81 FR 36979 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Update and Formalize the ICC Stress Testing Framework
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 110 (June 8, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 110 (June 8, 2016)
| Page Range | 36979-36981 | |
| FR Document | 2016-13477 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 36979-36981] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-13477] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77982; File No. SR-ICC-2016-005] Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Update and Formalize the ICC Stress Testing Framework June 2, 2016. I. Introduction On March 31, 2016, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'' or ``ICE Clear Credit'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to update and formalize ICC's stress testing framework. On April 20, 2016 ICC filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 21, 2016.\4\ The Commission did not receive comments on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. \3\ ICE Clear Credit filed Amendment No. 1 to further revise the Stress Testing Framework to incorporate language regarding the treatment of unrated reference entities for the purposes of applying the stress scenarios. Under Amendment No. 1, ICC has clarified that unrated reference entities are treated as non-investment grade entities with respect to the application of stress scenarios. Amendment No. 1 is not subject to comment because it is a technical, clarifying amendment that does not alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise any novel regulatory issues. \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77633 (April 15, 2016), 81 FR 23531 (April 21, 2016) (SR-ICC-2016-005). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to update and formalize ICC's Stress Testing Framework, which sets forth the stress testing practices instituted by ICC. The framework, according to ICC, is designed to: Articulate the types of stress tests executed and the main purpose of each type of test; describe how stress tests are conducted; define the actual test scenarios currently executed; outline the range of remedial actions available (which, depending on the results, may include enhancements to the risk methodology or certain Clearing Participant (``CP'') specific action); and explain how stress test results are used in the governance process. ICC states that the stress testing framework helps ICC identify potential weaknesses in the risk management methodology currently used and, as a result, allows ICC to identify potential model enhancements to the Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund models, as well as identify the need to exercise short term remedies based upon specific CP positions and risk of exposure prior to introduction of model enhancements. ICC represents that during the execution of stress testing, the ICC Risk Department (``Risk Department'') applies the standard set of pre- defined Stress Test Scenarios against actual portfolios, sample portfolios derived from currently cleared positions, and expected future portfolios, as appropriate, to generate hypothetical profits or losses. According to ICC, the Risk Department compares the hypothetical losses to the available funds from the Initial Margin requirements and Guaranty Fund contribution related to the selected portfolios. A scenario deficiency is identified in the event that the hypothetical loss exceeds the protection provided by the available collateral assets and mutualization funds. ICC states that, depending on the plausibility of the stress scenarios and the frequency and severity of any resulting deficiencies, the Risk Department may recommend enhancements to the risk methodology. ICC represents that it utilizes certain predefined scenarios for its stress testing, which fall into three standard categories: (i) Historically observed extreme but plausible market scenarios; (ii) historically observed and hypothetically constructed (forward looking) extreme but plausible market scenarios with a baseline credit event; and (iii) extreme model response tests (collectively, ``Stress Test Scenarios''). ICC states that discordant scenarios (i.e., scenarios under which selected risk factors move in opposite directions; commonly the behavior deviates from historically observed behavior) are applied to certain instruments to account for discordant price moves. ICC asserts that it applies the Stress Test Scenarios to a variety of portfolios. Specifically, ICC applies the Stress Test Scenarios to all currently cleared portfolios. ICC states that its Risk Department may also apply the Stress Test Scenarios to sample portfolios obtained from currently cleared portfolios and may also apply the Stress Test Scenarios to staff-constructed, expected future portfolios, as ICC's Risk [[Page 36980]] Department deems appropriate, to mimic expected future portfolios upon the launch of new services. In this case, ICC states that the stress test analysis is presented to and reviewed by ICC's Risk Committee prior to the launch of the new clearing services. ICC represents that it may design specific portfolio sets to test the validity of certain model/system assumptions. According to ICC, the stress test results from such expected future portfolio executions are reviewed and analyzed internally, and may be used to support future model initiatives. ICC states that it also designs stress test analysis directed toward the identification of wrong-way risk in cleared portfolios. For every cleared portfolio, ICC asserts that all positions in index risk factors and single name risk factors that exhibit high degree of association with the considered CP are used to create a sub-portfolio which will be subjected to additional stress test analysis. The constructed sub-portfolio is subjected to the same Stress Test Scenarios utilized by ICC. The framework also describes ICC's reverse stress testing (Guaranty Fund Adequacy Analysis) practices. According to ICC, the purpose of the adequacy analysis is to provide estimates for the level of protection achieved by the clearinghouse via its Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund models. In performing its analysis, ICC represents that it considers a combination of adverse price realizations and idiosyncratic credit events associated with reference obligations on which the stress tested CP sold protection. ICC's Stress Testing Framework also describes the correlation sensitivity analysis performed by ICC, based on Monte Carlo simulations, as well as the additional recovery rate sensitivity analysis. ICC's