best of” or “out performance” swaps that require a payment based on the higher of the performance of a security and a commodity (other than a security). As discussed elsewhere in this release, the Commissions also believe that certain Title VII instruments may be mixed swaps if they meet specified conditions.

The Commissions also believe that the use of certain market standard agreements in the documentation of Title VII instruments should not in and of itself transform a Title VII instrument into a mixed swap. For example, many instruments are documented by incorporating by reference market standard agreements. Such agreements typically set out the basis of establishing a trading relationship with another party but are not, taken separately, a swap or security-based swap. These agreements also include termination and default events relating to one or both of the counterparties; such counterparties may or may not be entities that issue securities. The Commissions believe that the term “any agreement * * * based on * * * the occurrence of an event relating to a single issuer of a security,” as provided in the definition of the term “security-based swap,” was not intended to include such termination and default events relating to counterparties included in standard agreements that are incorporated by reference into a Title VII instrument. Therefore, an instrument would not be simultaneously a swap and a security-based swap (and thus not a mixed swap) simply by virtue of having incorporated by reference a standard agreement, including default and termination events relating to counterparties to the Title VII instrument.

Comments

While the Commissions did not receive any comments on the interpretation regarding the scope of the category of mixed swaps, one commenter recommended that the Commissions require that market participants disaggregate mixed swaps and enter into separate simultaneous transactions so that they cannot employ mixed swaps to obscure the underlying substance of transactions. The Commissions are not adopting any rules or interpretations to require disaggregation of mixed swaps into their separate components, as the Dodd-Frank Act specifically contemplated that there would be mixed swaps comprised of both swaps and security-based swaps.

B. Regulation of Mixed Swaps

1. Introduction

The Commissions are adopting as proposed paragraph (a) of rule 1.9 under the CEA and rule 3a68-4 under the Exchange Act to define a “mixed swap” in the same manner as the term is defined in both the CEA and the Exchange Act. The Commissions also are adopting as proposed two rules to address the regulation of mixed swaps. First, paragraph (b) of rule 1.9 under the CEA and rule 3a68-4 under the Exchange Act will provide a regulatory framework with which parties to bilateral uncleared mixed swaps (i.e., mixed swaps that are neither executed on or subject to the rules of a DCM, NSE, SEF, security-based SEF, or FBOT nor cleared through a DCO or clearing agency), as to which at least one of the parties is dually registered with both Commissions, will need to comply. Second, paragraph (c) of rule 1.9 under the CEA and rule 3a68-4 under the Exchange Act establishes a process for persons to request that the Commissions issue a joint order permitting such persons (and any other person or persons that subsequently lists, trades, or clears that class of mixed swap) to comply, as to parallel provisions only, with specified parallel provisions of either the CEA or the Exchange Act, and related rules and regulations (collectively “specified parallel provisions”), instead of being required to comply with parallel provisions of both the CEA and the Exchange Act.

2. Bilateral Uncleared Mixed Swaps Entered Into by Dually-Registered Dealers or Major Participants

Swap dealers and major swap participants will be comprehensively regulated by the CFTC, and security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants will be comprehensively regulated by the SEC. The Commissions recognize that there may be differences in the requirements applicable to swap dealers and security-based swap dealers, or major swap participants and major security-based swap participants, such that dually-registered market participants may be subject to potentially conflicting or duplicative regulatory requirements when they engage in mixed swap transactions. In order to assist market participants in addressing such potentially conflicting or duplicative requirements, the Commissions are adopting, as proposed with one modification explained below, rules that will permit dually-registered swap dealers and security-based swap dealers and dually-registered major swap participants and major security-based swap participants to comply with an alternative regulatory regime when they enter into certain mixed swaps under specified circumstances. The Commissions received no comments on the proposed rules.

Accordingly, as adopted, paragraph (b) of rule 1.9 under the CEA and rule 3a68-4 under the Exchange Act provide that a bilateral uncleared mixed swap, where at least one party is dually-registered with the CFTC as a swap dealer or major swap participant and with the SEC as a security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant, will be subject to all applicable provisions of the Federal securities laws (and SEC rules and regulations promulgated thereunder). The rules as adopted also provide that such mixed swaps will be subject to only the following provisions of the CEA (and CFTC rules and regulations promulgated thereunder):

• Examinations and information sharing: CEA sections 4s(f) and 8;

• Enforcement: CEA sections 2(a)(1)(B), 4(b), 4b, 4c, 4s(h)(1)(A), 4s(h)(4)(A), 6(c), 6(d), 6c, 6d, 9, 13(a), 13(b) and 23;

• Reporting to an SDR: CEA section 4r;

• Real-time reporting: CEA section 2(a)(13);

• Capital: CEA section 4s(e); and

• Position Limits: CEA section 4a.

The Commissions are modifying proposed rule 1.9(b)(3)(i) under the CEA and Rule 3a68-4(b)(3)(i) to include additional “enforcement” authority. Specifically, as adopted, the rules provide that such swaps will be subject to the anti-fraud, anti-manipulation, and other provisions of the business conduct standards in CEA sections 4s(h)(1)(A) and 4s(h)(4)(A) and the rules promulgated thereunder for mixed swaps. Rule 23.410 under the CEA, adopted under CEA section 4s(h)(1)(A), applies to swap dealers and major swap participants and prohibits fraud, manipulation, and other abusive practices and also imposes requirements regarding the confidential treatment of counterparty information, which will apply to mixed swaps.

As discussed in the Proposing Release, the Commissions believe that paragraph (b) of rule 1.9 under the CEA and rule 3a68-4 under the Exchange Act will address potentially conflicting or duplicative regulatory requirements for dually-registered dealers and major participants that are subject to regulation by both the CFTC and the SEC, while requiring dual registrants to comply with the regulatory requirements the Commissions believe are necessary to provide sufficient regulatory oversight for mixed swap transactions entered into by such dual registrants. The CFTC also believe that paragraph (b) of rule 1.9 under the CEA and rule 3a68-4 under the Exchange Act will provide clarity to dually-registered dealers and major participants, who are subject to regulation by both the CFTC and the SEC, as to the requirements of each Commission that will apply to their bilateral uncleared mixed swaps.

3. Regulatory Treatment for Other Mixed Swaps

Because mixed swaps are both security-based swaps and swaps, absent a joint rule or order by the Commissions permitting an alternative regulatory approach, persons who desire or intend to list, trade, or clear a mixed swap (or class thereof) will be required to comply with all the statutory provisions in the CEA and the Exchange Act (including all the rules and regulations thereunder) that were added or amended by Title VII with respect to swaps or security-based swaps. Such dual regulation may not be appropriate in every instance and may result in potentially conflicting or duplicative regulatory requirements. However, before the Commissions can determine the appropriate regulatory treatment for mixed swaps (other than the treatment discussed above), the Commissions will need to understand better the nature of the mixed swaps that parties want to trade. As a result, the Commissions proposed paragraph (c) of rule 1.9 under the CEA and rule 3a68-4 under the Exchange Act to establish a process pursuant to which any person who desires or intends to list, trade, or clear a mixed swap (or class thereof) that is not subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of the rules (i.e., bilateral uncleared mixed swaps entered into by at least one dual registrant) may request the Commissions to publicly issue a joint order permitting such person (and any other person or persons that subsequently lists, trades, or clears that class of mixed swap) to comply, as to parallel provisions only, with the specified parallel provisions, instead of being required to comply with parallel provisions of both the CEA and the Exchange Act. The Commissions received no comments on the proposed rules and are adopting the rules as proposed.

As adopted, paragraph (c) of rule 1.9 under the CEA and rule 3a68-4 under the Exchange Act further provide that a person submitting such a request to the Commissions must provide the Commissions with:

(i) All material information regarding the terms of the specified, or specified class of, mixed swap;

(ii) the economic characteristics and purpose of the specified, or specified class of, mixed swap;

(iii) the specified parallel provisions, and the reasons the person believes such specified parallel provisions would be appropriate for the mixed swap (or class thereof);

(iv) an analysis of (1) the nature and purposes of the parallel provisions that are the subject of the request; (2) the comparability of such parallel provisions; and (3) the extent of any conflicts or differences between such parallel provisions; and

(v) such other information as may be requested by either of the Commissions.

This provision is intended to provide the Commissions with sufficient information regarding the mixed swap (or class thereof) and the proposed regulatory approach to make an informed determination regarding the appropriate regulatory treatment of the mixed swap (or class thereof).

As adopted, paragraph (c) of rule 1.9 under the CEA and rule 3a68-4 under the Exchange Act also will allow a person to withdraw a request regarding the regulation of a mixed swap at any time prior to the issuance of a joint order by the Commissions. This provision is intended to permit persons to withdraw requests that they no longer need. This, in turn, will save the Commissions time and staff resources.

As adopted, paragraph (c) of rule 1.9 under the CEA and rule 3a68-4 under the Exchange Act further provide that in response to a request pursuant to the rules, the Commissions may jointly issue an order, after public notice and opportunity for comment, permitting the requesting person (and any other person or persons that subsequently lists, trades, or clears that class of mixed swap) to comply, as to parallel provisions only, with the specified parallel provisions (or another subset of the parallel provisions that are the subject of the request, as the Commissions determine is appropriate), instead of being required to comply with parallel provisions of both the CEA and the Exchange Act. In determining the contents of such a joint order, the Commissions can consider, among other things:

(i) The nature and purposes of the parallel provisions that are the subject of the request;

(ii) the comparability of such parallel provisions; and

(iii) the extent of any conflicts or differences between such parallel provisions.

Finally, as adopted, paragraph (c) of rule 1.9 under the CEA and rule 3a68-4 under the Exchange Act require the Commissions, if they determine to issue a joint order pursuant to these rules, to do so within 120 days of receipt of a complete request (with such 120-day period being tolled during the pendency of a request for public comment on the proposed interpretation). If the Commissions do not issue a joint order within the prescribed time period, the rules require that each Commission publicly provide the reasons for not having done so. Paragraph (c) of rule 1.9 under the CEA and rule 3a68-4 under the Exchange Act makes clear that nothing in the rules requires either Commission to issue a requested joint order regarding the regulation of a particular mixed swap (or class thereof).

These provisions are intended to provide market participants with a prompt review of requests for a joint order regarding the regulation of a particular mixed swap (or class thereof). The rules also will provide transparency and accountability by requiring that at the end of the review period, the Commissions issue the requested order or publicly state the reasons for not doing so.

V. Security-Based Swap Agreements

A. Introduction

SBSAs are swaps over which the CFTC has regulatory and enforcement authority but for which the SEC also has antifraud and certain other authority. The term “security-based swap agreement” is defined as a “swap agreement” (as defined in section 206A of the GLBA ) of which “a material term is based on the price, yield, value, or volatility of any security or any group or index of securities, including any interest therein” but does not include a security-based swap.

B. Swaps That are Security-Based Swap Agreements

Although the Commissions believe it is not possible to provide a bright line test to define an SBSA, the Commissions believe that it is possible to clarify that certain types of swaps clearly fall within the definition of SBSA. For example, as the Commissions noted in the Proposing Release, a swap based on an index of securities that is not a narrow-based security index (i.e., a broad-based security index) would fall within the definition of an SBSA under the Dodd-Frank Act. Similarly, an index CDS that is not based on a narrow-based security index or on the “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index,” as defined in rule 1.3(zzz) under the CEA and rule 3a68-1a under the Exchange Act, would be an SBSA. In addition, a swap based on a U.S. Treasury security or on certain other exempted securities other than municipal securities would fall within the definition of an SBSA under the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Commissions received no comments on the examples provided in the Proposing Release regarding SBSAs. Accordingly, the Commissions are not further defining SBSA beyond restating the examples above.

C. Books and Records Requirements for Security-Based Swap Agreements

The Commissions are adopting rule 1.7 under the CEA and rule 3a68-3 under the Exchange Act, as proposed, to clarify that there will not be additional books and records requirements regarding SBSAs other than those that are required for swaps. The Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Commissions shall adopt rules regarding the books and records required to be kept for SBSAs. As discussed above, SBSAs are swaps over which the CFTC has regulatory authority, but for which the SEC has antifraud, anti-manipulation, and certain other authority. In the Proposing Release, the Commissions noted that the CFTC had proposed rules governing books and records for swaps, which would apply to swaps that also are SBSAs. The Commissions further stated their belief that those proposed rules would provide sufficient books and records regarding SBSAs, and that additional books and records requirements were not necessary for SBSAs. The Commissions received no comments on the proposed rules.

Accordingly, rule 1.7 under the CEA and rule 3a68-3 under the Exchange Act provide that persons registered as SDRs under the CEA and the rules and regulations thereunder are not required to (i) keep and maintain additional books and records regarding SBSAs other than the books and records regarding swaps that SDRs would be required to keep and maintain pursuant to the CEA and rules and regulations thereunder; and (ii) collect and maintain additional data regarding SBSAs other than the data regarding swaps that SDRs are required to collect and maintain pursuant to the CEA and rules and regulations thereunder. In addition, rule 1.7 under the CEA and rule 3a68-3 under the Exchange Act provide that persons registered as swap dealers or major swap participants under the CEA and the rules and regulations thereunder, or registered as security-based swap dealers or major security-based swap participants under the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, are not required to keep and maintain additional books and records, including daily trading records, regarding SBSAs other than the books and records regarding swaps that those persons are required to keep and maintain pursuant to the CEA and the rules and regulations thereunder.

VI. Process for Requesting Interpretations of the Characterization of a Title VII Instrument

The Commissions recognize that there may be Title VII instruments (or classes of Title VII instruments) that may be difficult to categorize definitively as swaps or security-based swaps. Further, because mixed swaps are both swaps and security-based swaps, identifying a mixed swap may not always be straightforward.

Section 712(d)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that any interpretation of, or guidance by, either the CFTC or SEC regarding a provision of Title VII shall be effective only if issued jointly by the Commissions (after consultation with the Board) on issues where Title VII requires the CFTC and SEC to issue joint regulations to implement the provision. The Commissions believe that any interpretation or guidance regarding whether a Title VII instrument is a swap, a security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap), must be issued jointly pursuant to this requirement.

The Commissions proposed rules in the Proposing Release to establish a process for interested persons to request a joint interpretation by the Commissions regarding whether a particular Title VII instrument (or class of Title VII instruments) is a swap, a security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap). The Commissions are adopting the rules as proposed.

Section 718 of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a process for determining the status of “novel derivative products” that may have elements of both securities and futures contracts. Section 718 of the Dodd-Frank Act provides a useful model for a joint Commission review process to appropriately categorize Title VII instruments. As a result, the final rules include various attributes of the process established in section 718 of the Dodd-Frank Act. In particular, to permit an appropriate review period that provides sufficient time to ensure Federal regulatory interests are satisfied that also does not unduly delay the introduction of new financial products, the adopted process, like the process established in section 718, includes a deadline for responding to a request for a joint interpretation.

The Commissions are adopting rule 1.8 under the CEA and rule 3a68-2 under the Exchange Act that establish a process for parties to request a joint interpretation regarding the characterization of a particular Title VII instrument (or class thereof). Specifically, the final rules provide that any person may submit a request to the Commissions to provide a public joint interpretation of whether a particular Title VII instrument is a swap, a security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap).

The final rules afford market participants with the opportunity to obtain greater certainty from the Commissions regarding the regulatory status of particular Title VII instruments under the Dodd-Frank Act. This provision should decrease the possibility that market participants inadvertently might fail to meet the regulatory requirements applicable to a particular Title VII instrument.

The final rules provide that a person requesting an interpretation as to the characterization of a Title VII instrument as a swap, a security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap), must provide the Commissions with the person's determination of the characterization of the instrument and supporting analysis, along with certain other documentation. Specifically, the person must provide the Commissions with the following information:

• All material information regarding the terms of the Title VII instrument;
• A statement of the economic characteristics and purpose of the Title VII instrument;
• The requesting person's determination as to whether the Title VII instrument should be characterized as a swap, a security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap), including the basis for such determination; and
• Such other information as may be requested by either Commission.

This provision should provide the Commissions with sufficient information regarding the Title VII instrument at issue so that the Commissions can appropriately evaluate whether it is a swap, a security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap). By requiring that requesting persons furnish a determination regarding whether they believe the Title VII instrument is a swap, a security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap), including the basis for such determination, this provision also will assist the Commissions in more quickly identifying and addressing the relevant issues involved in arriving at a joint interpretation of the characterization of the instrument.

The final rules provide that a person may withdraw a request at any time prior to the issuance of a joint interpretation or joint notice of proposed rulemaking by the Commissions. Notwithstanding any such withdrawal, the Commissions may provide an interpretation regarding the characterization of the Title VII instrument that was the subject of a withdrawn request.

This provision will permit parties to withdraw requests for which the party no longer needs an interpretation. This, in turn, should save the Commissions time and staff resources. If the Commissions believe such an interpretation is necessary regardless of a particular request for interpretation, however, the Commissions may provide such a joint interpretation of their own accord.

The final rules provide that if either Commission receives a proposal to list, trade, or clear an agreement, contract, or transaction (or class thereof) that raises questions as to the appropriate characterization of such agreement, contract, or transaction (or class thereof) as a swap, security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap), the receiving Commission promptly shall notify the other. This provision of the final rules further provides that either Commission, or their Chairmen jointly, may submit a request for a joint interpretation to the Commissions as to the characterization of the Title VII instrument where no external request has been received.

This provision is intended to ensure that Title VII instruments do not fall into regulatory gaps and will help the Commissions to fulfill their responsibility to oversee the regulatory regime established by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act by making sure that Title VII instruments are appropriately characterized, and thus appropriately regulated. An agency, or their Chairmen jointly, submitting a request for an interpretation as to the characterization of a Title VII instrument under this paragraph will be required to submit the same information as, and could withdraw a request in the same manner as, a person submitting a request to the Commissions. The bases for these provisions are set forth above with respect to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the final rules.

