Federal Register: December 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 250)

DOCID: fr30de10-42 FR Doc 2010-32085

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Veterans Affairs Department

CFR Citation: 17 CFR Parts 240 and 249

RIN ID: RIN 3235-AK87

NOTICE: Part IV

DOCID: fr30de10-42

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY:

Process for Submissions for Review of Security-Based Swaps for Mandatory Clearing and Notice Filing Requirements for Clearing Agencies; Technical Amendments to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 Applicable to All Self-Regulatory Organizations

DATES: Comments should be received on or before February 14, 2011.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY:

In accordance with Section 763(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``DoddFrank Act''), the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is proposing rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') to specify the process for a registered clearing agency's submission for review of any securitybased swap, or any group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps, that the clearing agency plans to accept for clearing, the manner of notice the clearing agency must provide to its members of such submission and the procedure by which the Commission may stay the requirement that a securitybased swap is subject to mandatory clearing while the clearing of the securitybased swap is reviewed. The Commission also is proposing to specify that when a securitybased swap is required to be cleared, the submission of the securitybased swap for clearing must be for central clearing to a clearing agency that functions as a central counterparty. In addition, the Commission is proposing rules to define and describe when notices of proposed changes to rules, procedures or operations are required to be filed by designated financial market utilities in accordance with Section 806(e) of Title VIII of the DoddFrank Act and to set forth the process for filing such notices with the Commission. Furthermore, the Commission is proposing rules to make conforming changes as required by the amendments to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act contained in Section 916 of the DoddFrank Act.

SUMMARY:

Securities and Exchange Commission

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

The Dodd-Frank Act seeks to ensure that, wherever possible and appropriate, derivatives contracts formerly traded exclusively in the overthecounter (``OTC'') market be cleared.\1\ One key way in which the DoddFrank Act promotes clearing of such contracts is by setting forth a process by which the Commission would determine whether a securitybased swap is required to be cleared; if the Commission makes a determination that a securitybased swap is required to be cleared, then parties may not engage in such securitybased swap without submitting it for clearing unless an exception applies.
\1\ See, e.g., Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs regarding The Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, S. Rep. No. 111176 at 34 (stating that ``[s]ome parts of the OTC market may not be suitable for clearing and exchange trading due to individual business needs of certain users. Those users should retain the ability to engage in customized, uncleared contracts while bringing in as much of the OTC market under the centrally cleared and exchangetraded framework as possible.'').

The Commission may determine that a securitybased swap is required to be cleared based on a review of a clearing agency's submission regarding a securitybased swap, or any group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps, that the clearing agency plans to accept for clearing (i.e., a SecurityBased Swap Submission (as defined below)).\2\ If the Commission determines that a securitybased swap is not required to be cleared, such securitybased swap may still be cleared on a nonmandatory basis by the clearing agency if the clearing agency has rules that permit it to clear such securitybased swap.\3\ In addition, paragraph (b)(1) of new Section 3C of the Exchange Act, as added by Section 763(a) of the DoddFrank Act (``Exchange Act Section 3C'') provides that ``[t]he Commission on an ongoing basis shall review each securitybased swap, or any group, category, type, or class of securitybased swaps to make a determination that such securitybased swap, or group, category, type, or class of securitybased swaps should be required to be cleared'' (``Commissioninitiated Review'').\4\ \2\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(2)(C)) (``[t]he Commission shall * * * review each submission made under subparagraphs (A) and (B), and determine whether the securitybased swap, or group, category, type, or class of securitybased swaps, described in the submission is required to be cleared.'').
\3\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b) and 12 U.S.C. 5465(e).
\4\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(1)). The DoddFrank Act does not require rulemaking with respect to Commissioninitiated Reviews.

Consistent with the policy objective of the DoddFrank Act to bring securitybased swaps into a central clearing environment where appropriate, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 19b4 under the Exchange Act to incorporate two new requirements applicable to clearing agencies under Exchange Act Section 3C, and under Section 806(e) of the DoddFrank Act (``Section 806(e)''). The proposed amendments to Rule 19b4 would mandate that submissions required under Exchange Act Section 3C for a securitybased swap, or any group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps, that a clearing agency plans to accept for clearing (``SecurityBased Swap Submissions'') and advance notices required under Section 806(e) of proposed changes to rules, procedures [[Page 82491]]
or operations of financial market utilities (``Advance Notices'') be filed with the Commission on Form 19b4. The proposed amendments to Rule 19b4 also would specify the manner of notice the clearing agency must provide to its members of SecurityBased Swap Submissions.

Additionally, the Commission is proposing two related rules under Exchange Act Section 3C. Proposed Rule 3Ca1 would establish the procedure by which the Commission, at the request of a counterparty or on its own initiative, may stay the requirement that a securitybased swap is subject to mandatory clearing. Proposed Rule 3Ca2 is intended to prevent evasions of the clearing requirement by specifying that securitybased swaps required to be cleared must be submitted for central clearing to a clearing agency that functions as a central counterparty. Finally, the Commission is proposing technical, conforming and clarifying amendments to Rule 19b4 and Form 19b4 to conform the rule and form with new deadlines and approval, disapproval and temporary suspension standards with respect to proposed rule changes filed under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act, as modified by Section 916 of the DoddFrank Act (``Exchange Act Section 19(b)''). I. Introduction

On July 21, 2010, the President signed the DoddFrank Act into law.\5\ The DoddFrank Act was enacted to, among other purposes, promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system and by providing for enhanced regulation and oversight of institutions designated as systemically important.\6\ Title VII and Title VIII of the DoddFrank Act are intended to further these goals and to mitigate systemic risk in part by imposing new requirements with respect to clearance and settlement systems.
\5\ The DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111203, H.R. 4173).

\6\ See Public Law 111203, Preamble.

Title VII of the DoddFrank Act (``Title VII'') provides the Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') with enhanced authority to regulate OTC derivatives following the recent financial crisis.\7\ The DoddFrank Act is intended to bolster the existing regulatory structure and provide regulatory tools to oversee the OTC derivatives market, which has grown exponentially in recent years and is capable of affecting significant sectors of the U.S. economy. Title VII provides that the CFTC will regulate ``swaps,'' the Commission will regulate ``securitybased swaps,'' and the CFTC and the Commission will jointly regulate ``mixed swaps.'' \8\
\7\ See, e.g, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs regarding The Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, S. Rep. No. 111176 at 29 (2010) (stating that ``[m]any factors led to the unraveling of this country's financial sector and the government intervention to correct it, but a major contributor to the financial crisis was the unregulated [OTC] derivatives market.'')
\8\ Section 712(d) of the DoddFrank Act provides that the Commission and the CFTC, in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, shall jointly further define the terms ``swap,'' ``securitybased swap,'' ``swap dealer,''
``securitybased swap dealer,'' ``major swap participant,'' ``major securitybased swap participant,'' ``eligible contract
participant,'' and ``securitybased swap agreement.'' These terms are defined in Sections 721 and 761 of the DoddFrank Act and, with respect to the term ``eligible contract participant,'' in Section 1a(18) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1a(18), as re designated and amended by Section 721 of the DoddFrank Act. Further, Section 721(c) of the DoddFrank Act requires the CFTC to adopt a rule to further define the terms ``swap,'' ``swap dealer,'' ``major swap participant,'' and ``eligible contract participant,'' and Section 761(b) of the DoddFrank Act permits the Commission to adopt a rule to further define the terms ``securitybased swap,'' ``securitybased swap dealer,'' ``major securitybased swap
participant,'' and ``eligible contract participant,'' with regard to securitybased swaps, for the purpose of including transactions and entities that have been structured to evade Title VII of the Dodd Frank Act. Finally, Section 712(a) of the DoddFrank Act provides that the Commission and CFTC, after consultation with the Board, shall jointly prescribe regulations regarding ``mixed swaps'' as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of Title VII. To assist the Commission and CFTC in further defining the terms specified above, and to prescribe regulations regarding ``mixed swaps'' as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of Title VII, the Commission and the CFTC have requested comment from interested parties. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62717 (Aug. 13, 2010), 75 FR 51429 (Aug. 20, 2010) (Advance Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Definitions Contained in Title VII of the DoddFrank Act).

The OTC derivatives markets traditionally have been characterized by privately negotiated transactions entered into by two
counterparties, in which each assumes the credit risk of the other counterparty.\9\ Clearing of swaps and securitybased swaps was at the heart of Congressional reform of the derivatives markets in Title VII of the Dodd Frank Act.\10\ Clearing agencies are broadly defined under the Exchange Act and undertake a variety of functions.\11\ One such function is to act as a central counterparty (``CCP''), which is an entity that interposes itself between the counterparties to a trade.\12\ For example, when an OTC derivatives contract between two counterparties that are members of a CCP is executed and submitted for clearing, it is typically replaced by two new contractsseparate contracts between the CCP and each of the two original counterparties. At that point, the original counterparties are no longer counterparties to each other. Instead, each acquires the CCP as its counterparty, and the CCP assumes the counterparty credit risk of each of the original counterparties that are members of the CCP.\13\ Structured and operated appropriately, CCPs may improve the management of counterparty risk and may provide additional benefits such as multilateral netting of trades. \9\ See, e.g., Financial Stability Board, Implementing OTC Derivatives Market Reforms (Oct. 25, 2010) available at http:// www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_101025.pdf. \10\ As previously noted, the DoddFrank Act seeks to ensure that, wherever possible and appropriate, derivatives contracts formerly traded exclusively in the OTC market be cleared. See Letter from Christopher Dodd, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, United States Senate and Blanche Lincoln, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, to Barney Frank, Chairman, Financial Services Committee, United States House of Representatives and Colin Peterson, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, United States House of Representatives (June 30, 2010) (on file with the United States Senate).
\11\ The term ``clearing agency'' means any person who acts as an intermediary in making payments or deliveries or both in connection with transactions in securities or who provides facilities for the comparison of data regarding the terms of settlement of securities transactions, to reduce the number of settlements of securities transactions, or the allocation of securities settlement responsibilities. Such term also means any person, such as a securities depository, who (i) acts as a custodian of securities in connection with a system for the central handling of securities whereby all securities of a particular class or series of any issuer deposited within the system are treated as fungible and may be transferred, loaned, or pledged by bookkeeping entry without physical delivery of securities certificates, or (ii) otherwise permits or facilitates the settlement of securities transactions or the hypothecation or lending of securities without physical delivery of securities certificates. 15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(23)(A).
\12\ See id. An entity that acts as a CCP for securities transactions is a clearing agency as defined in the Exchange Act and is required to register with the Commission.
\13\ See Cecchetti, Gyntelberg and Hollanders, Central counterparties for overthecounter derivatives, BIS Quarterly Review, September 2009, available at http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/ r_qt0909f.pdf.

Exchange Act Section 3C sets forth a mandatory clearing requirement for securitybased swaps. This section requires the Commission to adopt rules for submissions for review of securitybased swaps that a clearing agency plans to accept for clearing for a determination by the Commission of whether the securitybased swap (or group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps) is required to be cleared, i.e., is subject to mandatory
[[Page 82492]]
clearing.\14\ The Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 19b4 under the Exchange Act to implement the requirement in Exchange Act Section 3C that a clearing agency submit for Commission review each securitybased swap, or any group, category, type or class of security based swaps, that the clearing agency plans to accept for clearing and provide notice to its members of such SecurityBased Swap Submission. The Commission also is proposing new Rules 3Ca1 and 3Ca2 under the Exchange Act. Proposed Rule 3Ca1 specifies the procedure for staying the clearing requirement applicable to a securitybased swap, based either on an application of a counterparty to a securitybased swap or on the Commission's own initiative, until the Commission completes a review of the terms of the securitybased swap and the clearing arrangement. Proposed Rule 3Ca2 establishes a rule designed to prevent evasions of the clearing requirement by specifying that securitybased swaps required to be cleared must be submitted for central clearing to a clearing agency that functions as a central counterparty. \14\ Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(2)(C)).

The Commission also is proposing rules to implement a filing requirement applicable to certain clearing agencies under Title VIII of the DoddFrank Act (``Title VIII''). Title VIII provides for enhanced regulation of financial market utilities, which include clearing agencies, that manage or operate a multilateral system for the purpose of transferring, clearing or settling payments, securities or other financial transactions among financial institutions or between financial institutions and the financial market utility.\15\ The regulatory regime in Title VIII will only apply, however, to financial market utilities that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (``Council'') designates as systemically important.\16\
\15\ The definition of ``financial market utility'' in Section 803(6) of the DoddFrank Act contains a number of exclusions including but not limited to certain designated contract markets, registered futures associations, swap data repositories, swap execution facilities, national securities exchanges, national securities associations, alternative trading systems, securitybased swap data repositories, securitybased swap execution facilities, brokers, dealers, transfer agents, investment companies and futures commission merchants. 12 U.S.C. 5462(6)(B).
\16\ Pursuant to Section 803(9) of the DoddFrank Act, a financial market utility is systemically important if the failure of or a disruption to the functioning of such financial market utility could create, or increase, the risk of significant liquidity or credit problems spreading among financial institutions or markets and thereby threaten the stability of the financial system of the United States. 12 U.S.C. 5462(9). Under Section 804 of the Dodd Frank Act, the Council has the authority, on a nondelegable basis and by a vote of not fewer than twothirds of the members then serving, including the affirmative vote of its chairperson, to designate those financial market utilities that the Council determines are, or are likely to become, systemically important. The Council may, using the same procedures as discussed above, rescind such designation if it determines that the financial market utility no longer meets the standards for systemic importance. Before making either determination, the Council is required to consult with the Board and the relevant Supervisory Agency (as determined in accordance with Section 803(8) of the DoddFrank Act). Finally, Section 804 of the DoddFrank Act sets forth the procedures for giving entities a 30day notice and the opportunity for a hearing prior to a designation or rescission of the designation of systemic importance. 12 U.S.C. 5463.

Section 806(e)(1)(A) of Title VIII requires any financial market utility designated by the Council under Section 804 of the DoddFrank Act as systemically important to file 60 days advance notice of changes to its rules, procedures or operations that could materially affect the nature or level of risk presented by the financial market utility.\17\ In addition, Section 806(e)(1)(B) requires each Supervisory Agency \18\ to adopt rules, in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Board''), that define and describe when designated financial market utilities are required to file Advance Notices with their Supervisory Agency.\19\
\17\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(A).
\18\ Section 803(8) of the DoddFrank Act defines the term ``Supervisory Agency'' in reference to the primary regulatory authority for the financial market utility. For example, Section 803(8) of the DoddFrank Act provides that the Commission is the Supervisory Agency for any financial market utility that is a Commissionregistered clearing agency. See 12 U.S.C. 5462(8). To the extent that an entity is both a Commissionregistered clearing agency and registered with another agency, such as a CFTCregistered derivatives clearing organization, the statute requires the two agencies to agree on one agency to act as the Supervisory Agency, and if the agencies cannot agree on which agency has primary jurisdiction, the Council shall decide which agency is the Supervisory Agency for purposes of the DoddFrank Act. 12 U.S.C. 5462(8).

\19\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(B).

Clearing agencies registered with the Commission are financial market utilities, as defined in Section 803(6) of Title VIII; \20\ thus, the Commission may be the Supervisory Agency of a clearing agency that is designated as systemically important by the Council (``designated clearing agency'').\21\ A clearing agency must begin filing Advance Notices pursuant to Section 806(e) once the Council designates the clearing agency as systemically important.\22\ The Commission is proposing to implement the Section 806(e) filing requirement by amending Rule 19b4 to define and determine when Advance Notices must be filed by designated clearing agencies and to require that Advance Notices be filed on Form 19b4.
\20\ 12 U.S.C. 5462(6).
\21\ See supra note 18 discussing the definition of
``Supervisory Agency'' under the DoddFrank Act.
\22\ Pursuant to Section 814 of the Dodd Frank Act, Title VIII took effect on the date of enactment.

The Commission is proposing that SecurityBased Swap Submissions and Advance Notices be filed with the Commission on Form 19b4 using the existing Electronic Form 19b4 Filing System (``EFFS''). Currently, EFFS is used by selfregulatory organizations (``SROs''), which include registered clearing agencies,\23\ to file proposed rule changes electronically with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 19(b).\24\ The Commission is proposing to require clearing agencies to use EFFS for the filing of SecurityBased Swap Submissions and Advance Notices because registered clearing agencies already use EFFS for Exchange Act Section 19(b) filings and because there are similarities between the requirement to file proposed rule changes under Exchange Act Section 19(b) and the new requirements under the DoddFrank Act to file SecurityBased Swap Submissions and Advance Notices. For example, a proposed rule change under Exchange Act Section 19(b) includes a change in a ``stated policy, practice, or interpretation'' of an SRO rule. A ``stated policy, practice, or interpretation'' is defined in Exchange Act Section 19(b) as ``any material aspect of the operation of the facilities of the SRO; or any statement made generally available to the membership of, to all participants in, or to persons having or seeking access * * * to facilities of, the selfregulatory organization (``specified persons''), or to a group or category of specified persons, that establishes or changes any standard, limit, or guideline with respect to (1) the rights, obligations, or privileges of specified persons * * *; or (2) the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule.'' \25\ In cases where accepting a securitybased swap (or group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps) for clearing constitutes a change in a ``stated policy, practice, or interpretation'' of the clearing agency, the clearing agency also [[Page 82493]]
would be required to file a proposed rule change. Similarly, if a change that a designated clearing agency proposes to make that would require an Advance Notice would also constitute a change in a ``stated policy, practice, or interpretation'' of the clearing agency, the clearing agency would be required to file a proposed rule change in addition to the Advance Notice.
\23\ The definition of SRO in Section 3(a)(26) of the Exchange Act includes any registered clearing agency. 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(26). All SROs are required to file proposed rule changes with the Commission under Exchange Act Section 19(b). 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). \24\ SROs are required to file with the Commission, in accordance with rules prescribed by the Commission, copies of any proposed rule or any proposed change in, addition to, or deletion from the rules of the SRO (collectively referred to as a ``proposed rule change''). 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

\25\ 17 CFR 240.19b4(c).

The Commission also is proposing to amend Rule 19b4 and Form 19b4 to conform to the requirements specified in Exchange Act Section 19(b), as amended by Section 916 of the Dodd Frank Act.\26\ Section 916 provides new deadlines by which the Commission must publish and act upon proposed rule changes submitted by SROs and new standards for approval, disapproval and temporary suspension of proposed rule changes.\27\ In addition, the Commission is proposing a number of technical and clarifying amendments to Rule 19b4 and Form 19b4. \26\ Public Law 111203, section 916 (amending Exchange Act Section 19(b)(2)).

\27\ Id.

In proposing these rules, the Commission is mindful that there are differences between the securitybased swap market and the other securities markets that the Commission regulates. The Commission also is mindful that over time and as a result of Commission proposals to implement the DoddFrank Act, further development of the securitybased swap market may alter the policy objectives and considerations relating to the clearing of securitybased swaps. During the process of implementing the DoddFrank Act and beyond, the Commission therefore will closely monitor developments in the securitybased swap market, including how the SecurityBased Swap Submission and clearing processes interact with the evolving business and practices of securitybased swap clearing agencies and other entities.

II. Discussion of the Proposed Rules

The Commission is proposing to adopt rules to implement the new requirements imposed by Title VII and Title VIII discussed above. In accordance with the requirements set forth in Exchange Act Section 3C (found in Title VII), the Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 19b4 and Form 19b4 and new Rule 3Ca1 under the Exchange Act to establish processes for (i) clearing agencies registered with the Commission to submit for review each securitybased swap, or any group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps, that the clearing agency plans to accept for clearing for a determination by the Commission of whether the securitybased swap (or group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps) is required to be cleared, and to determine the manner of notice the clearing agency must provide to its members of such submission and (ii) how the Commission may stay the requirement that a securitybased swap is subject to mandatory clearing. The Commission also is proposing new Rule 3Ca2 to prevent evasions of the clearing requirement. In addition, the Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 19b4 and Form 19b4 to implement the requirement, pursuant to Section 806(e), that any designated clearing agency for which the Commission is the Supervisory Agency will be required to provide advance notice to the Commission of changes to its rules, procedures or operations that could materially affect the nature or level of risks presented by the designated clearing agency. This release also discusses the filing requirements in Exchange Act Section 19(b), Exchange Act Section 3C, and Section 806(e) and a clearing agency's obligation to fully comply with and seek a determination pursuant to each separate statutory requirement, when applicable. A. SecurityBased Swap Submissions

Exchange Act Section 3C creates, among other things, a clearing requirement with respect to securitybased swaps. Specifically, the section provides that ``[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to engage in a securitybased swap unless that person submits such securitybased swap for clearing to a clearing agency that is registered under this Act or a clearing agency that is exempt from registration under this Act if the securitybased swap is required to be cleared.'' \28\ \28\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(a)(1)). The requirement that a securitybased swap be cleared stems from a determination by the Commission. Such determination may be made in connection with the review of a clearing agency's submission regarding a securitybased swap, or any group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps, that the clearing agency plans to accept for clearing (i.e., a SecurityBased Swap Submission). See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(2)(C)) (``[t]he Commission shall * * * review each submission made under subparagraphs (A) and (B), and determine whether the securitybased swap, or group, category, type, or class of securitybased swaps, described in the submission is required to be cleared.''). In addition, Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(1) provides that ``[t]he Commission on an ongoing basis shall review each securitybased swap, or any group, category, type, or class of securitybased swaps to make a determination that such securitybased swap, or group, category, type, or class of security based swaps should be required to be cleared.''

Exchange Act Section 3C requires the Commission, not later than one year after the date of the enactment of the DoddFrank Act, to adopt rules for a clearing agency's SecurityBased Swap Submissions and to determine the manner of notice the clearing agency must provide to its members of such SecurityBased Swap Submission.\29\ In connection with rulemaking related to SecurityBased Swap Submissions, the Commission is proposing rules related to (i) the process for making SecurityBased Swap Submissions to the Commission, (ii) the substance of Security Based Swap Submissions and (iii) the timing related to SecurityBased Swap Submissions. The Commission also is proposing a process and timing for clearing agencies to provide notice to their members of Security Based Swap Submissions.
\29\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(2)(A)).
1. Process for Making SecurityBased Swap Submissions to the Commission

A clearing agency that plans to accept a securitybased swap for clearing must file a SecurityBased Swap Submission with the Commission for a determination by the Commission of whether a securitybased swap, or a group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps, is required to be cleared. As discussed in Section I, in cases where accepting a securitybased swap (or group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps) for clearing constitutes a change in a ``stated policy, practice, or interpretation'' of the clearing agency, the clearing agency also would be required to file a proposed rule change. In such cases, the Commission must determine (i) whether to approve the clearing agency's proposed rule change to clear the applicable securitybased swap and (ii) whether the securitybased swap would be subject to the mandatory clearing requirement.

The Commission is proposing to require clearing agencies to use EFFS and Form 19b4 for SecurityBased Swap Submissions. Clearing agencies, as SROs, are already required to file proposed rule changes on Form 19b4 on EFFS. Using the same filing process for SecurityBased Swap Submissions would leverage existing technology and reduce the resources clearing agencies would have to expend on meeting Commission filing requirements. In addition, the Commission anticipates that a submission to clear a securitybased swap, or any group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps, may be required to be filed under both
[[Page 82494]]
Exchange Act Section 19(b) and Exchange Act Section 3C. This is because a submission that must be filed with the Commission for a determination under new Exchange Act Section 3C also may qualify as a proposed rule change that must be filed with the Commission under Exchange Act Section 19(b).\30\ In other words, the two filing requirements are not mutually exclusive. Because a clearing agency may be required to file the same proposal under Exchange Act Section 3C and Exchange Act Section 19(b), the Commission preliminarily believes that the most efficient use of the Commission's and clearing agencies' resources would be to require clearing agencies to use the existing Form 19b4 filing process for both types of filings. Accordingly, the proposed rules related to the SecurityBased Swap Submission process would be added to existing Rule 19b4, which currently governs the process for filing proposed rule changes.
\30\ A clearing agency rule is defined broadly in the Exchange Act to include the constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and rules, or instruments corresponding to the foregoing. 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(27). The Commission anticipates that a proposal to clear a new type, category or class of securitybased swap will in many cases also be a change to the rules of a registered clearing agency that must be filed with the Commission for approval pursuant to Exchange Act Section 19(b).

The Commission's proposed approach would eliminate the need for multiple submissions to the Commission and could be accomplished by adding a box to Form 19b4 that clearing agencies would check to indicate that they are making a SecurityBased Swap Submission. As a practical matter, the Commission believes that when a securitybased swap is submitted for review under Exchange Act Section 3C and concurrently filed under Exchange Act Section 19(b) as a proposed rule change, the two reviews will be carried out in tandem. In circumstances where no proposed rule change filing would be required, such as a case where a clearing agency's rules already permit it to clear the securitybased swap in question, EFFS and Form 19b4 still would be used for the SecurityBased Swap Submission.
a. Substance of SecurityBased Swap Submissions: Consistency With Exchange Act Section 17A

In reviewing a SecurityBased Swap Submission, the Commission is required to review whether the submission is consistent with Exchange Act Section 17A.\31\ Accordingly, the Commission is proposing that each SecurityBased Swap Submission contain a statement regarding how the submission is consistent with Exchange Act Section 17A.\32\ Exchange Act Section 17A specifies, among other things, that the Commission is directed, having due regard for the public interest, the protection of investors, the safeguarding of securities and funds and maintenance of fair competition among brokers and dealers, clearing agencies, and transfer agents, to use its authority to facilitate the establishment of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions in securities.\33\
\31\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(4)(A)).
\32\ Proposed Rule 19b4(o)(3)(i).

\33\ 15 U.S.C. 78q1.

The Commission must review whether a proposed rule change filed by an SRO pursuant to Exchange Act Section 19(b) is consistent with Exchange Act Section 17A.\34\ In connection with proposed rule changes, an SRO is required to ``explain why the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the [Exchange] Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the [SRO]. A mere assertion that the proposed rule change is consistent with those requirements is not sufficient.'' \35\ Presently, in complying with this requirement, registered clearing agencies, among other things, specify how the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements under Exchange Act Section 17A(b)(3). All registered clearing agencies must comply with the standards in Exchange Act Section 17A, which include requirements under Exchange Act Section 17A(b)(3) to maintain rules for promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, fostering cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities transactions, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest.\36\\\ A registered clearing agency is also required under Exchange Act Section 17A(b)(3) to provide fair access to clearing and to have the capacity to facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible, as well as to safeguard securities and funds in its custody or control or for which it is responsible.\37\ Under the proposed amendments to Rule 19b4, a clearing agency would be required to specify how the Security Based Swap Submission is consistent with Exchange Act Section 17A and specifically the requirements applicable under subsection 17A(b)(3). \34\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(i), which provides that the Commission shall approve a proposed rule change of an SRO if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder that are applicable to such organization. \35\ Item 3(b) of Form 19b4. 17 CFR 240.819. Exchange Act Section 19(b) has a similar but not identical requirement. It requires that an SRO provide a statement of the basis of the proposed rule change and provides that the Commission shall only approve a proposed rule change if it finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
\36\ See 15 U.S.C. 78q1(b)(3)(F).
\37\ 15 U.S.C. 78q1(b)(3)(A), (B) and (F).
b. Substance of SecurityBased Swap Submissions: Quantitative and Qualitative Factors

The DoddFrank Act requires the Commission to take into account several factors in addition to consistency with Exchange Act Section 17A in reviewing a clearing agency's SecurityBased Swap
Submission.\38\ The Commission is proposing to require clearing agencies to provide information relevant to these factors through the proposed amendments to Rule 19b4 and Form 19b4. Specifically, clearing agencies would be required to submit quantitative and qualitative information to assist the Commission in the consideration of the five factors Exchange Act Section 3C requires the Commission to take into account in reviewing a SecurityBased Swap Submission, which include:
\38\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(4)(B)(i)(v)).
(i) The existence of significant outstanding notional exposures, trading liquidity and adequate pricing data.
(ii) The availability of a rule framework, capacity, operational expertise and resources, and credit support infrastructure to clear the contract on terms that are consistent with the material terms and trading conventions on which the contact is then traded.
(iii) The effect on the mitigation of systemic risk, taking into account the size of the market for such contract and the resources of the clearing agency available to clear the contract.
(iv) The effect on competition, including appropriate fees and charges applied to clearing.
(v) The existence of reasonable legal certainty in the event of the insolvency of the relevant clearing agency or one or
[[Page 82495]]
more of its clearing members with regard to the treatment of customer and securitybased swap counterparty positions, funds, and
property.\39\

\39\ Proposed Rule 19b4(o)(3)(ii).

Each SecurityBased Swap Submission would be required to address the factors listed above to the extent they are applicable to the securitybased swap, the clearing agency and the market.

For example, in connection with the discussion responsive to factor (i) above, the clearing agency could address pricing sources, models and procedures demonstrating an ability to obtain price data to measure credit exposures in a timely and accurate manner, as well as measures of historical market liquidity and trading activity, and expected market liquidity and trading activity if the securitybased swap is required to be cleared (including information on the sources of such measures). With respect to the discussion of factor (ii) above, the statement describing the availability of a rule framework could include a discussion of the rules, policies or procedures applicable to the clearing of the relevant securitybased swap. Additionally, the discussion of credit support infrastructure could include the methods to address and communicate requests for, and posting of, collateral. With respect to factor (iii) above, the discussion of systemic risk could include a statement on the clearing agency's risk management procedures, including among other things the measurement and monitoring of credit exposures, initial and variation margin methodology, methodologies for stress testing and back testing, settlement procedures and default management procedures. With respect to factor (iv) above, the discussion of fees and charges could address any volume incentive programs that may apply or impact the fees and charges. With respect to factor (v) above, the discussion could address segregation of accounts and all other customer protection measures under insolvency.

In describing the securitybased swap, or any group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps, that a clearing agency plans to accept for clearing, the clearing agency could include the relevant product specifications, including copies of any standardized legal documentation, generally accepted contract terms,\40\ standard practices for managing and communicating any life cycle events associated with the securitybased swap and related adjustments,\41\ and the manner in which the information contained in the confirmation of the securitybased swap trade is transmitted. The clearing agency also could discuss its financial and operational capacity to provide clearing services to all customers subject to the clearing requirements as applicable to the particular securitybased swap. Finally, the clearing agency could include an analysis of the effect of a clearing requirement on the market for the group, category, type, or class of securitybased swaps, both domestically and globally, including the potential effect on market liquidity, trading activity, use of securitybased swaps by direct and indirect market participants and any potential market disruption or benefits. This analysis could include whether the members of the clearing agency are operationally and financially capable of absorbing clearing business (including indirect access market participants) that may result from a determination that the securitybased swap (or group, category, type or class of security based swaps) is required to be cleared.
\40\ For example, for some securitybased swaps, industry standard documentation would include the applicable International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. Master Agreement and any related assetclassspecific definitions.
\41\ The Commission has proposed Regulation SBSR, which contains a definition of ``life cycle event.'' See Exchange Act Release No. 63346 (Nov. 19, 2010), 75 FR 75208 (Dec. 2, 2010) (``Regulation SBSRReporting and Dissemination of SecurityBased Swap
Information'').
c. Substance of SecurityBased Swap Submissions: Open Access

New Exchange Act Section 3C also requires that the rules of a clearing agency that clears securitybased swaps subject to the clearing requirement provide for open access.\42\ In the course of reviewing a SecurityBased Swap Submission, the Commission may assess whether a clearing agency's rules provide for open access, particularly with respect to the relevant SecurityBased Swap Submission. Accordingly, the proposed rule provides that the SecurityBased Swap Submission must include a statement regarding how a clearing agency's rules:
\42\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(a)(2) (``[t]he rules of a clearing agency described in paragraph (1) shall(A) prescribe that all securitybased swaps submitted to the clearing agency with the same terms and conditions are economically equivalent within the clearing agency and may be offset with each other within the clearing agency; and (B) provide for nondiscriminatory clearing of a securitybased swap executed bilaterally or on or through the rules of an unaffiliated national securities exchange or securitybased swap execution facility.''). (i) Prescribe that all securitybased swaps submitted to the clearing agency with the same terms and conditions are economically equivalent within the clearing agency and may be offset with each other within the clearing agency; and
(ii) Provide for nondiscriminatory clearing of a securitybased swap executed bilaterally or on or through the rules of an unaffiliated national securities exchange or securitybased swap execution facility.\43\

\43\ Proposed Rule 19b4(o)(3)(ii).

In making a determination, the Commission proposes to take into account the factors specified in Exchange Act Section 3C and any additional information the Commission determines to be appropriate. The proposed rule also requires a clearing agency to provide any additional information requested by the Commission as necessary to make a determination.\44\ The Commission believes that such a requirement would provide appropriate flexibility to facilitate our regulatory responsibilities. In making a determination of whether or not the clearing requirement would apply to the securitybased swap, or any group, category, type, or class of securitybased swaps, described in the submission, the Commission may require such terms and conditions as the Commission determines to be appropriate in the public interest.\45\ \44\ Proposed Rule 19b4(o)(6)(i).
\45\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(4)(C)) and Proposed Rule 19b4(o)(6)(ii).

d. Timing Related to SecurityBased Swap Submissions

Under Exchange Act Section 3C, as added by Section 763(a) of the DoddFrank Act, the Commission is required to make its determination of whether a securitybased swap described in a clearing agency's SecurityBased Swap Submission is required to be cleared not later than 90 days after receiving such SecurityBased Swap Submission.\46\ The 90day determination period may be extended with the consent of the clearing agency making such SecurityBased Swap Submission.\47\ The Commission is required to make available to the public any Security Based Swap Submission it receives and to provide at least a 30day public comment period ``regarding its
[[Page 82496]]
determination whether the clearing requirement shall apply to the submission.'' \48\ This 30day comment period enables the public to have an opportunity to comment on the SecurityBased Swap Submission and to provide information for the Commission to consider as part of making its determination whether the clearing requirement should apply to the submission. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to make the SecurityBased Swap Submission available for a 30day public comment period within the 90day determination period. The Commission would publish notice of the SecurityBased Swap Submission in the Federal Register and publish notice on the Commission's publiclyavailable Web site at http://www.sec.gov. Such notice would include the solicitation of public comment. This proposed publication process would be consistent with the current process that is in place for proposed rule changes under Exchange Act Section 19(b)(2) and Rule 19b4.
\46\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(3)). Further, pursuant to proposed Rule 19b4(o)(2), if any information submitted to the Commission by a clearing agency on Form 19b4 were not complete or otherwise in compliance with Rule 19b4 and Form 19b4, such information would not be considered a SecurityBased Swap Submission and the Commission would be required to inform the clearing agency within twentyone business days of such submission.
\47\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(3)).
\48\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(2)(C)).

e. Notice to Clearing Agency Members

New Exchange Act Section 3C requires that a clearing agency provide notice to its members, in a manner determined by the Commission, of its SecurityBased Swap Submissions.\49\ To meet the requirement of providing notice of SecurityBased Swap Submissions to members, the Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 19b4 that would require clearing agencies to post on their Web sites such submissions to the Commission, and any amendments thereto.\50\ This public posting would be required to be completed within two business days following the SecurityBased Swap Submission to the Commission. This timeframe is consistent with the notice requirement that currently applies to proposed rule changes,\51\ and the Commission believes that such timeframe would provide members of the clearing agency and the public with timely notice of the submission. The clearing agency would be required to maintain such material on its Web site until the Commission makes a determination regarding the SecurityBased Swap Submission, the clearing agency withdraws the SecurityBased Swap Submission or the clearing agency is notified that the SecurityBased Swap Submission is not properly filed.\52\ These requirements should help ensure that submissions that are being actively considered by the Commission are readily available to the members of the clearing agency and the public and help provide for a more transparent process.
\49\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(2)(A)).
\50\ Proposed Rule 19b4(o)(5).
\51\ Commission rules currently require SROs to post on their Web sites a copy of any proposed rule change the SRO filed with the Commission, and any amendments thereto. Such posting is required within two business days after filing the proposed rule change with the Commission. See 17 CFR 240.19b4(l). In adopting this rule, the Commission stated that all market participants, investors and other interested parties should have access to proposed rule changes filed with the Commission, and any amendments, as soon as practicable, and that it did not believe that a twobusinessday timeframe would be impractical or unduly burdensome on SROs. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50486 (Oct. 4, 2004), 69 FR 60287 (Oct. 8, 2004) (Final Rules Regarding Proposed Rule Changes of SelfRegulatory Organizations).

\52\ Proposed Rule 19b4(o)(5).

The Commission notes that the current instructions for Form 19b4 require an SRO to file with the Commission copies of notices issued by the SRO soliciting comment on the proposed rule change and copies of all written comments on the proposed rule change received by the SRO (whether or not comments were solicited) from its members or participants. Any correspondence the SRO receives after it files a proposed rule change, but before the Commission takes final action on the proposed rule change, also is required to be filed with the Commission.\53\ The SRO is required to summarize the substance of all such comments received and respond in detail to any significant issues raised in the comments about the proposed rule change.\54\ The Commission is proposing that in connection with SecurityBased Swap Submissions, clearing agencies would be subject to these same requirements. The Commission preliminarily believes that its proposal to apply such requirements in the instructions to Form 19b4 to SecurityBased Swap Submissions would provide the Commission with an opportunity to consider the various viewpoints expressed by commenters by making sure relevant comments are included in the materials provided to the Commission.
\53\ See Items 5 and 9 (Exhibit 2) of Form 19b4. 17 CFR 240.819.
\54\ Item 5 of Form 19b4. 17 CFR 240.819.
f. Submissions of a Group, Category, Type or Class of SecurityBased Swaps

The proposed amendments to Rule 19b4 and Form 19b4 would require that clearing agencies submit securitybased swaps for review by group, category, type, or class to the extent it is practicable and reasonable to do so.\55\ Any aggregation would be required to be clearly described in a SecurityBased Swap Submission so that market participants and the public know which securitybased swaps may be subject to a clearing requirement. The Commission preliminarily believes that including multiple securitybased swaps in each submissionto the extent that such groupings are practicable and reasonable (e.g., by taking into consideration appropriate risk management issues applicable to the aggregation)would streamline the submission process for Commission staff and the clearing agencies. This in turn would allow more securitybased swaps to be reviewed in a timely manner.
\55\ Proposed Rule 19b4(o)(4). In its release proposing rules to implement Section 723 of the DoddFrank Act, the CFTC has proposed a similar rule. 75 FR 67277 (November 2, 2010).

Request for Comments

The Commission generally requests comments on all aspects of the proposed amendments to Rule 19b4 that would incorporate the process for making SecurityBased Swap Submissions. In addition, the Commission requests comments on the following specific issues:

  • Are there specific considerations that the Commission should weigh more heavily in reviewing whether a SecurityBased Swap Submission is consistent with Exchange Act Section 17A? If so, what are such considerations?
  • Should the information included in this release as examples of the kinds of information the clearing agency should include in its SecurityBased Swap Submission be required in all cases and incorporated into the rules?
  • To describe the securitybased swap, or any group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps, that a clearing agency plans to accept for clearing, should a clearing agency be required to include in its SecurityBased Swap Submissions specific product specifications, including copies of any standardized legal documentation, generally accepted contract terms, standard practices for managing and communicating any life cycle events associated with the securitybased swap and related adjustments, and the manner in which the information contained in the confirmation of the security based swap trade is transmitted? If not, why not? Is there other information relating to the description of the securitybased swaps that clearing agencies should be required to provide? If so, what information and why? Should this
    [[Page 82497]]
    information be required in all cases and incorporated into the rules?
  • What specific information should a clearing agency be required to include in its SecurityBased Swap Submissions regarding pricing sources, models and procedures demonstrating an ability to obtain price data to measure credit exposures in a timely and accurate manner, as well as measures of historical market liquidity and trading activity, and expected market liquidity and trading activity if the securitybased swap is required to be cleared (including information on the sources of such measures)? Is there other information relating to pricing that clearing agencies should be required to provide? If so, what information and why? Should this information be required in all cases and incorporated into the rules?
  • What specific information should a clearing agency be required to include in its SecurityBased Swap Submissions pertaining to the rules, policies or procedures applicable to the clearing of the relevant securitybased swap? Is there other information relating to rule framework, capacity, operational expertise and resources the clearing agency should be required to provide? If so, what information and why? Should this information be required in all cases and incorporated into the rules?
  • Is there specific information a clearing agency should be required to include in its SecurityBased Swap Submissions regarding the methods to address and communicate requests for, and posting of, collateral? Is there other information relating to collateral that the clearing agency should be required to provide? If so, what information and why? Should this information be required in all cases and incorporated into the rules?
  • What specific information should a clearing agency be required to include in its SecurityBased Swap Submissions regarding the clearing agency's risk management procedures, pertaining to among other things the measurement and monitoring of credit exposures, initial and variation margin methodology, methodologies for stress testing and back testing, settlement procedures and default management procedures? Is there other information relating to risk management that the clearing agency should be required to provide? If so, what information and why? Should this information be required in all cases and incorporated into the rules?
  • Should a clearing agency, in connection with each submission or in some circumstances, be required to include an independent validation of its margin methodology and its ability to maintain sufficient financial resources? Why or why not, or in which circumstances? If independent validation is required, how should the Commission assess the independence and technical expertise of the party providing the independent validation? What are the critical techniques, risk factors and components that should be covered by the model validation and why? If the clearing of the securitybased swap described in the SecurityBased Swap Submission would not require a change in the clearing agency's margin methodology, do commenters believe it would be sufficient for the Commission to permit the clearing agency to refer to an applicable independent validation of the clearing agency's margin methodology previously provided to the Commission with a statement explaining why the existing methodology does not require a change in connection with clearing the new security based swap and how the current validation is still applicable in the context of the securitybased swap the clearing agency plans to clear? If not, why not?
  • What information should a clearing agency be required to include in its SecurityBased Swap Submissions regarding fees and charges and address any volume incentive programs that may apply or impact the fees and charges? Is there other information relating to fees and charges that the clearing agency should be required to provide? If so, what information and why? Should this information be required in all cases and incorporated into the rules?
  • Should a clearing agency be required to include in its SecurityBased Swap Submission information regarding segregation of accounts and all other customer protection measures under insolvency? If not, why not? Is there other information relating to insolvency of the clearing agencies' members the clearing agency should be required to provide? If so, what information and why? Should this information be required in all cases and incorporated into the rules?
  • Should a clearing agency be required to include in its SecurityBased Swap Submission information on whether crossmargining is available to the clearing agency's members with respect to their positions at other clearing agencies? If not, why not? What types of effects on competition are such crossmargining arrangements likely to have? Is there any specific information regarding crossmargining arrangements that the Commission should collect? If not, why not? If so, what information and why? Should this information be required in all cases and incorporated into the rules?
  • What information should a clearing agency be required to include in its SecurityBased Swap Submission regarding its financial and operational capacity to provide clearing services to all customers subject to the clearing requirements as applicable to the particular securitybased swap? Should this information be required to include an analysis of the effect of a clearing requirement on the market for the group, category, type, or class of securitybased swaps, both domestically and globally, including the potential effect on market liquidity, trading activity, use of securitybased swaps by direct and indirect market participants and any potential market disruption or benefits? Should it be required to include an analysis of whether the members of the clearing agency are operationally and financially capable of absorbing clearing business (including indirect access market participants) that may result from a determination that the securitybased swap (or group, category, type or class of security based swaps) is required to be cleared? If not, why not? Is there other information relating to capacity that the clearing agency should be required to provide? If so, what information and why? Should this information be required in all cases and incorporated into the rules?
  • Is the process for notice to clearing agency members by posting on the clearing agency Web site, as proposed by the Commission, adequate as a notice mechanism for members? If not, what should change? Is the twoday posting requirement appropriate to provide timely notice to members? Would a shorter or longer period be appropriate?
  • What other method of notice to clearing agency members could or should be required rather than Web site posting?
  • Should the Commission utilize the proposed rule change filing system for SecurityBased Swap Submissions? What other methods of submitting SecurityBased Swap Submissions to the Commission should the Commission consider and why?
  • What alternatives should the Commission consider to requiring clearing agencies to submit securitybased swaps for review by group, category, type, or class, to the extent it is practicable and reasonable to do so?
  • Should the Commission consider consolidating multiple SecurityBased Swap Submissions from one clearing agency into a group, category, type, or class of SecurityBased Swap Submissions, or subdividing a clearing
    [[Page 82498]]
    agency's submission of a group, category, type, or class of security based swaps, as appropriate, for review?
  • What information should the clearing agency include in its SecurityBased Swaps Submissions to identify the scope of the group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps it plans to clear that will provide sufficient parameters to put people on notice that a securitybased swap may be required to be cleared?
  • What characteristics of securitybased swaps should be common among securitybased swaps in order to aggregate them by group, category, type or class? Would these characteristics be the same across asset classes such as securitybased equities derivatives, credit derivatives and loanbased swaps? Should the Commission specify those attributes in the rule?
  • Are there any factors that would make aggregation more difficult? Would these be the same or different across asset classes?
  • Are there factors that may be clearingagency specific with respect to aggregation? If so, what are those factors?

    As discussed above, Exchange Act Section 3C provides, among other things, for a determination by the Commission of whether securitybased swaps are required to be cleared.\56\ The Commission may determine that a securitybased swap is required to be cleared based on a review of a clearing agency's submission regarding a securitybased swap, or any group, category, type or class of securitybased swaps, that the clearing agency plans to accept for clearing (i.e., a SecurityBased Swap Submission).\57\ Consistent with proposal, if the Commission determines that a securitybased swap is not required to be cleared, such securitybased swap may still be cleared on a nonmandatory basis by the clearing agency if the clearing agency has rules that permit it to clear such securitybased swap.\58\ In addition, Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(1) provides that ``[t]he Commission on an ongoing basis shall review each securitybased swap, or any group, category, type, or class of securitybased swaps to make a determination that such securitybased swap, or group, category, type, or class of security based swaps should be required to be cleared'' (i.e., a Commission initiated Review).\59\
    \56\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(a)(1)).
    \57\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(2)(C)) (``[t]he Commission shall * * * review each submission made under subparagraphs (A) and (B), and determine whether the securitybased swap, or group, category, type, or class of securitybased swaps, described in the submission is required to be cleared.'').
    \58\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b) (proposed rule changes) and 12 U.S.C. 5465(e) (Advance Notices).
    \59\ See Public Law 111203, section 763(a) (adding Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(1)). The DoddFrank Act does not require rulemaking with respect to Commissioninitiated Reviews.

    The proposed addition of paragraph (o) to Rule 19b4 and related amendments to Form 19b4 are intended to provide a process for SecurityBased Swap Submissions. The Commission is required under the DoddFrank Act to adopt rules specifying the process for SecurityBased Swap Submissions. As part of the process of review of each Security Based Swap Submission (and in each Commissioninitiated Review), the Commission must take into account the five factors specified in Exchange Act Section 3C(b)(4)(B):
    (i) The existence of significant outstanding notional exposures, trading liquidity and adequate pricing data.
    (ii) The availability of a rule framework, capacity, operational expertise and resources, and credit support infrastructure to clear the contract on terms that are consistent with the material terms and trading conventions on which the contract is then traded.
    (iii) The effect on the mitigation of systemic risk, taking into account the size of the market for such contract and the resources of the clearing agency available to clear the contract.
    (iv) The effect on competition, including appropriate fees and

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

    Kim Allen, Attorney Fellow, Catherine Moore, Senior Special Counsel, Kenneth Riitho, Special Counsel or Andrew Bernstein, AttorneyAdvisor, at (202) 5515710; Office of Clearance and Settlement, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 205497010.