framework also details how stress testing is utilized in ICC's governance process. ICC states that it maintains a framework to ensure that ICC's Risk Committee and Board are provided with transparency into the Risk Department's stress test results and contemplated methodology changes. According to ICC, stress testing results are reviewed, at a minimum, by ICC's Risk Department weekly. Additionally, ICC states that stress testing results are provided to ICC's Risk Committee weekly and a report of such results is presented to the Risk Committee on a monthly basis. Ad hoc reviews of the stress testing results may be undertaken at the discretion of ICC's Chief Risk Officer. In the event of any deficiencies noted upon stress testing, ICC represents that its Risk Department must report such deficiencies to ICC senior management and the Risk Committee, and either (a) provide analysis that the results do not highlight a significant weakness in the stress testing or risk methodology; or (b) recommend enhancements to the stress testing or risk methodology. ICC states that ICC senior management and the Risk Committee will review and recommend any stress testing or risk methodology enhancements to the ICC Board, which is responsible for approval. ICC states that the Risk Department may also choose to add new scenarios and portfolios in response to deficiencies noted upon stress testing; in this case, the Risk Department will discuss with the Risk Committee, which will recommend to the Board, which is responsible for approval. ICC asserts that the Risk Department maintains a standard set of Stress Scenarios and portfolios (namely actual portfolios, sample portfolios derived from currently cleared portfolios, and expected future portfolios) that are executed on a regular basis. In the event that a scenario or portfolio in the standard set is no longer applicable, or has been superseded by new scenarios or portfolios, ICC claims that the Risk Department may wish to retire or modify the outdated scenario or portfolio, in which case, the Risk Department will, with ICC senior management: Conduct analysis to support a recommendation; discuss the analysis and obtain a recommendation from the Risk Committee; and present the final analysis to the Board for approval. ICC states that, in the interest of prudent risk management, the Risk Department may wish to add scenarios and/or portfolios to the standard set and that Risk Committee or Board approval is not required unless such scenarios and/or portfolios are added in response to stress testing deficiencies, as described above. Previous versions of ICC's framework included the Risk Working Group in the governance structure, as ICC consulted with the Risk Working Group as it worked to develop its initial stress testing approach and appropriate scenarios. ICC states that, as it now has a fully developed approach, stress testing remains focused on data analysis and reporting results, which ICC claims are addressed at the Risk Committee and Board level. Thus, to reflect current governance practices, references to the Risk Working Group have been removed from its framework. III. Discussion and Commission Findings Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \5\ directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such self-regulatory organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3),\7\ requires registered clearing agencies to maintain, at a minimum, sufficient financial resources to withstand a default by the participant family to which it has the largest exposure in extreme but plausible market conditions, and for registered clearing agencies acting as a central counterparty for security-based swaps, to maintain additional financial resources sufficient to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the two participant families to which it has the largest exposures in extreme but plausible market conditions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C). \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F). \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \8\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICC. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ICC's Stress Testing Framework establishes ICC's stress testing practices. These stress testing practices are designed, among other things, to ensure the adequacy of ICC's financial resources under applicable legal requirements, and set forth the methodology by which ICC evaluates potential portfolio profits and losses, compared to the Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund funds maintained, in order to identify any potential weakness in ICC's risk methodology. Such financial resources will facilitate ICC's continued operations in the event of a participant default. As such, the Commission believes that the proposed rule changes are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, [[Page 36981]] derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \9\ of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission also believes that the proposed changes will satisfy the applicable requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\10\ In particular, the Stress Testing Framework contains stress testing practices designed to ensure that ICE Clear Credit maintains sufficient financial resources to withstand a default by the participant family to which it has the largest exposure in extreme but plausible market conditions, and that as a registered clearing agency acting as a central counterparty for security-based swaps, ICC maintains additional financial resources sufficient to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the two participant families to which it has the largest exposures in extreme but plausible market conditions, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad- 22(b)(3).\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \12\ and the rules and regulations thereunder. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICC-2016-005) as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). \14\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposal's 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.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brent J. Fields, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2016-13477 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2016 / Notices 36979
plans to submit this existing collection SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE action); and explain how stress test
of information to the Office of COMMISSION results are used in the governance
Management and Budget for extension process.
[Release No. 34–77982; File No. SR–ICC– ICC states that the stress testing
and approval. 2016–005]
framework helps ICC identify potential
Rule 477 (17 CFR 230.477) under the weaknesses in the risk management
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE
Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of methodology currently used and, as a
seq.) sets forth procedures for result, allows ICC to identify potential
withdrawing a registration statement, Amendment No. 1 and Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as model enhancements to the Initial
including any amendments or exhibits Margin and Guaranty Fund models, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto,
to the registration statement. The rule well as identify the need to exercise
To Update and Formalize the ICC
provides that if an issuer intends to rely short term remedies based upon specific
Stress Testing Framework
on the safe harbor contained in CP positions and risk of exposure prior
Securities Act Rule 155 to conduct an June 2, 2016. to introduction of model enhancements.
unregistered private offering of ICC represents that during the
I. Introduction
securities, the issuer must affirmatively execution of stress testing, the ICC Risk
state in the withdrawal application that On March 31, 2016, ICE Clear Credit Department (‘‘Risk Department’’)
it plans to undertake a subsequent LLC (‘‘ICC’’ or ‘‘ICE Clear Credit’’) filed applies the standard set of pre-defined
with the Securities and Exchange Stress Test Scenarios against actual
private offering of its securities. Without
Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant portfolios, sample portfolios derived
this statement, the Commission would
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities from currently cleared positions, and
not be able to monitor a company’s Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule
reliance on, and compliance with, expected future portfolios, as
19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule appropriate, to generate hypothetical
Securities Act Rule 155(c). We estimate change to update and formalize ICC’s profits or losses. According to ICC, the
that approximately 327 issuers will file stress testing framework. On April 20, Risk Department compares the
Securities Act Rule 477 submissions 2016 ICC filed Amendment No. 1 to the hypothetical losses to the available
annually at an estimated one hour per proposal.3 The proposed rule change funds from the Initial Margin
response for a total annual burden of was published for comment in the requirements and Guaranty Fund
approximately 327 hours. Federal Register on April 21, 2016.4 contribution related to the selected
Written comments are invited on: (a) The Commission did not receive portfolios. A scenario deficiency is
Whether this proposed collection of comments on the proposed rule change. identified in the event that the
information is necessary for the proper For the reasons discussed below, the hypothetical loss exceeds the protection
performance of the functions of the Commission is approving the proposed provided by the available collateral
agency, including whether the rule change, as modified by Amendment assets and mutualization funds. ICC
No. 1. states that, depending on the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate II. Description of the Proposed Rule plausibility of the stress scenarios and
of the burden imposed by the collection Change the frequency and severity of any
resulting deficiencies, the Risk
of information; (c) ways to enhance the The principal purpose of the Department may recommend
quality, utility, and clarity of the proposed rule change is to update and enhancements to the risk methodology.
information collected; and (d) ways to formalize ICC’s Stress Testing ICC represents that it utilizes certain
minimize the burden of the collection of Framework, which sets forth the stress predefined scenarios for its stress
information on respondents, including testing practices instituted by ICC. The testing, which fall into three standard
through the use of automated collection framework, according to ICC, is categories: (i) Historically observed
techniques or other forms of information designed to: Articulate the types of extreme but plausible market scenarios;
technology. Consideration will be given stress tests executed and the main (ii) historically observed and
to comments and suggestions submitted purpose of each type of test; describe hypothetically constructed (forward
in writing within 60 days of this how stress tests are conducted; define looking) extreme but plausible market
publication. the actual test scenarios currently scenarios with a baseline credit event;
executed; outline the range of remedial and (iii) extreme model response tests
An agency may not conduct or
actions available (which, depending on (collectively, ‘‘Stress Test Scenarios’’).
sponsor, and a person is not required to the results, may include enhancements ICC states that discordant scenarios (i.e.,
respond to, a collection of information to the risk methodology or certain scenarios under which selected risk
unless it displays a currently valid Clearing Participant (‘‘CP’’) specific factors move in opposite directions;
control number. commonly the behavior deviates from
Please direct your written comments 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). historically observed behavior) are
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief applied to certain instruments to
3 ICE Clear Credit filed Amendment No. 1 to
Information Officer, Securities and further revise the Stress Testing Framework to
account for discordant price moves.
Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik- incorporate language regarding the treatment of ICC asserts that it applies the Stress
Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, unrated reference entities for the purposes of Test Scenarios to a variety of portfolios.
DC 20549 or send an email to: PRA_ applying the stress scenarios. Under Amendment Specifically, ICC applies the Stress Test
No. 1, ICC has clarified that unrated reference Scenarios to all currently cleared
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Mailbox@sec.gov. entities are treated as non-investment grade entities
with respect to the application of stress scenarios. portfolios. ICC states that its Risk
Dated: June 2, 2016.
Amendment No. 1 is not subject to comment Department may also apply the Stress
Brent J. Fields, because it is a technical, clarifying amendment that Test Scenarios to sample portfolios
Secretary. does not alter the substance of the proposed rule obtained from currently cleared
change or raise any novel regulatory issues.