The final rules require that the Commissions, if they determine to issue a joint interpretation as to the characterization of a Title VII instrument, do so within 120 days of receipt of the complete external or agency submission (unless such 120-day period is tolled during the pendency of a request for public comment on the proposed interpretation). If the Commissions do not issue a joint interpretation within the prescribed time period, the final rules require that each Commission publicly provide the reasons for not having done so within such prescribed time period. This provision of the final rules also incorporates the mandate of the Dodd-Frank Act that any joint interpretation by the Commissions be issued only after consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Finally, the rules make clear that nothing requires either Commission to issue a requested joint interpretation regarding the characterization of a particular instrument.

These provisions are intended to assure market participants a prompt review of submissions requesting a joint interpretation of whether a Title VII instrument is a swap, a security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap). The final rules also provide transparency and accountability by requiring that at the end of the review period, the Commissions issue the requested interpretation or publicly state the reasons for not doing so.

The final rules permit the Commissions, in lieu of issuing a requested interpretation, to issue (within the timeframe for issuing a joint interpretation) a joint notice of proposed rulemaking to further define one or more of the terms “swap,” “security-based swap,” or “mixed swap.” Under the final rules, the 120-day period to provide a response will be tolled during the pendency of a request for public comment on any such proposed interpretation. Such a rulemaking, as required by Title VII, would be required to be done in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. This provision is intended to provide the Commissions with needed flexibility to address issues that may be of broader applicability than the particular Title VII instrument that is the subject of a request for a joint interpretation.

Comments

Three commenters discussed the proposed process for requesting interpretations of the characterization of a Title VII instrument, and while supporting such joint interpretive process, suggested certain changes, including extending it to SBSAs, mandating that the Commissions issue a response to a request, and suggesting that the Commissions should seek expedited judicial review in the event the Commissions do not agree on the interpretation.

The Commissions are adopting the final rules as proposed and are not including SBSAs in the process. The joint interpretive process is intended to decrease the possibility that market participants inadvertently might fail to meet regulatory requirements that are applicable to swaps, security-based swaps, or mixed swaps and, as such, provides a mechanism for market participants to request whether an instrument will be regulated by the CFTC, the SEC, or both. However, the Commissions do not believe it is appropriate to predetermine whether particular swaps also are SBSAs as SBSAs are already swaps over which the CFTC has regulatory and enforcement authority and as to which the SEC has antifraud and certain other related authorities. Predetermining whether particular swaps may be SBSAs under this process is not needed to provide certainty as to the applicable regulatory treatment of these instruments.

The Commissions also are retaining in the final rules the framework for providing or not providing joint interpretations. As noted above, section 718 of the Dodd-Frank Act contains a framework for evaluating novel derivative products that may have elements of both securities and futures contracts (other than swaps, security-based swaps or mixed swaps). The Commissions believe that establishing a joint interpretive process for swaps, security-based swaps and mixed swaps that is modeled in part on this statutory framework should facilitate providing interpretations to market participants in a timely manner, if the Commissions determine to do so. Establishing a process by rule will provide market participants with an understandable method by which they can request an interpretation from the Commissions. As the Commissions have the authority, but not the obligation, under the Dodd-Frank Act to further define the terms “swap,” “security-based swap,” and “mixed swap,” the Commissions are retaining the flexibility in the interpretive process rules to decide whether or not to issue joint interpretations. The Commissions believe, however, that it is appropriate to advise market participants of the reasons why such interpretation is not being issued and the final rules retain the requirement that the Commissions publicly explain the reasons for not issuing a joint interpretation.

Further, the Commissions are not revising the final rules to provide for expedited judicial review. The Dodd-Frank Act does not contain any provision that provides for expedited judicial review if the Commissions do not issue a joint interpretation with respect to a Title VII instrument. Although the Commissions note that section 718 of the Dodd-Frank Act contains a statutorily mandated expedited judicial review of one of the Commission's actions (if sought by the other Commission) regarding novel derivative products that may have elements of both securities and futures contracts, such statutory provision does not apply to Title VII instruments. Further, Title VII provides flexibility to the Commissions to determine the methods by which joint interpretations are provided. Title VII does not contain any required expedited judicial review of Commission actions, and the Commissions do not have the authority to require expedited judicial review under Title VII, with respect to a Title VII instrument. Accordingly, the Commissions do not believe that including such a provision is appropriate in the context of providing interpretations to market participants regarding the definitions of swap, security-based swap, or mixed swap.

Two commenters were concerned about the length of the review period and believed that the Commissions should shorten such time period. The Commissions are not modifying the final rules from those proposed with respect to the length of the review period. The 120-day review period is based on a timeframe established by Congress with respect to determining the status of novel derivative products. The Commissions believe that this length of the review period also is appropriate for other derivative products such as swaps, security-based swaps, and mixed swaps. Further, the Commissions believe the 120-day review period is necessary to enable the Commissions to obtain the necessary information regarding a Title VII instrument, thoroughly analyze the instrument, and formulate any joint interpretation regarding the instrument. In a related comment, one commenter suggested that the Commissions allow a requesting party, while awaiting a joint interpretation, to make a good faith characterization of a particular Title VII instrument and engage in transactions based on such characterization. The Commissions believe that it is essential that the characterization of an instrument be established prior to any party engaging in the transactions so that the appropriate regulatory schemes apply. The Commissions do not believe that allowing market participants to make such a determination as to the status of a product is either appropriate or consistent with the statutory provisions providing for the Commissions to further define the terms “swap,” “security-based swap” and “mixed swap.” Further, allowing market participants to determine the status of a product could give rise to regulatory arbitrage and inconsistent treatment of similar products.

Finally, some commenters expressed concern about the public availability of information regarding the joint interpretive process and asked that the parties be able to seek confidential treatment of their submissions. The Commissions note that under existing rules of both Commissions, requesting parties may seek confidential treatment for joint interpretive requests from the SEC and the CFTC in accordance with the applicable existing rules relating to confidential treatment of information. The Commissions also note that even if confidential treatment has been requested, all joint interpretive requests, as well all joint interpretations and any decisions not to issue a joint interpretation (along with the explanation of the grounds for such decision), will be made publicly available at the conclusion of the review period.

VII. Anti-Evasion

A. CFTC Anti-Evasion Rules

1. CFTC's Anti-Evasion Authority

(a) Statutory Basis for the Anti-Evasion Rules

Pursuant to the authority in sections 721(c) and 725(g)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act and CEA sections 1a(47)(E) and 2(i), the CFTC is promulgating the anti-evasion rules as they were proposed and restating the accompanying interpretation with modifications in response to commenters. The CFTC also is providing an additional interpretation regarding rules 1.3(xxx)(6) and 1.6 under the CEA.

Section 721(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFTC to further define the terms “swap,” “swap dealer,” “major swap participant,” and “eligible contract participant,” in order “[t]o include transactions and entities that have been structured to evade” subtitle A of Title VII (or an amendment made by subtitle A of the CEA). Moreover, as the CFTC noted in the Proposing Release, several other provisions of Title VII reference the promulgation of anti-evasion rules, including:

• Subparagraph (E) of the definition of “swap” provides that foreign exchange swaps and foreign exchange forwards shall be considered swaps unless the Secretary of the Treasury makes a written determination that either foreign exchange swaps or foreign exchange forwards, or both, among other things, “are not structured to evade the [Dodd-Frank Act] in violation of any rule promulgated by the [CFTC] pursuant to section 721(c) of that Act;”

• Section 722(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the provisions of the CEA relating to swaps shall not apply to activities outside the United States unless those activities, among other things, “contravene such rules or regulations as the [CFTC] may prescribe or promulgate as are necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provision of [the CEA] that was enacted by the [Title VII];” and

• Section 725(g) of the Dodd-Frank Act amends the Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000 to provide that, although identified banking products generally are excluded from the CEA, that exclusion shall not apply to an identified banking product that is a product of a bank that is not under the regulatory jurisdiction of an appropriate Federal banking agency, meets the definition of the terms “swap” or “security-based swap,” and “has been structured as an identified banking product for the purpose of evading the provisions of the [CEA], the [Securities Act], or the [Exchange Act].”

Comments

One commenter asserted the CFTC has no statutory basis to promulgate the anti-evasion rules, as proposed. Specifically, this commenter stated that neither CEA sections 2(h)(4)(A) nor 6(e) grant the CFTC authority to prescribe an anti-evasion rule and interpretation as described in the Proposing Release. Moreover, this commenter argued that CEA section 2(i) limits the CFTC to prescribing anti-evasion rules related only to activities occurring outside of the United States. The CFTC finds these comments misplaced because CEA sections 2(h)(4)(A) and 6(e) provide the CFTC with additional authority to prescribe anti-evasion rules for specific purposes above and beyond the authority provided by sections 721(c) and 725(g) of the Dodd-Frank Act and CEA sections 1a(47)(E) and 2(i), upon which the CFTC is relying in this rulemaking. In addition, section 2(i) of the CEA provides that activities conducted outside the United States, including entering into agreements, contracts and transactions or structuring entities, which willfully evade or attempt to evade any provision of the CEA, shall be subject to the provisions of Subtitle A of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act; it does not limit the CFTC's other authorities cited above. Accordingly, nothing in CEA sections 2(h)(4)(A), 2(i) or 6(e) prevent the CFTC from prescribing rules 1.3(xxx)(6) and 1.6.

Two commenters supported the proposal's “principles-based” approach to anti-evasion, while several others suggested modifications. Two commenters believed that the Proposing Release is overly broad and that, if the CFTC does finalize anti-evasion rules, such rules should be narrower in scope. Similarly, one other commenter asserted that the CFTC erred in the Proposing Release by placing too great an emphasis on the flexibility of the rules as opposed to providing clarity for market participants. The CFTC continues to believe a “principles-based” approach to its anti-evasion rules is appropriate. The CFTC is not adopting an alternative approach, whereby it provides a bright-line test of non-evasive conduct, because such an approach may provide potential wrongdoers with a roadmap for structuring evasive transactions. Notwithstanding this concern, as described below, the CFTC is providing an additional interpretation and examples of evasion in order to provide clarity to market participants.

One commenter suggested an alternative standard for a finding of evasion should be “whether the transaction is lawful or not” under the CEA, CFTC rules and regulations, orders, or other applicable federal, state or other laws. The CFTC is not adopting this suggested alternative standard for evasion because to adopt this standard would blur the distinction between whether a transaction (or entity) is lawful and whether it is structured in a way to evade the Dodd-Frank Act and the CEA. The anti-evasion rules provided herein are concerned with the latter conduct, not the former. Thus, the CFTC does not believe it is appropriate to limit the enforcement of its anti-evasion authority to only unlawful transactions.

2. Final Rules

(a) Rule 1.3(xxx)(6)

The CFTC is adopting the Rule 1.3(xxx)(6) as proposed. As adopted, Rule 1.3(xxx)(6)(i) under the CEA generally defines as swaps those transactions that are willfully structured to evade the provisions of Title VII governing the regulation of swaps. Furthermore, rules 1.3(xxx)(6)(ii) and (iii) effectuate CEA section 1a(47)(E)(i) and section 725(g) of the Dodd-Frank Act, respectively, and will be applied in a similar fashion as rule 1.3(xxx)(6)(i). Rule 1.3(xxx)(6)(ii) applies to currency and interest rate swaps that are willfully structured as foreign exchange forwards or foreign exchange swaps to evade the new regulatory regime for swaps enacted in Title VII. Rule 1.3(xxx)(6)(iii) applies to transactions of a bank that are not under the regulatory jurisdiction of an appropriate Federal banking agency and where the transaction is willfully structured as an identified banking product to evade the new regulatory regime for swaps enacted in Title VII.

Rule 1.3(xxx)(6)(iv) provides that in determining whether a transaction has been willfully structured to evade rules 1.3(xxx)(6)(i) through (iii), the CFTC will not consider the form, label, or written documentation dispositive. This approach is intended to prevent evasion through clever draftsmanship of a form, label, or other written documentation.

Rule 1.3(xxx)(6)(v) further provides that transactions, other than transactions structured as securities, willfully structured to evade (as provided in rules 1.3(xxx)(6)(i) through (iii)) will be considered in determining whether a person is a swap dealer or major swap participant.

Lastly, rule 1.3(xxx)(6)(vi) provides that rule 1.3(xxx)(6) will not apply to any agreement, contract or transaction structured as a security (including a security-based swap) under the securities laws as defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Exchange Act.

(b) Rule 1.6

The CFTC is adopting rule 1.6 as proposed. Section 2(i) of the CEA states that the provisions of the CEA relating to swaps that were enacted by Title VII (including any rule prescribed or regulation promulgated thereunder) shall not apply to activities outside the United States unless, among other things, those activities “contravene such rules or regulations as the [CFTC] may prescribe or promulgate as are necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provision of [the CEA] that was enacted by [Title VII].”

Pursuant to this authority, rule 1.6(a), as adopted, makes it unlawful to conduct activities outside the United States, including entering into transactions and structuring entities, to willfully evade or attempt to evade any provision of the CEA as enacted under Title VII or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

In addition, rule 1.6(b) provides that in determining whether a transaction or entity has been entered into or structured willfully to evade, as provided in rule 1.6(a), the CFTC will not consider the form, label, or written documentation as dispositive.

Rule 1.6(c) provides that an activity conducted outside the United States to evade, as described in proposed rule 1.6(a), shall be subject to the provisions of Subtitle A of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. As the CFTC explained in the Proposing Release, such provisions are necessary to fully prevent those who seek to willfully evade the regulatory requirements established by Congress in Title VII relating to swaps from enjoying any benefits from their efforts to evade.

Lastly, rule 1.6(d) provides that no agreement, contract or transaction structured as a security (including a security-based swap) under the securities laws shall be deemed a swap pursuant to rule 1.6.

(c) Interpretation of the Final Rules

The CFTC is providing an interpretation of the final rules in response to commenters, addressing (i) the applicability of the anti-evasion rules to transactions that qualify for the forward exclusion, (ii) the applicability of the anti-evasion rules to transactions executed on a SEF, (iii) the treatment of evasive transactions after they are discovered, and (iv) documentation considerations.

With regard to the forward exclusion, the CFTC is clarifying, in response to a commenter, that entering into transactions that qualify for the forward exclusion from the swap definition shall not be considered evasive. However, in circumstances where a transaction does not, in fact, qualify for the forward exclusion, the transaction may or may not be evasive depending on an analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances.

Concerning the applicability of the anti-evasion rules to transactions executed on a SEF, the CFTC is clarifying, in response to comments, that a transaction that has been self-certified by a SEF (or a DCM), or that has received prior approval from the CFTC, will not be considered evasive.

With respect to the treatment of evasive transactions after they are discovered, the CFTC is clarifying, in response to comments, that in instances where one party willfully structures a transaction to evade but the counterparty does not, the transaction, which meets the swap definition under rule 1.3(xxx)(6), or is subject to the provisions of Subtitle A of Title VII pursuant to rule 1.6, will be subject to all CEA provisions and the regulations thereunder (as applied to the party who willfully structures a transaction to evade). In rare situations where there is a true “innocent party,” it will likely be due to fraud or misrepresentation by the evading party and the business consequences and remedies will be the same as for any such victim. The CFTC will impose appropriate sanctions only on the willful evader for violations of the relevant provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations since the individual agreement, contract or transaction was (and always should have been) subject to them. Further, on a prospective basis for future transactions or instruments similar to those of the particular evasive swap, the CFTC will consider these transactions or instruments to be swaps within the meaning of the Dodd-Frank Act (as applied to both the party who willfully structures a transaction to evade and the “innocent party”).

Moreover, evasive transactions will count toward determining whether each evading party with the requisite intent is a swap dealer or major swap participant. In response to a commenter's suggestion that, as proposed, rule 1.3(xxx)(6)(v) should require a pattern of transactions, the CFTC is not requiring a pattern of evasive transactions as a prerequisite to prove evasion, although such a pattern may be one factor in analyzing whether evasion has occurred under rules 1.3(xxx)(6) or 1.6. Further, in determining whether such a transaction is a swap, the CFTC will consider whether the transaction meets the definition of the term “swap” as defined by statute and as it is further defined in this rulemaking.

As an illustration of some of the foregoing concepts, if the market for foreign exchange forwards on a particular currency settles on a T+ 4 basis, but two counterparties agree to expedite the settlement of an foreign exchange forward on such currency to characterize the transaction falsely as a spot transaction in order to avoid reporting the transaction, rule 1.3(xxx)(6)(i) would define the transaction as a swap. In this example, both parties may be subject to sanctions if they both have the requisite intent (i.e., willfully evaded). However, had the counterparty with the reporting obligation in this example convinced the other counterparty, by using a false rationale unrelated to avoiding reporting, to expedite the foreign exchange forward settlement in order to avoid reporting, then the only party that would be at risk for sanctions (i.e., the only party with the requisite intent) would be the counterparty with the reporting obligation who deceived the other counterparty.

With regard to documentation considerations, as discussed above, the CFTC is adopting rules 1.3(xxx)(6)(iv) and 1.6(b), as proposed, but is providing the following interpretation. As stated in the Proposing Release, the structuring of instruments, transactions, or entities to evade the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act may be “limited only by the ingenuity of man.” Therefore, the CFTC will look beyond manner in which an instrument, transaction, or entity is documented to examine its actual substance and purpose to prevent any evasion through clever draftsmanship—an approach consistent with the CFTC's case law in the context of determining whether a contract is a futures contract and the CFTC's interpretations in this release regarding swaps. The documentation of an instrument, transaction, or entity (like its form or label) is a relevant, but not dispositive, factor in determining whether evasion has occurred.

Comments

The CFTC received a number of comments on various aspects of proposed rules 1.3(xxx)(6) and 1.6.

