Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Please submit your comments using only one method. "
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
* Use the SEC's Internet comment form (
* Send an email to
* Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
* Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Pursuant to section 719(d)(1)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commissions jointly must conduct a study to determine whether SVCs fall within the definition of a swap.
If the Commissions determine that SVCs fall within the definition of a swap, they jointly must determine if an exemption for SVCs from the definition of a swap is appropriate and in the public interest and issue regulations implementing such determination.
On August 18, 2011, the Commissions requested comment regarding the study of SVCs required by Section 719(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Given the regulatory developments since the initial request for comment was issued, specifically the adoption of final rules further defining the terms “swap” and “security-based swap,”
Are the proposed rules and the interpretive guidance set forth in the [Proposed Definitions] useful, appropriate, and sufficient for persons to consider when evaluating whether SVCs fall within the definition of a swap? If not, why not? Would SVCs satisfy the test for insurance provided in the [Proposed Definitions]? Why or why not? Is additional guidance necessary with regard to SVCs in this context? If so, what further guidance would be appropriate? Please explain.
By the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
By the Securities and Exchange Commission.