[FR Doc. 2016–13466 Filed 6–7–16; 8:45 am] 4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34–77633 portfolios and may also apply the Stress
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P (April 15, 2016), 81 FR 23531 (April 21, 2016) (SR– Test Scenarios to staff-constructed,
ICC–2016–005). expected future portfolios, as ICC’s Risk
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Jun 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_37089/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2016 / Notices 36981
derivatives agreements, contracts, and SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE proposed rule change so that it has
transactions within the meaning of COMMISSION sufficient time to consider the proposed
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) 9 of the Act. rule change. Accordingly, the
[Release No. 34–77976; File No. SR–NYSE–
The Commission also believes that the 2016–11]
Commission, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,7 designates July 21,
proposed changes will satisfy the
Self-Regulatory Organizations; New 2016, as the date by which the
applicable requirements of Rule 17Ad–
York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Commission should approve,
22.10 In particular, the Stress Testing disapprove, or institute proceedings to
Framework contains stress testing Designation of Longer Period for
Commission Action on a Proposed determine whether to disapprove the
practices designed to ensure that ICE proposed rule change (File No. SR–
Rule Change, as Modified by
Clear Credit maintains sufficient NYSE–2016–11), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Establish
financial resources to withstand a Amendment No. 1.
Certain End User Fees, Amend the
default by the participant family to Definition of Affiliate, and Amend the For the Commission, by the Division of
which it has the largest exposure in Co-Location Section of the Price List Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
extreme but plausible market To Reflect the Changes authority.8
conditions, and that as a registered Brent J. Fields,
clearing agency acting as a central June 2, 2016.
Secretary.
counterparty for security-based swaps, On April 4, 2016, New York Stock
[FR Doc. 2016–13474 Filed 6–7–16; 8:45 am]
ICC maintains additional financial Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE’’ or the
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
resources sufficient to withstand, at a ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities
minimum, a default by the two and Exchange Commission
participant families to which it has the (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
largest exposures in extreme but COMMISSION
of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4
plausible market conditions, consistent
thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to [Release No. 34–77974; File No. SR–
with the requirements of Rule 17Ad– establish fees relating to certain end NYSEArca–2016–77]
22(b)(3).11 users, amend the definition of Affiliate,
and amend the co-location section of the Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE
IV. Conclusion Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and
Price List to reflect the changes. The
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission published the proposed Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Commission finds that the proposal is rule change for comment in the Federal Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca
consistent with the requirements of the Register on April 22, 2016.3 On April Options Fee Schedule and the NYSE
Act and in particular with the 29, 2016, the Exchange filed Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule Charges for Exchange Services To
requirements of Section 17A of the
change.4 The Commission received two Eliminate Certain Services That Are No
Act 12 and the rules and regulations
comment letters on the proposed rule Longer Utilized by Users and To
thereunder.
change.5 Remove Obsolete Text
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 6 provides
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,13 that the June 2, 2016.
that, within 45 days of the publication Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) 1 of the
proposed rule change (File No. SR–ICC– of the notice of the filing of a proposed
2016–005) as modified by Amendment Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
rule change, or within such longer ‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3
No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.14 period up to 90 days as the Commission notice is hereby given that, on May 23,
For the Commission, by the Division of may designate if it finds such longer 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ‘‘Exchange’’
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated period to be appropriate and publishes or ‘‘NYSE Arca’’) filed with the
authority.15 its reasons for so finding or as to which Securities and Exchange Commission
Brent J. Fields, the self-regulatory organization (the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
consents, the Commission shall approve change as described in Items I, II, and
Secretary.
the proposed rule change, disapprove III below, which Items have been
[FR Doc. 2016–13477 Filed 6–7–16; 8:45 am]
the proposed rule change, or institute prepared by the self-regulatory
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P proceedings to determine whether the organization. The Commission is
proposed rule change should be publishing this notice to solicit
disapproved. The Commission is comments on the proposed rule change
extending this 45-day time period. from interested persons.
The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
within which to take action on the Statement of the Terms of the Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17
The Exchange proposes amend the
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34–
NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (the
9 Id.
77642 (April 18, 2016), 81 FR 23786 (‘‘Notice’’). ‘‘Options Fee Schedule’’) and, through
10 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22. 4 Amendment No. 1 made technical changes its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
11 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(3). relating to the General Notes numbering and Equities, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca Equities’’),
12 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. references in the Co-location section of the Price the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). List.
5 See Letter from Michael J. Friedman, General
14 In approving the proposed rule change, the 7 Id.
Counsel and CCO, Trillium to Brent J. Fields,
Commission considered the proposal’s impact on Secretary, Commission, dated May 13, 2016; see
8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 also Letter from Eero Pikat to the Commission, 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
U.S.C. 78c(f). dated May 13, 2016. 2 15 U.S.C. 78a.
15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Jun 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_37089/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2016-06-08 03:10:16
Document Modified: 2016-06-08 03:10:16
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 36979 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR