27812 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Notices 

12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

13 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83153 (May 

2, 2018), 83 FR 20882 (May 8, 2018) (SR–FICC– 

2018–003) (‘‘Notice’’). 

4Letter from Ted Bragg, Vice President—Head of 

U.S. Fixed Income, Nasdaq (‘‘Nasdaq’’), dated May 

14, 2018, to Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant 

Secretary, Commission (‘‘Nasdaq Letter’’) available 

at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ficc-2018-003/ 

ficc2018003.htm. 

5Available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rulesand-procedures. 

6Notice, 83 FR at 20882. 

7 Id. at 20884. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change has become 

effective pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act 12

and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,13

because it establishes or changes a due, 

or fee. 

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend the rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that the 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or would otherwise further 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

BOX–2018–21 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–BOX–2018–21. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549 on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change. 

Persons submitting comments are 

cautioned that we do not redact or edit 

personal identifying information from 

comment submissions. You should 

submit only information that you wish 

to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–BOX–2018–21, and should 

be submitted on or before July 5, 2018. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.14

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12751 Filed 6–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–83401; File No. SR–FICC– 

2018–003] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed 

Income Clearing Corporation; Order 

Approving Proposed Rule Change To 

Amend the Fee Structure of the 

Government Securities Division 

Rulebook 

June 8, 2018. 

On April 27, 2018, Fixed Income 

Clearing Corporation (‘‘FICC’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) proposed 

rule change SR–FICC–2018–003, 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder.2

The proposed rule change was 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register on May 8, 2018.3 The 

Commission received one comment 

letter on the proposed rule change.4 For 

the reasons discussed below, the 

Commission approves the proposed rule 

change. 

I. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 

The proposed rule change would 

amend the FICC Government Securities 

Division (‘‘GSD’’) Rulebook (‘‘GSD 

Rules’’) 5 to modify the GSD Fee 

Structure. FICC states that it designed 

the proposed rule change to reduce 

complexity and to better align pricing 

with the costs of services provided by 

GSD.6 More specifically, FICC states 

that the transaction processing fees and 

the position management fees associated 

with the delivery-versus-payment 

(‘‘DVP’’) service account for 

approximately 30 percent and 70 

percent, respectively, of GSD’s projected 

costs from the DVP service.7

Accordingly, FICC states that the 

proposed fee changes are designed to 

align GSD’s revenue with that 30/70 

percent split between transaction 

processing and position management 

costs, respectively.8 In doing so, FICC 

would shift the GSD Fee Structure 

regarding the DVP service away from 

the existing volume-driven approach to 

a position-based approach.9 Ultimately, 

FICC expects GSD’s net revenue to 

remain relatively unchanged as a result 

of this proposal.10

A. Proposed Changes to the GSD Fee 

Structure 

The proposed GSD Fee Structure 

would, in effect, establish 4 new fees, 

modify 1 existing fee, and eliminate 12 

fees.11 These proposed changes are 

summarized below. 

1. New Fees 

In proposed Section I of the GSD Fee 

Structure, FICC would replace the 

seven-tiered trade submission fees for 

both dealer accounts and broker 

accounts with a single transaction 

processing fee that would be charged to 

GSD members (‘‘Members’’) upon the 

comparison of a side of a buy/sell 

transaction or a Repo Transaction in the 

DVP service.12 Specifically, dealer 

accounts would be charged a fee of 

$0.04 per million par value for 

transaction processing, and broker 

accounts would be charged a fee of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Notices 27813 

13 Id. Broker accounts submit two sides per 

transaction. Id. As such, a broker account would be 

charged a total of $0.04 per million par value (i.e., 

$0.02 per million par value times two) for each 

transaction. Id. 14Notice, 83 FR at 20882. 15 Id. 

16 Id. 

17 Id. at 20884–85. 

18 Id. at 20885. 

19 Id. 

20 Id. The minimum monthly fee would apply to 

all accounts of a netting Member, including any 

account the netting Member may have as a 

sponsoring Member. Id. 