Several commenters requested clarity as to what types of transactions might be considered evasive under proposed rule 1.3(xxx)(6) and 1.6. One commenter requested that the CFTC clarify that transacting in the physical markets (e.g., entering into nonfinancial commodity forward contracts), as opposed to executing a swap, would not be considered evasion. As discussed above, the CFTC has provided an interpretation regarding the applicability of the anti-evasion rules to transactions that qualify for the forward exclusion. Another commenter requested that the CFTC clarify that the anti-evasion rules would not apply to transactions executed on a SEF because, before a SEF may list a swap, it must self-certify or voluntarily obtain CFTC permission to list that product. The CFTC has provided an interpretation discussed above to address this comment.

Two commenters expressed concern regarding the penalty to the counterparties to a transaction that is deemed to violate the CFTC's anti-evasion provisions. Pursuant to the final rule, when a transaction violates the anti-evasion rules, the CFTC will consider the transaction a swap. One of these commenters said that the non-evading party should not unilaterally become a party to a swap, and thus be subject to the regulatory requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. This commenter believed the rule should be clear that only the “evading” party would become a party to a swap, but the “non-evading” party would not. The other comments believed that a transaction that is determined to have violated the CFTC's anti-evasion rules should be considered a swap only if it meets all other aspects of the statutory definition of the term “swap.” The CFTC agrees that the anti-evasion rules are not meant to “punish the innocent,” but rather to appropriately address the evading counterparty's or counterparties' failure to meet the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. Therefore, the CFTC has provided an interpretation described above about how a transaction, discovered to have evaded the CEA or the Dodd-Frank Act (and therefore, a swap under rule 1.3(xxx)(6) or subject to the provisions of Subtitle A under rule 1.6) will be treated after the evasion is discovered.

Furthermore, the CFTC agrees that a transaction that is determined to have violated the CFTC's anti-evasion rules will be considered a swap only if it meets the definition of the term “swap,” and has provided an interpretation to address this comment. In response to both comments, the CFTC also has provided an example to illustrate the concepts in the interpretation.

The CFTC received one comment regarding rules 1.3(xxx)(6)(iv) and 1.6(b). This commenter believed that a difference exists between “documentation,” which contains terms, conditions, etc. of an agreement, and the “form or label.” Thus, because a form or label may be duplicitously assigned to a transaction, this commenter agreed that neither the form nor the label should be dispositive. However, because documentation contains the substance of an agreement, this commenter believed that documentation should be dispositive in determining whether a given contract has been entered to willfully evade because the substance of a contract is derived from its documentation. Alternatively, this commenter requested that if the CFTC does not amend its proposal, the CFTC clarify what evidence or subject matter would be dispositive of willful evasion. The CFTC disagrees with these comments and has provided an interpretation discussed above that the documentation of an instrument, transaction, or entity is a relevant, but not dispositive, factor. This view not only is consistent with CFTC case law, and the CFTC's interpretations herein, but reduces the possibility of providing a potential roadmap for evasion.

Two commenters raised issues applicable to proposed rule 1.6 alone. One commenter believed that proposed rule 1.6 should not be adopted until the cross-border application of the swap provisions of Title VII is addressed. The CFTC disagrees and believes that the rule provides sufficient clarity to market participants even though the CFTC has not yet finalized guidance regarding the cross-border application of the swap provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The other commenters believed that the proposed rule text and interpretation does not fully explain how the CFTC would apply proposed rule 1.6 in determining whether a swap subject to foreign jurisdiction and regulated by a foreign regulator is evasive. As stated above, an agreement, contract, instrument or transaction that is found to have been willfully structured to evade will be subject to CEA provisions and the regulations thereunder pursuant to rule 1.6(c).

3. Interpretation Contained in the Proposing Release

The CFTC is restating the interpretation contained in the Proposing Release, but is providing additional clarification regarding certain types of circumstances that may (or may not) constitute an evasion of the requirements of Title VII. However, the CFTC notes that each activity will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with consideration given to all relevant facts and circumstances.

In developing its interpretation, the CFTC considered legislative, administrative, and judicial precedent with respect to the anti-evasion provisions in other Federal statutes. For example, the CFTC examined the anti-evasion provisions in the Truth in Lending Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the Internal Revenue Code.

The CFTC will not consider transactions, entities, or instruments structured in a manner solely motivated by a legitimate business purpose to constitute willful evasion (“Business Purpose Test”). Additionally, relying on Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) concepts, when determining whether particular conduct is an evasion of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC will consider the extent to which the conduct involves deceit, deception, or other unlawful or illegitimate activity.

(a) Business Purpose Test

Interpretation

Consistent with the Proposing Release, the CFTC recognizes that transactions may be structured, and entities may be formed, in particular ways for legitimate business purposes, without any intention of circumventing the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act with respect to swaps. Thus, in evaluating whether a person is evading or attempting to evade the swap requirements with respect to a particular instrument, entity, or transaction, the CFTC will consider the extent to which the person has a legitimate business purpose for structuring the instrument or entity or entering into the transaction in that particular manner. Although different means of structuring a transaction or entity may have differing regulatory implications and attendant requirements, absent other indicia of evasion, the CFTC will not consider transactions, entities, or instruments structured in a manner solely motivated by a legitimate business purpose to constitute evasion. However, to the extent a purpose in structuring an entity or instrument or entering into a transaction is to evade the requirements of Title VII with respect to swaps, the structuring of such instrument, entity, or transaction may be found to constitute willful evasion.

Although some commenters suggest that the determination that there is a legitimate business purpose, and the use of that concept as a relevant fact in the determination of the possibility of evasion, will not provide appropriate clarity, it is a recognized analytical method and would be useful in the overall analysis of potentially willful evasive conduct.

The CFTC fully expects that a person acting for legitimate business purposes within its respective industry will naturally weigh a multitude of costs and benefits associated with different types of financial transactions, entities, or instruments, including the applicable regulatory obligations. In that regard, and in response to commenters, the CFTC is clarifying that a person's specific consideration of regulatory burdens, including the avoidance thereof, is not dispositive that the person is acting without a legitimate business purpose in a particular case. The CFTC will view legitimate business purpose considerations on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with all other relevant facts and circumstances.

Moreover, the CFTC recognizes that it is possible that a person intending to willfully evade Dodd-Frank may attempt to justify its actions by claiming that they are legitimate business practices in its industry; therefore, the CFTC will retain the flexibility, via an analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances, to confirm not only the legitimacy of the business purpose of those actions but whether the actions could still be determined to be willfully evasive. For example, a person may attempt to disguise a product that may be a swap by employing accounting practices that are not appropriate for swaps. Whether or not the method of accounting or employed accounting practices are determined to be for legitimate business purposes, that alone will not be dispositive in determining whether it is willfully evasive according to either rule 1.3(xxx)(6) or 1.6.

Because transactions and instruments are regularly structured, and entities regularly formed, in a particular way for various, and often times multiple, reasons, it is essential that all relevant facts and circumstances be considered. Where a transaction, instrument, or entity is structured solely for legitimate business purposes, it is not willfully evasive. By contrast, where a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances reveals the presence of a purpose that is not a legitimate business purpose, evasion may exist.

Comments

Two commenters believed the proposed business purpose test is inappropriate for determining if a transaction is structured to evade Title VII. One of these commenters stated that the CFTC misunderstood how the “business purpose” test is applied by the IRS in the tax evasion context resulting in misguided proposed interpretive guidance. As stated above, the CFTC believes that it is appropriate to consider legitimate business purposes in determining if a transaction is structured to evade Title VII. In response to this comment, although the interpretation references the use of legitimate business purpose in tax law, the CFTC is not bound to use the legitimate business purpose consideration in the same manner as the IRS and, accordingly, is not adopting the IRS's interpretation.

Two commenters urged the CFTC to clarify that considering the costs of regulation is a legitimate business purpose when structuring a transaction. Accordingly, they request that the CFTC clarify that entering into a transaction to avoid costly regulations, even though that transaction could otherwise be structured as a swap, will not be considered per se evasion/evasive. Finally, one commenter took issue with the statement that “absent other indicia of evasion, [the CFTC] would not consider transactions, entities, or instruments in a manner solely motivated by a legitimate business purpose to constitute evasion.” Because “transactions, entities, or instruments” are rarely structured a certain way solely for one purpose, this commenter believed such a statement does not give market participants any relief or guidance. The CFTC has addressed these comments received on the business purpose test through the clarifications to its interpretation discussed above and reiterates that the CFTC will consider all relevant facts and circumstances in determining whether an action is willfully evasive.

(b) Fraud, Deceit or Unlawful Activity

Interpretation

When determining whether a particular activity constitutes willful evasion of the CEA or the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC will consider the extent to which the activity involves deceit, deception, or other unlawful or illegitimate activity. This concept was derived from the IRS's delineation of what constitutes tax evasion, as elaborated upon by the courts. The IRS distinguishes between tax evasion and legitimate means for citizens to minimize, reduce, avoid or alleviate the tax that they pay under the Internal Revenue Code. Similarly, persons that craft derivatives transactions, structure entities, or conduct themselves in a deceptive or other illegitimate manner in order to avoid regulatory requirements should not be permitted to enjoy the fruits of their deceptive or illegitimate conduct.

Although it is likely that fraud, deceit, or unlawful activity will be present where willful evasion has occurred, the CFTC does not believe that these factors are prerequisites to an evasion finding. As stated throughout this release, the presence or absence of fraud, deceit, or unlawful activity is one fact (or circumstance) the CFTC will consider when evaluating a person's activity. That said, the anti-evasion rules do require willfulness, i.e. “scienter.” In response to the commenter who requests the CFTC define “willful conduct,” the CFTC will interpret “willful” consistent with how the CFTC has in the past, that a person acts “willfully” when they act either intentionally or with reckless disregard.

Comments

One commenter, although generally supportive of the use of the IRS “tax evasion” concept as a guidepost for this criterion, requested the CFTC provide examples of legitimate versus evasive conduct in a manner similar to what is contained in the Internal Revenue Manual. The CFTC does not believe it is appropriate to provide an example because such an example may provide a guidepost for evasion.

Two commenters suggested that a finding of fraud, deceit, or unlawful activity should be a prerequisite to any finding of evasion. As noted above, the CFTC disagrees that such activity should be a prerequisite to a finding of evasion, but its presence or absence is one relevant fact and circumstance the CFTC will consider. Finally, one commenter requested further guidance defining willful conduct in the context of deliberate and knowing wrongdoing. As noted above, the CFTC has considered the suggestion that the CFTC provide guidance on what defines “willful behavior,” with some commenters submitting that some definitional guidance should be offered or that the standard should be whether or not a transaction is “lawful.” The CFTC agrees with the need for legal clarity and believes that the concept of willfulness is a well-recognized legal concept of which there is substantial case law and legal commentary familiar to the financial industry.

B. SEC Position Regarding Anti-Evasion Rules

Section 761(b)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act grants discretionary authority to the SEC to define the terms “security-based swap,” “security-based swap dealer,” “major security-based swap participant,” and “eligible contract participant,” with regard to security-based swaps, “for the purpose of including transactions and entities that have been structured to evade” subtitle B of Title VII (or amendments made by subtitle B).

The SEC did not propose rules under section 761(b)(3) regarding anti-evasion but requested comment on whether SEC rules or interpretive guidance addressing anti-evasion with respect to security-based swaps, security-based swap dealers, major security-based swap participants, or ECPs were necessary. Two commenters responded to the request for comment and recommended that the SEC adopt anti-evasion rules and interpretive guidance. One commenter suggested that the SEC model its anti-evasion rules and interpretive guidance on the CFTC's anti-evasion rules.

The SEC is not adopting anti-evasion rules under section 761(b)(3) at this time. The SEC notes that since security-based swaps are “securities” for purposes of the Federal securities laws, unless the SEC grants a specific exemption, all of the SEC's existing regulatory authority will apply to security-based swaps. Since existing regulations, including antifraud and anti-manipulation provisions, will apply to security-based swaps, the SEC believes that it is unnecessary to adopt additional anti-evasion rules for security-based swaps under section 761(b)(3) at this time.

VIII. Miscellaneous Issues

A. Distinguishing Futures and Options From Swaps

The Commissions did not propose rules or interpretations in the Proposing Release regarding distinguishing futures from swaps. One commenter requested that the CFTC clarify that nothing in the release was intended to limit a DCM's ability to list for trading a futures contract regardless of whether it could be viewed as a swap if traded over-the-counter or on a SEF, since futures and swaps are indistinguishable in material economic effects. This commenter further recommended that the CFTC adopt a final rule that further interprets the statutory “swap” definition.

The CFTC declines to provide the requested clarification or adopt a rule. Prior distinctions that the CFTC relied upon (such as the presence or absence of clearing) to distinguish between futures and swaps may no longer be relevant. As a result, it is difficult to distinguish between futures and swaps on a blanket basis as the commenter suggested. However, a case-by-case approach for distinguishing these products may lead to more informed decision-making by the CFTC. Moreover, the CFTC notes that a DCM may self-certify its contracts pursuant to Part 40 of the CFTC's rules, subject to the CFTC's oversight authority. If a DCM has a view that a particular product is a futures contract, it may self-certify the contract consistent with that view. The DCM also has a number of other options, including seeking prior approval from the CFTC, requesting an interpretation, or requesting a rulemaking if it is in doubt about whether a particular agreement, contract or transaction should be classified as a futures contract or a swap.

B. Transactions Entered Into by Foreign Central Banks, Foreign Sovereigns, International Financial Institutions, and Similar Entities

The swap definition excludes “any agreement, contract, or transaction a counterparty of which is a Federal Reserve bank, the Federal Government, or a Federal agency that is expressly backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.” Some commenters to the ANPR suggested that the Commissions should exercise their authority to further define the terms “swap” to similarly exclude transactions in which a counterparty is a foreign central bank, a foreign sovereign, an international financial institution (“IFI”), or similar organization. ANPR commenters advanced international comity, national treatment, limited regulatory resources, limits on the Commissions' respective extraterritorial jurisdiction, and international harmonization as rationales for such an approach. The Proposing Release was silent on this issue.

Comments

Several commenters asserted that swaps transactions to which an IFI is a counterparty should be excluded from the swap and security-based swap definitions. In addition to the arguments noted above, commenters asserted that certain IFIs have been granted certain statutory immunities by the United States, and that regulation under the Dodd-Frank Act of their activities would be inconsistent with the grant of these immunities.

The CFTC declines to provide an exclusion from the swap definition along the lines suggested by these commenters. An exclusion from the swap definition for swap transactions entered into by foreign sovereigns, foreign central banks, IFIs and similar entities, would mean that swaps entered into by such entities would be completely excluded from Dodd-Frank regulation. Their counterparties, who may be swap dealers or major swap participants, or security-based swap dealers or major security-based swap participants, would have no regulatory obligations with respect to such swaps. These regulated counterparties could develop significant exposures to the foreign sovereigns, foreign central banks, IFIs and similar entities, without the knowledge of the Commissions.

In addition, swaps entered into by foreign sovereigns, foreign central banks, IFIs and similar entities undeniably are swaps. To be sure, the Commissions have adopted rules and interpretations to further define the term “swap” to exclude certain transactions, which prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act generally would not have been considered swaps. However, the CFTC is not using its authority to further define the term “swap” to effectively exempt transactions that are, in fact, swaps. While, as noted above, Congress included a counterparty-specific exclusion for swaps entered into by the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal government and certain government agencies, Congress did not provide a similar exemption for foreign central banks, foreign sovereigns, IFIs, or similar organizations.

C. Definition of the Terms “Swap” and “Security-Based Swap” as Used in the Securities Act

The SEC is adopting a technical rule that provides that the terms “swap” and “security-based swap” as used in the Securities Act have the same meanings as in the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. The SEC is adopting such technical rule to assure consistent definitions of these terms under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.

IX. Effective Date and Implementation

Consistent with sections 754 and 774 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the final rules and interpretations will be effective October 12, 2012. The compliance date for the final rules and interpretations also will be October 12, 2012; with the following exceptions:

• The compliance date for the interpretation regarding guarantees of swaps will be the effective date of the rules proposed in the separate CFTC release when such rules are adopted by the CFTC.
• Solely for the purposes of the Order Granting Temporary Exemptions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in Connection with the Pending Revision of the Definition of “Security” to Encompass Security-Based Swaps and the Exemptions for Security-Based Swaps, the compliance date for the final rules further defining the term “security-based swap” will be February 11, 2013.

The CFTC believes that it is appropriate to make the compliance date for the interpretation regarding guarantees of swaps the same as the effective date of the rules proposed in the separate CFTC release when such rules are adopted by the CFTC in order to relieve market participants from compliance obligations that would arise as a result of the interpretation. As described in the Exchange Act Exemptive Order and as provided in the SB Swaps Interim Final Rules, the exemptions granted pursuant to the Exchange Act Exemptive Order and the SB Swaps Interim Final Rules will expire upon the compliance date of the final rules further defining the terms “security-based swap” and “eligible contract participant.” The final rules further defining the term “eligible contract participant,” adopted in the Entity Definitions Release, were published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2012. The compliance date and the effective date for such final rules is the same, July 23, 2012. The SEC believes that establishing a compliance date for the definition of “security-based swap” solely for purposes of the Exchange Act Exemptive Order and the SB Swaps Interim Final Rules that is February 11, 2013 (i.e. 120 days after the effective date) is appropriate because doing so will leave in place the exemptions granted by the Exchange Act Exemptive Order and the SB Swaps Interim Final Rules for a period of time that is sufficient to facilitate consideration of that order and rule. Specifically, the SEC will consider the appropriate treatment of security-based swaps under the provisions of the Exchange Act not amended by the Dodd-Frank Act before expiration of the exemptions set forth in the Exchange Act Exemptive Order, and will consider the appropriate treatment of security-based swaps for purposes of the registration provisions of the Securities Act, the registration provisions of the Exchange Act, and the indenture qualification provisions of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 before the expiration of the exemptions set forth in the SB Swaps Interim Final Rules.

If any provision of these final rules or interpretations, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

X. Administrative Law Matters—CEA Revisions

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. Introduction

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) 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. Certain provisions of this rule will result in new collection of information requirements within the meaning of the PRA. With the exception of the new “book-out” confirmation requirement discussed below, the CFTC believes that the burdens that will be imposed on market participants under rules 1.8 and 1.9 already have been accounted for within the SEC's calculations regarding the impact of this collection of information under the PRA and the request for a control number submitted by the SEC to OMB for rule 3a68-2 (“Interpretation of Swaps, Security-Based Swaps, and Mixed Swaps”) and rule 3a68-4 (“Regulation of Mixed Swaps: Process for Determining Regulatory Treatment for Mixed Swaps”). In response to this submission, OMB issued control number 3235-0685. The responses to these collections of information will be mandatory. The CFTC will protect proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act and 17 CFR part 145, headed “Commission Records and Information.” In addition, the CFTC emphasizes that 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.” The CFTC also is required to protect certain information contained in a government system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974.

2. Rules 1.8 and 1.9

As discussed in the proposal, Rules 1.8 and 1.9 under the CEA will result in new “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the PRA. Rule 1.8 under the CEA will allow persons to submit a request for a joint interpretation from the Commissions regarding whether an agreement, contract or transaction (or a class thereof) is a swap, security-based swap, or mixed swap. Rule 1.8 provides that a person requesting an interpretation as to the nature of an agreement, contract, or transaction as a swap, security-based swap, or mixed swap must provide the Commissions with the person's determination of the nature of the instrument and supporting analysis, along with certain other documentation, including a statement of the economic purpose for, and a copy of all material information regarding the terms of, each relevant agreement, contract, or transaction (or class thereof). The Commissions also may request the submitting person to provide additional information. In response to the submission, the Commissions may issue a joint interpretation regarding the status of that agreement, contract, or transaction (or class of agreements, contracts, or transactions) as a swap, security-based swap, or mixed swap.

Rule 1.9 of the CEA enables persons to submit requests to the Commissions for joint orders providing an alternative regulatory treatment for particular mixed swaps. Under rule 1.9, a person will provide to the Commissions a statement of the economic purpose for, and a copy of all material information regarding, the relevant mixed swap. In addition, the person will provide the specific alternative provisions that the person believes should apply to the mixed swap, the reasons the person believes it would be appropriate to request an alternative regulatory treatment, and an analysis of: (i) The nature and purposes of the specified provisions; (ii) the comparability of the specified provisions to other statutory provisions of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act and the rules and regulations thereunder; and (iii) the extent of any conflicting or incompatible requirements of the specified provisions and other statutory provisions of Title VII and the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commissions also may request the submitting person to provide additional information.

(a) Information Provided by Reporting Entities

The burdens imposed by rules 1.8 and 1.9 under the CEA are the same as the burdens imposed by the SEC's rules 3a68-2 and 3a68-4. Therefore, the burdens that will be imposed on market participants under rules 1.8 and 1.9 already have been accounted for within the SEC's calculations regarding the impact of this collection of information under the PRA and the request for a control number submitted by the SEC to OMB.

(b) Information Collection Comments

In the Proposing Release, the CFTC invited public comment on the reporting and recordkeeping burdens discussed above with regard to rules 1.8 and 1.9. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the CFTC solicited comments in order to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the CFTC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the CFTC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information; (iii) determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

No comments were received with respect to the reporting and recordkeeping burdens discussed in the proposing release. In response to the request for a control number by the SEC, OMB issued control number 3235-0685.

3. Book-Out Confirmation

As noted above, the CFTC believes that its interpretation which clarifies that oral book-out agreements must be followed in a commercially reasonable timeframe by a confirmation in some type of written or electronic form would result in a new “collection of information” requirement within the meaning of the PRA. Therefore, the CFTC is submitting the new “book-out” information collection to OMB for review in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d). The CFTC will, by separate action, publish in the Federal Register a notice on the paperwork burden associated with the interpretation's requirement that oral book-outs be followed in a commercially reasonable timeframe by confirmation in some type of written or electronic form in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8 and 1320.10. If approved, this new collection of information will be mandatory.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires that agencies consider whether the rules they propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, if so, provide a regulatory flexibility analysis respecting the impact. A regulatory flexibility analysis or certification typically is required for “any rule for which the agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to” the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

With respect to the proposed release, while the CFTC provided an RFA statement that the proposed rule would have a direct effect on numerous entities, specifically DCMs, SDRs, SEFs, SDs, MSPs, ECPs, FBOTs, DCOs, and certain “appropriate persons” who relied on the Energy Exemption, the Chairman, on behalf of the CFTC, certified that the rulemaking would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. Comments on that certification were sought.

In the Proposing Release, the CFTC provided that it previously had established that certain entities subject to the CFTC's jurisdiction—namely, DCMs, DCOs and ECPs—are not small entities for purposes of the RFA. As the CFTC previously explained, because of the central role they play in the regulatory scheme concerning futures trading, the importance of futures trading in the national economy, and the financial requirements needed to comply with the regulatory requirements imposed on them under the CEA, DCMs and DCOs have long been determined not to be small entities. Based on the definition of ECP in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”) and the legislative history underlying that definition, the CFTC determined that ECPs were not small entities. In light of its past determination, and the increased thresholds on ECPs added by the Dodd-Frank Act making it more difficult for entities to qualify as an ECP, the CFTC determined in its proposed rulemakings that ECPs are not small entities.

Furthermore, the CFTC provided that certain entities that would be subject to the proposed rule—namely SDs, MSPs, SDRs, SEFs, and FBOTs—are entities for which the CFTC had not previously made a size determination for RFA purposes. The CFTC determined that these entities should not be considered small entities based on their size and characteristics analogous to non-small entities that pre-dated the adoption of Dodd-Frank, and certified in rulemakings that would have an economic impact on these entities that these entities are not small entities for RFA purposes.

Finally, the CFTC recognized that, in light of the CFTC's proposed withdrawal of the Energy Exemption, the proposed rule could have an economic impact on certain “appropriate persons” who relied on the Energy Exemption. The Energy Exemption listed certain “appropriate persons” that could rely on the exemption and also required that, to be eligible for this exemption, an “appropriate person must have demonstrable capacity or ability to make or take delivery.” The Energy Exemption stated: “in light of the general nature of the current participants in the market, the CFTC believes that smaller commercial firms, which cannot meet [certain] financial criteria, should not be included.” Therefore, the CFTC did not believe that the “appropriate persons” eligible for the Energy Exemption, and who may be affected by its withdrawal, are “small entities” for purposes of RFA. Moreover, as previously discussed, the CFTC is expanding the Brent Interpretation to all nonfinancial commodities for both swaps and future delivery definitions and is clarifying that certain alternative delivery procedures discussed in the Energy Exemption will not disqualify a transaction from the forward contract exclusion under the Brent Interpretation. Thus, to the extent any entities, small or otherwise, relied on the Energy Exemption, such entities can now rely on the expanded Brent Interpretation to qualify for the forward contract exclusion. Accordingly, the withdrawal of the Energy Exemption will not result in a significant economic impact on any entities.

With respect to this rulemaking, which includes interpretations, as well as general rules of construction and definitions that will largely be used in other rulemakings, the CFTC received one comment respecting its RFA certification. The commenter, an association that represents producers, generators, processors, refiners, merchandisers and commercial end users of nonfinancial energy commodities, including energy and natural gas, contended that the CFTC's overall new jurisdiction under the Dodd-Frank Act over “swaps” and the burdens that the CFTC's rules place on nonfinancial entities, including small entities such as its members that execute such swaps, can only be determined after the rules and interpretations in the product definitions rulemaking are finalized. Moreover, the commenter asserted that its small entity members seek to continue their use of nonfinancial commodity “swaps” only to hedge the commercial risks of their not-for profit public service activities. The commenter concluded that the CFTC should conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for the entire mosaic of its rulemakings under the Dodd-Frank Act, taking into consideration the products definition rulemaking.

The commenter did not provide specific information on how the further defining of the terms swap, security-based swap and security-based swap agreement, providing regulations regarding mixed swaps, and providing regulations governing books and records requirements for security-based swap agreements would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nonetheless, the CFTC has reevaluated this rulemaking in light of the commenter's statements. Upon consideration, the CFTC declines to consider the economic impacts of the entire mosaic of rules under the Dodd-Frank Act, since an agency is only required to consider the impact of how it exercises its discretion to implement the statute through a particular rule. In all rulemakings, the CFTC performs an RFA analysis for that particular rule.

Moreover, as the commenter mentioned, most of the transactions into which its members enter are based on nonfinancial commodities. The CFTC has provided interpretations in this release clarifying the forward exclusion in nonfinancial commodities from the swap definition (and the forward exclusion from the definition of “future delivery”), including forwards with embedded volumetric options, and separately, has provided for a trade option exemption. The CFTC also has provided an interpretation that certain customary commercial transactions are excluded from the swap definition.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the proposal and the foregoing discussion in response to the comment received, the CFTC continues to believe that the rulemaking will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Chairman, on behalf of the CFTC, hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the rules will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Costs and Benefits Considerations

Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the CFTC to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation or issuing certain orders under the CEA. Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of the following five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The CFTC considers the costs and benefits resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the Section 15(a) factors. The CFTC also considers, qualitatively, costs and benefits relative to the status quo, that is, the pre-Dodd Frank Act regulatory regime, for historical context to help inform the reader.

In the Proposing Release, the CFTC assessed the costs and benefits of the proposed rules in general, followed by assessments of the costs and benefits of each of the rules, taking into account the considerations described above. The CFTC also requested comment on these assessments, and a number of comments were received. In this Adopting Release, the CFTC will again assess the costs and benefits of the rules in general followed by the individual rules in this rulemaking, for each case taking into account the above considerations and the comments received. These costs and benefits, to the extent identified and, where possible, quantified have helped to inform the decisions of and the actions taken by the CFTC that are described throughout this release.

1. Introduction

Prior to the adoption of Title VII, swaps and security-based swaps were by and large unregulated. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”) excluded financial over-the-counter swaps from regulation under the CEA, provided that trading occurred only among “eligible contract participants.” Swaps based on exempt commodities—including energy and metals—could be traded among ECPs 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.

In the fall of 2008, an economic crisis threatened to freeze U.S. and global credit markets. The Federal government intervened to buttress the stability of the U.S. financial system. The crisis revealed the vulnerability of the U.S. financial system and economy to wide-spread systemic risk resulting from, among other things, poor risk management practices of certain financial firms and the lack of supervisory oversight for financial institutions as a whole. More specifically, the crisis demonstrated the need for regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives markets.

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 security-based swaps. As discussed above, the legislation was enacted, among other reasons, to reduce risk, increase transparency, and promote market integrity within the financial system, including by: (i) Providing for the registration and comprehensive regulation of swap dealers, security-based swap dealers, major swap participants, and major security-based swap participants; (ii) imposing clearing and trade execution requirements on swaps and security-based swaps, subject to certain exceptions; (iii) creating rigorous recordkeeping and real-time reporting regimes; and (iv) enhancing the rulemaking and enforcement authorities of the Commissions with respect to, among others, all registered entities and intermediaries subject to the Commissions' oversight.

Section 721 of the Dodd-Frank Act amends the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) by adding definitions of the terms “swap,” “security-based swap,” and “security-based swap agreement.” Section 712(d)(1) provides that the CFTC and the SEC, in consultation with the Federal Reserve Board, shall jointly further define those terms. Section 712(a)(8) provides further that the Commissions shall jointly prescribe such regulations regarding “mixed swaps” as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act (“Title VII”). Section 712(d)(2) requires the Commissions, in consultation with the Federal Reserve Board, to jointly adopt rules governing books and records requirements for security-based swap agreements.

Under the comprehensive framework for regulating swaps and security-based swaps established in Title VII, the CFTC is given regulatory authority over swaps, the SEC is given regulatory authority over security-based swaps, and the Commissions jointly are to prescribe such regulations regarding mixed swaps as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of Title VII. In addition, the SEC is given antifraud authority over, and access to information from, certain CFTC-regulated entities regarding security-based swap agreements, which are a type of swap related to securities over which the CFTC is given regulatory and enforcement authority.

The statutory definitions of “swap” and “security-based swap” in Title VII are detailed and comprehensive. The Dodd-Frank Act directs the Commissions, among other things, to “further define” these terms; it does not direct the Commissions to provide definitions for them, which are already provided for in the statute. Thus, even in the absence of these rules, the Dodd-Frank Act would require regulating products that meet the statutory definitions of these terms as swaps and security-based swaps. Consequently, a large part of the costs and benefits resulting from the regulation of swaps and security-based swaps derives from the Dodd-Frank Act itself and not from these rules that further define swaps.

Several commenters to the ANPR issued by the Commissions regarding the definitions expressed a concern that the product definitions could be read broadly to include certain types of transactions that previously had never been considered swaps or security-based swaps. In response to those comments, the rules and interpretations clarify that certain traditional insurance products, consumer and commercial agreements, and loan participations are not swaps or security-based swaps, which will increase legal certainty and lower the costs of assessing whether a product is a swap or security-based swap for market participants. In this regard, the rules and interpretations are intended to reduce unnecessary burdens on persons using such agreements, contracts, or transactions, the regulation of which under Title VII may not be necessary or appropriate to further the purposes of Title VII.

In addition, the CFTC is clarifying the scope of the forward contract exclusion for nonfinancial commodities from the statutory swap definition to provide legal certainty for market participants as to which transactions will qualify for the exclusion. In this regard, the CFTC is clarifying the circumstances under which market participants may rely on past CFTC guidance regarding the forward exclusion from the definition of “future delivery,” and in particular the Brent Interpretation for booked-out transactions, with respect to the forward exclusion from the swap definition. The CFTC is extending the Brent Interpretation to all nonfinancial commodities, and is withdrawing the Energy Exemption as proposed, with certain clarifications. The final interpretation with clarifications in response to comments should enhance legal certainty regarding the forward exclusions.

While the statutory definitions of swap and security-based swap are detailed and comprehensive, the rules further clarify whether particular types of transactions are swaps or security-based swaps. For example, foreign exchange forwards and swaps are defined as swaps, subject to the Treasury Secretary's determination to exempt them from the swap definition. The statute provides that certain provisions of the CEA apply to foreign exchange forwards and swaps, even if the Treasury Secretary determines to exempt them, and the rules reflect this. Specifically, these transactions still would be subject to certain requirements for reporting swaps, and swap dealers and major swap participants engaging in such transactions still would be subject to certain business conduct standards. The rules also clarify that, because certain foreign exchange products do not fall within the definitions of foreign exchange swap and forward, such products are not subject to the Treasury Secretary's determination to exempt. Outside of the foreign exchange suite of products, the rules and interpretations clarify that certain transactions are swaps or security-based swaps. These products include forward rate agreements, certain contracts for differences, swaptions and forward swaps. The rules and the interpretations are intended to increase clarity and legal certainty for market participants with respect to these products.

Next this release addresses the relationship between swaps and security-based swaps and how to distinguish them. The Commissions are clarifying whether particular agreements, contracts or transactions that are subject to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act (which are referred to as “Title VII Instruments” in this release) are swaps, security-based swaps or both (i.e., mixed swaps). In addition, the Commissions are clarifying the use of the term “narrow-based security index” in the security-based swap definition. In general, the CFTC has jurisdiction over Title VII instruments on broad-based security indexes, while the SEC has jurisdiction over Title VII instruments on narrow-based security indexes. This release clarifies that the existing criteria for determining whether a security index is narrow-based, and the past guidance of the Commissions regarding those criteria in the context of security futures, apply to Title VII instruments. Credit default swaps (“CDS”) also are subject to this same jurisdictional division—CDS on broad-based security indexes are regulated by the CFTC, while CDS on narrow-based security indexes (as well as CDS on single name securities or loans) generally are regulated by the SEC. This release provides new criteria tailored to CDS for determining whether a CDS is based on an index that is a narrow-based security index. Also, it explains the term “index” and adopts a final rule governing tolerance and grace periods for Title VII instruments on security indexes traded on trading platforms. These rules and interpretations generally are designed to provide clarity and enhanced legal certainty regarding the appropriate classification of Title VII instruments as swaps, security-based swaps or mixed swaps, so that market participants may ascertain the applicable regulatory requirements more easily.

This release anticipates that mixed swaps, which are both swaps and security-based swaps, will be a narrow category, but lists a few examples of mixed swaps and interprets how to distinguish one type of TRS that is a mixed swap from another that is not. This release addresses the regulatory treatment of bilateral, uncleared mixed swaps where one counterparty is a dual registrant with the CFTC and SEC. It also establishes a process for requesting a joint order from the Commissions to determine the appropriate regulatory treatment of mixed swaps that do not fall into the category of mixed swaps where one counterparty is a dual registrant. Concerning “security-based swap agreements” (or SBSAs), this release explains what types of transactions are SBSAs and includes rules that provide that there will not be additional books and records requirements regarding SBSAs other than those that have been proposed by the CFTC for swaps in order to avoid duplicative regulation and costs.

This release also includes rules establishing a process for members of the public to request a joint interpretation from the Commissions regarding whether a Title VII instrument is a swap, security-based swap or a mixed swap. The process includes a deadline for a decision, as well as a requirement that if the Commissions do not issue a joint interpretation within the prescribed time period, each Commission must publicly provide the reasons for not having done so.

Finally, this release includes anti-evasion rules and related interpretations adopted by the CFTC, which in general would apply to agreements, contracts, transactions and entities that are willfully structured to evade Dodd-Frank requirements.

2. Costs and Benefits of the Definitions—In General

The rules and interpretations in this Adopting Release: further define the terms “swap,” “security-based swap,” and “security-based swap agreement;” provide for the regulation of “mixed swaps;” and address books and records requirements for security-based swap agreements. In the discussion that follows, the CFTC considers the costs and benefits resulting from its own discretionary determinations with respect to the section 15(a) factors.

There are “programmatic” costs and benefits as well as “assessment” costs of the Product Definitions. Programmatic costs result from subjecting certain agreements, contracts, or transactions to the regulatory regime of Title VII. Effectiveness of the Products Definitions will trigger effectiveness of any statutory provision or regulation that depends, in whole or in part, on the effectiveness of this final rulemaking. By fulfilling the statutory mandate, many of the programmatic benefits of Title VII and the CFTC's implementing regulations are triggered, including risk reduction, increasing transparency, and promoting market integrity and, by extension, the increased possibility of preventing or reducing the severity of another global financial crisis such as occurred in 2008. Delimiting the scope of the terms “swap,” “security-based swap,” “security-based swap agreement,” and “mixed swaps” also helps to determine the scope of activities and entities that will be subject to the various Title VII regulatory requirements. Requirements for clearing and trade execution, capital and margin, business conduct, and reporting and recordkeeping, all of which have been or will be implemented in other CFTC rules, will lead to programmatic costs that have been or will be addressed in the CFTC's rules to implement those requirements. When considering the programmatic costs and benefits of the Product Definitions, the CFTC recognizes the scope of activities and entities affected by the further Product Definitions by reference to the other final rulemakings under Title VII accomplished to date. The costs that parties will incur to assess whether certain agreements, contracts, or transactions are “swaps,” “security-based swaps,” “security-based swap agreements,” or “mixed swaps” that are subject to the Title VII regulatory regime, and, if so, costs to assess whether such Title VII instrument is subject to the regulatory regime of the SEC or the CFTC are referred to herein as assessment costs.

In general, many commenters have suggested that the statutory definitions of swap and security-based swap are overbroad in that they could be viewed to include agreements, contracts, and transactions that the market had not considered to be swaps or security-based swaps prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, are (or could be) swaps or security-based swaps. Thus, in response to these comments, the CFTC has engaged in a qualitative analysis of various agreements, contracts, and transactions of which the CFTC is aware and that commenters have brought to its attention. Based on this analysis, the CFTC has established rules and interpretations to identify agreements, contracts, and transactions that are swaps or security-based swaps where the statutory definition may be inadequate or ambiguous. In developing the further definitions, the CFTC has endeavored to narrow the scope of the terms “swap” and “security-based swap” without excluding agreements, contracts and transactions that the CFTC has determined should be regulated as swaps and security-based swaps. Narrowing the scope of the statutory definitions should reduce the overall programmatic costs of Title VII because fewer agreements, contracts, and transactions will be subject to the full panoply of Title VII regulation. Narrowing the scope of the statutory definitions should also increase the net programmatic benefits of the CFTC's Title VII regulations because the CFTC is targeting in the Product Definitions rulemaking agreements, contracts and transactions that the CFTC has determined, after considering comments received and undertaking a qualitative analysis, are swaps or security-based swaps. The CFTC anticipates that applying the full panoply of Title VII regulation to only those agreements, contracts or transactions that the CFTC has determined are swaps or security-based swaps will be most effective in achieving the net benefits of Title VII regulation under the Dodd-Frank Act.

(a) Costs

The scope of the terms “swap,” “security-based swap,” “security-based swap agreement,” and “mixed swap” is an important factor in determining the range of activities and entities that will be subject to various requirements set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act, such as trade execution, clearing, reporting, registration, business conduct, and capital requirements. Complying with these requirements, which will be implemented in other rules by the CFTC, are programmatic costs, which also have been or will be addressed in the CFTC's rules to implement those requirements.

The CFTC believes that the rulemaking to further define the terms “swap,” “security-based swap,” “security-based swap agreement,” and “mixed swap” is consistent with how market participants understand these products. The further definitions increase legal certainty and thereby reduce assessment costs by clarifying that certain products that meet the requirements of the applicable rules and interpretations, such as traditional insurance products, are not swaps.

(b) Benefits

Many of the benefits of Title VII and the CFTC's implementing regulations, including risk reduction, increasing transparency, and promoting market integrity are programmatic benefits of the Products Definitions since they are effectuated by Product Definitions. These programmatic benefits are difficult to quantify and measure. Moreover, these benefits can be expected to manifest themselves over the long run and be distributed over the market as a whole.

The CFTC believes that the final rules and interpretations can be consistently applied by substantially all market participants to determine which agreements, contracts, or transactions are, and which are not, swaps, security-based swaps, security-based swap agreements, or mixed swaps. The benefits of the individual rules and interpretations are discussed in their respective sections below.

(c) Comments and Consideration of Alternatives

The CFTC requested comment on the costs and benefits of the proposed rules and interpretations regarding the definitions in general for market participants, markets and the public. Further, the CFTC requested comment as to whether there are any aspects of the proposed rules and interpretive guidance regarding the definitions that are both burdensome to apply and not helpful to achieving clarity as to the scope of the defined terms, and whether there are less burdensome means of providing clarity as to the scope of the defined terms.

A commenter argued that a proper cost-benefit analysis can only be performed once an integrated and complete mosaic of rules is available for analysis and doubted that the definitions impose no independent costs. The CFTC has considered, qualitatively, the costs and benefits of the entire mosaic of CFTC rules under the Dodd-Frank Act in this rulemaking. Due to data limitations and other uncertainty, the CFTC cannot perform a meaningful quantitative analysis, yet. The CFTC considers in this rulemaking the costs and benefits of how the Commissions are exercising their discretion in further defining the Product Definitions because Congress included in the Dodd-Frank Act statutory definitions of these terms, over which the CFTC has no discretion. Moreover, the CFTC has considered the independent costs (i.e. costs imposed through exercising its discretion) that the Products Definitions may impose through its determinations as discussed below.

Another commenter contended that the costs and benefits considerations in the Proposing Release were not based on any empirical data and are not consistent with the expected costs of compliance anticipated by market participants. However, the CFTC cannot do a comprehensive empirical analysis regarding costs and benefits of the Products Definitions before actual data is available when the swap regulatory regime has been implemented in full. Moreover, the CFTC did use some empirical estimates in its costs and benefits considerations in the Proposing Release, namely in assessment costs for the process to seek an interpretation of whether a product is a swap, security-based swap, or mixed swap, as well as in the process to determine regulatory treatment for mixed swaps. Commenters did not submit data or other information to support an argument that the CFTC's estimates were inaccurate.

Commenters expressed concern about costs from regulatory uncertainty imposed on swaps market participants resulting from other Title VII rulemakings not yet being final. The consideration of thousands of letters and the process of due deliberation and reasoned decision-making by the CFTC has caused delays. Nevertheless, the CFTC is working with deliberate speed to complete the rulemakings, and eventually this particular type of legal uncertainty will be eliminated.

A commenter requested that inter-affiliate swaps be exempt from the swap definition, arguing that regulating such swaps may increase costs to consumers and undermine efficiencies from the use of centralized hedging affiliates. The CFTC anticipates that it will address inter-affiliate swaps in a subsequent rulemaking.

Several commenters argued that foreign central banks, foreign sovereigns, international financial institutions, such as multilateral development banks, and similar organizations should be exempt from swap regulations, since regulations would impose costs on these entities. Specifically, a commenter asserted that multilateral development banks should not have to register or be subject to clearing and margin requirements and requested that multilateral development banks' transactions be exempted from the definition of a swap. As explained above, these transactions are swaps. In addition, the proposed exclusion is overbroad because it would mean that swaps and security-based swaps entered into by foreign central banks, foreign sovereigns, international financial institutions, and similar organizations would be completely excluded from Dodd-Frank regulation. Their counterparties, who may be swap dealers and other regulated entities, would have no regulatory obligations with respect to such swaps, and could develop significant exposures without the knowledge of the CFTC, other regulators and market participants. If these transactions were not swaps, then no market participant would be obligated to report them to a U.S.-registered swap data repository or real-time report them. This lack of transparency might distort swap pricing and impede proper risk management in as much as the market may not be aware of the risk entailed in these opaque transactions and might thwart price discovery.

The Commissions did not propose rules or interpretations on how to distinguish futures from swaps. A commenter requested that the CFTC clarify that nothing in the release was intended to limit a DCM's ability to list for trading a futures contract regardless of whether it could be viewed as a swap if traded over-the-counter or on a SEF, since futures and swaps are “indistinguishable in material economic effects.” The commenter further recommended that the CFTC adopt a final rule that amends the statutory definition of the term “swap” by adding to the futures contract exclusion in CEA Section 1a(47)(B)(i) the following language after the word “delivery”: “Listed for trading by a designated contract market.” The same commenter believed that such a rule would clarify the scope of Section 4(a) of the CEA, which makes it illegal to trade a futures contract except on or subject to the rules of a DCM.

Although it is potentially more costly to a DCM in terms of providing additional analysis to support listing a futures contract on its exchange, the CFTC is not adopting the distinction the commenter advocates. Prior distinctions that the CFTC relied upon (such as the presence or absence of clearing) to distinguish between futures and swaps may no longer be relevant. As a result, it is difficult to distinguish between futures and swaps on a blanket basis as the commenter suggested. However, a case-by-case approach for distinguishing these products may lead to more informed decision-making by the CFTC.

The CFTC notes that a DCM may self-certify its contracts pursuant to Part 40 of the CFTC's rules, subject to the CFTC's oversight authority. If a DCM has a view that a particular product is a futures contract, it may self-certify the contract consistent with that view. The DCM also has a number of other options, including seeking prior approval from the CFTC, requesting an interpretation, or requesting a rulemaking if it is in doubt about whether a particular agreement, contract or transaction should be classified as a futures contract or a swap.

3. Costs and Benefits of Rules and Interpretations Regarding Insurance

Rule 1.3(xxx)(4)(i) under the CEA clarifies that agreements, contracts or transactions that satisfy its provisions will not be swaps or security-based swaps. Specifically, the term “swap” and “security-based swap” does not include an agreement, contract, or transaction under rule 1.3(xxx)(4)(i)(A) that, by its terms or by law, as a condition of performance on the agreement, contract, or transaction: (i) Requires the beneficiary of the agreement, contract, or transaction to have an insurable interest that is the subject of the agreement, contract, or transaction and thereby carry the risk of loss with respect to that interest continuously throughout the duration of the agreement, contract, or transaction; (ii) requires that loss to occur and be proved, and that any payment or indemnification therefor be limited to the value of the insurable interest; (iii) is not traded, separately from the insured interest, on an organized market or over-the-counter; and (iv) with respect to financial guaranty insurance only, in the event of payment default or insolvency of the obligor, any acceleration of payments under the policy is at the sole discretion of the insurer (the “Product Test”).

Rule 1.3(xxx)(4)(i)(B) under the CEA provides that for an agreement, contract, or transaction that meets the Product Test to be excluded from the swap and security-based swap definitions as insurance, it must be provided: (i) By a person that is subject to supervision by the insurance commissioner (or similar official or agency) of any State or by the United States or an agency or instrumentality thereof, and such agreement, contract, or transaction is regulated as insurance applicable State law or the laws of the United States (the “first prong”); (ii) directly or indirectly by the United States, any State, or any of their respective agencies or instrumentalities, or pursuant to a statutorily authorized program thereof (the “second prong”); (iii) in the case of reinsurance only, by a person to another person that satisfies the Provider Test, provided that: such person is not prohibited by applicable State law or the laws of the United States from offering such agreement, contract, or transaction to such person that satisfies the Provider Test; the agreement, contract, or transaction to be reinsured satisfies the Product Test or is one of the Enumerated Products; and except as otherwise permitted under applicable State law, the total amount reimbursable by all reinsurers for such agreement, contract, or transaction may not exceed the claims or losses paid by the cedant; or (iv) in the case of non-admitted insurance by a person who: is located outside of the United States and listed on the Quarterly Listing of Alien Insurers as maintained by the International Insurers Department of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners; or meets the eligibility criteria for non-admitted insurers under applicable State law (the “Provider Test”).

In response to commenters' requests that the Commissions codify the proposed interpretation regarding certain enumerated types of insurance products in the final rules, the interpretation is being codified in paragraph (i)(C) of rule 1.3(xxx)(4) under the CEA. In addition, in response to comments, the Commissions are expanding and revising the list of traditional insurance products. As adopted, the rule provides that the terms “swap” and “security-based swap” will not include an agreement, contract, or transaction that is provided in accordance with the conditions set forth in the Provider Test and is one of the following types of products (collectively, “Enumerated Products”): surety bonds; fidelity bonds; life insurance; health insurance; long-term care insurance; title insurance; property and casualty insurance; annuities; disability insurance; insurance against default on individual residential mortgages (commonly known as private mortgage insurance, as distinguished from financial guaranty of mortgage pools); and reinsurance (including retrocession) of any of the foregoing. Based on comments received, the Commissions are adding three products to the list of products as proposed, adding reinsurance (including retrocession) of any of the traditional insurance products included in the list, and deleting a requirement applicable to annuities that they must be subject to tax treatment under section 72 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Commissions are also clarifying that the Product Test, the Provider Test and the Enumerated Products in the rules are a non-exclusive safe harbor (the “Insurance Safe Harbor”), such that if a product fails the Insurance Safe Harbor, that does not necessarily mean that the product is a swap or security-based swap—further analysis may be required in order to make that determination.

Rule 1.3(xxx)(4)(ii) provides a “grandfather” for insurance transactions (as opposed to insurance products), pursuant to which transactions that are entered into on or before the effective date of the Product Definitions will not fall within the definition of swap or security-based swap, provided that, at such time that it was entered into, the transaction was provided in accordance with the Provider Test.

The CFTC is interpreting the term “swap” (that is not a security-based swap or mixed swap) to include a guarantee of such swap, to the extent that a counterparty to a swap position would have recourse to the guarantor in connection with the position. The CFTC is persuaded that when a swap has the benefit of a guarantee, the guarantee is an integral part of that swap. The CFTC finds that a guarantee of a swap (that is not a security-based swap or mixed swap) is a term of that swap that affects the price or pricing attributes of that swap. When a swap counterparty typically provides a guarantee as credit support for its swap obligations, the market will not trade with that counterparty at the same price, on the same terms, or at all without the guarantee. The guarantor's resources are added to the analysis of the swap; if the guarantor is financially more capable than the swap counterparty, the analysis of the swap becomes more dependent on the creditworthiness of the guarantor. The CFTC anticipates that a “full recourse” guarantee would have a greater effect on the price of a swap than a “limited” or “partial recourse” guarantee; nevertheless, the CFTC is determining that the presence of any guarantee with recourse, no matter how robust, is price forming and an integral part of a guaranteed swap. The CFTC's interpretation of the term “swap” to include guarantees of swap does not limit or otherwise affect in any way the relief provided by the Insurance Grandfather. In a separate release, the CFTC will address the practical implications of interpreting the term “swap” to include guarantees of swaps (the “separate CFTC release”).

(a) Costs

A market participant will need to ascertain whether an agreement, contract, or transaction satisfies the criteria set forth in rule 1.3(xxx)(4). This analysis will have to be performed prior to entering into the agreement, contract, or transaction to ensure that the relief provided by the Insurance Safe Harbor is available. The CFTC expects that potential costs associated with any possible uncertainty cited by commenters as to whether an agreement, contract, or transaction that the participants consider to be insurance could instead be regulated as a swap would be greater without the Insurance Safe Harbor than the cost of the analysis under the final rule herein.

Although the Insurance Safe Harbor is designed to mitigate costs associated with legal uncertainty and misclassification of products, to the extent that it inadvertently fails to exclude certain types of insurance products from the definitions, these failures could lead to costs for market participants entering into agreements, contracts, or transactions. Some insurance products might inadvertently be subjection to regulation as swaps. To the extent that the Insurance Safe Harbor leads to the inadvertent misclassification of some swaps as insurance, costs for market participants entering into agreements, contracts, or transactions that are inadvertently regulated as insurance products, and not as swaps, may increase. Similarly, insurance products inadvertently mischaracterized as swaps could impose additional costs on market participants, who could be required to meet certain regulatory requirements applicable to swaps.

Assessment costs should be minimal or non-existent for traditional insurance products, but for a new and novel insurance product that is more complex, the costs of analysis may be greater. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that such cases will be infrequent. Moreover, it may be difficult to assess whether products that do not fall within the Insurance Safe Harbor are swaps or security-based swaps rather than insurance. Market participants may need to request an interpretation from the Commissions regarding such products, or obtain an opinion of counsel, which will involve certain costs. However, the CFTC expects such cases will arise less frequently in light of the increased clarity provided by the rule. An alternative to a safe harbor approach under the rule—that failure to meet the rule and interpretation would automatically mean that the product is a swap and not insurance—would likely impose greater costs on market participants and result in more frequent misclassification of products.

The CFTC is interpreting the term “swap” (that is not a security-based swap or mixed swap) to include a guarantee of such swap, to the extent that a counterparty to a swap position would have recourse to the guarantor in connection with the position. The CFTC anticipates minimal or no assessment costs from the interpretation with respect to guarantees of swaps. The CFTC does, however, anticipate that there will be some programmatic costs associated with the requirements that it will propose for guarantees of swaps in the separate CFTC release. The CFTC will carefully consider those costs in that rulemaking.

(b) Benefits

Subjecting traditional insurance products to Title VII could, absent exception, prevent individuals who are not ECPs from obtaining insurance to protect their properties or families against accidental hazards or risks, or require insurance sold to individuals who are not ECPs to be traded on exchanges and be cleared. The Commissions have found no evidence that Congress intended them to be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps. In light of the above considerations, the Commissions have determined to provide the Insurance Safe Harbor and Insurance Grandfather in the final rules in order to assure market participants that those agreements, contracts, or transactions that meet their conditions will not fall within the swap or security-based swap definitions. Limiting the number of unexpected product classification outcomes for market participants provides the benefit of predictability when entering into their transactions

The business of insurance is already subject to established pre-Dodd-Frank Act regulatory regimes. Requirements that may work well for swaps and security-based swaps may not be appropriate for traditional insurance products. To the extent that the final rules distinguish insurance from swaps and security-based swaps, the CFTC should be able to tailor rules for specific products that are swaps or security-based swaps to achieve Title VII regulatory objectives. In adopting the Insurance Safe Harbor, the CFTC has sought to achieve those net benefits that may be obtained from not supplanting existing insurance regulation that are consistent with the regulatory objectives of Title VII.

Without the Insurance Safe Harbor, market participants might be more uncertain about whether an agreement, contract, or transaction is an insurance product rather than a swap. Rule 1.3(xxx)(4) is intended to reduce the potential uncertainty of what constitutes a swap by setting forth clear and objective criteria for distinguishing an agreement, contract, or transaction that is insurance from a swap. Providing such an objective rule and explanation mitigates the potential additional costs of petitioning the Commissions, or obtaining an opinion of counsel, about whether an agreement, contract, or transaction is insurance or a swap.

The objective criteria provided by the rule also will aid sound risk management practices because it will be easier for market participants to decide whether a particular agreement, contract, or transaction is insurance or a swap.

Further, the CFTC anticipates that the interpretation of the term “swap” to include guarantees of swaps and the separate CFTC release will provide programmatic benefits by enabling the CFTC and market participants to receive more price-forming data about swaps, which may help improve price discovery for swaps. The CFTC will carefully consider these and other benefits in the separate CFTC release.

(c) Comments and Consideration of Alternatives

The CFTC requested comment on the costs and benefits of proposed rule 1.3(xxx)(4) and interpretive guidance to distinguish between insurance products and swaps for market participants, markets, and the public. Several commenters argued that any additional requirement beyond the requirement of the rules that a product is a regulated insurance product creates legal uncertainty and imposes costs. Specifically, a commenter asserted that it is a burden to introduce conditions that are neither universal nor fundamental, such as showing a continuing risk of loss for some insurance contracts. Another commenter argued that legal uncertainty may result in conflicting interpretations, which can be a significant burden for financial guaranty transactions that typically require the delivery of a legal opinion.

The Commissions have expanded the list of insurance products excluded from the swap definition to cover certain traditional insurance products that commenters have brought to their attention and that the Commissions have determined are not swaps. The Commissions are also clarifying that the Insurance Safe Harbor does not imply or presume that an agreement, contract or transaction that does not meet its requirements is a swap or security-based swap, but will require further analysis of the applicable facts and circumstances, including the form and substance of the agreement, contract, or transaction, to determine whether it is insurance, and thus not a swap or security-based swap. With regard to financial guaranty in particular, the acceleration of payment criterion is designed to reflect market practice and aid appropriate product classification. The Commissions are stating that they intend to interpret concepts upon which the Product Test relies that are derived from state law consistently with the existing and developing laws of the relevant state(s) governing the agreement, contract, or transaction in question. However, the Commissions note their authority to diverge from state law if the Commissions become aware of evasive conduct. While the CFTC cannot anticipate under what circumstances or how often the Commissions might diverge from state law, the CFTC believes that there will be more consistent than inconsistent interpretations. Accordingly, the rules do not present the increased burden or legal uncertainty that these commenters suggested.

Several commenters also requested that the Commissions codify the proposed interpretive guidance regarding enumerated insurance products in rule text on the basis that codification would enhance legal certainty, and thereby reduce costs. The Commissions have decided to include a list of products in rule text in response to these commenters concerns.

A commenter proposed that the sole test for determining whether an agreement, contract or transaction is insurance should be whether it is subject to regulation as insurance by the insurance commissioner of the applicable state(s). While the commenter's test is potentially easier and thus may be less costly to apply than the Commissions' test, it would be inadequate because, as explained in section II.B.1.(d) above, it would essentially delete the product prong of the insurance safe harbor, and thus begging the question of how to distinguish insurance from swaps and security-based swaps and allowing state insurance regulators to supplant the Commissions' role in further defining, or determining what is, a swap. Further, market participants might misconstrue the commenter's test in close cases to mean that any activity permitted by the insurance commissioner of the relevant state(s) may not be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps. However, insurance companies are in many circumstances permitted by state insurance regulators to enter into swaps or security-based swaps, illustrating that the fact that while an insurance company may enter into an agreement, contract or transaction, it does not necessarily mean that such agreement, contract or transaction is insurance. Further, the domain of insurance regulation may change and then this commenter's test would induce an evolving boundary between state and CFTC regulation.

Several commenters suggested an approach in which insurance products that qualify for the exclusion contained in section 3(a)(8) of the Securities Act of 1933 would be excluded from the swap definition. One commenter argued that “Section 3(a)(8) has long been recognized as the definitive provision as to where Congress intends to separate securities products that are subject to SEC regulation from `insurance' and `annuity' products that are to be left to state insurance regulation” and that the section 3(a)(8) criteria are well understood and have a long history of interpretation by the SEC and the courts. Other commenters suggest that because section 3(a)(8) includes both a product and a provider requirement, if the Commissions include it in their final rules, it should be a requirement separate from the Product Test and the Provider Test, and should extend to insurance products that are securities.

While the Commissions agree that the section 3(a)(8) criteria have a long history of interpretations by the SEC and the courts, the Commissions find that it is inappropriate to apply the section 3(a)(8) criteria in this context. Although section 3(a)(8) contains some conditions applicable to insurance providers that are similar to the prongs of the Provider Test, it does not contain any conditions that are similar to the prongs of the Product Test. Moreover, section 3(a)(8) provides an exclusion from the Securities Act and the CFTC has no jurisdiction under the Federal securities laws. Congress directed both agencies to further define the terms “swap” and “security-based swap.” As such, the Commissions find that it is more appropriate to have a standalone rule that incorporates features that distinguish insurance products from swaps and security-based swaps and over which both Commissions will have joint interpretative authority.

Another commenter proposed the following test for an agreement, contract, or transaction to be insurance:

[It] [e]xists for a specified period of time;

Where the one party to the contract promises to make one or more payments such as money, goods or services;

In exchange for another party's promise to provide a benefit of pecuniary value for the loss, damage, injury, or impairment of an identified interest of the insured as a result of the occurrence of a specified event or contingency outside of the parties' control; and

Where such payment is related to a loss occurring as a result of a contingency or specified event.

This test may not represent a less costly alternative to the Commissions' test in light of its complexity, and in any event would not distinguish swaps and security-based swaps from insurance more effectively than the Commissions' test for two reasons. The requirements of a specified term and the payment of premiums are present in both insurance products and in agreements, contracts, or transactions that are swaps or security-based swaps, and therefore such requirements do not help to distinguish between them. A test based solely on these requirements, then, would be over-inclusive and exclude from the Dodd-Frank regulatory regime agreements, contacts, and transactions that have not traditionally been considered insurance. Also, the third and fourth requirements of the commenter's test collapse into the Product Prong's requirement that the loss must occur and be proved, and any payment or indemnification therefor must be limited to the value of the insurable interest.

Another commenter offered a 3-part test in lieu of the Commissions' test:

(1) The insurance contract must be issued by an insurance company and subject to state insurance regulation;

(2) The insurance contract must be the type of contract issued by insurance companies; and

(3) The insurance contract must not be of a type that the CFTC and SEC determine to regulate.

The commenter stated that its approach does not contain a definition of insurance, and for that reason believes that is preferable to the Commissions' approach, which it believes creates legal uncertainty because any attempted definition of insurance has the potential to be over- or under-inclusive.

While the commenter's test may appear simpler on its face, the CFTC does not believe that it represents a less costly alternative. The first two requirements of the commenter's test do not help to distinguish swaps from insurance; the third provides no greater certainty than the Commissions' facts and circumstances approach. Moreover, as discussed in section II.B.1(d) above, the Commissions' rules and related interpretations are not intended to define insurance. Rather, they provide a safe harbor for certain types of traditional insurance products by reference to factors that may be used to distinguish insurance from swaps and security-based swaps. Agreements, contracts, and transactions that do not qualify for the Insurance Safe Harbor may or may not be swaps, depending upon the facts and circumstances. Thus, the Commissions' test neither creates legal uncertainty as suggested by the commenter, nor the costs associated with such uncertainty.

Another commenter proposed different approaches for existing products and new products. According to the commenter, if an existing type of agreement, contract or transaction is currently reportable as insurance in the provider's regulatory and financial reports under a state or foreign jurisdiction's insurance laws, then that agreement, contract or transaction would be insurance rather than a swap or security-based swap. On the other hand, for new products, if this approach is inconclusive, the commenter recommended that the Commissions use the product prong of the Commissions' test only.

The commenter's proposal may represent a less costly alternative than the Commissions' test. However, rather than treating existing products and new products differently, the Commissions as discussed above are providing “grandfather” protection for agreements, contracts, and transactions entered into on or before the effective date of the Products Definitions. Moreover, the commenter's test would eliminate the provider test for new products, which the Commissions believe is important to help prevent products that are swaps or security-based swaps from being characterized as insurance.

In sum, the CFTC finds that, while some of the alternatives proposed by commenters may appear less costly to apply than the Commissions' test, in all cases they would sweep out of the Dodd-Frank Act regulatory regime for swaps agreements, contracts, and transactions that have not historically been considered insurance, and that should, in appropriate circumstances, be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps. Accordingly, the CFTC does not find these alternative tests proposed by commenters to be better tools than the Insurance Safe Harbor for limiting the scope of the statutory definitions of swap and security-based swap. Excluding agreements, contracts, and transactions that are, in fact, swaps from the further definition of the term “swap” is inconsistent with the CFTC's regulatory objectives and could increase risk to the U.S. financial system.

Three commenters provided comments regarding the treatment of guarantees of swaps. Two commenters opposed treating insurance or guarantees of swaps as swaps. Suggesting that the products are not economically similar, one commenter argued that insurance wraps of swaps do not “necessarily replicate the economics of the underlying swap, and only following default could the wrap provider end up with the same payment obligations as a wrapped defaulting swap counterparty.” This commenter also stated that the non-insurance guarantees are not swaps because the result of most guarantees is that the guarantor is responsible for monetary claims against the defaulting party, which in this commenter's view is a different obligation than the arrangement provided by the underlying swap itself.

One commenter supported treating financial guaranty insurance of a swap or security-based swap as itself a swap or a security-based swap. This commenter argued that financial guaranty insurance of a swap or security-based swap transfers the risk of counterparty non-performance to the guarantor, making it an embedded and essential feature of the insured swap or security-based swap. This commenter further argued that the value of such swap or security-based swap is largely determined by the likelihood that the proceeds from the financial guaranty insurance policy will be available if the counterparty does not meet its obligations. This commenter maintained that financial guaranty insurance of swaps and security-based swaps serves a similar function to credit default swaps in hedging counterparty default risk.

While the CFTC is not further defining guarantees of swaps to be swaps, the CFTC is persuaded that when a swap (that is not a security-based swap or mixed swap) has the benefit of a guarantee, the guarantee and related guaranteed swap should be analyzed together. The events surrounding the failure of AIG Financial Products (“AIGFP”) highlight how guarantees can cause major risks to flow to the guarantor. The CFTC finds that the regulation of swaps and the risk exposures associated with them, which is an essential concern of the Dodd-Frank Act, would be less effective if the CFTC did not interpret the term “swap” to include a guarantee of a swap.

Two commenters cautioned against unnecessary and duplicative regulation. One commented that, because the underlying swap, and the parties to it, will be regulated and reported to the extent required by Title VII, there is no need for regulation of non-insurance guarantees. The other commented that an insurance policy on a swap would be subject to state regulation; without addressing non-insurance guarantees, this commenter stated that additional Federal regulation would be duplicative. The CFTC disagrees with these arguments. As stated above, the CFTC is treating financial guaranty insurance of swaps and all other guarantees of swaps in a similar manner because they are functionally or economically similar products. If a guarantee of a swap is not treated as an integral part of the underlying swap, price forming terms of swaps and the risk exposures associated with the guarantees may remain hidden from regulators and may not be regulated appropriately. Moreover, treating guarantees of swaps as part of the underlying swaps ensures that the CFTC will be able to take appropriate action if, after evaluating information collected with respect to the guarantees and the underlying swaps, such guarantees of swaps are revealed to pose particular problems in connection with the swaps markets. The separate CFTC release clarifies the limited practical effects of the CFTC's interpretation, which should address industry concerns regarding duplicative regulation.

One commenter also argued that regulating financial guaranty of swaps as swaps would cause monoline insurers to withdraw from the market, which could adversely affect the U.S. and international public finance, infrastructure and structured finance markets, given that insuring a related swap often is integral to the insurance of municipal bonds and other securities. The CFTC finds this argument unpersuasive. The CFTC understands that the 2008 global financial crisis severely affected most monolines and only one remains active in U.S. municipal markets. Thus, it appears that the monolines have, for the most part, already exited these markets. In addition, as stated above, the separate CFTC release clarifies the limited practical effects of the CFTC's interpretation, which should address industry concerns.

4. Costs and Benefits of the Withdrawing the Energy Exemption and Interpretation Regarding the Forward Contract Exclusion From the Swap Definition

The CFTC is clarifying that the forward contract exclusion from the swap definition for nonfinancial commodities should be read consistently with the forward contract exclusion from the CEA definition of the term “future delivery.” In that regard, the CFTC is retaining the Brent Interpretation and extending it to apply to all nonfinancial commodities, and withdrawing the Energy Exemption, which had extended the Brent Interpretation regarding the forward contract exclusion from the term “future delivery” to energy commodities other than oil, as it is no longer necessary. Although the CFTC is withdrawing the Energy Exemption, the CFTC is providing that certain alternative delivery procedures, such as physical netting agreements, that are mentioned in the Energy Exemption, are consistent with the intent of the book out provision in the Brent Interpretation—provided that the parties had a bona fide intent, when entering into the transactions, to make or take (as applicable) delivery of the commodity covered by those transactions. The CFTC also is providing an interpretation regarding documentation of orally booked-out transactions.

In addition, the CFTC is clarifying that its prior guidance regarding commodity options embedded in forward contracts should be applied as well to the treatment of forward contracts in nonfinancial commodities that contain embedded options under the Dodd-Frank Act. The final interpretation also explains the CFTC's position with regard to forwards with embedded volumetric optionality, including an explanation of how it would treat some of the specific contracts described by commenters, such as full requirements contracts. It also explains the CFTC's view with respect to certain contractual provisions, such as liquidated damages and renewable/evergreen provisions that do not disqualify the transactions in which they are contained from the forward exclusions. The CFTC has also provided an interpretation regarding nonfinancial commodities, including environmental commodities, and interpretations concerning physical exchange transactions, fuel delivery agreements, certain physical commercial agreements, and energy management agreements.

(a) Costs

The CFTC's statement that it will construe the forward contract exclusion consistently with respect to the definitions of the terms “swap” and “future delivery,” as discussed herein, will not impose any new material costs on market participants. It also will establish a uniform interpretation of the forward contract exclusion from the definitions of both statutory terms, which will avoid the significant costs that some commenters state would result if the forward contract exclusion were construed differently in these two contexts. In addition, the CFTC's clarification regarding the continued viability of the alternative delivery procedures in the Energy Exemption should reduce costs to the industry by conferring legal certainty that their transactions may continue to have these procedures without losing their eligibility for the forward exclusions.

As noted in section II.B.2.(a)(ii) above, the CFTC has explained its position regarding nonfinancial commodities. This should help the industry to determine whether their transactions are eligible for the forward exclusions, and consequently reduce costs to the industry for transactions involving non-financial commodities such as renewable energy credits that may be eligible for the forward exclusions. The final interpretation regarding forwards with embedded volumetric optionality should reduce costs to the industry, because these transactions may qualify for the forward exclusions from the swap and “future delivery” definitions. The explanation of how the CFTC will view specific contracts mentioned by commenters under this interpretation should enhance legal certainty and thereby reduce costs.

The clarification that certain contractual provisions do not disqualify transactions from the forward exclusion also should reduce costs to the industry by providing increased legal certainty that these provisions will not render their transactions subject to Dodd-Frank Act regulation. Similar cost reductions should be achieved through enhanced legal certainty provided by the CFTC's interpretations of physical exchange transactions, fuel delivery agreements, and certain physical commercial agreements, all of which may qualify for the forward exclusions under these interpretations. The interpretation regarding energy management agreements, which provides that the fact that a particular transaction is done under the auspices of such agreements does not alter the nature of that transaction, should likewise enhance legal certainty and reduce costs. While the CFTC's interpretation regarding documentation of oral book-outs—that an oral book-out be followed by a confirmation in a commercially reasonable time in written or electronic form—may impose costs for industries that do not document their orally booked out transactions, the CFTC believes that this requirement is consistent with prudent business practices and is necessary to prevent abuse of the Brent safe harbor.

Market participants will need to assess whether products are forward contracts that qualify for the forward exclusions from the swap and future delivery definitions, and may need to request an interpretation regarding such products, or obtain an opinion of counsel, which will involve certain costs.

(b) Benefits

The CFTC's interpretations regarding the forward exclusions should provide market participants with greater legal certainty regarding whether their transactions qualify for the forward exclusion from the swap definition, which should facilitate commercial merchandising activity. For example, the interpretation regarding forwards with embedded volumetric options should facilitate commercial merchandising activity of the electricity, natural gas, and other industries that employ these contracts where delivery quantities are flexible, while the conditions in the interpretations should help to assure that these contracts are bona fide forwards.

In addition, the interpretation should result in the appropriate classification of transactions as commercial merchandising transactions (and thus forward contracts) that are not subject to Title VII regulation. This will enhance market participants' efficient use of the swaps markets and, as described above, reduce costs on industry. Documenting oral book-outs should promote good business practices and aid the CFTC in preventing evasion through abuse of the forward exclusion. Finally, the CFTC's interpretation regarding commercial market participants should ensure that the forward exclusions may only be used for commercial merchandising activity and not for speculative purposes.

The CFTC's position regarding nonfinancial commodities should help the industry to determine whether their transactions are eligible for the forward exclusions, which should facilitate commercial merchandising activity for transactions involving non-financial commodities such as renewable energy credits that may be eligible for the forward exclusions.

(c) Comments and Consideration of Alternatives

The CFTC requested comment in the Proposing Release on the costs and benefits of the proposed interpretive guidance regarding the forward contract exclusion and the withdrawal of the Energy Exemption for market participants, markets and the public.

Several commenters requested that the CFTC codify its proposed guidance regarding the forward contract exclusion in rule text to provide greater legal certainty, which they argued may mitigate costs. However, upon consideration, the CFTC is not codifying its interpretation in rule text. As discussed in section II.B.2.(a)(i), above, the CFTC has never codified its prior interpretations of the forward contract exclusion with respect to the future delivery definition as a rule or regulation. Publishing an interpretation in this release is consistent with the manner in which the CFTC has interpreted the forward exclusion in the past. The additional research costs associated with an interpretation as opposed to codification in the Code of Federal Regulations will be small, because the CFTC has placed this interpretation, and all other product interpretations, in this adopting release for the convenience of practitioners. Moreover, courts may rely upon agency interpretations; thus, the CFTC believes that codification would not mitigate costs much.

Some commenters argued that physical options should be considered forward contracts excluded from the definition of a swap, because increased regulation would cause harm to physical commodity markets without providing significant benefits. The statutory definition of “swap” provides that options—including physical options—are swaps. Accordingly, the CFTC may not exclude such options from the swap definition. Further, treating physical options as forward contracts would be inconsistent with longstanding CFTC precedent. Nonetheless, the CFTC has provided relief using its plenary authority under CEA Section 4c(b) over commodity options through the trade option exemption. While certain capacity contracts on RTOs and ISOs and certain contracts entered into by section 201(f) entities may be considered options and therefore would be swaps, regulation of these contracts may be addressed through the public interest waiver process in CEA section 4(c)(6).

Several commenters argued that renewable energy credits should not be swaps; rather, renewable energy credits should be considered nonfinancial commodities eligible for the forward exclusion from the swap definition. They asserted that swap regulations would raise transaction costs making it more difficult and expensive to support renewable energy. The CFTC is clarifying that renewable energy credits are nonfinancial commodities and that transactions therein are eligible for the forward exclusion if they satisfy the terms thereof. So if these transactions meet the forward exclusion, they will bear no increased costs.

A commenter requested that tolling contracts be considered forwards and not swaps, seeking to avoid unnecessary cost of regulatory uncertainty and unintended conflict between the CFTC and other regulators. The CFTC has not provided blanket interpretations regarding particular products in the rulemaking, but has provided an interpretation regarding the forward contract exclusions provided above in section II.B.2. To the extent a commenter still is uncertain about the treatment of a specific type of transaction, the commenter may request an interpretation from the CFTC.

Another commenter argued more generally that any embedded option (for example, price, quantity, delivery point, delivery date, contract term) that does not permit a unilateral election of financial settlement based upon the value change in an underlying cash market should not render the contract a swap. While the commenter's approach with respect to “any” embedded option may result in lower costs for market participants because more contracts likely would be excluded as forwards from the swap definition and thus not be subject to regulation under the Dodd-Frank Act, such an expansive approach may inappropriately classify contracts as forwards. The CFTC is providing an interpretation with respect to forwards with embedded volumetric options to address commenters' concerns. The CFTC is also explaining its position above regarding price optionality, optionality with respect to delivery points and delivery dates specifically in response to the commenter's letter, and optionality as to certain contract terms (such as evergreen and renewal provisions) to address particular concerns raised by commenters.

Another commenter suggested that an option to purchase or sell a physical commodity, whether embedded in a forward contract or stand alone, should either (i) fall within the statutory forward exclusion from the swap definition, or (ii) alternatively, if deemed by the CFTC to be a swap, should be exempt from the swap definition pursuant to a modified trade option exemption pursuant to CEA Section 4c(b). Although this proposal may on its face appear to be simpler than the CFTC's, it is substantively similar to the one the CFTC is adopting. The CFTC has modified the proposed interpretive guidance regarding forwards with embedded options as discussed in section II.B.2.(b)(ii) above; contracts with embedded options that are swaps under the final interpretation may nevertheless qualify for the modified trade option exemption recently adopted by the CFTC. The CFTC is not adopting an approach that forwards with any type of embedded option should fall within the statutory forward exclusion from the swap definition. Such an approach would be overbroad because it would exclude contracts that are not appropriately classified as forwards. The commenter also requested that trade option exemptions be granted for physical commodities. The costs and benefits of the trade option exemption are addressed in that rulemaking.

Another commenter urged the CFTC to broadly exempt commercial forward contracting from swap regulation by generally excluding from the swap definition any forward contract with embedded optionality between end users “whose primary purpose is consistent with that of an `end user', and in which any embedded option is directly related to `end use.' ”

While this alternative may appear to be less costly than the CFTC's interpretation, its vagueness may create significant legal uncertainty about the scope of the forward exclusion, which may increase costs on market participants. Even if this approach does represent a lower cost alternative, however, it is overbroad and likely would result in the inappropriate classification of transactions as forward contracts, and thus would not achieve the CFTC's objective of appropriately classifying transactions that should qualify for the forward exclusions.

Another commenter believed that the CFTC's “facts and circumstances” approach to forwards with embedded options does not provide the legal certainty required by nonfinancial entities engaging in commercial contracts in the normal course of business. The commenter further argued that many option-like contract terms could be determined to “target the delivery term” under a facts and circumstances analysis. Accordingly, the commenter believed that the CFTC should provide in its rules that an embedded option or embedded optionality will not result in a nonfinancial forward being a swap unless: (1) Delivery is optional; (2) financial settlement is allowed; and (3) transfer and trading of the option separately from the forward is permitted.

The CFTC has long applied a facts and circumstances approach to the forward exclusion, including with respect to forwards with embedded options, an approach with which market participants are familiar. That approach balances the need for legal certainty against protecting market participants, market integrity and the risk of providing opportunities for evasion. By contrast, the commenter's bright-line approach may be simpler to apply, but could undermine market integrity and creates greater evasion opportunities. Moreover, the CFTC's additional interpretation noted above, including clarification about the meaning of the phrase “target the delivery term,” and forwards with embedded volumetric optionality, provides enhanced legal certainty in response to the commenter's concerns, which should mitigate the costs of the CFTC's approach to market participants.

Another commenter stated its view that the full costs of applying the Dodd-Frank regulatory apparatus to physical energy transactions, or of energy companies being forced to abandon full-requirements bilateral contracting will significantly increase the costs to be paid by U.S. consumers. The CFTC is sensitive to these concerns. The CFTC is providing relief for full-requirements contracts so long as they satisfy the conditions set forth in the interpretation.

The CFTC is also providing relief for other types of physical energy contracts that may qualify for the forward exclusions. Separately, the CFTC has provided relief for trade options in another rulemaking.

5. Loan Participations

In the Proposing Release, the Commissions proposed guidance that they do not interpret the swap and security-based swap definitions to include loan participations in which: (i) The purchaser is acquiring a current or future direct or indirect ownership interest in the related loan; and (ii) the loan participations are “true participations” (the participant acquires a beneficial ownership interest in the underlying loans). One commenter expressed concern with the second prong of the proposed guidance. Specifically, the commenter said that the “true participation” requirement may result in the improper classification of loan participations as swaps, because LMA-style loan participations may not qualify. Moreover, because of legal uncertainty associated with the “true participation” terminology derived from U.S. bankruptcy law, LSTA-style loan participations may be subject to improper classification as well. The commenter proposed an alternative test described in section II.B.3., above.

The Commissions largely are adopting the recommendation from the commenter regarding the Commissions' proposed guidance concerning loan participations as not swaps or security-based swaps, with certain modifications. This reduces costs for market participants because the Commissions' test for loan participations from the proposal included a “true participation” requirement that commenters suggested is subject to legal uncertainty. Benefits of the rule include enhanced legal certainty that loan participations that meet the requirements of the interpretation are not swaps, which should facilitate loan participation market activity.

6. Interpretation Regarding Commercial/Consumer Transactions

The Commissions are stating that certain customary consumer and commercial transactions that have not previously been considered swaps or security-based swaps do not fall within the statutory definitions of those terms. Specifically with regard to consumer transactions, the Commissions are adopting as proposed the interpretation that certain transactions entered into by consumers (natural persons) as principals or their agents primarily for personal, family or household purposes would not be considered swaps or security-based swaps. The Commissions have added to the list of consumer transactions certain residential fuel storage contracts; service contracts; consumer options to buy, sell or lease real or personal property; and certain consumer guarantees of loans (credit cards, automobile, and mortgage). The Commissions have also clarified that consumer transactions used to purchase nonfinancial energy commodities are not swaps or security-based swaps. With respect to commercial transactions, the Commissions are adopting as proposed the interpretation that certain commercial transactions involving customary business arrangements (whether or not involving a for-profit entity) would not be considered swaps or security-based swaps. The Commissions also are clarifying that commercial loans by the Federal Home Loan Banks and Farm Credit Institutions are not swaps. Finally, the Commissions are explaining the factors characteristic of consumer and commercial transactions that the Commissions will consider in determining whether other consumer and commercial transactions that are not specifically listed in the interpretation should be considered swaps or security-based swaps.

(a) Costs

The CFTC believes that the forgoing interpretation should mitigate costs because it increases legal certainty that specific customary consumer and commercial transactions are not swaps or security-based swaps subject to Dodd-Frank regulation. As a result of this interpretation, consumers and industry participants will not have to seek legal advice regarding whether these transactions are swaps or security-based swaps. The interpretation regarding commercial loans made by the Federal Home Loan Banks and Farm Credit Institutions also reduces costs by not subjecting these transactions to additional Dodd-Frank Act regulation. To the extent a customary consumer or commercial transaction is not included in the interpretation, consumers and market participants may incur costs in seeking an interpretation from the Commissions regarding the status of their transactions or an opinion of counsel. However, the CFTC has emphasized that the lists are not exclusive, and has provided the factors it will consider for determining whether other consumer and commercial transactions that are not specifically listed in the interpretation should be considered swaps or security-based swaps, which should assist consumers and market participants in deciding whether to seek an interpretation and thus mitigate these costs.

(b) Benefits

The foregoing interpretation provides increased legal certainty benefits for market participants and should ensure that customary consumer and commercial transactions, which have never been considered swaps or security-based swaps, will not be subject to Dodd-Frank Act regulation, and may facilitate consumer and commercial activity. As discussed above, the interpretation regarding the factors that the Commissions will consider in determining whether transactions that are not listed in the interpretation are swaps or security-based swaps should assist market participants in determining whether to seek an interpretation regarding such transactions. Therefore, this interpretation helps to mitigate costs of legal uncertainty.

(c) Comments and Consideration of Alternatives

Several commenters believed that the proposed interpretive guidance regarding consumer/commercial transactions does not provide sufficient legal certainty and request that the Commissions codify such guidance in regulations in order to provide greater legal certainty, which may mitigate costs. The Commissions decline to codify the interpretation into rule text. The interpretation is intended to provide guidance to assist consumers and commercial and non-profit entities in evaluating whether certain arrangements that they enter into will be regulated as swaps or security-based swaps. The interpretation is intended to allow the flexibility necessary, including the consideration of the applicable facts and circumstances by the Commissions, in evaluating consumer and commercial arrangements to ascertain whether they may be swaps or security-based swaps. The representative characteristics and factors taken together are indicators that a consumer or commercial arrangement is not a swap or security-based swap, and the Commissions have provided specific examples demonstrating how these characteristics and factors apply to some common types of consumer and commercial arrangements. However, as the interpretation is not intended to be a bright-line test for determining whether a particular consumer or commercial arrangement is a swap or security-based swap, if the particular arrangement does not meet all of the identified characteristics and factors, the arrangement will be evaluated based on its particular facts and circumstances. Also, the courts may rely on the interpretation and as such, the CFTC does not believe that the adoption of rule text as opposed to an interpretation will mitigate costs associated with perceived legal uncertainty.

A commenter asserted that Federal courts will have to hear more disputes, because proposed CFTC jurisdiction would pre-empt significant aspects of state and Federal law concerning the purchase and sale of goods and services. This rulemaking includes safe-harbors from the definition of a swap for customary consumer and commercial transactions. The Commissions have expanded the list of consumer transactions that are excluded from the swap definition. While it may be possible that Federal courts will nevertheless hear more disputes, that would be a result of the statutory swap definition and not from the interpretation being adopted by the Commissions (which should reduce the number of such disputes).

Another commenter agreed with the general factors proposed for identifying agreements, contracts, or transactions that are not swaps, but requested additional clarity with respect to particular transactions. Specifically, the commenter requested that commercial loans and financing facilities with embedded interest rate options should not be considered swaps. To clarify, interest rate options are swaps. As discussed in section II.B.3. above, plain vanilla interest rate options embedded in a loan, such as rate locks, rate caps and rate collars, are not swaps. If a product is more complex, it may be appropriate for the CFTC to consider it in response to a specific request for interpretation.

7. Residential Exchange Program (“REP”)

The REP was established by Congress “[t]o extend the benefits of low cost Federal System hydro power to residential and small farm electric power consumers throughout the Pacific Northwest Region.” A commenter requests that the CFTC further define the term “swap” to exclude consumer benefits under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (“Northwest Power Act”) and transactions under the REP to allow a subsidy to continue to be received by residential and small farm utilities.

The Commissions do not consider the REP transactions described by the commenter to be swaps or security-based swaps. Consequently, this rulemaking clarifies that Dodd-Frank regulatory costs will not be imposed on REPs and allows the subsidy to continue to be provided to residential and small farm utilities.

8. Costs and Benefits of Rule Regarding Foreign Exchange Products and Forward Rate Agreements

CFTC rule 1.3(xxx)(2) under the CEA explicitly defines the term “swap” to include an agreement, contract, or transaction that is a cross-currency swap, currency option, foreign currency option, foreign exchange option, foreign exchange rate option, foreign exchange forward, foreign exchange swap, forward rate agreement, and non-deliverable forward involving foreign exchange, unless such agreement, contract, or transaction is otherwise excluded by section 1a(47)(B) of the CEA. Rule 1.3(xxx)(3) provides that: (i) A foreign exchange forward or a foreign exchange swap shall not be considered a swap if the Secretary of the Treasury makes the determination described in CEA section 1a(47)(E)(i); and (ii) notwithstanding any such determination, certain provisions of the CEA will apply to such a foreign exchange forward or foreign exchange swap (specifically, the reporting requirements in section 4r of the CEA and regulations thereunder and, in the case of a swap dealer or major swap participant that is a party to a foreign exchange swap or foreign exchange forward, the business conduct standards in section 4s of the CEA and regulations thereunder). Rule 1.3(xxx)(3) further clarifies that a currency swap, cross-currency swap, currency option, foreign currency option, foreign exchange option, foreign exchange rate option, or non-deliverable forward involving foreign exchange is not a foreign exchange forward or foreign exchange swap subject to a determination by the Secretary of the Treasury as described in the preamble.

The Commissions are also clarifying that a bona fide foreign exchange spot transaction, i.e., a foreign exchange transaction that is settled on the customary timeline of the relevant spot market, is not within the definition of the term “swap.” In addition, the interpretation clarifies that retail foreign currency options described in CEA Section 2(c)(2)(B) are not swaps. This clarification allows market participants to engage in these transactions with non-ECP customers who would otherwise have to engage in on-exchange transactions.

(a) Costs

In complying with rule 1.3(xxx)(2), a market participant will need to ascertain whether an agreement, contract, or transaction is a swap under the definition. This analysis will have to be performed upon entering into the agreement, contract, or transaction. However, any costs associated with this analysis are expected to be less than the costs of doing the same analysis absent the rule, particularly given potential confusion in the event of a determination by the Secretary of the Treasury that foreign exchange forwards and/or foreign exchange swaps not be considered swaps. To the extent that rule 1.3(xxx)(2) improperly includes certain types of agreements, contracts, and transactions in the swap definition, and therefore the imposition of additional requirements and obligations, these requirements and obligations could lead to costs for market participants entering into such agreements, contracts, or transactions. However, the CFTC has carefully considered each of the agreements, contracts and transactions described above that it is further defining as swaps under rule 1.3(xxx)(2) and believe that they are appropriately classified as such, subject to the statutory exclusions.

(b) Benefits

Because the statutory definition of the term “swap” includes a process by which the Secretary of the Treasury may determine that certain agreements, contracts, and transactions that meet the statutory definition of a “foreign exchange forward” or “foreign exchange swap,” respectively, shall not be considered swaps, the CFTC is concerned that application of the definition, without further clarification, may cause uncertainty about whether, if the Secretary of the Treasury makes such a determination, certain agreements, contracts, or transactions would be swaps. Rule 1.3(xxx)(3) increases legal certainty that a currency swap, cross-currency swap, currency option, foreign currency option, foreign exchange option, foreign exchange rate option, or non-deliverable forward involving foreign exchange, is a swap (unless it is otherwise excluded by the statutory definition of the term “swap”). The rule also increases legal certainty that reporting requirements, and business conduct requirements for swap dealers and major swap participants, are applicable to foreign exchange forwards and foreign exchange swaps even if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that they should not be considered swaps, and is consistent with the statute. The CFTC also is concerned that confusion could be generated by the “forward” label of non-deliverable forwards involving foreign exchange, and forward rate agreements. Rule 1.3(xxx)(2) increases legal certainty that these types of agreements, contracts, and transactions are swaps.

Providing such a rule to market participants to determine whether certain types of agreements, contracts, or transactions are swaps alleviates additional costs to persons of inquiring with the Commissions, or obtaining an opinion of counsel, about whether such agreements, contracts, or transactions are swaps. In addition, such a rule regarding the requirements that apply to foreign exchange forwards and foreign exchange swaps that are subject to a determination by the Secretary of the Treasury similarly alleviates additional costs to persons of inquiring with the Commissions, or obtaining an opinion of counsel, to determine the requirements that are applicable to such foreign exchange forwards and foreign exchange swaps. As with the other rules comprising the Product Definitions, enhanced legal certainty will help market participants to engage in sound risk management practices, which will benefit both market participants and the public.

The interpretation concerning bona fide foreign exchange spot transactions should result in the appropriate classification of such transactions as not subject to Dodd-Frank Act regulation. The interpretation regarding retail foreign currency options subject to CEA Section 2(c)(2)(B) as not swaps provides clarity and reduces costs for market participants, who could not offer the product to non-ECP customers off-exchange in accordance with the provisions of CEA Section 2(c)(2)(B).

In addition, including certain FX transactions, forward rate agreements and certain other transactions in the swap definition protects the public by explicitly subjecting these transactions to Dodd-Frank regulation.

(c) Comments and Consideration of Alternatives

The CFTC requested comment as to the costs and benefits of proposed rules 1.3(xxx)(2) and (3). As discussed in the preamble, some commenters argued that non-deliverable foreign exchange forward transactions should be regulated as foreign exchange forwards, because regulating them as swaps would increase the cost of hedging foreign currency exposures in emerging markets.

Non-deliverable forward transactions do not satisfy the statutory definition of foreign exchange forwards, as explained in section II.C.2.(b)(ii), supra. They do satisfy the swap definition, however. Accordingly, the CFTC lacks discretion not to define them as swaps.

9. Costs and Benefits of Rule Regarding Title VII Instruments on Futures on Foreign Sovereign Debt Under Exchange Act Rule 3a12-8

Rule 1.3(bbbb) provides that a Title VII instrument that is based on or references a qualifying foreign futures contract on the debt securities of one or more of the 21 enumerated foreign governments is a swap and not a security-based swap if the Title VII instrument satisfies the following conditions:

• The futures contract on which the Title VII instrument is based or that is referenced must be a qualifying foreign futures contract (as defined in rule 3a12-8) on the debt securities of any one or more of the 21 enumerated foreign governments that satisfies the conditions of rule 3a12-8;
• The Title VII instrument is traded on or through a board of trade (as defined in section 1a(6) of the CEA);
• The debt securities on which the qualifying foreign futures contract is based or referenced and any security used to determine the cash settlement amount pursuant to the fourth condition below are not registered under the Securities Act or the subject of any American depositary receipt registered under the Securities Act;
• The Title VII instrument may only be cash settled; and
• The Title VII instrument is not entered into by the issuer of the securities upon which the qualifying foreign futures contract is based or referenced (including any security used to determine the cash payment due on settlement of such Title VII instrument), an affiliate (as defined in the Securities Act and the rules and regulations thereunder) of the issuer, or an underwriter with respect to such securities.

Only those Title VII instruments that are based on qualifying foreign futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments and that satisfy these five conditions will be swaps. The final rules are intended to provide consistent treatment (other than with respect to method of settlement) of qualifying foreign futures contracts and Title VII instruments based on qualifying foreign futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments. The Commissions understand that many of the qualifying foreign futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments trade with substantial volume through foreign trading venues under the conditions set forth in rule 3a12-8 and permitting swaps on such futures contracts subject to similar conditions would not raise concerns that such swaps could be used to circumvent the conditions of rule 3a12-8 and the Federal securities laws concerns that such conditions are intended to protect. Further, providing consistent treatment for qualifying foreign futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments and Title VII instruments based on futures contracts on the debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments will allow trading of these instruments through DCMs on which such futures are listed. There may also be cross-margining benefits when different contracts are margined at the same derivatives clearing organization, such as may be the case if a swap on a futures contract and a corresponding futures contract trade on the same DCM. This cross-margining would enhance sound risk management practices.

The CFTC believes that the assessment cost associated with determining whether a swap on certain futures contracts on foreign government securities constitute a swap or security-based swap under rule 1.3(bbbb) should be minimal. Currently, qualifying foreign futures contracts on debt securities of the 21 enumerated foreign governments are traded on exchanges or boards of trade. Market participants may look at the exchange or board of trade listing to determine what they are. Therefore, the assessment, in accordance with the rule, would primarily focus on whether such swap itself is traded on or through a board of trade; whether the swap is cash-settled; whether the futures is traded on a board of trade; whether any security used to determine the cash settlement amount are not registered under the Securities Act or the subject of any American depositary receipt registered under the Securities Act; and whether the swap is entered into by the foreign government issuing the debt securities upon which the qualifying futures contract is based or referenced, an affiliate of such foreign government or an underwriter of such foreign government securities. All of these determinations may be readily and quickly ascertained by the parties entering into the agreement, contract, or transaction. Therefore, the assessment costs associated with rule 1.3(bbbb) should be nominal because parties should be able to make assessments in less than an hour.

10. Costs and Benefits of Rules and Interpretations Regarding Title VII Instruments Where the Underlying Reference Is a Security Index

Historically, the market for index CDS did not divide along jurisdictional divisions between the CFTC and SEC; however, the Dodd-Frank Act created a jurisdictional divide between swaps and security-based swaps. Under the jurisdictional division, the CFTC has jurisdiction over Title VII instruments based on non-narrow-based security indexes while the SEC has jurisdiction over Title VII instruments based on narrow-based security indexes. The SEC also has jurisdiction over Title VII instruments based on a single security or loan, and certain events related to an issuer of securities or issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index.

Rule 1.3(yyy)(1) under the CEA provides that, for purposes of the security-based swap definition, the term “narrow-based security index” would have the same meaning as the statutory definition set forth in CEA section 1a(35), and the rules, regulations, and orders issued by the Commissions relating to such definition. As a result, except where the new rules the Commissions are adopting provide for other treatment, market participants generally will be able to use the Commissions' past guidance in determining whether certain Title VII instruments based on a security index are swaps or security-based swaps.

The Commissions are promulgating additional rules and providing interpretations regarding Title VII instruments based on a security index. The interpretations and additional rules set forth new narrow-based security index criteria with respect to indexes composed of securities, loans, or issuers of securities referenced by an index CDS. The interpretations and rules also address the definition of an “index” and the treatment of broad-based security indexes that become narrow-based and narrow-based indexes that become broad-based, including rule provisions regarding tolerance and grace periods for swaps on security indexes that are traded on CFTC-regulated and SEC-regulated trading platforms.

(a) Costs

In complying with the rules and interpretations, a market participant will need to ascertain whether a Title VII instrument is a swap or a security-based swap according to the criteria set forth in the definitions of the terms “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” and “narrow-based security index” as used in the security-based swap definition. This analysis will have to be performed prior to the execution of, but no later than an offer to enter into, a Title VII instrument, and when the material terms of a Title VII instrument are amended or modified, to ensure compliance with rules 1.3(yyy), 1.3(zzz) or 1.3(aaaa).

However, any such costs are expected to be less than the costs of doing the same analysis absent the rules, which the CFTC believes would be more difficult and lead to greater uncertainty. In particular, rule 1.3(yyy) allows market participants to reduce the costs of determining whether a Title VII instrument based on a security index, other than an index CDS, is a swap or security-based swap by clarifying that they will be able to use the Commissions' past guidance regarding narrow-based security index in making that determination. In the context of index CDS, the Commissions' past guidance regarding narrow-based security indexes does not establish criteria on whether index CDS is a swap or a security-based swap. Accordingly, without further explanation, it would not be clear on which side of the CFTC/SEC jurisdictional divide index CDS would fall. CFTC rules 1.3(zzz) and 1.3(aaaa) allow market participants to reduce the costs of determining whether an index CDS is a swap or a security-based swap by providing a test with objective criteria that is similar to a test with which they already are familiar in the security futures context, yet tailored to index CDS in particular.

Additionally, absent rule 1.3(yyy), which applies the tolerance period rules, if a security index underlying a Title VII instrument traded on a trading platform migrated from being broad-based to being narrow-based, market participants may suffer disruption of their ability to offset or enter into new Title VII instruments, and incur additional costs as a result.

DCMs and SEFs will incur costs in assessing whether an index underlying a Title VII instrument is broad-based, in monitoring the index for migration from broad to narrow-based. There will also be other costs resulting from the migration such as delisting costs. Such migration costs are mitigated by the tolerance period of 45 business days over three calendar months which should reduce the incidence of migration. Similarly, the three-month grace period following an indexes failure of the tolerance period should mitigate delisting and other costs. There will be a range of assessment costs depending on how customized the index underlying an index CDS is.

In determining whether a Title VII instrument is a swap or a security-based swap, market participants will need to apply the criteria found in CFTC rules 1.3(yyy), 1.3(zzz) and 1.3(aaaa). Market participants may conduct such analysis in-house or employ outside third-party service providers to conduct such analysis. The costs associated with obtaining such outside professional services would vary depending on the relevant facts and circumstances, particularly the composition of the index. The CFTC believes, however, that $20,000 represents a reasonable estimate of the upper end of the range of the costs of obtaining the services of outside professional in undertaking the analysis. The CFTC believes that some index CDS based on an established index would not need the assistance of outside counsel, and a determination can be made in less than one hour. If an agreement, contract, or transaction is more complex, the CFTC estimates the analysis will require up to approximately 20 hours of in-house counsel time and 30 hours of outside counsel time.

(b) Benefits

Rules 1.3(zzz) and 1.3(aaaa) clarify the treatment of an index CDS as either a swap or a security-based swap by setting forth objective criteria for meeting the definition of the terms “issuers of securities in a narrow-based security index” and “narrow-based security index,” respectively. These objective rules alleviate additional costs to persons trading index CDS of inquiring with the Commissions, or obtaining an opinion of counsel, to make complex determinations regarding whether an index is broad- or narrow-based, and whether an index CDS based on such an underlying index is a swap or security-based swap.

Also, rules 1.3(zzz) and 1.3(aaaa) should reduce the potential for market participants to use an index CDS to evade regulations, because they set objective requirements relating to the concentration of the notional amount allocated to each reference entity or security included in the index, as well as the eligibility conditions for reference entities and securities. Finally, these rules benefit the public by requiring that the providers of index CDS make publicly available sufficient information regarding the reference entities in an index underlying the index CDS. By requiring that such information be made publicly available, rules 1.3(zzz) and 1.3(aaaa) seek to assure the transparency of the index components that will be beneficial to market participants who trade such instruments and to the public.

Separately, rule 1.3(yyy) addresses exchange-traded swaps based on security indexes where the underlying index migrates from broad-based to narrow-based. The rule includes provisions that many market participants are familiar with from security futures trading. The CFTC believes that by using a familiar regulatory scheme, market participants will be able to more readily understand the rule as compared to a wholly new regulatory scheme. Also, the use of a “tolerance period” for swaps on security indexes that migrate from broad-based to narrow-based also creates greater clarity by establishing a 45-day timeframe (and subsequent grace period) on which market participants may rely. This tolerance period results in cost savings when compared to the alternative scenario where no tolerance period is provided and a migration of an index from broad-based to narrow-based would result in potential impediments to the ability of market participants to offset their swap positions.

Finally, the Commissions are stating that the determination of whether a Title VII instrument is a swap, a security-based swap, or both (i.e., a mixed swap), is made prior to the execution of, but no later than an offer to enter into, the Title VII instrument. If the security index underlying a Title VII instrument migrates from being broad-based to being narrow-based, or vice versa, during the life of a Title VII instrument, the characterization of that Title VII instrument would not change from its initial characterization regardless of whether the Title VII instrument was entered into bilaterally or was executed through a trade on or subject to the rules of a DCM, SEF, FBOT, security-based SEF, or NSE. Absent this interpretation, market participants potentially would need to expend additional resources to continually monitor their swaps to see if the indexes on which they are based have migrated from broad-based to narrow-based. Since the rule provides that the initial determination prevails regardless of whether the underlying index migrates from broad-based to narrow-based, market participants do not need to expend these monitoring costs.

(c) Comments and Consideration of Alternatives

A commenter asserted that the regulatory complexity for index CDS is not worth the high compliance costs. The statute provides that the CFTC has jurisdiction over swaps on broad-based security indices, and the SEC has jurisdiction over swaps on narrow-based security indices, single securities or loans, and certain events related to the issuers of securities. The Commissions need to establish criteria for index CDS, because their past guidance regarding narrow-based security indices does not address them. Without further explanation, it would not be clear on which side of the CFTC/SEC jurisdictional division certain products would fall. The number and concentration limits are derived from criteria that Congress has imposed in the security futures context. The public information availability test does not require that index constituents satisfy all of its requirements; rather, the constituents may satisfy any one of them for the index to be broad-based, and there is a de minimis level for noncompliance.

Another commenter stated that the proposed interpretation needs to be clearer on loan-based swap transactions and that it is costly to determine whether a particular set of loans or borrowers meets the Commissions' public information availability requirement. The Commissions are clarifying that a TRS on two or more loans is not subject to the broad-based/narrow-based jurisdictional divide, but is a swap under the CFTC's jurisdiction. With respect to loan index CDS, the Commissions believe that the index CDS rules, including the public information availability requirement, should apply to indexes of loans underlying index CDS. However, the Commissions are amending the proposed rules to include loans within the categories of instruments to be aggregated for the total principal amount of debt outstanding threshold of the public information availability requirement, and will aggregate outstanding debt of affiliates for purposes of the test, which the CFTC believes should address the commenter's concerns.

A commenter pointed out that there may be costs to relist index-based CDS when the index stops being, or becomes, broad-based. Another commenter believed that the public information availability test will cause indices to switch between narrow-based and broad-based classification, which could result in unnecessary cost, confusion, and market disruption.

The statutory framework requires delisting and relisting. These costs are mitigated by the tolerance period for migration, which may help to prevent frequent migration of indices from broad-based to narrow-based or vice versa. Moreover, it is the case for both on and off-exchange Title VII instruments that the Commissions are stating that the determination of whether a Title VII instrument on a security index is a swap or security-based swap is made prior to execution, but no later than the offer to enter into the instrument, and remains the same throughout the life of the instrument. Accordingly, even if the public information availability test would cause indexes underlying index CDS to migrate as suggested by a commenter, that will not affect the classification of outstanding index CDS entered into prior to such migration. However, if an amendment or change is made to such outstanding index CDS that would cause it to be a new purchase or sale of such index CDS, that could affect the classification of such outstanding index CDS.

A commenter asserted that extending the “grace period” from three months to six months would ease any disruption or dislocation associated with the delisting process with respect to an index that has migrated from broad to narrow, or narrow to broad, and that has failed the tolerance period. The commenter further suggested that where an index CDS migrates, for entities operating both a SEF and a security-based SEF, such entities should be permitted to move the index from one platform to the other simply by providing a notice to the SEC and CFTC.

The Commissions are adopting the proposed rules without modification. As discussed in Section III.G.5(b) above, the Commissions note that the three-month grace period applicable to security futures was mandated by Congress in that context, and the commenter has provided no data or evidence for its request that the Commissions diverge from that grace period and provide for a longer grace period with respect to swaps and security-based swaps. The Commissions believe that the three-month grace period is similarly appropriate to apply in the context of an index that has migrated to provide sufficient time to execute off-setting positions. With respect to the commenter's other suggestion that entities operating both a SEF and a security-based SEF should be able to move the index from one platform to another where an index CDS migrates simply by filing a notice with the SEC and CFTC, the Commissions do not believe that this proposal is within the scope of this rulemaking.

Many commenters offered alternatives to the various tests in proposed rules 1.3(zzz) and 1.3(aaaa). As discussed more fully above in Section III.G.3.(b), the Commissions have incorporated many of the suggested alternatives into the final rules and interpretations and rejected, after careful consideration, other suggested alternatives. For example, three commenters requested that the Commissions revise the affiliation definition that applies when calculating the number and concentration criteria to require a majority control affiliation threshold, rather than the 20 percent threshold in the proposed rules. As discussed in section III.G.3.(b) above, the Commissions are modifying the affiliation definition that applies when calculating the number and concentration criteria in response to commenters to use an affiliation test based on majority ownership. Based on commenters' letters, the Commissions understand that the current standard CDS documentation and the current approach used by certain index providers for index CDS with respect to the inclusion of affiliated entities in the same index use majority ownership rather than 20 percent ownership to determine affiliation. The Commissions are persuaded by commenters that in the case of index CDS only it is more appropriate to use majority ownership because majority-owned entities are more likely to have their economic interests aligned and be viewed by the market as part of a group. The Commissions believe that revising the affiliation definition in this manner for purposes of calculating the number and concentration criteria responds to commenters' concerns that the percentage control threshold may inadvertently include entities that are not viewed as part of a group. Thus, as revised, the affiliation definition will include only those reference entities or issuers included in an index that satisfy the more than 50 percent (i.e., majority ownership) control threshold.

Due to the high compliance costs resulting from the public information availability test in particular, a commenter argued that the Commissions should abandon that test. The final rules retain the public information availability test, which does not present significant compliance costs because it does not require that constituents satisfy all of the requirements and permits a de minimis level of noncompliance.

One commenter offered an alternative to the public information availability test based on the volume of trading. After careful consideration and as described more fully above in section II.G.3.(b), above, the Commissions are not adopting a volume based test either as a replacement or alternative for the public information availability test. A volume based test would not be readily ascertainable with respect to certain underlying components which are not exchange traded or do not satisfy listing standards. The public information availability test allows for more flexibility with respect to the components included in indexes underlying index CDS than a volume-based test. Individual components in an index CDS may not satisfy a volume-based test but could otherwise satisfy one of the criteria of the public information availability test. The public information availability test is similar to the test in the rules for debt security indexes, which, as noted above, apply in the context of Title VII Instruments. The public information availability test, accordingly, provides a consistent set of rules under which index compilers and market participants can analyze the characterization of index CDS.