Document ID: SEC-2018-0900-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Fixed Income Clearing Corp.
Posted Date: 2018-06-14T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27812-27816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12754]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83153 (May 2, 2018), 83 
FR 20882 (May 8, 2018) (SR-FICC-2018-003) (``Notice'').
    \4\ Letter 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
    \6\ Notice, 83 FR at 20882.
    \7\ Id. at 20884.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 27813]]

$0.02 per million par value for transaction processing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Notice, 83 FR at 20882.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 20884-85.
    \18\ Id. at 20885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \21\ Notice, 83 FR at 20885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. at 20884.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id. at 20885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \29\ Notice, 83 FR at 20885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id. at 20886.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-to-price conversion charge to ``$0.15'' in 
the proposed Section I.B. of the GSD Fee Structure; (iii) the ``25 
cents'' and ``5

[[Page 27814]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC states that for better organization of the GSD Fee Structure, 
FICC would relocate current Sections III.B. (Auction Takedown Process), 
III.F. (Coupon Pass-Through 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC would renumber current Section II of the GSD Fee Structure to 
proposed Section III of the GSD Fee Structure.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, FICC would relocate current Sections III.B. 
(Auction Takedown Process), III.F. (Coupon Pass-Through 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Id.
    \53\ Id. at 20886-87.
    \54\ Id. at 20887.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Id.
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.; see GSD Rule 1, GSD Rules, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC plans to implement all of the above proposed changes on July 
2, 2018.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Id. at 20887.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 27815]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Nasdaq Letter, supra note 4.
    \61\ Id. at 1.
    \62\ Id. at 1-2.
    \63\ Id. at 2.
    \64\ See 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-System-Capital-Markets-FINAL-FINAL.pdf.
    \65\ Nasdaq Letter at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 comparison-only 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See 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).
    \73\ See also Nasdaq Letter at 2 (arguing that FICC's efforts to 
simplify its fee structure would encourage more widespread central 
clearing among market participants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ A ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the 
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the

[[Page 27816]]

Act, in particular the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \77\ and 
the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12754 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P