21Notice, 83 FR at 20885. 

22 Id. at 20884. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. 

25 Id. 

26 Id. at 20885. 

27 Id. 

28 Id. The term ‘‘Term Repo Transaction’’ means, 

on any particular business day, a Repo Transaction 

for which settlement of the close leg is scheduled 

to occur two or more business days after the 

scheduled settlement of the start leg. See GSD Rule 

1, Definitions, GSD Rules, supra note 5. 

29Notice, 83 FR at 20885. 

30 Id. 

31 Id. at 20886. 

32 Id. 

33 Id. 

34 Id. 

35 Id. 

36 Id. 

37 Id. 

$0.02 per million par value for 

transaction processing.13

FICC also would add two position 

management fees applicable to the DVP 

service in proposed Section II of the 

GSD Fee Structure.14 The first position 

management fee would be the intraday 

position fee of $0.04 per million par 

value that would be calculated for a 

Member each business day based on the 

largest gross position of the Member 

(including positions of any non-Member 

that the Member is clearing for) that 

business day.15 FICC states that it would 

determine the gross position of a 

Member in 15-minute intervals between 

9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. each business 

day by netting the par value of all 

compared buy/sell transactions, Repo 

Transactions, and unsettled obligations 

of the Member (including any such 

activity submitted by the Member for a 

non-Member that the Member is 

clearing for) by CUSIP number and 

taking the sum of the absolute par value 

of each such CUSIP number.16

The second position management fee 

would be the end of day position fee of 

$0.115 per million par value that would 

be calculated for a Member each 

business day based on the end of day 

gross position of the Member (including 

positions of any non-Member that the 

Member is clearing for) that business 

day.17 FICC states that it would 

determine the end of day gross position 

of a Member by netting the par value of 

all compared buy/sell transactions, 

Repo Transactions, and unsettled 

obligations of the Member (including 

any such activity submitted by the 

Member for a non-Member that the 

Member is clearing for) at the end of the 

business day by CUSIP number and 

taking the sum of the absolute par value 

of each such CUSIP number.18

2. Modified Existing Fee 

FICC would modify the existing 

minimum monthly fee in proposed 

Section V of the GSD Fee Structure.19

The minimum monthly fee would be 

increased from $1,000 to $2,500 per 

account and would apply to all accounts 

of every comparison-only Member and 

netting Member instead of just their sole 

or primary account.20 FICC states that it 

is proposing to increase the minimum 

monthly fee to $2,500 per account 

because FICC believes this change 

would better reflect GSD’s costs of 

account monitoring.21

3. Eliminated Fees 

FICC is proposing to delete fees in 

Section I of the GSD Fee Structure that 

are no longer applicable.22 Specifically, 

FICC is proposing to delete Section I.B. 

of the GSD Fee Structure, which 

imposes certain surcharges on Members 

submitting trade data to GSD using 

submission methods other than the 

Interactive Submission Method (e.g., the 

Multiple Batch Submission Method or 

the Single Batch Submission Method).23

FICC states that these surcharges are no 

longer required because all Members 

currently submit trade data to GSD 

using the Interactive Submission 

Method, and FICC does not expect that 

to change in the future because of 

technological advancements in real-time 

trade submission capability across the 

financial industry.24 FICC would also 

make conforming re-lettering of the 

subsequent provisions in Section I of 

the GSD Fee Structure.25

FICC would eliminate all netting fees 

provided in renumbered Section IV of 

the GSD Fee Structure, including (i) the 

two seven-tiered netting fees for both 

broker accounts and dealer accounts; (ii) 

the ‘‘into the net’’ fees of $0.015 per one 

million of par value for broker accounts 

and $0.016 per one million of par value 

for dealer accounts for each compared 

trade, start leg of a Repo Transaction, 

close leg of a Repo Transaction, fail 

deliver obligation, and fail receive 

obligation; and (iii) the ‘‘out of the net’’ 

fees of $0.175 per one million of par 

value for each deliver obligation and 

receive obligation created as a result of 

the netting process.26

In addition, FICC would delete from 

renumbered Section IV.C. of the GSD 

Fee Structure the Repo Transaction 

processing fees and related language for 

Term Repo Transactions in the DVP 

service that have been compared and 

netted but not yet settled.27 FICC states 

that this would no longer separate the 

Repo Transaction processing fees for 

Term Repo Transactions.28 Rather, FICC 

states that the Term Repo Transactions 

would be assessed the proposed 

position management fees, just like 

overnight Repo Transactions and buy/ 

sell transactions.29

Additionally, FICC would eliminate 

fees applicable to additional accounts 

from current Section V of the GSD Fee 

Structure.30 FICC currently 

differentiates its fees based on whether 

an account is a Member’s primary or 

secondary account. FICC would no 

longer draw this distinction. FICC states 

that eliminating fees applicable to 

additional accounts would reduce 

pricing complexity and thereby enhance 

pricing transparency because Members 

would no longer need to keep track of 

their primary versus secondary 

accounts. 

4. Conforming, Clarifying, and 

Technical Changes 

As described below, FICC proposes to 

make a number of conforming, 

clarifying, and technical changes. 

First, FICC would rename the heading 

of Section I of the GSD Fee Structure 

from ‘‘Trade Comparison Fees’’ to 

‘‘Transaction Fees.’’ 31 FICC states that 

this would better reflect the proposed 

changes to that section, as described 

above.32

FICC would rename the heading of 

Section I.A. of the GSD Fee Structure 

from ‘‘Trade Submission’’ to 

‘‘Transaction Processing.’’ 33 In 

addition, FICC would make changes 

throughout Section I.A. of the GSD Fee 

Structure to clarify that references to a 

‘‘trade’’ means a ‘‘buy/sell 

transaction.’’ 34 FICC would also make a 

number of conforming changes in 

Section I.A. of the GSD Fee Structure.35

Specifically, FICC would delete a 

reference to ‘‘submission fee’’ and 

replace it with ‘‘processing fee.’’ 36 FICC 

would update the reference to 

‘‘subsection D’’ to reflect the proposed 

re-lettering of that subsection.37

Additionally, FICC would update the 

format of (i) the ‘‘$.50’’ rejection fee to 

‘‘$0.50’’ in Section I.A. of the GSD Fee 

Structure; (ii) the ‘‘15 cents’’ yield-toprice conversion charge to ‘‘$0.15’’ in 

the proposed Section I.B. of the GSD Fee 

Structure; (iii) the ‘‘25 cents’’ and ‘‘5 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
27814 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Notices 

38 Id. 

39 Id. 

40 Id. 

41 Id. 

42 Id. 

43 Id. 

44 Id. 

45 Id. 

46 Id. 

47 Id. 

48 Id. 

49 Id. 

50 Id. 

51 Id. 

52 Id. 

53 Id. at 20886–87. 

54 Id. at 20887. 

55 Id. 

56 Id. 

57 Id. 

58 Id.; see GSD Rule 1, GSD Rules, supra note 5. 

59 Id. at 20887. 

60Nasdaq Letter, supra note 4. 

61 Id. at 1. 

62 Id. at 1–2. 

cents’’ modification/cancellation fees to 

‘‘$0.25’’ and ‘‘$0.05,’’ respectively, in 

the proposed Section I.C. of the GSD Fee 

Structure; (iv) the ‘‘25 cents’’ coupon 

pass-through fee to ‘‘$0.25’’ in the 

proposed Section I.D. of the GSD Fee 

Structure; (v) the ‘‘$.75’’ repurchase 

agreement collateral substitution fee to 

‘‘$0.75’’ in the proposed Section I.E. of 

the GSD Fee Structure; (vi) the ‘‘$.07’’ 

and ‘‘$.025’’ recording fees to ‘‘$0.07’’ 

and ‘‘$0.025’’ in the proposed Section 

I.G. of the GSD Fee Structure; and (vii) 

the ‘‘$.07’’ recording fee to ‘‘$0.07’’ in 

the proposed Section I.H. of the GSD 

Fee Restructure, in order to be 

consistent with the format of the other 

fees in the GSD Fee Structure.38

FICC states that for better organization 

of the GSD Fee Structure, FICC would 

relocate current Sections III.B. (Auction 

Takedown Process), III.F. (Coupon PassThrough Fee), and III.G. (Repo Collateral 

Substitution Fees), which cover fees 

associated with the Auction Takedown 

Service, pass-through of coupon 

payments, and the processing of 

repurchase agreement collateral 

substitution requests, to proposed 

Sections I.F., I.D., and I.E., respectively, 

of the GSD Fee Structure because each 

of these fees is a type of transaction 

fee.39

In addition, FICC would revise the 

section on Auction Takedown Process 

(proposed Section I.D. of the GSD Fee 

Structure) by replacing the words 

‘‘locked-in trades’’ with ‘‘buy/sell 

transactions’’ because, FICC states, all 

trades associated with the Auction 

Takedown Service are locked-in.40 FICC 

would change this section to reflect that, 

instead of the ‘‘Trade Submission’’ fees, 

fees for trades associated with the 

Auction Takedown Service would 

include the proposed ‘‘Transaction 

Processing’’ fees in Section I.A. of the 

GSD Fee Structure and the proposed 

‘‘Position Management Fees’’ in Section 

II of the GSD Fee Structure.41

FICC would make a conforming 

change in the proposed Section I.G. of 

the GSD Fee Structure by deleting the 

reference to ‘‘Trade Submission’’ fee 

schedule and replacing it with 

‘‘Transaction Processing’’ fees.42

FICC would renumber current Section 

II of the GSD Fee Structure to proposed 

Section III of the GSD Fee Structure.43

FICC would rename the heading of 

renumbered Section IV of the GSD Fee 

Structure from ‘‘Netting Fee and 

Charges (in addition to the comparison 

fee)’’ to ‘‘Other Charges (in addition to 

the transaction fees)’’ to, FICC states, 

better reflect the proposed changes to 

this section, as described above.44

As described above, FICC would 

relocate current Sections III.B. (Auction 

Takedown Process), III.F. (Coupon PassThrough Fee), and III.G. (Repo Collateral 

Substitution Fees) to proposed Sections 

I.F., I.D., and I.E., respectively, of the 

GSD Fee Structure.45 These proposed 

changes would necessitate a re-lettering 

of all subsequent provisions in 

renumbered Section IV of the GSD Fee 

Structure.46

In addition, FICC would rename the 

heading of renumbered Section IV.C. of 

the GSD Fee Structure from ‘‘Repo 

Transaction Processing Fee’’ to ‘‘GCF 

Repo Transaction and CCIT Transaction 

Processing Fee’’ to better reflect the 

proposed changes to this section.47 FICC 

would make two conforming changes: 

(i) Relocate and update the reference to 

‘‘Repo Broker’’ definition to appear right 

after the first usage of ‘‘Repo Broker’’ in 

this section; and (ii) reflect the 

remaining fee in renumbered Section 

IV.C. of the GSD Fee Structure in a 

singular form.48

In addition, FICC would make a 

conforming change in renumbered 

Section IV.D. of the GSD Fee Structure 

to reflect the proposed renumbering of 

sections in the GSD Fee Structure by 

changing a reference from ‘‘Section III’’ 

to ‘‘Section IV.’’ 49

FICC would add a sentence to 

proposed Section V of the GSD Fee 

Structure that, FICC states, would make 

it clear to Members that the minimum 

monthly fee would not apply to an 

account if the total monthly fees 

incurred by the account pursuant to 

Sections I, II (a proposed new section), 

and IV (renumbered from III) of the GSD 

Fee Structure exceed $2,500.50

FICC would make changes in Section 

VI of the GSD Fee Structure to, FICC 

states, clarify that references to ‘‘trades’’ 

means ‘‘buy/sell transactions and Repo 

Transactions.’’ 51

FICC would make two changes to 

Section VII of the GSD Fee Structure. 

FICC would delete the reference to the 

fee for additional accounts, which is 

being eliminated under the proposal.52

FICC states that the second change 

would make it clear that a sponsoring 

Member would be subject to the 

minimum monthly fee set forth in 

proposed Section V of the GSD Fee 

Structure.53 FICC states that this 

proposed change would make it clear to 

a sponsoring Member that its sponsoring 

Member omnibus account would be 

subject to the minimum monthly fee.54

In current Section VIII of the GSD Fee 

Structure, FICC would (i) make a 

technical change to reflect the reference 

to the GSD Fee Structure as ‘‘Fee 

Structure’’ instead of ‘‘fee structure,’’ 

and (ii) make changes to clarify that 

references to a ‘‘trade’’ means a ‘‘buy/ 

sell transaction.’’ 55 In addition, FICC 

would clarify that a CCIT Transaction, 

like a Term GCF Repo Transaction, 

would be considered to have one Start 

Leg and one Close Leg during its term.56

FICC would make a conforming 

change in current Section XII of the GSD 

Fee Structure by deleting the reference 

to ‘‘comparison and netting fees’’ and 

replacing it with ‘‘transaction fees.’’ 57 In 

addition, FICC would make a technical 

change by deleting the outdated 

reference to ‘‘Operations and Planning 

Committee’’ and replacing it with 

Board, which is defined in GSD Rule 1 

(Definitions) as ‘‘the Board of Directors 

of Fixed Income Clearing Corporation or 

a committee thereof acting under 

delegated authority.’’ 58

FICC plans to implement all of the 

above proposed changes on July 2, 

2018.59

II. Summary of Comment Received 

The Commission received one 

comment letter to the proposed rule 

change.60 The Nasdaq Letter supports 

the proposed rule change. Specifically, 

Nasdaq states that it ‘‘supports the 

[proposed rule change] because it: (1) 

Simplifies and adds transparency to 

FICC’s fee schedule; (2) introduces a 

sensible risk-based fee model; and (3) 

permits and incentivizes more market 

participants to utilize central clearing 

for U.S. Treasury Securities. . . .’’ 61

Nasdaq further states that the proposed 

rule change would likely result in more 

widespread use of FICC’s central 

clearing services, reducing systemic risk 

by moving the industry closer to 

comprehensive central clearing.62

Nasdaq states that more widespread 

industry use of FICC’s central clearing 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Notices 27815 

63 Id. at 2. 

64See U.S. Department of the Treasury, A 

Financial System That Creates Economic 

Opportunities: Capital Markets (October 2017), 

available at https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/ 

press-releases/Documents/A-Financial-SystemCapital-Markets-FINAL-FINAL.pdf. 

65Nasdaq Letter at 1–2. 

66 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C). 

67 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(D). 

68 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

69 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(23)(ii). 

70 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(D). 

71 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F). 

72See also Nasdaq Letter at 1–2 (supporting the 

proposed rule change because it renders FICC’s fee 

schedule more simple, clear, transparent, and 

understandable to market participants). 

73See also Nasdaq Letter at 2 (arguing that FICC’s 

efforts to simplify its fee structure would encourage 

more widespread central clearing among market 

participants). 

74A ‘‘covered clearing agency’’ means, among 

other things, a clearing agency registered with the 

Commission under Section 17A of the Exchange 

Act (15 U.S.C. 78q–1 et seq.) that is designated 

systemically important by Financial Stability 

Oversight Council (‘‘FSOC’’) pursuant to the 

Clearing Supervision Act (12 U.S.C. 5461 et seq.). 

See 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(a)(5)–(6). Because FICC is 

a registered clearing agency with the Commission 

that has been designated systemically important by 

FSOC, FICC is a covered clearing agency. 

75 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(23)(ii). 

76See also Nasdaq Letter at 1–2 (supporting the 

proposed rule change because it renders FICC’s fee 

schedule more simple, clear, transparent, and 

understandable to market participants). 

services would also increase overall 

transparency of trade reporting data of 

U.S. Treasury securities.63 Additionally, 

Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule 

change would advance the goals 

articulated in the October 2017 report 

by the U.S. Department of the Treasury 

on U.S. Capital Markets 64 by reforming 

FICC’s fee structure to make it more 

simple, clear, transparent, and 

understandable to market participants 

and regulators.65

III. Discussion and Commission 

Findings 

Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs 

the Commission to approve a proposed 

rule change of a self-regulatory 

organization if it finds that such 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the requirements of the Act and rules 

and regulations thereunder applicable to 

such organization.66 After carefully 

considering the proposed rule change 

and the comment letter received, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Act, 

specifically Sections 17A(b)(3)(D) 67 and 

17A(b)(3)(F) 68 of the Act and Rule 

17Ad–22(e)(23)(ii) 69 under the Act. 

A. Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act 

Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act 

requires that the rules of a clearing 

agency, such as FICC, provide for the 

equitable allocation of reasonable dues, 

fees, and other charges among its 

participants.70

As discussed above, the proposed rule 

change would make a number of 

changes to the GSD Fee Structure. 

Specifically, FICC would, in effect, 

create 4 new fees, modify 1 existing fee, 

and eliminate 12 fees. The proposed fee 

changes are designed, in part, to (i) shift 

the GSD Fee Structure regarding the 

DVP service away from a transaction or 

volume-driven approach to a more 

position-based approach, and (ii) align 

GSD’s revenue with the approximate 30/ 

70 split between transaction processing 

and position management costs, 

respectively. Despite the proposed 

changes, FICC expects GSD’s net 

revenue to remain relatively unchanged 

as a result of this proposal. 

The Commission believes that adding 

the 4 proposed fees and eliminating the 

12 existing fees is equitable and 

reasonable because these changes are 

designed to apply to all Members in a 

manner that better aligns the fees (i.e., 

fees associated with the DVP service as 

well as the minimum monthly fee) with 

the costs attributed to GSD’s 

management of Members’ DVP positions 

and account monitoring. Under the 

proposed changes, a Member whose 

DVP positions result in higher position 

management costs to GSD would be 

charged a relatively higher fee because 

the higher fee would be reflective of the 

higher costs to GSD in managing those 

positions. On the other hand, a Member 

whose DVP positions require less 

management by GSD would be charged 

a lower fee because the lower fee would 

be reflective of the lower costs to GSD 

in managing those positions. In 

addition, taken collectively, the 

proposed fee changes are designed to 

maintain GSD’s existing revenue 

derived from fees associated with the 

DVP service. 

With respect to the proposed 

modification to the minimum monthly 

fee, each account of every comparisononly Member and every netting Member 

would be subject to a minimum 

monthly fee of $2,500. This proposed 

fee is designed to be commensurate with 

the minimum costs to FICC associated 

with monitoring a Member’s account. 

Therefore, for the above reasons, the 

Commission believes that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Section 

17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act, as the proposal 

would provide for the equitable 

allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and 

other charges among Members. 

B. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 

requires, in part, that the rules of a 

clearing agency, such as FICC, be 

designed to promote the prompt and 

accurate clearance and settlement of 

securities transactions.71

As described above, FICC proposes to, 

effectively, establish 4 new fees, modify 

1 existing fee, eliminate 12 fees, and 

make conforming, clarifying, and 

technical changes to the GSD Rules. 

These proposed changes are designed to 

reduce the complexity of the GSD Fee 

Structure by helping to ensure that the 

GSD Fee Structure is more transparent 

and clear to Members.72 Providing more 

transparent and clear terms and 

descriptions in the GSD Fee Structure 

would help Members better understand 

GSD’s fees and provide increased 

predictability and certainty regarding 

the fees Members incur. This increased 

understanding, predictability, and 

certainty could, in turn, help Members 

satisfy their obligations to FICC more 

easily, which would help promote the 

prompt and accurate clearance and 

settlement of securities transactions.73

Accordingly, the Commission believes 

that the proposed rule change is 

consistent with the requirements of 

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act. 

C. Rule 17Ad–22(e)(23)(ii) Under the Act 

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act 

requires each covered clearing agency 74

to establish, implement, maintain and 

enforce written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to provide 

sufficient information to enable 

participants to identify and evaluate the 

risks, fees, and other material costs they 

incur by participating in the covered 

clearing agency.75

As described above, FICC proposes to, 

effectively, establish 4 new fees, modify 

1 existing fee, eliminate 12 fees, and 

make conforming, clarifying, and 

technical changes to the GSD Rules. 

These proposed changes are designed to 

reduce the complexity of the GSD Fee 

Structure by helping to ensure that the 

GSD Fee Structure is more transparent 

and clear to Members. Having a more 

transparent and clear GSD Fee Structure 

would help Members and other 

stakeholders to better understand GSD’s 

fees and help provide Members with 

increased predictability and certainty 

regarding the fees they incur in 

participating in GSD.76 As such, the 

Commission believes that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Rule 

17Ad–22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act. 

IV. Conclusion 

On the basis of the foregoing, the 

Commission finds that the proposal is 

consistent with the requirements of the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
27816 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Notices 

77 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 

78 In approving the proposed rule change, the 

Commission considered the proposals’ impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 

U.S.C. 78c(f). 

79 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1On March 24, 2016, we published a correction 

notice in the Federal Register that amended and 

corrected the effective date of SSR 16–3p (81 FR 

15776). On October 25, 2017, we published a notice 

of Social Security Ruling in the Federal Register 

that changes the ‘‘effective date’’ to ‘‘applicable 

date’’ and revises the Social Security Ruling to 

explain how we apply the Ruling as it relates to the 

applicable date (82 FR 49462). 

Act, in particular the requirements of 

Section 17A of the Act 77 and the rules 

and regulations thereunder. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that 

proposed rule change SR–FICC–2018– 

003 be, and hereby is, Approved.78

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.79

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12754 Filed 6–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

[Docket No. SSA–2017–0030] 

Social Security Rulings (SSRs) 96–3p 

and 96–4p; Rescission of SSRs 96–3p 

and 96–4p 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of rescission of SSRs. 

SUMMARY: We give notice of the 

rescission of SSRs 96–3p and 96–4p. 

DATES: We will apply this rescission 

notice on June 14, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

O’Brien, Office of Vocational, 

Evaluation, and Process Policy in the 

Office of Disability Policy, Social 

Security Administration, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

(410) 597–1632. For information on 

eligibility or filing for benefits, call our 

national toll-free number, 1–800–772– 

1213 or visit our internet site, Social 

Security Online, at http://

www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We use 

SSRs to make available to the public 

precedential decisions relating to the 

Federal old-age, survivors, disability, 

supplemental security income, and 

special veterans benefits programs. We 

may base SSRs on determinations or 

decisions made in our administrative 

review process, Federal court decisions, 

decisions of our Commissioner, 

opinions from our Office of the General 

Counsel, or other interpretations of law 

and regulations. 

In accordance with 20 CFR 

402.35(b)(1), we give notice that we are 

rescinding the following SSRs: 

• SSR 96–3p: Titles II and XVI: 

Considering Allegations of Pain and 

Other Symptoms in Determining 

Whether a Medically Determinable 

Impairment is Severe. 

• SSR 96–4p: Titles II and XVI: 

Symptoms, Medically Determinable 

Physical and Mental Impairments, and 

Exertional and Nonexertional 

Limitations. 

These SSRs are unnecessarily 

duplicative of SSR 16–3p Titles II and 

XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in 

Disability Claims, which was applicable 

on March 28, 2016, published in the 

Federal Register on March 16, 2016, 81 

FR 14166.1 SSR 16–3p, a more 

comprehensive statement of our policy 

on symptoms, explains how we evaluate 

the extent to which alleged symptoms 

limit an adult’s ability to perform workrelated activities and a child’s ability to 

function effectively in an ageappropriate manner. 

SSR 96–3p clarified how adjudicators 

should consider allegations of pain and 

other symptoms in determining whether 

a medically determinable impairment 

(MDI) is severe. SSR 16–3p explains our 

two-step process for evaluating an 

individual’s symptoms where, at the 

first step, we determine whether the 

individual has an MDI that could 

reasonably be expected to produce the 

individual’s alleged symptoms. At the 

second step, we evaluate the intensity 

and persistence of an individual’s 

symptoms such as pain and determine 

the extent to which an individual’s 

symptoms limit his or her ability to 

perform work-related activities for an 

adult or to function independently, 

appropriately, and effectively in an ageappropriate manner for a child with a 

title XVI disability claim. SSR 16–3p 

explains that we will consider 

symptoms and functional limitations to 

determine whether an impairment is 

severe unless the objective medical 

evidence alone establishes a severe MDI 

or combination of impairments that 

meets our duration requirement. 

Therefore, the information contained in 

SSR 96–3p duplicates policy in SSR 16– 

3p. 

SSR 96–4p explained that no 

symptom, by itself, could establish the 

existence of a medically determinable 

physical or mental impairment. In SSR 

16–3p, we clarified that an individual’s 

symptoms alone are not enough to 

establish the existence of a physical or 

mental impairment or disability, and 

that we will not find an individual 

disabled based on alleged symptoms 

alone. Therefore, the information 

contained in SSR 96–4p duplicates 

policy in SSR 16–3p. Consequently, we 

are rescinding SSRs 96–3p and 96–4p. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 

Programs Nos. 96.001, Social Security— 

Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social 

Security— Retirement Insurance; 96.004, 

Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 

96.006—Supplemental Security Income.) 

Nancy A. Berryhill, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12820 Filed 6–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

[Docket No. SSA–2015–0003] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Deputy Commissioner of 

Budget, Finance, and Management, 

Social Security Administration (SSA). 

ACTION: Notice of a new system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Privacy Act, we are issuing public 

notice of our intent to establish a new 

system of records entitled, Social 

Security Administration Violence 

Evaluation and Reporting System 

(SSAvers) (60–0379). We are 

establishing SSAvers to cover 

information we collect about employees, 

contractors, and members of the public 

who are allegedly involved in, or 

witness incidents of, workplace and 

domestic violence. 

DATES: The System of Records Notice 

(SORN) is applicable upon its 

publication in today’s Federal Register, 

with the exception of the routine uses 

which are effective July 16, 2018. We 

invite public comment on the routine 

uses or other aspects of this SORN. In 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and 

(e)(11), the public is given a 30-day 

period in which to submit comments. 

Therefore, please submit any comments 

by July 16, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The public, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 

Congress may comment on this 

publication by writing to the Executive 

Director, Office of Privacy and 

Disclosure, Office of the General 

Counsel, SSA, Room G–401 West High 

Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401, or 

through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal 

at http://www.regulations.gov, please 

reference docket number SSA–2015– 

0003. All comments we receive will be 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES